I mistyped that below... Paul himself was a contemporary of Jesus. So we can right say his letters were "contemporary accounts" though they were written about two decades after Jesus died (still in the lifetime of Jesus' apostles). Josephus was a contemporary of Paul, and a NEAR contemporary of Jesus (Jesus having died about a decade before he was born). Antiquities was written less than three decades after Paul's death.
Anyway, ALL history is "hearsay" from a certain point of view... and how do we know even ancient autobiographies were written by the person they claim to be? That's no argument at all. Rather, it's simply hyperskepticism adopted by amateur "skeptics" to undermine Christianity. Non-Christian experts who actually know this stuff refute them (like Bart Ehrman, the late Michael Grant, Geza Vermes, etc)
Paul (d. 67 AD) and Josephus (b. 37 d. 100 AD) were INDEED contemporaries, cypherphage, lol. In fact, Josephus died at about the time the last of the NT texts were completed.
Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, having himself been born in about the year 5 (Jesus being born about ten years prior).
But let's not turn this otherwise stimulating thread about nibbling of spears into a debate about the historical Jesus. Somebody always has to throw in those claims... that Jesus never existed, and that the Bible is a work of fiction. IF you want to discuss these issues with me in a civilized manner, using logic and evidence, PLEASE send me a private message (PM). Good luck!
The "Q" hypothesis is that a sayings gospel or document existed and was a source of material for Luke and Mathew regarding parables, not that its unknown author was an eyewitness of Jesus.
The problem with trying to use the Antiquities is that both the mention of James and the Testimonium Flavianum are suspect of at least interpolation. Further, Josephus himself was not a contemporary of Paul or the alleged Jesus, rendering the passages to the possibility of being mere hearsay. Try again.
Where did the sayings (not just the parables) of Jesus come from then, if they didn't come form an eyewitness? The major scholars in the relevant fields agree a core of them go back to Jesus himself.
The mention of James is not contested as a genuine passage in Josephus by any modern expert I'm aware of. Just because some internet "skeptics" disagree, doesn't bother me a bit. They'll deny anything they don't like.
Again, to add to Paul, even the most liberal of modern critical scholars feel that the four Gospels contain sayings that were actually spoken by Jesus. I'm sure you've heard of the "Q" hypothesis? The Gospel writers, according to tradition, were associates of the apostles themselves (and considering when they were written, this is plausible enough), and relayed oral tradition from Jesus.
Interesting you should bring up relics, much less ones with "divine powers." I don't see what that has to do with the historical Jesus. There are certainly many claimed relics of Jesus and the saints which are alleged to have powers. I don't see how relics are required to validate his existence. We don't have bodies (or body parts) for most figures of antiquity. You don't need to produce bones or a corpse to prove someone existed.
cypherphage, it's not just "superstitious bronze age men" that we're relying upon here, but enlightened hellenistic men and women, and in fact, men and women of ALL TIME PERIODS into account here. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years (with the last texts of the NT being completed by the year 100 AD) but there has been a continuum of believers from that time to the present. So we're not just relying on these "bronze age tribesmen" that there is a God.
Could you please name a contemporary account? How about a relic with divine powers? Where is all this evidence?
As far as "proof" of God, we only have the universe itself
If you are saying you believe anything beyond the universe exists, you would need further evidence, so lets hear it. Simply saying that people have believed in god so he must be real is nonsense, because by that logic he can be disproved by me not believing in him.
The letters of Paul are contemporary with Jesus. And before you say "he never met him!" he had close associations with Jesus' own followers (Cephas aka Simon Peter and John) as well as Jesus' brother James (whom Flavius Josephus cites as a historical figure).
I didn't say because some people believe in God, God must exist, strawman, cypherphage. I was just pointing out that modern day people don't believe JUST BECAUSE some old book says they should.
Gerrop seems very ignorant, I've seen a documentary once of a woman born with no hands who actually learned to write work and drive a car with her feet! Adaptation at its best!
...so you believe that whole Christina thing? That man is "sinful" and god made man...but god couldn't just make man un-sinful? Instead, he supposedly sends his son, of whom there is no evidence of ever existing, to die and become a zombie for a few days before he goes to a heaven. And the son is his own father and tortures you if you don't believe in him...but he loves you a lot. And there is of course no evidence for any of this.
it depends on your interpretation. you could say, god made man as an animal.. unaware of its place in the world, and then man defied god by trying to understand him, and as a result created sin. sin not being murder, theft, or any of these things.. but rather, fucking with the natural balance of our planet. which we are the only species capable of this kind of "sin"
It would be insane to try to interpret a book that claims it is meant to be read literally and for which there is no proof. Interpreting the bible is like trying to interpret a cookbook because the recipes suck. You're better off throwing out the book.
