Again God and Jesus don't lie. And the word has always stood for all eternity. Prophecy and truth lights on man play on words and modern translations lies.
Religious fanatics die for lies all the time. 9/11, suicide bombings. If the disciples really believed that Jesus was the son of god, sure, they'd probably die for him. But it doesn't make it true. People who die in the name of religion are dying for nothing at all.
These videos prove one thing, that he has no understanding of the writers of the Gospels, or, who and how they were written, This is sad, because the truth is there, and can be seen, if one wants to see it!
@SohoKnights YOU prove one thing, that YOU have no understanding of the writers of the Gospels, or, who and how they were written, This is sad, because the truth is there, and can be seen, if only you truly wanted to see it!
This argument can be slammed in one sentence: The characters in my story did what they did for nothing if the other characters in my story had not really done what my story say they did... discussion over - By referencing ANY work of fiction against itself, you can 'prove' anything true
This part 2 of the video does not contain refutatiosn of the main thesis for the resurrection but merely inuendos based on the author's doubt about some aspects of the biblical account.
@csdr0 It's a series. No one part of it does the job. It's to be taken as a whole. No doubt you realize this, even if it's inconvenient. Please don't waste my time and yours posting such silliness.
There is one way of looking at the story of the Crucifixion and resurrection, in which everything fall into place.
There is a theory that Jesus did not die on the cross but was revived by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (who did not give their lives). The herbs named in the bible were not embalming herbs but healing herbs. The disciples were not involved in this and Jesus, expecting this, would probably have assumed that he had risen from the dead.
That's dept..my phone sometimes makes its own words..anyway maybe u shouldn't single out the Bible..are u an athiest? Do u believe in evolution? 1st book 1st chapter of the Bible. In the beginning (time) GOD created the heavens (space) and the earth(matter) when did scientist figure this out? And Moses wrote it down thousands of yes b4 our age decided to declare the universe was made up of time.space and matter. But let me guess Moses wasn't a real man just a fictional character from a book?
@MrRAIDR912 so what? a lot of people back then wrote that this or that god created earth. Which account is the correct one? Egyptian? Greek? Babylonian? Why is the bible 'better' than those others?
I'm not giving this video a thumbs up or down..OK video tho..it doesn't make me want to not believe.rather it would make me want to seek the truth.I still beloved regardless of how man has managed to screw things up.u wana question the Bible..don't forget to question 911 and wikileaks and all the other us government coverups there has been..question why they killed the natives or why the federal reserve wants us to be in depth to the point our children will be slaves
U want to know why things I'm the Bible don't or may not add up..well..blame the rulers and leaders of this world..the powers that be..in the book of revelations there is a warning for any man that will take away from ofmr add to the the words written in the scrolls..wich we call the Bible..so if there is a warning then obviously evil men have the free will to take away from or add to as they wish. Correct?
Some things in the Bible are are parables some are literal..people with a disease in their hearts tend to lean to 1st and twist it into what they see it to be.instead of praying to God and asking for his wisdom..but that's hard to do when u never believed in him anyway right? Jesus said the words he speaks are spiritual or of spirit. The flesh counts for nothing..though some will argue that he only said that concerning the particular conversation he was having at that very moment
It doesn't say Cleopas was there when Jesus appeared it says the discples were still discussing what had happened. Could have been 3 days later... But picking the most obscure people that interacted with Jesus and claiming we don't know how they died is null to making the arguement that His closest followers died for what they wittnessed. Note Cleopas knew of Jesus pre death but was not one of His closest followers.
@superbill2 " But picking the most obscure people that interacted with Jesus and claiming we don't know how they died is null to making the arguement that His closest followers died for what they wittnessed."
@MamaMario13 You have to remember these books were written after the death of Jesus and that none of the four authors were born too late, correct me if I'm wrong, to meet Jesus.
Holy Shit! John 21 clearly describes that during the 3rd manifestation of Jesus to the disciples on the beach of the Sea of Galilee, the disciples were led by Michael Anthony, the former bassist of Van Halen (3:32 in the video). Alas, whether or not he played Jesus a departing bass solo as Jesus ascended into heaven is lost to history.
Before I go any further, Acts 0:52 where you quote Acts 10:40-41 states in KJV "Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." In other words, witnesses in addition to the apostles can be included.
@ProfMTH sorry I disagree. The translation I quoted makes it clear that it includes people who are not apostles, and obviously that is true as he appeared to Mary who was not an apostle. Show me from the textus receptus where it sais otherwise.
@jtlabs "The translation I quoted makes it clear that it includes people who are not apostles"
The set is limited to "us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
"he appeared to Mary, who was not an apostle"
I dealt with the women to whom the post-mortem Jesus is purported to have appeared in this series. Don't waste my time and yours ignoring stuff that's covered in the series.
@ProfMTH I understand that is YOUR interpretation. Again, I disagree. The verse in the KJV separates the two verses you like to put together with the words "even to us"
No offense, but do not give yourself too much credit. Not everyone sits around and waits for the next ProMTH series. I myself just clicked on this video because you showed up on my homepage for videos to watch.
@jtlabs "I understand that is YOUR interpretation."
It's what the passage says.
"Not everyone sits around and waits for the next ProMTH series."
I should hope not. Far better things to do in life than that. However, if one is going to comment on a series about things that are covered in the series, than one should at least watch the series OR shut up. The choice is very much yours.
@ProfMTH Sorry, that is obviously not what the passage said.
Two points in regards to the latter response: First, I was commenting on this particular segment, not your entire series. Second, its highly unlikely your argument concerning Mary holds any weight. We exchanged words on other videos you made before, and your premises are usually full of speculation or simple misunderstandings.
This is were the myth of "the body of jesus as a hallucinogen" originated from in the Psychodelic mythology. When rye molds, the mold turns it into ergot, lsd. It aligns with them not recognizing who jesus is until they've eaten the bread, and how he disappears afterwards (when the effects have wore off).
Something to tell your friends when they're tripping on lsd/mushroooms. (or not)
I wonder how the apologists claim to "know" that Bartholomew = Nathaniel and that Thaddeus = Judas, as opposed to Bartholomew = Judas and Thaddeus = Nathaniel. After all, if there's no evidence one way or the other, it might just as well be so. Is there any rationale for this? :)
Every time I've heard an apologist try to defend this, it has come to down to claiming that it's *possible* that they're the same people. Quite frankly, I regard that as an admission--as much of an admission as an apologist can bring him- or herself to articulate--that there's no basis in the New Testament for saying that they are the same people.
I would suggest you make stronger arguments than these. Arguing your case needs more substantiated and scientific presentations that just posting pictures and videos as I don't see making anything in support of what expected to learn from your title.
I suggest you watch the entire series in order to understand what my argument is. I suspect you won't do that because you're not really interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs.
What does Cleopas have to do with the argument Christians make? Basically all you said was that there was someone mentioned in the Bible that we don't know the manner of his death.
Does that really mean anything? The argument isn't that all disciples were martyred. It just seems like a rabbit trail.
don't even waste your time with a debate cos not all the time you are correct. these wise have already made up there minds to live a life of faith and truth. keep making absurd videos! as if you are perfect, over smart!
