Haha, about as obvious as the existence of santa clause.
Aaron, your ignorance and conceit are revolting. Your slanted biased attitude toward non-believers is disturbing. You exhibit all the symptoms of a psychopath. Enjoy your one and only life believing in a lie.
plz dude honestly plz stfu ur really starting to get on my nereves y argue with someone u say god bless to any athiest ur begging for a fight just let them exist as they do u alrite plz plz plz just stfu
You can argue whatever kind of fallacy you think I made, the point still stands. Why should I believe a man came back from the dead 2000 years ago if there's nothing to support it?
So you're not trying to prove it happened, you're saying there's a probability that it could've happened?
There's a probability that Jesus did in fact exist and was tortured and executed for his views. There is no probability that he came back from the dead.
So you're saying it MAY have happened? Okay then, if we want to know the truth then we have to test and prove this. If you can't do this, why should we accept it?
Yeah Aaron pointed out how "obvious" it was without showing any real evidence. He sure owned us crazy Atheists didn't he?
If you don't see how that's out of the ordinary then it's no wonder you're fighting so cutely to defend this lol.
You want me to use logic? Okay, a man coming back from the dead after 3 days 2000 years ago is about as likely as invisible magic space bunnies living in my sock drawer.
Oh, but wait, you're going to want evidence of that aren't you... what a shame.
You're calling me stupid? Lol, okay, sure, yeah I'm the stupid one.
You're stating that because one thing of legendary myth may have happened a long time ago means that anything else of legendary myth may have happened disregarding whether any evidence exists for it or not, but yeah, I'm the stupid one here.
Do you not understand that it's impossible, even today, to bring someone back from the dead even with the most advanced medical technology after 3 days? Let alone a dead body coming back from the dead by itself after those 3 days 2000 years ago?
My basis is that it's physically impossible and you nor anyone else can show evidence for it or even the probability that it may have happened.
watch the debate between WLC and Richard Carrier and see who gets smoked like some "bad herbs".
"my basis is that it`s physically impossible"
all you`re doing is PRESUPPOSING the non existence of God.if the apologist gives you evidence then you have to refute the actual evidence rather than appealing to your presuppositions.
We're not even talking about the existence or non existence of God, we're talking about whether Jesus was resurrected or not. We're not even talking about if he didn't exist, he may have very well existed, my problem is that it's impossible for someone to come back from the dead in the way that is described.
"it`s impossible for someone to come back from the dead"
you`re presupposing that the miraculous is non existent.if you believe the evidence is not sufficient then say that ... don`t say "it`s impossible for this or that".
Lol I'm not saying there isn't enough evidence to say people can't be brought back from the dead, I'm saying it's impossible because it's impossible, especially under those circumstances.
I can't believe I'm having this discussion lol. To explain to you how it's impossible to come back from the dead on your own after 3 days is pretty funny lol.
Yeah blah blah fallacy, it doesn't help your point.
First of all, I grew up an orthodox Catholic and I was showered with every bit of nonsense the basic Jewdeo-Christian faith has to offer, so I've been there done that and heard the so called "evidence".
But why dismiss the claim so soon? Because the story is ridiculous. And the evidence you use (the Bible!) isn't enough to convince me that it ever happened. (cont)
what? lol ... so you ADMIT that you come to the evidence with the presupposition that it`s "impossible"? i mean,this makes absolutely no sense at all.why would you look into something that you`ve already determined is impossible?
Can you prove someone can come back from the dead after 3 days? Can you prove that this happened to someone all on their own 2000 years ago?
That's why I can come to this conclusion so quickly, it's impossible. When you're dead you're dead. And it's not like Jesus died from a mild stroke either, he was tortured to death.
"can you prove someone can come back from the dead after 3 days?"
that`s the argument ... that there IS evidence (not that any man can rise from the dead but that God raised the messiah).my question to you is why would you even look into this if you`ve already determined it`s impossible?
Lol, do you want to debate about God's existence now? Because that's where this debate is about to lean. You can't prove God exists so how can you say that Jesus was resurrected by God then? You just shot yourself in the foot sir.
I just answered your question in the last few posts, were you not reading?
lol your foot was shot off before a debate could even start! you`re basically saying ... "ok,gimme the evidence but you know i won`t believe it,right?"
"show me a body"
since when do we need a body to establish the historicity of ancient figures? please ... i`m not going to waste my time with a christ mythicist.they even make atheists look bad lol.
I'm not saying that at all, Mr. Strawman, I want you to show some evidence yet you've failed to present any at all. How do you know I won't believe it if you can't even support it?
Wow lol, you're kidding me right?
Hey, heard about that Tutankhamen guy?
Yeah it talks about him right here.
Oh, so what's the point in excavating and doing research then? Back to the states everybody!
same reason i know 1 billion people won`t believe in the actual existence of the universe IN SPITE of all the evidence.
are you that dumb that you`re actually saying we can only accept the historicity of ancient figures if and only if we have their actual bodies preserved??? please tell me you`re not that stupid.
Pretty big assumption there buddy, you interviewed all 1 billion of those people?
Do you really have to fall so low to insults?
I meant evidence is needed. That's what I meant from the very start, if you can't understand this BASIC concept then no wonder you're so hell bent on defending your faith regardless of other points.
insults? that`s not an insult ... it`s being realistic.i`m not saying hindus are stupid for not accepting the actual existence of the universe ... YOU ARE!
you`re the one saying that evidence will persuade anybody and i`m demonstrating you`re wrong.those hindus don`t need anymore evidence to prove the actual universe ... i mean,what more evidence would they need? OBVIOUSLY,they reject it IN SPITE of the evidence (not because they are dumb).
ON TOP OF THAT, you can't prove it happened either.
You're saying I approach this with a presupposition, (which isn't true because I've already gone through this whole thing in my life, I used to believe all of it), yet you're basing your whole argument on an assumption that you can't even support!
Why should I believe something with no real support? In fact, it isn't even me that has to look for the evidence in this case, it's you that has to show it to me. You're defending the claim aren't you?
