@ProfMTH I've yet to view all of your videos, so I have no way of knowing if you cover the topic or not, but since I heard you say that you do not dispute the historicity of Jesus "of Nazareth" here, I'll go with that.
I guess first, I'd better ask; did you mean that you were not disputing the existence of a man named Jesus, who preached and was crucified, or that you were not disputing it in these particular videos? Because if it is the former, I want to direct you to jesusneverexisteddotcom.
@palerider1775 I'm not persuaded that there wasn't a person in history who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth. However, some of the Christ myth arguments are compelling. Perhaps one day I'll come around to embracing them.
Why are you against Jesus? all he did was die for you. You may say "'I'm not against Jesus, I'm against the bible." Well that's his book, so, if you against it, you against a man who just died for you.
@TheOtIItO "so what about Christianity are you against?"
I've got a large body of video work that details my objections to Christianity in particular and religious belief in general. If you're interested in my views, please have a look at those videos.
@ProfMTH what I've gathered, so far, is that, you're trying hard to discredit a faith that you believe is untrue. According to you, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent and Christianity is a fairy tale. Why spend so much effort on something that is a fairy tale. e.g. I dont believe in Hare Krishna and Hinduism, or Islam, so I wont waste my time on discrediting them. BTW, watching your videos strengthens my resolve in Christianity and the Bible's authenticity,Thanks.
@ProfMTH sorry, what I meant to say is, what about Christianity do you think is wrong? Have you ever taken time to read the Bible using an exegetical approach, instead of an eisegetical approach to the Bible. Also, have you ever bothered to just ask God whether he exists and whether Christianity is the truth? I'm sure if there is a God and if Christianity has the truth, he will not only show himself to you, he will also tell you how to worship him. That is, if you really want to find God.
@TheOtIItO "Have you ever taken time to read the Bible using an exegetical approach, instead of an eisegetical approach to the Bible."
First, you should look up the definition of "loaded question" and learn to avoid asking one. Second, I never take an eisegetical approach to the Bible.
@ProfMTH I seem to have offended you, I apologize, this is not the best medium to ask enough questions. If its anything, I find your page fascinating and wanted to know why someone hates Christianity. "Have you ever bothered to just ask God.......Yes"....... Did he answer you? Surely, if there is a God who endorses a religion and a book, he should be able to answer, but remmb it should be his terms because if there's a God, he is superior his beings and can do whatever he pleases to talk to u.
@ironstart Matthew 12: 40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Jonah 1: 17 "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
JONAH DOES NOT DECLARE AT ALL THE WORDS THAT PROCEED OUT OF THE MOUTH of YAH PROPHESYING THAT "morning star" IS TO RISE ON THE THIRD DAY, ON THE CONTRARY
"morning star" himself tries to seize upon a story of Jonah & apply it to himself in an effort to convince u THAT YAH SPOKE OF "morning star" IN THE socall old testament, to try to legitamize his bogus claim
"I hope that answers your" MISUNDERSTANDING OF A THUS SAITH YAH
@ironstart you've just proven you dont know how to read the Bible, Isaiah 28 13: "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little...." Read the Book according to the intentions of the author.
@ironstart"...that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" Isa 28:13 it's clear that the rest of the verse is talking about people like you. I didn't add it, because, that was not the context of our conversation. The rest of the verse explains the reason people like you cant understand the Bible. That snare is for proud pple, who're so puffed up with pride that they wont humble themselves to listen to God. Humble yourself, for God gives grace to the humble.
The Paul in Acts gets converted by former disciples of Jesus, while the Pauline Epistles claim a personal revelation! How did the bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE fuck this one up? You'd think that 2000 years was plenty of time for the Church to re-edit the Epistles, Gospels and and other Books of the New Testament so that they would seamlessly project the same version of the legend of the early Church. This is just sloppy story-telling.
@Vexille1983 Read Acts again, Paul was on his way to kill those disciples who you claim converted Paul, and then the Lord appeared to him. Also read Galatians, the Lord continued manifesting to him, that is how he was instructed by the Lord to write the epistles.
Hi! your explanations about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is amazingly logical and believable compared to those Gospels and Paul's letters.Christians have nothing to stand upon without the Resurrection.they followed conjectures not factual events.Thank you for sharing the videos.
@MsSoysauce67 Ok so first of all there has never been a single historian to claim that the story of Jesus Christ isn't true. If you look at extra-canonical sources, sources outside of the Bible. The first source we look at is the Jewish Talmud- huge piece of literature, it was ancient Jewish scholars, who were critical of Jesus, knew about him practicing miracles, and his teachings. They knew He was crucified at Passover
@MsSoysauce67 Josephus. Jewish Historian who lived in the first century. Born roughly the same time Jesus was crucified. He wrote a bunch of history books about the Jewish people and he talks about Jesus being the messiah. Talks about pilot condemning Jesus to the cross and him coming alive 3 days later. This is a secular Historical writer of the 1st century AD, who knows about this man Jesus Christ. .
@MsSoysauce67There has never been a manuscript copy of Josephus in which the words Jesus was the Christ are missing.Lastly we have Tacitus, a very important Roman historian. He wrote around 112 AD.HeTalks about Nero burning the city of Rome and Talks about Christians, who come from Christ who was crucified by Pontias Pilot. Tacitus isn’t a Christian and doesn’t particularly like them but is aware of Jesus and facts of his life. Do your research before you take and make statements like that.
would that mean that god does not love his creation. because punishing someone means they are not loving them.
im sorry but this is a really stupid thought, becouse punishing somebody not always means not loving somebody; you can punish somebody (like your son) becouse u want him to prevent from stealing money out of your pockets, does this mean you dont love your son anymore?
no he is saying it like u, he just wrote it wrong "If god punished someone does it mean he does not love them" is what he meant to write. or somthing like that.
@T0x1ccc but according to your bible, Jesus' punishment for "sinners" is eternal, with no hope of relief. This is not punishment, but evil torture. Doesn't even have the practiality of garnering information. No, it's just to hurt those supposedly loved by dog.
I am a huge fan of ProfMTH. I believe there is a difference between hearing the gospel message and receiving it. While I realize Christianity is wrong and Paul never had a revelation of Christ, I do not believe there is a contradiction in these passages in Acts and Galatians. Paul may have heard the gospel (Acts) before he received it my revelation (Galatians)..
1 Thessalonians 2:13 makes this distinction "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men..." Have you mentioned in any of your videos the false prophesy of Jesus about "not one stone shall be left upon another" regarding the Temple?
To the extent you've found them helpful, it's my privilege and pleasure to have done them. Thanks for taking the time to share some feedback. I appreciate it greatly.
Not to mention the world laughs at people who try and speak more educatedly just to prove they can...Your truly a person with an inferiority complex. You speak like a tool, and probably have no friends or a life outside of the internet. So say what you want about me and or my faith your still who you are with insecurities and IM still me someone who has friends and a life that they can show anyone and be proud of!
"Not to mention the world laughs at people who try and speak more educately...."
LOL! Yeah, *that's* what "the world" is laughing at, Majorbounce. You keep tellin' yourself that and you'll never improve. I must have really hit a nerve since you can't seem to let this go. Well, I'll give you some help. Best of luck. And, once again, step up your game. If you come as stupid, as you have here, people will treat you as such.
I laugh at the fact that those that are SO unconfortable with their own understanding of the world and faith take such large amounts of time out of their day to mock and ridicule another's if I were nuetral on these matter. I would begin to be leaning a little more in the direction that there must be some substance to this christianity thing, lest no one would give such an effort to dissprove it...a truly educated person would take both sides at there most thourough!!!
"...a truly educated person would take both sides at there most thourough!!!"
A truly educated person would know how to spell 'their' and "thorough' correctly, as well as the fact that no more than one exclamation points is necessary to punctuate that sentence. In any case, your idea that education is somehow about "tak[ing] both sides" is profoundly wrong. A truly educated person would know that, too. It's not lookin' good for you here, Majorbounce12.
ahhh man!!!! Your arrogance is only surpassed by your stupidity...you see im not a loser in that I dont define my life as it correlates to youtube comments. So any mispelled, misquoted, mispunctuated, incorrect grammer in any of the I go ahead and live with in that I dont plan what im about to say just sort of get my point across. YOU having no life in that you must demote others to make yourself feel better about your inferiority complex you and every other athiest soothsayer...Cute though lol!
