The bible is not taken as a historical document as many of it is innacurate with most other history. No contemporary historian even mentions Jesus despite them mentioning other Messiahs =\
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Finally I find a video from an intelligent christian that has researched the history of his faith, and his comments pages are littered with other christians who don't like what he's saying.
I don't think the evidence for the crucifixion is as compelling as you do. There's no contemporary documentation recording Jesus crucifixion. The later gospels can be argued to borrow heavily from Mark and from each other, so 4 accounts of the event do not necessarily hold more sway than Marks alone would.
"contemporary" means during the event, or at most 10 years after. The 1 corinthians 15 creed, which is an aramaic creed cited by paul in 1 corinthians 15, dates to only 2-5 years after hte life of Jesus. even the radical Jesus Seminar admits that this information is "pre-pauline" which is before Paul's conversion. we know from galatians that Paul converted ~3 years after Jesus died.
Listen, the King James bible tells us that there is a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation in the book of John.
It also describes a first resurrection and a second death in Revelation and also lets us know that being cast into the lake of fire "is" the second death.
So if you are not raised with Christ in the "FIRST" resurrection of life then you burn.
Very true, but having the wrong view of creation doesn't debarr someone from salvation. From what I have seen so far, Kabane is a Christian. He believes in the atoning death of Christ and His resurrection. Until I see evidence suggesting otherwise, he's my brother in Christ!
If there is no Adam and no fall in the garden of eden then there is no reason for Jesus to have come, been crucified, and raise from the dead. If Jesus actually rose from the dead then it is a pretty good bet that the rest of the account is true also.
All three main religions of today Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all come from Abraham, and his decendents created the different views of the God of Abraham----If there is a God, then all three are wrong becuase the different views are different from that of Abraham who was right from the begining.
lol, you owned him? okay, if this is true, then you should easily be able to condense his points and refute him. Now you cant send them in the comment section, but could you send me a PM?
Watch The Amazing Atheist's video response. He has more fact and he has a more convincing argument considering yours has been used for the past hundreds of years.
The problem with your arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are accurate historical documents which they are clearly not.
Jesus is a gay zombie who's confused about who the hell he and his father is. And because he's a zombie, he makes us eat flesh and blood... Jesus turns us into zombies. Can you say, J-Virus?
Most of your evidence doesn't pass the dissimilarity criteria. Aside from the fact that miracles simply don't happen.
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet that was executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (and the messiah but that wasn't illegal). If things would have went a little differently you could be worshiping Apollonius.
Personally, I think you just like arguing but if you actually believe all of this it must be painful.
Define "miracle". Even crazy stuff like walking marble statues - a miracle, surely!? - can mathematically-speaking happen (if all the atoms move for some reason in the right way). But the odds against it are so huge that it is about as "impossible" as one could hope for.
Everything has convinced someone before.Also bear in mind that Christians in the early early days were largely unschooled, ignorant people. My case does not rest on this point, but it is a suggestive fact none-the-less.
Indeed! Also: has Kabane even read the bible? I jest: he's v. clever- I'm SURE he has. But then why can't he see the credulousness of the people in the bible? In the bible one is considered a prophet if one spouts trite or rabid nonsense & dance about or fall to the ground in a fit. 1 Samuel (I think it is) has some amusing descriptions of this. People doing that today would LITERALLY be committed & Kabane would NOT believe them. And why should he?
Your entire argument is just based on basic coherency within the Bible.
I could say that Gandalf really existed because it is accounted in the Lord of the Rings, and at no point in the book is there any contradictory evidence.
According to history and his argument. The ressurection is clearly the best explaination, given the lame-ass alternatives.
Opt your basically saying no it's not because it involves "supernatural tendencies which don't exist or are at best highly unlikely." It is this common belief among people that causes the non-acceptance of the resurrection which you asked about earlier.
People dying for a lie, or breaking into a tomb when it's punishable by death, or almost any other natural explanation no matter how bizzare is a more reasonable than a "supernatural" one, since there is no empirical scientific evidence for any supernatural claim ever. Which by default makes the supernatural the least likely explanation for anything.
Your argument goes under the premise that something is only true when it is supported by scientific evidence, which is of course false.
Also, asserting that a miracle (resurrection) is improbable hence should be placed at the back of the line is also flawed. Probability is determined by comparing the explanation with the background knowledge of the situation.
Screw it... 500 characters is nowhere near enough...
What happened to the philosophy of science? Science cannot comment, positively OR NEGATIVELY on the supernatural. You just used a common creationist fallacy.
"Science cannot comment, positively OR NEGATIVELY on the supernatural"
Who made that statement? I would disagree with it completely. Science can, and should comment when claims are made that the supernatural is influencing events in the natural world.
Indeed. Whilst the "supernatural" is not strictly amenable to scientific inquiry, it becomes amenable to scientific enquiry insofar as influences or affects natural world events. And a supernatural that never involves itself in the natural world would be the stuff of such languor as to be completely disavowed by supernaturalists.
You can study the effects of miracles on nature, but you cannot study or conduct scientific experiments on the supernatural. Miracles are occurrences that defy physics are are in some other way naturally impossible, and occur only through the interference of the supernatural.
So the article basically asks did the apostles die and did they die willingly for it.
(1) Apostles belief in the resurrection is attested by 8 sources and their martyrdom is attested by 9 sources. Almost 99.9% of historians agree that the apostle's sincerely believed Jesus rose.
(2) Another reason we can know apostles died willingly for it was even after former members were been martyred, they still kept preaching Christ is risen and didn't stop when persecutions arose. It could be taken on their part that they HAD to be willingly to go forth after martyrdoms as they would have known the consequences if they didn't.
(3)Also the church fathers who documented some their deaths were also martyred to, with good sources documenting their deaths.
(4) It shows great credibility on the part of the church fathers as why would they die for a cause which was built on lies especially by them?
(5) Another reason is that Tertullian a early church father debated with pagans and he told them to check the roman records of the apostles death if they didn't believe him. Tertullian whose works are still treated as genius today, would have to be the biggest idiot in the world to do that if that was a lie.
"the article basically asks did the apostles die and did they die willingly for it."
You should read the rest of it too (including the part about james). It makes the case that we do not have enough evidence to conclude that the apostles were killed and could have saved themselves by repenting. To establish your point 1 you would need to demonstrate that the information in the article is incomplete or false.
I will adress those claims when iam done with school today. but iam not getting what you mean by theres not enough evidence. What standart are you judging it by?
