"The intent of the video was to demonstrate that the gospels themselves are historical texts."
Why would I believe the historicity of miracles in the gospels written by ignorant bronze age people, when I don't believe direct eye-witness accounts from people living today who claim that they have seen Elvis today...?
Even if we accept Jesus lived how does that prove he was the son of god and performed miracles. You have answered nothing I'm afraid. Why do you feel you can establish the authorship of the gospels when trained scolars are unable to do so with any degree of reasonable certainty? You want to believe so badly you will claim any old thing to "prove" it all true. You're a young guy - why dont you get a life and maybe a girlfriend rather than waste you life decyphering this nonsense?
oh and screw the gospels...i dont often say this about fiction or creative work in writing in general...but i think all of those should be burned, along with every religious text there is....it had created so much trouble with people not understanding fiction form reality
Why do you repeatedly fail to see something as simple as *the historicity of a document does not attest the reliability of its claims*? Is the construction of the book what is claimed historical, not its contents: There is no document, nor archaeological evidence to contrast such contents: A King ordering kids to be slaughtered. A roman census as accounted by gospels. The star of Bethlehem, and so forth. Even Josephus was hoaxed as accepted by the Vatican itself. What's your problem, @Kabane?
Here's what other people have said about Humbler25 - "i have read through some of your comments and you are a bitter and hateful little fuck." (MrBlackGravy)
“leaving moronic comments on youtube is harmless but you trying to bully and harass someone clearly proves you have a severe mental illness plus stalking them too.” (67675656565655656565)
@TheDarvus reverse that... I certainly haven't learned anything, but hopefully you have. Hopefully you've learned that you can't make a historical case without any historical evidence. That is why we know the historical Paul wrote the letters and we know that Josephus had nothing to do with any part of the Bible. Isn't the truth great!
@TheDarvus and you responded to each one, LOL in fact you spent almost three hours doing so as well as continuing to troll around. Your a joke! You spend your whole life making silly theories on youtube that you can't back up.
@TheDarvus actually there is a ton of evidence you just don't want to read up on it or even bother to actually listen to one of these videos you troll around learn abou it. That may force you to reexamine your lifestyle and you don't want to do that now do you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Humbler25 attended counselling at Exodus International from August, 2010, until February, 2011, when he was caught in the washroom there with another male client. Humbler25 said he was only giving the guy a back rub, but the security cameras there recorded something different. To see this security video of Humbler25 & his gay lover, check my channel. Or you can ask me, & I'll send it to you.
No followers wrote down supernatural powers of Buddha or Zeus, brother. Zeus was not a teacher on Earth, like Jesus was. Perhaps you should check your facts before writing silly comments like that. With WMDs, they would obviously be expected to leave physical evidence. With miracles performed by a historical figure, there's no possible way that can leave stuff for archaeology. You're making a false analogy. Peace.
hi kabane, like your videos, and you seem pretty clever. however i must say that your over reliance on evidence ( evidence being the bible !! ) does seem a little single minded! but i am clearly forgetting that the are called the gospels ( so they must be true!!
Hey Kabane, I enjoy your videos, and thanks for bringing to light the Orthodox faith, I'm seriously considering abandoning heterodoxy for orthodoxy. Thanks and keep up the good work.
So you are severely misguided in taking 4 people's word for it, without any further proof on the subject, and basing the entire rest of your argument on the initial premise that the gospel is factual when you have not stated any actual proof.
people said the same thing about the old testament, yet there is not one piece of archeological evidence even placing the jews in egypt!
Most likely it's a bunch of crap and you are too naive and uneducated to understand otherwise
your argument falls apart mostly with premise 2. Your logic is not circular in this case, it is simply wrong, since there is no more proof of the gospels being accurate (especially with the inconsistencies between them), than there is of the illiad or odyssey being accurate.
you therefore incorrectly assume the gospels are accurate without proof. 4 testimonial accounts, that's all they are.
People write books on how the holocaust never happened, it doesn't mean their
premise 1 - not true, even shakespear's existence is doubted. If someone picked up a spiderman comic 40,000 years from now, they could say "hmm new york existed, this must be a work of history spider man was real"
premise 2 - you stating the gospels are reliable works of history does not make them so. where is your proof beyond your own word that they are accurate accounts? The gospels have many inconsistencies between each other, even getting the date of jesus' death confused.
Kabane, while I don't buy your debate, your comments are well organized, thought-out and I appreciate your respectful tone with no name calling. Well done, young man.
But that said, I do respect the passions of atheists alike when it comes to who is right. I do have an observation when it comes to this debate which is religion should be treated as a person matter and not shared with the world. I don't want to hear about your sex life, financial matters or your religion / non-religion. If everyone kept religion and matters of the spirit to themselves I truly believe humanity would be better off.
I watched several videos of both christians and atheists and I am impressed with your passions to prove that you're right and the other guys is wrong when in fact you all miss the point of your faith whether it is to believe and not believe. But I think that everyone is missing the point of faith which is a matter of the spirit which has no room for whether a text is fact or not. It seems like such a pointless debate that no one will ever win and everyone just gets pissed at each other.
Furthermore, you claim that Luke was written in the best Greek, which is true. You should probably also know that Mark was written in the worst Greek (which is another attestation to the markan priority of the New Testament).
It's interesting that a person who wrote Greek so poorly worked as a translator and interpreter for Simon Peter, someone who would have spoken Aramaic. Doesn't make sense.
We do not know much history on Mark, so it is foolish and a hasty generalization to make such a statement. Most early Christians only agreed Mark wrote on what Peter taught to him. And Markan priority is due largely to a pure assumption that the earliest Gospel would not have as many miracles as the other. Only secular bias is found in that claim.
Again, what you are asserting comes from Papias. We can dispute his reliability all day, but I don't really see him as much of a reliable source for this
Markan Priority is definitely not due to the fact that the earliest Gospel accounts would not have any miracles. I would say that the "primary reason" is that virtually all of Mark is included in Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke each have material found nowhere else. The easiest way to see this is that the later writers embellished the earlier
Also, there are many places where Matthew and Mark seem to agree and Luke is in disagreement. There are many places where Luke and Mark seem to agree and Matthew is in disagreement. But there are very few places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. Again this suggests that Matthew and Luke independently changed the wording in Mark instead of Mark copying from one of the others.
We can get into other arguments like that Mark is the shortest and the ideals are more primitive, and so on...
That's borderning on intellectual folly. To think early Christians were already acceping Luke as Canonical Scripture by A.D. 62 in 1 Timothyand then think these people would purposedly confuse their readers by contradicting yet copying each other is beyond me. The early Christians were the first ones to even assert that the Gospels agreed so much with each other, but their conclusion was that it only hightened their credibiltiy to much for they knew they were independent unlike the idiots today.
All of Mark being in Matthew does not even substantiate it as being the first Gospel. It could readily assert Mark's sole source was Matthew. Lie all you want but even Bart Ehrman asserts the main reason for Markan priority is because it is shorter with less miracles, thus less exaggeration.
I don;t even believe in the Synoptic Problem anyway. It is only built on presuppositions not evidence. The evidnece comes from sources in that era that contradict it for a span of 400 years after apostles
(1) The Gospels were not yet arranged by his time, though they were already considered Canonical long before his time.
(2) Internal evidence fails when we have no manuscript within the 1st century. Jerome stated only the original was in Hebrew and it was almost immediately translated into Greek. I already made my statement about the original.
(3) This is such a failed argument. As reading early Christian writers, they would occasionally use the same phrase "oracles" for Matthew's Gospel.
(1) An interesting point, that could be possible. I've never heard that assertion before.
(2) Papias speaks of no written Greek translation, nor has he ever seen one. The others, who speak of a Hebrew "Gospel," say nothing about a translation. This is strange if the Greek Matthew in the hands of these fathers was a translation of the Hebrew Gospel of which they make mention. It is not until Jerome in the fourth century are we told that he does not know who the translator was.
I don't know why you think I consider Papias my main source. He is certainly a source and an early one at that but not the most reliable. On the contrary, even Ignatius stated his authentic records were the Gospel which had the apostles for their authors, then he quoted Matthew as the "Gospel."
That's because they are all talking about the original Matthew that was published. Tertullian said the same and ALSO stated all the Gospels, Paul's letters, and possible the rest of the New Testament were still being preserved where they first published in the apostolic churches.
Another thing you're not mentioning is that Papias claimed that he came across his material third hand.
He said that whenever any "Presbyters" (elderly church officials) came by, he would ask them for direct quotes from the Apostles. The only writings of his were quoted by the Anti-Nicene Fathers because Papias does not seem to be well thought of.
Church historian, Eusebius of Casarea, writing in the 4th century CE referred to him as "a man of small mental capacity".
The gospel of Matthew (along with the entire New Testament) was written in Greek. There is no evidence that there was any translation from Hebrew to Greek in Matthew or any of the NT for that matter.
Ireneaus (or any other early church father) was already operating under a dogma of apostolic succession.
If Matthew or any author of the NT wanted us to know who wrote any of the gospels, all they would have to do was sign it.
As a history student, I have some refutations and comments to make.
First off Jerome in the later 4th century affirmed the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew still existed. He did this twice in Lives of Ilustrious Men and in a letter to Pope Damascus.
Funny that you talk about signatius as the original John was confirmed as existing in A.D. 300 right where John wrote his book in Ephesus and it was claimed to have his autograph on it.