"...I dont plan what i'm about to say just sort of get my point across."
Well, the absence of planning is quite apparent. Alas, however, there is no evidence of point, much less that you've gotten one across. In any case, knowing how to spell correctly isn't a matter of planning.
I remind you that it was *you* who brought education up first with your bogus claim that "a truly educated person" will take the best of both sides. Your grasp of true education is as poor as your spelling.
Yes but spelling typos to the rest of the world and NOT your NERD clan of followers, as well of yourself. Is nothing more than common mistake and not a measure of ones intelect. Anyhow your misguided approach at projecting a false image of how intelligent you are is all you IM SURE have...so you must use it in a way that would warrent followers, and who easier and more popular to pick on then christians, YOU are a fool and bible says that I have nothing when bested one so...have a nice life!
You, too, Majorbounce. And do try to step up your game. Learning the essentials of proper, effective communication are critical in the contemporary world. People like you with such shockingly poor skills usually get left in the dust. I'd hate to see that happen. Best of luck to you. :-)
Still great work. Again I should be studying Biology but I can live with a C.
I too believe that Jesus existed. May have been crucified. Probably not reserected.
Resons why he existed is because there seemed to be a stir in the writings of the area. That conotes something happened. The name Jesus seems to be the leader that made the stir. But if feels more like an oppertunistic religion. Thriving off the dominant Jews. After all, shouldn't his name have been Emanual. But it's J.
Are you kidding me? Your argument is that Paul said he got it by revelation but he really heard it from others.
Paul knew the message of Jesus this was the reason he was persecuting the church. Because they believed Jesus was the Messiah died and rose again thats why he persecuted them.
What Paul is saying is he didnt here this and decide to believe it from man. Hes saying He had a vision and visitation of Jesus himself which made him believe it.
"What Paul is saying is he didnt here this and decide to believe it from man. Hes saying He had a vision and visitation of Jesus himself which made him believe it."
That may be what you wish Paul wrote, Tfonz71, but here's what he actually wrote, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was proclaimed by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was it taught to me, but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ"
the gospel story. These people that this man is reffering to said that. The Bible says that pauls revelation was that Jesus is the Messiah and his ressurection is true. Not that it is the first time he has heard the story. These types of twisting what people say and what the word of God says is where
the gospel story. These people that this man is reffering to said that. The Bible says that pauls revelation was that Jesus is the Messiah and his ressurection is true."
Here's what Paul wrote in Galatians, Friguy: "For I would have you know, brethren, that THE GOSPEL which was proclaimed by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was it taught to me, but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:11-12).
Now your playing semantics which is some thing that is constantly done by those not interested in the truth but are interested in being right.
You said your self that he obviously must have known about christ and his life death, trial, miracles and reports of his ressurection etc. So The truth of it was the only thing it can be refering to. I was once a hunter of these types of things in the Word but found that after studying the things people have gone through for 2000 yrs
i can already tell you how a believer will respond to the galatians/acts discrepancy.
"well he received it first by divine revelation during his heavenly vision, but then all the people he met helped him to grow in his faith and clear up any confusions he might have had."
it is, of course, a weak argument. but most believers will grasp onto anything that lets them hold onto their version of jesus.
Everyone was fine with the inconsistencies? Is that why shortly after Athanasius closed the canon debate, they made it illegal to read the Bible, and also made Latin the ONLY legal language of the Church (convenient since the added-on Mark ending popped up for the first time in the Latin translations). This was the case for 1,000 freakin' years!! Mothers were burned for teaching kids the Lord's Prayer in English as late as the 15th cent! Sure, the church wasn't worried about inconsistencies.
Paul couldn't seem to remember much about himself. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he, within a few verses, goes from baptizing no one but two men to baptizing an entire family and not remembering who else he baptized. The poor guy doesn't seem to have the best memory in the world.
True, Vivo. I'd forgotten about that passage, but you're right. Though in the case of Galatians, I *suspect* poor memory wasn't the issue. It sounds like he was trying to pad his c.v., so to speak.
Prof, is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to become increasingly grandiose in their claims as they progress chronologically? Mark has always seemed the more down-to-earth writer, and as the Gospels progress, moving into John, things become increasingly 'magical' and grandiose.
This could just be my way of interpreting things, but I have to wonder that if that's correct then surely it must be some indication of how quickly stories could become grandiosely convoluted during that time.
"Prof, is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to become increasingly grandiose in their claims as they progress chronologically?"
No, it's not you. In many cases, that is precisely what happens. Sort of like simple organisms becoming increasingly complex over time. ;-)
"This could just be my way of interpreting things, but I have to wonder that if that's correct then surely it must be some indication of how quickly stories could become grandiosely convoluted during that time."
It's not just you. There is an interesting story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man but he has to do it twice before the man's sight is restored. Not very gradiose. :=0
Indeed, it has always seemed a little suspicious to me, even if my Biblical knowledge is weak at best. Mark seems to present quite a candid view of Jesus. People being scared to see him resurrected, not always succeeding in his miracles, sometimes (I think) he even snaps at people. It's quite, well, 'human'.
Here's another one: Does Jesus ever laugh in the Bible? It's mundane, I know, but I don't ever recall reading him showing a sense of humour.
"Here's another one: Does Jesus ever laugh in the Bible? It's mundane, I know, but I don't ever recall reading him showing a sense of humour."
I've heard some preachers attribute humor to Jesus, but I can't recall a single passage that specifically says he laughed. Cried, yes, but not laughed. A few years back, CBS did a film on Jesus featuring the lovely Jeremy Sisto in the lead role. Mr. Sisto's Jesus was often quite happy and smiley. A good number of people were offended by this.
"There is an interesting story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man but he has to do it twice before the man's sight is restored."
During my stint as an Evangelical, I was a member of the Church of the Nazarene, which has as one of its central doctrines something called "entire sanctification." It's basically the baptism in the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues. Anyway, the denomination calls it a "second work of grace" -- the first "work of grace" being "born again." ...
... The passage in Mark to which you refer, Justin, was often put to work by Nazarene preachers as an illustration of the two works of grace. The first time Jesus touched the blind man was akin to his being born again; the second time Jesus touched him was akin to his being entirely sanctified. I recall thinking to myself that the story really made much more sense as an example of Jesus' healing power not always working on the first shot.
ProfMTH is like the Godzilla of atheism squashing the x-tian Tokyo towns with his extensive knowledge of their beliefs. Using his previous depth of those beliefs he ingests their arguements, turns it into Godzilla atheist fire and burns away stupidity from youtube. well done!
Not like you need to hear it, but this is really excellent work. I called you 'linear' before. In other words, I truly appreciate how short you make the distance from point to point. Love your work. It isn't fair though; TFP debating you is like me boxing with Mike Tyson. Still, thanks for what you do.
ProMTH, is there actual evidence of Jesus living and dying on the cross? I had thought most accounts had been determined as forgeries or too vague to lend credence to the story. Could you note which histories support Christ as a historical person?
I'm going to do a video on this, Cerebulon, because whenever I mention my belief that there was a person in history whom we've come to call Jesus of Nazareth, I get lots of questions and comments from people who believe otherwise. I'm not prepared to present details, and they'd likely be too much for a comment box. So keep an eye out for a video on this down the line. Thanks for your question. You might also look at my exchange with CapeAndCowl on this. It's in the comments somewhere.
I knew about Tacitus, but I've heard lots of folks claim that the footnote was possibly a later addition by an early Christian historian and not Tacitus himself. I'm looking forward to ProMTH's Historical Jesus video. Here I had been led to believe that the Tacitus account the only one with any possible veracity, and all the other had been disproven.
I think all Tacitus scholars think that the passage is authentic . it fits his style and vocabulary and there is nothing suspicious about it .the only one that I think has been disproven is 1 of the references in Josephus(I mentioned this in the last post). But I'm looking forward to the vid too.
Apologists often cite Simon Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelist as somehow claiming that the resurrection would pass in a court of law. I wonder, ProfMTH, is there a consensus of opinion in the academies of law or history attesting to Greenleif's methodology here?
