Josephus died a jew. If he thought Jesus was the "messiah", he would have converted. Christian Philosophers have dismissed Josephus years upon years ago. Gene Cook was not prepared for this debate, Josephus was a great chance to pounce on Cook and crush him.
As for Jesus following the pattern of mythology, you really have to skew the data to reach that conclusion. The reverse is probably true- these greek myths took elements from Jesus' story. Though many of their names were around before Jesus, their mirroring of Jesus came about in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. "Ressurection" simply represented seasonal cycle (as plants begin to grow again) Jesus was unique, unexpected, and would not have created a following unless his miracles were genuine.
People like this don't don't hold other historical writings to the same criticism as they do to the Bible. They are eager to accept the shady things with little historical basis while eliminating things of clarity and historical reliability. Honest unbias historians can show the trustworthiness of the accounts we have in the Bible about Jesus.
Hotep / Shalom and Greetings. Bro. Batey correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't "Jesus" voted into existance by 315-318 Roman Catholic Bishops by order of Emperor Flavius Valerius Constatine @ the council of nicea 325 A.D.? Also have you read the book the Isis Thesis by Judy Kay King?
Here is a comprehensive list of the general people that will be going to hell;
Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witness, Agnostics, All Scientists and people who believe in the Scientific Process, Presbyterians, Atheists, Satanists, People who work on the Sabbath, Anyone who has had an impure thought, all blacks, Asians, The French, Italianese, Greeks, Sweeds, Norweegeians, Witches, Anyone who has ever watched a Harry Potter movie, also Germans, Dutch, and the Irish.
Anton, your memory of this knowledge is impeccable, you have argued every rebuttal perfectly and it is like my words are coming out of your mouth. This man can not keep up with you and to be honest I do not think that he is familiar with your arguments and is caught off guard. It is mind-boggling that he would naturally accept Jesus as historical figure by the same means as we accept an American president, he won't even admit that there is a clear difference.
No, Anton is not a moron, you're just a mental masturbater. Without a doubt speaking from experience you'd have to be or become a mental masturbater to believe the bible is the word of God. Not stupid, but definitely indoctrinated as a child and most definitely a mental masturbater when you become an adult and know better.
If you actually think Noah placed all the animals on the Ark, you're a mental masturbater etc. Bible says earth is flat, you believe that too?
What would be logically sufficient would be for one of the MANY historians who were in that area who recorded such trivial details such as weather patterns - to merely mention this god-man who did all of these miraculous things. "Jesus" was a common name, and "Christ" was simply a title signifying that they were a Messiah, and plenty of people made that claim. So a claim 100 years later of there being a "Christ" in that area does not verify the tales told in the Bible.
So books that are whriten now about things that happend 100 years ago is not reliabel couse the whriter of the book wasnt alive at the time ? i dont get you
Books that were written 100 years ago about a subject that no contemporaneous evidence was available for wouldn't qualify. For instance, if I claimed that 100 years ago in Mexico City, Mexico there lived a god-man named Jose' (a common name in that area) that performed all these supernatural miracles, yet not ONE contemporaneous Mexican historian wrote about it, the scholarly world would disqualify my account.
It's ok Anton, these people are slow, let me get this one. The time period makes a huge difference, historians have theories about things such as Trojan War, but because of the time in which it happened and the focus of the writings surrounding it, sometimes it seems more likely to be mythical, but because there has been evidence of credible archeological artifacts we can believe that the Trojan War existed, it just didn't involve the emotional interference of the gods as claimed by Greeks.
@icemilf Let me just add ore more rebuttal to prove the flaw in logic. So he saying that Jesus was a historical figure on the merit of the bible alone, just as we can verify Abe Lincoln on the basis of the book Anton read, but we are not doing that, we are basing it on many books written by scholars who agree on the facts as well as witness accounts. His logic leads me to believe that if I write a book saying that aliens impregnated humans and said people saw this than that would be enough
@Nickster586 according to him to believe that this is true, I mean come on, its in a book that I wrote, and I said there were witnesses so what is wrong with that? Well I'll tell you what is wrong, I am using the book that I wrote making the outlandish claim as proof that there is a writing about the outlandish claim, and not only that I am saying that the proof comes from the fact that their were witnesses and how do I know that? FROM MY BOOK! It is called circular reasoning people.
If the books claim miracles it begs a few more questions and should be rejected as true history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I bet Jesus did probably exist. Certainly it was a popular name and the guy on trial that the crowd chose to free instead of Jesus Christ was named Jesus Barabas. But when you add miracle and say freaky stuff in the gospels like Matthew about dead saints walking the streets being seen by many, you beg the question and ask for major proof. NO ROMAN OR JEW IN HISTORY RECALLS SUCH AN EVENT, IT IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IT OR ANY OF IT?
lol its like youre reading up from zeitgeist, zeitgeist is disinfo new age belief its all part of the new world order one world religion ect.... and you are wrong there is more fact about jesus existence then any other person in that time zone,
well you talk about sources outside the bibel right confirming his exitence... well in the book celsus on the doctrine wich is anti christian book however,he states very clearly that jesus Was only a man ect, TACITUS also told of jesus,wich confirms jesus was put to death by pilate.
Christinaty originated in judea.
christanity later spread to rom, this is all confirmed when readin his works,from what i undertand he refferd to jesus as musch as 70 times.
Lucian of samosata Another greek, Ridiculed christianity, but clearly verfys the existence of jesus in his whritings... and the list goes on there are pleanty of evidence suggesting JESUS OUTSIDE the bibel END OF discusiion, Youre the one who caint deal with the facts not me dude.
LOL. We have a lot of silly people in this world, don't we. I feel sorry you bother replying to these people, for these types of people will never come to an end.
you should research the occult... when you find out of peapol in power are much into the occult,rituals calling up entites and so on... youll be more open to things beyound your own selfishness....
NO. They go into the ground. If someone is not washed by the Blood of the Lamb they will have to be burned in the Lake of Fire after the resurrection of the wicked.
Nah, cant get into a story where someone sneaks in in the middle of the night to leave stuff... in my neighborhood, they sneak in and take stuff...usually dressed in black, not red.
My apologies. I forgot to thank you for the reply. I am not trying to start a fight, but the facts you state have been refuted concerning the deities sharing common attributes that purportedly fall in line with what the Christ of the Bible exhibits.
Well that leads to the question "Who came first and who copied who?"
You seem like a smart fella and you know the material you present. I would like to know the sources from where you gain your information on the "parallels" between these religious figures.
This subject is sorta boring to me now. It's been a while, but Dr. Robert Price's books document a lot of the other "Christ" figures that predate the Jesus-myth of the Bible.
When I was around 18 or 19 it was fun, but the older I get, the less serious I take religion, and don't bother as much as I used to.
Look man, you cant just go around saying "you got this from zeitgeist" when presented with this subject, becuz this info has been around LONG before zeitgeist was even created. Besides Zeitgeist has the WEAKEIST argument for why religion is bullshit.
Oh my. So Mr. and Mrs. Christ were NOT looking for a motel on the night of December twenty-fourth? I am - so -disillusioned now. I heard it was really supposed to be Spring or some thing like that, I dunno - but December is so much cozier - snow, carols, trees, chestnuts, Rudolph - hm. This is interesting, but I think I dig all the Lee Oswald videos more...!
Wait wait are you an atheist or do you like follow your own kind of religion because at first you say you were an atheist but then you say you agnostic.
UMM, Being agnostic is considered the middle ground of Theism and Atheism. You can be one and not be the other. Good fallacy there Jester... Enjoy beign stupid, good luck with the "wannabe-intellectual" act
Yeah you can be one and not the other obviously. What I said is you can't be BOTH. Read it again, I know there were some big words but I think you will manage it.
Why can't someone be both? One deals with "knowledge" (agnosticism), and the other deals with "belief" (atheism). Hence,, by definition, you're wrong.
Sepiroth your profile is about as hilarious as your comments above. It's a bunch of pretentious, esoteric bullshit designed to make you look smart when you clearly aren't.
Congratulations, you win a swastika, you racist piece of shit.
You're a grown adult who believes in fairy tales that are unable to be substantiated through any logical discourse. All your religious beliefs are based on a priori subjective opinions which contain no proof.
Oh yes, and I will report you to YouTube. Expect your account to be deleted.
Well, Anton, I will tell you one last thing, there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. God gave us both. But humans, as imperfect as we are, abuse knowledge so much that we completly destroy what little wisdom we have. All the knowledge you possess or ever will can't stand against God's wisdom. In the end, I choose the wisdom of Jehova over the knowledge of man anyday. For I know that one day, I will get to thank Him personally for giving it to me.