I was one that didn't study the word but yet defended it vehemently! Now I kick myself for being sooo ignorant and wasting years of my life! The ONLY good thing that arose from my experience was my wife who is a QUALITY woman!
I am devoted athiest. Every human being is free to take their own assertion and view. And I want to be certain when tomorrow I die, I won't worry. Nothing is important and everlasting. I don't care of anything, just get as much wealth, and die happily in my big tomb. Yes. I have every reason and I deny any beliefs.
That quote from Acts is kinda stupid, if you think about it. Only people who knew Jesus saw him after the resurrection? Why not show himself to EVERYONE! Imagine the number of Christians there would have been, we know only a handful of Jews became Christians, if Jesus appeared to every Jew in Israel at that time, the whole nation, or damn near all, would have accepted him as Messiah!
I don't see a problem. 1 Cor 15 reports risen Jesus was seen by over 500 persons & no one claims they were all martyred.
Who says John's "beach" account lists apostles? He calls them disciples, which all followers of Jesus were. Only those He hand selected were apostles (Mark 3, Luke 6).
But why would ANY witness die for a known lie (James Z, Peter, Paul)?
For all your talk about not doing extra work, you have no problem loading up multiple comment boxes, Questioningall. In any case, at no point in the NT does one see a claim that Judas or Thaddeus had other names. Nor are Judas and Thaddeus equivalents across languages -- assuming that's what you're attempting to suggest. Moreover, there is no claim -- except among apologists -- that Nathanael had another name. So, really, you're just going back to some apologetic talking points here.
See I know my comments are going to be limited. So I better get this in.
This is the things that Paul said to contemporaries of these apostles., in 55 CE "labors,imprisonments,beatings, death, lashes, shipwreck,danger, hardship, hunger, thirst" ! Cor. 11:23-28)
Paul wrote to Timothy about his impending martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:6) and Peter wrote to the church al large about his death (2 Peter 1:14)
"Peter wrote to the church at large about his death (2 Peter 1:14)."
Most scholars regard 2 Peter as a pseudepigraphal work, Questioningall. Even if it were written by the apostle Peter, what he says in 2 Peter 1:14 doesn't establish the elements of the common martyrdom legends about him. The text merely says that he knows he's going to die soon. It doesn't even claim that martyrdom going to be the cause. There's nothing about Rome. So you don't have anything here.
Once again, Questioningall, the Bible never says that Nathanael, Thaddeus, or Judas had two names. Peter? Yes. Paul? Yes. You may keep repeating this if you like, but it won't get the Bible to say what it does not say.
First of all forget about Cleopas. If He isn't mentioned as being martyred, why should you worry about it? He was never numbered with the twelve disciples who would eventually become apostles of the gospel
The Bar prefix would seem to indicate that Bartholomew came originally from a family name. So Nathanael Bar Tholomew(or whatever the original Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent was) theory does seem reasonable.
"[The] Gospels report also of the wider circle of 70 apostles, which can explain apostles such as Nathanael of Cana (John 21) and Judas (son of James). They were not among the Twelve, but of the 70."
Kalkas777, your creativity has outpaced your knowledge of the New Testament here. For example, according to the author of Luke, among the "twelve of them whom [Jesus] named as apostles [was] Judas the son of James" (Luke 6:13, 16) -- who you say was not among the twelve. Oops.
I would gladly but you only retort by calling them "talking points". And I did use the "Wouldn't die for a lie" argument because it is solid, no matter how much time you waste trying to prove otherwise.
Listen man, no matter how you cut it, the New Testament is a historian's gold-mine. There are virtually no other historical documents that provide its kind of integrity. But you just go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that there isn't a God and you aren't accountable to Him.
"I would gladly but you only retort by calling them 'talking points.'"
Please feel free to bring forward what you're calling evidence for, I'm guessing, the resurrection of Jesus. To date, you've articulated only talking points.
"And I did use the 'Wouldn't die for a lie' argument because it is solid...."
If one ignores history, your own scriptures, and the fact that Christian tradition is all over the place as to what actually happened to these people, then and only then is the...
Great video, I'll be watching the rest of the series. I heard this argument before but it's so easily dismissible that I gave it no more attention. Your video goes into much more detail than is even necessary to ignore such an idiotic argument, but good to see an in depth rebuttal.
cessage, profmth is not alone. there are millions of athiests, some of whom are prominant professors and scientists. The old and new testaments have been studied profusely and thoroughly. it has been found to have an extreme amount of contradictions and to have zero imperical evidence. evidence in modern times is what we base our whole knowledge of our physical surroundings on. in biblical days they lacked such data. science should have overwritten the bible, but man is terrified of death.
man is so terrified of dying and thinking that his life has no meaning if he dies, that he will actually carry on folklore ridden with absurd tales which defy what we have since learned via science. mankind will continue to destroy perfectly good humans lives as long as he keeps up with the nonsense of religion. the fact that there are many religions all proclaiming their god is real and true should tell you that none of them are. that is the logical conclusion. religion makes adults childlike.
How is it solid? Hundreds of battered Wives die for a lie all the time. It's called being delusional, in denial, ignorant, etc. What proof do you have that someone wouldn't die for a lie.
Well here's the problem, Skippy. You've beautifully demonstrated that simple truths can only be combated by elaborate lies. What you call "real objections" are only a series of smokescreens and poorly cast doubts. It's a waste of time with you because no matter what evidence I use, you have a rather long and boring weak "counter argument".
To anyone else reading this, let's see if our man here can come up with a point that doesn't require wasting a significant part of your week.
"It's a waste of time with you because no matter what evidence I use...."
Evidence? What evidence have you used? None that I've seen. Since you said you intended to use this "wouldn't die for a lie" argument as your primary argument for the resurrection of Jesus, it seems your evidence bag is nearly empty.
No, you haven't offered a shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence. At best, you've got some apologetic talking points that you've convinced yourself of.
These comments seem very bitter and completely off topic. Instead of dealing with the video, the "haters" (as the kids say) instead bring your credentials into question and blast you with insults. I guess they have to do whatever it takes to get the attention off of logic and back into their comfort zone.
Quite right, Onemansvoice. Apologists are at their worst when they've been knocked off their talking points. Among other things, it betrays the fact that they haven't really given much thought -- if any thought -- to real objections to their beliefs, to actual counterarguments, and, alas to say, historical facts that don't comport with their preferred view. So, they become unpleasant. :-)
Oh, I found it. Part 7 of this impressively boring tripe. So yeah, I will question your scholarship as well. If your delusion is so complex and redundant that you need 9 parts to prove it to yourself, seek pharmaceutical help quickly.
I think it's hysterically funny that you seem truly to believe that I give a damn. I don't. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe the poor, unsuspecting people that someone is sending you off to indoctrinate think your opinion is important. I don't. Got it?
Josephus provides no evidence for the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. Nor does Suetonius. Looking over your list, it doesn't sound as if you have *any* actual arguments, but, rather, mere apologists' talking points. That's not teaching, it's indoctrinating -- quite a different project.
Indoctrinating... um right. Like trying to prove that Christian Scripture doesn't support the teaching of the resurrection?? And you are challenging my integrity?
