Hitch is right in this case, as in so many others. There is certainly not enough historical evidence to BE SURE that Jesus ever existed. Even he agrees though, in his book, 'God Is Not Great', that it seems likely that there was such a character, mainly due to the extent the gospels go to massaging the story of Jesus to fit the prophecies of the Old Testament. Really though, that is all we have as any evidence of Jesus Christ ever existing, the gospels, canonic and non canonical.
Hitchens is denying a fact. We do have Historical Documentation apart from the Bible stating talking about Christ written by many literate scholars of the age.
@agreatflood2121 There is only 4 accounts of Jesus outside the bible. One of them by Josephus is proven to be fake. I will also note none of the extra biblical accounts are before about 70CE. Most of them do not mention Jesus specifically. They speak of the Christos. None of them attest to or even acknowledge divinity or miracles.
@agreatflood2121 I have researched each claim. None of them actually "prove" Jesus existed. The best reference goes something like "James the brother of the man they called the Christ." Besides that they get even more vague. I mean and even that one I believe was 70 years after his death.... So by then its all heresay. I also love how people say all the archaeological evidence... For a single individual? Doubtful at best.
@CtheWolfe If you want proof, then do mathematics that is the only place you're going to find absolute proof.
Your argument of hearsay, is a support for the historicity of Christ, not the opposite.
You also forget that each of these ancient historians refer to a specific person (Messiah), in a very specific place, doing specific things. And they fit together.
Challenging what has been known for more then one thousand years does not change facts.
@agreatflood2121 "If you want proof, then do mathematics that is the only place you're going to find absolute proof." How does mathematics prove Jesus? This is interesting.
"ancient historians refer to a specific person (Messiah), in a very specific place, doing specific things. And they fit together." Give me some sources as to which this messiah is referenced from these historians.
Totally owned by Hitchens. The speed with which Dinesh switched from Jesus to Alexander the Great while attempting to maintain his argument was shameless. In contrast Hitchen's holding back on exploiting the gaping hole in D'Souza argument only helped to make it more apparent.
What BS. Hitch knew little of historical Jesus, & like Dawkins, nor ever researched sufficiently or truthfully. If one were to dismiss of all the records & archaeological support of Jesus, you woyuld have to do that & block MOST of ancient history! By far, most REAL historians & scholars agree Jesus existed, including the agnostic & atheist scholars...the only debate was His divinity. Period.
@GoodyBob So what is your definition of a "real" historian? There is no historical evidence for Jesus. EVERYTHING you have comes from long after he was dead. Not Jesus, his followers, nor any contemporary of his time wrote a single word about him.
@TheFedupcitizen WAY wrong! Like thousand of others,you have been brainwashed by Hitch & zeitgeist(mindheist) etc. We've Pauls' letters written shortly after Jesus. There's over 50 NON-Biblical accounts including His enemies. I have studied for yrs. of this & the new-age crap is twisting all! See also youtube: Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15, see "What is the Timeline? (Bible:Fact or Fiction) + 1,000's more. They just found The Pool of Siloam= all said never existed
@TheFedupcitizen PS I don't have 6 hours to elaborate w/support, but Hitch was wrong on ALL. He said there never was a census taken for Joseph/Mary. They just found evidence that there was the census, plus it's known that that Roman governors of each area can call for a census, taxes, etc at their will if suits the empire.
See the famous EX-atheist archaeologist Sir William Ramsay(not the Chemist) who tried to prove Luke Book of Acts wrong...later he said Luke was correct to the smallest detail!
There is no direct historical or archaeological record, but it's still very reasonable to think that the stories were based on a real person since otherwise they would have made up stories that would have been more impressive to contemporary Jews. The writings we do have are almost useless to historians since they aren't first-hand, consistent, independent or contemporary.
"Please see my responses to AdUtrumquePeratus76 for now."
OK, thanks.
"How do you know about if Homers' Troy was real or not?"
We don't know how much of the Iliad story is 'real' (if anything) and there are very good reasons to think it was heavily embellished, which is why nobody accepts it as a reliable historical account.
"50 NON-Biblical confirmations of Jesus (...) we do have contemporaries, even from His enemies"
@GoodyBob Hitchen's questions the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and points out that there is no evidence provided by his contemporaries, and most of the evidence cited by apologists dates from decades to centuries after his reported lifetime. He does this to show the sliding scale biblical scholars use for 'evidence. None of which matters to the broader point He is making. Hitchens often concedes the historicity argument because even if it were proven, it does not show divinity.
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 Thx, but it is by far the new-age atheist clones that use the sliding scale & claim if something wasn't written within a week OR is very old, then it can't be considered valid. I argue with em' all every week on this! "Contemporaries was never a criteria in other ancient histories! BUT we do have "contemporaries, even from His enemies. In hurry but on His divinity start with youtube Lee Srobels' " Was Jesus God?" fro a good summary, the many others.
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 Also 1 +1 never = 0. Especially 1 + 1,000. We also have over 50 NON-Biblical confirmations of Jesus from even His enemies. How do you know about if Homers' Troy was real or not? It's called archaeology & history & supporting evidence! Youtube "Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15. Also "How Many Manuscripts Are There? (Bible: Fact or Fiction? Much more .Gotta run to work.
@GoodyBob So your saying that it is a fact that the goddess Aphrodite helped Paris abduct the most beautiful woman in the world and abscond with her to Troy because archaeologists discovered the ruins of Troy? Anyone can throw out numbers, please cite a contemporary source for Jesus. The authorship of the new testament is unauthenticated, and the earliest scrap dates to well after 33 ad
@punnet2 Sure mate. Start by seeing Sir William Ramsay famous archaeologist(not the chemist) tried to prove Luke/Book of Acts wrong. After yrs of digs all over Asia Minor, said Luke was accurate to the smallest detail. Many others also. Gotta run but best see sites like google this one: gregboydorg/essays/apologetics/is-there-archeological-support-for-the-reliability-of-the-gospels.
Then see the over 50 non-Biblical documents on Jesus from even enemies. See The John Ryland Fragment, etc, etc.
@GoodyBob Sorry, but the site you provided was sadly lacking. I asked for archaeological evidence in support of jesus himself; not archaeological evidence for 1st century Judaism, Pontius Pilate or the practice of crucifixion, which is all the site provided.
In other words, it does not appear you actually have archaeological evidence for jesus as you claimed.
@punnet2 LOL. Thanks, but I'm not gonna research for you & I don't have 10 hrs to tell you all I have studied for yrs. You must of not seen the pics of the evidence of crucifixion with the Roman nail. They have found St. Peter's house, Caphaius' house, the Pontius Pilate stone, wedding location where Jesus turned water to wine, etc. See Sir William Ramsay famous ex-atheist archaeologist(not the chemist) who tried proving Luke/Acts wrong. After yrs of digs he said Luke was correct in every detail
@GoodyBob Try paying careful attention, please. The practice of crucifixion; the historicity of Pilate; and the existence of particular locations in Palestine are not in question. The evidence for such things does not amount to archaeological evidence of jesus himself, which you claimed to have.
This is about as useful as archaeological evidence of London serving as evidence for Harry Potter 2,000 years from now.
@punnet2 They just found The Pool of Siloam where Jesus is said to have healed the blind man. The skeptics said it never existed, but it's there with the tunnel & 5 cisterns EXACTLY as described in the Gospels. See the Pauline undisputed letters/gospels. The Ryland Fragment. Please research & not the new trash like Dan Brown...there's tons of stuff friend. See some of the 200 vids on my channel. See Biblical archaeology sites also. Bye.
@GoodyBob Evidence of a pool is not evidence that someone magically cured someone's blindness with mud and saliva near that pool.
And what do the Pauline letters or the gospels have to do with your original claim? Paul never met jesus, and the earliest gospel (mark) is dated to decades after jesus supposedly died. Neither of these, therefore, suffice as "archaeological evidence for jesus".
@punnet2 You asked for some archaeological support. Again I'm too busy to prove to you all I know. Go argue with the vast majority of REAL scholars(including atheistic ones) who have NO DOUBT the existence of Jesus is fact. Instead you prefer reading the new age garbage like even Ehrman, who is an epic fail also. Instead, you follow whatever the book of the month is.The world was changed drastically at the time of His resurrection. 1 +1= 2, now try 1 + thousands of support. No Ipads 2000 yrs ago
@GoodyBob If you would review our brief exchange, you would notice that all I asked was for you to provide archaeological evidence for jesus, which you claimed to have; I made no claims of my own. Your response was wholly inadequate (archaeological evidence for a pool is not archaeological evidence for jesus), along with baseless accusations.
Please dispense with the asperions and provide the archaeological evidence for jesus you claimed to have or admit that you in fact don't.
@GoodyBob I agree mostly, but I do not agree that denying Jesus existed would block MOST of ancient history. Jesus only lived to his mid 30's, I think you're talking about the overall IMPACT on historical society that this man had made (if he existed.) If the NT was written 200-300 years after his purported death, then how would those authors know themselves he existed? All eyewitnesses would be dead, it's all oral. And why did it take so long to write down an account of his teachings....
@GoodyBob your right one would have to go back as far as horus, borned on the 25 dec 3000 bc, from a virgin, crucified, resurected 3 days after, annonce by a women, etc etc, change water to wine, mithra to,,, what a werid coincidence,
we would really have to destroy all ancient history, even before he was born, its almost like a bunch of story collide together in one person, that was fabricated later on by church official, isnt it werid,
@lapmarty LOL, Nice try but Horus Jesus comparisons have totally debunked long ago = epic fail. I can't believe there's still someone who hasn't read all the critics against ridiculous zeitgeist(THE mindheist/Archyra/ etc.) None have EVER been compared to Jesus & survived scrutiny of the real scholars(atheist scholars also) on attempts to twist history to sell books.
@GoodyBob zeitgest use something that has been discuted for a long time, the critic on horus, arent debunked, they simply point out the obvious, those story arent unique to jesus at all,
secondly even if jesus existed still christianity make no sence,
when you beleive something, because your indoctrinated like you, this beleif has no value, no connection to the real world, sure it might help you, it might help your wishfull childish dream of living forever, but doesnt change the game
@lapmarty Wrong, friend. Plus, I haven't been "indoctrinated", I challenged all, but thru accurate, truthful, & diligent research of both sides of the historicity of Jesus, like the scholars say "Jesus without a doubt existed, & made a great & very immediate change in those times, & now. He cannot be discredited, nor blocked out". Research please... & not the new age garbage d' jour.
