7:15 Jesus died around 32 AD...the first of the NT books were written 10-20 years after his death, 60-70 AD. How many misstatements can one person make in a debate?
Psalmist91, once you posit supernatural explanations, why is it that the God hypothesis the only valid option? Why can't one argue for other supernatural options? D'Souza looks at natural explanations to account for the resurrection of Jesus and comparing them to his *supernatural* explanation, he concludes that his supernatural is the only logical one. But why? Why is there only one supernatural plausibility of the resurrection?
Notice the difference between his clarity, his convictions, and the reasonableness of his views on point after point.
Loftus is consistently weak, unpersuasive - a mess.
Contra to an earlier comment, D'Souza's argument about the failure of the Romans and Jews to produce the body is a strong argument. Other proffered explanations (appeared dead/resuscitated, etc.) are not plausible.
Likewise, critics efforts to re-date Scripture writers as far later are unsupportable.
So, the best explanation for an empty tomb and a few people thinking he was alive was that god resurrected his only son? The funniest thing about this is that we have modern examples were people claim to see someone we know to be dead; many people claim to have seen Elvis after his death, for example. And there need be no explanations for which there are no facts - these claims are not facts, as historians such as Bart Ehrman agree.
@piprod01 Spider man was real! because there is a place called new york....spider man crawled along side the empire state building....and there was a building there called that, and OOOOOO look there are tones of books and subject matter on this spectacular and amazing spiderman....I could just immagine 40 years from now say global catastrophe someone finds spiderman books, and then makes a religion out of it haha
LOL, Dinesh at 9:42: "your professor is wrong". Yes, dear "freethinking" atheists, sometimes even college professors are WRONG. We know you love your human worship, but it's true--humans are fallible.
God, however, is never wrong. So why do "freethinkers" put their trust in fallible human secularists? Hmmm....
Even if you grant the Gospels at 70AD that is still very early for ancient history. More importantly, Paul is dated significantly earlier and he is an eyewitness! Two keys of historicity are early and eyewitness. Several highly influential critical scholars date the tradition that Paul teaches (1 Cor. 15:3-7) to the early 30's! Quite earlier than 70 (which is still good).
how did loftus get invited to this debate? he's not worthy of serving water to dinesh, let alone having a thoughtful, fact based, debate on his own shoe size
None of his claims are HISTORICAL FACTS! I can never take Christians serious, fools and shysters..those are the two types..fools and those who live by the fruits of the fools labour.
You are incorrect...these are historical facts recorded by christian, roman, and jewish sources. There are more primary source evidences for the historical Jesus than for Alexander the Great.
Ok lets say I accept YOUR CLAIM. Show me one primary source from Roman or Jewish records that say there was a man named Jesus who was born of a virgin, died on a cross and rose again. I know that up to date we have not a single primary source thats extra biblical that says yes the guy the bible speaks of was in fact a historical figure. You are either a LIAR or simply a fool. And stop lying there are way more primary sources about Alexander. You are a joke
Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus are all extrabiblical, independent sources which attest to a christ figure in Palestine. BTW, ALL HISTORY IS BASED ON HEARSAY. We believe Alexander the Great existed because of the relics and coins which bore his face. From the evidence we conclude that he existed. We believe Jesus existed because after his death, a huge christian movement began which impacted the entire Greco Roman World, also there are dozens of historical documents which attest to his existence
Hahahaha.. We believe Alexander existed because we have artefacts and for Jesus because a huge movement aroud. A huge movement also arouse to worship Brahma, must be real then. You are funny. This is why I never take Theists remotely serious. Plus I have issues with Denish's Catholic Church which has changed its mind and has been wrong so many times makes me think if there was GOD and he inspired that Bible, he must be a real schlemiel. You people are putz, and stop lying about evidence. peace
from all the evidence we can come to a reasonable conclusion Jesus existed. U however have no evidence of Jesus' non existence except for ur personal bias and feelings on the matter.
Yes I also have no evidence that the earth isnt suspended in space by nylon strings. You are free to walk and claim that the jesus of the bible was historical but you still have no extra-biblical proof of that. But is funny that if there was so much evidence that all the non-Western Christians are sinners wanting to piss off you and your GOD. Cryto-zoologists have to produce evidence of their claim but all you do is say I have evidence yet produce none. You are funny goy. truly.
