@quakerman7 I understand the claim that Jesus rose supernaturally, but my affirmation remains. People do not rise from the dead. The supernatural must be shown to actually exist before it can reasonably be employed. There is no supernatural.
In regard to the messianic prophecies, what they actually prove is that the NT books were written later than the OT books - which is something we already knew anyway. It's trivial to invent/modify a story to match a prophecy.
People don't rise from the dead. It doesn't matter how many ancient texts claim otherwise, nor does it matter how many historians think there was an actual human Jesus 2000 years ago, nor how many witnesses signed in blood that they saw it. *People don't rise from the dead.*
If you are open minded, you will weigh the obvious trusim that people don't rise from the dead, against all the 2000 year old evidence you can muster, and you will conclude Christianity is bunk.
@eventhisidistaken No Christian ever says that Jesus rose 'naturally' from the dead. That is the whole point - that it was supernatural. Now, if you say 'there is no supernatural anything', there is a counter. It is not often talked about in these scholastic debates, but the 300+ prophecies of the Messiah give context. The Bible self-authenticates as showing it has been authored by someone out of time. The prophecies give context. Without them, the resurrection of Jesus would be confusing.
@quakerman7 What about the thousands of others who rose from the dead in Jerusalem with Jesus? That prophecised mass zombie event which is in the gospels, but which wasn't noticed by any historians and was never mentioned again?
@KapStuf This was a tough one. I have been holding off on this, ever since I started watching debates and it would come up. I've watched 70 hrs of one-on-one debates (way better than 1-sided, lemme tell ya), and this occasionally pops up.
Watch: The Darkness and Mass Resurrection at the Time of the Crucifixion, uploaded by misterD418 on May 7, 2011. If you wish, continue to do your own research. The limits of youtube textboxes makes this hard to answer.
I can't drop the link, but for anyone interested please do a search for 'Unreasonable Faith Was Jesus really resurrected from the dead?' and read the third page of that forum post from Nox. It is without a doubt the best retort and/or explanation of extra-bible evidence of Jesus. It lead me here. Everything anyone says about 'historical bedrock' or whatever is flat out lying. Other than the Bible, it just isn't there. FLAME ON, FUNDIES!
@KapStuf Actually no, it is not the best evidence. These few facts, crucifixion, empty tomb, appearances, and rapid rise of the early church, are just what you get when Christian apologist voluntarily choose only those items that everybody will accept - fighting with one hand tied back. With a wealth of other arguments, not the least of which is Prophecy, they can do better - it is just that in videos like this they are choosing not to.
@quakerman7 So christians have stronger arguments than the scholarly respectable ones, but they're all circular. They only make sense to those who already believe.
@KapStuf Do you really think the likes of Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, John Lennox, WLC (and I'm only naming current speakers, forget about the last 2000 years), would get anywhere if they were circular? Do you think anybody would give them a doctorate? omg, maybe if that is all that is necessary, I should get one. You will never see them or me saying, 'but, but, you just gotta Believe' (with an earnest tone). Let's leave that crap up to the Mormons and all other Fideists, agreed?
@quakerman7 Could christian theology really be bullshit for 2000 years? Could islamic theology really be vacuous for 1000 years? Could budhist theology really be circular for 2500 years?
@KapStuf Are we having a real discussion here? When I see someone ask and answer their own question in the same post 'Yes. Next.', it really makes me wonder about their open-mindedness. Of course, all of it could be bullshit. Are brains could be nothing more than wormfood. Of course, if that is true, I wonder why anybody gets so upset. Question: 'Given your current attitude towards God, would you even *want* Him to be showing up and/or in your face with absolute, choice-crushing truth.'
@quakerman7 Given your beliefs about an afterlife, would you want to spend eternity doing nothing but tell an all-powerful cosmic dictator how wonderful he is? Might get dull after the first thousand years.
And BTW, it's "our". Odd how someone who's read so many learned books stills gets his homophones confused.
@KapStuf I think that pointing out homophone issues is a mild ad-hominem attack and is pointless. Who among us here never gets tired and makes a mistake? Your original statement betrays many attitudes and assumptions that show the real nature of the problem. From Genesis onward, the question never really was 'Does God exist', but 'Is God a Total Bastard.' He could Show Up (and He will), but you would rage against Him. Better for Him to show his character first, power second. Prefer opposite?
@quakerman7 The question of god's nature is obviously separate from his existence, just as any fictional character can be described without existing. I'm not the one trying to conflate the issues.
If he is a 'total bastard' then of course we'd all rage against him, and indeed try to destroy him, as we would a human dictator who demands love but deserves none.
As for your occasional homophone confusions, they belie the academic, educated tone you try to project.
"An excellent presentation on the Historical Jesus (outside the Gospels)" all i heard was evidence from the gospels, other than the evidence that crucifixion causes death. he never provided any evidence that jesus existed outside the gospels. stop being ignorant.
This guy does not argue for a historical Jesus. He argues that people who get crucified die. He assumes this because "everyone knows that" which is bullshit. He gives four names:
Josephus (the passage in his text referring to jesus is a forgery from the 3rd century),
Tacitus (who talks about persecution of christians and presents their believe),
Lucian (a satirist, who does the same as Tacitus)
Mara (refers only to a "wise king" and does so possibly a few hundred years later).
I find is weird how vids about evidence of a historical Jesus dont even have a fragment of the views as those who claim he didnt exist. this just shows that no one cares enough to do their own research. sad
just looking at all the comments left on any Christian video by any Non-believer or Atheist.... How you fools don't even realize that you fulfill Jesus' prophecy pertaining to the end times is so very sad ! The majority of you are examples of blinded heathens whom have no place in the book of life, so you WONT EVER SEE...This is why you troll about Satan's church (the internet) leaving comments that make you look even more foolish then we know you are ! WAKE UP ! KNOW JESUS, KNOW THE TRUTH !
This man is not honest. If he were honest, he would admit that the four gospels are all derived from each other and therefore do not provide INDEPENDENT corroboration anymore than Harry Potter 2 provides corroboration for the facts in Harry Potter 1. He also does not cite a *single* contemporary non-Christian source for Jesus' crucifixion. Then he goes into a bunch of detail on the medical science. He skips citations for the main question and provides details for an irrelevancy.
He first talks about crucifixion but he first has to prove Jesus even existed as depicted in the New Testament. This a Red Herring argument. Might as well argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin and say the argument proves angels exist.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection, Dr. S Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion!
@TheDarvus Uhmm... yeah... Evidence... That's something you should try looking at... And maybe the work of actual historians with years of peer reviewed work behind them...
are you saying the "non-biblical" accounts (which are evidently based on hearsay and generally debated) prove that the jesus from the bible existed? if they did not witness jesus, what makes their accounts any "more historical" than the gospels?
@mogghee There are virtually no scholars in the *relevant* fields of study that consider the idea that Jesus never existed to have any more validity than arguing for a flat Earth. You might want to find out why.
There might have been a real person named Jesus, that is likely. Did he perform miracles? Probably not. Did he rise from the dead? I highly doubt it. Can historians prove from history that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead? Absolutely not!
how is any of this proof? so doctors agree that you die if you are crucified, how is that proof that it happened? and those "non-biblical" sources are all debated and none of them were even alive to witness it. the only thing this video proves is how desperately credulous christians can be.
@mogghee That sweeping generalisation of history leaves everything reported or recorded outside of living memory no more than an illusion at best and a lie at worst.
From an historical prespective, there is no negative consequence to Jesus being a myth, so the regular canons of historical reconstruction are used without objection. And, lo and behold, a real and knowable Jesus appears. The Christology naturally follows.
@Ricardius1710 ...Except 515 saw His spirit in public, including His enemies. People were still alive when people wrote of this claim...nobody stood up & said this is false. Then the Christians multiplied rapidly including ex-skeptics & THEN willingly died for this firm belief. In 64 Ad, just 30 yrs after His resurrection Tacticus writes of(finally writes about) The Great Fire of Rome that Nero falsely blaimed a HUGE multitude of Xtians for the fire & killed em' all. ETC.
Jesus, the bible, the cosmos & idea of God have nothing to do with each other. U can believe in a concept of universal intelligence, supreme being etc. & not have anything to do with the Abrahamic faiths or Judeo-Christianity. Which as far as I'm concerned are a complete lie & have done more harm to society which it plagues & diseases still to this day, just look at history, turn on the news or read the bible, it's nothing more than a bloodshed cult of idiocy, more evil than any horror movies.
The truly odd thing is that he starts with the DEATH of his subject in proving his existence. If we arbitrarily accept that someone died we must hterefor accept that he must have lived. BIG Fallacy here!!! Let's start with did he exist; where and when was he born; did he live where the Bible says he lived ... let's noy going rushing off to the end!
Did you notice how he switched from "the opinion of science is that those who were crucified died from asphyxiation" to "the opinion of science is that Jesus must have died?" Very sloppy reasoning and use of empty rhetoric both there and elsewhere.
@daNorse at the right hand of the Father where He makes intercession for us. I'm supposing you were just being funny but I figured I'd say it anyway. couldn't hurt. lol
It's funny how the christian apologists still quote Josephus as evidence even after it's long been proven as a fraud. And exactly how is this you say? There exists 13 copies of Josephus and only 2 of them have this "interpolated" reference to Jesus. So, you see boys and girls, this is yet another example of forgery from the founding fathers.
The Christian faith IS worthless, delusional, a complete lie & originally a pagan religion that has been watered down to such lame levels that only brainwashed fools & morons believe in.
Why do you have to resort to blatant lies to defend your faith in this legend godfigure? Going by what most non-christian historians who have studied this say, there is no evidence to support the historicity of the Jesus legend.
Is it easier to believe someone is God's son or that angels exist? The magnitude of a God that created the world and all of it's unreasonable attributes doesn't need your reasons approval! Are you kidding me> lol
When you look at the gospel stories of the resurrection they all include angels. If angels are real and can be proven to be real then it reasonable you may be dealing with a history. If angels are mythical then you are dealing with a myth or mythologized history.
Reason says angels are mythical. I agree with reason. Therefore the resurrection accounts are not historical but mythical.