Everything you say is assumes the premise that the Biblical god is real, making every one of your arguments dead on arrival. The "wisdom of Jehovah" you choose is "wisdom" that came through man, so you do choose the "knowledge of man", and you don't even know it. The information you receive comes from the Bible -- an imperfect book written, translated, copied and had the 66 books chosen by men at the various Councils. So you do choose the knowledge of men.
I've always questioned how much of the book is "god's will". Considering the only text he ever gave to man, according to the bible, is the Ten Commandments. The rest is all philosophy written by men. Basically designed to controll population. Its the whole reason christianity was ever given true power by the hands of Emperor Constantine.
Anton, I will take your silence as defeat. I hope that one day you will see how foolish it actually is to try and Prove that God does not exist and that His Word is wrong. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginnig with God." John 1:1-2. This means God's Word is Jesus Christ, who came down from Heaven to deliver us from sin with His teachings. It also confirms His identity as Messiah and Son of God, as well that He is God.
Silence? Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't cancel my date on a Friday in the middle of June to discuss myths with a complete stranger who is doing a horrible job at defending his ancient tales.
And more Bible-babble. Before you quote that book, it'd be nice if you can substantiate and validate it first.
Wow, your actually right about something. This is pointless, because I'm arguing with an atheist who uses the quran, a book full of symbolism, to criticize the Bible for using it. You know what a sane person would call that? Probably not, but I'll tell you. A MUSLIM. You also take one thing I say and use your useless, ignorant liberalism to actually try to make it sound like I'm saying something else. So, farewell and May God have mercy on your soul.
Matthew 5:22 says any man who says "thou fool" is in danger of hellfire, yet in Luke 11:40, Psalms 14:1, 53:1, 1 Cor. 15:25, Gal. 3:1 and various other verses, the ad hominem attack of "fool" is utilized. Just one of the many contradictions contained in the Bible. Also, Ps. 14:1-3 says "They (atheists) are corrupt...there is none that doeth good, no, not one". The Bible is full of personal insults. Then again, it was written by a bunch of guys who thought the earth was flat, lol.
Matthew 5:22 also says anyone who calls their brother Raca is in danger of Judgement. Raca means "empty head", which is the equal of stupid, moron, idiot, etc. So any of those names that you call your "brother" or fellow man is wrong. But that is talking of anger against your brother, Psalms 14 is what the psalmist calls those who don't believe in Him. But, that is wrong. Even a fool could tell that there is a God. That word is too good for you.lol
The Hebrew for "fool" in Matthew 5:22 is "mōros", which has been utilized in other parts of the Bible for calling someone a "fool" in anger and also in description. So it's a flat contradiction. That's one of man I the inconsistent Bible. I guess you also think that no atheist has ever, ever done good. Then again, god's standard of good sometimes leads to mass graves.
They may have made good in their contributions to the world, but have not done the good God is talking about in that verse, which is to live a life without sin, which no human, despite what they believe, have done. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
You skip ahead of the verses that contradict what you say. Psalm 14:2-3 talks of the children of men, meaning all humanity, not just atheist. When it says none doeth good, it does not speaks of contributions to the world, it means that we are all sinners in God's eyes.
Ps. 14:1-3 says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE"
Nice try, but it's clearly says what I said it did.
No, you put down,THE LORD LOOKED DOWN UPON THE CHILDREN OF MEN, so, it clearly said what I said. Thanks for helping my argument. It didn't do much for yours though.
Verse 1 of Psalms 14 says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. THEY ARE CORRUPT, they have done abominable works, THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD". The Biblical term in verse 2 as "children of man" is the Hebrew "ben 'Adam", also translated "son of man", which refers to mankind in general. And verse 3 repeats what verse 1 said that they (atheists) are "filthy" and that "THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE".
Wow, so now the Bible skips around like a scratched CD??? I'm sorry, usually when it says CHIlDREN of MEN in the previous verse, and then says nothing of the atheists in the next verse, normally, a sane person reading it would draw the logical conclusion that it's still talking about the children of men. But apparently you aren't mentally capable of grasping that.
The term "children of men" (ben 'Adam) means the same thing as "son of men", this simply meant man. Verse 2 is in the same context as verse 1, and verse 3 basically repeats what verse 1 says. Even if verse 2 was not related to verse 1, verse 1 still makes the same blanket statement verse 3 says that "none" of the atheists "doeth good".
Yes, there are contradictions. Because Jesus went back and changed the teaching of the ancients. Matthew 5:"You have heard that it hath said, An eye for and eye,...But I say unto, whoever strikes your cheek, turn to him the other. Thou hath heard, Love thy neighbor but hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you"
Those aren't the only contradictions. There are many, many other ones. Just as a witness in a courtroom is found to contradict him/herself, their credibility is shot down. You're regurgitating ancient myths written by a book that has been altered and initially written by people who thought the earth was flat. Other than contradictions, there are scientific inaccuracies, cruelty, and outright absurdities in the Bible. It's not a plausible book.
You give your argument once again without backing it up. So, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all thought the world was flat. Are there writings not credible?
Their writing is not sacrosanct like you think the Bible is. Unless you DON'T think the Bible is inerrant. If Plato wrote a book and claimed it was all 100% true and stated that the earth was flat, that would automatically dismiss his claim of inerrancy.
Wow, did you read what I said? I said that IF Plato wrote a book claiming that it was inerrant, and in that book he had scientific inaccuracies and contradictions, that would dismiss his claim.
Did you honestly not get that, or are you just one of these people acting like a fundemantalist Christian to be funny?
And apparently you don't get that one drop of poison in a glass of water contaminated the entire glass. I'll say it again, do you can possibly understand. If I claim to write a book that is perfect, flawless, 100% accurate, consistent, non-contradictory -- if I make that CLAIM, and in the book I say that the earth is flat, then that automatically proves my claim wrong that my book is perfect, flawless, 100% accurate, consistent, non-contradictory
No, I get the point your making, but it's still nonsense. The Bible never has claimed that the Earth was flat. "Corners" and "winds" in that dialect meant directions, such as the compass rose. Keep trying, you just might start to make sense. Oh wait..., That's impossible.
You're just selectively picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are literal, and what isn't. It's not just the "corners of the earth" verses, it's evening Isaiah 40:2, which says "It is He that sittith upon the circle of the earth". The Hebrew for "circle" is "chuwg", which is a flat disc. While Isaiah 22:18 says "toss thee like a ball", Hebrew for "ball" is "duwr", which means a sphere. So why didn't Isaiah use duwr instead of chuwg if he knew the earth was a sphere? Answer? He didn't.
YOURE a FUCKING MORON, he said the bibl was WRITTEN by *PEOPLE* who thought the earth was flat. How can you be taken seriously about your interpretations of a bible when you cant even get the message of a 500 word comment... MORON.
It's pathetic that you're using the classic "poisoning the well" fallacy and dismissing it automatically just because you disagree with the premise. The Bible clearly indicates that the earth is flat by claiming it does not move, is upon pillars, has "corners", has trees and mountians high enough to "see the end of the earth", the sky opening that's a dome, has to open to let things pass though, etc.
Your credibility is shot even by using the Quran, which is a book of nonsense by claiming Jesus was never crucified, when there is historical, key word: HISTORICAL evidence, of it being so. You sound more like a closet Muslim to me than an atheist.
The Qur'an as just as myth-filled as then Bible is. There you go poisoning the well again. Don't feel bad...theists often adhere to logical fallacies. They can't help it. And thanks for ignoring the parts that say the earth is rested upon pillars, does not move, contains trees and mountains high enough to see the whole earth, the sky opening the lets objects pass through, and other scientifically inaccurate descriptions of men who believed in wizards and witches,.
Jesus like most dieties are names given to the SUN. Christianity, and most other religions revolve around sun worship, But have been twisted over the years.
UMM there are NO historical evidence to supprot that JEsus even existed there are no historians around at the time of Jesus apparent life. None make any mention of Jesus. The only mention in any historians from the times not long after his "resurrection" is the "christus" whihc is greek for annointed. Thats it. IN fact there is more historical evidence to support that Jesus never existed. As well as Christianity was around before the apparent life of Jesus Christ...so Explain that....
"The only mention in any historians from the times not long after his "resurrection" is the "christus" whihc is greek for annointed. Thats it. IN fact there is more historical evidence to support that Jesus never existed"
This actually isn't true. Josephus mentions Jesus in about 30 AD.
Perhaps it's evidence that you can make a case against but it's still evidence nontheless. Mainstream historians do not agree with the assertion that it is a forgery. Those who say that are on the fringe.
