PT 1. I LAY THE CHARGE AT ATHEISM , that more people have died in the name of Secular Atheism in the past 100 years than have died in the name of religion over the past 1000 years all put altogether !
Atheism is intrinsically linked with the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Meo Tse Tung and others. Stalin and his atheistic successors closed down churches and turned them into museums, Meo's Cultural Revolution made any form of worship illegal and an arrestable offense.
@MrMaxTruth its a fallacy because these men would have committed the same crimes regardless- it wasnt their religion or lack of(athiesm) but their politics and their own psychological makeup- and now its time for the religous wackos to reclaim their crown- because now extremist muslims are clearly using religion to be the new mass murderers- and for them it clearly is about their religous beliefs!!
@MrMaxTruth Atheism is default position of non-beleif. It's not an ideology in the same sense religion is. People do not kill in the "name" of Atheism, they kill based on another ideology.
BTW: Hitler was Christian. In Mein Kempf, he claims he is doing "God's work". The Nazi soldier belt buckle read "God with us".
Both chinese and russian communism were run AS RELIGIONS and you are wrong, religion has killed so many more than atheistic dictatorships that were run as religions as folk like Mao and Lenin were deified
PT 2. Pol Pot, not only closed down all forms of worship, but made a special attempt at systematically identifying clergy weather Hindu, Buddhist or Christian so they could be taken to the killing fields and murdered. And let us not forget the murdered millions of Hitler. To those that claim Hitler was a Catholic let us put that fallacy to rest here and now. Just like Karl Marx, while he may have been born into a religious family and home, both died very much the atheist.
PT 3 , It is clear Hitler conceived Religion as an instrument that could be useful to him. Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer quoted Hitler as referring to religion as a tool. He quotes, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regards sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to use than Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
PT 4. The following quotes of Hitler were written by Martin Bormann Hitler's, secretary "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.". "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie."
Does that sound like a Christian to you?
So lets not say atheism has nothing to do with the murdered millions over the past 100 years. History says otherwise !
@MrMaxTruth Hitler didn't do what he did because he was an atheist, nor did Stalin. It could be said that it was because of their own ideologies, but atheism is far too general a classification of their beliefs.
It could be however argued that religion is indirectly dangerous as it creates cultural divisions and can be used as a tool to manipulate people (regardless of how well meaning said religion is), as was the case with Stalin and the Russian Orthodox Church.
@Polymerabbit in fact the nazis warped their ideoalogy with alot of christianity- in fact the nazis were occultish as well even looking for the ark and holy relics believing they had special powers- and their racial ideas were also wrapped around the "chosen race" mentality which isnt much different from the old testament mentality of the jews- so there was alot of religion in their makeup- they clearly werent athiest
@MrMaxTruth Your Hitler quote through Bormann only claims that Hitler later had issues with Christianity.
It does not claim that he did anything in the name of Atheism, nor does it suggest he was atheist and did not believe in God, because he still thought he was doing "God's work".
"How dare you!" he says. I love moral indignation from atheists....when they can't ground objective morality. They are constantly angry, but if atheism were true they wouldn't even care because all truth would be relative. Philosophical FAIL!
@wayfatcat Hitchens is saying morality is not exclusive to religion. I'm not sure how you didn't get that. Morality and truth are to separate things. Your argument is non-sensical.
@wayfatcat Are you just a troll or would you like to break down your comment as YOU seem angry.
Also I would love to hear exactly what you mean by saying if "ATHEISEM WERE TRUE" as I have never heard such a stupid ill thought out comment, why do I say this very simple I know what an athiest stands for and it is not about being TRUE.
So feel free to explain to US,more so that you know every athiest on the planet to make such a claim.
@ElSasser2007 Christians need to acknowledge there is no contemporary independent historical reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Christians often claim there is plenty of historical proof Jesus existed, but when we get down to it, there is nothing.
Josephus isn't contemporary nor is the 4th century Christian Eusebius rewriting Josephus contemporary or independent (or trustworthy).
Even if the little inserted mentions of Jesus are authentic (which I argue they are not), Christians have a big problem.
@ninjamojo711 First sentence: over-reaches... None which is strictly contemporary or undisputed.. Second: True, but... "Proof" is a demanding word. There is nothing one can say about the ancient world that can be 'proven'. I'd say Christians are massively over-reaching too. Third: Josephus isn't contemporary, but he's a great deal closer than, say, the earliest sources we have for Alexander the Great (300 years later). Fourth: I doubt they feel it's a problem... It's a religion, after all.
@ElSasser2007 In regards to Alex the Great: Yes, historical written sources are late and much of it is likely embellished and/or legend. However there is a conquered city in Egypt named after him. They don't mint coins for mythical Emperors. Cuniform tablets from Mesopotamia describe his armies. His enemies complain of him in the Zoroastrian texts.
One big difference is, although Alex was also referred to the Son of God, we are not told our eternal salvation depends on our faith in him today.
@ninjamojo711 There are at least two cities in Egypt named in his honour and, I believe, dozens elsewhere. In comparison, a minor Jewish charismatic would be doing quite well to merit an aside in so early a text as Josephus.
I mean no disrespect, but your final observation has no place in this discussion, does it? Yet this seems very important to you. Has it occurred to you that your apparent anti-Christian zeal might be warping your judgement in the same way that a believer's might?
@ElSasser2007 None taken. It is often claim there is historical proof for Jesus. When shown that there really isn't, the late references to Alex the Great argument come up. Christians can only rely on faith to believe Jesus existed. Their doctrine condemns others with the threat of everlasting punishment. My point is that the existence of Alex the Great or the validity of the legend of any another "Son of God" does not matter in these terms.
You were the one that brought up Alex the Great, no?
@ninjamojo711 Historians take closeness of a document's composition to the time of its protagonist as one criterion of historical value. Thus, the NT, however ideological and mythologised is much closer to its (purported) protagonist than, say, the bios of Alex. I agree that one has a tough time looking outside the NT for evidence of Jesus, which is precisely why Josephus is... Interesting. However, this lack of evidence doesn't strike me as inconsistent with a historical Jesus.
@ninjamojo711 Beyond the NT - which are difficult sources for reasons stated - I don't expect to find much, if any. We don't know Shakespeare's birthday because he was a non-entity when born (the date given is an inference from his baptism), but we know when he died because by then he was famous. The NT presents Jesus as BIG, but only among his own followers, I reckon. There would be few independent records, and we'd be lucky if they'd survived. I don't feel I can simply ignore the NT, however.
@ElSasser2007 It is important to realize that within the NT itself, this character of Jesus of Nazareth only exists in the gospels. The gospels do not claim to be eyewitness accounts nor are they written as history. Paul makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul's Christ is on a mystical realm. Paul knows of no godman that recently performed miracles on earth, was born of a virgin, and taught anything. "Christ crucified" is not the later developed Jesus of Nazareth character from the gospels.
@ninjamojo711 You give excessive weight to your own assumptions. Herodotus, for example, did not write history as we understand it today. Paul never met the physical Jesus, but he links himself to those who knew him (Gal, for example). Paul's presentation of Jesus is different from that in the Gospels, but it does not follow that the two are mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are together in one NT because they complement each other. Perhaps it's all a lie - but that's assumption, not conclusion.
@ninjamojo711 I don't like it because it confuses me. I am familiar with religious fanaticism, where a false sense of conviction may arise from an experience or one's upbringing, but a sense of conviction that arises from mere speculation is a new one for me.
@ElSasser2007 Where does Peter, James, John etc. claim to Paul that they knew and walked and talked with an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It seems you have church doctrine coloured glasses on.
Isn't it strange that Paul would be at odds with those that personally knew and learned form Jesus...even his "blood brother" James?
@ninjamojo711 Nowhere. We don't read about what they ate fror breakfast either, but it's not irrational to suppose that they ate something at least sometimes. Taking the NT as a whole, it is not unreasonable to see it as implying that these people met and discussed Jesus. It may be a lie -- but I see no necessity to think so. As for Paul & the others falling out -- No, sadly, this does not seem strange to me at all.
This is the exact answer I swallowed when I talked to the father of a friend from Wisconsin, who suggested that I need religion to be able to teach morality, respect and self-awareness. That is so incredibly insulting and at the same time frightening, that the only thing keeping him from teaching hate and selfishness to his son, is his belief in Jesus. How insane is that?
The holy books of all religions are written by men WHO SAY they were spoken to by their God. All clergy have received the benefits of being cult leaders.