Just because you call someone an idiot or a liar doesn't make that so. Are you capable of making an argument without defaming those you disagree with as liars? What is your explanation? Did everything just come about on its own? Let's see you put together an argument instead of just insulting people.
By the biblical definition the term fools refers to people who discuss with certainty things they do not know about. A liar is someone who deliberately makes a patently incorrect statement with the intent to distort the truth. Hence both Dinesh and wjb67ii are both liars and fools. What historical fact? He is a liar. As for the origin of the Universe, no one knows how the universe came about. What I BELIEVE is unimportant. When you don't know, you just don't. Whats God's origin? Same problem!
U are a fool and a liar, according by ur own definition.
If u have studied Aquinas' Contigency argument and first cause arguments, if uve read just a little of leibniz and most cosmologists from Hawking, Mullen and Einstein u would realize the universe began to exist in the big bang singuarlity. Even the skeptic david hume agrees that things dont come into existence uncaused, so the universe had a cause, so according to most scientists, the universe came into existence out of nothing.
Theodicy? Well it didnt come out of nothing but its too long of an explanation to give. You show me your GOD and you have everyone convinced. Its that simple really.
wat was God's origin. Things either exist contigently or neccesarily. The universe is contigent, an infinite regress of contigent causes cannot exist, thus there was a first, neccesary cause which created the universe. Things which exist neccesarily do not have causes, God is eternal and does not have a cause.
LMAO..so you have no evidence for your Theistic god except philosophical arguments which can be made for the flying spaghetti monster. You are rediculous. If you simply posit that God existed all the time why can't we assume the same of the universe which the Hindus say has cycles of creations and destructions which would explain the big bang and the creation of our universe much better than your creation myth.
I love how you have twisted the argument here. You turned it away from the historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth after you were shown many extrabiblical sources...and turned it to "Prove God". In between you just break down into calling names and showing the true face of modern atheism; a feeble need to be part of a group that defames another group. I am certain that you won't seek out Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus or the Talmudic and Hadith sources or the archeological evidence
actually I dismissed you because its painfully obvious you havent read the supposed extra biblical sources. The sources were not contemporary and only relay to us that there are these people who follow a cult to a man called Jesus. they show no evidence that it was the Jesus of the later gospels nor that their cult founder lived. And actually I have freinds who left the seminary and have actually read the extrabiblical sources myself. You are a fool and a liar, thats a statement of fact! peace
The fact that there was a "cult" at all shows that there was a Jesus. Perhaps you should look up the term "corporate memory"? And you should read the Talmudic sources whih are specifically not what you claim them to be. Why exactly do I care about your friend who failed at the seminary? You dig yourself deeper every time you open your mouth.
a goy blait a goy! The cult proves the existence of Jesus? LMAO...Yes sir makes perfect sense. I guess it means that the Hanuman and his cohorts did exist after all. Its funny how these FACTS are there yes the overwhelming number of scientists are not Christian is at all Theistic. As a historian I also find it odd that the supposed most important event in human history is contained in documents that have been edited for content and no proof exist for the cult leader/founder. Golem you are funny
Yes it does. taken with ALL the other documentary history both biblical and non biblical it certainly does. A historian is what you call yourself now? Sorry kid...but reading a book or two of propoganda does not a historian make. But ok you have a shot here: prove your side, instead of just doubting.
LMAO documentary history? We have no documents from during his life, zero! There is nothing to prove, without evidence I accept the obvious. I do not doubt I dismiss the silly claims and when you people parrot the idea of history and fact for the mass of ignorant/believers I am just ashamed to think that in 2010 we are still that childish.
lol. Of course you ignore the "Q" document which was compiled during Jesus' lifetime. You cling only to theory that buttresses your pre concieved notions.