I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that Jesus 'probably' existed. You're now faced with the burden of proof to show me that a resurrection even happened.
So don't question me just because you can't prove your story, I'm not the one making these claims here.
And of course I'm not even speaking from a medical stand point, try convincing a doctor a man can come back from the dead after 3 days 2000 years ago.
I don't have to disprove a thing, especially in this situation. You know why? Because you nor any of these apologetics have shown any real support for their statements.
I am not faced with the burden of proof. You guys are making an extraordinary claim without any hard data or evidence and then claiming that to disprove it I have to show even hard evidence against this. Irony any?
If there was any data on any of this, we wouldn't be having this conversation and everyone would be Christian
"if there was any data on any of this,we wouldn`t be having this conversation and everyone would be christian"
really? then why are there 1 billion hindus who believe everything is an illusion? what more data do we need to establish the actual existence of the universe? according to you,those 1 billion people shouldn`t exist.
OBVIOUSLY,there is more to convincing someone then just evidence.
And no, you haven't shown any evidence or real data. Again, if there was ANY REAL EVIDENCE, those 1 billion Hindus would all be Christian and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
listen,the evidence for the existence of the universe is obvious,right? yet there are 1 billion people who don`t believe that! in other words,no matter how much evidence is presented for any given argument,there will ALWAYS be those who deny it.
You and your assumptions lol, I highly doubt a number as strong as a BILLION of people actually deny the existence of the universe. If they are, they need to get with the times.
That doesn't help your point though, if they want to be willfully ignorant that's fine.
HOWEVER, if you actually had real evidence for your claim, and the evidence was shown to everyone, and I mean, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT EVIDENCE, then we really wouldn't be having this discussion.
You should relate to those Hindus then, you aren't exactly playing by the rules of evidence either lol.
No, there isn't really - If I tell you a magical unicorn lives in my closet, AND I SHOW YOU a magical unicorn who happens to live in my closet, and the unicorn is observed and researched by scientists and all of a sudden OH SHIT, UNICORNS EXIST, then you really have no choice but to believe. There is no next step involved.
Lol and all you can come up with is blind assertions with no support.
"OMG ITS OBVIOUS YOU'RE JUST CLUELESS!!"
Show me some evidence.
"DURR HURR EVILUTION IS STUPID!!"
Actually, if God was proven to exist tomorrow with sufficient evidence, I'd believe. I just wouldn't worship him, especially if everything in the bible is true.
um ... it`s not an assertion to state that it takes more than evidence to convince people.most atheists are not open to the existence of God just like most hindus are not open to the existence of the universe.
"evilution is stupid"
when did evolution become an issue here?
"if God was proven;i`d believe"
fine.speak for yourself ... you`re crazy if you think ALL atheists would wave the wht flag because of evidence alone.
You forget the blind part? Yes it is a blind assertion. There is nothing further than real hard evidence. If a person still cannot believe it than that's their problem.
I was mocking you lol, you seem to have trouble reading my responses.
It isn't a white flag. It's one thing to accept it, it's another to worship. Part of my Atheism comes from God being portrayed as such a horrible deity in the bible. Why would I worship someone who forced a man to almost kill his child to test his faith?
#1 theism is not dependent on the bible.if the bible was blotted out of our minds tomorrow,theism would still exist.
#2 the supposed moral character of God has no bearing on whether or not he actually exists.
#3 if morality is subjective from person to person then how can you criticize biblical morality?
#4 abraham wasn`t "forced" to do anything.his faith was tested but there is more to it ... it was a type or foreshadow of the atonement on the cross.hence,the lamb is offered.
#1 - Yes it is, if not, then where do you get your beliefs from? Theism would not exist if there wasn't scripture and dogma to drag you along like a little child.
#2 - The existence wasn't the point you dolt, I argued against his moral character AFTER we hypothetically stated if he was to be proven tomorrow and I would have to believe him. Are you illiterate?
excuse me ... there are MILLIONS of theists who don`t hold to the bible YOU DOLT!
matter fact,theism is the NATURAL explanation for the appearence of design.even dawkins admits this in his book! you don`t need indoctrination to become a theist.theism is natural.
#3 - How can I not question the bible's morality? How can I be okay with it saying things like "Homosexuals should be stoned to death." What kind of morality is that? Who the hell is supposed to follow things like that?
Plus, you don't get your morals from the bible anyway, you can use the bible (the good parts) but it isn't necessary. A lot of these basic morals are instinctive such as feeling remorse for hurting others. The rest is taught throughout development.
#4 - So that means it's okay for God to come down and tell someone, whose actually very faithful, to kill his own son? No, he wasn't forced, he was asked by God. If God is so loving and merciful, why would he ask such a thing?
Look at what God did to Job, what kind of loving God destroys a good man's life just to prove a point to the devil?
If God actually does exist, and this is all true, why should I or anyone worship such a senseless prick?
you`re assuming that God actually intended for abraham to kill his own son.obviously,he didn`t ... otherwise,he wouldn`t have stopped abraham,right?
"look at what God did to job"
um ... God didn`t do anything to Job.stop twisting the text.what happened to Job is happening to you and me.everybody is going through trials and we all demonstrate out true essence through our free will.
Of course he stopped him at the last second, but that doesn't excuse him for doing it in the first place. It's a terrible thing for a God of supposed almighty power to do, it's an abuse of power if anything.
If I threaten to kill your mother if you don't do what I ask and then stop everything at the last second, am I moral?
You don't know the story of Job do you? lol I know my family isn't dead, house burned to the ground, and I know I'm not ridden with disease.
I'm not trying to be insulting or offensive btw, but I don't see how this kind of behavior can be excused.
If a normal human being acted this way, he'd be a jerk and ostracized from society, yet the religious worship a God who does the same? Where is the logic?
How do we know their accurate? How do you know these scholars and historians are correct if they're going off of the same scripture Aaron's going off of? There isn't any real evidence for any of this.
I keep making this argument but neither you nor Aaron seems to understand it. I think you just want it to be true.
