@48mmwatch Wow! You should really study up on Hebrew and not be spoon fed what you post. None of what you stated is true. In fact, YHWH has NOTHING to do with what you said. Lies you speak won't make it true, just plasters egg on your face for those that know.
@48mmwatch Silly. See how you proved my point? This video shows the evidence for Jesus. The fact that nothing cannot produce everything we see (big bang) proves the Creator, YHWH. Run along now please.
Thank for posting, I'm sure most people don't even believe their eyes anyway..I never needed to see this to know Jesus is real, I talk to him daily..the people who need to see this, sadly will not click on..the rest of the Jesus haters can go to hell..oh yeah, you will...
@48mmwatch The Bible is a book, that is accepted as historical fact by Christian scholars but also by secular scholars. It also has a wide array of archaeological evidence in it too. God is easily proven real. Your god apparently is your keyboard because you can't see past it.
there is no archeological evidence of jesus. the bible is a registry of the stars planets seasons. you have been sold a bill of goods. you ate it up wholesale. you need to get into santos bonacci.
the bible and all religions on earth are astrotheology. the 12 tribes are the 12 houses of the zodiac. 12 30 used in the bible are astrological. 12 hours or horuses, 12 months decan is 10 degrees of the houses. look up santos bonacci
@48mmwatch Oh wow. Somebody watched Zeitgeist one too many times and got caught up in the insuing lies. There is historical evidence for Jesus. It's all that's needed, for if you choose to ignore it, there are millions of people you have to discount ever having lived as well. You live in circular logic. Have a good time with that. Good-bye.
Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form describes the ministry and death of Jesus in confessional terms; the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. Currently, the most widely held scholarly opinion is that [it] is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.
@moopism Yeah, funny how it was never debated before then, and no true Jewish scholar debates it even though it is about Jesus. Regardless, the second entry about Jesus is not contested, but you probably had no clue that existed.
youre the worst kind of so called christian... the finger pointer... dont bother with a reply your words are empty and i dont hear them and i wont read it...keeping telling yourself that you have an opinion worth having
@ulfgundarsson Then you haven't ever watched or listened to him and you are simply spoon-fed your info. He regularly blasts anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with him. You are a joke.
Funny thing is, it doesn't matter to me whether He™ existed or not. But it's critical to a "true believer", because without a briefly dead body, you have no sacrifice.
Nobody's arguing the existence of John the Baptist. In fact, there ARE contemporary accounts for him. Funny that none of those mention Jesus... (don't say Gospels because we now know those are not contemporary).
Bring it on! I actually WANT to know the truth, including whether I'm being spoon fed! Give me your examples and sources (including what you think Josephus' sources might have been).
@dabigq Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 & Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 for starters. Sources? Since he was so close on the scene, it would have been actual people who dealt with Jesus as well as writing that supported him.
@dabigq Firther, look at the account of John the Baptist in Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 5, Par. 2. remember him? The forerunner to Christ, who testified of him? Nobody says this section is not true either!
Again, you call my world "imagined" and present no evidence. Laugh all you want, but show me the evidence. And not that paragraph in Josephus that most historians agree was forged.
@dabigq See your problem is you do live an imagined world. You keep saying "most" and such without it being true nor any factual data. The fact is, you don't even know enough about Josephus except what you are spoon fed, for if you did, you would know that particular argued entry is not the only one recorded by him and the others are not refuted. Thus making your argument....lame.
@ticklemypickles You defy logic! By your thought process, nobody except those written in history books available to you right now ever existed. How insane is that!
The majority of REAL historians do not accept the bible as any kind of literal account of actual history, except for a few general facts that were common knowledge.
So, in lieu of evidence you present assertions of evidence and insults? Typical. And name an event commonly accepted by historians with absolutely zero primary sources, only hearsay.
@dabigq Your problem is you believe the Bible is not a historical document. The issue is that REAL historians, secular and Christian do. I can't help the fact you don't. It's YOUR problem, not mine.
Someone upon whom the legend of Jesus, much like Robin Hood, may have existed. So what? And none of these historical sources are contemporary, they only confirm that early Christians existed and that they believed the stories about Jesus.
@dabigq A contemporary source, one living at the EXACT day of Jesus is not needed as proof, no real historian would say that, only a wannabe like you. The fact is, the Bible is supported as a historical document by both Christian and secular historians. The fact a keyboard monkey like yourself disagrees brings nothing to the table.
You know, I was debating with an atheist over the same thing, and he asked for proof outside of the Bible about Jesus. He believed that Jesus didn't really exist, so I proved him wrong. I gave him at least ten different references of people who lived during Jesus' time but were never mentioned in the Bible, and this atheist, too proud to admit he was wrong, said they were just part of the "Bible Conspiracy." No matter how much proof we give them, they will never believe it. They are too proud.
@mkzmotorsports Yeah, now scientists are claiming yet again to have found another step in the so-called evolutionary process. They say they found another ape-like species that has both ape and human traits. Isn't that what they claim for all their previous findings? I find it amusing how they keep finding more and more species of ape-like creatures, yet they still can't find their "missing link." The reason why is the missing link doesn't exist, except in their minds.
Consider that at that point in time, their thinking would be on the same level as some of the backward tribes that still exist in the jungles of South America.. The average 12 year old now knows more than they did. They were superstitious, still thinking that the earth was flat, as evidenced in ancient Hebrew maps depicting a flat platelike earth covered by a transparent dome.
@Matthew1944 Only someone with an axe to grind says such things. A book that when read and understood consists of prophecies that line up from OT to NT and harmony within the scriptures is something you want to ascribe to something NOBODY has ever been able to match? Do you hear what you are saying. That's ludicrous.
2) Continued: " The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance."
Now, their book is unchanged - so why is yours so different? Mistranslation, misinterpretation and downright forgery".
@Matthew1944 Of the Alexandrian texts, yes, there are variations that have caused that, but they are corrupt. There is no change of great significance that you speak of with the Textus receptus, except those that skeptics want to MAKE be such.
It's interesting that none of the channels dealing with Jesus or the bible that are posted need to have censorship and yet this one and most of the hard right Christian channels do. Any reason for that? Except that you want to squelch any opposition to your views. Pretty Cowardly!
@Matthew1944 It is better to leave suspicion to ignorance a question, than to run your mouth and remove all doubt. I have it set to comments so as not to allow any curse words and such on here.
@mkzmotorsports I doubt that very much, mk - You believe what you believe and by gum!, that is your "truth" no matter how history contradicts your dogma. And yes, The KJV is considered to be one of the poorer translations because not only are there the standard interpolations and forgeries present, but you are looking through Elizabethan English with its thee's and thou's and terms that have long since been out of use or had a different meaning then, than we ascribe to them today.
@Matthew1944 You only parrot what you are spoon-fed. I don't care if you believe me or not about why comments are set for approval. Use your own and do what you want. Further, it must be your circle of buddies you get your impression of the KJV. I will stick to the ones who were 400 years closer to the language than the "experts" today. The thees, thous, and so forth are no issue when you study and show yourself approved to know what was meant. That's too much to ask from you.
@mkzmotorsports I will stick to the ones who were 400 years closer to the language than the "experts" today"
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , there is a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the inerrant word of God? Foolish wonder, mk, do some research before mouthing off.
@Matthew1944 Foolish wonder is the fact you don't have a clue what those differences include and that over 75% of them are as simple as should a word have been "him" of "he" and are non-sequitor. You haven't examined a thing. You are a parrot looking up "smart-man" replies on the internet without a clue.
@mkzmotorsports Not so, mk. This is a quote from the Jews who compare just the Torah (the first five books of the bible) and your version: "There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning."
@Matthew1944 The Torah is the entire Old Testament. The Pentateuch is the 5 books of the Torah Moses wrote. Since the Bible consists of the Torah, what you have said actually strengthens the case for it.
@mkzmotorsports No, the Torah is the first five books of the Jewish bible. The pentateuch is the remainder. Together, they make up the Tanakh, the unedited Jewish bible. It is doubtful that Moses wrote all or any of the Torah since he wrote about his own death. Jews don't take the bible literally, nor do 80% of Christians. Literal bible belief is a peculiarity of the fundamentalists.
@Matthew1944 I wasn't sure which of your three responses you wanted here, so i picked one, since they were basic copies. The Torah is the Jewish name for the 1st 5 books, the Greek word for them is Pentateuch. When I wrote the reply above I wrote Torah instead of Tanakh which is the entire Jewish Bible or OT. Pent means 5, thus the 5 books, not the remainder after the Torah as you tried to say. Of course Moses did not pen the part of his death. That doesn't change his writing the rest.
