Josephus? Really? He wrote almost in 100 CE about the behavior of Christ's followers, and there is evidence to believe some or all of his work on Christ was an interpolation.
>9 Traditional Authors of the New Testament Gospels and Letters
Also nope. The 4 gospels are anonymously written, and were also written after the fact. The earliest bit of gospel we have is from 50-60 CE, almost 20-30 years after Jesus supposedly died. The letter of Paul mean nothing, because Paul NEVER ACTUALLY MET JESUS.
Also no citation. Also, nope. That's not how historicity works. Jesus' existence cannot be confirmed by reports after the fact, ESPECIALLY 150 years after the fact. We need EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY before we can can definitively that Jesus did exist.
Also, pro-tip: even if we had eyewitness reports, that will wouldn't be enough to establish his divinity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All the none biblical refrences you provide lived after Jesus died. And the biblical refrences in themselves are entirely bias and flawed.The funny thing is, there is record of pontius pilate, yet no record of him condenming a man called Jesus, or Yehshua as he would of been called back then.You mention Josephus who mentioned Jesus once, 60 years after he died, and Pliny who had a similar story.There is also record of Christianity before Jesus was supposidly born, kind of strange dont you think?
hello.Jesus exist?yes.He was the son of god?Noooooooooooooo.Goood is to great to have a human son and is above all religios idiot who think that god is Dudhaa,alaah or jesus.All that writings that you mantioned are writted buy jewels so in don`t give a fuck.Why not the real god is zamolxes?Why don`t you believe in him?and you believe in jewed stories.
Everybody is taking stories out and putting in meaning. Let's pick to what we think is true and write about. There are no archeological evidence on Jesus or any great men of the bible. And to say he was resurrected when he was in the flesh is absurd. Christians know he didn't exist. Nobody is being healed, raised from the dead. I would become a great story teller if I didn't have a club or t.v to occupy my mind. Those men were great writers in ancient history. Anybody can predict the future.
The links btw Superman & Jesus are as numerous as those btw Jesus & many mythological characters, but my point was not their similarities but that they're both similarly unsupported by evidence. Simply asserting the evidence for Jesus is greater than evidence he's a literary creation isn't compelling unless substantiated. Most historical figures, including Pythagoras, have compelling evidence for their existence. But Pythagoras doesn't need to have been real to be significant; Jesus DOES.
No fucking shit Jesus existed, next step: prove he had a mental illness and was no different from psycho-religious homeless drunks in NYC. Just think...they had no medication for mental ailments, and water wasn't sanitary, thus they all drank wine.
I've already addressed this. Even if I hypothetically conceded that not a single "historian" (though why you discount Biblical scholars is beyond me) held this view, that would not say anything of the veracity of the claim. I can throw out names like Robert M. Price or Frank Zindler or Richard Carrier, or even Bart Ehrman, though Ehrman may still believe in an historical Jesus. But you'll just attack their character & avoid the arguments themselves...as you've already done.
I've already cited major Biblical contradictions. Read the last chapter of Matthew & record every detail of the tomb story. Then do the same for Mark on a separate sheet of paper. Then Luke. Then John. Then compare the info on each sheet of paper. I'm not saying to just take my word that there's disagreement on every detail; you can see for yourself. What time of day? Who was there? Was the stone already moved? Was any1 already there? Did they tell any1? It's right there in the book.
@mjr256 The links between Superman and Jesus are little more than rhetoric. Of course, it is possible that all of the sources for Jesus collaborated in creating a sophisticated fiction, but absolutely no evidence for this being the case. I could declare our sources for pythagoras to be fictional, and thus deny his existence, but this just isn't how historians work. In your list of supporters, the most esteemed one is Bart Ehrman, who is currently writing a book debunking the Jesus-as-myth claim.
1st of all, there's thousands of authors within 80 years during Superman's life, which mention his existence & actually record many events in his life. So you can divide these thousands of sources up into a couple of different categories. 1st, we have the 2 original authors from Action Comics, Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. We also have numerous later Golden Age writers. Then there's the Silver Age writers followed by the modern era writers. Then we got the animated series' & film writers.
There are many radical skeptics today who claim that Superman didn't exist or who seriously doubt his existence. However, there are a number of critical problems w/ doubting his' existence due to the early in abundance of evidence that we have of Superman's life & deeds. In fact, there's almost unanimous consent among skeptical & critical historians today that Superman did in fact exist. So what kind of evidence is there? Well, we have a lot of textual evidence actually for Superman's existence
@mjr256 ur logic is amazing; provide one non-Christian HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't; and provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says superman really exited; did u attend dawkin's school of philosophy? superman doesn't have any causal relationship with the real world; only in never, never land is Jesus and superman in the same category; so please provide the information i asked for; if u can't, then GO WAY!!!
I can certainly name a few Biblical scholars who consider the mythicist view but it's an moot point. It's the evidence that matters, not popular opinion. & the evidence for an historical Jesus is shoddy at best. There's no record until 40 years after his alleged death. All 4 Gospels disagree about major details. Many of the Biblical accounts were added much later. I could go on. Don't be deceived by Zod. Accept Superman as your savior so he can save you from The Phantom Zone.
I told u b4, I’m NOT interested in ur opinion; plz provide the SCHOLARS and their sources who say that Jesus wasn’t crucified and tacitus was merely writing down what Christians believe. u FAIL miserably; ur name is an oxymoron.
do u know what that pistis means? Also, fool, u claimed to not believe anything by faith; yet u believe that Jesus didn’t exist, he wasn’t crucified and that tacitus was merely writing down what Christians believe INSPITE of the evidence-this is called blind-faith! i don't have that kind of faith; also, historians use the NT to find out about Jesus, not tacitus; i quoted Michael grant to refute u. So, u deal with it, genius!
tacitus mentioned many things that happened b4 he was born; an historian writing about WW2 will use sources. Provide one tactician scholar and his scholarly source that agrees with u, mr historian.
"after he was supposedly executed" provide one HISTORIAN and and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus wasn't crucified.
“Christanity is faith-based not evidence-based. Deal with it.” The greek word for faith used in the NT is “pistis”...
Tacitus "was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition." "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material."-Martin
So, SCHOLARS disagree with you that he was just writing what Christians believed without indicating so.
"All you need to do is follow the evidence: He wrote about Jesus in 116 AD..." u have NO evidence to follow, only psuedo scholarship; that's not how history is done
"It is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable."-Martin
Tacitus "was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition." "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material."-Martin
this is the madness of atheism trying to put words in tacitus' mouth. Here are sum quotes from REAL tactician scholars on tacitus and how he writes history; notice the words they use, genius:
"the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust" -syme
He "was no stranger to industrious investigation"-syme
"for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not to be doubted"-Chilver
"Tacitus doesn't have to explicitly state...in order for us to logically draw the conclusion...." really? hey everybody, we have a tactician scholar in the house; ur "logic" only works in never, never land where pseudo-historians are taken as scholars; also, u KNOW what tacitus wrote, inspite of no PROOF that he was just writing down what Christians say? LOL!!! tacitus would have checked his sources and made sure that it really happened
I don't need evidence to believe Heaven is real. I just trust God and his Word that it is real. God to me is trustworthy. The Bible is my source of truth. The Bible makes sense to me. It teaches me why the world behaves the way it does. It teaches me what sin is. It teaches me everything I know. BIBLE=BASIC INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE LEAVING EARTH! Life would be pretty meaningless without Faith! How does a husband know that his wife wont leave him? He trusts her. Trust is vitally important!
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) and "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5.7) There is plenty of evidence of all kinds of things, but people refuse to believe it. For example we know that a diet of fruits and vegetables prevent all kinds of diseases, but people don't believe it. Even if there was 100% proof and evidence of God people still wouldn't believe it. Does the creature question its creator? How proud we are.
I believe that any serious scholar who is a professional in their field would not dare put their name on any paper that states jesus did not exist. Reputations takes a long time to biuld while it only take seconds to destroy a lifetimes work. Look up Simon Greenleaf, a wonderful story about the world's expert on evidence in his time and how he came to belive in Jesus through the evidence.
sorry, dawkins-like arguments only work in never-never land; i think u should contact historians and biblical archaeologists and tell them that the Bible is a fairytale.
the only thing i want is one atheist historian and his scholarly source that say Jesus didn't exist, otherwise, GO AWAY!!!
did u notice he used the NT? considered urself pwnd, fool; claiming u know how historians apply the historical method to the NT, when clearly u know A LOT.
now, coming back to ur claim that the Bible is a fairytale-have you heard about Biblical Archaeology? The discipline that uses the Bible as a textbook? the discipline that brought us things only mentioned in the Bible? like over 25000 artifacts?
"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned....To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars"
@chilimaan "I think you need to go look over the points of the historical method and see what weight differing types of evidence have. It makes no difference however to the utter stupidity of trying to use the fairy tale to verify the fairy tale. If such a method should be considered sufficient to prove the bible it would be even better suited to proving virtually any self consistent story. " LOL!!! FOOL!!! historians use the NT! let me pwn u by quoting an atheist historian-michael Grant:
@chilimaan "...contra John; that Jesus had no real impact on the ancient world. Great. We're on the same page. The bible is wrong." LOL!!! i didn't say that u intellectual person u; i said that Jesus did more things than what was recorded in John; John simply uses an hyperbole to say that!