We don't have good evidence that the apostles did die 'knowingly and willingly for their beliefs'. afaik this claim is based on church traditions or dubious authenticity.
Well first Steven died in 33 AD and the apostles were still preaching, Then James son of zebedee died in 44AD and apostles still preached, Then James the Just died in 62AD and apostles still preached. I think to go any further with the claim could be taken on their part that the died willingly for it, as they would have known the consequences of preaching.
*Also Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus death not just tradition.
*Also the Church fathers asked their critics to look at the roman records to check for aposltes death if they didnt believe them.
*Also polycarp in his letter to the philpian mentions apostles death just just 110-140 AD mentions apostles death. And remember polycarp was martyrded to and his martyrdom is one of the best attested ones.
And also ignatius in the same time mentions it to and he was martyered to.
*Letters are one of the best pieces of evidence as it conveys people private thoughts and polycarps and ignatius were letters.
* Historians do agree apostles sincere belief in the ressurection and no historian just claims it was just a mass conspiracy theory while the church fathers themselves were been martyerd and were been persecuted by rome. it makes no sense.
*people have to show how they were lying and tell us where they died instead and show evidence of it, but no one does that.
np. (you seem very knowledgable about this stuff, you may find things in the article you disagree with.. if so, leaving a comment on that page might be the most productive place for it)
umm i just went the site and ebonmuse said the comments are closed.He does leave out some real early evidence by church fathers who were the first generation after apostles. you can even go to wikipidia and and look up saint peter and saint paul and see the real early testimony of their deaths.
(1)"The title is a misrepresentation of what the book is about. The first 4 chapters are an informative look at textual criticism of the NT. The last 3 chapters are a summary of Ehrman's agnostic positions as outlined in his earlier work 'Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'. What is troubling is that Ehrman simply regurgitates his previous arguments without any attempt to address the scholarly criticisms of his peers concerning this first work."
(2)"Another troubling issue is how Ehrman claims that a misinterpretation proves some kind of cover up,but then if you look in one of the other gospels, there is the exact wording in a parallel text. For example, Ehrman points to Matt 24:36, saying that the translation does not include the "even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come" and tries to say that it is a cover-up that this was excluded and that it proves Jesus was not a God.
(3)"I will leave to you whether or not it is a leap to question the divinity of Jesus based on that one statement. As to the cover-up, see Mark 13:32 — "But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father." The fact that Ehrman makes no mention of this OBVIOUS parallel scripture passage is very telling concerning his motives and the extent at which the lay reader should trust his judgment."
(4)"If you do read this book, I encourage you to be skeptical of his positions and research things yourself... use an online Bible to search for parallel texts for example. Also, search the internet for reviews critical of his work so that you can hear the other side of the argument and come to your own conclusion."
This was done by a reviewer as it shows some of the obvious mistakes in his books as there are many more.
cover up? no... evolution of thought, a thought process... that aint any cover up... is there a cover up? where?
i would claim jesus was not god, neither the son of god, because there is no theistic god. because this world operates on a different principle, about which we learn in physics.
textual scholars dont have such tools and or relate to them only marginally...
wrong pal, evolution of thought in the bible stories is admitted even by dr wallace or dr craig. both can be described as opponents to dr ehrman. its only you who is going in circles... you need to start really learning something new, pal...
yeah. since with time the stories become more flowery, they give rise to a legend. this is one of the first principles you will learn when studying comparative literature.
denying changes in the theological concepts of christianity over time is foolish.
seeing, reading, understanding are three different categories, pal. first its not an article about ehrman but about "misquoting jesus". its a very professional critique, well written except for very few mistakes, perhaps logical fallacies. ;-)
according to you, not according to me, pal. as well i said they give rise to a legend and not they are a legend. there are many possibilities how to explain this but 500 chars arent simply enough, so im not going to.
from a naturalist point of view, there is no place where you could put a theistic g0d - deity into. i can imagine entities without time, that aint a big problem, but without a place equals non existence.
pal, ive read several critiques on "misquoting jesus". some links are to be found here, on the bottom of the page.
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Ehrman
the problem is, dr. wallace makes as well many assumptions in his conclusions. language scholars are inherently forced to do so.
the problem is, there is very little archeological evidence supporting their thesis. jumping to the conlusion "...and therefore g0d" is foolish. even dr. wallace is at that much honest, he does gives us a hint at least.
doenst make any god true or real. again(some of my comments did not appear here) ... look up the professional blogs. that simply aint true what you are saying. every coin has two sides. do your homework before you talk trash, ok?
as well, e.g. see the debate dr craig vs dr ehrman... gee...
ok... since dr. habermas and dr. wallace jump to conclusions and arguments from g0d...
i dont know what you see, but most of my comments are related directly to yours. this app seems to take some time until those comments appear where they were intended to appear, if they do so at all. sometimes it just doesnt work.
2. "In contrast, the value of many scientific ideas can be objectively evaluated by established techniques, so that the origin or history of the idea is irrelevant to its value. E.g., the chemist (K) claimed to have discovered the ring structure of the benzene molecule during a dream of a snake biting its own tail. While this fact is psychologically interesting, it is neither evidence for nor against the hypothesis that benzene has a ring structure, which had to be tested for correctness."
1. "The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it."
again coming up with straw man arguments? when will you learn.
e.g. many of those "discrepancies" are crucial. read ehrman, he beautifully shows the evolution of the new testament. he evidently shows, most of it is a made up story, which might be based on a weak basis of historical events.
btw, if specific attestations contradict each other, which one are you gonna pick? how is the judge going to come up to a decision? get it, pal?
at least learn more about rhetorical logic pal... :)
his works of popular books, tell me where in the scholary pubication he was any credibility.have you ever read any rebuttels to his work. i cant believe you think his work is the scholarly consensus.
does there have to be one? damn you are a weird one. disprove those theories. why cant those "consensuals" do so? why cant they stand a simple test proposed by ehrman? cause they are dreamers, pal. we dont need consensual dreamers but serious critique. disprove it or be silent... gee...
(1)"Ehrman states that these errors in spelling are the most numerous. He is correct. Scholars agree that the vast majority, appx. 97%, of all the errors in the manus and copies are spelling errors. Scholars also agree that no core Christian doctrine has ever been affected by these spelling errors."