I need to show why it's extraordinary that man whose killed comes back from the dead after three days? Wow, and yes you made my point in your last sentence, thankyou.
So because you're saying the Romans waged this amazing battle against the city of Veii, once, it's okay for something that there is no support or evidence of to have happened?
Did you not read what I said? I stated he's been making his arguments based on assumptions that the bible is accurate or even true.
This isn't a nice reasonable story where a guy does something good for someone else. This is a story about someone who is brutally tortured and killed and then after 3 days comes back to life and rises into the clouds.
This is some serious shit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Aaronk simply hasn't done this.
Most records back then AREN'T reliable, thats why historians compare them and combine them with physical evidence.
You seem more intelligent than the average rabid evangelist on Youtube (though thats not saying much). If you're interested in debating philosophical aspects/paradoxes of faith send me a PM (don't have a mic/camera).
Woops! No, there is no evidence that a "Jesus" ever existed. The Josephus forgeries are known to be forgeries and the myths written were at minimum 40 years after the last mythos was said to have died. The shild of a Roman and a slave woman Jesuah is one of the origins of the Jesus Christanic mythos however the myths as written are conglomerations of myths accumulated across 10 thousand years of oral and later written legend. So no, you're an ignorant cultist.
Yes there is. No, the Josephus passage was not a forgery, the clearly interpolated parts can be removed, and the rest can be established as authentic. Since when do historians demand contemporary evidence? And the pagan parallel thesis. You know what? Scholars are still debating over whether or not the resurrection occurred. You know what they aren't debating? You're bullcrap pagan parallel thesis. That was dismissed years ago as a thesis based on nothing. Most of it was not true to begin with.
"Yes there is. No, the Josephus passage was not a forgery"
Translation: You are a cultist who climbs to your mythologies because you have not studied them. Those forgiers are one of the things that even the most frothignly insane Creationist lunatic cults try to get people to stop demanding are legitimate since it makes Christanic cultists look and sound even more frothingly insane than they already are.
You're so retarted. Prove to me that the Josephus passage was a compete forgery. Prove that I'm an ignorant cultist by refuting each and every point that I made in this debate. Prove it. Go on. Jackass.
As usual the frothing cultist knows less about his cult's mythologies and their histories than those who don't labor under the cultist's delusions. Do your own homework, ya fucking delusional kook, and find out when Josephus lived and when the "Jesus" forgery was written, ya fucking idiot. The only reason you're a Christanic cultist is because you deliberately refuse to investigate the origins of your Christanic death cult. Fucking pile of cultshit.
Translation: The froting cultist couldn't defend his lack of knowledge about his own death cult's orgins and mythologies. As usual. Fear not, none of you extremist lunatics who still demand that Josephus was extant and the Jesus additions forged under his name is legitimate have ever managed to back up your delusions with evidence. Your inbred ignorant cult-driven colleagues share your handicap. It's the classic halmark of any cultist regardless of brand name. You lose.
If I were to join a religion I would research its origins, its mythologies, its rites, and its history. In an age of the Internet there is no excuse for being a cultist. A google search on "josephus forgery" is all that's needed to see what scholars report on the origins of the forgery, and any frothing idiot can do enough research to learn the origins and and history of Christanic and its mythos. It's the cult mindset that refuses to actully learn.
Shut up. I've shown you why the Josephus passage is not a forgery, and the majority of scholars agree with me. Refute my points on it. Show me the evidence.
lol, "quiet"? You're quite the condescending little jackass. I'm not disputing that you wrote the script, but just pointing out that none of your material is original, which is frankly what you criticize Jesus mythicists of doing: reciting the same recycled arguments (granted most Youtube Jesus Mythicists are more easy to refute than Bill Craig or Habermas, but the point still stands).
I'm not making fun of you, I'm just pointing out you seem to be way too proud of yourself for reciting the same defense of the resurrection and refuting someone who is obviously not well read in the field.
... okay? I'm not claiming otherwise; in fact I agree, his arguments sucked. I really don't know why you pointed that out.
Perhaps "original" wasn't the best word to use, but I really don't care to spend much more time explaining this. I'm just trying to say that aaron seems to be way too proud of himself for reciting the same standard apologetic "4 fact" defense of the resurrection to refute someone who is obviously not well read on the subject.
You say the gospels are very old and therefore reliable. You claim they prophecized the destruction of Jerusalem, yet, how do we know they weren't written after or during a time of great conflict towards Jerusalem? You're making this entire argument based on assumptions.
No one says the empty tomb is evidence enough for the resurrection of Jesus? That is the OLDEST argument for the resurrection, but I'm glad you refrained from using it because it's a terrible argument lol.
I'll admit you did a better job than him at this debate and truly did do your research.
HOWEVER.
You have failed to prove your point. Franz doesn't have to disprove a thing here, you are faced with the burden of proof of proving that Jesus was resurrected. All of you arguments are based on assumptions.
No, I gave historians that collaborate the story. And, yes we know that the prophecy was written before, since it makes it appear so closely connected with the end of the world. Obviously, the world did not end when that happened, so if it was written afterwards, it would not have made it appear so closely connected with the end of the world.
mmm the thing about mark, wrote on the third day, well that does do everything, thats like me writing in latin now and saying it was 200 years ago.... just because he wrote it is old wording doesnt make it anymore trust in....
Okay that's fine, even though you're assuming for them as well, you still haven't proven your point.
You did not prove that Jesus was resurrected, Franz didn't have to do a thing though I'm dissapointed with his arguments, you still had to prove it and you're not going to prove it through stating how the bible MIGHT be credible.
What other time in history has a person been brought back from a horrible death after 3 days? It's quite a mountain of a claim that you have to prove.
Aaron has a advantage at looking up his arguments, because he's on spring break. So he can wake up at 7am and search google until 10pm at night finding arguments. Franz has to come home from school, study, do homework and have time to manage family. And then he has like 30minutes to research. This debate should take place on the weekend.