When stories are related as myth the reader is free to take or leave any element they prefer as "truth."
lots of comments saying the gospels were written anything from 150 years to a few hundred years afterwards; most scholars and yes non christian ones :) say the earliest gospel was written around 30 years after the death of Jesus.
The earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century. Previous to that we only have fragments. Non-Christian historians believe that the earliest canonical gospel(Mark) was written around 65-70c.e. However Bishop Eusebius who was central to the crystallizing the scripture of orthodox Christianity under Constantine once said it was permissible "medicine" for historians to create fictions. Which calls into question the legitimacy of religious documents from that era.
You proved nothing. Yes, anyone who had been crucified would have died. Of course, the entire range of miracles attribted to jesus were borrowed from prior religions.
You proved people were crucified on a wooden cross and would have went through the same thing the bible says about Jesus. Then you made a claim that historians believe he existed.
1. Yes just as you can recall how a someone death roe generally dies. They can recall how someone dies upon a crucifix.
2. Most historian believe Jesus was made-up however there may have been a man the story of Jesus was based off and has widely been since lost any real truth.
No historical schalor agrees with this unless they are christian. And then they only agree so they can't deny the truth which is there is NO evidence for jesus.
The problem is that those "gospels" were written 300-400 years after the "fact", when the early "christian" communities were established. Even after Paul died. By the way, Paul never gave any details of Jesus's death or miracles, or teachings (if any). The new testament was tailored to fit myths and ancient prophesies.
The people who wrote the gospels were contemporary with him. And you don't need contemporary evidence to prove that somebody existed, because if that was a requirement then we would have to deny all of history. And second of all, none of those verses you cited indicated that he was known in any other area than the jewish territory, and even if he wasn't, your still not putting up an argument against his existence, thats an argument against his divinity.
Wow, is there any reason your getting so angry over this?
the epistles of paul, the gospels, the epistles of john etc. these are all contemporary.
Jesus was only well known in the area of Judea, and none of the historians who lived back then lived in the area of Judea, nor did they have any reason to mention Jesus. btw what you are saying is an argument against his divinity, not his existence.
Correction: many of those figures were deified. Jesus lived in a confined area for only three years, therefore we wouldn't expect historians at his time to mention him. And believe me, if Jesus never existed, christianity would never be able to spread the way it did. And btw, we have plenty of contemporary evidence of him.
@kuztom65 If you think there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, I' guessin you also don't believe in Alexander the great, pythagoras, or spartacus since we only have writings for them 100 years later....yawn.
God humbled Himself as a man and died unto death, so man is to humble himself and live unto life. Life is where God is, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the LIFE. God put on human image, so man is to put on God's image. Meaning live godly, humbled with humility just as God humbled Himself with humility. God sat perfect example, and "love" only fulfills its true meaning when we respond the same way by humbling ourselves putting on God's image living unto eternal life.
this video proves zero. this video is a perfect example of why childhood indoctrination should be against the law. but aren't u lucky u were born in the US so you could be told a BS story like this. if u were born in an islamic country, u'd be muslim. duh.
why would u want to bring up the crucifixion when it is a ridiculous story of murder. i would not be proud of that. i wouldn't want to worship a god who killed his son, disgusting. u christians are sick and demented to be proud of such a thing. it never happened, study atheism. study logic and reason and u will figure it out.
Whats extraordinary is how christians claim that 'evidence is greater than faith' when arguing for their cause and yet ignore all the evidence for evolution.
There's more evidence in favour of evolution being fact than there is the roman empire existing and yet they stoically believe their bronze-age myth.
Couple things, besides Joesephus, the other ones only talk about the Christos, which means anointed one! Joesephus was found to be a fraud and was written to late after the fact to be an eye witness! and you mentioned Jesus pushing the stones with his wounded hands, it has been proven that the spikes were not put in the hands but in the wrists, so for centuries the crucifixion crosses that were handed out by the church were wrong... just like a billion other things they have been wrong about!
No - those tests are wrong... The Bible quite clearly states that Thomas (Doubting Thomas) put his fingers IN Jesus' HAND wounds as proof of his resurrection... Sorry to rain on your parade!
It's ALSO been PROVEN that if you place a piece of wood under the feet, there is a lot to compensate for the body wieght, and therefore able to be hung by the hands!
It has also been proved that historically, the romans and others that crucified, did so through the wrists! And where is your proof of this, when the legs give way due to unconsciousness, then there is no support from the feet, all weight would come back to the hands! And the bible is not a historical doc. because there were no first hand eyewitnesses, it was all second hand info! Sorry to shit on your uninformed parade!
Specifically I have not heard of Mara bar Serapion or Lucian.
However, I think I am satisfactorily convinced that the relevant passage in Josephus' work (Testimonium Flavianum) is a forgery.
Obviously, simply showing me a laundry list of named and claiming that they support your hypothesis doesn't establish your case, nor is it strong evidence. I want to see the relevant passages and how they support the claim.
It really didn't help that the speaker focused almost entirely on whether or not Christ would have died if he had been crucified. It doesn't take a terrible leap of imagination to suppose that if you submit someone to capital punishment, they're very likely if not entirely likely to die. That's the point. Gee, hey, wow.
Where's the resurrection?
Incidentally, I appreciated the section on the "non-biblical sources" that reported the crucifixion, and I'll be looking into those.
Oh, wait, that's a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. Additionally, even if there was an abundance of written historical documents all claiming that Christ was executed and resurrected, that would still not establish a fact in the sense of an empirical fact or a demonstrable fact, it would only establish a fact in so far as historical methodology can establish a fact, which is to say you're on shaky metaphysical ground.
Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This is a non Christian source... Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention but the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, 1990, p.42:
The inscription you are referring to dates to the 4th century CE. Where is the alleged evidence the place called Nazareth WAS Nazareth when the biblical jesus character was claimed to have lived?
If anything the area known now as Nazareth was nothing more circa 1CE than a burial ground and as per their belief system, do not build towns or villages on, or even CLOSE to a burial ground.
I concur, that the Nazareth argument is too weak. But your wrong, the Gospels are not history documents. They don't even agree with each other on many of the core issues, which thereby dismisses all of their credibility. There is no contemporary account of Jesus, even the Gospels came after Paul's letters, which was around 60 or 70 AD. That's about thirty years after Jesus' supposed resurrection. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me!
It seems bizarre that the Gospel writers 'invented' a town for Jesus that had no historical reality. Indeed, most scholars would say that Matthew and Luke have a problem fitting Jesus in with Bethlehem given he was raised in Nazareth! This is a very weak argument both from a point of logical and historical postulation.
Unless one were clearly deluded Spiderman's existence as a historical being is evidently not a reality. Even die hard Marvel fans are clear Spiderman is fiction. That Josephus and Pliny can testify by the end of the 1st century that a religious movement existed which we have very early historical writings for is irrefutable. Indeed you could have just come into existence with a false memory of a life time of events, but is it likely? We have no image of cleopatra so did she have a face?
Yes, Josephus talks about the movement, but did he talk about Jesus, who rose from the dead, walked on water, resurrected his friend Lazarus from the grave, claimed to be the son of God, and performed miracles throughout Israel?
I submit that one would have to be deluded, to think that Spider-man were real, and I feel that its the same for Christ. We have contemporary evidence of Cleopatra, from many different sources, all around the world, but no contemporary evidence of Jesus.
The textual basis for the existence of Julius Caesar is far thinner than for Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps caesar never lived? Logic tells me he did. Why? Because it conforms to the historical picture as a whole. In the same way the followers of 'The Way' wouldn't have been martyred for a fantasy. Josephus tells us Jesus brother James was executed by the High Priest. This conforms to Jesus reality not a fictional character.
There were Jews among the S.S. Ranks in Nazi Germany, who had renounced their religion, and their people. Yes, they were butchered, and I'm sure many of them had no choice, but the primary issue to Nazi Germany, was the Jews had killed Christ. Hitler was a fanatical creationist.
Hitler was a Darwinist. He believed in social darwinism and he detested Christianity as a religion with Semitic roots. Get your facts straight. He was anything but a creationist. He rejected Genesis as Jewish!! His genocide was based on social Darwinism!
You should freshen up on history. Maybe read Mein Kampf, which clearly reiterates Hitler's stance on this issue.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Hitler wasn't a Darwinists; whatever that means. This is demonstrated by his quote
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
When Hitler gassed the mentally handicapped he did it because he was using social darwinist concepts. he believed in survival of the fittest. Hitler also cynically used Christian concepts to sway a culturally Christian nation. he believed in Neitzche rather than Christ!
Hitler was NOT A CHRISTIAN. He never attended Mass and was utterly ruthless with Christians. He murdered Christians as much as any other group. There are those who say they are Christian but who never attend Church and have no faith. Hitler detested Jesus as a Jew and wanted to restore a Germanic paganism with occult overtones.
Hitler was in fact a Catholic, who was Never ex-communicated. How many times do I have to point this fact out to you? There are so many quotes for him, which you can read yourself, if you want to believe me. I defy you find legitimate quotes from Hitler that prove otherwise.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Hitler was a Darwinist and his eugenics theories were based on social Darwinism.
A Catholic who misses Mass is committing a mortal sin. Hitler was not a Catholic. Indeed, by 1939, more than 10,000 Catholic schools had been closed and the Catholic boys and girls sent to Nazi public schools for indoctrination.
Look at Hitlers deeds rather than his words. He promised Chamberlain, British PM, "Peace" and and end to attacking other nations. He then walked in Poland! He was a liar. Ask Maxmillian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Corrie Ten Boom, all Christian martyrs murdered by Hitler whether Hitler was a Christian.
There are none as blind as those who will not see! Do I believe 1st century accounts or your 21st Century mirage theory. Christianity is rooted in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah and Lord. None of his followers gained finacially from their faith in him, indeed, they were persecuted and killed. If you wish to be obtuse that is your affair.
The Apostles were eye witnesses. They felt strongly enough to die for the veracity of their testimony.
You were the one who used the term 'bull crap'! You don't even know enough history to understand Josephus references to Jesus brother James. Look it up on Wikepedia (thats not too much to ask surely).