(2)"How would they know this? By a process called textual criticism one can determine the wording and meaning of a passage if enough manus are found. Textual criticism requires that enough manus be available to compare to one another in order to determine the wording of what was in the original. Ehrman only concentrated on the Greek manus (of which there are appx. 5,600 copies available), but makes no mention of the manus found in the Syriac, Egyptian, Latin, and other language manus."
(3)"When adding these manus the number jumps to 24,000, more than enough to determine the wording of the originals! By uating all these manus the wording of the original can be determined to very near the original."
(4)The remaining 1% is additions. You heard me right, additions. There are three additions in particular that cause alarm in Ehrman and these cannot be overlooked
original? what original? a made up story? looks like, pal. the dating plays here a quite important role, doenst it? the early exegesis plays here an important role as well, doenst it?
honestly, i dont care about 1%,10% or 20%, why would i? the key point is, the story did not exist prior to a specific date since it needed time to evolve. after this happened, indeed, the discrepancies would be very small. a good analogy here would be the kuran...
"the key point is, the story did not exist prior to a specific date since it needed time to evolve. after this happened, indeed, the discrepancies would be very small. a good analogy here would be the kuran... "
what date would that be? why dont you provide example and evidence instead of just stating claims.
2 false... there are several contradictory accounts about jebus
3 paul letters see for example "elaine pagels"
4 well, doesnt mean those stories are mock ups, does it...
pal... you provide evidence based on a highly disputed book.
i can only claim, read actually the peer reviewed papers, magazines etc... did you? you rely on exegesis, im trying to direct you to archeology and other historical sciences...
its quite appropriate in our case and its not changing the topic. you refer, lets say, to some standard golden middle approach of standard scholars and apologists , but you fail to recognize, there are more questions open then there are answered. people im referring to are trying to close those open questions and their work is based on scientific method. you simply dismiss it without examining it or dismiss it because of fallacious assumptions. you need to learn how science operates.
"people im referring to are trying to close those open questions and their work is based on scientific method. you simply dismiss it without examining it or dismiss it because of fallacious assumptions. you need to learn how science operates. "
really tell me what person and what method of science they use?
its funny i wonder how one uses the rules of science to history?
what papers? peer reviewed archeological papers... the problem is, usually you need some extra ferria to get access there...
sorry i cant enlighten you. this is basic school stuff. open a book and educate yourself or start attending a better school then you are doing right now.
pal, the problem is. i exposed your fallacies, which make your reasoning invalid. i dont have to put up any further evidence. you need to find a way around those fallacies... ;-)
pal... the claims are there, you only need access to the libraries... you need the ferria, thats all. thats were real science is being conducted. it aint free knowledge, sorry.
insults? that aint any insult, you are an apologetic t00l, arent you. whats wrong with that? i dont think thats an insult and certainly it aint intended as an insult... gee...
you simply dont have the supporting science and you want to defend your position. im fine with that... ;-)
"the claims are there, you only need access to the libraries... you need the ferria, thats all. thats were real science is being conducted. it aint free knowledge, sorry"
*Sigh* how convienent.
"insults? that aint any insult, you are an apologetic t00l,. whats wrong with that? i dont think thats an insult and certainly it aint intended as an insult... gee"
even if you are not a christian, i still respect you, and you attack your apponents view in a debate not try to belittle them.
sigh? convenient? its lots of real, hard work, pal. theres nothing convenient in science in general... when will you learn...
i doubt it strongly if you respect me. since you come up with so many rhetorical fallacies i could start accusing you of deliberately lying and subscribing to heavy partisan agenda, which indeed you are. naming "things" by name aint belittling...
ignoring scientific evidence and especially professional scientific peer reviewed magazines make you look quite bad, pal...
1 "heretical" was every single christian sect from the beginning. we could almost say, as many groups as many heresies (factions of believers). later it evolved into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th century conflicts.
2 wrong. there are crucial discrepancies which contradict to the theory of eyewitness in general. read the bible in a parallel style.
3 yeah. here we go 7 out of how many 14?
4 evidence is science pal. peer reviewed papers about history of early first century of "palestine". just look them up!
of course, usually you will need to pay to get access to those... thats the issue here, i guess.
again... just read a book and dont come up with rhetorical logical fallacies. you really need to learn how to reason. christianity is based on fallacies.
3. eh? frau doctor has an operative hypothesis. it still holds.
4. "evidence is science" was a rather unlucky proposition of mine. retracting it...
yeah. do it. and you might find out why many apologists are wrong in their assumptions. you even dont need to be a scientist or to "sit directly on the well" (e.g. being a maecenas of sciences).
indeed there is anything else... look up the f0cking, damned peer reviewed papers...
yeah... cause you refuse to accept my honest advice and keep coming with rhetorical logical fallacies. tsk tsk tsk
I will pray for you sad Brain washed little Boy
thurgrum 3 years ago 11
The bible is not taken as a historical document as many of it is innacurate with most other history. No contemporary historian even mentions Jesus despite them mentioning other Messiahs =\
RealityBend 3 years ago 5
Reliable I think not
gmitch8074 3 years ago 4
Your whole hypothesis is formed first assuming that the bible is true (translated correctly) and second off the ravings of christen scientists.
gmitch8074 3 years ago 2
OH MY GOD!!! I was going to have a cookie today but the box was EMPTY. undeniable PROOF that god ate my cookie, therefore god is real. umm ya
rjestin 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Finally I find a video from an intelligent christian that has researched the history of his faith, and his comments pages are littered with other christians who don't like what he's saying.
I don't think the evidence for the crucifixion is as compelling as you do. There's no contemporary documentation recording Jesus crucifixion. The later gospels can be argued to borrow heavily from Mark and from each other, so 4 accounts of the event do not necessarily hold more sway than Marks alone would.
andytoz 3 years ago
"contemporary" means during the event, or at most 10 years after. The 1 corinthians 15 creed, which is an aramaic creed cited by paul in 1 corinthians 15, dates to only 2-5 years after hte life of Jesus. even the radical Jesus Seminar admits that this information is "pre-pauline" which is before Paul's conversion. we know from galatians that Paul converted ~3 years after Jesus died.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Kid,
You sound like a frikkin lawyer.
Listen, the King James bible tells us that there is a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation in the book of John.
It also describes a first resurrection and a second death in Revelation and also lets us know that being cast into the lake of fire "is" the second death.
So if you are not raised with Christ in the "FIRST" resurrection of life then you burn.
Tell me how I am wrong.
You really should watch my videos!
greggprovenza 3 years ago
Dont forget Mattias replaced Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:23-26!