If first-hand testimony doesn't count as evidence, then I guess you are right. Maybe O.J. didn't do it after all!!!
Actually, that might be too favorable a description of what you'll be doing.
"Like trying to prove that Christian Scripture doesn't support the teaching of the resurrection?"
I never said the Christian scriptures don't support the teaching of the resurrection. I said the Christian scriptures' description of the resurrection changes over time from, at the earlier stages of the tradition, a purely spiritual event to, later in the tradition, a decidedly...
"If first-hand testimony doesn't count as evidence...."
You have no "first-hand testimony" for the resurrection. None. If you weren't so busy rehearsing apologetic talking points, you might have the time and intellectual stuff to look into this yourself.
"I was going to post the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum quote...."
Don't bother. It's already been dealt with it. You'd best save your energy for the "teaching" you're about to do. LOL. Those poor unsuspecting "students."
Wow, 15 minutes into this series and... not only am I bored to tears, but I have yet to encounter 1 argument against the disciple's testimonies. I quit.
Well I'll be teaching on this, and it will be my primary argument for the resurrection. So help a flea out...
Are you saying that you are disproving the accounts (Eusebius) of the disciple's deaths, the fact that they saw Jesus alive, or their collective honesty and commitment? Because in the first 15 minutes it was hard to tell what your deal was.
The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:
What is always amusing about Christian (and Muslims and Jews and so on) is that they actually think that this information ISN'T somehow easily available on this here INTERNET THINGY.
Type in Catechism of the Catholic Church section 469 and poof, there it is to read at your leisure, retard.
"...the ONLY people who think Jesus is god are the PROTESTANTS..not Catholics"
I think the only person who thinks that is you, and possibly whoever told you.
Both catholics and orthodox christians consider the son to also be god. In fact, one of the key doctrinal differences between the two is that catholics believe that the holy spirit derives both from the father and from the son rather than just the father. (look up 'filioque')
"I don't think you did your research correctly because the ONLY people who think Jesus is god are the PROTESTANTS..not Catholics"
I was a Catholic for most of my life, Bato2. I attended Catholic primary and secondary schools, was a candidate for the priesthood, and studied Catholic theology in a variety of settings. By contrast, you are irremediably ignorant of one of the basic tenets of the faith you claim to embrace. I will waste no more time with you. Fuck off.
no, you fuck off. So what? I have NEVER heard of "Jesus being god" till I started seeing protestants.. my family is catholic and in fact..MOST Latinos are ROMAN catholic and I'm pretty sure we don'[t beleive that Jesus is god. I'm looking at your vid and I can see that you know a lot..>EXCEPT the part where you beleive that catholics beleive Jesus is god...we don't...
Have you not heard of the trinity? Catholics do believe that Jesus is god, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is like page one sunday school stuff man, how the hell did you miss it? You think the guy nailed to the cross is for decoration?
Protestants disregard the Church's importants, priests, confession, pope, book of saints, clergy speaking latin etc. Rituals are symbolic, not obligitory. Even so, both churches worship the trinity.
Then you're a poorly catechized one. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Jesus is God. Next time you recite the Nicene Creed at Mass pay special attention to what it says about Jesus, e.g., "God from God."
"that quote doesn't prove that he is god because Jesus has NEVER said that he HIMSELF is god."
Whether Jesus ever claimed to divine is quite another matter. Your claim was that the Catholic Church does not believe and...
...teach that Jesus is God, and *that* claim is wrong as my quoting Section 469 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church demonstrates -- and it was only one of many sections I could have quoted on this topic.
"I can go on and on."
No doubt you can, but you're still incorrect to claim that Jesus' divinity is not a tenet of Catholicism.
Yes, they do. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably TRUE GOD and true man" (Section 469, emphasis mine).
"neither to the orthodox Christians"
Yes, they do.
"the whole 'Jesus is God' idea is a PROTESTANT idea."
Actually, it dates back to the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., many centuries before Protestants came along.
For all of you non-believers of Jesus the Christ. Explain how you got here? No using that Comet theory. Intelligent design is at hand. Explain one negative thing Christ did in his ministry other than die to save a Sinner like you and me.
To prove that Christ is not God is to prove you do not exist. You might want to try an disprove your existence before you try to disprove God's.
May God soft your heart so you can accept him in and dwell there.
My rant is truth, you have yet to explain your so called truth. All these videos are theory. No facts. I will die for Christ before I die for your LIE! There's a old saying "Why die for Nothing when you can live forever by believing in something (Jesus Christ) Now you stick to your Topic.
I expected better from you prof, I was going to write the same kind of stuff praiseyeshua wrote, but that would be redundant.
also, if you're using WMM the problem is probably in the codecs you have selected, try switching back to default and making a short video to test the sound. if that doesn't work keep trying to disable and/or enable sound codecs until it goes back to normal.
Thanks for the technical advice, Sermonfire. As for the rest of it, if you were going to write the same thing as PraiseYeshua, but you thought better of it, you did well. He or she has written some silly stuff.
Lastly, Jude is a Greek variant of Judas. Look up just about any Greek commentary. You have burden of proof that's not at least possible that Jude the Son of James was another name for Thaddeus
I didn't question Jude vs. Judas, PraiseYeshua. You need to pay attention.
"You have burden of proof that's not at least possible that Jude the Son of James was another name for Thaddeus."
I have no such burden. They are two different names. Therefore it's entirely proper to regard them as the names of two different people. It is apologists who claim otherwise who have the burden of proof, a burden they don't even get close to meeting.
ProfMTH, first of all, please don't take this personally. However, you need to get to the point here. The subject is "Did the apostles die for the Lie." Not alleged Bible contradictions. Secondly, I suggest comparing the lists of apostles in Acts 1:13 and Matt 10:3 instead of comparing John 1: 45-46 with a lame Catholic website and ignorantly mocking the logic of Christian Apologists in regards to Bartholomew and Nathaniel.
whay are you using the a catholic website if your going to use a sola scriptura argument? the Catholic Cuch doesn't beleive in the Bible alone. the crux of your arguement is that the contemporaries of these works where just too stupid to see these issues, when it is plain that they had a much highly developed memory than us due to their education system.
"whay are you using the a catholic website if your going to use a sola scriptura argument?"
I'm not making a "sola scriptura argument." And the conclusions presented on that Catholic website about Nathanael and Judas "not Iscariot" are precisely the same conclusions offered by non-Catholic Christians.
"the crux of your arguement is that the contemporaries of these works where just too stupid to see these issues, when it is plain that they had a much highly developed memory than us due to their education system."
lol I don't even know what you're trying to say there. I certainly don't recognize it as the "crux" of my argument.
of course the whole resurection story always begs the question as to why a risen jesus would fail to let himself be seen by one and all after preaching to one and all most of his life and then supposedlly dying for "our" sins.
one thing that always bothers me about the new testament is the missing gospels. nice to hear from matt luke and mark all the time but some apostles were left out of the fun. i wonder why? ;)
I'm really curious as to why Cleopas should be on the list of apostles. After all, there were surely other disciples of Jesus not a part of the twelve (the author of John's Gospel for one). The number twelve is very significant, hence why the Jerusalem church wasn't so keen on having more than 12 apostles to the world at large.