On your reading of epistemology we would reject most of the Pharoahs existence because the accounts weren't relayed like 24 hour news is today.
The apostles may've been eye-witnesses, but their accounts are found no where, as the NT was written around at least thirty to fifty years after the death of Jesus.
The fact still stands that you haven't been able to provide contemporary eye-witness testimony of Jesus. It doesn't matter how the news was conveyed, so long as there were corroborative eye-witness accounts.
Many ancient historians spoke of Apollo and Hercules as real people in history; why aren't we debating that issue?
Mark's Gospel paints a very poor picture of the Apostle Peter. He fouls up constantly. Why? Well Papias in the 2nd Century tells us Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter's witness. This is why Peter is pictured as a buffoon, he is being self depricating. The New Testament Gospels are not mythical accounts. Compare them to gnostic and 3rd century works which are mythical and which influenced the Quranic stories of Mary's pregnancy! Mark is eyewitness testimony.
As I've stated earlier, most reputable biblical scholars place the date of the bible as being written thirty to fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus. The early Church determined which Gospels would be in the New Testament Canon; essentially deciding what passages they agreed with, and what one's they did not; such as the Gospel of Thomas, which is still in existence today.
If he even existed all, how can you deduce anything about the real Jesus after a process like this?
it wasn't that they picked which books they liked and left others out. the gospel of Thomas was not consistent with other books that all early Christians knew to be of a divine source. It was picking what goes it, it was protecting by keeping false books out. Gospel of Thomas says that every female that wants to enter heaven must make herself a male. critical thinking alone tells us that the "other gospels" are not consistent with the message of Jesus. It wasn't some conspiracy.
I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. It's public knowledge. Look it up.
You agreed that there were other accounts of Jesus, but the church, which was just a bunch of people sitting in a room, who had never met Jesus, decided what was from a "divine source," and what was "not consistent with the message of Jesus."
Think about that for awhile, before getting upset.
Hopefully you'll ask yourself, how did they know what the message of Christ really was? Is it more likely that they were just guessing?
Most of the "other accounts" come way after the gospels were written. When Christianity started to become a world religion others tried to cash in on the success by writing their own versions and then slapping the name of a disciple on it. If they were guessing they did a hell of a job because it has sustained it's relevance for 2000 years even with wave after wave of critic.
Who, other than the church leaders, would benefit from writing such gospels? How did they "cash in"?
For the first 1,600 years of your religion, every "critic" of your so-called holy text, was promptly put to death in a horrific, public manner. What a great way to show the light of Christ!
You would be more accurate to say that it's sustained about 200 years of criticism.
But people who've been indoctrinated since infancy on these issues tend to hold onto their dogma, like a blanky.
Which part of my argument was poorly constructed? I'm all ears friend. It's easy to pass empty insults, but can you point to something I've said that fallacious, or 'poorly constructed?'
I'm a fairly open-minded person, so I'd like to be aware of this stuff you think I'm making up.
If you proved me wrong about anything, I would happily admit it.
Would you?
If so, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
If not, then you might as well stop bothering me, and have a nice day.
firstly you stated that the christian faith has only had been under dritique for about 200 years. That alone is extremely off base. It has been under attack since Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I have an extremly long lists of early apologist that had to defend the early church against huge waves of critics.
Yes. I acquiesce to that statement, that there were critics in the beginning, before the Romans made Christianity their national religion, when that happened those who made open opposition to the church became subject to all sorts of abhorrent torture.
I'm very glad to see that you're responding in a more civilized manner; this way we can have an adult discussion.
Did I at some point not repsond in a civil manner? The tone of these discussions is very difficult to tell since it is written. Here though, your argument is against the "church" and that has nothing to do with wether or not Jesus was God and if the Bible is the word of God. Bad followers don't always mean they have a bad leader...
Test to see if a book is scripture 1. Authorship: Was the author an eyewitness or a "secretary" for an eyewitness? See Luke 1:1-3, John 19:35, 1 John 1:1-4, 2 Pet 1:16-18, 1 2. Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If so, throw it out. Heb 6:18, John 10:35, 17:17, ~John 17:8, Prov 30:5, Num 23:19, and Ps 119:42-43,86, 3. Widespread Confirmation: Did Christians every-where generally accept the book as scripture?
It's always interesting how those outside the faith tell us that their are contradictions in the Bible. Could it be that that contradictions are due to you lack of understanding and making assumptions. My guess is you have been indoctrinated since infancy with your own set of beliefs, only a fool thinks he is immune to pre concieved notions of what is true. How we define God, defines our lives.
Actually, I was indoctrinated with your beliefs from infancy.
That's right; I was a devout fundamentalist christian for twenty years. Near the end of it, I wanted to devote my life to working for God. I'm not the one making assumptions here; I've read the bible, and I've studied it.
Have you?
Or are you too busy wasting people's time on youtube, calling those you've never met 'fools', while totally disregarding their previous comments?
I left the church at a young age because my youth pastor blew his brains out after getting a 17 year old pregnant. He had a 6month old baby and a wife that he left behind. However, God worked in my life and now I am a full time minister. I've studied intently and read a lot of non-theist publications. Your rebuttals are emotionally charged and you like to get your little jabs in which make me think you didn't leave for intellectual reasons but you got betrayed & never recovered I could b wrong
I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. That's a real tragedy.
I'm sorry that I was so emotionally charged; I just cannot stand to be called a fool by a person who has never even met me.
I wouldn't have left the church for anything; even when I found out my that my favorite priest was a child molester. That didn't matter to me, nothing could separate me from God, so long as the truth was on my side.
That "truth" started to whittle away, more and more as I studied the bible.
your priest? Were you catholic? That is not what I would consider fundamentalist Christianity. I never called you a fool though, I stated you would be a fool to think that neither of us came to the discussion without some sort of background, therefore making the statement that I was incapable of knowing the truth difficult simply because I was born into the religion irrelevant.
While Catholics usually don't stress the infallibility of the bible, like most Protestants, they Do stress the infallibility of the Pope; who is supposed to talk directly to God, and cannot be questioned, like most of their other doctrines. Sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.
And now that you better explained the whole fool debacle, I feel foolish! lol
That is not how I would define fundamentalism because it denies some big fundamentals. If I was raised Catholic I probably would have had huge problems too. I was never raised to believe any human other than Jesus was infallible. Perhaps some confuse God with religion and walk away from both.....
Do tel though, what downfall of truth in your eyes was the last straw and made you leave. Not the church per say because that is a different discussion but God as he is revealed in the scriptures
There was no "Last straw," that I can pinpoint. It was a series of heated debates with everyone. They brought up many good points about the existence of Jesus, and God, which brought me to question religion.
This worsened with my extensive independent studies; alienating everyone, and spending whole weeks in the library.
The most important part that lead me to my apostasy, was my diurnal inner reflections; working out the facts with my own faculties of logic, and limited thought processes.
Debates on youtube? You say debates about Jesus and God brought you to question religion. Jesus and God have nothing to do with religion, they hated religion. You should question it, but I think it would be hard to come to a point where I denied my creator. Like you said you have a limited thought process. To me it sounds like you had lots of religion and no real relationship with Jesus. I could be wrong but that would be my guess. I could never deny the impact he has had on my life.
I held to my belief in Jesus for a long time after I decided to stop going to church. From there I stopped believing in Jesus, since he seemed too similar to most pagan demi-gods, and then I stopped actively believing in God.
People can have a realistic relationship with many different imaginary characters, so that leads me to ask; do you have any evidence that Jesus isn't just imaginary?
I cannot deny the impact Yossarian, from Catch-22, had on my life.
@86adamleon you know that Yossarian is a fictional character so his impact on you is not a good argument. Howeverm if you believed Catch-22 to be a historical document that would be another story. Only the skeptics on the fringe of thinking actually state the Jesus never existed. Most of them, you will find, at least believe he existed and the majority state that he at least claimed to be God. It is when it comes to his divinty that people have a really hard time.
Firstly, many scholars accept the gospel of Luke to be of great historical value. he was a first rate historian and a highly educated man who went about doing a research paper of sorts on the man Jesus funded by a roman official also we have the writing of Pliny the younger & Tacticus to name a few. That is a lot for a man who only preached for three years in remote parts of the world the majority of the time.
actually seems pretty great for a man who taught for three years in the back woods of Jerusalem and never held a political office or wrote a book. we give just as good evidence of his life as scholars give for other ancient historical figures but ultimate critics are never ultimately satisfied. Most scholars disagree with you and that is really good enough for me. You are on the fringe of thinking not me when it comes to wether or not Jesus existed.
I'll agree that the majority of people are on your side of this argument, but that doesn't make you right, and it isn't even a valid argument; at one point everyone thought the Earth was flat.
I don't care if ALL the scholars disagreed with me --which they don't-- unless you can provide a contemporary, extra-biblical, eye-witness account of Jesus, then I have no reason to think he ever lived.
It would be a start, but even then, I would have a hard time believing the claims made about him.
@86adamleon Well first, just because an account isn't eyewitness doesn't invalidate it. One must not be an eyewitness in order to be accurate as long as they rely on good source material. Also, just because there are no eyewitness accounts doesn't automatically invalidate it, either. How many eyewitnesses of 911 sat down and wrote accounts afterwards vs. the millions that were in NYC that day and billions that saw it on TV? Also the Bible is an excellent source of eyewitness testimony. ...
@86adamleon Now, Re. the Bible, I know you probably don't believe that, and I don't expect you to, one reason I mentioned it last ... but just because it's the Bible doesn't invalidate it, there are many eyewitness accounts and historians have relied upon since the beginning. Again, ID expect you to believe this, but I would like to say it in passing just so you're aware, but the Bible says God promised to preserve His word ... which includes eyewitness test. You should at least check it out.
I've studied the bible, and if you read the many different translations, you'll see that there is no way that it has remained unchanged through the thousands of years it's been passed down.
No offense, but asserting that the bible is true, because the bible says it's true, seems somewhat silly to me.
I'm not trying to pick on Christianity, or anything. Your faith doesn't bother me, I just wanted to give you the reasons I'm in my position.