Glorthac 3 years ago
5 star
entertaining
thesunofjuda 3 years ago
Enjoy virginity.
Honestly.
Gufando 3 years ago
Excellent video Kebane!
Young Apologist - you have found a brother in Christ! Rejoice in that, even if you disagree with his view of creation.
ukchristian28 3 years ago
"Not every one who comes to me saying 'Lord,Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven."
YoungApologist 3 years ago
Very true, but having the wrong view of creation doesn't debarr someone from salvation. From what I have seen so far, Kabane is a Christian. He believes in the atoning death of Christ and His resurrection. Until I see evidence suggesting otherwise, he's my brother in Christ!
ukchristian28 3 years ago
So, he argues for the case of Christ yet denies a literal Adam? Sad.
YoungApologist 3 years ago
he does believe in a literal Adam(watch his kabane52 video on Adam and eve)
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
I was under the impression he was in favor of macroevolution.
YoungApologist 3 years ago
He believes Adam was an Australiopithicus.-and he does accept evolution.
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
He believes Adam was an Australiopithicus? But God made Adam in his own image. Is God an Australiopithicus? What's he trying to say?
animalfreak147 3 years ago
Great video to bad you believe in evolution other wise I would subscribe.
God bless and hope you find the whole trueth one day.
bluevaines 3 years ago
theistic evolution is the whole truth you know.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
blame the jews, you're a real original kid.
Nosklein 3 years ago
blame the jews, you're a real original kid.
Nosklein 3 years ago
I give this video FIVE stars...., so soothing, now I don't need sleeping pills any more.
thanks for posting
gregmorrow 3 years ago
If there is no Adam and no fall in the garden of eden then there is no reason for Jesus to have come, been crucified, and raise from the dead. If Jesus actually rose from the dead then it is a pretty good bet that the rest of the account is true also.
mejc2 3 years ago
u talked too fast. it sounded like "im spouting bullshit. im spouting bullshit"
Bijb2002 3 years ago
really good vid! thanks. have you seen any chuck missler teaching?
rho4711 3 years ago
Future gay priest right there.
xxxDeadheartxxx 3 years ago
.... take the blue pill!
Heil Xenu!!!!!!!
Kaksmula 3 years ago
big vid Kaba...big vid...broke it down nice, even for the simple minded.
darpachief 3 years ago
All three main religions of today Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all come from Abraham, and his decendents created the different views of the God of Abraham----If there is a God, then all three are wrong becuase the different views are different from that of Abraham who was right from the begining.
USMC917 3 years ago
islam is a mistake...
darpachief 3 years ago
so is all religion.
USMC917 3 years ago
time will show...:)
amadea3 3 years ago
true :D
USMC917 3 years ago
jesus christ thats a pretty face
the kind you'd find on someone i could save
thesunofjuda 3 years ago
looooooooooool
darpachief 3 years ago
wow your 'facts' are useless bullshit that prove nothing.
USMC917 3 years ago 3
why dont you try refuting his arguments instead of shouting "BULLSHIT!!"
migkillertwo 3 years ago 3
look at his other videos i have and i owned him.
USMC917 3 years ago
lol, you owned him? okay, if this is true, then you should easily be able to condense his points and refute him. Now you cant send them in the comment section, but could you send me a PM?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
im sending u the pm now..
USMC917 3 years ago
Watch The Amazing Atheist's video response. He has more fact and he has a more convincing argument considering yours has been used for the past hundreds of years.
Gene2340 3 years ago 42
Where are your facts? I dont consider bible as "fact book",it's harry potter with a touch of "Jesus". Hah. Christian scums...
VicariusFiliiDei 3 years ago 12
The problem with your arguments is that they are based on the assumption that the gospels are accurate historical documents which they are clearly not.
AntiChrist67 3 years ago 9
One problem: NONE OF YOUR HISTORICAL SOURCES ARE VALID.
Nice try though, piglet, in justifying your superstitious, cult beliefs.
SilentHobo 3 years ago 18
your evidence for the resurrection is useless bullshit. Read a biology text book instead of the bible.
kintarocrab 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
your fucking stupid you fat ass mushroom ugly mother fucker, i want you to die of cancer you macdonalds eating fat mother fucker
MagixReborn 3 years ago
Wow!
crazypants88 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thanks boinkmakr you saved 10 minutes of my life!
ekfosho 3 years ago
The trick question.
How do you know that Jesus actually died on the cross?
lovasip 3 years ago 3
"Paul didn't want to see Jesus"
Like you can control your dreams and hallucinations.
lovasip 3 years ago 3
You sound very smart for your age, but I don't agree with anything you said.
RenzokuzenX 3 years ago 5
this is boring
Norphax 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WOW WASTED 10 min of my life
Heres a short summary Im a fat ass,i love cock,im stupid,im an idiot who belives any thing,
Boinkmakr 3 years ago
"WOW WASTED 10 min of my life"
Haha that's funny but somehow I don't think we missed out on a cure for cancer.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
ahahahahahhaa
MagixReborn 3 years ago 3
Jesus is a gay zombie who's confused about who the hell he and his father is. And because he's a zombie, he makes us eat flesh and blood... Jesus turns us into zombies. Can you say, J-Virus?
Gihaal 3 years ago
Most of your evidence doesn't pass the dissimilarity criteria. Aside from the fact that miracles simply don't happen.
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet that was executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews (and the messiah but that wasn't illegal). If things would have went a little differently you could be worshiping Apollonius.
Personally, I think you just like arguing but if you actually believe all of this it must be painful.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago
....
Subfightr 3 years ago
Q. Did it happen?
A. No.
There, I saved us all 10 minutes.
ReligionIsACrutch 3 years ago 6
Logic at its best.
Gihaal 3 years ago
lol
vedicardi 3 years ago
Define "miracle". Even crazy stuff like walking marble statues - a miracle, surely!? - can mathematically-speaking happen (if all the atoms move for some reason in the right way). But the odds against it are so huge that it is about as "impossible" as one could hope for.
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
Everything has convinced someone before.Also bear in mind that Christians in the early early days were largely unschooled, ignorant people. My case does not rest on this point, but it is a suggestive fact none-the-less.
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
Right on!
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
Indeed! Also: has Kabane even read the bible? I jest: he's v. clever- I'm SURE he has. But then why can't he see the credulousness of the people in the bible? In the bible one is considered a prophet if one spouts trite or rabid nonsense & dance about or fall to the ground in a fit. 1 Samuel (I think it is) has some amusing descriptions of this. People doing that today would LITERALLY be committed & Kabane would NOT believe them. And why should he?
