I think Licona is making that same mistake that Craig made in his debate against Ehrman. The key factor is the probability that any person would have arisen from the dead after three days (whether supernaturally or otherwise), given that there existed for that person a body of evidence of the type found in the New Testament. If the inherent probability were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would still give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.
14:20 Who does this man knows for sure how those writers were 100 procent certain Jesus was dead ? If you are in coma it looks for the ignorant bystander you are dead. Nowadays there are only 1 or 2 people ( doctors etc ) who legally have the authority to declare if someone is dead ! This is a worthless debate ! Nobody can raise from the dead so Jesus obviously was not dead. Do you believes get it or NOT ?!
@TheRelihunter I think that you're being a little harsh, but I think that you do allude to a good point. The NY talks about the "resurrection". But would not people 2000 yrs ago view a person thought to be drowned dead think that the person was "resurrected" if you or I gave the person mouth to mouth and chest compressions, and that person was revived? If one assumes that miracles are the least probable event, would not this scenario be at least a little more probable?
@crucisnh So finally someone who's got it right ! Yep he was hung but when released he was in coma due to snake poison in the wine he got in his face and mouth, its right in the bible look it up, laid in tomb and came out of coma and someone did help him to get out of the tombe, remember there were people in white robes seen and no they were not angels but friends from Jesus probable James his brother also. Also he never ascended. this scene is meant symbolically to come back to cont
@TheRelihunter I don't know about all the details you suggest, per se. I was only pointing out that a scenario where Jesus only appeared dead but was later revived is more probable than a true resurrection. Also, since such a revival would appear to the ancient mind like a resurrection, people might very well call it a resurrection, when today doctors would say otherwise.
Also, after such a revival/resurrection, it would be entirely logical that Jesus would have to (contd)
@crucisnh (contd) get out of Palestine. Some have suggested that he actually left Roman territory entirely and headed east to India. (The same people also suggest that he spent a portion of his younger life in India learning from monks, which would also explain why he would return there.)
I could also see heading over to Egypt and later to Gaul is possible as well. (cont)
@TheRelihunter (the cont of the 1st part is actually an accidental reply to myself. This is part 3.)
I haven't read Holy Blood Holy Grail, but I've read some other books. And watched a LOT of related documentaries here on YT.
People should also consider that Jesus died awfully quickly as crucifixions go (supposedly 6-9 hrs), when the accounts I've heard say that the more normal time was a day or 2. Was Jesus really so weak that he died that quickly? (contd)
@crucisnh He got vinegar with snake poison on the cross, I stated that somewhere before here I believe anyhow he became in coma state, not dead ! They asked if they could get him of the cross and in the tomb this was part of the setup so they could things done to get him out of his coma, this was done with Mire and some other stuff to get the poison out of his body so he would come out of coma. The others were also taken from the cross also not dead, but they killed one or two.
Also, I've read elsewhere someone suggesting that the reason Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb was that unbelieving Jews thought that he was unworthy of such a tomb and stole the body and tossed in the trash. That can explain the empty tomb but not the supposed resurrection (revival). Of course, I suppose that one could follow up with Dr Ehrman's visions theory, but that's not as strong as the revival theory to me. (cont)
@crucisnh he was laid in tomb but with help as he had planned beforehand as part of the deception he was out of coma and got out of the tomb but was around, Magdalena took him for the gardener but he was Jesus she saw later but she was not allowed to touch Jesus but that had to do with his marriage bond protocol with Maria. No Jesus was seen right after out of coma and stood outside the tomb with his friends and brother James and Maria. I dont know that theorie of Ehrman. but its not
@crucisnh a correct theory and makes no sense. 1, tomb empty , 2 Jesus was seen in flesh and blood conclusion he was not dead, ( resurrection is not possible ) belief me its not possible ! the way it went was all plant by Jesus and cohorts to get him popularity to his people so they thought it was a miracle while Jesus knew damn well what was going on , it was his plan afterall. thats why he knew before hand that he would come back after 3 days. by the way that ''raising from the
@crucisnh cont. from the dead was also more or less part of a ritual not literaly but symbolicly as was done with I believe Peter in the cave in Qumran. Peter was not dead at all it was a priesthood ritual. Initiates went through the same kind of ritual in the great pyramide of Giza. thats what the sarcofagus in the pyramid was for, it was a part of the ascension rite. also a state of coma or obe so the spirit would go out to the other dimension saw things over there and came back
@crucisnh cont pyramids, when the initiate came back he was ''risen from the dead '' symbolic to be born again, you see there comes that concept of ''born again from '' this is interesting stuff if you take the time to dig into it. but unfortunately the Religious Christians dont know anything about this stuff. Live would be so easier for them ! But they dont want to here the real truth thats sad very sad.
@TheRelihunter (contd) The "revival" theory has the benefit of looking completely like a resurrection to the ancient mind, and allows Jesus to walk, talk, and eat with the apostles after his "death" and revival. Also, as you point suggest, perhaps MaryM didn't know about the deception. Maybe the apostles didn't either. It could have been a plot carried out by other friends (Jos. of Arimathea?). And it'd be more probable than a mystical resurrection.
@crucisnh Yep I think you begin to understand the whole thing ! Great. Joseph of Arimathea was his ''father'' stepfather but , but . That name was also a kind of title, a title which could have been designated to James who was in the complot and Peter as well and the one who was switched on the cross.The one who had to help Jesus for the poison (to fake the dead) was to be hanged but was during the setup of crosses or in the walk up to it switched by another one so he could help Jesus
@crucisnh cont... to come back to priesthood after the crucifixion scene which he used in this way to make himself popular to win the people for his way of thinking and to get rid of the Romans thats what it was all about. Yep he left ( not ascension) 3 years somewhere came back later to Maria Magdalena his wife which he got later 1 daughter and 2 sons and one of those sons became King in France or England. Maria Magd went also to France with a boat The black Madonna she was
@crucisnh for info and more about this read at least Laurence Gardner I can recommend the books Sacred ark and Bloodline of the holy grail. if all believers should take the time to read his info than they would be all the wiser and finally understand whats it all about. so I can stop commenting and my work would be done.
@TheRelihunter Also, I think that Licona does make a fair point that the apostles must have *believed* that Jesus was resurrected, at least in their perspective. And that it's very, very hard to imagine that the apostles would have willingly martyred themselves unless they believed it. That doesn't make it true, only that they believed it. I think that it's possible that Jesus was "only" revived, rather than truly resurrected.
@crucisnh Yep some apostles although knew what was going on. One that had also to be crucified a Peter I believe was a magician from Essene sect and he had to be switched with another to hang because he had to fix the vinegar with the snake poison which Jesus got on the cross why else would he got the vinegar in his face ? He hung he was supposed to die if they didnt the trick so you see there is the clue the clue's are always in the detail !Maria did not know of the deception by Jes
Resurrection of Jesus ?. LOL nobody can resurrect dead is dead. so he was not dead yet, simple logic isn't it. And NO Jesus was not son of God or God himself and NO miracles do not exist, its impossible. Jesus was in coma, remember he drunk something on the cross, this was snake poison ! He faked his own dead to get popularity and to become priest king which in fact failed but thats another story. read Gardners books and it will be clear.
lol 23,000 views for a debate featuring two of the most fascinating biblical schloars of our time!!! I dont get it, Gaga gets 23 million and this only gets 23k! No justice, Nice work SE!
At 6:15 does anyone question that making money wasn't his reason to go into religion.
Is he a Christian? When he married a woman he wasn't even sure if it was the right person for him? It's obvious that at his core he misses what a Christian is. He admits he was preaching when he didn't even know if his faith was real??? I don't think he gets it! And that my friend is why he loses to Mr. Ehrman. Just a lack of faith in the Almighty.
Did you note how he mentions Hurcules?... "They say that Hurcules, too once visited them" he's simply reporting what the germanic people say about Hurcules... not stating he's an acutal person. To say that Jesus didn't exist... you'll need to account for why tne of the first 12 disciples each were martyred. Would they do that for something they cooked up? Really?
Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus' time. He came afterward so any mention of Jesus has to be hearsay. The Syriac version uses the phrase, ""He was believed to be the Christ". This textual variant shows that there is a point of contention about what the script actually said. Likely later Christian scribes removed the "believed to be" part when translating the Greek.
There is a difference between publicly verifiable evidence, both old and new, and historical hearsay. We should not rely on hearsay, ancient or otherwise, to help us make decisions or tell us what we should believe.
And who should we look to help us make decisions or tell us what we should believe, if not Jesus? Find me a (morally) better man... and what do you find in Him that you can justly condemn him for? You know as well as I do that man is, by nature, not too hot a guide for himself... history is full display of what human nature is.
About publicly verifiable evidence...well I reckon if that's your criteria for valid history rip out most of your history books.. (continued)
I don't know about you, but I make my own decisions based on reason.
Asking me to find you a "morally" better man is like asking you to find you a more perfect landscape. It's subjective. Personally I don't think Jesus was all that moral. He encouraged scapegoating, with himself as the scapegoat, and negating one's own personal moral responsibility through vicarious atonement. That's immoral.