I can't say I've heard anything about it, JesusSatanAllah. However, I *can* say this. Whenever I've picked up an apologetic text that I've been told makes the case for something like the resurrection in the manner of trial lawyer presenting her case, I've never been impressed. Perhaps it's because I've seen too many real trial lawyers presenting cases and I've done more than a few myself. When one knows how it really works, it's challenging to get much out of how others *think* it works.
More food for thought. No doubt I will be back as there is more information here for that debate I am currently in. It's good because I was only vaguely aware that the Bible was inconsistent in places but now I know why. 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and I'm learning! Thanks again, Prof, onward to part 3.
Not just in my debate but in general. I'm afraid that my knowledge of the Bible is weak at best but since subscribing to you I have learnt more than three years of religious education at school. It's actually interesting to me now.
"At what point did you acknowledge the inconsistencies in the bible, and how long did it take you from that realization to become an atheist?"
Oh, I was seeing inconsistencies back when I studying the Bible in high school. Even during my stint as an Evangelical, I knew they were there -- though I worked a little harder at trying to dismiss them. As a believer, I was never deeply burdened by the idea that the Bible was consistent on everything. It was demonstrably false.
I was a Catholic early on, and Catholics tend to take inconsistency and absurdity in stride, due to a willingness to see the biblical stories as allegorical, even though one might not know what they're trying to convey exactly. Evangelicals are a different breed. If you see the bible as the inerrant word of God, I'd have thought that inconsistencies would be more troublesome.
You're right about Catholics -- most of them, at least (there's a scary fundamentalist trend among a small number of Catholics these days). And since I started out as one, too (and was one for the bulk of my believing life), I suspect my not being greatly alarmed by the inconsistencies was in large part a result of Catholic training. You're quite right that this sort of thing is a much bigger deal for way more Evangelicals than Catholics.
Question: how can we say that Jesus existed at all. Is he not a figure like Socrates. We cannot say anything about Socrates, really, beyond what Plato wrote about him. Jesus is the much the same. Outside of the bible, there is nothing about him. There might have been someone who the Jesus we see in the bible was based...but we don't have any kind of evidence to really say that with any certainty. Like Socrates, it is entirely possible Jesus is a total fiction.
Of course it's possible. However, as I said in the video, I believe this person we've come to call Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The bulk of what has been attributed to him in the 2,000 years since he lived has absolutely nothing to do with who he actually was. But on the question of his existence, the brilliant Geza Vermes put it best, I think: "In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence ... far exceed those deriving from its acceptance." For example, how...
Good points as always prof. Of course, I am bound to say that about the early followers of Herakles or the teachings of Zarathushtra. Why the fuss about them? We don't trouble ourselves asking if they were real.
I suppose if pushed I would say about Jesus what I say about Socrates. I think it likely a person existed upon which these figures were based...but I really couldn't bring any good evidence to the table to support that claim.
"Of course, I am bound to say that about the early followers of Herakles or the teachings of Zarathushtra. Why the fuss about them? We don't trouble ourselves asking if they were real."
True. Though one could certainly trace out the historical antecedents leading to the rise of belief in them.
"... I think it likely a person existed upon which these figures were based...but I really couldn't bring any good evidence to the table to support that claim."
The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible.
Togetherforpeace is, I suspect, one of these guys who believes the bible says things it actually doesn't. It never fails to amaze me that we non-believing heathens tend to, by my experience at any rate, know the bloody book better than the average believer.
"The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible."
Indeed. And then he goes on in Galatians to talk about a number of other things in his post-conversion life that Acts contradicts, too. To put it charitably, the historical value of any of this is not readily apparent.
"The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible."
It doesn't say that he didn't hear about Christianity. It says that he didn't receive the good news or have it taught to him by any human. The Bible doesn't say otherwise. You could assume that he did, as the video does, but you know how assumptions go.
"It says that he didn't receive the good news or have it taught to him by any human."
So Ananias just gave Paul some eye cream, a glass of lemonade, and then sent him to be baptized, eh, Heyalun? Paul never heard anything from those he persecuted? And those disciples at Damascus were, what, mutes? Good grief.
"So Ananias just gave Paul some eye cream, a glass of lemonade, and then sent him to be baptized, eh, Heyalun?"
No. Acts records their interaction.
"Paul never heard anything from those he persecuted?"
Yes, probably, "No! Stop!"
"And those disciples at Damascus were, what, mutes?"
Does Acts say that they taught them or that he received the good news from them or anybody? No. It's not even implied. Your argument is full of assumptions that conveniently make your point. The scriptures do not.
"Acts records their interaction [i.e., Paul and Ananias's]."
In several places. Is it the practice in your wing of Christianity to baptize someone who has *not* had the good news shared with him or her and who has not testified to understanding and accepting it?
As for those Paul persecuted, it's clear he was persecuting them for their message. It is quite odd e never heard the message from any of them.
"Is it the practice in your wing of Christianity to baptize someone who has *not* had the good news shared with him or her and who has not testified to understanding and accepting it?
No. The testimony was from Jesus. It is our practice to obey him, which is what Ananias was doing.
"It is quite odd e never heard the message from any of them."
I'm sure he knew them as followers of Jesus, but that doesn't equate to him receiving the good news from them.
Not according to Acts. Jesus says very little to Saul during the "heavenly vision." He certainly doesn't spell out the gospel message. Paul got that later from Christians.
I meant that Jesus gave instructions to Ananias. Ananias actually protested, but Jesus insisted that "[Saul] is a chosen vessel." What do you think he did, interviewed Saul to make sure Jesus wasn't mistaken?
"But he never heard a word they said?"
The Bible doesn't say anything about what they said to Saul as he was pulling them from their homes. The issue is from whom Saul *received* the good news and was taught.
"What do you think he did, interviewed Saul to make sure Jesus wasn't mistaken?"
The stories have Ananias preaching the gospel to Paul. See, e.g., Acts 22:16; Ananias tells Paul that he should call on Jesus' name and be baptized to have his sins "wash[ed] away."
"The Bible doesn't say anything about what they said to Saul as he was pulling them from their homes."
He's there while Stephen is speaking. He was stalking the Christians. Reasonable inference, Heyalun.
So your argument is that Paul is hanging around with Christians whilst they are preaching, and he never heard a thing? I'm sorry but that is just an argument from credulity.
Its staggering Prof. I mean, that would be like me saying I just learned math when a bolt of lightning hit me. And then when someone says "uh, yeah, weren't you in my math class, dude," I then say "oh well yes but the lightning REVEALED the math to me."
Yeah. "The math class taught me nothing. I heard not a word of it. It was all the lightning." Add a mysterious stint in Arabia, and it's Paul "receiving" Math. lol
I mean, there's Paul saying, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood," when Acts shows him doing *precisely* that -- Jesus even sent him some "flesh and blood", namely, Ananias and the disciples in Damascus. As between Paul and Acts, *at least* one is wrong. I'll be curious to see which Jack selects, if either.
1) Paul says that he neither recieved from humans nor was he taught by them the good news. This says nothing of his contact with Christians before or after his conversion.
2) Inference is not an exact science. If you make a guess, even a good one, and the scriptures disagree, that is not the same as the scriptures being in disharmony. Galatians disagrees with YOU, not with Acts. There are no scriptures that say Paul was taught by anyone. You just infer it.
If I leave Bill at his home and drive to the market and Bill arrives immediately after I do, I can _infer_ that he also drove there if it's a 30 minute drive. When he says that he did not, that doesn't put his statement in conflict with the facts. It makes it different from my guess.
Interesting are the Peter's words at 2 Peter 3:15, 16 about the "wisdom given [Paul]" and the "things hard to understand" in his letters. Apparently the divine origin of his teaching was widely accepted.
"1) Paul says that he neither recieved from humans nor was he taught by them the good news. This says nothing of his contact with Christians before or after his conversion."
Wrong. It says plenty. To believe Paul, one must believe, among other things, that none of the many Christians in whose company he was after his "heavenly vision" ever shared the gospel with him. It's as if he'd heard and learned nothing from them. Paul's description and the one in Acts just don't add up on this.
"To believe Paul, one must believe, among other things, that none of the many Christians in whose company he was after his "heavenly vision" ever shared the gospel with him."
What aspect of the gospel? He was a believer!