@Matthew1944 Further, your blanket statement that Jews don't take the Bible literally is as misinformed, biased, and untrue as the other "points" you have been trying to make. I truly am done going back and forth with you. It is pointless and you are clueless. This is all for you. You have your own channel, use it.
Which bible are you talking about, the catholic bible with 73 books, the KJB with 66 books, the Ethiopean bible that Includes the book of Enoch, and Macabees 1 & 2, the Vulgate bible, The Septuigent that INCLUDES 12 more books in the Old Test. and has LONGER versions of Daniel, Ezeikiel and others, and there are dozens more. The one without the forged Matthew 28:19 and without the later addition of 12 verses to Mark? Which Bible are you talking about?
@dotmadhack Make your own video and enable ratings. I'm not here for your beckoned call or for you to be able to poke your bird-chest out because you can hit a dislike button and feel like you've really done something behind your keyboard.
@dotmadhack As for your other comment, get a dictionary, learn some other adjectives, wash your nasty mouth out with ammonia, and repost, and I'll approve it.
So I fail to see how even if Jesus was real that makes him divine in nature. I mean you could have all the miracles in the world and that would still not make him divine. Do you know how many people claim Sai Baba from India performs all the same miracles as Jesus? How does this even remotely prove that miracles can be attributed to the divinity of any god, when you have living people that will attest to the miracles performed by Sai Baba who is Hindu.... Cmon now. Perhaps people are just wrong.
@CtheWolfe When Sai Baba dies, let me know how his ressurrection works out for ya. Make sure He is seen by over 500 people too. The fact Jesus is real, backs up what is written in scripture, thus backs up who He said He was, as well as the OT prophecies about Him too. It would be meaningless if the prophecies of His birth just said He would be born, but 700 years before, they tell of what tribe, the city, and being born of a virgin. Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!
@mkzmotorsports "Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!" Considering the Hebrew transcripts do not have a word for virgin.... the world "almah" is used which does not mean virgin.... It means young woman. Sorry man. If you study your theology like a good boy you will find this sort of stuff out. They made a mistranslation into Greek "parthenos" was used incorrectly. It also states that the graves opened and the dead roamed around.... yet no historical reference to that.....
@CtheWolfe You need to stick to something other than Hebrew. That word means virgin, young woman
of marriageable age, maid, or newly married. All of those categories would insist on a virgin, no, not that all getting married were, but the intent is that they were. If a woman were not, there are other words for girl, or woman. There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. Study some more.
@mkzmotorsports Actually yeah maiden or young woman are the two. It does not mean virgin how ever. I might be implied on a side note but that is not the meaning. And I hope you realise that some of the Hindu mythologies were started about 7000 years ago. Some we have dated back to nearly 5500 BCE. Of course the religion has changed since then. But its origins lie in a time your book says the world never existed. Hinduism also has virgin births predating your religion!
@CtheWolfe It absolutely DOES mean a virgin, and there is no proof otherwise, but the Hebrew shows what I have said to be correct. The dates you give for Hinduism are largely disputed. Of who do you give the credit of being correct and by what grounds? You have none. Virgin births? Yes, in many other religions no doubt, yet NONE with the claims made of Jesus. None that were of one who was prophesied would die on a cross and rise in three days. Try as you might, your attempts are feeble.
@mkzmotorsports You act as if prophecies or predictions make something true. The Aztecs for instance made a lot of predictions or prophecies w/e you wish to call them. Many of them have come true. And they are not of the sort that could be self fulfilled either. Give proof that Mary was a virgin? Prove she had no relations before birth. Just because her hubby didn't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.
@CtheWolfe The Bible IS proof. The fact that YOU don't think it is, and that SOME secular people don't think it is does not make it so. There are many secular non-christians, even atheists, that accept the Bible as a historical argument. You go round in circles, and you can continue. Have fun with your life, you are done here.
@mkzmotorsports Heres a citation for one of things putting RECORDED text around 1700-1100 BCE. "T. Oberlies (Die Religion des Rgveda, Vienna 1998. p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100." Now this is actual recorded documents. Heres one for the precursor "Hindu History" The BBC names a bath and phallic symbols of the Harappan civilization as features of the "Prehistoric religion (3000-1000 BCE)".... I mean this is not nearly as disputed as you think it is.
@CtheWolfe Aww, you found an author that stated something you agree with. there are just as many that disagree. Post those too, or are you scared? And the BBC? BWAHAHAHA. A reliable source of information??? THAT'S what's wrong with you. Oh my that is hilarious.
@mkzmotorsports The bible is as relevant as the harry potter book series, it mentions magic and other kinds of absurditites, like man coming from dust! Your video is eaily debunked by real scientists, all the people in your video lived after Jesus supposedly died, making all of their comments about him irrelevant. Also, the writings of Josephus have been altered by christians in the 4th century, that's a historical fact.
@Reasonwillwin YAWN! Could you come up with something that hasn't already been answered? There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual! Further, there's more writing on Jesus from the 1st Century than any other person, so if you throw Him out, you throw all of history out. Quit being spoon-fed!
@mkzmotorsports '' There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual!'' False, just a flat out lie. '' There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual!'' False too. ''so if you throw Him out, you throw all of history out'' Yeah you throw Jesus out and then the civil wart of america never happened! LOL Ridiculous bullcrap. And I thought you were suposed to abide to ''You shalt not lie''
@Reasonwillwin Stick your bird chest out, pat yourself on the back, type all your computer buddies and tell them how cool you are, and go away. You don't know anything. You are spoon-fed.
@mkzmotorsports Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!"
Where is virgin birth mentioned?
15 And I will put enmity between thee (the snake) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'
@Matthew1944 You don't have a clue what they knew, but the fact this was inspired by God, He certainly knew. They understood it took a man and woman to make a child. And when a seedline was referred to, it was of the man. By naming a woman here, it is clear a man would be un-needed here, thus the virgin birth.
sorry i would have to question josephus writing about a man named Jesus, as that name had not come about for many years later. we need to give the hebrews, Israelites or jews back their identities. Yahushua was the one Josephus wrote about. who would become the savior of the world. Athiests may be more willing to learn open their eyes & ears if we put the truth in its place. That is how i came to believe. the more we combine false names, titles etc to suite our language the less we understand
@MistyMarie1970 There is nothing false about the name, that's a lie. You gave His name in Hebrew but and want to be a legalist to hold to that; however, read John 19:19-20 and you see the inscription with His name was written in Hebrew, GREEK, and LATIN! All those names pointed to the same person, just as the English word Jesus does. My name is Michael, if I go to Italy, they would call me Michelae but they would still be referencing me. God knows who we are talking to or about.
@mkzmotorsports sorry i did not mean it in the way you have applied. My suggestion is that as christians we believe in the god of the hebrews & we read their testaments,not other gods.studing history & the meaning of the old testament of what bought god to anger is clearly the worship of other gods & their titles.We worship the same God the Hebrews & Jesus worshipped we must understand their meanings. Names were an important part of that. God always said my people will know me by name
the thing that makes me most mad is how atheist criticize christians and say well of course there going to say jesus is historical there christians when in reality atheists do the same thing. for atheists to maintain there belief, for some reason they have to maintain that jesus isnt real and the bible isn't historical. no matter to what ridiculous extents they take there arguments, they find them rational in any case even if there far fetched.
@SHIBBYiPANDA He's not quting anything except something written by William Whiston, an arian. William did state their styles were similar, but there are many authors who have a similar writing style and are not the same person. Whiston never said they WERE the same, just that they shared similar writing styles. It wasn't later until some clowns decided to make that mean Josephus and Paul were the same person, which was never Whiston's intent.
@TheDarvus I approved it only so I could reply to your comment and remove your holy *** comment. SOME scholars date it there where you said, others do not. Het.....LOOK IT UP!!!
@TheDarvus William Whiston may be famous for it, but he is not the only one, nor is his opinion held by other scholars. Look it up!
The Bible is held as historical evidence by those who are Christians and those of the secular world as well. Get your head out of the sand and.....look it up!
@TheDarvus You conspiracy theorists never cease to amaze me. There are similarities between Poe and Sakespeare, and a host of others, but that means nothing. Neither does your assertion. The writing styles are completely different, and Paul does appear in the historical record. Namely Corinthians which was written around 37AD. Try that on someone gullible enough to believe it.
@mkzmotorsports Well when they are experts using extremely precise techniques and reviews I'm not sure that applies.. and, well, it seems like they have pretty good reason to say that from what I read.. I'll check into it further.. What about it makes u think it was from mark??
@SHIBBYiPANDA The majority in your opinion means one thing. Is it really a majority, or just that you want it to be? I am fairly certain that I can find just as many that date it where I said.....and that's what I base it on.
