@43alley Just like you said, in your video description under the section titled “Dating of the Gospels” I found several book titles that I infer are the proof for the dating of Matt., Mark, Luke & John. Could you give me page #s with the corresponding volume so I can examine the compelling evidence for myself?
@43alley Sorry, but I have to disagree on one point. There is no good reason to believe that the 4 gospels originated in the 1st & early 2nd centuries. The historical record, which includes early Christian fathers’ citations, does not reveal any of our 4 gospels until the end of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) quotes the OT 314 times naming its authors 197 times, but he never quotes or names Matt., Mark, Luke & John. Irenaeus in 180 CE is the first one to disclose our 4 gospels.
@AgrippaTheMighty - You're unique to this comment section because I usually have to argue here that the gospels weren't written by contemporaries in the months after Jesus died. You have them being written centuries later :)
But I guess my response to you is the same that I make to religious: yours is a complaint that needs to be taken up with the consensus of New Testament scholars. In the description, I cite scholarly sources showing where I got the dates I did.
@43alley Yeah, I see your point, but one could argue that almost all of the NT scholarship is Christian, and as NT historians they are not required to justify their claim like they do in science. Imho, these scholars solely rely on internal evidence because of their personal beliefs or because they are under pressure to not further upset the believers by pushing the dates back to the late 2nd cent. But, if I had created this video, I might have done the same thing you did.
@AgrippaTheMighty - It is predominantly Christian, but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.
I know it's a bit of a worn out recommendation, but if you want to see the scholarly evidence on NT book dating, check out Bart Ehrman. He was once a fierce believer but his own studies turned him from it. I recommend him not because of his non-belief but by his highly approachable writing style.
Check out the 3rd and 4th citations to Ehrman in the description. Or search him on YouTube.
@43alley “…but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.” I see what you’re saying, but in the scientific method, evidence will always trump a vast number of scholars (heliocentric reality, the germ theory, the evolution theory, the law of relativity, etc…). I haven’t read Ehrman though I suspect that he’s worth reading. However, I think that he is subject to peer & believers’ pressure, and refrains from making too bold of a statement:
@gekritzl Yeah, Erhman is good & fun to watch, but he is also careful on his statements on religion: /watch?v=59txpioPYJI
Many people don’t realize that all non-biblical historians do is to parrot what these NT historians say, and almost all NT scholars (9 out of 10) are Christians. Ostracism from Peers & believers alike keep the few non-Christians NT professors operating within limits:
@AgrippaTheMighty - Hey, I'm curious about your user name. Are you referring to Marcus Julius Agrippa, governor of Tiberias during the time of Jesus' supposed ministry, one of the many men who should have, but did not write about Jesus?
@gekritzl About the links, sure no problem. That would have been a good choice for my user’s name, and I guess it could be understood that way. Nonetheless, I chose the Agrippa character in the game “Shadow of Rome” as my user name. And about Ehrman’s speech, no I haven’t seen or heard it.
@AgrippaTheMighty - Prof. Ehrman usually begins first day of class with a pop quiz, 11 questions about the bible. Here he decided one day to try something new. Skip to 3:30 if you want to get straight to Ehrman and skip the intro. The whole video is great.
@gekritzl Thank you for the video link. I watched it to about half an hour into it, but it wouldn’t play anymore. Though Ehrman does bring some facts to the table, he is still limited by what his own academic field let him say. He obviously doesn’t take the bible literally, but there are already major Christian religions that don’t take it literally, i.e. the Anglicans.
@gekritzl One thing is questioning Jesus’ words, and another thing is outright classifying Jesus as a myth, which is a much bolder declaration that’d take real balls of steel to make.
@AgrippaTheMighty - Agreed, although there are some scholars who make the claim. Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove Jesus even existed. Professor George A. Wells contends he's total myth. I believe Professor Robert M. Price is very skeptical Jesus existed (he was editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism). Then of course we have Tony Bushby, Joseph McCabe, Frank Zindler, DM Murdock, and others. It seems possible the Jesus that made it to the Bible was a composite figure.
@gekritzl Yeah, I agree & you’re completely right. I concur with those daring scholars since like you said there are very good reasons to think that Jesus never existed or at least like this Youtube post declares, the Christ character has as much evidence as the Hercules/Heracles figure.
@AgrippaTheMighty - Very much appreciated, thanks. Have you seen the Ehrman lecture where he talks about the first day of class, asking if the students believe the bible is the word of god, then have they read The DaVinci Code... then, have they read the Bible? He chuckles at the response.
@43alley “…but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.” Please don’t take it the wrong way because I really like your videos including this one, but are you saying that if many believe so, it is so, and isn’t this an argument by consensus also called an argument ad populum?
@AgrippaTheMighty - It's not that argument at all because textual scholarship is not science. It's peer-reviewed history. The evidence is compelling that the dates of the consensus is pretty accurate based on the available evidence.
NT textual scholarship (dealing with dating, etc, but NOT theological claims) is pretty intense (and interesting). Secular historians, anthropologists and geologists at times find themselves studying similar events (and this helps get at the truth).
@43alley “It's peer-reviewed history” This method is valid if it is evidence based. You’re stating that there is evidence for a 1st /early 2nd cent. dating of the gospels that would also explain the silence of our Matt., Mark, Luke & John from the historical record until 180 CE. Please, present it.
“Secular historians, anthropologists and geologists at times find themselves studying similar events (and this helps get at the truth).” I agree.
@daemonowner Well, the earliest fragment that exists is P52 circa 125 CE. But, P52 has never been carbon dated. Wiki reads “Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do”, you’ll find that though the Ryland library maintains a 125 AD date, it is not a firm time placement. Roberts himself noted in 1935
@daemonowner that paleography is not the most effective method for dating text. Some have suggested that it could be as old as a late 2nd, early 3rd century text.
Though the text in the fragment matches a couple of verses from the Gospel of John, one cannot discard the possibility of it being part of a proto-gospel such as the sayings of Jesus.
@AgrippaTheMighty No, the more people there are willing to take you down in public and start off or boost their career in doing so, and probably sell a book about it.
@AgrippaTheMighty - "one could argue that almost all of the NT scholarship is Christian" - EXACTLY! I agree completely. This point is rarely made. Thank you.
These apostles are "living legends" - people can see miracles performed right in front of their eyes.
And all these apostles proclaim that Jesus is their Lord. Even the disciples can perform miracles, what more their Lord? It's a given - nobody ever doubted whether Jesus can perform miracles.
So, back to your argument: Jesus was a real person, he performed real miracles.
That's why there are really only 3 possibilities: Either he is a liar, a lunatic, or LORD.
Miracles are so rife among the early believers - that it is common, and even expected that apostles will perform miracles.
Acts 19.11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
"extraordinary miracles" - implying that there are "ordinary miracles" and there are extraordinary ones..
Your whole premise is based on the fact that the "early writings" ie the epistles of Paul seldom mention about the miracles done performed Jesus, and therefore Jesus might not have done any, and therefore might just be an average human.
But what do the epistles say about "miracles" generally?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing...
@ArdenKuan - It's hard to reply when you don't summarize my argument properly. I'm not ONLY arguing that the lack of detail in early writings proves Jesus was a normal man. That's only part of it.
The rest of the argument is that after you consider ALL the writings in order, you see that each adds new powers and stories and miracles. Hence, the story grows each time.
You didn't respond to that. You cited a bunch of early vague verses from Paul, and that precisely proves my point.
My reasoning is simple. If I can prove that miracles are nothing new, but had been discussed as of norm even in the early writings, I have effectively defeated your argument that "the story grows each time", and with it your entire premise.
The verses I have cited are my no means vague. They clearly say that early disciples performed miracles, and everybody (reading it) knows exactly it was true.
Take out the foundation, your whole argument crumbles.
Yes, it is Galation 4:4, and here is a verse that speaks more to the point of what your video says "does not happen"- Galation 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles amoung you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This verse clearly shows that Paul knew of the miracles of Jesus.
@jesuskopp Or (more likely) Paul created the Jesus character/legend and gave him miracles as befit the gods of his youth.The gospels were written by people Paul converted to the religion he created (you call it Christianity).
@jesuskopp Or (more likely) Paul created the Jesus character/legend and gave him miracles as befit the gods of his youth.The gospels were written by people Paul converted to the religion he created (you call it Christianity).
@jesuskopp - You need to cite book, chapter and verse if you're going to make an assertion like that -- especially with 6 exclamation points with only two sentences.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Pauline epistles are silent on it, and so is Mark, the first gospel.
Please don't cite some vague single verse, give me something specific. Some SPECIFIC reference to Jesus's virgin birth. Galatians 4:4 doesn't count. If you ignore me and cite it anyway, then give me an additional verse.
Jimi Hendrix is a prophet of god. His guitar playing could heal the sick, and he once set his guitar spontaneously on fire at a live woodstock concert. His music cured my cousin's leukemia, and he blesses those who believe in his powers. He was shot by someone who didn't believe in his word and he ascended into heaven. Jimi Hendrix will come back at an unknown time. You'll only know if I'm wrong after death.
