Pliny the Younger Invented the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" and the author of 75% of Acts and many of PauLs Epistles, along with Flavius Josephus Co-Inventer of christianity
Come on people, this was a time in history where many people beside the authors of the New Testament were more than capable of writing first-hand accounts on what was going in Roman Judea at this time. Why is it that NO other competent writer known to be alive DURING the time of Jesus wrote about:
@fgfgfgfg540 The old ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE approach to disbelief in the Bible & the old "most likely forged" argument when there's verifiable evidence that can be seen. Disbelief going & coming. You're most likely too far gone in your unbelieving ways & it's possible that God has turned you over to believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Romans 1:22-32) but for others willing to examine proofs see our websites BIBLEQUERY ORG, HISTORYCART COM & MUSLIMHOPE COM & Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ."
I mean, I'll start by saying that this woman is definitely TOO strongspoken, considering that her knowledge of the bible is seriously limited..
But, that doesn't deny some interesting facts of the debate, most importantly that they rely on radiocarbon dating to confirm the age of these documents, yet Christians dismiss the fact that that SAME radiocarbon dating was used to refute artifacts that Christians hail as archaeological evidence ie. the Shroud of Turin.
@fgfgfgfg540 Just because Romanism claims that the "Shroud of Turin" is true doesn't make it so (In 1988, a controversial radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390). Romanism is just as false as atheism (type "LARRY WESSELS ROMAN CATHOLICISM" in YT search box).
Typical atheist argument dictating by emotions not evidence and logic - cutting off the presenter showing their flawed reasoning while calling people derogatory names. This is why you need a structured time piece for each side I think. Otherwise emotions run the show not logic - exactly what the Atheist is counting on. Another good rule is basic courtesy not calling one side or the other childish names. It's sad how many adults act like children when conversing. Good presentation.
@Biblehastheanswer Very good analysis. The problem here was it was an informal radio debate without the normal rules of formal debate. This radio broadcast was 3 hours long & we simply took clips on selected topics from it. O'Hair was an incredibly bitter & vicious individual (she personally slammed the door in my face at the American Atheist Center) & I saw her for years at the TV studio at Time Warner (my studio time for TV broadcasts was right after hers - we actually shared the same studio).
When this woman talks about Christian "crimes", she's thinking Roman Catholicism which was never, it is not and it will never, ever be Christian, as Christianity stands for Sola Scriptura (which contradicts the vast majority of Catholic doctrines) and the death & resurrection of Jesus.
Roman Catholicism has indeed commited all kinds of atrocities throughout history (and still does to this very day), but the RCC is very anti-Bible and anti-Christian.
The main sentence from the Wiki article is at 12:55 bottom of the page, "However, a majority of modern critical scholars no longer believe this (the belief that John and Matthew were written by eye witnesses) is the case."
@csnowutube You've committed the logical fallacy of CARD STACKING (deliberate selection of evidence that supports a statement ignoring facts that don't substantiate it). You ignore the fact that even if "the majority of modern critical scholars no longer believe" concerning John & Matthew, that statement doesn't include the remaining gospels (Mark & Luke). You've also ignored the fact that a "majority" implies that a "minority" of modern critical scholars DO believe the gospels (they count too).
@ZeDingoBlag You're displaying your ignorance. This video encourages people to do some internet research but obviously you're not listening. Why don't you try typing into the web search box "LOGICAL FALLACY CARD STACKING" & see what it comes up with. The first choice that came up on our search was from "Fallacy Files" which stated, "One-Sidedness, Alias: •Card Stacking •Ignoring the Counterevidence •One-Sided Assessment •Slanting •Suppressed Evidence Type: Informal Fallacy" concerning logic.
@csnowutube Sorry but you're incorrect. The evidence is there but if someone, such as a hardened atheist like O'Hair, refuses to accept the evidence then there's really nothing anyone can do to correct the situation. It's sort of like trying to explain to Hitler that the Jews weren't that bad. Our websites BIBLEQUERY COM & HISTORYCART COM both cover this subject in detail, documenting evidence for the Biblical record. We are currently uploading our "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY" series on YT.
Pliny the Younger Invented the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" and the author of 75% of Acts and many of PauLs Epistles, along with Flavius Josephus Co-Inventer of christianity
thone2008 1 month ago
Come on people, this was a time in history where many people beside the authors of the New Testament were more than capable of writing first-hand accounts on what was going in Roman Judea at this time. Why is it that NO other competent writer known to be alive DURING the time of Jesus wrote about:
Solar eclipse on the day of crucifixion
Earthquakes on the day of crucifixion
Jesus starting a riot in the Jewish Temple
..just to name a few.