@mkzmotorsports Honestly I could care less.. I'm just trying to maintain intellectual honesty here.. I should do more research to be sure, but with a short term search I could find no scholarly sources dating mark to 30.. And I found a Christian review on a Christian site of the fragment in question saying it probably wasn't from Mark and that a majority of scholars agree... If you could point me in a different direction I'd appreciate it..
@mkzmotorsports I've read that many scholars but Mark after 70ad.. The book was definitely altered throughout time which you can find stated at the end of the last chapter in most Bibles.. Right?? The earliest manuscripts don't contain the last few verses
@SHIBBYiPANDA Early manuscripts refer to the Alexandrian texts, and they are corrupt. The TR does. You can find that statement in the new translations for sure because they are trying to justify the Alexandrian texts. The olderbarely read texts do not make them correct, it means people didn't see any point in reading them!
It so happens that this whole Jesus thing was a late invention after the Christians themselves had existed for many years. The Earliest apologists had never heard of the gospels. Claiming that an altered copy of Josephus vindicates them is another one of Christianity's many lies.
@bafoofkit It so happens that you are regurgitating things you have heard other people say and have no clue. There are many secular historians that say you are wrong. Not only has 1st Corinthians and the Gospel of Mark been dated to the 30's AD and the 50's AD, there are support for the others. Not only does Josephus mention Jesus in the one passage you want to believe has been altered, He is mentioned several more times in other entries that NO scholar has said such! Keep your head in the sand.
@mkzmotorsports can u point me in the direction of someone who dates mark's gospel to the 30's? I've always heard, from major christian appologists, that it was probably close to the 50's.
@SHIBBYiPANDA In cave seven at Qumran a very small papyrus fragment consisting of five lines of text and twenty visible letters (7Q5) was found. Some have argued that this is actually a fragment of the earliest copy of Gospel of Mark. They consider it to be part of Mark 6:52-53. The date of the Gospel of Mark is then pushed back to the late 30's to early 40's and not the late 40's early 50's as some of said. There's a multitude of articles on it available on the web.
spoon fed?.,..wtf!!!...and your not?...wow,evil doers try to force fear in you to make you summit to ones cult adjenda's..and as far as context...CAN YOU TELL ME THE RIGHT TRANSLATION?and only a fool is gonna say they do,for simple fact,that it was translated so many times,,all different religions are going to say theirs is right!!!!..and they all differ from meanings because of lost languages...stupidity is bliss....learn where you come from before you choose what to believe
@chucka59 The right translation? The KJV. And when you look at the Bible, and see not one, but FOUR 300 year old prophecies fulfilled since Israel became a nation in 1948, that's STRONG proof. The translated so many times argument is quite lame when there are over 4000 textural copies of the Textus Receptus. Thousands more than other books you would easily say have historical facts, yet you balk at this! Ludicrous!
@mkzmotorsports wow,all i can say....becides...can lead a horse to water...but cant make it drink...and the KJV is the right version huh?...wow...i'm done with you,your not worth even have a conversation with..you are so closed minded that you believe a lie..i don't put myself as fulling believing everything..i'm open to change from facts and truth..but most people are to blind to see or to deaf to hear..remember that verse?..for the ones with ears...let them hear...one with eyes...let them see!
@chucka59 You're right, you are done here. You have done nothing but spew biased opinion with no fact and think it proves your point. I gave facts. You can't handle it. That's ok. Good bye.
wow...so proof of a man called jesus....but i think you missed something in those writings....that the christians was a new CULT and trouble makers....does not prove nothing...and to the fact that the bible is not true....full of satanic rituals and death and hatred and slavery....if this is your god....no wonder the world is confused on what to believe ...and i don't want this book or the misleading of you people called christians...your all twisted satanist and dont even know it!!!!
@chucka59 No satanic rituals and your other claims are all hype that you have been spoon-fed. It's easy to throw stones when you don't read the verses in context. Yes, proof Jesus lived, and the Bible is proof of who He claimed to be.
i urge all atheists and so called Christians to repent and STOP SINNING anyone who claims to be a Christian and sins is a liar(1johnch.3) Turn to Jesus he is the only way. You wont find him in a bible or in a church you find him when you go on your knees and come to him like a little child. I truly know Jesus in my heart he is very real to me. My faith is based on reality.
I think there's a pretty good number of atheists/agnostics that recognize a human Jesus existed! All of the people you mentioned said NOTHING of a divine Jesus!! Anything that's written which states Jesus was divine has either been shown to have been interpolation and or shown to have been fraudulent writings!! I do agree that a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of writing supports a human named jesus!
@99minerkc The video deals with Jesus being a person, a real person. His divine nature is another topic; however, your statement about interpolations and fraudulent writings is as baseless and untrue as those who have said Jesus was not a person. John 1:1-14, 1 John 5:7, Genesis chapter 16, 17, & 18 are all just a few which prove you to be very wrong.
@mkzmotorsports If you claim this video deals only with "the real jesus as a person" and not the divine, why did you go on for an entire paragraph? Your first sentence was sufficient, wasn't it? Wow, maybe you are on the defensive?
@99minerkc Because, you brought it up and made false claims. Had I chose not to approve your comment due to that, you would most likely have complained about it. I wasn't going to approve it with the lies in there and just let it hang. Have a good day.
@mkzmotorsports Do you have "proof" that they're lies? In court isn't it innocent until "PROVEN" guilty? Are you above the law that you can make unsupported claims that people are liars? Interesting!
@mkzmotorsports In reality, I see you as ignorant and or a liar because you are putting false information out for others! I don't think you did this intentionally so I'll claim that you're ignorant! An example is your claim that josephus in antiquities claimed that jesus rose again! That HAS been shown to be interpolation but YOU DID NOT state that in your video which is VERY deceptive! That's only one example out of your video!
@99minerkc It has NEVER been shown to be an interpretation, it has been OPINIONATED that it was, and there are many scholars who completely disagree. I'll take this as an example of you being spoon-fed. Good bye.
@99minerkc Yes as I typed I wrote interpretation versus interpolation. The statement stands regardless and it is still an example of you being spoon-fed. Arguing with one such as you that spews opinions and lies as fact is fruitless. You are done here.
@99minerkc [quote]josephus in antiquities claimed that jesus rose again [/quote] Anyone with half a brain cell would have know this was not the case. The only people to see Jesus after he rose were just a handful of people, that really knew him. And recognized him as there risen savior. Nothing deceptive here to Christians that know the bible, but unfortunately for you, you do not. So my friend you may be a little ignorant on this one. But we forgive you.
@mkzmotorsports While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus on which the modern Testimonium is based, but that passage was embellished by later Christians. "
@99minerkc And you take one article from Stein who claims the majority feels one way and run with it. Anyone can say that, but it was solely his opinion. Name every "scholar" used as a reference for that statement and what their opinion of it is. Fact is, Stein only used a small base of scholars who would agree with him. Hardly factual and hardly acceptable in your "court" you keep bringing up. Try again.
Just give me one account of an historion writing about the people coming back to life and walking the streets when Jesus was "resurrected" Just one! And tell me why Jesus is not mentioned in the original 1611 K.J.V.? He is not in there..why? And if your way is truly the way why do you censor every comment and dont allow comments you dont know the answers to. There is no cursing or disrespect (except from you) and do you believe there were unicorns? And earth is 6000 years old?
@caddy1010 You are hilarious. You aren't a historian, clearly, and no historian demands the things you ask for. You do it because you want no accountability. And for you to say Jesus is not mentioned in the 1611 KJV shows your total lack of knowledge of anything you have spoken of and the fact you latch on to propagated lies that have been disproven. That in itself warrants the likes of your comments being censored.
@caddy1010 Also, look up language history and you will see that unicorn was a reference for a rhinoceros. And yes, the earth is a little over 6000 years old. Just because you have one weak argument, don't start throwing up red herrings to draw attention away from it.
@caddy1010 Seems i have many points and you cant answer them. What about the dead prophets walking the streets when jesus came back from the dead? surely that would be a bigger story to this day than that of Jesus! Now you say the unicorn was in ref. to the rhino? Well what about dragons and witches what is that? Why is jesus not in the 1611 K.J.V.? More than anything what about the zombies?
@caddy1010 I HAVE addressed your points over&over. Jesus IS in the 1611KJV as well as the Tyndale etc. You have no clue what you're talking about. For the people raised after Jesus' death, it DID get recorded, in a historical book, called the Bible, that many HISTORIANS including secular, accept as history. Dragons is the olde english word for dinosaurs, that word (dinosaurs) did not come about till the 1800's. Witches are in existence today. You're done here. Message me if you want to continue.