Hello. I just want to congradulate you on your courageous stance against the new atheistic cult that cares far less about facts than most religious believers. Bravo.
@zzzak123 Thank you....you are right these new age clones want to see vidz on their Ipads of of pics at the PROVEN trial of Jesus. They will believe any new book with crap that comes along against most un-biased scholars & search for their love of conspiracy theories FO HOURS before reading one word of real history & links proving Jesus or anything good. It's a modern sickness. God bless.
@GoodyBob indoctrination is accepting a hypothesis on how the world works, without any evidence,
did you see jesus miracle? did you see the talking snake, (absurd) adam and eve, is a mythe we known that, evrething in thos book is base on primitive mythology, yet amazingly some beleive that shit, they got evrething wrong, the age of the earth, EVRETHING, you beleived the law of physic has been suspended by jesus christ, but you beleive that base on one thing, A BOOK TELL SO,pathetic
@lapmarty You are the one that is so sadly blind. According to your "legend in your own mind" rules of history...you would need to throw out & block ALL of history because you weren't there. You do not exist either then cuz' I can't see you. LOL. You need to also throw out all courts of law since it relies on witnesses also. Get a life & research. Adios.
It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us, waking, and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought-crime, who can judge us while we sleep for things that might occur to us in our dreams, who can create us sick, as apparently we are, and then order us – on pain of eternal torture – to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave.
Dinesh made that were in any way comprehensible and sadly fallacious. Hitchens was much more logical in his reasoning. Dinesh even blatantly dodges the holocaust question haha :D
why is this vid titled "dinesh gets owned"? This vid is ridiculous. Thanks for flaunting your ignorance but keep the "sports fan" mentality ("gets owned") for sports or ripping on justin beiber or Kardashian clip. It's probably best to critique an intellectual dialogue in an intellectual, or rational manner. These "gets owned" youtube vids are the technological equivalent of throwing tomatoes...funny and primitive but can't be taken seriously.
@dwheel39 Could you be any more transparent with your psychology? Would I be correct in thinking that you have posted this rant before? Why click on videos with "owned" in the description if that bothers you, unless you simply want to preach about the technological equivalency of throwing tomatoes?
@Johnf85 "Why click on videos with "owned" in the description if that bothers you, unless you simply want to preach about the technological equivalency of throwing tomatoes?"
Good question. I clicked here because young people boast of theists being "owned" and i was curious about it. I was disappointed however. Interesting that most of Hitchens' fan's comments amount to the intellectual equivalent of "the Lakers rule" (yours excluded of course)
@djcrupe Thats because hitchens dosent talk intellectually he just speaks his mind like every other atheist. He really sucks. Why not have any other joe as an atheist debate at this point. If you can`t make good arguments.
@levedia I can't believe my eyes. DINESH IS FUCKING NOTORIOUS FOR JUST SPEAKING HIS MIND. I just watched his debate with Daniel Dennett, where he went on a tangent, with seemingly little preparation and organization. Dinesh is very opinionated. The basis for most atheists statements are independent from opinion, and their opinions are based on data, if you were to make a tally.
yeah but hitchings in another video contradicted himself saying there may have been the jesus as people went thru the trouble of making his birthplace conform with the old testament.
anotherwords...if he was a myth...a created lie from the start...why not just make jesus from where scripture said he was from...from the start?
Actually it's a minority view among scholars ... nay, a fringe view, that Jesus didn't exist. Dinesh isn't "owned" here. Hitchens is holding a fringe view, because he doesn't want Jesus to exist. I wouldn't want a guy to exist either, whose teachings I had called immoral and vile.
Apparently, both Hitchens and D'Souza are unaware of Aristophanes. "The Clouds" was written when Socrates was supposedly alive, and is very critical of him. To say that the only contemporary accounts of Socrates are Plato and Xenophon, and therefore that all contemporary accounts are positive, is just not true.
@dylanzwick I,m not sure that Hitch is unaware of him, Aristphanes gained much credibilty from Plato rather than the other way around, so to cite him might be thought circular.
This video is stupid. Most historical scholars accept that there existed a Jesus Christ. However, the whole topic of how he is presented in the Bible is obviously debatable. Also, this video is edited up the ass, stupid ass people uploading their own edited garbage. I don't care about your text within the video which is intellectually dishonest. Scholars DONT use the BIBLE as EVIDENCE for Jesus Christ. Only Fundamentalists and bigots do. Get your facts straight. Christopher is still a smart guy.
I find Bart Ehrman's argument (for Jesus existing) very convincing, actually: that you see biblical authors twisting themselves into pretzels trying to fit the Jesus peg into the Jewish messiah hole, for example his shameful defeat at the hands of the Romans, or his failure to return "in this generation", etc. A "real" messiah wouldn't require that.
Unfortunately for Dinesh, they also suggest Jesus was not the son of God, but just a delusional, but well-intentioned jewish radical.
Contrary to belief, we have remarkably good records of the first century, and not one scholar documents anything relating to christianity or this dude walking around claiming to be the son of God. So no, Jesus probably did not exist.
@daemonowner there are 5 historical accounts of Christ Tacitus,PlinyTheYounger,Gaius Seutonius,FlaviusJosephus and Thallus,all 5 made wrote 1-2 sentences mentioning Christ.But all were born AD and wrote their accounts under the auspices of the Roman Empire,so theres no way they could evidence Christ. About 30-40 other histiorians of the time do not mention Christ including,Philo Judaeus,Plutartch,Phaedrus,Columella,PlinyTheElder,Valerius Maximus...the list goes on and on..
@PAULOcbi From what I've heard of Josephus (primarily from the skepticon lecture of David Fitzgerald), Josephus did not actually write anything about Jesus, but rather it was a later forgery. The reason being that he never mentions this guy pissing off the romans at all - which is odd - and he is a jew, who wouldn't have accepted that Jesus is the jewish messiah - or else maybe he would write a little about him - and then for a few sentences he is reduced to a school girl over what he did...
@daemonowner all 5 of the accounts I mentioned were written under the auspices of the Romans and there is no validity to any of them.Philo Judaeus didnt call the founding fathers of Christianity the "sophists of literalness' for nothing. When reading Aristotle ca. 250 BC one can clearly see the recipe for Christianity..."A symbolic ,mythical or ritual representation of events that would be unendurable during daily life can redeem them into something pure and even be pleasurable." Crucifiction
@PAULOcbi Total blatant lies. A simple Theology class, or a google search provides proof with against your claim. Only 5 historical accounts? LMAO. Hell, even a Wiki page would tell you otherwise. Nice try.
@Tekkenman101 lol,allright wise guy...Im waiting for you to list the other historical accounts of Christ,Ive listed 5,you say there are more but cannot produce names etc...
@PAULOcbi I could type them out, but it would be better to forward you ;]. There you can see both sides. I doubted it as well at one point but I changed my mind a long time ago. If that page isn't enough (it should be) then I can give you some other sources. Keep in mind that most of what is debated about Jesus Christ is really only three things: His birth story (account of how/where it happened), resurrection, and details of the crucifixion. Type in, "Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia" on Google
@Tekkenman101 very funny,obviously this web page simply lists the same 5 historians I listed and the other sources like Talud are dogmatic(religious) so they dont count.Its like I said there are only 5 historical accounts of Christ and they are bogus since all 5 historians were born AD. Nice try though kid...lol
@PAULOcbi I literally laughed when I read your post. This was the epitome of horrid reading comprehension. I read the entire page and I can tell you didn't read jack shit. Obviously, I can now see that you are an intellectually dishonest and ignorant You Tuber. Dogmatic? LMAO, do you even know what that entails? It is derived from dogma which is a standard of religious practice. That has nothing to do with sources, the page doesn't even elaborate on them. Nice try, you're just distraught.
@Tekkenman101 stop your nonsense,theres a big difference between an account by an independent writer like Seutonius,Josephus etc... and religious sources like Church fathers,Talmud and Christian Apocrypha and other Christian sources that cant be possibly considered objective and must be deemed dogmatic.Just goes to show religionists have no interest in seeking truth thru results produced but only seek that their dogma be advanced.Next you`ll be calling Gospels a 'historical account'..lol.
@PAULOcbi No there isn't actually. There is a difference between the accounts FROM the Council of Nicicea and those from outside sources. However, even then the page talks about other ones so that topic is trivial in of itself. You're just a lazy ass person who spews ignorant garbage. Believe what you will, you're in the minority. I'll side with the norm of historical scholars throughout the globe who are also well versed in Theology and classical Theism. See ya.
@Tekkenman101 Anyway for those seeking truth ,Christ is a dogmatic figure who never existed ,like Joab,Moses,and Noah. Aristotle had the recipe for Christianity first.. " A symbolic,mythical or ritual representation of events that would be unendurablle in daily life can redeem them and transform them into something pure,and even be pleasurable."Aristotle 250BC. So you see how Christianity is a man made religion like all the rest.The Crucifiction is entirely fictional,as is Christ,.WAKE UP.
@PAULOcbi Aristotle was right, but you missed the context. He isn't talking about the existence of Jesus Christ. Do your homework. Like Cleanthes from Humes Dialogues on Natural Religion Aristotle is referring to the idea of Christianity under the umbrella of ideology known as Classical Theism. The existence of Jesus Christ is not important for the core of the religion (even though he existed in some form), but rather his metaphysical persona is what has always been important. Wake Up.
@Tekkenman101 Im well aware Aristotle is not talking about the existence of Christ,he is talking about redemption,salvation and catharthis which are all unique to Christianity and RomanCatholicism in particular,so you are WRONG about 'the umbrella of ideology known as Classical Theism' as only Catholicism offers redemption,salvation and the catharthis at mass when celebrating the crucifiction of Christ.Judaism or Islam dont contain these elements.Again nice try though...your learning at least.
@PAULOcbi Lmao, nice try. You tried to use Aristotle to insinuate the nonexistence of Christ. Also, please go do some research into what classical theism is and while you're at it learn that Catholicism came MUCH later after the compilation of the Bible and the spread of Christianity.
