If Matthew merely wanted to say the Messiah would be a despised person he would have quoted from a verse such as Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and we esteemed him not..." Instead, Matthew makes a specific reference to the geographical location of Nazareth, which is found no where in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you can find me that the prophecy that says the Messiah would be from Nazareth I'll eat my hat.
Oh, that's right you already made a lame attempt at that - not convincing at all.
Don't presume to impose your opinions on the authors. That's a bad debating point. Besides, it isn't just Isaiah 53 which says that the Messiah was despised. There are abundant prophecies which portray him thus.
"lame attempt"
I'm still awaiting a refutation. But you barely respond to my comments directly. So tell me, is it your pride that keeps you commenting when you clearly have nothing to say?
Prophecy does not work that way. When a New Testament author claims a fulfilled prophecy he quotes the Old Testament prophecy and the book it comes from. Such a liberal interpretation as yours can mean almost anything you want it to mean.
Moreover, Matthew's main point in saying, "He will be called a Nazarene" is that the Messiah would be from Nazareth. Granted, Jesus was despised but that's hardly peculiar to people from Nazareth. People are obviously despised who come from a myriad of places
Not at all. What do you of know of first century Biblical interpretation? Matthew was quite "liberal" in his quotation of prophecy. For instance, the passage from Hosea which he ascribes to Jesus ("Out of Egypt I have called My son.").
"That's hardly peculiar to people from Nazareth"
I disagree. His simply being a Nazarene was a stumbling block to Jews on more than one occasion, even for the apostle Nathaniel.
"A Nazarene (a person from Nazareth) was a despised person. That's why even Nathaniel said "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" But Matthew argues that the Messiah was prophesied from of old to be a despised individual. Again, that's his reasoning for including all those despised women in his geneaology, as a reminder that the royal messianic line was full of people of God who were despised (Tamar, Rahab, etc)."
Matthew 2:23 reads, "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene.'"
There is nothing remotely close to that written in any of the prophets and yet Matthew says it IS written there.
I repeat my question from the previous post: In Luke 3:23 it says Joseph but you say Luke really means Mary and this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text. Is that right?
It IS written in the prophets that the Messiah would be a Nazarene, that is, a despised individual (Isaiah 53, for instance). It's just not an exact quote. Don't be thrown off by the quotation marks in your English translation.
I took plenty of time to explain Luke 3 in detail. If you're only going to repeat the same question instead of addressing my answers, you can please leave my video. I don't have time to waste with with such people.
Interesting you reference Matthew 2:23, "He will be called a Nazarene" considering the fact that this "prophecy" is found nowhere in the Old Testament.
Luke's genealogy begins thus in 3:23, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, OF JOSEPH, the son of Heli"
Now just to be sure, it says Joseph here but you say Luke really means Mary and this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text. Is that right?
Matt. 2:23 is not meant to be an exact quote. A Nazarene (a person from Nazareth) was a despised person. That's why even Nathaniel said "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" But Matthew argues that the Messiah was prophesied from of old to be a despised individual. Again, that's his reasoning for including all those despised women in his geneaology, as a reminder that the royal messianic line was full of people of God who were despised (Tamar, Rahab, etc).
"this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text?"
It's evidenced by the preceding text that Luke's main character and focus in his birth narrative is Mary. He doesn't mention Mary herself in the geneaology for the same reason he doesn't mention any women in his geneaology; in that time period they generally weren't listed. See the O.T. genealogies for examples of this. Didn't we already go over this? I feel like I'm repeating myself.
If Matthew sees fit to include women in his genealogy then why doesn't Luke? Especially if his version of Jesus' genealogy goes through Mary. Moreover, the two Gospels share the same patriarchal society. Hence, the argument that Mary's name would not be mentioned doesn't seem to hold water. In summary, the idea that Luke's genealogy is Marian is little more than a creative attempt to avoid the obvious: Luke and Matthew simply don't agree.
You can comment more. Just don't get to where you claim there isn't evidence whilst ignoring the evidence I give you.
"why doesn't Luke?"
Because Matthew and Luke have different theological motives. Matthew is writing to Jewish Christians whose idea of the messiah has been reshaped (e.g., by his "being called a Nazarene"). Matthew therefore reminds his readers of the "humble" lineage of the royal line, namely: prostitutes, liars, and a Moabite.
@AgApE010 We have been over this point already but I must reiterate, if the genealogy were about Mary her name would appear in the genealogy. It is that simple.
The idea that Luke's genealogy is Marian is not supported by the evidence of the text. It seems more like eisegesis where an explanation must be read into the text in order to reconcile the two genealogies. The natural reading of the text, at least to me, does not lend itself to a Marian genealogy.
No it wouldn't. Search the genealogies in the Bible; with the theological exception Matthew makes, women are never mentioned in the genealogies.
"not supported by the evidence of the text"
You can't merely assert that. I made the point multiple times that Luke's main focus in the birth narrative is Mary. Therefore, it makes sense that he would trace his main character's geneaology.
I have used no theological gymnastics. I pointed out that Luke focuses his birth narrative on Mary while Matthew focuses his birth narrative on Joseph and that thus each author gave a geneaology of their respective main character. I hardly see how that is "gymnastics" and you also have no grounds for appealing to Occam's Razor against me here.
@AgApE010 Luke 2:4 reads, "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David."
While there is the focus on Mary in chapter 1, with regard to the genealogy I think the above verse clearly points to David's line going through Joseph and not through Mary.
Are you saying that both Mary and Joseph are descendents of David then?
Luke 2:4 just seems to be saying *why* Joseph decided to go to the city of David ("because he belonged to the house and line of David"). It's still reconcilable with the idea that the Lukan geneaology goes through Mary. Besides, it seems odd that early Christians wouldn't be interested in Mary's geneaology.
@AgApE010 If the Gospels are inspired by the omniscient Holy Spirit, why would there be any discrepancies whatsoever? Is the Holy Spirit not concerned about details? Theology is made up of nothing but details. This is why thousands of denominations exist today.
Furthermore, if there are differences in the eyewitness testimonies it significantly weakens the reliability of the testimonies.
The "discrepancies" are sometimes the result of redaction. For instance, did Peter say "You are the Christ," "You are the Christ of God," or "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"? Depends on what the theme and motive of the author is. In academic terms, we have the ippsissima vox ("the very voice" or concepts), not the ipsissima verba ("the very words," as in, exact words and phrases).
We expect differences in eyewitness testimony. It is an inevitable fact.
@AgApE010 It would have been highly unusual to trace the lineage through the mother and not the father given the patriarchal structure of society in those days. Morever, Mary's name is found nowhere in the Luke's genealogy.
It is BECAUSE OF the patriarchal structure of society that Mary's name is not found in there. Instead, Joseph's name is listed with Heli as his father in law. But the theme of Luke points us towards a Marian geneaology.
This video does not address the issue of discrepancies, factual errors, and contradictions found in the Gospels.
If we examine the resurrection accounts in the 4 Gospels they are all different. There is a different number of women at the tomb in each account. In addition, in Matthew's account Jesus meets His disciples in Galilee whereas in Luke He meets them in Jerusalem. Which is it? Or take the genealogies in Luke and Matthew - vary different accounts.
The "contradictions" are the result of redaction and have no bearing on doctrine or the overall message. The number of women at the tomb is irrelevant. The overall point is, "women visited the tomb."
Matthew traces Joseph's lineage (as evidenced by Matthew's overall focus on Joseph in the birth narrative) while Luke traces Mary's lineage (as evidenced by Luke's overall focus on Mary in the B.N.).
It's easy to spout off accusations. The hard part is actually studying them.
"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were there and experienced the life of Jesus."
Actually, the original Gospel books were anonymous and are not first hand eyewitness accounts. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not added until the 2nd century.
According to Bart Ehrman the Gospels were written by educated Greeks and not the Twelve.
While I agree that Mark and Luke weren't there, we have good evidence to believe that Matthew and John are written by eyewitnesses. Matthew, for example, records things that imply an eyewitness presence since he records things that aren't in his written sources, namely Mark and Q. And John claims to be an eyewitness and has independent testimony to support that claim.
Ehrman is a great scholar, but you need to remember he's also a sensationalist.
By the way,Ehrman doesn't seem to allow for the fact that the Gospel writers used scribes in composing their accounts. This is not something unknown in the ancient world. Even Paul,who was educated and could write Greek just fine, often used a scribe to compose his letters. But, again, Ehrman has a reputation for being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
I recommend also reading Carson's and Moo's "Introduction to the New Testament." Expand your reading beyond Ehrman.
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."
Interesting. Now assuming that your quote without proper citation is even accurate, what kind of evidence can there possibly be that tells us a certain people were NOT in a land? Please enlighten me.
A Babylonian inscription records the Babylonian's victory over "the House of David." A mere "small tribal kingdom" would not have such fame in the eyes of the world's greatest power of the time.
I was merely showing that quote to indicate that the Bible is completely false and should never be used by an intelligent person as a reliable source of historiography.
It directly refuted a lot of what the Bible said, ie: the Exodus and the "empire (lol)" of David and Solomon. Plus that was only one paragraph, he's papers pretty go on to refute just about everything the Bible has to say about history.
Plus even if you have these few things that are false, that shows the whole entire Biblical document is not a reliable source of history.
Then again you are probably a Christian, so you have no concern for reality or truth.
I was merely showing that quote to indicate that the Bible is completely false and should never be used by an intelligent person as a reliable source of historiography.
The quote says what it says and is from a reliable source, so I'm so not sure what the hell you want from me.
PS: If you are referring to the Tel Dan stele inscription there is still a lot of debate about whether it actually says the House of David in Aramaic or not.
*palms forehead* Do you know how to use Google? Not very hard.
(from Wiki) "Dispute over the phrase "House of David - critics have suggested other readings of ביתדוד, usually based on the fact that the written form "DWD" can be rendered both as David and as Dod (Hebrew for "beloved") or related forms."