Smatterings of accounts 50 to hundreds of years later? No 1st hand accounts while he lived? If a man performed so many miracles that all the books in the world could not contain them (according to scripture) there would be writings of him while he lived. Why are the gospels all the same , speaking of the same miracles & not even written by his disciples but written years after his death by unknowns? The dead that rose and walked the earth surely would have been written of extensively.
@caddy1010 You have made a lot of assumptions as to what would and would not have been written, and are wrong on the accounts. Further, the gospels were in fact written by his disciples & attest to it as well. Not sure where you are spoon-fed your information. You like others want to yank the "give me events written by contemporaries" chain. No historian,a real one,not someone like you playing like they know something, ever asks for such, else there would be many people written out of history.
@caddy1010 How much you lack knowledge on this subject continues to become painfully apparent. The lie you spew was debunked long ago. You can continue to stick your head in the sand, but that won't make the truth go away.
@mkzmotorsports The first gospel was Mark and it was written 60 to 70 A.D. .John was written after 100 A.D. the others in between thus making the dicsiples way to old to have been the authors. Paul was written before them in around 50 A.D.(strange) These are facts and yet you insult me. My knowledge is very clear on this subject. Why dont you study something outside the bible and live up to your christian doctrine by not insulting people that know something you obviously dont.
@caddy1010 Marj was written in the 50's AD. Revelation was written in the 60-70'sAD and his 1st through 3rd epistles were before that. The Gospel of John was written in the late 40's to early 50's AD. There also is no gospel of Paul. He is responsible for many of the letters in the NT. 1st Corinthians and Galatians were both written in the late 30's AD. Your knowledge is as clear as mud and you are spoon-fed info you don't have a clue on. You are done here.
And just what are the dates for these extra biblical sources? If you consider Islam you will understand how easy it is to kick start a world religion from a fairy story.
@tranceman22 This is getting ridiculous, really. You want to boast that the evidence is not evidence, then you don't even know the dates or anything about them. Dates were given. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the truth go away. Islam is easily disproved along with Mohammad's failed prophecies just like the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I refuse to continue to entertain you with this. You have shown you only want to disagree and can't handle truth. Good bye.
@tranceman22 Yet another example of illogical conclusion! None of them were written about in a historical document. Call Josephus or any other writing mentioning Jesus non-historical and you will really show yourself to not have a clue of what you're talking about.
Would you convict a man on here say stories and documents known to be falsified? That's all the "evidence" you have shown us here is. In a modern day court scenario this would be dismissed .
@tranceman22 There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Caesar Augustus, Nero, and more. Get rid of them in history too. A modern day court would never try whether a person lived in the past or not, that's a red-herring. Hope it made you feel good. Historians are what count, and NO historian would ever say it must be contemporary evidence, or you would lose a LOT of historical figures. Your argument is silly.
@moti84 Hey Moti this is just conjecture. It's not proof. It is widely known that Josephus works were tampered with ( INTERPOLATED) by early Christians. The others are just here say written decades after, and miles away from Judea. Not verified eye witness accounts. This video is misleading too as It offers no proof.
@tranceman22 Then you now must throw out ALL Joespehus' work. Why is it only Christians "tampered" with it? Cause it makes for a good lie on unbelievers part. There is only ONE entry of Josephus that any historian has EVER tried to lay claim to that, yet Jesus is mention several other times. Your claims are spoon-fed, and false.
@mkzmotorsports Why only christians tampered......... i can't believe you wrote that. It doesn't take a lot to reason out. And what about the entry about the fall of Jerusalem in Jewish wars.. when Josepus was allegedly talking about James!
@tranceman22 The point is there are other things said that people could tout his documents being tampered, but only people like you who regurgitate things they hear others tell them say these parts were messed with. And Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 does mention Jesus. Josephus calls Him the "so-called Christ". He mentions Him as a person, Jesus. He called Him the "so called Christ" because Josephus did not believe Him to be the Messiah, yet he did not doubt He was a real person.
@mkzmotorsports what exactly does christ mean? Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one". It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah.
The word is often misunderstood to be the surname of Jesus due to the numerous mentions of Jesus Christ in the Christian Bible. Yeshua was not the only messiah figure. There were others before and after his alleged existence. Josephus never met him. No evidence!
@tranceman22 The last thing I need from you is to tell me something about Jesus, you don't know anything. Do you know what Jesus means? It means God is salvation, thus the root of His entire name is "The Annointed Salvation of God". Quite different from other "messhia's" in the Bible! For you to say Josephus never met Him shows how ignorant you are! There is no record of whether he met Him or not; however, Josephus DID write about Him & wouldn't have written about a fake person.
@mkzmotorsports Josephus never met your alleged Messiah for one simple reason. Josephus was born 37ad. You are not as smart as you think, but you are rather rude.
@tranceman22 You probably thought I would not approve your comment, since I had Josephus' birth date wrong, but, you were right on that; however, that does not change the fact that he did write about Him, and if you bring Jesus into question in his writings, then all his writings must then be scrutinized. Why would he write of all real people except for one? Why is James existence not questioned? You can't have it both ways. Jesus was a real person.
Ever notice how all these supposed proofs are written such a long time after Jesus supposedly died? Except for that Babylonian one, an AMAZING bit of prophecy, telling of Yeshu's death before it happened. You do all know that the virgin birth, miracles, and death and resurrection stories are found in many cultures of the region from a long time prior to that, right?
@VinnyBloo It's more than an amazing bit of prophecy & there's more than that. Further, one does not have to have contemporary (i.e., at the same time He was living) statements for it to be fact. Name ONE historian that requires that....you won't find one,& THEY are the experts. There would be ALOT of people voted out of existence if that needed to be the case. And yes, there's bits in other religions. So? It proves nothing. None come near to what Jesus did. Zeitgeist has been debunked already.
GOD is an acronym. generation, operation degredation.
jehova in hebrew is yod hehva heh= which means fire earth air water.
48mmwatch 2 weeks ago
@48mmwatch Wow! You should really study up on Hebrew and not be spoon fed what you post. None of what you stated is true. In fact, YHWH has NOTHING to do with what you said. Lies you speak won't make it true, just plasters egg on your face for those that know.
mkzmotorsports 1 week ago
@mkzmotorsports i noticed you just put me down. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF GOD OR JESUS?
48mmwatch 1 week ago
@48mmwatch Silly. See how you proved my point? This video shows the evidence for Jesus. The fact that nothing cannot produce everything we see (big bang) proves the Creator, YHWH. Run along now please.
mkzmotorsports 2 days ago
Thank for posting, I'm sure most people don't even believe their eyes anyway..I never needed to see this to know Jesus is real, I talk to him daily..the people who need to see this, sadly will not click on..the rest of the Jesus haters can go to hell..oh yeah, you will...
hquehe 3 weeks ago
the bible is a book.
its not proof of anything. the iilyad is a book too. it says zeus is the father of the gods. it is much older than your book.
you have to proove god or jesus is real before u can begin to talk about them or the bible.
48mmwatch 1 month ago
@48mmwatch The Bible is a book, that is accepted as historical fact by Christian scholars but also by secular scholars. It also has a wide array of archaeological evidence in it too. God is easily proven real. Your god apparently is your keyboard because you can't see past it.
mkzmotorsports 1 month ago
@mkzmotorsports name some facts.
there is no archeological evidence of jesus. the bible is a registry of the stars planets seasons. you have been sold a bill of goods. you ate it up wholesale. you need to get into santos bonacci.
the bible and all religions on earth are astrotheology. the 12 tribes are the 12 houses of the zodiac. 12 30 used in the bible are astrological. 12 hours or horuses, 12 months decan is 10 degrees of the houses. look up santos bonacci
48mmwatch 1 month ago
@48mmwatch Oh wow. Somebody watched Zeitgeist one too many times and got caught up in the insuing lies. There is historical evidence for Jesus. It's all that's needed, for if you choose to ignore it, there are millions of people you have to discount ever having lived as well. You live in circular logic. Have a good time with that. Good-bye.
mkzmotorsports 2 weeks ago
Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form describes the ministry and death of Jesus in confessional terms; the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. Currently, the most widely held scholarly opinion is that [it] is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.
moopism 1 month ago
@moopism Yeah, funny how it was never debated before then, and no true Jewish scholar debates it even though it is about Jesus. Regardless, the second entry about Jesus is not contested, but you probably had no clue that existed.
mkzmotorsports 1 month ago
@mkzmotorsports You can blather all you want. It won't make your imaginary friend real; it just makes you look desperate.
moopism 1 month ago
@moopism Just say goodbye. It is better to let everyone think you are a complete idiot than to open your mouth and remove ALL doubt like you have.
mkzmotorsports 1 month ago
youre the worst kind of so called christian... the finger pointer... dont bother with a reply your words are empty and i dont hear them and i wont read it...keeping telling yourself that you have an opinion worth having
ulfgundarsson 1 month ago in playlist More videos from mkzmotorsports
@ulfgundarsson It is grossly apparent that you don't read or hear a lot of things. Great defense of your point there sparky.
mkzmotorsports 1 month ago
@mkzmotorsports i dont see arnold murray insulting all who disagree with him... you actions show what kind of thing you are
ulfgundarsson 1 month ago
@ulfgundarsson Then you haven't ever watched or listened to him and you are simply spoon-fed your info. He regularly blasts anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with him. You are a joke.
mkzmotorsports 1 month ago
I haven't proved anything, and neither have you. But the burden of proof is on you, because you're the one making the (rather extraordinary) claim...