@Tekkenman101 no ,wrong again...evryone can read your comments so dont bother with your childish sophistry ,if I can see thru it anyone else can.I was just showing the 'recipe' for Christianity was thought of waaay b4 the supposed Christ and Crucifiction.The idea that redemption and salvation and cathartic feeling can be summoned by the suffering of someone else.These are unique to Christianity,Islam ,Judaism dont have these ideas.So its nothing to do with 'Classic Theism'..run along grasshopper
@PAULOcbi Where do other people come into this? Are you a performer? Sorry, but this isn't ancient Greece. Sophists died off a long time ago. Who cares about the "recipe" for Christianity. That makes no sense either way considering all religions share mutual structures past the core. Simple Theology. Stop playing the Straw-Man. Obviously you don't know what Classical Theism is if you're writing it off so easily. I'm done with your fallacious arguing, so reply if you wish. Good bye.
@Tekkenman101 Whos arguing ,,,anyone reading the comments can see Im a just teaching you where youve made mistakes. Now its 'who cares about the recipe for Christianity' ,,,'' Stop playing the Straw Man??' Your debate seems to have splintered into hollow hemispheres...
+ his understanding of scientific writings about biology and cosmology are stunningly poor OR he is just being insincere (i think it may be the latter)
Nice mix of Jimmy Page and Hitchens.. major KickAssery !
im just watching a different debate(9V85OykSDT8) and then this one. I heard that Dinesh is consider to be a "Titan" like Hitchens.. But i think besides his loud voice and hand waving, the content of his speech is no better than any other Religious debater. He is easily out-gunned and hitchslapped.
@test123ok Infatuated fan. People these days, I mean "titan"? Seriously lmao wtf is this pathetic internet garbage. People don't even know what debate is anymore.
the bibles an absolute master peice filled with science and medical fact before there time, hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, acheology and history attest to its reliability not to mention it was written through God by over 40 men in three languages and its in harmony from cover to cover. humble yourself and repent and trust in Christ. the only alternative is a boiling hot eternity
@jwdogg1551 I'd be careful with saying that. Think about how evidence for Jesus turns up. Unbiased historians are not just going to dig into a certain part of history without a reason, and the historicity of Jesus has been ganged by historians. Why? If a historian were to unearth some portion of his history that particularly indicated his existence, that historian would get a of of attention. Let's never forget that Christianity has a lot of money, and that they want Jesus to have existed
@Arcexey While the evidence may be partially unreliable, and possibly tampered, I don't want to say D'Souza is wrong, if Jesus' name is mentioned in other historical accounts. Whether Jesus existed or not, I don't call him God. So, to me, this is more or less a "who cares?" argument.
@jwdogg1551 at all costs. Look at religious scientists and tell me there isn't a bias there, that they don't WANT to find some kind of signature of god in our bodies. Look at pharmaceutical companies who want to sell particular medicines. The point is, when there is an incredible bias, you must tread carefully, and I find it better to not even take a stance at all if the answer is generally unimportant.. Did he exist? Did he not? Who cares.
It matters not whether Socrates was a real person or an invention. What matters are the works attributed to him. The same goes for any historical figure. If it were found that Alexander was not a real person, how would that change the world today? It wouldn't, because there are no supernatural claims associated with him. Now imagine if it were found that Jesus didn't exist? That results in a change in world-view for billions of people. If you believe him son of god, first prove he even existed.
@hungryman211 If you mean prove the supernatural jesus existed, I agree with you (about first proving he existed). But if we had solid proof that the man of Jesus really existed, it doesn't help the case of Christianity at all, whatsoever. Jesus existing is not like Christianity getting a foot in the door, and now all the other pieces are going to fall into place. I mean it when I say it doesn't help the claim of Jesus's miracles... AT ALL..
@Arcexey I may not have made myself clear (I'm sure you understand the difficulty when you only have 500 characters to play with).
Christians seek to prove that Jesus was the son of god (which somehow differs from their belief that we are all the children of god) and that he performed miracles and other supernatural anecdotes. My point was that before they even attempt to prove what he did, they must prove he existed. One cannot even be claimed without the other first being proven.
@hungryman211 I wasn't really disagreeing with you, my comment should have said:
Christianity isn't dependent on the historicity of Jesus, and not just because they're going to believe whatever they believe without any evidence, but because the historical Jesus could be a different Jesus than the biblical one.
Also, if the man of Jesus was to proved, it doesn't help proof Christianity. I'd hate that people would think:" Oh, jesus was real.. so the miracles must've been true as well."
@Arcexey " the historical Jesus could be a different Jesus than the biblical one." This is true also. If the Josephus accounts are to be even partially accepted, there are still doubts as to whom he may be referring to as Jesus, as he immediately, following the passages referring to Jesus, mentions another man (unrelated to the Biblical Jesus) who bears the same name.
Having said all this, I concede your point that the historicity of Jesus argument detracts from the core problem.
@hungryman211 I'd think that studying the historical Jesus would be so dissuasive. Knowing that with so many points along the way you are potentially looking at altered evidence is just unattractive. You can't just look at evidence, you have to look at who had access to that evidence throughout history.
And I'm sure, to some extent, this is true for any piece of history, be it the Holocaust or who discovered America, but the Jesus case just seems steeped in influence by outside sources.
@Arcexey Exactly. And the only contemporary source, outside of the bible, which makes claims that there was a Jesus are in the alleged writing of Josephus. I say alleged because there is a significant doubt that the passages relating to Jesus were actually written by Josephus, or indeed that Josephus was a reliable source of information (as he was considered by many a roman-sympathizer and traitor to the Jews).
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
No one existed! Socrates, Alexander the Great, Jesus, Washington, no one, no one existed! Lol, this people are hilarious. And for the person making this video.. the bible is not the only referencial book we can find to Jesus... please, do research before posting. I respect your beliefs, if you want to or not, it is your choice. But please, don't spread lies. Regards!
@CrippledKnight The Bible is not the only document that references Jesus, per se. Other references may not be talking about the same person, but this doesn't matter at all. The beginning of your comment is quite rubbish and I'm surprised no one has destroyed it, in four days. Did you even watch this video? Hitchens is not contesting there is a level at which a historical figure is deemed to have existed, nor that this level is not disputable. He's saying 1.) The biblical Jesus, in terms
@CrippledKnight of hard data, does not even come anywhere CLOSE to other prominent historical figures - such as Washington or Alexander the Great (and I am embarrassing those two by being in the same list as Jesus, btw). 2.) The factual existence of persons such as Socrates is not important, as his teachings are relevant and do not hinge on the fact that he was lived or not. Christianity and the miracles of Jesus absolutely do. If even Charles Darwin himself was not a real person it would not
@CrippledKnight matter. Evolution is a theory posed, in written works, by Darwin. We can test evolution today and know it's fact. Whether he really existed does not matter. In the case of Jesus, his existence - and further more godly existence - means everything to Christianity. Did Socrates really exist? No need for an answer; we can revere the Socratic method whether he existed or not.
@CrippledKnight Oh, and before you go all gung ho with that popular youtube video about Jesus existing, check the references - they are overwhelmingly from Creationist websites. Generally a reason to discard the "facts" by this reason alone. The videos themselves are soaked with agenda as some of the first bits of dialogue forcibly tell you that you won't be able to not believe in Jesus after watching.
@semitope Where did I say I had evidence against his existence? The point of my comments are that, compared to other historical figures, Jesus is at the very low end of probable existence. And more importantly, if he did exist, who cares? It doesn't mean that he performed miracles, or that he died and came back to life, or that he had a virgin birth, or that Christianity is true as a whole.
@semitope ......relative to other people! If we say that Barack Obama most likely exists because we can go talk to him right now and that we have pictures and a birth certificate and things he has written and his DNA, then we compare that level of existence to others. How does Jesus compare to Barack Obama? Comparatively, Jesus has very little evidence for his existence, and, as it pertains to christianity, it doesn't matter: I'm not talking about the evidence for miracles and all that.
@semitope As far as miracles, there is zero (0) evidence for. I'm talking strictly about whether Jesus or Yeshua actually existed. If the answer is Yes or No, it doesn't have anything to do with the miraculous claims of christianity. I hope I was more clear this time around. -_-
@semitope Is there some difference between being alive and being dead? Both are part of history. If you don't like my example, pick someone that died 2 seconds ago. Compare the validity of that person's existence compared to Jesus's. You'll see that they are completely on opposite ends of the meter. The point is that compared to other figures of history (and by 'figure' I mean anyone that has supposedly existed) Jesus is near the bottom. The same goes for historical figures that lived in the
@semitope same time period. Did you even watch the video? Are you disputing that someone whose writings we have, and whose face is on coins, and someone who has been written about first hand is not incredibly far beyond that of someone like Jesus, who we have none of that for? From biblical history, you do know the gospels are basically hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay? Your statement about Jesus 'matching up' well with other figures is true as it stands, but only in that he matches
@Arcexey "whose face we have on coins" is still too recent. LoL. You just won't bother going far back will you? Have you watched the videos in the link I sent? No?
@semitope 1.) What does being recent have anything to do with it? 2.) D'Souza is the one who brought up Alexander the Great (comparing him to Jesus), and Hitchens said there are coins with Alexander's face on them. And, no, I don't see any links. I'm guessing they're the links to the youtube series about jesus? I will look at any links you show me as long as they: -Are not from creationist websites. -Have credited references to the claims they make (that are not from creationist websites)
@Arcexey you know what recent has to do with it. Obviously the further back an individual lived the less information there is expected to be. Especially if that individual lived before certain technological advancements.
watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
the video actually touches on the time between his life and the present
@semitope 'Obviously the further back an individual lived the less information there is expected to be' What an incredibly idiotic thing to say. This means that all we need is a vague mention of a caveman's name for him/her to be deemed 'Existed' at the same level of someone like Abraham Lincoln.
If you disagree that this theoretical caveman and Lincoln aren't at the same level of probably existence, you are agreeing with my main point: That Jesus is at the bottom rung of probably existence.
@Arcexey you are operating with the assumption that there is no evidence for Jesus at all it seems. I am saying there is as much evidence for him as most historical figures before and around his time. Comparing persons of this era to him makes no sense. Recent history is much more documented than a time that has no semblance to this time.
btw, your 2 requirements to view my link are incoherent. If its from a religious website but has sources, why would you reject it?
@semitope If I'm not being clear, I'll try again, hopefully I can do better:
1.) There is evidence for Jesus.
2.) Compared to other historical figures, his evidence is extremely weak.
3.) Compared to other, different historical figures, his evidence is extremely strong.
4.) The evidence for Jesus is exceptionally prone to being altered - can we not say he is one of the top 5 people/events that agendas want these events/people to have existed/not existed?