-You mean “negating one's own personal morally incurred retributive judgment through vicarious atonement”....if you want to be so “take what you deserve” about it all...besides facing God's judgment against your sins yourself (as you plan to do) are you going to put compassionate mercy on your list of “immorality” as well, since that's what you're condemning here?
And about your “encouraged negating one's personal moral responsibility”... aren't you the kind of person who would be peeved by someone calling U & others to repentance - like Jesus[Mat 4:17] and John the Baptist were doing- and yet you condemn Jesus for “not” doing that?
Human nature is a mixed bag of moral and immoral actions. There are plenty of good atheists out there, just as their are evil Christians. And let us not resort to the No True Scotsman Fallacy to distance ourselves from the bad people in our own groups. We should all be taken as individuals, not as groups. Every group is a mixed bag.
@KentonForshee ...because Jesus is sufficiently publicly verifiable, but apparently "written during his life and is mentioned by most notable historians" is what you mean no?
Remember also, Jesus was no significant figure in the political arena of his time, which is where the majority of history is concerned... The evidence we have for him is plenty sufficient..
Anyway, here's a little video for though food if you have the time:
Nothing in history is verifiable to the degree that is sufficient enough to make life changing decisions based on the information believed about it, and the farther back in history we look the less sufficient it becomes. The veracity of historical accuracy is inversely proportional to its age. The farther back you go the more inaccurate it will be. The Bible contradicts itself in the details, and isn't a good source of information because of it.
@KentonForshee "Nothing in history is verifiable to the degree that is sufficient enough to make life changing decisions based on the information believed about it..."
What about law courts that are depend upon history? I think you are significantly overstating yourself with the above comment. I think any historian, or lawyer, would agree that history argues in probabilities. Yet that is how most things in life are, probabilities. Very little can be known with 100% certainty.
Courts of Law have people taking dictation and laws are subject to change are you suggesting that someone was standing around taking dictation everywhere that Jesus, Moses, and all other Biblical characters went to know precisely what they did and said?
@KentonForshee Of course, but nobody is taking dictation at the when the crime actually occurred (usually). When someone steals from another person, it can only be shown historically. Yet it seems you wish (I could be wrong) to say that we cannot know anything with a good enough probability through history. Yet this is exactly what prosecutors job is, to show that person x committed a crime in the past using historical methods.
Show a god exists today and I'll entertain the notion that it came to earth. Let's not just skip over and presume a god's existence without the evidence to show it. THEN after having done that, then show how it must be the god of the Bible. Till then, to argue about the historicity of the Bible is nonsense and equivalent to prosecuting someone for the murder of somebody you can't even show ever existed.
@KentonForshee I haven't said a word about the historicity of the Bible, why do you have such anger towards something you do not believe in and believe is so meaningless?
You seem very sure of your atheism, what are some good arguments in favor of atheism? I mean what convinced you atheism is true? Clearly to say that you believe all the arguments for God fail does not amount to an argument for atheism. So what persuades you of the truth of atheism? What are your reasons?
A few good arguments in favor of atheism: I Never EVER have to deny how the universe functions in order to maintain some belief system that would oppose the new information. I Never EVER have to be made to feel threatened with eternal torture in order to make me behave myself. I Never EVER have to worry about upsetting some god by whatever I may do no matter how harmless it actually was.
I was not convinced that atheism is true. I was left with atheism when I became convinced through a systematic evaluation that religion was bullcrap. Atheism or Non-theism is the default for everyone. Relgion doesn't support its claims and falls flat. That is why it requires "Faith". If it were based on evidence then faith wouldn't be necessary.
@KentonForshee So here you are basically admitting that there are no good arguments for atheism, correct? By saying that bc there are no good theistic arguments atheism is the default is logically inappropriate. A more modest and appropriate position is at the very least agnosticism. The reason is that you are basically saying there are no good arguments for theism therefore I am an atheist, yet at the same time there are no good arguments for atheism! Why not...cont'd
No, it is not "logically inappropriate". Non-theists ARE atheist. That's what atheist are. Without belief in a God. Agnosticism is a different category. One can be both atheist and agnostic, I am. Theism and atheism is about belief, gnosticism and agnosticism is about knowledge. Those are two different scales. When someone is born they are both without knowledge or belief about a god, and therefore Agnostic Atheist.
You cannot disbelieve in God's existence and be unsure of it at the same time. Given that you admittedly have no good arguments that God does not exist nor do you believe any good arguments for God's existence are good, you should put a question mark in the answer column.
@KentonForshee I do not agree that people are born without knowledge or without recognizing that there is a God. How does a baby know to cling to its mother, it certainly isn't learned.
I don't have to convince you that about atheism. If you suddenly were no longer convinced that your belief in a deity was true you'd be atheist and probably agnostic too. It's a null position. It's a zero. It's where everyone would be without their indoctrination into religion.
@KentonForshee Why not say the inverse? I mean what if I were to say that bc there are no good arguments for atheism therefore I am going to become a theist!? I presume that you would think that is rather arbitrary or ridiculous. Thus, a more appropriate position is at least agnosticism. Don't buy the lie that atheism is our default position.
The one with the claim has the burden of proof. Atheism has no claims. It's position is Zero. If you don't have an active belief that a god exists you are atheist. If you believe one does then your position is 1. Theism makes the claim that a god exists. I don't know that one doesn't exist, but I don't believe that it CAN be known either. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.
@KentonForshee Whoa, wait a minute! Atheists are not making claims? I don't think so. You have been doing nothing BUT make claims. Your buying into that lie that atheism is a default position. Essentially your claim is that "the universe is all there ever was, is, and ever will be."
As you said, if you don't know God doesn't exist, then he could exist. Thus, as you say your are an agnostic ("agnostic atheist" I would leave the atheist portion out).
@KentonForshee Someone who is a theist does not necessarily have to be part of a "religion" however defined. A deist would be a good example of such a person.
Courts can be wrong, and they overturn laws and judgments. Does the Bible and the god it speaks of have that kind of ability to be just equally as wrong? The instant someone proclaims divine inspiration the expectations change. We're expected to uphold laws that are 2000 years old and older. Do courts do that or are they subject to change based on modernity? I think your comparison is flawed.
@KentonForshee Your missing the point, when courts overturn laws and judgements they are also using history. So the comparison is simply used to show that history is valid for knowing about events of the past.
No they are not using history to overturn laws. They, at best, are using what is believed to be true about history. There is a distinct difference. What is believed to be true, could still be false.
@KentonForshee You are mistaken. They are using history. The dictation taken by the stenographer is historical evidence as to what was said at a court hearing. If that it used to overturn a decision by the courts, then the courts used historical methods and conducted history in order to change a past event ruling that would apply differently today. Essentially, if there were no history, then they would not even be able to show that the law exists. You have a selfdefeating argument
Yes, on this point I concede, but only when they use other evidence provided by the court, not from 2000 years ago. The Bible isn't a historical record and would not stand in court. It's hearsay.
@KentonForshee Well technically every historian is guilty of hearsay, even if they use eyewitnesses by the time the write and publish their accounts they are hearsay. Yet we know of several terrible events from the Holocaust due to the writing from historians right despite the fact it is hearsay, would you agree?
True, but I don't hold much regard for those things. The holocaust probably happened, but it doesn't affect my life either way. I try to live in the moment and be mindful of how my choices today affect my life and the lives of others around me both now and in the future.
@KentonForshee Well that is a shame. You should hold very high regard for those things. I am sure you would care if they were occurring to you! Several people died and gave their lives and you think it doesn't affect your life either way?!?! What if the Nazi's won? Do you think your life would have been affected? When is the last time you have watched anything on the holocaust? If it has been awhile, do urself a favor and watch one immediately.
I'm concerned with current events. If it were happening now that would be different. I don't dwell on the past. Those who do keep us from moving beyond it.
@KentonForshee So historians are a meaningless profession? Come on. "Those who do not know history are bound to make its mistakes." I think you have learned quite a bit about the past in order to choose how you live in the present and the future. You have learned about the history of Christianity and learned that you do not like and will not live like a C. So even you are using history now and dwelling on the past of C in order to avoid it in the future.
Yes, history is about probabilities. So what's the probability that a god came to earth via a virgin birth to the middle east 2000 years ago at a time when humanity knew very little about how the universe worked, performed a bunch of miracles to impress the natives and left his having been here to probability in spite of the fact that according to the Bible the destination for your tainted immortal soul depends on what you determine how probable it all is.
(Part 1) Yet even if we disregard the historicity of the Biblical claims then we can still look at the Bible's moral precepts for its usability. The Bible has proved itself to be a mixed bag on morality. Allowing slavery by divine command and was never discouraged, forcing raped women to marry their rapist, war by divine command, scapegoating through Jesus, and loophole atonement. Cont....
@KentonForshee Perhaps it may help you to look at the Bible as a collection of books. After all there are a multitude of different authors ranging from different time periods, professions, and geographic locations.
Yes, it's a collection of books. A collection that has nothing to do with my life, nor I suspect the lives of most people. I could, and can, live an entire lifetime as a kind, honorable, and moral human being without ever having heard one thing from the Bible. The Bible isn't of any use to modern life and it doesn't contain any valuable information which could not have been obtained elsewhere and without all the baggage that comes along with it.