I guess you are a follower of Crossan and his nonesense. But not to seem silly but what museum is that Q document housed? I am not sure how you know it was compiled or who compiled it but I just want to know what museum it is in or library. I would like to access it. My preconcieved notion is that neither you nor the men who wrote those ideas nor the men who edited them have any proof that any man was born without sperm and when dead for days rose and violated known physics and biology. LMAO
Still waiting to know what Museum, Library or Archive has the famed document Q. I have access to the best archives in the world so would be willing and able to access it, doubt I would be able to read it but I can at least have someone do it. So let me know so i no longer ignore it
Events are taken to be reliable if evidence exists. Historians look for things like archaeological evidence, multiple corroborating contemporaneous accounts (within 10 years after the event), enemy attestation & the more details & less appeals to the supernatural the better
Socrates has all those things. Jesus has NONE. There isn't a shred of evidence beyond the non-corroborating, non-contemporaneous Gospel accounts that Jesus even existed. None of the Gospel writers were even alive in 30 CE.
the 4 gospels, Josephus Tacitius and Suetonius, the huge social impact that Jesus had on the region.
All Socrates had was 3 disciples who claimed his he existed, it seems like ur appyling a different standard to Jesus that u wouldnt normally do if it were another historical figure.
You are either hoping I am ignorant or you are a liar and a fool. The men you quoted said there are people who are Christians who follow a guy named Jesus. there is no where where they said he was born of a virgin, died and rose again. Therego there is no proof for the Jesus as described by the modern western Christian Gospels. As for Socrates he didnt claim that he was the saviour of the world and his father was GOD. Golem you are funny.
The 4 Gospel accounts came 40+ years later and don't corroborate each other. Josephus was also 40 years later & historians pretty much universally agree that Josephus was heavily redacted by the early church. Tacitus was 2nd century and Suetonius was even later. None of these are even close to contemporaneous accounts.
Whereas Socrates has numerous contemporaneous accounts, enemy attestation, a record of his family background & war record, and no appeals to the supernatural required.
Actually Mathew and John were both direct apostles of Jesus alive and well at the time. Luke was a contemporary of Paul who not only knew Jesus but was actively persecuting him and his followers. Mark was Peter's hand picked scribe. So the claim that the gospel writers were not alive in 30 ad is preposterous.
You are fun though. At one point the Catholics were there claiming the earth was the centre of the universe, that there were dog headed men, they didnt even know that places like Australia existed much less the new world, yet the book they compiled as the suposed word of God is what you want me to take serious. We have no extra-biblical verification that the dude walked the earth. Ýou claim we do except those sources talk about a cult and the possible leader, none were contemporary! Goilem
Ah so the supposed "historian" is now making up his own facts? Glorious. I'll have you know that it was Catholic Church who proved Copernicus was correct. Who are you trying to kid? Oh, that's right you are used to bashing ignorant fundamentalist teenagers. lol.
Actually you are worst. They Catholic Church did persecute scientific minds, it did for centuries preach that we were the centre of the universe, it did alter the bible by editing and selecting books, the one thing it failed to do was to manufacture solid proof of Jesus' existance. Could you imagine some guy raised people from the dead and no contemporary physician recorded that and sent it to Rome. He was killed and rose from the dead and thousands saw him yet took decades to write it down.
Historians date Mark, the earliest gospel account, at 70 CE at the earliest. The other 3 were derived from Mark, meaning they came later. The gospels are at best second hand and far more likely third or more hand. In all likelihood not one of them was even alive during Jesus' alleged ministry. All we have of the 40 or more year gap comes from Paul who even implies Jesus never even walked the Earth in Hebrews 8:4. Paul also never acknowledges any of the events of Jesus' alleged life & ministry.
You are mistaken. Some historians date the first gospel at 70CE...some at 40CE...some also posit an earlier "Q" document from which Mathew Mark and Luke drew. John on the other hand lived well past 70 CE and is accepted to have written the gospel that bears his name and no...we have non canonical documents such as the Didiche that pre dates Paul's espistles. You may cling to one historical point of view that supports your non belief...that's fine...but it's also not the entire story.
Who dates the 1st gospel at 40 CE? That would put it around the same time as Paul's early writings & before Mark, which both Luke & Matthew derived their own gospels. Even if you accept the hypothesis of the Q document as a 2nd source, they still couldn't have derived any of their work from Mark before Mark had even written the work they borrowed from. And if you're saying Mark was written around 40 CE, that flies in the face of biblical scholarship. This is the "Synoptic Problem."
who is Dinesh kidding here? I guess that means Odysseus, Gilgamesh, and Zeus are all true because the oral tradition is such a reliable way of determining history. Anyone who thinks oral tradition is reliable should play telephone and eat pop rocks while drinking Coca Cola. Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree either. Oral tradition is BS in any time period.
btw, the epic of gilgamesh was an epic poem just like the aeneid, the inferno and paradise lost and the Odyseey. It was not passed down with the same authority such as the events of the babylonian captivity.