Gospel of Mark was penned around 70CE. Matthew & Luke 80CE, John 90CE and possibly much later. The unknown authors were NOT eyewitnesses; they used inherited traditions, not their own recollections of events to tell their stories about Jesus. Some of these traditions may be historically accurate; others were certainly embellished and others wholly created. The Gospel writers continued to modify and invent stories to underscore their own beliefs and to convince others that Jesus was son of God.
Hey, you know something? All you just did was make piece of crap assertions that don't make since. I showed that the gospels were written before 70 AD, and you never addressed ANY point I made. And in this video, I showed you why the gospels were eyewitnesses. Go away, and come back with REFUTATIONS of my arguments. You sir are ignorant beyond belief.
I've never been interested in what uneducated atheist children have to say about history.. I find that dealing with deluded bigotry is somewhat like asking a squash to do differential calculus.
To be perfectly honest, I really do not believe in a christian god per se, however I agree with you about uneducated atheist children. This annoys me beyond all belief. Anyone who becomes an atheist because, "My life is so bad, so there can't be a god" is a moron. And if you are wondering, my name is a free speech thing, just so you know.
Or it could, as some scholars point out, that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was added in after the fact, which would date it after AD 70. But that's controversial. Most scholars would put the Gospels after 70 (and the Gospel of John unanimously after 70) but I think your on to a point that scholars often ignore, namely the devastation of the Temple that , if it happened after the Gospels were written, it would have been mentioned explicitly in there, which it's not.
We can see that it was a real prophecy, since if it wasnt; the church would have separated out that element in the prophecies, which make them appear to concern the end of the world. If it was written after 70 AD, it would not have made it appear connected with the end of the world. And no, most scholars would not place the date of the gospels after 70 AD. Provide your source.
I don't deny that the reasons you give have some weight to them. I happen to think it's also plausible that if they were written after 70, a reasonable case could be made that the Authors would have explicitly mentioned the destruction of the Temple.
As for what scholars think, it's undeniable that most scholars at least place the Gospel of John after 70 (usually 90 Ad). As for the other Gospels, most still place it shortly after 70. Raymond Brown (Intro to New Testament) points this out.
This is all very good stuff, but it would have been good if you had expanded a little on some of these points. For example, oral testimony was considered more reliable than written testimony. Why was it? Also, it would have good to define some of the technical terms you used to aid people's understanding.
@GJNCA
You are correct that I have the burden of proof to show that he does exist.
However, you also have the burden of proof to show that he does not. Stating "There is no God." is a positive claim as well.
And how about addressing my points I made instead of just sating that I have the burden of proof?
aaronk1994 1 year ago
you always look like you're about to cry. i would too if i was being brainwashed
harrisonfong 2 years ago
I just realized you arent even able to remember anything you typed it out and read it you creationist bastard
evilbunnyprod 2 years ago
you are a fat retarded creationist who is pathetic and i will beat the shit out of your fictional "God" jesus and you bitch
evilbunnyprod 2 years ago 2
"it's obvious that he did exist"
Haha, about as obvious as the existence of santa clause.
Aaron, your ignorance and conceit are revolting. Your slanted biased attitude toward non-believers is disturbing. You exhibit all the symptoms of a psychopath. Enjoy your one and only life believing in a lie.
DeimosSaturn 2 years ago 5
thank you uber person
evilbunnyprod 2 years ago
monotone much? Reading cue cards requires some oratory skill or your audience can't hear your message in the droning.
alloutacash 2 years ago
plz dude honestly plz stfu ur really starting to get on my nereves y argue with someone u say god bless to any athiest ur begging for a fight just let them exist as they do u alrite plz plz plz just stfu
rancidscasualty01 2 years ago
You haven't the slightest clue how to spell, do you rancidscasualty01?
iAstrophysics 2 years ago
2 words omgosh
rancidscasualty01 2 years ago
You can argue whatever kind of fallacy you think I made, the point still stands. Why should I believe a man came back from the dead 2000 years ago if there's nothing to support it?
So you're not trying to prove it happened, you're saying there's a probability that it could've happened?
There's a probability that Jesus did in fact exist and was tortured and executed for his views. There is no probability that he came back from the dead.
rba718 2 years ago
So you're saying it MAY have happened? Okay then, if we want to know the truth then we have to test and prove this. If you can't do this, why should we accept it?
Yeah Aaron pointed out how "obvious" it was without showing any real evidence. He sure owned us crazy Atheists didn't he?
rba718 2 years ago
If you don't see how that's out of the ordinary then it's no wonder you're fighting so cutely to defend this lol.
You want me to use logic? Okay, a man coming back from the dead after 3 days 2000 years ago is about as likely as invisible magic space bunnies living in my sock drawer.
Oh, but wait, you're going to want evidence of that aren't you... what a shame.
rba718 2 years ago
You're calling me stupid? Lol, okay, sure, yeah I'm the stupid one.
You're stating that because one thing of legendary myth may have happened a long time ago means that anything else of legendary myth may have happened disregarding whether any evidence exists for it or not, but yeah, I'm the stupid one here.
rba718 2 years ago
Quick question, are you on some bad herbs?
Do you not understand that it's impossible, even today, to bring someone back from the dead even with the most advanced medical technology after 3 days? Let alone a dead body coming back from the dead by itself after those 3 days 2000 years ago?
My basis is that it's physically impossible and you nor anyone else can show evidence for it or even the probability that it may have happened.
rba718 2 years ago
"are you on some bad herbs?"
watch the debate between WLC and Richard Carrier and see who gets smoked like some "bad herbs".
"my basis is that it`s physically impossible"
all you`re doing is PRESUPPOSING the non existence of God.if the apologist gives you evidence then you have to refute the actual evidence rather than appealing to your presuppositions.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
We're not even talking about the existence or non existence of God, we're talking about whether Jesus was resurrected or not. We're not even talking about if he didn't exist, he may have very well existed, my problem is that it's impossible for someone to come back from the dead in the way that is described.
rba718 2 years ago
"it`s impossible for someone to come back from the dead"
you`re presupposing that the miraculous is non existent.if you believe the evidence is not sufficient then say that ... don`t say "it`s impossible for this or that".
