One thing I can't stand about society is how everyone always needs proof for everything. Problem with proof is that a lot of times it can have the appearance of being accurate simply by using misguided information that is either twisted truth, or false claims altogether. How's this for an example of God's existence? We all know air is real. We feel it, we breathe it. So is it possible that God applies the same way spiritually? The only catch is that one must seek him with all their heart to find
Matt. 27:52-53 says that when Jesus resurrected many people rose from their graves, "went into the city and appeared to many". If this really happened, why does no one else (not even the other gospel writers or apostles) mention this? Dead people showing up to their relatives and friends doesn't cause enough of a stir for historians everywhere to take note?? Sure smells of fiction to me.
no modern egyptologist will agree that the pyramids were built by slaves. just my two cents because i found exception to the statement that the bible is historicly accurate because it is not.
@espyd21c I love it when a christian actually says to me, the Pharaoh that sent moses into the dessert said," Let the name of Moses be stricken from every stone and every scroll and every tablet", so they conclude that our argument of no historical proof of moses is inaccurate. I would say firstly if that was in the bible it could have been placed there when it was written, which like all stories was long after supposed events, and second that line came only from the Charlton Heston movie.
Did You Know that of the four gospel names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
that only Matthew & John had ever actually known Jesus personally?
Luke & Mark were not apostles of Jesus. Apparently none of these four penned the gospels that bare their names even though a majority of those that profess to be Christian believe that they did.
at 4:27 you said..."the early church had already spoken to the apostles.."
What early church are you referring to? Since it was the catholic church that put the books together to form the New Testament....how could the early church have "spoken to the apostles" in order to verify them as truth?
You may blabber all you want about the God who apparently doesnt exist, but you cant refute that fact of millions of changed lives in modern times in every nation, just google George Mueller, the guy who raised more than 3000 orphans without savings and funds. Oh and have you heard about divers finding egyptian chariots buried under the sea of Aquaba? Any one is free to say Jesus doesnt exist, history may "seem" to be inadequate, but people with changed lives and daily miracles prove otherwise.
acctully it hasnt been proven that the slaughter actully happened its only biblical in the verse of mattew 2:16 and nothing else so i think your full of shit
Fun fact about the book of acts: the description it gives for Paul's revelation contradicts Paul's description in letters. The book of acts contradicts what more reliable sources on the structure of the early church, and also contradicts Roman history.
New Testament is historically inaccurate(i.e. the census). The Exodus didn't happen. Egyptians didn't have Hebrews under systematic slavery, but did have Canaanites. If the Exodus did happen, Egypt would have faced a huge economic downfall from losing a ton of slaves, which didn't happen. The Old Testament is historically inaccurateI(i.e.Belshazzar as a King and son of Nebuchannezar, wrong). Herod the Great nor his son Antipas was connected to a command like that, which is similar to Krishna.
you have wasted why too much time on this. it sounds like your questioning your fath. that i think is why you are responding to this video so strongly.
you have actually proved nothing except to add weight to the film you critise.dont forget that the romans kept very detailed writings of all who came before them as crimminals and were killed,not one document ever mentions a man called jesus bought before the romans as the son of god.Thats a fact and i ask you to prove it otherwise.your are a christian and therefore you feel the need to justify your beliefs,remember faith is for those who dont want the truth.
chopped50 I came back to better recall movie facts and saw your comment. Tacitus was one Roman historian who mentioned about Jesus' conviction by Pontius Pilate. I had long been curious if that was part of reason Constantine became the 1st Christian Roman emperor reversing all their persecution. Hope this helps.
Virgin birth unlikely? If God created entire universe seen and unseen, life activity observed under a microscope, etc. plus create and keep the awesome order, what's the big deal in the comparatively fewer cells in one woman's womb or body for that matter? Would that one be much too hard for God? I don't get it. Of course I once had many questions that were clearly and unforgettably answered. Thank God!
Most of these things that I have noted that creationists attribute as the "awesome order" that god has created are natural results of basic mathematics, basic physics, or basic chemistry.
your validity went sailing through the window once you said "LOL you hasn't read da Bible lol" Your proof is all in the book which it was conceived in. I wish i could write a book, call it true and have masses of idiots worship it.
My friend I agree with you in point of the book and have bunch of idiots fallowing in it. But the Bible is a fairytale, of Sumerians writing, it been proven but denied by the church and American government, that's why they send a satelite to the space in 1970's in source of the the planet "X" NIribu called by SUMERIANS. check it out.
"I go through a clip of "The God Who Wasn't There" and disprove it point-by-point. "
Um ya, yer missing the point here, first off you cannot "disprove" anything, secondly if you want us to believe jesus was a real guy, try finding some actual historical evidence. No one ever has, but go ahead and give it a shot...
I wish people of several religions got together with their 'facts' and their 'true divine books' and debate each other until only one was given the trophy of more reliable. Maybe, just maybe people could realize that the truths they defend with their lives is nothing more than a geographical accident. If only they could get out of their endocrinated heads and observe their exact opposite in the other religion they would realize how amazing is a believer to adjust the world to fit their faith.
You are mistaken, his reference is to WHEN THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN, **NOT** whether or not there were stories in there to justify belief. It took 4 centuries before there was a canon of any sort. So, you in fact do not have your facts. ALSO, there is an Israeli Jewish College that admitted there in fact is not reason to believe that the Exodus took place, dispite having every reason to say other wise.
So the fact that the media in a majority Christian country doesn't dispute the Bible more often proves it's legitimacy is proof enough for you that it is true? Then by your standards Islam must be true as well if it is not criticized in Muslim countries. As to the "historians" that find history matches the NT/OT Bible. I think you will find history matches the Bible when the research is conducted by people that have a conformation bias to make it match and that it's not a consensus generally.
I'd like to see the archeological and geological evidence that shows Noah's flood and the Red Sea crossing. I've read BS apologetic claims of it, but none from actual scientific research.
well if you guys really want to find out who's lying and who's not, why not read the bible yourselves,so you will know, than just guessing who's lying and who's not
This guys calling the folklore hostorian AT BERKLEY a damn liar.... come on kid... your facts.. and his facts..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm who do I think is telling it like it IS????? HMMMMMMMMMMMM
It's probably more along the lines of "stretching the truth." he has every reason to do that. he's making a documentary, and he needs information that "sounds" good, so that we'll believe him.
ok i have a question to idoes who dont believe in god. if god doesnt exist then how did humans get here and if we came from some small microorganism then were did that come from?
the microorganism came from the primordial soup, which is from the rain hitting the rocks. thus from the rock. Going back further as to where all that came from an infinitely small 'point' in the universe which contains all matter we see today...so, all matter came from an infinitely small point. Where did that come from...it just happened from nothing...yup thats the story in brief. A dot made everything. If you haven't guessed I don't believe this.
do you know that in the early 1900's people would have said that your crazy to believe that we can live to be 80 to 100+ years old! so, yeah, i do believe that people lived to be hundreds of years old.
if adam and eve were the first to humans ever how did they procreat without it being incest? and do you honestly believe that the people lived hundreds of years?
Macrobius lived 395-436 AD. I don't see how you can use him as evidence of something that happened four centuries before he lived. The slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by the Talmud or Josephus, or anybody else.
I see your point. However, when you're talking about ancient world, the time difference between an event and our earliest written sources is often astounding. Some of the events and figures which all scholars believe happened/existed have a wide gap between them and the first writings we have about them. If we throw out Macrobius on this one, we might have to throw out an awful lot of history.
I would say that would be true about events which pre-date that advent of Classical historians. Especially true about events in the early Republic, but by the late Republic, nothing went on that wasn't written about somewhere by somebody. Thus it is harder to argue for a wider gap between event and record, during a period of prolific historical writing. So it is unconvincing that Macrobius writes about it, because no one during the period did, Roman or Jewish.
@revdionysus You use the Bible 'the book of Acts' as your rebuttlal but this makes no sense as this was written in Greece 60 odd yrs after the events, if it was written during the lost years you would have a point.
Also there are no Roman or Jewish Historians who confirm the events of the New Testament
@tacofixestanks Well hundreds of years exist between a supposed historical event and the oldest extant copies. Oldest copies of Josephus only date to 10 century but scholars seem certain Josephus existed and wrote in the 90s CE. Oldest copy of Tacitus is 11 century yet they said it was written around 110 CE. Oddly the New Testament is pretty close to the crucifixion. But still we only have copies of copies of copies of it.