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq Um, yeah, you go with that. Now, pat yourself on the back and leave. You're done here.
mkzmotorsports 2 months ago
Funny thing is, it doesn't matter to me whether He™ existed or not. But it's critical to a "true believer", because without a briefly dead body, you have no sacrifice.
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq And without the body in the grave, I have a risen Saviour! You so eloquently proved the point. Great job!
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
Nobody's arguing the existence of John the Baptist. In fact, there ARE contemporary accounts for him. Funny that none of those mention Jesus... (don't say Gospels because we now know those are not contemporary).
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq And nobody is arguing the other entry about Jesus. Keep squirming, but there's no room.
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
Bring it on! I actually WANT to know the truth, including whether I'm being spoon fed! Give me your examples and sources (including what you think Josephus' sources might have been).
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 & Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 for starters. Sources? Since he was so close on the scene, it would have been actual people who dealt with Jesus as well as writing that supported him.
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
@dabigq Firther, look at the account of John the Baptist in Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 5, Par. 2. remember him? The forerunner to Christ, who testified of him? Nobody says this section is not true either!
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
Again, you call my world "imagined" and present no evidence. Laugh all you want, but show me the evidence. And not that paragraph in Josephus that most historians agree was forged.
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq See your problem is you do live an imagined world. You keep saying "most" and such without it being true nor any factual data. The fact is, you don't even know enough about Josephus except what you are spoon fed, for if you did, you would know that particular argued entry is not the only one recorded by him and the others are not refuted. Thus making your argument....lame.
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
@mkzmotorsports It is impossible to consider Josephus as a contemporary witness since he was not born until well after Jesus was safely dead.
Thus everything Josephus has relayed must be considered hearsay.
It's up to the one making the positive claims to provide evidence!
I can't prove that a non existent person never existed.
ticklemypickles 3 months ago
@ticklemypickles You defy logic! By your thought process, nobody except those written in history books available to you right now ever existed. How insane is that!
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
The majority of REAL historians do not accept the bible as any kind of literal account of actual history, except for a few general facts that were common knowledge.
dabigq 3 months ago
@dabigq In your little imagined world, that might be true. Keep telling yourself that. You make me laugh.
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
So, in lieu of evidence you present assertions of evidence and insults? Typical. And name an event commonly accepted by historians with absolutely zero primary sources, only hearsay.
dabigq 4 months ago
@dabigq Your problem is you believe the Bible is not a historical document. The issue is that REAL historians, secular and Christian do. I can't help the fact you don't. It's YOUR problem, not mine.
mkzmotorsports 3 months ago
Someone upon whom the legend of Jesus, much like Robin Hood, may have existed. So what? And none of these historical sources are contemporary, they only confirm that early Christians existed and that they believed the stories about Jesus.
dabigq 4 months ago
@dabigq A contemporary source, one living at the EXACT day of Jesus is not needed as proof, no real historian would say that, only a wannabe like you. The fact is, the Bible is supported as a historical document by both Christian and secular historians. The fact a keyboard monkey like yourself disagrees brings nothing to the table.
mkzmotorsports 4 months ago
You know, I was debating with an atheist over the same thing, and he asked for proof outside of the Bible about Jesus. He believed that Jesus didn't really exist, so I proved him wrong. I gave him at least ten different references of people who lived during Jesus' time but were never mentioned in the Bible, and this atheist, too proud to admit he was wrong, said they were just part of the "Bible Conspiracy." No matter how much proof we give them, they will never believe it. They are too proud.
LivonianKnight 5 months ago
@LivonianKnight I agree 100%. It's easier for them to hide their head in the sand.
mkzmotorsports 5 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Yeah, now scientists are claiming yet again to have found another step in the so-called evolutionary process. They say they found another ape-like species that has both ape and human traits. Isn't that what they claim for all their previous findings? I find it amusing how they keep finding more and more species of ape-like creatures, yet they still can't find their "missing link." The reason why is the missing link doesn't exist, except in their minds.
LivonianKnight 5 months ago
@LivonianKnight Absolutely. This will go the same way "Lucy" did. Egg on their face and they'll bury it in lies.
mkzmotorsports 5 months ago
You don't have a clue what they knew, "
Consider that at that point in time, their thinking would be on the same level as some of the backward tribes that still exist in the jungles of South America.. The average 12 year old now knows more than they did. They were superstitious, still thinking that the earth was flat, as evidenced in ancient Hebrew maps depicting a flat platelike earth covered by a transparent dome.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 Only someone with an axe to grind says such things. A book that when read and understood consists of prophecies that line up from OT to NT and harmony within the scriptures is something you want to ascribe to something NOBODY has ever been able to match? Do you hear what you are saying. That's ludicrous.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
2) Continued: " The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance."
Now, their book is unchanged - so why is yours so different? Mistranslation, misinterpretation and downright forgery".
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 Of the Alexandrian texts, yes, there are variations that have caused that, but they are corrupt. There is no change of great significance that you speak of with the Textus receptus, except those that skeptics want to MAKE be such.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
It's interesting that none of the channels dealing with Jesus or the bible that are posted need to have censorship and yet this one and most of the hard right Christian channels do. Any reason for that? Except that you want to squelch any opposition to your views. Pretty Cowardly!
I don't imagine you'll be posting this either.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 It is better to leave suspicion to ignorance a question, than to run your mouth and remove all doubt. I have it set to comments so as not to allow any curse words and such on here.
mkzmotorsports 7 months ago
@mkzmotorsports I doubt that very much, mk - You believe what you believe and by gum!, that is your "truth" no matter how history contradicts your dogma. And yes, The KJV is considered to be one of the poorer translations because not only are there the standard interpolations and forgeries present, but you are looking through Elizabethan English with its thee's and thou's and terms that have long since been out of use or had a different meaning then, than we ascribe to them today.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 You only parrot what you are spoon-fed. I don't care if you believe me or not about why comments are set for approval. Use your own and do what you want. Further, it must be your circle of buddies you get your impression of the KJV. I will stick to the ones who were 400 years closer to the language than the "experts" today. The thees, thous, and so forth are no issue when you study and show yourself approved to know what was meant. That's too much to ask from you.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports I will stick to the ones who were 400 years closer to the language than the "experts" today"
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , there is a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the inerrant word of God? Foolish wonder, mk, do some research before mouthing off.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 Foolish wonder is the fact you don't have a clue what those differences include and that over 75% of them are as simple as should a word have been "him" of "he" and are non-sequitor. You haven't examined a thing. You are a parrot looking up "smart-man" replies on the internet without a clue.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Not so, mk. This is a quote from the Jews who compare just the Torah (the first five books of the bible) and your version: "There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning."
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 The Torah is the entire Old Testament. The Pentateuch is the 5 books of the Torah Moses wrote. Since the Bible consists of the Torah, what you have said actually strengthens the case for it.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports No, the Torah is the first five books of the Jewish bible. The pentateuch is the remainder. Together, they make up the Tanakh, the unedited Jewish bible. It is doubtful that Moses wrote all or any of the Torah since he wrote about his own death. Jews don't take the bible literally, nor do 80% of Christians. Literal bible belief is a peculiarity of the fundamentalists.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 I wasn't sure which of your three responses you wanted here, so i picked one, since they were basic copies. The Torah is the Jewish name for the 1st 5 books, the Greek word for them is Pentateuch. When I wrote the reply above I wrote Torah instead of Tanakh which is the entire Jewish Bible or OT. Pent means 5, thus the 5 books, not the remainder after the Torah as you tried to say. Of course Moses did not pen the part of his death. That doesn't change his writing the rest.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 Further, your blanket statement that Jews don't take the Bible literally is as misinformed, biased, and untrue as the other "points" you have been trying to make. I truly am done going back and forth with you. It is pointless and you are clueless. This is all for you. You have your own channel, use it.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
The bible is our final authority"
Which bible are you talking about, the catholic bible with 73 books, the KJB with 66 books, the Ethiopean bible that Includes the book of Enoch, and Macabees 1 & 2, the Vulgate bible, The Septuigent that INCLUDES 12 more books in the Old Test. and has LONGER versions of Daniel, Ezeikiel and others, and there are dozens more. The one without the forged Matthew 28:19 and without the later addition of 12 verses to Mark? Which Bible are you talking about?