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
good video kabane. G
KeithTruth 4 years ago
Your entire argument is just based on basic coherency within the Bible.
I could say that Gandalf really existed because it is accounted in the Lord of the Rings, and at no point in the book is there any contradictory evidence.
smoke57 4 years ago
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. The Bible is not one book. Stop treating it as it is.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
I've already dealt with this criticism of yours in one (possibly two: can't remember) of my vids.
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
According to history and his argument. The ressurection is clearly the best explaination, given the lame-ass alternatives.
Opt your basically saying no it's not because it involves "supernatural tendencies which don't exist or are at best highly unlikely." It is this common belief among people that causes the non-acceptance of the resurrection which you asked about earlier.
Clarency 4 years ago
People dying for a lie, or breaking into a tomb when it's punishable by death, or almost any other natural explanation no matter how bizzare is a more reasonable than a "supernatural" one, since there is no empirical scientific evidence for any supernatural claim ever. Which by default makes the supernatural the least likely explanation for anything.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Your argument goes under the premise that something is only true when it is supported by scientific evidence, which is of course false.
Also, asserting that a miracle (resurrection) is improbable hence should be placed at the back of the line is also flawed. Probability is determined by comparing the explanation with the background knowledge of the situation.
Screw it... 500 characters is nowhere near enough...
Clarency 4 years ago
"Your argument goes under the premise that something is only true when it is supported by scientific evidence, which is of course false"
I never said that.
"Also, asserting that a miracle (resurrection) is improbable hence should be placed at the back of the line is also flawed"
Improbable is understating my position. All but impossible would be more accurate.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
What happened to the philosophy of science? Science cannot comment, positively OR NEGATIVELY on the supernatural. You just used a common creationist fallacy.
Kabane52 4 years ago
"Science cannot comment, positively OR NEGATIVELY on the supernatural"
Who made that statement? I would disagree with it completely. Science can, and should comment when claims are made that the supernatural is influencing events in the natural world.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
Indeed. Whilst the "supernatural" is not strictly amenable to scientific inquiry, it becomes amenable to scientific enquiry insofar as influences or affects natural world events. And a supernatural that never involves itself in the natural world would be the stuff of such languor as to be completely disavowed by supernaturalists.
BryanAJParry 3 years ago
You can study the effects of miracles on nature, but you cannot study or conduct scientific experiments on the supernatural. Miracles are occurrences that defy physics are are in some other way naturally impossible, and occur only through the interference of the supernatural.
nevadie133 3 years ago
Your strawmanning.
Muslims die for their beliefs because they simply believe they are right.
The apostles who died we're in a unique position as they would know if they were right or wrong, based on what they saw.
The difference between belief and knowledge is what your ignoring.
Clarency 4 years ago
Sure.
M4B21S88 4 years ago
amen! lol
JesusDisciple777 4 years ago
So the article basically asks did the apostles die and did they die willingly for it.
(1) Apostles belief in the resurrection is attested by 8 sources and their martyrdom is attested by 9 sources. Almost 99.9% of historians agree that the apostle's sincerely believed Jesus rose.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(2) Another reason we can know apostles died willingly for it was even after former members were been martyred, they still kept preaching Christ is risen and didn't stop when persecutions arose. It could be taken on their part that they HAD to be willingly to go forth after martyrdoms as they would have known the consequences if they didn't.
(3)Also the church fathers who documented some their deaths were also martyred to, with good sources documenting their deaths.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(4) It shows great credibility on the part of the church fathers as why would they die for a cause which was built on lies especially by them?
(5) Another reason is that Tertullian a early church father debated with pagans and he told them to check the roman records of the apostles death if they didn't believe him. Tertullian whose works are still treated as genius today, would have to be the biggest idiot in the world to do that if that was a lie.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(6) And lastly we have a secular source documenting one apostles death. James the brother of Jesus.
darklink0112 4 years ago
wasn't james himself a christian who saw the risen Jesus?
migkillertwo 4 years ago
yes James the brother of Jesus was a skeptic who saw the risen christ and his martyrdom in 62 AD is documented by josephus.
There's a second James the son of zebedee who also saw the risen christ and he was a disciple and was martyered in 44 AD.
darklink0112 4 years ago
"the article basically asks did the apostles die and did they die willingly for it."
You should read the rest of it too (including the part about james). It makes the case that we do not have enough evidence to conclude that the apostles were killed and could have saved themselves by repenting. To establish your point 1 you would need to demonstrate that the information in the article is incomplete or false.
bitbutter 4 years ago
I will adress those claims when iam done with school today. but iam not getting what you mean by theres not enough evidence. What standart are you judging it by?
darklink0112 4 years ago
We don't have good evidence that the apostles did die 'knowingly and willingly for their beliefs'. afaik this claim is based on church traditions or dubious authenticity.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Why is the universal tradition of the church unreliable? Nearly all historians agree with me on this point.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Really? Did you come across this article before (google) "daylight atheism How Did the Apostles Die"? Things don't seem so very clear cut.
bitbutter 4 years ago
Well first Steven died in 33 AD and the apostles were still preaching, Then James son of zebedee died in 44AD and apostles still preached, Then James the Just died in 62AD and apostles still preached. I think to go any further with the claim could be taken on their part that the died willingly for it, as they would have known the consequences of preaching.
darklink0112 4 years ago
*Also Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus death not just tradition.
*Also the Church fathers asked their critics to look at the roman records to check for aposltes death if they didnt believe them.
*Also polycarp in his letter to the philpian mentions apostles death just just 110-140 AD mentions apostles death. And remember polycarp was martyrded to and his martyrdom is one of the best attested ones.
And also ignatius in the same time mentions it to and he was martyered to.
darklink0112 4 years ago
*Letters are one of the best pieces of evidence as it conveys people private thoughts and polycarps and ignatius were letters.
* Historians do agree apostles sincere belief in the ressurection and no historian just claims it was just a mass conspiracy theory while the church fathers themselves were been martyerd and were been persecuted by rome. it makes no sense.