I agree that the Exodus is one of the weakest supported accounts in the Old Testament, however it has not been DISPROVEN. However, thousands of historical details in the Bible have been shown to be accurate. I have yet to find one that has been conclusively disproven.
You know what this guy should study. Is how people in ancient times copied books and writings. he expects me to believe, that the book of Axe, a book that is not in the Old Testament, suddenly arrives in the New Testament and now it's the word of God. How?
I was being sarcastic for one thing. Secondly I have done studying. I don't need to try very hard to realize that there are many similarities between Joseph in the old testament and Jesus in the New Testament. I could go on and on about how Jesus simply does not exist. And the author of this video is attempting to discredit Science with a Fable (a.k.a The Bible). It's like Creationists insisting that Intelligent Design is science. It is not.
I think you're right about Joseph being similar to Jesus. In fact, there is a Rabbinic tradition of a Messiah who suffers for the sins of his brothers in order to save them (Messiah son of Joseph). I think there are very strong parallels. However, I believe the parallels are there to teach pre-Christ Jews to look forward to their Messiah. I doubt you'll find this to be a valid argument, but I believe the Old Testament points forward to Jesus constantly.
Suppose the details of the life of Joseph Smith manage to curiously fit Hebrew Bible and New Testament prophecies assembled out of context, fit into the Smith narrative. Wouldn't we be more justified in concluding that a) that Mormons merely retrofitted old prophecy to fit their narrative, tweaking history where needed to fit, than b) the Bible was paving the way for pre-Mormon Christians to receive Mormon teachings? Of the two, which is more likely?
I don't understand how you can sit there and say that all of these professors and historians have no idea what they are talking about. You appear to be a regular guy behind a computer while these people are who academic credentials spent their lives studying history and religions and yet you claim they are wrong and you are right...
because alot of what they say is opinnion. they don't really give you much to follow on to seek the truth. honestly they're arguments are weak because if what they said was true then the WORLD would be talking about it.
The world is talking about it. Most pastors, priests, theologians all knew about this. It's not even debatable anymore. But people stay with their religion because they have blind faith and think that anything that goes against god is just the Devil trying to deceive you. Sounds to me like a cult.
which god are you talking about? the God i know of is personal, and is not out of reach from us being able to know Him. travvvvvis have you ever set aside your pride and try'ed to find Him?
Yea.... and I didn't. I used to be christian and when I was in church, even when I was a kid, I felt like something was different. I never felt him, heard him, seen him. I felt that I was going to hell because I could not find him no matter how hard I tried. Then I realized I was to smart for my age and that everyone else was just Delusional. But if that is what makes them happy so be it. I'm not here to judge like most Christians.
well... this is my point. the only way you can understand and even allow yourself to find Him is by reading what He wrote. Hell is Not something you should be scared into. If God said He is the way the truth and the life then its worth a shot to investigate Him... I personally after researching myself came to know Him. and i could have been on drugs everyday, but He changed my life.
I have read the bible 7 times (a lot of it was for a theology class). Not to offend you (I'm actually really nice and have morals) but the Bible is very hateful. Jesus himself (allegedly because I don't believe he existed) said it was okay to hit slaves even if they did not know what they were doing wrong. I'm sure there was is a logical explanation on your drug situation, but again if God helps you get through your day so be it.
the contradictions your referring to are not something new. i don't understand how someone can come on here and make arguments for someone they don't believe in...
your coming off as someone who does believe but chooses not to.
Okay first of all I NEVER believed in god. Me being a homosexual has NOTHING to do with me being an agnostic-atheist. Second, I thought EVERYONE knew that to make an argument you have to know BOTH sides of the argument. Which you obviously do not know both sides (I don't think you even know your side). You come off as another christian who is not christ like, uneducated, and does not know his/her bible. So don't hate on me because I know the bible better then most christians.
Well, as I point the claims in the GWWT and Zeitgeist have extremely small support even in atheistic circles. So for them to put forth that Jesus never existed is a pretty bold claim. Most scholars believe Jesus existed, although for PHILOSOPHICAL reasons, question whether or not everything the Bible records Him saying is a true quote. They have no scholarly reason to deny this, but because they have philosophical disagreements with Scripture, they cannot allow for miracles, etc.
it's refreshing to see a non-believer who doesn't swallow every anti-Christian/Religion argument thrown his way,and knows a solid argument when he sees one. We need more people like you on both sides of the pendulum. peace
Also I was disappointed to see from your myspace profile that you are a father but not married. Why don't you marry the mother of your child right away and meke her an honest woman.
"When was the book of acts written?" He discussed that previously, but Acts must predate 62 AD. all the synoptic Gospels were written before Luke, and Luke was written before Acts.
I appreciate what you're doing; too often people accept what they hear without doing their own research. I see what they were trying to say; they didn't do the best job conveying it. The way the documentary was put together is deceptive; as you pointed out. Here's my rebuttal:
Using Macrobius as a reference to prove the existence of Jesus is moot, since he wrote(325-385)long after the gospels. Of course he would be familiar with the stories;quoting from them proves nothing of his historicity.
Your point regarding council on Passover eve is valid; however:Yeshu is not Jesus. Yeshu is similar to Yeshua (Aramaiac for Jesus) is not Jesus Christ for several reasons:
The oppression of Jannaeus occurred in 87 BCE.
Jesus was Crucified, not stoned.
He was executed on the eve following Passover, not the eve of Passover.
Crucified in Jerusalem, not Lod.
Yeshu had 5 disciples
And several other reasons space will not permit...
Thanks for the response! Macrobius doesn't mention Jesus, but Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Also, he was a pagan and not a Christian writer.
There is much debate about who Yeshu in the Talmud is. However, the fact that it is stated he was executed on the eve of passover disproves Price's argument. Sanhedrin 43a says "the eve of passover" according to the English translation I have. Don't speak Aramaic or have an Aramaic Talmud though. I will trust the translation.
If a movie or book makes you question or change your faith...then your faith never really was in tact to begin with. I suppose you bought all of The Da Vinci Code hook line and sinker too yes?
Science "was" (as in not anymore) your answer? Just joking. I understand. Would you be willing to provide a more specific explanation? Yes I am a Christian. No I am not passing any judgement on you. I sincerely want to know where you are coming from. If not, that's ok too.
Ok. I would like to continue this conversation...but I actually got called for work(on call private security). I will get back to you later. To be clear though you are basically saying/asking how there could possibly be a God who is everything He says He is when there is so much evil in the world. Does that sum up part of where you are coming from?
No one is under any obligation to believe in Bookgods. Whether it's Biblegod, Korangod or any of a host of mythological beings that are nothing more than "ink on paper".....Jesus is quite similar to the feeble, little old man behind the veil in the Wizard of Oz - all bluster, no action!...Please don't resort to threats of future punishment (hell) ..That's like saying Santa Claus isn't going to bring me any presents because I've been naughty.
It's probably about as tiresome to hear me say this as it is for me to have to keep saying it...
This is not an argument. Calling someone stupid doesn't prove a point. If you skeptics are so enlightened, please offer a valid critique (and many thanks to the skeptics who have).
Your rebuttal is based on your ignorance of the arguments presented within the doco. Example; you show a clip at the beginning about the gap btw the supposed life of Jesus & the supposed writing of the first gospel. However you mis-quote the narrator. He does not claim that church leaders "don't talk about the *stories* in the bible a after the life of JC" but rather they "don't talk about the *historical period* btw JC and the gospels" They don't as there is no HISTORICAL EVIDENCE!
I don't think you understand his point. I don't think he ever made this clarification. He simply said that Christians don't know what happened after Jesus and before the Gospels were written. We do-- it's in the Book of Acts.
Hummm ...I don't think it matters, even if EVERYTHING in the movie is false -- Christianity and Jesus is just plain FALSE -- a myth, a bedtime story. Are you getting the Picture -- All religions follow the same crap... NONE of them are Logical/ Coherent/ Rational... Understand Yet? it's all FALSE. Scientific evidence, cosmology, physics and Truth are the only real things... WAKE UP ...and stop believing in a lie / myth
Revdionysus, the reason TV people dont say the OT is a load of nonsence is because they dont want to offend the faithfull and have to deal with floods of complaint letters.