If an all powerful, all knowing, infallible god existed...why isn't there any evidence of it? Yahweh doesn't exist...just like Jesus, Odin, Thor, Amen Ra, Set, Krishna, and Baal. The fact that there is no proof of a god is proof against a god, and if you are to blind to see that then I feel not but sorry for you. You take the beliefs of barbaric, superstitious, bronze age men as true, and for that I pity you.
There's plenty of evidence Jesus existed, cypherphage, whether you believe he was god or not is another matter, but he's a historical person. We can't say the same for Odin, Thor, Amen Ra, Set, Krishna or Baal. As far as "proof" of God, we only have the universe itself which most believers attribute to the work of a Creator, and moral sense which appears to be something apart from nature, as well as thousands of years of testimony from believers that they've encountered the spiritual.
Great vid, Kipp. Geerup is using a logic fallacy, appeal to ridicule to attempt to get his point across. You are absolutely correct that he does not understand science.
Our feet were once like the chimps (though likely not identical) some 7 million years ago. However, as our ancestoral branch made its way from tree climber to plains dweller, we need several new biological systems to support us. Longer, flatter feet were one, and knees that locked straight were another.
Quite frankly, if you don't always sing your abc's or something similar as you wash your hands with soap and water (hopefully hot, but cold will do if your are patient) after you go #2 then you may as well be eating your poop. And what's necessarily so bad with that in moderation if you are otherwise trying not to starve? Well, sometimes I go nuts and carry an isopropyl acohol spray bottle with me, and sometime I know I cut a corner. At least I always use a condom, right? ;)
Well, not every animal kills to survive. Animals that only eat fruits and nuts and such don't need to kill. In fact, by eating fruit, they tend to spread seeds around and promote the spread of more life!
It is life, but my point is that it doesn't involve killing. Most fruits are something plants grow with the intention having it be eaten. Eating fruit doesn't kill the plant. It's actually part of the plant's reproductive process. Plants evolved fruit specifically to be delicious to animals! By picking and eating fruit, you are transporting its seeds somewhere for it. It's sort of like bees and pollen.
I'm not sure if the same mutually beneficial relationship applies to nuts though.
I dunno, in a backhanded kind of way, GEERUP might have convinced me. Millions of years of evolution leading up to HIM, hmmm...
But seriously, I don't want to think about what HE would do with two extra thumbs and the ability to grip with his feet! He seems a little obsessed with gripping! (and poop!)
His argument seems to be that only a wise and all powerful God could create 2 girls, 1 cup.
Good job! Naturally Geerup uses sarcasm and throws out all sorts of hyperbole. Because he is campaigning against evolution and he knows he would lose if he stuck to reason and rationality
Dude! You are a fool.
shayneby 2 years ago
I mistyped that below... Paul himself was a contemporary of Jesus. So we can right say his letters were "contemporary accounts" though they were written about two decades after Jesus died (still in the lifetime of Jesus' apostles). Josephus was a contemporary of Paul, and a NEAR contemporary of Jesus (Jesus having died about a decade before he was born). Antiquities was written less than three decades after Paul's death.
XSC3 3 years ago
Anyway, ALL history is "hearsay" from a certain point of view... and how do we know even ancient autobiographies were written by the person they claim to be? That's no argument at all. Rather, it's simply hyperskepticism adopted by amateur "skeptics" to undermine Christianity. Non-Christian experts who actually know this stuff refute them (like Bart Ehrman, the late Michael Grant, Geza Vermes, etc)
XSC3 3 years ago
Paul (d. 67 AD) and Josephus (b. 37 d. 100 AD) were INDEED contemporaries, cypherphage, lol. In fact, Josephus died at about the time the last of the NT texts were completed.
Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, having himself been born in about the year 5 (Jesus being born about ten years prior).
XSC3 3 years ago
But let's not turn this otherwise stimulating thread about nibbling of spears into a debate about the historical Jesus. Somebody always has to throw in those claims... that Jesus never existed, and that the Bible is a work of fiction. IF you want to discuss these issues with me in a civilized manner, using logic and evidence, PLEASE send me a private message (PM). Good luck!
XSC3 3 years ago
The "Q" hypothesis is that a sayings gospel or document existed and was a source of material for Luke and Mathew regarding parables, not that its unknown author was an eyewitness of Jesus.
The problem with trying to use the Antiquities is that both the mention of James and the Testimonium Flavianum are suspect of at least interpolation. Further, Josephus himself was not a contemporary of Paul or the alleged Jesus, rendering the passages to the possibility of being mere hearsay. Try again.
cypherphage 3 years ago
Where did the sayings (not just the parables) of Jesus come from then, if they didn't come form an eyewitness? The major scholars in the relevant fields agree a core of them go back to Jesus himself.