"George Athas proposes that the three extant fragments of the inscription have been placed in a wrong configuration (for the popular configuration, see the figure above)."
It's pretty obvious if you think about it. If there was this "Empire" as is claimed, then there would be countless swathes of archaeological evidence. We're talking about a supposed "Empire" larger than the Second Babylonian/Chaldean Empire!! BUT the only "evidence" is a book of fables and the rare and highly questionable "inscription"... Only a dingus could not see that there's something not right there.
That assumes that the Gospel accounts weren't written by contemporaries of Christ. Matthew, Mark, and John all are attributed to the actual disciples by early sources like Irenaeus and Papias, who wrote in the second century; and the earliest manuscripts that we have bear their names. So the evidence is in favor of apostolic authorship of these documents.
@AgApE010 This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. - Michael White
Yeah, not sure who Michael White is, but if you want to play that game where we quote mine scholars, I want to let you know that you are far outnumbered. I presented you with rational reasons to accept the contemporary authorship of the Gospels; you reply with an un-cited quote. I don't have time for games, so if you don't mind, go play elsewhere if you don't want to learn.
@AgApE010 How is that quote mining? it's not really taken out of context, and the meaning is not distorted in any way. The quote is from "From Jesus to Christianity" (2004). I'd suggest you visit his Wikipedia page or something, he's about as much of an authority as one could be on this subject. I'm interested to know if you disagree with him, and if so, what you think you know that he doesn't.
Your merely posting an un-cited source as if that refutes everything I said in my comment. You're not a debater, you're not informed on this topic, your sources are limited to Wikis. Even worse, you're not willing to learn; you want to fight. I don't give time for that.
@AgApE010 L. Michael White, "From Jesus to Christianity" (2004), how many times do I need to repeat that for it to be cited? If his assertions are true, than they do refute what you said. Umm, do you usually have formal debates in youtube comments? My sources are not limited to Wikis, I haven't even given a Wiki source. I merely suggested that if you've never heard of one of the foremost experts on this subject, that you inform yourself about him. I'm very much willing to learn.
@JoeMC7 Yeah, that perfectly supports my position. If he was doing such great things for the people of HIS TIME, who were all around him, you'd think one of THOSE people would have written something about it.
@kyebean Times were different, most common people could not read and write like they can today. Jesus healing people spread by word of mouth it seems. The bible seems to only mention a small account of...
To all who question reliability and dating of the gospels read "Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" by Mark D. Roberts.
It changes everything. You don't have to worry about which translation you read because it was written down in a different language in the first place.
That does not follow. If you were bilingual or trilingual, you would know that you can speak a sentence and easily translate it into another language without losing any of the meaning. And that's the key issue: keeping the meanings of the words. We're not interested in the ipissima verba, or the very, exact words spoken; rather, we are concerned with the ipissima vox, the very concepts, ideas, and point of the teachings of the Lord.
Because Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Scriptures, which were primarily written to Gentiles or Hellenized Jews, needed to be written in a language they would understand. It's a moot point you're making, anyways. It doesn't change anything.
We barely have any idea who even wrote the Old Testament, much less when they lived or what they witnessed.
ANY honest scholar agrees the main books of the New Testament were NOT written by Matt, Mark, Luke and John, but written 50 to100 years later.
Since we have NONE of the original books, it is a dishonest to talk about their accuracy, as if we can compare them to some baseline source (the missing Q document)
@ManchuDan22 - You're just desperate to engage in a debate with me, aren't you? - I don't know who this imaginary "we" is that you're including with you in your ignorance of OT authorship,because the majority of Bible scholars are in agreement and the evidence is fairly clear. - "written 50-100 years later" - This is precisely why I wouldn't engage with you in the other video: ignorant, baseless comments like this. - FYI, we don't have originals of ANY ancient works: Plato, Homer, Aristotle, etc
The "Q Document" is not a "missing document." That is essentially begging the question because you assume it actually exists in order to say that it is missing. 'Q' is simply a hypothetical document which was allegedly the common source for the Synoptic authors. In most scholarly circles, it is accepted that Matthew drew from Mark or vice versa; Luke took the task of an investigator drawing from multiple sources (not necessarily written sources) and John is on his own level.
50 years later is VERY early & STILL within the lifetime of people who lived during the events or who KNEW people who did. We actually have a small portion of an ancient manuscript called the John Ryland manuscript or papyrus 52 dated about 125 AD. Jesus was crucified at age 33. AD starts the day he was born so subtract 33 from 125. This is an EXISTING papyrus copy. The original had to be earlier. Its a portion of the Gospel of John. It hasnt changed.
@EquineDreams Are you saying we know what the original New Testaments said? And that THAT writing has not changed in the various bibles, printed in the last 2000 odd years?
We have thousands of scraps of papyrus, are you saying they make up an original NT bible, with nothing missing?
OK, who actually wrote the 4 gospels? (in the original Greek or Coptic?) Did God dictate them to the those authors, or did they interpret stories told to them, by people who been told the stories?
YES we can get the original form the 1000s of scraps - thats the point! These 1000s of scraps DO confirm that there has been no significant change in the meaning of the text .Not only that but the writings of the chrch fathers have the same quotes in them confirming the text. By comparing all these scraps of new testament you CAN find the original precisely BECAUSE there are so many. The entire new testament can be found in these scraps essentially the same as it is today_READ...
@ManchuDan22 (cont)...(see post below my original accidently replied to my own last post instead of yours) READ_"Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John" by Mark D. Roberts. He says exactly that and shows how & why. Don't argue with me,READ the book! hes a NT scholar. You want to learn you NEED to read that book or you will continue to look ignorant to those who read up to date scholarship & not 19th century or Dan Brown of DaVinci code hogwash.
@EquineDreams I AM arguing with you! Don't hide behind Roberts, make up your own mind! Yes, Roberts makes a good case for his side, but Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins make better cases for the lack of a historical/scientific god.
The Bible is a book written by MEN (everyone agrees with that) did god "inspire" them? Are the miracle stories true? THERE is NO historical proof beyond ONE book (a very biased, heavily edited, badly translated book, with NO complete originals)
@ManchuDan22 Om not HISING behind roberts (i donthave time to put all the infor in these small posts Roberts could EAT Dawkins in a debate or ehrman. Hae you even READ roberts/ I doubt it ! Dont like roberts read Lee Strobel's most recent book "The case for the Real Jesus" don'just HIDE behind ehrman & Dawkins. That bigot. He's totally ignorant of modern biblical scolarship! YOU read the books ive suggssted. No it is NOT badly translatd and YES it was written by men INSPIRED by God.
@EquineDreams You like the word "Bigot" = A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. (beliefs are your area, not facts) That is a perfect description of the religious
Bart Ehrman is an Biblical Historian, Dawkins is Scientist, both of them deal with facts, not beliefs. Roberts and Strobel make up history to justify scripture.
@ManchuDan22 No they dont make a better case, Dawkins is completely ignorant of midern biblical scholarship &i never heard anything convincing come out of his mouth. Hes an atheist who hates all forms of theism. He an Atheist bigot. We dont have COMPLETE originals of ANY ancient wrks silly - if that was required before you could have history we would have NO ancient history at all! Geeze. Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for The Real Jesus" sorry but i donthave space here for all that information-
@EquineDreams You make the same basic mistake as all religious concerning ancient texts; it is does not matter what version of Plato or Homer we have, they are (as you claim) NOT THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD! The wisdom found in Plato can be taken (or not) based on an individuals understanding, not as "reveled supernatural truth", which you MUST believe. YOU are so blinded by your fear of death and insignificance that you accept these myths as truth, WHY?
@EquineDreams (cont)...(see post below my original accidently rel=plied to my own last post instead of yoir) READ_Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by Mark D. Roberts. He says exactly that and shows how and why. dont argue with me READ the book! hes a NT scholar. You want to learn you NEED to read that book or you will continuse to look ignorant to the well read.
3) Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4) Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
The only reason why the "Didache" didn't make it into the canon is that it was written for a small community and lacked specific universal principles, even though it was a theologically sound work.
The Didache wasn't included in the canon because it wasn't written by orthodox Christians, but was most likely written by the Ebionites or the Nazarenes, legalistic "Messianic" Jewish sects that insisted on the observance of Torah. This is evidenced by the Jewish legalism that is all throughout the book and the fact that the Didache relies primarily, if not solely, on the Gospel of Matthew which was the only book that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes used...
...This is also evidenced by how the Didache never once quotes from or alludes to Paul's writings (those Jewish sects rejected Paul's apostleship) and also evidenced by the fact that even though Jesus is mentioned all throughout the book, He is never referred to by any of His divine names (God, Son of God) but rather He is simply referred to as "Christ" and "Servant"...
...but rather He is simply referred to as "Christ" or "Servant". This is because the Ebionites rejected Jesus' divinity (there seems to be one place in the Didache, in 16:7, where Jesus' divinity seems to be put forth, but it doesn't seem to be the purpose of the author and that verse itself is vague and not convincing that the author was indeed trying to put forth the doctrine of the Deity of Christ).
So it is wrong to say that the Didache was a "sound work".
With all that being said, I'm aware of how the Didache doesn't mention circumcision, which one would expect from a Judaizer's writing. So it must also be allowed that this book could also be the work of other Messianic/Jewish sects, which were many in number during that era. But the exclusion of the mention of circumcision is the one and only point which keeps us from saying that this was surely an Ebionite or Nazarene work, since all the other evidence points to this.
First, Luke says that he made a written account as others have before him, surely speaking of at least Matthew and Mark. I'm not arguing that there wasn't Oral Tradition before the writing of the N.T. But what was this oral tradition? It is the teachings that are going to be recorded later in Scripture, primarily the Gospel. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that he's writing them that which he had received...
Let's take a look at this post of yours: "...,no Church Father suggested that the Bible be taken away from the believers..."
