@qwyzl On giving up my faith, I have a whole series on that called "My Exodus From Faith." As for doubting the non-existence of Jesus, I've learned more about Jesus' brother James in the meantime, and the evidence for his existence makes it fairly likely that someone named Jesus probably did exist. Beyond that, it's hard to say what all he believed/taught.
@TaylorX04 thanks for answering my question. i don't have any beliefs in any gods either, though i'd like to think consciousness goes on after we die.
Have you considered examining the historians who were absolutely contemporary with Jesus? Non of them mention Jesus or any of the events - earthquakes, Zombies, etc... I believe those contemporary historians have nothing to say...
A fingerprint??? He feeds 5,000 people, resurrected the dead, heals the blind,& walks on water! & nobody speaks up for him at his trial?? Not even lazarus!!
I tried to point out there is very little definitive evidence for Jesus's existence to my cousin and my brother-in-law. It ended with my cousin insisting there are Roman records of his trial and execution (which I tried to point out is not the case), and my brother-in-law laughing and saying he stopped listening when I said Jesus was fake (which of course I did not say at all).
@MyPisceanNature Interesting. I heard the claims about Roman records too, even some that were asserted to have been the personal records from Pontius Pilate, but on further pressing the issue, I found that these people had simply heard it through the grapevine, not having done any actual research into it.
@TaylorX04 I was reasonably certain that was the case. I did link both of them to each video in this series, but I doubt seriously they will bother to watch it.
@MyPisceanNature ya, how awesome is that, right? Kind of frustrating.. But it shows you how dumb your relatives really are, right??? Religion is great for that.. Feel proud for knowing you've taken the time to examine evidence and they are basing their entire life's philosophy off of hear-say and exaggeration.
When I told my mom I thought Jesus might not ever have existed, she said "That's so stupid! The whole calender system was arranged around his birthday!!!!" LOL!!! Riiiiight.... LOL!!!
If this were a trial, I'd say you've made avgood circumstantial case. And since verdicts can be rendered based on circumstantial evidence alone, I think you have proven that there was no historical Jesus.
This extremely good and evidence supported series is also extremely underrated and too unknown. It's a must-seen for every atheist debating with theists.
@HConstantine "So you really think you know more than Charlesworth?" - This is the dumbest question I've been asked on these videos. Do I think I know more than a New Testament scholar? Of course not, but is it possible that he could jump to hasty conclusions? Certainly. I get sick of hearing this character assassination crap from "experts" who don't like the opinions of some of their colleagues. I really don't give a shit what x thinks, it's the evidence that matters.
The irrefutable evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the fact that James is mentioned by Josephus. It would also be difficult to explain the Gospels without Jesus. It is clear that the author of Mark lacked the literary sophistication to have fabricated a novel. It is also clear that Paul thought Jesus was a historical person, and knew people who knew him, including his relatives.
No one--except perhaps some lunatic--has ever doubted the historicity of Socrates.
@HConstantine The Josephus reference to James is "irrefutable"? I highly disagree. Did you watch my discussion of it in this series? It makes far more sense that James was the brother of "Jesus bar Damneus". Regardless, I am leaning more towards the historicity of Jesus (whatever Jesus that was), though not because of any of these weak-salt extrabiblical claims made by apologists. The amount we know about James, as explained by Robert Eisenman, has led me to rethink things.
@HConstantine Re Mark: contrary to your assertion the Gospel of Mark shows definitely that whoever wrote had literary ability. It abounds with clever tricks of comnposition, irony and surprise, symbolism.
@HConstantine Have you ever seen Black Hawk Down? The American at the beginning of the movie was actually three different people in real life. If you didn't know this before hand, you would assume that he was only one person. Could it be possible that Jesus of history was multiple people played by one person in the Bible? Not only that, but who's to say that James was an actual person in that time?
Excellent rebuttal to the shroud of Turin. The best counter-argument to it I have ever seen and, in hindsight, it should have been obvious to the rest of us quibbling about its dating.
@Evid3nc3 Thanks. I have been surprised to read the thoroughly detailed debunkings of it in Skeptic magazine and other sources, trying to explain it away as a paint job or something. It hasn't met it's burden of proof as a burial cloth though, and probably never will be authenticated as Christ's shroud.