*people have to show how they were lying and tell us where they died instead and show evidence of it, but no one does that.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Sorry, i have trouble following what you wrote. Did you read the article?
bitbutter 4 years ago
oh sorry, no i didnt read the article i just read your comments about the apostles dying for their beliefs.
darklink0112 4 years ago
I just quickly glanced over it now, and it seems like they put the same arguments who put on the comments.
darklink0112 4 years ago
np. (you seem very knowledgable about this stuff, you may find things in the article you disagree with.. if so, leaving a comment on that page might be the most productive place for it)
bitbutter 4 years ago
k i will do that:)
darklink0112 4 years ago
umm i just went the site and ebonmuse said the comments are closed.He does leave out some real early evidence by church fathers who were the first generation after apostles. you can even go to wikipidia and and look up saint peter and saint paul and see the real early testimony of their deaths.
darklink0112 4 years ago
also you can look up james the just the brother of Jesus in wikipidia to where he left of writtings by hegessipus.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Do you fart at 0:16?
cuffey666 4 years ago
No, it was the poor quality sound that you get when you use quick capture.
Kabane52 4 years ago
greer-heard*com/schedule*shtm
04/04/08 ehrman vs wallace, dont forget about this one!
ok?! ;-)
pikechris1 4 years ago
k i will watch it.
darklink0112 4 years ago
Good video. Thorough.
mooglecharmed 4 years ago
(1)"The title is a misrepresentation of what the book is about. The first 4 chapters are an informative look at textual criticism of the NT. The last 3 chapters are a summary of Ehrman's agnostic positions as outlined in his earlier work 'Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'. What is troubling is that Ehrman simply regurgitates his previous arguments without any attempt to address the scholarly criticisms of his peers concerning this first work."
darklink0112 4 years ago
(2)"Another troubling issue is how Ehrman claims that a misinterpretation proves some kind of cover up,but then if you look in one of the other gospels, there is the exact wording in a parallel text. For example, Ehrman points to Matt 24:36, saying that the translation does not include the "even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come" and tries to say that it is a cover-up that this was excluded and that it proves Jesus was not a God.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(3)"I will leave to you whether or not it is a leap to question the divinity of Jesus based on that one statement. As to the cover-up, see Mark 13:32 — "But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father." The fact that Ehrman makes no mention of this OBVIOUS parallel scripture passage is very telling concerning his motives and the extent at which the lay reader should trust his judgment."
darklink0112 4 years ago
(4)"If you do read this book, I encourage you to be skeptical of his positions and research things yourself... use an online Bible to search for parallel texts for example. Also, search the internet for reviews critical of his work so that you can hear the other side of the argument and come to your own conclusion."
This was done by a reviewer as it shows some of the obvious mistakes in his books as there are many more.
darklink0112 4 years ago
cover up? no... evolution of thought, a thought process... that aint any cover up... is there a cover up? where?
i would claim jesus was not god, neither the son of god, because there is no theistic god. because this world operates on a different principle, about which we learn in physics.
textual scholars dont have such tools and or relate to them only marginally...
pikechris1 4 years ago
(1)"cover up? no... evolution of thought, a thought process... that aint any cover up... is there a cover up? where?"
*again no evidene of that, yes we are going in circles.
darklink0112 4 years ago
wrong pal, evolution of thought in the bible stories is admitted even by dr wallace or dr craig. both can be described as opponents to dr ehrman. its only you who is going in circles... you need to start really learning something new, pal...
that was a really poor attempt...
pikechris1 4 years ago
evolution of thought, ok theres nothing wrong with that, i thought you mean legend evolving and thats why claimed i already addressed that.
"its only you who is going in circles"
*yes of course(sarcasm)
"you need to start really learning something new, pal..."
*dont worry about that, i got my resources.
darklink0112 4 years ago
we could go even that far. evolution of thought gave birth to a legend. i would buy such hypothesis... ;-)
gee... when will you learn...
pal, do you know who dr wallace is?
pikechris1 4 years ago
"evolution of thought gave birth to a legend."
what??? that dosent even make sense. as theological concepts can change, but that
is way different than a LEGEND.!!
daniel wallace, i saw his article about bart erhman.
darklink0112 4 years ago
yeah. since with time the stories become more flowery, they give rise to a legend. this is one of the first principles you will learn when studying comparative literature.
denying changes in the theological concepts of christianity over time is foolish.
seeing, reading, understanding are three different categories, pal. first its not an article about ehrman but about "misquoting jesus". its a very professional critique, well written except for very few mistakes, perhaps logical fallacies. ;-)
pikechris1 4 years ago
"denying changes in the theological concepts of christianity over time is foolish"
*I admit theological concepts change, but they are still not legend.
darklink0112 4 years ago
according to you, not according to me, pal. as well i said they give rise to a legend and not they are a legend. there are many possibilities how to explain this but 500 chars arent simply enough, so im not going to.
from a naturalist point of view, there is no place where you could put a theistic g0d - deity into. i can imagine entities without time, that aint a big problem, but without a place equals non existence.
pikechris1 4 years ago
pal, ive read several critiques on "misquoting jesus". some links are to be found here, on the bottom of the page.
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Ehrman
the problem is, dr. wallace makes as well many assumptions in his conclusions. language scholars are inherently forced to do so.
the problem is, there is very little archeological evidence supporting their thesis. jumping to the conlusion "...and therefore g0d" is foolish. even dr. wallace is at that much honest, he does gives us a hint at least.
pikechris1 4 years ago
then read tektonics refute it.
"the problem is, dr. wallace makes as well many assumptions in his conclusions"
*isnt that what bart erhman is doing?
the problem is, there is very little archeological evidence supporting their thesis. jumping to the conlusion "...
* the same thing with bart erhman, when confronted about the passage about son of god, he goes to say a coverup.
darklink0112 4 years ago
just saying he even admits, his position is in the minority, and in his book he didn't take into consideration the cristisms he got historians.
darklink0112 4 years ago
doenst make any god true or real. again(some of my comments did not appear here) ... look up the professional blogs. that simply aint true what you are saying. every coin has two sides. do your homework before you talk trash, ok?
as well, e.g. see the debate dr craig vs dr ehrman... gee...
pikechris1 4 years ago
when did this turn into a debate about god?
"do your homework before you talk trash"
yes iam talking trash, ok thats funny.
darklink0112 4 years ago
hä?
ok... since dr. habermas and dr. wallace jump to conclusions and arguments from g0d...
i dont know what you see, but most of my comments are related directly to yours. this app seems to take some time until those comments appear where they were intended to appear, if they do so at all. sometimes it just doesnt work.
pikechris1 4 years ago
tektonics is much worse then dr wallace...
i dont think so, he points out operating possibilities. it aint that easy to turn them down.
you see, the theistic argument in general is without a proper base, it simply contradicts modern science.
pal, there is no cover up... you evidently have misunderstood something. if there are more possibilities, which one are you going to pick out and why?
greer-heard*com/schedule*shtm
04/04/08 ehrman vs wallace, dont forget about this one. ;-)
pikechris1 4 years ago
*what is operating possiblities, i have looked everywere for it? .