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Lol I'm not saying there isn't enough evidence to say people can't be brought back from the dead, I'm saying it's impossible because it's impossible, especially under those circumstances.
I can't believe I'm having this discussion lol. To explain to you how it's impossible to come back from the dead on your own after 3 days is pretty funny lol.
rba718 2 years ago
are you honestly saying that`s not commiting the fallacy of presupposition?
answer this ... why would you even look into ANY evidence for the resurrection if you`ve already made up your mind that it`s "impossible"???
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Yeah blah blah fallacy, it doesn't help your point.
First of all, I grew up an orthodox Catholic and I was showered with every bit of nonsense the basic Jewdeo-Christian faith has to offer, so I've been there done that and heard the so called "evidence".
But why dismiss the claim so soon? Because the story is ridiculous. And the evidence you use (the Bible!) isn't enough to convince me that it ever happened. (cont)
rba718 2 years ago
"yeah blah blah blah fallacy"
what? lol ... so you ADMIT that you come to the evidence with the presupposition that it`s "impossible"? i mean,this makes absolutely no sense at all.why would you look into something that you`ve already determined is impossible?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Can you prove someone can come back from the dead after 3 days? Can you prove that this happened to someone all on their own 2000 years ago?
That's why I can come to this conclusion so quickly, it's impossible. When you're dead you're dead. And it's not like Jesus died from a mild stroke either, he was tortured to death.
rba718 2 years ago
"can you prove someone can come back from the dead after 3 days?"
that`s the argument ... that there IS evidence (not that any man can rise from the dead but that God raised the messiah).my question to you is why would you even look into this if you`ve already determined it`s impossible?
BTW,jesus didn`t "probably" exist.he FACTUALLY existed.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Lol, do you want to debate about God's existence now? Because that's where this debate is about to lean. You can't prove God exists so how can you say that Jesus was resurrected by God then? You just shot yourself in the foot sir.
I just answered your question in the last few posts, were you not reading?
"BTW,jesus didn`t "probably" exist.he FACTUALLY existed. "
Show me evidence and show me a body- OH WAIT, he resurrected and rose up into heaven, how nicely your circular logic works.
rba718 2 years ago
"you just shot yourself in the foot"
lol your foot was shot off before a debate could even start! you`re basically saying ... "ok,gimme the evidence but you know i won`t believe it,right?"
"show me a body"
since when do we need a body to establish the historicity of ancient figures? please ... i`m not going to waste my time with a christ mythicist.they even make atheists look bad lol.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Lol are you that deep into denial?
I'm not saying that at all, Mr. Strawman, I want you to show some evidence yet you've failed to present any at all. How do you know I won't believe it if you can't even support it?
Wow lol, you're kidding me right?
Hey, heard about that Tutankhamen guy?
Yeah it talks about him right here.
Oh, so what's the point in excavating and doing research then? Back to the states everybody!
rba718 2 years ago
"how do you know i won`t believe it"
same reason i know 1 billion people won`t believe in the actual existence of the universe IN SPITE of all the evidence.
are you that dumb that you`re actually saying we can only accept the historicity of ancient figures if and only if we have their actual bodies preserved??? please tell me you`re not that stupid.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Pretty big assumption there buddy, you interviewed all 1 billion of those people?
Do you really have to fall so low to insults?
I meant evidence is needed. That's what I meant from the very start, if you can't understand this BASIC concept then no wonder you're so hell bent on defending your faith regardless of other points.
rba718 2 years ago
insults? that`s not an insult ... it`s being realistic.i`m not saying hindus are stupid for not accepting the actual existence of the universe ... YOU ARE!
you`re the one saying that evidence will persuade anybody and i`m demonstrating you`re wrong.those hindus don`t need anymore evidence to prove the actual universe ... i mean,what more evidence would they need? OBVIOUSLY,they reject it IN SPITE of the evidence (not because they are dumb).
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
ON TOP OF THAT, you can't prove it happened either.
You're saying I approach this with a presupposition, (which isn't true because I've already gone through this whole thing in my life, I used to believe all of it), yet you're basing your whole argument on an assumption that you can't even support!
And you dare to talk about what makes sense lol.
rba718 2 years ago
Why should I believe something with no real support? In fact, it isn't even me that has to look for the evidence in this case, it's you that has to show it to me. You're defending the claim aren't you?
I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that Jesus 'probably' existed. You're now faced with the burden of proof to show me that a resurrection even happened.
So don't question me just because you can't prove your story, I'm not the one making these claims here.
rba718 2 years ago
And of course I'm not even speaking from a medical stand point, try convincing a doctor a man can come back from the dead after 3 days 2000 years ago.
rba718 2 years ago
I don't have to disprove a thing, especially in this situation. You know why? Because you nor any of these apologetics have shown any real support for their statements.
I am not faced with the burden of proof. You guys are making an extraordinary claim without any hard data or evidence and then claiming that to disprove it I have to show even hard evidence against this. Irony any?
If there was any data on any of this, we wouldn't be having this conversation and everyone would be Christian
rba718 2 years ago
"if there was any data on any of this,we wouldn`t be having this conversation and everyone would be christian"
really? then why are there 1 billion hindus who believe everything is an illusion? what more data do we need to establish the actual existence of the universe? according to you,those 1 billion people shouldn`t exist.
OBVIOUSLY,there is more to convincing someone then just evidence.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Thank you for more or less proving my point.
And no, you haven't shown any evidence or real data. Again, if there was ANY REAL EVIDENCE, those 1 billion Hindus would all be Christian and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
rba718 2 years ago
wow ... you don`t get it.
listen,the evidence for the existence of the universe is obvious,right? yet there are 1 billion people who don`t believe that! in other words,no matter how much evidence is presented for any given argument,there will ALWAYS be those who deny it.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
You and your assumptions lol, I highly doubt a number as strong as a BILLION of people actually deny the existence of the universe. If they are, they need to get with the times.