I just dont know why Cleopas SHOULD be on the list of the twelve, or McDowell's, Strobel's, and Dulles' list of those twelve disciples who died for a lie. There were other disciples of Jesus who were not part of the twelve.
Why should James be on the list of twelve? He wasn't a believer. Moreover, according to Acts, it was Matthias, not James, who was selected to replace the member of "the Twelve" who had offed himself.
In any case, for purposes of this dicussion, the number 12 is not the focus, although many (not all) apologists who use this argument stick with 12. Others claim that *all* of Jesus' earliest disciples and purported witnesses to his resurrection endured martyrdom. See, e.g.,...
Cleopas satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the "wouldn't have died for a lie" group. He's not included on most apologists' lists because Christian legend/tradition has nothing on what became of him.
they died martyrs for the Truth with the exception of john (died a natural death)
62Elvis 2 weeks ago
@62Elvis I cover all of that in the series.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
Again God and Jesus don't lie. And the word has always stood for all eternity. Prophecy and truth lights on man play on words and modern translations lies.
starryskye6829 1 month ago
Religious fanatics die for lies all the time. 9/11, suicide bombings. If the disciples really believed that Jesus was the son of god, sure, they'd probably die for him. But it doesn't make it true. People who die in the name of religion are dying for nothing at all.
8698gil 2 months ago
These videos prove one thing, that he has no understanding of the writers of the Gospels, or, who and how they were written, This is sad, because the truth is there, and can be seen, if one wants to see it!
SohoKnights 3 months ago
@SohoKnights LOL! Well, you feel free to refute my arguments.
ProfMTH 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SohoKnights YOU prove one thing, that YOU have no understanding of the writers of the Gospels, or, who and how they were written, This is sad, because the truth is there, and can be seen, if only you truly wanted to see it!
Strangerinasland 1 month ago
This argument can be slammed in one sentence: The characters in my story did what they did for nothing if the other characters in my story had not really done what my story say they did... discussion over - By referencing ANY work of fiction against itself, you can 'prove' anything true
BlueEye222 4 months ago
RIP, "the other guy".
Discern4 4 months ago
This part 2 of the video does not contain refutatiosn of the main thesis for the resurrection but merely inuendos based on the author's doubt about some aspects of the biblical account.
csdr0 5 months ago
@csdr0 It's a series. No one part of it does the job. It's to be taken as a whole. No doubt you realize this, even if it's inconvenient. Please don't waste my time and yours posting such silliness.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
there is no proof that jesus ever existed at all.. nothing..
dillinger9999 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dillinger9999 what do you consider proof? there's plenty of evidence.
streetlightcollusion 4 months ago
There is one way of looking at the story of the Crucifixion and resurrection, in which everything fall into place.
There is a theory that Jesus did not die on the cross but was revived by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (who did not give their lives). The herbs named in the bible were not embalming herbs but healing herbs. The disciples were not involved in this and Jesus, expecting this, would probably have assumed that he had risen from the dead.
If this is true, then everthing makes sense.
HonestMan395 6 months ago
That's dept..my phone sometimes makes its own words..anyway maybe u shouldn't single out the Bible..are u an athiest? Do u believe in evolution? 1st book 1st chapter of the Bible. In the beginning (time) GOD created the heavens (space) and the earth(matter) when did scientist figure this out? And Moses wrote it down thousands of yes b4 our age decided to declare the universe was made up of time.space and matter. But let me guess Moses wasn't a real man just a fictional character from a book?
MrRAIDR912 6 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 so what? a lot of people back then wrote that this or that god created earth. Which account is the correct one? Egyptian? Greek? Babylonian? Why is the bible 'better' than those others?
methanbreather 6 months ago
I'm not giving this video a thumbs up or down..OK video tho..it doesn't make me want to not believe.rather it would make me want to seek the truth.I still beloved regardless of how man has managed to screw things up.u wana question the Bible..don't forget to question 911 and wikileaks and all the other us government coverups there has been..question why they killed the natives or why the federal reserve wants us to be in depth to the point our children will be slaves
MrRAIDR912 6 months ago
U want to know why things I'm the Bible don't or may not add up..well..blame the rulers and leaders of this world..the powers that be..in the book of revelations there is a warning for any man that will take away from ofmr add to the the words written in the scrolls..wich we call the Bible..so if there is a warning then obviously evil men have the free will to take away from or add to as they wish. Correct?
MrRAIDR912 6 months ago
Some things in the Bible are are parables some are literal..people with a disease in their hearts tend to lean to 1st and twist it into what they see it to be.instead of praying to God and asking for his wisdom..but that's hard to do when u never believed in him anyway right? Jesus said the words he speaks are spiritual or of spirit. The flesh counts for nothing..though some will argue that he only said that concerning the particular conversation he was having at that very moment
MrRAIDR912 6 months ago
It doesn't say Cleopas was there when Jesus appeared it says the discples were still discussing what had happened. Could have been 3 days later... But picking the most obscure people that interacted with Jesus and claiming we don't know how they died is null to making the arguement that His closest followers died for what they wittnessed. Note Cleopas knew of Jesus pre death but was not one of His closest followers.
superbill2 8 months ago
@superbill2 " But picking the most obscure people that interacted with Jesus and claiming we don't know how they died is null to making the arguement that His closest followers died for what they wittnessed."
You're only in part 2 of the series.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
how come there were inconsistencies in the stories? how come the "eye-witness testimony" was different for Mary than for Paul?
MamaMario13 9 months ago
@MamaMario13 Because eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@MamaMario13 You have to remember these books were written after the death of Jesus and that none of the four authors were born too late, correct me if I'm wrong, to meet Jesus.
HimesInu 6 months ago
Holy Shit! John 21 clearly describes that during the 3rd manifestation of Jesus to the disciples on the beach of the Sea of Galilee, the disciples were led by Michael Anthony, the former bassist of Van Halen (3:32 in the video). Alas, whether or not he played Jesus a departing bass solo as Jesus ascended into heaven is lost to history.
myerssa7 1 year ago
Heh, I just remembered that the old man at the beginning of "The Life of Brian" who was to be stonned to death was named Matthias.
Well played Python boys...
AmosTheTalented 1 year ago
Before I go any further, Acts 0:52 where you quote Acts 10:40-41 states in KJV "Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." In other words, witnesses in addition to the apostles can be included.
jtlabs 1 year ago
@jtlabs The set "witnesses" is limited to "us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH sorry I disagree. The translation I quoted makes it clear that it includes people who are not apostles, and obviously that is true as he appeared to Mary who was not an apostle. Show me from the textus receptus where it sais otherwise.
jtlabs 1 year ago
@jtlabs "The translation I quoted makes it clear that it includes people who are not apostles"
The set is limited to "us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
"he appeared to Mary, who was not an apostle"
I dealt with the women to whom the post-mortem Jesus is purported to have appeared in this series. Don't waste my time and yours ignoring stuff that's covered in the series.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I understand that is YOUR interpretation. Again, I disagree. The verse in the KJV separates the two verses you like to put together with the words "even to us"
No offense, but do not give yourself too much credit. Not everyone sits around and waits for the next ProMTH series. I myself just clicked on this video because you showed up on my homepage for videos to watch.
jtlabs 1 year ago
@jtlabs "I understand that is YOUR interpretation."