I don't doubt that he learned, probably organizational and practical matters and familiarity with his new brothers and sisters. I also don't doubt that a lot of the teaching was him teaching them.
"would it be fair to say you believe that everything Paul needed to know about the gospel was imparted during his "heavenly vision"?"
He had multiple heavenly visions and encounters. (2 Co 12:7) Even Acts records more than just the one early after his conversion. (Acts 22:17) What would be fair is not to confuse what is written with inference.
What's really funny is that I drew the same one you did about his time in Damascus and shared it with my wife not even a week ago. :-)
1) I have to find them, they don't look any different from anyone, so how would i know them?
By their words, I'd have to hear them speak the Gospel for me to know they are Christians.
2) Why wouldn't a Christian try to convince Paul who is their killer, that he should follow their beliefs? Idk, just seems that if he was around..err...killing them so much, he MUST have heard a darn good amount of preaching. Thank you for reading, and reasoning,peace.
Thanks, Ravindra. Of course he was hearing what they were saying. As you quite correctly note, it would have been one of the only ways to identify them as believers in Jesus. Heyalun's just avoiding the obvious here.
"By their words, I'd have to hear them speak the Gospel for me to know they are Christians."
Yes, by their words or actions (e.g. baptism) he, or most likely witnesses, would identify them. But as someone who preaches the gospel myself I know that there is a vast difference between someone knowing I'm preaching Christ and me teaching them.
"2) Why wouldn't a Christian try to convince Paul who is their killer, that he should follow their beliefs?"
if they were in a position to speak to him. But, again, trying to convince someone and them actually learning are two different things. Take one of the principle doctrines of Christianity: Jesus was resurrected. Say a Christian had a moment with him and tried to convince him of this aspect of the gospel. For Galatians 1 to be inaccurate he would have had to have believed before his encounter with the resurrected Jesus at Acts 9. There is just no indication that this is the case.
Perhaps, but if you put something in someone's mind long enough, over and over again, they may begin to believe, or become so curious as to suspend their current beliefs in trying to understand yours. An example of the first would be telling a beautiful girl she's ugly, say it long enough, and she'll believe it. Second example would be in fact ^_^ a person you try to convert who says no over and over, and eventual cave and try to understand your beliefs and maybe eventually accept if beneficial.
"if you put something in someone's mind long enough, over and over again, they may begin to believe, or become so curious as to suspend their current beliefs in trying to understand yours."
Ravindra9689, there's absolutely no indication that this happened with Paul. His description of himself as "a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man" gives you an idea as to his personality at that time. (1 Timothy 1:13) Don't substitute supposition for facts.
You are very detailed, deligent and very patient. Love your work!
RuGr8tful2 1 month ago
@RuGr8tful2 Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH I've yet to view all of your videos, so I have no way of knowing if you cover the topic or not, but since I heard you say that you do not dispute the historicity of Jesus "of Nazareth" here, I'll go with that.
I guess first, I'd better ask; did you mean that you were not disputing the existence of a man named Jesus, who preached and was crucified, or that you were not disputing it in these particular videos? Because if it is the former, I want to direct you to jesusneverexisteddotcom.
palerider1775 1 month ago
@palerider1775 I'm not persuaded that there wasn't a person in history who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth. However, some of the Christ myth arguments are compelling. Perhaps one day I'll come around to embracing them.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
You're one of the best out there. Thanks! ... & well done! Far more patient & considerate than I could ever be.
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
@MrLittletomdj Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 3 months ago
If we're going to use the Bible as history, then we can only use the wars, and if you agree with "The Exodus Decoded", Exodus as a secular event.
HimesInu 6 months ago
@TheOtlltO He wants to give people a second option based on certain facts: not believing in god
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
Why are you against Jesus? all he did was die for you. You may say "'I'm not against Jesus, I'm against the bible." Well that's his book, so, if you against it, you against a man who just died for you.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO "Why are you against Jesus?"
I'm not "against Jesus." Rather, I think Christianity is wrong.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH oh ok, so what about Christianity are you against?
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO "so what about Christianity are you against?"
I've got a large body of video work that details my objections to Christianity in particular and religious belief in general. If you're interested in my views, please have a look at those videos.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH what I've gathered, so far, is that, you're trying hard to discredit a faith that you believe is untrue. According to you, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent and Christianity is a fairy tale. Why spend so much effort on something that is a fairy tale. e.g. I dont believe in Hare Krishna and Hinduism, or Islam, so I wont waste my time on discrediting them. BTW, watching your videos strengthens my resolve in Christianity and the Bible's authenticity,Thanks.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@ProfMTH sorry, what I meant to say is, what about Christianity do you think is wrong? Have you ever taken time to read the Bible using an exegetical approach, instead of an eisegetical approach to the Bible. Also, have you ever bothered to just ask God whether he exists and whether Christianity is the truth? I'm sure if there is a God and if Christianity has the truth, he will not only show himself to you, he will also tell you how to worship him. That is, if you really want to find God.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO "Have you ever taken time to read the Bible using an exegetical approach, instead of an eisegetical approach to the Bible."
First, you should look up the definition of "loaded question" and learn to avoid asking one. Second, I never take an eisegetical approach to the Bible.
"have you ever bothered to just ask God"
Yes.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH I seem to have offended you, I apologize, this is not the best medium to ask enough questions. If its anything, I find your page fascinating and wanted to know why someone hates Christianity. "Have you ever bothered to just ask God.......Yes"....... Did he answer you? Surely, if there is a God who endorses a religion and a book, he should be able to answer, but remmb it should be his terms because if there's a God, he is superior his beings and can do whatever he pleases to talk to u.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@ProfMTH I love your videoes, keep making them :-)
martingoldfire 7 months ago
@martingoldfire Thanks a lot!
ProfMTH 7 months ago
christ AKA j.c.(jesus) SAID IN Lu24:46..Thus IT IS WRITTEN..it behoved CHRIST..TO RISE FROM THE DEAD THE THIRD DAY
WHERE IS IT WRITTEN IN THE so called old testament THAT j.c. IS "to rise from the dead the third day"?
WHAT PROPHET SAID THIS ABOUT j.c.?
REMINDER 2 ALL new testament beLIEvrs!!
U R Commanded 2 answer these question's by the god of the new testament
1Pe3:15..and BE READY ALWAYS TO GIVE AN ANSWER to EVERY MAN that ASKETH YOU a REASON OF THE HOPE that is IN YOU
ironstart 9 months ago
@ironstart Matthew 12: 40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Jonah 1: 17 "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
I hope that answers your question.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO
NO, NOT AT ALL, SORRY, NICE TRY THO!!
READ IT AGAIN:
JONAH DOES NOT DECLARE AT ALL THE WORDS THAT PROCEED OUT OF THE MOUTH of YAH PROPHESYING THAT "morning star" IS TO RISE ON THE THIRD DAY, ON THE CONTRARY
"morning star" himself tries to seize upon a story of Jonah & apply it to himself in an effort to convince u THAT YAH SPOKE OF "morning star" IN THE socall old testament, to try to legitamize his bogus claim
"I hope that answers your" MISUNDERSTANDING OF A THUS SAITH YAH
ironstart 8 months ago
@ironstart you've just proven you dont know how to read the Bible, Isaiah 28 13: "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little...." Read the Book according to the intentions of the author.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO
THE REST of THE VERSE APPLYS AS WELL, IF THAT IS uR APPROACH
"...that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" Isa 28:13
ENDING UP BEING BROKEN, SNARED, AND
TAKEN DOESNT SEEM LIKE A GOOD WAY TO
END UP AFTER FOLLOWING uR BIBLE STUDY TIPS!!.
TRY TO READ IT IN CONTEXT, IT HELPS u
NOT LOSE FOCUS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
ironstart 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@ironstart"...that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" Isa 28:13 it's clear that the rest of the verse is talking about people like you. I didn't add it, because, that was not the context of our conversation. The rest of the verse explains the reason people like you cant understand the Bible. That snare is for proud pple, who're so puffed up with pride that they wont humble themselves to listen to God. Humble yourself, for God gives grace to the humble.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
the Tacitus text describes christianity as 'a most mischievous superstition'.
reference: wikipedia page Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources
untestableClaims 10 months ago
@untestableClaims I've just checked that out. "Hatred against mankind" describes christianity very well.