So whatever Matthew wrote in Hebrew was so short lived that it disappeared completely at a date so early that even the earliest fathers never obtained sight of the writing. Nor can this undeniable fact be reduced by the remark that when Matthew was translated into Greek, this Greek at once superseded the Hebrew. Anything written in any language by one of the Twelve must have been highly prized and treasured accordingly. The translation could not have been made as late as the year 90.
Then the Hebrew original would have been at hand at this late date. But Mark and Luke were available in Greek for a score of years prior to 90. Why did the Hebrew Matthew continue in use to such an extent that finally a translation into Greek was deemed necessary?
WHat did I just say o rather Jerome? It was immediately translated into Greek when copies were made which was begung as early as the 1st century for even Clement constantly referenced Matthew as if it was universally known.
And I just said, Jerome said it was immediately translated into Greek probably so both jews and Gentiles could read it, but he clearly stated both in a public account, and in a private letter the original Hebrew was being preserved. The original Matthew was written in hebrew, case closed in light of physical evidence.
Jerome claims to be the only one that has actually seen it in Hebrew out of all the individuals that attested it, but he also subsequently expressed doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. The vast majority of the writers were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. Why is that?
Yes, they kinda do, considering they all claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew characters yet they quoted from the Greek Matthew for sure, that kinda proves they knew of the translation, and stop fabricating history. I have read the majority of Jerome's hstory and he claimed no such thing. When he spoke of the original Matthew, he then said people who were still using it told him the author quoted from the Hebrew Bible when mentioning prophecies instead of the Septuagint.
Okay, all of the ancient writers whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have SEEN it except Jerome.
Aside from Jerome, we are dealing with circular reasoning here... we know that Matthew is written in Hebrew because the early Christians claimed that it was. How do we know this? Because they said so, without claiming to have ever seen the Hebrew text.
I believe that Markan Priority alone is a good enough argument to show that not only Matthew came second to a Greek Mark, but it was not in Hebrew because the majority of it is borrowed. Verbatim in some parts.
Like I said, you are using presuppositions not evidence. The evidnece is totally against everything most modern scholars claim today because none of it agrees with their hypotthesies when we turn to actual history itself in that era.
Lack of evidence substantiates nill, and actually both Irenaeus and Tertullian state the authorships and then state that evidence is still at the apostolic churches. Tertullian saw it, Irenaeus maybe saw it. I only go by positive evidence, if they existed it would have been axiom back then not need to constany reaffirm it was there if it was still being preserved in those well known apostolic churches
What tangible evidence did they have for attesting authorship? Not the signed Gospels...I don't know what else the could have had aside from the word of their elders.
Ireanaeus was the first to attest Lukan and Johanine authorship in 170 CE. To my knowledge, it was Eusebius of Casarea says that Irenaeus got that information from Polycarp under whom he studied. Polycarp supposedly studied under John, not from the signed gospel of John sitting at the apostolic church for all eyes to see...
Uh, yes, Polycarp was a disciple of John, therefore he would definitly know who wrote John's Gospel that was being quoted as early as the late 1st century. That only increases its reliability. Furthermore, Irenaeus wrote around A.D. 180. He was not the one to assert that first, that was Theophilus in A.D. 169 when he wrote a private letter to his friend Autolycus stating quite nonchalantly that the spirit inspired John says...then he quotes from John 1:1 beginning with the "word."
Theophilus was also a Jewish historian who converted to Christianity, thus he would be a reliable source, just as Irenaeus is being someone with knowledge on John. However, he was also a complte independent source since he wrote in the only extant work we have from him being a private letter. Hence, John's authorships is even confirmed totally (as if it wasn't alredy..) for in historical investigations, when two independent sources agree with each other, the fact should be accepted as true.
These two sources are not completely independent though, John allegedly having a disciple (Polycarp) who then tells Iranaeus that John actually wrote the Gospel attributed to him is not like two independent witnesses on the scene.
That's Irenaeus' testimony. That is not Theophilus. Independence only means the authors did not know what the other one said, with john, we have two coming virtually at about the same time, but one was a private letter to a personal friend which not onnly improves its credibility (as private accounts are more reliable then public accounts) but proves it was most probably independent to Irenaeus' knowledge.
On top of that, we have a tradition that started relatively early in less then a century, continued with many sources agreeing for several centuries onward without ever being contradicted once. Hence, the tradition is so reliable, it would be ignorant not to trust it. We accept Clement wrote his first letter to the Corinthians based mainly on only one source Dionysius of Corinth claiming so about a century after it was written. Wecan accept this tradition and not Gospel's? Anyway, later for now.
And finally, if you really think it is uncommon back then for works to be anonymous internally, you are sadly mistaken.
In the problems of external criticism it frequently occurs that a chronicle or a document makes no reference to its origin, and the investigator is obliged to employ indirect means to establish the date, the place, or the author."
(Vincent, HR, 97)
Vincent, John M. Historical Research: An Outline of Theory and Practice. 1911.
And of course, if the eyewitness John wrote John, this pushes the date of when John was written much farther back to a time when the apostles were fresh, and this in turn (since John's was the last Gospel) pushes all four of the Gospel dates back. Why this is improbable to believe, I do not know as even John in his own Gospel states the Pool of Beresheba still existed when it was destroyed in A.D. 66 after the destruction of Jerusalem.
And what circular reasoning? Both Irenaeus and Tertullian stated why and most Christians spoke it as an axiom back then everyone accepted such as Eusebius before the Canon was first developed. You forget we must judge how knowledgable and reliable these authors were and no doubt they were in a position to know quite a lot about their own history with some even claiming what evidence they had.
As far as your assertion on an autographed copy of the Gospel of John that ever existed, I have never heard of such things. I'll humor you and look more into this, but it doesn't sound promising...any other evidence than just your say so?
You can't deny physical evidence in history. I learned in that in history from when the historian Vincent said in his book Historical Research the moment a writer claimed to his peers the original existed for his work, it hightens its credibility, for physical evidence is all to easy for even a laymen to refute and prove that author a liar back then, particularly in a social environment alrdy set up against Christian authors.
And why do I hear constant nonsense about the church fathers before one even reads their texts? We demand the credibility of the sources and ALL the church fathers were highly credible based on how much information they could had, not to mention Christians were still being killed by all these claims they made up to the beginning of the 4th century. Deal with it, Irenaeus is a highly credible source and I suggest you actually read his books like I have done.
Heracles actually did 12 tests with mythical monsters and superhuman feats simply because someone from long ago wrote it down on paper.
And for anyone that utters the phrase "Prove to me God doesn't exist" i say this: Prove to me that invisible flying pink unicorns don't exist.
Last thing ill say is this: Do you think that if the man you have on your wall didn't BELIEVE he knew where soldiers go after they died, he'd be less likely to apathetically send them to their deaths?
And plus the catholic church has changed and edited the bible so many times that you cant possibly expect authenticity to be there after 1400 years of handling and editing and translating. Ever play the telephone game in school? yeah same thing as what were talking about here. So there. i did what you asked when you said if we had something to refute you by, use your little 3 point theory. I did and you're wrong. Im sorry but if you rely on 1400 year old texts as "proof", i can say that
If you have multiple versions of the same subject, most likely, they cant be true. Since in science when a theory is tested 3 times and if one test comes back false, the theory is disproven and is thrown out. You have multiple guys that claim to of known jesus and tell stories about him but none of the stories match up. some of them place jesus in entirely different times. Such discordance within so called "facts" cant possible be considered true.
easier to remember and so all gospels should have the same records of those miracles.
3. The gospels attest to the existence of Jesus
I dont want to repeat myself again so ill just say this. Just because someone said it happened doesnt mean it did.
And some other things i want to point out. Romans NEVER nailed people to crucifixes simply because the crucifixion was meant as a slow painful death. Shoving nails in would just speed up the process. So that idea of how jesus died is not entirely
crime or in the case of the victim, they so badly want to place blame on a face, that they "think" that a suspect is the true criminal because they "think" its that person.
So saying that the gospels are reliable is a joke simply because the guys who wrote the gospels never met jesus and all have different accounts of what jesus did and what happened in his life time. sounds like alot of discordance to me. You'd think a man like jesus would be pretty easy to remember and MIRACLES would be even
Again i say they are not simply because they came 40-60 years after the death of Christ. I think that if you wanted to do ask Christ said and go out and spread the word, you'd do it pretty damn quick and writing it down helps alot.
a 40 year old memory of an event is very very unreliable simply because what we remember isnt always what happened. Its been shown time and time again in trials where witnesses alter things that happen at the scene of the
Ok ill take up your challenge in you vid around 1:50 or so.