I would like to suggest a fifth L Word to the scenario, "Lichen." My reasons for this proposal are based on the works of John Allegro, one of the translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I realize that a lichen is not technically a mushroom, but I chose the alliterative symbol for obvious reasons. Let's remember how fond Jesus was of saying things such as, "Whereunto shall I lichen the men of this generation," and, "Whereunto shall I lichen the Kingdom of Heaven?" Food for thought.
This video addresses the issues you bring up in this video.
watch?v=Y7ojeqUUAb0
Essentially, there is no positive historical evidence to support the claim that Paul invented Christianity or that tales were "legendized" aver the course of the first century. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
@misterD418 - Thanks for the link. Highly frustrating there is that you have disabled comments. You should open them up for discussion.
I never claimed Paul invented Christianity. I said he was the driving force for its spread thanks to his writings. Without him, some other sect (like the Gnostics) may have won out and become "the church."
So, is there any real evidence of development, that the stories used in the later writings actually ARE later inventions? Can you prove that those stories did not exist prior to the date of the gospel writing? After all, if Mark, Matthew, and Luke are using other sources, those other sources are earlier.
These two video don't address this exactly, but I touch on some important concepts and themes.
It's convenient for your purpose to end Mark at the 8th chapter but not accurate since the best bible version is the KJV. I can prove it if you have a few hours.
@Andy97009814 After viewing the whole video, I must add: how do you know KJV is the best version, if THE ORIGINAL did not have the verses? Did people really have the nerve to add extra verses?
@Andy97009814 The KJV is the only one that has Strong's numbers so you can reference the Greek and the Hebrew - Many of the new bibles use the Westcott and Hort texts - the Jehovah Witness ones too - obvious problems. The newer documents that were found were also not from a widespread area and appeared in better shape - this is attributed to the fact that they were not used or referenced because they were suspect documents.
@BigPictureSales - The KJV got it wrong. Many other translations now have a footnote here.
Long ago, Mark ended with the women fleeing terrified from the tomb. At some point after that, the verses were added. Then after that, the King James Version was completed. Of course the KJV is going to include the additional verses. It wasn't until multiple old copies of Mark were found showing those verses were not originally there.
Research this yourself to see .. if you have a few minutes.
@43alley Please site which multiple old copies you are referring too. The bible is always under attack - Westcott and Hort documents are corrupt as were they.
@BigPictureSales You may enjoy the book Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman, It's an easy read and takes pains to not offend Christians. It discusses the origins and contradictions of the Bible. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and considered becoming a preacher in his earlier years. It is a very through book. Peace.
I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but if he did, he was a man, not the son of god. He may have believed he was, or other people at that time did. There is no actual unrefutable proof that he existed, his legend may have arisen from the fact that there were so many prophets preaching on every corner back in those days, could have been a combination of many men from which the legend grew.
@Millkevi - You were right the first time. But do you see my point? A Muslim could use that same wager on you by filling in HIS god. So could a Hindu.
The reasons you are unmoved by the Muslim's and the Hindu's attempt to convert you is the same reason that they (and I) find YOUR wager unpersuasive.
So, if I'm right and god lives and Jesus is the Christ and sacrificed himself I will have lived a clean moral life and enjoyed the blessing of a life full of love and sacrifice and you will have to come face to face with your creator having a full knowledge of your sins and will have to explain yourself.
On the other hand if you are right I will still have an amazing life and apparently have no regrets because according to you I will not exist. Ether way I win and you lose when you leave this
If I'm right and Allah lives and Mohammed is His prophet I will have lived a clean moral life and you will have to come face to face with your creator having a full knowledge of your sins and will have to explain yourself.
On the other hand if you are right I will still have an amazing life and apparently have no regrets because according to you I will not exist. Ether way I win and you lose when you leave this.
@Millkev On the other hand, if I am right, you'll have lived your life for an elaborate lie and the only thing that's amazing is your gullibility. You have no idea what it is to live a life bemused because of all the absolutely nutty things that theists of every persuation believe in and do, from ascetic back scourging monks to quarterly proclamations of the end of everything. We laugh, we chuckle and we say, "Thanks be to reason that we are not enslaved by blind devotion to superstition."
It's so crazy to think that Jesus was obviously just sum normal guy, was probley just a nice guy and now 2000 years later so many brain washed idiots still worship him, thinking he was a god, it just goes to show humans can be controlled so easy, it's amazing
After that I got to ask does any one believe in life after death or a higher power. Because if you don't it makes you all very dangerous people. I like the thought that the only thing you have to lose is your life that you will absolutely lose any way. So in effect you have nothing to lose. Thats how I would want people to feel if I were The antichrist. Hey Satan good job leading astray the hearts of men.
@Millkevi - "So in effect you have nothing to lose." Wrong, we have everything to lose. Our time here is our only time, so best to make the most of it.
If you were right, we'd see more suicide-mission atrocities specifically due to a lack of religion. What we find instead, are suicide-mission atrocities specifically because of religion:
Islam - suicide bombers
Christianity - cults like Jim Jones
Buddhism - kamikaze pilots
I did a video on Satan too. Like Jesus, he evolves in the Bible.
@Millkevi You realize your argument makes no sense right? What you're saying is "people who don't believe in afterlife, redemption, heaven, life after death, etc. are dangerous. How so? Aren't people who think that they can do whatever they feel like in this life because they will be redeemed/can continue in another life/reincarnated/etc. the ones that are more dangerous because they can treat this existing life with less cause for concern? cont...
@Millkevi cont. Someone who doesn't believe in afterlife or anything after this life has MORE to lose, because this is the only life to live for them. Thus, you'd think that they'd value the current life more and treat it with more respect.
I'm not preaching either way, because I don't want to bring my own personal beliefs into the picture. But your argument falls apart almost completely.
I agree the LLL is a crock. I used to be quite involved in debating these issues, but I defer to those who are real scholars and the only really strong arguments presented by Professor GA Wells have either been debunked by Dr Gary Habermas. As I said, go on over to Theology Web Campus as they're always debating this sort of thing, or just got to Gary's site or Bede Library and you'll find that your views are outdated. Of course Bible and Culture with B. Witherington is a good option too.
Jesus was a great man. The only perfect man. It is impossible to disprove the bible since it is Gods word. Nice try. Jesus is coming, we all have time to be saved. Just remember, look for him, he is coming. God bless all of you. He has much grace.
@shuttersofwilmington - Thor was a great man. The only perfect man. It is impossible to disprove Nordic hero stories since they are Odin's word. Nice try. Thor is coming, we all have time to be saved. Just remember, look for him, he is coming. Odin bless all of you. He has a sweet hammer.
@43alley - I think if you do your homework you'll find there's a historical account for JC and as far as I know Thor's just had his debut on the silver screen. I'm currently reading about Jesus on Theology Web Campus and far as I can tell theirs no-one who contests the historicity of most of it. The discussion is call 'Jesus?' Spot you there.
@aerycksmusic - You're so right. So what's all this 'Thor was a great man. The only perfect man.' and 'Odin bless all of you. He has a sweet hammer' ? as a reply to 'Jesus was a great man. 'The only perfect man.' and God bless all of you. He has much grace.' Do you have anything as authoritative as the New Testament to back up that assertion, or are you just being a doofus?
now there is no real reason to think that jesus even existed. bechose the name is wrong. jesus is latin. joshua is greek. so the name is wrong from the start. there where lot of latins named jesus. but most of the writers are allso fake. the people who wrote the bible where mostly greeks. so it culd be that bible is just a scam from the start.
Here's the problem with Jesus being the messiah: there is no peace on earth, Israel isn't pure, temple rights are still lacking... blah blah blah.. Jesus, even with all the legends about him, failed to fulfill the prophecies that people claim he did. This is why the Jews don't buy it. The second coming is also a NT invention. Why would GodMan need two attempts?
50 AD is a very charitable dating by sensitive scholars.. it ranges up to about 100 AD for the earliest gospel (in the form we know now), remembering that NO originals survive. I'm a fan of Erhman who makes a good case for the gospel of Mark being based on an earlier "sayings" gospel. It makes me angry that history has been treated with such cavalier aplomb. And "angry" is ME being charitable. I'm pissed. This is a great video. Thanks.
@43alley And many scholars date it earlier than the new testiment gospels, as early as 50AD. Mark was written no earlier than 65AD. Thomas is in my NT. As a Gnostic Christian, I considder the cannon open to the individual. I do not recognise the OT. The one thing I think we will agree on is the Church created thier own Jesus. I believe he did exist but the church has misrepresented him. Also, I believe the Bible is not perfect, it was written by people and people are not perfect.
@astrofrk - I'd be interested in hearing more about modern Gnostic Christians and how you became acquainted with it. Is it due to the recent discoveries of so many gnostic texts? (I also was under the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas was not purely gnostic, but perhaps proto-gnostic).