Plus, that website is taking what those words mean out of context. Your using the dialect of the ancients and taking them as modern literal meanings. Of course its gonna sound ridiculous,man. Sheesh.
Ah, the "not literal" cop-out Christians use when they're faced with a ludicrous Biblical verse. How nice of you to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you claim is literal, and which one's aren't. Buy your line of reasoning; the "lake of fire" may be symbolic. Or perhaps the seven-headed beast, the flying horses and other characters in your mythical book. You're just another example of someone who treats the Bible as a buffet and reads *this* serious, but not *that*.
Aww, are you breaking up what I say into little seperate pieces so we can try to make someone sound more ignorant than you are? Aww, so cute, using a third grade liberal argument technique. No, I'm talking about dialects, not the symbolic images in the Bible. Today's dialect is different than ancient dialect, for example, To "know" or "lie with" someone was talking about intercourse. Now, are we gonna act like adults and not break apart what we say????
The verses indicating that "Adam 'knew' Eve", for example can be explained by eh context, since it's typically followed by a mention of children. The same context assistance to elucidate "corners" means anything but corners is just selective preference of what parts you subjectively interpreted as "literal" in the face of modern science. Again, by your "reasoning", the "fire" can be symbolic, as well as the entire book of Revelation or ANY other part you wish.
LMAO your just a bitter winy little welp, you just mad cuz he made you look stupid on his Tupac vids, with your ridiculous theories. You cant even prove your own point about that.
You have to realize that the Jewish community prided itself with being traditional, legalistic, and of itself. However, the Christian movement grew to be (at the least) 1,000 people large (conservatively speaking) and some say as many as 10000 strong. Thats a miracle in and of itself coming from the buffer zone of Israel of a culture with it's legs burried in the past.
So you're saying a religion's legitimacy is based on the numbers of followers? Argumentum ad populism. I can give you a ton of counterexamples you don't even want to get into, so I'll let you slide on that point.
No, I'm not saying that because there were so many that they have to be right; that's just peer presure. What I'm saying is that there was something that could convince people who were so devoted, so enthralled in their beliefs to begin with, the only explanation is a miracle in itself.
"Anaquities"? Oh, you must be referring to the "ANTIQUITIES of the Jews." The majority of NT scholars, whether Conservative, Moderate, LIBERAL (including agnostic) believe that Jesus was a Historical person. As for the reference in Josephus, I think you are not being entirely truthful. Of those in Modern Scholarship, the majority believe that the reference was genuine, but there were interpolations (NOT necessarily a FORGERY).
Now, you're right about those sections in the aforementioned passage that seem to make Josephus sound like a Christian. Those are most likely interpolations; they were added in later. They weren't written by Josephus. But if we take those sections that are most doubted, we are left with this: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure
He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles...and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him....and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
You're making me oversimplify my rebuttal. And you did delete my comments, liar.
Here is some oversimplification.
Horus was never sun god exclusively. He was sky god, sun was encompassed in his attributes. Set was originally desert god, took the moon from Horus, became darkness god. Horus' miracles weren't exclusive; paganism as a whole was the paradigm for natural occurrences. Horus was never crucified. Horus was originally scribe god, brother of Isis, Osirus, set, etc. His parents = Geb/Nut
Right. Myths change. That still does not betray the fact that the "Jesus Story" predates Jesus. Many early Christian Fathers even spoke about it as it was quite a big deal at the time.
I didn't delete anyone's comments. Look through my videos and people challenge me all the time. I could care less if you disagree with me, to be honest, especially with the myth-issue, as it's a red herring anyway.
Your religion itself cannot be logically established - you know it and I know it.
The 'Jesus Story' does not predate Jesus. Most mystery religions were changed BECAUSE of Christianity. Mithra was a religion created much later than Jesus (620+ AD), but has many similar characteristics like Jesus. However, he was NOT slain. He slew a great Bull, whose blood flows down to atone for certain sins.
Like Gene said, many, many prophecies were made that were specific to what Christ did, that predate the religions and ideas you made above. Christ, however, fullfilled all. AND he walked the Earth, went to real places, and was obviously recorded by Historians. (Aside from Josephus, Pliny the Older and Younger are among the number.) The other people you named? Not historical figures. AND all their myths were either cultural ideologies (we see that many Greeks and Romans didn't really believe)...
...(in their gods). The stories that were told and the ones that were believed where those that explained the seasons, the changes, natural disasters, eclipses, the calander, the 'magic' in mathmatics. Christ is not riddled down with being what holds the Earth in place as punishment; he is the one that made the Earth so that it would just be in place. He concerned himself with his people, the people. That is something you don't see in the story of Osiris and Seth.
You're not seriously trying to argue that the Bible is true, and everything in the Bible is accurate, are you? Let's assume Jesus exists, just for fun. On a side note, I actually don't debate this much anymore as I believe it's a red herring, like the comparative myth stories. But even if Jesus, the man, existed, there is still no evidence all the supernatural things occurred anymore than any other religion, unless you just pick-and-choose what you wish to believe.
So Pliny (the Younger), Tacitus, Lucian, and the Talmud itself were all forged? The Talmud is exclusive to the Jewish Rabbis, Pliny an official of Rome, who was in a presure possition in that he could be exiled or killed for lieing. Similar for the others as well.
No, they were just all written after Jesus supposedly lived, and by that time "Christianity" was already known. The geographical location where Jesus supposedly did these miraculous things was NOT short of historians and recorders who wrote many trivial things -- like documents from trials to the weather -- yet no mention of this guy, Jesus, who resurrected, claimed he was the Messiah who fed multitudes with a few pieces of bread, and so on.
First off, as far as the trials are concerned, when a government was destroyed or overthrown (ie, the Roman Empire), many official papers and buildings would be discarded. So it doesn't suprise me that we have no trial papers for Jesus or many of his followers. HOWEVER, we have many records of those trials and persecutions from secular, non-government sources.
Again, the Jews of that time were of a verbal tradition of story telling, so just because those events weren't written the day after in some sort of pre-printing press newspaper, doesn't mean that they weren't true, nor that they were jarbled.
Nonsense. Jews at the time were very meticulous regarding tradition, which explains the rich documentary record of their society. Nice try though. People who say that they didn't write things down use it an as excuse for lack of evidence.
Oh yes, the great "conspiracy" to get rid of Jesus. The Roman Empire's records on other issues concerning "false Messiahs" were around. You still haven't named a contemporaneous historian who wrote about Jesus. We have several who were there at the time, like Seneca, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Martian, and many, many more who didn't write a word about Jesus. Not many papers got destroyed.
Lets put it this way: I really, really doubt that either of us are going to be swayed during this conversation. Maybe in a long period of time from now, this will effect us in some way. But tonight? Not much. However, something that is attributed to Jesus, in less than a year, altered not just hundreds of people known for their stuborn culture, but history itself. That is my point.
Actually, you're quite wrong. There are no contemporaneous historians that speak of Jesus. None. And speaking from a purely Biblical standpoint, Jesus didn't fulfill the prophesies that qualified him to be the Messiah. Perhaps you should talk to a studied Rabbi and learn why it is they're not Christians. It's their book, after all.
I actually have talked to some Jewish adults (most of which well read, though not their Rabbis.), but (this is a quick response) they tend to quote the Talmud more than the Torah, and put more stock in older Rabbis than the Laws and Prophets.
The ones that have put their faith in the Torah and other OT books cling to the idea that Christ is this great Warrior and Peace bringer. They also concede that the OT speaks very specifically of a redeemer, but that the Bible can't be taken litterally.
Yes, I know that. But you have to understand (and this is coming from me...a guy who's an agnostic who doesn't even believe the Bible...) that the Messiah was supposed to do, like build the Third Temple, gather Jews back to Israel, unite humanity as one, be from the seed of David, and a hell of a lot of other things I can't remember off the top of my head. Most people who seriously study Judaism seriously understand the difficulty of defending Jesus being the Messiah.
Christ WAS the Temple; he was the fullfilment. He gathered the true Jews (ie, those that weren't legalistic hypocrites that are condemned throughout Scripture), and the believing Gentiles (which Isaiah speaks heavily about). Where is uniting humanity? He is to judge humanity, after a long absense(Daniel speaks of this, not the End Times). He was of the seed of David.
The Jews weren't waiting for a symbolic temple; they were looking for an actual temple to be built. Johnny-come-lately come and reinterprets the Jewish Scripture and tells them what it "really" meant. And the Old Testament says the Messiah will come and unify mankind. It does not indicate that the Messiah will come...do some things...and come back a few thousands years later and finish the job.