"Come now. Try to demonstrate the existence of Jesus without repudiating your primary source." please provide one atheist historian and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
then u agreed with "LetReasonPrevail1, when (s)he said "Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more."
like i said, historians use the NT; but now, lets see what an historian u really are; provide the phrase from tacitus where he uses words like "According to Christians" or "They say...." or sumthing like that; if u can't, considered urself refuted, mr. historian.
u agreed by claiming there aren't multiple attestations of Jesus' life & ministry by claiming that apologists make bogus claims; yet u can't provide one atheist historian and his scholarly source who even suggests that Jesus didn't exist; u know why? they use NT; it has multiple attestations of Jesus.
u quoted LetReasonPrevail1 as saying: "How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?"
and then u replied "Apologists are little more than trained public relations people who have, among other things, mastered the art of keeping a straight face when they make utterly bogus claims."
"Let's assume that there is not now nor has there ever been a single historian in the whole world who "even suggest[s] Jesus didn't exist." Would that prove that Jesus *did* exist? Think about it before you answer." no that wouldn't prove that He did exist; BUT u are changing the subject; u see this where u get refuted: claiming things as if u are an historian; hence my challenge.
@SquallAKALeon "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! So are you saying that resurrections happen all the time? " when hume made this claim the probability calculus wasn't developed; and john earman totally refuted this claim; plus, what hume is basically telling us that if something is in fact true, we shouldn't believe it bcos it's rare; do u think hume would believe in the Big Bang-an event that only happened once?
@SquallAKALeon only pseudo-scholars say u can't use the Bible; have u heard about Biblical Archaeology, the science that brought us things only mentioned in the Bible? u fail miserably to prove anything; but thanks for ur personal opinion.
@SquallAKALeon "But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.....To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars"
@SquallAKALeon "Anyway, no, you can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. " says u or the scholars? let me refute you using a quote from an atheist scholar, michael grant:
@SquallAKALeon "Magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or SUPERNATURAL forces." this is where u get pwnd; what is the def. of "apparently"? look it up in the same source u used; and are they synonyms? that's also what i asked for
@SquallAKALeon "it should take SOME evidence, and the trustworthy evidence for Jesus existing is minuscule" sorry, HISTORIANS disagree with u.
"But it's rather nice of you to do so, at least when the experts agree with what you already believe." it probably sucks when u have to believe psuedo scholars.
good video. if anyone can possibly say now that jesus didn't exist for sure is truly a lost cause (from the christian perspective), and no one should bother answer him anymore.
@chilimaan 'There are exactly NO contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. It's all made up after the fact'' let me show u how smart u are; even IF u r correct about no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus, please provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that states that non-contemporaneous evidence can not be used; also provide one non-Christian historian and his scholarly work that says Jesus didn't exist.
@leviMichealathan I don't know why you want a non-Christian historian, or what might qualify in your mind. Gibbon marveled at the lack of historians alive at the time of Jesus who never noticed anything about him or his miracles. They surely didn't think he existed; along with scores of others who never existed. The vast bulk of all references are to Christians, not Jesus. Yet the end of the book of John says he did so many things all the books of the world could not contain them.
@chilimaan "what might qualify in your mind." a non-Christian historian is just that, a non-Christian historian; as for edward gibbon, did he question the historicity of Jesus? i think he was talking more about the miracles of Jesus; even if he did question the historicity of Jesus, it has no bearing on modern scholarship, which uses different criteria in the Historical Method.
@chilimaan ur comment about John has no bearing on the Historicty of Jesus; although, i wonder why u bring this up when any1 can see it's a figure of speech; all John is saying is that Jesus did so many other things and that his gospel is not exhaustive.
@leviMichealathan So you're saying; contra John; that Jesus had no real impact on the ancient world. Great. We're on the same page. The bible is wrong.
Come now. Try to demonstrate the existence of Jesus without repudiating your primary source.
@OpenAirAtheist So basically, you only believe like, one guy in all ancient history actually existed? How did the earth get populated?
Way to apply useless and arbitrary standards to historic facts. Of course, I'm sure you don't apply the same standard to probably 99% of any other person you believe DID exist. After all, most biographies are written AFTER a person dies, then I suppose we just can't trust any biographies either?
This is such a bizarre way to dismiss the evidence presented.
@vigilantezack 1 never said that a Jesus didn't ever exist I was simply pointing to an obviously problem with his argument .2 if a book said Columbus parted the ocean blue in 1492 I wouldn't even consider that claim without extraordinary evidence. If the NT testament which I read in it's original language provided me with extraordinary evidence I would be reasonablely justified in accepting it's claims. Unfortunately it's full of contradictions and if you want I could give u many examples.
@OpenAirAtheist 1) It's not really extraordinary that a person existed. That's all the video seeks to prove. 2) These sources are the evidence, even the proof of that. Unless you want to claim (on NO evidence at all) that ALL these people, Christian and non, from all walks of life, just for no reason decided to make up some guy named Jesus and talk about his life that never actually happened. That would be the position of NO evidence or proof, which is the weaker of the two positions I'd say.
@vigilantezack Also the documents that speak of kaiser were written during his life time, not so with jesus.sorry I know that's not what you want to hear. I mean no disrespect to you just being honest.
@OpenAirAtheist hmmm... no accident report is written while an accident is occuring either; does that mean that there's no eyewitnesses? i think what u r trying to posulate is that there's no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus; even IF u r correct, please provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that states that non-contemporaneous evidence can not be used; also provide one non-Christian historian and his scholarly work that says Jesus didn't exist.
@leviMichealathan You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not say that a jesus didn't exist, but I am saying that by definition miracles are the least likely event to have taken place. 2 if an accident report contained as many contradictions as the 4 gospels the report would be thrown out.
"but I am saying that by definition miracles are the least likely event to have taken place." when hume made that claim, the propositional calculus hadn't been developed yet, which refutes humes argument; john earman, a non-Christian philosopher totally refuted humes argument.
@leviMichealathan Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! So are you saying that resurrections happen all the time? No you can't say that ! They are the least likely if at all possible. And miracles are a non answer . People call things miracles when they don't understand something. Can you tell me what a miracle is?
"Also you said eye witnesses . But even if there were any they were long dead when josephus and others were alive" historians look to the NT for information about Jesus; even if the NT was written after the eyewitness period, can u provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL method that says that non-contemporaneous evidence cannot be used?
1:56 No, as far as TRUST WORTHY sources, you have 0 so far. The Bible writings can be thrown out immediately because that's using the Bible to prove the Bible. I can't use Alice's Adventures in Wonderland to prove Alice Liddell existed, now can I? Even if you wanna argue that the New Testament is a biography (with... magic, apparently) I'm not sure it's a good idea to, say, use MLK's biography to prove MLK existed. Might be a better idea to use the sources of that biography to prove he existed.
continuing 1:56 I'd throw out those 'early Christian writings' too. You admit at the start of the video that they're only within a 150 years of Jesus death, for one. Christianity was in full swing by then, I think, and well, you don't think that 'early Christian writers' wouldn't've had a bias, maybe?
1:58 Ain't it neat how the Gnostic Gospels don't count for any EXCEPT proving that Jesus existed? I'd throw those out too, because it's the exact problem of bias the early Christian writers had, probably because the Gnostics WERE early Chrsitian writers, it's just that their particular beliefs never caught on. So far the count is still 0.
2:27 Josephus writings on Jesus are somewhat contested as it's suspected later Christian writers may have added details, but I'll give you half a point there.
2:29 Tacitus' writings refer to Jesus in passing almost like someone who was unfamiliar with Harry Potter might refer to Dumbledore in passing while talking about fans of the charcter. It's proof that Christians existed back then, I'll give you that, but as for Jesus, the score stands at 1/2 a point.
2:32 With Pliny the Younger we have about the same problem as Tacitus.
2:34 We don't actually have Phlegon's works, just people talking about them and saying he mentioned Jesus and some weird stuff happening when he was crucified. Given that Plegon himself was born some fourty or fifty years after Jesus probably died, and we don't actually have what he wrote, just other people writing about what he wrote, I'd say that's too far removed to be trustworthy.
2:38 Lucian was alledgedly very concerned with historical accuracy... but he never gives an actual source for his own references to Jesus, and it's speculated that he probably just accepted Christian sources on the historicity of accepted other secular sourses, like Tacitus. Since I've already discounted both, he doesn't count either.
2:41 Celus does indeed talk about Jesus... though he didn't believe one bit of his divinity, believed he was the illegitimate child of an adulterous affair, and that he performed his miracles by sorcery. that the only account of his resurrection came from a hysterical woman, and that he had no actual standing in Hebrew prophecies. I guess I can count this, as he's actually talking about Jesus and not just referencing him while talking about Christians.
2:44 Mara bar Serapion doesn't actually mention Jesus by name, only briefly referencing a 'wise king of the Jews.' But I'll be nice and give ya half a point for that.
2:49 Seutonius references 'Chrestus' in one of his writings. It's believed that he had mispelled 'Christus', but doubtful considering that he references 'Christians' later, and not 'Chrestians.' Besides that, there's little evidence for the other things he wrote about in that passage, so I'm going to strike this one as well.