@43alley I heard of Gnostics since I was a teen but knew little. I left penticostal mainstream christianity in 1998, I was once a music minister. I went through alot of pain from church. I admit that I was introduced to Gnostic Christianity when I seen the movie "The Davinci Code" and started doing research via books and internet. I fully converted by June of 2010. Thomas? It depends on how one defines "Gnostic". We are far more diverse than most people think and I like that way.
@43alley The Gospel of Thomas says that the Logos (Yeshua) is within, so there is no need for a church as an institution, no need for clergy. The earliest church met in homes and everyone could teach. Interaction was better as they faced each other instead of everyone facing a priest. We don't believe in faith as much as believing in knowledge. My holy trinity is a family, the Holy Spirit is named Sophia. Do you see why we were a threat to the church? So they all but wiped us out.
@astrofrk Is the term Sophie that you use for the Holy Spirit derived from the Greek Philosophy of Sophism? Interesting I happen to enjo Greek Philosophy very much.
@kukynphunt You are correct. Sophia is Greek for Wisdom. While I do not recognise the Old Testiment, "Wisdom" is mentioned as a "She" throughout Proverbs, so the ancient Hebrews knew of her and spoke of her spirit and knowledge. Paul was a Gnostic who spoke Greek and started the Greek churches. While mainstream Christians mostly follow the teachings of Peter, Valentinian Gnostic Christians like me follow Paul and Valentinus. Some of the books alledged to be written by Paul are forgeries.
@kukynphunt (continued) For instance, 1st & 2nd Timothy was written between 100-150AD, long after Paul died. It was written by the Roman Church and denounced Gnostic Christians. I do believe in Yeshua but the Roman Church misrepresented him as well as Sophia when they removed the devine feminine. Why? Because Rome was a mans
world as it is with the Catholic Church and the majority of Protestant churches to this day. If the human soul has no sex, why discriminate against women in clergy?
Missed that? I was the one who brought morality up in the comments. If you believe in a single God, you are a monothiest. The word "Agnostic" is used for both beliefs, so it gets confusing. My Grandpa called himself an Agnostic monothiest, so I know what you are saying.
The difference between Yeshua and Hercules is that Yeshua did exist and is recorded from sources other than the bible. I know of no evidence that Hercules ever existed other than as a constillation. We can argue forever as far as WHO he was and it will get us nowhere. The same goes for Mohammed and many others. There is no proof of who any of these people were. That does not mean all are false teachers or true teachers/ect... That is where faith and/or spirituality comes in.
yep Jesus was mentioned by others... a hundred years later. We do have evidence of Hercules, in fact archeologists have recently discovered a home in Italy that was littered with Hercules merchandise, pots with paintings of him, etc. Also Hercules started the first Olympics. There is tons of proof of Mohammad's existence, he was written about heavily by third party historians. Forget spirituality, read a book
@Dudeatheist What I'm saying is it's one thing to prove someone once existed, it's another to prove what that person believed. I can state an opinion but my opinion will never be found in ruins. We may find writing but we must be careful in assuming where the words came from, and when. A mono-thiest cannot prove God exists and an athiest cannot prove God doesn't exist. That's why the debate will never end. What do I think? Does it matter?
you're correct in one part, a theist cannot prove god exists. However atheists do not try to disprove god, they simply lack a belief in a god because of the lack of proof. However individual gods can be disproven to a point, for example we know that the bible is historically and scientifically inaccurate and clearly the work of men who were writing with the knowledge of the times. We know this through modern archaeology and physical sciences.
@Dudeatheist If have seen a few, I guess I would call "fundamental" Athiests that try to disprove God, of course we all know of fundamental Christians and Muslems. Opinions are so extreme for many that if we did prove things one way or the other, hundreds of millions on either side still wouldn't accept the evidence. They would look for any alternative explanation they could think of, even if they knew it was bogus. If faith is the only thing that keeps many moral, perhaps this is best.
well there are no fundamental elements to atheism as its not a belief system. Those people, which often do include myself are anti-theists, who are either atheists, or theists who hate religion/their god. People who claim to be moral because of their faith is a type of special pleading. They believe their morality is divinely granted, but there are those who have equal or greater morality without gods. This shows us that people will behave based on their character.
@Dudeatheist I've been at the place where I hated my religion/God and perhaps this is a source for fundumental athiesm, yet it isn't. One runs into an oxymoron, how can one hate what doesn't exist? That wouldn't be athiesm, closer to agnostic. Morality is difficult to define outside religion because what does one base morality on? Laws and cultures can change within a lifetime, even within religions. In the end, I think it becomes an individual decision based upon personal experiances.
I think you missed the OR statement. Also, agnosticism does not mean you don't know if god exists, it means you believe that god cannot be known, you can be an atheist or theist agnostic. Morality is pretty easy to define actually, good morals are those that have an overall benefit to the community, and bad ones are ones that have an overall negative effect. You could say that means in a homophobic community it would be a bad moral, but it could be said the homophobia is the bad moral
@Dudeatheist I am a Gnostic, which is Greek for "To Know". Agnostic is Greek for "To not know". No matter how the term is used, I'm sure I have the definithion correct. You are defining a basic monothiest. It was a nice shot defining Morality but there are times when morals do not benefit oreven hurt a community. The Peoples Temple community considered reverend Jim Jones moral when he had everyone drink poison punch.
« Morality is difficult to define outside religion »
Inside religion as well. After all, what does one base it on?
You can't base it on what you think the gods want, because that's just what you think they want, or what you want them to want.
You can't base it on scripture, because scripture often contains the most heinous crimes committed by or in the name of gods, ensuring that you have to pick and choose - which again means that morality is simply what you want it to be.
@XGralgrathor Religion is biased, so defining is easy. If your God says to do it, you do it regardless of what happens. I'm not saying this is correct but for those who share that faith, it is perfectly moral. According to the bible, God said: "Kill men women and Children!" Because God tells them to do it, it would have been immoral for the Hebrews NOT to. Otherwise, God commands: "Thou Shalt not Kill!" One cannot argue morality with someone who thinks it immoral to even question God.
« One cannot argue morality with someone who thinks it immoral to even question God »
Indeed, I agree. Arguing requires reason. Somebody who claims to see reason in worshipping a god that commits genocide first and then commands not to kill obviously does not know the meaning of the word 'reason'.
@XGralgrathor This is one reason I left Mainstream Christianity. As a Gnostic Christian, you and I will disagree but how can I judge you to hell when I don't even believe in hell? I still believe in God but not the Hebrew God of war found in the old testiment. I also see the NT in a different way. People say Gnostic Christians are half Christian, half Buddhist. How often do you hear of a fundamental Buddhist killing people of other faiths? In return the church gave us the Inquesition.
43alley, I figure I should mention that you should push the supposed birth of Jesus back to 4 BC. Matthew mentions Christ's birth during the period of Herod the Great's rule, which was in 4 BC (ignoring that Luke places Christ's birth during the period Quirinus was governor of Syria, in 6 AD). Just another thing Christians conviently leave out in Sunday 'school'.
10) In summation. The reason why I so “arrogantly” say that this couldn’t have happened back then is that the actions of the people involved, the culture, and the fact that the oral tradition clearly included the essentials of the gospels (Miracles, atonement, resurrection), plus there being nothing to gain by lying, all point to each account being accurate and true.
9) As for the age of the gospels. Just because it’s the oldest we can find doesn’t mean it’s the original. We find a manuscript of Mark in 68 A.D. That just means it’s AT LEAST that old. The originals could have been written the same year Jesus died for all we know. Same with any other documents. We can be sure, however, that any changing of the manuscripts would have been detected, as people who possessed the originals would have challenged any fallacious copies.
8) As for the modern example… People still believe in Tupac and Elvis never dying… but none of these people are willing to put their lives on the line, and nobody close to the situations would deny them… it’s ENTIRELY unrelated people. The Gospels claim to have firsthand accounts and no witnesses have come forward to discredit them…. This didn’t happen with Jesus, and some actually were willing to die over what they believed.
@NoBandwidth25 Last time I checked, not believing in the death of Elvis and Pac doesn't offer any promises in the afterlife or this life. Fail, major fail. Die for a lie? You will have to explain Jihadists and btw, the Gospels can't even agree on what happened after Christ's supposed crucifiction. They all can't be right because they make specific claims about specific events. Read Matthew 28, John 20, Mark 17, and Luke 24. Note the lack of zombies in John, Mark, and Luke.
Jihadists dying for a lie is significantly different... they're dying for a lie told to them that they believe. You don't die for you own lie bc you know for a fact it's not true. You only lie when you have something to gain. The apostles got nothing. They were better-off saying nothing and moving-on if Christ had been still dead. Also, two people (James and Saul) who hadn't believed beforehand came to the faith. The actions are not consistent with the profile of somebody lying.