It's what the passage says.
"Not everyone sits around and waits for the next ProMTH series."
I should hope not. Far better things to do in life than that. However, if one is going to comment on a series about things that are covered in the series, than one should at least watch the series OR shut up. The choice is very much yours.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Sorry, that is obviously not what the passage said.
Two points in regards to the latter response: First, I was commenting on this particular segment, not your entire series. Second, its highly unlikely your argument concerning Mary holds any weight. We exchanged words on other videos you made before, and your premises are usually full of speculation or simple misunderstandings.
jtlabs 1 year ago
@jtlabs ""Sorry, that is obviously not what the passage said."
::sigh:: I'm perfectly content to agree to disagree.
"We exchanged words on other videos you made before, and your premises are usually full of speculation or simple misunderstandings."
LOL. OK. Thanks for your comment.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Comment removed
jtlabs 1 year ago
So how many of the surviving 11 did not suffer extra-biblical martyrdom?
EvenGodsSuffer 1 year ago
@EvenGodsSuffer Keep watching.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Useless Psychodelic trivia ahead....
8:00 - 8:35
This is were the myth of "the body of jesus as a hallucinogen" originated from in the Psychodelic mythology. When rye molds, the mold turns it into ergot, lsd. It aligns with them not recognizing who jesus is until they've eaten the bread, and how he disappears afterwards (when the effects have wore off).
Something to tell your friends when they're tripping on lsd/mushroooms. (or not)
mku17ra 1 year ago
The devil is the fake christ that people have already set up. Thats why the world is so crazy. THE TRUE GOD is controling everything.
the Ancient people are the original people, .IESOUS =Isis (YA HS HUA) spelled backward is AUH-SET AUSET
(YA HA KIM) Meaning to gain wisdom. isis is KHEM.=Maçon builder of Nations
JESUS IESUS= ISUS (YE SH UA) or YES HO SH UA
YEHOYA KIM) Meaning god will establish. Akim means God
she is the Madonna=Maconna=Messiah= This is the true Christ.
isisluv5 1 year ago
So that explains LOST! I didn't get it until now! Desmond is Jesus!
eulercircles 1 year ago
@eulercircles LOL!
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I wonder how the apologists claim to "know" that Bartholomew = Nathaniel and that Thaddeus = Judas, as opposed to Bartholomew = Judas and Thaddeus = Nathaniel. After all, if there's no evidence one way or the other, it might just as well be so. Is there any rationale for this? :)
LordZentei 1 year ago
@LordZentei "Is there any rationale for this?"
Every time I've heard an apologist try to defend this, it has come to down to claiming that it's *possible* that they're the same people. Quite frankly, I regard that as an admission--as much of an admission as an apologist can bring him- or herself to articulate--that there's no basis in the New Testament for saying that they are the same people.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
My name is Liz, but I'm also know as Kim, and Jane, and Jill, and also Laura.
It's ridiculous for someone to be known by many different names.
Abena20 1 year ago
I would suggest you make stronger arguments than these. Arguing your case needs more substantiated and scientific presentations that just posting pictures and videos as I don't see making anything in support of what expected to learn from your title.
apostleck 1 year ago
I suggest you watch the entire series in order to understand what my argument is. I suspect you won't do that because you're not really interested in anything that might challenge your beliefs.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
What does Cleopas have to do with the argument Christians make? Basically all you said was that there was someone mentioned in the Bible that we don't know the manner of his death.
Does that really mean anything? The argument isn't that all disciples were martyred. It just seems like a rabbit trail.
DerekAustinBritt 1 year ago
Okay, I understand that these were all caveats. I was just getting bored with the intro I guess. Withholding comment.
DerekAustinBritt 1 year ago
¡The tombstone with The Other Guy on it was funny!
Walabio 2 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
lol @ 4:07. :D
Terrashock 2 years ago
;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH Awesome video. The argument seemed like it was full of historically unfounded bullshit, but I never had the time to look into it.
RomansPwnedJesus 1 year ago
@RomansPwnedJesus I'm glad you found it useful.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
don't even waste your time with a debate cos not all the time you are correct. these wise have already made up there minds to live a life of faith and truth. keep making absurd videos! as if you are perfect, over smart!
TheDrkchcl8 2 years ago
LOL!
How come I never noticed this stuff before?!!!
I spent almost half my life as a Catholic and never read the Bible as deeply as I do now as an atheist
thanks Professor! ^^
handofnergal 2 years ago
You're welcome. Glad you found it worthwhile.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I think there is something profound in that.....you only really studied what you believed once you didn't believe it.
How many christians out there really don't know what they are talking about but will defend it so vehemently ?
drukenhard 2 years ago
Lots, unfortunately
handofnergal 2 years ago
"How many christians out there really don't know what they are talking about but will defend it so vehemently ?" The number is stunning!
99minerkc 2 years ago
i guess they are the lucky ones...
bballcardcollector09 2 years ago
I was one that didn't study the word but yet defended it vehemently! Now I kick myself for being sooo ignorant and wasting years of my life! The ONLY good thing that arose from my experience was my wife who is a QUALITY woman!
99minerkc 2 years ago
Congrats on that, 99minerkc. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Thanks! :-)
PS Your mind is RAZOR SHARP which I appreciate! In addition, I LOVE and look forward to your videos!
Always a 5/5 (no pressure here lol)
99minerkc 2 years ago
@handofnergal
He's a converted atheist though. He probably delve too deep and bore a hole through it :/
ddrddrddrddr 2 years ago
Did membership died?
Molitars 2 years ago
What?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I am devoted athiest. Every human being is free to take their own assertion and view. And I want to be certain when tomorrow I die, I won't worry. Nothing is important and everlasting. I don't care of anything, just get as much wealth, and die happily in my big tomb. Yes. I have every reason and I deny any beliefs.
hadynu 2 years ago
Oh strawman farm :) Hello hello!
NerdsUnited47 2 years ago
That quote from Acts is kinda stupid, if you think about it. Only people who knew Jesus saw him after the resurrection? Why not show himself to EVERYONE! Imagine the number of Christians there would have been, we know only a handful of Jews became Christians, if Jesus appeared to every Jew in Israel at that time, the whole nation, or damn near all, would have accepted him as Messiah!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago
Prof,
Have you had any exposure to Gary Habermas' work?
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
Yes.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Fair enough.
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
Prof,
I don't see a problem. 1 Cor 15 reports risen Jesus was seen by over 500 persons & no one claims they were all martyred.
Who says John's "beach" account lists apostles? He calls them disciples, which all followers of Jesus were. Only those He hand selected were apostles (Mark 3, Luke 6).
But why would ANY witness die for a known lie (James Z, Peter, Paul)?
mikebForJesus 2 years ago
You need to watch the entire series, Mikeb. It deals with the questions you've raised.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Did they died?
zodawg0079 2 years ago
yes they all died--crucified by the most cruelest methods then known.