Yet it said that he will sacrifice Himself on the cross. This was to eliminate the gap between man and God. He ascended to Heaven in order to prepare the Kingdom for His children. He did this in order to give all people time to accept Him. He has His own timetable.
It's not the "truth" because you're unable to substantiate it. I could claim that a unicorn creating the universe is "the truth" and have the same leg to stand on as you...nothing.
And no, Jesus was not of the seed of David, unless you believe that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Joseph was the one who was from the lineage of David, not Mary. The Bible was very specific about the "seed" someone being the actual, biological descendent of someone. This is why the Nation of Islam, for example, believes that Jesus' biological parents were Mary and Joseph, because they recognize the discrepancy.
Yeah, some change, but I think Justin Martyr's quote pretty much seals the case, who said that "demons" came and created gods that bear similarity to Christ by reading the Old Testament. So Martyr acknowledged this, as did Catullus, Varro, Lucretius and a bunch of others. Now I agree, much of what I said in this debate is not as simplistic as I made it look, but nevertheless, the "Jesus Story" certainly predates Jesus.
This was also a culture that had an oral tradition so percise that the stories taught and handed down of the OT were identical to those writen: they (the Jews) wouldn't be duped if they thought that this new faith was a copy of another. They were too grounded in the past.
Actually that's not true at all. The first translators and copiers of "scripture" were not professionals, especially the earliest ones. This explains why the early Christian writings vary so much and why there were so many mistakes. Even Origin, a Church Father of the third century, complained about the "negligence of some copyists", and how the "make additions as they please" (those are actual quotes, by the way).
Vary so much? The only differences between the copies were misspellings, different titles (ie, Christ Lord instead of Jesus Christ), and punctuation. You sit down are write a few thousand copies of anything (it could be a Dr. Suess book for all I care) and not make a few errors. And the major differences between the texts (like, maybe, Jesus and the Harlot) have no real theological signifigance what so ever.
Scriptuo continua is the writing style which the New Testament was written in, which itself allowed for many punctuation errors, and the fact that unprofessional scribes were the copiers added insult to injury, and they habitually imported certain things into the original text, thus altering it. This was something that the early Church Fathers reluctantly acknowledged, and a point the pagans used in their case against the legitimacy of Christian scripture.
I can post more scholars of attis who agree the similarities between Christianity and attis mtyh comes from the attis cult members changing some things to compete with this new religion called Christianity. therefore it is no surprise the earliest copy we have of attis resurrections, etc comes from the second century a.d. Same for Horus, Adonis and the rest of them.
Really? I can post about fifteen books just off the top of my head written by scholars that totally disagree. Let's start with early Christian apologist Justin Martyr. He, for example, never denied that the "Jesus Story" existed before Christ...he simply used "faith" to get out of the dilemma (and it was/is a "dilemma" for Christians) by claiming that "the devils" read the Old Testament prophetic verses concerning The Messiah to trick men.
He asked a question about why you reject Christ and your foundation as to why you reject Christ is on shaky ground. The first myth you brought up was Attis. Attis born on December 25th. No need to debunk that the Bible says nothing about Jesus birth date. He was considered the savior. Where did you get this from? That's an assertion if i ever saw one. Don't tell me what a book says unless it's from the book of attis itself. Show some historical evidence attis was seen as a savior.
No it isn't this stuff has been rejected for centuries. Back in the 1800's this was a popular method of attacking Christianity. Scholars then realized when you look for similarities the more you find so that was rejected as a means of proving something is copying off of another. Just look at Lincoln and JFK when you look for similarities the more you find. Winston Churchill's life is similar to Raglanian hero.
Sounds an awful like someone's just trying to cover for the fact that there are tons of similarities -- and the similarities tend to look like copying.
My initial point, which I reiterated numerous times in this debate was not only does the "Jesus Story" predate Jesus (assuming he existed), but that Jesus contains no more credibility than any other god.
There are no similarities. I was coming from an angle assuming what you said was true. I understand this was on the radio but all you did was make assertions. I mean there are so many mistakes you made i cannot type them all out. Your appealing to attis shows ignorance. The earliest writings we have of attis is in the second century a.d. i mean that's common knowledge in scholarly circles.
Totally false. Worship of Attis and Cybele dates back centuries in Phrygia -- even before it was imported in Rome (in 204 BC). Lucretius, Varro, Halicarnasensis, Catullus (Romans) mention the religion before the "second century". The reign of Claudius from 41-54 AD, the "Festival of Joy" (paying homage to Attis' death/rebirth was celebrated every year in Rome).
"Totally false. Worship of Attis and Cybele dates back centuries in Phrygia"
I'm talking the the similarities not the religion itself. The earliest writings we have of a clear resurrection(attis) come from the 2nd century. The attis scholar i posted even said members of the attis religion changed things in response to Christianity.
Josephus died a jew. If he thought Jesus was the "messiah", he would have converted. Christian Philosophers have dismissed Josephus years upon years ago. Gene Cook was not prepared for this debate, Josephus was a great chance to pounce on Cook and crush him.
hawkindy 2 months ago
This guy antoon would have been at home in former USSR!!
brown547 8 months ago
As for Jesus following the pattern of mythology, you really have to skew the data to reach that conclusion. The reverse is probably true- these greek myths took elements from Jesus' story. Though many of their names were around before Jesus, their mirroring of Jesus came about in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. "Ressurection" simply represented seasonal cycle (as plants begin to grow again) Jesus was unique, unexpected, and would not have created a following unless his miracles were genuine.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
People like this don't don't hold other historical writings to the same criticism as they do to the Bible. They are eager to accept the shady things with little historical basis while eliminating things of clarity and historical reliability. Honest unbias historians can show the trustworthiness of the accounts we have in the Bible about Jesus.
EVSjahms 1 year ago
Hotep / Shalom and Greetings. Bro. Batey correct me if i am wrong, but wasn't "Jesus" voted into existance by 315-318 Roman Catholic Bishops by order of Emperor Flavius Valerius Constatine @ the council of nicea 325 A.D.? Also have you read the book the Isis Thesis by Judy Kay King?
MrMannM1 1 year ago 4
Anton is very intelligent and well-spoken. He asked some good questions and in my opinion, the Pastor never really answered any of them.
blacksabbathgnr098 1 year ago
Here is a comprehensive list of the general people that will be going to hell;
Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witness, Agnostics, All Scientists and people who believe in the Scientific Process, Presbyterians, Atheists, Satanists, People who work on the Sabbath, Anyone who has had an impure thought, all blacks, Asians, The French, Italianese, Greeks, Sweeds, Norweegeians, Witches, Anyone who has ever watched a Harry Potter movie, also Germans, Dutch, and the Irish.
DuGrail 1 year ago
Anton, your memory of this knowledge is impeccable, you have argued every rebuttal perfectly and it is like my words are coming out of your mouth. This man can not keep up with you and to be honest I do not think that he is familiar with your arguments and is caught off guard. It is mind-boggling that he would naturally accept Jesus as historical figure by the same means as we accept an American president, he won't even admit that there is a clear difference.
Nickster586 1 year ago
anton, you are a moron.all you have done is take your college coarse and taken everything out of context.
whizzle209 2 years ago
I've taken much more than just college courses. And what, precisely, did I take out of context?
AntonBatey 2 years ago
@whizzle209
No, Anton is not a moron, you're just a mental masturbater. Without a doubt speaking from experience you'd have to be or become a mental masturbater to believe the bible is the word of God. Not stupid, but definitely indoctrinated as a child and most definitely a mental masturbater when you become an adult and know better.
If you actually think Noah placed all the animals on the Ark, you're a mental masturbater etc. Bible says earth is flat, you believe that too?
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
We have current eyewitness accounts of UFOs, Elvis Presley, and trans-substantiation. Wassap?
QuakePhil 2 years ago
Really the point is that there is plenty of peapol outside the bibel from very early on even pepaol agaiinst christianity confirming his existence.
icemilf 2 years ago
What would be logically sufficient would be for one of the MANY historians who were in that area who recorded such trivial details such as weather patterns - to merely mention this god-man who did all of these miraculous things. "Jesus" was a common name, and "Christ" was simply a title signifying that they were a Messiah, and plenty of people made that claim. So a claim 100 years later of there being a "Christ" in that area does not verify the tales told in the Bible.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
So books that are whriten now about things that happend 100 years ago is not reliabel couse the whriter of the book wasnt alive at the time ? i dont get you
icemilf 2 years ago
Books that were written 100 years ago about a subject that no contemporaneous evidence was available for wouldn't qualify. For instance, if I claimed that 100 years ago in Mexico City, Mexico there lived a god-man named Jose' (a common name in that area) that performed all these supernatural miracles, yet not ONE contemporaneous Mexican historian wrote about it, the scholarly world would disqualify my account.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
It's ok Anton, these people are slow, let me get this one. The time period makes a huge difference, historians have theories about things such as Trojan War, but because of the time in which it happened and the focus of the writings surrounding it, sometimes it seems more likely to be mythical, but because there has been evidence of credible archeological artifacts we can believe that the Trojan War existed, it just didn't involve the emotional interference of the gods as claimed by Greeks.