Great series! But I still believe in the historicity (though not the divinity) of Jesus. In my humble, non-historian's opinion, the myth in this case seems to point to its own historical kernel. The crucifixion of the claimed messiah is a staggering embarrassment. Why fabricate the ignominious death of a messiah figure? It just seems way more likely that the myth rose out of an attempt by traumatized followers to make sense of the crucifixion of someone who was thought to be the messiah.
@LiberalsAndChurls This reasoning comes pretty close to an argument I've heard some believers make about character flaws in the people presented in the bible - i.e. some of them, like Samson, had flaws too embarrassing to be made up. I did a video about this called "Character Flaws in the Bible Prove Nothing", suffice it to say that the tragic hero archetype did arguably exist before Jesus, so I consider it unremarkable that his crucifixion *might* (the key word) have been thought embarrassing.
That's extremely easy. As Paul already has stated, there had to be executed one to forgive sins of the original sin. It was theologically necessary to make a sacrifice to have to offer something to converts. Much more than that was not, what paul had said, he just made this theological point, without historical references. Therefore it can be possible, that there only was a theological jesus of paul, invented for religion creation.
I'd like to add something to the last point for the shroud of Turin. We would need to have a very detailed description of Christ. Even if you found a shroud from the correct time line( as you pointed out ) without a very detailed description of his true appearance. Any claim would be speculative at best.
I keep thinking...Ancient Greek texts state Athena invented the plow, weaving, the sail, etc. Since we have all that stuff, Athena must exist. We have evidence of Troy, destroyed by Aphrodite when she was given an apple, so Aphrodite must exist. Hera's breastmilk caused the Milky Way. The Milky Way exists, so Hera exists. Those three competed for the apple, Troy existed, therefore they do...right?? :)
@barefootID And what, other than your own personal interest, leads you to find this appealing? Maybe the gospel of Thomas is more in keeping with the synoptics, but so what? Does the gospel represent an early or independent tradition for a historical Jesus? I don't think there's any evidence of it.
Sadducees, Samaritans and plain old heretics are mentioned numerous times in the Talmud. Jesus though as (Yeshu) is mentioned just a few and even among those times its possible that only one is actually referring to him. The lack of stories about him unlike by other sects leads me to believe that his story was less exciting than the NT suggests. Also that the 'multitudes' that flocked to him were maybe not so many.
Listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Galaxy and according to an interview of one of the researchers, most of the claims on the Shroud of Turin are simply wrong
Actually there's entire group of scholars, the Jesus Seminar, who question the belief of Jesus as an actual person. Bob Price has serious doubts, as do many of the JS fellows.
Correction: We do not know who wrote any of the gospels. The names "The Gospel according to John" and so on was added to them much later, about the second or third century AD. None of the gospels claimes to be written by any of the disciples. The only known author of any of the texts in the new testament is the letters by Paul, and there are known forgeries among them.
@greyman000 Yes, you're right, but I was talking about the traditional authorship ascribed to John, because I was making a point of how Christians can abuse the criteria for authenticity.
@cookeladoo Well, he did... but then he didn't like the first draft, trashed it, and let mankind take a swing. We lost the originals (kinda like Moses did with those pesky ever-changing 10 Commandments) but now, thanks to modern scholarship, we have orally-received copies from copies of copies of copies... of copies.
I am sure that somewhere at some time there had been a man called Jesus who had been a religious leader who had been born from a woman.I am even pretty sure that there are still such men.
DeistPaladin tallks about the Apologist's Tapdance. You ask why they believe that Jesus existed, they cite the beliefs of historians. When you ask about the evidence, they throw out mentions of Jesus. When you point out that those are 2nd & 3rd century writings, they point to the beliefs of historians. No wonder they are so dizzy.
The jesus "business" was the great, brilliant insight of early christians. Until then, people invented religions "honestly;" they made up some stuff about invisible beings that "sounded good, or interesting, or moving" and went with that. It was the CHRISTIANS who said "Hey, let's say this entire thing was based on a REAL GUY, who brought a message from god, etc., etc." It is the latest "religious technology" of those times, and nothing more.
On the topic of the shroud, don't forget to mention that John's gospel says that Jesus had multiple cloths around him, including one on his head. (John 20:4-7).
As for the shroud's "blood," I've seen several Catholic sites claim that it has been identified as type AB and that it matches the blood type of communion wafers that bleed, like the one in Lanciano. How old can blood be until it's impossible to test for its type anymore? (+1000 years old for the Lanciano wafer, 2000 for the shroud).