@Arcexey lol. I see now. Even if the evidence for him considering the era is enough, you still wouldn't accept it and don't really care even if he did existed. I.e. this is all pointless. alrighty. bye
@semitope "Even if the evidence for him considering the era is enough" <--- You aren't listening. You are stuck on this idea on that someone gets a free pass just because they lived in a time when few people could or would record things.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying who cares that Jesus existed, in that I don't care that we've confirmed a piece of history - I think it's great we've shown yet another human being really lived.
@Arcexey that's a different question and wasnt what was being addressed at the outset. I was only concerned with the historicity of Jesus as the video is obviously about that.
@semitope That's fine. I was pointing out that me saying 'who cares' has nothing to do with any bias or me not wanting to accept evidence. I didn't want to be accused of that and for it to go unaddressed.
Jesus is considered to have existed by many, there is no universal requirement for someone having existed. My entire argument is that his existence must be taken with a grain of salt - and so must anyone with relatively weak evidence, compared to other people in history.
@semitope Let's not kid ourselves that a lot of people (including the person I was talking to which started my conversation with you) thinks that Jesus existing should be met with cheers and applause and a cry of 'See! Christianity is true!' My wish is to dispel that, and also any notion that, in the grand scheme of things, Jesus has the same amount of evidence as anyone else in history that is counted as having existed.
Anyway, about your video... My requirements are not incoherent for
@semitope several reasons: #1, anyone can write anything, and say it's true and present it in an entertaining fashion. I don't care for this type of presentation.
#2, Let's not put it past us that creationist websites have an agenda, and will twist any kind of fact into making you read it in the way they want you to read it. There are a lot of creationist websites that will, in detail, outline how they think the world is 10,000 years old, and do it in a fashion that makes you say 'omg, is
@semitope this true?" I am utterly uninteresting in reading anything from a source like that, and I say the same thing about any atheist website, as atheists can have agendas too.
@semitope You're trying to say that because people may have existed back in a time where people were not very literate, that this somehow gives them a free pass for not needing the same amount of evidence that other people would need to prove their existence. As I said, by this rational we can say that all a caveman in 10,000BC needs to been considered 'existed' is their name scribbled on a rock.
Draw out a linear graph. At one end put 'Probably existed' and at the other end 'Probably didn't.'
@Arcexey I am talking about reasonable evidence here. You want to compare Jesus to Lincoln, go ahead. Compare him to steve Jobs if you want. But reasonably expected evidence is satisfied. You simply do not wish to accept it OR accept the existence of anyone else during his time or before it basically. That is fine by me. As long as I know you know the evidence exists I don't have to go digging for sources that would satisfy your bias.
Moses is completely myth, that's for certain..but it's very highly possible that Jesus of Nazareth is real..He was a probably a charismatic rabbi who wanted to reform Judaism, claimed to be messiah..but I have even doubts whether he really claims to be god incarnate. Josephus and Tacitus are talking about a guy who claimed to be messiah but not god..
God is real you guys can say what you want about facts and science and intellectualize things all you want. but Jesus died for us so that we can have eternal life he could crush us all but he has given us a chance again. Christians don't fall into the debates do as Paul said to timothy not get into heating discussions they lead no where u will argue in circles. once you have shared your knowledge of God it is there choice to come to him ur Job is done share the good word and move on !
Isn't it funny how when D'souza realises his iron clad argument is failing miserably he tries to change the topic. His fan boys would probably say that Hitchins was being rude or talking over the top of him but you can't deny he answered the question. The problem was he had to step on D'souza's tail to keep him in place while he answered the question put to him.
@hdregmore A bit of advice for free. Next time you provoke someone at least know something about what you are talking about. You embarrassed yourself fool
@hdregmore Well I don't think it is as cut and dry as you think. Christians seem to like carbon dating when it serves their needs. But on a side note-LMAO You silly little penis head. After all that you blocked me. Unblock me and I will give you some more jokes. Or a you just a little scared now? Oh stupidity thy name is christian.
I think that the new atheists will help to dismantle all the fundamentalist Christian nonsense that gives Christianity a bad name. In challenging all nonsense in Christian thought, the new atheists will unexpectedly play into God's hand ... to strengthen the Catholic faith, whose teaching (not always practice, as we know) is without error.
@patientthomist I mean lets face it. You love geology if you can make it point to a great flood. You love quantum physics if it somehow ambiguously proves god. You love genetics only when you can twist it to infer intelligent design. Creationism is the very definition of having you cake and wanting to eat it too.
@patientthomist So you are saying there is absolute proof that a being exists outside our perception of space, time and matter? In that case how can you possibly say you know him if we cannot conceive of such things? Not only that christians say they have a personal relationship with him and he will punish you for eternity for finite crimes. You religion makes as much sense as a poorly written sci-fi novel.
I am saying that absolute proof exists for God. However, one has to maintain that deductive logic is a pathway to truth, as much as the scientific method is. Do you think that is true?
@patientthomist The scientific method is the best system we have for getting to the actual facts of any given situation. Deductive logic is the way cosmologists arrived at the phenomena we labeled "the big bang". The fact that celestial bodies are moving away from each other and can be plotted back mathematically to a smaller and smaller point in space and time supports the big bang model. So what absolute proof do you have of god's existence?
Through deductive logic, we can show there is one God, and by God, I mean a spiritual, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being with and beyond the form of personhood. Any religion that believes that such a being exists is at least correct on that account. The method to arrive is essentially syllogisms which necessarily begin with a sensory experience, which is necessary for all human knowledge.
@patientthomist The problem with your sensory experience is that it is a personal one. That is only evidence of what it feels like to you. The fact that your major premise must believed without real evidence is the failure of every argument for god. You need faith. Every religion admits this type of knowledge without any proof. What absolute proof do you have that makes your belief the only reality and negates the need for faith? Can you say you don't need faith?
The reality that sensory experience is personal does not mean that it is inaccurate -- and we share sensory experiences with common perception (e.g. helium balloons rise). Senses can be trusted -- that's a major premise of the scientific method as well. For the first cause argument and argument from motion, when properly understood, we need to sense only our current existence and motion ... next post ...
after that sensory experience, we can reason about our cause and motion -- there cannot be an infinite regress of these realities, since movement from an unlimited regress into current motion and existence would be impossible. This First Cause is necessary, then. More than that we can reason that there can only be one, omniscient, intelligent, immaterial, motionless cause responsible for creating all that is real -- this we call God.
@patientthomist You cannot compare your "god experience" to things that can be measured by anyone and the same results are achieved (e.g. helium balloons rise). Your "first cause" argument goes back to my original comment. How you possible come to the conclusion that this all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being who exists outside our perception of reality is real? You cannot just define god into existence.
Hitch is right in this case, as in so many others. There is certainly not enough historical evidence to BE SURE that Jesus ever existed. Even he agrees though, in his book, 'God Is Not Great', that it seems likely that there was such a character, mainly due to the extent the gospels go to massaging the story of Jesus to fit the prophecies of the Old Testament. Really though, that is all we have as any evidence of Jesus Christ ever existing, the gospels, canonic and non canonical.
seoulsimon 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seoulsimon "Really though, that is all we have as any evidence of Jesus Christ ever existing, the gospels, canonic and non canonical."
Then you are in the same place as Christopher Hitchens, denying facts for what they are.
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
Hitchens is denying a fact. We do have Historical Documentation apart from the Bible stating talking about Christ written by many literate scholars of the age.
agreatflood2121 2 weeks ago
@agreatflood2121 Can you name some? I don't know of any.
tacticaloperator12 2 weeks ago
@tacticaloperator12 I can't remember all their names, but this video like I'm showing should give you the information your looking for.
Look for this video:
Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus Christ (1 of 4)
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
@agreatflood2121 There is only 4 accounts of Jesus outside the bible. One of them by Josephus is proven to be fake. I will also note none of the extra biblical accounts are before about 70CE. Most of them do not mention Jesus specifically. They speak of the Christos. None of them attest to or even acknowledge divinity or miracles.
CtheWolfe 1 week ago
@CtheWolfe Look for this video:
Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus Christ (1 of 4)
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
@agreatflood2121 I have researched each claim. None of them actually "prove" Jesus existed. The best reference goes something like "James the brother of the man they called the Christ." Besides that they get even more vague. I mean and even that one I believe was 70 years after his death.... So by then its all heresay. I also love how people say all the archaeological evidence... For a single individual? Doubtful at best.
CtheWolfe 1 week ago
@CtheWolfe If you want proof, then do mathematics that is the only place you're going to find absolute proof.
Your argument of hearsay, is a support for the historicity of Christ, not the opposite.
You also forget that each of these ancient historians refer to a specific person (Messiah), in a very specific place, doing specific things. And they fit together.
Challenging what has been known for more then one thousand years does not change facts.
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agreatflood2121 "If you want proof, then do mathematics that is the only place you're going to find absolute proof." How does mathematics prove Jesus? This is interesting.
"ancient historians refer to a specific person (Messiah), in a very specific place, doing specific things. And they fit together." Give me some sources as to which this messiah is referenced from these historians.
CtheWolfe 1 week ago
@CtheWolfe Doesn't change the fact that Hitchens told a falsehood.
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
Comment removed
agreatflood2121 1 week ago
'Theres no evidence for Socrates...I mean Alexander The Great...I mean. Oh, fuck.'
Dinesh D'Souza is always good for a laugh.
LondonIrishRover 2 weeks ago
Totally owned by Hitchens. The speed with which Dinesh switched from Jesus to Alexander the Great while attempting to maintain his argument was shameless. In contrast Hitchen's holding back on exploiting the gaping hole in D'Souza argument only helped to make it more apparent.
audience2 3 weeks ago
What BS. Hitch knew little of historical Jesus, & like Dawkins, nor ever researched sufficiently or truthfully. If one were to dismiss of all the records & archaeological support of Jesus, you woyuld have to do that & block MOST of ancient history! By far, most REAL historians & scholars agree Jesus existed, including the agnostic & atheist scholars...the only debate was His divinity. Period.
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago 8
@GoodyBob So what is your definition of a "real" historian? There is no historical evidence for Jesus. EVERYTHING you have comes from long after he was dead. Not Jesus, his followers, nor any contemporary of his time wrote a single word about him.