@86adamleon Also, Josephus mentioned John the Baptist and James, brother of Chirst in latter passages in Antiquities. Both of these passages are accepted even more so than the Test. Flav. How can you be the brother of a fictional character? Anyway ... just some thoughts in passing. Keep searching!!! Wishing you all the best. .....
@86adamleon, What you are not considering is that Josephus was a historian. Our historians today know about things that happened 20 , 30 years ago and beyond.
Don't you think that there were probably plenty of evidence in Josephus' time that we do not have today?
Legends and myths grow over hundreds of years....don't you think that he is close enough to Jesus' time to grow up knowing whether it were a true story or a myth? think about it.
However, using that logic, you can also dismiss Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal of Carthage, and so on, because we didn't live in their lifetime.
Now, we know for fact that these persons existed due to the historical record - as in Jesus' case...
My point was Not that we should dismiss Jesus, merely because we never lived in his lifetime.
My point was that the cited historians couldn't give a first-person account of Jesus, since Jesus died before their birth. Instead they merely repeated the stories about him.
If Caesar was just a made up personage, it wouldn't matter, as much as it would matter that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
Not to stick on the same argument again, but Pontius Pilate, who lived at the time as Jesus, also had no first-hand accounts of his existence (to my knowledge anyway - I could be wrong). However, recently, a stone fragment was discovered that bears his name!
The best way to determine whether Jesus in fact existed or not is by prophecy. To examine if Biblical prophecy is and has been effective; which historically is evident. i.e., Alexander the Great, Tyre, etc
WeAreChangeMelbourne If Jesus was such a miracle worker, you can be quite certain that the Romans woud have dragged him to Rome, to perform in the Coliseum.
@86adamleon as with many things in life my belief in Jesus requires faith and I am always up front about that and don't think that is a scape goat answer. I think it is a reasonable faith and though my first choice to follow Jesus was made with my heart after much study and I know I can follow him with my head as well. If he was a fake fictional character why is there no historical documents saying he is fictitious? And by the way he is not a mix of other beliefs, that is an old atheist myth
I don't feel that faith is a scape-goat answer either. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want; Fairies, Bacchus, pink unicorns, big foot, radio active zombies, or whatever.
I, on the other hand, like to try and differentiate between what's real, and what's not Real. So I shed myself of my emotional biases, and used my facilities of reasoned logic, and demonstrable evidence, in order to make valid distinctions.
I don't claim to know there is no God, but I see no reason to posit one.
I too want to only believe in what is true, I don't want to dedicate my life to empty myths. And the belief in Jesus as the Messiah spoken of in the old testament is perfectly valid. If he was lying don't you think his mother and brothers would have called him on it instead of being his followers? What is your response to books by scholars like william lane craig? Especially "reasonable faith" You said you did lots of research so I am sure that this is one you have read already...
So, your argument is that the Bible is true, because the bible says its true?
I'm not convinced that Jesus ever lived, but if he had, the acceptance of his family doesn't mean he's the son of God.
No offense, I'm not really a fan of Mr. Craig, since I find that his arguments are hinged on logical fallacies, special pleading, and confirmation biases.
Nevertheless, I'm very willing to listen if you have an argument you think is worth sharing.
really? you think that is the argument I am making? you sure do like to put words in my mouth. I would like to see you debate someone of his caliber. i have a debate of him vs hitchens and hitchens can't turn down a single one of his points he just jumps to his same old slandering and rhetoric.
I never put any words in your mouth; you said that the validity of Jesus was backed up by the old testament prophecy.
You were essentially saying, that the Old Testament proves the New Testament.
I don't really like Hitchens either. He seems like a dim-witted alarmist, trying to sell books.
I would gladly debate Mr. Craig on any subject; although I doubt he would want to degrade himself by facing an autodidact writer, who dropped out of High School, and has a big fear of speaking publicly.
Crucifixion does not kill mythical characters. Mythical characters can be supernatural...
paulokas69 4 days ago
@quakerman7 I understand the claim that Jesus rose supernaturally, but my affirmation remains. People do not rise from the dead. The supernatural must be shown to actually exist before it can reasonably be employed. There is no supernatural.
In regard to the messianic prophecies, what they actually prove is that the NT books were written later than the OT books - which is something we already knew anyway. It's trivial to invent/modify a story to match a prophecy.
eventhisidistaken 5 days ago
People don't rise from the dead. It doesn't matter how many ancient texts claim otherwise, nor does it matter how many historians think there was an actual human Jesus 2000 years ago, nor how many witnesses signed in blood that they saw it. *People don't rise from the dead.*
If you are open minded, you will weigh the obvious trusim that people don't rise from the dead, against all the 2000 year old evidence you can muster, and you will conclude Christianity is bunk.
eventhisidistaken 1 week ago
@eventhisidistaken No Christian ever says that Jesus rose 'naturally' from the dead. That is the whole point - that it was supernatural. Now, if you say 'there is no supernatural anything', there is a counter. It is not often talked about in these scholastic debates, but the 300+ prophecies of the Messiah give context. The Bible self-authenticates as showing it has been authored by someone out of time. The prophecies give context. Without them, the resurrection of Jesus would be confusing.
quakerman7 6 days ago
@quakerman7 What about the thousands of others who rose from the dead in Jerusalem with Jesus? That prophecised mass zombie event which is in the gospels, but which wasn't noticed by any historians and was never mentioned again?
KapStuf 5 days ago
@KapStuf This was a tough one. I have been holding off on this, ever since I started watching debates and it would come up. I've watched 70 hrs of one-on-one debates (way better than 1-sided, lemme tell ya), and this occasionally pops up.
Watch: The Darkness and Mass Resurrection at the Time of the Crucifixion, uploaded by misterD418 on May 7, 2011. If you wish, continue to do your own research. The limits of youtube textboxes makes this hard to answer.
quakerman7 5 days ago
I can't drop the link, but for anyone interested please do a search for 'Unreasonable Faith Was Jesus really resurrected from the dead?' and read the third page of that forum post from Nox. It is without a doubt the best retort and/or explanation of extra-bible evidence of Jesus. It lead me here. Everything anyone says about 'historical bedrock' or whatever is flat out lying. Other than the Bible, it just isn't there. FLAME ON, FUNDIES!
mumdangerous 3 weeks ago
I can smell the menure from here.
IulianRemo 3 weeks ago
Is this a comedy video?
Rushlimpballs 3 weeks ago
*This* is the best evidence christians can produce? One bad forgery and three uselessly vague references?
Lee Strobel has just made a good case for atheism.
KapStuf 1 month ago
@KapStuf Actually no, it is not the best evidence. These few facts, crucifixion, empty tomb, appearances, and rapid rise of the early church, are just what you get when Christian apologist voluntarily choose only those items that everybody will accept - fighting with one hand tied back. With a wealth of other arguments, not the least of which is Prophecy, they can do better - it is just that in videos like this they are choosing not to.
quakerman7 6 days ago
@quakerman7 So christians have stronger arguments than the scholarly respectable ones, but they're all circular. They only make sense to those who already believe.
Interesting notion of a 'strong' argument.
KapStuf 6 days ago
@KapStuf Do you really think the likes of Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, John Lennox, WLC (and I'm only naming current speakers, forget about the last 2000 years), would get anywhere if they were circular? Do you think anybody would give them a doctorate? omg, maybe if that is all that is necessary, I should get one. You will never see them or me saying, 'but, but, you just gotta Believe' (with an earnest tone). Let's leave that crap up to the Mormons and all other Fideists, agreed?
quakerman7 5 days ago
@quakerman7 Could christian theology really be bullshit for 2000 years? Could islamic theology really be vacuous for 1000 years? Could budhist theology really be circular for 2500 years?
Yes. Next.
KapStuf 5 days ago
@KapStuf Are we having a real discussion here? When I see someone ask and answer their own question in the same post 'Yes. Next.', it really makes me wonder about their open-mindedness. Of course, all of it could be bullshit. Are brains could be nothing more than wormfood. Of course, if that is true, I wonder why anybody gets so upset. Question: 'Given your current attitude towards God, would you even *want* Him to be showing up and/or in your face with absolute, choice-crushing truth.'
quakerman7 5 days ago
@quakerman7 Given your beliefs about an afterlife, would you want to spend eternity doing nothing but tell an all-powerful cosmic dictator how wonderful he is? Might get dull after the first thousand years.
And BTW, it's "our". Odd how someone who's read so many learned books stills gets his homophones confused.
KapStuf 5 days ago
@KapStuf I think that pointing out homophone issues is a mild ad-hominem attack and is pointless. Who among us here never gets tired and makes a mistake? Your original statement betrays many attitudes and assumptions that show the real nature of the problem. From Genesis onward, the question never really was 'Does God exist', but 'Is God a Total Bastard.' He could Show Up (and He will), but you would rage against Him. Better for Him to show his character first, power second. Prefer opposite?
quakerman7 5 days ago
@quakerman7 The question of god's nature is obviously separate from his existence, just as any fictional character can be described without existing. I'm not the one trying to conflate the issues.
If he is a 'total bastard' then of course we'd all rage against him, and indeed try to destroy him, as we would a human dictator who demands love but deserves none.
As for your occasional homophone confusions, they belie the academic, educated tone you try to project.
KapStuf 5 days ago
"An excellent presentation on the Historical Jesus (outside the Gospels)" all i heard was evidence from the gospels, other than the evidence that crucifixion causes death. he never provided any evidence that jesus existed outside the gospels. stop being ignorant.
kris6682 1 month ago
This guy does not argue for a historical Jesus. He argues that people who get crucified die. He assumes this because "everyone knows that" which is bullshit. He gives four names:
Josephus (the passage in his text referring to jesus is a forgery from the 3rd century),
Tacitus (who talks about persecution of christians and presents their believe),
Lucian (a satirist, who does the same as Tacitus)
Mara (refers only to a "wise king" and does so possibly a few hundred years later).