@KentonForshee Well to say it has nothing to do with most people's lives is rather absurd. Jesus is widely known as the greatest moral teacher. His teachings are found in the Bible, it clearly is of use to billions of people in the world. I mean we get it, your not a Christian, just don't be so sloppy in your statements.
It doesn't have to do with most people's lives. When Christians get sick who do most of them go to? A Doctor, not a preacher. If they actually believed what the Bible said they would only pray, and no doctors would be needed. Jesus told his disciples to abandon their families and follow him. That's not very moral. Jesus was perfectly okay with slavery. That's not very moral. And I suspect Christians would disagree that those things are moral.
@KentonForshee When in the Gospels does Jesus tell the disciples to abandon their families? Where does Jesus condone slavery? Specifically what texts are you referring about? Additionally, how do you explain slave owners who converted and released their slaves after reading the Bible? Would Jesus be considered the greatest moral teacher if what you said was true? I doubt it.
Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Then there is this little nugget.
Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
@KentonForshee Mt. 19 - That text simply says those that HAVE done that will receive hundredfold. Not necessarily that one MUST do that. Moreover, not only is it taking the verse out of context it virtually ignores other texts that would need to be considered as well. Obviously Jesus' teachings on divorce would be a good place to start :) We can also see Christians did have the right to take a (believing) wife) according 1 Cor. 9:5!
@KentonForshee I mean these are really non-issues and there is a reason Christians are not having large debates on these topics with nonbelievers (this case being an exception). But as we look on the wider scale one (liberal) scholar writes, "No other figure in the history of the West has ever been accorded such extraordinary status."
Since Jesus was suppose to BE god then of course he was pro-slavery because god is pro-slavery. Jesus never opposed it and the Bible is riddled with pro-slavery ideas, even in the New Testament, like 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
In the old testament it even tells you how you can beat your slaves.Exodus 21:20-21
@KentonForshee Again, you have the issue misunderstood. Look at the culture around the world, only extremists even attempt to say that Jesus was pro-slavery. You just don't get called the greatest moral teacher bc you promote slavery!!!
@KentonForshee In any event, 1 Pet. is an incredible text! We should be good and considerate to those who are even harsh! Sounds a lot like love your enemy or pray for your enemies. The simple fact is that a Christian could be a slave of a non-Christian and Peter is telling them how to behave. Certainly the moral code he expects them to follow is the highest to date! The simple fact that slavery existed does not mean C were pro-slavery anymore than abortion means C are pro-choice.
Popularity doesn't indicate factuality. It wouldn't matter how many slave owners released their slaves there were plenty who used the Bible as a reason to keep them.
@KentonForshee So you would agree then, that it doesn't matter what or how other people ACT regarding the Bible, but what the Bible actually says? That was what I was trying to say earlier, but I was admittedly unclear.
Also how many Christians sell all they own and give the money to the poor? Not many I suspect. But Jesus said that's what you should do if you were to follow him.
@KentonForshee I don't see how the actions of other Christians would affect the truthfulness of Christianity at all. It is as though you are saying that since nobody is following Jesus then Jesus' teachings are false. I think it is a terribly mistaken view. How Christians behave should have no bearing on the truthfulness or falseness of the Bible, should it? I'd admit wrong actions don't make it any easier.
No, I'm not saying that they are false, only that they are not being used. The argument was that people don't need the Bible. They don't use it now. They agree with the Bible like they agree to a software license agreement. They scroll to the bottom and click "agree". They've not really read it.
However, the teachings of Christianity cannot be shown to be factual. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell, or even a soul for that matter.
@KentonForshee What about documented, published, and peer-reviewed cases of where someone was brain dead or without heart beats or both and then reported to have verifiable experiences? Certainly near death experiences would be indicative of life after death (of course so would Jesus' resurrection and the fact that we all have eternity on our hearts). NDEs are fairly common even well known atheists have had them.
@KentonForshee I would disagree with your overall point though. I know Christians who have taken people into their houses, started programs for orphans, drug addicts, homeless, etc. Last month I saw one take the jacket off their back and give it to a homeless man who was sleeping on steam grates. Moreover, the early church was EXTREMELY well known for such actions even if you believe people today don't.
"With or without religion you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.
The early church was also EXTREMELY well known for persecuting pagans and Jews, and burning witches.
@KentonForshee "It wouldn't matter how many slave owners released their slaves there were plenty who used the Bible as a reason to keep them." - you. So you have setup a heads I win tails you lose argument. When the Bible transforms a life, say of a gang member, you say that is meaningless, but if a good person is corrupted, then that should be accepted as meaningful? That is a double standard if I have ever seen one!
"Yet even if we disregard the historicity of the Biblical claims"... you put this ridiculous double-standard "historically-valid criteria" on the Bible then dismiss its historicity because it didn't meet your standards? Really.....
About slavery and marrying the rapist.... The culture back then was pretty different back then than it was now. If I understand right, a woman who'd had been "defiled" might have a hard time finding a man to marry since she was "defiled", thus the marriage order. At least she'd have a man that way.
If I understand things right...a slave back then was basically a "bond-servant" and if you didn't have any source of livelihood...continued
--it was something poor people (Jews included) would sell themselves into to to give themselves food and shelter... in exchange for their service - or pay off a dept. Certainly Jewish slavery was a world different from the abusive "cattle ranching slaves" of Africans in recent history. Also, if you remember a slave who had escaped their master (presumably because of cruelty) and came seeking assylum was not to be forcibly returned or oppressed Deuteronomy 23:15-16
@JamesJon1187 Interesting that Jews were allowed(by god)to beat their slaves to near death without any consequence, and if the slave did die the owner would have a small penalty. I don't see how you can imply that Jewish slavery was ok.
Also the law to train God's people in His ways of justice (eye for eye), rightouesness, and love...it was a gardian to train God's people in His way so they would recognize Jesus, the author of it, and then follow His way. It was not the end in itself. (Gal 3:23-24)
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, & not D very image of D things, can never w/ those sacrifices they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(Part 2) Then you have "Love your neighbor as yourself". If that's the best part rip that page out and toss the rest in the trash. As for the theological ideas about heaven and hell there is no evidence that any of that is true. If it were the evidence would be available today and not just in an old book. The Bible itself cannot be the evidence because it is the source of the claims. It can't be both the claim, and the evidence for that claim, simultaneously.
People die for a lie all the time. Look at Islam. If they were martyred that doesn't mean much. But the idea that they were martyred is strictly hearsay. It cannot be established as factual. It could be that the church just likes to let people believe they were.
ProfMTH does a very good 8 part series discussing the idea of disciple martyrdom in detail. I highly recommend it. The first part of which is here:
@JamesJon1187 Do you thing Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse in order to get The theology of Islam from an angel? I tend to think that you believe Islam is a joke, YET there have been as many if not more who were martyred over the centuries in behalf of Mohammed and Allah, so your comment "you'll need to account for why tne of the first 12 disciples each were martyred. Would they do that for something they cooked up? Really?" FAILED
Josephus' work does contain Christian interpolations, but lets for the sake of argument say he did write some of it. That just means that he was writing about what people were saying at the time. That doesn't make it true. Otherwise, we must take for true that Hercules was real because he also mentioned Hercules in his writings. So did the son of Zeus actually exist? Clearly not. So his mention of Jesus can be just as dismissed as non-historical.
The bottom line is that noone was there and all we have to rely on are accounts written by people years after said event.
In other words the writings can not be trusted just as you wouldn't fully trust any second hand source of information. If you deny that fact then you are fuckin stupid and need to start engaging your brain and living in the real world not fairy tale land with happy endings.
WEll, guess we'd better chuck a good portion of ancient history out the window in that case.... since their lives weren't recorded while they were living.
If you want to but the fact remains that the bible and it's stories were written decades after the events were alledged to have taken place. Oh and the fact that they are unbelieveable and no such events have happened since makes them dubious to say the least.
Talking snakes, dead rising from the grave, people parting seas, people walking on water, I mean c'mon need I say more!?
Reckon you'd say the same thing about George Muller (look him up if you don't know of him)? Miracles still occur (one has been performed through me, in Jesus's name), but I'm not going to try to convince you they do because you're probably a close minded athiest. Sorry if I'm wrong.
I thnik your god has proven itself to be evil if it does exist and if you're happy with that then that's ok. I looked at your profile and you're from Japan right? Well you should know first hand how evil god is due to the horrific desasters that have struck your country recently.
I'd expect much more from an all powerful being that has the power not to let awful things like that happen. I bet plenty of people that died were praying but alas none of them were saved.
@MrJoystickid So, God creates man, he creates creation for him, He gives him everything he has (including life)... and man turns away and sets himself up as his own God, (maybe) behaves like he's entitled to everything he is given , creates or chooses other gods (like money) to serve and disregards the voice (of conscience and truth) of God is his heart or manifested verbal revelation of God (in the Bible)... then when man runs into trouble -----
There is no evidence that your god created everything and you are one arrogant s.o.b for asserting it. That's the problem with you people you know it all already or atleast you think you do when the reality is that not one single person knows what, how or why our universe exists.