1. If a persons existence is attested in a reliable work in history, he existed. First of all, the gospels are not reliable simply because each one of them isa DIFFERENT account of the man known as jesus. Each Gospel recounts different things Jesus did or didnt do. And the first Gospel that made it into the bible is Mark's and he doesnt write that stuff until 40 years AFTER christ dies. just set that aside for now...
bad day at the keyboard. but yea rethink this crap. people bringing books of the bible in who canonized the bible and they didn't say where they got them from...cmon
you have been indoctrinated. it's that simple. you are too intelligent to give these ridiculous ideas a second look and the only reason you aren't seeing reason is indoctrination. if you choose to accept these things you are accepting them on faith alone in which case you need to stop trying to convice peopleof something you only accept on faith. it is no better than a creationist spreading ignoranace because of their unfounded faiths.
kabane i implore you to use logic and reason and apply it to the old testament. you have ZERO proof moses or anything of his story ever existed. for you to accept it did with no proof whatsoever is insane. it is literally insane, you couldn't nor wouldn't believe anything else on this earth given the same set of information. please drop these unfounded beliefs and rethink your position. i know it would be tough, but you need to be honest with yourself. do not acept things you don't know.
if the bible is an accurate source for history why does it say jesus' family fled because of a roman consensus when we no for fact no such thing ever occured?
Do you agree xianity isn't the best religion to practice? Because that's a lot of evidence stacked against you my friend. Which NT scholars believe jesus was born in bethlehem? Can't find a list.
So you want proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Considering that birth certificates from 2 BC no longer exist from that area, it would be impossible to prove. That doesn't mean, however, that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. The claim that he wasn't is untenable.
no, im saying like 90% o NT scholars don't believe he was born in bethlehem. besides rome never EVER took a concencus of the jews. just never heppened.
Evidence doesn't have to be "contemperary" to be authentic. Most written history is not "contemporary." Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophone, etc. all wrote about historical events that they weren't contemporary to, If he held all history to that standard, we would have very thin history books.
dude who in the fuck do you think you are? just blocking people because they don't agree with you. pathetic little sod. do the atheists here block ppl because they say things that disagree with them? you need to get your head out of your ass and man up..
can i ask why we only have 4 apostle sources? where did the rest go? would they not have been spreading the word of christ as well? it makes absolutely no sense we have these long testimonies from 4 apostles and absolutely none for the rest. it's a scam.
you do realize we have authentic scripture rom other apostles who didnt know jesus died or was resurrected right? in fact less than 10% of the scripture found was used in the new testament because it completely contradicts the ones they used.
so all these scriptures you claim for proof of jesus is the greatest disproof we have.
The apocryphal gospels? You know what those are called? Pseudipigrepha. Pick an apocryphal gospel you'd like to defend as authentic. They are all not written by apostles and they were all written very late.
most scholars find the lost gospels very authentic, and if you have watched that other video i posted some are just as old if not older than the ones used.
Which video? Most scholars do NOT find them authentic. What about Craig Evans, who helped translate the Judas Gospel? He thinks it is ridiculous that people promote these "Lost Gospels" as authentic. Witherington? Wright? Bauckham?
witherington and wright are nutcasses, you should stop citing them. they are about the only fools who think jesus was born in bethlehem because the bible says so.
this video: /watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U
oh okay they were out preaching so that explains why no one wrote anything down whatsoever? cmon be reasonable man.
That is misleading. The lost gospels are accepted as not being forged in modern times, that doesn't mean that that they are authentic in the sense that they are canonical or authoratative.
who is to say any of it is authoratative? the roman catholic church just picked whatever they wanted for the most part. their decision for what is authoratative is that it matched up. how can you honestly sit here and tell me one is more correct than any other?
Actually, the Catholic Church didn't pick. They were already being cited as gospel before the catholic church existed in the second century. Don't believe me? Read Justin Martyr.
it's not wilfully ignorant, the church chose the documents, they werent selected beforehand. revelations for example wasn't added until right before they called it quits.
you never answered, what makes one of the gospels any more authoratative than the others? shouldn't they have just left ALL of it in there? makes no sense at all to pick and choose what you want.
The fact that they were being cited as scripture in the early second century before any any others and early enough when followers of the original folowers of Jesus were around is proof enough.
Actually, yes it is because in that time, they would have been known to have come from the first century itself (before the gnostic gospels) and therefore they would have been canonized immediately.
no, not all of them were found later. they had found most of the gnostic gospels and decided not to add them. besides the jews hadn't closed the NT yet. the roman catholic church took it upon themselves to close it for them.
cool, so you admit they just hand picked the parts they agreed with? well done. ah well xianity is a joke, hope you figure that out. i suggest you ask yourself why all of the bible seems written by men and it's interpolation got screwed up and everything else. none of this was any type of a competent god's doing.
yea thats the problem with the bible, it was put together by man's wishes and not god's. the NT didn't finish being canonized until about 300 AD guy...duh
besides, how did they know when they were written??? did all the gnostic gospels have dates on them? people then had no idea when most of it was written.
There are ways to find when a book was written. For example, paleography which is the writing style that was in use. Also, usually there are certain words used at a certain time which were not used before or after a certain time period.
They don't need a date, just the type of writting.
Here's why you're wrong. Nothing outside the bible says Jesus existed let alone did "miracles". Second, the bible is not a reliable work of history, its a holy book. It cannot be used as evidence unless it has anything to back up its stories, which in this case it doesn't.
I would also like to point out that the time of Jesus was a very well documented era so one would expect to see documents of him and his "miracles" from that time outside the bible which there isn't any. I'm not saying he didn't exist, but I have yet to hear any evidence of his existence.
Josephus account of Jesus is very likely a forgery. Many christian scholars even agree that it is so you might want to give me some better sources. I am interested in learning more about this, every source I've heard was either the bible, or Josephus and sense it's debatable weather or not he actually made that account of Jesus I'm very skeptical.
Wrong. The consensus is that Antiquities 18.3.3 has an authentic core with some interpolations. The Antiquities 20 passage is universally agreed to be authentic.
You're forgetting that it's considered to much of a Christan work and Josephus was a Jew and if he really considered Jesus to be the messiah he would have converted which he didn't. Also, if it was written after the fact then of course it would also have some authentic parts to it.
What did you not understand about "some interpolations"? The part where he called Jesus messiah is quite clearly an interpolation, as are the parts where he alludes to his deity, references his resurrection and fulfilled prophecy. The other parts fit very well into the vocabulary of Josephus, and are considered authentic.
NOT everything he wrote was an interpolation. The testimonium flavianum has SOME interpolations in it, but inside it is an authentic core of material about Jesus.
This is true although historically suspect since the work gets written about 60 years after the fact. It would be as though -- absent any sophisticated techonology -- we were barely putting pen to paper on the presidency of Richard Nixon. It *could* be the case that the information is accurate. But it would be pure speculation. Bart Ehrman makes the apt analogy of the game of telephone regarding the oral tradition -- it changes, a lot.
Ancient oral tradition was actually very accurate. It's an anachronism to say that because our methods of oral transmission are crude, that therefore theirs are. We are a written culture. Oral cultures exist in some places in the world, and from our studies on them, we can see the methods of transmission. People can recite literally 25 hours of material from memory while making very few mistakes. The audience, who also knows the story, quickly corrects mistakes to ensure accuracy.
Can you cite any reliable sources that agree with the claim that "ancient oral tradition was actually very accurate?" Leading New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman seems to think the contrary. I'll grant you that you may be correct, but until then I have his word against yours.
Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Boyd, Greg, The Jesus Legend
There are four scholars who argue for the reliability of oral tradition. I could cite you more if you need. Does Ehrman actually cite any studies to support his position, or does he just dismiss it as "telephone" and leave it at that?
OH I can't bear to look at and listen to the prick anymore, If he was coming out with anything new, I may grin a bear it for longer. Does he think no one before him has tried these excuses, special pleading, and out and out logical gymnastics?
Go get a girlfreind/boyfriend, and chill.
I don't suppose you were brought up christian were you???
As JohnLArmstrong said, "Using the bible to proove the bible, doesn't make a good argument."
Papius? All he did was acknowledge that Matthew took notes on the gospel, nothing on when he lived, died, life, and isn't it strange that all, well most, of the gospel characters never make it to 70 A.D.? Not to anyones suprise, that's when the gospels came out.
get over the amputee comments!!!! God didn't do this to them.... God does what he wants when he wants.... if he did do the healing most foolish people would come up with another reason for it happening anyway!
It seems like you reading from a book. I think that you don't know what your grasping on. Using the gospels as proof of jesus as a historical person is comical. Any scholar and historian will say the same.
Oh yeah but do they say it's actual proof of jesus existence no. Wow list people who believe in jesus and then just assume it's must be right then. Sholars and historians know that the gospels are unreliable or even qualify as evdience for jesus existence. Why you ask because they dated the gospels and mark being the oldest is from 50 to 69 a.d. Is just hearsays. There's is not that much evidence. I could go on to show why the gospels are not proof of jesus existence.
I'm not denying they don't. But if you were going to ask a community of scholars and historians they would say otherwise. They do accept though that jesus was a real person, a teacher, and got crucified by pontius pilate. They know that they can't prove that though. Jesus in all field just doesn't hold water. No archaelogy evidence, no handwritten evidence, no documents from pontius pilate cabinet relating to jesus, no documents from the jewish kings, and no brief description of jesus, etc.
Those ARE scholars and historians, you imbecile! C'mon, where are ANY of Pilate's writings? Herod Antipas? Oh yeah, he didn't write anything about anything either. What archaeological evidence are you expecting to find? Jesus didn't write. Most people didn't write, it was an oral society, not a written society.