The Talmud's earliest component: the Mishnah dates to 200 CE NOT 70 CE. The reference was written 170 years after the (alleged) death of Christ. Therefore it's likely to be a fictional account.
Acts, while it does refer to the period after the [alleged] crucifixion was written much later. After AD 70. The prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem was reverse engineered into Jesus' mouth after it occurred in AD70. This was a huge event in the region, so they had to have Jesus predict it. Many times in the NT they have Jesus predict things that then happen. E.g. he predicts his own death etc. Very easy to do when you're writing 40 odd years later.
Oh my god, Acts written after AD70? You're joking right? Scholars, at least the ones who examine the NT, the language, and the narrative of it, would agree that most of the NT was written before AD 70-AD 80. Go talk to a contemporary historian who isn't a left wing atheist.
braino2000 - indeed MOST of the NT WAS written between AD 50-65 by Paul. However 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, [were] written between 65 and 100 AD (en.wikipedia[DOT]org/wiki/Gospel)
You really trust wikipedia? For one, a deal of pauls letters were written between 40 and 50....Secondly, there is a variation on what time they were written. the NT was finished, most likely, before AD 80. There are alot of facts in it's texts (concerning historical events) that point to this. And you really think mark was written after AD70 just because Jesus predicted the destruction in it? That's simply naturalist bias
braino2000 - 'before AD 80'? That's religious bias. The general scholarly consensus is between 70-100 AD, or some say even in the 2nd century AD. Look at what authoritative scholars say, not theologians who have bias.
Religious bias? You are so full of crap, just like most NT critics. That's not general, that's among skeptic or non Christian NT scholars. For one, Luke does not mention the death of Paul in acts, which is funny considering acts is so detailed and accurate, which means it was most likely written before Pauls death, and his gospel was probably written earlier then that, at least that's what one would suspect, and that's just ONE example.
Do you even know how the bible was put together? Mark being written first and the writers of Matthew and Luke being in possession of Mark and Q? Or do you dispute this?
For one...Not all believe that Mark was written first, a deal of scholars think it's Levi who wrote the first (Matthew) And Mark was an associate of the disciple Peter...Peter was an undereducated peasant, most people of his social status during his day were illiterate, so Mark probably interpreted his words. And it's very doubtful that Luke plagiarized his, his order and style are much different then all others.
Sorry, liberal dating on the NT is not accepted very often among comtemporary scholars. Secondly, I'm sure there have already been dozens of people (William Lane Craig, Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, other contemporary NT historians) that have replied to his work, Bart Ehrman has gotten replies too. And enlightening? wow....
Yeah, Bart Ehrman was a believer till he studied the texts in scholarly detail.
You see, you can approach them either with intellectual integrity, or without. Most believers have a compromised intellectual integrity. Non-believers have nothing to prove or disprove, although I realise that believers are instructed by their faith to perceive otherwise. If I was a Martian looking for real data I would go for a non-believing scholars data, naturally.
There are those who have done the exact same research Ehrman has done but have reached vastly different conclusions. But even Ehrman will tell you that most of the differences in the manuscripts are very minor and without any consequence to the message of the Bible.
I am not opposed to Q existing. It would not disprove any of the claims Christians make about the Bible. I don't know that I personally agree with it, but I'm open.
Liberal scholars used to say they were written in the LATE SECOND CENTURY, until archaeological evidence forced them to be pushed closer to the conservative dating.
Of course Acts was written after 70CE...Please see earlychristianwritings DOT com For an overview of individual bible-book dates. Most "historians" who date the bible's individual books earlier are "believers" in the myth that the book was authored by a god. After reading that book 150+ times myself, the only conclusion that one can reach is that it is indeed manmade superstitious fiction.
The apocrypha where not discarded by the early church like this video says, but by Constantine's Council of Nicaea, (325AD) when the bible was canonised. Some books only lost out by a narrow vote, while some only got IN by a narrow vote.
Almost everything people say about the Council of Nicea is untrue. Irenaeus in 180, the Muratorian Canon, and many other early church sources verify which books are valid. Admittedly, there was some discussion over Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation (as well as some who thought the late Shepherd of Hermas should be included), but later councils only recognized what early Christians already believed. The Council of Nicea did not change the Bible.
The Archaeology does NOT verify the OT! Recent Archaeology has found that the conquest of Canaan never took place, but that Israel grew from indigenous settlers (Source: The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University.) This surprised me because I thought it was probably the one actual historical part!
Great video brother! Ive only been a faithful Christian for a few years and I hope to be as knowledgable as you and be able to defend myself so well with scripture and history. Good job!
You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. The bible is full of contradictions and errors itself. If the bible is the only evidence you have of your beliefs, you lose. Prove the existence of god or jesus without the bible. You cannot be a christian historian, its like trying to be a round square.
That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not. I believe this was Thomas Paine.
All of us have agendas. You use 'I believe', 'I think', & 'probably' a lot. If you are sure, what is the point of using these words? I ask with complete humility.
The author likes to do some twisting himself. To boldly claim at 3:24 that historians never claim the "Exodus didn't happen" Here are a few quotes from a Google search "Did the Red Sea part? No evidence, archaeologists say" - IHT "Egyptian archaeologists say no evidence has surfaced to confirm the Exodus story" - NYT "In Sinai desert, no trace of Moses" - IHT. Don't call others liars and then get caught lying!
There is still some debate on the Exodus, but there is also a lot of evidence it occurred, despite what some scholars say. Most scholars do not deny that it happened, but they do try to say it happened in some other way, meaning that the Red Sea did not really part, or else it was only a few feet deep, etc. This is the most common argument from skeptics against the Exodus, not just denial.
There is zero evidence! None, zilch, nada, zip! Quoting the wikipedia article entitled "The Exodus" "However, historical analysis and archaeological evidence has greatly ruled out the possibility of the exodus itself, pointing to more mythical than historical origins or routes." I suggest if you have mainstream evidence of the Exodus you make a video of THAT!
Well, we do have loads of circumstantial evidence that supports that all of the events could have happened in Egypt around the Biblical 1,446 B.C. date. We also have the Canaanite peoples writing to the Egyptians to help them exterminate the "Hibaru" overrunning the land 40 or so years later. We also have the remains of chariots in a section of the Red Sea. If I had more space, I could give you more info.
49 US Merchant Ships sunk in the Red Sea during WWII, another few sunken Egyptian Ferries. LOOK... I found a wheel to a chariot that chased Moses!!!! Or maybe it was just a handwheel off a 19th century steamship. The Red Sea is scattered with wrecks.. so many so I found pages and pages of them.
Not only did they find chariots, but they found, human skeletons, horse femurs, ancient Egyptian weapons. And it wasn't just a few here or there, but it was a large scale. Like as if an ancient army was there..
What evidence we have shows that Luke and Matthews are totally incompatible with each other. For example Quinctillius Varus NOT Quirinius was 'governor' of Syria from c6 BCE to at least Herod the Great's death and possibly as late as c1 CE. (_Date of the Nativity in Luke_ by Richard Carrier)
PS. While you're at making a video of the Exodus evidence. You can include your evidence for this statement "The Old Testament and the Gospels are valid history". Adam & Eve - "No evidence" Noah and the great flood - "No evidence" In fact its scientifically impossible to cover the Earth in water. There is not enough water to do it. And if you did manage somehow to do it, the water vapor in the atmosphere would crush you like and ant under a boot!
"It (Acts) seems to have been written after the death of Paul; two passages (20:25 and 21:10-14) seem to point to his death. A date of 90 to 100 CE is probable"-Religious Tolerance site.
I would like to point out that religious tolerance says that most theologians assume that Acts is written AFTER Gospel of Luke and that Liberal Christians put it as being written somewhere between 90 and 100 BCE well after the 70 CE cut off date used in the God Who Wasn't There video.
Many secular scholars do assert that the Gospels were written late. However, they are ignoring internal evidence. Their claims about the late dates of the Gospels have little to do with proof, and more to do with bias.
The religious tolerance site cites the reasons that secular scholars believe that Luke was written no earlier than 70 CE (the destruction of the Temple) and since Acts seems to mention Paul's death it couldn't been written earlier than that no earlier than 67 CE when Rome. burned as related by Eusebius of Caesarea. Fact is no providencal relevant Church father even quotes from the Gospels until the early 2nd century.