Gilgamesh and The Odyssey were passed along from generation to generation orally for hundreds of years before anyone wrote them down. They are quintessential examples of the oral tradition. Much of the Bible was passed along the same way.
Not only can Dinesh not point us to an actual tomb of Jesus, but even if he could point to the tomb, it would just look like an empty tomb. That's not evidence of anything. And the Bible accounts don't even agree with each other on many of the most important facts. That Dinesh considers this ridiculous story from anonymous sources that couldn't even get their stories straight a reasonable argument illustrates his inconsistency.
The Tomb was empty, that is a historical fact. It then calls for an explanation of y it was empty. A plausible explanation for this would be that Jesus rose from the dead. If u can offer a better explanation lets hear it. And the "disciples stole the body" theory has been rebutted so many times......
Not capable of rational thought? You ask tomb? Where? When? Which? and then you admit there "anonymous authors" that wrote about it, answering the questions.
Actually they are not anonymous either. I will give you at least 4 guesses.
Do we have medical evidence that, oh say, Herod died? or pick anyone out of a secular history book.
Well you would certainly have a long way to go to prove that. sure it's possible that some medieval craftsman invented a photography machine (for this one project and then never used it again or told anyone) and imported real blood and pollen from 56 different plants indigenous to Palestine to use on it. Then faked all the documentary evidence for it. Rrrrigghtttt....
Golem you are a funny one. I must admit I do enjoy talking with Christians as much as Muslims. Both have a magic book but zero proof to back their certainty. I rather like Christian fundamentalists, at least they just say, faith and thats that. But you people want to claim there is extra biblical evidence when there is none. The sources talk about the cult and who the cult believe their leader was. They never saw him and did not verify his existence. A goy blait a goy!
The Bishop to whom the cloth was originally given lived in the 13th century. The Church admits it received it then Nothing is known of it before. There's no blood on it; it's art pigment. The painting process is known. Pollen is everywhere. Even if the cloth is from 33 C.E. what could it prove? That a body, dead, alive, unwounded with applied blood or pigment, or wounded, was covered by it. How would it prove Jesus, a death and a resurrection? Don't be stupid, don't be gullible, or both.
7:15 Jesus died around 32 AD...the first of the NT books were written 10-20 years after his death, 60-70 AD. How many misstatements can one person make in a debate?
mjt532 4 months ago
Psalmist91, once you posit supernatural explanations, why is it that the God hypothesis the only valid option? Why can't one argue for other supernatural options? D'Souza looks at natural explanations to account for the resurrection of Jesus and comparing them to his *supernatural* explanation, he concludes that his supernatural is the only logical one. But why? Why is there only one supernatural plausibility of the resurrection?
BigVK19 5 months ago
D'Souza is excellent.
Notice the difference between his clarity, his convictions, and the reasonableness of his views on point after point.
Loftus is consistently weak, unpersuasive - a mess.
Contra to an earlier comment, D'Souza's argument about the failure of the Romans and Jews to produce the body is a strong argument. Other proffered explanations (appeared dead/resuscitated, etc.) are not plausible.
Likewise, critics efforts to re-date Scripture writers as far later are unsupportable.
psalmist91 7 months ago in playlist Dinesh D'Souza / John W. Loftus Feb 9, 2010 Debate
and then people question whether or not a man named Stan lee existed hahahahAZha
MadMAn12gauge 8 months ago
So, the best explanation for an empty tomb and a few people thinking he was alive was that god resurrected his only son? The funniest thing about this is that we have modern examples were people claim to see someone we know to be dead; many people claim to have seen Elvis after his death, for example. And there need be no explanations for which there are no facts - these claims are not facts, as historians such as Bart Ehrman agree.
piprod01 1 year ago
@piprod01 Spider man was real! because there is a place called new york....spider man crawled along side the empire state building....and there was a building there called that, and OOOOOO look there are tones of books and subject matter on this spectacular and amazing spiderman....I could just immagine 40 years from now say global catastrophe someone finds spiderman books, and then makes a religion out of it haha
MadMAn12gauge 8 months ago
LOL, Dinesh at 9:42: "your professor is wrong". Yes, dear "freethinking" atheists, sometimes even college professors are WRONG. We know you love your human worship, but it's true--humans are fallible.