"They all can't be right" means they CONTRADICT one another, not JUST contain different ifnormation. The sentences "John ate two apples" and "John ate an apple" can both be both true, in spite of containing different infromation. If the first person saw John eat both apples and the other person only saw him eat the second... they both wrote accurate, truthful information. If the gospels all said the same thing, the charge would then be "One person wrote under four names".
Let me ask you this: If somebody who claimed to have seen Elvis had a gun pointed to their head and was told "Admit you're lying"... 100% would admit it. If Christ was not risen and the witness knew that for a fact, then saying he had would be exactly like claiming to see Elvis, since the person making the claim knows continuing to do so yields no reward in reality. The only way saying Christ had risen would potentially benefit them is if he had, in fact, risen.
7) As for comparisons to Hercules. Hercules’s tales have no author claiming to be a witness. Jesus does and I’ve shown we have probable cause to believe the people are who they said they were. Hercules has nobody referencing him as a real person except those who believe every word of the story. Jesus is mentioned by Romans and Jews, who simply didn’t believe he was the Son of God.
6) As for John. John 21:20–24 makes the claim of authorship. Now if “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is John or not remains to be seen, but he clearly was one of the twelve (John 13, John 19). So our version of the book HAS to be a copy of something written by an author claiming to be close to Jesus, written early. If it were fake or untrustworthy, the apostles would have said so and the Church would have thrown it out long before 100 AD.John is authentic
5) As for Luke. Luke makes no claim to be a direct source. However, he gives Mary’s genealogy. First of all, for him to add this if he didn’t have to is not the trademark of a liar (That’s like lying to get out of work by telling your boss a coworker died… it can be checked easily, to say the least), so Luke clearly doesn’t seem to be making-up stuff that the Church didn’t already believe. Luke clearly was neither copying nor adding inaccurate details… Luke is authentic.
4) As for Matthew. If the man had been martyred already, everybody would know the Gospel of Matthew was forged and disregard it, or at least name another author. Neither happened. You can conclude that our 80 A.D. manuscript was either a copy of what Matthew wrote down decades prior, or that Matthew was still alive and he wrote it. Matthew is, like Mark, authentic.
3) As for Mark. Remember that he was founder of the Church of Alexandria in 43 A.D and he also interacted with Paul in Acts 15. So when the manuscript of the Gospel we have dating to 68 A.D. would have come-out, it was either an authentic, accurate copy of an earlier Mark writing, or Mark had just written it. If Mark were already dead, people would know it was a fake. If he were alive but didn’t write it, the church would have never credited him authorship. That gospel is authentic.
2) Read in 1 Corinthians 15: Paul says Christ was raised “according to the Scriptures”. That means SOMEBODY wrote about the resurrection prior to the 50s A.D. and the Church had already accepted these writings. That could be the Gospels, that could be the alleged “Q” document, but whatever it was, it was something witnesses to the life of Christ could have disputed. Neither witnesses nor the Church did, so we can assume the events are true.
1) Witnesses to Christ’s life would have been alive in 50 AD. So were the church’s oral tradition ever in question, they could always go back to the primary sources. So whatever the church believed in 50 AD is consistent with what actually happened. So we can say that if any change was made, it was post-50 AD.
@farhan10mohammad Oh no! not threats of violence against someone with a different belief! Who would have thought such a thing!! -and from a guy with Muhammad in his name too!
@farhan10mohammad You religious nut bags are violent, and insane. I'm honestly starting to believe that you're religious not because you believe in all of this stuff, but because you need an excuse to be violent. As they say, no one performs more egregious and violent acts than when they claim to have god on their side. You're awful. Just an awful, violent, creepy nut bag.
I hear a lot of assumptions, but i don't see evidence for it. How do i know that the biblical books. are written in 50 A.D, and John in 90 A.D ? And how do i know that it was finished in 100-110 A.D ?
And all of those writers are claiming that they where part of Jesus his 'gang'. If it is writting by Luke in 50 A.D. How is it possible that they are talking about John ? His books where written in 110 A.D
And how about Jude ? He "did" suicide. Why would he let the other writers do that ?
@King444 - "I hear a lot of assumptions, but i don't see evidence for it. How do i know that the biblical books. are written in 50 A.D, and John in 90 A.D ? And how do i know that it was finished in 100-110 A.D ?"
You can start by reading the description of the video and check out all the cited sources for yourself.
@43alley Yes, but i'am trying to read to much books right now. I was hoping you could give it me in a nutshell, or could show me some website's about it.
But never mind, when i'am done reading my other stuff, i will go to the library and see it for myself.
He tied innocent animals together and set them on fire, then he shoved them into a field to burn it up. In another part, he riped hurt a lion, just because he felt l ike it! Jerk Samson!
That's why we have so many atheist now, because of Christians trying to keep their Pagean gods alive. If I wasn't Muslim, I would have becAme an atheist too.
you missed out the possibility of hercules being a demigod
doombybbr 2 weeks ago
which Herc movie is 0:44 from?
jeepthing98 2 weeks ago
@43alley Just like you said, in your video description under the section titled “Dating of the Gospels” I found several book titles that I infer are the proof for the dating of Matt., Mark, Luke & John. Could you give me page #s with the corresponding volume so I can examine the compelling evidence for myself?
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@43alley Sorry, but I have to disagree on one point. There is no good reason to believe that the 4 gospels originated in the 1st & early 2nd centuries. The historical record, which includes early Christian fathers’ citations, does not reveal any of our 4 gospels until the end of the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) quotes the OT 314 times naming its authors 197 times, but he never quotes or names Matt., Mark, Luke & John. Irenaeus in 180 CE is the first one to disclose our 4 gospels.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - You're unique to this comment section because I usually have to argue here that the gospels weren't written by contemporaries in the months after Jesus died. You have them being written centuries later :)
But I guess my response to you is the same that I make to religious: yours is a complaint that needs to be taken up with the consensus of New Testament scholars. In the description, I cite scholarly sources showing where I got the dates I did.
43alley 2 weeks ago
@43alley Yeah, I see your point, but one could argue that almost all of the NT scholarship is Christian, and as NT historians they are not required to justify their claim like they do in science. Imho, these scholars solely rely on internal evidence because of their personal beliefs or because they are under pressure to not further upset the believers by pushing the dates back to the late 2nd cent. But, if I had created this video, I might have done the same thing you did.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - It is predominantly Christian, but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.
I know it's a bit of a worn out recommendation, but if you want to see the scholarly evidence on NT book dating, check out Bart Ehrman. He was once a fierce believer but his own studies turned him from it. I recommend him not because of his non-belief but by his highly approachable writing style.
Check out the 3rd and 4th citations to Ehrman in the description. Or search him on YouTube.
43alley 2 weeks ago
@43alley “…but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.” I see what you’re saying, but in the scientific method, evidence will always trump a vast number of scholars (heliocentric reality, the germ theory, the evolution theory, the law of relativity, etc…). I haven’t read Ehrman though I suspect that he’s worth reading. However, I think that he is subject to peer & believers’ pressure, and refrains from making too bold of a statement:
/watch?v=59txpioPYJI
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - Ehrman is brilliant and honest, and really fun to watch his lectures. Look some of them up on YouTube.
gekritzl 6 days ago
@gekritzl Yeah, Erhman is good & fun to watch, but he is also careful on his statements on religion: /watch?v=59txpioPYJI
Many people don’t realize that all non-biblical historians do is to parrot what these NT historians say, and almost all NT scholars (9 out of 10) are Christians. Ostracism from Peers & believers alike keep the few non-Christians NT professors operating within limits:
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - thanks, I'll check that link out.
gekritzl 6 days ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - Hey, I'm curious about your user name. Are you referring to Marcus Julius Agrippa, governor of Tiberias during the time of Jesus' supposed ministry, one of the many men who should have, but did not write about Jesus?
gekritzl 6 days ago
@gekritzl About the links, sure no problem. That would have been a good choice for my user’s name, and I guess it could be understood that way. Nonetheless, I chose the Agrippa character in the game “Shadow of Rome” as my user name. And about Ehrman’s speech, no I haven’t seen or heard it.
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - Prof. Ehrman usually begins first day of class with a pop quiz, 11 questions about the bible. Here he decided one day to try something new. Skip to 3:30 if you want to get straight to Ehrman and skip the intro. The whole video is great.
watch?v=Y3N4ymHO-eA
gekritzl 6 days ago
@gekritzl Thank you for the video link. I watched it to about half an hour into it, but it wouldn’t play anymore. Though Ehrman does bring some facts to the table, he is still limited by what his own academic field let him say. He obviously doesn’t take the bible literally, but there are already major Christian religions that don’t take it literally, i.e. the Anglicans.
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@gekritzl One thing is questioning Jesus’ words, and another thing is outright classifying Jesus as a myth, which is a much bolder declaration that’d take real balls of steel to make.