Your arrogance amuses me young man and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible and easily led. If you had actually read your bible you would see how evil your god is.
--he calls out to God for help and if God doesn't answer man, God is condemned by man as being evil? Really, bro, keep things in perspective. God is good. Man is the problem, and the one who lives in denial.
What's your point? That different religion shaped cultures have different influences on people's world view? Geees! Thanks for the enlightenment! But if it's all the “same difference” to you(Muslim, Christian, Athiest, Hindu) and you seem to hate the Christian worldview so much, how would you like to go live in the other religion shaped cultures? There's the Muslim world for you joining, zealously Athiest world (the communist block and North Korea),
The religion you believe in is influenced by where you were born or how you were brought up. It's called indoctrination.
God hasn't designed anything and if you had a clue you would be able to see that. Everything is down to natural selection apart from the big bang because non of us know how that happened, well apart from you arrogant religious folk that is. Do you really think this universe of trillions of galaxies was just build for us?
@MrJoystickid God hasn't designed anything? How do you know this? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Also, none of us know how the big bang happened? Really? I beg to differ if that's what you're saying, A great many scientist do know how the big bang occurred, google "how the big bang happened.
Well I can make an educated guess by looking at the way the universe works, in however many trillion light years this is the only place so far that we know we can survive. Pretty shit universe design to say it was all designed for little old us if you ask me!
Ok I will rephrase my statement smart ass, we know what happened after the big bang and we can postulate till the cows come home as to the exact conditions but not one person knows what casued the big bang.
@MrJoystickid you said, "Well I can make an educated guess by looking at the way the universe works" What education do you have to base your "educated guess on" high school, college? What area of study? social work, science?? Also, you said, "we can postulate till the cows come home as to the exact conditions but not one person knows what casued the big bang." You haven't heard Dr Lawrence Krauss' lectures on the "Universe from nothing" I take it?
An educated guess can be a well informed assumption based on reading and listening to lectures, we're are commenting on a lecture right now so it is blatanty obvious that I watch them!
I don't recognise the name but I'm sure I've heard of the theory and of course it is possible that the universe came from nothing but the fact is we DON'T KNOW!
You're really pissing me now, go bother some creatards, I'm an Atheist because I've educated myself what's your problem troll?
or the Hindu world (where man worships cows and mustn't kill an insect less he squash his reincarnated ancestors) since it's all “same difference” right? The fact is, you're borrowing from the truth manifested in Judaeo/Christian morality and trying to condemn the Author of it...go judge God with humanistic Communist morality (He didn't worship the state like a good patron) if you want to stay true to your Atheism all the way... or you can borrow from the Hindus----
---(He's squashed a mosquito and wasn't born in the upper castes!) or Muslims (He teaches loving your enemies instead of Jihad... what a problem!) if you like.. maybe they won't mind.
--And so far as Afghanistan or India, why don't you list Japan in there too? The Christian percentage here is probably as small either country (and yes, I was born in Japan, and am [half] Japanese).
@dinogodx I don't agree, anymore than I would say that by not praying a non-believer shows his bias, and therefore can't be rational in considering the facts. One can still have an opinion or point of view, and acknowledge that belief, yet still be honest in following the evidence. I don't agree with everything Ehrman says, but I think he is honest in what he believes...and he has openly said that early in his career he prayed often when confronted with evidence that challenged his views.
@sungate153 dude you need to read what actual scholars do say about Josephus and not some zeitgeist bullshit. Scholars do acknowledge that some of Josephus passage about Jesus is Christian interpolation but there is a genuine part and hardly any of these scholars are "apologists" for Christianity. Read more
@sungate153 yes and atheists in Communist countries loved destroying religious books and libraries as well but maybe you are for that today, I know many atheists that would love a good old "burn the Bible and all religious delusions" day. Now many atheists are even attacking philosophy as a bankrupt epistemology, lol, joke.
@sungate153 ok, i will use your own insane burden of proof against you. You say that Josephus existed correct? Prove that and I will use your own logic against your arguments. Prove Josephus existed. prove it
@sungate153 right, nothing is certain in history like in natural sciences and yes, Ehrman and most scholars don't think of the New Testament as "divinely inspired" but as 1st century documents written from a Christian bias. that doesn't make them totally in error just biased. We have Paul's writing in the 50's and he does reference traditions that he received about Jesus' sayings. Also using the historical method on the gospels, we can determine what does have high historical probability
@sungate153 but even ehrman accepts that Jesus existed and we can know many things about him through the historical method. early Christianity is inexplicable if Jesus did not exist and start a kingdom of God movement. Do you believe that Paul existed?
Licona's introductory arguments are laughable to anyone who is familiar with not only the history of christianity but also of other ancient religions. A better case can be made for Islam's prophet assending into the clouds on a white horse. Of course all propositions of supernatural events are BS.
@RhondaH Jesus crucifixion and burial is certain, women finding his tomb empty has high historical probability. That Peter, the 12, James and a huge group of followers of Jesus saw him alive that they describe as a "resurrection" is certain. Now how do we explain these is the question.
@agnostaxian No, the only evidence you provide is from the gospels and the accounts there are so conflicted between each that it is impossible to say what the story actually is. Read them side by side and see the many huge contridictions! There were many writers in the 1st century, none wrote anything about those events. You'd think it would have been worth writing about. Read about all the other "resurrected" demi gods of history. LOL
@RhondaH scholars use the historical method to determine what has high probability in the gospels. Yes there are contradictions in the Gospels but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong. All those things I mentioned have high historical probability- Jesus was crucified, buried, tomb was found empty by women and he appeared to many of his followers and even unbelievers. Historians generally agree that those are very probable using the historical method
@agnostaxian You do realize that the gospels were written at least 90 yrs AD at the earliest and that the books were not written by those for whom they are named but were written by anonimous writers? Those writers were writing story lines that were quite popular at the time and each writer embellished the work of the previous writer. The character of Jesus is not even the same in each of the gospels. The tomb was not found empty in a couple of the gospels. Geez you are ignorant of your own book
@RhondaH yes, Mark was written around 70, Matt & Luke 80's, John 90's so who is ignorant? also, let's test your knowledge to see how much YOU know with a few easy questions. What book of the New Testament do most scholars think was written first? what date was it written? and why do scholars think it was written then? If you have read "early Christianity for Dipshits" you would know this.
If there are "facts" what are the sources? In Licona's first speech he mentions Josephus and Tacitus, that's it. I know about those, they are not solid. If someone is about to make a case like Mike's here, he ought to have a number of cogent sources. It's frustrating because there can never be a debate in the first place.
@sungate153 How many scholars, not internet self-proclaimed scholars, but real scholars who teach at universities put forward that Jesus was a myth and never existed? If it is discredited as much as you make it seem you should be able cite a lot of scholars! I'd be interested in seeing some of them so I can read their works.
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, not contradictory details! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences.
Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
Oral tradition in the early churches was primarily personal testimonies of individuals in group worship settings and neighborhood encounters. The Gospel accounts did NOT change over the years because the eyewitnesses kept RETELLING about their experiences with Jesus. Matt 8:4, 33-34; 26:13; John 4:28-30, 39-42; 5:15. This is explained in greater detail in my YouTube video, "Oral Tradition in the Early Churches." Again, repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ makes you more Christ-like!
@WayneVA1 yes, the early church told and retold their stories IN A COMMUNITY and pass them down through communities and groups of people so if big mistakes were made, the community would correct it so the "telephone game" analogy is disingenuous. Also, Jews preferred traditions being preserved orally. The babylonian Talmud was not written down for centuries after the first rabbi's started it.
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, NOT contradictory! Quit hiding behind your excuses, Bart! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences.
Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
you clearly have no clue on what your talking about my friend, not to be rude but that had to be said.. im gonna inbox you a mountain of evidence right now... give me a sec
nearly 100% of sholars and historians DISAGREE WITH YOU.. so how do i approach this.. should i believe you or the PROFESSIONALS who provide evidence for this?????
ok but listen.. you see this is exactly my point.. YOU just said "there was no empty tomb, 500 witnesses, etc. its a fabricated story.."... this is YOU talking... but SCHOLARS on the other hand disagree, i have over a dozen sources CLEARLY saying what you just said is fabricated, THEY say is true... so please tell me, tell me LOGICALLY.. who do i go with on this.. do i go with YOU.. a person who made a claim with out any evidence.. all you said was it was a fabricated story
heres another quotation from the same article "Accordingly, the vast majority of contemporary scholars regard this passage as genuine in its entirety, and concur with ranking Josephus expert Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus: "
ok.. i see what your saying but you havn't provided the sources i asked for your claim that "most scholars agree that the brief mention of Christ in Josephus writings was inserted by Christian forgers".. please show me that "most scholars" agree to this??
i would tell you to come at this with an open heart.. and maybe ask God sincerely, EVEN if you dont believe in Him, but just ask and say if you do exist.. show it to me!.. and just like He did to me.. He will for you!
of Jesus REALLY see Him raised from the dead bodily...? (oh and Paul was hater to the Christians, i forgot to mention lol).. but anyways.. after researching myself and seeing that the Christianity me and you know today, that has 1.6 billion followers would NOT of happened if Jesus's tomb wasn't found empty or His appearances to around 500 people all in one night to friends and non-believers was false.. (and 75% of scholars believe He truly did rise!).. on top of all that..
of Christian and non-christian people who all attest to the three facts Mr. Licona gave in this video.. crucifixion, empty tomb and appearances.. not to mention there all backed up by nearly 100% of scholars/historians... so he quickly realized that ok maybe the Christians do have some evidence to what they believe, but its not enough to convince me Jesus rose and proved He was God.. my question to u is, did Paul, James the non believing brother of Jesus and all the other Disciples
I think Licona is making that same mistake that Craig made in his debate against Ehrman. The key factor is the probability that any person would have arisen from the dead after three days (whether supernaturally or otherwise), given that there existed for that person a body of evidence of the type found in the New Testament. If the inherent probability were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would still give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.
