I am of the opinion that no such person as the Jesus of the bible ever xisted.He was never born,he never died and he never resurrected.There is no firm historical evidence for the actual xistence of the man Jesus.There is plenty of evidence for the faith,but no evidence for the man.The NT is not a series of historical documents.They are fictional stories about the early believers in the cult of Jesus,and they are probly older than the time ascribed to them.Compiled by persons unknown?
@GARYWERSLEY No disrespect intended, but that opinion is widely discarded by most Bible scholars today, both liberal and conservative. To quote Gary Habermas, "Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church."
@WayTruthLife83 Non Christian early writers tell us that the "faith" xisted but do not confirm the actual xistence of the man,Jesus.Non of the early writers report earthquakes or the sky darkening at the time of Jesus death.Non of them say anything about the resurrection.Details concerning the early church confirm the faith xisted but not the man.No disrespect intended but some early Christian historians cannot be trusted.The passage in Josephus is considered a forgery by most scholars.
@WayTruthLife83 The whole passage refering to Jesus in Josephus is suspect,which means it is not fit for evidence.The reports of the sky darkening are also suspect, thought to have been inserted by later Christian historians.No contemporary speaks of any event in Jesus life.
Some early Christians cannot be trusted, not because they are Christian,but because they are supected of being forgers.Chief suspect forger is Eusebius,who wrote the history of Christianity up to his time,about AD315.
It would be of great benefit to read the Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright if one wants to see this in full detail. Wright being on the four-front of New Testament, especially Gospels, scholarship. To fail to read him on this shows an apparent willful desire not to understand the Christian claims on the behalf of the one who doubts and has access to this book.
How does he know that the resurrection actually happened, much less whether it took everyone by surprise? The only basis he has for this claim is the Bible, and he believes the Bible because the Bible says it's true. What a waste of time. :( "Why would they believe that?" Just look at the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other group that managed to go on after their predictions didn't come true.
@noforbiddenquestions The NT is a collection of stories about a fictional man named Jesus.The origins of the story are obscure,but it is probly older than the time ascribed to it in the Bible.Jesus and the apostles never actually xisted.The stories told about him never happened.There were many stories rejected by the compilers of our NT.Those who compiled the various stories are only 1 branch of a then already xisting Cult of Jesus.With Churches Bishops Deacons Scriptures.They dated the events..
Valerie Tarico & wisdomcommons looks at humanity's shared moral core and belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule. Jessie J sings this idea in 'Nobody's perfect' , "It's time that I learned to treat the people I love like I wanna be loved". Maybe one of the things is emotional literacy where you try not to say, ' I hate you' but rather be specific & comment on individual action / idea ' I hate or am upset at what you did'. Well maybe the key thing is to understand that is what is really meant.
@zytigon The Golden Rule.1st wrote down by Confucious about 600 BC.He came up with a whole load of rules for living a civilised life.This simplewell known idea was borrowed by the writers of the NTand ascribed to Jesus,a fictional character.The story ofJesus is probly older than the time ascribed to it and may have originated in ancient Alexandria were the OT was 1st translated into Greek from Hebrew at about 200BC.OT and Paganism became our NT."Out of Eygpt have I called my Son."Mat2:15.Hos11:1
Try reading the Epic of Gilgamesh & E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', For sceptical Bible scholars try Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg book '101 myths of the Bible', Richard Carrier, David Mills, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Such bullshit. Nobody thought to write about this zombie coming back to life until 50+ years after it happened. Thank Emperor Constantine for everything. He wanted to bring people under one religion to control the masses, he chose christianity and made it the state sponsored religion.
@Nebzz Actually if you want to get into exact dating the first Christian writing 1 Thessalonians has been dated around 50- 60 A.D And if you know the time when Jesus was crucified. Around 30-35 A.D. The Gap really isn't as large as the gap between Jesus and Constantine Who was born in the late third century. By mid to early part of the second century all of the writings that are now in the Bible were written. And in making Christianity the state sponsored religion he corrupted it from its origin
@tbw980371 Ok sorry, so someone picked up a pen 30 years later and thought that maybe this was important. It doesn't matter when Constantine did it, it was just the dummy in the video was so blown away about how christianity could have spread if it wasn't for everyone talking about this amazing event that nobody thought to mention until 30 years later, forgetting things like state sponsored religion , the crusades etc etc etc.
@Nebzz The anachronism bothered me but now that its fixed I totally understand what your trying to say. Nothing was recorded from the tradition that said Jesus rose from the dead though. We don't know what happened during those years, and if the apostles were active or not. And when you look through history anything whether its the crusades, the inquisition, or any other atrocity that was committed, it was all because the political powers at the time high-jacked Christianity. Still happens today
@tbw980371 When we look through history we find ZERO historical records of christ or the resurrection, so when superstitious men go and make videos about the historicity of christ it bothers me that their proof is "I want to believe it's true, so it must be"
@Nebzz "we find ZERO historical records of christ or the resurrection" That's actually not even remotely true. Sources such as the historian Tacitus, the historian Josephus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Babylonian Talmud and the Gnostic writings all mention Jesus or early Christian practices. This is probably all news to you, but anyone who's done an ounce of research regarding the existence of Jesus will know all of this.
@MakingSandwich1 There are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus. Which means there are zero historical accounts. Writings from hundreds of years after the supposed event are not historical records. You even list writings which have been proven to be fake. You are a tool.
@Nebzz "There are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus. Which means there are zero historical accounts." So let me get this straight, only what you consider to be a historical record, is an actual historical record. That's called bias
Writings from Tacitus and Josephus are not "from hundreds of years" after these events.
"You even list writings which have been proven to be fake." I listed writings that mention Jesus. I never said they were specifically written to prove the existence of Jesus.
@Nebzz do you not know ancient history. writtings about plato did not show up until 300 years after he existed. the same with alexander the great. each have about under 10 copies. yet we call them historical accounts. where for Jesus, there are 5700 manuscrips (more being discovered).each of them having little variations. and about 9 of them are after 130 ad. while the rest are within 130ad. some within the first century. to an ancient historian, this is historical jackpot.
@lilrat489 You should read Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' or 'Jesus Interrupted.' Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and professor at UNC, and he studies the scripture and how it developed over time. Really worth reading. You might change your mind on whether those variations are "little."
@noforbiddenquestions yes, I'v heard of Bart Erhman. and looked at his work. and also many critiques of his work. those variations are little, compared to other ancient literature. Bart is just reporting old news when it comes to biblical scholarship.
@lilrat489 Well, if it's old news that the Jesuses described in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are four different Jesuses, I don't know why anyone's still a Christian. I also don't know how you would describe those variations are little. In the earliest texts Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher, Harold Camping style, like many in his time. He doesn't claim to be God, he just warns of imminent judgment. When judgment doesn't come, the story gets revised and revised.
@noforbiddenquestions I really don't have the time for a debate. but to answer in short. there are good reasons outside the gospels, that show that Jesus believed that he was the son of God. Bart wants you to believed that this concept develouped over time. where in fact you have documents 40 years before the gospels that claim Jesus' divinity.
@lilrat489 We know for sure that Joseph Smith thought he was a prophet of God, but you're not a Mormon, I'm guessing. We also know Muhammad thought he was a prophet of God, and you're definitely not a Muslim. I don't really care what Jesus thought; plenty of people have delusions of grandeur. Nothing has demonstrated that your god exists in the first place. If you don't want a debate, you could at least point me to a source, rather than just saying "you have documents." Seems like a cop-out.
@noforbiddenquestions now, we are talking about the resurrection. ok. there are in fact plenty of evidence for that. evidence in which Bart even agrees with. Bart denies the resurretion on philosophical grounds "you can't historically prove miricles"- Bart's exact words in a debate. (hume's argument against mircles, which has been refuted by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinebourn) that is how good the evidence is.
@lilrat489 Uh ... the evidence is so *good* that ... you quote someone who says no one can historically prove it happened? What? If there was good evidence, you *would* be able to historically prove it (or, prove it as much as we can prove anything with science). What is this evidence you think exists?
@noforbiddenquestions lol, read the entire response, I said that Erhman agrees with the evidence/ historical facts pointing to the resurrection. he only disagrees with the conclusion of the evidence. not for historical reasons but only for philosophical reasons. which have been refuted years ago. and I know you can't "prove" anything in history. history is all about probablity. even professional historian say "prove" somethings happend. it is a short way of saying "it probably happend".
@lilrat489 I'm sure that Bart Ehrman agrees that the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected. Is there some other "evidence" or "historical facts" besides this that you are alluding to? Because I've asked you several times now for some specific source, rather than just an assertion that the source you want to exist is out there somewhere.
@noforbiddenquestions no considering that the sources for these facts are the earliest sources. your fallicy is that you are looking at the date the document was written. a textual critic like Bart look at the content. in which they get these facts from the content. the evidence for the death is found in the the earliest creed found in the 1 corenthians 15. as said before, this creed is dated within 5 years after Jesus some say within acouple of months. cont
@noforbiddenquestions the new testament is a seris of historical documents. the reason why I resort to the NT is because they provide early sources. again the earliest creed, 1 corenthians 15, dates within 5 years to Jesus' death.this creed is the first because it is originally a oral tradition. your misunderstanding is how historical criticim is done. you use text in this case Paul's letters, and you try to find historical facts using historical certain criteria.
@lilrat489 Corinth was a multi cultural multi faith society at the supposed time of Pauls writing.The cult of Jesus xisted alongside many other pagan cults,and seems to be well established at this time.To be so well established and also to have gone astray in such a short time seems impossible.The fact that people believe in a resurrected Jesus is not confirmation that it was a real event.The Church already xisted then and had many different ideas about Jesus,,just as Christianity does today.