Herod Antipas? Lol you can't be serious that already was established unhistorical of him involving with john and jesus. Archaelogical mmm let's see jesus visit to jerusalem, jesus cruxicifion, his tomb, his meetings with the apostles do you really want me to go on? Again I said they are but it doesn't matter. I said if you asked a community of scholars and historians they would disagree. Also thanks for proving my point that the society was oral and not written proving the gospels are not
You mentioned "kings" not writing of Jesus. I'm assuming you were speaking of Herod Antipas. How the hell does a crucifixion, visit to Jerusalem, tomb, and meetings leave archaeological evidence? It leaves TEXTUAL evidence, which is why we use texts.
No, you moron, they WOULD NOT disagree with me. I know that because, unlike you, I'VE ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORK. Stop telling me what they would say when I've actually read them.
LOL. Are you effing serious? Oral society means primarily oral.
We are a written society, but that doesn't mean we don't speak! I mean that it wasn't necessary to write, which is why Jesus didn't. He had more important things to do (see: atonement) than to write a book.
"We are a written society, but that doesn't mean we don't speak. " I'm sorry but you shown you don't even know what I said at all. So your saying Jesus, the apostles, or any follower didn't have time to write even a sentence about jesus. You just made a excuse for him on his behalf. Now you saying they did which you said they didn't have time or had important stuff to do? Also hello I'm currently working on getting my master degree in history so how can
LOL. I didn't say that at all. I said that the apostles DID write books about Jesus. Hint: It's called the gospels of Matthew and John.
I'm so sorry that you're getting your masters. I don't even want to think about what the field of history will look like when people like you are degreed. Where are you getting it? What field of history are you working in?
*sigh*facepalm* Seriously if you keep calling me a idiot or a loser then I would end this discussion because I won't talk to a idiot and ignorant person. Also the gospels weren't written by the apostles. They were originally untitled and they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century. The names by which thay are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180. To say Matthew and John wrote it clearly shows you don't know what your saying.
End the discussion then, moron! LOL DUDE that claim about the authorship of the gospels is the one I'm answering in this very video. Watch the actual video! First ascription of Annals to Tacitus comes over a century after it was first penned, yet no one denies the authorship of Annals.
person so ignorant and arrogant. You are like ray comfort and kent hovind people who when confronted with evidence opposong your side, you dismiss it and claim your evidence is true. I'm also probably gonna make a video of this to show your weak arguements. So everyone would laugh at your ignorance.
No the discussion was absence of evidence of jesus existence. I never said I have proof that jesus doesn't exist? You shown again that you read my replies with a biased views. "READ THE EVIDENCE" of what you haven't presented any. I told you my opinion and you just dismiss them and when I responded to your apostles writing matthew and luke you dodge that and went to thomas and peter in which I said they didn't write that all and you assume I did say it. no ones knows what wrote the gospels
LOL. Did you watch the video? It was about the reliability of the gospels by proving their authorship, and then concluding based on that that Jesus existed. YOU brought up Thomas and Peter, not I! I didn't dodge at all! I told you to watch the video, which has eleven citations from scholarly sources on the authorship of the gospels.
The evidence is presented in the video, you fool. Watch it.
I saw the clip and found it wrong. Those books I dont' care about those books because there are people who are qualified and known scientists but write a book saying aliens abductions are real and that telekinesis is real. There biased like every mostly ever independent book. I find it weird though that is just right because they say so. Your video doesn't prove their authorship. Like I said before I'm not denying jesus existence, I think the the jesus depicted in the bible is wrong. To say
LOL. Can you actually reply to any of my arguments? I've already answered your biased "argument". It's a fallacy known as appeal to motives. Give me a break. You're blocked for stupidity.
Wow strawman arguements. Textual evidence seriously and no archaelogy evidence are you just stupid or ignorant. You clearly read my reply with a biased view. Jesus cruxifion to be valid needs acrahaelogy evidence to actually verify first that it happen, second that jesus lived, and third show it was witness by other people. Like for example that sign where Pilate put king of the jews, spear of destiny, the cross in which jesus was cruxified? Are you getting this? If you dont' understand I
You're so stupid. We don't get archaeological evidence from stuff that isn't buildings or stone or metal. LOL at the cross thing. Hey, I have a secret. Wood rots! Yeah, it's true! It may be hard to believe, but that cross is rotted away now. You're so stupid.
I KNOW WHAT SCHOLARS SAY. I'VE READ THEIR DAMNED WORK YOU MORON. An appeal to bias is just a veiled appeal to motives, fallacy, nice. Also, Ehrman is not a Christian, clearly no bias there.
There is also the gospel of thomas, peter, judas, harmonies etc, but it doesn't mean it was written by them. Also yes, I was using examples. Like the spear of destiny, the sign, or any artifact has been presented. You clealry dogde those and attack the most refutable one yeah thats nice. " I KNOW WHAT SHOLARS SAY. i'VE READ THEIR DAMNED WORK YOU MORON." Lol this is just stupid I already explain it but your not getting it.
HAHA! Thomas and Peter have no internal evidence for their authorship, and AWFUL external evidence. Their external evidence is negative! It was explicitly said that these books were NOT written by Thomas and Peter.
You think the spear of destiny had a post-it attached to it that says "NOTE: THIS STABBED JESUS"? No, fool, it looks like any other spear, so we wouldn't know it even if we had it. The sign was made of wood. Wood rots. It's GONE because it's rotted away.
10 minutes of wasted time.... no thanks I won't watch it.
I don't give 2 craps over "Gospel Evidence"
I want to see "HISTORICAL Evidence"
Nihm420 1 week ago
@Nihm420
The intent of the video was to demonstrate that the gospels themselves are historical texts.
KabaneTheChristian 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KabaneTheChristian
"The intent of the video was to demonstrate that the gospels themselves are historical texts."
Why would I believe the historicity of miracles in the gospels written by ignorant bronze age people, when I don't believe direct eye-witness accounts from people living today who claim that they have seen Elvis today...?
Nihm420 6 days ago
Even if we accept Jesus lived how does that prove he was the son of god and performed miracles. You have answered nothing I'm afraid. Why do you feel you can establish the authorship of the gospels when trained scolars are unable to do so with any degree of reasonable certainty? You want to believe so badly you will claim any old thing to "prove" it all true. You're a young guy - why dont you get a life and maybe a girlfriend rather than waste you life decyphering this nonsense?
Mrmentalmadness123 6 months ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Really? Atheists are so low. Is that all you have?
bubbabobroy 5 months ago
oh and screw the gospels...i dont often say this about fiction or creative work in writing in general...but i think all of those should be burned, along with every religious text there is....it had created so much trouble with people not understanding fiction form reality
MadMAn12gauge 7 months ago
who the fuck hasa picture of george bush in their room?
MadMAn12gauge 7 months ago
Why do you repeatedly fail to see something as simple as *the historicity of a document does not attest the reliability of its claims*? Is the construction of the book what is claimed historical, not its contents: There is no document, nor archaeological evidence to contrast such contents: A King ordering kids to be slaughtered. A roman census as accounted by gospels. The star of Bethlehem, and so forth. Even Josephus was hoaxed as accepted by the Vatican itself. What's your problem, @Kabane?
code933k 8 months ago
@TheDarvus LOL
Humbler25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's what other people have said about Humbler25 - "i have read through some of your comments and you are a bitter and hateful little fuck." (MrBlackGravy)
“leaving moronic comments on youtube is harmless but you trying to bully and harass someone clearly proves you have a severe mental illness plus stalking them too.” (67675656565655656565)
JESUSsmokesCRACK 7 months ago
@TheDarvus reverse that... I certainly haven't learned anything, but hopefully you have. Hopefully you've learned that you can't make a historical case without any historical evidence. That is why we know the historical Paul wrote the letters and we know that Josephus had nothing to do with any part of the Bible. Isn't the truth great!
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus and you responded to each one, LOL in fact you spent almost three hours doing so as well as continuing to troll around. Your a joke! You spend your whole life making silly theories on youtube that you can't back up.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus actually there is a ton of evidence you just don't want to read up on it or even bother to actually listen to one of these videos you troll around learn abou it. That may force you to reexamine your lifestyle and you don't want to do that now do you.
Humbler25 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Humbler25 attended counselling at Exodus International from August, 2010, until February, 2011, when he was caught in the washroom there with another male client. Humbler25 said he was only giving the guy a back rub, but the security cameras there recorded something different. To see this security video of Humbler25 & his gay lover, check my channel. Or you can ask me, & I'll send it to you.
JustinBieberKicksAss 9 months ago
@TonDogWayner
No followers wrote down supernatural powers of Buddha or Zeus, brother. Zeus was not a teacher on Earth, like Jesus was. Perhaps you should check your facts before writing silly comments like that. With WMDs, they would obviously be expected to leave physical evidence. With miracles performed by a historical figure, there's no possible way that can leave stuff for archaeology. You're making a false analogy. Peace.
KabaneTheChristian 11 months ago
hi kabane, like your videos, and you seem pretty clever. however i must say that your over reliance on evidence ( evidence being the bible !! ) does seem a little single minded! but i am clearly forgetting that the are called the gospels ( so they must be true!!
mather197 1 year ago
Hey Kabane, I enjoy your videos, and thanks for bringing to light the Orthodox faith, I'm seriously considering abandoning heterodoxy for orthodoxy. Thanks and keep up the good work.
4IDHero 1 year ago
furthermore, by the logic you used, you could also assume the quran is true.
So where is your proof that the quran is not historically sound while the gospels are?
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
accounts are true.