Matthew1944 8 months ago
@Matthew1944 The KJV of course.
mkzmotorsports 7 months ago
@mkzmotorsports It figures. The worst translation of the lot.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 It figures. Of course you'd say that.
mkzmotorsports 7 months ago
Lol ratings disabled.
dotmadhack 10 months ago
@dotmadhack LOL. Silly atheist thinks ratings prove or disprove something.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Allright, then enabled ratings if you think it's not a problem.
dotmadhack 10 months ago
@dotmadhack Make your own video and enable ratings. I'm not here for your beckoned call or for you to be able to poke your bird-chest out because you can hit a dislike button and feel like you've really done something behind your keyboard.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@mkzmotorsports U mad?
dotmadhack 10 months ago
@dotmadhack I don't get mad.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@dotmadhack As for your other comment, get a dictionary, learn some other adjectives, wash your nasty mouth out with ammonia, and repost, and I'll approve it.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
So I fail to see how even if Jesus was real that makes him divine in nature. I mean you could have all the miracles in the world and that would still not make him divine. Do you know how many people claim Sai Baba from India performs all the same miracles as Jesus? How does this even remotely prove that miracles can be attributed to the divinity of any god, when you have living people that will attest to the miracles performed by Sai Baba who is Hindu.... Cmon now. Perhaps people are just wrong.
CtheWolfe 10 months ago
@CtheWolfe When Sai Baba dies, let me know how his ressurrection works out for ya. Make sure He is seen by over 500 people too. The fact Jesus is real, backs up what is written in scripture, thus backs up who He said He was, as well as the OT prophecies about Him too. It would be meaningless if the prophecies of His birth just said He would be born, but 700 years before, they tell of what tribe, the city, and being born of a virgin. Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@mkzmotorsports "Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!" Considering the Hebrew transcripts do not have a word for virgin.... the world "almah" is used which does not mean virgin.... It means young woman. Sorry man. If you study your theology like a good boy you will find this sort of stuff out. They made a mistranslation into Greek "parthenos" was used incorrectly. It also states that the graves opened and the dead roamed around.... yet no historical reference to that.....
CtheWolfe 10 months ago
@CtheWolfe You need to stick to something other than Hebrew. That word means virgin, young woman
of marriageable age, maid, or newly married. All of those categories would insist on a virgin, no, not that all getting married were, but the intent is that they were. If a woman were not, there are other words for girl, or woman. There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. Study some more.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Actually yeah maiden or young woman are the two. It does not mean virgin how ever. I might be implied on a side note but that is not the meaning. And I hope you realise that some of the Hindu mythologies were started about 7000 years ago. Some we have dated back to nearly 5500 BCE. Of course the religion has changed since then. But its origins lie in a time your book says the world never existed. Hinduism also has virgin births predating your religion!
CtheWolfe 10 months ago
@CtheWolfe It absolutely DOES mean a virgin, and there is no proof otherwise, but the Hebrew shows what I have said to be correct. The dates you give for Hinduism are largely disputed. Of who do you give the credit of being correct and by what grounds? You have none. Virgin births? Yes, in many other religions no doubt, yet NONE with the claims made of Jesus. None that were of one who was prophesied would die on a cross and rise in three days. Try as you might, your attempts are feeble.
mkzmotorsports 9 months ago
@mkzmotorsports You act as if prophecies or predictions make something true. The Aztecs for instance made a lot of predictions or prophecies w/e you wish to call them. Many of them have come true. And they are not of the sort that could be self fulfilled either. Give proof that Mary was a virgin? Prove she had no relations before birth. Just because her hubby didn't know doesn't mean it didn't happen.
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@CtheWolfe The Bible IS proof. The fact that YOU don't think it is, and that SOME secular people don't think it is does not make it so. There are many secular non-christians, even atheists, that accept the Bible as a historical argument. You go round in circles, and you can continue. Have fun with your life, you are done here.
mkzmotorsports 9 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Heres a citation for one of things putting RECORDED text around 1700-1100 BCE. "T. Oberlies (Die Religion des Rgveda, Vienna 1998. p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100." Now this is actual recorded documents. Heres one for the precursor "Hindu History" The BBC names a bath and phallic symbols of the Harappan civilization as features of the "Prehistoric religion (3000-1000 BCE)".... I mean this is not nearly as disputed as you think it is.
CtheWolfe 9 months ago
@CtheWolfe Aww, you found an author that stated something you agree with. there are just as many that disagree. Post those too, or are you scared? And the BBC? BWAHAHAHA. A reliable source of information??? THAT'S what's wrong with you. Oh my that is hilarious.
mkzmotorsports 9 months ago
@mkzmotorsports The bible is as relevant as the harry potter book series, it mentions magic and other kinds of absurditites, like man coming from dust! Your video is eaily debunked by real scientists, all the people in your video lived after Jesus supposedly died, making all of their comments about him irrelevant. Also, the writings of Josephus have been altered by christians in the 4th century, that's a historical fact.
Reasonwillwin 8 months ago
@Reasonwillwin YAWN! Could you come up with something that hasn't already been answered? There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual! Further, there's more writing on Jesus from the 1st Century than any other person, so if you throw Him out, you throw all of history out. Quit being spoon-fed!
mkzmotorsports 8 months ago
@mkzmotorsports '' There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual!'' False, just a flat out lie. '' There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual!'' False too. ''so if you throw Him out, you throw all of history out'' Yeah you throw Jesus out and then the civil wart of america never happened! LOL Ridiculous bullcrap. And I thought you were suposed to abide to ''You shalt not lie''
Reasonwillwin 8 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Wow, very convincing arguments you have there. Did you come up with them on your own or did Bullwinkle help you out?
mkzmotorsports 8 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Don't be pissed because I know more about history and the bible than you.
Reasonwillwin 8 months ago
@Reasonwillwin Stick your bird chest out, pat yourself on the back, type all your computer buddies and tell them how cool you are, and go away. You don't know anything. You are spoon-fed.
mkzmotorsports 8 months ago
@Reasonwillwin -There's just as many scientists (secular) that say the Bible is factual!''
No, they don't. Neither do archeologists.
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 Umm, ok. You go with that if it makes you feel good. You are starting to show you have no clue what you are talking about.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Genesis 3:15 tells of the virgin birth 3000 years before it!"
Where is virgin birth mentioned?
15 And I will put enmity between thee (the snake) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'
Matthew1944 7 months ago
@Matthew1944 Seed of a woman. Women do not have seed, the seedline is referred to men. This is the difference.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports As if an egg isn't seed.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 As if indeed. It's an egg. The seed it what originated from the man to fertilize it.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Women do not have seed,"
As if the ancients even knew anything about regenerative processes. Seed means progeny. Do you know what progeny means?
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 You don't have a clue what they knew, but the fact this was inspired by God, He certainly knew. They understood it took a man and woman to make a child. And when a seedline was referred to, it was of the man. By naming a woman here, it is clear a man would be un-needed here, thus the virgin birth.
mkzmotorsports 6 months ago
sorry i would have to question josephus writing about a man named Jesus, as that name had not come about for many years later. we need to give the hebrews, Israelites or jews back their identities. Yahushua was the one Josephus wrote about. who would become the savior of the world. Athiests may be more willing to learn open their eyes & ears if we put the truth in its place. That is how i came to believe. the more we combine false names, titles etc to suite our language the less we understand
MistyMarie1970 10 months ago
@MistyMarie1970 There is nothing false about the name, that's a lie. You gave His name in Hebrew but and want to be a legalist to hold to that; however, read John 19:19-20 and you see the inscription with His name was written in Hebrew, GREEK, and LATIN! All those names pointed to the same person, just as the English word Jesus does. My name is Michael, if I go to Italy, they would call me Michelae but they would still be referencing me. God knows who we are talking to or about.
mkzmotorsports 10 months ago
@mkzmotorsports sorry i did not mean it in the way you have applied. My suggestion is that as christians we believe in the god of the hebrews & we read their testaments,not other gods.studing history & the meaning of the old testament of what bought god to anger is clearly the worship of other gods & their titles.We worship the same God the Hebrews & Jesus worshipped we must understand their meanings. Names were an important part of that. God always said my people will know me by name
MistyMarie1970 10 months ago
the thing that makes me most mad is how atheist criticize christians and say well of course there going to say jesus is historical there christians when in reality atheists do the same thing. for atheists to maintain there belief, for some reason they have to maintain that jesus isnt real and the bible isn't historical. no matter to what ridiculous extents they take there arguments, they find them rational in any case even if there far fetched.
amapmwt 11 months ago
@TheDarvus what are u quoting there??