My feelings about the issue is that it doesn't matter if jesus actually existed or not. The bible exists and the Christians exist that do believe in jesus. Apparently there was a jewish rabbi (rabbi Hillel) that lived and taught about the same time as jesus did and pretty much covered the same theological ground that jesus covered. The Miracles ascribed to jesus in the gospels can be written off as so much fabrication to sell the divinity of jesus to the masses.
About 3:00 you apparently refer to the Gospel of John as if the John involved is John the Baptist, but as far as I know, no Christian groups believe this.
John the Baptist was (supposedly) Jesus' cousin and was beheaded. John the disciple is supposed to have lived longer the rest of the twelve and also wrote the book of Revelations.
@Theophage Ah, you're right, I can't believe I missed that. Nonetheless, the point could be made that John the evangelist thought it too embarrassing to include mention of Christ's baptism. The illustration was just to show how the criteria can be applied in almost every case.
One common objection against the theory of evolution is that scientists would be rejected by the community or fired for espousing views that clash with the accepted baseline. How do you think this relates to your comments relating to historians and Jesus?
@D3PyroGS I'd point out the tremendous differences between universities and seminaries, for starters. While it is quite conceivable that even the most liberal seminaries could be dismissing Jesus skeptics with little basis, to suspect that ALL the universities of the world and all the disciplines of science are conspiring to snuff out alternatives to evolution... well, you'd almost have to believe in the devil to think that's possible, lol.
@D3PyroGS As a scientist I'd like to know where this rumor got started. If someone published a work in a reputable journal, and was willing to have this work peer-reviewed, any scientist worth his/her beans would leap on the discovery. Hell, if someone could 'prove' intelligent design, it would be tantamount to proving there was life on other planets. But alas, no such proof... and it has nothing to do with reputation or rejection, other than a rejection of pseudoscience. Thanks.
@rationalmuscle Good response. I only asked the question pre-emptively as I knew some Creationist would probably come around to ask it later. You hit the nail on the head - scientists hunger for knowledge and with the proof of intelligent design would not only come fame, but research money as well.
@D3PyroGS Thanks D3... seemed like such a question. Shit, I'd love to prove ID with a reputable hypothesis that could be tested and peer-reviewed. Of course I'd also love to have a three-way with my girlfriend and Jessica Alba.
Nice video, excellent presentation. The comparison to Elvis is appropriate. I believe that Jesus was a literary creation based on a series of charismatic figures from the first century who advocated for an independent Judaea. After the dream was shattered, the anxiety and legends grew. So did the "appearances"...just like Elvis.
@jdh501 Thanks, but I mostly took the Elvis comparison for the title. Elvis definitely did exist, and we can say a lot more about him than we can of Jesus. I rather like to say the issue of Jesus' historicity is like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The movie claimed to be "based on a true story", but the true story actually did not involve Texas, a chainsaw or a massacre! Similarly, if the historical Jesus was maybe so unlike the gospel character, what's the use in even associating the two?
@TaylorX04 Right, I was refering to the phenomenon of people claiming to see Elvis after his death because they were in denial that he was really gone. I get your point though and I haven't watched parts 1 through 4 because I'm a new sub, so I wasn't sure of the context.
Crucifiction was a common punishment back then, so yeah. That shroud could be from any of the prisoners back then. People need to learn that plugging their religion into every hole is not going to work. The sentence "I don't know" is the more reasonable and intellectually honest answer.
@gir908922 I suspect the fear of admitting "I don't know" is precisely what has driven many people to fill in those holes with religion. It probably goes back all the way to our tribal ancestors too, trying to make sense of natural phenomena like rain, volcanic activity, lightning, etc. I think the overwhelming majority of religious believers are religious because they prefer comfort and pseudo-knowledge to cold uncertainty.
@VicTheVicar He isn't an apologist, but he is a theologian specializing in literature. He is not an historian. I enjoy his books as much as you probably do, but I wanted to emphasize that even the more liberal scholars are not always qualified in historical methods.
@TaylorX04 May I then direct your attention to the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig? There Ehrman explicitly state that he in an historian and that he follows the historical method, which he makes a rather big point of in the debate. But sure, he entered the field of biblical history from theology, not from history in general, as would have been preferred.
/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Btw, I do enjoy his books very much. And your point is noted.