People that spend their lives getting ready to be dead are everybody's enemy.
Thoughtland 8 months ago
The Paul in Acts gets converted by former disciples of Jesus, while the Pauline Epistles claim a personal revelation! How did the bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE fuck this one up? You'd think that 2000 years was plenty of time for the Church to re-edit the Epistles, Gospels and and other Books of the New Testament so that they would seamlessly project the same version of the legend of the early Church. This is just sloppy story-telling.
Vexille1983 11 months ago
@Vexille1983 Read Acts again, Paul was on his way to kill those disciples who you claim converted Paul, and then the Lord appeared to him. Also read Galatians, the Lord continued manifesting to him, that is how he was instructed by the Lord to write the epistles.
TheOtIItO 8 months ago
@TheOtIItO No, pay attention. Why could Paul be "converted" by disciples, and receive personal revelations from Jesus? Which way was he converted?
Vexille1983 8 months ago
3rd deegre cheese boy
3Michael82 1 year ago
Hi! your explanations about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is amazingly logical and believable compared to those Gospels and Paul's letters.Christians have nothing to stand upon without the Resurrection.they followed conjectures not factual events.Thank you for sharing the videos.
MsSoysauce67 1 year ago
@MsSoysauce67 My pleasure. Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@MsSoysauce67 Ok so first of all there has never been a single historian to claim that the story of Jesus Christ isn't true. If you look at extra-canonical sources, sources outside of the Bible. The first source we look at is the Jewish Talmud- huge piece of literature, it was ancient Jewish scholars, who were critical of Jesus, knew about him practicing miracles, and his teachings. They knew He was crucified at Passover
bubkaizgod202 1 year ago
@MsSoysauce67 Josephus. Jewish Historian who lived in the first century. Born roughly the same time Jesus was crucified. He wrote a bunch of history books about the Jewish people and he talks about Jesus being the messiah. Talks about pilot condemning Jesus to the cross and him coming alive 3 days later. This is a secular Historical writer of the 1st century AD, who knows about this man Jesus Christ. .
bubkaizgod202 1 year ago
@MsSoysauce67There has never been a manuscript copy of Josephus in which the words Jesus was the Christ are missing.Lastly we have Tacitus, a very important Roman historian. He wrote around 112 AD.HeTalks about Nero burning the city of Rome and Talks about Christians, who come from Christ who was crucified by Pontias Pilot. Tacitus isn’t a Christian and doesn’t particularly like them but is aware of Jesus and facts of his life. Do your research before you take and make statements like that.
bubkaizgod202 1 year ago
@bubkaizgod202
i agree Josephus was jesus drinking buddy
ptica11 1 year ago
@bubkaizgod202
i agree Josephus was jesus drinking buddy
yes Josephus mentions several jesus' so what?
buhahahahaha
ptica11 1 year ago
if god had 2 sons.
if one did bad and the other did good.
and god came to judge them.
and he punished the bad one
and rewarded the good one.
would that mean that god does not love his creation. because punishing someone means they are not loving them.
so what would you say? would this be considered as a contradiction as well? him being loving and him not being loving because he punished.
friend if you allow little things, basic things like this to cripple your faith in god then i feel sorry
RandoSpamoTrollo 2 years ago
@RandoSpamoTrollo
would that mean that god does not love his creation. because punishing someone means they are not loving them.
im sorry but this is a really stupid thought, becouse punishing somebody not always means not loving somebody; you can punish somebody (like your son) becouse u want him to prevent from stealing money out of your pockets, does this mean you dont love your son anymore?
....
T0x1ccc 2 years ago
no he is saying it like u, he just wrote it wrong "If god punished someone does it mean he does not love them" is what he meant to write. or somthing like that.
MrKrassen 1 year ago
@T0x1ccc but according to your bible, Jesus' punishment for "sinners" is eternal, with no hope of relief. This is not punishment, but evil torture. Doesn't even have the practiality of garnering information. No, it's just to hurt those supposedly loved by dog.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@T0x1ccc
yes this jesus dude is 1 sadistic motherfucker
ptica11 1 year ago
I hope u r talking about Harihara hahahaha
sekulaadam 1 year ago
I am a huge fan of ProfMTH. I believe there is a difference between hearing the gospel message and receiving it. While I realize Christianity is wrong and Paul never had a revelation of Christ, I do not believe there is a contradiction in these passages in Acts and Galatians. Paul may have heard the gospel (Acts) before he received it my revelation (Galatians)..
AnthonyMaiolo 2 years ago
One can still be a "fan" and disagree, Anthony. :-) Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
1 Thessalonians 2:13 makes this distinction "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men..." Have you mentioned in any of your videos the false prophesy of Jesus about "not one stone shall be left upon another" regarding the Temple?
AnthonyMaiolo 2 years ago
Check out my "Jesus Was Wrong" series, Anthony.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Okay thanks. And thanks for all that you're doing on Youtube. Your videos have really helped see the truth about these important issues.
AnthonyMaiolo 2 years ago
To the extent you've found them helpful, it's my privilege and pleasure to have done them. Thanks for taking the time to share some feedback. I appreciate it greatly.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Not to mention the world laughs at people who try and speak more educatedly just to prove they can...Your truly a person with an inferiority complex. You speak like a tool, and probably have no friends or a life outside of the internet. So say what you want about me and or my faith your still who you are with insecurities and IM still me someone who has friends and a life that they can show anyone and be proud of!
Majorbounce12 2 years ago
"Not to mention the world laughs at people who try and speak more educately...."
LOL! Yeah, *that's* what "the world" is laughing at, Majorbounce. You keep tellin' yourself that and you'll never improve. I must have really hit a nerve since you can't seem to let this go. Well, I'll give you some help. Best of luck. And, once again, step up your game. If you come as stupid, as you have here, people will treat you as such.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I laugh at the fact that those that are SO unconfortable with their own understanding of the world and faith take such large amounts of time out of their day to mock and ridicule another's if I were nuetral on these matter. I would begin to be leaning a little more in the direction that there must be some substance to this christianity thing, lest no one would give such an effort to dissprove it...a truly educated person would take both sides at there most thourough!!!
Majorbounce12 2 years ago
"...a truly educated person would take both sides at there most thourough!!!"
A truly educated person would know how to spell 'their' and "thorough' correctly, as well as the fact that no more than one exclamation points is necessary to punctuate that sentence. In any case, your idea that education is somehow about "tak[ing] both sides" is profoundly wrong. A truly educated person would know that, too. It's not lookin' good for you here, Majorbounce12.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ahhh man!!!! Your arrogance is only surpassed by your stupidity...you see im not a loser in that I dont define my life as it correlates to youtube comments. So any mispelled, misquoted, mispunctuated, incorrect grammer in any of the I go ahead and live with in that I dont plan what im about to say just sort of get my point across. YOU having no life in that you must demote others to make yourself feel better about your inferiority complex you and every other athiest soothsayer...Cute though lol!
Majorbounce12 2 years ago
"...I dont plan what i'm about to say just sort of get my point across."
Well, the absence of planning is quite apparent. Alas, however, there is no evidence of point, much less that you've gotten one across. In any case, knowing how to spell correctly isn't a matter of planning.
I remind you that it was *you* who brought education up first with your bogus claim that "a truly educated person" will take the best of both sides. Your grasp of true education is as poor as your spelling.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Yes but spelling typos to the rest of the world and NOT your NERD clan of followers, as well of yourself. Is nothing more than common mistake and not a measure of ones intelect. Anyhow your misguided approach at projecting a false image of how intelligent you are is all you IM SURE have...so you must use it in a way that would warrent followers, and who easier and more popular to pick on then christians, YOU are a fool and bible says that I have nothing when bested one so...have a nice life!
Majorbounce12 2 years ago
"Have a nice life!"
You, too, Majorbounce. And do try to step up your game. Learning the essentials of proper, effective communication are critical in the contemporary world. People like you with such shockingly poor skills usually get left in the dust. I'd hate to see that happen. Best of luck to you. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Still great work. Again I should be studying Biology but I can live with a C.
I too believe that Jesus existed. May have been crucified. Probably not reserected.