@noforbiddenquestions the evidence for the resurrection is the following. Jesus died by cricifixion. there is no scholar that disputes this fact. 2. the discovery of the empty tomb. 3. the fact that there were apperences, the earlist of christian creeds prove this ( you prbly know 1 corethians 15 dated to 5 yrs after Jesus) . then the fact that followers like peter and james believed sincerly in the resurrection. they were executed for that claim. we are left to explain are these facts. cont.
Trying to find sense in the bible is a wild goose chase. It's just a damn book, and not a good one at that. The stories are crap and its riddled with inconsistencies. It's not so much Wright has a different world view, more he ignores the world and only sees his storybook.
i have to state the fact that one cannot take in consideration the speed of spreading or the popularity of a religion to be markers for its truth worthyness or not.. the fact that they believed he was jesus christ is undesputable, but that does not proof that the resurrection was truth just because they came to believe it.. if we take in consideration people's minds and their gullibility i can conclude that it could have been much less impressive and still have the same effect.
I agree but there are about five Resurrections in Bible NT, so Jesus' must have been special.
Jesus was executed for incessant blasphemies (deleting 3 of the Decalog, changing 3 of them, adding a new one, denying the Hexameron, etc) plus curing on a sabbath. And God reversed His death sentence for such trivial thought crimes. Remember, vast numbers of the childless were being looted and killed at the time, so God's last material intervention in the world was a protest against that Draconianism.
@123backinyerface What is a myth and why? You just said that only one part of the side have common sense, you are being a douche. And what do you mean by "still believe"? You haven't done anything explanatory.
@TheFlipisWILD the ossuary has been proven not to be the tomb of Jesus (yeshua). Yeshua was just a common name along with mary, and joseph. here is a video, about the discovery channel's documentery that falsely procliamed that it was the ossuary of jesus, when none of the archeologest admitted that it was: watch?v=dyfKSDjWCMk&feature=channel_video_title
Jesus Christ's apostles died for their faith. Problem is in the Modern world most people have simply been told miracles don't occur and therefore they don't believe. However, even if people did believe Jesus rose from the dead would they actually practice Christianity? I don't think so because people are so strongly formed in their habits of secular society and even so called Christian's live as if the resurrection didn't occur. That is the modern world.
Well Said N.T. Wright! Easter is God's Valentine when God told the whole world he loves us by sending his only son to be a sacrifice because sin requires a sacrifice - Anne Graham
Nobody who really have gone trough N.T. Wright's work can really say that there's no evidence for resurrection, because there is convincing arguments that needs to be considered.
But it is tha same to speak with a religious or a guy like you danwashere, both are blinded by convictions no facts. like you call it "blind Faith"
this event in the Christian faith is the core of Christianity, as Paul has said if Christ has not been raised from the dead then our faith is futile, and indeed it would be. but Paul who persecuted Christians went from that into preaching on the Christians side. the disciples wouldnt die for a lie especially if they knew they made up the lie. THIS is historical FACT, the tomb was found empty that is FACT also, the question is what happened to the body. Jesus is alive and lives forevermore!
@danwazhere7 "the disciples wouldnt die for a lie especially if they knew they made up the lie."
But they would die if they were mistaken. Much like the Heaven's gate cult did. Also, you might be interested in watching ProfMTH's "DID the disciples die for a lie?" series here on youtube. Investigating if the disciples really did die horribly defending their beliefs. There is actually extremely flaky evidence used to support that claim.
@danwazhere7 "THIS is historical FACT, the tomb was found empty that is FACT also"
No, it is not historical fact. What is fact is that the quality of documentation is so bad that it's entirely possible that most of the disciples were invented as well as Jesus. Certainly, when you get to claims like the empty tomb you are way into lunatic country if you describe it as fact. That means you trust the mad ravings of a 2000 year old cult over your own experience that magic is not real.
@danwazhere7 In that light, it is irrelevant what historians might say about the texts. We have a word for unsupported stories about magic. It's "myth". Even if the texts serving as the foundation of the bible were not written by unknown authors they would still have exactly as low credibility as the devotees who believe Sai Baba is an incarnation of God today. If they wrote a book about how Sai Baba raising the dead. I would laugh at it. So should you. And you should laugh at the bible.
@danwazhere7 Until such time as there is evidence available that is sufficient to overturn your own experience of such absurd events not happening. If you don't insist on such evidence, you're forced to accept that Sai Baba is God and millions of other unsupported claims by gullible people.
@Gnomefro dont need evidence of the actual event, we have evidence that Paul converted to Christianity after the resurrection, wouldnt happen if Jesus didnt rise from the dead, same as James Jesus' brother who was a skeptic before and after the resurrection believed, as well as countless of Christians including the disciples dying for a man named Jesus who they knew and was popular around the region of Jerusalem. its pretty hard to fake a story if its based in and around the same region.
@danwazhere7 Paul never met Jesus. And people dying for a belief doesn't make it true. There are people from other religions that die for their religion all the time, are you saying that it makes their religion true? You can't have special pleading for Jesus. We are looking for evidence, and outside of the bible there is none.
@goldenram27 Paul met Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. people dying for a religion doesnt make it true but... if the people saw their God who died and was raised to life and saw Him ascend to heaven and were convinced it was real, then we can say it makes it true, how many religious people can say that? the disciples were in a unique position in a unique event, then tell me why did the disciples die for something that wasnt true? or what happened to Jesus' body?
@danwazhere7 well if your willing to believe people recounting their "visions" as the truth, then your standard for evidence is very low. The earliest versions of the Gospels never mentioned the resurrection. The Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses. Who said that they willingly died? They might have just been killed for their belief, we don't know. And just because we don't know what happened to his body, your most logical conclusion is that he magically resurrected? WOW
@goldenram27 well Paul did meet Jesus, and if Jesus isnt raised from the dead then all Christians faith is false and Paul meant that, to make that statement obviously Paul knew and met the risen Jesus. the early Gospels dont have to mention the resurrection, some had different views on it some thought it was important. they did die for preaching in Jesus rising from the dead including James and Paul. and after Jesus death the faith flourished and the followers grew by thousands years.
@goldenram27 that would not happen if the faith was false,we KNOW it to be true that the disciples and the early Christians died for Jesus, Jesus was popular around Palestine so everyone knew who He was, there is the key comment " And just because we don't know what happened to his body" you dont seem to care what happened to it, what we know to be FACT is that the tomb was found empty, 1.stolen body, or risen, one of those is true. you came watching this video achieving what exactly?
@goldenram27 i do have evidence, but i wont bring it out .... why? because your issue is not a evidence issue its a heart issue. you dont want to believe in God, because you love life as it is now, doing what you want when you want, you looking and seeking for God as a criminal looks for a policeman, you are happy as you are, and you block out all evidence referring to God and wont open your mind to what is truth. do some honest research and stop blocking to what you think is a "fairy tale".
@danwazhere7 How dare you be so condescending to me. You don't even know me. I have done honest research. Unlike you I have read the arguments on both sides and the arguments against NT Wright also. If you actually do some research and do it without the "eyes of faith", you will see that the resurrection cannot be believed. I want to believe what is true, not something that just feels good to me. HAHHAHA don't act like you have evidence, because you don't.
@goldenram27 you can think what you want ...i believe what i believe which is true, you come here not seek truth or anything you just came here for an argument like all atheists, i dont believe this because it "feels good to me" i go against my desires and follow Jesus. one reason why i dont want to be an atheist is to be angry and arrogant and you just proved why i dont want to be an atheist, like i have said you come here to argue. Jesus is coming soon repent He is at the door. look around .
@goldenram27 who is threating you? me believe in fairy tales? says the evolutionists who believes we came from soup. yeah as i have said came here to argue nothing else.
1. Christianity flourished despite the death of its leader;
2. A human being, in a hitherto and subsequently unprecedented fashion, rose from the dead.
Remember, the question is not, "which of these is likely", for even the first one constitutes an unlikely event, but "which of these is *more* likely". I submit that it doesn't matter how improbable the first scenario is, it must be what actually happened because the second is impossible.
According to NT Wright, it is historically improbable that the early Christians would have retained their faith had Jesus died, and so the eyewitness accounts of his resurrection must have been true. While this might explain some things, it fails to account for others. And even if it answered everything, this version of events (that Jesus rose from the dead) is still less likely than the alternative (that Christianity survived in spite of him not doing so).
I liked how this was presented, but I had a bad experience with a Bishop and ever since have been skiddish about organized religion..its hard for me not to get sad over all this stuff..and this one's proud, not able to apologize etc. Anyone got any suggestions?
The pretensions of intellect are an entertaining but fruitless endeavor in all matters of consequence to the human soul. If you ever admit your ignorance (lack of direct knowledge regarding Messiah), then and only then will you be eligible to be taught. You must come as a child.
@matzku999 Theologians deal with what the early church fathers wanted their followers to believe. And even some of them did not believe in the resurrection. Ask your history professor.
This is how it goes. Theologians quote the early church fathers, who in turn use Matthew, Luke and John, who themselves got it from Mark, who got it from Peter, who heard it from Mary, who allegedly first heard it from an angel. How is that for a witness or a true historical event.
@matzku999 Google historicity of jesus resurrection. Listen to both sides and come up with your own conclusions. You'd have enough material to weed through. You can start with the debate between bart erhman and william lane craig aobut the resurrection. Alternatively, you can ask your history professor who's not going to be as kind as those two. A better challenge for you would be to look at your sources. Are the sources practicing clergy, or historians? Have fun if you can.