So you are severely misguided in taking 4 people's word for it, without any further proof on the subject, and basing the entire rest of your argument on the initial premise that the gospel is factual when you have not stated any actual proof.
people said the same thing about the old testament, yet there is not one piece of archeological evidence even placing the jews in egypt!
Most likely it's a bunch of crap and you are too naive and uneducated to understand otherwise
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
premise 3 is true.
your argument falls apart mostly with premise 2. Your logic is not circular in this case, it is simply wrong, since there is no more proof of the gospels being accurate (especially with the inconsistencies between them), than there is of the illiad or odyssey being accurate.
you therefore incorrectly assume the gospels are accurate without proof. 4 testimonial accounts, that's all they are.
People write books on how the holocaust never happened, it doesn't mean their
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
premise 1 - not true, even shakespear's existence is doubted. If someone picked up a spiderman comic 40,000 years from now, they could say "hmm new york existed, this must be a work of history spider man was real"
premise 2 - you stating the gospels are reliable works of history does not make them so. where is your proof beyond your own word that they are accurate accounts? The gospels have many inconsistencies between each other, even getting the date of jesus' death confused.
TheLostGuitarist 1 year ago
Your voice changed.
destine4hope 1 year ago
Is that a picture of George Bush in the background?
J0F03 2 years ago 10
Kabane, while I don't buy your debate, your comments are well organized, thought-out and I appreciate your respectful tone with no name calling. Well done, young man.
bartleyc 2 years ago
But that said, I do respect the passions of atheists alike when it comes to who is right. I do have an observation when it comes to this debate which is religion should be treated as a person matter and not shared with the world. I don't want to hear about your sex life, financial matters or your religion / non-religion. If everyone kept religion and matters of the spirit to themselves I truly believe humanity would be better off.
bartleyc 2 years ago
I watched several videos of both christians and atheists and I am impressed with your passions to prove that you're right and the other guys is wrong when in fact you all miss the point of your faith whether it is to believe and not believe. But I think that everyone is missing the point of faith which is a matter of the spirit which has no room for whether a text is fact or not. It seems like such a pointless debate that no one will ever win and everyone just gets pissed at each other.
bartleyc 2 years ago
I DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS :D. I do believe in god though. Im jewish.
jadaphlynnbffs13 2 years ago
Why don't you believe in Jesus?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Furthermore, you claim that Luke was written in the best Greek, which is true. You should probably also know that Mark was written in the worst Greek (which is another attestation to the markan priority of the New Testament).
It's interesting that a person who wrote Greek so poorly worked as a translator and interpreter for Simon Peter, someone who would have spoken Aramaic. Doesn't make sense.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
We do not know much history on Mark, so it is foolish and a hasty generalization to make such a statement. Most early Christians only agreed Mark wrote on what Peter taught to him. And Markan priority is due largely to a pure assumption that the earliest Gospel would not have as many miracles as the other. Only secular bias is found in that claim.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Again, what you are asserting comes from Papias. We can dispute his reliability all day, but I don't really see him as much of a reliable source for this
Markan Priority is definitely not due to the fact that the earliest Gospel accounts would not have any miracles. I would say that the "primary reason" is that virtually all of Mark is included in Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke each have material found nowhere else. The easiest way to see this is that the later writers embellished the earlier
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
Also, there are many places where Matthew and Mark seem to agree and Luke is in disagreement. There are many places where Luke and Mark seem to agree and Matthew is in disagreement. But there are very few places where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark. Again this suggests that Matthew and Luke independently changed the wording in Mark instead of Mark copying from one of the others.
We can get into other arguments like that Mark is the shortest and the ideals are more primitive, and so on...
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
That's borderning on intellectual folly. To think early Christians were already acceping Luke as Canonical Scripture by A.D. 62 in 1 Timothyand then think these people would purposedly confuse their readers by contradicting yet copying each other is beyond me. The early Christians were the first ones to even assert that the Gospels agreed so much with each other, but their conclusion was that it only hightened their credibiltiy to much for they knew they were independent unlike the idiots today.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
All of Mark being in Matthew does not even substantiate it as being the first Gospel. It could readily assert Mark's sole source was Matthew. Lie all you want but even Bart Ehrman asserts the main reason for Markan priority is because it is shorter with less miracles, thus less exaggeration.
I don;t even believe in the Synoptic Problem anyway. It is only built on presuppositions not evidence. The evidnece comes from sources in that era that contradict it for a span of 400 years after apostles
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And on top of THAT, there were apparent errors in the text:
(1) Papias implies that Mark is not arranged chronologically, but the Gospel of Mark most certainly is chronologically arranged.
(2) Papias says that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, internal evidence (to be discussed later) strongly suggests the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek.
(3) Papias says that Matthew collected "oracles" or sayings, but the Gospel of Matthew is a narrative.
Not a reliable source.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
(1) The Gospels were not yet arranged by his time, though they were already considered Canonical long before his time.
(2) Internal evidence fails when we have no manuscript within the 1st century. Jerome stated only the original was in Hebrew and it was almost immediately translated into Greek. I already made my statement about the original.
(3) This is such a failed argument. As reading early Christian writers, they would occasionally use the same phrase "oracles" for Matthew's Gospel.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
(1) An interesting point, that could be possible. I've never heard that assertion before.
(2) Papias speaks of no written Greek translation, nor has he ever seen one. The others, who speak of a Hebrew "Gospel," say nothing about a translation. This is strange if the Greek Matthew in the hands of these fathers was a translation of the Hebrew Gospel of which they make mention. It is not until Jerome in the fourth century are we told that he does not know who the translator was.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
(2 -cont'd) We see that even he only supposes that a translation had been made. Yet it is still asserted that our Greek Matthew is a translation.
(3) How is this a "failed argument"? This is what Papias asserted. Which "early Christian" writers are you referring to that use this phraseology?
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
I don't know why you think I consider Papias my main source. He is certainly a source and an early one at that but not the most reliable. On the contrary, even Ignatius stated his authentic records were the Gospel which had the apostles for their authors, then he quoted Matthew as the "Gospel."
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
That's because they are all talking about the original Matthew that was published. Tertullian said the same and ALSO stated all the Gospels, Paul's letters, and possible the rest of the New Testament were still being preserved where they first published in the apostolic churches.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Another thing you're not mentioning is that Papias claimed that he came across his material third hand.
He said that whenever any "Presbyters" (elderly church officials) came by, he would ask them for direct quotes from the Apostles. The only writings of his were quoted by the Anti-Nicene Fathers because Papias does not seem to be well thought of.
Church historian, Eusebius of Casarea, writing in the 4th century CE referred to him as "a man of small mental capacity".
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
2:26
The gospel of Matthew (along with the entire New Testament) was written in Greek. There is no evidence that there was any translation from Hebrew to Greek in Matthew or any of the NT for that matter.
Ireneaus (or any other early church father) was already operating under a dogma of apostolic succession.
If Matthew or any author of the NT wanted us to know who wrote any of the gospels, all they would have to do was sign it.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
As a history student, I have some refutations and comments to make.
First off Jerome in the later 4th century affirmed the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew still existed. He did this twice in Lives of Ilustrious Men and in a letter to Pope Damascus.
Funny that you talk about signatius as the original John was confirmed as existing in A.D. 300 right where John wrote his book in Ephesus and it was claimed to have his autograph on it.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
So whatever Matthew wrote in Hebrew was so short lived that it disappeared completely at a date so early that even the earliest fathers never obtained sight of the writing. Nor can this undeniable fact be reduced by the remark that when Matthew was translated into Greek, this Greek at once superseded the Hebrew. Anything written in any language by one of the Twelve must have been highly prized and treasured accordingly. The translation could not have been made as late as the year 90.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
Then the Hebrew original would have been at hand at this late date. But Mark and Luke were available in Greek for a score of years prior to 90. Why did the Hebrew Matthew continue in use to such an extent that finally a translation into Greek was deemed necessary?
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
WHat did I just say o rather Jerome? It was immediately translated into Greek when copies were made which was begung as early as the 1st century for even Clement constantly referenced Matthew as if it was universally known.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And I just said, Jerome said it was immediately translated into Greek probably so both jews and Gentiles could read it, but he clearly stated both in a public account, and in a private letter the original Hebrew was being preserved. The original Matthew was written in hebrew, case closed in light of physical evidence.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Jerome claims to be the only one that has actually seen it in Hebrew out of all the individuals that attested it, but he also subsequently expressed doubt as to whether the book which he saw under this name was the genuine Matthew. If a genuine Hebrew narrative at anytime existed, it perished with the age which gave it birth. The vast majority of the writers were familiar with the Greek Matthew; and none of them speak of it as a translation. Why is that?
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
Yes, they kinda do, considering they all claimed Matthew was written in Hebrew characters yet they quoted from the Greek Matthew for sure, that kinda proves they knew of the translation, and stop fabricating history. I have read the majority of Jerome's hstory and he claimed no such thing. When he spoke of the original Matthew, he then said people who were still using it told him the author quoted from the Hebrew Bible when mentioning prophecies instead of the Septuagint.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Okay, all of the ancient writers whose extant writings allude to the question, represent Matthew as having written a narrative in Hebrew; but not one of them claims to have SEEN it except Jerome.