@ImagesByDavid You see, Christians have a tough enough time even trying to come up with a scrap of evidence that an historical Jesus of Nazareth existed...
...Then they want everyone to believe the extraordinary claims that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the blind, raised the dead plus many other miracles, rose from the dead and was the son of in god in flesh on earth.
If you can't even prove he existed, why should we believe all the outrageous supernatural claims?
Confucious came up with the golden rule solely from a human perspective, and i am sure the golden rule as basis of good morality could have been found earlier without textual record than Confucius himself. What i am saying is, we didn't need Jesus self-titled demi-god to come and teach us morals. Most of all, if you rely on the morals taught by pedophilic mass murdering war mongering "prophets" like Muhammad, then you seriously shouldn't have a say in moral discussion
@ImagesByDavid I get the sense you don't even know what the hell it says in Josephus.
Josephus was a Roman Jew, not a Christian. The passage about Jesus in Josephus recites Christian doctrine that claimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Josephus died a Jew, not a Christian, so either Josephus himself was deliberately trying to deceive which makes his claim false or his document was hi-jacked and fraudulently edited by deceitful Christians. You chose!
@ninjamojo711 - It is a proven forgery. I cannot believe anyone would ever try to claim this magical single paragraph in his work as anything other than the obvious and proven forgery it is.
@ninjamojo711 - Oh I see. I didn't read the rest of the debate. i think the first reference to Jesus did not appear in the work until 400BC even though it had been discussed at length by Christians. I would have to check but I think that is the correct timeline. Anyway you perhaps know more about it than I do.
@ninjamojo711 A little misleading. Josephus was born a Palestinian Jew, later Romanised. There are two versions of his account of Jesus, one in Greek, which is reckoned to be earlier and more reliable, and a later Old Slavonic version, which is the one that says "He was the Christ". This was almost certainly added by a Christian scribe, but it is quite likely that the plainer Greek description of a Jewish teacher called Jesus who was executed by the Romans for sedition is historically accurate.
@ElSasser2007 The Slavonic version is a later developed copy of the interpolated Greek version which contains many modifications, deletions and additions. The extant Greek version contains the fraudulent "Testimonium Flavianum".
You are mistaken claiming there is "plainer Greek description of a Jewish teacher called Jesus who was executed by the Romans for sedition is historically accurate."
@ninjamojo711 Thanks for correction: memory WAY out! Should have said: Greek & Arabic Antiquities contains 2 refs to Jesus (not just TF), obviously emended & with interpolations BUT not unreasonable to suppose authentic core (ie. Je was claimed to be Messiah, executed by Rom for sedition); position supported by many (not all) scholars. Thus your original choice too stark; 3rd possibility: Josephus was a pious Jew who reported Jesus and claims about him purely as a contemporary historical event.
@ElSasser2007 Josephus mentions 14 Jesus', but none of them pertain to the Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels. The passage that claims Jesus to be the Christ is pure forgery. The core is not authentic because the entire passage gives a positive spin. Josephus was a pious Jew but worked for the Roman Emperor Flavian family and did not write favourably about any seditionist, rebel leader or would be messiah.
Josephus is circa 37-100, writing @80CE and is not contemporary to 26CE.
@ninjamojo711 By all means omit "contemporary". There are TWO refs to Jesus "...the Christ". "The passage that claims Jesus to be the Christ is pure forgery." (Presumably the TF, Book 18?) No. That's one opinion. Many scholars believe the core is authentic and originally had no spin. There is another ref (Book 20) that is without positive spin, and is believed by even more scholars to be authentic. You are presenting one scholarly opinion (yes, I know it is not only your own) as if it were fact.
@KapStuf You will notice that I am happy to reply to Ninjamojo. this is because he (I can't imagine a woman choosing this handle) is courteous and clearly knows his stuff. You are discourteous and apparently know Jack. If you are not aware that there are respected scholars who do believe that the Josephus references distort an authentic historical core, you haven't even got as far as Wikipedia. DO SOME RESEARCH!
@ElSasser2007 A Roman-employed Jew called Josephus appears to write as an *aside* that a man called Jesus of Nazareth was king of the Jews. And the messiah who'd defeat the romans. And therefore'd soon end the world according to prophecy.
Even my seminary lecturers admitted this was preposterous.
Oh, didn't I mention I studied at seminary?
Now, those 'respected scholars' you keep failing to name....
@KapStuf Interesting side note about Nazareth. Josephus never mentions this town although he mentions many other cities and towns in the area. The Hebrew bible never mentions Nazareth either. In fact, Matthew's mention that Jesus comes from Nazareth in order to fulfill prophecy is a complete miss. There is no such prophecy. It is a misuse of Isaiah 1:11.
So not only is Jesus a complete invention, it seems mythical theology built the town of Nazareth as well.
I don't have a citation handy, but I read that although there wasn't a town called Nazareth at the time, there was a religious sect called the Nazarites. Maybe someone got confused?
@ElSasser2007 Yes, you are correct, or Judges 13.5-7, which is another indication that either the gospel writer had no clue what he was doing or more likely was intentionally using bits and pieces of the OT to invent the gospels.
Either way it shows (along with other indications) the gospels are a mythical fabrication. This is why I argue that the main character is an invention as well.
@ninjamojo711 Or we could use Jesus Seminar logic and conclude that Jesus must have been a real person actually born in a town called Nazareth because Matthew gets himself into such a pickle scrabbling desperately for an OT prophecy to account for it.
@ElSasser2007 I think this is where the Jesus Seminar falls flat. They assume an historical Jesus existed and work around all the myth and symbolism. However, when one removes all the myth and symbolism...there really isn't much if anything left standing.
They use the wrong starting point. If they take a step back, it all makes perfect sense.
@ninjamojo711 Actually, I was gently poking fun at the way you had inferred that "the gospel writer... was intentionally using bits and pieces of the OT to invent the gospels" from one of the references which CANNOT be traced with certainty in the OT.
@ninjamojo711 I prefer your other formulation of this (below): "I think this suggests a 2nd century development of the gospels and a mistranslation of Nazarene which isn't tied to Nazareth." It allows some space for doubt.
@ElSasser2007 Actually that's what Hitchens thinks ( or used to think), but I have to disagree. Matt scrambling to fit a prophecy for Jesus coming from Nazareth is not the only explanation.
@ElSasser2007 There are many other references to OT verses that are either misinterpretations or just intended manipulation purely for parody and invention. If there is a need to fit Jesus in Nazareth, it's purely a literary device that doesn't necessarily mean he historically came from there.
@ElSasser2007 Cont: If Nazareth did exist in the 1st Century it was hardly anything worth mentioning by anyone and is more likely a tomb area for the town of Japha, a mile away. (where Josephus actually lived for a while).
The gospels describe Nazareth as a city. I think this suggests a 2nd century development of the gospels and a mistranslation of Nazarene which isn't tied to Nazareth. The Jesus Seminar can't see the forest thru the trees.
@ninjamojo711 I take the general view that religious/mythological figures tend to have historical antecedents. This is at best a judgement. The locus classicus for such a view might be Schliemann(!). I incline to a historical Jesus as I incline to a historical Arthur. My view is that the inconsistencies are typical of the misunderstandings and accretions that arise in dressing-up imperfect memories. If it were a total fabrication, I'd expect something more congruent, like the Book of Mormon.
@ninjamojo711 Presumably these did all have historical antecedents of some type --they go so far back we just don't have much of a clue as to what. Burket, for example, suggests that Heracles has his origins in Neolithic Shamanism. There may even have been a particular shaman -- or not. Several of the details of Jesus and his life and character are established in a comparatively narrow time-band. This suggests (to me) that there may be a recent basis in fact.
@ElSasser2007 That isn't to say some sort of historical character (or characters) were not used to build the mythical character.
If the symbolism that surrounds the story also surrounds the character is mythical it seems fairly obvious to me that both the narrative the main character are myth.
Strip away the mythical symbolism....no historical character is left standing.
@ninjamojo711 Why is this obvious? Your central sentence is difficult to follow (perhaps because it is also ungrammatical? I'm not sniping, I really can't understand this).
@ElSasser2007 Ok, sorry about the incoherent sentence. Let me try again:
Many scholars believe Jesus to be a historical person, but the supernatural stories about him are mythical. The point I am trying to make is the person himself is made up of mythical elements. He is a synthesis of Greek/Pagan/Jewish godman-messiah typology which is all mythical at it's core. There is nothing original, it's a concoction that leaves no historical person left.