@mku17ra just because a person is a clergyman it doesnt mean their argument isn't based on reason. NT Wright may be a bishop, but I have yet to see him appeal to "faith" as a proof for what he believes. What he is saying is sound logicl
@mmorrtt It's not that they can't use reason, they're indoctrinated not to go all the way through. NT wright as a bishop (and like most clergymen) has to draw a line where he can't concede contradictions to his faith. There's a reason why most people abandon seminary mid-through. They really go in depth into church history. The only thing that gets the few surviving ones through is their faith alone. Too much contradictions, and apologia on christianity's behalf that few find satisfying.
@mku17ra Anyone can concede contraditions to their faith, it's called losing faith in something. NT Wright is a very smart and reasonable man, his arguments aren't based on faith, in fact Ive never heard him appeal to faith even once, they are founded on evidence and reason. Regarding seminarians, consider how many people change the majors at which they enter college in, i think youre way to presumptuous in thinking its a faith issue. Christians is probably the most defensible religion
@mmorrtt Ok if you think he's giving you the full picture that's your own pejorative. He's playing within the safe boundaries that satisfies his audience. Clergy does not concede contradiction, they harmonize scripture for consumption. Regarding the subject. I'm sorry. Even justin martyr in his own words says the resurrection was a familiar affair and pinned to famous mythologies in the greco roman world. Not special!
Did you just downgraded a pious service to the lord down to a career choice?
@mku17ra Except we're not dealing wth some far off mythology, we're dealing with what happened in the 1st century under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Does NT Wright believe Jesus resurrected? Yes. Does he use his faith as evidence? No. His reasons for accepting the resurrection are reasons, not dogmas. On the flip side, if an atheist takes a look at the issue, they will have to presuppose the resurrection impossible and try to find some other explanation. The point is something happened
@mmorrtt He's taking for granted your traditional assumptions. However, have you on your own looked up the historicity of the jesus gang outside of the bible? How about just Jesus, Peter and Paul. Did anyone, including pilate, met these guys? Any scribe of pilate record anything regarding jesus? Any roman official testify for Paul?
Hardly far off myths, we have them right before and after jesus.These guys recycle 4th century apologia. They studied this in seminar but won't let you in the loop.
@mku17ra I see you're of the persuasion that Jesus is a mythical figure. Are you are that no historian outside of GA Wells considers the non-existence of Jesus a possibility? And even he has modified his views to accept that Jesus' existence is likely. Regarding records, my question is how many scrolls of any of Pilate's writing do we have? The answer is zero. Why? Because of a massive conspiracy? No, because it didnt survive the test of time. Get your head out of the gutter!
@mmorrtt So, you've gone from "dealing with what transpired under Pilate" to "how many scrolls of any of Pilate's writing do we have". Which you answered correctly *ding*. Except we have testimony (albeit brief) of Pilate by Philo of Alexandria 20BC-50AD.
What he says of Pilate:
"inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers >without a trial<."
Did Philo record a Jesus, Or Paul? No. Here's the irony, the early church fathers loved his work. Look it up yourself.
@mku17ra You're the one who questioned the existence of Jesus by asking whether Pilate's scribe had recorded anything of him, a ridiculous comment considering virtually all records have been lost.
@mmorrtt You brought up pilate first. Your premise was that something happened under pilate. My reply was to highlight how you already taken up on false assumptions without evidence. Can't you reason why the resurrection starts to sound like a leap of faith when even the premise of the story arises from complete obscurity and on shaky grounds?
Do you know what the early christians did in order to prove jesus' existance? they forged letters of roman officials to prove the authenticity of jesus.
I agree that "something happenned". The question is what and whether it was unusual or not. C.S. Lewis presents 3 possible reasons : a lie, lunacy or a true ressurected lord. As Bart Ehrman argues, there is a 4th possibility : legend. Legends (of this sort) are well documented through antiquity - and thus there is nothing unusual about the story. If Constantine had not converted, it would have died out or remained marginal. (Legend here does not imply a Jesus myth by the way)
@ZeroSheFlies There is a qualitative difference between the legends recorded in antiquity and what we know of Christ. For one, we're not dealing with some far off and unidentifiable time period, we're dealing with Jesus of Nazareth who lived under Tiberius Caesar. Furthermore, the accounts we have of Jesus are based on sources dating to *decades* after his death and resurrection. The gospels themselves were written in the Apostolic era. The idea of this being legend takes considerable difficulty
I`m taking roughly Tangherlini`s definition : "Legend, is a short episodic, traditional, highly ecotypified historicized narrative performed in a conversational mode, reflecting on a psychological level a symbolic representation of collective experiences and serving as a reaffirmation of commonly held values of the group to whose tradition it belongs" The other criteria is versimilitude. The ressurection accounts fit the basic criteria as at least a "candidate" (continued)
If you simply make that an absolute assertion - without presenting evidence or argument in support - there is no purpose in discussion. You have every right to do so, but you leave no room for debate. If sensible christians are interested in having a dialogue, they have to come up with something more than "its so because I say so" . (Alternately, if you argue that "its so because God says its so" then you equate your understanding with a perfect understanding of the text.)
The writing of the gospel is indeed believed to have originated to the Apolostic Era. The earliest extant record is Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (circa 117-138 AD). As you should know, the full canonical texts date much later and other non-canonical accounts also were in circulation. That is ample time for change and amplification - as well as selection of which account is reliable. To use your expression, the surpra + natural propositions now take on considerable difficulty.
@ZeroSheFlies You're confusing the date of the earliest extant copies/fragments we have with the actual dating of the originals. Obviously P52, a fragment of John's gospel found in Egypt, is a copy of something that existed before, which was a copy of an earlier document, and so on. The original gospels are dated something around 60-90AD, but those gospels are based on sources that are much EARLIER. We are well within the apostolic era, the "ample" time you speak of is non existent.
You are making several assumptions (1) the extant copies reflect perfectly the originals; (2) the originals are accurate accounts; (3) there are no other versions of the stories and (4) the 4 canonical gospels are consistent. All these can be challenged on solid ground. This doesn't mean the core of the story is not true; only simply that the matter is debatable on strict historical grounds. This leaves us free to decide on the basis of faith and theological consistency
What a pile of bullshit. Christianity is simply Judaism for non-Jews. The resurrection myth can be found in a variety of beliefs that predate Christendom.
@mfh2112A popular theory, long ago answered, in general you find the "resurrection" of pre Christ deity’s are symbols of the death and re-birth cycle of deity’s in charge of elements such as crop cycle and also the seasons.
Other "resurrection" myths that are from pre-Christ religions have been documented to be indeed pre Christ in their origins, however their mythology being found to be post-Christ.
@stephjh2006 What the hell are you talking about?? All mythology with the exclusion of Islam and new age belief predates Christ. Where do you think they got the story from?
The hebrews invented monotheism. In order for polytheist to adopt a one god belief system and all the goodies that come with it they had to have a means of bridging the gap. So the jews sacrifice one of their own so their god will see all non jews as jews through the face of christ. Although this is all a metaphor.
You would have to prove that other "myths" actually affected christianity. The evidence is poor. If you took the trouble of reading Paul, I don't think you would argue that "Christianity is simply Judaism for non-Jews" . I am an agnostic, but I don't think that just calling it "bullshit" without evidence passes the smell test.
Jesus was a jew, right? Jesus was a fantastic miracle worker right ? Jesus rose from the dead, right ? Why is there nothing about him in Jewish history . Why is there no contemporary writing in Roman history ? An event like--- many rose from their graves and wanderd through Jerusalem--, should have been spread over the Roman world !!
@stephjh2006 It was, read the history of the church. Why do christians have overwhelming evidence that the prophecy of the Messiah is fulfilled, yet the jews, very versed in the scriptures, can`t find any of this evidence, even after 2.000 years of studying the sciptures. And remember the prohecy was intended for them, in the first place.
@lizazoon Yes, and they were always going to dispute it, in the prophsies for the Messiah, there was also prophesies that the Jews would reject him, however there is a prophecy that there will be a great number of Jews that do come to Christ later. What is interesting is how they disputed the claims of Christ in the early years.
So who was Jesus? Some say a good teacher, some say a lier, some say a devil, some say Christ. What he wasn't was some normal guy in Isreal
@stephjh2006 --there was also prophesies that the Jews would reject him-- So this prophecy sounds like this. I am sending you a messiah, but you will not recognise him. What kind of silly divine, " hide and seek ' game is this ? And the jews, they are so dumb, of course, that they don`t take that part of the prophecy into account ???
If anybody sees all those miracles and the resurrection, would any normal person have any doubt about this Messiah ? Yet the jews have NO EVIDENCE.
@lizazoon well it is true, the prophecy said they would reject him, I suppose they had to in order for Jesus to be accused as he was. The Jews did witness the miracles, they rejected him as evil. there were many Jews who did witness the resurrection and believed. The early Christians were still as much Jewish as any pias Jew, so I suppose some Jews did accept.
In what way did Jesus not fulfil the prophecy? Are the Jews still waiting?
@stephjh2006 You can almost be 1005 sure that christ did not fulfill the prophecy. Why ? The jews were looking out for the Messiah. There had been several before, who claimed to be the messiah,but when checked againt the prophecy were rejected as imposters. The same happened with Jesus. So. one can be quite certain that the Jews checked the credentials of those would-be messiahs.