There is only one point I wish to make about this sentence. Irenaeus is believed to have written c. AD 202, but the canon of scripture was ratified until the African Council of Carthage in AD 419. It's first synods were held AD 255 and 256.
Even though the canon wasn't yet officially declared by the Council (mainly in response to people like Marcion who were removing books from the Bible), the Fathers knew what was Scripture. Between the Apostolic Fathers alone (Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), every book of the entire N.T. is quoted and referred to as Scripture, no more, no less. They knew what Scripture was and they obviously had a collection of the writings since they quote it.
Marcion (85-160A.D.) did actually remove the entire Old Testament from the Bible but he also removed many books of the New Testament except for an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and a few of Paul's letters, also edited by him. The Church Fathers obviously condemned him and his false teachings.
Again, if you look at the Fathers, they knew what the N.T. consisted of. The Council simply made an official statement about what's in the N.T. This is similar to the Council of Nicaea making the official statement that Jesus is God; that doesn't mean that before this Council that the Deity of Christ wasn't official and agreed upon in the Catholic (universal, not Roman Catholic) Church. Obviously, every true Christian before Nicaea believed in the Deity of Christ.
True,because it opens the door for people to misinterpret the truth. For example, a wise old believer once said "To give truth to him who does not love it only gives him multiplied reasons to misinterpret it". With that being said, nonetheless it is better for all people to have the Bible so that we who are of the faith can know the words of the Lord even if it risks that certain dogs and uncircumcised of heart will purposely twist it and distort it to their own destruction.
..It is also important to note that the misinterpretation of Scripture by the heretics is not a new phenomena. As early as the 2nd century, a great deal of heretics were rising up and misinterpreting Scripture to forward their false religion. Bishop Irenaeus thoroughly refutes them in his Against Heresies. Despite this uprise in heresy,no Church Father suggested that the Bible be taken away from the believers so that it doesn't risk falling into the hands of unbelievers. That would be pure evil.
Actually, this isn't my video. I merely copied it from a friend's page. But I will be sure to pass the message along. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that his work is appreciated.
I stopped doing videos as they are very time consuming and time happens to be somewhat scarce these days. :)
I'm no longer doing videos, so if you have something to say, say it here. Just saying it's BS really isn't sound argumentation; even Bart Ehrman would agree with me on that. :)
When you have the original copies then you can prove if they are reliable, for now you have old copies from different times and many of those copies contradict themselves, and that is a factttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.
"Original copies"? First of all, you don't need original copies to know what the originals said. Thanks to the schools of textual criticism and historical criticism, we can find out what the texts said when originally penned by the author. And if you're going to be consistent in your argument, then you better throw out Plato, Caesar, Homer, and every other work of ancient literature because we don't have originals from any of them.
By the way, in your private message that you sent to me, those works that you considered "scholastic" were from Bart Ehrman. Really?? This guy gets his butt handed to him every time he goes up against a Bible scholar in a debate or when his books are reviewed by scholars, and you cite his works as scholarly and authoritative on this topic?! LOL!!! Please...
Of course the religious community is going to discredit him and some scholastic people who are allied to false religion like any Christian Religion, but reading the gospels you will find a lot of contradiction, such of Nazareth, they said that Jesus was from Nazareth and it is not truth, Jesus belong to the sect of the Nazarene, the other contradiction like I show you are the dates when Jesus was born, also one gospel says that Joseph took Jesus immediately to Egypt and the other different
The Information presented in this Video agrees with most of what I have studied.
I read only 8 grammatical errors in letters were discovered between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Text we had been using for Centuries to Interpret the Hebrew into other languages.
The Luke/Acts document strongly argues against your theory that the Synoptic Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD). Luke is considered by many modern historians to be one of the greatest historians we know of. This is because in his writings he accurately records specific details such as landmarks, local dialect, the names and reigns of rulers and officials, topography, etc. The main characters of his 'Acts of the Apostles' are the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul...
The Gospels are wrong when determining the date Jesus was born, according to one Gospel Jesus was born in 6 EC during August's reign and the other gospel shows that Jesus was born in 4 BC. That was wrong.
We know from extra-Biblical history that Peter and Paul were martyred under Emperor Nero. We also know that Nero's reign ended in 68AD, at the time of his death. Now the fact that Luke closely and carefully records the acts of Peter and Paul, and doesn't record their deaths, but stops abruptly with Paul being imprisoned for the first time strongly argues for the fact that Acts was written before 68AD. Now if Acts was written before 68AD,and Luke was written before Acts,Luke is well before 70AD.
The Act was written after the year 100 EC and according to scholastic people is full of contradiction, and out of the 14 Pauline's Letter only four belong to Paul, because it was a custom in the first century to sent a letter to a congregation using the Apostles's names.
"...verifying the life of J.K. Rowling doesn't offer veracity..."
My comments that you responded to were in answer to another person who was arguing that the Gospels were written after 70AD. So perhaps considering the context of my comments will help you to understand what I was arguing for and against.
Seeing as how theists try to push the date of the gospels before 69 AD only to give them credibility into the existence of Jesus, I don't feel I was off at all.
If the gospels weren't written after 70 AD, they were definitely edited after it. Especially since the "hand of god" crap all used volcanic metaphors which I'm concluding was taken from the eruption of Vesuvius which blew in 69 AD.
Jesus was nothing more than another mythological demi-god. So, please, bring up Josephus and the others.
No, I'm not trying to "push" the date. You see, there is a science called textual criticism. By carefully examining the text and extra-biblical history we can determine the date of the writings of the books in question.
"If the gospels weren't written after 70AD, they were definitely edited after it."
Uh huh. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
"...all used volcanic metaphors.."
I beg your pardon; I have no idea what you're talking about.
Try reading a book called the Pre-Nicean Testaments by Robert Price. Not to mention the original mark of the Beast was 616 and not 666. So yes, there is considerable evidence to conclude that both the Bible was edited long after the 70 AD mark.
But then again, I can come up with a picture of a stork and a picture of a baby and have two more pieces of evidence to support the claim that storks deliver babies than you can produce that support either your God or Jesus existed.
"Not to mention the original mark of the Beast was 616, not 666"
Again, where is your evidence? I can make all sorts of claims, but if there isn't evidence and good argument to back them up, they are worthless, much like your claim above. So if you have evidence to back up your claims, please present it. If you don't, then you should really take a second look at your beliefs and ask yourself why you believe them.
Xerock, I ask you for evidence and good argumentation for your claims and you respond with a title of a book. Are you kidding me? And you furthermore have the nerve to call me "stupid"? Evidence is not "here's a book I read" (assuming you've read it); evidence is showing early manuscripts that show the number as 616 instead of 666, early writings that show a different number, etc, not "here's a book for you to read". Get a clue.
You are a fucking idiot. All you've been doing is Copying and pasting the shit from other bible humper sites. You haven't read a single one of the "historians" you've claimed supports the existence of Jesus and your lack of context shows it.
Want to know how easy it is to to debate and defeat creationists? Every lie you tell about Evolutionists is something you've committed yourselves.
...So if you want to take an excerpt from that book that provides evidence for you claim and post it here, please do so. But don't just post the name of a book then leave as if you've done your work in providing evidence for your argument. I could also easily respond by copying and pasting my entire library in comments but that is not how it's done in a discussion like this. Thank you.
I know why there is a variant with the number of the Beast, and it is explained easily. I'm just waiting for you to post your evidence as to why you believe that there is indeed a variant because I have a suspicion that you may just be parroting what you heard a skeptic say and not have any real evidence or reason for what you believe.
So are you going to present me with the evidence or do you expect me to do your work for you and post the evidence and then proceed to explain it?
BTW, The Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents IS A WEBSITE.
The title is an online journal. Youtube doesn't allow the posting of URLs. Of course if you capable of, or interested in, doing the LEAST amount of research, you could have figured ANY of that out.
Atheists are so angry and vulgar in their language... You're not offending me or hurting me with your childish profanity; all you're doing is showing your own ignorance and limited capabilities since you vent out your rage by means of all capitalized profane words. Have some class, for the sake of the betterment of humanity.
I see nothing wrong with any1 suggesting a book. There isnt space here for most people to be able to put entire arguments & evidence & few people have time.(I dont) so they share books that may have information you are unaware of or are you such a bigot you think you can learn nothing new from books you may not have read yet. I'm going to suggest a book cuz i dont have time for anything else: The Case for The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel. and yes i read it - will you?
Why bring up Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and all the other historians since you already have your mind made up, despite the evidence, that Jesus was a myth? No thank you, I won't waste my time.
"none of them could actually confirm anything about Christ...except..."
Wrong again.
"Christus, from whom the name (Christian) had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."
-Tacitus
Celsus wrote a book in about 180AD, which survives in Origen's writings, where Celsus calls Jesus a sorceror, giving evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed perform miracles and wonders.
Yeah.. is that why the Talmud makes absolutely NO reference to any such trial or crucifixion of Jesus Christ for these "sorcerous" acts?
Oh and please.. bring up Yeshu.. Wrong name, wrong crimes, wrong followers, wrong time period.
And Celsus might have given evidence by labeling Jesus as a Sorcerer IF he was an atheist or someone who didn't believe in the magic of other gods and the demi-gods they produced. He couldn't question the authenticity of Jesus without questioning his own beliefs.
The Talmud consists of the Mishnah (the oral traditions/interpretations of the Law) and the Gemorrah (the interpretation of the Mishnah). Thus we wouldn't expect a reference to Jesus right off hand. Furthermore, if you read the book of Acts, you will see that the Jews were trying to erase Jesus from the memory of the people. So for this reason also we wouldn't expect a reference to Jesus.
Xerock, Celsus doesn't have to be an atheist in order for his claim that Jesus was a sorceror to be evidence of Jesus' miracles. He was an Epicurean philosopher, so his beliefs didn't come close to Christianity anyways. He certainly questioned without trouble the deity of Christ and His incarnation in his writings, despite the fact that Greek mythology is riddled with sons of the gods; so your argument that he couldn't question Jesus' miracles w/o questioning his own beliefs is not a good one.