Nickster586 1 year ago
@icemilf Let me just add ore more rebuttal to prove the flaw in logic. So he saying that Jesus was a historical figure on the merit of the bible alone, just as we can verify Abe Lincoln on the basis of the book Anton read, but we are not doing that, we are basing it on many books written by scholars who agree on the facts as well as witness accounts. His logic leads me to believe that if I write a book saying that aliens impregnated humans and said people saw this than that would be enough
Nickster586 1 year ago
@Nickster586 according to him to believe that this is true, I mean come on, its in a book that I wrote, and I said there were witnesses so what is wrong with that? Well I'll tell you what is wrong, I am using the book that I wrote making the outlandish claim as proof that there is a writing about the outlandish claim, and not only that I am saying that the proof comes from the fact that their were witnesses and how do I know that? FROM MY BOOK! It is called circular reasoning people.
Nickster586 1 year ago
@icemilf
If the books claim miracles it begs a few more questions and should be rejected as true history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
@icemilf
I bet Jesus did probably exist. Certainly it was a popular name and the guy on trial that the crowd chose to free instead of Jesus Christ was named Jesus Barabas. But when you add miracle and say freaky stuff in the gospels like Matthew about dead saints walking the streets being seen by many, you beg the question and ask for major proof. NO ROMAN OR JEW IN HISTORY RECALLS SUCH AN EVENT, IT IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IT OR ANY OF IT?
RefutingPolytheist 1 year ago
lol its like youre reading up from zeitgeist, zeitgeist is disinfo new age belief its all part of the new world order one world religion ect.... and you are wrong there is more fact about jesus existence then any other person in that time zone,
icemilf 2 years ago
I have never seen Zeitgeist.
And you're very wrong, as there are absolutely ZERO contemporaneous historians that verify the Jesus of the Bibles existence.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
do you whant me to provide prove ?
icemilf 2 years ago
well you talk about sources outside the bibel right confirming his exitence... well in the book celsus on the doctrine wich is anti christian book however,he states very clearly that jesus Was only a man ect, TACITUS also told of jesus,wich confirms jesus was put to death by pilate.
Christinaty originated in judea.
christanity later spread to rom, this is all confirmed when readin his works,from what i undertand he refferd to jesus as musch as 70 times.
icemilf 2 years ago
Lucian of samosata Another greek, Ridiculed christianity, but clearly verfys the existence of jesus in his whritings... and the list goes on there are pleanty of evidence suggesting JESUS OUTSIDE the bibel END OF discusiion, Youre the one who caint deal with the facts not me dude.
icemilf 2 years ago
NONE of those people you named were contemporaneous.
Try again.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
no youre right these are 1 century accounts... so what you need is somebody who whrote it while being prescene to the crusifixion ?
icemilf 2 years ago
LOL. We have a lot of silly people in this world, don't we. I feel sorry you bother replying to these people, for these types of people will never come to an end.
4Shabani4 2 years ago
you should research the occult... when you find out of peapol in power are much into the occult,rituals calling up entites and so on... youll be more open to things beyound your own selfishness....
icemilf 2 years ago
Sounds like you are just repeating what Zeitgeist was spewing about Christianity being a copy of other religions.
There are plenty of Zeitgeist debunked videos that will correct your erroneous comments about dieties having the same attributes as the REAL Christ.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
I never saw Zeitgeist before. However, you pick and choose which is the "REAL Christ", out of the dozens that contains the same attributes.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
I choose a book that makes predictions of the future and those predictions come to pass. That is how I know I follow the TRUE Christ.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
the bible is full of errors. the muslims say the koran makes predictions. both are stupid books.
rddaos 2 years ago
do hindus and budists go to hell when they die?
nervs777 2 years ago
NO. They go into the ground. If someone is not washed by the Blood of the Lamb they will have to be burned in the Lake of Fire after the resurrection of the wicked.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
lol.
Do you believe in Santa too?
AntonBatey 2 years ago
Nah, cant get into a story where someone sneaks in in the middle of the night to leave stuff... in my neighborhood, they sneak in and take stuff...usually dressed in black, not red.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
lol
AntonBatey 2 years ago
My apologies. I forgot to thank you for the reply. I am not trying to start a fight, but the facts you state have been refuted concerning the deities sharing common attributes that purportedly fall in line with what the Christ of the Bible exhibits.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
I don't think they have. The Christ of the Bible have many common attributes to other gods that were in the same geographic location...
AntonBatey 2 years ago
Well that leads to the question "Who came first and who copied who?"
You seem like a smart fella and you know the material you present. I would like to know the sources from where you gain your information on the "parallels" between these religious figures.
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
This subject is sorta boring to me now. It's been a while, but Dr. Robert Price's books document a lot of the other "Christ" figures that predate the Jesus-myth of the Bible.
When I was around 18 or 19 it was fun, but the older I get, the less serious I take religion, and don't bother as much as I used to.
AntonBatey 2 years ago
Thats fine brother. We are all in this together and there is nothing wrong with discussion on either side of the fence. Thanks for taking the time!
KaseyKruz 2 years ago
@kaseyKruz
Look man, you cant just go around saying "you got this from zeitgeist" when presented with this subject, becuz this info has been around LONG before zeitgeist was even created. Besides Zeitgeist has the WEAKEIST argument for why religion is bullshit.
QuestionsAThousand 2 years ago
Oh my. So Mr. and Mrs. Christ were NOT looking for a motel on the night of December twenty-fourth? I am - so -disillusioned now. I heard it was really supposed to be Spring or some thing like that, I dunno - but December is so much cozier - snow, carols, trees, chestnuts, Rudolph - hm. This is interesting, but I think I dig all the Lee Oswald videos more...!
CrashingCrockery 3 years ago
I was on his.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Batey, I think you would appreciate this.
watch?v=RimESNNG6Ac
DjPain001 3 years ago
Ha! That was funny as hell. Thanks!
AntonBatey 3 years ago
?????????????????????
BusinessOps 3 years ago
actually in Sanskrit Krishna means dark blue or black
hydrojin 3 years ago
Wait wait are you an atheist or do you like follow your own kind of religion because at first you say you were an atheist but then you say you agnostic.
monkeywolf 3 years ago
I'm an agnostic-atheist.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
The two are mutually exclusive. God there are some seriously wannabe-intellectual comments being thrown around on this video.
Jester995 3 years ago
No, being an atheist and an agnostic arn't the same. One is about "knowledge" and the other is "belief".
VasiliArkhipov 3 years ago
UMM, Being agnostic is considered the middle ground of Theism and Atheism. You can be one and not be the other. Good fallacy there Jester... Enjoy beign stupid, good luck with the "wannabe-intellectual" act
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
Yeah you can be one and not the other obviously. What I said is you can't be BOTH. Read it again, I know there were some big words but I think you will manage it.
Jester995 3 years ago
Why can't someone be both? One deals with "knowledge" (agnosticism), and the other deals with "belief" (atheism). Hence,, by definition, you're wrong.
Sorry.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Oh. I see.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Sepiroth your profile is about as hilarious as your comments above. It's a bunch of pretentious, esoteric bullshit designed to make you look smart when you clearly aren't.
Jester995 3 years ago
Fine. What's your point?
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Then it exists...
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Congratulations, you win a swastika, you racist piece of shit.
You're a grown adult who believes in fairy tales that are unable to be substantiated through any logical discourse. All your religious beliefs are based on a priori subjective opinions which contain no proof.
Oh yes, and I will report you to YouTube. Expect your account to be deleted.
VasiliArkhipov 3 years ago 2
Well, Anton, I will tell you one last thing, there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. God gave us both. But humans, as imperfect as we are, abuse knowledge so much that we completly destroy what little wisdom we have. All the knowledge you possess or ever will can't stand against God's wisdom. In the end, I choose the wisdom of Jehova over the knowledge of man anyday. For I know that one day, I will get to thank Him personally for giving it to me.