@lizazoon I see, so the credentials for the Messiah is that he would be accepted by the Jews. Yet if he was accepted by the Jews then he would also not be the messiah, as it was foretold that they would reject him.
They can't be both right, this is a contradiction. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so therefore is the Messiah.
If the Jews could show that he did not fulfil the prophecies then no one would believe, they have had 2,000 years to disprove it, they have yet to succeed
@stephjh2006 Yes, the prophecy is a contradiction. I send you a messiah, but you will not recognise him. What good is that. I send you a savior but you won`t know it. Silly bible infantilism. The jews until this day can`t find any fulfilment of the prophecy for the Messiah. Isn`t that strange? And heathens(christians) have all this evidence ?? Look around on youtube , there are Rabbis defending their position.
@stephjh2006 This divine hide and seek game is biblical infantilism. Besides, Jesus when asked, never openly claimed he was the Messiah. Even all those so called miracles( which probably never happened) did not convince the jews, that he was the right man. Either there was something wrong with the prophecy, or there is something wrong with the Jews.
@lizazoon There was nothing wrong with the prophecy or those who heard, the Jews were supposed to reject him, the prophecy was fulfilled.
You don't need a single miracle to confirm Christ, in fact the miracles were a minor part of his claim. It is his claim to be the way to the Father that is important, confirmed by prophecy and the realisation of those who followed him in coming to the Father
@stephjh2006; And the jews were so dumb, not to take into account the part of the prophecy. saying that" they would not recognise him" ? This is a cat and mouse game that is played in kindergarten. What use was that prophecy to the Jews ?,
@lizazoon Well we do know that a great number will one day see. The Jews were not the only concern, look how the prophecy has been fulfilled through Christ and the church, billions upon billions coming to the Father through Christ.
Why do the Jews need to be criteria for authenticity of the Christ?
@stephjh2006-- Why do the Jews need to be criteria for authenticity of the Christ?-- Because they were there. He was one of them. He is part of their history and their claims have more validity than those of outsiders.
@stephjh2006 --You will know why the Jews would not accept him,-- There is only ONE reason Jesus did not fulifill the prohecy. That is the only reasonable answer.
@lizazoon Let me ask what religion was the first number of thousands that followed Christ? So some could see it
Lastly why does the BIBLE say they will reject him, why is that God chose the nation of Israel to go into captivity during the Babylonian empire, why did God allow them to wonder for 40 years n the desert?
Also why do the Jews have to accept him right away, why not when the prophecy says they will turn back to God?
@stephjh2006-- What prophecy did Jesus not fulfil?-- According to Jewish scholars ? Jesus fulfilled none of the prophecies. The messiah was not supposed to be the son of god. The Messiah was not supposed to be born of a virgin. The Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of the house of David, following the fathers blood-line. Joseph was not his father. If you want more look up those cites.
@lizazoon There are many reasons why the Jews would not accept Christ. There hearts were hardened, they don't understand the scriptures, they were to be scattered from their land as an act of judgement by God, they are to come back to God after; first they become a nation again, 2nd once the message has been fulfilled in the Gentiles (not completed yet) then they will accept their messiah, but still not all of them.
@stephjh2006-- There hearts were hardened, they don't understand the scriptures-- That is nonsense. The Jews are normal people. They reason, they evaluate what is right and what is wrong, just like you and I. Don`t give me that bullshit--- they hearts were hardened-- That`s nonsense because you just can`t accept, that a normal human being cannot find any evidence for the Messiah.
@stephjh2006 As I said many times before. No prophecies have EXACT IRREFUTABLE data. Your "daily horoscope" has the same credibility as those prophecies. Exact names, date, location, description of the event, names of the participants. ,etc etc. all are missing.
@lizazoon Mathematics would disagree with you, and if you relate it to horoscopes then you haven't studied the subject enough.
Besides you didn't answer my question, I answer yours. Who is this passage referring to and where in the Bible is it found? Why did the Jews say it was fake for so many centuries?
names, dates, places, descriptions etc are NOT missing, have you read the OT? This is whu we KNOW JC is the messiah
@lizazoon If Jesus is not the messiah then no one will ever be. It is too late, the time window has passed, Daniels visions have passed by and if Jesus wasn't the messiah then the TRUE messiah was missed by everyone, not just the Jews
11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g] and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
@lizazoon You never answered one of my questions, if Christ was raised you can know.
The truth is not far from you, it won't be found through another’s opinion, or by what the Jews say, or the Romans, it is not a question of doing more digging or looking for excuses. If it is true there is a much closer way to find out, it takes a slight drop in pride though.
He says the disciples were not expecting Jesus to be killed - does he then accept that those passages in the Bible where Jesus predicts his death and second coming etc, were later fabrications?
This is not evidence! The veracity of testaments 3rd/4th a book written tens if not hundreds of years later cannot be credible. Even if it were, is a weak argument indeed to say that "it must be true because his disciples really believed it".
It is pleasant to see someone arguing the case for god that is not a strident, aggressive American evangelist - sadly this well-meaning gentleman is just plain WRONG.
There is possibility of few Jewish people had just lied!! They had enough time to makeup this lie, about 40-60 years!! That explains one still needs faith to admit statement like that.. Personally i find it difficult admit a statement made by few jewish people after 60 years of event and claimed to be miracle.. Cuz miracle it self is lack of explanation.. I'm sure stone age people had broader thinking like i have..
@ayyawark No, just because I think something is simply possible doesn't mean it's probable or did happen. What kind of evidence is there that points to specific people lying?
Too many `maybe`s ` and too many ` ifs ` for my liking.
naybobdenod 1 month ago
Professor, you are wright.
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist hah!
TheIconodule 2 months ago
@TheIconodule I see you and I have a common interest in being Wright?
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
NT wright should be the next US president
Falcondick69 3 months ago
I am of the opinion that no such person as the Jesus of the bible ever xisted.He was never born,he never died and he never resurrected.There is no firm historical evidence for the actual xistence of the man Jesus.There is plenty of evidence for the faith,but no evidence for the man.The NT is not a series of historical documents.They are fictional stories about the early believers in the cult of Jesus,and they are probly older than the time ascribed to them.Compiled by persons unknown?
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY No disrespect intended, but that opinion is widely discarded by most Bible scholars today, both liberal and conservative. To quote Gary Habermas, "Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church."
WayTruthLife83 3 months ago
@WayTruthLife83 Non Christian early writers tell us that the "faith" xisted but do not confirm the actual xistence of the man,Jesus.Non of the early writers report earthquakes or the sky darkening at the time of Jesus death.Non of them say anything about the resurrection.Details concerning the early church confirm the faith xisted but not the man.No disrespect intended but some early Christian historians cannot be trusted.The passage in Josephus is considered a forgery by most scholars.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY The consensus on Josephus seems to be part of it was a forgery, part of it wasn't.
There were also reports of the sky darkening. Why do you think some early Christian historians can't be trusted, just because they were Christian?
WayTruthLife83 3 months ago
@WayTruthLife83 The whole passage refering to Jesus in Josephus is suspect,which means it is not fit for evidence.The reports of the sky darkening are also suspect, thought to have been inserted by later Christian historians.No contemporary speaks of any event in Jesus life.
Some early Christians cannot be trusted, not because they are Christian,but because they are supected of being forgers.Chief suspect forger is Eusebius,who wrote the history of Christianity up to his time,about AD315.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
It would be of great benefit to read the Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright if one wants to see this in full detail. Wright being on the four-front of New Testament, especially Gospels, scholarship. To fail to read him on this shows an apparent willful desire not to understand the Christian claims on the behalf of the one who doubts and has access to this book.
skrich2 4 months ago
How does he know that the resurrection actually happened, much less whether it took everyone by surprise? The only basis he has for this claim is the Bible, and he believes the Bible because the Bible says it's true. What a waste of time. :( "Why would they believe that?" Just look at the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other group that managed to go on after their predictions didn't come true.
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions The NT is a collection of stories about a fictional man named Jesus.The origins of the story are obscure,but it is probly older than the time ascribed to it in the Bible.Jesus and the apostles never actually xisted.The stories told about him never happened.There were many stories rejected by the compilers of our NT.Those who compiled the various stories are only 1 branch of a then already xisting Cult of Jesus.With Churches Bishops Deacons Scriptures.They dated the events..
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
Valerie Tarico & wisdomcommons looks at humanity's shared moral core and belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule. Jessie J sings this idea in 'Nobody's perfect' , "It's time that I learned to treat the people I love like I wanna be loved". Maybe one of the things is emotional literacy where you try not to say, ' I hate you' but rather be specific & comment on individual action / idea ' I hate or am upset at what you did'. Well maybe the key thing is to understand that is what is really meant.
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon The Golden Rule.1st wrote down by Confucious about 600 BC.He came up with a whole load of rules for living a civilised life.This simplewell known idea was borrowed by the writers of the NTand ascribed to Jesus,a fictional character.The story ofJesus is probly older than the time ascribed to it and may have originated in ancient Alexandria were the OT was 1st translated into Greek from Hebrew at about 200BC.OT and Paganism became our NT."Out of Eygpt have I called my Son."Mat2:15.Hos11:1
GARYWERSLEY 2 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY and im sure you have mountains of evidence to support this claim?
Falcondick69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try reading the Epic of Gilgamesh & E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), other great writings are by Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', For sceptical Bible scholars try Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg book '101 myths of the Bible', Richard Carrier, David Mills, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
These comments are brutal lol. NT Wright is a great mind.
whatthehellbook . com
whatthehellbook 4 months ago
Indian rhino is called "rhinoceros unicornis".