@ninjamojo711 I understand your point, and I agree there's a case to be made for it. I just don't think the case is (or probably ever can be) conclusive. Jesus may be a pure synthesis -- but he may not be. On balance, I reject your view, but that's a matter of judgement. I don't consider the case that he was historical conclusive either, but that's whither I lean.This is a problem in history & archaeology in general: people, including scholars, crave certainty -- but we none of us can have it.
@ElSasser2007 Let me put it this way: if you remove the gospels, what is there to convince any one a Jesus of Nazareth existed? You wouldn't get it from the rest of the NT.
Christ Jesus in the rest of the NT is still in it's mystical realm phase:
"Hebrews 8:4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law."
Strange thing to say about someone who was just recently on earth isn't it?
@ninjamojo711 There's nothing to CONVINCE a person even WITH the gospels. On the other hand, I don't see how you can simply dismiss them either. Geza Vermes recently published a version of the gospels in which he believes he restores a historical Jesus and his teachings. I think he's done an admirable job and I can imagine he's not far off -- but of course, the whole exercise is pure speculation.
As for Hebrews 8:4 -- why is this odd? This seems consistent with the rest of the NT to me.
@ElSasser2007 Ah, but the gospels are not memories. Whose memories could they possibly be? They are literary inventions each directed at different communities (Roman, Jewish, Greek...). It didn't matter that there were inconsistencies, each were intended for a different cultural audience.
@ninjamojo711 I believe they are at least partially based on memory in the same way that you believe they are based on imagination. If I told my wife or my mate about a girl I met at a party I might intentionally give a different spin to the same memory.
@ElSasser2007 Whose memory could the immaculate conception and virgin birth be?
Whose memory is Jesus temptation in the desert? Whose memory is Jesus alone time in the Garden of G? Whose memory is the descent into hell? Whose memory is the ascent to heaven. The gospels are not written by Peter, James, John etc, the illiterate Aremaic fisherman who apparently knew the human Jesus. They are Greek works of literature for Pax Romana propaganda.
@ninjamojo711 I said, "partially", no? And some of these episodes could be based on memory because the person involved reported them, and some could be distortions of such reports -- and some could be completely made up.
@ninjamojo711 No it doesn't. That is just your interpretation of the evidence. Almost every piece of evidence you adduce seems to me to be capable of at least one other interpretation. This is my whole contention with you: you persistently present as conclusive what is merely speculative.
@ElSasser2007 Yes, you are correct most mythical and literary characters and their stories are influenced in one way or another by actual events or persons. Part of the basis for the Jesus character could be any of the 14 'jesuses" in Josephus, even the Teacher of Righteousness from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
My argument is the Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is myth, not historical.
There is a big difference between a concocted character and an actual person.
@ElSasser2007 I think the Jesus Seminar is guilty of group-think.
If you have time, please read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle ( a very good on line resource).
Then read Joseph Atwill and Cliff Carrington's work. They show, using evidence that the gospels are actually a Roman (Flavian: Vespasian, Titus, Josephus) invention to redefine a Messiah that is anti-Jewish and pro-Roman. This is done to stifle the rebellious Messianic Jews and create a syncretic imperial cult. The veil will be lifted.
@ninjamojo711 I will look at TJP, which I do not know, but I am familiar with Atwill & Carrington's works. Carrington is the superior, but as usual, he ignores other possibilities. The entire Sermon on the Mount, for example, he dismisses, as the Romans would never have tolerated so large a gathering... But it could simply be an exaggeration. Atwill is a tad loony, "finding" Imperial in-jokes in every other line of the gospels. Intriguing stuff, but... Doesn't come close to settling the issue.
@KapStuf I find it very hard to believe that you studied at a seminary if you really don't know about these scholars already. I'll mention three, because they're Jewish and have no vested interest in supporting Christianity: Schlomo Pines, Louis Feldman & Geza Vermes. If you want the names of more - & there are several - go to Wikipedia and chase up the references for yourself. From your tone, you automatically discount Christian scholars, but you ought to judge the arguments on their merits.
@ElSasser2007 Pines claims a lost original Joesphus, paraphrased by Agapius, who mentions a Jesus who rose after 3 days and may have been the messiah. Agapius' version is less implausible and more cautious that the Joesphus we know.
Pines finds no other significant evidence for a lost Joesphus, and the Agapius paraphrase only pushes the date of fraudulent insertion back to before CE941. He acknowledges scribe fraud was common.
@ElSasser2007 So what Pines has done is identify a date after which the 'Jesus' insertion into Josephus could not have occurred. A very late date.
What you seem to think he's done is discovered grounds for doubting an insertion took place at all.
I trust your *own* reading skills are sufficient to understand the distinction, seeing as I've now written about it twice. And seeing as this is supposed to be *your* field.
@KapStuf You regard the references to Jesus in Josephus as pure forgeries.Several leading scholars (such as Pines) believe they are partially genuine. Here is your question, from an earlier posting: "Who are these scholars? And are *any* of them not employed by religious institutions to cherry pick evidence?" I have answered your question.
I am not concerned with your opinion; only that you do not present it in a forum for the public as if it were fact or the consensus: it is neither.
@ElSasser2007 Where's there's smoke there's fire. We can agree that Josephus would not be referring to any Jesus as Messiah/Christ because he lived and died a pious Jew. Yes, my opinion is the passage is TF in 18 is pure forgery for reasons I've already stated. The reference is 20 is only in passing and to me another fraudulent insertion. The context of the passage is about the death of Festus and the stoning of James the Just. This poses a problem. I will continue:
@ninjamojo711 Nevertheless, Josephus could still have referred to Jesus as one claimed either by Jesus himself or by others to have been a messiah, which, as I understand it, is what is argued by those scholars who believe the TF to be partially genuine; also, even without a "messiah" reference, the TF could still be based on an account of Jesus of Nazareth. But I understand that you are convinced it is a forgery. Fair enough.
@ElSasser2007 Yes, I understand there are other "scholarly arguments", but these seem like attempts to keep the Christian faith alive.
Don't forget, we know the writings of Josephus through Eusebius, the 4th century
"Church historian".
No other church father prior to Eusiebius mentions the "Jesus" passages of Josephus.
What Christians have to admit is that there is Christian fraud in Josephus. Christians need to ask themselves the hard question..."why was there a need for fraud?" and think.
@ninjamojo711 OK, here we pretty much agree, although I don't think either Schlomo Pines (yes, I know his work has been extensively critiqued) or far less Geza Vermes, were or are particularly keen "to keep the Christian faith alive" (for example).
As for why Christians might have felt the need for fraud, my own entirely speculative answer would be, force of habit.
@ElSasser2007 Cont: The problem is that Josephus does not refer to James the Just as being the head of a Christian sect. The context is a power struggle for High Priest, presumably of the Jewish temple, and how Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest.
Who is then this Jesus? Jesus is only mentioned in passing as the brother of James. The Son of God on earth who performed miracles and rose from the dead went unnoticed? This Jesus if authentic is likely the later mentioned son of Damneus.
@ninjamojo711 First, as I am sure you are aware, some scholars have argued that Josephus frequently digresses and mentions things out of context, sometimes interrupting the narrative flow even to the extent of apparently contradicting himself. I take your point, but once again, it is not conclusive.
I commented on your original post because YouTube is a forum for the general public, not specialist scholars. I believe that it is incumbent upon one to add, "but other scholars disagree with this".
@ElSasser2007 The earlier version did not mention a Jesus of Nazareth, nor does it tell a comparable story about anyone under a different name.
There *were* plenty of stories about virgin-born messiahs, who performed miracles, was betrayed by a follower and came back to life on the summer solstice. But these predate the supposed time of jesus by 300-2000 years.
@ImagesByDavid Tell me, why would holy Christians with love for the truth blatantly commit fraud to further their cause? Why was there a need to hi-jack a Roman document and make it seem this person Jesus was historical and was the messiah?
If Jesus made such an impact on this world with his miracles, teachings, public crucifixion where Zombies came out of graves, his resurrection to heaven that was "witnessed" by so many. Why no contemporary mention? Why the need to sin and be fraudulent?
@ImagesByDavid HaHa!! As if you're telling someone to 'open their eyes'! There is hard, empirical facts that show the existence of dinosaurs on earth millions of years ago! Facts! Evidence!!! How can u carry on being so blind!!???? Carbon dating proves it!!!!