InductionRules 1 week ago
I question if Licona understands morality or Christianity. The first few minutes of his talk made me sick!
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
14:20 Who does this man knows for sure how those writers were 100 procent certain Jesus was dead ? If you are in coma it looks for the ignorant bystander you are dead. Nowadays there are only 1 or 2 people ( doctors etc ) who legally have the authority to declare if someone is dead ! This is a worthless debate ! Nobody can raise from the dead so Jesus obviously was not dead. Do you believes get it or NOT ?!
TheRelihunter 3 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter I think that you're being a little harsh, but I think that you do allude to a good point. The NY talks about the "resurrection". But would not people 2000 yrs ago view a person thought to be drowned dead think that the person was "resurrected" if you or I gave the person mouth to mouth and chest compressions, and that person was revived? If one assumes that miracles are the least probable event, would not this scenario be at least a little more probable?
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh So finally someone who's got it right ! Yep he was hung but when released he was in coma due to snake poison in the wine he got in his face and mouth, its right in the bible look it up, laid in tomb and came out of coma and someone did help him to get out of the tombe, remember there were people in white robes seen and no they were not angels but friends from Jesus probable James his brother also. Also he never ascended. this scene is meant symbolically to come back to cont
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter I don't know about all the details you suggest, per se. I was only pointing out that a scenario where Jesus only appeared dead but was later revived is more probable than a true resurrection. Also, since such a revival would appear to the ancient mind like a resurrection, people might very well call it a resurrection, when today doctors would say otherwise.
Also, after such a revival/resurrection, it would be entirely logical that Jesus would have to (contd)
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh (contd) get out of Palestine. Some have suggested that he actually left Roman territory entirely and headed east to India. (The same people also suggest that he spent a portion of his younger life in India learning from monks, which would also explain why he would return there.)
I could also see heading over to Egypt and later to Gaul is possible as well. (cont)
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter (the cont of the 1st part is actually an accidental reply to myself. This is part 3.)
I haven't read Holy Blood Holy Grail, but I've read some other books. And watched a LOT of related documentaries here on YT.
People should also consider that Jesus died awfully quickly as crucifixions go (supposedly 6-9 hrs), when the accounts I've heard say that the more normal time was a day or 2. Was Jesus really so weak that he died that quickly? (contd)
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh He got vinegar with snake poison on the cross, I stated that somewhere before here I believe anyhow he became in coma state, not dead ! They asked if they could get him of the cross and in the tomb this was part of the setup so they could things done to get him out of his coma, this was done with Mire and some other stuff to get the poison out of his body so he would come out of coma. The others were also taken from the cross also not dead, but they killed one or two.
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter (contd) ... Or was there another reason?
Also, I've read elsewhere someone suggesting that the reason Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb was that unbelieving Jews thought that he was unworthy of such a tomb and stole the body and tossed in the trash. That can explain the empty tomb but not the supposed resurrection (revival). Of course, I suppose that one could follow up with Dr Ehrman's visions theory, but that's not as strong as the revival theory to me. (cont)
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh he was laid in tomb but with help as he had planned beforehand as part of the deception he was out of coma and got out of the tomb but was around, Magdalena took him for the gardener but he was Jesus she saw later but she was not allowed to touch Jesus but that had to do with his marriage bond protocol with Maria. No Jesus was seen right after out of coma and stood outside the tomb with his friends and brother James and Maria. I dont know that theorie of Ehrman. but its not
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh a correct theory and makes no sense. 1, tomb empty , 2 Jesus was seen in flesh and blood conclusion he was not dead, ( resurrection is not possible ) belief me its not possible ! the way it went was all plant by Jesus and cohorts to get him popularity to his people so they thought it was a miracle while Jesus knew damn well what was going on , it was his plan afterall. thats why he knew before hand that he would come back after 3 days. by the way that ''raising from the
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh cont. from the dead was also more or less part of a ritual not literaly but symbolicly as was done with I believe Peter in the cave in Qumran. Peter was not dead at all it was a priesthood ritual. Initiates went through the same kind of ritual in the great pyramide of Giza. thats what the sarcofagus in the pyramid was for, it was a part of the ascension rite. also a state of coma or obe so the spirit would go out to the other dimension saw things over there and came back
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh cont pyramids, when the initiate came back he was ''risen from the dead '' symbolic to be born again, you see there comes that concept of ''born again from '' this is interesting stuff if you take the time to dig into it. but unfortunately the Religious Christians dont know anything about this stuff. Live would be so easier for them ! But they dont want to here the real truth thats sad very sad.
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh cont last part. that Egyptian stuff is written about by Tony Bushby The secret in the bible, great stuff.!
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter (contd) The "revival" theory has the benefit of looking completely like a resurrection to the ancient mind, and allows Jesus to walk, talk, and eat with the apostles after his "death" and revival. Also, as you point suggest, perhaps MaryM didn't know about the deception. Maybe the apostles didn't either. It could have been a plot carried out by other friends (Jos. of Arimathea?). And it'd be more probable than a mystical resurrection.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh Yep I think you begin to understand the whole thing ! Great. Joseph of Arimathea was his ''father'' stepfather but , but . That name was also a kind of title, a title which could have been designated to James who was in the complot and Peter as well and the one who was switched on the cross.The one who had to help Jesus for the poison (to fake the dead) was to be hanged but was during the setup of crosses or in the walk up to it switched by another one so he could help Jesus
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh cont... to come back to priesthood after the crucifixion scene which he used in this way to make himself popular to win the people for his way of thinking and to get rid of the Romans thats what it was all about. Yep he left ( not ascension) 3 years somewhere came back later to Maria Magdalena his wife which he got later 1 daughter and 2 sons and one of those sons became King in France or England. Maria Magd went also to France with a boat The black Madonna she was
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh for info and more about this read at least Laurence Gardner I can recommend the books Sacred ark and Bloodline of the holy grail. if all believers should take the time to read his info than they would be all the wiser and finally understand whats it all about. so I can stop commenting and my work would be done.
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
@TheRelihunter Also, I think that Licona does make a fair point that the apostles must have *believed* that Jesus was resurrected, at least in their perspective. And that it's very, very hard to imagine that the apostles would have willingly martyred themselves unless they believed it. That doesn't make it true, only that they believed it. I think that it's possible that Jesus was "only" revived, rather than truly resurrected.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@crucisnh Yep some apostles although knew what was going on. One that had also to be crucified a Peter I believe was a magician from Essene sect and he had to be switched with another to hang because he had to fix the vinegar with the snake poison which Jesus got on the cross why else would he got the vinegar in his face ? He hung he was supposed to die if they didnt the trick so you see there is the clue the clue's are always in the detail !Maria did not know of the deception by Jes
TheRelihunter 2 weeks ago
Resurrection of Jesus ?. LOL nobody can resurrect dead is dead. so he was not dead yet, simple logic isn't it. And NO Jesus was not son of God or God himself and NO miracles do not exist, its impossible. Jesus was in coma, remember he drunk something on the cross, this was snake poison ! He faked his own dead to get popularity and to become priest king which in fact failed but thats another story. read Gardners books and it will be clear.
TheRelihunter 3 weeks ago
lol 23,000 views for a debate featuring two of the most fascinating biblical schloars of our time!!! I dont get it, Gaga gets 23 million and this only gets 23k! No justice, Nice work SE!
mikio182mikio182 1 month ago
The bible says it is true, therefore we know the bible is true.
Richardgwm 1 month ago
Funny story, guy makes a channel replies to me then shuts his channel down!
JamesJon was that you playing silly buggers?
I think so!
MrJoystickid 1 month ago
The Bible is full of crap!
ExtremeEnergyForce 2 months ago
At 6:15 does anyone question that making money wasn't his reason to go into religion.
Is he a Christian? When he married a woman he wasn't even sure if it was the right person for him? It's obvious that at his core he misses what a Christian is. He admits he was preaching when he didn't even know if his faith was real??? I don't think he gets it! And that my friend is why he loses to Mr. Ehrman. Just a lack of faith in the Almighty.
onemarktwoyou 2 months ago
The gospels do have eye witness testimony. Read the gospel of John.
mypersonalgrowth 2 months ago
@mypersonalgrowth
Rubbish, utter rubbish.