TheCarydal 5 months ago
if i change my world view that unicorns are running around everywhere, that doesnt make it true. also unicorns are in the bible... haha. nonsense
sl9guitar 5 months ago
@sl9guitar rhinos are in the bible. the word is "unicorn", but it refers to a rhino. It's a literal translation.
TheCarydal 5 months ago
@TheCarydal cite me a source for this.. rhinos have TWO horns.. you couldnt be more wrong..
sl9guitar 5 months ago
@sl9guitar TROLL.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing good one aegean. u got me...
sl9guitar 5 months ago
@sl9guitar Just callin it like I see it...
AegeanKing 5 months ago
Such bullshit. Nobody thought to write about this zombie coming back to life until 50+ years after it happened. Thank Emperor Constantine for everything. He wanted to bring people under one religion to control the masses, he chose christianity and made it the state sponsored religion.
Nebzz 6 months ago in playlist NT Wright answers Questions about Heaven, Hell & Resurrectio
@Nebzz Actually if you want to get into exact dating the first Christian writing 1 Thessalonians has been dated around 50- 60 A.D And if you know the time when Jesus was crucified. Around 30-35 A.D. The Gap really isn't as large as the gap between Jesus and Constantine Who was born in the late third century. By mid to early part of the second century all of the writings that are now in the Bible were written. And in making Christianity the state sponsored religion he corrupted it from its origin
tbw980371 6 months ago
@tbw980371 Ok sorry, so someone picked up a pen 30 years later and thought that maybe this was important. It doesn't matter when Constantine did it, it was just the dummy in the video was so blown away about how christianity could have spread if it wasn't for everyone talking about this amazing event that nobody thought to mention until 30 years later, forgetting things like state sponsored religion , the crusades etc etc etc.
Nebzz 6 months ago
@Nebzz The anachronism bothered me but now that its fixed I totally understand what your trying to say. Nothing was recorded from the tradition that said Jesus rose from the dead though. We don't know what happened during those years, and if the apostles were active or not. And when you look through history anything whether its the crusades, the inquisition, or any other atrocity that was committed, it was all because the political powers at the time high-jacked Christianity. Still happens today
tbw980371 6 months ago
@tbw980371 When we look through history we find ZERO historical records of christ or the resurrection, so when superstitious men go and make videos about the historicity of christ it bothers me that their proof is "I want to believe it's true, so it must be"
Nebzz 6 months ago
@Nebzz "we find ZERO historical records of christ or the resurrection" That's actually not even remotely true. Sources such as the historian Tacitus, the historian Josephus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, The Babylonian Talmud and the Gnostic writings all mention Jesus or early Christian practices. This is probably all news to you, but anyone who's done an ounce of research regarding the existence of Jesus will know all of this.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 There are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus. Which means there are zero historical accounts. Writings from hundreds of years after the supposed event are not historical records. You even list writings which have been proven to be fake. You are a tool.
Nebzz 6 months ago
@Nebzz "There are zero contemporary accounts of Jesus. Which means there are zero historical accounts." So let me get this straight, only what you consider to be a historical record, is an actual historical record. That's called bias
Writings from Tacitus and Josephus are not "from hundreds of years" after these events.
"You even list writings which have been proven to be fake." I listed writings that mention Jesus. I never said they were specifically written to prove the existence of Jesus.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@Nebzz do you not know ancient history. writtings about plato did not show up until 300 years after he existed. the same with alexander the great. each have about under 10 copies. yet we call them historical accounts. where for Jesus, there are 5700 manuscrips (more being discovered).each of them having little variations. and about 9 of them are after 130 ad. while the rest are within 130ad. some within the first century. to an ancient historian, this is historical jackpot.
lilrat489 5 months ago
@lilrat489 You should read Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus' or 'Jesus Interrupted.' Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and professor at UNC, and he studies the scripture and how it developed over time. Really worth reading. You might change your mind on whether those variations are "little."
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions yes, I'v heard of Bart Erhman. and looked at his work. and also many critiques of his work. those variations are little, compared to other ancient literature. Bart is just reporting old news when it comes to biblical scholarship.
lilrat489 4 months ago
@lilrat489 Well, if it's old news that the Jesuses described in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are four different Jesuses, I don't know why anyone's still a Christian. I also don't know how you would describe those variations are little. In the earliest texts Jesus is an apocalyptic preacher, Harold Camping style, like many in his time. He doesn't claim to be God, he just warns of imminent judgment. When judgment doesn't come, the story gets revised and revised.
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions I really don't have the time for a debate. but to answer in short. there are good reasons outside the gospels, that show that Jesus believed that he was the son of God. Bart wants you to believed that this concept develouped over time. where in fact you have documents 40 years before the gospels that claim Jesus' divinity.
lilrat489 4 months ago
@lilrat489 We know for sure that Joseph Smith thought he was a prophet of God, but you're not a Mormon, I'm guessing. We also know Muhammad thought he was a prophet of God, and you're definitely not a Muslim. I don't really care what Jesus thought; plenty of people have delusions of grandeur. Nothing has demonstrated that your god exists in the first place. If you don't want a debate, you could at least point me to a source, rather than just saying "you have documents." Seems like a cop-out.
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions now, we are talking about the resurrection. ok. there are in fact plenty of evidence for that. evidence in which Bart even agrees with. Bart denies the resurretion on philosophical grounds "you can't historically prove miricles"- Bart's exact words in a debate. (hume's argument against mircles, which has been refuted by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinebourn) that is how good the evidence is.
lilrat489 4 months ago
@lilrat489 Uh ... the evidence is so *good* that ... you quote someone who says no one can historically prove it happened? What? If there was good evidence, you *would* be able to historically prove it (or, prove it as much as we can prove anything with science). What is this evidence you think exists?
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions lol, read the entire response, I said that Erhman agrees with the evidence/ historical facts pointing to the resurrection. he only disagrees with the conclusion of the evidence. not for historical reasons but only for philosophical reasons. which have been refuted years ago. and I know you can't "prove" anything in history. history is all about probablity. even professional historian say "prove" somethings happend. it is a short way of saying "it probably happend".
lilrat489 4 months ago
@lilrat489 I'm sure that Bart Ehrman agrees that the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected. Is there some other "evidence" or "historical facts" besides this that you are alluding to? Because I've asked you several times now for some specific source, rather than just an assertion that the source you want to exist is out there somewhere.
noforbiddenquestions 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions no considering that the sources for these facts are the earliest sources. your fallicy is that you are looking at the date the document was written. a textual critic like Bart look at the content. in which they get these facts from the content. the evidence for the death is found in the the earliest creed found in the 1 corenthians 15. as said before, this creed is dated within 5 years after Jesus some say within acouple of months. cont
lilrat489 4 months ago
Comment removed
lilrat489 4 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions the new testament is a seris of historical documents. the reason why I resort to the NT is because they provide early sources. again the earliest creed, 1 corenthians 15, dates within 5 years to Jesus' death.this creed is the first because it is originally a oral tradition. your misunderstanding is how historical criticim is done. you use text in this case Paul's letters, and you try to find historical facts using historical certain criteria.
lilrat489 4 months ago
@lilrat489 Corinth was a multi cultural multi faith society at the supposed time of Pauls writing.The cult of Jesus xisted alongside many other pagan cults,and seems to be well established at this time.To be so well established and also to have gone astray in such a short time seems impossible.The fact that people believe in a resurrected Jesus is not confirmation that it was a real event.The Church already xisted then and had many different ideas about Jesus,,just as Christianity does today.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@noforbiddenquestions the evidence for the resurrection is the following. Jesus died by cricifixion. there is no scholar that disputes this fact. 2. the discovery of the empty tomb. 3. the fact that there were apperences, the earlist of christian creeds prove this ( you prbly know 1 corethians 15 dated to 5 yrs after Jesus) . then the fact that followers like peter and james believed sincerly in the resurrection. they were executed for that claim. we are left to explain are these facts. cont.
lilrat489 4 months ago
MMMM. Smells of hardcore anti-theism, here.
Sup, Reddit?
Chris1218218 6 months ago in playlist NT Wright answers Questions about Heaven, Hell & Resurrectio
Uhhhhhhhhh....k. Right.
McLarenF1God 6 months ago in playlist NT Wright answers Questions about Heaven, Hell & Resurrectio
Trying to find sense in the bible is a wild goose chase. It's just a damn book, and not a good one at that. The stories are crap and its riddled with inconsistencies. It's not so much Wright has a different world view, more he ignores the world and only sees his storybook.
JaySmith91 6 months ago
i have to state the fact that one cannot take in consideration the speed of spreading or the popularity of a religion to be markers for its truth worthyness or not.. the fact that they believed he was jesus christ is undesputable, but that does not proof that the resurrection was truth just because they came to believe it.. if we take in consideration people's minds and their gullibility i can conclude that it could have been much less impressive and still have the same effect.
example. islam.
eliasjabbour31337 7 months ago
I agree but there are about five Resurrections in Bible NT, so Jesus' must have been special.
Jesus was executed for incessant blasphemies (deleting 3 of the Decalog, changing 3 of them, adding a new one, denying the Hexameron, etc) plus curing on a sabbath. And God reversed His death sentence for such trivial thought crimes. Remember, vast numbers of the childless were being looted and killed at the time, so God's last material intervention in the world was a protest against that Draconianism.
cloudbusterman 8 months ago
Thanks for posting , good video
flash91214 8 months ago
17 people are going to rot in hell
mastermclain 8 months ago
@mastermclain 18 people have some common sense you mean.