*Iam not getting into a debate about god, now you can forget about that.
darklink0112 4 years ago
2. "In contrast, the value of many scientific ideas can be objectively evaluated by established techniques, so that the origin or history of the idea is irrelevant to its value. E.g., the chemist (K) claimed to have discovered the ring structure of the benzene molecule during a dream of a snake biting its own tail. While this fact is psychologically interesting, it is neither evidence for nor against the hypothesis that benzene has a ring structure, which had to be tested for correctness."
pikechris1 4 years ago
1. "The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it."
pikechris1 4 years ago
"The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating "
*ok so tell me how they are unreliable and how they are hearsay instead of you opinion
darklink0112 4 years ago
the origin of testimony is important, but you never say anything how its unrelibale.
(1) you say its condradictory,
*sigh you mean discrenpies, and that is extacly what we see with real eyewitness.
If there werent any discrenpcies we would be accusing them of collusion.
Also iam wondereng first you go from exegesis,then to enemy attestation, now to gospels.hahah
anything else?
darklink0112 4 years ago
again coming up with straw man arguments? when will you learn.
e.g. many of those "discrepancies" are crucial. read ehrman, he beautifully shows the evolution of the new testament. he evidently shows, most of it is a made up story, which might be based on a weak basis of historical events.
btw, if specific attestations contradict each other, which one are you gonna pick? how is the judge going to come up to a decision? get it, pal?
at least learn more about rhetorical logic pal... :)
pikechris1 4 years ago
at least get a better source than bart erhman, as he is not the scholarly consesus
darklink0112 4 years ago
his works of popular books, tell me where in the scholary pubication he was any credibility.have you ever read any rebuttels to his work. i cant believe you think his work is the scholarly consensus.
darklink0112 4 years ago
lol
does there have to be one? damn you are a weird one. disprove those theories. why cant those "consensuals" do so? why cant they stand a simple test proposed by ehrman? cause they are dreamers, pal. we dont need consensual dreamers but serious critique. disprove it or be silent... gee...
pikechris1 4 years ago
disprove those theories.
What theories? why cant they stand a simple test proposed by ehrman??
what test?
tell me what test so i can disprove it
darklink0112 4 years ago
go to tektonics and it refutes any arugments bart makes.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(1)"Ehrman states that these errors in spelling are the most numerous. He is correct. Scholars agree that the vast majority, appx. 97%, of all the errors in the manus and copies are spelling errors. Scholars also agree that no core Christian doctrine has ever been affected by these spelling errors."
darklink0112 4 years ago
(2)"How would they know this? By a process called textual criticism one can determine the wording and meaning of a passage if enough manus are found. Textual criticism requires that enough manus be available to compare to one another in order to determine the wording of what was in the original. Ehrman only concentrated on the Greek manus (of which there are appx. 5,600 copies available), but makes no mention of the manus found in the Syriac, Egyptian, Latin, and other language manus."
darklink0112 4 years ago
(3)"When adding these manus the number jumps to 24,000, more than enough to determine the wording of the originals! By uating all these manus the wording of the original can be determined to very near the original."
(4)The remaining 1% is additions. You heard me right, additions. There are three additions in particular that cause alarm in Ehrman and these cannot be overlooked
darklink0112 4 years ago
original? what original? a made up story? looks like, pal. the dating plays here a quite important role, doenst it? the early exegesis plays here an important role as well, doenst it?
honestly, i dont care about 1%,10% or 20%, why would i? the key point is, the story did not exist prior to a specific date since it needed time to evolve. after this happened, indeed, the discrepancies would be very small. a good analogy here would be the kuran...
pikechris1 4 years ago
"the key point is, the story did not exist prior to a specific date since it needed time to evolve. after this happened, indeed, the discrepancies would be very small. a good analogy here would be the kuran... "
what date would that be? why dont you provide example and evidence instead of just stating claims.
darklink0112 4 years ago
(1) Early church fathers from 90 AD talked about same Jesus
(2) Gospels from (65-90) provide as same Jesus
(3) pauls letters from (54-65) as same Jesus
(4) oral tradition from 1 corinthians 15 and acts oral summaries go back (33-55) Ad
tell me when did the legend evolve?
why don't you actually try to disprove each on my arguemtsn and actually provide evidence for yours. I know thats hard for you to do.:)
darklink0112 4 years ago
1 false... there were several views about jebus
2 false... there are several contradictory accounts about jebus
3 paul letters see for example "elaine pagels"
4 well, doesnt mean those stories are mock ups, does it...
pal... you provide evidence based on a highly disputed book.
i can only claim, read actually the peer reviewed papers, magazines etc... did you? you rely on exegesis, im trying to direct you to archeology and other historical sciences...
pikechris1 4 years ago
(1) k you mean in the second centuary when heretical sects came forth
(2) Sigh* again? discrepencies in gospels are evidence of eyewitness
(3) tell me what elaine pagels are. as most historicans state the 7 letters of paul are genuine
(4) you only claim,BUT NO EVIDENCE.
"you provide evidence based on a highly disputed book"
iam i guess one day i will be hearing how its unreliable, considering the fact that was your argument which didnt work.
darklink0112 4 years ago
k elaine pagels says gnotism influenced pauls letters and christianity was influenced by gnostism.
* wow, k gnostism didn't affect christianity till the second centuary.
darklink0112 4 years ago
gee... when will you learn how science operates... its like claiming dr. dino has it... lol
pikechris1 4 years ago
"gee... when will you learn how science operates... its like claiming dr. dino has it... lol "
what are you talking about, why the change of topic?
darklink0112 4 years ago
its quite appropriate in our case and its not changing the topic. you refer, lets say, to some standard golden middle approach of standard scholars and apologists , but you fail to recognize, there are more questions open then there are answered. people im referring to are trying to close those open questions and their work is based on scientific method. you simply dismiss it without examining it or dismiss it because of fallacious assumptions. you need to learn how science operates.
pikechris1 4 years ago
"people im referring to are trying to close those open questions and their work is based on scientific method. you simply dismiss it without examining it or dismiss it because of fallacious assumptions. you need to learn how science operates. "
really tell me what person and what method of science they use?
its funny i wonder how one uses the rules of science to history?
darklink0112 4 years ago
makes no sense, eh? the papers pal...
there are hundreds of them, pal... the papers pal...
gee... you dont know how science is applied when examining history? well, reneducation, thats all i can say... reneducation...
pikechris1 4 years ago
*ok i was going to keep quiet, but i just couldn't stand see these comments.