God Bless you AntonBatey
Erk1982 3 years ago
Everything you say is assumes the premise that the Biblical god is real, making every one of your arguments dead on arrival. The "wisdom of Jehovah" you choose is "wisdom" that came through man, so you do choose the "knowledge of man", and you don't even know it. The information you receive comes from the Bible -- an imperfect book written, translated, copied and had the 66 books chosen by men at the various Councils. So you do choose the knowledge of men.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
I agree with you Anton...
I've always questioned how much of the book is "god's will". Considering the only text he ever gave to man, according to the bible, is the Ten Commandments. The rest is all philosophy written by men. Basically designed to controll population. Its the whole reason christianity was ever given true power by the hands of Emperor Constantine.
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
i totally agree with you, this guy talks just to here himself talk.
frenchie510 3 years ago
Then prove me wrong.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Anton, I will take your silence as defeat. I hope that one day you will see how foolish it actually is to try and Prove that God does not exist and that His Word is wrong. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginnig with God." John 1:1-2. This means God's Word is Jesus Christ, who came down from Heaven to deliver us from sin with His teachings. It also confirms His identity as Messiah and Son of God, as well that He is God.
Erk1982 3 years ago
Silence? Oh, I'm sorry that I didn't cancel my date on a Friday in the middle of June to discuss myths with a complete stranger who is doing a horrible job at defending his ancient tales.
And more Bible-babble. Before you quote that book, it'd be nice if you can substantiate and validate it first.
Oh yeah...you can't.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Wow, your actually right about something. This is pointless, because I'm arguing with an atheist who uses the quran, a book full of symbolism, to criticize the Bible for using it. You know what a sane person would call that? Probably not, but I'll tell you. A MUSLIM. You also take one thing I say and use your useless, ignorant liberalism to actually try to make it sound like I'm saying something else. So, farewell and May God have mercy on your soul.
BYE
Erk1982 3 years ago
Yes, run away.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God. Psalms 14:1
Erk1982 3 years ago
Matthew 5:22 says any man who says "thou fool" is in danger of hellfire, yet in Luke 11:40, Psalms 14:1, 53:1, 1 Cor. 15:25, Gal. 3:1 and various other verses, the ad hominem attack of "fool" is utilized. Just one of the many contradictions contained in the Bible. Also, Ps. 14:1-3 says "They (atheists) are corrupt...there is none that doeth good, no, not one". The Bible is full of personal insults. Then again, it was written by a bunch of guys who thought the earth was flat, lol.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Matthew 5:22 also says anyone who calls their brother Raca is in danger of Judgement. Raca means "empty head", which is the equal of stupid, moron, idiot, etc. So any of those names that you call your "brother" or fellow man is wrong. But that is talking of anger against your brother, Psalms 14 is what the psalmist calls those who don't believe in Him. But, that is wrong. Even a fool could tell that there is a God. That word is too good for you.lol
Erk1982 3 years ago
The Hebrew for "fool" in Matthew 5:22 is "mōros", which has been utilized in other parts of the Bible for calling someone a "fool" in anger and also in description. So it's a flat contradiction. That's one of man I the inconsistent Bible. I guess you also think that no atheist has ever, ever done good. Then again, god's standard of good sometimes leads to mass graves.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
They may have made good in their contributions to the world, but have not done the good God is talking about in that verse, which is to live a life without sin, which no human, despite what they believe, have done. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
Erk1982 3 years ago
You skip ahead of the verses that contradict what you say. Psalm 14:2-3 talks of the children of men, meaning all humanity, not just atheist. When it says none doeth good, it does not speaks of contributions to the world, it means that we are all sinners in God's eyes.
Erk1982 3 years ago
Ps. 14:1-3 says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE"
Nice try, but it's clearly says what I said it did.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
No, you put down,THE LORD LOOKED DOWN UPON THE CHILDREN OF MEN, so, it clearly said what I said. Thanks for helping my argument. It didn't do much for yours though.
Erk1982 3 years ago
Verse 1 of Psalms 14 says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. THEY ARE CORRUPT, they have done abominable works, THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD". The Biblical term in verse 2 as "children of man" is the Hebrew "ben 'Adam", also translated "son of man", which refers to mankind in general. And verse 3 repeats what verse 1 said that they (atheists) are "filthy" and that "THERE IS NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE".
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Wow, so now the Bible skips around like a scratched CD??? I'm sorry, usually when it says CHIlDREN of MEN in the previous verse, and then says nothing of the atheists in the next verse, normally, a sane person reading it would draw the logical conclusion that it's still talking about the children of men. But apparently you aren't mentally capable of grasping that.
Erk1982 3 years ago
The term "children of men" (ben 'Adam) means the same thing as "son of men", this simply meant man. Verse 2 is in the same context as verse 1, and verse 3 basically repeats what verse 1 says. Even if verse 2 was not related to verse 1, verse 1 still makes the same blanket statement verse 3 says that "none" of the atheists "doeth good".
If you can't read the verse, NMFP.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Yes, there are contradictions. Because Jesus went back and changed the teaching of the ancients. Matthew 5:"You have heard that it hath said, An eye for and eye,...But I say unto, whoever strikes your cheek, turn to him the other. Thou hath heard, Love thy neighbor but hate thine enemy, but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you"
Erk1982 3 years ago
Those aren't the only contradictions. There are many, many other ones. Just as a witness in a courtroom is found to contradict him/herself, their credibility is shot down. You're regurgitating ancient myths written by a book that has been altered and initially written by people who thought the earth was flat. Other than contradictions, there are scientific inaccuracies, cruelty, and outright absurdities in the Bible. It's not a plausible book.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
You give your argument once again without backing it up. So, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all thought the world was flat. Are there writings not credible?
Erk1982 3 years ago
Their writing is not sacrosanct like you think the Bible is. Unless you DON'T think the Bible is inerrant. If Plato wrote a book and claimed it was all 100% true and stated that the earth was flat, that would automatically dismiss his claim of inerrancy.
Get it?
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Yet neither the Bible nor Plato ever claimed the world was flat. Is that what your trying to argue???lol
Erk1982 3 years ago
Wow, did you read what I said? I said that IF Plato wrote a book claiming that it was inerrant, and in that book he had scientific inaccuracies and contradictions, that would dismiss his claim.
Did you honestly not get that, or are you just one of these people acting like a fundemantalist Christian to be funny?
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Neither, I was using your example to prove how ridiculous you actually sounded. But I did think it was funny.lol
Erk1982 3 years ago
And apparently you don't get that one drop of poison in a glass of water contaminated the entire glass. I'll say it again, do you can possibly understand. If I claim to write a book that is perfect, flawless, 100% accurate, consistent, non-contradictory -- if I make that CLAIM, and in the book I say that the earth is flat, then that automatically proves my claim wrong that my book is perfect, flawless, 100% accurate, consistent, non-contradictory
Get it yet? Or do I have to draw you pictures?
AntonBatey 3 years ago
No, I get the point your making, but it's still nonsense. The Bible never has claimed that the Earth was flat. "Corners" and "winds" in that dialect meant directions, such as the compass rose. Keep trying, you just might start to make sense. Oh wait..., That's impossible.
Erk1982 3 years ago
You're just selectively picking and choosing what parts of the Bible are literal, and what isn't. It's not just the "corners of the earth" verses, it's evening Isaiah 40:2, which says "It is He that sittith upon the circle of the earth". The Hebrew for "circle" is "chuwg", which is a flat disc. While Isaiah 22:18 says "toss thee like a ball", Hebrew for "ball" is "duwr", which means a sphere. So why didn't Isaiah use duwr instead of chuwg if he knew the earth was a sphere? Answer? He didn't.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
YOURE a FUCKING MORON, he said the bibl was WRITTEN by *PEOPLE* who thought the earth was flat. How can you be taken seriously about your interpretations of a bible when you cant even get the message of a 500 word comment... MORON.
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
And yes, the Bible does inply the earth is flat.
w w w . answering-islam . c o m / earth_flat . h t m
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Wow, an atheist using a radicalist Islamic website, which is a little biased, don't you think?, to prove a Christain wrong. Pathetic.
Erk1982 3 years ago
It's pathetic that you're using the classic "poisoning the well" fallacy and dismissing it automatically just because you disagree with the premise. The Bible clearly indicates that the earth is flat by claiming it does not move, is upon pillars, has "corners", has trees and mountians high enough to "see the end of the earth", the sky opening that's a dome, has to open to let things pass though, etc.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Your credibility is shot even by using the Quran, which is a book of nonsense by claiming Jesus was never crucified, when there is historical, key word: HISTORICAL evidence, of it being so. You sound more like a closet Muslim to me than an atheist.