That doesn't help your point though, if they want to be willfully ignorant that's fine.
HOWEVER, if you actually had real evidence for your claim, and the evidence was shown to everyone, and I mean, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT EVIDENCE, then we really wouldn't be having this discussion.
How hard is this to grasp?
rba718 2 years ago
"how hard is this to grasp?"
how hard is your friggin skull??? we KNOW the universe exists BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT and there are 1 billion people who don`t believe it!
again,there is MORE to convincing someone than just evidence ... how hard is this to grasp?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
You should relate to those Hindus then, you aren't exactly playing by the rules of evidence either lol.
No, there isn't really - If I tell you a magical unicorn lives in my closet, AND I SHOW YOU a magical unicorn who happens to live in my closet, and the unicorn is observed and researched by scientists and all of a sudden OH SHIT, UNICORNS EXIST, then you really have no choice but to believe. There is no next step involved.
Unless you're religious of course.
rba718 2 years ago
wow ... you are absolutely clueless.really.
no matter how obvious something is,there will always be those who deny it.that`s a fact ... sorry to break it to you.
if the existence of God was proven tomorow as a brute fact ... there would STILL be atheists!
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Lol and all you can come up with is blind assertions with no support.
"OMG ITS OBVIOUS YOU'RE JUST CLUELESS!!"
Show me some evidence.
"DURR HURR EVILUTION IS STUPID!!"
Actually, if God was proven to exist tomorrow with sufficient evidence, I'd believe. I just wouldn't worship him, especially if everything in the bible is true.
rba718 2 years ago
"all you can come up with is blind assertions"
um ... it`s not an assertion to state that it takes more than evidence to convince people.most atheists are not open to the existence of God just like most hindus are not open to the existence of the universe.
"evilution is stupid"
when did evolution become an issue here?
"if God was proven;i`d believe"
fine.speak for yourself ... you`re crazy if you think ALL atheists would wave the wht flag because of evidence alone.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
You forget the blind part? Yes it is a blind assertion. There is nothing further than real hard evidence. If a person still cannot believe it than that's their problem.
I was mocking you lol, you seem to have trouble reading my responses.
It isn't a white flag. It's one thing to accept it, it's another to worship. Part of my Atheism comes from God being portrayed as such a horrible deity in the bible. Why would I worship someone who forced a man to almost kill his child to test his faith?
rba718 2 years ago
#1 theism is not dependent on the bible.if the bible was blotted out of our minds tomorrow,theism would still exist.
#2 the supposed moral character of God has no bearing on whether or not he actually exists.
#3 if morality is subjective from person to person then how can you criticize biblical morality?
#4 abraham wasn`t "forced" to do anything.his faith was tested but there is more to it ... it was a type or foreshadow of the atonement on the cross.hence,the lamb is offered.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
#1 - Yes it is, if not, then where do you get your beliefs from? Theism would not exist if there wasn't scripture and dogma to drag you along like a little child.
#2 - The existence wasn't the point you dolt, I argued against his moral character AFTER we hypothetically stated if he was to be proven tomorrow and I would have to believe him. Are you illiterate?
rba718 2 years ago
excuse me ... there are MILLIONS of theists who don`t hold to the bible YOU DOLT!
matter fact,theism is the NATURAL explanation for the appearence of design.even dawkins admits this in his book! you don`t need indoctrination to become a theist.theism is natural.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
#3 - How can I not question the bible's morality? How can I be okay with it saying things like "Homosexuals should be stoned to death." What kind of morality is that? Who the hell is supposed to follow things like that?
Plus, you don't get your morals from the bible anyway, you can use the bible (the good parts) but it isn't necessary. A lot of these basic morals are instinctive such as feeling remorse for hurting others. The rest is taught throughout development.
rba718 2 years ago
"how can i not question the bible`s morality?"
easy ... by believing morality is subjective from person to person,which it NECESSARILY is in an atheistic world.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
I'm going to reply to these comments in pm so don't reply to my pm comment just yet.
rba718 2 years ago
#4 - So that means it's okay for God to come down and tell someone, whose actually very faithful, to kill his own son? No, he wasn't forced, he was asked by God. If God is so loving and merciful, why would he ask such a thing?
Look at what God did to Job, what kind of loving God destroys a good man's life just to prove a point to the devil?
If God actually does exist, and this is all true, why should I or anyone worship such a senseless prick?
rba718 2 years ago
"why would he ask such a thing?"
you`re assuming that God actually intended for abraham to kill his own son.obviously,he didn`t ... otherwise,he wouldn`t have stopped abraham,right?
"look at what God did to job"
um ... God didn`t do anything to Job.stop twisting the text.what happened to Job is happening to you and me.everybody is going through trials and we all demonstrate out true essence through our free will.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
Of course he stopped him at the last second, but that doesn't excuse him for doing it in the first place. It's a terrible thing for a God of supposed almighty power to do, it's an abuse of power if anything.
If I threaten to kill your mother if you don't do what I ask and then stop everything at the last second, am I moral?
You don't know the story of Job do you? lol I know my family isn't dead, house burned to the ground, and I know I'm not ridden with disease.
Reply to this in the pm btw.
rba718 2 years ago
I'm not trying to be insulting or offensive btw, but I don't see how this kind of behavior can be excused.
If a normal human being acted this way, he'd be a jerk and ostracized from society, yet the religious worship a God who does the same? Where is the logic?
rba718 2 years ago
Oh and why would you smoke bad herbs? lol
rba718 2 years ago
How do we know their accurate? How do you know these scholars and historians are correct if they're going off of the same scripture Aaron's going off of? There isn't any real evidence for any of this.
I keep making this argument but neither you nor Aaron seems to understand it. I think you just want it to be true.
I need to show why it's extraordinary that man whose killed comes back from the dead after three days? Wow, and yes you made my point in your last sentence, thankyou.
rba718 2 years ago
So because you're saying the Romans waged this amazing battle against the city of Veii, once, it's okay for something that there is no support or evidence of to have happened?