Aside from Jerome, we are dealing with circular reasoning here... we know that Matthew is written in Hebrew because the early Christians claimed that it was. How do we know this? Because they said so, without claiming to have ever seen the Hebrew text.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
I believe that Markan Priority alone is a good enough argument to show that not only Matthew came second to a Greek Mark, but it was not in Hebrew because the majority of it is borrowed. Verbatim in some parts.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
Like I said, you are using presuppositions not evidence. The evidnece is totally against everything most modern scholars claim today because none of it agrees with their hypotthesies when we turn to actual history itself in that era.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Lack of evidence substantiates nill, and actually both Irenaeus and Tertullian state the authorships and then state that evidence is still at the apostolic churches. Tertullian saw it, Irenaeus maybe saw it. I only go by positive evidence, if they existed it would have been axiom back then not need to constany reaffirm it was there if it was still being preserved in those well known apostolic churches
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
What tangible evidence did they have for attesting authorship? Not the signed Gospels...I don't know what else the could have had aside from the word of their elders.
Ireanaeus was the first to attest Lukan and Johanine authorship in 170 CE. To my knowledge, it was Eusebius of Casarea says that Irenaeus got that information from Polycarp under whom he studied. Polycarp supposedly studied under John, not from the signed gospel of John sitting at the apostolic church for all eyes to see...
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
Uh, yes, Polycarp was a disciple of John, therefore he would definitly know who wrote John's Gospel that was being quoted as early as the late 1st century. That only increases its reliability. Furthermore, Irenaeus wrote around A.D. 180. He was not the one to assert that first, that was Theophilus in A.D. 169 when he wrote a private letter to his friend Autolycus stating quite nonchalantly that the spirit inspired John says...then he quotes from John 1:1 beginning with the "word."
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Theophilus was also a Jewish historian who converted to Christianity, thus he would be a reliable source, just as Irenaeus is being someone with knowledge on John. However, he was also a complte independent source since he wrote in the only extant work we have from him being a private letter. Hence, John's authorships is even confirmed totally (as if it wasn't alredy..) for in historical investigations, when two independent sources agree with each other, the fact should be accepted as true.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
These two sources are not completely independent though, John allegedly having a disciple (Polycarp) who then tells Iranaeus that John actually wrote the Gospel attributed to him is not like two independent witnesses on the scene.
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
That's Irenaeus' testimony. That is not Theophilus. Independence only means the authors did not know what the other one said, with john, we have two coming virtually at about the same time, but one was a private letter to a personal friend which not onnly improves its credibility (as private accounts are more reliable then public accounts) but proves it was most probably independent to Irenaeus' knowledge.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
On top of that, we have a tradition that started relatively early in less then a century, continued with many sources agreeing for several centuries onward without ever being contradicted once. Hence, the tradition is so reliable, it would be ignorant not to trust it. We accept Clement wrote his first letter to the Corinthians based mainly on only one source Dionysius of Corinth claiming so about a century after it was written. Wecan accept this tradition and not Gospel's? Anyway, later for now.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And finally, if you really think it is uncommon back then for works to be anonymous internally, you are sadly mistaken.
In the problems of external criticism it frequently occurs that a chronicle or a document makes no reference to its origin, and the investigator is obliged to employ indirect means to establish the date, the place, or the author."
(Vincent, HR, 97)
Vincent, John M. Historical Research: An Outline of Theory and Practice. 1911.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And of course, if the eyewitness John wrote John, this pushes the date of when John was written much farther back to a time when the apostles were fresh, and this in turn (since John's was the last Gospel) pushes all four of the Gospel dates back. Why this is improbable to believe, I do not know as even John in his own Gospel states the Pool of Beresheba still existed when it was destroyed in A.D. 66 after the destruction of Jerusalem.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And what circular reasoning? Both Irenaeus and Tertullian stated why and most Christians spoke it as an axiom back then everyone accepted such as Eusebius before the Canon was first developed. You forget we must judge how knowledgable and reliable these authors were and no doubt they were in a position to know quite a lot about their own history with some even claiming what evidence they had.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
As far as your assertion on an autographed copy of the Gospel of John that ever existed, I have never heard of such things. I'll humor you and look more into this, but it doesn't sound promising...any other evidence than just your say so?
StephenDaniel 2 years ago
You can't deny physical evidence in history. I learned in that in history from when the historian Vincent said in his book Historical Research the moment a writer claimed to his peers the original existed for his work, it hightens its credibility, for physical evidence is all to easy for even a laymen to refute and prove that author a liar back then, particularly in a social environment alrdy set up against Christian authors.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
And why do I hear constant nonsense about the church fathers before one even reads their texts? We demand the credibility of the sources and ALL the church fathers were highly credible based on how much information they could had, not to mention Christians were still being killed by all these claims they made up to the beginning of the 4th century. Deal with it, Irenaeus is a highly credible source and I suggest you actually read his books like I have done.
inkillerxyz1 2 years ago
Heracles actually did 12 tests with mythical monsters and superhuman feats simply because someone from long ago wrote it down on paper.
And for anyone that utters the phrase "Prove to me God doesn't exist" i say this: Prove to me that invisible flying pink unicorns don't exist.
Last thing ill say is this: Do you think that if the man you have on your wall didn't BELIEVE he knew where soldiers go after they died, he'd be less likely to apathetically send them to their deaths?
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
And plus the catholic church has changed and edited the bible so many times that you cant possibly expect authenticity to be there after 1400 years of handling and editing and translating. Ever play the telephone game in school? yeah same thing as what were talking about here. So there. i did what you asked when you said if we had something to refute you by, use your little 3 point theory. I did and you're wrong. Im sorry but if you rely on 1400 year old texts as "proof", i can say that
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
factual.
To wrap everything up ill say this:
If you have multiple versions of the same subject, most likely, they cant be true. Since in science when a theory is tested 3 times and if one test comes back false, the theory is disproven and is thrown out. You have multiple guys that claim to of known jesus and tell stories about him but none of the stories match up. some of them place jesus in entirely different times. Such discordance within so called "facts" cant possible be considered true.
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
easier to remember and so all gospels should have the same records of those miracles.
3. The gospels attest to the existence of Jesus
I dont want to repeat myself again so ill just say this. Just because someone said it happened doesnt mean it did.
And some other things i want to point out. Romans NEVER nailed people to crucifixes simply because the crucifixion was meant as a slow painful death. Shoving nails in would just speed up the process. So that idea of how jesus died is not entirely
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
crime or in the case of the victim, they so badly want to place blame on a face, that they "think" that a suspect is the true criminal because they "think" its that person.
So saying that the gospels are reliable is a joke simply because the guys who wrote the gospels never met jesus and all have different accounts of what jesus did and what happened in his life time. sounds like alot of discordance to me. You'd think a man like jesus would be pretty easy to remember and MIRACLES would be even
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
2. The Gospels are reliable works of history
Again i say they are not simply because they came 40-60 years after the death of Christ. I think that if you wanted to do ask Christ said and go out and spread the word, you'd do it pretty damn quick and writing it down helps alot.
a 40 year old memory of an event is very very unreliable simply because what we remember isnt always what happened. Its been shown time and time again in trials where witnesses alter things that happen at the scene of the
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
Ok ill take up your challenge in you vid around 1:50 or so.
1. If a persons existence is attested in a reliable work in history, he existed. First of all, the gospels are not reliable simply because each one of them isa DIFFERENT account of the man known as jesus. Each Gospel recounts different things Jesus did or didnt do. And the first Gospel that made it into the bible is Mark's and he doesnt write that stuff until 40 years AFTER christ dies. just set that aside for now...
Cerberus2006 2 years ago
oh come on, the bible is not real, and jesus never existed!
Frances3654 2 years ago
I guess that settles it then.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
what do you mean?
Frances3654 2 years ago
It was sarcasm. Merely restating your position does not do anything to refute this video.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
bad day at the keyboard. but yea rethink this crap. people bringing books of the bible in who canonized the bible and they didn't say where they got them from...cmon
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
intelligent lulz
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
you have been indoctrinated. it's that simple. you are too intelligent to give these ridiculous ideas a second look and the only reason you aren't seeing reason is indoctrination. if you choose to accept these things you are accepting them on faith alone in which case you need to stop trying to convice peopleof something you only accept on faith. it is no better than a creationist spreading ignoranace because of their unfounded faiths.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
kabane i implore you to use logic and reason and apply it to the old testament. you have ZERO proof moses or anything of his story ever existed. for you to accept it did with no proof whatsoever is insane. it is literally insane, you couldn't nor wouldn't believe anything else on this earth given the same set of information. please drop these unfounded beliefs and rethink your position. i know it would be tough, but you need to be honest with yourself. do not acept things you don't know.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
yea, no that proves nothing. you have zero standars for what you will believe when it comes to jesus.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
hmmm
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
know lol
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
if the bible is an accurate source for history why does it say jesus' family fled because of a roman consensus when we no for fact no such thing ever occured?
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Such a census is implied in Josephus actually. Check my reply to Caleb for the exact quote.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
good answer. trash your bibles plz.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Do you agree xianity isn't the best religion to practice? Because that's a lot of evidence stacked against you my friend. Which NT scholars believe jesus was born in bethlehem? Can't find a list.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
So you want proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Considering that birth certificates from 2 BC no longer exist from that area, it would be impossible to prove. That doesn't mean, however, that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. The claim that he wasn't is untenable.
kris01987 2 years ago
no, im saying like 90% o NT scholars don't believe he was born in bethlehem. besides rome never EVER took a concencus of the jews. just never heppened.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
keyboard is on the fritz, my bad. how about a contemporary historical document that says jesus ever existed? can you do that?