Resons why he existed is because there seemed to be a stir in the writings of the area. That conotes something happened. The name Jesus seems to be the leader that made the stir. But if feels more like an oppertunistic religion. Thriving off the dominant Jews. After all, shouldn't his name have been Emanual. But it's J.
DansLookingGlass 2 years ago
Excellent and thorough work.
Well done.
DefaultPosition 3 years ago
Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
whats the name of the song at the beginning of the vid?
id love to dl
thanks.
MetaphysicalShadows 3 years ago
It's Taize's "Alleluia 11."
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Are you kidding me? Your argument is that Paul said he got it by revelation but he really heard it from others.
Paul knew the message of Jesus this was the reason he was persecuting the church. Because they believed Jesus was the Messiah died and rose again thats why he persecuted them.
What Paul is saying is he didnt here this and decide to believe it from man. Hes saying He had a vision and visitation of Jesus himself which made him believe it.
Every knee shall bow and tongue confess Jesus
tfonz71 3 years ago
"What Paul is saying is he didnt here this and decide to believe it from man. Hes saying He had a vision and visitation of Jesus himself which made him believe it."
That may be what you wish Paul wrote, Tfonz71, but here's what he actually wrote, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was proclaimed by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was it taught to me, but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ"
(Galatians 1:11-12).
ProfMTH 3 years ago
The Bible never says that Paul didn't know
the gospel story. These people that this man is reffering to said that. The Bible says that pauls revelation was that Jesus is the Messiah and his ressurection is true. Not that it is the first time he has heard the story. These types of twisting what people say and what the word of God says is where
the evedence allways gets construde.
friguy4444 3 years ago
"The Bible never says that Paul didn't know
the gospel story. These people that this man is reffering to said that. The Bible says that pauls revelation was that Jesus is the Messiah and his ressurection is true."
Here's what Paul wrote in Galatians, Friguy: "For I would have you know, brethren, that THE GOSPEL which was proclaimed by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was it taught to me, but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:11-12).
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Now your playing semantics which is some thing that is constantly done by those not interested in the truth but are interested in being right.
You said your self that he obviously must have known about christ and his life death, trial, miracles and reports of his ressurection etc. So The truth of it was the only thing it can be refering to. I was once a hunter of these types of things in the Word but found that after studying the things people have gone through for 2000 yrs
research.........
friguy4444 3 years ago
"Now your playing semantics...."
I quoted your scriptures, Friguy4444. If you regard that as "playing semantics," then your argument is with your holy book, not with me.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Semantics... "sigh* Too many people use debate buzz words because they sound cool without even knowing what they are saying.
great vids
digiring 2 years ago
Thanks a lot, Digiring.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Religion is the opium of a nation.
boumar19721972 3 years ago
i can already tell you how a believer will respond to the galatians/acts discrepancy.
"well he received it first by divine revelation during his heavenly vision, but then all the people he met helped him to grow in his faith and clear up any confusions he might have had."
it is, of course, a weak argument. but most believers will grasp onto anything that lets them hold onto their version of jesus.
ATL45 3 years ago
Everyone was fine with the inconsistencies? Is that why shortly after Athanasius closed the canon debate, they made it illegal to read the Bible, and also made Latin the ONLY legal language of the Church (convenient since the added-on Mark ending popped up for the first time in the Latin translations). This was the case for 1,000 freakin' years!! Mothers were burned for teaching kids the Lord's Prayer in English as late as the 15th cent! Sure, the church wasn't worried about inconsistencies.
dookdawg214 3 years ago
"...the author of acts got the story horribly wrong."
Priceless.
tribidemp 3 years ago
:-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.
NOVA Documentary, "The Bible's Buried Secrets"
Premieres 11/18/2008 at 8pm on PBS
(Science, History, and scripture)
FreePrometheus 3 years ago
I saw the preview for that program, FreePrometheus. It sounds very interesting.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Brilliant! Good for Jack for admitting that! That really warmed my heart. Good on the both of you! You bring the best out of each other.
Antichrist4Life 3 years ago
"You bring the best out of each other."
Oh, I don't know about that. LOL. Seriously, Jack seems like quite a nice guy, even if we *do* disagree.
Thanks, Antichrist4Life.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I really appreciate the way you go about these discussions. Always a pleasure to watch! Thank you!
heinz57girl 3 years ago
Thank *you*, Heinz57girl. Much appreciated. And great to hear from you. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Your bible smarts continue to impress. Thanks.
bitbutter 3 years ago
Thanks very much, Bitbutter. Most appreciated.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Paul couldn't seem to remember much about himself. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he, within a few verses, goes from baptizing no one but two men to baptizing an entire family and not remembering who else he baptized. The poor guy doesn't seem to have the best memory in the world.
VivoVitamBonam 3 years ago
True, Vivo. I'd forgotten about that passage, but you're right. Though in the case of Galatians, I *suspect* poor memory wasn't the issue. It sounds like he was trying to pad his c.v., so to speak.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
'I agree with Paul' indeed. He on his own was the one to convince me without doubt that atheism was my path.
yellowlabrador 3 years ago
:-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Prof, is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to become increasingly grandiose in their claims as they progress chronologically? Mark has always seemed the more down-to-earth writer, and as the Gospels progress, moving into John, things become increasingly 'magical' and grandiose.
This could just be my way of interpreting things, but I have to wonder that if that's correct then surely it must be some indication of how quickly stories could become grandiosely convoluted during that time.
Clutchology 3 years ago
"Prof, is it just me, or do the Gospels seem to become increasingly grandiose in their claims as they progress chronologically?"
No, it's not you. In many cases, that is precisely what happens. Sort of like simple organisms becoming increasingly complex over time. ;-)
"This could just be my way of interpreting things, but I have to wonder that if that's correct then surely it must be some indication of how quickly stories could become grandiosely convoluted during that time."
Exactly.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Clutch,
It's not just you. There is an interesting story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man but he has to do it twice before the man's sight is restored. Not very gradiose. :=0
justintempler 3 years ago
Well, BibleGateway here I come!
Indeed, it has always seemed a little suspicious to me, even if my Biblical knowledge is weak at best. Mark seems to present quite a candid view of Jesus. People being scared to see him resurrected, not always succeeding in his miracles, sometimes (I think) he even snaps at people. It's quite, well, 'human'.
Here's another one: Does Jesus ever laugh in the Bible? It's mundane, I know, but I don't ever recall reading him showing a sense of humour.
Clutchology 3 years ago
lol "Very funny Judas...but i don't have time for jokes...I'm gonna die soon!..i got shit to do!" That's probably what happened..
Ravindra9689 3 years ago
"Here's another one: Does Jesus ever laugh in the Bible? It's mundane, I know, but I don't ever recall reading him showing a sense of humour."
I've heard some preachers attribute humor to Jesus, but I can't recall a single passage that specifically says he laughed. Cried, yes, but not laughed. A few years back, CBS did a film on Jesus featuring the lovely Jeremy Sisto in the lead role. Mr. Sisto's Jesus was often quite happy and smiley. A good number of people were offended by this.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I suppose that's understandable, not wanting to portray their lord and saviour as some kind of comedic joke.
Clutchology 3 years ago
"There is an interesting story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man but he has to do it twice before the man's sight is restored."
During my stint as an Evangelical, I was a member of the Church of the Nazarene, which has as one of its central doctrines something called "entire sanctification." It's basically the baptism in the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues. Anyway, the denomination calls it a "second work of grace" -- the first "work of grace" being "born again." ...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
... The passage in Mark to which you refer, Justin, was often put to work by Nazarene preachers as an illustration of the two works of grace. The first time Jesus touched the blind man was akin to his being born again; the second time Jesus touched him was akin to his being entirely sanctified. I recall thinking to myself that the story really made much more sense as an example of Jesus' healing power not always working on the first shot.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ProfMTH is like the Godzilla of atheism squashing the x-tian Tokyo towns with his extensive knowledge of their beliefs. Using his previous depth of those beliefs he ingests their arguements, turns it into Godzilla atheist fire and burns away stupidity from youtube. well done!
hungoverharry 3 years ago
LOL!
That's too funny, Hungoverharry. Thanks, man.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Not like you need to hear it, but this is really excellent work. I called you 'linear' before. In other words, I truly appreciate how short you make the distance from point to point. Love your work. It isn't fair though; TFP debating you is like me boxing with Mike Tyson. Still, thanks for what you do.
cosmicjackpot 3 years ago
Thank *you*, Cosmicjackpot.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Cool response as usual.