Erk1982 3 years ago
The Qur'an as just as myth-filled as then Bible is. There you go poisoning the well again. Don't feel bad...theists often adhere to logical fallacies. They can't help it. And thanks for ignoring the parts that say the earth is rested upon pillars, does not move, contains trees and mountains high enough to see the whole earth, the sky opening the lets objects pass through, and other scientifically inaccurate descriptions of men who believed in wizards and witches,.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Jesus like most dieties are names given to the SUN. Christianity, and most other religions revolve around sun worship, But have been twisted over the years.
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
UMM there are NO historical evidence to supprot that JEsus even existed there are no historians around at the time of Jesus apparent life. None make any mention of Jesus. The only mention in any historians from the times not long after his "resurrection" is the "christus" whihc is greek for annointed. Thats it. IN fact there is more historical evidence to support that Jesus never existed. As well as Christianity was around before the apparent life of Jesus Christ...so Explain that....
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
"The only mention in any historians from the times not long after his "resurrection" is the "christus" whihc is greek for annointed. Thats it. IN fact there is more historical evidence to support that Jesus never existed"
This actually isn't true. Josephus mentions Jesus in about 30 AD.
BipedalHumanoid 3 years ago
Ummm, Josephus is a forgery.
Secondly "Josephus" wasnt alive around the time of Jesus. In fact, Josephus was born the same year as Tiberius died. Pretty coincidental...
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
Perhaps it's evidence that you can make a case against but it's still evidence nontheless. Mainstream historians do not agree with the assertion that it is a forgery. Those who say that are on the fringe.
BipedalHumanoid 3 years ago
Plus, that website is taking what those words mean out of context. Your using the dialect of the ancients and taking them as modern literal meanings. Of course its gonna sound ridiculous,man. Sheesh.
Erk1982 3 years ago
Ah, the "not literal" cop-out Christians use when they're faced with a ludicrous Biblical verse. How nice of you to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you claim is literal, and which one's aren't. Buy your line of reasoning; the "lake of fire" may be symbolic. Or perhaps the seven-headed beast, the flying horses and other characters in your mythical book. You're just another example of someone who treats the Bible as a buffet and reads *this* serious, but not *that*.
Try harder.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Aww, are you breaking up what I say into little seperate pieces so we can try to make someone sound more ignorant than you are? Aww, so cute, using a third grade liberal argument technique. No, I'm talking about dialects, not the symbolic images in the Bible. Today's dialect is different than ancient dialect, for example, To "know" or "lie with" someone was talking about intercourse. Now, are we gonna act like adults and not break apart what we say????
I don't think you can.
Erk1982 3 years ago
The verses indicating that "Adam 'knew' Eve", for example can be explained by eh context, since it's typically followed by a mention of children. The same context assistance to elucidate "corners" means anything but corners is just selective preference of what parts you subjectively interpreted as "literal" in the face of modern science. Again, by your "reasoning", the "fire" can be symbolic, as well as the entire book of Revelation or ANY other part you wish.
Try harder.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Hey thanks for the website.
truerthanu08 3 years ago
No problem.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
lol Anton Batey, the man who knows the truth about everything..
teck9troublesome 3 years ago
LMAO your just a bitter winy little welp, you just mad cuz he made you look stupid on his Tupac vids, with your ridiculous theories. You cant even prove your own point about that.
TheOrgystheband 3 years ago
Religion is a tool to brain wash the masses, and that's the truth!
EvilDOOER 3 years ago 2
You have to realize that the Jewish community prided itself with being traditional, legalistic, and of itself. However, the Christian movement grew to be (at the least) 1,000 people large (conservatively speaking) and some say as many as 10000 strong. Thats a miracle in and of itself coming from the buffer zone of Israel of a culture with it's legs burried in the past.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
So you're saying a religion's legitimacy is based on the numbers of followers? Argumentum ad populism. I can give you a ton of counterexamples you don't even want to get into, so I'll let you slide on that point.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
No, I'm not saying that because there were so many that they have to be right; that's just peer presure. What I'm saying is that there was something that could convince people who were so devoted, so enthralled in their beliefs to begin with, the only explanation is a miracle in itself.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Welcome to the world of religion, my friend.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
"Anaquities"? Oh, you must be referring to the "ANTIQUITIES of the Jews." The majority of NT scholars, whether Conservative, Moderate, LIBERAL (including agnostic) believe that Jesus was a Historical person. As for the reference in Josephus, I think you are not being entirely truthful. Of those in Modern Scholarship, the majority believe that the reference was genuine, but there were interpolations (NOT necessarily a FORGERY).
Jpangyarihan 3 years ago
Now, you're right about those sections in the aforementioned passage that seem to make Josephus sound like a Christian. Those are most likely interpolations; they were added in later. They weren't written by Josephus. But if we take those sections that are most doubted, we are left with this: "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure
Jpangyarihan 3 years ago
He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles...and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him....and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Jpangyarihan 3 years ago
You're making me oversimplify my rebuttal. And you did delete my comments, liar.
Here is some oversimplification.
Horus was never sun god exclusively. He was sky god, sun was encompassed in his attributes. Set was originally desert god, took the moon from Horus, became darkness god. Horus' miracles weren't exclusive; paganism as a whole was the paradigm for natural occurrences. Horus was never crucified. Horus was originally scribe god, brother of Isis, Osirus, set, etc. His parents = Geb/Nut
disciple4Christ 4 years ago
Right. Myths change. That still does not betray the fact that the "Jesus Story" predates Jesus. Many early Christian Fathers even spoke about it as it was quite a big deal at the time.
I didn't delete anyone's comments. Look through my videos and people challenge me all the time. I could care less if you disagree with me, to be honest, especially with the myth-issue, as it's a red herring anyway.
Your religion itself cannot be logically established - you know it and I know it.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
The 'Jesus Story' does not predate Jesus. Most mystery religions were changed BECAUSE of Christianity. Mithra was a religion created much later than Jesus (620+ AD), but has many similar characteristics like Jesus. However, he was NOT slain. He slew a great Bull, whose blood flows down to atone for certain sins.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Like Gene said, many, many prophecies were made that were specific to what Christ did, that predate the religions and ideas you made above. Christ, however, fullfilled all. AND he walked the Earth, went to real places, and was obviously recorded by Historians. (Aside from Josephus, Pliny the Older and Younger are among the number.) The other people you named? Not historical figures. AND all their myths were either cultural ideologies (we see that many Greeks and Romans didn't really believe)...
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
...(in their gods). The stories that were told and the ones that were believed where those that explained the seasons, the changes, natural disasters, eclipses, the calander, the 'magic' in mathmatics. Christ is not riddled down with being what holds the Earth in place as punishment; he is the one that made the Earth so that it would just be in place. He concerned himself with his people, the people. That is something you don't see in the story of Osiris and Seth.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
You're not seriously trying to argue that the Bible is true, and everything in the Bible is accurate, are you? Let's assume Jesus exists, just for fun. On a side note, I actually don't debate this much anymore as I believe it's a red herring, like the comparative myth stories. But even if Jesus, the man, existed, there is still no evidence all the supernatural things occurred anymore than any other religion, unless you just pick-and-choose what you wish to believe.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
So Pliny (the Younger), Tacitus, Lucian, and the Talmud itself were all forged? The Talmud is exclusive to the Jewish Rabbis, Pliny an official of Rome, who was in a presure possition in that he could be exiled or killed for lieing. Similar for the others as well.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
No, they were just all written after Jesus supposedly lived, and by that time "Christianity" was already known. The geographical location where Jesus supposedly did these miraculous things was NOT short of historians and recorders who wrote many trivial things -- like documents from trials to the weather -- yet no mention of this guy, Jesus, who resurrected, claimed he was the Messiah who fed multitudes with a few pieces of bread, and so on.