We are not debating the existence of Alexander the Great because we I anyway accept he is a historical person based upon 1 coin (s) and writings 500 years after his death! Why would you accept his existence over the evidence for the man Jesus?
Mr pswmetalmonkey, Sir, I am not sure against what you are ranting, but even if you were, like me, an Atheist, I would strongly ask you to refrain from usind such utterly foul language. Foul language does not help the cause of Atheism. Thank you.
Kindly old gent tentatively suggests that religions might have some good in them. Uptight, purse lipped, pretentious, alcoholic windbag rounds on him with all the phoney, sanctimonious indignation his inebriated state will allow.
The question of the "truth" of beliefs is so obviously beyond conclusive proof either way as to be barely worth bothering with, but the simple clash of attitudes demonstrated in this clip is very revealing.
@hdmccart Funny, Hitchen's points out that his Mother was Jewish(She hid it from him and he didn't know until she died.) in his book. He seemed pretty proud of his lineage. lol.
Great point by Hitchens, and he deserved that big gulp (of what sincerely believe was Johnny Walker black) at the end. Miss you Christopher! You made the world a better place.
I'm not sure Hitchens mother was JEwish tbh, she was something of a flake and I think Christopher just liked the idea of it as it made him an 'outsider'.
His brother certainly denies any Jewish heritage.
There's no evidence to support his claim that his mum was Jewish.
For Hitch! I’m trying to get a website going, and hopefully a book one day, called Letters to Hitch. Basically it’s a tribute to Hitchens, and a place where people can go to, to talk about him, share stories, etc. The site is in the beginning phases, so it may not be 100% yet. But with support from Hitch fans, hopefully one day it can become a monumental tribute to Christopher Hitchens. YouTube doesn’t allow me to post the site, so e-mail LetterstoHithens@gmail.com and I will forward it.
For Hitch! I’m trying to get a website going, and hopefully a book one day, called Letters to Hitch. Basically it’s a tribute to Hitchens, and a place where people can go to, to talk about him, share stories, etc. The site is in the beginning phases, so it may not be 100% yet. But with support from Hitch fans, hopefully one day it can become a monumental tribute to Christopher Hitchens. YouTube doesn’t allow me to post the site, so e-mail LetterstoHithens@gmail.com and I will forward it.
Kindly old gent tentatively suggests that religions might have some good in them. Uptight, purse lipped, pretentious, alcoholic windbag rounds on him with all the phoney, sanctimonious indignation his inebriated state will allow.
The question of the "truth" of beliefs is so obviously beyond conclusive proof either way as to be barely worth bothering with, but the simple clash of attitudes demonstrated in this clip is very revealing. "Hitchslap"???, Lord give me strength...
@Mrfriendlymilk The kindly old gent's statements witch which Mr. Hitchens took such offense to is the same undertone in your comment with which I take exception to myself; that theism "might have some good" in it? Yes, it does; you are right, there. Love thy neighbor, venerate your Mother and Father. But it also has much bad, and the lines drawn show that even Theists recognize it. The Bible contains no viable moral code, neither in the Torah nor in the Gospels.
@TotalLibertaria I will overlook the fact that your first sentence is grammatically nonsensical. My point was that Hitchen's aggressive, imperious manner contrasts so much with the reasonable, calmly inquisitive tone of the man who asks the question. I think this might tell us something.
As for the bible lacking a "viable moral code", which of the ten commandments don't you approve of?
@Mrfriendlymilk "@harliquinz Hmmm... leaving aside the Bible.
So which of the ten do you disapprove of?
How can you leave the bible aside? That in itself is a ridiculous statement, the 'viable moral code' you refer to isn't simply the 10 commandments, although which of the 3 versions of the commandments you adhere to i dont know. The bible is rife with spurious and wicked 'commandments' and 'moral' teachings which the religious piously and conveniently ignore. Bible aside, ha!
@harliquinz I see where you are going wrong; in order to understand something you have to try to comprehend it in it's entirety, rather than scrutinizing one small element in isolation (as you did with my previous comment). I would also say that approaching the topic in a spirit of level headed curiosity is preferable to adopting a kind of excitable, combative attitude too.
Anyhow, leaving aside your poor manners, evasiveness and self-serving bluster, which commandments do you disapprove of?
the fact that he 'draws the line' shows that his religion is not about the 3 things. 1. that it is not about a code of living, 2. it is not a framework by witch we live and 3. it does not teach self restraint.
by drawing a line he is going against the "code of living"
by drawing the line he is not living within the "framework"
by drawing the line he is not being tought self restraint, he is not restraining himself to any code he got from any religion.
One day, millennia from now, our descendants shall face a time of great darkness, when religion threatens to swamp the entire world. A beleaguered band of free thinkers, on the brink of annihilation, shall dig deep within the vaults of youtube, desperate for anything to turn the tide of the theocratic hordes. And Yea, they shall unearth the True Hitchslap and lay waste upside their enemies heads.
The world is a poorer place without him.
neonatalpenguin 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 day ago
ladies and gentlemen we have just watched a bitch slap if you look to your left you will see the resever of the slap sobbing in corner
TheRandomguy112 2 days ago
religion is like a software lisence, noone really reads it, they just scroll to the bottom and pick i agree
TheCelticmaori 3 days ago 5
@TheCelticmaori If I click disagree, do I still get the license?
blah1311 2 days ago
When hitch plays the à la carte card, it's game over.
fctchk 4 days ago
PT 1. I LAY THE CHARGE AT ATHEISM , that more people have died in the name of Secular Atheism in the past 100 years than have died in the name of religion over the past 1000 years all put altogether !
Atheism is intrinsically linked with the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Meo Tse Tung and others. Stalin and his atheistic successors closed down churches and turned them into museums, Meo's Cultural Revolution made any form of worship illegal and an arrestable offense.
MrMaxTruth 5 days ago
@MrMaxTruth its a fallacy because these men would have committed the same crimes regardless- it wasnt their religion or lack of(athiesm) but their politics and their own psychological makeup- and now its time for the religous wackos to reclaim their crown- because now extremist muslims are clearly using religion to be the new mass murderers- and for them it clearly is about their religous beliefs!!
salvadory 4 days ago
@MrMaxTruth Atheism is default position of non-beleif. It's not an ideology in the same sense religion is. People do not kill in the "name" of Atheism, they kill based on another ideology.
BTW: Hitler was Christian. In Mein Kempf, he claims he is doing "God's work". The Nazi soldier belt buckle read "God with us".
ninjamojo711 4 days ago 4
@MrMaxTruth Bullshit.
Both chinese and russian communism were run AS RELIGIONS and you are wrong, religion has killed so many more than atheistic dictatorships that were run as religions as folk like Mao and Lenin were deified
Rockster969 3 days ago
PT 2. Pol Pot, not only closed down all forms of worship, but made a special attempt at systematically identifying clergy weather Hindu, Buddhist or Christian so they could be taken to the killing fields and murdered. And let us not forget the murdered millions of Hitler. To those that claim Hitler was a Catholic let us put that fallacy to rest here and now. Just like Karl Marx, while he may have been born into a religious family and home, both died very much the atheist.
MrMaxTruth 5 days ago
PT 3 , It is clear Hitler conceived Religion as an instrument that could be useful to him. Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer quoted Hitler as referring to religion as a tool. He quotes, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regards sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to use than Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
MrMaxTruth 5 days ago
PT 4. The following quotes of Hitler were written by Martin Bormann Hitler's, secretary "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.". "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie."
Does that sound like a Christian to you?
So lets not say atheism has nothing to do with the murdered millions over the past 100 years. History says otherwise !
MrMaxTruth 5 days ago
@MrMaxTruth Hitler didn't do what he did because he was an atheist, nor did Stalin. It could be said that it was because of their own ideologies, but atheism is far too general a classification of their beliefs.
It could be however argued that religion is indirectly dangerous as it creates cultural divisions and can be used as a tool to manipulate people (regardless of how well meaning said religion is), as was the case with Stalin and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Polymerabbit 4 days ago
@Polymerabbit in fact the nazis warped their ideoalogy with alot of christianity- in fact the nazis were occultish as well even looking for the ark and holy relics believing they had special powers- and their racial ideas were also wrapped around the "chosen race" mentality which isnt much different from the old testament mentality of the jews- so there was alot of religion in their makeup- they clearly werent athiest
salvadory 4 days ago
@MrMaxTruth Your Hitler quote through Bormann only claims that Hitler later had issues with Christianity.