TheFedupcitizen 3 weeks ago
@TheFedupcitizen WAY wrong! Like thousand of others,you have been brainwashed by Hitch & zeitgeist(mindheist) etc. We've Pauls' letters written shortly after Jesus. There's over 50 NON-Biblical accounts including His enemies. I have studied for yrs. of this & the new-age crap is twisting all! See also youtube: Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15, see "What is the Timeline? (Bible:Fact or Fiction) + 1,000's more. They just found The Pool of Siloam= all said never existed
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago 3
@GoodyBob The letters of Paul never refer to christ as a physical being. Just saying.
spacedementia87 3 weeks ago
@spacedementia87 Way wrong friend. Please study.
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago
@GoodyBob I have. Can you now point out where he does?
spacedementia87 3 weeks ago
@TheFedupcitizen PS I don't have 6 hours to elaborate w/support, but Hitch was wrong on ALL. He said there never was a census taken for Joseph/Mary. They just found evidence that there was the census, plus it's known that that Roman governors of each area can call for a census, taxes, etc at their will if suits the empire.
See the famous EX-atheist archaeologist Sir William Ramsay(not the Chemist) who tried to prove Luke Book of Acts wrong...later he said Luke was correct to the smallest detail!
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago 4
@GoodyBob Can you point me to some evidence of Jesus' existence?
spacedementia87 3 weeks ago
@GoodyBob "the records & archaeological support"
There is no direct historical or archaeological record, but it's still very reasonable to think that the stories were based on a real person since otherwise they would have made up stories that would have been more impressive to contemporary Jews. The writings we do have are almost useless to historians since they aren't first-hand, consistent, independent or contemporary.
banestyrelsen 3 weeks ago
@banestyrelsen No time to write now, gotta run to work. Please see my responses to AdUtrumquePeratus76 for now.
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodyBob
"Please see my responses to AdUtrumquePeratus76 for now."
OK, thanks.
"How do you know about if Homers' Troy was real or not?"
We don't know how much of the Iliad story is 'real' (if anything) and there are very good reasons to think it was heavily embellished, which is why nobody accepts it as a reliable historical account.
"50 NON-Biblical confirmations of Jesus (...) we do have contemporaries, even from His enemies"
I don't know of any. What is your best example?
banestyrelsen 2 weeks ago
@GoodyBob Hitchen's questions the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and points out that there is no evidence provided by his contemporaries, and most of the evidence cited by apologists dates from decades to centuries after his reported lifetime. He does this to show the sliding scale biblical scholars use for 'evidence. None of which matters to the broader point He is making. Hitchens often concedes the historicity argument because even if it were proven, it does not show divinity.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 3 weeks ago
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 Thx, but it is by far the new-age atheist clones that use the sliding scale & claim if something wasn't written within a week OR is very old, then it can't be considered valid. I argue with em' all every week on this! "Contemporaries was never a criteria in other ancient histories! BUT we do have "contemporaries, even from His enemies. In hurry but on His divinity start with youtube Lee Srobels' " Was Jesus God?" fro a good summary, the many others.
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 Also 1 +1 never = 0. Especially 1 + 1,000. We also have over 50 NON-Biblical confirmations of Jesus from even His enemies. How do you know about if Homers' Troy was real or not? It's called archaeology & history & supporting evidence! Youtube "Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15. Also "How Many Manuscripts Are There? (Bible: Fact or Fiction? Much more .Gotta run to work.
GoodyBob 3 weeks ago 2
@GoodyBob So your saying that it is a fact that the goddess Aphrodite helped Paris abduct the most beautiful woman in the world and abscond with her to Troy because archaeologists discovered the ruins of Troy? Anyone can throw out numbers, please cite a contemporary source for Jesus. The authorship of the new testament is unauthenticated, and the earliest scrap dates to well after 33 ad
AdUtrumquePeratus76 3 weeks ago
@GoodyBob What archaeological support of jesus are you referring to?
punnet2 2 weeks ago
@punnet2 Sure mate. Start by seeing Sir William Ramsay famous archaeologist(not the chemist) tried to prove Luke/Book of Acts wrong. After yrs of digs all over Asia Minor, said Luke was accurate to the smallest detail. Many others also. Gotta run but best see sites like google this one: gregboydorg/essays/apologetics/is-there-archeological-support-for-the-reliability-of-the-gospels.
Then see the over 50 non-Biblical documents on Jesus from even enemies. See The John Ryland Fragment, etc, etc.
GoodyBob 2 weeks ago
@GoodyBob Sorry, but the site you provided was sadly lacking. I asked for archaeological evidence in support of jesus himself; not archaeological evidence for 1st century Judaism, Pontius Pilate or the practice of crucifixion, which is all the site provided.
In other words, it does not appear you actually have archaeological evidence for jesus as you claimed.
punnet2 6 days ago
@punnet2 LOL. Thanks, but I'm not gonna research for you & I don't have 10 hrs to tell you all I have studied for yrs. You must of not seen the pics of the evidence of crucifixion with the Roman nail. They have found St. Peter's house, Caphaius' house, the Pontius Pilate stone, wedding location where Jesus turned water to wine, etc. See Sir William Ramsay famous ex-atheist archaeologist(not the chemist) who tried proving Luke/Acts wrong. After yrs of digs he said Luke was correct in every detail
GoodyBob 6 days ago
@GoodyBob Try paying careful attention, please. The practice of crucifixion; the historicity of Pilate; and the existence of particular locations in Palestine are not in question. The evidence for such things does not amount to archaeological evidence of jesus himself, which you claimed to have.
This is about as useful as archaeological evidence of London serving as evidence for Harry Potter 2,000 years from now.
punnet2 6 days ago
@punnet2 They just found The Pool of Siloam where Jesus is said to have healed the blind man. The skeptics said it never existed, but it's there with the tunnel & 5 cisterns EXACTLY as described in the Gospels. See the Pauline undisputed letters/gospels. The Ryland Fragment. Please research & not the new trash like Dan Brown...there's tons of stuff friend. See some of the 200 vids on my channel. See Biblical archaeology sites also. Bye.
GoodyBob 6 days ago
@GoodyBob Evidence of a pool is not evidence that someone magically cured someone's blindness with mud and saliva near that pool.
And what do the Pauline letters or the gospels have to do with your original claim? Paul never met jesus, and the earliest gospel (mark) is dated to decades after jesus supposedly died. Neither of these, therefore, suffice as "archaeological evidence for jesus".
Your bar for credibility is depressingly low.
punnet2 6 days ago
@punnet2 You asked for some archaeological support. Again I'm too busy to prove to you all I know. Go argue with the vast majority of REAL scholars(including atheistic ones) who have NO DOUBT the existence of Jesus is fact. Instead you prefer reading the new age garbage like even Ehrman, who is an epic fail also. Instead, you follow whatever the book of the month is.The world was changed drastically at the time of His resurrection. 1 +1= 2, now try 1 + thousands of support. No Ipads 2000 yrs ago
GoodyBob 6 days ago 3
@GoodyBob If you would review our brief exchange, you would notice that all I asked was for you to provide archaeological evidence for jesus, which you claimed to have; I made no claims of my own. Your response was wholly inadequate (archaeological evidence for a pool is not archaeological evidence for jesus), along with baseless accusations.
Please dispense with the asperions and provide the archaeological evidence for jesus you claimed to have or admit that you in fact don't.
punnet2 6 days ago
@GoodyBob I agree mostly, but I do not agree that denying Jesus existed would block MOST of ancient history. Jesus only lived to his mid 30's, I think you're talking about the overall IMPACT on historical society that this man had made (if he existed.) If the NT was written 200-300 years after his purported death, then how would those authors know themselves he existed? All eyewitnesses would be dead, it's all oral. And why did it take so long to write down an account of his teachings....
tacticaloperator12 2 weeks ago
@GoodyBob your right one would have to go back as far as horus, borned on the 25 dec 3000 bc, from a virgin, crucified, resurected 3 days after, annonce by a women, etc etc, change water to wine, mithra to,,, what a werid coincidence,
we would really have to destroy all ancient history, even before he was born, its almost like a bunch of story collide together in one person, that was fabricated later on by church official, isnt it werid,
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty LOL, Nice try but Horus Jesus comparisons have totally debunked long ago = epic fail. I can't believe there's still someone who hasn't read all the critics against ridiculous zeitgeist(THE mindheist/Archyra/ etc.) None have EVER been compared to Jesus & survived scrutiny of the real scholars(atheist scholars also) on attempts to twist history to sell books.
GoodyBob 1 week ago
@GoodyBob zeitgest use something that has been discuted for a long time, the critic on horus, arent debunked, they simply point out the obvious, those story arent unique to jesus at all,
secondly even if jesus existed still christianity make no sence,
when you beleive something, because your indoctrinated like you, this beleif has no value, no connection to the real world, sure it might help you, it might help your wishfull childish dream of living forever, but doesnt change the game
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty Wrong, friend. Plus, I haven't been "indoctrinated", I challenged all, but thru accurate, truthful, & diligent research of both sides of the historicity of Jesus, like the scholars say "Jesus without a doubt existed, & made a great & very immediate change in those times, & now. He cannot be discredited, nor blocked out". Research please... & not the new age garbage d' jour.
GoodyBob 1 week ago
@GoodyBob
Hello. I just want to congradulate you on your courageous stance against the new atheistic cult that cares far less about facts than most religious believers. Bravo.
zzzak123 1 week ago
@zzzak123 Thank you....you are right these new age clones want to see vidz on their Ipads of of pics at the PROVEN trial of Jesus. They will believe any new book with crap that comes along against most un-biased scholars & search for their love of conspiracy theories FO HOURS before reading one word of real history & links proving Jesus or anything good. It's a modern sickness. God bless.
GoodyBob 1 week ago
@GoodyBob indoctrination is accepting a hypothesis on how the world works, without any evidence,
did you see jesus miracle? did you see the talking snake, (absurd) adam and eve, is a mythe we known that, evrething in thos book is base on primitive mythology, yet amazingly some beleive that shit, they got evrething wrong, the age of the earth, EVRETHING, you beleived the law of physic has been suspended by jesus christ, but you beleive that base on one thing, A BOOK TELL SO,pathetic
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty You are the one that is so sadly blind. According to your "legend in your own mind" rules of history...you would need to throw out & block ALL of history because you weren't there. You do not exist either then cuz' I can't see you. LOL. You need to also throw out all courts of law since it relies on witnesses also. Get a life & research. Adios.