I love your logic.
rba718 2 years ago
Did you not read what I said? I stated he's been making his arguments based on assumptions that the bible is accurate or even true.
This isn't a nice reasonable story where a guy does something good for someone else. This is a story about someone who is brutally tortured and killed and then after 3 days comes back to life and rises into the clouds.
This is some serious shit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Aaronk simply hasn't done this.
rba718 2 years ago
y would they have made it men.....
hobosliveson 2 years ago
Most records back then AREN'T reliable, thats why historians compare them and combine them with physical evidence.
You seem more intelligent than the average rabid evangelist on Youtube (though thats not saying much). If you're interested in debating philosophical aspects/paradoxes of faith send me a PM (don't have a mic/camera).
Wolfau5 2 years ago
"thats why historians compare them and combine them with physical evidence."
No actually all sources on particular events come from written and oral sources, not physical sources.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Franz pwned you, face it.
whatsthebigfukindeal 2 years ago 2
He han't even responded, and his arguments in his previous response were awful. How can he pwn me?
aaronk1994 2 years ago
He's just smarter than you. It's unsurprising that it's hard to argue with idiots sometimes.
AndTheChoirSang 2 years ago
Woops! No, there is no evidence that a "Jesus" ever existed. The Josephus forgeries are known to be forgeries and the myths written were at minimum 40 years after the last mythos was said to have died. The shild of a Roman and a slave woman Jesuah is one of the origins of the Jesus Christanic mythos however the myths as written are conglomerations of myths accumulated across 10 thousand years of oral and later written legend. So no, you're an ignorant cultist.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
Yes there is. No, the Josephus passage was not a forgery, the clearly interpolated parts can be removed, and the rest can be established as authentic. Since when do historians demand contemporary evidence? And the pagan parallel thesis. You know what? Scholars are still debating over whether or not the resurrection occurred. You know what they aren't debating? You're bullcrap pagan parallel thesis. That was dismissed years ago as a thesis based on nothing. Most of it was not true to begin with.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
"Yes there is. No, the Josephus passage was not a forgery"
Translation: You are a cultist who climbs to your mythologies because you have not studied them. Those forgiers are one of the things that even the most frothignly insane Creationist lunatic cults try to get people to stop demanding are legitimate since it makes Christanic cultists look and sound even more frothingly insane than they already are.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago 3
You're so retarted. Prove to me that the Josephus passage was a compete forgery. Prove that I'm an ignorant cultist by refuting each and every point that I made in this debate. Prove it. Go on. Jackass.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
A cultist? lol
rba718 2 years ago
"Prove to me that the Josephus passage"
As usual the frothing cultist knows less about his cult's mythologies and their histories than those who don't labor under the cultist's delusions. Do your own homework, ya fucking delusional kook, and find out when Josephus lived and when the "Jesus" forgery was written, ya fucking idiot. The only reason you're a Christanic cultist is because you deliberately refuse to investigate the origins of your Christanic death cult. Fucking pile of cultshit.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
ok u say u dnt insult ppl dnt
"You're so retarted." are u kidding me honestly as ive said before just plz stfu
rancidscasualty01 2 years ago
You sir are a freaking moron.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
again with the insults
rancidscasualty01 2 years ago
"freaking moron"
Translation: The froting cultist couldn't defend his lack of knowledge about his own death cult's orgins and mythologies. As usual. Fear not, none of you extremist lunatics who still demand that Josephus was extant and the Jesus additions forged under his name is legitimate have ever managed to back up your delusions with evidence. Your inbred ignorant cult-driven colleagues share your handicap. It's the classic halmark of any cultist regardless of brand name. You lose.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
I couldn't have put it better myself Nosooldhippy.
But I think the real question is Aaronk, how do you know they're not forged?
rba718 2 years ago
"how do you know they're not forged?"
If I were to join a religion I would research its origins, its mythologies, its rites, and its history. In an age of the Internet there is no excuse for being a cultist. A google search on "josephus forgery" is all that's needed to see what scholars report on the origins of the forgery, and any frothing idiot can do enough research to learn the origins and and history of Christanic and its mythos. It's the cult mindset that refuses to actully learn.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
Shut up. I've shown you why the Josephus passage is not a forgery, and the majority of scholars agree with me. Refute my points on it. Show me the evidence.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
No Aaron you havn't pwned him yet. Just wait til the debate is over.
sushiyama1 2 years ago
You're right. It ain't over till it's over.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Yep =)
sushiyama1 2 years ago
You mean, "William Lane Craig's arguments that I parroted here are superior to FranzDuckVideos' arguments".
bornagainst777 2 years ago
Quiet. I wrote this myself. Most of this stuff I already knew, so instead of making fun of it, refute my arguments.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
lol, "quiet"? You're quite the condescending little jackass. I'm not disputing that you wrote the script, but just pointing out that none of your material is original, which is frankly what you criticize Jesus mythicists of doing: reciting the same recycled arguments (granted most Youtube Jesus Mythicists are more easy to refute than Bill Craig or Habermas, but the point still stands).
Continued...
bornagainst777 2 years ago
I'm not making fun of you, I'm just pointing out you seem to be way too proud of yourself for reciting the same defense of the resurrection and refuting someone who is obviously not well read in the field.
bornagainst777 2 years ago
Maybe Franz should have read up on it before accepting.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
'none of your material is original"
so what? ... none of duck`s counter arguments (which frankly sucked) were original either.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 2 years ago
... okay? I'm not claiming otherwise; in fact I agree, his arguments sucked. I really don't know why you pointed that out.
Perhaps "original" wasn't the best word to use, but I really don't care to spend much more time explaining this. I'm just trying to say that aaron seems to be way too proud of himself for reciting the same standard apologetic "4 fact" defense of the resurrection to refute someone who is obviously not well read on the subject.
bornagainst777 2 years ago
It doesn't mean ANYTHING if none of my material was original (most of it was). An argument doesn't lose credibility when used by someone else.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
You say the gospels are very old and therefore reliable. You claim they prophecized the destruction of Jerusalem, yet, how do we know they weren't written after or during a time of great conflict towards Jerusalem? You're making this entire argument based on assumptions.