It does not claim that he did anything in the name of Atheism, nor does it suggest he was atheist and did not believe in God, because he still thought he was doing "God's work".
ninjamojo711 4 days ago
"How dare you!" he says. I love moral indignation from atheists....when they can't ground objective morality. They are constantly angry, but if atheism were true they wouldn't even care because all truth would be relative. Philosophical FAIL!
wayfatcat 6 days ago
@wayfatcat morals predate all religions .
dawtchins 5 days ago
@wayfatcat You fail to understand.
ninjamojo711 5 days ago
@wayfatcat Hitchens is saying morality is not exclusive to religion. I'm not sure how you didn't get that. Morality and truth are to separate things. Your argument is non-sensical.
ninjamojo711 5 days ago
@ninjamojo711 I swear, half of the criticisms of atheism arise because people are under the impression that atheism = nihilism...
Polymerabbit 4 days ago
@Polymerabbit Yes, you are correct. Those that most aggressively criticize atheism do not even understand what it is.
ninjamojo711 4 days ago
@wayfatcat Are you just a troll or would you like to break down your comment as YOU seem angry.
Also I would love to hear exactly what you mean by saying if "ATHEISEM WERE TRUE" as I have never heard such a stupid ill thought out comment, why do I say this very simple I know what an athiest stands for and it is not about being TRUE.
So feel free to explain to US,more so that you know every athiest on the planet to make such a claim.
Also truth is relaitive to outcome
HYPOCRITE
stonewall1888 5 days ago
I love the way dawkins turns to hitchins after he answers, showing his agreement. I can just imagine him saying "ya got him, babey"
needicecream100 6 days ago
@needicecream100 Hehe! In an Austin Powers voice! lol Yah! Baby!!!
marcsilcockfan1989 6 days ago
Religion a la carte - what a fantastic phrase and so true as people choose the bits of their holy books that suite their lifestyle.
tokenbrit123 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ElSasser2007 Christians need to acknowledge there is no contemporary independent historical reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Christians often claim there is plenty of historical proof Jesus existed, but when we get down to it, there is nothing.
Josephus isn't contemporary nor is the 4th century Christian Eusebius rewriting Josephus contemporary or independent (or trustworthy).
Even if the little inserted mentions of Jesus are authentic (which I argue they are not), Christians have a big problem.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 First sentence: over-reaches... None which is strictly contemporary or undisputed.. Second: True, but... "Proof" is a demanding word. There is nothing one can say about the ancient world that can be 'proven'. I'd say Christians are massively over-reaching too. Third: Josephus isn't contemporary, but he's a great deal closer than, say, the earliest sources we have for Alexander the Great (300 years later). Fourth: I doubt they feel it's a problem... It's a religion, after all.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 In regards to Alex the Great: Yes, historical written sources are late and much of it is likely embellished and/or legend. However there is a conquered city in Egypt named after him. They don't mint coins for mythical Emperors. Cuniform tablets from Mesopotamia describe his armies. His enemies complain of him in the Zoroastrian texts.
One big difference is, although Alex was also referred to the Son of God, we are not told our eternal salvation depends on our faith in him today.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 There are at least two cities in Egypt named in his honour and, I believe, dozens elsewhere. In comparison, a minor Jewish charismatic would be doing quite well to merit an aside in so early a text as Josephus.
I mean no disrespect, but your final observation has no place in this discussion, does it? Yet this seems very important to you. Has it occurred to you that your apparent anti-Christian zeal might be warping your judgement in the same way that a believer's might?
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 None taken. It is often claim there is historical proof for Jesus. When shown that there really isn't, the late references to Alex the Great argument come up. Christians can only rely on faith to believe Jesus existed. Their doctrine condemns others with the threat of everlasting punishment. My point is that the existence of Alex the Great or the validity of the legend of any another "Son of God" does not matter in these terms.
You were the one that brought up Alex the Great, no?
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Historians take closeness of a document's composition to the time of its protagonist as one criterion of historical value. Thus, the NT, however ideological and mythologised is much closer to its (purported) protagonist than, say, the bios of Alex. I agree that one has a tough time looking outside the NT for evidence of Jesus, which is precisely why Josephus is... Interesting. However, this lack of evidence doesn't strike me as inconsistent with a historical Jesus.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 you stated, [ " However, this lack of evidence doesn't strike me as inconsistent with a historical Jesus" ]
Where is it then that you get your evidence for a historical Jesus?
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Beyond the NT - which are difficult sources for reasons stated - I don't expect to find much, if any. We don't know Shakespeare's birthday because he was a non-entity when born (the date given is an inference from his baptism), but we know when he died because by then he was famous. The NT presents Jesus as BIG, but only among his own followers, I reckon. There would be few independent records, and we'd be lucky if they'd survived. I don't feel I can simply ignore the NT, however.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 It is important to realize that within the NT itself, this character of Jesus of Nazareth only exists in the gospels. The gospels do not claim to be eyewitness accounts nor are they written as history. Paul makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul's Christ is on a mystical realm. Paul knows of no godman that recently performed miracles on earth, was born of a virgin, and taught anything. "Christ crucified" is not the later developed Jesus of Nazareth character from the gospels.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 You give excessive weight to your own assumptions. Herodotus, for example, did not write history as we understand it today. Paul never met the physical Jesus, but he links himself to those who knew him (Gal, for example). Paul's presentation of Jesus is different from that in the Gospels, but it does not follow that the two are mutually exclusive. Perhaps they are together in one NT because they complement each other. Perhaps it's all a lie - but that's assumption, not conclusion.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 You don't like it when I state thing with conviction? Sorry, but I am convinced of certain things.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 I don't like it because it confuses me. I am familiar with religious fanaticism, where a false sense of conviction may arise from an experience or one's upbringing, but a sense of conviction that arises from mere speculation is a new one for me.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 Where does Peter, James, John etc. claim to Paul that they knew and walked and talked with an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It seems you have church doctrine coloured glasses on.
Isn't it strange that Paul would be at odds with those that personally knew and learned form Jesus...even his "blood brother" James?
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 Nowhere. We don't read about what they ate fror breakfast either, but it's not irrational to suppose that they ate something at least sometimes. Taking the NT as a whole, it is not unreasonable to see it as implying that these people met and discussed Jesus. It may be a lie -- but I see no necessity to think so. As for Paul & the others falling out -- No, sadly, this does not seem strange to me at all.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
like a boss
hkhooey 1 week ago
All religions are dictatorships. Atheists are simply the revolutionaries declaring "We want democracy, truth and science".
DayDreamAscent 1 week ago 14
Hitchens is the silver bullet against religion.
66420192 1 week ago
Hitchens seems like an idiot.
Mathaius833 1 week ago
This is the exact answer I swallowed when I talked to the father of a friend from Wisconsin, who suggested that I need religion to be able to teach morality, respect and self-awareness. That is so incredibly insulting and at the same time frightening, that the only thing keeping him from teaching hate and selfishness to his son, is his belief in Jesus. How insane is that?
schlafanzyk 1 week ago 16
The holy books of all religions are written by men WHO SAY they were spoken to by their God. All clergy have received the benefits of being cult leaders.
TheLightingrod 1 week ago
the great man....
adstanra 1 week ago
HOW DARE YOU YOU FILTHY MAN MAKING RELIGION JEW!!!
MrDarksidematter 1 week ago
Anyone know where the full video is?
LOGAN97sk8s 1 week ago
@ImagesByDavid You see, Christians have a tough enough time even trying to come up with a scrap of evidence that an historical Jesus of Nazareth existed...
...Then they want everyone to believe the extraordinary claims that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the blind, raised the dead plus many other miracles, rose from the dead and was the son of in god in flesh on earth.
If you can't even prove he existed, why should we believe all the outrageous supernatural claims?
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
Confucious came up with the golden rule solely from a human perspective, and i am sure the golden rule as basis of good morality could have been found earlier without textual record than Confucius himself. What i am saying is, we didn't need Jesus self-titled demi-god to come and teach us morals. Most of all, if you rely on the morals taught by pedophilic mass murdering war mongering "prophets" like Muhammad, then you seriously shouldn't have a say in moral discussion
gabe228 1 week ago
@ImagesByDavid I get the sense you don't even know what the hell it says in Josephus.
Josephus was a Roman Jew, not a Christian. The passage about Jesus in Josephus recites Christian doctrine that claimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Josephus died a Jew, not a Christian, so either Josephus himself was deliberately trying to deceive which makes his claim false or his document was hi-jacked and fraudulently edited by deceitful Christians. You chose!