Now Luke records in his Gospel "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses....it seemed fitting for me as well..."
-Luke 1:1-3
Luke starts his Gospel with bearing witness that others who were "eyewitnesses" also wrote Gospels, these being none other than Matthew and Mark (which would mean that Matt. and Mark were written before Luke and thus long before 70AD).
...And extra-Biblical evidence further verifies that the authors who wrote the Gospels are the very ones whose names are attributed to the works since Irenaeus records in the early to mid 2nd century that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote Gospels (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1).
So you see, through examination of the Bible under the science of textual criticism and taking into note also extra-Biblical history, your theory is shown to be wrong.
I agree. A couple of the translators of the NWT claimed to have been taught by a spirit how to translate passages such as John 1:1. They had very little training in Greek.
I have taken classes on the bible and the Quran and have seen some very strong arguments on both. When i watched the debate between Naik and Cambell it just seemed like Naik got the better of it. I am a Christian but Naik has raised some questions that i just can't answer and that is pretty scary.
how can the reliability be counted on when there is unfulfilled prophecies and other scientific errors that are exposed by Dr.Naik. Ex.look at video " Scientific error of the bible 4: 200or245, 18month, or8 yrs" that is just one video he has 8 or so.
This is an extremely misleading video (though if you're gullible enough to be mislead by it, you probably already believe the bible anyway).
This whole video just says "How can we know the bible is accurate? It was hand-copied accurately for thousands of years, without anything being added or removed!"
Because that's not true, and everyone knows it. No respected historian relies on the bible for any historical facts.
I'm no historian, but even I know that many of the gospels directly contradict each other, not only with minutia, but also when it comes to important stuff (the birth and death of Jesus).
"by the end of the 19th century the view that the first eleven chapters of Genesis represented actual historical events was being widely questioned.[citation needed] The general opinion among non-creationist bible scholars today is that Genesis 111, taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the "generations of Terah", is a highly schematic literary work representing theology rather than history."
"The entire Bible is loaded with logical and historical contradictions"
What did I say earlier about making claims w/o facts and good argument?
"Pink elephants don't like to eat ice cream in the winter". Both of our statements are equally ridiculous if there isn't any facts or good argument to back them up.
So what exactly would you take as evidence? I could go on on this stuff, citing web pages, but you could just go out and find it yourself.
So let's skip this part. How about the fact that, if the Bible were inerrant, historians would say "Jeez, here's thousands of years of inerrant history. This is literally a miracle." Don't you think it would be kind of a big deal to academics?
We would then have direct proof of god, which goes against god's policy of showing he exists.
"you'll probably ignore the fact that the Bible is wrong or just say that it doesn't matter"
Is that your response to my request to back up your claims? Are you seriously telling me what I will or will not say to an argument that you haven't even established?? Who are you and why are you commenting on my video? You might be more well-suited to go somewhere and criticize the existence of Santa Clause before coming here and going in way over your head.
What two paragraphs? You copied and pasted a quote from what looks like Wikipedia and didn't list the source when I asked you to, and then you posted some verses where one Gospel writer mentions an event whereas another doesn't and you call it "contradiction". And I responded, omission doesn't equal contradiction.
Don't waste my time; have you got anything intelligent to present or are you another atheist/hard-skeptic who denies the Bible out of ignorance of the Bible?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The original "gods" were all female. Only when males became dominate did they transmogrify the goddesses into gods. "Man" has never fallen--that is a Babylonian myth, and no mortal needs the fantasy of a deity to be strong or intelligent. Truth is what people decide it is--there is no absolute or divine truth. The Holy Spirit was an Egyptian invention and has no foundation in fact or science. Religion is insanity to lead the sane into darkness.
The statement "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement, therefore your argument fails big time. And all your "pagan parallels" are not impressing anybody. I, along with almost every other Christian, have heard all these Zeitgeist arguments and all other similar arguments and none of them hold water and, quite frankly, it is sad that you bought into such foolery. I suggest studying textual and higher criticism. It might educate you on this topic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Anaxamander noted "everything changes but change itself" which is not an oxymoron. Christians are not objective but literalists on a book scholarly textual argument shows is a cut-and-paste product of numerous salons. For there to have been a Joseph in Egypt there would have to be a record, the same for a Moses, Hebrews, etc--yet none exists save one reference to Apiru--an uncivilized pastoral people known as thugs. Your logic on absolutes is nonexistent and the scholarship weak.
I agree. Satan knew God's plan of salvation but he didn't know the timing. He was the guardian cherubim of God's throne and full of wisdom so he knew what God had planned. Being cast out and in his defeat he decided to create counterfeit pagan gospels similar to God's so that he can deceive many into not believing and he has has done a pretty good job. But two things that God's word has over his. 1) The bible is historically accurate and 2) Biblical prophecy is unrivaled.
Baptism was a "washing" and it occurred whenever anyone was near water. It was neither sacred nor special. The dove plays a role, but is descending as if to take the soul to Hades. It was a later addition by the gospel redacters to symbolize Jesus as dying to this world to be born again pure--but that imagery is from the god Mithra. If Jesus had been god he would not need to be purified. At best this is a crossing of two tales by bad writers justifying what did not need justification.
The Jesus of the New Testament never died (or lived), at best the record is a coverup. See: Andrews & Schellenberger, The Tomb of God: The Body of Jesus (1996), Kersten & Gruber, "The Jesus Conspiracy" (B&N 1995), Schonfield, "The Passover Plot" (Random House 1965). At best the "Passover" NT account is a plagarism from the Egyptian myths 3000 years earlier and Passover is probably an old Spring Festival, or the merging of two festivals, one a pastoral feast, the other an agricultural one.
Enjoy your delusion. Learn to weigh evidence objectively and then maybe we can have a rational conversation.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
The last words of a failure.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Cont'd
If Matthew merely wanted to say the Messiah would be a despised person he would have quoted from a verse such as Isaiah 53:3, "He was despised and we esteemed him not..." Instead, Matthew makes a specific reference to the geographical location of Nazareth, which is found no where in the Hebrew Scriptures. If you can find me that the prophecy that says the Messiah would be from Nazareth I'll eat my hat.
Oh, that's right you already made a lame attempt at that - not convincing at all.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"he would've quoted Isaiah 53"
Don't presume to impose your opinions on the authors. That's a bad debating point. Besides, it isn't just Isaiah 53 which says that the Messiah was despised. There are abundant prophecies which portray him thus.
"lame attempt"
I'm still awaiting a refutation. But you barely respond to my comments directly. So tell me, is it your pride that keeps you commenting when you clearly have nothing to say?
AgApE010 3 months ago
Prophecy does not work that way. When a New Testament author claims a fulfilled prophecy he quotes the Old Testament prophecy and the book it comes from. Such a liberal interpretation as yours can mean almost anything you want it to mean.
Moreover, Matthew's main point in saying, "He will be called a Nazarene" is that the Messiah would be from Nazareth. Granted, Jesus was despised but that's hardly peculiar to people from Nazareth. People are obviously despised who come from a myriad of places
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"Such a liberal interpretation"
Not at all. What do you of know of first century Biblical interpretation? Matthew was quite "liberal" in his quotation of prophecy. For instance, the passage from Hosea which he ascribes to Jesus ("Out of Egypt I have called My son.").
"That's hardly peculiar to people from Nazareth"
I disagree. His simply being a Nazarene was a stumbling block to Jews on more than one occasion, even for the apostle Nathaniel.
AgApE010 3 months ago
The word "Nazarene" is not mentioned in Isaiah 53. What in the world are you talking about?
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"A Nazarene (a person from Nazareth) was a despised person. That's why even Nathaniel said "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" But Matthew argues that the Messiah was prophesied from of old to be a despised individual. Again, that's his reasoning for including all those despised women in his geneaology, as a reminder that the royal messianic line was full of people of God who were despised (Tamar, Rahab, etc)."
-My previous comment that you apparently ignored
AgApE010 3 months ago
Matthew 2:23 reads, "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: 'He will be called a Nazarene.'"
There is nothing remotely close to that written in any of the prophets and yet Matthew says it IS written there.
I repeat my question from the previous post: In Luke 3:23 it says Joseph but you say Luke really means Mary and this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text. Is that right?
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
It IS written in the prophets that the Messiah would be a Nazarene, that is, a despised individual (Isaiah 53, for instance). It's just not an exact quote. Don't be thrown off by the quotation marks in your English translation.
I took plenty of time to explain Luke 3 in detail. If you're only going to repeat the same question instead of addressing my answers, you can please leave my video. I don't have time to waste with with such people.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Let's continue then:
Interesting you reference Matthew 2:23, "He will be called a Nazarene" considering the fact that this "prophecy" is found nowhere in the Old Testament.
Luke's genealogy begins thus in 3:23, "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, OF JOSEPH, the son of Heli"
Now just to be sure, it says Joseph here but you say Luke really means Mary and this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text. Is that right?
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
Matt. 2:23 is not meant to be an exact quote. A Nazarene (a person from Nazareth) was a despised person. That's why even Nathaniel said "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" But Matthew argues that the Messiah was prophesied from of old to be a despised individual. Again, that's his reasoning for including all those despised women in his geneaology, as a reminder that the royal messianic line was full of people of God who were despised (Tamar, Rahab, etc).
AgApE010 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"this is supposedly evidenced by the preceding text?"
It's evidenced by the preceding text that Luke's main character and focus in his birth narrative is Mary. He doesn't mention Mary herself in the geneaology for the same reason he doesn't mention any women in his geneaology; in that time period they generally weren't listed. See the O.T. genealogies for examples of this. Didn't we already go over this? I feel like I'm repeating myself.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 This will be my last comment.