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA He's not quting anything except something written by William Whiston, an arian. William did state their styles were similar, but there are many authors who have a similar writing style and are not the same person. Whiston never said they WERE the same, just that they shared similar writing styles. It wasn't later until some clowns decided to make that mean Josephus and Paul were the same person, which was never Whiston's intent.
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@TheDarvus I approved it only so I could reply to your comment and remove your holy *** comment. SOME scholars date it there where you said, others do not. Het.....LOOK IT UP!!!
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@TheDarvus William Whiston may be famous for it, but he is not the only one, nor is his opinion held by other scholars. Look it up!
The Bible is held as historical evidence by those who are Christians and those of the secular world as well. Get your head out of the sand and.....look it up!
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@TheDarvus You conspiracy theorists never cease to amaze me. There are similarities between Poe and Sakespeare, and a host of others, but that means nothing. Neither does your assertion. The writing styles are completely different, and Paul does appear in the historical record. Namely Corinthians which was written around 37AD. Try that on someone gullible enough to believe it.
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
I looked into it a little and it seems like most scholars agree it isn't from mark
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA And that does nothing to convince me otherwise. The majority is not always right.
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Well when they are experts using extremely precise techniques and reviews I'm not sure that applies.. and, well, it seems like they have pretty good reason to say that from what I read.. I'll check into it further.. What about it makes u think it was from mark??
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The majority in your opinion means one thing. Is it really a majority, or just that you want it to be? I am fairly certain that I can find just as many that date it where I said.....and that's what I base it on.
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@mkzmotorsports Honestly I could care less.. I'm just trying to maintain intellectual honesty here.. I should do more research to be sure, but with a short term search I could find no scholarly sources dating mark to 30.. And I found a Christian review on a Christian site of the fragment in question saying it probably wasn't from Mark and that a majority of scholars agree... If you could point me in a different direction I'd appreciate it..
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Who was this Christian reveiw? On what site?
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
@mkzmotorsports I've read that many scholars but Mark after 70ad.. The book was definitely altered throughout time which you can find stated at the end of the last chapter in most Bibles.. Right?? The earliest manuscripts don't contain the last few verses
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Early manuscripts refer to the Alexandrian texts, and they are corrupt. The TR does. You can find that statement in the new translations for sure because they are trying to justify the Alexandrian texts. The olderbarely read texts do not make them correct, it means people didn't see any point in reading them!
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
It so happens that this whole Jesus thing was a late invention after the Christians themselves had existed for many years. The Earliest apologists had never heard of the gospels. Claiming that an altered copy of Josephus vindicates them is another one of Christianity's many lies.
bafoofkit 1 year ago
@bafoofkit It so happens that you are regurgitating things you have heard other people say and have no clue. There are many secular historians that say you are wrong. Not only has 1st Corinthians and the Gospel of Mark been dated to the 30's AD and the 50's AD, there are support for the others. Not only does Josephus mention Jesus in the one passage you want to believe has been altered, He is mentioned several more times in other entries that NO scholar has said such! Keep your head in the sand.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports can u point me in the direction of someone who dates mark's gospel to the 30's? I've always heard, from major christian appologists, that it was probably close to the 50's.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA In cave seven at Qumran a very small papyrus fragment consisting of five lines of text and twenty visible letters (7Q5) was found. Some have argued that this is actually a fragment of the earliest copy of Gospel of Mark. They consider it to be part of Mark 6:52-53. The date of the Gospel of Mark is then pushed back to the late 30's to early 40's and not the late 40's early 50's as some of said. There's a multitude of articles on it available on the web.
mkzmotorsports 11 months ago
spoon fed?.,..wtf!!!...and your not?...wow,evil doers try to force fear in you to make you summit to ones cult adjenda's..and as far as context...CAN YOU TELL ME THE RIGHT TRANSLATION?and only a fool is gonna say they do,for simple fact,that it was translated so many times,,all different religions are going to say theirs is right!!!!..and they all differ from meanings because of lost languages...stupidity is bliss....learn where you come from before you choose what to believe
chucka59 1 year ago
@chucka59 The right translation? The KJV. And when you look at the Bible, and see not one, but FOUR 300 year old prophecies fulfilled since Israel became a nation in 1948, that's STRONG proof. The translated so many times argument is quite lame when there are over 4000 textural copies of the Textus Receptus. Thousands more than other books you would easily say have historical facts, yet you balk at this! Ludicrous!
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports wow,all i can say....becides...can lead a horse to water...but cant make it drink...and the KJV is the right version huh?...wow...i'm done with you,your not worth even have a conversation with..you are so closed minded that you believe a lie..i don't put myself as fulling believing everything..i'm open to change from facts and truth..but most people are to blind to see or to deaf to hear..remember that verse?..for the ones with ears...let them hear...one with eyes...let them see!
chucka59 1 year ago
@chucka59 You're right, you are done here. You have done nothing but spew biased opinion with no fact and think it proves your point. I gave facts. You can't handle it. That's ok. Good bye.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
wow...so proof of a man called jesus....but i think you missed something in those writings....that the christians was a new CULT and trouble makers....does not prove nothing...and to the fact that the bible is not true....full of satanic rituals and death and hatred and slavery....if this is your god....no wonder the world is confused on what to believe ...and i don't want this book or the misleading of you people called christians...your all twisted satanist and dont even know it!!!!
chucka59 1 year ago
@chucka59 No satanic rituals and your other claims are all hype that you have been spoon-fed. It's easy to throw stones when you don't read the verses in context. Yes, proof Jesus lived, and the Bible is proof of who He claimed to be.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
i urge all atheists and so called Christians to repent and STOP SINNING anyone who claims to be a Christian and sins is a liar(1johnch.3) Turn to Jesus he is the only way. You wont find him in a bible or in a church you find him when you go on your knees and come to him like a little child. I truly know Jesus in my heart he is very real to me. My faith is based on reality.
spanky22265 1 year ago
fath by fath, think you!:) jesus loves you all
smanjohn316 1 year ago
I think there's a pretty good number of atheists/agnostics that recognize a human Jesus existed! All of the people you mentioned said NOTHING of a divine Jesus!! Anything that's written which states Jesus was divine has either been shown to have been interpolation and or shown to have been fraudulent writings!! I do agree that a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of writing supports a human named jesus!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc The video deals with Jesus being a person, a real person. His divine nature is another topic; however, your statement about interpolations and fraudulent writings is as baseless and untrue as those who have said Jesus was not a person. John 1:1-14, 1 John 5:7, Genesis chapter 16, 17, & 18 are all just a few which prove you to be very wrong.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports If you claim this video deals only with "the real jesus as a person" and not the divine, why did you go on for an entire paragraph? Your first sentence was sufficient, wasn't it? Wow, maybe you are on the defensive?
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc Because, you brought it up and made false claims. Had I chose not to approve your comment due to that, you would most likely have complained about it. I wasn't going to approve it with the lies in there and just let it hang. Have a good day.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports Do you have "proof" that they're lies? In court isn't it innocent until "PROVEN" guilty? Are you above the law that you can make unsupported claims that people are liars? Interesting!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc Yes, I already proved you wrong about who Jesus is with scripture. That is the single most authoritative book on Him.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports In reality, I see you as ignorant and or a liar because you are putting false information out for others! I don't think you did this intentionally so I'll claim that you're ignorant! An example is your claim that josephus in antiquities claimed that jesus rose again! That HAS been shown to be interpolation but YOU DID NOT state that in your video which is VERY deceptive! That's only one example out of your video!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc It has NEVER been shown to be an interpretation, it has been OPINIONATED that it was, and there are many scholars who completely disagree. I'll take this as an example of you being spoon-fed. Good bye.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports What does interpretation have to do with anything I said? Go back and "read" what I wrote!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc Yes as I typed I wrote interpretation versus interpolation. The statement stands regardless and it is still an example of you being spoon-fed. Arguing with one such as you that spews opinions and lies as fact is fruitless. You are done here.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@99minerkc [quote]josephus in antiquities claimed that jesus rose again [/quote] Anyone with half a brain cell would have know this was not the case. The only people to see Jesus after he rose were just a handful of people, that really knew him. And recognized him as there risen savior. Nothing deceptive here to Christians that know the bible, but unfortunately for you, you do not. So my friend you may be a little ignorant on this one. But we forgive you.