Mastamomba 2 months ago
I find is weird how vids about evidence of a historical Jesus dont even have a fragment of the views as those who claim he didnt exist. this just shows that no one cares enough to do their own research. sad
marineboy090 2 months ago
just looking at all the comments left on any Christian video by any Non-believer or Atheist.... How you fools don't even realize that you fulfill Jesus' prophecy pertaining to the end times is so very sad ! The majority of you are examples of blinded heathens whom have no place in the book of life, so you WONT EVER SEE...This is why you troll about Satan's church (the internet) leaving comments that make you look even more foolish then we know you are ! WAKE UP ! KNOW JESUS, KNOW THE TRUTH !
TheSacredDefiance 3 months ago
@TheSacredDefiance
Crawl under a rock and die.
IulianRemo 3 weeks ago
This man is not honest. If he were honest, he would admit that the four gospels are all derived from each other and therefore do not provide INDEPENDENT corroboration anymore than Harry Potter 2 provides corroboration for the facts in Harry Potter 1. He also does not cite a *single* contemporary non-Christian source for Jesus' crucifixion. Then he goes into a bunch of detail on the medical science. He skips citations for the main question and provides details for an irrelevancy.
prescod 6 months ago
He first talks about crucifixion but he first has to prove Jesus even existed as depicted in the New Testament. This a Red Herring argument. Might as well argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin and say the argument proves angels exist.
jollyandwaylo 6 months ago
There is no literal truth to this mythology.
odinata 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:
"it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).
waketheoblivious 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection, Dr. S Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion!
waketheoblivious 7 months ago
Without a long form birth certificate I feel I have no option but not to believe that Jesus was born.
GawdOfThunder 8 months ago
@TheDarvus Uhmm... yeah... Evidence... That's something you should try looking at... And maybe the work of actual historians with years of peer reviewed work behind them...
Keruaran 10 months ago
@TheDarvus
This comment said it all:
"last time I checked ALL HISTORIANS agree that Christ never existed"
You are an idiot who is not worth wasting time on. Grow a brain.
Keruaran 10 months ago 2
@TheDarvus ROFL you really are a nut.
Keruaran 10 months ago
@TheDarvus
"last time I checked ALL HISTORIANS agree that Christ never existed"
The mind numbing ignorance and stupidity of this comment is self evident.
Keruaran 10 months ago
So....? I assume that because Jesus never existed that christianity is false? Just wondering....
GawdOfThunder 11 months ago
are you saying the "non-biblical" accounts (which are evidently based on hearsay and generally debated) prove that the jesus from the bible existed? if they did not witness jesus, what makes their accounts any "more historical" than the gospels?
mogghee 11 months ago
@mogghee There are virtually no scholars in the *relevant* fields of study that consider the idea that Jesus never existed to have any more validity than arguing for a flat Earth. You might want to find out why.
Keruaran 10 months ago
Todd please read Joseph Atwill's book and please stop bullshiting people.
Titus +Nero+Julius=Jesus and you know that
ANTEKBT 11 months ago
There might have been a real person named Jesus, that is likely. Did he perform miracles? Probably not. Did he rise from the dead? I highly doubt it. Can historians prove from history that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead? Absolutely not!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
how is any of this proof? so doctors agree that you die if you are crucified, how is that proof that it happened? and those "non-biblical" sources are all debated and none of them were even alive to witness it. the only thing this video proves is how desperately credulous christians can be.
mogghee 1 year ago
@mogghee That sweeping generalisation of history leaves everything reported or recorded outside of living memory no more than an illusion at best and a lie at worst.
From an historical prespective, there is no negative consequence to Jesus being a myth, so the regular canons of historical reconstruction are used without objection. And, lo and behold, a real and knowable Jesus appears. The Christology naturally follows.
LothairOfLorraine 11 months ago
There is no historical proof that Jesus rose from the dead. ANY other theory is more probable than a man rising from the dead. Think about it.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 ...Except 515 saw His spirit in public, including His enemies. People were still alive when people wrote of this claim...nobody stood up & said this is false. Then the Christians multiplied rapidly including ex-skeptics & THEN willingly died for this firm belief. In 64 Ad, just 30 yrs after His resurrection Tacticus writes of(finally writes about) The Great Fire of Rome that Nero falsely blaimed a HUGE multitude of Xtians for the fire & killed em' all. ETC.
1 + 1 =2, NEVER 0
GoodyBob 1 year ago 2
Jesus, the bible, the cosmos & idea of God have nothing to do with each other. U can believe in a concept of universal intelligence, supreme being etc. & not have anything to do with the Abrahamic faiths or Judeo-Christianity. Which as far as I'm concerned are a complete lie & have done more harm to society which it plagues & diseases still to this day, just look at history, turn on the news or read the bible, it's nothing more than a bloodshed cult of idiocy, more evil than any horror movies.
asherasator 1 year ago
The truly odd thing is that he starts with the DEATH of his subject in proving his existence. If we arbitrarily accept that someone died we must hterefor accept that he must have lived. BIG Fallacy here!!! Let's start with did he exist; where and when was he born; did he live where the Bible says he lived ... let's noy going rushing off to the end!
ztekkiwi 1 year ago
@ztekkiwi sorry for the poor typing 1. therefor 2. not
ztekkiwi 1 year ago
Did you notice how he switched from "the opinion of science is that those who were crucified died from asphyxiation" to "the opinion of science is that Jesus must have died?" Very sloppy reasoning and use of empty rhetoric both there and elsewhere.
Naiant 1 year ago
If Jesus indeed resurrected in the flesh and never died, I have just one question: Where is he physically now? Behind the moon? Where?
daNorse 1 year ago
@daNorse at the right hand of the Father where He makes intercession for us. I'm supposing you were just being funny but I figured I'd say it anyway. couldn't hurt. lol
pregger2 1 year ago
@daNorse ? He never calls... he never writes....
wondergundy 2 months ago
If you ever want to debate an atheist, it's not hard to find them. They hoard around any youtube video on Jesus Christ like moths to a flame.
As Bill Shakespeare said; "...me thinks he doth protest too much."
rubbersole79 1 year ago
WHERE IS THE PROOF TODDYSZKA? NONE IS GIVEN HERE!!!!!!
thybigballs 1 year ago
His very first "fact" is false when he says nearly 100% of scholars hold as fact concerning Jesus' death by crucifixion.
thybigballs 1 year ago
It's funny how the christian apologists still quote Josephus as evidence even after it's long been proven as a fraud. And exactly how is this you say? There exists 13 copies of Josephus and only 2 of them have this "interpolated" reference to Jesus. So, you see boys and girls, this is yet another example of forgery from the founding fathers.
thybigballs 1 year ago
The world would be COMPLETELY different if the resurrection hadn't happened. America would not be here.
ChildofYeshua777 1 year ago
@ChildofYeshua777 HUH?
wondergundy 2 months ago
The Christian faith IS worthless, delusional, a complete lie & originally a pagan religion that has been watered down to such lame levels that only brainwashed fools & morons believe in.
asherasator 1 year ago
@asherasator .why are atheists angry?
2MorMor 1 year ago
@2MorMor I don't know, I'm not atheist, go ask one.
asherasator 1 year ago
Why do you have to resort to blatant lies to defend your faith in this legend godfigure? Going by what most non-christian historians who have studied this say, there is no evidence to support the historicity of the Jesus legend.
daNorse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God, Our Lord and King Jesus Christ let bless You!!!
It`s the TRUE and everyone should compare that 3d picture(Manoppello) to the 2d. shroud of Turin to be sure not some fictional models!!!
Poor face of God beaten to death for our sins!
How people can say they don`t love Him-they dont have heart?
JezusSlave 1 year ago
SamWiseGingy is wrong.
Is it easier to believe someone is God's son or that angels exist? The magnitude of a God that created the world and all of it's unreasonable attributes doesn't need your reasons approval! Are you kidding me> lol
dj7remy 1 year ago
When you look at the gospel stories of the resurrection they all include angels. If angels are real and can be proven to be real then it reasonable you may be dealing with a history. If angels are mythical then you are dealing with a myth or mythologized history.
Reason says angels are mythical. I agree with reason. Therefore the resurrection accounts are not historical but mythical.
When stories are related as myth the reader is free to take or leave any element they prefer as "truth."
SamWiseGingy 1 year ago
lots of comments saying the gospels were written anything from 150 years to a few hundred years afterwards; most scholars and yes non christian ones :) say the earliest gospel was written around 30 years after the death of Jesus.
MattingtonSear 1 year ago
The earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century. Previous to that we only have fragments. Non-Christian historians believe that the earliest canonical gospel(Mark) was written around 65-70c.e. However Bishop Eusebius who was central to the crystallizing the scripture of orthodox Christianity under Constantine once said it was permissible "medicine" for historians to create fictions. Which calls into question the legitimacy of religious documents from that era.
ReverendWyrm 1 year ago
Comment removed
parkplace5577 1 year ago
You proved nothing. Yes, anyone who had been crucified would have died. Of course, the entire range of miracles attribted to jesus were borrowed from prior religions.
CaptainMacNasty 1 year ago
You proved people were crucified on a wooden cross and would have went through the same thing the bible says about Jesus. Then you made a claim that historians believe he existed.
1. Yes just as you can recall how a someone death roe generally dies. They can recall how someone dies upon a crucifix.
2. Most historian believe Jesus was made-up however there may have been a man the story of Jesus was based off and has widely been since lost any real truth.
Blueicm 1 year ago
No historical schalor agrees with this unless they are christian. And then they only agree so they can't deny the truth which is there is NO evidence for jesus.
sambricky 1 year ago
The problem is that those "gospels" were written 300-400 years after the "fact", when the early "christian" communities were established. Even after Paul died. By the way, Paul never gave any details of Jesus's death or miracles, or teachings (if any). The new testament was tailored to fit myths and ancient prophesies.
efrixione 1 year ago
Why don't you just deny all of history?
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
The people who wrote the gospels were contemporary with him. And you don't need contemporary evidence to prove that somebody existed, because if that was a requirement then we would have to deny all of history. And second of all, none of those verses you cited indicated that he was known in any other area than the jewish territory, and even if he wasn't, your still not putting up an argument against his existence, thats an argument against his divinity.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
Maybe you should stop believing everything Acharya s. says and start listening to what real historians say.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
Wow, is there any reason your getting so angry over this?
the epistles of paul, the gospels, the epistles of john etc. these are all contemporary.