If Matthew sees fit to include women in his genealogy then why doesn't Luke? Especially if his version of Jesus' genealogy goes through Mary. Moreover, the two Gospels share the same patriarchal society. Hence, the argument that Mary's name would not be mentioned doesn't seem to hold water. In summary, the idea that Luke's genealogy is Marian is little more than a creative attempt to avoid the obvious: Luke and Matthew simply don't agree.
Peace.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"This will be my last comment"
You can comment more. Just don't get to where you claim there isn't evidence whilst ignoring the evidence I give you.
"why doesn't Luke?"
Because Matthew and Luke have different theological motives. Matthew is writing to Jewish Christians whose idea of the messiah has been reshaped (e.g., by his "being called a Nazarene"). Matthew therefore reminds his readers of the "humble" lineage of the royal line, namely: prostitutes, liars, and a Moabite.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Comment removed
wlemusic 3 months ago
@AgApE010 We have been over this point already but I must reiterate, if the genealogy were about Mary her name would appear in the genealogy. It is that simple.
The idea that Luke's genealogy is Marian is not supported by the evidence of the text. It seems more like eisegesis where an explanation must be read into the text in order to reconcile the two genealogies. The natural reading of the text, at least to me, does not lend itself to a Marian genealogy.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
"her name would appear in the geneaology"
No it wouldn't. Search the genealogies in the Bible; with the theological exception Matthew makes, women are never mentioned in the genealogies.
"not supported by the evidence of the text"
You can't merely assert that. I made the point multiple times that Luke's main focus in the birth narrative is Mary. Therefore, it makes sense that he would trace his main character's geneaology.
The conversation started well. Don't ruin it.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 The idea that the Lukan genealogy goes through Mary is nothing more than that - AN IDEA.
It requires theological gymnastics to make it so and for that reason, it is not the most plausible explanation. Occam's razor cuts it off.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
I have used no theological gymnastics. I pointed out that Luke focuses his birth narrative on Mary while Matthew focuses his birth narrative on Joseph and that thus each author gave a geneaology of their respective main character. I hardly see how that is "gymnastics" and you also have no grounds for appealing to Occam's Razor against me here.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Comment removed
wlemusic 3 months ago
@AgApE010 Luke 2:4 reads, "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David."
While there is the focus on Mary in chapter 1, with regard to the genealogy I think the above verse clearly points to David's line going through Joseph and not through Mary.
Are you saying that both Mary and Joseph are descendents of David then?
BTW, I'm enjoying this respectful dialogue.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
Luke 2:4 just seems to be saying *why* Joseph decided to go to the city of David ("because he belonged to the house and line of David"). It's still reconcilable with the idea that the Lukan geneaology goes through Mary. Besides, it seems odd that early Christians wouldn't be interested in Mary's geneaology.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Comment removed
wlemusic 3 months ago
@AgApE010 If the Gospels are inspired by the omniscient Holy Spirit, why would there be any discrepancies whatsoever? Is the Holy Spirit not concerned about details? Theology is made up of nothing but details. This is why thousands of denominations exist today.
Furthermore, if there are differences in the eyewitness testimonies it significantly weakens the reliability of the testimonies.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
The "discrepancies" are sometimes the result of redaction. For instance, did Peter say "You are the Christ," "You are the Christ of God," or "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"? Depends on what the theme and motive of the author is. In academic terms, we have the ippsissima vox ("the very voice" or concepts), not the ipsissima verba ("the very words," as in, exact words and phrases).
We expect differences in eyewitness testimony. It is an inevitable fact.
AgApE010 3 months ago
Comment removed
wlemusic 3 months ago
@AgApE010 It would have been highly unusual to trace the lineage through the mother and not the father given the patriarchal structure of society in those days. Morever, Mary's name is found nowhere in the Luke's genealogy.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
It is BECAUSE OF the patriarchal structure of society that Mary's name is not found in there. Instead, Joseph's name is listed with Heli as his father in law. But the theme of Luke points us towards a Marian geneaology.
AgApE010 3 months ago
This video does not address the issue of discrepancies, factual errors, and contradictions found in the Gospels.
If we examine the resurrection accounts in the 4 Gospels they are all different. There is a different number of women at the tomb in each account. In addition, in Matthew's account Jesus meets His disciples in Galilee whereas in Luke He meets them in Jerusalem. Which is it? Or take the genealogies in Luke and Matthew - vary different accounts.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
The "contradictions" are the result of redaction and have no bearing on doctrine or the overall message. The number of women at the tomb is irrelevant. The overall point is, "women visited the tomb."
Matthew traces Joseph's lineage (as evidenced by Matthew's overall focus on Joseph in the birth narrative) while Luke traces Mary's lineage (as evidenced by Luke's overall focus on Mary in the B.N.).
It's easy to spout off accusations. The hard part is actually studying them.
AgApE010 3 months ago
"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were there and experienced the life of Jesus."
Actually, the original Gospel books were anonymous and are not first hand eyewitness accounts. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not added until the 2nd century.
According to Bart Ehrman the Gospels were written by educated Greeks and not the Twelve.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic
While I agree that Mark and Luke weren't there, we have good evidence to believe that Matthew and John are written by eyewitnesses. Matthew, for example, records things that imply an eyewitness presence since he records things that aren't in his written sources, namely Mark and Q. And John claims to be an eyewitness and has independent testimony to support that claim.
Ehrman is a great scholar, but you need to remember he's also a sensationalist.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@wlemusic
By the way,Ehrman doesn't seem to allow for the fact that the Gospel writers used scribes in composing their accounts. This is not something unknown in the ancient world. Even Paul,who was educated and could write Greek just fine, often used a scribe to compose his letters. But, again, Ehrman has a reputation for being controversial for the sake of being controversial.
I recommend also reading Carson's and Moo's "Introduction to the New Testament." Expand your reading beyond Ehrman.
AgApE010 3 months ago
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."
- Israeli archaeologist, Ze'ev Herzog.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
Interesting. Now assuming that your quote without proper citation is even accurate, what kind of evidence can there possibly be that tells us a certain people were NOT in a land? Please enlighten me.
A Babylonian inscription records the Babylonian's victory over "the House of David." A mere "small tribal kingdom" would not have such fame in the eyes of the world's greatest power of the time.
AgApE010 7 months ago
@AgApE010
I was merely showing that quote to indicate that the Bible is completely false and should never be used by an intelligent person as a reliable source of historiography.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
Your quote did nothing of the kind.
AgApE010 7 months ago
@AgApE010
It directly refuted a lot of what the Bible said, ie: the Exodus and the "empire (lol)" of David and Solomon. Plus that was only one paragraph, he's papers pretty go on to refute just about everything the Bible has to say about history.
Plus even if you have these few things that are false, that shows the whole entire Biblical document is not a reliable source of history.
Then again you are probably a Christian, so you have no concern for reality or truth.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
Please respond in full to my original comment.
AgApE010 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010
I've already answered that:
I was merely showing that quote to indicate that the Bible is completely false and should never be used by an intelligent person as a reliable source of historiography.
The quote says what it says and is from a reliable source, so I'm so not sure what the hell you want from me.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
@AgApE010
PS: If you are referring to the Tel Dan stele inscription there is still a lot of debate about whether it actually says the House of David in Aramaic or not.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist
"there is still a lot of debate"
I hate to keep being a stickler, but I'm going to have to ask for a source again...
AgApE010 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010
*palms forehead* Do you know how to use Google? Not very hard.
(from Wiki) "Dispute over the phrase "House of David - critics have suggested other readings of ביתדוד, usually based on the fact that the written form "DWD" can be rendered both as David and as Dod (Hebrew for "beloved") or related forms."
"George Athas proposes that the three extant fragments of the inscription have been placed in a wrong configuration (for the popular configuration, see the figure above)."
etc...
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010
It's pretty obvious if you think about it. If there was this "Empire" as is claimed, then there would be countless swathes of archaeological evidence. We're talking about a supposed "Empire" larger than the Second Babylonian/Chaldean Empire!! BUT the only "evidence" is a book of fables and the rare and highly questionable "inscription"... Only a dingus could not see that there's something not right there.
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
It's my understanding that their isn't a single contemporary account of Jesus. Where's the evidence dude?
kyebean 11 months ago
@kyebean
-
That assumes that the Gospel accounts weren't written by contemporaries of Christ. Matthew, Mark, and John all are attributed to the actual disciples by early sources like Irenaeus and Papias, who wrote in the second century; and the earliest manuscripts that we have bear their names. So the evidence is in favor of apostolic authorship of these documents.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. - Michael White
kyebean 11 months ago
@kyebean
-
Yeah, not sure who Michael White is, but if you want to play that game where we quote mine scholars, I want to let you know that you are far outnumbered. I presented you with rational reasons to accept the contemporary authorship of the Gospels; you reply with an un-cited quote. I don't have time for games, so if you don't mind, go play elsewhere if you don't want to learn.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 How is that quote mining? it's not really taken out of context, and the meaning is not distorted in any way. The quote is from "From Jesus to Christianity" (2004). I'd suggest you visit his Wikipedia page or something, he's about as much of an authority as one could be on this subject. I'm interested to know if you disagree with him, and if so, what you think you know that he doesn't.
kyebean 11 months ago
@kyebean
-
Your merely posting an un-cited source as if that refutes everything I said in my comment. You're not a debater, you're not informed on this topic, your sources are limited to Wikis. Even worse, you're not willing to learn; you want to fight. I don't give time for that.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 L. Michael White, "From Jesus to Christianity" (2004), how many times do I need to repeat that for it to be cited? If his assertions are true, than they do refute what you said. Umm, do you usually have formal debates in youtube comments? My sources are not limited to Wikis, I haven't even given a Wiki source. I merely suggested that if you've never heard of one of the foremost experts on this subject, that you inform yourself about him. I'm very much willing to learn.
kyebean 11 months ago
Comment removed
JoeMC7 10 months ago
@kyebean Jesus wasn't here to write, he was here to do, for the people of the time, that were all around him.