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 - It is a proven forgery. I cannot believe anyone would ever try to claim this magical single paragraph in his work as anything other than the obvious and proven forgery it is.
WillShakespeare2007 1 week ago
@WillShakespeare2007 Yes, I know. You are correct.
I was posing the question to ImagesbyDavid to see if he can put 2 and 2 together.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 - Oh I see. I didn't read the rest of the debate. i think the first reference to Jesus did not appear in the work until 400BC even though it had been discussed at length by Christians. I would have to check but I think that is the correct timeline. Anyway you perhaps know more about it than I do.
WillShakespeare2007 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 A little misleading. Josephus was born a Palestinian Jew, later Romanised. There are two versions of his account of Jesus, one in Greek, which is reckoned to be earlier and more reliable, and a later Old Slavonic version, which is the one that says "He was the Christ". This was almost certainly added by a Christian scribe, but it is quite likely that the plainer Greek description of a Jewish teacher called Jesus who was executed by the Romans for sedition is historically accurate.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 The Slavonic version is a later developed copy of the interpolated Greek version which contains many modifications, deletions and additions. The extant Greek version contains the fraudulent "Testimonium Flavianum".
You are mistaken claiming there is "plainer Greek description of a Jewish teacher called Jesus who was executed by the Romans for sedition is historically accurate."
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Thanks for correction: memory WAY out! Should have said: Greek & Arabic Antiquities contains 2 refs to Jesus (not just TF), obviously emended & with interpolations BUT not unreasonable to suppose authentic core (ie. Je was claimed to be Messiah, executed by Rom for sedition); position supported by many (not all) scholars. Thus your original choice too stark; 3rd possibility: Josephus was a pious Jew who reported Jesus and claims about him purely as a contemporary historical event.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Josephus mentions 14 Jesus', but none of them pertain to the Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels. The passage that claims Jesus to be the Christ is pure forgery. The core is not authentic because the entire passage gives a positive spin. Josephus was a pious Jew but worked for the Roman Emperor Flavian family and did not write favourably about any seditionist, rebel leader or would be messiah.
Josephus is circa 37-100, writing @80CE and is not contemporary to 26CE.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 By all means omit "contemporary". There are TWO refs to Jesus "...the Christ". "The passage that claims Jesus to be the Christ is pure forgery." (Presumably the TF, Book 18?) No. That's one opinion. Many scholars believe the core is authentic and originally had no spin. There is another ref (Book 20) that is without positive spin, and is believed by even more scholars to be authentic. You are presenting one scholarly opinion (yes, I know it is not only your own) as if it were fact.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Who are these scholars? And are *any* of them not employed by religious institutions to cherry pick evidence?
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Do your own research.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 So you don't know either. Thought not.
The next time you claim to know of 'many' scholars who believe something that no serious theologin believes, try actually knowing it.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Good try.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 If you have an answer, please give it. If you just want to hide your inability to answer with bluster then...well, that can be amusing.
In the meantime, try dealing with the very pertinent points raised by ninjamojo711. Bluster won't work there either.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf You will notice that I am happy to reply to Ninjamojo. this is because he (I can't imagine a woman choosing this handle) is courteous and clearly knows his stuff. You are discourteous and apparently know Jack. If you are not aware that there are respected scholars who do believe that the Josephus references distort an authentic historical core, you haven't even got as far as Wikipedia. DO SOME RESEARCH!
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 A Roman-employed Jew called Josephus appears to write as an *aside* that a man called Jesus of Nazareth was king of the Jews. And the messiah who'd defeat the romans. And therefore'd soon end the world according to prophecy.
Even my seminary lecturers admitted this was preposterous.
Oh, didn't I mention I studied at seminary?
Now, those 'respected scholars' you keep failing to name....
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Interesting side note about Nazareth. Josephus never mentions this town although he mentions many other cities and towns in the area. The Hebrew bible never mentions Nazareth either. In fact, Matthew's mention that Jesus comes from Nazareth in order to fulfill prophecy is a complete miss. There is no such prophecy. It is a misuse of Isaiah 1:11.
So not only is Jesus a complete invention, it seems mythical theology built the town of Nazareth as well.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Interesting, thank you.
I don't have a citation handy, but I read that although there wasn't a town called Nazareth at the time, there was a religious sect called the Nazarites. Maybe someone got confused?
KapStuf 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Or possibly of Judges 13.5-7.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Yes, you are correct, or Judges 13.5-7, which is another indication that either the gospel writer had no clue what he was doing or more likely was intentionally using bits and pieces of the OT to invent the gospels.
Either way it shows (along with other indications) the gospels are a mythical fabrication. This is why I argue that the main character is an invention as well.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Or we could use Jesus Seminar logic and conclude that Jesus must have been a real person actually born in a town called Nazareth because Matthew gets himself into such a pickle scrabbling desperately for an OT prophecy to account for it.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 I think this is where the Jesus Seminar falls flat. They assume an historical Jesus existed and work around all the myth and symbolism. However, when one removes all the myth and symbolism...there really isn't much if anything left standing.
They use the wrong starting point. If they take a step back, it all makes perfect sense.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Actually, I was gently poking fun at the way you had inferred that "the gospel writer... was intentionally using bits and pieces of the OT to invent the gospels" from one of the references which CANNOT be traced with certainty in the OT.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
The point is that the Jesus character was likely to be a Nazarene but was later incorrectly translated to be from Nazareth.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 I prefer your other formulation of this (below): "I think this suggests a 2nd century development of the gospels and a mistranslation of Nazarene which isn't tied to Nazareth." It allows some space for doubt.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Regarding Hebrews 8:4, there are even some scholars that feel the correct translation is "if he had been on earth".
Either way, it's strange.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ElSasser2007 Actually that's what Hitchens thinks ( or used to think), but I have to disagree. Matt scrambling to fit a prophecy for Jesus coming from Nazareth is not the only explanation.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 There are many other references to OT verses that are either misinterpretations or just intended manipulation purely for parody and invention. If there is a need to fit Jesus in Nazareth, it's purely a literary device that doesn't necessarily mean he historically came from there.
cont:
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Cont: If Nazareth did exist in the 1st Century it was hardly anything worth mentioning by anyone and is more likely a tomb area for the town of Japha, a mile away. (where Josephus actually lived for a while).
The gospels describe Nazareth as a city. I think this suggests a 2nd century development of the gospels and a mistranslation of Nazarene which isn't tied to Nazareth. The Jesus Seminar can't see the forest thru the trees.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 I take the general view that religious/mythological figures tend to have historical antecedents. This is at best a judgement. The locus classicus for such a view might be Schliemann(!). I incline to a historical Jesus as I incline to a historical Arthur. My view is that the inconsistencies are typical of the misunderstandings and accretions that arise in dressing-up imperfect memories. If it were a total fabrication, I'd expect something more congruent, like the Book of Mormon.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Not all religious/mythological figures tend to have historical antecedents:
Zeus, Hercules, Apollo, Serapis, Horus, Isis, Dionysus, Attis, Mithra, Ra, Jehovah, Satan, Neptune...etc.
There were 14 "jesuses" in Josephus for the gospel writer to blend (a la Serapis) with Pagan and Jewish elements to invent his new messiah.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Presumably these did all have historical antecedents of some type --they go so far back we just don't have much of a clue as to what. Burket, for example, suggests that Heracles has his origins in Neolithic Shamanism. There may even have been a particular shaman -- or not. Several of the details of Jesus and his life and character are established in a comparatively narrow time-band. This suggests (to me) that there may be a recent basis in fact.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 That isn't to say some sort of historical character (or characters) were not used to build the mythical character.
If the symbolism that surrounds the story also surrounds the character is mythical it seems fairly obvious to me that both the narrative the main character are myth.
Strip away the mythical symbolism....no historical character is left standing.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Why is this obvious? Your central sentence is difficult to follow (perhaps because it is also ungrammatical? I'm not sniping, I really can't understand this).
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Ok, sorry about the incoherent sentence. Let me try again:
Many scholars believe Jesus to be a historical person, but the supernatural stories about him are mythical. The point I am trying to make is the person himself is made up of mythical elements. He is a synthesis of Greek/Pagan/Jewish godman-messiah typology which is all mythical at it's core. There is nothing original, it's a concoction that leaves no historical person left.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 I understand your point, and I agree there's a case to be made for it. I just don't think the case is (or probably ever can be) conclusive. Jesus may be a pure synthesis -- but he may not be. On balance, I reject your view, but that's a matter of judgement. I don't consider the case that he was historical conclusive either, but that's whither I lean.This is a problem in history & archaeology in general: people, including scholars, crave certainty -- but we none of us can have it.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 Let me put it this way: if you remove the gospels, what is there to convince any one a Jesus of Nazareth existed? You wouldn't get it from the rest of the NT.