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Evidence doesn't have to be "contemperary" to be authentic. Most written history is not "contemporary." Herodotus, Josephus, Tacitus, Xenophone, etc. all wrote about historical events that they weren't contemporary to, If he held all history to that standard, we would have very thin history books.
kris01987 2 years ago
Kabane, great series :)
kris01987 2 years ago
you need to tone your ego down several thousand notches you little chump.
madmaxstaxwax 2 years ago
Just to screw with you, you are getting blocked too. CONGRATS!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
dude who in the fuck do you think you are? just blocking people because they don't agree with you. pathetic little sod. do the atheists here block ppl because they say things that disagree with them? you need to get your head out of your ass and man up..
madmaxstaxwax 2 years ago
can i ask why we only have 4 apostle sources? where did the rest go? would they not have been spreading the word of christ as well? it makes absolutely no sense we have these long testimonies from 4 apostles and absolutely none for the rest. it's a scam.
namethattuneable 2 years ago
Only Matthew and John were apostles. Mark and Luke were not. The rest were out preaching, duh!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
you do realize we have authentic scripture rom other apostles who didnt know jesus died or was resurrected right? in fact less than 10% of the scripture found was used in the new testament because it completely contradicts the ones they used.
so all these scriptures you claim for proof of jesus is the greatest disproof we have.
namethattuneable 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAH!
The apocryphal gospels? You know what those are called? Pseudipigrepha. Pick an apocryphal gospel you'd like to defend as authentic. They are all not written by apostles and they were all written very late.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
most scholars find the lost gospels very authentic, and if you have watched that other video i posted some are just as old if not older than the ones used.
namethattuneable 2 years ago
Which video? Most scholars do NOT find them authentic. What about Craig Evans, who helped translate the Judas Gospel? He thinks it is ridiculous that people promote these "Lost Gospels" as authentic. Witherington? Wright? Bauckham?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
witherington and wright are nutcasses, you should stop citing them. they are about the only fools who think jesus was born in bethlehem because the bible says so.
this video: /watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U
oh okay they were out preaching so that explains why no one wrote anything down whatsoever? cmon be reasonable man.
namethattuneable 2 years ago
That comment on Witherington and Wright got you blocked for stupidity. Congrats.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
To namethattuneable,
That is misleading. The lost gospels are accepted as not being forged in modern times, that doesn't mean that that they are authentic in the sense that they are canonical or authoratative.
kris01987 2 years ago
who is to say any of it is authoratative? the roman catholic church just picked whatever they wanted for the most part. their decision for what is authoratative is that it matched up. how can you honestly sit here and tell me one is more correct than any other?
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Actually, the Catholic Church didn't pick. They were already being cited as gospel before the catholic church existed in the second century. Don't believe me? Read Justin Martyr.
kris01987 2 years ago
my father has a doctorate in divinity, i don't need to read anything.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
so, because of your dad's doctorate, you have an excuse for willfull ignorance?
kris01987 2 years ago
it's not wilfully ignorant, the church chose the documents, they werent selected beforehand. revelations for example wasn't added until right before they called it quits.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
you never answered, what makes one of the gospels any more authoratative than the others? shouldn't they have just left ALL of it in there? makes no sense at all to pick and choose what you want.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
The fact that they were being cited as scripture in the early second century before any any others and early enough when followers of the original folowers of Jesus were around is proof enough.
kris01987 2 years ago
Also, St Paul, who is known to exist, cited the Gospel of Luke twice in the first century itself.
kris01987 2 years ago
uhm no it clearly isn't. if thats the case then david koresh is the messiah as well.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Actually, yes it is because in that time, they would have been known to have come from the first century itself (before the gnostic gospels) and therefore they would have been canonized immediately.
kris01987 2 years ago
no, not all of them were found later. they had found most of the gnostic gospels and decided not to add them. besides the jews hadn't closed the NT yet. the roman catholic church took it upon themselves to close it for them.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
They weren't added because they contradicted Jewish teachings, and therefore Christian teachings as well.
Many of them include polytheism, so there is no way they ever would have been canonized.
kris01987 2 years ago
cool, so you admit they just hand picked the parts they agreed with? well done. ah well xianity is a joke, hope you figure that out. i suggest you ask yourself why all of the bible seems written by men and it's interpolation got screwed up and everything else. none of this was any type of a competent god's doing.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Think! Would YOU accept books that differed from YOUR beliefs as authoratative. -- Duh! You wouldn't.
Besides, part of the process included whether or not the books were actually written by first century Christians.
What got chosen was already widely believed by mainstream Christianity, so it is not as if they got selected out of convenience.
And the gnostics (that produced the gnostic gospels) were NEVER a mainstream group. Their writtings are known to come AFTER the 1st century.
kris01987 2 years ago
dude no, watch the damn video series:
/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U
yea thats the problem with the bible, it was put together by man's wishes and not god's. the NT didn't finish being canonized until about 300 AD guy...duh
besides, how did they know when they were written??? did all the gnostic gospels have dates on them? people then had no idea when most of it was written.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
There are ways to find when a book was written. For example, paleography which is the writing style that was in use. Also, usually there are certain words used at a certain time which were not used before or after a certain time period.
They don't need a date, just the type of writting.
kris01987 2 years ago
i'm not sure you know at all how the bible was put together.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Actually, yes I do. By different canons with most of the same texts from the early second century until Athanasius in the fourth century.
kris01987 2 years ago
muhammad is the prophet as well then?
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
at least you aren't sitting her and just lying about them like some other christians i could name *cough*
props on that.
askDiggerNicks 2 years ago
Here's why you're wrong. Nothing outside the bible says Jesus existed let alone did "miracles". Second, the bible is not a reliable work of history, its a holy book. It cannot be used as evidence unless it has anything to back up its stories, which in this case it doesn't.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
I would also like to point out that the time of Jesus was a very well documented era so one would expect to see documents of him and his "miracles" from that time outside the bible which there isn't any. I'm not saying he didn't exist, but I have yet to hear any evidence of his existence.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
Josephus said that he existed along with a few other sources, and he said that he 'worked wonders.' That's why your wrong :).
Limbsy 2 years ago
@ Limbsy
Josephus account of Jesus is very likely a forgery. Many christian scholars even agree that it is so you might want to give me some better sources. I am interested in learning more about this, every source I've heard was either the bible, or Josephus and sense it's debatable weather or not he actually made that account of Jesus I'm very skeptical.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
Wrong. The consensus is that Antiquities 18.3.3 has an authentic core with some interpolations. The Antiquities 20 passage is universally agreed to be authentic.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
You're forgetting that it's considered to much of a Christan work and Josephus was a Jew and if he really considered Jesus to be the messiah he would have converted which he didn't. Also, if it was written after the fact then of course it would also have some authentic parts to it.
MachineLegion 2 years ago
There were perhaps SOME interpolations, but nothing that would debunk my point.
Limbsy 2 years ago
What did you not understand about "some interpolations"? The part where he called Jesus messiah is quite clearly an interpolation, as are the parts where he alludes to his deity, references his resurrection and fulfilled prophecy. The other parts fit very well into the vocabulary of Josephus, and are considered authentic.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
If everything Josephus wrote about Jesus are interpolations then how can his writings be used as credible evidence for the existence of Jesus?
MachineLegion 2 years ago
NOT everything he wrote was an interpolation. The testimonium flavianum has SOME interpolations in it, but inside it is an authentic core of material about Jesus.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
This is true although historically suspect since the work gets written about 60 years after the fact. It would be as though -- absent any sophisticated techonology -- we were barely putting pen to paper on the presidency of Richard Nixon. It *could* be the case that the information is accurate. But it would be pure speculation. Bart Ehrman makes the apt analogy of the game of telephone regarding the oral tradition -- it changes, a lot.
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
Ancient oral tradition was actually very accurate. It's an anachronism to say that because our methods of oral transmission are crude, that therefore theirs are. We are a written culture. Oral cultures exist in some places in the world, and from our studies on them, we can see the methods of transmission. People can recite literally 25 hours of material from memory while making very few mistakes. The audience, who also knows the story, quickly corrects mistakes to ensure accuracy.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Can you cite any reliable sources that agree with the claim that "ancient oral tradition was actually very accurate?" Leading New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman seems to think the contrary. I'll grant you that you may be correct, but until then I have his word against yours.
poolerboy0077 2 years ago
Absolutely, yes!
Dunn, James, Jesus Remembered
Bauckham, Richard, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Boyd, Greg, The Jesus Legend
There are four scholars who argue for the reliability of oral tradition. I could cite you more if you need. Does Ehrman actually cite any studies to support his position, or does he just dismiss it as "telephone" and leave it at that?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
What "Gospel Evidence" indeed???
The gospel is NO evidence whatsoever,
OH I can't bear to look at and listen to the prick anymore, If he was coming out with anything new, I may grin a bear it for longer. Does he think no one before him has tried these excuses, special pleading, and out and out logical gymnastics?
Go get a girlfreind/boyfriend, and chill.
I don't suppose you were brought up christian were you???
martiangrundy 2 years ago
His pic of Bush on the wall tells you everything you need to know about him and what he has to say.