PS - Josephus' account was most likely forged.
fgfgfgfg540 4 months ago
@fgfgfgfg540 The old ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE approach to disbelief in the Bible & the old "most likely forged" argument when there's verifiable evidence that can be seen. Disbelief going & coming. You're most likely too far gone in your unbelieving ways & it's possible that God has turned you over to believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Romans 1:22-32) but for others willing to examine proofs see our websites BIBLEQUERY ORG, HISTORYCART COM & MUSLIMHOPE COM & Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ."
CAnswersTV 4 months ago
I mean, I'll start by saying that this woman is definitely TOO strongspoken, considering that her knowledge of the bible is seriously limited..
But, that doesn't deny some interesting facts of the debate, most importantly that they rely on radiocarbon dating to confirm the age of these documents, yet Christians dismiss the fact that that SAME radiocarbon dating was used to refute artifacts that Christians hail as archaeological evidence ie. the Shroud of Turin.
fgfgfgfg540 4 months ago
@fgfgfgfg540 Just because Romanism claims that the "Shroud of Turin" is true doesn't make it so (In 1988, a controversial radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390). Romanism is just as false as atheism (type "LARRY WESSELS ROMAN CATHOLICISM" in YT search box).
CAnswersTV 3 months ago
Typical atheist argument dictating by emotions not evidence and logic - cutting off the presenter showing their flawed reasoning while calling people derogatory names. This is why you need a structured time piece for each side I think. Otherwise emotions run the show not logic - exactly what the Atheist is counting on. Another good rule is basic courtesy not calling one side or the other childish names. It's sad how many adults act like children when conversing. Good presentation.
Biblehastheanswer 7 months ago
@Biblehastheanswer Very good analysis. The problem here was it was an informal radio debate without the normal rules of formal debate. This radio broadcast was 3 hours long & we simply took clips on selected topics from it. O'Hair was an incredibly bitter & vicious individual (she personally slammed the door in my face at the American Atheist Center) & I saw her for years at the TV studio at Time Warner (my studio time for TV broadcasts was right after hers - we actually shared the same studio).
CAnswersTV 7 months ago
She is the perfect example of atheism.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
lol i think people still want to debate this cause its easy to win against idiots that say jesus never existed
matrixlone 7 months ago
When this woman talks about Christian "crimes", she's thinking Roman Catholicism which was never, it is not and it will never, ever be Christian, as Christianity stands for Sola Scriptura (which contradicts the vast majority of Catholic doctrines) and the death & resurrection of Jesus.
Roman Catholicism has indeed commited all kinds of atrocities throughout history (and still does to this very day), but the RCC is very anti-Bible and anti-Christian.
Her religious knowledge is, indeed, pitiful
orlibonurb 7 months ago
The main sentence from the Wiki article is at 12:55 bottom of the page, "However, a majority of modern critical scholars no longer believe this (the belief that John and Matthew were written by eye witnesses) is the case."
Madeline was exactly right.
csnowutube 7 months ago
@csnowutube You've committed the logical fallacy of CARD STACKING (deliberate selection of evidence that supports a statement ignoring facts that don't substantiate it). You ignore the fact that even if "the majority of modern critical scholars no longer believe" concerning John & Matthew, that statement doesn't include the remaining gospels (Mark & Luke). You've also ignored the fact that a "majority" implies that a "minority" of modern critical scholars DO believe the gospels (they count too).
CAnswersTV 7 months ago
@CAnswersTV There's no logical fallacy named "card stacking."
ZeDingoBlag 7 months ago
@ZeDingoBlag Yeah there is a logical fallacy called card stacking, Its more known as one sidedness
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@ZeDingoBlag You're displaying your ignorance. This video encourages people to do some internet research but obviously you're not listening. Why don't you try typing into the web search box "LOGICAL FALLACY CARD STACKING" & see what it comes up with. The first choice that came up on our search was from "Fallacy Files" which stated, "One-Sidedness, Alias: •Card Stacking •Ignoring the Counterevidence •One-Sided Assessment •Slanting •Suppressed Evidence Type: Informal Fallacy" concerning logic.
CAnswersTV 7 months ago
@csnowutube That's a logical fallacy of arguing from authority and ad populum
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
I think she nails him. We -don't- know who wrote the bible and shouldn't speak as if we did.
csnowutube 7 months ago
@csnowutube Sorry but you're incorrect. The evidence is there but if someone, such as a hardened atheist like O'Hair, refuses to accept the evidence then there's really nothing anyone can do to correct the situation. It's sort of like trying to explain to Hitler that the Jews weren't that bad. Our websites BIBLEQUERY COM & HISTORYCART COM both cover this subject in detail, documenting evidence for the Biblical record. We are currently uploading our "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY" series on YT.
CAnswersTV 7 months ago
She is a Jezebel witch-whore of babylon!
hoseajeremiah 7 months ago
it seems like all this woman is doing is jumping to conclusions and being really ignorant.
Forcystus1337 7 months ago