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago
Not even the martyr legends say they all died by crucifixion.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
well other than a few--Judas
thejesusfreak919 2 years ago
Watch the rest of the series.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Thaddeus is of Aramaic origin. Judas is of Hebrew origin.(Strongs, Vines)
And it is the same as for Nathaniel, where one name is used, the other is left out.
Here are some other people in the bible with more than one name.
Joseph called Barsabbas/Justus (Acts 1:23)
Barnabas/Joseph (Acts 4:36)
questioningall 2 years ago
For all your talk about not doing extra work, you have no problem loading up multiple comment boxes, Questioningall. In any case, at no point in the NT does one see a claim that Judas or Thaddeus had other names. Nor are Judas and Thaddeus equivalents across languages -- assuming that's what you're attempting to suggest. Moreover, there is no claim -- except among apologists -- that Nathanael had another name. So, really, you're just going back to some apologetic talking points here.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
See I know my comments are going to be limited. So I better get this in.
This is the things that Paul said to contemporaries of these apostles., in 55 CE "labors,imprisonments,beatings, death, lashes, shipwreck,danger, hardship, hunger, thirst" ! Cor. 11:23-28)
Paul wrote to Timothy about his impending martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:6) and Peter wrote to the church al large about his death (2 Peter 1:14)
Only 93 characters left, no 69, no, 62, no...
questioningall 2 years ago
"Peter wrote to the church at large about his death (2 Peter 1:14)."
Most scholars regard 2 Peter as a pseudepigraphal work, Questioningall. Even if it were written by the apostle Peter, what he says in 2 Peter 1:14 doesn't establish the elements of the common martyrdom legends about him. The text merely says that he knows he's going to die soon. It doesn't even claim that martyrdom going to be the cause. There's nothing about Rome. So you don't have anything here.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Nathaniel is a Hebrew name. Bartholemew is a Chaladean name (Vines)or Aramaic (Strongs) It means "Son of Tolmai" (both references)
Other people in the bible carried two names as well.
Peter/Simon/Cephas
John/Mark (Acts 12:12)
Paul/Saul
For that matter, people even today have more than one name.
questioningall 2 years ago
Once again, Questioningall, the Bible never says that Nathanael, Thaddeus, or Judas had two names. Peter? Yes. Paul? Yes. You may keep repeating this if you like, but it won't get the Bible to say what it does not say.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
First of all forget about Cleopas. If He isn't mentioned as being martyred, why should you worry about it? He was never numbered with the twelve disciples who would eventually become apostles of the gospel
questioningall 2 years ago
"If [Cleopas] isn't mentioned as being martyred, why should you worry about it?"
Because he met the criteria for the witnesses, as I explained in the video. Did you watch?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Whoa! I randomly saw this as I was watching your video and listening to the story of Cleopas and his servant.
NT NJV John 19:25 "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of CLEOPHAS, and Mary Magdalene."
Cleopas=maybe=Cleophas??? Just a thought.
groundrunner752 2 years ago
Maybe. I don't know.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The Bar prefix would seem to indicate that Bartholomew came originally from a family name. So Nathanael Bar Tholomew(or whatever the original Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent was) theory does seem reasonable.
murphycline 2 years ago
Why would it be Nathanael?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"we don't know if they faced execution"
I figured some of them probably lived long lives after jesus died, however wen't down in legends as dying for jesus..
Ie. An ASSERTION.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Comment removed
Kalkas777 2 years ago
"[The] Gospels report also of the wider circle of 70 apostles, which can explain apostles such as Nathanael of Cana (John 21) and Judas (son of James). They were not among the Twelve, but of the 70."
Kalkas777, your creativity has outpaced your knowledge of the New Testament here. For example, according to the author of Luke, among the "twelve of them whom [Jesus] named as apostles [was] Judas the son of James" (Luke 6:13, 16) -- who you say was not among the twelve. Oops.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I would gladly but you only retort by calling them "talking points". And I did use the "Wouldn't die for a lie" argument because it is solid, no matter how much time you waste trying to prove otherwise.
Listen man, no matter how you cut it, the New Testament is a historian's gold-mine. There are virtually no other historical documents that provide its kind of integrity. But you just go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that there isn't a God and you aren't accountable to Him.
cessage 2 years ago
"I would gladly but you only retort by calling them 'talking points.'"
Please feel free to bring forward what you're calling evidence for, I'm guessing, the resurrection of Jesus. To date, you've articulated only talking points.
"And I did use the 'Wouldn't die for a lie' argument because it is solid...."
If one ignores history, your own scriptures, and the fact that Christian tradition is all over the place as to what actually happened to these people, then and only then is the...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
..."wouldn't die for a lie" argument "solid." It thrives on ignorance of the facts and/or ignoring them.
"Listen man, no matter how you cut it, the New Testament is a historian's gold-mine."
No doubt you believe this. But it is just a claim. Bring forward the evidence to support that claim so it can be examined.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Great video, I'll be watching the rest of the series. I heard this argument before but it's so easily dismissible that I gave it no more attention. Your video goes into much more detail than is even necessary to ignore such an idiotic argument, but good to see an in depth rebuttal.
camino1ca 2 years ago
cessage, profmth is not alone. there are millions of athiests, some of whom are prominant professors and scientists. The old and new testaments have been studied profusely and thoroughly. it has been found to have an extreme amount of contradictions and to have zero imperical evidence. evidence in modern times is what we base our whole knowledge of our physical surroundings on. in biblical days they lacked such data. science should have overwritten the bible, but man is terrified of death.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
man is so terrified of dying and thinking that his life has no meaning if he dies, that he will actually carry on folklore ridden with absurd tales which defy what we have since learned via science. mankind will continue to destroy perfectly good humans lives as long as he keeps up with the nonsense of religion. the fact that there are many religions all proclaiming their god is real and true should tell you that none of them are. that is the logical conclusion. religion makes adults childlike.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
How is it solid? Hundreds of battered Wives die for a lie all the time. It's called being delusional, in denial, ignorant, etc. What proof do you have that someone wouldn't die for a lie.
Sloth7d 2 years ago
Well here's the problem, Skippy. You've beautifully demonstrated that simple truths can only be combated by elaborate lies. What you call "real objections" are only a series of smokescreens and poorly cast doubts. It's a waste of time with you because no matter what evidence I use, you have a rather long and boring weak "counter argument".
To anyone else reading this, let's see if our man here can come up with a point that doesn't require wasting a significant part of your week.
cessage 2 years ago
"It's a waste of time with you because no matter what evidence I use...."
Evidence? What evidence have you used? None that I've seen. Since you said you intended to use this "wouldn't die for a lie" argument as your primary argument for the resurrection of Jesus, it seems your evidence bag is nearly empty.
No, you haven't offered a shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence. At best, you've got some apologetic talking points that you've convinced yourself of.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
These comments seem very bitter and completely off topic. Instead of dealing with the video, the "haters" (as the kids say) instead bring your credentials into question and blast you with insults. I guess they have to do whatever it takes to get the attention off of logic and back into their comfort zone.
onemansvoice78 2 years ago
Quite right, Onemansvoice. Apologists are at their worst when they've been knocked off their talking points. Among other things, it betrays the fact that they haven't really given much thought -- if any thought -- to real objections to their beliefs, to actual counterarguments, and, alas to say, historical facts that don't comport with their preferred view. So, they become unpleasant. :-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Calling you arrogant is his way of dismissing your arguments without actually having to refute them.