123backinyerface 8 months ago
@123backinyerface Even though mastermclain sound like a douche, I have to say that you are one too.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@thetraceur123 Considering you must still beleive in myths as reality, I think you should look in the mirror for a good example of a douche.
123backinyerface 7 months ago
@123backinyerface What is a myth and why? You just said that only one part of the side have common sense, you are being a douche. And what do you mean by "still believe"? You haven't done anything explanatory.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetraceur123 "What is a myth and why?" Oh for fuck sake crack open a book, are you that starved for attention? Be on your way.
123backinyerface 7 months ago
Wh at about this new thing where they say they found an ossuary with all the names of Jesus and his family in it?
TheFlipisWILD 8 months ago
@TheFlipisWILD the ossuary has been proven not to be the tomb of Jesus (yeshua). Yeshua was just a common name along with mary, and joseph. here is a video, about the discovery channel's documentery that falsely procliamed that it was the ossuary of jesus, when none of the archeologest admitted that it was: watch?v=dyfKSDjWCMk&feature=channel_video_title
lilrat489 8 months ago
Jesus Christ's apostles died for their faith. Problem is in the Modern world most people have simply been told miracles don't occur and therefore they don't believe. However, even if people did believe Jesus rose from the dead would they actually practice Christianity? I don't think so because people are so strongly formed in their habits of secular society and even so called Christian's live as if the resurrection didn't occur. That is the modern world.
modomnoc1010 9 months ago
Well Said N.T. Wright! Easter is God's Valentine when God told the whole world he loves us by sending his only son to be a sacrifice because sin requires a sacrifice - Anne Graham
haireffects 9 months ago
Nobody who really have gone trough N.T. Wright's work can really say that there's no evidence for resurrection, because there is convincing arguments that needs to be considered.
But it is tha same to speak with a religious or a guy like you danwashere, both are blinded by convictions no facts. like you call it "blind Faith"
PROPHETHIKO 9 months ago
this event in the Christian faith is the core of Christianity, as Paul has said if Christ has not been raised from the dead then our faith is futile, and indeed it would be. but Paul who persecuted Christians went from that into preaching on the Christians side. the disciples wouldnt die for a lie especially if they knew they made up the lie. THIS is historical FACT, the tomb was found empty that is FACT also, the question is what happened to the body. Jesus is alive and lives forevermore!
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 "the disciples wouldnt die for a lie especially if they knew they made up the lie."
But they would die if they were mistaken. Much like the Heaven's gate cult did. Also, you might be interested in watching ProfMTH's "DID the disciples die for a lie?" series here on youtube. Investigating if the disciples really did die horribly defending their beliefs. There is actually extremely flaky evidence used to support that claim.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 "THIS is historical FACT, the tomb was found empty that is FACT also"
No, it is not historical fact. What is fact is that the quality of documentation is so bad that it's entirely possible that most of the disciples were invented as well as Jesus. Certainly, when you get to claims like the empty tomb you are way into lunatic country if you describe it as fact. That means you trust the mad ravings of a 2000 year old cult over your own experience that magic is not real.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 In that light, it is irrelevant what historians might say about the texts. We have a word for unsupported stories about magic. It's "myth". Even if the texts serving as the foundation of the bible were not written by unknown authors they would still have exactly as low credibility as the devotees who believe Sai Baba is an incarnation of God today. If they wrote a book about how Sai Baba raising the dead. I would laugh at it. So should you. And you should laugh at the bible.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 Until such time as there is evidence available that is sufficient to overturn your own experience of such absurd events not happening. If you don't insist on such evidence, you're forced to accept that Sai Baba is God and millions of other unsupported claims by gullible people.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@Gnomefro dont need evidence of the actual event, we have evidence that Paul converted to Christianity after the resurrection, wouldnt happen if Jesus didnt rise from the dead, same as James Jesus' brother who was a skeptic before and after the resurrection believed, as well as countless of Christians including the disciples dying for a man named Jesus who they knew and was popular around the region of Jerusalem. its pretty hard to fake a story if its based in and around the same region.
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 Paul never met Jesus. And people dying for a belief doesn't make it true. There are people from other religions that die for their religion all the time, are you saying that it makes their religion true? You can't have special pleading for Jesus. We are looking for evidence, and outside of the bible there is none.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 Paul met Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. people dying for a religion doesnt make it true but... if the people saw their God who died and was raised to life and saw Him ascend to heaven and were convinced it was real, then we can say it makes it true, how many religious people can say that? the disciples were in a unique position in a unique event, then tell me why did the disciples die for something that wasnt true? or what happened to Jesus' body?
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 well if your willing to believe people recounting their "visions" as the truth, then your standard for evidence is very low. The earliest versions of the Gospels never mentioned the resurrection. The Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses. Who said that they willingly died? They might have just been killed for their belief, we don't know. And just because we don't know what happened to his body, your most logical conclusion is that he magically resurrected? WOW
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 well Paul did meet Jesus, and if Jesus isnt raised from the dead then all Christians faith is false and Paul meant that, to make that statement obviously Paul knew and met the risen Jesus. the early Gospels dont have to mention the resurrection, some had different views on it some thought it was important. they did die for preaching in Jesus rising from the dead including James and Paul. and after Jesus death the faith flourished and the followers grew by thousands years.
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@goldenram27 that would not happen if the faith was false,we KNOW it to be true that the disciples and the early Christians died for Jesus, Jesus was popular around Palestine so everyone knew who He was, there is the key comment " And just because we don't know what happened to his body" you dont seem to care what happened to it, what we know to be FACT is that the tomb was found empty, 1.stolen body, or risen, one of those is true. you came watching this video achieving what exactly?
danwazhere7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danwazhere7 Please offer some evidence that "every single apostle" died at the hands of authorities for preaching Christianity.
The Branch Davidians died for what they believed. Were they right?
There's a common literary theme that the Bible took part in at the time along with various novels that we know are fictitious.
goldenram27 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danwazhere7 Please offer some evidence that "every single apostle" died at the hands of authorities for preaching Christianity.
The Branch Davidians died for what they believed. Were they right?
There's a common literary theme that the Bible took part in at the time along with various novels that we know are fictitious.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 "dont need evidence of the actual event"
Never mind I am done arguing with you. That is all I needed to hear. So you believe on faith, good for you. Some of us don't value faith.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 i do have evidence, but i wont bring it out .... why? because your issue is not a evidence issue its a heart issue. you dont want to believe in God, because you love life as it is now, doing what you want when you want, you looking and seeking for God as a criminal looks for a policeman, you are happy as you are, and you block out all evidence referring to God and wont open your mind to what is truth. do some honest research and stop blocking to what you think is a "fairy tale".
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 How dare you be so condescending to me. You don't even know me. I have done honest research. Unlike you I have read the arguments on both sides and the arguments against NT Wright also. If you actually do some research and do it without the "eyes of faith", you will see that the resurrection cannot be believed. I want to believe what is true, not something that just feels good to me. HAHHAHA don't act like you have evidence, because you don't.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 you can think what you want ...i believe what i believe which is true, you come here not seek truth or anything you just came here for an argument like all atheists, i dont believe this because it "feels good to me" i go against my desires and follow Jesus. one reason why i dont want to be an atheist is to be angry and arrogant and you just proved why i dont want to be an atheist, like i have said you come here to argue. Jesus is coming soon repent He is at the door. look around .
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 Don't threaten me. I'll let you believe your little fairy tale. Good bye
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 who is threating you? me believe in fairy tales? says the evolutionists who believes we came from soup. yeah as i have said came here to argue nothing else.
danwazhere7 10 months ago
@danwazhere7 Wait wait wait....you don't believe in evolution?
goldenram27 10 months ago
In summary: which of these is more likely?
1. Christianity flourished despite the death of its leader;
2. A human being, in a hitherto and subsequently unprecedented fashion, rose from the dead.
Remember, the question is not, "which of these is likely", for even the first one constitutes an unlikely event, but "which of these is *more* likely". I submit that it doesn't matter how improbable the first scenario is, it must be what actually happened because the second is impossible.
aniboker 11 months ago
According to NT Wright, it is historically improbable that the early Christians would have retained their faith had Jesus died, and so the eyewitness accounts of his resurrection must have been true. While this might explain some things, it fails to account for others. And even if it answered everything, this version of events (that Jesus rose from the dead) is still less likely than the alternative (that Christianity survived in spite of him not doing so).
aniboker 11 months ago
I liked how this was presented, but I had a bad experience with a Bishop and ever since have been skiddish about organized religion..its hard for me not to get sad over all this stuff..and this one's proud, not able to apologize etc. Anyone got any suggestions?
VoiceOfModeration 11 months ago
I think it is some kind of subculture, talking nonsense and lies. Shame on you
ANTEKBT 11 months ago
1: they believed he raised bodily
2: why would they believe that
visions.
ialvarez357 11 months ago
im convinced that Jesus was God because his followers were willing to die for him.
spector1991 1 year ago
1) If U have not met Jesus, then U do not know.
2) If U do not know, then it is illogical to begin arguing, for U have no premise.
3) If U desire to know, then U can seek Jesus very simply and straightforwardly.
4) If U seek Him, then U will find Him if U do not give up.
5) When U find Him, U will be amazed, and then U will KNOW.
6) Then U can annoy those who do not know by telling them that He Is Real.
7) Eventually, U will tire of annoying them, and U will begin learning how to live.
Fear not.
OKandNOWwhat 1 year ago
@OKandNOWwhat
1) If U have not met Zeus, then U do not know.