God, however, is never wrong. So why do "freethinkers" put their trust in fallible human secularists? Hmmm....
Sweet92Sue 1 year ago
John Loftus makes a silly statement and the atheists, like the clapping seals/lemmings they are at these events, laugh.
And they think they're the "freethinkers". *sigh*
Sweet92Sue 1 year ago
Even if you grant the Gospels at 70AD that is still very early for ancient history. More importantly, Paul is dated significantly earlier and he is an eyewitness! Two keys of historicity are early and eyewitness. Several highly influential critical scholars date the tradition that Paul teaches (1 Cor. 15:3-7) to the early 30's! Quite earlier than 70 (which is still good).
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
how did loftus get invited to this debate? he's not worthy of serving water to dinesh, let alone having a thoughtful, fact based, debate on his own shoe size
mollkatles 2 years ago
@mollkatles That is your opinion.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
None of his claims are HISTORICAL FACTS! I can never take Christians serious, fools and shysters..those are the two types..fools and those who live by the fruits of the fools labour.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
You are incorrect...these are historical facts recorded by christian, roman, and jewish sources. There are more primary source evidences for the historical Jesus than for Alexander the Great.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
Ok lets say I accept YOUR CLAIM. Show me one primary source from Roman or Jewish records that say there was a man named Jesus who was born of a virgin, died on a cross and rose again. I know that up to date we have not a single primary source thats extra biblical that says yes the guy the bible speaks of was in fact a historical figure. You are either a LIAR or simply a fool. And stop lying there are way more primary sources about Alexander. You are a joke
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus are all extrabiblical, independent sources which attest to a christ figure in Palestine. BTW, ALL HISTORY IS BASED ON HEARSAY. We believe Alexander the Great existed because of the relics and coins which bore his face. From the evidence we conclude that he existed. We believe Jesus existed because after his death, a huge christian movement began which impacted the entire Greco Roman World, also there are dozens of historical documents which attest to his existence
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Hahahaha.. We believe Alexander existed because we have artefacts and for Jesus because a huge movement aroud. A huge movement also arouse to worship Brahma, must be real then. You are funny. This is why I never take Theists remotely serious. Plus I have issues with Denish's Catholic Church which has changed its mind and has been wrong so many times makes me think if there was GOD and he inspired that Bible, he must be a real schlemiel. You people are putz, and stop lying about evidence. peace
CamAtheist 2 years ago
from all the evidence we can come to a reasonable conclusion Jesus existed. U however have no evidence of Jesus' non existence except for ur personal bias and feelings on the matter.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Yes I also have no evidence that the earth isnt suspended in space by nylon strings. You are free to walk and claim that the jesus of the bible was historical but you still have no extra-biblical proof of that. But is funny that if there was so much evidence that all the non-Western Christians are sinners wanting to piss off you and your GOD. Cryto-zoologists have to produce evidence of their claim but all you do is say I have evidence yet produce none. You are funny goy. truly.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Yep, i agree completly
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Just because you call someone an idiot or a liar doesn't make that so. Are you capable of making an argument without defaming those you disagree with as liars? What is your explanation? Did everything just come about on its own? Let's see you put together an argument instead of just insulting people.
koyunbaba73 2 years ago
By the biblical definition the term fools refers to people who discuss with certainty things they do not know about. A liar is someone who deliberately makes a patently incorrect statement with the intent to distort the truth. Hence both Dinesh and wjb67ii are both liars and fools. What historical fact? He is a liar. As for the origin of the Universe, no one knows how the universe came about. What I BELIEVE is unimportant. When you don't know, you just don't. Whats God's origin? Same problem!
CamAtheist 2 years ago
U are a fool and a liar, according by ur own definition.