Toxteth78 2 years ago
Well, then, he could at least learn to spell it correctly, eh? ;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
you arogant SOB
knmleaguecity 2 years ago
Arrogant? How so?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Oh, I found it. Part 7 of this impressively boring tripe. So yeah, I will question your scholarship as well. If your delusion is so complex and redundant that you need 9 parts to prove it to yourself, seek pharmaceutical help quickly.
cessage 2 years ago
"I will question your scholarship as well."
I think it's hysterically funny that you seem truly to believe that I give a damn. I don't. Sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe the poor, unsuspecting people that someone is sending you off to indoctrinate think your opinion is important. I don't. Got it?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Well, there's also ...
a medical argument,
prophetic fulfillment evidence,
non-Christian evidence (Josephus, Suetonius, etc)
geographical evidence
social evidence
character-transformational proof
theological evidence (theological alterations)
and of course practical implications.
...but I'm sure you have a long and boring "refutation" of those as well.
cessage 2 years ago
"non-Christian evidence (Josephus, Suetonius, etc)"
Josephus provides no evidence for the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. Nor does Suetonius. Looking over your list, it doesn't sound as if you have *any* actual arguments, but, rather, mere apologists' talking points. That's not teaching, it's indoctrinating -- quite a different project.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Indoctrinating... um right. Like trying to prove that Christian Scripture doesn't support the teaching of the resurrection?? And you are challenging my integrity?
If first-hand testimony doesn't count as evidence, then I guess you are right. Maybe O.J. didn't do it after all!!!
cessage 2 years ago
I was going to post the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum quote, but I won't challenge your scholarship, only your truthfulness.
cessage 2 years ago
"Indoctrinating... um right."
Actually, that might be too favorable a description of what you'll be doing.
"Like trying to prove that Christian Scripture doesn't support the teaching of the resurrection?"
I never said the Christian scriptures don't support the teaching of the resurrection. I said the Christian scriptures' description of the resurrection changes over time from, at the earlier stages of the tradition, a purely spiritual event to, later in the tradition, a decidedly...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...phyiscal description.
"And you are challenging my integrity?"
Your intellectual integrity. Absolutely.
"If first-hand testimony doesn't count as evidence...."
You have no "first-hand testimony" for the resurrection. None. If you weren't so busy rehearsing apologetic talking points, you might have the time and intellectual stuff to look into this yourself.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"I was going to post the Josephus Testimonium Flavianum quote...."
Don't bother. It's already been dealt with it. You'd best save your energy for the "teaching" you're about to do. LOL. Those poor unsuspecting "students."
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Wow, 15 minutes into this series and... not only am I bored to tears, but I have yet to encounter 1 argument against the disciple's testimonies. I quit.
If you try again, can you, um, get to the point?
cessage 2 years ago
It's not my problem nor do I give a shit that you have the attention span of a flea, Cessage.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Well I'll be teaching on this, and it will be my primary argument for the resurrection. So help a flea out...
Are you saying that you are disproving the accounts (Eusebius) of the disciple's deaths, the fact that they saw Jesus alive, or their collective honesty and commitment? Because in the first 15 minutes it was hard to tell what your deal was.
I'll be sure to get to the point when I teach it.
cessage 2 years ago
"Well I'll be teaching on this, and it will be my primary argument for the resurrection. So help a flea out."
Watch the series. I'm not going to do Clff Notes for you in a comment box because you're too lazy to get through the series.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Moreover, if "they wouldn't die for a lie" is your primary argument for the resurrection, you've got nothing.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:
What is always amusing about Christian (and Muslims and Jews and so on) is that they actually think that this information ISN'T somehow easily available on this here INTERNET THINGY.
Type in Catechism of the Catholic Church section 469 and poof, there it is to read at your leisure, retard.
Wonko101 2 years ago
They clearly did not stay in each others company long enough to remember each others names....hehehe
cookeladoo 2 years ago
"...the ONLY people who think Jesus is god are the PROTESTANTS..not Catholics"
I think the only person who thinks that is you, and possibly whoever told you.
Both catholics and orthodox christians consider the son to also be god. In fact, one of the key doctrinal differences between the two is that catholics believe that the holy spirit derives both from the father and from the son rather than just the father. (look up 'filioque')
Cafeeine 2 years ago
"I don't think you did your research correctly because the ONLY people who think Jesus is god are the PROTESTANTS..not Catholics"
I was a Catholic for most of my life, Bato2. I attended Catholic primary and secondary schools, was a candidate for the priesthood, and studied Catholic theology in a variety of settings. By contrast, you are irremediably ignorant of one of the basic tenets of the faith you claim to embrace. I will waste no more time with you. Fuck off.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
no, you fuck off. So what? I have NEVER heard of "Jesus being god" till I started seeing protestants.. my family is catholic and in fact..MOST Latinos are ROMAN catholic and I'm pretty sure we don'[t beleive that Jesus is god. I'm looking at your vid and I can see that you know a lot..>EXCEPT the part where you beleive that catholics beleive Jesus is god...we don't...
im1990 2 years ago
"I have NEVER heard of 'Jesus being god' till I started seeing protestants."
Then you've been asleep at the switch.
"I'm pretty sure we don'[t beleive that Jesus is god."
You're wrong and persistently so -- an especially doltish combination. Have a nice life.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Have you not heard of the trinity? Catholics do believe that Jesus is god, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is like page one sunday school stuff man, how the hell did you miss it? You think the guy nailed to the cross is for decoration?
Protestants disregard the Church's importants, priests, confession, pope, book of saints, clergy speaking latin etc. Rituals are symbolic, not obligitory. Even so, both churches worship the trinity.
Chinomareno 2 years ago
"OHOHO no we don't because I am catholic."
Then you're a poorly catechized one. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Jesus is God. Next time you recite the Nicene Creed at Mass pay special attention to what it says about Jesus, e.g., "God from God."
"that quote doesn't prove that he is god because Jesus has NEVER said that he HIMSELF is god."
Whether Jesus ever claimed to divine is quite another matter. Your claim was that the Catholic Church does not believe and...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...teach that Jesus is God, and *that* claim is wrong as my quoting Section 469 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church demonstrates -- and it was only one of many sections I could have quoted on this topic.
"I can go on and on."
No doubt you can, but you're still incorrect to claim that Jesus' divinity is not a tenet of Catholicism.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"catholics don't beleive Jesus is God"
Yes, they do. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably TRUE GOD and true man" (Section 469, emphasis mine).
"neither to the orthodox Christians"
Yes, they do.
"the whole 'Jesus is God' idea is a PROTESTANT idea."
Actually, it dates back to the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., many centuries before Protestants came along.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@brutus149
I wouldn't say ripped off Zoroastrianism, more like influenced by Zoroastrianism.
someguy6481 2 years ago
"Trying posting a positive Passage for a change"
ProfMTH seems to quote the scriptures with more respect and admiration than most of the evangelists that frequent his message boards.