@VicTheVicar I've seen that debate, but I take issue with Ehrman's declaration of himself as an historian. He is a textual critic, a student of biblical literature. What has he done that involves historical method? Maybe he's brushed up on his knowledge of it, but he doesn't have the credentials. Either way, there are historians who think Jesus existed, yet I still think their reasons for belief in an historical Jesus are questionable.
what made you give up your faith, and why do you now doubt that jesus didn't exist? just curious.
qwyzl 1 week ago
@qwyzl On giving up my faith, I have a whole series on that called "My Exodus From Faith." As for doubting the non-existence of Jesus, I've learned more about Jesus' brother James in the meantime, and the evidence for his existence makes it fairly likely that someone named Jesus probably did exist. Beyond that, it's hard to say what all he believed/taught.
TaylorX04 1 week ago
@TaylorX04 thanks for answering my question. i don't have any beliefs in any gods either, though i'd like to think consciousness goes on after we die.
qwyzl 1 week ago
Have you considered examining the historians who were absolutely contemporary with Jesus? Non of them mention Jesus or any of the events - earthquakes, Zombies, etc... I believe those contemporary historians have nothing to say...
Huemunkynde 2 months ago
A fingerprint??? He feeds 5,000 people, resurrected the dead, heals the blind,& walks on water! & nobody speaks up for him at his trial?? Not even lazarus!!
sonicsoundwaveus 1 year ago
I tried to point out there is very little definitive evidence for Jesus's existence to my cousin and my brother-in-law. It ended with my cousin insisting there are Roman records of his trial and execution (which I tried to point out is not the case), and my brother-in-law laughing and saying he stopped listening when I said Jesus was fake (which of course I did not say at all).
MyPisceanNature 1 year ago
@MyPisceanNature Interesting. I heard the claims about Roman records too, even some that were asserted to have been the personal records from Pontius Pilate, but on further pressing the issue, I found that these people had simply heard it through the grapevine, not having done any actual research into it.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I was reasonably certain that was the case. I did link both of them to each video in this series, but I doubt seriously they will bother to watch it.
MyPisceanNature 1 year ago
@MyPisceanNature ya, how awesome is that, right? Kind of frustrating.. But it shows you how dumb your relatives really are, right??? Religion is great for that.. Feel proud for knowing you've taken the time to examine evidence and they are basing their entire life's philosophy off of hear-say and exaggeration.
When I told my mom I thought Jesus might not ever have existed, she said "That's so stupid! The whole calender system was arranged around his birthday!!!!" LOL!!! Riiiiight.... LOL!!!
SHIBBYiPANDA 3 months ago
If this were a trial, I'd say you've made avgood circumstantial case. And since verdicts can be rendered based on circumstantial evidence alone, I think you have proven that there was no historical Jesus.
mp478070 1 year ago
This extremely good and evidence supported series is also extremely underrated and too unknown. It's a must-seen for every atheist debating with theists.
mardastheEitheist 1 year ago
So you really think you know more than Charlesworth? That is the dunning-Kruger effect in action.
By the way, I am an Atheist (as are most of the NT experts I''ve worked with), a historian, and a NT specialist..
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine "So you really think you know more than Charlesworth?" - This is the dumbest question I've been asked on these videos. Do I think I know more than a New Testament scholar? Of course not, but is it possible that he could jump to hasty conclusions? Certainly. I get sick of hearing this character assassination crap from "experts" who don't like the opinions of some of their colleagues. I really don't give a shit what x thinks, it's the evidence that matters.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
The irrefutable evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the fact that James is mentioned by Josephus. It would also be difficult to explain the Gospels without Jesus. It is clear that the author of Mark lacked the literary sophistication to have fabricated a novel. It is also clear that Paul thought Jesus was a historical person, and knew people who knew him, including his relatives.
No one--except perhaps some lunatic--has ever doubted the historicity of Socrates.
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine The Josephus reference to James is "irrefutable"? I highly disagree. Did you watch my discussion of it in this series? It makes far more sense that James was the brother of "Jesus bar Damneus". Regardless, I am leaning more towards the historicity of Jesus (whatever Jesus that was), though not because of any of these weak-salt extrabiblical claims made by apologists. The amount we know about James, as explained by Robert Eisenman, has led me to rethink things.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@HConstantine Re Mark: contrary to your assertion the Gospel of Mark shows definitely that whoever wrote had literary ability. It abounds with clever tricks of comnposition, irony and surprise, symbolism.
macroman52 8 months ago
@HConstantine Have you ever seen Black Hawk Down? The American at the beginning of the movie was actually three different people in real life. If you didn't know this before hand, you would assume that he was only one person. Could it be possible that Jesus of history was multiple people played by one person in the Bible? Not only that, but who's to say that James was an actual person in that time?