GoodyBob 1 week ago
It is a horrible idea that there is somebody who owns us, who makes us, who supervises us, waking, and sleeping, who knows our thoughts, who can convict us of thought-crime, who can judge us while we sleep for things that might occur to us in our dreams, who can create us sick, as apparently we are, and then order us – on pain of eternal torture – to be well again. To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave.
pakpakpakakk 3 weeks ago
Dinesh made that were in any way comprehensible and sadly fallacious. Hitchens was much more logical in his reasoning. Dinesh even blatantly dodges the holocaust question haha :D
Popikawaii 3 weeks ago
why is this vid titled "dinesh gets owned"? This vid is ridiculous. Thanks for flaunting your ignorance but keep the "sports fan" mentality ("gets owned") for sports or ripping on justin beiber or Kardashian clip. It's probably best to critique an intellectual dialogue in an intellectual, or rational manner. These "gets owned" youtube vids are the technological equivalent of throwing tomatoes...funny and primitive but can't be taken seriously.
peace
dwheel39 4 weeks ago 6
@dwheel39 Could you be any more transparent with your psychology? Would I be correct in thinking that you have posted this rant before? Why click on videos with "owned" in the description if that bothers you, unless you simply want to preach about the technological equivalency of throwing tomatoes?
Johnf85 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Johnf85 "Why click on videos with "owned" in the description if that bothers you, unless you simply want to preach about the technological equivalency of throwing tomatoes?"
Good question. I clicked here because young people boast of theists being "owned" and i was curious about it. I was disappointed however. Interesting that most of Hitchens' fan's comments amount to the intellectual equivalent of "the Lakers rule" (yours excluded of course)
peace :)
dwheel39 3 weeks ago
If you watch the whole debate, which I have... then you would see that Dinnesh dominates this debate without question, its not even close!
djcrupe 1 month ago
@djcrupe Thats because hitchens dosent talk intellectually he just speaks his mind like every other atheist. He really sucks. Why not have any other joe as an atheist debate at this point. If you can`t make good arguments.
levedia 1 month ago
@levedia I can't believe my eyes. DINESH IS FUCKING NOTORIOUS FOR JUST SPEAKING HIS MIND. I just watched his debate with Daniel Dennett, where he went on a tangent, with seemingly little preparation and organization. Dinesh is very opinionated. The basis for most atheists statements are independent from opinion, and their opinions are based on data, if you were to make a tally.
Johnf85 3 weeks ago
yeah but hitchings in another video contradicted himself saying there may have been the jesus as people went thru the trouble of making his birthplace conform with the old testament.
anotherwords...if he was a myth...a created lie from the start...why not just make jesus from where scripture said he was from...from the start?
glennjridge 1 month ago
you ruined the video with your inputs
ajora08861 1 month ago
Nobody in their right mind would believe that Jesus was a myth. It must have been the cancer that got to Hitchens brain.
kg6120 1 month ago
To hear the desperate wiggling waffle of the faithful, always feels a bit like stepping in dog shit.
D'Souza displays a particularly ugly version of undignified of apologetics.
How ignorant can one be to think that this is an advertisement for religious faith. Shame on D'Souza!
studioROT 1 month ago
Actually it's a minority view among scholars ... nay, a fringe view, that Jesus didn't exist. Dinesh isn't "owned" here. Hitchens is holding a fringe view, because he doesn't want Jesus to exist. I wouldn't want a guy to exist either, whose teachings I had called immoral and vile.
guitarpolygamist 1 month ago
I'm pretty sure there's more evidence for a guy who conquered other civilizations and erected monuments to himself than Jesus.
DarkEmergence 1 month ago
I for one, could not give a flying fuck if jesus was real or not, I do know however, that he wasn´t a supernatural being. End of chat.
yatter1 1 month ago
Dinesh is eloquent, considering that he is a lying, cheating, dishonest, conniving fuckwit.
yatter1 1 month ago 2
Apparently, both Hitchens and D'Souza are unaware of Aristophanes. "The Clouds" was written when Socrates was supposedly alive, and is very critical of him. To say that the only contemporary accounts of Socrates are Plato and Xenophon, and therefore that all contemporary accounts are positive, is just not true.
dylanzwick 1 month ago
@dylanzwick I,m not sure that Hitch is unaware of him, Aristphanes gained much credibilty from Plato rather than the other way around, so to cite him might be thought circular.
yatter1 1 month ago
3:11 -- "Let's just say this puts you wide outside the mainstream of the entire living historical community." - Dinesh with the PWN *crowd laughs.
"I've been to the grave sites of the Macedonian royal house. You won't find Jesus' grave in a hurry." - Hitchens
*Dinesh and his partner look up smiling*
Entire video worth it for those two sentences.
PepperFriesenable 1 month ago
@PepperFriesenable Could not agree more if I tried.
yatter1 1 month ago
Erroneous video.
soccer1288 1 month ago
This video is stupid. Most historical scholars accept that there existed a Jesus Christ. However, the whole topic of how he is presented in the Bible is obviously debatable. Also, this video is edited up the ass, stupid ass people uploading their own edited garbage. I don't care about your text within the video which is intellectually dishonest. Scholars DONT use the BIBLE as EVIDENCE for Jesus Christ. Only Fundamentalists and bigots do. Get your facts straight. Christopher is still a smart guy.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
Hitch is way too kind to this fucking dozy chump, he should just give him an orange and send him on his way.
yatter1 2 months ago
I find Bart Ehrman's argument (for Jesus existing) very convincing, actually: that you see biblical authors twisting themselves into pretzels trying to fit the Jesus peg into the Jewish messiah hole, for example his shameful defeat at the hands of the Romans, or his failure to return "in this generation", etc. A "real" messiah wouldn't require that.
Unfortunately for Dinesh, they also suggest Jesus was not the son of God, but just a delusional, but well-intentioned jewish radical.
paulinator61 2 months ago
Hahah, the crowd and Dinesh share a chuckle when Hitchens' uses Jesus not having a "Grave" as proof he didn't exist.
PepperFriesenable 2 months ago
Your comments are the most amusing part of this video.
PepperFriesenable 2 months ago
Page is not a prophet!
kafkazinho 2 months ago
Contrary to belief, we have remarkably good records of the first century, and not one scholar documents anything relating to christianity or this dude walking around claiming to be the son of God. So no, Jesus probably did not exist.
daemonowner 2 months ago
@daemonowner there are 5 historical accounts of Christ Tacitus,PlinyTheYounger,Gaius Seutonius,FlaviusJosephus and Thallus,all 5 made wrote 1-2 sentences mentioning Christ.But all were born AD and wrote their accounts under the auspices of the Roman Empire,so theres no way they could evidence Christ. About 30-40 other histiorians of the time do not mention Christ including,Philo Judaeus,Plutartch,Phaedrus,Columella,PlinyTheElder,Valerius Maximus...the list goes on and on..
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@PAULOcbi From what I've heard of Josephus (primarily from the skepticon lecture of David Fitzgerald), Josephus did not actually write anything about Jesus, but rather it was a later forgery. The reason being that he never mentions this guy pissing off the romans at all - which is odd - and he is a jew, who wouldn't have accepted that Jesus is the jewish messiah - or else maybe he would write a little about him - and then for a few sentences he is reduced to a school girl over what he did...
daemonowner 2 months ago
@daemonowner all 5 of the accounts I mentioned were written under the auspices of the Romans and there is no validity to any of them.Philo Judaeus didnt call the founding fathers of Christianity the "sophists of literalness' for nothing. When reading Aristotle ca. 250 BC one can clearly see the recipe for Christianity..."A symbolic ,mythical or ritual representation of events that would be unendurable during daily life can redeem them into something pure and even be pleasurable." Crucifiction
PAULOcbi 2 months ago
@PAULOcbi Total blatant lies. A simple Theology class, or a google search provides proof with against your claim. Only 5 historical accounts? LMAO. Hell, even a Wiki page would tell you otherwise. Nice try.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 lol,allright wise guy...Im waiting for you to list the other historical accounts of Christ,Ive listed 5,you say there are more but cannot produce names etc...
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi I could type them out, but it would be better to forward you ;]. There you can see both sides. I doubted it as well at one point but I changed my mind a long time ago. If that page isn't enough (it should be) then I can give you some other sources. Keep in mind that most of what is debated about Jesus Christ is really only three things: His birth story (account of how/where it happened), resurrection, and details of the crucifixion. Type in, "Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia" on Google
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 very funny,obviously this web page simply lists the same 5 historians I listed and the other sources like Talud are dogmatic(religious) so they dont count.Its like I said there are only 5 historical accounts of Christ and they are bogus since all 5 historians were born AD. Nice try though kid...lol
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi I literally laughed when I read your post. This was the epitome of horrid reading comprehension. I read the entire page and I can tell you didn't read jack shit. Obviously, I can now see that you are an intellectually dishonest and ignorant You Tuber. Dogmatic? LMAO, do you even know what that entails? It is derived from dogma which is a standard of religious practice. That has nothing to do with sources, the page doesn't even elaborate on them. Nice try, you're just distraught.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 stop your nonsense,theres a big difference between an account by an independent writer like Seutonius,Josephus etc... and religious sources like Church fathers,Talmud and Christian Apocrypha and other Christian sources that cant be possibly considered objective and must be deemed dogmatic.Just goes to show religionists have no interest in seeking truth thru results produced but only seek that their dogma be advanced.Next you`ll be calling Gospels a 'historical account'..lol.
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi No there isn't actually. There is a difference between the accounts FROM the Council of Nicicea and those from outside sources. However, even then the page talks about other ones so that topic is trivial in of itself. You're just a lazy ass person who spews ignorant garbage. Believe what you will, you're in the minority. I'll side with the norm of historical scholars throughout the globe who are also well versed in Theology and classical Theism. See ya.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 Anyway for those seeking truth ,Christ is a dogmatic figure who never existed ,like Joab,Moses,and Noah. Aristotle had the recipe for Christianity first.. " A symbolic,mythical or ritual representation of events that would be unendurablle in daily life can redeem them and transform them into something pure,and even be pleasurable."Aristotle 250BC. So you see how Christianity is a man made religion like all the rest.The Crucifiction is entirely fictional,as is Christ,.WAKE UP.