Where he tries to figure out what the passages mean, to many believers seem to consider scripture to be little more than a means to an end.
RPR1983 2 years ago
He has a name Proverbs 30:4 his name Is Yahshua And The fathers name is Yahweh.Never forget again.
tim6575 2 years ago
I have already forgotten it..
Killer0fTheSun 2 years ago
For all of you non-believers of Jesus the Christ. Explain how you got here? No using that Comet theory. Intelligent design is at hand. Explain one negative thing Christ did in his ministry other than die to save a Sinner like you and me.
To prove that Christ is not God is to prove you do not exist. You might want to try an disprove your existence before you try to disprove God's.
May God soft your heart so you can accept him in and dwell there.
doublem6 2 years ago
Your little rant is irrelevant to the topic of this video, Doublem6. Please try to stick with the topic being discussed. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
My rant is truth, you have yet to explain your so called truth. All these videos are theory. No facts. I will die for Christ before I die for your LIE! There's a old saying "Why die for Nothing when you can live forever by believing in something (Jesus Christ) Now you stick to your Topic.
We love because he first loved US
1 John 4:19
Trying posting a positive Passage for a change.
doublem6 2 years ago
If you're so troubled by my videos, Doublem6, then please do not watch. There's no point in upsetting yourself. Have a good life.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Explain why Christianity looks just like a rip off of Zorasterism that came first.
Ahura Mazda will let all people into heaven eventually. He is a uncreated creator.
brutus149 2 years ago
I expected better from you prof, I was going to write the same kind of stuff praiseyeshua wrote, but that would be redundant.
also, if you're using WMM the problem is probably in the codecs you have selected, try switching back to default and making a short video to test the sound. if that doesn't work keep trying to disable and/or enable sound codecs until it goes back to normal.
grace and peace,
Logan
sermonfire 2 years ago
Thanks for the technical advice, Sermonfire. As for the rest of it, if you were going to write the same thing as PraiseYeshua, but you thought better of it, you did well. He or she has written some silly stuff.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Lastly, Jude is a Greek variant of Judas. Look up just about any Greek commentary. You have burden of proof that's not at least possible that Jude the Son of James was another name for Thaddeus
PraiseYeshua 2 years ago
"Lastly, Jude is a Greek variant of Judas."
I didn't question Jude vs. Judas, PraiseYeshua. You need to pay attention.
"You have burden of proof that's not at least possible that Jude the Son of James was another name for Thaddeus."
I have no such burden. They are two different names. Therefore it's entirely proper to regard them as the names of two different people. It is apologists who claim otherwise who have the burden of proof, a burden they don't even get close to meeting.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Nathaniel was the Hebrew name of Bartholomew which was his Greek name much like Saul was the Hebrew Name of Paul's Roman name.
PraiseYeshua 2 years ago
"Nathaniel was the Hebrew name of Bartholomew which was his Greek name...."
Please cite your source for this claim. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ProfMTH, first of all, please don't take this personally. However, you need to get to the point here. The subject is "Did the apostles die for the Lie." Not alleged Bible contradictions. Secondly, I suggest comparing the lists of apostles in Acts 1:13 and Matt 10:3 instead of comparing John 1: 45-46 with a lame Catholic website and ignorantly mocking the logic of Christian Apologists in regards to Bartholomew and Nathaniel.
PraiseYeshua 2 years ago
"ProfMTH, first of all, please don't take this personally. However, you need to get to the point here."
I am laying out the case in a systematic and thorough way, PraiseYeshua. If it's too much for to deal with, don't watch.
"The subject is 'Did the apostles die for the Lie.' Not alleged Bible contradictions."
And I'm showing the relationships among and between certain contradictions and discrepancies and the "wouldn't die for a lie" argument.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
whay are you using the a catholic website if your going to use a sola scriptura argument? the Catholic Cuch doesn't beleive in the Bible alone. the crux of your arguement is that the contemporaries of these works where just too stupid to see these issues, when it is plain that they had a much highly developed memory than us due to their education system.
kdurston1 2 years ago
"whay are you using the a catholic website if your going to use a sola scriptura argument?"
I'm not making a "sola scriptura argument." And the conclusions presented on that Catholic website about Nathanael and Judas "not Iscariot" are precisely the same conclusions offered by non-Catholic Christians.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"the crux of your arguement is that the contemporaries of these works where just too stupid to see these issues, when it is plain that they had a much highly developed memory than us due to their education system."
lol I don't even know what you're trying to say there. I certainly don't recognize it as the "crux" of my argument.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"Post-resurrection food events" - :)
Slabbers 2 years ago
of course the whole resurection story always begs the question as to why a risen jesus would fail to let himself be seen by one and all after preaching to one and all most of his life and then supposedlly dying for "our" sins.
nope he only gets seen by a "chosen few".
but this is gist for another video ;)
hellshade2 2 years ago
It's a great question. I think we both know the answer, Hellshade. ;-)
ProfMTH 2 years ago
one thing that always bothers me about the new testament is the missing gospels. nice to hear from matt luke and mark all the time but some apostles were left out of the fun. i wonder why? ;)
hellshade2 2 years ago
Thunderf00t favorited one of your videos. You got the Tf00t bump.
soulinite 2 years ago
That''s nice to know. I have great respect for his work.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Nicely done ... ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Many thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Hahaha I love your little beheading of Matthias.
More comments to come.
sthebg20 2 years ago
"Hahaha I love your little beheading of Matthias."
lol Well, it got the job done, at least.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Great video!
5/5 and favorite.
soulinite 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
jesus sounds a lot like the shadow in the story of cleopas and his fellow disciple,with the power to "cloud men's minds"and such
NemoUtopian 2 years ago
Could the Shadow do that? I'm so not up on this sort of stuff.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
"these are but 2 examples of this kind of BULLSHIT" hahahaha
hereandnow6002 2 years ago
lol, i thought that was funny as well. always entertaining when a highly logical mind encounters scripture :).
isaachaze1 2 years ago
I'm really curious as to why Cleopas should be on the list of apostles. After all, there were surely other disciples of Jesus not a part of the twelve (the author of John's Gospel for one). The number twelve is very significant, hence why the Jerusalem church wasn't so keen on having more than 12 apostles to the world at large.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
I don't know what you're trying to say here, Mig.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I just dont know why Cleopas SHOULD be on the list of the twelve, or McDowell's, Strobel's, and Dulles' list of those twelve disciples who died for a lie. There were other disciples of Jesus who were not part of the twelve.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
Why should James be on the list of twelve? He wasn't a believer. Moreover, according to Acts, it was Matthias, not James, who was selected to replace the member of "the Twelve" who had offed himself.
In any case, for purposes of this dicussion, the number 12 is not the focus, although many (not all) apologists who use this argument stick with 12. Others claim that *all* of Jesus' earliest disciples and purported witnesses to his resurrection endured martyrdom. See, e.g.,...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...Randall Niles's formulation of this argument.
Cleopas satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the "wouldn't have died for a lie" group. He's not included on most apologists' lists because Christian legend/tradition has nothing on what became of him.
ProfMTH 2 years ago