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - Agreed, although there are some scholars who make the claim. Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove Jesus even existed. Professor George A. Wells contends he's total myth. I believe Professor Robert M. Price is very skeptical Jesus existed (he was editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism). Then of course we have Tony Bushby, Joseph McCabe, Frank Zindler, DM Murdock, and others. It seems possible the Jesus that made it to the Bible was a composite figure.
gekritzl 6 days ago
@gekritzl Yeah, I agree & you’re completely right. I concur with those daring scholars since like you said there are very good reasons to think that Jesus never existed or at least like this Youtube post declares, the Christ character has as much evidence as the Hercules/Heracles figure.
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@gekritzl Almost ALL NT professors are Christians links below:
wwwDOTtheaunicornistDOTcom/2011/12/shocking-news-biblical-scholars-areDOThtml
Discriminating against NT atheist scholars (a very tiny minority):
chronicleDOTcom/blogs/brainstorm/a-brief-thought-on-atheists-in-biblical-scholarship-stimulated-by-professor-bauerleins-haidt-speech-post/32462
AgrippaTheMighty 6 days ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - Very much appreciated, thanks. Have you seen the Ehrman lecture where he talks about the first day of class, asking if the students believe the bible is the word of god, then have they read The DaVinci Code... then, have they read the Bible? He chuckles at the response.
gekritzl 6 days ago
@43alley “…but the larger the field is, the more honest is it.” Please don’t take it the wrong way because I really like your videos including this one, but are you saying that if many believe so, it is so, and isn’t this an argument by consensus also called an argument ad populum?
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty - It's not that argument at all because textual scholarship is not science. It's peer-reviewed history. The evidence is compelling that the dates of the consensus is pretty accurate based on the available evidence.
NT textual scholarship (dealing with dating, etc, but NOT theological claims) is pretty intense (and interesting). Secular historians, anthropologists and geologists at times find themselves studying similar events (and this helps get at the truth).
43alley 2 weeks ago
@43alley “It's peer-reviewed history” This method is valid if it is evidence based. You’re stating that there is evidence for a 1st /early 2nd cent. dating of the gospels that would also explain the silence of our Matt., Mark, Luke & John from the historical record until 180 CE. Please, present it.
“Secular historians, anthropologists and geologists at times find themselves studying similar events (and this helps get at the truth).” I agree.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty How early do the fragments and copies of the 4 Gospels date to?
daemonowner 2 weeks ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
@daemonowner Well, the earliest fragment that exists is P52 circa 125 CE. But, P52 has never been carbon dated. Wiki reads “Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do”, you’ll find that though the Ryland library maintains a 125 AD date, it is not a firm time placement. Roberts himself noted in 1935
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@daemonowner that paleography is not the most effective method for dating text. Some have suggested that it could be as old as a late 2nd, early 3rd century text.
Though the text in the fragment matches a couple of verses from the Gospel of John, one cannot discard the possibility of it being part of a proto-gospel such as the sayings of Jesus.
AgrippaTheMighty 2 weeks ago
@AgrippaTheMighty No, the more people there are willing to take you down in public and start off or boost their career in doing so, and probably sell a book about it.
daemonowner 2 weeks ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgrippaTheMighty - "one could argue that almost all of the NT scholarship is Christian" - EXACTLY! I agree completely. This point is rarely made. Thank you.
gekritzl 6 days ago
@43alley PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE I SENT YOU! THANK YOU :)
endlife2k2 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@43alley Please respond to my message. About the dating of the new testament.
endlife2k2 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@43alley my answer (4)
These apostles are "living legends" - people can see miracles performed right in front of their eyes.
And all these apostles proclaim that Jesus is their Lord. Even the disciples can perform miracles, what more their Lord? It's a given - nobody ever doubted whether Jesus can perform miracles.
So, back to your argument: Jesus was a real person, he performed real miracles.
That's why there are really only 3 possibilities: Either he is a liar, a lunatic, or LORD.
(end)
ArdenKuan 3 weeks ago
@43alley my answer (3)
Miracles are so rife among the early believers - that it is common, and even expected that apostles will perform miracles.
Acts 19.11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.
"extraordinary miracles" - implying that there are "ordinary miracles" and there are extraordinary ones..
ArdenKuan 3 weeks ago
@43alley more miracle verses (2)
1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
2 Corinthians 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles
Galatians 3:5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?
The epistles say a lot about miracles that are performed by Paul himself and other apostles
ArdenKuan 3 weeks ago
@43alley So, so easy to rebut..
Your whole premise is based on the fact that the "early writings" ie the epistles of Paul seldom mention about the miracles done performed Jesus, and therefore Jesus might not have done any, and therefore might just be an average human.
But what do the epistles say about "miracles" generally?
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing...
ArdenKuan 3 weeks ago
@ArdenKuan - It's hard to reply when you don't summarize my argument properly. I'm not ONLY arguing that the lack of detail in early writings proves Jesus was a normal man. That's only part of it.
The rest of the argument is that after you consider ALL the writings in order, you see that each adds new powers and stories and miracles. Hence, the story grows each time.
You didn't respond to that. You cited a bunch of early vague verses from Paul, and that precisely proves my point.
43alley 3 weeks ago
@43alley "the story grows"
My reasoning is simple. If I can prove that miracles are nothing new, but had been discussed as of norm even in the early writings, I have effectively defeated your argument that "the story grows each time", and with it your entire premise.
The verses I have cited are my no means vague. They clearly say that early disciples performed miracles, and everybody (reading it) knows exactly it was true.
Take out the foundation, your whole argument crumbles.
ArdenKuan 3 weeks ago
"A Jew-hating drunk." I LOLed.
priceoffame 3 weeks ago
Yes, it is Galation 4:4, and here is a verse that speaks more to the point of what your video says "does not happen"- Galation 3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles amoung you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
This verse clearly shows that Paul knew of the miracles of Jesus.
jesuskopp 3 weeks ago
@jesuskopp Or (more likely) Paul created the Jesus character/legend and gave him miracles as befit the gods of his youth.The gospels were written by people Paul converted to the religion he created (you call it Christianity).
jcgadfly 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jesuskopp Or (more likely) Paul created the Jesus character/legend and gave him miracles as befit the gods of his youth.The gospels were written by people Paul converted to the religion he created (you call it Christianity).
jcgadfly 3 weeks ago
Deep hurting! Deep hurting!
RadarKat73080 4 weeks ago
Paul does speak of the Virgin Birth!!!
You need to look again!!!
jesuskopp 1 month ago
@jesuskopp - You need to cite book, chapter and verse if you're going to make an assertion like that -- especially with 6 exclamation points with only two sentences.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Pauline epistles are silent on it, and so is Mark, the first gospel.
Please don't cite some vague single verse, give me something specific. Some SPECIFIC reference to Jesus's virgin birth. Galatians 4:4 doesn't count. If you ignore me and cite it anyway, then give me an additional verse.
You can't.
43alley 1 month ago
good vid my friend.I think some people are missing the concept.Thumbs up.Heracles rules!
derren1st 1 month ago
Actually, the saying doesn't come from C.S.Lewis, but is rather an old christian teaching made by early Church Fathers.
Aut Deus aut malus homo: either he's God, or he's a bad man.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
Let's make it a religion. I'll do Jimi Hendrix.
Jimi Hendrix is a prophet of god. His guitar playing could heal the sick, and he once set his guitar spontaneously on fire at a live woodstock concert. His music cured my cousin's leukemia, and he blesses those who believe in his powers. He was shot by someone who didn't believe in his word and he ascended into heaven. Jimi Hendrix will come back at an unknown time. You'll only know if I'm wrong after death.
There we go, a religion.
GouledXD 1 month ago
EPIC!!!
EveryBodySucks100 1 month ago
I would like to suggest a fifth L Word to the scenario, "Lichen." My reasons for this proposal are based on the works of John Allegro, one of the translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I realize that a lichen is not technically a mushroom, but I chose the alliterative symbol for obvious reasons. Let's remember how fond Jesus was of saying things such as, "Whereunto shall I lichen the men of this generation," and, "Whereunto shall I lichen the Kingdom of Heaven?" Food for thought.
Celebduath 1 month ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
This video addresses the issues you bring up in this video.
watch?v=Y7ojeqUUAb0
Essentially, there is no positive historical evidence to support the claim that Paul invented Christianity or that tales were "legendized" aver the course of the first century. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
misterD418 2 months ago
@misterD418 - Thanks for the link. Highly frustrating there is that you have disabled comments. You should open them up for discussion.
I never claimed Paul invented Christianity. I said he was the driving force for its spread thanks to his writings. Without him, some other sect (like the Gnostics) may have won out and become "the church."
43alley 1 month ago
Main premise: later stories are inventions.
So, is there any real evidence of development, that the stories used in the later writings actually ARE later inventions? Can you prove that those stories did not exist prior to the date of the gospel writing? After all, if Mark, Matthew, and Luke are using other sources, those other sources are earlier.
These two video don't address this exactly, but I touch on some important concepts and themes.
watch?v=86n0eZJGQfY
watch?v=aebSN9c-C6k
misterD418 2 months ago
It's convenient for your purpose to end Mark at the 8th chapter but not accurate since the best bible version is the KJV. I can prove it if you have a few hours.