2:50 And we don't actually have any of Thallus works, we just have a Christian writer talking about his writines. While I've argued bias before, in this instance since the writing by Africanus is talking about how he was unconvinced by Thallus' explanation of an eclipse that occured on the day of the crucifiction I don't think that's the issue here. Still, since we don't actually have Thallus' own writing I don't think I can accept this.
3:17 As Carl Sagan once said; 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' No one alive today claims that Tiberius Caesar was a god in human guise, and that our enternal afterlife is dependant on belief and worship of him, so I don't really need that much proof to believe that he existed. These things ARE claimed about Jesus by people alive today, and credible proof that he even existed at all is paltry at best.
4:05 I love how he emphasizes 'textual evidence' in this section. This is of course because there were busts made of Tiberus made during his lifetime, and his face was probably on Roman money of the time, and there were probably other evidences that he existed.
I'd like to conclude by saying that I came into this video believing that--at the very least--the New testament was at least based on someone who actually existed, not unlike how Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was based on a real little girl named Alice Liddell. Now I come out of this video doubting that Jesus was anything more than a character Paul invented to give credibility to his ministry.
The second... I'm not exactly sure what you're even talking about? What did Hume claim? What does calculus have to do with anything? Who is John Earman and how is he my philosopher if I've never heard of him?
I would add that, if I can help it, I try not to accept anything on faith. While it might not take extraordinary evidence to merely prove a man lived, it should take SOME evidence, and the trustworthy evidence for Jesus existing is minuscule, and that's me being generous (such as granting one point and two half points). Admittedly I'm no expert so I might be wrong, but I'm not about to just take an expert at his word unless he has the evidence to back it up.
@SquallAKALeon "You admit at the start of the video that they're only within a 150 years of Jesus death...don't think that 'early Christian writers' wouldn't've had a bias" LOL!!! u missed the point scholars aggree that all the NT books were written in the 1st century and the material for the resurrection date back to at most 2 years after the cross.
even if u are correct, please give the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that if someone has a bias, his testimony must be thrown out.
@leviMichealathan You keep alluding to scholars who allegedly agree with you but fail to name any while pestering me to name some who agree with me. I never claimed I had experts on my side, I was just calling things as I see 'em. If you have so many scholars on your side how about you drop some names so I can use these here Intertubes to look 'em up and see if they present any better arguments then you and CARM.org have? Hey, if their experts they MUST have better arguments, right?
@SquallAKALeon "Ain't it neat how the Gnostic Gospels don't count for any EXCEPT proving that Jesus existed?" no, it is also used to find out what gnostics believed.
"probably because the Gnostics WERE early Chrsitian writers, it's just that their particular beliefs never caught on. " provide the HISTORIAN and his scholarly work for this, too.
"So far the count is still 0." for who? u? or HISTORIANS?
remember what i asked for concerning biases, if it is true.
@SquallAKALeon Tacitus' writings refer to Jesus in passing almost like someone who was unfamiliar with Harry Potter" LOL!!! ur logic is amazing; his passage is detailed about what happened to Jesus; if u think that's in passing, well...
"It's proof that Christians existed back then, I'll give you that, but as for Jesus, the score stands at 1/2 a point." no. it is a non-biblical reference to Jesus, too.
@SquallAKALeon "Josephus writings on Jesus are somewhat contested as it's suspected later Christian writers may have added details" not added details about the history but about theology.
coming back to "bias" ur logic is amazing; if a WW2 victim writes down their persnal experience, we should dismiss it bcos they are biased? sorry, historians are trained to sift out bias information if it's not true.
@SquallAKALeon "The Bible writings can be thrown out immediately..." or really??? i can see u r going to get pwnd very badly; ALL historians who deal with Jesus use the NT; so please provide the HISTORIAN and his scholarly source who says that the Bible cannot be used; u also fail to understand that the Bible is a collection of books which counts for multiple sources.
"magic, apparently" miracles NOT magic; but if u insist, plz provide a credible source that says miracle and magic are synonyms.
Miracle: A surprising and welcome event that is NOT EXPLICABLE BY NATURAL or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or SUPERNATURAL forces.
Deity: Any SUPERNATURAL being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
Anyway, no, you can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. If you could, then Muslims could use the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an, Scientologists could use the Dianetics to prove Scientology, and so on. Just because the Bible has some historical accuracy does not make it trust worthy. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has been praised for Historical accuracy, would you trust that as a source?
How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?
Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more
The only thing these sources are attesting to is the existence of early cult of Christianity
Are these theists really that obtuse, intellectually dishonest, evidentially desperate or "d" (all of the above)?
@LetReasonPrevail1 "How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?"
Apologists are little more than trained public relations people who have, among other things, mastered the art of keeping a straight face when they make utterly bogus claims.
"Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more."
@leviMichealathan "can u provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggest Jesus didn't exist?"
Let's assume that there is not now nor has there ever been a single historian in the whole world who "even suggest[s] Jesus didn't exist." Would that prove that Jesus *did* exist? Think about it before you answer.
I don't happen to be an adherent of the "Jesus didn't exist" position. My objection is to the scam apologists try to pull off vis-a-vis the evidence that he existed.
@LetReasonPrevail1 "Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more" or really??? please provide the phrase in tacitus' work where he says something like "according to Christians" or sumthing like that.
"independant attestations" yeah, historians rely on multiple sources, so please provide one Historian and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
"intellectually dishonest" we shall see who is being dishonest.
Tacitus doesn't have to explicitly state "according to Christians" in order for us to logically draw the conclusion that he was merely reporting what Christians believed at the time (and nothing more)
All you need to do is follow the evidence: He wrote about Jesus in 116 AD (9 decades after he was supposedly executed) thus he could not have had direct knowledge of the events nor could he have had access to any eye witnesses
Also Tacitus doesn't mention any extra-biblical sources for the Jesus crucifiction story, thus the most-likey source are the beliefs promulgated at the time by the early christians
All that said, I am not asserting Jesus didn't exist. I am instead calling B.S. on the claim that Jesus' life & ministry were attested to by 49 (or whatever #) independent, contemporary, reliable sources. Anyone even implying this should feel ashamed
Christanity is faith-based not evidence-based. Deal with it
@jonathanfater "no one will die for a lie that they know is a lie"
The "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is, in the main, premised on apostolic martyrdom legends that didn't emerge until centuries after Jesus is supposed to have lived and died. Worse yet, the legends often contradict one another, attributing different horrific martyrdoms to the same apostle. It is, quite possibly, the worst bit of apologetics that Christians have ever come up with.
@ProfMTH "The "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is, in the main, premised on apostolic martyrdom legends that didn't emerge until centuries after Jesus is supposed to have lived and died." even if we only have later recordings, it doesn't mean it started there; also the sources for james and stephen go back to the first century; plus, we will all know what an historian u are if u can provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source who even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
@leviMichealathan ProfMTH did not suggest that Jesus did not exist. Scarcely anyone has. I do suggest that Jesus did not exist; but it has a meaning that will escape you. I stipulate that 6,498 persons named Jesus existed during the time period of THE Jesus spoken of in the bible. Some of those people most likely were a source for some part of the myth. The ONE person you keep referring to however could never have existed. He was no more real than Apollonius or any other character.
@chilimaan "ProfMTH did not suggest that Jesus did not exist." really??? what did he say then?
"Some of those people most likely were a source for some part of the myth. " provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says this, thx.
"The ONE person you keep referring to however could never have existed." Jesus, the one who was called Christ, the one was crucrified under pontius pilate, the one whos tomb was found empty, did exist.
LOL!!! he said that after i pwnd him; go back and read the thread IN ORDER.
"There was no empty tomb. "
"the historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb" Michael Grant
"There was no Jesus who raised the dead, walked on water etc."
"Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist." marcus borg
@leviMichealathan Are you drunk? Stupid? Lying? A stupid lying drunk?
Borg is just a Christian. Not a historian. You idiot. Grant was a historian and quite stupid on this point. There's no evidence there was any tomb at all.
Let's go back to ProfMTH. You were too stupid to understand his words; and I'll quote them again: "I don't happen to be an adherent of the "Jesus didn't exist" position."
You're either a liar or stupid or both. Most likely both. Present evidence or shut up.
LOL!!! ad hominens!!! watch and learn how you get pwnd on many levels.
"Borg is just a Christian." even IF he is a "Christian", so what? give a LOGICAL ARGUMENT why Christians CANNOT be historians; according to ur logic, because only evos believe in evotardism, we can reject it. also, genius, atheist historians are biased against miracles; they rule them out a priori; again, ad hominems don't work in the REAL world.
@leviMichealathan Excuse me? I thought you asserted that non-Christians accepted the stupidity of the gospels as fact.
Yes, that's right. Any "historian" who accepts as fact that a "miraculous" event occurred simply because some idiot said so isn't a real historian. An actual historian who records that people claimed Elvis was seen alive after his death is quite different from a pseudo-historian who would claim therefore that Elvis WAS alive after his death just because someone said so.
but , genius, borg is NOT Christian, by definition; he doesn't believe in miracles, Jesus claimed to be God, etc; he is simply stating the fact the evidence for Jesus' miracles is strong; he rejects them not on the evidence but on philosophical grounds. now comes the big pwnage:
Marcus Borg is a member of.....The Jesus Seminar. LOL!!!!!!!!!! do you know what The Jesus Seminar believes??? LOL!!!!!!!!!! PWND!!! so much for being "just a Christian"
"Grant was a historian and quite stupid on this point." LOL!!! you reject ur own scholars??? how many papers have you published??? where's ur rebuttal paper to Grant???
plus, genius, genius, 75% of CRITICAL scholars believe in the empty tomb.