HimesInu 8 months ago
Excellent rebuttal to the shroud of Turin. The best counter-argument to it I have ever seen and, in hindsight, it should have been obvious to the rest of us quibbling about its dating.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago
@Evid3nc3 Thanks. I have been surprised to read the thoroughly detailed debunkings of it in Skeptic magazine and other sources, trying to explain it away as a paint job or something. It hasn't met it's burden of proof as a burial cloth though, and probably never will be authenticated as Christ's shroud.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Great series! But I still believe in the historicity (though not the divinity) of Jesus. In my humble, non-historian's opinion, the myth in this case seems to point to its own historical kernel. The crucifixion of the claimed messiah is a staggering embarrassment. Why fabricate the ignominious death of a messiah figure? It just seems way more likely that the myth rose out of an attempt by traumatized followers to make sense of the crucifixion of someone who was thought to be the messiah.
LiberalsAndChurls 1 year ago
@LiberalsAndChurls This reasoning comes pretty close to an argument I've heard some believers make about character flaws in the people presented in the bible - i.e. some of them, like Samson, had flaws too embarrassing to be made up. I did a video about this called "Character Flaws in the Bible Prove Nothing", suffice it to say that the tragic hero archetype did arguably exist before Jesus, so I consider it unremarkable that his crucifixion *might* (the key word) have been thought embarrassing.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@LiberalsAndChurls
That's extremely easy. As Paul already has stated, there had to be executed one to forgive sins of the original sin. It was theologically necessary to make a sacrifice to have to offer something to converts. Much more than that was not, what paul had said, he just made this theological point, without historical references. Therefore it can be possible, that there only was a theological jesus of paul, invented for religion creation.
mardastheEitheist 1 year ago
I'd like to add something to the last point for the shroud of Turin. We would need to have a very detailed description of Christ. Even if you found a shroud from the correct time line( as you pointed out ) without a very detailed description of his true appearance. Any claim would be speculative at best.
Foxcanine1 1 year ago
last line - wow. v.neat bow.
GraeHall 1 year ago
I keep thinking...Ancient Greek texts state Athena invented the plow, weaving, the sail, etc. Since we have all that stuff, Athena must exist. We have evidence of Troy, destroyed by Aphrodite when she was given an apple, so Aphrodite must exist. Hera's breastmilk caused the Milky Way. The Milky Way exists, so Hera exists. Those three competed for the apple, Troy existed, therefore they do...right?? :)
MercuryRis 1 year ago
I do not know.
I think that putting together the gospel of Thomas to the synoptic you get something more coherent than the synoptics with john.
The birth from a virgin and the resurrection are ingredients made up later in order to make Jesus a god.
But if we leave out these parts what we are left is quite interesting, and coherent (I reapet: Mark, Luke, Matthew and Thomas!)
barefootID 1 year ago
@barefootID And what, other than your own personal interest, leads you to find this appealing? Maybe the gospel of Thomas is more in keeping with the synoptics, but so what? Does the gospel represent an early or independent tradition for a historical Jesus? I don't think there's any evidence of it.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Sadducees, Samaritans and plain old heretics are mentioned numerous times in the Talmud. Jesus though as (Yeshu) is mentioned just a few and even among those times its possible that only one is actually referring to him. The lack of stories about him unlike by other sects leads me to believe that his story was less exciting than the NT suggests. Also that the 'multitudes' that flocked to him were maybe not so many.
WaysOfMan 1 year ago
Jesus' story was based on cycles of the sun. Therefore, the story of Jesus is based on some truth.
ScottJanssen 1 year ago
Listening to the Skeptics Guide to the Galaxy and according to an interview of one of the researchers, most of the claims on the Shroud of Turin are simply wrong
KitsuneVoss 1 year ago
Actually there's entire group of scholars, the Jesus Seminar, who question the belief of Jesus as an actual person. Bob Price has serious doubts, as do many of the JS fellows.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
Excellent series.
It was a joy to listen to.