I'm glad that he noted that contradictions do occur, and didn't use a crazy explanation for them myself.
I mean, it's GREAT to see some honesty in another person, especially when it comes to such a topic for them.
sonic8005 3 years ago
"I'm glad that he noted that contradictions do occur, and didn't use a crazy explanation for them myself."
Yep. A refreshing change.
Thanks, Sonic.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ProMTH, is there actual evidence of Jesus living and dying on the cross? I had thought most accounts had been determined as forgeries or too vague to lend credence to the story. Could you note which histories support Christ as a historical person?
cerebulon 3 years ago
I'm going to do a video on this, Cerebulon, because whenever I mention my belief that there was a person in history whom we've come to call Jesus of Nazareth, I get lots of questions and comments from people who believe otherwise. I'm not prepared to present details, and they'd likely be too much for a comment box. So keep an eye out for a video on this down the line. Thanks for your question. You might also look at my exchange with CapeAndCowl on this. It's in the comments somewhere.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
There is Tacitus ,Mara Bar Serapion, Josephus (one of the references has been interpolated , the other is genuine) ,Clement of Rome and Ignatious.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
I knew about Tacitus, but I've heard lots of folks claim that the footnote was possibly a later addition by an early Christian historian and not Tacitus himself. I'm looking forward to ProMTH's Historical Jesus video. Here I had been led to believe that the Tacitus account the only one with any possible veracity, and all the other had been disproven.
cerebulon 3 years ago
I think all Tacitus scholars think that the passage is authentic . it fits his style and vocabulary and there is nothing suspicious about it .the only one that I think has been disproven is 1 of the references in Josephus(I mentioned this in the last post). But I'm looking forward to the vid too.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
Apologists often cite Simon Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelist as somehow claiming that the resurrection would pass in a court of law. I wonder, ProfMTH, is there a consensus of opinion in the academies of law or history attesting to Greenleif's methodology here?
JesusSatanAllah 3 years ago
I can't say I've heard anything about it, JesusSatanAllah. However, I *can* say this. Whenever I've picked up an apologetic text that I've been told makes the case for something like the resurrection in the manner of trial lawyer presenting her case, I've never been impressed. Perhaps it's because I've seen too many real trial lawyers presenting cases and I've done more than a few myself. When one knows how it really works, it's challenging to get much out of how others *think* it works.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
More food for thought. No doubt I will be back as there is more information here for that debate I am currently in. It's good because I was only vaguely aware that the Bible was inconsistent in places but now I know why. 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and I'm learning! Thanks again, Prof, onward to part 3.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
"8 o'clock on a Saturday morning and I'm learning!"
When you put it like that, Mungbeanman, it seems wrong. ;-)
Thanks, my friend. I'm glad you're finding the stuff helpful for your debate.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Haha!
Not just in my debate but in general. I'm afraid that my knowledge of the Bible is weak at best but since subscribing to you I have learnt more than three years of religious education at school. It's actually interesting to me now.
mungbeanman 3 years ago
Wow. Well, thank you *very* much. I try to make the stuff interesting. I'm glad I succeed from time to time. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Oh part 3 is already out. Goody.
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
At what point did you acknowledge the inconsistencies in the bible, and how long did it take you from that realization to become an atheist?
It seems Jack is a person who tries to be honest with himself. You may actually be able to argue him out of his beliefs.
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
"At what point did you acknowledge the inconsistencies in the bible, and how long did it take you from that realization to become an atheist?"
Oh, I was seeing inconsistencies back when I studying the Bible in high school. Even during my stint as an Evangelical, I knew they were there -- though I worked a little harder at trying to dismiss them. As a believer, I was never deeply burdened by the idea that the Bible was consistent on everything. It was demonstrably false.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I was a Catholic early on, and Catholics tend to take inconsistency and absurdity in stride, due to a willingness to see the biblical stories as allegorical, even though one might not know what they're trying to convey exactly. Evangelicals are a different breed. If you see the bible as the inerrant word of God, I'd have thought that inconsistencies would be more troublesome.
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
You're right about Catholics -- most of them, at least (there's a scary fundamentalist trend among a small number of Catholics these days). And since I started out as one, too (and was one for the bulk of my believing life), I suspect my not being greatly alarmed by the inconsistencies was in large part a result of Catholic training. You're quite right that this sort of thing is a much bigger deal for way more Evangelicals than Catholics.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Question: how can we say that Jesus existed at all. Is he not a figure like Socrates. We cannot say anything about Socrates, really, beyond what Plato wrote about him. Jesus is the much the same. Outside of the bible, there is nothing about him. There might have been someone who the Jesus we see in the bible was based...but we don't have any kind of evidence to really say that with any certainty. Like Socrates, it is entirely possible Jesus is a total fiction.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
Of course it's possible. However, as I said in the video, I believe this person we've come to call Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The bulk of what has been attributed to him in the 2,000 years since he lived has absolutely nothing to do with who he actually was. But on the question of his existence, the brilliant Geza Vermes put it best, I think: "In my opinion, the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence ... far exceed those deriving from its acceptance." For example, how...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...*does* one explain all of this carrying on about someone who never existed -- particularly when it comes to the earliest of his devotees?
Again, it's certainly possible that he didn't exist, but it seems to me more likely that he did than didn't. Great question.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Good points as always prof. Of course, I am bound to say that about the early followers of Herakles or the teachings of Zarathushtra. Why the fuss about them? We don't trouble ourselves asking if they were real.
I suppose if pushed I would say about Jesus what I say about Socrates. I think it likely a person existed upon which these figures were based...but I really couldn't bring any good evidence to the table to support that claim.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
"Of course, I am bound to say that about the early followers of Herakles or the teachings of Zarathushtra. Why the fuss about them? We don't trouble ourselves asking if they were real."
True. Though one could certainly trace out the historical antecedents leading to the rise of belief in them.
"... I think it likely a person existed upon which these figures were based...but I really couldn't bring any good evidence to the table to support that claim."
Perfectly reasonable position.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
two word about this video: BAD ASS
The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible.
Togetherforpeace is, I suspect, one of these guys who believes the bible says things it actually doesn't. It never fails to amaze me that we non-believing heathens tend to, by my experience at any rate, know the bloody book better than the average believer.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
"two word about this video: BAD ASS"
Many thanks.
"The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible."
Indeed. And then he goes on in Galatians to talk about a number of other things in his post-conversion life that Acts contradicts, too. To put it charitably, the historical value of any of this is not readily apparent.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"The idea that Paul never heard about Christianity before the conversation on the road is utterly hilarious when one actually READS the bible."
It doesn't say that he didn't hear about Christianity. It says that he didn't receive the good news or have it taught to him by any human. The Bible doesn't say otherwise. You could assume that he did, as the video does, but you know how assumptions go.
heyalun 3 years ago
"It says that he didn't receive the good news or have it taught to him by any human."
So Ananias just gave Paul some eye cream, a glass of lemonade, and then sent him to be baptized, eh, Heyalun? Paul never heard anything from those he persecuted? And those disciples at Damascus were, what, mutes? Good grief.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"So Ananias just gave Paul some eye cream, a glass of lemonade, and then sent him to be baptized, eh, Heyalun?"
No. Acts records their interaction.
"Paul never heard anything from those he persecuted?"
Yes, probably, "No! Stop!"
"And those disciples at Damascus were, what, mutes?"
Does Acts say that they taught them or that he received the good news from them or anybody? No. It's not even implied. Your argument is full of assumptions that conveniently make your point. The scriptures do not.
heyalun 3 years ago
"Acts records their interaction [i.e., Paul and Ananias's]."
In several places. Is it the practice in your wing of Christianity to baptize someone who has *not* had the good news shared with him or her and who has not testified to understanding and accepting it?
As for those Paul persecuted, it's clear he was persecuting them for their message. It is quite odd e never heard the message from any of them.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Does Acts say that they taught them or that he received the good news from them or anybody?"
Yeah, I think the stories are quite clear on that point, as I said in the video.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Is it the practice in your wing of Christianity to baptize someone who has *not* had the good news shared with him or her and who has not testified to understanding and accepting it?