*what papers are you talking about. give me an example since you say hundreds, surely you can give me one.
"you dont know how science is applied when examining history? "
no i dont know, care to give the scientific method that is used to test history. please enlighthen me. please reneducate me!
for every one of your claims you make iam going ask you to put up the evidence or shut up.
darklink0112 4 years ago
looks like i can post again...
what papers? peer reviewed archeological papers... the problem is, usually you need some extra ferria to get access there...
sorry i cant enlighten you. this is basic school stuff. open a book and educate yourself or start attending a better school then you are doing right now.
pal, the problem is. i exposed your fallacies, which make your reasoning invalid. i dont have to put up any further evidence. you need to find a way around those fallacies... ;-)
pikechris1 4 years ago
PUT UP THE EVIDENCE OF SHUT UP!!.
darklink0112 4 years ago
peer reviewed papers arent evidence? wtf? look it up, m0r0n... lol
pikechris1 4 years ago
put up the evidence or shut up!!!1
darklink0112 4 years ago
sbl-site . org
jstor . org
journalseek . net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issn&query=0021-9231
muse . jhu . edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v005/5.3bks_received . html
brill . nl/ntts
learn something you t00l!
pikechris1 4 years ago
that has nothing with your claims.
show me a site with your claims insteading of just listing sites.
"learn something you t00l"
why the insults?
darklink0112 4 years ago
pal... the claims are there, you only need access to the libraries... you need the ferria, thats all. thats were real science is being conducted. it aint free knowledge, sorry.
insults? that aint any insult, you are an apologetic t00l, arent you. whats wrong with that? i dont think thats an insult and certainly it aint intended as an insult... gee...
you simply dont have the supporting science and you want to defend your position. im fine with that... ;-)
pikechris1 4 years ago
"the claims are there, you only need access to the libraries... you need the ferria, thats all. thats were real science is being conducted. it aint free knowledge, sorry"
*Sigh* how convienent.
"insults? that aint any insult, you are an apologetic t00l,. whats wrong with that? i dont think thats an insult and certainly it aint intended as an insult... gee"
even if you are not a christian, i still respect you, and you attack your apponents view in a debate not try to belittle them.
darklink0112 4 years ago
sigh? convenient? its lots of real, hard work, pal. theres nothing convenient in science in general... when will you learn...
i doubt it strongly if you respect me. since you come up with so many rhetorical fallacies i could start accusing you of deliberately lying and subscribing to heavy partisan agenda, which indeed you are. naming "things" by name aint belittling...
ignoring scientific evidence and especially professional scientific peer reviewed magazines make you look quite bad, pal...
pikechris1 4 years ago
"I could start accusing you of deliberately lying and subscribing to heavy partisan agenda" dont try it, as i would the same thing to you.
"ignoring scientific evidence and especially professional scientific peer reviewed magazines make you look quite bad, pal... "
*k your right iam a moron
pikechris good luck:), iam done with this debate. have a good day
darklink0112 4 years ago
1 "heretical" was every single christian sect from the beginning. we could almost say, as many groups as many heresies (factions of believers). later it evolved into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th century conflicts.
2 wrong. there are crucial discrepancies which contradict to the theory of eyewitness in general. read the bible in a parallel style.
3 yeah. here we go 7 out of how many 14?
4 evidence is science pal. peer reviewed papers about history of early first century of "palestine". just look them up!
pikechris1 4 years ago
YOU CAN NEVER SHOW ME EVIDENCE CAN YOU?
(1) show me evidence they were form the beggining
(2) hmmmmm iam waiting what is it?
(3) 7 out of 13. nobody argues its gnostic, but some argue it was written by a follower of paul.but it is condradicted by the evidence
(4)evidence is science pal. peer reviewed papers about history of early first century of "palestine". just look them up?
why dont you tell me as you would know right?
darklink0112 4 years ago
what evidence? the peer reviewed magazines?
is that so difficult to google a bit around?
of course, usually you will need to pay to get access to those... thats the issue here, i guess.
again... just read a book and dont come up with rhetorical logical fallacies. you really need to learn how to reason. christianity is based on fallacies.
3. eh? frau doctor has an operative hypothesis. it still holds.
4. "evidence is science" was a rather unlucky proposition of mine. retracting it...
pikechris1 4 years ago
so i should read a logical falacy book?
i got it, is that it, anything else? as we are going around in circles
darklink0112 4 years ago
yeah. do it. and you might find out why many apologists are wrong in their assumptions. you even dont need to be a scientist or to "sit directly on the well" (e.g. being a maecenas of sciences).
indeed there is anything else... look up the f0cking, damned peer reviewed papers...
yeah... cause you refuse to accept my honest advice and keep coming with rhetorical logical fallacies. tsk tsk tsk
pikechris1 4 years ago
dude i got nothing else to say to you and iam tired of going around in circles. if you want to get the last word go ahead.
darklink0112 4 years ago
pal, fallaciously... it refutes his arguments fallaciously... just as you do here... when will you learn... gee... lol
pikechris1 4 years ago
so what is your claim i dont know logical fallacies? i thought the topic was ?????
I dont know what was the topic as you never stayed on one topic?
darklink0112 4 years ago
pal, you havnet disproved a single claim of mine here. i have pointed out several of your logical rhetorical fallacies.
i told you, read a book. learn about rhetorical fallacies. and stop using them.
unc . edu/depts/rel_stud/people/facultydocs/bio-ehrman . shtml
as well, why the lies, pal? turning to lies now? thats a really poor approach.
the scribe test. gee. read a book.
and please stop committing rhetorical logical fallacies in your responses. its really pitiful to read.
pikechris1 4 years ago
you know what i dont know a lot of rehetorical fallacies and i admit, but at the end of the day, you failed to argue any of your points.
you go from exegesis,enemny attestations, then condradictory, then barterhman.
darklink0112 4 years ago
today i will go learn rehetorical fallacies, maybe you should find better arguments to attack christianity.
darklink0112 4 years ago