Acts doesn't mention Paul's death. It ends with his first arrest in Rome, even though he leaves Rome, spreads the Gospel for a number of years, and is eventually martyred. Why would Luke leave that out? There aren't any church writings other than the Didache that were written before the 2nd century. The Didache does quote them. Also, Paul quotes Luke.
Didn't go and read the Religious Tolerance site did we. "It (Acts) seems to have been written after the death of Paul; two passages (20:25 and 21:10-14) seem to point to his death. A date of 90 to 100 CE is probable" So much for not mentioning Paul's death.
ACts 20 is Paul prophesying that he will die before seeing their faces again. However, he doesn't die for another few years. A prophecy coming true does not prove the writing was written after the prophecy. This is a supernatural bias on RT's part. They are not allowing the text to speak for itself. Acts 21 is a prophecy that Paul will be imprisoned.
Ommar's Razor suggests that the so called 'prophecy' is an after the fact one meaning act is likely written after Paul's death. In fact Luke 1 states that at the time it is being written many other have written down the beliefs and events regarding Jesus' life. This in of itself points to being after Paul's death as Paul is ignorant of much of Luke. Agian Liberal Christan put Luke in the 90s to 100 and a few put it as late as 110s.
Paul quotes Luke in 1 Timothy. Luke is referring to Matthew, Mark, and apparently other writings that haven't come down to us. Just because Paul doesn't say much about Jesus' life doesn't mean he didn't know about it or was unfamiliar with the Gospels. The burden of proof is on the secularists to prove this was not a real prophecy. When debating on whether or not the Bible is inspired and an argument is brought up based entirely on anti-supernatural bias nullifies the argument.
Sorry revdionysus but the burden of proof for anything involving the Magical World View is on the MWV not the other way around. For example, the documentation from vampire hunters (many of them professors of Universities) of the 1700s is far richer and with better provenance (in their actual handwriting) than that what we have for Jesus.
Are we therefore expected to believe as they did that there were dozens if not hundreds of blood sucking life draining revenants running around Europe?
Or do we follow the modern scientific method and come up with and discount mundane explanations before messing with the Magical World View? And if we do that for the likes of Arnold Paole and Pete Plogojowitz in the 18th century why not do the same with the stories of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
Liberal Christians only date Luke late because atheist scholars gave it an unnecessary late date and Christians didn't want to look stupid by saying it was earlier. Once again, it is the anti-Christian scholars making silly claims.
This is as JohnLArmstrong calls it an argumentum ad der turum (sp) with some argumentum ad hominem thrown in for good measure. Reimarus, Renan, Weiss and Schweitzer all believed in a god but their work kicked off the whole examine the NT in scientific light. That light puts Luke late in the 1st century if not early in the 2nd-deal with it.
Internal evidence says otherwise. As for external evidence, we don't have ANY Early Church writings before the late 1st century. The earliest we have is 1 Clement at 96, who quotes Paul's letters, the book of Hebrews, as well as Matthew 7 and Luke 6. Dealt with it.
Internal evidence shows Luke and Acts were likely written late as Luke 1:1-3 talks about "many" other Gospels by other writers something even the conservatives agree happened late 1st early 2nd century. Noted you didn't want to touch the MWV issue with the vampires.
Not quite. Luke says many have tried to write down what actually happened, not a Gnostic nonsense novel. We have two actually Gospels before Luke, and, apparently others wrote things we don't now have. The vampire thing isn't something I know much about, so I didn't comment.
One thing I can't stand about society is how everyone always needs proof for everything. Problem with proof is that a lot of times it can have the appearance of being accurate simply by using misguided information that is either twisted truth, or false claims altogether. How's this for an example of God's existence? We all know air is real. We feel it, we breathe it. So is it possible that God applies the same way spiritually? The only catch is that one must seek him with all their heart to find
Scaly420 6 months ago
HIM
Scaly420 6 months ago
matt. 27:52, 53 is not referring to a resurrection but merely dead bodies being thrown out of the grave from the earth shaking
stevenpina1983 1 year ago
fail
wayamat 1 year ago
Matt. 27:52-53 says that when Jesus resurrected many people rose from their graves, "went into the city and appeared to many". If this really happened, why does no one else (not even the other gospel writers or apostles) mention this? Dead people showing up to their relatives and friends doesn't cause enough of a stir for historians everywhere to take note?? Sure smells of fiction to me.
kruszer 1 year ago
no modern egyptologist will agree that the pyramids were built by slaves. just my two cents because i found exception to the statement that the bible is historicly accurate because it is not.
espyd21c 1 year ago
@espyd21c I love it when a christian actually says to me, the Pharaoh that sent moses into the dessert said," Let the name of Moses be stricken from every stone and every scroll and every tablet", so they conclude that our argument of no historical proof of moses is inaccurate. I would say firstly if that was in the bible it could have been placed there when it was written, which like all stories was long after supposed events, and second that line came only from the Charlton Heston movie.
robtay1963 4 months ago
your an idiot
cuatrista1969 1 year ago
Luke and John may have been followers of Jesus but certainly were NOT part of the original 12 apostles.
Go look it up and prove me wrong.
BloodTar 1 year ago
Did You Know that of the four gospel names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
that only Matthew & John had ever actually known Jesus personally?
Luke & Mark were not apostles of Jesus. Apparently none of these four penned the gospels that bare their names even though a majority of those that profess to be Christian believe that they did.
BloodTar 1 year ago
at 4:27 you said..."the early church had already spoken to the apostles.."
What early church are you referring to? Since it was the catholic church that put the books together to form the New Testament....how could the early church have "spoken to the apostles" in order to verify them as truth?
BloodTar 1 year ago
darthfisto33, actually whoever believes in an invisible men on the sky has mental issues or he uses good drags.
By tje way your only historical proof is the bible, hahaha. Educate you self litle people
sotospap1 1 year ago
1. Matthew was writing to the Jews which explains "The kingdom of heaven" in the parables.
2. Mark writing was like a newspaper column.
3. Luke as a doctor wrote a detailed description of Jesus Christ.
4. John wrote about the divinity of Christ and for thinkers.
POC777 1 year ago
@POC777 Give us references, books that we can verify what you say
sotospap1 1 year ago
@sotospap1
For what so you could mock my research no thank you.
POC777 1 year ago
@POC777 research that doesn;t have the correct references is simply a lie.
All the serious research has references to the books that it used.
That you don't provide any official references proves that what you say its just words, word words.
sotospap1 1 year ago
@POC777 give us books and references to verufy what you say
sotospap1 1 year ago
Yeah right...blahblahblah
the Bible is surely very CLEAR and CONSISTENT about the "facts" and "details" huh?
DUMB FUCK...
Voodoofreak35 1 year ago
Have you done research on the critique or just saying that because you don't know much?
POC777 1 year ago
You may blabber all you want about the God who apparently doesnt exist, but you cant refute that fact of millions of changed lives in modern times in every nation, just google George Mueller, the guy who raised more than 3000 orphans without savings and funds. Oh and have you heard about divers finding egyptian chariots buried under the sea of Aquaba? Any one is free to say Jesus doesnt exist, history may "seem" to be inadequate, but people with changed lives and daily miracles prove otherwise.
jauhndabz 1 year ago
anyone who beleives in a god that has never reveiled himself to actualy exist has serious mental issues.
darthfisto33 1 year ago
Amen!
POC777 1 year ago
acctully it hasnt been proven that the slaughter actully happened its only biblical in the verse of mattew 2:16 and nothing else so i think your full of shit
zavok 1 year ago
Fun fact about the book of acts: the description it gives for Paul's revelation contradicts Paul's description in letters. The book of acts contradicts what more reliable sources on the structure of the early church, and also contradicts Roman history.
cryingsoftly 1 year ago
You're using the Bible to back the Bible, this make your claims less credible
HybridD91 1 year ago
New Testament is historically inaccurate(i.e. the census). The Exodus didn't happen. Egyptians didn't have Hebrews under systematic slavery, but did have Canaanites. If the Exodus did happen, Egypt would have faced a huge economic downfall from losing a ton of slaves, which didn't happen. The Old Testament is historically inaccurateI(i.e.Belshazzar as a King and son of Nebuchannezar, wrong). Herod the Great nor his son Antipas was connected to a command like that, which is similar to Krishna.