No. The testimony was from Jesus. It is our practice to obey him, which is what Ananias was doing.
"It is quite odd e never heard the message from any of them."
I'm sure he knew them as followers of Jesus, but that doesn't equate to him receiving the good news from them.
heyalun 3 years ago
"The testimony was from Jesus."
Not according to Acts. Jesus says very little to Saul during the "heavenly vision." He certainly doesn't spell out the gospel message. Paul got that later from Christians.
"I'm sure he knew them as followers of Jesus...."
But he never heard a word they said?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Me: "The testimony was from Jesus."
MTH: "Not according to Acts."
I meant that Jesus gave instructions to Ananias. Ananias actually protested, but Jesus insisted that "[Saul] is a chosen vessel." What do you think he did, interviewed Saul to make sure Jesus wasn't mistaken?
"But he never heard a word they said?"
The Bible doesn't say anything about what they said to Saul as he was pulling them from their homes. The issue is from whom Saul *received* the good news and was taught.
heyalun 3 years ago
"What do you think he did, interviewed Saul to make sure Jesus wasn't mistaken?"
The stories have Ananias preaching the gospel to Paul. See, e.g., Acts 22:16; Ananias tells Paul that he should call on Jesus' name and be baptized to have his sins "wash[ed] away."
"The Bible doesn't say anything about what they said to Saul as he was pulling them from their homes."
He's there while Stephen is speaking. He was stalking the Christians. Reasonable inference, Heyalun.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Ananias tells Paul that he should call on Jesus' name and be baptized to have his sins "wash[ed] away.""
Telling him to hurry up and get baptized is not the same as Paul receiving the good news or being taught from Ananias.
"He's there while Stephen is speaking."
He's certainly there when Stephen is stoned outside the city. That doesn't mean he, or anyone else, taught him anything.
It seems that you're equating contact with Christians and receiving revelation and teachings of Christianity.
heyalun 3 years ago
"Telling him to hurry up and get baptized is not the same as Paul receiving the good news or being taught from Ananias."
LOL! That's not what he says. Oy vey.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Me: "Telling him to hurry up and get baptized is not the same as Paul receiving the good news or being taught from Ananias."
MTH: "That's not what he says."
Ananias: "Why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name."
heyalun 3 years ago
So your argument is that Paul is hanging around with Christians whilst they are preaching, and he never heard a thing? I'm sorry but that is just an argument from credulity.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
Amazing, isn't it, CapeAndCowl?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Its staggering Prof. I mean, that would be like me saying I just learned math when a bolt of lightning hit me. And then when someone says "uh, yeah, weren't you in my math class, dude," I then say "oh well yes but the lightning REVEALED the math to me."
It's just sad.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
Yeah. "The math class taught me nothing. I heard not a word of it. It was all the lightning." Add a mysterious stint in Arabia, and it's Paul "receiving" Math. lol
I mean, there's Paul saying, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood," when Acts shows him doing *precisely* that -- Jesus even sent him some "flesh and blood", namely, Ananias and the disciples in Damascus. As between Paul and Acts, *at least* one is wrong. I'll be curious to see which Jack selects, if either.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Just 2 things and then I'm done:
1) Paul says that he neither recieved from humans nor was he taught by them the good news. This says nothing of his contact with Christians before or after his conversion.
2) Inference is not an exact science. If you make a guess, even a good one, and the scriptures disagree, that is not the same as the scriptures being in disharmony. Galatians disagrees with YOU, not with Acts. There are no scriptures that say Paul was taught by anyone. You just infer it.
heyalun 3 years ago
If I leave Bill at his home and drive to the market and Bill arrives immediately after I do, I can _infer_ that he also drove there if it's a 30 minute drive. When he says that he did not, that doesn't put his statement in conflict with the facts. It makes it different from my guess.
Interesting are the Peter's words at 2 Peter 3:15, 16 about the "wisdom given [Paul]" and the "things hard to understand" in his letters. Apparently the divine origin of his teaching was widely accepted.
heyalun 3 years ago
"1) Paul says that he neither recieved from humans nor was he taught by them the good news. This says nothing of his contact with Christians before or after his conversion."
Wrong. It says plenty. To believe Paul, one must believe, among other things, that none of the many Christians in whose company he was after his "heavenly vision" ever shared the gospel with him. It's as if he'd heard and learned nothing from them. Paul's description and the one in Acts just don't add up on this.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"To believe Paul, one must believe, among other things, that none of the many Christians in whose company he was after his "heavenly vision" ever shared the gospel with him."
What aspect of the gospel? He was a believer!
I don't doubt that he learned, probably organizational and practical matters and familiarity with his new brothers and sisters. I also don't doubt that a lot of the teaching was him teaching them.
heyalun 3 years ago
So, Heyalun, would it be fair to say you believe that everything Paul needed to know about the gospel was imparted during his "heavenly vision"?
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"would it be fair to say you believe that everything Paul needed to know about the gospel was imparted during his "heavenly vision"?"
He had multiple heavenly visions and encounters. (2 Co 12:7) Even Acts records more than just the one early after his conversion. (Acts 22:17) What would be fair is not to confuse what is written with inference.
What's really funny is that I drew the same one you did about his time in Damascus and shared it with my wife not even a week ago. :-)
heyalun 3 years ago
That's true, but if I'm killing people, then
1) I have to find them, they don't look any different from anyone, so how would i know them?
By their words, I'd have to hear them speak the Gospel for me to know they are Christians.
2) Why wouldn't a Christian try to convince Paul who is their killer, that he should follow their beliefs? Idk, just seems that if he was around..err...killing them so much, he MUST have heard a darn good amount of preaching. Thank you for reading, and reasoning,peace.
Ravindra9689 3 years ago
Thanks, Ravindra. Of course he was hearing what they were saying. As you quite correctly note, it would have been one of the only ways to identify them as believers in Jesus. Heyalun's just avoiding the obvious here.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Ravindra9689,
"By their words, I'd have to hear them speak the Gospel for me to know they are Christians."
Yes, by their words or actions (e.g. baptism) he, or most likely witnesses, would identify them. But as someone who preaches the gospel myself I know that there is a vast difference between someone knowing I'm preaching Christ and me teaching them.
"2) Why wouldn't a Christian try to convince Paul who is their killer, that he should follow their beliefs?"
They might...
heyalun 3 years ago
if they were in a position to speak to him. But, again, trying to convince someone and them actually learning are two different things. Take one of the principle doctrines of Christianity: Jesus was resurrected. Say a Christian had a moment with him and tried to convince him of this aspect of the gospel. For Galatians 1 to be inaccurate he would have had to have believed before his encounter with the resurrected Jesus at Acts 9. There is just no indication that this is the case.
heyalun 3 years ago
Perhaps, but if you put something in someone's mind long enough, over and over again, they may begin to believe, or become so curious as to suspend their current beliefs in trying to understand yours. An example of the first would be telling a beautiful girl she's ugly, say it long enough, and she'll believe it. Second example would be in fact ^_^ a person you try to convert who says no over and over, and eventual cave and try to understand your beliefs and maybe eventually accept if beneficial.
Ravindra9689 3 years ago
"if you put something in someone's mind long enough, over and over again, they may begin to believe, or become so curious as to suspend their current beliefs in trying to understand yours."
Ravindra9689, there's absolutely no indication that this happened with Paul. His description of himself as "a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man" gives you an idea as to his personality at that time. (1 Timothy 1:13) Don't substitute supposition for facts.
heyalun 3 years ago
Really? That's funny because that's how i hear most Christians talking about how they were so what's the difference.
Ravindra9689 3 years ago
"that's how i hear most Christians talking about how they were so what's the difference."
Most people are not killing and arresting Christians before they convert.
heyalun 3 years ago
True, but guess what? ^_^ some inmates convert to Christianity, so if they weren't killing Christians, they were killing someone else.
Ravindra9689 3 years ago
what there's a part 3!? lol :) good response.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
No stone left unturned for you this time, my friend. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I liked that song in your last video: "The old Razza-Matazz". Whenever you talk to a Christian that is all you get.
KasparHauser4 3 years ago
Thanks, Kaspar.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ouch
SaintCog 3 years ago