BigPictureSales 3 months ago
@BigPictureSales The best bible version is the original hebrew/greek. If the KJV is the best english version, why are there newer versions?
Andy97009814 2 months ago
@Andy97009814 After viewing the whole video, I must add: how do you know KJV is the best version, if THE ORIGINAL did not have the verses? Did people really have the nerve to add extra verses?
Andy97009814 2 months ago
@Andy97009814 The KJV is the only one that has Strong's numbers so you can reference the Greek and the Hebrew - Many of the new bibles use the Westcott and Hort texts - the Jehovah Witness ones too - obvious problems. The newer documents that were found were also not from a widespread area and appeared in better shape - this is attributed to the fact that they were not used or referenced because they were suspect documents.
BigPictureSales 2 months ago
@BigPictureSales - The KJV got it wrong. Many other translations now have a footnote here.
Long ago, Mark ended with the women fleeing terrified from the tomb. At some point after that, the verses were added. Then after that, the King James Version was completed. Of course the KJV is going to include the additional verses. It wasn't until multiple old copies of Mark were found showing those verses were not originally there.
Research this yourself to see .. if you have a few minutes.
43alley 2 months ago 2
@43alley Please site which multiple old copies you are referring too. The bible is always under attack - Westcott and Hort documents are corrupt as were they.
BigPictureSales 2 months ago
@BigPictureSales You may enjoy the book Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman, It's an easy read and takes pains to not offend Christians. It discusses the origins and contradictions of the Bible. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and considered becoming a preacher in his earlier years. It is a very through book. Peace.
susodino 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Getting through boring primitive times required outrageous stories.
Scott19seventy5 3 months ago
I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but if he did, he was a man, not the son of god. He may have believed he was, or other people at that time did. There is no actual unrefutable proof that he existed, his legend may have arisen from the fact that there were so many prophets preaching on every corner back in those days, could have been a combination of many men from which the legend grew.
8698gil 3 months ago
Could have added his brother never referred to him as a god.
mrpoghunter 3 months ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
Poor man lotr...ahahahahah!
leay4 4 months ago
I never thought about that Paul never mentions once about the' virgin birth' why? Suspect. 5 Gold stars!
MrEmeraldfusion 4 months ago
1:40
Funniest joke i heard in a long time :)
vesman81 4 months ago
So what is the benefit of your belief to anyone ?
Millkevi 4 months ago
@Millkevi the benefit is simple, -not living a lie-.
ZZzzzzzWhat 4 months ago 2
I apologize I was under the impression you didn't believe in a god.
Millkevi 4 months ago
@Millkevi - You were right the first time. But do you see my point? A Muslim could use that same wager on you by filling in HIS god. So could a Hindu.
The reasons you are unmoved by the Muslim's and the Hindu's attempt to convert you is the same reason that they (and I) find YOUR wager unpersuasive.
43alley 4 months ago 17
So, if I'm right and god lives and Jesus is the Christ and sacrificed himself I will have lived a clean moral life and enjoyed the blessing of a life full of love and sacrifice and you will have to come face to face with your creator having a full knowledge of your sins and will have to explain yourself.
On the other hand if you are right I will still have an amazing life and apparently have no regrets because according to you I will not exist. Ether way I win and you lose when you leave this
Millkevi 4 months ago
@Millkevi - But ....
If I'm right and Allah lives and Mohammed is His prophet I will have lived a clean moral life and you will have to come face to face with your creator having a full knowledge of your sins and will have to explain yourself.
On the other hand if you are right I will still have an amazing life and apparently have no regrets because according to you I will not exist. Ether way I win and you lose when you leave this.
(Psst, every religion can say this)
43alley 4 months ago 13
@Millkev On the other hand, if I am right, you'll have lived your life for an elaborate lie and the only thing that's amazing is your gullibility. You have no idea what it is to live a life bemused because of all the absolutely nutty things that theists of every persuation believe in and do, from ascetic back scourging monks to quarterly proclamations of the end of everything. We laugh, we chuckle and we say, "Thanks be to reason that we are not enslaved by blind devotion to superstition."
hipdead 3 months ago
@Millkevi you might want to research Pascal's Wager on wikipedia.
susodino 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
It's so crazy to think that Jesus was obviously just sum normal guy, was probley just a nice guy and now 2000 years later so many brain washed idiots still worship him, thinking he was a god, it just goes to show humans can be controlled so easy, it's amazing
Mindslave1985 4 months ago
After that I got to ask does any one believe in life after death or a higher power. Because if you don't it makes you all very dangerous people. I like the thought that the only thing you have to lose is your life that you will absolutely lose any way. So in effect you have nothing to lose. Thats how I would want people to feel if I were The antichrist. Hey Satan good job leading astray the hearts of men.
Millkevi 4 months ago
@Millkevi - "So in effect you have nothing to lose." Wrong, we have everything to lose. Our time here is our only time, so best to make the most of it.
If you were right, we'd see more suicide-mission atrocities specifically due to a lack of religion. What we find instead, are suicide-mission atrocities specifically because of religion:
Islam - suicide bombers
Christianity - cults like Jim Jones
Buddhism - kamikaze pilots
I did a video on Satan too. Like Jesus, he evolves in the Bible.
43alley 4 months ago 6
@43alley, damn! what amazing pawnage! o.O
NeCacaluXuxultic 4 months ago
@Millkevi You realize your argument makes no sense right? What you're saying is "people who don't believe in afterlife, redemption, heaven, life after death, etc. are dangerous. How so? Aren't people who think that they can do whatever they feel like in this life because they will be redeemed/can continue in another life/reincarnated/etc. the ones that are more dangerous because they can treat this existing life with less cause for concern? cont...
Asherek 4 months ago
@Millkevi cont. Someone who doesn't believe in afterlife or anything after this life has MORE to lose, because this is the only life to live for them. Thus, you'd think that they'd value the current life more and treat it with more respect.
I'm not preaching either way, because I don't want to bring my own personal beliefs into the picture. But your argument falls apart almost completely.
Asherek 4 months ago
I agree the LLL is a crock. I used to be quite involved in debating these issues, but I defer to those who are real scholars and the only really strong arguments presented by Professor GA Wells have either been debunked by Dr Gary Habermas. As I said, go on over to Theology Web Campus as they're always debating this sort of thing, or just got to Gary's site or Bede Library and you'll find that your views are outdated. Of course Bible and Culture with B. Witherington is a good option too.
aerycksmusic 5 months ago
LOL i showed this to my catechism group, and like 80 % of the group left the church... thanks 43alley
egliath 5 months ago
Jesus was a great man. The only perfect man. It is impossible to disprove the bible since it is Gods word. Nice try. Jesus is coming, we all have time to be saved. Just remember, look for him, he is coming. God bless all of you. He has much grace.
shuttersofwilmington 5 months ago
@shuttersofwilmington - Thor was a great man. The only perfect man. It is impossible to disprove Nordic hero stories since they are Odin's word. Nice try. Thor is coming, we all have time to be saved. Just remember, look for him, he is coming. Odin bless all of you. He has a sweet hammer.
43alley 5 months ago 31
@43alley - Do you know of anything truly true and memorable credited to Thor, which makes Jesus sound like a doofus?
aerycksmusic 5 months ago
@aerycksmusic - I just know that Jesus was allegedly nailed to a cross and that Thor allegedly carried around a really big hammer.
43alley 5 months ago
@43alley - I think if you do your homework you'll find there's a historical account for JC and as far as I know Thor's just had his debut on the silver screen. I'm currently reading about Jesus on Theology Web Campus and far as I can tell theirs no-one who contests the historicity of most of it. The discussion is call 'Jesus?' Spot you there.
aerycksmusic 5 months ago
@aerycksmusic - Didn't watch the video, did you? It's blatantly obvious that you did not.
Go watch it and you'll see that I never argued that Jesus did not exist. In fact, the ENTIRE video revolves around the fact that he probably did.
43alley 5 months ago
@aerycksmusic - You're so right. So what's all this 'Thor was a great man. The only perfect man.' and 'Odin bless all of you. He has a sweet hammer' ? as a reply to 'Jesus was a great man. 'The only perfect man.' and God bless all of you. He has much grace.' Do you have anything as authoritative as the New Testament to back up that assertion, or are you just being a doofus?
aerycksmusic 5 months ago
@aerycksmusic You absolutely missed the entire point of this video. Epic *whoosh*.