HybridD91 1 year ago
you have wasted why too much time on this. it sounds like your questioning your fath. that i think is why you are responding to this video so strongly.
kfstevens2370 2 years ago
Comment removed
chopped50 2 years ago
you have actually proved nothing except to add weight to the film you critise.dont forget that the romans kept very detailed writings of all who came before them as crimminals and were killed,not one document ever mentions a man called jesus bought before the romans as the son of god.Thats a fact and i ask you to prove it otherwise.your are a christian and therefore you feel the need to justify your beliefs,remember faith is for those who dont want the truth.
chopped50 2 years ago
chopped50 I came back to better recall movie facts and saw your comment. Tacitus was one Roman historian who mentioned about Jesus' conviction by Pontius Pilate. I had long been curious if that was part of reason Constantine became the 1st Christian Roman emperor reversing all their persecution. Hope this helps.
77heavensent 2 years ago
Doesn't prove Christ was a magical man.
HybridD91 1 year ago
Virgin birth unlikely? If God created entire universe seen and unseen, life activity observed under a microscope, etc. plus create and keep the awesome order, what's the big deal in the comparatively fewer cells in one woman's womb or body for that matter? Would that one be much too hard for God? I don't get it. Of course I once had many questions that were clearly and unforgettably answered. Thank God!
77heavensent 2 years ago
Most of these things that I have noted that creationists attribute as the "awesome order" that god has created are natural results of basic mathematics, basic physics, or basic chemistry.
cryingsoftly 1 year ago
thanks for sharing the TRUTH. I don't understanding why anyone would deny God?
silentsteve63 2 years ago
your validity went sailing through the window once you said "LOL you hasn't read da Bible lol" Your proof is all in the book which it was conceived in. I wish i could write a book, call it true and have masses of idiots worship it.
OnionsMakeYouCry9 2 years ago
@OnionsMakeYouCry9
You want to be L. Ron Hubbard?
stormc1nd3r 2 years ago
lol, pretty much yeah.
OnionsMakeYouCry9 2 years ago
My friend I agree with you in point of the book and have bunch of idiots fallowing in it. But the Bible is a fairytale, of Sumerians writing, it been proven but denied by the church and American government, that's why they send a satelite to the space in 1970's in source of the the planet "X" NIribu called by SUMERIANS. check it out.
dj2lambrini 2 years ago
"I go through a clip of "The God Who Wasn't There" and disprove it point-by-point. "
Um ya, yer missing the point here, first off you cannot "disprove" anything, secondly if you want us to believe jesus was a real guy, try finding some actual historical evidence. No one ever has, but go ahead and give it a shot...
aegisgfx 2 years ago
They can't do that there would be no reason for war
npf2135 2 years ago
I wish people of several religions got together with their 'facts' and their 'true divine books' and debate each other until only one was given the trophy of more reliable. Maybe, just maybe people could realize that the truths they defend with their lives is nothing more than a geographical accident. If only they could get out of their endocrinated heads and observe their exact opposite in the other religion they would realize how amazing is a believer to adjust the world to fit their faith.
lovemrdarcy 2 years ago
You are mistaken, his reference is to WHEN THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN, **NOT** whether or not there were stories in there to justify belief. It took 4 centuries before there was a canon of any sort. So, you in fact do not have your facts. ALSO, there is an Israeli Jewish College that admitted there in fact is not reason to believe that the Exodus took place, dispite having every reason to say other wise.
mrselfrog 2 years ago 2
Wasn't Macrobius a *5th* century historian?
chironboy 2 years ago
So the fact that the media in a majority Christian country doesn't dispute the Bible more often proves it's legitimacy is proof enough for you that it is true? Then by your standards Islam must be true as well if it is not criticized in Muslim countries. As to the "historians" that find history matches the NT/OT Bible. I think you will find history matches the Bible when the research is conducted by people that have a conformation bias to make it match and that it's not a consensus generally.
xjoseywales 2 years ago 9
I'd like to see the archeological and geological evidence that shows Noah's flood and the Red Sea crossing. I've read BS apologetic claims of it, but none from actual scientific research.
Masher88 2 years ago 3
well if you guys really want to find out who's lying and who's not, why not read the bible yourselves,so you will know, than just guessing who's lying and who's not
jandz53 2 years ago
This guys calling the folklore hostorian AT BERKLEY a damn liar.... come on kid... your facts.. and his facts..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm who do I think is telling it like it IS????? HMMMMMMMMMMMM
Cody2554 2 years ago 3
why cant the historian at berkley be a liar?
robtol1 2 years ago
Why WOULD he be a liar.... is the question??
Cody2554 2 years ago
Idk. people are liars! his reason are his own. besides it doesnt have to be an actaule lie, just a mistake
robtol1 2 years ago
It's probably more along the lines of "stretching the truth." he has every reason to do that. he's making a documentary, and he needs information that "sounds" good, so that we'll believe him.
bantafanta1 2 years ago
ok i have a question to idoes who dont believe in god. if god doesnt exist then how did humans get here and if we came from some small microorganism then were did that come from?
franciscoquinones211 2 years ago
the microorganism came from the primordial soup, which is from the rain hitting the rocks. thus from the rock. Going back further as to where all that came from an infinitely small 'point' in the universe which contains all matter we see today...so, all matter came from an infinitely small point. Where did that come from...it just happened from nothing...yup thats the story in brief. A dot made everything. If you haven't guessed I don't believe this.
MrGame20 2 years ago
There are things that seem to keep happening in the Bible. Like the barren wife, the prophet that has to spend time in the wilderness etc.
05311990frog 2 years ago
do you know that in the early 1900's people would have said that your crazy to believe that we can live to be 80 to 100+ years old! so, yeah, i do believe that people lived to be hundreds of years old.
tedican278 2 years ago
In the end, they believe in a book. Good for you.
miasma1616 2 years ago
if adam and eve were the first to humans ever how did they procreat without it being incest? and do you honestly believe that the people lived hundreds of years?
phinney11998899 2 years ago
Macrobius lived 395-436 AD. I don't see how you can use him as evidence of something that happened four centuries before he lived. The slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by the Talmud or Josephus, or anybody else.
tacofixestanks 2 years ago 2
I see your point. However, when you're talking about ancient world, the time difference between an event and our earliest written sources is often astounding. Some of the events and figures which all scholars believe happened/existed have a wide gap between them and the first writings we have about them. If we throw out Macrobius on this one, we might have to throw out an awful lot of history.
revdionysus 2 years ago
I would say that would be true about events which pre-date that advent of Classical historians. Especially true about events in the early Republic, but by the late Republic, nothing went on that wasn't written about somewhere by somebody. Thus it is harder to argue for a wider gap between event and record, during a period of prolific historical writing. So it is unconvincing that Macrobius writes about it, because no one during the period did, Roman or Jewish.
tacofixestanks 2 years ago
@revdionysus You use the Bible 'the book of Acts' as your rebuttlal but this makes no sense as this was written in Greece 60 odd yrs after the events, if it was written during the lost years you would have a point.
Also there are no Roman or Jewish Historians who confirm the events of the New Testament
MegaJay79 1 year ago
@tacofixestanks Well hundreds of years exist between a supposed historical event and the oldest extant copies. Oldest copies of Josephus only date to 10 century but scholars seem certain Josephus existed and wrote in the 90s CE. Oldest copy of Tacitus is 11 century yet they said it was written around 110 CE. Oddly the New Testament is pretty close to the crucifixion. But still we only have copies of copies of copies of it.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I agree that the Exodus is one of the weakest supported accounts in the Old Testament, however it has not been DISPROVEN. However, thousands of historical details in the Bible have been shown to be accurate. I have yet to find one that has been conclusively disproven.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Which detail in the bible has been proven accurate? Just because you say this, does not make it true. Example please?!
robbocox1981 2 years ago 15
Your right, I was thinking the same thing...lets ask him.
cusack171 2 years ago
Quite frankly, these rebuttals are some of the weakest I've ever seen because he's rehasing everything that the religious folks are saying.
masada672 2 years ago
You know what this guy should study. Is how people in ancient times copied books and writings. he expects me to believe, that the book of Axe, a book that is not in the Old Testament, suddenly arrives in the New Testament and now it's the word of God. How?
masada672 2 years ago
its the book of acts. not axe. so... maybe you should do some studying before you call this guy out.