Jesus was only well known in the area of Judea, and none of the historians who lived back then lived in the area of Judea, nor did they have any reason to mention Jesus. btw what you are saying is an argument against his divinity, not his existence.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
Correction: many of those figures were deified. Jesus lived in a confined area for only three years, therefore we wouldn't expect historians at his time to mention him. And believe me, if Jesus never existed, christianity would never be able to spread the way it did. And btw, we have plenty of contemporary evidence of him.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
@kuztom65 If you think there is no evidence for a historical Jesus, I' guessin you also don't believe in Alexander the great, pythagoras, or spartacus since we only have writings for them 100 years later....yawn.
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
"this is not a joke". could have "fooled" me.
tomitstube 1 year ago
God humbled Himself as a man and died unto death, so man is to humble himself and live unto life. Life is where God is, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the LIFE. God put on human image, so man is to put on God's image. Meaning live godly, humbled with humility just as God humbled Himself with humility. God sat perfect example, and "love" only fulfills its true meaning when we respond the same way by humbling ourselves putting on God's image living unto eternal life.
4IDHero 1 year ago
this video proves zero. this video is a perfect example of why childhood indoctrination should be against the law. but aren't u lucky u were born in the US so you could be told a BS story like this. if u were born in an islamic country, u'd be muslim. duh.
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
why would u want to bring up the crucifixion when it is a ridiculous story of murder. i would not be proud of that. i wouldn't want to worship a god who killed his son, disgusting. u christians are sick and demented to be proud of such a thing. it never happened, study atheism. study logic and reason and u will figure it out.
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
no, u r wrong, christianity continues because ppl are afraid to die, nothing more. oh, and a good many christians are not very bright ppl.
NotTooObvious 1 year ago
Whats extraordinary is how christians claim that 'evidence is greater than faith' when arguing for their cause and yet ignore all the evidence for evolution.
There's more evidence in favour of evolution being fact than there is the roman empire existing and yet they stoically believe their bronze-age myth.
This is called "Cherry Picking science".
whats with that???
cwsaja 1 year ago
jesus failes
spardaking 1 year ago
Couple things, besides Joesephus, the other ones only talk about the Christos, which means anointed one! Joesephus was found to be a fraud and was written to late after the fact to be an eye witness! and you mentioned Jesus pushing the stones with his wounded hands, it has been proven that the spikes were not put in the hands but in the wrists, so for centuries the crucifixion crosses that were handed out by the church were wrong... just like a billion other things they have been wrong about!
Inovocre12 2 years ago
No - those tests are wrong... The Bible quite clearly states that Thomas (Doubting Thomas) put his fingers IN Jesus' HAND wounds as proof of his resurrection... Sorry to rain on your parade!
It's ALSO been PROVEN that if you place a piece of wood under the feet, there is a lot to compensate for the body wieght, and therefore able to be hung by the hands!
WeAreChangeMelbourne 1 year ago 2
It has also been proved that historically, the romans and others that crucified, did so through the wrists! And where is your proof of this, when the legs give way due to unconsciousness, then there is no support from the feet, all weight would come back to the hands! And the bible is not a historical doc. because there were no first hand eyewitnesses, it was all second hand info! Sorry to shit on your uninformed parade!
Inovocre12 1 year ago
If you deny the existance of Jesus you must also deny the existence of Buddha, Confucius, Pythagoras, Socrates, Spartacus, and Alexander the Great
SonnyDelight55 1 year ago
Specifically I have not heard of Mara bar Serapion or Lucian.
However, I think I am satisfactorily convinced that the relevant passage in Josephus' work (Testimonium Flavianum) is a forgery.
Obviously, simply showing me a laundry list of named and claiming that they support your hypothesis doesn't establish your case, nor is it strong evidence. I want to see the relevant passages and how they support the claim.
Redfingers 2 years ago
It really didn't help that the speaker focused almost entirely on whether or not Christ would have died if he had been crucified. It doesn't take a terrible leap of imagination to suppose that if you submit someone to capital punishment, they're very likely if not entirely likely to die. That's the point. Gee, hey, wow.
Where's the resurrection?
Incidentally, I appreciated the section on the "non-biblical sources" that reported the crucifixion, and I'll be looking into those.
Redfingers 2 years ago
FACT: Scholars saying it's true makes it true.
Oh, wait, that's a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. Additionally, even if there was an abundance of written historical documents all claiming that Christ was executed and resurrected, that would still not establish a fact in the sense of an empirical fact or a demonstrable fact, it would only establish a fact in so far as historical methodology can establish a fact, which is to say you're on shaky metaphysical ground.
Redfingers 2 years ago
Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This is a non Christian source... Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention but the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, 1990, p.42:
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
Paulkazey1,
The inscription you are referring to dates to the 4th century CE. Where is the alleged evidence the place called Nazareth WAS Nazareth when the biblical jesus character was claimed to have lived?
If anything the area known now as Nazareth was nothing more circa 1CE than a burial ground and as per their belief system, do not build towns or villages on, or even CLOSE to a burial ground.
tandytripper 2 years ago
The four Gospels are historical documents. If Jesus was an invention I think they could have picked on a less obscure place for him to reside,
The 'Nazareth didn't exist' argument is too weak to be relevant. It is hypothetical and over looks the New Testament records.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
86adamleon 2 years ago
Tombs were often very close to habitations in the biblical period. Just look at Jerusalem. The tombs were just a few paces outside the city wall.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
It seems bizarre that the Gospel writers 'invented' a town for Jesus that had no historical reality. Indeed, most scholars would say that Matthew and Luke have a problem fitting Jesus in with Bethlehem given he was raised in Nazareth! This is a very weak argument both from a point of logical and historical postulation.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
I acquiesce to all of that.
But I would pose that there is not one
shred of contemporary documentations
on the life of this Jesus. You might point to Josephus, but he wasn't alive during the time
of Christ, and referred to the Christians.
Can you produce one reliable historical
document that proves that Jesus was real?
Other than the bible. I could point to comic books to prove that Spider-man is real;
I mean, his story even takes place in NYC.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Unless one were clearly deluded Spiderman's existence as a historical being is evidently not a reality. Even die hard Marvel fans are clear Spiderman is fiction. That Josephus and Pliny can testify by the end of the 1st century that a religious movement existed which we have very early historical writings for is irrefutable. Indeed you could have just come into existence with a false memory of a life time of events, but is it likely? We have no image of cleopatra so did she have a face?
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
Yes, Josephus talks about the movement, but did he talk about Jesus, who rose from the dead, walked on water, resurrected his friend Lazarus from the grave, claimed to be the son of God, and performed miracles throughout Israel?
I submit that one would have to be deluded, to think that Spider-man were real, and I feel that its the same for Christ. We have contemporary evidence of Cleopatra, from many different sources, all around the world, but no contemporary evidence of Jesus.
86adamleon 2 years ago
The textual basis for the existence of Julius Caesar is far thinner than for Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps caesar never lived? Logic tells me he did. Why? Because it conforms to the historical picture as a whole. In the same way the followers of 'The Way' wouldn't have been martyred for a fantasy. Josephus tells us Jesus brother James was executed by the High Priest. This conforms to Jesus reality not a fictional character.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
There have been many people,
throughout history who have been martyred
for what you might deem as fantasy.
Take the Jews in the Holocaust.
You could say that was Martyrdom,
for a religion you don't agree with.
You're argument is flawed.
86adamleon 2 years ago
The Jews were murdered by genocidal maniacs NOT martyred. They didn't choose to die for their beliefs. They were butchered.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
There were Jews among the S.S. Ranks in Nazi Germany, who had renounced their religion, and their people. Yes, they were butchered, and I'm sure many of them had no choice, but the primary issue to Nazi Germany, was the Jews had killed Christ. Hitler was a fanatical creationist.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Hitler was a Darwinist. He believed in social darwinism and he detested Christianity as a religion with Semitic roots. Get your facts straight. He was anything but a creationist. He rejected Genesis as Jewish!! His genocide was based on social Darwinism!
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
You should freshen up on history. Maybe read Mein Kampf, which clearly reiterates Hitler's stance on this issue.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Hitler wasn't a Darwinists; whatever that means. This is demonstrated by his quote
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
86adamleon 2 years ago
When Hitler gassed the mentally handicapped he did it because he was using social darwinist concepts. he believed in survival of the fittest. Hitler also cynically used Christian concepts to sway a culturally Christian nation. he believed in Neitzche rather than Christ!
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
I'm not claiming that Hitler was a good Christian, only that he was a christian nevertheless. He disagreed with Darwin's theory by saying that
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
He was a wildly superstitious monster, addicted methamphetamine, and I'm sorry that I ever brought the subject up.
It's has very little to do with what we're talking about. Tyrants plague history on both sides of the spectrum.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Hitler was NOT A CHRISTIAN. He never attended Mass and was utterly ruthless with Christians. He murdered Christians as much as any other group. There are those who say they are Christian but who never attend Church and have no faith. Hitler detested Jesus as a Jew and wanted to restore a Germanic paganism with occult overtones.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
Hitler was in fact a Catholic, who was Never ex-communicated. How many times do I have to point this fact out to you? There are so many quotes for him, which you can read yourself, if you want to believe me. I defy you find legitimate quotes from Hitler that prove otherwise.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
86adamleon 2 years ago
Hitler was a Darwinist and his eugenics theories were based on social Darwinism.
A Catholic who misses Mass is committing a mortal sin. Hitler was not a Catholic. Indeed, by 1939, more than 10,000 Catholic schools had been closed and the Catholic boys and girls sent to Nazi public schools for indoctrination.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
Look at Hitlers deeds rather than his words. He promised Chamberlain, British PM, "Peace" and and end to attacking other nations. He then walked in Poland! He was a liar. Ask Maxmillian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Corrie Ten Boom, all Christian martyrs murdered by Hitler whether Hitler was a Christian.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
You stated that there was more evidence for Jesus than Ceasar. Bull crap. I'm not buying it.