"There's no evidence there was any tomb at all." sorry, your OPINION doesn't count as evidence.
@leviMichealathan Now you're becoming truly entertaining. 25% of "critical scholars" don't believe in the empty tomb? And you were asking for just one name. Seems you must know a thousand already.
And; moron, I don't have any scholars.
Finally. You've yet to present ANY evidence of any kind, idiot.
What you can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
"Yes, that's right. Any "historian" who accepts as fact that a "miraculous" event occurred simply because some idiot said so isn't a real historian."
provide a credible source for ur definition of "historian"
also, genius, historians who believe that Jesus' miracles did happen have published articles regarding the miracles in international peer-reviewed journals like, The Journal for the Historical Jesus. PWND!!!
@leviMichealathan Why would I need any source? You never provided one. You also provided as a claimed historian someone who doesn't work as a historian.
That being the case I could cite Robert Price if I wanted to. In fact I could even claim to be a historian without violating any definition you've given.
What's that? Peer reviewed nonsense is to be automatically accepted without considering evidence that's never been given.
"Borg is a Christian and you're a liar." LOL!!! Borg is a "Progressive Christian" LOL!!!! according to your logic, if some claims to be an atheist, yet believes in miracles is still an atheist! LOL!!! I challenge you to show me where in Christian doctrine that one is still a Christian if he rejects the miracles of Jesus, His resurrection and His claims to be God. pwnd!!!!
plus, genius, I aready pwnd you even IF Borg was a Christian.
@leviMichealathan I need not show you any such thing. Borg does not work as a historian as you claimed. He is a Christian whether you like it or not. He scarcely has any identification other than as a Christian.
If what he has to say isn't backed by evidence then he's not credible. He's no different than you. No evidence: No credibility.
Furthermore; idiot. You've just claimed that your own cherry picked "scholars" don't accept that Jesus performed miracles. That means they don't accept the Jesus presented in the gospels. Which means they and I agree on exactly the point I made that started your stupid little rant. And this is WHY Grant is stupid. He discounts the miracles (such as the resurrection); yet gives us no real reason to accept the empty tomb, or any part of the story.
"Yes. I'm sufficiently informed about the "Jesus Seminar". Too bad you're not." LOL!!!! if you knew who they were you wouldn't have claimed that Borg was a Christian and not a historian. PWND!!!
"25% of "critical scholars" don't believe in the empty tomb? And you were asking for just one name. Seems you must know a thousand already." LOL!!!!! genius, I aksed you to name one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says Jesus DIDN'T EXIST, not the empty tomb. PWND!!!!
"Finally. You've yet to present ANY evidence of any kind, idiot. What you can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
genius, go back to the older posts, maybe about 4 months ago, and see how i pwnd you. this is coming from someone who claimed Jesus was a character made from other characters and ur "evidence" was....."I gave you MY opinion" LOL!!!
@leviMichealathan Yes. I gave you my opinion. You still don't get what even that means.
It means I've looked at the facts and determined they don't warrant your conclusion. If you thought your position were reasonable you would already have given me your evidence to arrive at your conclusion. You don't think your conclusion is reasonable, so you've given me no evidence.
You typing "LOL" and "PWND" over and over has accomplished nothing.
your only responses were to attack the scholars if they are Christians and attack the scholars when they are atheists, even though you have no evidence; make up ur own random definition of "historian" and all the time the evidence for your claim was..."it's My opinion" LOL!!!!!!!!
"You could just quote him if it would help your case. I did quote him. Idiot.. He didn't say what you claimed. Idiot. Now quote him as saying that Jesus never existed. idiot."
if by idiot you mean, "someone who keeps pwning chilimaan" then i am an idiot.
no, genius, go back and read the comments between ur guru and myself; i'm not ur lap dog.
here's ur logic, if a historian is a "Christian", then he is not an historian; and if an atheist historian pwns you, then he is stupid. LOL!!! great logic!!!
@leviMichealathan Yes. If a "historian" is a Christian his report on the historicity of Christianity is USELESS. He's already committed to his conclusion. The only question is how he'll get there. And, when a "atheist" historian looks at the facts surrounding the stories of Jesus and concludes they are real without demonstrating any evidence, then he is stupid.
My opinion is my opinion. Idiot. If scholars want to change my opinion they have to provide EVIDENCE; not assertions.
@chilimaan If a "historian" is a Christian his report on the historicity of Christianity is USELESS.
no, genius, an historian follows the historical method. again, according to ur logic, "if a scientist is an evolutionist, then his report on the truthfullness of evolution is USELESS. He's already committed to his conclusion. ur logic is out of this world.
@leviMichealathan So you're saying you believe in evolution also? Okay. Let's use Mormonism for instance. Since Mormon "scholars" tell us the history of Mormonism is true then you accept that also.
In fact you'll believe ANYTHING if the "scholars" who believe in it tell you to. Right?
Most of the 20 Early christian writers sound like Pokemon...polycarp, dididicay, barnabus, quadradis etc...
IbonedDerekDsister 1 week ago
This guy is obviously a homosexual.
IbonedDerekDsister 1 week ago
The evidence for Jesus is incontrovertible. Thank you for compiling the list, Ryan.
blazius77 1 week ago
Read the book "nailed" you wont think so anymore.
wachnathan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>9 secular sources.
Josephus? Really? He wrote almost in 100 CE about the behavior of Christ's followers, and there is evidence to believe some or all of his work on Christ was an interpolation.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>4 Heretical writings
Not eyewitness, so worthless.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>20 Early Christian Writers
Not eyewitness, so worthless.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>9 Traditional Authors of the New Testament Gospels and Letters
Also nope. The 4 gospels are anonymously written, and were also written after the fact. The earliest bit of gospel we have is from 50-60 CE, almost 20-30 years after Jesus supposedly died. The letter of Paul mean nothing, because Paul NEVER ACTUALLY MET JESUS.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>42 texts over 150 years after his death.
Also no citation. Also, nope. That's not how historicity works. Jesus' existence cannot be confirmed by reports after the fact, ESPECIALLY 150 years after the fact. We need EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY before we can can definitively that Jesus did exist.
Also, pro-tip: even if we had eyewitness reports, that will wouldn't be enough to establish his divinity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>Unanimous critical agreement among skeptical scholars that Jesus did exist
No citation, also an argument from authority and possibly an argument from popular opinion.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
The real question is proving Jesus's divinity. That will never happen.
jajohnson7809 1 month ago
@jajohnson7809 True. That is only achieved by first to choose and then to put in practice.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
No contemporary proof of the existence of Christ. No matter how you cut it.
2wilburc 1 month ago
Strabo mentions Tiberius Caesar?
SonnyDelight55 2 months ago
fail. all discredited by experts.
bryanttillman 2 months ago
Philo of Alexandria and Dio Cassius also mentioned Tiberius Caesar.
EdM021 2 months ago
All the none biblical refrences you provide lived after Jesus died. And the biblical refrences in themselves are entirely bias and flawed.The funny thing is, there is record of pontius pilate, yet no record of him condenming a man called Jesus, or Yehshua as he would of been called back then.You mention Josephus who mentioned Jesus once, 60 years after he died, and Pliny who had a similar story.There is also record of Christianity before Jesus was supposidly born, kind of strange dont you think?
BiddaBiddaCherryPie 2 months ago
@BiddaBiddaCherryPie Can you please cite the record that talks about Christianity before Jesus lived? Thanks.
SonnyDelight55 2 months ago
@SonnyDelight55 Ever heard of Messianic Jews?
BiddaBiddaCherryPie 1 month ago
@BiddaBiddaCherryPie Yes. All Jews expected a messiah. Whats your point?
SonnyDelight55 1 month ago
The existence of Jesus is unimportant unless you can prove the existence of your god. Lacking such proof, all of the details are irrelevant.
Jaycubb22 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chilimaan lest i am called a liar- as promised for ur enjoyment watch?v=PlR3cdV-xxg
leviMichealathan 2 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 2 months ago
hello.Jesus exist?yes.He was the son of god?Noooooooooooooo.Goood is to great to have a human son and is above all religios idiot who think that god is Dudhaa,alaah or jesus.All that writings that you mantioned are writted buy jewels so in don`t give a fuck.Why not the real god is zamolxes?Why don`t you believe in him?and you believe in jewed stories.
MAkakPEmanele 3 months ago
Everybody is taking stories out and putting in meaning. Let's pick to what we think is true and write about. There are no archeological evidence on Jesus or any great men of the bible. And to say he was resurrected when he was in the flesh is absurd. Christians know he didn't exist. Nobody is being healed, raised from the dead. I would become a great story teller if I didn't have a club or t.v to occupy my mind. Those men were great writers in ancient history. Anybody can predict the future.
lovergal1984 6 months ago
This video is intentionaly misleading
Why is people doing this ?? Christians are "supposed" to always tell the truth
rgtrab 6 months ago
The links btw Superman & Jesus are as numerous as those btw Jesus & many mythological characters, but my point was not their similarities but that they're both similarly unsupported by evidence. Simply asserting the evidence for Jesus is greater than evidence he's a literary creation isn't compelling unless substantiated. Most historical figures, including Pythagoras, have compelling evidence for their existence. But Pythagoras doesn't need to have been real to be significant; Jesus DOES.
mjr256 7 months ago
No fucking shit Jesus existed, next step: prove he had a mental illness and was no different from psycho-religious homeless drunks in NYC. Just think...they had no medication for mental ailments, and water wasn't sanitary, thus they all drank wine.