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi Aristotle was right, but you missed the context. He isn't talking about the existence of Jesus Christ. Do your homework. Like Cleanthes from Humes Dialogues on Natural Religion Aristotle is referring to the idea of Christianity under the umbrella of ideology known as Classical Theism. The existence of Jesus Christ is not important for the core of the religion (even though he existed in some form), but rather his metaphysical persona is what has always been important. Wake Up.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 Im well aware Aristotle is not talking about the existence of Christ,he is talking about redemption,salvation and catharthis which are all unique to Christianity and RomanCatholicism in particular,so you are WRONG about 'the umbrella of ideology known as Classical Theism' as only Catholicism offers redemption,salvation and the catharthis at mass when celebrating the crucifiction of Christ.Judaism or Islam dont contain these elements.Again nice try though...your learning at least.
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi Lmao, nice try. You tried to use Aristotle to insinuate the nonexistence of Christ. Also, please go do some research into what classical theism is and while you're at it learn that Catholicism came MUCH later after the compilation of the Bible and the spread of Christianity.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 no ,wrong again...evryone can read your comments so dont bother with your childish sophistry ,if I can see thru it anyone else can.I was just showing the 'recipe' for Christianity was thought of waaay b4 the supposed Christ and Crucifiction.The idea that redemption and salvation and cathartic feeling can be summoned by the suffering of someone else.These are unique to Christianity,Islam ,Judaism dont have these ideas.So its nothing to do with 'Classic Theism'..run along grasshopper
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
@PAULOcbi Where do other people come into this? Are you a performer? Sorry, but this isn't ancient Greece. Sophists died off a long time ago. Who cares about the "recipe" for Christianity. That makes no sense either way considering all religions share mutual structures past the core. Simple Theology. Stop playing the Straw-Man. Obviously you don't know what Classical Theism is if you're writing it off so easily. I'm done with your fallacious arguing, so reply if you wish. Good bye.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
@Tekkenman101 Whos arguing ,,,anyone reading the comments can see Im a just teaching you where youve made mistakes. Now its 'who cares about the recipe for Christianity' ,,,'' Stop playing the Straw Man??' Your debate seems to have splintered into hollow hemispheres...
PAULOcbi 1 month ago
Pooooorrrr Dinesh!!! OWNED!
LowresTV 2 months ago
The link you gave about Socrates' existence is a debate about the nature of existence itself, not a debate of Socrates' historicity.
MrFCUSSEN 2 months ago
@MrFCUSSEN Yeah the poster of the video is a dumb ass lmao.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
+ his understanding of scientific writings about biology and cosmology are stunningly poor OR he is just being insincere (i think it may be the latter)
test123ok 2 months ago
Nice mix of Jimmy Page and Hitchens.. major KickAssery !
im just watching a different debate(9V85OykSDT8) and then this one. I heard that Dinesh is consider to be a "Titan" like Hitchens.. But i think besides his loud voice and hand waving, the content of his speech is no better than any other Religious debater. He is easily out-gunned and hitchslapped.
test123ok 2 months ago
@test123ok Infatuated fan. People these days, I mean "titan"? Seriously lmao wtf is this pathetic internet garbage. People don't even know what debate is anymore.
Tekkenman101 1 month ago
the bibles an absolute master peice filled with science and medical fact before there time, hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, acheology and history attest to its reliability not to mention it was written through God by over 40 men in three languages and its in harmony from cover to cover. humble yourself and repent and trust in Christ. the only alternative is a boiling hot eternity
mamainmancj 2 months ago
Jesus wasn't only mentioned in the Bible. I'm an atheist, but that mistake should be fixed.
jwdogg1551 2 months ago
@jwdogg1551 I'd be careful with saying that. Think about how evidence for Jesus turns up. Unbiased historians are not just going to dig into a certain part of history without a reason, and the historicity of Jesus has been ganged by historians. Why? If a historian were to unearth some portion of his history that particularly indicated his existence, that historian would get a of of attention. Let's never forget that Christianity has a lot of money, and that they want Jesus to have existed
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey While the evidence may be partially unreliable, and possibly tampered, I don't want to say D'Souza is wrong, if Jesus' name is mentioned in other historical accounts. Whether Jesus existed or not, I don't call him God. So, to me, this is more or less a "who cares?" argument.
jwdogg1551 2 months ago
@jwdogg1551 Rofl.. we came to the same conclusion at about the same time.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@jwdogg1551 at all costs. Look at religious scientists and tell me there isn't a bias there, that they don't WANT to find some kind of signature of god in our bodies. Look at pharmaceutical companies who want to sell particular medicines. The point is, when there is an incredible bias, you must tread carefully, and I find it better to not even take a stance at all if the answer is generally unimportant.. Did he exist? Did he not? Who cares.
Arcexey 2 months ago
It matters not whether Socrates was a real person or an invention. What matters are the works attributed to him. The same goes for any historical figure. If it were found that Alexander was not a real person, how would that change the world today? It wouldn't, because there are no supernatural claims associated with him. Now imagine if it were found that Jesus didn't exist? That results in a change in world-view for billions of people. If you believe him son of god, first prove he even existed.
hungryman211 2 months ago
@hungryman211 If you mean prove the supernatural jesus existed, I agree with you (about first proving he existed). But if we had solid proof that the man of Jesus really existed, it doesn't help the case of Christianity at all, whatsoever. Jesus existing is not like Christianity getting a foot in the door, and now all the other pieces are going to fall into place. I mean it when I say it doesn't help the claim of Jesus's miracles... AT ALL..
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey I may not have made myself clear (I'm sure you understand the difficulty when you only have 500 characters to play with).
Christians seek to prove that Jesus was the son of god (which somehow differs from their belief that we are all the children of god) and that he performed miracles and other supernatural anecdotes. My point was that before they even attempt to prove what he did, they must prove he existed. One cannot even be claimed without the other first being proven.
hungryman211 2 months ago
@hungryman211 I wasn't really disagreeing with you, my comment should have said:
Christianity isn't dependent on the historicity of Jesus, and not just because they're going to believe whatever they believe without any evidence, but because the historical Jesus could be a different Jesus than the biblical one.
Also, if the man of Jesus was to proved, it doesn't help proof Christianity. I'd hate that people would think:" Oh, jesus was real.. so the miracles must've been true as well."
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey " the historical Jesus could be a different Jesus than the biblical one." This is true also. If the Josephus accounts are to be even partially accepted, there are still doubts as to whom he may be referring to as Jesus, as he immediately, following the passages referring to Jesus, mentions another man (unrelated to the Biblical Jesus) who bears the same name.
Having said all this, I concede your point that the historicity of Jesus argument detracts from the core problem.
hungryman211 2 months ago
@hungryman211 I'd think that studying the historical Jesus would be so dissuasive. Knowing that with so many points along the way you are potentially looking at altered evidence is just unattractive. You can't just look at evidence, you have to look at who had access to that evidence throughout history.
And I'm sure, to some extent, this is true for any piece of history, be it the Holocaust or who discovered America, but the Jesus case just seems steeped in influence by outside sources.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@hungryman211 Which is to say that, if the man of Jesus is real, Christians still have 100% of their work ahead of them to prove Christianity.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey Exactly. And the only contemporary source, outside of the bible, which makes claims that there was a Jesus are in the alleged writing of Josephus. I say alleged because there is a significant doubt that the passages relating to Jesus were actually written by Josephus, or indeed that Josephus was a reliable source of information (as he was considered by many a roman-sympathizer and traitor to the Jews).
hungryman211 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
No one existed! Socrates, Alexander the Great, Jesus, Washington, no one, no one existed! Lol, this people are hilarious. And for the person making this video.. the bible is not the only referencial book we can find to Jesus... please, do research before posting. I respect your beliefs, if you want to or not, it is your choice. But please, don't spread lies. Regards!
CrippledKnight 3 months ago
@CrippledKnight The Bible is not the only document that references Jesus, per se. Other references may not be talking about the same person, but this doesn't matter at all. The beginning of your comment is quite rubbish and I'm surprised no one has destroyed it, in four days. Did you even watch this video? Hitchens is not contesting there is a level at which a historical figure is deemed to have existed, nor that this level is not disputable. He's saying 1.) The biblical Jesus, in terms
Arcexey 3 months ago
@CrippledKnight of hard data, does not even come anywhere CLOSE to other prominent historical figures - such as Washington or Alexander the Great (and I am embarrassing those two by being in the same list as Jesus, btw). 2.) The factual existence of persons such as Socrates is not important, as his teachings are relevant and do not hinge on the fact that he was lived or not. Christianity and the miracles of Jesus absolutely do. If even Charles Darwin himself was not a real person it would not
Arcexey 3 months ago
@CrippledKnight matter. Evolution is a theory posed, in written works, by Darwin. We can test evolution today and know it's fact. Whether he really existed does not matter. In the case of Jesus, his existence - and further more godly existence - means everything to Christianity. Did Socrates really exist? No need for an answer; we can revere the Socratic method whether he existed or not.
Arcexey 3 months ago
@CrippledKnight Oh, and before you go all gung ho with that popular youtube video about Jesus existing, check the references - they are overwhelmingly from Creationist websites. Generally a reason to discard the "facts" by this reason alone. The videos themselves are soaked with agenda as some of the first bits of dialogue forcibly tell you that you won't be able to not believe in Jesus after watching.
Arcexey 3 months ago
@Arcexey and where do you get the evidence against his existence? Atheist sites? right.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope Where did I say I had evidence against his existence? The point of my comments are that, compared to other historical figures, Jesus is at the very low end of probable existence. And more importantly, if he did exist, who cares? It doesn't mean that he performed miracles, or that he died and came back to life, or that he had a virgin birth, or that Christianity is true as a whole.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey the probability of his existence is low, why? Because of the claims about him?
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope ......relative to other people! If we say that Barack Obama most likely exists because we can go talk to him right now and that we have pictures and a birth certificate and things he has written and his DNA, then we compare that level of existence to others. How does Jesus compare to Barack Obama? Comparatively, Jesus has very little evidence for his existence, and, as it pertains to christianity, it doesn't matter: I'm not talking about the evidence for miracles and all that.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope As far as miracles, there is zero (0) evidence for. I'm talking strictly about whether Jesus or Yeshua actually existed. If the answer is Yes or No, it doesn't have anything to do with the miraculous claims of christianity. I hope I was more clear this time around. -_-
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey bit. ly/sV0jNa
semitope 2 months ago
@Arcexey Barrack is a current person. The evidence for Jesus matches up well with other historical figures
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope Is there some difference between being alive and being dead? Both are part of history. If you don't like my example, pick someone that died 2 seconds ago. Compare the validity of that person's existence compared to Jesus's. You'll see that they are completely on opposite ends of the meter. The point is that compared to other figures of history (and by 'figure' I mean anyone that has supposedly existed) Jesus is near the bottom. The same goes for historical figures that lived in the
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope same time period. Did you even watch the video? Are you disputing that someone whose writings we have, and whose face is on coins, and someone who has been written about first hand is not incredibly far beyond that of someone like Jesus, who we have none of that for? From biblical history, you do know the gospels are basically hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay? Your statement about Jesus 'matching up' well with other figures is true as it stands, but only in that he matches
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey "whose face we have on coins" is still too recent. LoL. You just won't bother going far back will you? Have you watched the videos in the link I sent? No?