JoeMC7 10 months ago
@JoeMC7 Yeah, that perfectly supports my position. If he was doing such great things for the people of HIS TIME, who were all around him, you'd think one of THOSE people would have written something about it.
kyebean 10 months ago
@kyebean Times were different, most common people could not read and write like they can today. Jesus healing people spread by word of mouth it seems. The bible seems to only mention a small account of...
JoeMC7 10 months ago
To all who question reliability and dating of the gospels read "Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" by Mark D. Roberts.
EquineDreams 11 months ago
It changes everything. You don't have to worry about which translation you read because it was written down in a different language in the first place.
It can't be the words of Jesus !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
-
That does not follow. If you were bilingual or trilingual, you would know that you can speak a sentence and easily translate it into another language without losing any of the meaning. And that's the key issue: keeping the meanings of the words. We're not interested in the ipissima verba, or the very, exact words spoken; rather, we are concerned with the ipissima vox, the very concepts, ideas, and point of the teachings of the Lord.
AgApE010 1 year ago
They didn't even write it down in the language Jesus spoke !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
-
Because Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Scriptures, which were primarily written to Gentiles or Hellenized Jews, needed to be written in a language they would understand. It's a moot point you're making, anyways. It doesn't change anything.
AgApE010 1 year ago
This video is a lie.
We barely have any idea who even wrote the Old Testament, much less when they lived or what they witnessed.
ANY honest scholar agrees the main books of the New Testament were NOT written by Matt, Mark, Luke and John, but written 50 to100 years later.
Since we have NONE of the original books, it is a dishonest to talk about their accuracy, as if we can compare them to some baseline source (the missing Q document)
ManchuDan22 1 year ago
AgApE010 1 year ago
@ManchuDan22
-
The "Q Document" is not a "missing document." That is essentially begging the question because you assume it actually exists in order to say that it is missing. 'Q' is simply a hypothetical document which was allegedly the common source for the Synoptic authors. In most scholarly circles, it is accepted that Matthew drew from Mark or vice versa; Luke took the task of an investigator drawing from multiple sources (not necessarily written sources) and John is on his own level.
AgApE010 1 year ago
@ManchuDan22
50 years later is VERY early & STILL within the lifetime of people who lived during the events or who KNEW people who did. We actually have a small portion of an ancient manuscript called the John Ryland manuscript or papyrus 52 dated about 125 AD. Jesus was crucified at age 33. AD starts the day he was born so subtract 33 from 125. This is an EXISTING papyrus copy. The original had to be earlier. Its a portion of the Gospel of John. It hasnt changed.
EquineDreams 11 months ago
@EquineDreams Are you saying we know what the original New Testaments said? And that THAT writing has not changed in the various bibles, printed in the last 2000 odd years?
We have thousands of scraps of papyrus, are you saying they make up an original NT bible, with nothing missing?
OK, who actually wrote the 4 gospels? (in the original Greek or Coptic?) Did God dictate them to the those authors, or did they interpret stories told to them, by people who been told the stories?
ManchuDan22 11 months ago
@ManchuDan22
YES we can get the original form the 1000s of scraps - thats the point! These 1000s of scraps DO confirm that there has been no significant change in the meaning of the text .Not only that but the writings of the chrch fathers have the same quotes in them confirming the text. By comparing all these scraps of new testament you CAN find the original precisely BECAUSE there are so many. The entire new testament can be found in these scraps essentially the same as it is today_READ...
EquineDreams 11 months ago
@ManchuDan22 (cont)...(see post below my original accidently replied to my own last post instead of yours) READ_"Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John" by Mark D. Roberts. He says exactly that and shows how & why. Don't argue with me,READ the book! hes a NT scholar. You want to learn you NEED to read that book or you will continue to look ignorant to those who read up to date scholarship & not 19th century or Dan Brown of DaVinci code hogwash.
EquineDreams 11 months ago
@EquineDreams I AM arguing with you! Don't hide behind Roberts, make up your own mind! Yes, Roberts makes a good case for his side, but Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins make better cases for the lack of a historical/scientific god.
The Bible is a book written by MEN (everyone agrees with that) did god "inspire" them? Are the miracle stories true? THERE is NO historical proof beyond ONE book (a very biased, heavily edited, badly translated book, with NO complete originals)
This proves god?
ManchuDan22 11 months ago
@ManchuDan22 Om not HISING behind roberts (i donthave time to put all the infor in these small posts Roberts could EAT Dawkins in a debate or ehrman. Hae you even READ roberts/ I doubt it ! Dont like roberts read Lee Strobel's most recent book "The case for the Real Jesus" don'just HIDE behind ehrman & Dawkins. That bigot. He's totally ignorant of modern biblical scolarship! YOU read the books ive suggssted. No it is NOT badly translatd and YES it was written by men INSPIRED by God.
EquineDreams 11 months ago
@EquineDreams You like the word "Bigot" = A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. (beliefs are your area, not facts) That is a perfect description of the religious
Bart Ehrman is an Biblical Historian, Dawkins is Scientist, both of them deal with facts, not beliefs. Roberts and Strobel make up history to justify scripture.
Why do you believe?
ManchuDan22 11 months ago
@ManchuDan22 No they dont make a better case, Dawkins is completely ignorant of midern biblical scholarship &i never heard anything convincing come out of his mouth. Hes an atheist who hates all forms of theism. He an Atheist bigot. We dont have COMPLETE originals of ANY ancient wrks silly - if that was required before you could have history we would have NO ancient history at all! Geeze. Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for The Real Jesus" sorry but i donthave space here for all that information-
EquineDreams 11 months ago
@EquineDreams You make the same basic mistake as all religious concerning ancient texts; it is does not matter what version of Plato or Homer we have, they are (as you claim) NOT THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD! The wisdom found in Plato can be taken (or not) based on an individuals understanding, not as "reveled supernatural truth", which you MUST believe. YOU are so blinded by your fear of death and insignificance that you accept these myths as truth, WHY?
Dawkins believes in facts, not faith.
ManchuDan22 11 months ago
@EquineDreams (cont)...(see post below my original accidently rel=plied to my own last post instead of yoir) READ_Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by Mark D. Roberts. He says exactly that and shows how and why. dont argue with me READ the book! hes a NT scholar. You want to learn you NEED to read that book or you will continuse to look ignorant to the well read.
EquineDreams 11 months ago
amazing..
moncmon 1 year ago
this is a great video!
didrock17 1 year ago
AgApe010: Thanks for sharing this with me. I love HIS word!!
robinsam100 1 year ago
3) Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
4) Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
The only reason why the "Didache" didn't make it into the canon is that it was written for a small community and lacked specific universal principles, even though it was a theologically sound work.
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
The Didache wasn't included in the canon because it wasn't written by orthodox Christians, but was most likely written by the Ebionites or the Nazarenes, legalistic "Messianic" Jewish sects that insisted on the observance of Torah. This is evidenced by the Jewish legalism that is all throughout the book and the fact that the Didache relies primarily, if not solely, on the Gospel of Matthew which was the only book that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes used...
continued
AgApE010 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
continued
...This is also evidenced by how the Didache never once quotes from or alludes to Paul's writings (those Jewish sects rejected Paul's apostleship) and also evidenced by the fact that even though Jesus is mentioned all throughout the book, He is never referred to by any of His divine names (God, Son of God) but rather He is simply referred to as "Christ" and "Servant"...
continued
AgApE010 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
continued
...but rather He is simply referred to as "Christ" or "Servant". This is because the Ebionites rejected Jesus' divinity (there seems to be one place in the Didache, in 16:7, where Jesus' divinity seems to be put forth, but it doesn't seem to be the purpose of the author and that verse itself is vague and not convincing that the author was indeed trying to put forth the doctrine of the Deity of Christ).
So it is wrong to say that the Didache was a "sound work".
AgApE010 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
With all that being said, I'm aware of how the Didache doesn't mention circumcision, which one would expect from a Judaizer's writing. So it must also be allowed that this book could also be the work of other Messianic/Jewish sects, which were many in number during that era. But the exclusion of the mention of circumcision is the one and only point which keeps us from saying that this was surely an Ebionite or Nazarene work, since all the other evidence points to this.
AgApE010 2 years ago
The 4 criterion for NT authenticity:
1) Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
2) Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
Luke 1:1-4. Oral Tradition came before New Testament Scriptures. When St. Paul wrote Galatians 1:6-9 there was NO written New Testament:
See Mark 16:15 ; John 20:30-31 ; John 21:25 ; 1 Corinthians 11:2 ; 1 Corinthians 11:23 ; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ; 2 Thesslonians 3:6 ; 2 Timothy 1:13 ; 2 Timothy 2:2 ; 1 Peter 1:25 ; 2 Peter 1:20-21 ; 2 John 12 ; 3 John 13
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
First, Luke says that he made a written account as others have before him, surely speaking of at least Matthew and Mark. I'm not arguing that there wasn't Oral Tradition before the writing of the N.T. But what was this oral tradition? It is the teachings that are going to be recorded later in Scripture, primarily the Gospel. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that he's writing them that which he had received...
AgApE010 2 years ago
@AgApE010
Let's take a look at this post of yours: "...,no Church Father suggested that the Bible be taken away from the believers..."
There is only one point I wish to make about this sentence. Irenaeus is believed to have written c. AD 202, but the canon of scripture was ratified until the African Council of Carthage in AD 419. It's first synods were held AD 255 and 256.
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
Even though the canon wasn't yet officially declared by the Council (mainly in response to people like Marcion who were removing books from the Bible), the Fathers knew what was Scripture. Between the Apostolic Fathers alone (Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), every book of the entire N.T. is quoted and referred to as Scripture, no more, no less. They knew what Scripture was and they obviously had a collection of the writings since they quote it.
AgApE010 2 years ago
@AgApE010
Then he must have been removing books from the Hebrew bible because the NT was not yet official.