2) If U do not know, then it is illogical to begin arguing, for U have no premise.
3) If U desire to know, then U can seek Zeus very simply and straightforwardly.
4) If U seek Him, then U will find Him if U do not give up.
5) When U find Him, U will be amazed, and then U will KNOW.
6) Then U can annoy those who do not know by telling them that He Is Real.
7) Eventually, U will tire of annoying them
Fear not
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
@ZeroSheFlies
Have you met Zeus?
The pretensions of intellect are an entertaining but fruitless endeavor in all matters of consequence to the human soul. If you ever admit your ignorance (lack of direct knowledge regarding Messiah), then and only then will you be eligible to be taught. You must come as a child.
May you be blessed.
OKandNOWwhat 1 year ago
God exists ---> God has a purpose for us and wants us to know about Him ---> God provides supreme revelation in Jesus of Nazareth.
What else has such explanatory power over the miracle of life and religious phenomenon?
Saibomb 1 year ago
Oh yes. Let's ask a theologian if the resurrection was a real event...
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra oh yes. you think we should ask an atheist if the resurrection was a real event.
matzku999 1 year ago
@matzku999 Theologians deal with what the early church fathers wanted their followers to believe. And even some of them did not believe in the resurrection. Ask your history professor.
This is how it goes. Theologians quote the early church fathers, who in turn use Matthew, Luke and John, who themselves got it from Mark, who got it from Peter, who heard it from Mary, who allegedly first heard it from an angel. How is that for a witness or a true historical event.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra hey sources would be fine. im not any kind of conspiracy supporter
matzku999 1 year ago
@matzku999 Google historicity of jesus resurrection. Listen to both sides and come up with your own conclusions. You'd have enough material to weed through. You can start with the debate between bart erhman and william lane craig aobut the resurrection. Alternatively, you can ask your history professor who's not going to be as kind as those two. A better challenge for you would be to look at your sources. Are the sources practicing clergy, or historians? Have fun if you can.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra just because a person is a clergyman it doesnt mean their argument isn't based on reason. NT Wright may be a bishop, but I have yet to see him appeal to "faith" as a proof for what he believes. What he is saying is sound logicl
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt It's not that they can't use reason, they're indoctrinated not to go all the way through. NT wright as a bishop (and like most clergymen) has to draw a line where he can't concede contradictions to his faith. There's a reason why most people abandon seminary mid-through. They really go in depth into church history. The only thing that gets the few surviving ones through is their faith alone. Too much contradictions, and apologia on christianity's behalf that few find satisfying.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra Anyone can concede contraditions to their faith, it's called losing faith in something. NT Wright is a very smart and reasonable man, his arguments aren't based on faith, in fact Ive never heard him appeal to faith even once, they are founded on evidence and reason. Regarding seminarians, consider how many people change the majors at which they enter college in, i think youre way to presumptuous in thinking its a faith issue. Christians is probably the most defensible religion
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt Ok if you think he's giving you the full picture that's your own pejorative. He's playing within the safe boundaries that satisfies his audience. Clergy does not concede contradiction, they harmonize scripture for consumption. Regarding the subject. I'm sorry. Even justin martyr in his own words says the resurrection was a familiar affair and pinned to famous mythologies in the greco roman world. Not special!
Did you just downgraded a pious service to the lord down to a career choice?
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra Except we're not dealing wth some far off mythology, we're dealing with what happened in the 1st century under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Does NT Wright believe Jesus resurrected? Yes. Does he use his faith as evidence? No. His reasons for accepting the resurrection are reasons, not dogmas. On the flip side, if an atheist takes a look at the issue, they will have to presuppose the resurrection impossible and try to find some other explanation. The point is something happened
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt He's taking for granted your traditional assumptions. However, have you on your own looked up the historicity of the jesus gang outside of the bible? How about just Jesus, Peter and Paul. Did anyone, including pilate, met these guys? Any scribe of pilate record anything regarding jesus? Any roman official testify for Paul?
Hardly far off myths, we have them right before and after jesus.These guys recycle 4th century apologia. They studied this in seminar but won't let you in the loop.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra I see you're of the persuasion that Jesus is a mythical figure. Are you are that no historian outside of GA Wells considers the non-existence of Jesus a possibility? And even he has modified his views to accept that Jesus' existence is likely. Regarding records, my question is how many scrolls of any of Pilate's writing do we have? The answer is zero. Why? Because of a massive conspiracy? No, because it didnt survive the test of time. Get your head out of the gutter!
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt So, you've gone from "dealing with what transpired under Pilate" to "how many scrolls of any of Pilate's writing do we have". Which you answered correctly *ding*. Except we have testimony (albeit brief) of Pilate by Philo of Alexandria 20BC-50AD.
What he says of Pilate:
"inflexible, he was stubborn, of cruel disposition. He executed troublemakers >without a trial<."
Did Philo record a Jesus, Or Paul? No. Here's the irony, the early church fathers loved his work. Look it up yourself.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mku17ra You're the one who questioned the existence of Jesus by asking whether Pilate's scribe had recorded anything of him, a ridiculous comment considering virtually all records have been lost.
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt You brought up pilate first. Your premise was that something happened under pilate. My reply was to highlight how you already taken up on false assumptions without evidence. Can't you reason why the resurrection starts to sound like a leap of faith when even the premise of the story arises from complete obscurity and on shaky grounds?
Do you know what the early christians did in order to prove jesus' existance? they forged letters of roman officials to prove the authenticity of jesus.
mku17ra 1 year ago
@mmorrtt
I agree that "something happenned". The question is what and whether it was unusual or not. C.S. Lewis presents 3 possible reasons : a lie, lunacy or a true ressurected lord. As Bart Ehrman argues, there is a 4th possibility : legend. Legends (of this sort) are well documented through antiquity - and thus there is nothing unusual about the story. If Constantine had not converted, it would have died out or remained marginal. (Legend here does not imply a Jesus myth by the way)
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
@ZeroSheFlies There is a qualitative difference between the legends recorded in antiquity and what we know of Christ. For one, we're not dealing with some far off and unidentifiable time period, we're dealing with Jesus of Nazareth who lived under Tiberius Caesar. Furthermore, the accounts we have of Jesus are based on sources dating to *decades* after his death and resurrection. The gospels themselves were written in the Apostolic era. The idea of this being legend takes considerable difficulty
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt
I`m taking roughly Tangherlini`s definition : "Legend, is a short episodic, traditional, highly ecotypified historicized narrative performed in a conversational mode, reflecting on a psychological level a symbolic representation of collective experiences and serving as a reaffirmation of commonly held values of the group to whose tradition it belongs" The other criteria is versimilitude. The ressurection accounts fit the basic criteria as at least a "candidate" (continued)
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
@ZeroSheFlies No it doesn't, the genre of the gospel accounts are not legendary.
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt
If you simply make that an absolute assertion - without presenting evidence or argument in support - there is no purpose in discussion. You have every right to do so, but you leave no room for debate. If sensible christians are interested in having a dialogue, they have to come up with something more than "its so because I say so" . (Alternately, if you argue that "its so because God says its so" then you equate your understanding with a perfect understanding of the text.)
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
@mmorrtt
The writing of the gospel is indeed believed to have originated to the Apolostic Era. The earliest extant record is Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (circa 117-138 AD). As you should know, the full canonical texts date much later and other non-canonical accounts also were in circulation. That is ample time for change and amplification - as well as selection of which account is reliable. To use your expression, the surpra + natural propositions now take on considerable difficulty.
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
@ZeroSheFlies You're confusing the date of the earliest extant copies/fragments we have with the actual dating of the originals. Obviously P52, a fragment of John's gospel found in Egypt, is a copy of something that existed before, which was a copy of an earlier document, and so on. The original gospels are dated something around 60-90AD, but those gospels are based on sources that are much EARLIER. We are well within the apostolic era, the "ample" time you speak of is non existent.
mmorrtt 1 year ago
@mmorrtt
You are making several assumptions (1) the extant copies reflect perfectly the originals; (2) the originals are accurate accounts; (3) there are no other versions of the stories and (4) the 4 canonical gospels are consistent. All these can be challenged on solid ground. This doesn't mean the core of the story is not true; only simply that the matter is debatable on strict historical grounds. This leaves us free to decide on the basis of faith and theological consistency
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
What a pile of bullshit. Christianity is simply Judaism for non-Jews. The resurrection myth can be found in a variety of beliefs that predate Christendom.
mfh2112 1 year ago
@mfh2112A popular theory, long ago answered, in general you find the "resurrection" of pre Christ deity’s are symbols of the death and re-birth cycle of deity’s in charge of elements such as crop cycle and also the seasons.
Other "resurrection" myths that are from pre-Christ religions have been documented to be indeed pre Christ in their origins, however their mythology being found to be post-Christ.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 What the hell are you talking about?? All mythology with the exclusion of Islam and new age belief predates Christ. Where do you think they got the story from?
The hebrews invented monotheism. In order for polytheist to adopt a one god belief system and all the goodies that come with it they had to have a means of bridging the gap. So the jews sacrifice one of their own so their god will see all non jews as jews through the face of christ. Although this is all a metaphor.
mfh2112 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mfh2112
You would have to prove that other "myths" actually affected christianity. The evidence is poor. If you took the trouble of reading Paul, I don't think you would argue that "Christianity is simply Judaism for non-Jews" . I am an agnostic, but I don't think that just calling it "bullshit" without evidence passes the smell test.