EarthEndDays 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus on which the modern Testimonium is based, but that passage was embellished by later Christians. "
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc And you take one article from Stein who claims the majority feels one way and run with it. Anyone can say that, but it was solely his opinion. Name every "scholar" used as a reference for that statement and what their opinion of it is. Fact is, Stein only used a small base of scholars who would agree with him. Hardly factual and hardly acceptable in your "court" you keep bringing up. Try again.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
Jesus is alive and he is the Messiah. God bless the maker of this video.
Venustarr 1 year ago
Just give me one account of an historion writing about the people coming back to life and walking the streets when Jesus was "resurrected" Just one! And tell me why Jesus is not mentioned in the original 1611 K.J.V.? He is not in there..why? And if your way is truly the way why do you censor every comment and dont allow comments you dont know the answers to. There is no cursing or disrespect (except from you) and do you believe there were unicorns? And earth is 6000 years old?
caddy1010 1 year ago
@caddy1010 You are hilarious. You aren't a historian, clearly, and no historian demands the things you ask for. You do it because you want no accountability. And for you to say Jesus is not mentioned in the 1611 KJV shows your total lack of knowledge of anything you have spoken of and the fact you latch on to propagated lies that have been disproven. That in itself warrants the likes of your comments being censored.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@caddy1010 Also, look up language history and you will see that unicorn was a reference for a rhinoceros. And yes, the earth is a little over 6000 years old. Just because you have one weak argument, don't start throwing up red herrings to draw attention away from it.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@caddy1010 Seems i have many points and you cant answer them. What about the dead prophets walking the streets when jesus came back from the dead? surely that would be a bigger story to this day than that of Jesus! Now you say the unicorn was in ref. to the rhino? Well what about dragons and witches what is that? Why is jesus not in the 1611 K.J.V.? More than anything what about the zombies?
caddy1010 1 year ago
@caddy1010 I HAVE addressed your points over&over. Jesus IS in the 1611KJV as well as the Tyndale etc. You have no clue what you're talking about. For the people raised after Jesus' death, it DID get recorded, in a historical book, called the Bible, that many HISTORIANS including secular, accept as history. Dragons is the olde english word for dinosaurs, that word (dinosaurs) did not come about till the 1800's. Witches are in existence today. You're done here. Message me if you want to continue.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
Smatterings of accounts 50 to hundreds of years later? No 1st hand accounts while he lived? If a man performed so many miracles that all the books in the world could not contain them (according to scripture) there would be writings of him while he lived. Why are the gospels all the same , speaking of the same miracles & not even written by his disciples but written years after his death by unknowns? The dead that rose and walked the earth surely would have been written of extensively.
caddy1010 1 year ago
@caddy1010 You have made a lot of assumptions as to what would and would not have been written, and are wrong on the accounts. Further, the gospels were in fact written by his disciples & attest to it as well. Not sure where you are spoon-fed your information. You like others want to yank the "give me events written by contemporaries" chain. No historian,a real one,not someone like you playing like they know something, ever asks for such, else there would be many people written out of history.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports His disciples did not write the gospels. sorry.
caddy1010 1 year ago
@caddy1010 How much you lack knowledge on this subject continues to become painfully apparent. The lie you spew was debunked long ago. You can continue to stick your head in the sand, but that won't make the truth go away.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports The first gospel was Mark and it was written 60 to 70 A.D. .John was written after 100 A.D. the others in between thus making the dicsiples way to old to have been the authors. Paul was written before them in around 50 A.D.(strange) These are facts and yet you insult me. My knowledge is very clear on this subject. Why dont you study something outside the bible and live up to your christian doctrine by not insulting people that know something you obviously dont.
caddy1010 1 year ago
@caddy1010 Marj was written in the 50's AD. Revelation was written in the 60-70'sAD and his 1st through 3rd epistles were before that. The Gospel of John was written in the late 40's to early 50's AD. There also is no gospel of Paul. He is responsible for many of the letters in the NT. 1st Corinthians and Galatians were both written in the late 30's AD. Your knowledge is as clear as mud and you are spoon-fed info you don't have a clue on. You are done here.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
And just what are the dates for these extra biblical sources? If you consider Islam you will understand how easy it is to kick start a world religion from a fairy story.
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 This is getting ridiculous, really. You want to boast that the evidence is not evidence, then you don't even know the dates or anything about them. Dates were given. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the truth go away. Islam is easily disproved along with Mohammad's failed prophecies just like the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I refuse to continue to entertain you with this. You have shown you only want to disagree and can't handle truth. Good bye.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
bu your standard of reckoning then King Arthur, Merlin, Robin Hood and Maid Marion were real people too......
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 Yet another example of illogical conclusion! None of them were written about in a historical document. Call Josephus or any other writing mentioning Jesus non-historical and you will really show yourself to not have a clue of what you're talking about.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
Would you convict a man on here say stories and documents known to be falsified? That's all the "evidence" you have shown us here is. In a modern day court scenario this would be dismissed .
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than Caesar Augustus, Nero, and more. Get rid of them in history too. A modern day court would never try whether a person lived in the past or not, that's a red-herring. Hope it made you feel good. Historians are what count, and NO historian would ever say it must be contemporary evidence, or you would lose a LOT of historical figures. Your argument is silly.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
god bless you!
you just helped me now!
a prayer that has answeard!
moti84 1 year ago
@moti84 You're welcome. All glory to God!
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@moti84 Hey Moti this is just conjecture. It's not proof. It is widely known that Josephus works were tampered with ( INTERPOLATED) by early Christians. The others are just here say written decades after, and miles away from Judea. Not verified eye witness accounts. This video is misleading too as It offers no proof.
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 Then you now must throw out ALL Joespehus' work. Why is it only Christians "tampered" with it? Cause it makes for a good lie on unbelievers part. There is only ONE entry of Josephus that any historian has EVER tried to lay claim to that, yet Jesus is mention several other times. Your claims are spoon-fed, and false.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports Why only christians tampered......... i can't believe you wrote that. It doesn't take a lot to reason out. And what about the entry about the fall of Jerusalem in Jewish wars.. when Josepus was allegedly talking about James!
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 The point is there are other things said that people could tout his documents being tampered, but only people like you who regurgitate things they hear others tell them say these parts were messed with. And Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1 does mention Jesus. Josephus calls Him the "so-called Christ". He mentions Him as a person, Jesus. He called Him the "so called Christ" because Josephus did not believe Him to be the Messiah, yet he did not doubt He was a real person.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports what exactly does christ mean? Christ is the English term for the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one". It is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah.
The word is often misunderstood to be the surname of Jesus due to the numerous mentions of Jesus Christ in the Christian Bible. Yeshua was not the only messiah figure. There were others before and after his alleged existence. Josephus never met him. No evidence!
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 The last thing I need from you is to tell me something about Jesus, you don't know anything. Do you know what Jesus means? It means God is salvation, thus the root of His entire name is "The Annointed Salvation of God". Quite different from other "messhia's" in the Bible! For you to say Josephus never met Him shows how ignorant you are! There is no record of whether he met Him or not; however, Josephus DID write about Him & wouldn't have written about a fake person.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
@mkzmotorsports Josephus never met your alleged Messiah for one simple reason. Josephus was born 37ad. You are not as smart as you think, but you are rather rude.
tranceman22 1 year ago
@tranceman22 You probably thought I would not approve your comment, since I had Josephus' birth date wrong, but, you were right on that; however, that does not change the fact that he did write about Him, and if you bring Jesus into question in his writings, then all his writings must then be scrutinized. Why would he write of all real people except for one? Why is James existence not questioned? You can't have it both ways. Jesus was a real person.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago
Ever notice how all these supposed proofs are written such a long time after Jesus supposedly died? Except for that Babylonian one, an AMAZING bit of prophecy, telling of Yeshu's death before it happened. You do all know that the virgin birth, miracles, and death and resurrection stories are found in many cultures of the region from a long time prior to that, right?
VinnyBloo 1 year ago
@VinnyBloo It's more than an amazing bit of prophecy & there's more than that. Further, one does not have to have contemporary (i.e., at the same time He was living) statements for it to be fact. Name ONE historian that requires that....you won't find one,& THEY are the experts. There would be ALOT of people voted out of existence if that needed to be the case. And yes, there's bits in other religions. So? It proves nothing. None come near to what Jesus did. Zeitgeist has been debunked already.
mkzmotorsports 1 year ago