SideWays8Productions 7 months ago
I've already addressed this. Even if I hypothetically conceded that not a single "historian" (though why you discount Biblical scholars is beyond me) held this view, that would not say anything of the veracity of the claim. I can throw out names like Robert M. Price or Frank Zindler or Richard Carrier, or even Bart Ehrman, though Ehrman may still believe in an historical Jesus. But you'll just attack their character & avoid the arguments themselves...as you've already done.
cont'd
mjr256 8 months ago
cont'd
I've already cited major Biblical contradictions. Read the last chapter of Matthew & record every detail of the tomb story. Then do the same for Mark on a separate sheet of paper. Then Luke. Then John. Then compare the info on each sheet of paper. I'm not saying to just take my word that there's disagreement on every detail; you can see for yourself. What time of day? Who was there? Was the stone already moved? Was any1 already there? Did they tell any1? It's right there in the book.
mjr256 8 months ago
@mjr256 The links between Superman and Jesus are little more than rhetoric. Of course, it is possible that all of the sources for Jesus collaborated in creating a sophisticated fiction, but absolutely no evidence for this being the case. I could declare our sources for pythagoras to be fictional, and thus deny his existence, but this just isn't how historians work. In your list of supporters, the most esteemed one is Bart Ehrman, who is currently writing a book debunking the Jesus-as-myth claim.
TMOvids 7 months ago
Comment removed
mjr256 8 months ago
pt 2
1st of all, there's thousands of authors within 80 years during Superman's life, which mention his existence & actually record many events in his life. So you can divide these thousands of sources up into a couple of different categories. 1st, we have the 2 original authors from Action Comics, Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster. We also have numerous later Golden Age writers. Then there's the Silver Age writers followed by the modern era writers. Then we got the animated series' & film writers.
mjr256 8 months ago
There are many radical skeptics today who claim that Superman didn't exist or who seriously doubt his existence. However, there are a number of critical problems w/ doubting his' existence due to the early in abundance of evidence that we have of Superman's life & deeds. In fact, there's almost unanimous consent among skeptical & critical historians today that Superman did in fact exist. So what kind of evidence is there? Well, we have a lot of textual evidence actually for Superman's existence
mjr256 8 months ago
@mjr256 ur logic is amazing; provide one non-Christian HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't; and provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says superman really exited; did u attend dawkin's school of philosophy? superman doesn't have any causal relationship with the real world; only in never, never land is Jesus and superman in the same category; so please provide the information i asked for; if u can't, then GO WAY!!!
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan
I can certainly name a few Biblical scholars who consider the mythicist view but it's an moot point. It's the evidence that matters, not popular opinion. & the evidence for an historical Jesus is shoddy at best. There's no record until 40 years after his alleged death. All 4 Gospels disagree about major details. Many of the Biblical accounts were added much later. I could go on. Don't be deceived by Zod. Accept Superman as your savior so he can save you from The Phantom Zone.
mjr256 8 months ago
@mjr256 "I can certainly name a few Biblical scholars who consider the mythicist view " no, plz do-name the HISTORIAN and his scholarly source.
"the evidence for an historical Jesus is shoddy at best." name the HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says that.
"All 4 Gospels disagree about major details." really? even IF that's true, scholars use the NT; but, name one "major detail"
"Accept Superman..." dawkins' logic doesn't work in the real world. sit back and watch how i pwn u.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 7:
if u can't give me the scholars and their sources, GO AWAY!!! go to an athiest's video and post ur "arguments" only they will take it seriously!
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 6:
I told u b4, I’m NOT interested in ur opinion; plz provide the SCHOLARS and their sources who say that Jesus wasn’t crucified and tacitus was merely writing down what Christians believe. u FAIL miserably; ur name is an oxymoron.
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 6:
do u know what that pistis means? Also, fool, u claimed to not believe anything by faith; yet u believe that Jesus didn’t exist, he wasn’t crucified and that tacitus was merely writing down what Christians believe INSPITE of the evidence-this is called blind-faith! i don't have that kind of faith; also, historians use the NT to find out about Jesus, not tacitus; i quoted Michael grant to refute u. So, u deal with it, genius!
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 5:
tacitus mentioned many things that happened b4 he was born; an historian writing about WW2 will use sources. Provide one tactician scholar and his scholarly source that agrees with u, mr historian.
"after he was supposedly executed" provide one HISTORIAN and and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus wasn't crucified.
“Christanity is faith-based not evidence-based. Deal with it.” The greek word for faith used in the NT is “pistis”...
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 4:
Tacitus "was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition." "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material."-Martin
So, SCHOLARS disagree with you that he was just writing what Christians believed without indicating so.
"All you need to do is follow the evidence: He wrote about Jesus in 116 AD..." u have NO evidence to follow, only psuedo scholarship; that's not how history is done
cont,,,
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 3:
"It is clear, then, that Tacitus read widely and that the idea that he was an uncritical follower of a single source is quite untenable."-Martin
Tacitus "was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary tradition." "There is no doubt that (Tacitus) took a great deal of care in selecting his material."-Martin
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 2:
this is the madness of atheism trying to put words in tacitus' mouth. Here are sum quotes from REAL tactician scholars on tacitus and how he writes history; notice the words they use, genius:
"the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust" -syme
He "was no stranger to industrious investigation"-syme
"for Tacitus scepticism was inescapable is not to be doubted"-Chilver
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 part 1:
serious pwnage:
"Tacitus doesn't have to explicitly state...in order for us to logically draw the conclusion...." really? hey everybody, we have a tactician scholar in the house; ur "logic" only works in never, never land where pseudo-historians are taken as scholars; also, u KNOW what tacitus wrote, inspite of no PROOF that he was just writing down what Christians say? LOL!!! tacitus would have checked his sources and made sure that it really happened
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
I don't need evidence to believe Heaven is real. I just trust God and his Word that it is real. God to me is trustworthy. The Bible is my source of truth. The Bible makes sense to me. It teaches me why the world behaves the way it does. It teaches me what sin is. It teaches me everything I know. BIBLE=BASIC INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE LEAVING EARTH! Life would be pretty meaningless without Faith! How does a husband know that his wife wont leave him? He trusts her. Trust is vitally important!
adkpinecone 8 months ago
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) and "For we walk by faith, not by sight." (2Cor 5.7) There is plenty of evidence of all kinds of things, but people refuse to believe it. For example we know that a diet of fruits and vegetables prevent all kinds of diseases, but people don't believe it. Even if there was 100% proof and evidence of God people still wouldn't believe it. Does the creature question its creator? How proud we are.
adkpinecone 8 months ago
I believe that any serious scholar who is a professional in their field would not dare put their name on any paper that states jesus did not exist. Reputations takes a long time to biuld while it only take seconds to destroy a lifetimes work. Look up Simon Greenleaf, a wonderful story about the world's expert on evidence in his time and how he came to belive in Jesus through the evidence.
Take Care
habfan24 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chilimaan part 4:
sorry, dawkins-like arguments only work in never-never land; i think u should contact historians and biblical archaeologists and tell them that the Bible is a fairytale.
the only thing i want is one atheist historian and his scholarly source that say Jesus didn't exist, otherwise, GO AWAY!!!
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chilimaan part 3:
did u notice he used the NT? considered urself pwnd, fool; claiming u know how historians apply the historical method to the NT, when clearly u know A LOT.
now, coming back to ur claim that the Bible is a fairytale-have you heard about Biblical Archaeology? The discipline that uses the Bible as a textbook? the discipline that brought us things only mentioned in the Bible? like over 25000 artifacts?
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@chilimaan part 2:
"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned....To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars"
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@chilimaan "I think you need to go look over the points of the historical method and see what weight differing types of evidence have. It makes no difference however to the utter stupidity of trying to use the fairy tale to verify the fairy tale. If such a method should be considered sufficient to prove the bible it would be even better suited to proving virtually any self consistent story. " LOL!!! FOOL!!! historians use the NT! let me pwn u by quoting an atheist historian-michael Grant:
cont.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@chilimaan "...contra John; that Jesus had no real impact on the ancient world. Great. We're on the same page. The bible is wrong." LOL!!! i didn't say that u intellectual person u; i said that Jesus did more things than what was recorded in John; John simply uses an hyperbole to say that!
"Come now. Try to demonstrate the existence of Jesus without repudiating your primary source." please provide one atheist historian and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@ProfMTH part 5:
My objection is to the scam apologists try to pull off vis-a-vis the evidence that he existed." really? provide a reference to such a scam. thx!
END
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@ProfMTH part 4:
then u agreed with "LetReasonPrevail1, when (s)he said "Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more."
like i said, historians use the NT; but now, lets see what an historian u really are; provide the phrase from tacitus where he uses words like "According to Christians" or "They say...." or sumthing like that; if u can't, considered urself refuted, mr. historian.
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
Comment removed
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@ProfMTH part 3:
u agreed by claiming there aren't multiple attestations of Jesus' life & ministry by claiming that apologists make bogus claims; yet u can't provide one atheist historian and his scholarly source who even suggests that Jesus didn't exist; u know why? they use NT; it has multiple attestations of Jesus.