Religion is a fairytale and its practice is a cult.
ndyt 2 years ago
1: If a primary eyewitness' testimony has not been shown to be reliable, than any secondary testimony based on this cannot be said to be reliable.
2: The gospels are at best secondary eyewitness testimony.
3: The testimony of the primary eyewitness has not been shown to be reliable.
Conclusion: The gospels have not been shown to be reliable accounts of history.
Note: Agreed; bias plays no part in logic but bias plays a very large role in determining the reliability of witness testimony.
cowboycoco 2 years ago 3
As JohnLArmstrong said, "Using the bible to proove the bible, doesn't make a good argument."
Papius? All he did was acknowledge that Matthew took notes on the gospel, nothing on when he lived, died, life, and isn't it strange that all, well most, of the gospel characters never make it to 70 A.D.? Not to anyones suprise, that's when the gospels came out.
1cattfish 2 years ago 2
"Gospel evidence"? That is an oxymoron.
frid9999 2 years ago 3
A sweeping refutation of the entire video!
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
1: If a primary eyewitness' testimony has not been shown to be reliable, than any secondary testimony based on this cannot be said to be reliable.
2: The gospels are at best secondary eyewitness testimony.
3: The testimony of the primary eyewitness has not been shown to be reliable.
Conclusion: The gospels have not been shown to be reliable accounts of history.
Cowboyco makes a very good point buddy...
mascall87 2 years ago
whywontgodhealamputees(dot)com
jesusneverexisted(dot)com
godisimaginary(dot)com
nice picture of bush behind you
you realize he dosnt give a shit about your imaginary god-man
and 911 was an inside job
do you comb your hair with a pork chop?
nyarltep 2 years ago
get over the amputee comments!!!! God didn't do this to them.... God does what he wants when he wants.... if he did do the healing most foolish people would come up with another reason for it happening anyway!
Totothemonkey 2 years ago
Kabane logic: Gospel writing styles and appeals to Christian authority = evidence
DIRTYDUNNZ 2 years ago
It seems like you reading from a book. I think that you don't know what your grasping on. Using the gospels as proof of jesus as a historical person is comical. Any scholar and historian will say the same.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
I'm reading from my script.
Really? Any scholar? What about Bart Ehrman an AGNOSTIC who believes in Jesus' existence BECAUSE of the gospels
Wright? Ludemann? Evans? Wenham? Wilikins? Grant? Witherington? Metzger? Pilch? Rorhbaugh? Malina? Blomberg?
I can list plenty of scholars who don't say the same. Want me to?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Oh yeah but do they say it's actual proof of jesus existence no. Wow list people who believe in jesus and then just assume it's must be right then. Sholars and historians know that the gospels are unreliable or even qualify as evdience for jesus existence. Why you ask because they dated the gospels and mark being the oldest is from 50 to 69 a.d. Is just hearsays. There's is not that much evidence. I could go on to show why the gospels are not proof of jesus existence.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
Yes, they do. Have you read their work?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I'm not denying they don't. But if you were going to ask a community of scholars and historians they would say otherwise. They do accept though that jesus was a real person, a teacher, and got crucified by pontius pilate. They know that they can't prove that though. Jesus in all field just doesn't hold water. No archaelogy evidence, no handwritten evidence, no documents from pontius pilate cabinet relating to jesus, no documents from the jewish kings, and no brief description of jesus, etc.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
Those ARE scholars and historians, you imbecile! C'mon, where are ANY of Pilate's writings? Herod Antipas? Oh yeah, he didn't write anything about anything either. What archaeological evidence are you expecting to find? Jesus didn't write. Most people didn't write, it was an oral society, not a written society.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Herod Antipas? Lol you can't be serious that already was established unhistorical of him involving with john and jesus. Archaelogical mmm let's see jesus visit to jerusalem, jesus cruxicifion, his tomb, his meetings with the apostles do you really want me to go on? Again I said they are but it doesn't matter. I said if you asked a community of scholars and historians they would disagree. Also thanks for proving my point that the society was oral and not written proving the gospels are not
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
You mentioned "kings" not writing of Jesus. I'm assuming you were speaking of Herod Antipas. How the hell does a crucifixion, visit to Jerusalem, tomb, and meetings leave archaeological evidence? It leaves TEXTUAL evidence, which is why we use texts.
No, you moron, they WOULD NOT disagree with me. I know that because, unlike you, I'VE ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORK. Stop telling me what they would say when I've actually read them.
LOL. Are you effing serious? Oral society means primarily oral.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
...
We are a written society, but that doesn't mean we don't speak! I mean that it wasn't necessary to write, which is why Jesus didn't. He had more important things to do (see: atonement) than to write a book.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
cont
suggest to stay quiet about it.
"We are a written society, but that doesn't mean we don't speak. " I'm sorry but you shown you don't even know what I said at all. So your saying Jesus, the apostles, or any follower didn't have time to write even a sentence about jesus. You just made a excuse for him on his behalf. Now you saying they did which you said they didn't have time or had important stuff to do? Also hello I'm currently working on getting my master degree in history so how can
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
LOL. I didn't say that at all. I said that the apostles DID write books about Jesus. Hint: It's called the gospels of Matthew and John.
I'm so sorry that you're getting your masters. I don't even want to think about what the field of history will look like when people like you are degreed. Where are you getting it? What field of history are you working in?
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
*sigh*facepalm* Seriously if you keep calling me a idiot or a loser then I would end this discussion because I won't talk to a idiot and ignorant person. Also the gospels weren't written by the apostles. They were originally untitled and they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century. The names by which thay are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180. To say Matthew and John wrote it clearly shows you don't know what your saying.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
End the discussion then, moron! LOL DUDE that claim about the authorship of the gospels is the one I'm answering in this very video. Watch the actual video! First ascription of Annals to Tacitus comes over a century after it was first penned, yet no one denies the authorship of Annals.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
person so ignorant and arrogant. You are like ray comfort and kent hovind people who when confronted with evidence opposong your side, you dismiss it and claim your evidence is true. I'm also probably gonna make a video of this to show your weak arguements. So everyone would laugh at your ignorance.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
I can't stand Comfort or Hovind, btw.
You didn't PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE, you fool! You just said "well I could provide evidence but I won't".
Make a video. Please. I'll respond.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
No the discussion was absence of evidence of jesus existence. I never said I have proof that jesus doesn't exist? You shown again that you read my replies with a biased views. "READ THE EVIDENCE" of what you haven't presented any. I told you my opinion and you just dismiss them and when I responded to your apostles writing matthew and luke you dodge that and went to thomas and peter in which I said they didn't write that all and you assume I did say it. no ones knows what wrote the gospels
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
LOL. Did you watch the video? It was about the reliability of the gospels by proving their authorship, and then concluding based on that that Jesus existed. YOU brought up Thomas and Peter, not I! I didn't dodge at all! I told you to watch the video, which has eleven citations from scholarly sources on the authorship of the gospels.
The evidence is presented in the video, you fool. Watch it.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
I saw the clip and found it wrong. Those books I dont' care about those books because there are people who are qualified and known scientists but write a book saying aliens abductions are real and that telekinesis is real. There biased like every mostly ever independent book. I find it weird though that is just right because they say so. Your video doesn't prove their authorship. Like I said before I'm not denying jesus existence, I think the the jesus depicted in the bible is wrong. To say
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
LOL. Can you actually reply to any of my arguments? I've already answered your biased "argument". It's a fallacy known as appeal to motives. Give me a break. You're blocked for stupidity.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
Wow strawman arguements. Textual evidence seriously and no archaelogy evidence are you just stupid or ignorant. You clearly read my reply with a biased view. Jesus cruxifion to be valid needs acrahaelogy evidence to actually verify first that it happen, second that jesus lived, and third show it was witness by other people. Like for example that sign where Pilate put king of the jews, spear of destiny, the cross in which jesus was cruxified? Are you getting this? If you dont' understand I
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
You're so stupid. We don't get archaeological evidence from stuff that isn't buildings or stone or metal. LOL at the cross thing. Hey, I have a secret. Wood rots! Yeah, it's true! It may be hard to believe, but that cross is rotted away now. You're so stupid.
I KNOW WHAT SCHOLARS SAY. I'VE READ THEIR DAMNED WORK YOU MORON. An appeal to bias is just a veiled appeal to motives, fallacy, nice. Also, Ehrman is not a Christian, clearly no bias there.
You are such a loser.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago
There is also the gospel of thomas, peter, judas, harmonies etc, but it doesn't mean it was written by them. Also yes, I was using examples. Like the spear of destiny, the sign, or any artifact has been presented. You clealry dogde those and attack the most refutable one yeah thats nice. " I KNOW WHAT SHOLARS SAY. i'VE READ THEIR DAMNED WORK YOU MORON." Lol this is just stupid I already explain it but your not getting it.
Th3chozen1 2 years ago
HAHA! Thomas and Peter have no internal evidence for their authorship, and AWFUL external evidence. Their external evidence is negative! It was explicitly said that these books were NOT written by Thomas and Peter.
You think the spear of destiny had a post-it attached to it that says "NOTE: THIS STABBED JESUS"? No, fool, it looks like any other spear, so we wouldn't know it even if we had it. The sign was made of wood. Wood rots. It's GONE because it's rotted away.
KabaneTheChristian 2 years ago