GROWMUSIC 2 years ago
I was being sarcastic for one thing. Secondly I have done studying. I don't need to try very hard to realize that there are many similarities between Joseph in the old testament and Jesus in the New Testament. I could go on and on about how Jesus simply does not exist. And the author of this video is attempting to discredit Science with a Fable (a.k.a The Bible). It's like Creationists insisting that Intelligent Design is science. It is not.
masada672 2 years ago
I think you're right about Joseph being similar to Jesus. In fact, there is a Rabbinic tradition of a Messiah who suffers for the sins of his brothers in order to save them (Messiah son of Joseph). I think there are very strong parallels. However, I believe the parallels are there to teach pre-Christ Jews to look forward to their Messiah. I doubt you'll find this to be a valid argument, but I believe the Old Testament points forward to Jesus constantly.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Suppose the details of the life of Joseph Smith manage to curiously fit Hebrew Bible and New Testament prophecies assembled out of context, fit into the Smith narrative. Wouldn't we be more justified in concluding that a) that Mormons merely retrofitted old prophecy to fit their narrative, tweaking history where needed to fit, than b) the Bible was paving the way for pre-Mormon Christians to receive Mormon teachings? Of the two, which is more likely?
kraorh 2 years ago
I don't understand how you can sit there and say that all of these professors and historians have no idea what they are talking about. You appear to be a regular guy behind a computer while these people are who academic credentials spent their lives studying history and religions and yet you claim they are wrong and you are right...
Kurce12345 3 years ago
because alot of what they say is opinnion. they don't really give you much to follow on to seek the truth. honestly they're arguments are weak because if what they said was true then the WORLD would be talking about it.
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
The world is talking about it. Most pastors, priests, theologians all knew about this. It's not even debatable anymore. But people stay with their religion because they have blind faith and think that anything that goes against god is just the Devil trying to deceive you. Sounds to me like a cult.
Travvvvvvis 3 years ago
which god are you talking about? the God i know of is personal, and is not out of reach from us being able to know Him. travvvvvis have you ever set aside your pride and try'ed to find Him?
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
Yea.... and I didn't. I used to be christian and when I was in church, even when I was a kid, I felt like something was different. I never felt him, heard him, seen him. I felt that I was going to hell because I could not find him no matter how hard I tried. Then I realized I was to smart for my age and that everyone else was just Delusional. But if that is what makes them happy so be it. I'm not here to judge like most Christians.
Travvvvvvis 3 years ago
well... this is my point. the only way you can understand and even allow yourself to find Him is by reading what He wrote. Hell is Not something you should be scared into. If God said He is the way the truth and the life then its worth a shot to investigate Him... I personally after researching myself came to know Him. and i could have been on drugs everyday, but He changed my life.
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
I have read the bible 7 times (a lot of it was for a theology class). Not to offend you (I'm actually really nice and have morals) but the Bible is very hateful. Jesus himself (allegedly because I don't believe he existed) said it was okay to hit slaves even if they did not know what they were doing wrong. I'm sure there was is a logical explanation on your drug situation, but again if God helps you get through your day so be it.
Travvvvvvis 3 years ago
if your lusts and desires keep you from God then thats the reason.i understand now.
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
the contradictions your referring to are not something new. i don't understand how someone can come on here and make arguments for someone they don't believe in...
your coming off as someone who does believe but chooses not to.
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
Okay first of all I NEVER believed in god. Me being a homosexual has NOTHING to do with me being an agnostic-atheist. Second, I thought EVERYONE knew that to make an argument you have to know BOTH sides of the argument. Which you obviously do not know both sides (I don't think you even know your side). You come off as another christian who is not christ like, uneducated, and does not know his/her bible. So don't hate on me because I know the bible better then most christians.
Travvvvvvis 3 years ago
Well, as I point the claims in the GWWT and Zeitgeist have extremely small support even in atheistic circles. So for them to put forth that Jesus never existed is a pretty bold claim. Most scholars believe Jesus existed, although for PHILOSOPHICAL reasons, question whether or not everything the Bible records Him saying is a true quote. They have no scholarly reason to deny this, but because they have philosophical disagreements with Scripture, they cannot allow for miracles, etc.
revdionysus 2 years ago
You can't disprove historical facts with scripture. Sorry.
MisterGaboian 3 years ago
I have not seen in rebuttal to the pharmacratic inquistion
holiver1981 3 years ago
Excellent video. This guy obviously knows his Bible well, and is knowledgable on church history.
garymull2 3 years ago
I believe almost all of the bible is rubbish, but this man is right about this movie, it's has holes...
georgiahuff 3 years ago
it's refreshing to see a non-believer who doesn't swallow every anti-Christian/Religion argument thrown his way,and knows a solid argument when he sees one. We need more people like you on both sides of the pendulum. peace
drizz55 3 years ago
give me any secular historical reference to Jesus...
yose926 3 years ago 2
josephus
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
this guy really doesn't get does he????
99BA 3 years ago
You're throwing a lot of "i thinks" and "i believes" around.
xStuntmanEdx 3 years ago
When was the book of acts written?
Also I was disappointed to see from your myspace profile that you are a father but not married. Why don't you marry the mother of your child right away and meke her an honest woman.
whippet22 3 years ago
"When was the book of acts written?" He discussed that previously, but Acts must predate 62 AD. all the synoptic Gospels were written before Luke, and Luke was written before Acts.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Hey. Not a father. Maybe you misread something?
revdionysus 2 years ago
I appreciate what you're doing; too often people accept what they hear without doing their own research. I see what they were trying to say; they didn't do the best job conveying it. The way the documentary was put together is deceptive; as you pointed out. Here's my rebuttal:
Using Macrobius as a reference to prove the existence of Jesus is moot, since he wrote(325-385)long after the gospels. Of course he would be familiar with the stories;quoting from them proves nothing of his historicity.
mhoytus 3 years ago
Your point regarding council on Passover eve is valid; however:Yeshu is not Jesus. Yeshu is similar to Yeshua (Aramaiac for Jesus) is not Jesus Christ for several reasons:
The oppression of Jannaeus occurred in 87 BCE.
Jesus was Crucified, not stoned.
He was executed on the eve following Passover, not the eve of Passover.
Crucified in Jerusalem, not Lod.
Yeshu had 5 disciples
And several other reasons space will not permit...
mhoytus 3 years ago
Thanks for the response! Macrobius doesn't mention Jesus, but Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Also, he was a pagan and not a Christian writer.
There is much debate about who Yeshu in the Talmud is. However, the fact that it is stated he was executed on the eve of passover disproves Price's argument. Sanhedrin 43a says "the eve of passover" according to the English translation I have. Don't speak Aramaic or have an Aramaic Talmud though. I will trust the translation.
revdionysus 2 years ago
dude
all your doing is saying "not true"
i beleive historians and a profesors who say jesus didnt exist
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
sorr bible man
i use to be christian but after i saw this movie i'm atheist
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
If a movie or book makes you question or change your faith...then your faith never really was in tact to begin with. I suppose you bought all of The Da Vinci Code hook line and sinker too yes?
strengthonor 3 years ago
nope
i just dont beleive the bull shit now go fuck kirk camereon biatch
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
no need to be rude. define the "BS" please....
strengthonor 3 years ago
God is the bullshit to me
now if you can't accept that more and more ppl are starting to doubt in the existence of a 'God" that's your problem
if your going to reply back to me with examples of Jesus
please don't
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
I am moreso curious to see your line of thinking, not preach. Which is why I am asking you how you came to this conclusion; on what basis?
strengthonor 3 years ago
are you christian?
science was my answer
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
Science "was" (as in not anymore) your answer? Just joking. I understand. Would you be willing to provide a more specific explanation? Yes I am a Christian. No I am not passing any judgement on you. I sincerely want to know where you are coming from. If not, that's ok too.
strengthonor 3 years ago
I've read the bible it took me a couple of days
most of it is story's about morality
you can take very little stories from it that end up being true...
no evidence of God-
If he has the power to create us he has the power to save the innocent...
Where waas God on 9/11?
where has God been during all the tragic events that occur in this planet everyday?
I dont believe we all pay for our sins when we die..