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
Marcion (85-160A.D.) did actually remove the entire Old Testament from the Bible but he also removed many books of the New Testament except for an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and a few of Paul's letters, also edited by him. The Church Fathers obviously condemned him and his false teachings.
AgApE010 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
Again, if you look at the Fathers, they knew what the N.T. consisted of. The Council simply made an official statement about what's in the N.T. This is similar to the Council of Nicaea making the official statement that Jesus is God; that doesn't mean that before this Council that the Deity of Christ wasn't official and agreed upon in the Catholic (universal, not Roman Catholic) Church. Obviously, every true Christian before Nicaea believed in the Deity of Christ.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Bible literalism leads to folly.
CaesCosPontifexMax 2 years ago
@CaesCosPontifexMax
True,because it opens the door for people to misinterpret the truth. For example, a wise old believer once said "To give truth to him who does not love it only gives him multiplied reasons to misinterpret it". With that being said, nonetheless it is better for all people to have the Bible so that we who are of the faith can know the words of the Lord even if it risks that certain dogs and uncircumcised of heart will purposely twist it and distort it to their own destruction.
AgApE010 2 years ago
..It is also important to note that the misinterpretation of Scripture by the heretics is not a new phenomena. As early as the 2nd century, a great deal of heretics were rising up and misinterpreting Scripture to forward their false religion. Bishop Irenaeus thoroughly refutes them in his Against Heresies. Despite this uprise in heresy,no Church Father suggested that the Bible be taken away from the believers so that it doesn't risk falling into the hands of unbelievers. That would be pure evil.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Actually, this isn't my video. I merely copied it from a friend's page. But I will be sure to pass the message along. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that his work is appreciated.
I stopped doing videos as they are very time consuming and time happens to be somewhat scarce these days. :)
AgApE010 2 years ago
I'm no longer doing videos, so if you have something to say, say it here. Just saying it's BS really isn't sound argumentation; even Bart Ehrman would agree with me on that. :)
AgApE010 2 years ago
When you have the original copies then you can prove if they are reliable, for now you have old copies from different times and many of those copies contradict themselves, and that is a factttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.
51cacheton 2 years ago
"Original copies"? First of all, you don't need original copies to know what the originals said. Thanks to the schools of textual criticism and historical criticism, we can find out what the texts said when originally penned by the author. And if you're going to be consistent in your argument, then you better throw out Plato, Caesar, Homer, and every other work of ancient literature because we don't have originals from any of them.
AgApE010 2 years ago
By the way, in your private message that you sent to me, those works that you considered "scholastic" were from Bart Ehrman. Really?? This guy gets his butt handed to him every time he goes up against a Bible scholar in a debate or when his books are reviewed by scholars, and you cite his works as scholarly and authoritative on this topic?! LOL!!! Please...
AgApE010 2 years ago
Of course the religious community is going to discredit him and some scholastic people who are allied to false religion like any Christian Religion, but reading the gospels you will find a lot of contradiction, such of Nazareth, they said that Jesus was from Nazareth and it is not truth, Jesus belong to the sect of the Nazarene, the other contradiction like I show you are the dates when Jesus was born, also one gospel says that Joseph took Jesus immediately to Egypt and the other different
51cacheton 2 years ago
The Information presented in this Video agrees with most of what I have studied.
I read only 8 grammatical errors in letters were discovered between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Text we had been using for Centuries to Interpret the Hebrew into other languages.
JesusIsInLoveWithYou 2 years ago
They did not live there with Jesus, the gospels were written after the destruction of
Jerusalem, so that part is wrong
51cacheton 2 years ago
The Luke/Acts document strongly argues against your theory that the Synoptic Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD). Luke is considered by many modern historians to be one of the greatest historians we know of. This is because in his writings he accurately records specific details such as landmarks, local dialect, the names and reigns of rulers and officials, topography, etc. The main characters of his 'Acts of the Apostles' are the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul...
AgApE010 2 years ago
The Gospels are wrong when determining the date Jesus was born, according to one Gospel Jesus was born in 6 EC during August's reign and the other gospel shows that Jesus was born in 4 BC. That was wrong.
51cacheton 2 years ago
Show me where the Gospels give you the date of Jesus' birth.
AgApE010 2 years ago
We know from extra-Biblical history that Peter and Paul were martyred under Emperor Nero. We also know that Nero's reign ended in 68AD, at the time of his death. Now the fact that Luke closely and carefully records the acts of Peter and Paul, and doesn't record their deaths, but stops abruptly with Paul being imprisoned for the first time strongly argues for the fact that Acts was written before 68AD. Now if Acts was written before 68AD,and Luke was written before Acts,Luke is well before 70AD.
AgApE010 2 years ago
The Act was written after the year 100 EC and according to scholastic people is full of contradiction, and out of the 14 Pauline's Letter only four belong to Paul, because it was a custom in the first century to sent a letter to a congregation using the Apostles's names.
51cacheton 2 years ago
Very informative. Too bad verifying the life of J.K. Rowling doesn't offer veracity into the existence of Harry Potter.
No one of rational mind should worship your Jesus even if it did exist. And you can't show it did. At all.
Xerock 2 years ago
"...verifying the life of J.K. Rowling doesn't offer veracity..."
My comments that you responded to were in answer to another person who was arguing that the Gospels were written after 70AD. So perhaps considering the context of my comments will help you to understand what I was arguing for and against.
So you do not believe that Jesus even existed?
AgApE010 2 years ago
Seeing as how theists try to push the date of the gospels before 69 AD only to give them credibility into the existence of Jesus, I don't feel I was off at all.
If the gospels weren't written after 70 AD, they were definitely edited after it. Especially since the "hand of god" crap all used volcanic metaphors which I'm concluding was taken from the eruption of Vesuvius which blew in 69 AD.
Jesus was nothing more than another mythological demi-god. So, please, bring up Josephus and the others.
Xerock 2 years ago
"..theists try to push the date..."
No, I'm not trying to "push" the date. You see, there is a science called textual criticism. By carefully examining the text and extra-biblical history we can determine the date of the writings of the books in question.
"If the gospels weren't written after 70AD, they were definitely edited after it."
Uh huh. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
"...all used volcanic metaphors.."
I beg your pardon; I have no idea what you're talking about.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Try reading a book called the Pre-Nicean Testaments by Robert Price. Not to mention the original mark of the Beast was 616 and not 666. So yes, there is considerable evidence to conclude that both the Bible was edited long after the 70 AD mark.
But then again, I can come up with a picture of a stork and a picture of a baby and have two more pieces of evidence to support the claim that storks deliver babies than you can produce that support either your God or Jesus existed.
Xerock 2 years ago
"Not to mention the original mark of the Beast was 616, not 666"
Again, where is your evidence? I can make all sorts of claims, but if there isn't evidence and good argument to back them up, they are worthless, much like your claim above. So if you have evidence to back up your claims, please present it. If you don't, then you should really take a second look at your beliefs and ask yourself why you believe them.
AgApE010 2 years ago
"The Other Number of the Beast". Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents. Retrieved 2006-06-23.
God damn are you stupid, agape.
Xerock 2 years ago
Xerock, I ask you for evidence and good argumentation for your claims and you respond with a title of a book. Are you kidding me? And you furthermore have the nerve to call me "stupid"? Evidence is not "here's a book I read" (assuming you've read it); evidence is showing early manuscripts that show the number as 616 instead of 666, early writings that show a different number, etc, not "here's a book for you to read". Get a clue.
AgApE010 2 years ago
You are a fucking idiot. All you've been doing is Copying and pasting the shit from other bible humper sites. You haven't read a single one of the "historians" you've claimed supports the existence of Jesus and your lack of context shows it.
Want to know how easy it is to to debate and defeat creationists? Every lie you tell about Evolutionists is something you've committed yourselves.
Xerock 2 years ago
Um, no I haven't posted anything from Bible sites. And who brought up Evolutionists? We're discussing Biblical history and reliability/authenticity.
AgApE010 2 years ago
...So if you want to take an excerpt from that book that provides evidence for you claim and post it here, please do so. But don't just post the name of a book then leave as if you've done your work in providing evidence for your argument. I could also easily respond by copying and pasting my entire library in comments but that is not how it's done in a discussion like this. Thank you.
AgApE010 2 years ago
I notice you haven't argued the 616 part yet.. come on, bible humper.. what are you going to spread to spin THAT one.
Xerock 2 years ago
I know why there is a variant with the number of the Beast, and it is explained easily. I'm just waiting for you to post your evidence as to why you believe that there is indeed a variant because I have a suspicion that you may just be parroting what you heard a skeptic say and not have any real evidence or reason for what you believe.
So are you going to present me with the evidence or do you expect me to do your work for you and post the evidence and then proceed to explain it?
AgApE010 2 years ago
BTW, The Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents IS A WEBSITE.
The title is an online journal. Youtube doesn't allow the posting of URLs. Of course if you capable of, or interested in, doing the LEAST amount of research, you could have figured ANY of that out.
You FUCKING MORON!
Xerock 2 years ago
Atheists are so angry and vulgar in their language... You're not offending me or hurting me with your childish profanity; all you're doing is showing your own ignorance and limited capabilities since you vent out your rage by means of all capitalized profane words. Have some class, for the sake of the betterment of humanity.
AgApE010 2 years ago
@AgApE010
I see nothing wrong with any1 suggesting a book. There isnt space here for most people to be able to put entire arguments & evidence & few people have time.(I dont) so they share books that may have information you are unaware of or are you such a bigot you think you can learn nothing new from books you may not have read yet. I'm going to suggest a book cuz i dont have time for anything else: The Case for The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel. and yes i read it - will you?
EquineDreams 11 months ago
Why bring up Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and all the other historians since you already have your mind made up, despite the evidence, that Jesus was a myth? No thank you, I won't waste my time.
AgApE010 2 years ago
oh yes historian.. except none of them actually could confirm anything about Christ except that Christians worshiped the character.