I'm a history buff, and I know that's not true.
There were so many different stories of Ceasar,
all of which didn't paint him in the best light.
In fact, he seemed like an egomaniacal murderer. And you quoted Josephus,
as saying Jesus the brother of James;
when it he have a brother in the bible?
Josephus wasn't even a contemporary of Jesus.
86adamleon 2 years ago
There is more historical evidence that Jesus lived than Julius Caesar ever did.
The following people wrote about Jesus:
* The Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-100)
*Pliny the Younger, imperial Roman Legate of Bythynia - a letter to Emperor Trajan in A.D. 112
*Tacitus - the Roman historian
*Suetonius - a Roman historian, compiled a biography of the first 12 Roman emperors in his "Life of Claudius"
*Thallus and Julius Africanus in A.D. 52
*Mara bar Serpion
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
None of these are contemporary eye-witness accounts. Pliny lived long after Jesus,
Taciticus mostly referred to the Christians
and Nero, around 68 AD,
Suetonius wrote a single quote about
the Chrestus--misspelled--in 49 AD,
but never met Jesus.The same goes for
Thallus and Julius Africanus,
Mara Bar Serapion was supposed to have been written in 73 AD; some scholars think it was written in the third century.
86adamleon 2 years ago
There are none as blind as those who will not see! Do I believe 1st century accounts or your 21st Century mirage theory. Christianity is rooted in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah and Lord. None of his followers gained finacially from their faith in him, indeed, they were persecuted and killed. If you wish to be obtuse that is your affair.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
Now your just preaching.
I never claimed that the original followers gained any financial means from believing in Jesus; it's another story later in history.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge any of the valid points I've made, other than calling them 21st Century mirage theory?
What do you mean by saying that?
Are you implying that I'm wrong, simply because I'm unwilling to accept non-eye-witness accounts to be accurate?
And can't we do without the name calling?
We aren't toddlers anymore.
86adamleon 2 years ago
The Apostles were eye witnesses. They felt strongly enough to die for the veracity of their testimony.
You were the one who used the term 'bull crap'! You don't even know enough history to understand Josephus references to Jesus brother James. Look it up on Wikepedia (thats not too much to ask surely).
On your reading of epistemology we would reject most of the Pharoahs existence because the accounts weren't relayed like 24 hour news is today.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
The apostles may've been eye-witnesses, but their accounts are found no where, as the NT was written around at least thirty to fifty years after the death of Jesus.
The fact still stands that you haven't been able to provide contemporary eye-witness testimony of Jesus. It doesn't matter how the news was conveyed, so long as there were corroborative eye-witness accounts.
Many ancient historians spoke of Apollo and Hercules as real people in history; why aren't we debating that issue?
86adamleon 2 years ago
Mark's Gospel paints a very poor picture of the Apostle Peter. He fouls up constantly. Why? Well Papias in the 2nd Century tells us Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter's witness. This is why Peter is pictured as a buffoon, he is being self depricating. The New Testament Gospels are not mythical accounts. Compare them to gnostic and 3rd century works which are mythical and which influenced the Quranic stories of Mary's pregnancy! Mark is eyewitness testimony.
Paulkazey1 2 years ago
As I've stated earlier, most reputable biblical scholars place the date of the bible as being written thirty to fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus. The early Church determined which Gospels would be in the New Testament Canon; essentially deciding what passages they agreed with, and what one's they did not; such as the Gospel of Thomas, which is still in existence today.
If he even existed all, how can you deduce anything about the real Jesus after a process like this?
86adamleon 2 years ago
it wasn't that they picked which books they liked and left others out. the gospel of Thomas was not consistent with other books that all early Christians knew to be of a divine source. It was picking what goes it, it was protecting by keeping false books out. Gospel of Thomas says that every female that wants to enter heaven must make herself a male. critical thinking alone tells us that the "other gospels" are not consistent with the message of Jesus. It wasn't some conspiracy.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. It's public knowledge. Look it up.
You agreed that there were other accounts of Jesus, but the church, which was just a bunch of people sitting in a room, who had never met Jesus, decided what was from a "divine source," and what was "not consistent with the message of Jesus."
Think about that for awhile, before getting upset.
Hopefully you'll ask yourself, how did they know what the message of Christ really was? Is it more likely that they were just guessing?
86adamleon 2 years ago
Most of the "other accounts" come way after the gospels were written. When Christianity started to become a world religion others tried to cash in on the success by writing their own versions and then slapping the name of a disciple on it. If they were guessing they did a hell of a job because it has sustained it's relevance for 2000 years even with wave after wave of critic.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Who, other than the church leaders, would benefit from writing such gospels? How did they "cash in"?
For the first 1,600 years of your religion, every "critic" of your so-called holy text, was promptly put to death in a horrific, public manner. What a great way to show the light of Christ!
You would be more accurate to say that it's sustained about 200 years of criticism.
But people who've been indoctrinated since infancy on these issues tend to hold onto their dogma, like a blanky.
:D
86adamleon 2 years ago
Are you making this stuff up as you go along or are you just regurgitating it from poorly constructed arguments you have with your friends?
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Which part of my argument was poorly constructed? I'm all ears friend. It's easy to pass empty insults, but can you point to something I've said that fallacious, or 'poorly constructed?'
I'm a fairly open-minded person, so I'd like to be aware of this stuff you think I'm making up.
If you proved me wrong about anything, I would happily admit it.
Would you?
If so, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
If not, then you might as well stop bothering me, and have a nice day.
-peace!!
86adamleon 2 years ago
firstly you stated that the christian faith has only had been under dritique for about 200 years. That alone is extremely off base. It has been under attack since Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I have an extremly long lists of early apologist that had to defend the early church against huge waves of critics.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Yes. I acquiesce to that statement, that there were critics in the beginning, before the Romans made Christianity their national religion, when that happened those who made open opposition to the church became subject to all sorts of abhorrent torture.
I'm very glad to see that you're responding in a more civilized manner; this way we can have an adult discussion.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Did I at some point not repsond in a civil manner? The tone of these discussions is very difficult to tell since it is written. Here though, your argument is against the "church" and that has nothing to do with wether or not Jesus was God and if the Bible is the word of God. Bad followers don't always mean they have a bad leader...
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Test to see if a book is scripture 1. Authorship: Was the author an eyewitness or a "secretary" for an eyewitness? See Luke 1:1-3, John 19:35, 1 John 1:1-4, 2 Pet 1:16-18, 1 2. Truth: Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If so, throw it out. Heb 6:18, John 10:35, 17:17, ~John 17:8, Prov 30:5, Num 23:19, and Ps 119:42-43,86, 3. Widespread Confirmation: Did Christians every-where generally accept the book as scripture?
sonofcohen 2 years ago
"Does the book contradict what the Bible says anywhere else? If so, throw it out."
There are many contradictions in the bible, especially in the God character.
Why not throw it all out?
86adamleon 2 years ago
It's always interesting how those outside the faith tell us that their are contradictions in the Bible. Could it be that that contradictions are due to you lack of understanding and making assumptions. My guess is you have been indoctrinated since infancy with your own set of beliefs, only a fool thinks he is immune to pre concieved notions of what is true. How we define God, defines our lives.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Actually, I was indoctrinated with your beliefs from infancy.
That's right; I was a devout fundamentalist christian for twenty years. Near the end of it, I wanted to devote my life to working for God. I'm not the one making assumptions here; I've read the bible, and I've studied it.
Have you?
Or are you too busy wasting people's time on youtube, calling those you've never met 'fools', while totally disregarding their previous comments?
86adamleon 2 years ago
I left the church at a young age because my youth pastor blew his brains out after getting a 17 year old pregnant. He had a 6month old baby and a wife that he left behind. However, God worked in my life and now I am a full time minister. I've studied intently and read a lot of non-theist publications. Your rebuttals are emotionally charged and you like to get your little jabs in which make me think you didn't leave for intellectual reasons but you got betrayed & never recovered I could b wrong
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. That's a real tragedy.
I'm sorry that I was so emotionally charged; I just cannot stand to be called a fool by a person who has never even met me.
I wouldn't have left the church for anything; even when I found out my that my favorite priest was a child molester. That didn't matter to me, nothing could separate me from God, so long as the truth was on my side.
That "truth" started to whittle away, more and more as I studied the bible.
86adamleon 2 years ago
your priest? Were you catholic? That is not what I would consider fundamentalist Christianity. I never called you a fool though, I stated you would be a fool to think that neither of us came to the discussion without some sort of background, therefore making the statement that I was incapable of knowing the truth difficult simply because I was born into the religion irrelevant.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
While Catholics usually don't stress the infallibility of the bible, like most Protestants, they Do stress the infallibility of the Pope; who is supposed to talk directly to God, and cannot be questioned, like most of their other doctrines. Sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.
And now that you better explained the whole fool debacle, I feel foolish! lol
Sorry for misunderstanding you!!
86adamleon 2 years ago
That is not how I would define fundamentalism because it denies some big fundamentals. If I was raised Catholic I probably would have had huge problems too. I was never raised to believe any human other than Jesus was infallible. Perhaps some confuse God with religion and walk away from both.....
sonofcohen 2 years ago
Just because you don't agree with the Catholic Church, doesn't mean that they aren't fundamentalist, the same way Muslims are fundamentalist.
My problem wasn't Catholicism. In fact, I really enjoyed the church, and all of it's teachings.
The real problem that lead to my apostasy, was whether or not the bible was true, and whether or not Jesus, and God, were real.
Which brings me to my next question, what is your evidence of God? What makes Him more real than Zeus, or Odin, or Allah?
86adamleon 2 years ago
Do tel though, what downfall of truth in your eyes was the last straw and made you leave. Not the church per say because that is a different discussion but God as he is revealed in the scriptures
sonofcohen 2 years ago
There was no "Last straw," that I can pinpoint. It was a series of heated debates with everyone. They brought up many good points about the existence of Jesus, and God, which brought me to question religion.
This worsened with my extensive independent studies; alienating everyone, and spending whole weeks in the library.