Not buyin' it.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
First off, as far as the trials are concerned, when a government was destroyed or overthrown (ie, the Roman Empire), many official papers and buildings would be discarded. So it doesn't suprise me that we have no trial papers for Jesus or many of his followers. HOWEVER, we have many records of those trials and persecutions from secular, non-government sources.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Again, the Jews of that time were of a verbal tradition of story telling, so just because those events weren't written the day after in some sort of pre-printing press newspaper, doesn't mean that they weren't true, nor that they were jarbled.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Nonsense. Jews at the time were very meticulous regarding tradition, which explains the rich documentary record of their society. Nice try though. People who say that they didn't write things down use it an as excuse for lack of evidence.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Oh yes, the great "conspiracy" to get rid of Jesus. The Roman Empire's records on other issues concerning "false Messiahs" were around. You still haven't named a contemporaneous historian who wrote about Jesus. We have several who were there at the time, like Seneca, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Martian, and many, many more who didn't write a word about Jesus. Not many papers got destroyed.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Lets put it this way: I really, really doubt that either of us are going to be swayed during this conversation. Maybe in a long period of time from now, this will effect us in some way. But tonight? Not much. However, something that is attributed to Jesus, in less than a year, altered not just hundreds of people known for their stuborn culture, but history itself. That is my point.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Same with all the other major religions that exist today. People change religions all the time.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Actually, you're quite wrong. There are no contemporaneous historians that speak of Jesus. None. And speaking from a purely Biblical standpoint, Jesus didn't fulfill the prophesies that qualified him to be the Messiah. Perhaps you should talk to a studied Rabbi and learn why it is they're not Christians. It's their book, after all.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
I actually have talked to some Jewish adults (most of which well read, though not their Rabbis.), but (this is a quick response) they tend to quote the Talmud more than the Torah, and put more stock in older Rabbis than the Laws and Prophets.
The ones that have put their faith in the Torah and other OT books cling to the idea that Christ is this great Warrior and Peace bringer. They also concede that the OT speaks very specifically of a redeemer, but that the Bible can't be taken litterally.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Yes, I know that. But you have to understand (and this is coming from me...a guy who's an agnostic who doesn't even believe the Bible...) that the Messiah was supposed to do, like build the Third Temple, gather Jews back to Israel, unite humanity as one, be from the seed of David, and a hell of a lot of other things I can't remember off the top of my head. Most people who seriously study Judaism seriously understand the difficulty of defending Jesus being the Messiah.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Christ WAS the Temple; he was the fullfilment. He gathered the true Jews (ie, those that weren't legalistic hypocrites that are condemned throughout Scripture), and the believing Gentiles (which Isaiah speaks heavily about). Where is uniting humanity? He is to judge humanity, after a long absense(Daniel speaks of this, not the End Times). He was of the seed of David.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
The Jews weren't waiting for a symbolic temple; they were looking for an actual temple to be built. Johnny-come-lately come and reinterprets the Jewish Scripture and tells them what it "really" meant. And the Old Testament says the Messiah will come and unify mankind. It does not indicate that the Messiah will come...do some things...and come back a few thousands years later and finish the job.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Yet it said that he will sacrifice Himself on the cross. This was to eliminate the gap between man and God. He ascended to Heaven in order to prepare the Kingdom for His children. He did this in order to give all people time to accept Him. He has His own timetable.
Erk1982 3 years ago
Do you think that repeating your fairy tale somehow makes it truer?
AntonBatey 3 years ago
It doesn't have to make it truer. It is THE Truth. I'm just giving you a friendly reminder for your soul's sake.
Erk1982 3 years ago
It's not the "truth" because you're unable to substantiate it. I could claim that a unicorn creating the universe is "the truth" and have the same leg to stand on as you...nothing.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
And no, Jesus was not of the seed of David, unless you believe that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Joseph was the one who was from the lineage of David, not Mary. The Bible was very specific about the "seed" someone being the actual, biological descendent of someone. This is why the Nation of Islam, for example, believes that Jesus' biological parents were Mary and Joseph, because they recognize the discrepancy.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Yeah, some change, but I think Justin Martyr's quote pretty much seals the case, who said that "demons" came and created gods that bear similarity to Christ by reading the Old Testament. So Martyr acknowledged this, as did Catullus, Varro, Lucretius and a bunch of others. Now I agree, much of what I said in this debate is not as simplistic as I made it look, but nevertheless, the "Jesus Story" certainly predates Jesus.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
This was also a culture that had an oral tradition so percise that the stories taught and handed down of the OT were identical to those writen: they (the Jews) wouldn't be duped if they thought that this new faith was a copy of another. They were too grounded in the past.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Actually that's not true at all. The first translators and copiers of "scripture" were not professionals, especially the earliest ones. This explains why the early Christian writings vary so much and why there were so many mistakes. Even Origin, a Church Father of the third century, complained about the "negligence of some copyists", and how the "make additions as they please" (those are actual quotes, by the way).
AntonBatey 3 years ago
Vary so much? The only differences between the copies were misspellings, different titles (ie, Christ Lord instead of Jesus Christ), and punctuation. You sit down are write a few thousand copies of anything (it could be a Dr. Suess book for all I care) and not make a few errors. And the major differences between the texts (like, maybe, Jesus and the Harlot) have no real theological signifigance what so ever.
MaxstertheBard211 3 years ago
Scriptuo continua is the writing style which the New Testament was written in, which itself allowed for many punctuation errors, and the fact that unprofessional scribes were the copiers added insult to injury, and they habitually imported certain things into the original text, thus altering it. This was something that the early Church Fathers reluctantly acknowledged, and a point the pagans used in their case against the legitimacy of Christian scripture.
AntonBatey 3 years ago
@ 2:34 Anton says he replaced logic with faith. Your joking but logic doesn't create truth it creates ideas.
aldeb456 4 years ago
Logic is the tool utilized to find truth.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
It's a "tool!" I am a man. All men are rich. Therefore I am rich. It's not really true but it's logical. I respect your beliefs, "God Bless you!" lol
aldeb456 4 years ago
It's not logical; in fact it's a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur.
And thanks!
AntonBatey 4 years ago
"I don't get how that's "sarcasm".
I could have just read it wrong. My mistake.
Prophetes 4 years ago
I can post more scholars of attis who agree the similarities between Christianity and attis mtyh comes from the attis cult members changing some things to compete with this new religion called Christianity. therefore it is no surprise the earliest copy we have of attis resurrections, etc comes from the second century a.d. Same for Horus, Adonis and the rest of them.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Really? I can post about fifteen books just off the top of my head written by scholars that totally disagree. Let's start with early Christian apologist Justin Martyr. He, for example, never denied that the "Jesus Story" existed before Christ...he simply used "faith" to get out of the dilemma (and it was/is a "dilemma" for Christians) by claiming that "the devils" read the Old Testament prophetic verses concerning The Messiah to trick men.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
He asked a question about why you reject Christ and your foundation as to why you reject Christ is on shaky ground. The first myth you brought up was Attis. Attis born on December 25th. No need to debunk that the Bible says nothing about Jesus birth date. He was considered the savior. Where did you get this from? That's an assertion if i ever saw one. Don't tell me what a book says unless it's from the book of attis itself. Show some historical evidence attis was seen as a savior.
Prophetes 4 years ago
What's considered "shaky grounds" is subjective.
Most people of any religion are that religion due to environmental reasons primarily (family, country, etc.).
Not many books focus just on Attis my friend, however, books on mythology in general conform this pretty substantially.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
No it isn't this stuff has been rejected for centuries. Back in the 1800's this was a popular method of attacking Christianity. Scholars then realized when you look for similarities the more you find so that was rejected as a means of proving something is copying off of another. Just look at Lincoln and JFK when you look for similarities the more you find. Winston Churchill's life is similar to Raglanian hero.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Sounds an awful like someone's just trying to cover for the fact that there are tons of similarities -- and the similarities tend to look like copying.
My initial point, which I reiterated numerous times in this debate was not only does the "Jesus Story" predate Jesus (assuming he existed), but that Jesus contains no more credibility than any other god.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
There are no similarities. I was coming from an angle assuming what you said was true. I understand this was on the radio but all you did was make assertions. I mean there are so many mistakes you made i cannot type them all out. Your appealing to attis shows ignorance. The earliest writings we have of attis is in the second century a.d. i mean that's common knowledge in scholarly circles.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Totally false. Worship of Attis and Cybele dates back centuries in Phrygia -- even before it was imported in Rome (in 204 BC). Lucretius, Varro, Halicarnasensis, Catullus (Romans) mention the religion before the "second century". The reign of Claudius from 41-54 AD, the "Festival of Joy" (paying homage to Attis' death/rebirth was celebrated every year in Rome).
Try harder.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
"Totally false. Worship of Attis and Cybele dates back centuries in Phrygia"
I'm talking the the similarities not the religion itself. The earliest writings we have of a clear resurrection(attis) come from the 2nd century. The attis scholar i posted even said members of the attis religion changed things in response to Christianity.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Bullshit.
Read about the "Festival of Joy" and Claudius.
AntonBatey 4 years ago
Please give me a date for the festivals of joy. This will be good.
Prophetes 4 years ago
Don't know.
Are you suggesting that the "Festival of Joy" was a made up conspiracy?
AntonBatey 4 years ago