The mention of James is not contested as a genuine passage in Josephus by any modern expert I'm aware of. Just because some internet "skeptics" disagree, doesn't bother me a bit. They'll deny anything they don't like.
XSC3 3 years ago
Again, to add to Paul, even the most liberal of modern critical scholars feel that the four Gospels contain sayings that were actually spoken by Jesus. I'm sure you've heard of the "Q" hypothesis? The Gospel writers, according to tradition, were associates of the apostles themselves (and considering when they were written, this is plausible enough), and relayed oral tradition from Jesus.
XSC3 3 years ago
Interesting you should bring up relics, much less ones with "divine powers." I don't see what that has to do with the historical Jesus. There are certainly many claimed relics of Jesus and the saints which are alleged to have powers. I don't see how relics are required to validate his existence. We don't have bodies (or body parts) for most figures of antiquity. You don't need to produce bones or a corpse to prove someone existed.
XSC3 3 years ago
cypherphage, it's not just "superstitious bronze age men" that we're relying upon here, but enlightened hellenistic men and women, and in fact, men and women of ALL TIME PERIODS into account here. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years (with the last texts of the NT being completed by the year 100 AD) but there has been a continuum of believers from that time to the present. So we're not just relying on these "bronze age tribesmen" that there is a God.
XSC3 3 years ago
There's plenty of evidence Jesus existed
Could you please name a contemporary account? How about a relic with divine powers? Where is all this evidence?
As far as "proof" of God, we only have the universe itself
If you are saying you believe anything beyond the universe exists, you would need further evidence, so lets hear it. Simply saying that people have believed in god so he must be real is nonsense, because by that logic he can be disproved by me not believing in him.
cypherphage 3 years ago
The letters of Paul are contemporary with Jesus. And before you say "he never met him!" he had close associations with Jesus' own followers (Cephas aka Simon Peter and John) as well as Jesus' brother James (whom Flavius Josephus cites as a historical figure).
I didn't say because some people believe in God, God must exist, strawman, cypherphage. I was just pointing out that modern day people don't believe JUST BECAUSE some old book says they should.
XSC3 3 years ago
Your a champion, but no matter what you tell these ignorant losers they wont listen
rhysc375 3 years ago
Gerrop seems very ignorant, I've seen a documentary once of a woman born with no hands who actually learned to write work and drive a car with her feet! Adaptation at its best!
LordMalice6d9 3 years ago
I'm going to have to try that nibbling the stick trick, it sounds like it might come in handy one of these days.
XSC3 3 years ago
Maybe we should put together a cartoon that they could better understood. Frankly, I don't know how to get the idea through a Creationists skull.
Is it really so hard for them to just try to understand it before they dismiss something that seems to threaten their faith.
Cosmodot256 3 years ago
NATURAL SELECTION.....is NOT evolution.....nor is ADAPTATION.
darpachief 3 years ago
great video, dude
I fucking hate that geerup guy, he's so stupid it makes me want to slap the shit out of his father/uncle and mother/aunt
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
a concept most mammals can understand?
arccotangent 3 years ago
Good response, I just uploaded a Geerup video myself.
Axxellerate 3 years ago
you know i have herd allot on this video thet your talking about. but this is the best video i have saw about that subject.
illburnbush 4 years ago
Only geerup could convince him self that two girls on cup is proof *of* god.
cypherphage 4 years ago
It's not proof of God but it is proof man extreem sinful nature who is in need of a savior. When chimp eat their own dung it is not sin.
Bonigee 3 years ago
...so you believe that whole Christina thing? That man is "sinful" and god made man...but god couldn't just make man un-sinful? Instead, he supposedly sends his son, of whom there is no evidence of ever existing, to die and become a zombie for a few days before he goes to a heaven. And the son is his own father and tortures you if you don't believe in him...but he loves you a lot. And there is of course no evidence for any of this.
Sorry, but I think your a nutter.
cypherphage 3 years ago
it depends on your interpretation. you could say, god made man as an animal.. unaware of its place in the world, and then man defied god by trying to understand him, and as a result created sin. sin not being murder, theft, or any of these things.. but rather, fucking with the natural balance of our planet. which we are the only species capable of this kind of "sin"
ultimategoobah 3 years ago
It would be insane to try to interpret a book that claims it is meant to be read literally and for which there is no proof. Interpreting the bible is like trying to interpret a cookbook because the recipes suck. You're better off throwing out the book.
cypherphage 3 years ago
theres no proof he doesn't exist so what's your point?