AndreaZ64 1 year ago
Correction: We do not know who wrote any of the gospels. The names "The Gospel according to John" and so on was added to them much later, about the second or third century AD. None of the gospels claimes to be written by any of the disciples. The only known author of any of the texts in the new testament is the letters by Paul, and there are known forgeries among them.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 Yes, you're right, but I was talking about the traditional authorship ascribed to John, because I was making a point of how Christians can abuse the criteria for authenticity.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@greyman000 I thought God wrote the bible?
cookeladoo 1 year ago
@cookeladoo Well, he did... but then he didn't like the first draft, trashed it, and let mankind take a swing. We lost the originals (kinda like Moses did with those pesky ever-changing 10 Commandments) but now, thanks to modern scholarship, we have orally-received copies from copies of copies of copies... of copies.
Of copies. : )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
I am sure that somewhere at some time there had been a man called Jesus who had been a religious leader who had been born from a woman.I am even pretty sure that there are still such men.
calipsomn 1 year ago
@calipsomn There are lots of them in South America, lol.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
Great video, I've had similiar thoughts myself, and you've fleshed them out in a very straight forward and logical manner. Congrads.
thetruthishere66 1 year ago
DeistPaladin tallks about the Apologist's Tapdance. You ask why they believe that Jesus existed, they cite the beliefs of historians. When you ask about the evidence, they throw out mentions of Jesus. When you point out that those are 2nd & 3rd century writings, they point to the beliefs of historians. No wonder they are so dizzy.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
Jesus was a character in a popular 1st century religious play. It was originally written in Greek, like most theater of the time.
CHAS1422 1 year ago
@CHAS1422 Thats interesting. What was the play?
MercuryRis 1 year ago
The jesus "business" was the great, brilliant insight of early christians. Until then, people invented religions "honestly;" they made up some stuff about invisible beings that "sounded good, or interesting, or moving" and went with that. It was the CHRISTIANS who said "Hey, let's say this entire thing was based on a REAL GUY, who brought a message from god, etc., etc." It is the latest "religious technology" of those times, and nothing more.
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
Bueno!
mtsac1 1 year ago
On the topic of the shroud, don't forget to mention that John's gospel says that Jesus had multiple cloths around him, including one on his head. (John 20:4-7).
As for the shroud's "blood," I've seen several Catholic sites claim that it has been identified as type AB and that it matches the blood type of communion wafers that bleed, like the one in Lanciano. How old can blood be until it's impossible to test for its type anymore? (+1000 years old for the Lanciano wafer, 2000 for the shroud).
GuineaPigDan 1 year ago
this stuff really should be in book form! Great once again.
kalsolarUK 1 year ago
My feelings about the issue is that it doesn't matter if jesus actually existed or not. The bible exists and the Christians exist that do believe in jesus. Apparently there was a jewish rabbi (rabbi Hillel) that lived and taught about the same time as jesus did and pretty much covered the same theological ground that jesus covered. The Miracles ascribed to jesus in the gospels can be written off as so much fabrication to sell the divinity of jesus to the masses.
KasparHauser4 1 year ago
Whoa, I think you made a blunder.
About 3:00 you apparently refer to the Gospel of John as if the John involved is John the Baptist, but as far as I know, no Christian groups believe this.
John the Baptist was (supposedly) Jesus' cousin and was beheaded. John the disciple is supposed to have lived longer the rest of the twelve and also wrote the book of Revelations.
Theophage 1 year ago
@Theophage Ah, you're right, I can't believe I missed that. Nonetheless, the point could be made that John the evangelist thought it too embarrassing to include mention of Christ's baptism. The illustration was just to show how the criteria can be applied in almost every case.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@Theophage
I was gonna say the same thing.
Why let facts get in the way...lol
Lets just say its the same John. Most Christians won't know the difference.
eldogg4life 1 year ago
One common objection against the theory of evolution is that scientists would be rejected by the community or fired for espousing views that clash with the accepted baseline. How do you think this relates to your comments relating to historians and Jesus?