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope 1.) What does being recent have anything to do with it? 2.) D'Souza is the one who brought up Alexander the Great (comparing him to Jesus), and Hitchens said there are coins with Alexander's face on them. And, no, I don't see any links. I'm guessing they're the links to the youtube series about jesus? I will look at any links you show me as long as they: -Are not from creationist websites. -Have credited references to the claims they make (that are not from creationist websites)
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey you know what recent has to do with it. Obviously the further back an individual lived the less information there is expected to be. Especially if that individual lived before certain technological advancements.
watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
the video actually touches on the time between his life and the present
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope 'Obviously the further back an individual lived the less information there is expected to be' What an incredibly idiotic thing to say. This means that all we need is a vague mention of a caveman's name for him/her to be deemed 'Existed' at the same level of someone like Abraham Lincoln.
If you disagree that this theoretical caveman and Lincoln aren't at the same level of probably existence, you are agreeing with my main point: That Jesus is at the bottom rung of probably existence.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey you are operating with the assumption that there is no evidence for Jesus at all it seems. I am saying there is as much evidence for him as most historical figures before and around his time. Comparing persons of this era to him makes no sense. Recent history is much more documented than a time that has no semblance to this time.
btw, your 2 requirements to view my link are incoherent. If its from a religious website but has sources, why would you reject it?
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope If I'm not being clear, I'll try again, hopefully I can do better:
1.) There is evidence for Jesus.
2.) Compared to other historical figures, his evidence is extremely weak.
3.) Compared to other, different historical figures, his evidence is extremely strong.
4.) The evidence for Jesus is exceptionally prone to being altered - can we not say he is one of the top 5 people/events that agendas want these events/people to have existed/not existed?
5.) Who cares if he existed.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey lol. I see now. Even if the evidence for him considering the era is enough, you still wouldn't accept it and don't really care even if he did existed. I.e. this is all pointless. alrighty. bye
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope "Even if the evidence for him considering the era is enough" <--- You aren't listening. You are stuck on this idea on that someone gets a free pass just because they lived in a time when few people could or would record things.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying who cares that Jesus existed, in that I don't care that we've confirmed a piece of history - I think it's great we've shown yet another human being really lived.
When I say 'who cares' I mean, what does the
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope man of Jesus having existed have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the claims of Christianity being true?
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey that's a different question and wasnt what was being addressed at the outset. I was only concerned with the historicity of Jesus as the video is obviously about that.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope That's fine. I was pointing out that me saying 'who cares' has nothing to do with any bias or me not wanting to accept evidence. I didn't want to be accused of that and for it to go unaddressed.
Jesus is considered to have existed by many, there is no universal requirement for someone having existed. My entire argument is that his existence must be taken with a grain of salt - and so must anyone with relatively weak evidence, compared to other people in history.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope Let's not kid ourselves that a lot of people (including the person I was talking to which started my conversation with you) thinks that Jesus existing should be met with cheers and applause and a cry of 'See! Christianity is true!' My wish is to dispel that, and also any notion that, in the grand scheme of things, Jesus has the same amount of evidence as anyone else in history that is counted as having existed.
Anyway, about your video... My requirements are not incoherent for
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope several reasons: #1, anyone can write anything, and say it's true and present it in an entertaining fashion. I don't care for this type of presentation.
#2, Let's not put it past us that creationist websites have an agenda, and will twist any kind of fact into making you read it in the way they want you to read it. There are a lot of creationist websites that will, in detail, outline how they think the world is 10,000 years old, and do it in a fashion that makes you say 'omg, is
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope this true?" I am utterly uninteresting in reading anything from a source like that, and I say the same thing about any atheist website, as atheists can have agendas too.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope You're trying to say that because people may have existed back in a time where people were not very literate, that this somehow gives them a free pass for not needing the same amount of evidence that other people would need to prove their existence. As I said, by this rational we can say that all a caveman in 10,000BC needs to been considered 'existed' is their name scribbled on a rock.
Draw out a linear graph. At one end put 'Probably existed' and at the other end 'Probably didn't.'
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Arcexey I am talking about reasonable evidence here. You want to compare Jesus to Lincoln, go ahead. Compare him to steve Jobs if you want. But reasonably expected evidence is satisfied. You simply do not wish to accept it OR accept the existence of anyone else during his time or before it basically. That is fine by me. As long as I know you know the evidence exists I don't have to go digging for sources that would satisfy your bias.
semitope 2 months ago
@semitope Before I look at that, please confirm that it: A.) The content is not from any religious website or article.
B.) Has credited references that I can look up.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@semitope up to other historical figures who have barely any evidence for their existence, relative to other historical figures.
Arcexey 2 months ago
Moses is completely myth, that's for certain..but it's very highly possible that Jesus of Nazareth is real..He was a probably a charismatic rabbi who wanted to reform Judaism, claimed to be messiah..but I have even doubts whether he really claims to be god incarnate. Josephus and Tacitus are talking about a guy who claimed to be messiah but not god..
kemalcs 3 months ago
Isn't this D'Souza dude screwing Laura Ingrahm the talk show moron?
spareaxe 3 months ago
Only 2 devoted students accounts of Socrates?
What about Arostophanese acount in "The Birds"
whiteowl1415 3 months ago
God is real you guys can say what you want about facts and science and intellectualize things all you want. but Jesus died for us so that we can have eternal life he could crush us all but he has given us a chance again. Christians don't fall into the debates do as Paul said to timothy not get into heating discussions they lead no where u will argue in circles. once you have shared your knowledge of God it is there choice to come to him ur Job is done share the good word and move on !
jaylinkx 3 months ago
Isn't it funny how when D'souza realises his iron clad argument is failing miserably he tries to change the topic. His fan boys would probably say that Hitchins was being rude or talking over the top of him but you can't deny he answered the question. The problem was he had to step on D'souza's tail to keep him in place while he answered the question put to him.
ptango101 3 months ago
@hdregmore A bit of advice for free. Next time you provoke someone at least know something about what you are talking about. You embarrassed yourself fool
ptango101 3 months ago
@hdregmore What's wrong dude don't you want to talk to me any more?
ptango101 3 months ago
@hdregmore Well I don't think it is as cut and dry as you think. Christians seem to like carbon dating when it serves their needs. But on a side note-LMAO You silly little penis head. After all that you blocked me. Unblock me and I will give you some more jokes. Or a you just a little scared now? Oh stupidity thy name is christian.
ptango101 3 months ago
a slave convert to christian rule...
OneDharmaYouMovement 3 months ago
I think that the new atheists will help to dismantle all the fundamentalist Christian nonsense that gives Christianity a bad name. In challenging all nonsense in Christian thought, the new atheists will unexpectedly play into God's hand ... to strengthen the Catholic faith, whose teaching (not always practice, as we know) is without error.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist I mean lets face it. You love geology if you can make it point to a great flood. You love quantum physics if it somehow ambiguously proves god. You love genetics only when you can twist it to infer intelligent design. Creationism is the very definition of having you cake and wanting to eat it too.
ptango101 3 months ago
@ptango101
That's not at all, ptango, what Aquinas' proofs for God are about -- Dawkins doesn't even understand Aquinas.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist So you are saying there is absolute proof that a being exists outside our perception of space, time and matter? In that case how can you possibly say you know him if we cannot conceive of such things? Not only that christians say they have a personal relationship with him and he will punish you for eternity for finite crimes. You religion makes as much sense as a poorly written sci-fi novel.
ptango101 3 months ago
@ptango101
I am saying that absolute proof exists for God. However, one has to maintain that deductive logic is a pathway to truth, as much as the scientific method is. Do you think that is true?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist The scientific method is the best system we have for getting to the actual facts of any given situation. Deductive logic is the way cosmologists arrived at the phenomena we labeled "the big bang". The fact that celestial bodies are moving away from each other and can be plotted back mathematically to a smaller and smaller point in space and time supports the big bang model. So what absolute proof do you have of god's existence?
ptango101 3 months ago
@patientthomist What method do you use to claim your god is absolutely true? How do you prove that all the other gods are absolutely false?
ptango101 3 months ago
@ptango101
Through deductive logic, we can show there is one God, and by God, I mean a spiritual, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being with and beyond the form of personhood. Any religion that believes that such a being exists is at least correct on that account. The method to arrive is essentially syllogisms which necessarily begin with a sensory experience, which is necessary for all human knowledge.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist The problem with your sensory experience is that it is a personal one. That is only evidence of what it feels like to you. The fact that your major premise must believed without real evidence is the failure of every argument for god. You need faith. Every religion admits this type of knowledge without any proof. What absolute proof do you have that makes your belief the only reality and negates the need for faith? Can you say you don't need faith?
ptango101 3 months ago
@ptango101
The reality that sensory experience is personal does not mean that it is inaccurate -- and we share sensory experiences with common perception (e.g. helium balloons rise). Senses can be trusted -- that's a major premise of the scientific method as well. For the first cause argument and argument from motion, when properly understood, we need to sense only our current existence and motion ... next post ...
patientthomist 3 months ago
@ptango101
after that sensory experience, we can reason about our cause and motion -- there cannot be an infinite regress of these realities, since movement from an unlimited regress into current motion and existence would be impossible. This First Cause is necessary, then. More than that we can reason that there can only be one, omniscient, intelligent, immaterial, motionless cause responsible for creating all that is real -- this we call God.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist You cannot compare your "god experience" to things that can be measured by anyone and the same results are achieved (e.g. helium balloons rise). Your "first cause" argument goes back to my original comment. How you possible come to the conclusion that this all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent being who exists outside our perception of reality is real? You cannot just define god into existence.
ptango101 3 months ago