Christ Jesus in the rest of the NT is still in it's mystical realm phase:
"Hebrews 8:4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law."
Strange thing to say about someone who was just recently on earth isn't it?
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 There's nothing to CONVINCE a person even WITH the gospels. On the other hand, I don't see how you can simply dismiss them either. Geza Vermes recently published a version of the gospels in which he believes he restores a historical Jesus and his teachings. I think he's done an admirable job and I can imagine he's not far off -- but of course, the whole exercise is pure speculation.
As for Hebrews 8:4 -- why is this odd? This seems consistent with the rest of the NT to me.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 I should rephrase that: The Jesus of Nazareth character from the gospels is a later development of Paul's mystical "Christ crucified".
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 In terms of when these documents were composed, yes, but not necessarily in real terms.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Ah, but the gospels are not memories. Whose memories could they possibly be? They are literary inventions each directed at different communities (Roman, Jewish, Greek...). It didn't matter that there were inconsistencies, each were intended for a different cultural audience.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 I believe they are at least partially based on memory in the same way that you believe they are based on imagination. If I told my wife or my mate about a girl I met at a party I might intentionally give a different spin to the same memory.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Whose memory could the immaculate conception and virgin birth be?
Whose memory is Jesus temptation in the desert? Whose memory is Jesus alone time in the Garden of G? Whose memory is the descent into hell? Whose memory is the ascent to heaven. The gospels are not written by Peter, James, John etc, the illiterate Aremaic fisherman who apparently knew the human Jesus. They are Greek works of literature for Pax Romana propaganda.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 I said, "partially", no? And some of these episodes could be based on memory because the person involved reported them, and some could be distortions of such reports -- and some could be completely made up.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 In reagrds to the gospels as memory issue: you just admitted it is your "belief" that they are partially based on memory.
Evidence suggests the gospels are something else.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
Comment removed
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ninjamojo711 No it doesn't. That is just your interpretation of the evidence. Almost every piece of evidence you adduce seems to me to be capable of at least one other interpretation. This is my whole contention with you: you persistently present as conclusive what is merely speculative.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 Yes, you are correct most mythical and literary characters and their stories are influenced in one way or another by actual events or persons. Part of the basis for the Jesus character could be any of the 14 'jesuses" in Josephus, even the Teacher of Righteousness from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
My argument is the Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is myth, not historical.
There is a big difference between a concocted character and an actual person.
Gospels are concoctions.
ninjamojo711 6 days ago
@ninjamojo711 Indeed, there is a big difference, and the Gospels may wholly be concoctions. And they may not be.
ElSasser2007 4 days ago
@ElSasser2007 I think the Jesus Seminar is guilty of group-think.
If you have time, please read Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle ( a very good on line resource).
Then read Joseph Atwill and Cliff Carrington's work. They show, using evidence that the gospels are actually a Roman (Flavian: Vespasian, Titus, Josephus) invention to redefine a Messiah that is anti-Jewish and pro-Roman. This is done to stifle the rebellious Messianic Jews and create a syncretic imperial cult. The veil will be lifted.
ninjamojo711 3 days ago
@ninjamojo711 I will look at TJP, which I do not know, but I am familiar with Atwill & Carrington's works. Carrington is the superior, but as usual, he ignores other possibilities. The entire Sermon on the Mount, for example, he dismisses, as the Romans would never have tolerated so large a gathering... But it could simply be an exaggeration. Atwill is a tad loony, "finding" Imperial in-jokes in every other line of the gospels. Intriguing stuff, but... Doesn't come close to settling the issue.
ElSasser2007 3 days ago
Comment removed
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@KapStuf I find it very hard to believe that you studied at a seminary if you really don't know about these scholars already. I'll mention three, because they're Jewish and have no vested interest in supporting Christianity: Schlomo Pines, Louis Feldman & Geza Vermes. If you want the names of more - & there are several - go to Wikipedia and chase up the references for yourself. From your tone, you automatically discount Christian scholars, but you ought to judge the arguments on their merits.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Pines claims a lost original Joesphus, paraphrased by Agapius, who mentions a Jesus who rose after 3 days and may have been the messiah. Agapius' version is less implausible and more cautious that the Joesphus we know.
Pines finds no other significant evidence for a lost Joesphus, and the Agapius paraphrase only pushes the date of fraudulent insertion back to before CE941. He acknowledges scribe fraud was common.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Good: so you can read. And?
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 So what Pines has done is identify a date after which the 'Jesus' insertion into Josephus could not have occurred. A very late date.
What you seem to think he's done is discovered grounds for doubting an insertion took place at all.
I trust your *own* reading skills are sufficient to understand the distinction, seeing as I've now written about it twice. And seeing as this is supposed to be *your* field.
KapStuf 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KapStuf You regard the references to Jesus in Josephus as pure forgeries.Several leading scholars (such as Pines) believe they are partially genuine. Here is your question, from an earlier posting: "Who are these scholars? And are *any* of them not employed by religious institutions to cherry pick evidence?" I have answered your question.
I am not concerned with your opinion; only that you do not present it in a forum for the public as if it were fact or the consensus: it is neither.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Where's there's smoke there's fire. We can agree that Josephus would not be referring to any Jesus as Messiah/Christ because he lived and died a pious Jew. Yes, my opinion is the passage is TF in 18 is pure forgery for reasons I've already stated. The reference is 20 is only in passing and to me another fraudulent insertion. The context of the passage is about the death of Festus and the stoning of James the Just. This poses a problem. I will continue:
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 Nevertheless, Josephus could still have referred to Jesus as one claimed either by Jesus himself or by others to have been a messiah, which, as I understand it, is what is argued by those scholars who believe the TF to be partially genuine; also, even without a "messiah" reference, the TF could still be based on an account of Jesus of Nazareth. But I understand that you are convinced it is a forgery. Fair enough.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Yes, I understand there are other "scholarly arguments", but these seem like attempts to keep the Christian faith alive.
Don't forget, we know the writings of Josephus through Eusebius, the 4th century
"Church historian".
No other church father prior to Eusiebius mentions the "Jesus" passages of Josephus.
What Christians have to admit is that there is Christian fraud in Josephus. Christians need to ask themselves the hard question..."why was there a need for fraud?" and think.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 OK, here we pretty much agree, although I don't think either Schlomo Pines (yes, I know his work has been extensively critiqued) or far less Geza Vermes, were or are particularly keen "to keep the Christian faith alive" (for example).
As for why Christians might have felt the need for fraud, my own entirely speculative answer would be, force of habit.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 Cont: The problem is that Josephus does not refer to James the Just as being the head of a Christian sect. The context is a power struggle for High Priest, presumably of the Jewish temple, and how Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest.
Who is then this Jesus? Jesus is only mentioned in passing as the brother of James. The Son of God on earth who performed miracles and rose from the dead went unnoticed? This Jesus if authentic is likely the later mentioned son of Damneus.
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ninjamojo711 First, as I am sure you are aware, some scholars have argued that Josephus frequently digresses and mentions things out of context, sometimes interrupting the narrative flow even to the extent of apparently contradicting himself. I take your point, but once again, it is not conclusive.
I commented on your original post because YouTube is a forum for the general public, not specialist scholars. I believe that it is incumbent upon one to add, "but other scholars disagree with this".
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ElSasser2007 The earlier version did not mention a Jesus of Nazareth, nor does it tell a comparable story about anyone under a different name.
There *were* plenty of stories about virgin-born messiahs, who performed miracles, was betrayed by a follower and came back to life on the summer solstice. But these predate the supposed time of jesus by 300-2000 years.
KapStuf 1 week ago
@KapStuf Thanks for your response, but please see my reply to Ninjamojo above.
ElSasser2007 1 week ago
@ImagesByDavid Tell me, why would holy Christians with love for the truth blatantly commit fraud to further their cause? Why was there a need to hi-jack a Roman document and make it seem this person Jesus was historical and was the messiah?
If Jesus made such an impact on this world with his miracles, teachings, public crucifixion where Zombies came out of graves, his resurrection to heaven that was "witnessed" by so many. Why no contemporary mention? Why the need to sin and be fraudulent?
ninjamojo711 1 week ago
@ImagesByDavid HaHa!! As if you're telling someone to 'open their eyes'! There is hard, empirical facts that show the existence of dinosaurs on earth millions of years ago! Facts! Evidence!!! How can u carry on being so blind!!???? Carbon dating proves it!!!!