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
Tacitus also wrote about Hercules as well. So his writing about Jesus is out the window.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee
Did you note how he mentions Hurcules?... "They say that Hurcules, too once visited them" he's simply reporting what the germanic people say about Hurcules... not stating he's an acutal person. To say that Jesus didn't exist... you'll need to account for why tne of the first 12 disciples each were martyred. Would they do that for something they cooked up? Really?
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus' time. He came afterward so any mention of Jesus has to be hearsay. The Syriac version uses the phrase, ""He was believed to be the Christ". This textual variant shows that there is a point of contention about what the script actually said. Likely later Christian scribes removed the "believed to be" part when translating the Greek.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee
"He came afterward so any mention of Jesus has to be hearsay." -Just like most of history...you going to apply those standards accross the board?
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
There is a difference between publicly verifiable evidence, both old and new, and historical hearsay. We should not rely on hearsay, ancient or otherwise, to help us make decisions or tell us what we should believe.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee
And who should we look to help us make decisions or tell us what we should believe, if not Jesus? Find me a (morally) better man... and what do you find in Him that you can justly condemn him for? You know as well as I do that man is, by nature, not too hot a guide for himself... history is full display of what human nature is.
About publicly verifiable evidence...well I reckon if that's your criteria for valid history rip out most of your history books.. (continued)
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
Comment removed
KentonForshee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know about you, but I make my own decisions based on reason.
Asking me to find you a "morally" better man is like asking you to find you a more perfect landscape. It's subjective. Personally I don't think Jesus was all that moral. He encouraged scapegoating, with himself as the scapegoat, and negating one's own personal moral responsibility through vicarious atonement. That's immoral.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee
-You mean “negating one's own personal morally incurred retributive judgment through vicarious atonement”....if you want to be so “take what you deserve” about it all...besides facing God's judgment against your sins yourself (as you plan to do) are you going to put compassionate mercy on your list of “immorality” as well, since that's what you're condemning here?
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@KentonForshee
And about your “encouraged negating one's personal moral responsibility”... aren't you the kind of person who would be peeved by someone calling U & others to repentance - like Jesus[Mat 4:17] and John the Baptist were doing- and yet you condemn Jesus for “not” doing that?
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@JamesJon1187
Human nature is a mixed bag of moral and immoral actions. There are plenty of good atheists out there, just as their are evil Christians. And let us not resort to the No True Scotsman Fallacy to distance ourselves from the bad people in our own groups. We should all be taken as individuals, not as groups. Every group is a mixed bag.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee ...because Jesus is sufficiently publicly verifiable, but apparently "written during his life and is mentioned by most notable historians" is what you mean no?
Remember also, Jesus was no significant figure in the political arena of his time, which is where the majority of history is concerned... The evidence we have for him is plenty sufficient..
Anyway, here's a little video for though food if you have the time:
/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8
-check it out.
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
Nothing in history is verifiable to the degree that is sufficient enough to make life changing decisions based on the information believed about it, and the farther back in history we look the less sufficient it becomes. The veracity of historical accuracy is inversely proportional to its age. The farther back you go the more inaccurate it will be. The Bible contradicts itself in the details, and isn't a good source of information because of it.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee "Nothing in history is verifiable to the degree that is sufficient enough to make life changing decisions based on the information believed about it..."
What about law courts that are depend upon history? I think you are significantly overstating yourself with the above comment. I think any historian, or lawyer, would agree that history argues in probabilities. Yet that is how most things in life are, probabilities. Very little can be known with 100% certainty.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
Courts of Law have people taking dictation and laws are subject to change are you suggesting that someone was standing around taking dictation everywhere that Jesus, Moses, and all other Biblical characters went to know precisely what they did and said?
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee Of course, but nobody is taking dictation at the when the crime actually occurred (usually). When someone steals from another person, it can only be shown historically. Yet it seems you wish (I could be wrong) to say that we cannot know anything with a good enough probability through history. Yet this is exactly what prosecutors job is, to show that person x committed a crime in the past using historical methods.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
Show a god exists today and I'll entertain the notion that it came to earth. Let's not just skip over and presume a god's existence without the evidence to show it. THEN after having done that, then show how it must be the god of the Bible. Till then, to argue about the historicity of the Bible is nonsense and equivalent to prosecuting someone for the murder of somebody you can't even show ever existed.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee I haven't said a word about the historicity of the Bible, why do you have such anger towards something you do not believe in and believe is so meaningless?
You seem very sure of your atheism, what are some good arguments in favor of atheism? I mean what convinced you atheism is true? Clearly to say that you believe all the arguments for God fail does not amount to an argument for atheism. So what persuades you of the truth of atheism? What are your reasons?
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
A few good arguments in favor of atheism: I Never EVER have to deny how the universe functions in order to maintain some belief system that would oppose the new information. I Never EVER have to be made to feel threatened with eternal torture in order to make me behave myself. I Never EVER have to worry about upsetting some god by whatever I may do no matter how harmless it actually was.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
I was not convinced that atheism is true. I was left with atheism when I became convinced through a systematic evaluation that religion was bullcrap. Atheism or Non-theism is the default for everyone. Relgion doesn't support its claims and falls flat. That is why it requires "Faith". If it were based on evidence then faith wouldn't be necessary.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee So here you are basically admitting that there are no good arguments for atheism, correct? By saying that bc there are no good theistic arguments atheism is the default is logically inappropriate. A more modest and appropriate position is at the very least agnosticism. The reason is that you are basically saying there are no good arguments for theism therefore I am an atheist, yet at the same time there are no good arguments for atheism! Why not...cont'd
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
No, it is not "logically inappropriate". Non-theists ARE atheist. That's what atheist are. Without belief in a God. Agnosticism is a different category. One can be both atheist and agnostic, I am. Theism and atheism is about belief, gnosticism and agnosticism is about knowledge. Those are two different scales. When someone is born they are both without knowledge or belief about a god, and therefore Agnostic Atheist.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee
Atheist = God doesn't exist
Agnostic = I don't know if God exists
Theist = God exists
You cannot disbelieve in God's existence and be unsure of it at the same time. Given that you admittedly have no good arguments that God does not exist nor do you believe any good arguments for God's existence are good, you should put a question mark in the answer column.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee I do not agree that people are born without knowledge or without recognizing that there is a God. How does a baby know to cling to its mother, it certainly isn't learned.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
I don't have to convince you that about atheism. If you suddenly were no longer convinced that your belief in a deity was true you'd be atheist and probably agnostic too. It's a null position. It's a zero. It's where everyone would be without their indoctrination into religion.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Why not say the inverse? I mean what if I were to say that bc there are no good arguments for atheism therefore I am going to become a theist!? I presume that you would think that is rather arbitrary or ridiculous. Thus, a more appropriate position is at least agnosticism. Don't buy the lie that atheism is our default position.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
The one with the claim has the burden of proof. Atheism has no claims. It's position is Zero. If you don't have an active belief that a god exists you are atheist. If you believe one does then your position is 1. Theism makes the claim that a god exists. I don't know that one doesn't exist, but I don't believe that it CAN be known either. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Whoa, wait a minute! Atheists are not making claims? I don't think so. You have been doing nothing BUT make claims. Your buying into that lie that atheism is a default position. Essentially your claim is that "the universe is all there ever was, is, and ever will be."
As you said, if you don't know God doesn't exist, then he could exist. Thus, as you say your are an agnostic ("agnostic atheist" I would leave the atheist portion out).
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Someone who is a theist does not necessarily have to be part of a "religion" however defined. A deist would be a good example of such a person.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
Courts can be wrong, and they overturn laws and judgments. Does the Bible and the god it speaks of have that kind of ability to be just equally as wrong? The instant someone proclaims divine inspiration the expectations change. We're expected to uphold laws that are 2000 years old and older. Do courts do that or are they subject to change based on modernity? I think your comparison is flawed.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee Your missing the point, when courts overturn laws and judgements they are also using history. So the comparison is simply used to show that history is valid for knowing about events of the past.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
No they are not using history to overturn laws. They, at best, are using what is believed to be true about history. There is a distinct difference. What is believed to be true, could still be false.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee You are mistaken. They are using history. The dictation taken by the stenographer is historical evidence as to what was said at a court hearing. If that it used to overturn a decision by the courts, then the courts used historical methods and conducted history in order to change a past event ruling that would apply differently today. Essentially, if there were no history, then they would not even be able to show that the law exists. You have a selfdefeating argument
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
Yes, on this point I concede, but only when they use other evidence provided by the court, not from 2000 years ago. The Bible isn't a historical record and would not stand in court. It's hearsay.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Well technically every historian is guilty of hearsay, even if they use eyewitnesses by the time the write and publish their accounts they are hearsay. Yet we know of several terrible events from the Holocaust due to the writing from historians right despite the fact it is hearsay, would you agree?