Jesusursaviour 3 years ago
Ok. I would like to continue this conversation...but I actually got called for work(on call private security). I will get back to you later. To be clear though you are basically saying/asking how there could possibly be a God who is everything He says He is when there is so much evil in the world. Does that sum up part of where you are coming from?
strengthonor 3 years ago
every man chooses his path in life. lets hope yours is right.
goldgoku3264 3 years ago
heh, he's talking about the new testament. hah. wait wait, i think what god MEANT to say was...
dogotemn 3 years ago
No one is under any obligation to believe in Bookgods. Whether it's Biblegod, Korangod or any of a host of mythological beings that are nothing more than "ink on paper".....Jesus is quite similar to the feeble, little old man behind the veil in the Wizard of Oz - all bluster, no action!...Please don't resort to threats of future punishment (hell) ..That's like saying Santa Claus isn't going to bring me any presents because I've been naughty.
DukeNukem4 3 years ago
It's probably about as tiresome to hear me say this as it is for me to have to keep saying it...
This is not an argument. Calling someone stupid doesn't prove a point. If you skeptics are so enlightened, please offer a valid critique (and many thanks to the skeptics who have).
revdionysus 2 years ago
This is such ignorant garbage not worthy even to consider...
utubejvs3 4 years ago
Your rebuttal is based on your ignorance of the arguments presented within the doco. Example; you show a clip at the beginning about the gap btw the supposed life of Jesus & the supposed writing of the first gospel. However you mis-quote the narrator. He does not claim that church leaders "don't talk about the *stories* in the bible a after the life of JC" but rather they "don't talk about the *historical period* btw JC and the gospels" They don't as there is no HISTORICAL EVIDENCE!
TurinReturns 4 years ago
I don't think you understand his point. I don't think he ever made this clarification. He simply said that Christians don't know what happened after Jesus and before the Gospels were written. We do-- it's in the Book of Acts.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Hummm ...I don't think it matters, even if EVERYTHING in the movie is false -- Christianity and Jesus is just plain FALSE -- a myth, a bedtime story. Are you getting the Picture -- All religions follow the same crap... NONE of them are Logical/ Coherent/ Rational... Understand Yet? it's all FALSE. Scientific evidence, cosmology, physics and Truth are the only real things... WAKE UP ...and stop believing in a lie / myth
shanemacc 4 years ago
Anything that begins to exist has a case.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.
Now we have to deal with what or who caused it.
revdionysus 2 years ago
@revdionysus
We also have to deal with who caused God, who caused the cause of God, what caused that, etc.
My point? We can't get anywhere by saying that something has to have caused something.
As science advances, we'll get more evidence on what caused the universe, until then, we don't know what, or who, if anything, caused the universe.
stormc1nd3r 2 years ago
Revdionysus, the reason TV people dont say the OT is a load of nonsence is because they dont want to offend the faithfull and have to deal with floods of complaint letters.
Edbrad 4 years ago
The only account of Herod's order for the children to be killed appears in the bible itself and in no other non-religeous historical text.
kalsolarUK 4 years ago
You're right in that we do not now possess his actual order, but it is discussed in the pagan work Saturnalia.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Where is your source that where a number of Herods?
pos777 4 years ago
The Talmud's earliest component: the Mishnah dates to 200 CE NOT 70 CE. The reference was written 170 years after the (alleged) death of Christ. Therefore it's likely to be a fictional account.
pos777 4 years ago
Acts, while it does refer to the period after the [alleged] crucifixion was written much later. After AD 70. The prophesy of the destruction of Jerusalem was reverse engineered into Jesus' mouth after it occurred in AD70. This was a huge event in the region, so they had to have Jesus predict it. Many times in the NT they have Jesus predict things that then happen. E.g. he predicts his own death etc. Very easy to do when you're writing 40 odd years later.
pos777 4 years ago
Oh my god, Acts written after AD70? You're joking right? Scholars, at least the ones who examine the NT, the language, and the narrative of it, would agree that most of the NT was written before AD 70-AD 80. Go talk to a contemporary historian who isn't a left wing atheist.
braino2000 3 years ago
braino2000 - indeed MOST of the NT WAS written between AD 50-65 by Paul. However 'Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, [were] written between 65 and 100 AD (en.wikipedia[DOT]org/wiki/Gospel)
pos777 3 years ago
You really trust wikipedia? For one, a deal of pauls letters were written between 40 and 50....Secondly, there is a variation on what time they were written. the NT was finished, most likely, before AD 80. There are alot of facts in it's texts (concerning historical events) that point to this. And you really think mark was written after AD70 just because Jesus predicted the destruction in it? That's simply naturalist bias
braino2000 3 years ago
braino2000 - 'before AD 80'? That's religious bias. The general scholarly consensus is between 70-100 AD, or some say even in the 2nd century AD. Look at what authoritative scholars say, not theologians who have bias.
pos777 3 years ago
Religious bias? You are so full of crap, just like most NT critics. That's not general, that's among skeptic or non Christian NT scholars. For one, Luke does not mention the death of Paul in acts, which is funny considering acts is so detailed and accurate, which means it was most likely written before Pauls death, and his gospel was probably written earlier then that, at least that's what one would suspect, and that's just ONE example.
braino2000 3 years ago
Do you even know how the bible was put together? Mark being written first and the writers of Matthew and Luke being in possession of Mark and Q? Or do you dispute this?
pos777 3 years ago
For one...Not all believe that Mark was written first, a deal of scholars think it's Levi who wrote the first (Matthew) And Mark was an associate of the disciple Peter...Peter was an undereducated peasant, most people of his social status during his day were illiterate, so Mark probably interpreted his words. And it's very doubtful that Luke plagiarized his, his order and style are much different then all others.
braino2000 3 years ago
'Who Wrote The New Testament?' by Burton Mack is very enlightening on this subject. I highly recommend it.
pos777 3 years ago
Sorry, liberal dating on the NT is not accepted very often among comtemporary scholars. Secondly, I'm sure there have already been dozens of people (William Lane Craig, Craig Blomberg, Gary Habermas, other contemporary NT historians) that have replied to his work, Bart Ehrman has gotten replies too. And enlightening? wow....
braino2000 3 years ago
Yeah, Bart Ehrman was a believer till he studied the texts in scholarly detail.
You see, you can approach them either with intellectual integrity, or without. Most believers have a compromised intellectual integrity. Non-believers have nothing to prove or disprove, although I realise that believers are instructed by their faith to perceive otherwise. If I was a Martian looking for real data I would go for a non-believing scholars data, naturally.
pos777 3 years ago
There are those who have done the exact same research Ehrman has done but have reached vastly different conclusions. But even Ehrman will tell you that most of the differences in the manuscripts are very minor and without any consequence to the message of the Bible.
revdionysus 2 years ago
I am not opposed to Q existing. It would not disprove any of the claims Christians make about the Bible. I don't know that I personally agree with it, but I'm open.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Liberal scholars used to say they were written in the LATE SECOND CENTURY, until archaeological evidence forced them to be pushed closer to the conservative dating.
revdionysus 2 years ago
Of course Acts was written after 70CE...Please see earlychristianwritings DOT com For an overview of individual bible-book dates. Most "historians" who date the bible's individual books earlier are "believers" in the myth that the book was authored by a god. After reading that book 150+ times myself, the only conclusion that one can reach is that it is indeed manmade superstitious fiction.
DukeNukem4 3 years ago
The apocrypha where not discarded by the early church like this video says, but by Constantine's Council of Nicaea, (325AD) when the bible was canonised. Some books only lost out by a narrow vote, while some only got IN by a narrow vote.
pos777 4 years ago
Almost everything people say about the Council of Nicea is untrue. Irenaeus in 180, the Muratorian Canon, and many other early church sources verify which books are valid. Admittedly, there was some discussion over Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation (as well as some who thought the late Shepherd of Hermas should be included), but later councils only recognized what early Christians already believed. The Council of Nicea did not change the Bible.
revdionysus 2 years ago
The Archaeology does NOT verify the OT! Recent Archaeology has found that the conquest of Canaan never took place, but that Israel grew from indigenous settlers (Source: The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University.) This surprised me because I thought it was probably the one actual historical part!
pos777 4 years ago
Great video brother! Ive only been a faithful Christian for a few years and I hope to be as knowledgable as you and be able to defend myself so well with scripture and history. Good job!
brown55061 4 years ago
great vid
migkillertwo 4 years ago
No, the old testament is far from a valid historical source.
It is one of many sources, generally considered as a poor source of history!
joebot1 4 years ago
The book of Acts was still written by Mark, and there is still a time gap...