Asherek 4 months ago
@Asherek --- the point being?
aerycksmusic 4 months ago
now there is no real reason to think that jesus even existed. bechose the name is wrong. jesus is latin. joshua is greek. so the name is wrong from the start. there where lot of latins named jesus. but most of the writers are allso fake. the people who wrote the bible where mostly greeks. so it culd be that bible is just a scam from the start.
gethsoftware 6 months ago
Here's the problem with Jesus being the messiah: there is no peace on earth, Israel isn't pure, temple rights are still lacking... blah blah blah.. Jesus, even with all the legends about him, failed to fulfill the prophecies that people claim he did. This is why the Jews don't buy it. The second coming is also a NT invention. Why would GodMan need two attempts?
jacksawild 6 months ago
50 AD is a very charitable dating by sensitive scholars.. it ranges up to about 100 AD for the earliest gospel (in the form we know now), remembering that NO originals survive. I'm a fan of Erhman who makes a good case for the gospel of Mark being based on an earlier "sayings" gospel. It makes me angry that history has been treated with such cavalier aplomb. And "angry" is ME being charitable. I'm pissed. This is a great video. Thanks.
jacksawild 6 months ago
Actually, the earliest dated Gospel is the Gospel of Thomas.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk - It's not in the New Testament, and may not even be the oldest. Some scholars have Thomas dated as late as 140 AD.
43alley 6 months ago
@43alley And many scholars date it earlier than the new testiment gospels, as early as 50AD. Mark was written no earlier than 65AD. Thomas is in my NT. As a Gnostic Christian, I considder the cannon open to the individual. I do not recognise the OT. The one thing I think we will agree on is the Church created thier own Jesus. I believe he did exist but the church has misrepresented him. Also, I believe the Bible is not perfect, it was written by people and people are not perfect.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk - I'd be interested in hearing more about modern Gnostic Christians and how you became acquainted with it. Is it due to the recent discoveries of so many gnostic texts? (I also was under the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas was not purely gnostic, but perhaps proto-gnostic).
43alley 6 months ago
@43alley I heard of Gnostics since I was a teen but knew little. I left penticostal mainstream christianity in 1998, I was once a music minister. I went through alot of pain from church. I admit that I was introduced to Gnostic Christianity when I seen the movie "The Davinci Code" and started doing research via books and internet. I fully converted by June of 2010. Thomas? It depends on how one defines "Gnostic". We are far more diverse than most people think and I like that way.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@43alley The Gospel of Thomas says that the Logos (Yeshua) is within, so there is no need for a church as an institution, no need for clergy. The earliest church met in homes and everyone could teach. Interaction was better as they faced each other instead of everyone facing a priest. We don't believe in faith as much as believing in knowledge. My holy trinity is a family, the Holy Spirit is named Sophia. Do you see why we were a threat to the church? So they all but wiped us out.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk Is the term Sophie that you use for the Holy Spirit derived from the Greek Philosophy of Sophism? Interesting I happen to enjo Greek Philosophy very much.
kukynphunt 5 months ago
@kukynphunt You are correct. Sophia is Greek for Wisdom. While I do not recognise the Old Testiment, "Wisdom" is mentioned as a "She" throughout Proverbs, so the ancient Hebrews knew of her and spoke of her spirit and knowledge. Paul was a Gnostic who spoke Greek and started the Greek churches. While mainstream Christians mostly follow the teachings of Peter, Valentinian Gnostic Christians like me follow Paul and Valentinus. Some of the books alledged to be written by Paul are forgeries.
astrofrk 5 months ago
@kukynphunt (continued) For instance, 1st & 2nd Timothy was written between 100-150AD, long after Paul died. It was written by the Roman Church and denounced Gnostic Christians. I do believe in Yeshua but the Roman Church misrepresented him as well as Sophia when they removed the devine feminine. Why? Because Rome was a mans
world as it is with the Catholic Church and the majority of Protestant churches to this day. If the human soul has no sex, why discriminate against women in clergy?
astrofrk 5 months ago
Missed that? I was the one who brought morality up in the comments. If you believe in a single God, you are a monothiest. The word "Agnostic" is used for both beliefs, so it gets confusing. My Grandpa called himself an Agnostic monothiest, so I know what you are saying.
astrofrk 6 months ago
i think this was the best video of the whole series. great work
huraziel 6 months ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
also, let's make a religion with vanilla ice as our christ figure
RoyalMessup 6 months ago
poor man's lotr lol!
RoyalMessup 6 months ago
my favorite video from you ever.
Prplfox 6 months ago
The difference between Yeshua and Hercules is that Yeshua did exist and is recorded from sources other than the bible. I know of no evidence that Hercules ever existed other than as a constillation. We can argue forever as far as WHO he was and it will get us nowhere. The same goes for Mohammed and many others. There is no proof of who any of these people were. That does not mean all are false teachers or true teachers/ect... That is where faith and/or spirituality comes in.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk
yep Jesus was mentioned by others... a hundred years later. We do have evidence of Hercules, in fact archeologists have recently discovered a home in Italy that was littered with Hercules merchandise, pots with paintings of him, etc. Also Hercules started the first Olympics. There is tons of proof of Mohammad's existence, he was written about heavily by third party historians. Forget spirituality, read a book
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
@Dudeatheist What I'm saying is it's one thing to prove someone once existed, it's another to prove what that person believed. I can state an opinion but my opinion will never be found in ruins. We may find writing but we must be careful in assuming where the words came from, and when. A mono-thiest cannot prove God exists and an athiest cannot prove God doesn't exist. That's why the debate will never end. What do I think? Does it matter?
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk
you're correct in one part, a theist cannot prove god exists. However atheists do not try to disprove god, they simply lack a belief in a god because of the lack of proof. However individual gods can be disproven to a point, for example we know that the bible is historically and scientifically inaccurate and clearly the work of men who were writing with the knowledge of the times. We know this through modern archaeology and physical sciences.
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
@Dudeatheist If have seen a few, I guess I would call "fundamental" Athiests that try to disprove God, of course we all know of fundamental Christians and Muslems. Opinions are so extreme for many that if we did prove things one way or the other, hundreds of millions on either side still wouldn't accept the evidence. They would look for any alternative explanation they could think of, even if they knew it was bogus. If faith is the only thing that keeps many moral, perhaps this is best.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk
well there are no fundamental elements to atheism as its not a belief system. Those people, which often do include myself are anti-theists, who are either atheists, or theists who hate religion/their god. People who claim to be moral because of their faith is a type of special pleading. They believe their morality is divinely granted, but there are those who have equal or greater morality without gods. This shows us that people will behave based on their character.
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
@Dudeatheist I've been at the place where I hated my religion/God and perhaps this is a source for fundumental athiesm, yet it isn't. One runs into an oxymoron, how can one hate what doesn't exist? That wouldn't be athiesm, closer to agnostic. Morality is difficult to define outside religion because what does one base morality on? Laws and cultures can change within a lifetime, even within religions. In the end, I think it becomes an individual decision based upon personal experiances.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk
I think you missed the OR statement. Also, agnosticism does not mean you don't know if god exists, it means you believe that god cannot be known, you can be an atheist or theist agnostic. Morality is pretty easy to define actually, good morals are those that have an overall benefit to the community, and bad ones are ones that have an overall negative effect. You could say that means in a homophobic community it would be a bad moral, but it could be said the homophobia is the bad moral
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
@Dudeatheist I am a Gnostic, which is Greek for "To Know". Agnostic is Greek for "To not know". No matter how the term is used, I'm sure I have the definithion correct. You are defining a basic monothiest. It was a nice shot defining Morality but there are times when morals do not benefit oreven hurt a community. The Peoples Temple community considered reverend Jim Jones moral when he had everyone drink poison punch.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk
I suggest looking up Thomas Huxley, he's the man who coined the term agnostic. It doesn't matter what people THINK is moral, I guess you missed that.
Dudeatheist 6 months ago
« Morality is difficult to define outside religion »
Inside religion as well. After all, what does one base it on?
You can't base it on what you think the gods want, because that's just what you think they want, or what you want them to want.
You can't base it on scripture, because scripture often contains the most heinous crimes committed by or in the name of gods, ensuring that you have to pick and choose - which again means that morality is simply what you want it to be.
What's left?
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor Religion is biased, so defining is easy. If your God says to do it, you do it regardless of what happens. I'm not saying this is correct but for those who share that faith, it is perfectly moral. According to the bible, God said: "Kill men women and Children!" Because God tells them to do it, it would have been immoral for the Hebrews NOT to. Otherwise, God commands: "Thou Shalt not Kill!" One cannot argue morality with someone who thinks it immoral to even question God.
astrofrk 6 months ago
« it is perfectly moral »
For a certain definition of morality - a definition that is not particularly sophisticated, or even useful ("might makes right").
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
« One cannot argue morality with someone who thinks it immoral to even question God »
Indeed, I agree. Arguing requires reason. Somebody who claims to see reason in worshipping a god that commits genocide first and then commands not to kill obviously does not know the meaning of the word 'reason'.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XGralgrathor This is one reason I left Mainstream Christianity. As a Gnostic Christian, you and I will disagree but how can I judge you to hell when I don't even believe in hell? I still believe in God but not the Hebrew God of war found in the old testiment. I also see the NT in a different way. People say Gnostic Christians are half Christian, half Buddhist. How often do you hear of a fundamental Buddhist killing people of other faiths? In return the church gave us the Inquesition.
astrofrk 6 months ago
43alley, I figure I should mention that you should push the supposed birth of Jesus back to 4 BC. Matthew mentions Christ's birth during the period of Herod the Great's rule, which was in 4 BC (ignoring that Luke places Christ's birth during the period Quirinus was governor of Syria, in 6 AD). Just another thing Christians conviently leave out in Sunday 'school'.