If u have studied Aquinas' Contigency argument and first cause arguments, if uve read just a little of leibniz and most cosmologists from Hawking, Mullen and Einstein u would realize the universe began to exist in the big bang singuarlity. Even the skeptic david hume agrees that things dont come into existence uncaused, so the universe had a cause, so according to most scientists, the universe came into existence out of nothing.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Theodicy? Well it didnt come out of nothing but its too long of an explanation to give. You show me your GOD and you have everyone convinced. Its that simple really.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
wat was God's origin. Things either exist contigently or neccesarily. The universe is contigent, an infinite regress of contigent causes cannot exist, thus there was a first, neccesary cause which created the universe. Things which exist neccesarily do not have causes, God is eternal and does not have a cause.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
LMAO..so you have no evidence for your Theistic god except philosophical arguments which can be made for the flying spaghetti monster. You are rediculous. If you simply posit that God existed all the time why can't we assume the same of the universe which the Hindus say has cycles of creations and destructions which would explain the big bang and the creation of our universe much better than your creation myth.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
I love how you have twisted the argument here. You turned it away from the historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth after you were shown many extrabiblical sources...and turned it to "Prove God". In between you just break down into calling names and showing the true face of modern atheism; a feeble need to be part of a group that defames another group. I am certain that you won't seek out Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus or the Talmudic and Hadith sources or the archeological evidence
wjb67ii 2 years ago
actually I dismissed you because its painfully obvious you havent read the supposed extra biblical sources. The sources were not contemporary and only relay to us that there are these people who follow a cult to a man called Jesus. they show no evidence that it was the Jesus of the later gospels nor that their cult founder lived. And actually I have freinds who left the seminary and have actually read the extrabiblical sources myself. You are a fool and a liar, thats a statement of fact! peace
CamAtheist 2 years ago
The fact that there was a "cult" at all shows that there was a Jesus. Perhaps you should look up the term "corporate memory"? And you should read the Talmudic sources whih are specifically not what you claim them to be. Why exactly do I care about your friend who failed at the seminary? You dig yourself deeper every time you open your mouth.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
a goy blait a goy! The cult proves the existence of Jesus? LMAO...Yes sir makes perfect sense. I guess it means that the Hanuman and his cohorts did exist after all. Its funny how these FACTS are there yes the overwhelming number of scientists are not Christian is at all Theistic. As a historian I also find it odd that the supposed most important event in human history is contained in documents that have been edited for content and no proof exist for the cult leader/founder. Golem you are funny
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Yes it does. taken with ALL the other documentary history both biblical and non biblical it certainly does. A historian is what you call yourself now? Sorry kid...but reading a book or two of propoganda does not a historian make. But ok you have a shot here: prove your side, instead of just doubting.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
LMAO documentary history? We have no documents from during his life, zero! There is nothing to prove, without evidence I accept the obvious. I do not doubt I dismiss the silly claims and when you people parrot the idea of history and fact for the mass of ignorant/believers I am just ashamed to think that in 2010 we are still that childish.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
lol. Of course you ignore the "Q" document which was compiled during Jesus' lifetime. You cling only to theory that buttresses your pre concieved notions.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
I guess you are a follower of Crossan and his nonesense. But not to seem silly but what museum is that Q document housed? I am not sure how you know it was compiled or who compiled it but I just want to know what museum it is in or library. I would like to access it. My preconcieved notion is that neither you nor the men who wrote those ideas nor the men who edited them have any proof that any man was born without sperm and when dead for days rose and violated known physics and biology. LMAO
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Still waiting to know what Museum, Library or Archive has the famed document Q. I have access to the best archives in the world so would be willing and able to access it, doubt I would be able to read it but I can at least have someone do it. So let me know so i no longer ignore it
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Events are taken to be reliable if evidence exists. Historians look for things like archaeological evidence, multiple corroborating contemporaneous accounts (within 10 years after the event), enemy attestation & the more details & less appeals to the supernatural the better
Socrates has all those things. Jesus has NONE. There isn't a shred of evidence beyond the non-corroborating, non-contemporaneous Gospel accounts that Jesus even existed. None of the Gospel writers were even alive in 30 CE.
mjr256 2 years ago
Jesus had no evidence?
the 4 gospels, Josephus Tacitius and Suetonius, the huge social impact that Jesus had on the region.