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH part 2:
u quoted LetReasonPrevail1 as saying: "How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?"
and then u replied "Apologists are little more than trained public relations people who have, among other things, mastered the art of keeping a straight face when they make utterly bogus claims."
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@ProfMTH part1:
"Let's assume that there is not now nor has there ever been a single historian in the whole world who "even suggest[s] Jesus didn't exist." Would that prove that Jesus *did* exist? Think about it before you answer." no that wouldn't prove that He did exist; BUT u are changing the subject; u see this where u get refuted: claiming things as if u are an historian; hence my challenge.
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! So are you saying that resurrections happen all the time? " when hume made this claim the probability calculus wasn't developed; and john earman totally refuted this claim; plus, what hume is basically telling us that if something is in fact true, we shouldn't believe it bcos it's rare; do u think hume would believe in the Big Bang-an event that only happened once?
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "I was just calling things as I see 'em" thx 4 ur opinion..for someone who claims not to take anything on faith.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon only pseudo-scholars say u can't use the Bible; have u heard about Biblical Archaeology, the science that brought us things only mentioned in the Bible? u fail miserably to prove anything; but thanks for ur personal opinion.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.....To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars"
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "Anyway, no, you can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. " says u or the scholars? let me refute you using a quote from an atheist scholar, michael grant:
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "Magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or SUPERNATURAL forces." this is where u get pwnd; what is the def. of "apparently"? look it up in the same source u used; and are they synonyms? that's also what i asked for
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "it should take SOME evidence, and the trustworthy evidence for Jesus existing is minuscule" sorry, HISTORIANS disagree with u.
"But it's rather nice of you to do so, at least when the experts agree with what you already believe." it probably sucks when u have to believe psuedo scholars.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
good video. if anyone can possibly say now that jesus didn't exist for sure is truly a lost cause (from the christian perspective), and no one should bother answer him anymore.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 8 months ago
very rational video,when they dont even want to admit he existed rather than just denying his divinity we know satan is doing his work....
lilbeaveymac 8 months ago
There are exactly NO contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. It's all made up after the fact.
chilimaan 8 months ago
@chilimaan 'There are exactly NO contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. It's all made up after the fact'' let me show u how smart u are; even IF u r correct about no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus, please provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that states that non-contemporaneous evidence can not be used; also provide one non-Christian historian and his scholarly work that says Jesus didn't exist.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan I don't know why you want a non-Christian historian, or what might qualify in your mind. Gibbon marveled at the lack of historians alive at the time of Jesus who never noticed anything about him or his miracles. They surely didn't think he existed; along with scores of others who never existed. The vast bulk of all references are to Christians, not Jesus. Yet the end of the book of John says he did so many things all the books of the world could not contain them.
chilimaan 8 months ago
@chilimaan "what might qualify in your mind." a non-Christian historian is just that, a non-Christian historian; as for edward gibbon, did he question the historicity of Jesus? i think he was talking more about the miracles of Jesus; even if he did question the historicity of Jesus, it has no bearing on modern scholarship, which uses different criteria in the Historical Method.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@chilimaan ur comment about John has no bearing on the Historicty of Jesus; although, i wonder why u bring this up when any1 can see it's a figure of speech; all John is saying is that Jesus did so many other things and that his gospel is not exhaustive.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan So you're saying; contra John; that Jesus had no real impact on the ancient world. Great. We're on the same page. The bible is wrong.
Come now. Try to demonstrate the existence of Jesus without repudiating your primary source.
chilimaan 8 months ago
Non of the above account were written during the time Jesus is thought by believers to have existed unlike kaiser. Sorry try again .
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist So basically, you only believe like, one guy in all ancient history actually existed? How did the earth get populated?
Way to apply useless and arbitrary standards to historic facts. Of course, I'm sure you don't apply the same standard to probably 99% of any other person you believe DID exist. After all, most biographies are written AFTER a person dies, then I suppose we just can't trust any biographies either?
This is such a bizarre way to dismiss the evidence presented.
vigilantezack 8 months ago
@vigilantezack 1 never said that a Jesus didn't ever exist I was simply pointing to an obviously problem with his argument .2 if a book said Columbus parted the ocean blue in 1492 I wouldn't even consider that claim without extraordinary evidence. If the NT testament which I read in it's original language provided me with extraordinary evidence I would be reasonablely justified in accepting it's claims. Unfortunately it's full of contradictions and if you want I could give u many examples.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist 1) It's not really extraordinary that a person existed. That's all the video seeks to prove. 2) These sources are the evidence, even the proof of that. Unless you want to claim (on NO evidence at all) that ALL these people, Christian and non, from all walks of life, just for no reason decided to make up some guy named Jesus and talk about his life that never actually happened. That would be the position of NO evidence or proof, which is the weaker of the two positions I'd say.
vigilantezack 8 months ago
@vigilantezack Also the documents that speak of kaiser were written during his life time, not so with jesus.sorry I know that's not what you want to hear. I mean no disrespect to you just being honest.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist hmmm... no accident report is written while an accident is occuring either; does that mean that there's no eyewitnesses? i think what u r trying to posulate is that there's no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus; even IF u r correct, please provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that states that non-contemporaneous evidence can not be used; also provide one non-Christian historian and his scholarly work that says Jesus didn't exist.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not say that a jesus didn't exist, but I am saying that by definition miracles are the least likely event to have taken place. 2 if an accident report contained as many contradictions as the 4 gospels the report would be thrown out.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OpenAirAtheist part 1:
"but I am saying that by definition miracles are the least likely event to have taken place." when hume made that claim, the propositional calculus hadn't been developed yet, which refutes humes argument; john earman, a non-Christian philosopher totally refuted humes argument.
cont...
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! So are you saying that resurrections happen all the time? No you can't say that ! They are the least likely if at all possible. And miracles are a non answer . People call things miracles when they don't understand something. Can you tell me what a miracle is?
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist part 2:
"Also you said eye witnesses . But even if there were any they were long dead when josephus and others were alive" historians look to the NT for information about Jesus; even if the NT was written after the eyewitness period, can u provide the criteria from the HISTORICAL method that says that non-contemporaneous evidence cannot be used?
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan No read what I said again.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan Also you said eye witnesses . But even if there were any they were long dead when josephus and others were alive.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
we want matt slick!!
bendlor 8 months ago
@bendlor Hell no at least this guy is more respectful and doesn't almost always have a grin on his face.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
1:56 No, as far as TRUST WORTHY sources, you have 0 so far. The Bible writings can be thrown out immediately because that's using the Bible to prove the Bible. I can't use Alice's Adventures in Wonderland to prove Alice Liddell existed, now can I? Even if you wanna argue that the New Testament is a biography (with... magic, apparently) I'm not sure it's a good idea to, say, use MLK's biography to prove MLK existed. Might be a better idea to use the sources of that biography to prove he existed.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon
continuing 1:56 I'd throw out those 'early Christian writings' too. You admit at the start of the video that they're only within a 150 years of Jesus death, for one. Christianity was in full swing by then, I think, and well, you don't think that 'early Christian writers' wouldn't've had a bias, maybe?
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon
1:58 Ain't it neat how the Gnostic Gospels don't count for any EXCEPT proving that Jesus existed? I'd throw those out too, because it's the exact problem of bias the early Christian writers had, probably because the Gnostics WERE early Chrsitian writers, it's just that their particular beliefs never caught on. So far the count is still 0.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon
2:27 Josephus writings on Jesus are somewhat contested as it's suspected later Christian writers may have added details, but I'll give you half a point there.
2:29 Tacitus' writings refer to Jesus in passing almost like someone who was unfamiliar with Harry Potter might refer to Dumbledore in passing while talking about fans of the charcter. It's proof that Christians existed back then, I'll give you that, but as for Jesus, the score stands at 1/2 a point.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
2:32 With Pliny the Younger we have about the same problem as Tacitus.
2:34 We don't actually have Phlegon's works, just people talking about them and saying he mentioned Jesus and some weird stuff happening when he was crucified. Given that Plegon himself was born some fourty or fifty years after Jesus probably died, and we don't actually have what he wrote, just other people writing about what he wrote, I'd say that's too far removed to be trustworthy.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
2:38 Lucian was alledgedly very concerned with historical accuracy... but he never gives an actual source for his own references to Jesus, and it's speculated that he probably just accepted Christian sources on the historicity of accepted other secular sourses, like Tacitus. Since I've already discounted both, he doesn't count either.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
2:41 Celus does indeed talk about Jesus... though he didn't believe one bit of his divinity, believed he was the illegitimate child of an adulterous affair, and that he performed his miracles by sorcery. that the only account of his resurrection came from a hysterical woman, and that he had no actual standing in Hebrew prophecies. I guess I can count this, as he's actually talking about Jesus and not just referencing him while talking about Christians.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
2:44 Mara bar Serapion doesn't actually mention Jesus by name, only briefly referencing a 'wise king of the Jews.' But I'll be nice and give ya half a point for that.