ZeroSheFlies 1 year ago
Jesus was a jew, right? Jesus was a fantastic miracle worker right ? Jesus rose from the dead, right ? Why is there nothing about him in Jewish history . Why is there no contemporary writing in Roman history ? An event like--- many rose from their graves and wanderd through Jerusalem--, should have been spread over the Roman world !!
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Why was this not the subject of the disputes in the early century's AD?
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 It was, read the history of the church. Why do christians have overwhelming evidence that the prophecy of the Messiah is fulfilled, yet the jews, very versed in the scriptures, can`t find any of this evidence, even after 2.000 years of studying the sciptures. And remember the prohecy was intended for them, in the first place.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Yes, and they were always going to dispute it, in the prophsies for the Messiah, there was also prophesies that the Jews would reject him, however there is a prophecy that there will be a great number of Jews that do come to Christ later. What is interesting is how they disputed the claims of Christ in the early years.
So who was Jesus? Some say a good teacher, some say a lier, some say a devil, some say Christ. What he wasn't was some normal guy in Isreal
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 --there was also prophesies that the Jews would reject him-- So this prophecy sounds like this. I am sending you a messiah, but you will not recognise him. What kind of silly divine, " hide and seek ' game is this ? And the jews, they are so dumb, of course, that they don`t take that part of the prophecy into account ???
If anybody sees all those miracles and the resurrection, would any normal person have any doubt about this Messiah ? Yet the jews have NO EVIDENCE.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon well it is true, the prophecy said they would reject him, I suppose they had to in order for Jesus to be accused as he was. The Jews did witness the miracles, they rejected him as evil. there were many Jews who did witness the resurrection and believed. The early Christians were still as much Jewish as any pias Jew, so I suppose some Jews did accept.
In what way did Jesus not fulfil the prophecy? Are the Jews still waiting?
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 You can almost be 1005 sure that christ did not fulfill the prophecy. Why ? The jews were looking out for the Messiah. There had been several before, who claimed to be the messiah,but when checked againt the prophecy were rejected as imposters. The same happened with Jesus. So. one can be quite certain that the Jews checked the credentials of those would-be messiahs.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon I see, so the credentials for the Messiah is that he would be accepted by the Jews. Yet if he was accepted by the Jews then he would also not be the messiah, as it was foretold that they would reject him.
They can't be both right, this is a contradiction. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so therefore is the Messiah.
If the Jews could show that he did not fulfil the prophecies then no one would believe, they have had 2,000 years to disprove it, they have yet to succeed
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 Yes, the prophecy is a contradiction. I send you a messiah, but you will not recognise him. What good is that. I send you a savior but you won`t know it. Silly bible infantilism. The jews until this day can`t find any fulfilment of the prophecy for the Messiah. Isn`t that strange? And heathens(christians) have all this evidence ?? Look around on youtube , there are Rabbis defending their position.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 This divine hide and seek game is biblical infantilism. Besides, Jesus when asked, never openly claimed he was the Messiah. Even all those so called miracles( which probably never happened) did not convince the jews, that he was the right man. Either there was something wrong with the prophecy, or there is something wrong with the Jews.
lizazoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'll check, here is what I have found so far:
matt 5:17; 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; 12:40; 16:13-20,27; 17:12,22; 19:28; 20:17-19,28,45; 24:30; 25:31; 26:2,31-32,45,54,64
Mark 2:28; 8:31,38; 9:31; 10:33,45; 14:21,41,61-62,
Luke 4:16-21; 6:22; 7:34; 9:22,44;12:8;18:31; 19:10 22:37,69; 24:26,44-46
John 1:51;3:13-15; 4:25-26; 5:27,39,46; 6:53-59; 8:21-30; 9:35-37; 10:11,15; 12:23
These are all Jesus speaking refering to himself
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@lizazoon There was nothing wrong with the prophecy or those who heard, the Jews were supposed to reject him, the prophecy was fulfilled.
You don't need a single miracle to confirm Christ, in fact the miracles were a minor part of his claim. It is his claim to be the way to the Father that is important, confirmed by prophecy and the realisation of those who followed him in coming to the Father
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006; And the jews were so dumb, not to take into account the part of the prophecy. saying that" they would not recognise him" ? This is a cat and mouse game that is played in kindergarten. What use was that prophecy to the Jews ?,
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Well we do know that a great number will one day see. The Jews were not the only concern, look how the prophecy has been fulfilled through Christ and the church, billions upon billions coming to the Father through Christ.
Why do the Jews need to be criteria for authenticity of the Christ?
Besides how many of the Jews came to Christ?
stephjh2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stephjh2006-- Why do the Jews need to be criteria for authenticity of the Christ?-- Because they were there. He was one of them. He is part of their history and their claims have more validity than those of outsiders.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Have you read the prophecies relating to Christ? You will know why the Jews would not accept him,
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 --You will know why the Jews would not accept him,-- There is only ONE reason Jesus did not fulifill the prohecy. That is the only reasonable answer.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Let me ask what religion was the first number of thousands that followed Christ? So some could see it
Lastly why does the BIBLE say they will reject him, why is that God chose the nation of Israel to go into captivity during the Babylonian empire, why did God allow them to wonder for 40 years n the desert?
Also why do the Jews have to accept him right away, why not when the prophecy says they will turn back to God?
What prophecy did Jesus not fulfil?
stephjh2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stephjh2006-- What prophecy did Jesus not fulfil?-- According to Jewish scholars ? Jesus fulfilled none of the prophecies. The messiah was not supposed to be the son of god. The Messiah was not supposed to be born of a virgin. The Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of the house of David, following the fathers blood-line. Joseph was not his father. If you want more look up those cites.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon There are many reasons why the Jews would not accept Christ. There hearts were hardened, they don't understand the scriptures, they were to be scattered from their land as an act of judgement by God, they are to come back to God after; first they become a nation again, 2nd once the message has been fulfilled in the Gentiles (not completed yet) then they will accept their messiah, but still not all of them.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006-- There hearts were hardened, they don't understand the scriptures-- That is nonsense. The Jews are normal people. They reason, they evaluate what is right and what is wrong, just like you and I. Don`t give me that bullshit--- they hearts were hardened-- That`s nonsense because you just can`t accept, that a normal human being cannot find any evidence for the Messiah.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@stephjh2006 As I said many times before. No prophecies have EXACT IRREFUTABLE data. Your "daily horoscope" has the same credibility as those prophecies. Exact names, date, location, description of the event, names of the participants. ,etc etc. all are missing.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Mathematics would disagree with you, and if you relate it to horoscopes then you haven't studied the subject enough.
Besides you didn't answer my question, I answer yours. Who is this passage referring to and where in the Bible is it found? Why did the Jews say it was fake for so many centuries?
names, dates, places, descriptions etc are NOT missing, have you read the OT? This is whu we KNOW JC is the messiah
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@lizazoon If Jesus is not the messiah then no one will ever be. It is too late, the time window has passed, Daniels visions have passed by and if Jesus wasn't the messiah then the TRUE messiah was missed by everyone, not just the Jews
stephjh2006 1 year ago
Cont... part 2 4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
cont... part 3
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
stephjh2006 1 year ago
cont... part 4
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
7 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
cont... part 5
11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g] and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@lizazoon That was from my Bible, who was it about? What does it teach us?
This section was accused by the Jews, long ago, to be fake. Do you know why?
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@lizazoon You never answered one of my questions, if Christ was raised you can know.
The truth is not far from you, it won't be found through another’s opinion, or by what the Jews say, or the Romans, it is not a question of doing more digging or looking for excuses. If it is true there is a much closer way to find out, it takes a slight drop in pride though.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
@lizazoon Lastly, what does the bible explain will be the evidence of Christ? If Christ is indeed raised it can be proven to you.
stephjh2006 1 year ago
Excellent video!
Gaius8666a 1 year ago
He says the disciples were not expecting Jesus to be killed - does he then accept that those passages in the Bible where Jesus predicts his death and second coming etc, were later fabrications?
orlando098 1 year ago
@orlando098 Good question. !!
lizazoon 1 year ago
This is not evidence! The veracity of testaments 3rd/4th a book written tens if not hundreds of years later cannot be credible. Even if it were, is a weak argument indeed to say that "it must be true because his disciples really believed it".
It is pleasant to see someone arguing the case for god that is not a strident, aggressive American evangelist - sadly this well-meaning gentleman is just plain WRONG.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
AMEN!!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
There is possibility of few Jewish people had just lied!! They had enough time to makeup this lie, about 40-60 years!! That explains one still needs faith to admit statement like that.. Personally i find it difficult admit a statement made by few jewish people after 60 years of event and claimed to be miracle.. Cuz miracle it self is lack of explanation.. I'm sure stone age people had broader thinking like i have..
ayyawark 1 year ago
@ayyawark What would the purpose be of their lie? Who would want to lie and be persecuted? What would these lairs obtain from lying?
bander87 1 year ago
@bander87 Well, if you found purpose, would u admit that they lied??
ayyawark 1 year ago
@ayyawark No, just because I think something is simply possible doesn't mean it's probable or did happen. What kind of evidence is there that points to specific people lying?
bander87 1 year ago
@bander87 I presume, you are christian, If i say, Mohammed flew into sky with horse at his death, would u believe it ?? what would u say about it??
ayyawark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ayyawark
He did that during his lifetime, not when he died :-) He was taken up into heaven on a magic horse for a visit
orlando098 1 year ago
You have to assume that a death or resurrection could not be hoaxed.
Jesus could not have a body double that died on the cross?
Or if Christ died a body double could not make a brief appearance?
How have these possibilities been ruled out?
mtheoryrules 1 year ago