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
True, but I don't hold much regard for those things. The holocaust probably happened, but it doesn't affect my life either way. I try to live in the moment and be mindful of how my choices today affect my life and the lives of others around me both now and in the future.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Well that is a shame. You should hold very high regard for those things. I am sure you would care if they were occurring to you! Several people died and gave their lives and you think it doesn't affect your life either way?!?! What if the Nazi's won? Do you think your life would have been affected? When is the last time you have watched anything on the holocaust? If it has been awhile, do urself a favor and watch one immediately.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
I'm concerned with current events. If it were happening now that would be different. I don't dwell on the past. Those who do keep us from moving beyond it.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee So historians are a meaningless profession? Come on. "Those who do not know history are bound to make its mistakes." I think you have learned quite a bit about the past in order to choose how you live in the present and the future. You have learned about the history of Christianity and learned that you do not like and will not live like a C. So even you are using history now and dwelling on the past of C in order to avoid it in the future.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
Comment removed
KentonForshee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, history is about probabilities. So what's the probability that a god came to earth via a virgin birth to the middle east 2000 years ago at a time when humanity knew very little about how the universe worked, performed a bunch of miracles to impress the natives and left his having been here to probability in spite of the fact that according to the Bible the destination for your tainted immortal soul depends on what you determine how probable it all is.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
(Part 1) Yet even if we disregard the historicity of the Biblical claims then we can still look at the Bible's moral precepts for its usability. The Bible has proved itself to be a mixed bag on morality. Allowing slavery by divine command and was never discouraged, forcing raped women to marry their rapist, war by divine command, scapegoating through Jesus, and loophole atonement. Cont....
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee Perhaps it may help you to look at the Bible as a collection of books. After all there are a multitude of different authors ranging from different time periods, professions, and geographic locations.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
Yes, it's a collection of books. A collection that has nothing to do with my life, nor I suspect the lives of most people. I could, and can, live an entire lifetime as a kind, honorable, and moral human being without ever having heard one thing from the Bible. The Bible isn't of any use to modern life and it doesn't contain any valuable information which could not have been obtained elsewhere and without all the baggage that comes along with it.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
@KentonForshee Well to say it has nothing to do with most people's lives is rather absurd. Jesus is widely known as the greatest moral teacher. His teachings are found in the Bible, it clearly is of use to billions of people in the world. I mean we get it, your not a Christian, just don't be so sloppy in your statements.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100
It doesn't have to do with most people's lives. When Christians get sick who do most of them go to? A Doctor, not a preacher. If they actually believed what the Bible said they would only pray, and no doctors would be needed. Jesus told his disciples to abandon their families and follow him. That's not very moral. Jesus was perfectly okay with slavery. That's not very moral. And I suspect Christians would disagree that those things are moral.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee When in the Gospels does Jesus tell the disciples to abandon their families? Where does Jesus condone slavery? Specifically what texts are you referring about? Additionally, how do you explain slave owners who converted and released their slaves after reading the Bible? Would Jesus be considered the greatest moral teacher if what you said was true? I doubt it.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Then there is this little nugget.
Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Mt. 19 - That text simply says those that HAVE done that will receive hundredfold. Not necessarily that one MUST do that. Moreover, not only is it taking the verse out of context it virtually ignores other texts that would need to be considered as well. Obviously Jesus' teachings on divorce would be a good place to start :) We can also see Christians did have the right to take a (believing) wife) according 1 Cor. 9:5!
Lk 14 simply refers to love compared to Christ.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee I mean these are really non-issues and there is a reason Christians are not having large debates on these topics with nonbelievers (this case being an exception). But as we look on the wider scale one (liberal) scholar writes, "No other figure in the history of the West has ever been accorded such extraordinary status."
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
Since Jesus was suppose to BE god then of course he was pro-slavery because god is pro-slavery. Jesus never opposed it and the Bible is riddled with pro-slavery ideas, even in the New Testament, like 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
In the old testament it even tells you how you can beat your slaves.Exodus 21:20-21
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Again, you have the issue misunderstood. Look at the culture around the world, only extremists even attempt to say that Jesus was pro-slavery. You just don't get called the greatest moral teacher bc you promote slavery!!!
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee In any event, 1 Pet. is an incredible text! We should be good and considerate to those who are even harsh! Sounds a lot like love your enemy or pray for your enemies. The simple fact is that a Christian could be a slave of a non-Christian and Peter is telling them how to behave. Certainly the moral code he expects them to follow is the highest to date! The simple fact that slavery existed does not mean C were pro-slavery anymore than abortion means C are pro-choice.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
Popularity doesn't indicate factuality. It wouldn't matter how many slave owners released their slaves there were plenty who used the Bible as a reason to keep them.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee So you would agree then, that it doesn't matter what or how other people ACT regarding the Bible, but what the Bible actually says? That was what I was trying to say earlier, but I was admittedly unclear.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
Also how many Christians sell all they own and give the money to the poor? Not many I suspect. But Jesus said that's what you should do if you were to follow him.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee I don't see how the actions of other Christians would affect the truthfulness of Christianity at all. It is as though you are saying that since nobody is following Jesus then Jesus' teachings are false. I think it is a terribly mistaken view. How Christians behave should have no bearing on the truthfulness or falseness of the Bible, should it? I'd admit wrong actions don't make it any easier.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
No, I'm not saying that they are false, only that they are not being used. The argument was that people don't need the Bible. They don't use it now. They agree with the Bible like they agree to a software license agreement. They scroll to the bottom and click "agree". They've not really read it.
However, the teachings of Christianity cannot be shown to be factual. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell, or even a soul for that matter.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee What about documented, published, and peer-reviewed cases of where someone was brain dead or without heart beats or both and then reported to have verifiable experiences? Certainly near death experiences would be indicative of life after death (of course so would Jesus' resurrection and the fact that we all have eternity on our hearts). NDEs are fairly common even well known atheists have had them.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee I would disagree with your overall point though. I know Christians who have taken people into their houses, started programs for orphans, drug addicts, homeless, etc. Last month I saw one take the jacket off their back and give it to a homeless man who was sleeping on steam grates. Moreover, the early church was EXTREMELY well known for such actions even if you believe people today don't.
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@CapsHockey100
"With or without religion you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - Steven Weinberg.
The early church was also EXTREMELY well known for persecuting pagans and Jews, and burning witches.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee "It wouldn't matter how many slave owners released their slaves there were plenty who used the Bible as a reason to keep them." - you. So you have setup a heads I win tails you lose argument. When the Bible transforms a life, say of a gang member, you say that is meaningless, but if a good person is corrupted, then that should be accepted as meaningful? That is a double standard if I have ever seen one!
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
@KentonForshee Who in the early church was known for these things? I believe you are talking about people centuries later...
CapsHockey100 1 month ago
Comment removed
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KentonForshee
"Yet even if we disregard the historicity of the Biblical claims"... you put this ridiculous double-standard "historically-valid criteria" on the Bible then dismiss its historicity because it didn't meet your standards? Really.....
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
Comment removed
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KentonForshee
About slavery and marrying the rapist.... The culture back then was pretty different back then than it was now. If I understand right, a woman who'd had been "defiled" might have a hard time finding a man to marry since she was "defiled", thus the marriage order. At least she'd have a man that way.
If I understand things right...a slave back then was basically a "bond-servant" and if you didn't have any source of livelihood...continued
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@KentonForshee
--it was something poor people (Jews included) would sell themselves into to to give themselves food and shelter... in exchange for their service - or pay off a dept. Certainly Jewish slavery was a world different from the abusive "cattle ranching slaves" of Africans in recent history. Also, if you remember a slave who had escaped their master (presumably because of cruelty) and came seeking assylum was not to be forcibly returned or oppressed Deuteronomy 23:15-16
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@JamesJon1187 Interesting that Jews were allowed(by god)to beat their slaves to near death without any consequence, and if the slave did die the owner would have a small penalty. I don't see how you can imply that Jewish slavery was ok.
99minerkc 1 month ago
@KentonForshee
Also the law to train God's people in His ways of justice (eye for eye), rightouesness, and love...it was a gardian to train God's people in His way so they would recognize Jesus, the author of it, and then follow His way. It was not the end in itself. (Gal 3:23-24)
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, & not D very image of D things, can never w/ those sacrifices they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@JamesJon1187
We're not going to convince one another so I've given up on trying. Believe your bull. I don't really care.
KentonForshee 1 month ago
@KentonForshee
I think this says it best:
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@JamesJon1187
(Part 2) Then you have "Love your neighbor as yourself". If that's the best part rip that page out and toss the rest in the trash. As for the theological ideas about heaven and hell there is no evidence that any of that is true. If it were the evidence would be available today and not just in an old book. The Bible itself cannot be the evidence because it is the source of the claims. It can't be both the claim, and the evidence for that claim, simultaneously.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
Comment removed
KentonForshee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesJon1187
People die for a lie all the time. Look at Islam. If they were martyred that doesn't mean much. But the idea that they were martyred is strictly hearsay. It cannot be established as factual. It could be that the church just likes to let people believe they were.