2:49 Seutonius references 'Chrestus' in one of his writings. It's believed that he had mispelled 'Christus', but doubtful considering that he references 'Christians' later, and not 'Chrestians.' Besides that, there's little evidence for the other things he wrote about in that passage, so I'm going to strike this one as well.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
2:50 And we don't actually have any of Thallus works, we just have a Christian writer talking about his writines. While I've argued bias before, in this instance since the writing by Africanus is talking about how he was unconvinced by Thallus' explanation of an eclipse that occured on the day of the crucifiction I don't think that's the issue here. Still, since we don't actually have Thallus' own writing I don't think I can accept this.
Final score: 2 points
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
3:17 As Carl Sagan once said; 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' No one alive today claims that Tiberius Caesar was a god in human guise, and that our enternal afterlife is dependant on belief and worship of him, so I don't really need that much proof to believe that he existed. These things ARE claimed about Jesus by people alive today, and credible proof that he even existed at all is paltry at best.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
4:05 I love how he emphasizes 'textual evidence' in this section. This is of course because there were busts made of Tiberus made during his lifetime, and his face was probably on Roman money of the time, and there were probably other evidences that he existed.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
I'd like to conclude by saying that I came into this video believing that--at the very least--the New testament was at least based on someone who actually existed, not unlike how Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was based on a real little girl named Alice Liddell. Now I come out of this video doubting that Jesus was anything more than a character Paul invented to give credibility to his ministry.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "As Carl Sagan once said; 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." LOL!!!
1) First, to claim that a man existed, is not an extra-ordinary claim.
2) This claim, which comes from hume, as been thoroughly refuted; when hume made this claim, the propositional calculus hadn't been developed yet!
plus ur own philosopher, john earman has totally refuted this claim.
and, please provide one HISTORIAN and his scholary source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan I'll grant you the first point.
The second... I'm not exactly sure what you're even talking about? What did Hume claim? What does calculus have to do with anything? Who is John Earman and how is he my philosopher if I've never heard of him?
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan
I would add that, if I can help it, I try not to accept anything on faith. While it might not take extraordinary evidence to merely prove a man lived, it should take SOME evidence, and the trustworthy evidence for Jesus existing is minuscule, and that's me being generous (such as granting one point and two half points). Admittedly I'm no expert so I might be wrong, but I'm not about to just take an expert at his word unless he has the evidence to back it up.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan
But it's rather nice of you to do so, at least when the experts agree with what you already believe.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "You admit at the start of the video that they're only within a 150 years of Jesus death...don't think that 'early Christian writers' wouldn't've had a bias" LOL!!! u missed the point scholars aggree that all the NT books were written in the 1st century and the material for the resurrection date back to at most 2 years after the cross.
even if u are correct, please give the criteria from the HISTORICAL METHOD that if someone has a bias, his testimony must be thrown out.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan You keep alluding to scholars who allegedly agree with you but fail to name any while pestering me to name some who agree with me. I never claimed I had experts on my side, I was just calling things as I see 'em. If you have so many scholars on your side how about you drop some names so I can use these here Intertubes to look 'em up and see if they present any better arguments then you and CARM.org have? Hey, if their experts they MUST have better arguments, right?
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquallAKALeon "Ain't it neat how the Gnostic Gospels don't count for any EXCEPT proving that Jesus existed?" no, it is also used to find out what gnostics believed.
"probably because the Gnostics WERE early Chrsitian writers, it's just that their particular beliefs never caught on. " provide the HISTORIAN and his scholarly work for this, too.
"So far the count is still 0." for who? u? or HISTORIANS?
remember what i asked for concerning biases, if it is true.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquallAKALeon Tacitus' writings refer to Jesus in passing almost like someone who was unfamiliar with Harry Potter" LOL!!! ur logic is amazing; his passage is detailed about what happened to Jesus; if u think that's in passing, well...
"It's proof that Christians existed back then, I'll give you that, but as for Jesus, the score stands at 1/2 a point." no. it is a non-biblical reference to Jesus, too.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "Josephus writings on Jesus are somewhat contested as it's suspected later Christian writers may have added details" not added details about the history but about theology.
coming back to "bias" ur logic is amazing; if a WW2 victim writes down their persnal experience, we should dismiss it bcos they are biased? sorry, historians are trained to sift out bias information if it's not true.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@SquallAKALeon "The Bible writings can be thrown out immediately..." or really??? i can see u r going to get pwnd very badly; ALL historians who deal with Jesus use the NT; so please provide the HISTORIAN and his scholarly source who says that the Bible cannot be used; u also fail to understand that the Bible is a collection of books which counts for multiple sources.
"magic, apparently" miracles NOT magic; but if u insist, plz provide a credible source that says miracle and magic are synonyms.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan
From the Dictionary:
Miracle: A surprising and welcome event that is NOT EXPLICABLE BY NATURAL or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Magic: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or SUPERNATURAL forces.
Deity: Any SUPERNATURAL being worshiped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan
Anyway, no, you can not use the Bible to prove the Bible. If you could, then Muslims could use the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an, Scientologists could use the Dianetics to prove Scientology, and so on. Just because the Bible has some historical accuracy does not make it trust worthy. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has been praised for Historical accuracy, would you trust that as a source?
SquallAKALeon 8 months ago
Duh
sarevor 8 months ago
I'm always fascinated (and a bit amused) when Christians rely on documents such as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas.
ProfMTH 8 months ago 2
How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?
Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more
The only thing these sources are attesting to is the existence of early cult of Christianity
Are these theists really that obtuse, intellectually dishonest, evidentially desperate or "d" (all of the above)?
Your thoughts?
LetReasonPrevail1 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 "How on Earth can they keep a straight face while they trot out all these "sources" as if they are actually all independant attestations of Jesus' life & ministry?"
Apologists are little more than trained public relations people who have, among other things, mastered the art of keeping a straight face when they make utterly bogus claims.
"Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more."
Indeed.
ProfMTH 8 months ago 2
@ProfMTH can u provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggest Jesus didn't exist?
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan "can u provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that even suggest Jesus didn't exist?"
Let's assume that there is not now nor has there ever been a single historian in the whole world who "even suggest[s] Jesus didn't exist." Would that prove that Jesus *did* exist? Think about it before you answer.
I don't happen to be an adherent of the "Jesus didn't exist" position. My objection is to the scam apologists try to pull off vis-a-vis the evidence that he existed.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 "Most of these sources are simply confirming what Christians believed at the time & nothing more" or really??? please provide the phrase in tacitus' work where he says something like "according to Christians" or sumthing like that.
"independant attestations" yeah, historians rely on multiple sources, so please provide one Historian and his scholarly source that even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
"intellectually dishonest" we shall see who is being dishonest.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
Thanks for the response.
Part 1 of my retort:
Tacitus doesn't have to explicitly state "according to Christians" in order for us to logically draw the conclusion that he was merely reporting what Christians believed at the time (and nothing more)
All you need to do is follow the evidence: He wrote about Jesus in 116 AD (9 decades after he was supposedly executed) thus he could not have had direct knowledge of the events nor could he have had access to any eye witnesses
LetReasonPrevail1 8 months ago
Also Tacitus doesn't mention any extra-biblical sources for the Jesus crucifiction story, thus the most-likey source are the beliefs promulgated at the time by the early christians
All that said, I am not asserting Jesus didn't exist. I am instead calling B.S. on the claim that Jesus' life & ministry were attested to by 49 (or whatever #) independent, contemporary, reliable sources. Anyone even implying this should feel ashamed
Christanity is faith-based not evidence-based. Deal with it
LetReasonPrevail1 8 months ago
If Jesus didn't exist Christianity wouldn't exist either. No Jesus = no disciples = no Christians.
jonathanfater 8 months ago
@jonathanfater But then again people can make up words to :D
meluvmuskpunk 8 months ago 2
@meluvmuskpunk True but no one will die for a lie that they know is a lie
jonathanfater 8 months ago
@jonathanfater "no one will die for a lie that they know is a lie"
The "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is, in the main, premised on apostolic martyrdom legends that didn't emerge until centuries after Jesus is supposed to have lived and died. Worse yet, the legends often contradict one another, attributing different horrific martyrdoms to the same apostle. It is, quite possibly, the worst bit of apologetics that Christians have ever come up with.
ProfMTH 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH "The "wouldn't die for a lie" argument is, in the main, premised on apostolic martyrdom legends that didn't emerge until centuries after Jesus is supposed to have lived and died." even if we only have later recordings, it doesn't mean it started there; also the sources for james and stephen go back to the first century; plus, we will all know what an historian u are if u can provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source who even suggests that Jesus didn't exist.
leviMichealathan 8 months ago
@leviMichealathan ProfMTH did not suggest that Jesus did not exist. Scarcely anyone has. I do suggest that Jesus did not exist; but it has a meaning that will escape you. I stipulate that 6,498 persons named Jesus existed during the time period of THE Jesus spoken of in the bible. Some of those people most likely were a source for some part of the myth. The ONE person you keep referring to however could never have existed. He was no more real than Apollonius or any other character.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan "ProfMTH did not suggest that Jesus did not exist." really??? what did he say then?
"Some of those people most likely were a source for some part of the myth. " provide one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says this, thx.
"The ONE person you keep referring to however could never have existed." Jesus, the one who was called Christ, the one was crucrified under pontius pilate, the one whos tomb was found empty, did exist.
the question is, do u want to get pwnd?
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan ProfMTH said: "I don't happen to be an adherent of the "Jesus didn't exist" position."
"provide one HISTORIAN"
No. I gave you MY opinion. Or are you too stupid to discern that also?