No one says the empty tomb is evidence enough for the resurrection of Jesus? That is the OLDEST argument for the resurrection, but I'm glad you refrained from using it because it's a terrible argument lol.
rba718 2 years ago
I'll admit you did a better job than him at this debate and truly did do your research.
HOWEVER.
You have failed to prove your point. Franz doesn't have to disprove a thing here, you are faced with the burden of proof of proving that Jesus was resurrected. All of you arguments are based on assumptions.
rba718 2 years ago
No, I gave historians that collaborate the story. And, yes we know that the prophecy was written before, since it makes it appear so closely connected with the end of the world. Obviously, the world did not end when that happened, so if it was written afterwards, it would not have made it appear so closely connected with the end of the world.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
mmm the thing about mark, wrote on the third day, well that does do everything, thats like me writing in latin now and saying it was 200 years ago.... just because he wrote it is old wording doesnt make it anymore trust in....
hobosliveson 2 years ago
Okay that's fine, even though you're assuming for them as well, you still haven't proven your point.
You did not prove that Jesus was resurrected, Franz didn't have to do a thing though I'm dissapointed with his arguments, you still had to prove it and you're not going to prove it through stating how the bible MIGHT be credible.
What other time in history has a person been brought back from a horrible death after 3 days? It's quite a mountain of a claim that you have to prove.
rba718 2 years ago
Aaron has a advantage at looking up his arguments, because he's on spring break. So he can wake up at 7am and search google until 10pm at night finding arguments. Franz has to come home from school, study, do homework and have time to manage family. And then he has like 30minutes to research. This debate should take place on the weekend.
sushiyama1 2 years ago
Well, don't you think Franz should have done a bit of research before he excepted the debate challenge to ensure he knew what he was talking about?
iAstrophysics 2 years ago
You may want to speak a bit slowly - and with some intonation too. Because of the way you recite your text, I did not enjoy your video.
Roxolan 2 years ago
why was the video taken down
spenceII 2 years ago
It wasn't.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
OK, just last time i check it said the video wasn't available. It's working now though.
spenceII 2 years ago
i reckon aaron and franz should just have a pillow fight instead.
madhobbit 2 years ago
ooo homoerotic
BongHitsForJesus101 2 years ago
are you sure your pastor didnt write this for you buddy.if your your gonna read it ,read it like you mean it....
bjmob77 2 years ago
I wrote this myself, jackass.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Oh yes, because we all know eye witnesses are always accurate.
XLemurofEvilX 2 years ago
BTW, nice to see a young kid into apologetics.
Christianjr4 2 years ago 2
Thanks.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Gospel of Mark was penned around 70CE. Matthew & Luke 80CE, John 90CE and possibly much later. The unknown authors were NOT eyewitnesses; they used inherited traditions, not their own recollections of events to tell their stories about Jesus. Some of these traditions may be historically accurate; others were certainly embellished and others wholly created. The Gospel writers continued to modify and invent stories to underscore their own beliefs and to convince others that Jesus was son of God.
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago
Hey, you know something? All you just did was make piece of crap assertions that don't make since. I showed that the gospels were written before 70 AD, and you never addressed ANY point I made. And in this video, I showed you why the gospels were eyewitnesses. Go away, and come back with REFUTATIONS of my arguments. You sir are ignorant beyond belief.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I've never been interested in what uneducated atheist children have to say about history.. I find that dealing with deluded bigotry is somewhat like asking a squash to do differential calculus.
This is a really good response though Aaron.
Theologica37 2 years ago
To be perfectly honest, I really do not believe in a christian god per se, however I agree with you about uneducated atheist children. This annoys me beyond all belief. Anyone who becomes an atheist because, "My life is so bad, so there can't be a god" is a moron. And if you are wondering, my name is a free speech thing, just so you know.
BongHitsForJesus101 2 years ago
Owned, but I'm not getting your point on why the Jerusalem prophecy shows the early date of the gospels.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Well, the destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70 AD, that means that the Gospels were written before that. I guess that's really old lol
aaronk1994 2 years ago
Or it could, as some scholars point out, that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was added in after the fact, which would date it after AD 70. But that's controversial. Most scholars would put the Gospels after 70 (and the Gospel of John unanimously after 70) but I think your on to a point that scholars often ignore, namely the devastation of the Temple that , if it happened after the Gospels were written, it would have been mentioned explicitly in there, which it's not.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
We can see that it was a real prophecy, since if it wasnt; the church would have separated out that element in the prophecies, which make them appear to concern the end of the world. If it was written after 70 AD, it would not have made it appear connected with the end of the world. And no, most scholars would not place the date of the gospels after 70 AD. Provide your source.
aaronk1994 2 years ago
I don't deny that the reasons you give have some weight to them. I happen to think it's also plausible that if they were written after 70, a reasonable case could be made that the Authors would have explicitly mentioned the destruction of the Temple.
As for what scholars think, it's undeniable that most scholars at least place the Gospel of John after 70 (usually 90 Ad). As for the other Gospels, most still place it shortly after 70. Raymond Brown (Intro to New Testament) points this out.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
This is all very good stuff, but it would have been good if you had expanded a little on some of these points. For example, oral testimony was considered more reliable than written testimony. Why was it? Also, it would have good to define some of the technical terms you used to aid people's understanding.
Good effort though.
ukchristian28 2 years ago
"that doesn't make them [the women] special"
Actually, contra franz, it does. Luke's repeated use of "seeing" language means that he's appealing to the woman AS witnesses.
Why the **** would Luke appeal to the testimony of the women if he were making up bull****?
But, w/e.
BTW, Aaronk1994 owning someone? ITS A SIGN OF THE MOTHER****ING APOCALYPSE!
migkillertwo 2 years ago
lol
aaronk1994 2 years ago