Oooh. So impressed. Try again.
Xerock 2 years ago
"none of them could actually confirm anything about Christ...except..."
Wrong again.
"Christus, from whom the name (Christian) had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."
-Tacitus
Celsus wrote a book in about 180AD, which survives in Origen's writings, where Celsus calls Jesus a sorceror, giving evidence that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed perform miracles and wonders.
The evidence is against you.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Yeah.. is that why the Talmud makes absolutely NO reference to any such trial or crucifixion of Jesus Christ for these "sorcerous" acts?
Oh and please.. bring up Yeshu.. Wrong name, wrong crimes, wrong followers, wrong time period.
And Celsus might have given evidence by labeling Jesus as a Sorcerer IF he was an atheist or someone who didn't believe in the magic of other gods and the demi-gods they produced. He couldn't question the authenticity of Jesus without questioning his own beliefs.
Xerock 2 years ago
The Talmud consists of the Mishnah (the oral traditions/interpretations of the Law) and the Gemorrah (the interpretation of the Mishnah). Thus we wouldn't expect a reference to Jesus right off hand. Furthermore, if you read the book of Acts, you will see that the Jews were trying to erase Jesus from the memory of the people. So for this reason also we wouldn't expect a reference to Jesus.
"bring up Yeshu.."
Do you like building strawmen?
AgApE010 2 years ago
Xerock, Celsus doesn't have to be an atheist in order for his claim that Jesus was a sorceror to be evidence of Jesus' miracles. He was an Epicurean philosopher, so his beliefs didn't come close to Christianity anyways. He certainly questioned without trouble the deity of Christ and His incarnation in his writings, despite the fact that Greek mythology is riddled with sons of the gods; so your argument that he couldn't question Jesus' miracles w/o questioning his own beliefs is not a good one.
AgApE010 2 years ago
Now Luke records in his Gospel "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses....it seemed fitting for me as well..."
-Luke 1:1-3
Luke starts his Gospel with bearing witness that others who were "eyewitnesses" also wrote Gospels, these being none other than Matthew and Mark (which would mean that Matt. and Mark were written before Luke and thus long before 70AD).
AgApE010 2 years ago
(Last comment)
...And extra-Biblical evidence further verifies that the authors who wrote the Gospels are the very ones whose names are attributed to the works since Irenaeus records in the early to mid 2nd century that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote Gospels (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1).
So you see, through examination of the Bible under the science of textual criticism and taking into note also extra-Biblical history, your theory is shown to be wrong.
AgApE010 2 years ago
The New World Translation is not accurate
51cacheton 2 years ago
"The NWT is not accurate"
I agree. A couple of the translators of the NWT claimed to have been taught by a spirit how to translate passages such as John 1:1. They had very little training in Greek.
AgApE010 2 years ago
I have taken classes on the bible and the Quran and have seen some very strong arguments on both. When i watched the debate between Naik and Cambell it just seemed like Naik got the better of it. I am a Christian but Naik has raised some questions that i just can't answer and that is pretty scary.
ZeGervasio 2 years ago
Study to show yourself approved.
AgApE010 2 years ago
will do
ZeGervasio 2 years ago
how can the reliability be counted on when there is unfulfilled prophecies and other scientific errors that are exposed by Dr.Naik. Ex.look at video " Scientific error of the bible 4: 200or245, 18month, or8 yrs" that is just one video he has 8 or so.
ZeGervasio 2 years ago
This is an extremely misleading video (though if you're gullible enough to be mislead by it, you probably already believe the bible anyway).
This whole video just says "How can we know the bible is accurate? It was hand-copied accurately for thousands of years, without anything being added or removed!"
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
"...How can you know the bible is accurate? It was hand copied accurately for thousands of years..."
That's the point of the video, to show that the Bible is accurate and hasn't been changed or altered over the years.
What's misleading you in the video?
AgApE010 2 years ago
Because that's not true, and everyone knows it. No respected historian relies on the bible for any historical facts.
I'm no historian, but even I know that many of the gospels directly contradict each other, not only with minutia, but also when it comes to important stuff (the birth and death of Jesus).
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
What do you mean "it's not true"? Back up your claims with good argumentation and facts, this isn't an elementary school playground.
What are some of these contradictions between the Gospel accounts?
AgApE010 2 years ago
"by the end of the 19th century the view that the first eleven chapters of Genesis represented actual historical events was being widely questioned.[citation needed] The general opinion among non-creationist bible scholars today is that Genesis 111, taking in the cycle of stories from the Creation to the "generations of Terah", is a highly schematic literary work representing theology rather than history."
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
Mat 27:62-66 - A guard is stationed outside the tomb the day after Jesus burial
Mark, Luke, John - No guard is mentioned. In Mark and Luke, the women who approach the tomb do not appear to expect to see any guards
Mark 16:1-3, Luke 23:55-56 - A group of women who were at Jesus burial come back later to anoint his body
Mat - Joseph wraps the body and the women come the next morning, but no mention is made of anointing Jesus
John 19:39-40 - Joseph of Arimathea anoints Jesus body before burial
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
Omission of an event is not a contradiction.
I would say "nice try", but it wasn't.
AgApE010 2 years ago
You obviously copied and pasted that from somewhere, so who is the source?
AgApE010 2 years ago
These are just a few I found in under 5 minutes. The entire Bible is loaded with logical and historical contradictions.
Of course, this is futile, as the historical accuracy of the Bible doesn't mean anything, because religion is based on faith.
So, you'll probably either ignore the fact that the Bible is wrong or just say that it doesn't matter.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
"The entire Bible is loaded with logical and historical contradictions"
What did I say earlier about making claims w/o facts and good argument?
"Pink elephants don't like to eat ice cream in the winter". Both of our statements are equally ridiculous if there isn't any facts or good argument to back them up.
AgApE010 2 years ago
So what exactly would you take as evidence? I could go on on this stuff, citing web pages, but you could just go out and find it yourself.
So let's skip this part. How about the fact that, if the Bible were inerrant, historians would say "Jeez, here's thousands of years of inerrant history. This is literally a miracle." Don't you think it would be kind of a big deal to academics?
We would then have direct proof of god, which goes against god's policy of showing he exists.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
"you'll probably ignore the fact that the Bible is wrong or just say that it doesn't matter"
Is that your response to my request to back up your claims? Are you seriously telling me what I will or will not say to an argument that you haven't even established?? Who are you and why are you commenting on my video? You might be more well-suited to go somewhere and criticize the existence of Santa Clause before coming here and going in way over your head.
AgApE010 2 years ago
I'm guessing you missed the 2 paragraphs of evidence I posted here.
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
What two paragraphs? You copied and pasted a quote from what looks like Wikipedia and didn't list the source when I asked you to, and then you posted some verses where one Gospel writer mentions an event whereas another doesn't and you call it "contradiction". And I responded, omission doesn't equal contradiction.
Don't waste my time; have you got anything intelligent to present or are you another atheist/hard-skeptic who denies the Bible out of ignorance of the Bible?
AgApE010 2 years ago
really great. I new about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wasn't so sure about the NT though. Thanks and God bless
jellyrcw11 2 years ago
Genius video, i favorited it!
iToyRobot 2 years ago
funny. love the guy's voice. totally incredulous while being totally sincere!
tastybrain 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The original "gods" were all female. Only when males became dominate did they transmogrify the goddesses into gods. "Man" has never fallen--that is a Babylonian myth, and no mortal needs the fantasy of a deity to be strong or intelligent. Truth is what people decide it is--there is no absolute or divine truth. The Holy Spirit was an Egyptian invention and has no foundation in fact or science. Religion is insanity to lead the sane into darkness.
arthuride 2 years ago
The statement "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement, therefore your argument fails big time. And all your "pagan parallels" are not impressing anybody. I, along with almost every other Christian, have heard all these Zeitgeist arguments and all other similar arguments and none of them hold water and, quite frankly, it is sad that you bought into such foolery. I suggest studying textual and higher criticism. It might educate you on this topic.
AgApE010 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anaxamander noted "everything changes but change itself" which is not an oxymoron. Christians are not objective but literalists on a book scholarly textual argument shows is a cut-and-paste product of numerous salons. For there to have been a Joseph in Egypt there would have to be a record, the same for a Moses, Hebrews, etc--yet none exists save one reference to Apiru--an uncivilized pastoral people known as thugs. Your logic on absolutes is nonexistent and the scholarship weak.
arthuride 2 years ago
I agree. Satan knew God's plan of salvation but he didn't know the timing. He was the guardian cherubim of God's throne and full of wisdom so he knew what God had planned. Being cast out and in his defeat he decided to create counterfeit pagan gospels similar to God's so that he can deceive many into not believing and he has has done a pretty good job. But two things that God's word has over his. 1) The bible is historically accurate and 2) Biblical prophecy is unrivaled.
PerfectingHoliness 2 years ago
This is to anyone, why would Jesus have to be baptized?
ZeGervasio 2 years ago
Baptism was a "washing" and it occurred whenever anyone was near water. It was neither sacred nor special. The dove plays a role, but is descending as if to take the soul to Hades. It was a later addition by the gospel redacters to symbolize Jesus as dying to this world to be born again pure--but that imagery is from the god Mithra. If Jesus had been god he would not need to be purified. At best this is a crossing of two tales by bad writers justifying what did not need justification.
arthuride 2 years ago
The Jesus of the New Testament never died (or lived), at best the record is a coverup. See: Andrews & Schellenberger, The Tomb of God: The Body of Jesus (1996), Kersten & Gruber, "The Jesus Conspiracy" (B&N 1995), Schonfield, "The Passover Plot" (Random House 1965). At best the "Passover" NT account is a plagarism from the Egyptian myths 3000 years earlier and Passover is probably an old Spring Festival, or the merging of two festivals, one a pastoral feast, the other an agricultural one.
arthuride 2 years ago