To the rest. There was no empty tomb. There was no Jesus who raised the dead, walked on water etc.
Name one real historian who says there was.
Normal historians don't need 10 million Christians screaming for their blood when they speak the truth. Christians can lie all they want.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 1:
time to have some fun
LOL!!! he said that after i pwnd him; go back and read the thread IN ORDER.
"There was no empty tomb. "
"the historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb" Michael Grant
"There was no Jesus who raised the dead, walked on water etc."
"Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist." marcus borg
PWND!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 2:
"No. I gave you MY opinion." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who cares about ur OPINION??? historians??? scholars???
since everything is just ur OPINION, case closed
"Or are you too stupid to discern that also?" ad hominems only work in never-never land.
now, get lost.
PS: genius, when u read the thread carefully, IN ORDER, you will notice that i pwnd you before.
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Are you drunk? Stupid? Lying? A stupid lying drunk?
Borg is just a Christian. Not a historian. You idiot. Grant was a historian and quite stupid on this point. There's no evidence there was any tomb at all.
Let's go back to ProfMTH. You were too stupid to understand his words; and I'll quote them again: "I don't happen to be an adherent of the "Jesus didn't exist" position."
You're either a liar or stupid or both. Most likely both. Present evidence or shut up.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 1:
LOL!!! ad hominens!!! watch and learn how you get pwnd on many levels.
"Borg is just a Christian." even IF he is a "Christian", so what? give a LOGICAL ARGUMENT why Christians CANNOT be historians; according to ur logic, because only evos believe in evotardism, we can reject it. also, genius, atheist historians are biased against miracles; they rule them out a priori; again, ad hominems don't work in the REAL world.
cont....
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Excuse me? I thought you asserted that non-Christians accepted the stupidity of the gospels as fact.
Yes, that's right. Any "historian" who accepts as fact that a "miraculous" event occurred simply because some idiot said so isn't a real historian. An actual historian who records that people claimed Elvis was seen alive after his death is quite different from a pseudo-historian who would claim therefore that Elvis WAS alive after his death just because someone said so.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 2:
but , genius, borg is NOT Christian, by definition; he doesn't believe in miracles, Jesus claimed to be God, etc; he is simply stating the fact the evidence for Jesus' miracles is strong; he rejects them not on the evidence but on philosophical grounds. now comes the big pwnage:
Marcus Borg is a member of.....The Jesus Seminar. LOL!!!!!!!!!! do you know what The Jesus Seminar believes??? LOL!!!!!!!!!! PWND!!! so much for being "just a Christian"
cont...
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Borg is a Christian and you're a liar. Oh wait. Those are the same thing.
I think it's funny that children who've learned to type "LOL" think the've somehow done something special.
Idiot.
Yes. I'm sufficiently informed about the "Jesus Seminar". Too bad you're not.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 3:
"Grant was a historian and quite stupid on this point." LOL!!! you reject ur own scholars??? how many papers have you published??? where's ur rebuttal paper to Grant???
plus, genius, genius, 75% of CRITICAL scholars believe in the empty tomb.
"There's no evidence there was any tomb at all." sorry, your OPINION doesn't count as evidence.
cont,,,
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Now you're becoming truly entertaining. 25% of "critical scholars" don't believe in the empty tomb? And you were asking for just one name. Seems you must know a thousand already.
And; moron, I don't have any scholars.
Finally. You've yet to present ANY evidence of any kind, idiot.
What you can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 1:
"Yes, that's right. Any "historian" who accepts as fact that a "miraculous" event occurred simply because some idiot said so isn't a real historian."
provide a credible source for ur definition of "historian"
also, genius, historians who believe that Jesus' miracles did happen have published articles regarding the miracles in international peer-reviewed journals like, The Journal for the Historical Jesus. PWND!!!
you keep getting pwnd. LOL!!!
cont....
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Why would I need any source? You never provided one. You also provided as a claimed historian someone who doesn't work as a historian.
That being the case I could cite Robert Price if I wanted to. In fact I could even claim to be a historian without violating any definition you've given.
What's that? Peer reviewed nonsense is to be automatically accepted without considering evidence that's never been given.
Come now.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 2:
"Borg is a Christian and you're a liar." LOL!!! Borg is a "Progressive Christian" LOL!!!! according to your logic, if some claims to be an atheist, yet believes in miracles is still an atheist! LOL!!! I challenge you to show me where in Christian doctrine that one is still a Christian if he rejects the miracles of Jesus, His resurrection and His claims to be God. pwnd!!!!
plus, genius, I aready pwnd you even IF Borg was a Christian.
cont...
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan I need not show you any such thing. Borg does not work as a historian as you claimed. He is a Christian whether you like it or not. He scarcely has any identification other than as a Christian.
If what he has to say isn't backed by evidence then he's not credible. He's no different than you. No evidence: No credibility.
chilimaan 3 months ago
Furthermore; idiot. You've just claimed that your own cherry picked "scholars" don't accept that Jesus performed miracles. That means they don't accept the Jesus presented in the gospels. Which means they and I agree on exactly the point I made that started your stupid little rant. And this is WHY Grant is stupid. He discounts the miracles (such as the resurrection); yet gives us no real reason to accept the empty tomb, or any part of the story.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 3:
"Yes. I'm sufficiently informed about the "Jesus Seminar". Too bad you're not." LOL!!!! if you knew who they were you wouldn't have claimed that Borg was a Christian and not a historian. PWND!!!
"25% of "critical scholars" don't believe in the empty tomb? And you were asking for just one name. Seems you must know a thousand already." LOL!!!!! genius, I aksed you to name one HISTORIAN and his scholarly source that says Jesus DIDN'T EXIST, not the empty tomb. PWND!!!!
cont..
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan It's so cute the little boy learned to type "LOL" and "PWND".
What's the matter little boy? Don't understand your own questions? Aww... That's too bad.
How are you going to understand the answers if you don't even understand the questions?
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 4:
"Finally. You've yet to present ANY evidence of any kind, idiot. What you can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
genius, go back to the older posts, maybe about 4 months ago, and see how i pwnd you. this is coming from someone who claimed Jesus was a character made from other characters and ur "evidence" was....."I gave you MY opinion" LOL!!!
cont....
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Yes. I gave you my opinion. You still don't get what even that means.
It means I've looked at the facts and determined they don't warrant your conclusion. If you thought your position were reasonable you would already have given me your evidence to arrive at your conclusion. You don't think your conclusion is reasonable, so you've given me no evidence.
You typing "LOL" and "PWND" over and over has accomplished nothing.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 5:
to date:
you claimed that Jesus never existed. PWND!!!
you claimed that no historian believes in the empty tomb. PWND!!!
you claimed that no historian believes Jesus' miracles happend. PWND!!!
you claimed that marcus borg is a christian. PWND!!!
you claimed that you know about the Jesus Seminar, and i don't. PWND!!!
you claimed that historians don't believe the gospels. PWND!!!
cont....
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 6:
your only responses were to attack the scholars if they are Christians and attack the scholars when they are atheists, even though you have no evidence; make up ur own random definition of "historian" and all the time the evidence for your claim was..."it's My opinion" LOL!!!!!!!!
get lost!!!!
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 7:
"You could just quote him if it would help your case. I did quote him. Idiot.. He didn't say what you claimed. Idiot. Now quote him as saying that Jesus never existed. idiot."
if by idiot you mean, "someone who keeps pwning chilimaan" then i am an idiot.
no, genius, go back and read the comments between ur guru and myself; i'm not ur lap dog.
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@chilimaan part 4:
here's ur logic, if a historian is a "Christian", then he is not an historian; and if an atheist historian pwns you, then he is stupid. LOL!!! great logic!!!
ur OPINION trumps scholars, right? PWND!!!!
cont...
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan Yes. If a "historian" is a Christian his report on the historicity of Christianity is USELESS. He's already committed to his conclusion. The only question is how he'll get there. And, when a "atheist" historian looks at the facts surrounding the stories of Jesus and concludes they are real without demonstrating any evidence, then he is stupid.
My opinion is my opinion. Idiot. If scholars want to change my opinion they have to provide EVIDENCE; not assertions.
chilimaan 3 months ago
@chilimaan If a "historian" is a Christian his report on the historicity of Christianity is USELESS.
no, genius, an historian follows the historical method. again, according to ur logic, "if a scientist is an evolutionist, then his report on the truthfullness of evolution is USELESS. He's already committed to his conclusion. ur logic is out of this world.
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan So you're saying you believe in evolution also? Okay. Let's use Mormonism for instance. Since Mormon "scholars" tell us the history of Mormonism is true then you accept that also.
In fact you'll believe ANYTHING if the "scholars" who believe in it tell you to. Right?
After all; you don't require any evidence.
chilimaan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chilimaan "So you're saying you believe in evolution also?" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if you can't comprehend what i said, that's ur problem.
ur point about mormonism is a straw man.
"In fact you'll believe ANYTHING if the "scholars" who believe in it tell you to. Right?" LOL!!! so now you know facts about me???
EVEN IF that's correct, at least i have some basis compared to you who believes something without any evidence and evidence to the contrary.
cont...
leviMichealathan 3 months ago
@leviMichealathan What evidence? You've actually got to cite some evidence; it doesn't just pop into existence just cause you say you have some.
chilimaan 3 months ago