Angels4Anarchy 4 years ago
Didn't the apostle Peter write the Gospel of Peter? If so, why then is it considered apocryphal? Why would Peter lie about who killed Jesus?
scpotts101 4 years ago
You cannot use the bible to prove the bible. The bible is full of contradictions and errors itself. If the bible is the only evidence you have of your beliefs, you lose. Prove the existence of god or jesus without the bible. You cannot be a christian historian, its like trying to be a round square.
cromulentembiggener 4 years ago
That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not. I believe this was Thomas Paine.
amindbody 4 years ago
All of us have agendas. You use 'I believe', 'I think', & 'probably' a lot. If you are sure, what is the point of using these words? I ask with complete humility.
amindbody 4 years ago
The author likes to do some twisting himself. To boldly claim at 3:24 that historians never claim the "Exodus didn't happen" Here are a few quotes from a Google search "Did the Red Sea part? No evidence, archaeologists say" - IHT "Egyptian archaeologists say no evidence has surfaced to confirm the Exodus story" - NYT "In Sinai desert, no trace of Moses" - IHT. Don't call others liars and then get caught lying!
NithFL 4 years ago 2
There is still some debate on the Exodus, but there is also a lot of evidence it occurred, despite what some scholars say. Most scholars do not deny that it happened, but they do try to say it happened in some other way, meaning that the Red Sea did not really part, or else it was only a few feet deep, etc. This is the most common argument from skeptics against the Exodus, not just denial.
revdionysus 4 years ago
There is zero evidence! None, zilch, nada, zip! Quoting the wikipedia article entitled "The Exodus" "However, historical analysis and archaeological evidence has greatly ruled out the possibility of the exodus itself, pointing to more mythical than historical origins or routes." I suggest if you have mainstream evidence of the Exodus you make a video of THAT!
NithFL 4 years ago
Well, we do have loads of circumstantial evidence that supports that all of the events could have happened in Egypt around the Biblical 1,446 B.C. date. We also have the Canaanite peoples writing to the Egyptians to help them exterminate the "Hibaru" overrunning the land 40 or so years later. We also have the remains of chariots in a section of the Red Sea. If I had more space, I could give you more info.
revdionysus 4 years ago
49 US Merchant Ships sunk in the Red Sea during WWII, another few sunken Egyptian Ferries. LOOK... I found a wheel to a chariot that chased Moses!!!! Or maybe it was just a handwheel off a 19th century steamship. The Red Sea is scattered with wrecks.. so many so I found pages and pages of them.
NithFL 4 years ago
Not only did they find chariots, but they found, human skeletons, horse femurs, ancient Egyptian weapons. And it wasn't just a few here or there, but it was a large scale. Like as if an ancient army was there..
kkick 4 years ago
What evidence we have shows that Luke and Matthews are totally incompatible with each other. For example Quinctillius Varus NOT Quirinius was 'governor' of Syria from c6 BCE to at least Herod the Great's death and possibly as late as c1 CE. (_Date of the Nativity in Luke_ by Richard Carrier)
Maximara 4 years ago
PS. While you're at making a video of the Exodus evidence. You can include your evidence for this statement "The Old Testament and the Gospels are valid history". Adam & Eve - "No evidence" Noah and the great flood - "No evidence" In fact its scientifically impossible to cover the Earth in water. There is not enough water to do it. And if you did manage somehow to do it, the water vapor in the atmosphere would crush you like and ant under a boot!
NithFL 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this new information to you? Eusebius, Josephus and Dio Cassius were writing about this in antiquity. Also:
Otto van Heurn's "Pagan Philosophies of Antiquity" 1600
John Spencer's "On Urim and Thummim", 1675
John Marsham's "Canon of Egyptian, Jewish and Greek Chronology", 1672
neothomist1275 4 years ago
"It (Acts) seems to have been written after the death of Paul; two passages (20:25 and 21:10-14) seem to point to his death. A date of 90 to 100 CE is probable"-Religious Tolerance site.
Maximara 4 years ago
I would like to point out that religious tolerance says that most theologians assume that Acts is written AFTER Gospel of Luke and that Liberal Christians put it as being written somewhere between 90 and 100 BCE well after the 70 CE cut off date used in the God Who Wasn't There video.
Maximara 4 years ago
Many secular scholars do assert that the Gospels were written late. However, they are ignoring internal evidence. Their claims about the late dates of the Gospels have little to do with proof, and more to do with bias.
revdionysus 4 years ago
The religious tolerance site cites the reasons that secular scholars believe that Luke was written no earlier than 70 CE (the destruction of the Temple) and since Acts seems to mention Paul's death it couldn't been written earlier than that no earlier than 67 CE when Rome. burned as related by Eusebius of Caesarea. Fact is no providencal relevant Church father even quotes from the Gospels until the early 2nd century.
Maximara 4 years ago
Acts doesn't mention Paul's death. It ends with his first arrest in Rome, even though he leaves Rome, spreads the Gospel for a number of years, and is eventually martyred. Why would Luke leave that out? There aren't any church writings other than the Didache that were written before the 2nd century. The Didache does quote them. Also, Paul quotes Luke.
revdionysus 4 years ago
Didn't go and read the Religious Tolerance site did we. "It (Acts) seems to have been written after the death of Paul; two passages (20:25 and 21:10-14) seem to point to his death. A date of 90 to 100 CE is probable" So much for not mentioning Paul's death.
Maximara 4 years ago
ACts 20 is Paul prophesying that he will die before seeing their faces again. However, he doesn't die for another few years. A prophecy coming true does not prove the writing was written after the prophecy. This is a supernatural bias on RT's part. They are not allowing the text to speak for itself. Acts 21 is a prophecy that Paul will be imprisoned.
revdionysus 4 years ago
Ommar's Razor suggests that the so called 'prophecy' is an after the fact one meaning act is likely written after Paul's death. In fact Luke 1 states that at the time it is being written many other have written down the beliefs and events regarding Jesus' life. This in of itself points to being after Paul's death as Paul is ignorant of much of Luke. Agian Liberal Christan put Luke in the 90s to 100 and a few put it as late as 110s.
Maximara 4 years ago
Paul quotes Luke in 1 Timothy. Luke is referring to Matthew, Mark, and apparently other writings that haven't come down to us. Just because Paul doesn't say much about Jesus' life doesn't mean he didn't know about it or was unfamiliar with the Gospels. The burden of proof is on the secularists to prove this was not a real prophecy. When debating on whether or not the Bible is inspired and an argument is brought up based entirely on anti-supernatural bias nullifies the argument.
revdionysus 4 years ago
Sorry revdionysus but the burden of proof for anything involving the Magical World View is on the MWV not the other way around. For example, the documentation from vampire hunters (many of them professors of Universities) of the 1700s is far richer and with better provenance (in their actual handwriting) than that what we have for Jesus.
Maximara 4 years ago
Are we therefore expected to believe as they did that there were dozens if not hundreds of blood sucking life draining revenants running around Europe?
Or do we follow the modern scientific method and come up with and discount mundane explanations before messing with the Magical World View? And if we do that for the likes of Arnold Paole and Pete Plogojowitz in the 18th century why not do the same with the stories of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries?
Maximara 4 years ago
Liberal Christians only date Luke late because atheist scholars gave it an unnecessary late date and Christians didn't want to look stupid by saying it was earlier. Once again, it is the anti-Christian scholars making silly claims.
revdionysus 4 years ago
This is as JohnLArmstrong calls it an argumentum ad der turum (sp) with some argumentum ad hominem thrown in for good measure. Reimarus, Renan, Weiss and Schweitzer all believed in a god but their work kicked off the whole examine the NT in scientific light. That light puts Luke late in the 1st century if not early in the 2nd-deal with it.
Maximara 4 years ago
Internal evidence says otherwise. As for external evidence, we don't have ANY Early Church writings before the late 1st century. The earliest we have is 1 Clement at 96, who quotes Paul's letters, the book of Hebrews, as well as Matthew 7 and Luke 6. Dealt with it.
revdionysus 4 years ago
Internal evidence shows Luke and Acts were likely written late as Luke 1:1-3 talks about "many" other Gospels by other writers something even the conservatives agree happened late 1st early 2nd century. Noted you didn't want to touch the MWV issue with the vampires.
Maximara 4 years ago
Not quite. Luke says many have tried to write down what actually happened, not a Gnostic nonsense novel. We have two actually Gospels before Luke, and, apparently others wrote things we don't now have. The vampire thing isn't something I know much about, so I didn't comment.
revdionysus 4 years ago