All Socrates had was 3 disciples who claimed his he existed, it seems like ur appyling a different standard to Jesus that u wouldnt normally do if it were another historical figure.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
You are either hoping I am ignorant or you are a liar and a fool. The men you quoted said there are people who are Christians who follow a guy named Jesus. there is no where where they said he was born of a virgin, died and rose again. Therego there is no proof for the Jesus as described by the modern western Christian Gospels. As for Socrates he didnt claim that he was the saviour of the world and his father was GOD. Golem you are funny.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
The 4 Gospel accounts came 40+ years later and don't corroborate each other. Josephus was also 40 years later & historians pretty much universally agree that Josephus was heavily redacted by the early church. Tacitus was 2nd century and Suetonius was even later. None of these are even close to contemporaneous accounts.
Whereas Socrates has numerous contemporaneous accounts, enemy attestation, a record of his family background & war record, and no appeals to the supernatural required.
mjr256 2 years ago
Actually Mathew and John were both direct apostles of Jesus alive and well at the time. Luke was a contemporary of Paul who not only knew Jesus but was actively persecuting him and his followers. Mark was Peter's hand picked scribe. So the claim that the gospel writers were not alive in 30 ad is preposterous.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
You are fun though. At one point the Catholics were there claiming the earth was the centre of the universe, that there were dog headed men, they didnt even know that places like Australia existed much less the new world, yet the book they compiled as the suposed word of God is what you want me to take serious. We have no extra-biblical verification that the dude walked the earth. Ýou claim we do except those sources talk about a cult and the possible leader, none were contemporary! Goilem
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Ah so the supposed "historian" is now making up his own facts? Glorious. I'll have you know that it was Catholic Church who proved Copernicus was correct. Who are you trying to kid? Oh, that's right you are used to bashing ignorant fundamentalist teenagers. lol.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
Actually you are worst. They Catholic Church did persecute scientific minds, it did for centuries preach that we were the centre of the universe, it did alter the bible by editing and selecting books, the one thing it failed to do was to manufacture solid proof of Jesus' existance. Could you imagine some guy raised people from the dead and no contemporary physician recorded that and sent it to Rome. He was killed and rose from the dead and thousands saw him yet took decades to write it down.
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Historians date Mark, the earliest gospel account, at 70 CE at the earliest. The other 3 were derived from Mark, meaning they came later. The gospels are at best second hand and far more likely third or more hand. In all likelihood not one of them was even alive during Jesus' alleged ministry. All we have of the 40 or more year gap comes from Paul who even implies Jesus never even walked the Earth in Hebrews 8:4. Paul also never acknowledges any of the events of Jesus' alleged life & ministry.
mjr256 2 years ago
You are mistaken. Some historians date the first gospel at 70CE...some at 40CE...some also posit an earlier "Q" document from which Mathew Mark and Luke drew. John on the other hand lived well past 70 CE and is accepted to have written the gospel that bears his name and no...we have non canonical documents such as the Didiche that pre dates Paul's espistles. You may cling to one historical point of view that supports your non belief...that's fine...but it's also not the entire story.
wjb67ii 2 years ago
Who dates the 1st gospel at 40 CE? That would put it around the same time as Paul's early writings & before Mark, which both Luke & Matthew derived their own gospels. Even if you accept the hypothesis of the Q document as a 2nd source, they still couldn't have derived any of their work from Mark before Mark had even written the work they borrowed from. And if you're saying Mark was written around 40 CE, that flies in the face of biblical scholarship. This is the "Synoptic Problem."
mjr256 2 years ago
The oral traditional was reliable?? What?
who is Dinesh kidding here? I guess that means Odysseus, Gilgamesh, and Zeus are all true because the oral tradition is such a reliable way of determining history. Anyone who thinks oral tradition is reliable should play telephone and eat pop rocks while drinking Coca Cola. Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree either. Oral tradition is BS in any time period.
mjr256 2 years ago
btw, the epic of gilgamesh was an epic poem just like the aeneid, the inferno and paradise lost and the Odyseey. It was not passed down with the same authority such as the events of the babylonian captivity.