EFC442 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjamojo711
We are not debating the existence of Alexander the Great because we I anyway accept he is a historical person based upon 1 coin (s) and writings 500 years after his death! Why would you accept his existence over the evidence for the man Jesus?
ImagesByDavid 1 week ago
Comment removed
ImagesByDavid 1 week ago
Comment removed
ImagesByDavid 1 week ago
I'm not sure this qualifies as a hitchslap. I think he was very restrained. More of a hitchtap
I still miss the the Hitch though. He was a beacon in a dark world.
sudburylawyer 1 week ago
Comment removed
ImagesByDavid 1 week ago
Mr pswmetalmonkey, Sir, I am not sure against what you are ranting, but even if you were, like me, an Atheist, I would strongly ask you to refrain from usind such utterly foul language. Foul language does not help the cause of Atheism. Thank you.
diamondmcnamara 1 week ago
There was no point to this video.
shea333 1 week ago
all religions are equally worthless.
hjenkinz 1 week ago 30
This has been flagged as spam show
Kindly old gent tentatively suggests that religions might have some good in them. Uptight, purse lipped, pretentious, alcoholic windbag rounds on him with all the phoney, sanctimonious indignation his inebriated state will allow.
The question of the "truth" of beliefs is so obviously beyond conclusive proof either way as to be barely worth bothering with, but the simple clash of attitudes demonstrated in this clip is very revealing.
Mrfriendlymilk 1 week ago
Comment removed
Mrfriendlymilk 1 week ago
Now that's a hitchslap if I've ever seen one.
iamthe1337est 1 week ago
Jews love to point out that they are Jews...A tip for Jews - FUCK OFF! WE DO NOT CARE AND YOU YOU ARE NOT CHOSEN!
hdmccart 1 week ago
Comment removed
Nuttymike 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hdmccart Funny, Hitchen's points out that his Mother was Jewish(She hid it from him and he didn't know until she died.) in his book. He seemed pretty proud of his lineage. lol.
Nuttymike 1 week ago
Jews lol
KeithUnderneath 1 week ago
I greatly appreciate the legacy of Hitchens.... The hitchslap will forever live on in the annals of youtube...
JDillaDudas 1 week ago
lol @ "hitch-slapped"
falloutentity 1 week ago
I think that's a good rule, what do you think is wrong with it?
Mrfriendlymilk 1 week ago
In your book religion is about THREE things and you weren't even capable to remember them by heart, but had to read them?
Holy cow mister, holy cow indeed......
Professicchio 1 week ago
Did you just claim Christopher Hitchens died a Jew? I think he would be rather irate with such a claim.
Enyulan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 2 weeks ago
Great point by Hitchens, and he deserved that big gulp (of what sincerely believe was Johnny Walker black) at the end. Miss you Christopher! You made the world a better place.
SethHesio 2 weeks ago
@432ps1,@gekritzl thank you both for the entertaining conversation!
skiddyhainz 2 weeks ago
I'm not sure Hitchens mother was JEwish tbh, she was something of a flake and I think Christopher just liked the idea of it as it made him an 'outsider'.
His brother certainly denies any Jewish heritage.
There's no evidence to support his claim that his mum was Jewish.
1878EFC2008 2 weeks ago
@1878EFC2008
"His mother, Yvonne Jean (née Hickman)"
That sounds like a Jewish name to me.
gurufabbes1 1 week ago
Hitch = god
Err, well you know what I mean! heh heh
ReasonFirst8 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Hitch! I’m trying to get a website going, and hopefully a book one day, called Letters to Hitch. Basically it’s a tribute to Hitchens, and a place where people can go to, to talk about him, share stories, etc. The site is in the beginning phases, so it may not be 100% yet. But with support from Hitch fans, hopefully one day it can become a monumental tribute to Christopher Hitchens. YouTube doesn’t allow me to post the site, so e-mail LetterstoHithens@gmail.com and I will forward it.
kermykermitt1112 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Hitch! I’m trying to get a website going, and hopefully a book one day, called Letters to Hitch. Basically it’s a tribute to Hitchens, and a place where people can go to, to talk about him, share stories, etc. The site is in the beginning phases, so it may not be 100% yet. But with support from Hitch fans, hopefully one day it can become a monumental tribute to Christopher Hitchens. YouTube doesn’t allow me to post the site, so e-mail LetterstoHithens@gmail.com and I will forward it.
kermykermitt1112 2 weeks ago
Kindly old gent tentatively suggests that religions might have some good in them. Uptight, purse lipped, pretentious, alcoholic windbag rounds on him with all the phoney, sanctimonious indignation his inebriated state will allow.
The question of the "truth" of beliefs is so obviously beyond conclusive proof either way as to be barely worth bothering with, but the simple clash of attitudes demonstrated in this clip is very revealing. "Hitchslap"???, Lord give me strength...
Mrfriendlymilk 2 weeks ago
@Mrfriendlymilk The kindly old gent's statements witch which Mr. Hitchens took such offense to is the same undertone in your comment with which I take exception to myself; that theism "might have some good" in it? Yes, it does; you are right, there. Love thy neighbor, venerate your Mother and Father. But it also has much bad, and the lines drawn show that even Theists recognize it. The Bible contains no viable moral code, neither in the Torah nor in the Gospels.
TotalLibertaria 2 weeks ago
@TotalLibertaria I will overlook the fact that your first sentence is grammatically nonsensical. My point was that Hitchen's aggressive, imperious manner contrasts so much with the reasonable, calmly inquisitive tone of the man who asks the question. I think this might tell us something.
As for the bible lacking a "viable moral code", which of the ten commandments don't you approve of?
Mrfriendlymilk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SarahB360 1 week ago
@Mrfriendlymilk Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's oxen, or wife, etc. I disagree with that one.
SarahB360 1 week ago
@Mrfriendlymilk "@harliquinz Hmmm... leaving aside the Bible.
So which of the ten do you disapprove of?
How can you leave the bible aside? That in itself is a ridiculous statement, the 'viable moral code' you refer to isn't simply the 10 commandments, although which of the 3 versions of the commandments you adhere to i dont know. The bible is rife with spurious and wicked 'commandments' and 'moral' teachings which the religious piously and conveniently ignore. Bible aside, ha!
harliquinz 1 week ago
@harliquinz I see where you are going wrong; in order to understand something you have to try to comprehend it in it's entirety, rather than scrutinizing one small element in isolation (as you did with my previous comment). I would also say that approaching the topic in a spirit of level headed curiosity is preferable to adopting a kind of excitable, combative attitude too.
Anyhow, leaving aside your poor manners, evasiveness and self-serving bluster, which commandments do you disapprove of?
Mrfriendlymilk 1 week ago
1:36 => lmao you can see Dawkins going "good, that was good!".
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
A "Line drawing Jew" so he has picked and chosen certain parts, he has made his own religion so why does he call himself Jewish lmao.......
LogicalStatements3 2 weeks ago
Hitchens, mahhhh nigga!
herpderpmonkey 2 weeks ago
the fact that he 'draws the line' shows that his religion is not about the 3 things. 1. that it is not about a code of living, 2. it is not a framework by witch we live and 3. it does not teach self restraint.
by drawing a line he is going against the "code of living"
by drawing the line he is not living within the "framework"
by drawing the line he is not being tought self restraint, he is not restraining himself to any code he got from any religion.
panda0100 2 weeks ago
i felt that hitchslap all the way to canada a few years later!
drasteek 2 weeks ago
If there is a god out there, I bet he's getting hitchslapped all the way back to his mommy's house.
jezmundberserker 2 weeks ago
One day, millennia from now, our descendants shall face a time of great darkness, when religion threatens to swamp the entire world. A beleaguered band of free thinkers, on the brink of annihilation, shall dig deep within the vaults of youtube, desperate for anything to turn the tide of the theocratic hordes. And Yea, they shall unearth the True Hitchslap and lay waste upside their enemies heads.
wearealltubes 2 weeks ago
@wearealltubes unfortunately that will happen sooner than a milennia...perhaps in 30 or less years...
mklmcu 2 weeks ago
You should put Line Drawing Jew in quotation marks
NicosMind 2 weeks ago
Richard Dawkins Approves.
jay1jayf 2 weeks ago 6