D3PyroGS 1 year ago
@D3PyroGS I'd point out the tremendous differences between universities and seminaries, for starters. While it is quite conceivable that even the most liberal seminaries could be dismissing Jesus skeptics with little basis, to suspect that ALL the universities of the world and all the disciplines of science are conspiring to snuff out alternatives to evolution... well, you'd almost have to believe in the devil to think that's possible, lol.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@D3PyroGS As a scientist I'd like to know where this rumor got started. If someone published a work in a reputable journal, and was willing to have this work peer-reviewed, any scientist worth his/her beans would leap on the discovery. Hell, if someone could 'prove' intelligent design, it would be tantamount to proving there was life on other planets. But alas, no such proof... and it has nothing to do with reputation or rejection, other than a rejection of pseudoscience. Thanks.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
@rationalmuscle Good response. I only asked the question pre-emptively as I knew some Creationist would probably come around to ask it later. You hit the nail on the head - scientists hunger for knowledge and with the proof of intelligent design would not only come fame, but research money as well.
D3PyroGS 1 year ago
@D3PyroGS Thanks D3... seemed like such a question. Shit, I'd love to prove ID with a reputable hypothesis that could be tested and peer-reviewed. Of course I'd also love to have a three-way with my girlfriend and Jessica Alba.
The later is FAR more likely to happen. ; )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
Elvis will return!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
If Socrates didn't exist then Plato was either completely out of his mind or the most brilliant person who ever lived.
adrenacrumb 1 year ago
This is a wonderful series and I thank you for taking the time and effort to make it. :) *favorited*
Azurerosa 1 year ago
compare the blood to a communion wafer!
rarrmonkey 1 year ago
*claps*
Well done man. Hope you'll make more.
Rhine0Cowboy 1 year ago
Warning: This video contains Ownage.
MATZAMAN76 1 year ago
Nice video, excellent presentation. The comparison to Elvis is appropriate. I believe that Jesus was a literary creation based on a series of charismatic figures from the first century who advocated for an independent Judaea. After the dream was shattered, the anxiety and legends grew. So did the "appearances"...just like Elvis.
jdh501 1 year ago
@jdh501 Thanks, but I mostly took the Elvis comparison for the title. Elvis definitely did exist, and we can say a lot more about him than we can of Jesus. I rather like to say the issue of Jesus' historicity is like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The movie claimed to be "based on a true story", but the true story actually did not involve Texas, a chainsaw or a massacre! Similarly, if the historical Jesus was maybe so unlike the gospel character, what's the use in even associating the two?
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 Right, I was refering to the phenomenon of people claiming to see Elvis after his death because they were in denial that he was really gone. I get your point though and I haven't watched parts 1 through 4 because I'm a new sub, so I wasn't sure of the context.
jdh501 1 year ago
Excellent dissertation!
ntoiyt 1 year ago
Crucifiction was a common punishment back then, so yeah. That shroud could be from any of the prisoners back then. People need to learn that plugging their religion into every hole is not going to work. The sentence "I don't know" is the more reasonable and intellectually honest answer.
gir908922 1 year ago
@gir908922 I suspect the fear of admitting "I don't know" is precisely what has driven many people to fill in those holes with religion. It probably goes back all the way to our tribal ancestors too, trying to make sense of natural phenomena like rain, volcanic activity, lightning, etc. I think the overwhelming majority of religious believers are religious because they prefer comfort and pseudo-knowledge to cold uncertainty.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 I think you're right.
gir908922 1 year ago
@gir908922 Look closely at the Turin shroud, it's Brian Cohen!
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
@RadarKat73080 LOL!
gir908922 1 year ago
Wonderful wrap up for the series =)
It was a pleasure to watch them all.
SenariXarn 1 year ago 2
You're showing a picture of Bart Ehrman @5:30 as one of the "bad guys". Why? Why?! He isn't an apologist!
VicTheVicar 1 year ago
@VicTheVicar He isn't an apologist, but he is a theologian specializing in literature. He is not an historian. I enjoy his books as much as you probably do, but I wanted to emphasize that even the more liberal scholars are not always qualified in historical methods.
TaylorX04 1 year ago
@TaylorX04 May I then direct your attention to the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig? There Ehrman explicitly state that he in an historian and that he follows the historical method, which he makes a rather big point of in the debate. But sure, he entered the field of biblical history from theology, not from history in general, as would have been preferred.
/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk
Btw, I do enjoy his books very much. And your point is noted.
VicTheVicar 1 year ago
@VicTheVicar I've seen that debate, but I take issue with Ehrman's declaration of himself as an historian. He is a textual critic, a student of biblical literature. What has he done that involves historical method? Maybe he's brushed up on his knowledge of it, but he doesn't have the credentials. Either way, there are historians who think Jesus existed, yet I still think their reasons for belief in an historical Jesus are questionable.
TaylorX04 1 year ago