kaypain42 3 years ago
If an all powerful, all knowing, infallible god existed...why isn't there any evidence of it? Yahweh doesn't exist...just like Jesus, Odin, Thor, Amen Ra, Set, Krishna, and Baal. The fact that there is no proof of a god is proof against a god, and if you are to blind to see that then I feel not but sorry for you. You take the beliefs of barbaric, superstitious, bronze age men as true, and for that I pity you.
cypherphage 3 years ago
There's plenty of evidence Jesus existed, cypherphage, whether you believe he was god or not is another matter, but he's a historical person. We can't say the same for Odin, Thor, Amen Ra, Set, Krishna or Baal. As far as "proof" of God, we only have the universe itself which most believers attribute to the work of a Creator, and moral sense which appears to be something apart from nature, as well as thousands of years of testimony from believers that they've encountered the spiritual.
XSC3 3 years ago
theres no proof he doesn't exist so what's your point?
kaypain42 3 years ago
theres no proof he doesn't exist so what's your point?
kaypain42 3 years ago
their is proof that the bibel is wrong. the earth is 2000 years old? wtf?!
caspargrindcore 3 years ago
Great vid, Kipp. Geerup is using a logic fallacy, appeal to ridicule to attempt to get his point across. You are absolutely correct that he does not understand science.
Our feet were once like the chimps (though likely not identical) some 7 million years ago. However, as our ancestoral branch made its way from tree climber to plains dweller, we need several new biological systems to support us. Longer, flatter feet were one, and knees that locked straight were another.
AzmodanKijur 4 years ago
I wonder where GEERUP come off to saying eating feces is a bad thing? I wonder if the bible actually talks about "Thou shalt not consume feces."
I don't partake in it but it doesn't mean i should criticize some one for it. Same goes for singing karaoke or growing mullets.
EmperorEva0001 4 years ago
Quite frankly, if you don't always sing your abc's or something similar as you wash your hands with soap and water (hopefully hot, but cold will do if your are patient) after you go #2 then you may as well be eating your poop. And what's necessarily so bad with that in moderation if you are otherwise trying not to starve? Well, sometimes I go nuts and carry an isopropyl acohol spray bottle with me, and sometime I know I cut a corner. At least I always use a condom, right? ;)
MoEnzyme 4 years ago
The man has a point... why would monkeys decide not to be able to chuck spears with their feet anymore?
stupid monkeys
adahn2006 4 years ago
Geerup always manages to make himself look like an idiot
xplicitvio 4 years ago 3
Well, not every animal kills to survive. Animals that only eat fruits and nuts and such don't need to kill. In fact, by eating fruit, they tend to spread seeds around and promote the spread of more life!
But otherwise, you're right on all accounts.
OneAndOnlySnob 4 years ago
Well, any form of a plant/fruit is considered life. Not too sure about nuts though.
RedXIIIx 4 years ago
It is life, but my point is that it doesn't involve killing. Most fruits are something plants grow with the intention having it be eaten. Eating fruit doesn't kill the plant. It's actually part of the plant's reproductive process. Plants evolved fruit specifically to be delicious to animals! By picking and eating fruit, you are transporting its seeds somewhere for it. It's sort of like bees and pollen.
I'm not sure if the same mutually beneficial relationship applies to nuts though.
OneAndOnlySnob 4 years ago
Most species of animal that only eat plants(95%) serve as prey to other animals.
DeadMindWorking 4 years ago
I dunno, in a backhanded kind of way, GEERUP might have convinced me. Millions of years of evolution leading up to HIM, hmmm...
But seriously, I don't want to think about what HE would do with two extra thumbs and the ability to grip with his feet! He seems a little obsessed with gripping! (and poop!)
His argument seems to be that only a wise and all powerful God could create 2 girls, 1 cup.
GeorgeDRange 4 years ago
Good job! Naturally Geerup uses sarcasm and throws out all sorts of hyperbole. Because he is campaigning against evolution and he knows he would lose if he stuck to reason and rationality
KasparHauser4 4 years ago
Nice work Kipp Geerup just got pwned.
Sacramentosaint 4 years ago
GEERUP is the most annoying son of a bitch on YT. Fucking Bible sucker.
boogerbuttpoop 4 years ago
Kip! my my my! You can't talk logical to the GEERUP. I tried to once. Now I'm just content on making fun of him. 5/5
Sarahon06 4 years ago
Gearup, baffles me, he seems completely off is rocker at all times.
studio7manga 4 years ago
If GeerUp were to punch himself in the cock, that would increase the odds of me actually watching one of his videos.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
rofl
agreed
Sarahon06 4 years ago
"punching yourself in the cock" LOL. I am on a forty day fast from the ups videos so thanks for reminding me what I'm not missing.
Ender1zero1 4 years ago