HybridD91 7 months ago
In Mark, Jesus' family thought he was crazy (lunatic). If they knew he was the son of God, why would they think he was crazy? Potential liar?
HybridD91 7 months ago
you are criminally under subscribed to.
CircusOfBedlam 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
10) In summation. The reason why I so “arrogantly” say that this couldn’t have happened back then is that the actions of the people involved, the culture, and the fact that the oral tradition clearly included the essentials of the gospels (Miracles, atonement, resurrection), plus there being nothing to gain by lying, all point to each account being accurate and true.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
9) As for the age of the gospels. Just because it’s the oldest we can find doesn’t mean it’s the original. We find a manuscript of Mark in 68 A.D. That just means it’s AT LEAST that old. The originals could have been written the same year Jesus died for all we know. Same with any other documents. We can be sure, however, that any changing of the manuscripts would have been detected, as people who possessed the originals would have challenged any fallacious copies.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
8) As for the modern example… People still believe in Tupac and Elvis never dying… but none of these people are willing to put their lives on the line, and nobody close to the situations would deny them… it’s ENTIRELY unrelated people. The Gospels claim to have firsthand accounts and no witnesses have come forward to discredit them…. This didn’t happen with Jesus, and some actually were willing to die over what they believed.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
@NoBandwidth25 Last time I checked, not believing in the death of Elvis and Pac doesn't offer any promises in the afterlife or this life. Fail, major fail. Die for a lie? You will have to explain Jihadists and btw, the Gospels can't even agree on what happened after Christ's supposed crucifiction. They all can't be right because they make specific claims about specific events. Read Matthew 28, John 20, Mark 17, and Luke 24. Note the lack of zombies in John, Mark, and Luke.
HybridD91 7 months ago
@HybridD91
Jihadists dying for a lie is significantly different... they're dying for a lie told to them that they believe. You don't die for you own lie bc you know for a fact it's not true. You only lie when you have something to gain. The apostles got nothing. They were better-off saying nothing and moving-on if Christ had been still dead. Also, two people (James and Saul) who hadn't believed beforehand came to the faith. The actions are not consistent with the profile of somebody lying.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
@HybridD91
"They all can't be right" means they CONTRADICT one another, not JUST contain different ifnormation. The sentences "John ate two apples" and "John ate an apple" can both be both true, in spite of containing different infromation. If the first person saw John eat both apples and the other person only saw him eat the second... they both wrote accurate, truthful information. If the gospels all said the same thing, the charge would then be "One person wrote under four names".
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
@HybridD91
Let me ask you this: If somebody who claimed to have seen Elvis had a gun pointed to their head and was told "Admit you're lying"... 100% would admit it. If Christ was not risen and the witness knew that for a fact, then saying he had would be exactly like claiming to see Elvis, since the person making the claim knows continuing to do so yields no reward in reality. The only way saying Christ had risen would potentially benefit them is if he had, in fact, risen.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
7) As for comparisons to Hercules. Hercules’s tales have no author claiming to be a witness. Jesus does and I’ve shown we have probable cause to believe the people are who they said they were. Hercules has nobody referencing him as a real person except those who believe every word of the story. Jesus is mentioned by Romans and Jews, who simply didn’t believe he was the Son of God.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
6) As for John. John 21:20–24 makes the claim of authorship. Now if “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is John or not remains to be seen, but he clearly was one of the twelve (John 13, John 19). So our version of the book HAS to be a copy of something written by an author claiming to be close to Jesus, written early. If it were fake or untrustworthy, the apostles would have said so and the Church would have thrown it out long before 100 AD.John is authentic
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
5) As for Luke. Luke makes no claim to be a direct source. However, he gives Mary’s genealogy. First of all, for him to add this if he didn’t have to is not the trademark of a liar (That’s like lying to get out of work by telling your boss a coworker died… it can be checked easily, to say the least), so Luke clearly doesn’t seem to be making-up stuff that the Church didn’t already believe. Luke clearly was neither copying nor adding inaccurate details… Luke is authentic.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
4) As for Matthew. If the man had been martyred already, everybody would know the Gospel of Matthew was forged and disregard it, or at least name another author. Neither happened. You can conclude that our 80 A.D. manuscript was either a copy of what Matthew wrote down decades prior, or that Matthew was still alive and he wrote it. Matthew is, like Mark, authentic.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
3) As for Mark. Remember that he was founder of the Church of Alexandria in 43 A.D and he also interacted with Paul in Acts 15. So when the manuscript of the Gospel we have dating to 68 A.D. would have come-out, it was either an authentic, accurate copy of an earlier Mark writing, or Mark had just written it. If Mark were already dead, people would know it was a fake. If he were alive but didn’t write it, the church would have never credited him authorship. That gospel is authentic.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
2) Read in 1 Corinthians 15: Paul says Christ was raised “according to the Scriptures”. That means SOMEBODY wrote about the resurrection prior to the 50s A.D. and the Church had already accepted these writings. That could be the Gospels, that could be the alleged “Q” document, but whatever it was, it was something witnesses to the life of Christ could have disputed. Neither witnesses nor the Church did, so we can assume the events are true.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
Ten Major Points:
1) Witnesses to Christ’s life would have been alive in 50 AD. So were the church’s oral tradition ever in question, they could always go back to the primary sources. So whatever the church believed in 50 AD is consistent with what actually happened. So we can say that if any change was made, it was post-50 AD.
NoBandwidth25 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Who ever make this video, he is bastard and ass hole. If u come front of me i will brake ur jaw...
farhan10mohammad 8 months ago
@farhan10mohammad
That is perhaps my favorite post of all time. Well done.
43alley 8 months ago 29
@farhan10mohammad And your illiterate.
jrwilson98 8 months ago
@farhan10mohammad Oh no! not threats of violence against someone with a different belief! Who would have thought such a thing!! -and from a guy with Muhammad in his name too!
swilson3d 7 months ago
Comment removed
mannentheshadows 7 months ago
Comment removed
mannentheshadows 7 months ago
@farhan10mohammad You religious nut bags are violent, and insane. I'm honestly starting to believe that you're religious not because you believe in all of this stuff, but because you need an excuse to be violent. As they say, no one performs more egregious and violent acts than when they claim to have god on their side. You're awful. Just an awful, violent, creepy nut bag.
mannentheshadows 7 months ago
@farhan10mohammad I think someone destroyed your faith.
TheIr0nMike 6 months ago
@farhan10mohammad I'll put this in a way you can understand. Learn spell before make stupid out of self.
slickwick45 6 months ago
SUSHI CAT MUSIC!
Tokajein 8 months ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
Wow you'd think that peter (Jesus's right hand man and first pope) would be the the first writing these stories ,but instead just some random people.
Jayfoxpox 8 months ago
I hear a lot of assumptions, but i don't see evidence for it. How do i know that the biblical books. are written in 50 A.D, and John in 90 A.D ? And how do i know that it was finished in 100-110 A.D ?
And all of those writers are claiming that they where part of Jesus his 'gang'. If it is writting by Luke in 50 A.D. How is it possible that they are talking about John ? His books where written in 110 A.D
And how about Jude ? He "did" suicide. Why would he let the other writers do that ?
King444 8 months ago
@King444 - "I hear a lot of assumptions, but i don't see evidence for it. How do i know that the biblical books. are written in 50 A.D, and John in 90 A.D ? And how do i know that it was finished in 100-110 A.D ?"
You can start by reading the description of the video and check out all the cited sources for yourself.
43alley 8 months ago 9
@43alley Yes, but i'am trying to read to much books right now. I was hoping you could give it me in a nutshell, or could show me some website's about it.
But never mind, when i'am done reading my other stuff, i will go to the library and see it for myself.
King444 8 months ago
He tied innocent animals together and set them on fire, then he shoved them into a field to burn it up. In another part, he riped hurt a lion, just because he felt l ike it! Jerk Samson!
Amashkitotamoes 8 months ago
I thought this was going to be about Samson for a moment. Those poor animals! >.< What a jerk!
Amashkitotamoes 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my video its Mark 13: 5-13 (2).wmv
melly000 8 months ago
26 people are deluded fuckwits
qm1qm1 8 months ago
Jesus was not a long haired Caucasian?!?!?!?!??!! Noooooooooooooo!
PracticeCommonSense 8 months ago
That's why we have so many atheist now, because of Christians trying to keep their Pagean gods alive. If I wasn't Muslim, I would have becAme an atheist too.
TheZulaKing 9 months ago
Although I am not an atheist, I loved this video.
doctorken2k 9 months ago
@doctorken2k Soon you shall become one of us. Muahahahaha :P
FreeFromWar 8 months ago