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Gilgamesh and The Odyssey were passed along from generation to generation orally for hundreds of years before anyone wrote them down. They are quintessential examples of the oral tradition. Much of the Bible was passed along the same way.
mjr256 2 years ago
Not only can Dinesh not point us to an actual tomb of Jesus, but even if he could point to the tomb, it would just look like an empty tomb. That's not evidence of anything. And the Bible accounts don't even agree with each other on many of the most important facts. That Dinesh considers this ridiculous story from anonymous sources that couldn't even get their stories straight a reasonable argument illustrates his inconsistency.
mjr256 2 years ago
The Tomb was empty, that is a historical fact. It then calls for an explanation of y it was empty. A plausible explanation for this would be that Jesus rose from the dead. If u can offer a better explanation lets hear it. And the "disciples stole the body" theory has been rebutted so many times......
TheWinepusher 2 years ago
Oh, is that a fact? Let me see the tomb. Oh, right. You don't have it. And if you did, it would just look like any ordinary empty tomb.
I'M CONVINCED!!!
It's at least as convincing as Superman's empty tomb. I'll give you that.
A. There's no evidence to suggest this is anything but a fictional story.
B. Even if we accepted it as a real event, there are countless more reasonable explanations for an empty tomb other than magic.
Better explanation. Some1 bribed the guard.
mjr256 2 years ago
"Even if we accepted it as a real event, there are countless more reasonable explanations for an empty tomb other than magic."
Such as...............
hypermonkey24 1 year ago
1. Jesus is imaginary
2. Jesus was mistaken for dead as was common then, woke up & walked away
3. Some1 bribed the guard
4. Like every tall tale the story has been greatly exaggerated from telling to telling
5. Jesus is real but the writers attributed fictional stories to him to promote their religion or just for entertainment
6. The facts were misinterpreted
7. The body was misplaced or stolen
8. Someone screwed up & wanted to cover up their screw up
9. Anything more plausible than magic
mjr256 1 year ago
@mjr256 Several Liberals and skeptics have refuted the majority of your explanations. They did so about 200 years ago, Strauss, Paulus, etc...
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
kman
Nothing that happens in the future is fact, yet.
FrankS1Is 2 years ago
Jesus rising from the dead is NOT a fact.
Kmangod 2 years ago
here here
CamAtheist 2 years ago
Nearenough
Not capable of rational thought? You ask tomb? Where? When? Which? and then you admit there "anonymous authors" that wrote about it, answering the questions.
Actually they are not anonymous either. I will give you at least 4 guesses.
Do we have medical evidence that, oh say, Herod died? or pick anyone out of a secular history book.
FrankS1Is 2 years ago
Empty tomb? Where? When? Which one? It's unspecified. Anonymous authors wrote these fish stories and a sucker is born every minute.
There's no MEDICAL EVIDENCE any Jesus actually died. No death, no resurrection.
The story is absurd no matter how many men with funny looking hats proclaim otherwise.
nearenough3 2 years ago
and the shroud of turin is...what now?
wjb67ii 2 years ago
A fake.
nearenough3 2 years ago
Well you would certainly have a long way to go to prove that. sure it's possible that some medieval craftsman invented a photography machine (for this one project and then never used it again or told anyone) and imported real blood and pollen from 56 different plants indigenous to Palestine to use on it. Then faked all the documentary evidence for it. Rrrrigghtttt....
wjb67ii 2 years ago
Golem you are a funny one. I must admit I do enjoy talking with Christians as much as Muslims. Both have a magic book but zero proof to back their certainty. I rather like Christian fundamentalists, at least they just say, faith and thats that. But you people want to claim there is extra biblical evidence when there is none. The sources talk about the cult and who the cult believe their leader was. They never saw him and did not verify his existence. A goy blait a goy!
CamAtheist 2 years ago
The Bishop to whom the cloth was originally given lived in the 13th century. The Church admits it received it then Nothing is known of it before. There's no blood on it; it's art pigment. The painting process is known. Pollen is everywhere. Even if the cloth is from 33 C.E. what could it prove? That a body, dead, alive, unwounded with applied blood or pigment, or wounded, was covered by it. How would it prove Jesus, a death and a resurrection? Don't be stupid, don't be gullible, or both.
nearenough3 2 years ago
The empty tomb. The assurance of the resurrection of all God's human creation - uniquely created to be uniquely connected - eternally.
bobbyq2 2 years ago