The most important part that lead me to my apostasy, was my diurnal inner reflections; working out the facts with my own faculties of logic, and limited thought processes.
:D
86adamleon 2 years ago
Debates on youtube? You say debates about Jesus and God brought you to question religion. Jesus and God have nothing to do with religion, they hated religion. You should question it, but I think it would be hard to come to a point where I denied my creator. Like you said you have a limited thought process. To me it sounds like you had lots of religion and no real relationship with Jesus. I could be wrong but that would be my guess. I could never deny the impact he has had on my life.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
The debates weren't on Youtube. lol
I held to my belief in Jesus for a long time after I decided to stop going to church. From there I stopped believing in Jesus, since he seemed too similar to most pagan demi-gods, and then I stopped actively believing in God.
People can have a realistic relationship with many different imaginary characters, so that leads me to ask; do you have any evidence that Jesus isn't just imaginary?
I cannot deny the impact Yossarian, from Catch-22, had on my life.
86adamleon 2 years ago
@86adamleon you know that Yossarian is a fictional character so his impact on you is not a good argument. Howeverm if you believed Catch-22 to be a historical document that would be another story. Only the skeptics on the fringe of thinking actually state the Jesus never existed. Most of them, you will find, at least believe he existed and the majority state that he at least claimed to be God. It is when it comes to his divinty that people have a really hard time.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I used the example of the fictional character, Yossarian, to demonstrate that they can still have an impact on people's lives.
A relationship with him, doesn't make him doesn't make him anymore real.
It doesn't matter what the majority says, when you are searching for the truth.
I don't know if a man named Jesus lived, or not. I don't have any contemporary, extra-biblical evidence of him. Do you?
I also don't know if Hercules or Apollo walked the Earth, as the ancient greeks believed.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Firstly, many scholars accept the gospel of Luke to be of great historical value. he was a first rate historian and a highly educated man who went about doing a research paper of sorts on the man Jesus funded by a roman official also we have the writing of Pliny the younger & Tacticus to name a few. That is a lot for a man who only preached for three years in remote parts of the world the majority of the time.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
You may want to refer to my previous discussion with Paulkazy1 on this issue.
Pliny the Younger couldn't have been a contemporary of Jesus, since Jesus was supposed to have died around 33 AD,
and Pliny was born in 61 AD.
Tacticus' Book 15 of the Annals, was written in the early second century, and talks mostly about the Christian beliefs.
That isn't much for a man who claimed to be the son of God, performed miracles, and even caused zombies to walk in Israel.
Matthew 27:52-53
lol
86adamleon 2 years ago
actually seems pretty great for a man who taught for three years in the back woods of Jerusalem and never held a political office or wrote a book. we give just as good evidence of his life as scholars give for other ancient historical figures but ultimate critics are never ultimately satisfied. Most scholars disagree with you and that is really good enough for me. You are on the fringe of thinking not me when it comes to wether or not Jesus existed.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I'll agree that the majority of people are on your side of this argument, but that doesn't make you right, and it isn't even a valid argument; at one point everyone thought the Earth was flat.
I don't care if ALL the scholars disagreed with me --which they don't-- unless you can provide a contemporary, extra-biblical, eye-witness account of Jesus, then I have no reason to think he ever lived.
It would be a start, but even then, I would have a hard time believing the claims made about him.
86adamleon 2 years ago
@86adamleon Well first, just because an account isn't eyewitness doesn't invalidate it. One must not be an eyewitness in order to be accurate as long as they rely on good source material. Also, just because there are no eyewitness accounts doesn't automatically invalidate it, either. How many eyewitnesses of 911 sat down and wrote accounts afterwards vs. the millions that were in NYC that day and billions that saw it on TV? Also the Bible is an excellent source of eyewitness testimony. ...
Brian685 2 years ago
The bible is a terrible source of eyewitness testimony, because we have no idea who wrote them, and we have no original copies.
Also there are a multitude of major discrepancies, and omissions throughout the biblical story of Jesus.
My point, isn't necessarily that Jesus never existed, but more along the point that there's no way for us to know who he really was;
or what the source of 'miracles' were, since those aspects seemed to be edited into the stories later by the romans.
86adamleon 2 years ago
@86adamleon Now, Re. the Bible, I know you probably don't believe that, and I don't expect you to, one reason I mentioned it last ... but just because it's the Bible doesn't invalidate it, there are many eyewitness accounts and historians have relied upon since the beginning. Again, ID expect you to believe this, but I would like to say it in passing just so you're aware, but the Bible says God promised to preserve His word ... which includes eyewitness test. You should at least check it out.
Brian685 2 years ago
I've studied the bible, and if you read the many different translations, you'll see that there is no way that it has remained unchanged through the thousands of years it's been passed down.
No offense, but asserting that the bible is true, because the bible says it's true, seems somewhat silly to me.
I'm not trying to pick on Christianity, or anything. Your faith doesn't bother me, I just wanted to give you the reasons I'm in my position.
I enjoy these conversations, believe it or not!!
lol
86adamleon 2 years ago
@86adamleon Also, Josephus mentioned John the Baptist and James, brother of Chirst in latter passages in Antiquities. Both of these passages are accepted even more so than the Test. Flav. How can you be the brother of a fictional character? Anyway ... just some thoughts in passing. Keep searching!!! Wishing you all the best. .....
Brian685 2 years ago
Since Josephus was born in 37 A.D. it was impossible for him to be talking about a first hand account of Jesus Christ, since he reportedly died around
33 A.D.
In that particular passage, he seems to be doing nothing more than reiterating the beliefs of the Christians.
It's not like he saw Jesus get crucified, and then wrote about it; he was merely passing on the folklore.
Jesus may have lived, but for the same reason that I dismiss Hercules, I have no way to verify the claims made about him.
86adamleon 2 years ago
Comment removed
playjproductionz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@86adamleon, What you are not considering is that Josephus was a historian. Our historians today know about things that happened 20 , 30 years ago and beyond.
Don't you think that there were probably plenty of evidence in Josephus' time that we do not have today?
Legends and myths grow over hundreds of years....don't you think that he is close enough to Jesus' time to grow up knowing whether it were a true story or a myth? think about it.
playjproductionz 2 years ago
That's a sound argument you made...
However, using that logic, you can also dismiss Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal of Carthage, and so on, because we didn't live in their lifetime.
Now, we know for fact that these persons existed due to the historical record - as in Jesus' case...
WeAreChangeMelbourne 1 year ago
Allow me to elaborate.
My point was Not that we should dismiss Jesus, merely because we never lived in his lifetime.
My point was that the cited historians couldn't give a first-person account of Jesus, since Jesus died before their birth. Instead they merely repeated the stories about him.
If Caesar was just a made up personage, it wouldn't matter, as much as it would matter that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-peace!
86adamleon 1 year ago
That's also a fair statement.
Not to stick on the same argument again, but Pontius Pilate, who lived at the time as Jesus, also had no first-hand accounts of his existence (to my knowledge anyway - I could be wrong). However, recently, a stone fragment was discovered that bears his name!
The best way to determine whether Jesus in fact existed or not is by prophecy. To examine if Biblical prophecy is and has been effective; which historically is evident. i.e., Alexander the Great, Tyre, etc
WeAreChangeMelbourne 1 year ago
WeAreChangeMelbourne If Jesus was such a miracle worker, you can be quite certain that the Romans woud have dragged him to Rome, to perform in the Coliseum.
lizazoon 1 year ago
My friend, history tells us that the Coloseum was completed around 80AD!!
I don't think someone will entertain the audience after they've been declared deceased...
WeAreChangeMelbourne 1 year ago
@86adamleon as with many things in life my belief in Jesus requires faith and I am always up front about that and don't think that is a scape goat answer. I think it is a reasonable faith and though my first choice to follow Jesus was made with my heart after much study and I know I can follow him with my head as well. If he was a fake fictional character why is there no historical documents saying he is fictitious? And by the way he is not a mix of other beliefs, that is an old atheist myth
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I don't feel that faith is a scape-goat answer either. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want; Fairies, Bacchus, pink unicorns, big foot, radio active zombies, or whatever.
I, on the other hand, like to try and differentiate between what's real, and what's not Real. So I shed myself of my emotional biases, and used my facilities of reasoned logic, and demonstrable evidence, in order to make valid distinctions.
I don't claim to know there is no God, but I see no reason to posit one.
:P
86adamleon 2 years ago
I too want to only believe in what is true, I don't want to dedicate my life to empty myths. And the belief in Jesus as the Messiah spoken of in the old testament is perfectly valid. If he was lying don't you think his mother and brothers would have called him on it instead of being his followers? What is your response to books by scholars like william lane craig? Especially "reasonable faith" You said you did lots of research so I am sure that this is one you have read already...
sonofcohen 2 years ago
So, your argument is that the Bible is true, because the bible says its true?
I'm not convinced that Jesus ever lived, but if he had, the acceptance of his family doesn't mean he's the son of God.
No offense, I'm not really a fan of Mr. Craig, since I find that his arguments are hinged on logical fallacies, special pleading, and confirmation biases.
Nevertheless, I'm very willing to listen if you have an argument you think is worth sharing.
Hope all is well with you!
86adamleon 2 years ago
really? you think that is the argument I am making? you sure do like to put words in my mouth. I would like to see you debate someone of his caliber. i have a debate of him vs hitchens and hitchens can't turn down a single one of his points he just jumps to his same old slandering and rhetoric.
sonofcohen 2 years ago
I never put any words in your mouth; you said that the validity of Jesus was backed up by the old testament prophecy.
You were essentially saying, that the Old Testament proves the New Testament.
I don't really like Hitchens either. He seems like a dim-witted alarmist, trying to sell books.
I would gladly debate Mr. Craig on any subject; although I doubt he would want to degrade himself by facing an autodidact writer, who dropped out of High School, and has a big fear of speaking publicly.
86adamleon 2 years ago
"I would like to see you debate someone of his caliber."
Why?
I'm guessing that you mean Craig.
You shouldn't under estimate yourself. So far, you've shown your capacity for intelligent and competent conversation, and
Aren't you a minister?
86adamleon 2 years ago