ProfMTH does a very good 8 part series discussing the idea of disciple martyrdom in detail. I highly recommend it. The first part of which is here:
/watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I
KentonForshee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesJon1187 Do you thing Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse in order to get The theology of Islam from an angel? I tend to think that you believe Islam is a joke, YET there have been as many if not more who were martyred over the centuries in behalf of Mohammed and Allah, so your comment "you'll need to account for why tne of the first 12 disciples each were martyred. Would they do that for something they cooked up? Really?" FAILED
99minerkc 1 month ago
Josephus' work does contain Christian interpolations, but lets for the sake of argument say he did write some of it. That just means that he was writing about what people were saying at the time. That doesn't make it true. Otherwise, we must take for true that Hercules was real because he also mentioned Hercules in his writings. So did the son of Zeus actually exist? Clearly not. So his mention of Jesus can be just as dismissed as non-historical.
KentonForshee 2 months ago
The bottom line is that noone was there and all we have to rely on are accounts written by people years after said event.
In other words the writings can not be trusted just as you wouldn't fully trust any second hand source of information. If you deny that fact then you are fuckin stupid and need to start engaging your brain and living in the real world not fairy tale land with happy endings.
MrJoystickid 2 months ago 3
@MrJoystickid
WEll, guess we'd better chuck a good portion of ancient history out the window in that case.... since their lives weren't recorded while they were living.
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
If you want to but the fact remains that the bible and it's stories were written decades after the events were alledged to have taken place. Oh and the fact that they are unbelieveable and no such events have happened since makes them dubious to say the least.
Talking snakes, dead rising from the grave, people parting seas, people walking on water, I mean c'mon need I say more!?
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
Comment removed
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@MrJoystickid
Reckon you'd say the same thing about George Muller (look him up if you don't know of him)? Miracles still occur (one has been performed through me, in Jesus's name), but I'm not going to try to convince you they do because you're probably a close minded athiest. Sorry if I'm wrong.
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
I thnik your god has proven itself to be evil if it does exist and if you're happy with that then that's ok. I looked at your profile and you're from Japan right? Well you should know first hand how evil god is due to the horrific desasters that have struck your country recently.
I'd expect much more from an all powerful being that has the power not to let awful things like that happen. I bet plenty of people that died were praying but alas none of them were saved.
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
@MrJoystickid So, God creates man, he creates creation for him, He gives him everything he has (including life)... and man turns away and sets himself up as his own God, (maybe) behaves like he's entitled to everything he is given , creates or chooses other gods (like money) to serve and disregards the voice (of conscience and truth) of God is his heart or manifested verbal revelation of God (in the Bible)... then when man runs into trouble -----
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesJon1187
There is no evidence that your god created everything and you are one arrogant s.o.b for asserting it. That's the problem with you people you know it all already or atleast you think you do when the reality is that not one single person knows what, how or why our universe exists.
Your arrogance amuses me young man and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible and easily led. If you had actually read your bible you would see how evil your god is.
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
@MrJoystickid
Easy on the name calling, dude. ANyway, check this out:
/watch?v=_Kt3Kk8mtlo
-you really going to attribute all that to chance and time? That takes more faith than admitting the truth... God designed it!
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@MrJoystickid
--he calls out to God for help and if God doesn't answer man, God is condemned by man as being evil? Really, bro, keep things in perspective. God is good. Man is the problem, and the one who lives in denial.
JamesJon1187 2 months ago
@JamesJon1187
Answer me this if you will.
Do you think you would believe what you believe now if you had been born in India or Afganistan?
How about if you had been born in Ancient Greece or Norway at the time of the Vikings?
If you can't give me an honest answer don't bother replying.
Cheers.
MrJoystickid 2 months ago
@MrJoystickid
What's your point? That different religion shaped cultures have different influences on people's world view? Geees! Thanks for the enlightenment! But if it's all the “same difference” to you(Muslim, Christian, Athiest, Hindu) and you seem to hate the Christian worldview so much, how would you like to go live in the other religion shaped cultures? There's the Muslim world for you joining, zealously Athiest world (the communist block and North Korea),
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@JamesJon1187
The religion you believe in is influenced by where you were born or how you were brought up. It's called indoctrination.
God hasn't designed anything and if you had a clue you would be able to see that. Everything is down to natural selection apart from the big bang because non of us know how that happened, well apart from you arrogant religious folk that is. Do you really think this universe of trillions of galaxies was just build for us?
Stupid.
MrJoystickid 1 month ago
@MrJoystickid God hasn't designed anything? How do you know this? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Also, none of us know how the big bang happened? Really? I beg to differ if that's what you're saying, A great many scientist do know how the big bang occurred, google "how the big bang happened.
99minerkc 1 month ago
@99minerkc
Well I can make an educated guess by looking at the way the universe works, in however many trillion light years this is the only place so far that we know we can survive. Pretty shit universe design to say it was all designed for little old us if you ask me!
Ok I will rephrase my statement smart ass, we know what happened after the big bang and we can postulate till the cows come home as to the exact conditions but not one person knows what casued the big bang.
Happy!
MrJoystickid 1 month ago
@MrJoystickid you said, "Well I can make an educated guess by looking at the way the universe works" What education do you have to base your "educated guess on" high school, college? What area of study? social work, science?? Also, you said, "we can postulate till the cows come home as to the exact conditions but not one person knows what casued the big bang." You haven't heard Dr Lawrence Krauss' lectures on the "Universe from nothing" I take it?
99minerkc 1 month ago
@99minerkc
An educated guess can be a well informed assumption based on reading and listening to lectures, we're are commenting on a lecture right now so it is blatanty obvious that I watch them!
I don't recognise the name but I'm sure I've heard of the theory and of course it is possible that the universe came from nothing but the fact is we DON'T KNOW!
You're really pissing me now, go bother some creatards, I'm an Atheist because I've educated myself what's your problem troll?
MrJoystickid 1 month ago
@MrJoystickid
or the Hindu world (where man worships cows and mustn't kill an insect less he squash his reincarnated ancestors) since it's all “same difference” right? The fact is, you're borrowing from the truth manifested in Judaeo/Christian morality and trying to condemn the Author of it...go judge God with humanistic Communist morality (He didn't worship the state like a good patron) if you want to stay true to your Atheism all the way... or you can borrow from the Hindus----
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
@MrJoystickid
---(He's squashed a mosquito and wasn't born in the upper castes!) or Muslims (He teaches loving your enemies instead of Jihad... what a problem!) if you like.. maybe they won't mind.
--And so far as Afghanistan or India, why don't you list Japan in there too? The Christian percentage here is probably as small either country (and yes, I was born in Japan, and am [half] Japanese).
JamesJon1187 1 month ago
Starting a debate on the historicity of Jesus by praying has no sense... the debate will be irrational and biased towards religion obviously!
dinogodx 3 months ago
@dinogodx I don't agree, anymore than I would say that by not praying a non-believer shows his bias, and therefore can't be rational in considering the facts. One can still have an opinion or point of view, and acknowledge that belief, yet still be honest in following the evidence. I don't agree with everything Ehrman says, but I think he is honest in what he believes...and he has openly said that early in his career he prayed often when confronted with evidence that challenged his views.
Lahi53 2 months ago
@sungate153 dude you need to read what actual scholars do say about Josephus and not some zeitgeist bullshit. Scholars do acknowledge that some of Josephus passage about Jesus is Christian interpolation but there is a genuine part and hardly any of these scholars are "apologists" for Christianity. Read more
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@sungate153 yes and atheists in Communist countries loved destroying religious books and libraries as well but maybe you are for that today, I know many atheists that would love a good old "burn the Bible and all religious delusions" day. Now many atheists are even attacking philosophy as a bankrupt epistemology, lol, joke.
agnostaxian 3 months ago
dipshit troll atheists on here think that Paul is a myth and didn't exist!! lol and they call Young earth Creationists crazy, lol
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@sungate153 ok, i will use your own insane burden of proof against you. You say that Josephus existed correct? Prove that and I will use your own logic against your arguments. Prove Josephus existed. prove it
agnostaxian 3 months ago
@sungate153 so not even Paul existed??? Did Josephus exist? He wrote long histories. This is interesting
agnostaxian 4 months ago
@sungate153 right, nothing is certain in history like in natural sciences and yes, Ehrman and most scholars don't think of the New Testament as "divinely inspired" but as 1st century documents written from a Christian bias. that doesn't make them totally in error just biased. We have Paul's writing in the 50's and he does reference traditions that he received about Jesus' sayings. Also using the historical method on the gospels, we can determine what does have high historical probability
agnostaxian 4 months ago
@sungate153 but even ehrman accepts that Jesus existed and we can know many things about him through the historical method. early Christianity is inexplicable if Jesus did not exist and start a kingdom of God movement. Do you believe that Paul existed?
agnostaxian 4 months ago
Why is it that when we talk to God we're said to be praying, but when God talks to us we're schizophrenic?
mmaattlliinnkk 4 months ago
Licona's introductory arguments are laughable to anyone who is familiar with not only the history of christianity but also of other ancient religions. A better case can be made for Islam's prophet assending into the clouds on a white horse. Of course all propositions of supernatural events are BS.
RhondaH 4 months ago
@RhondaH Jesus crucifixion and burial is certain, women finding his tomb empty has high historical probability. That Peter, the 12, James and a huge group of followers of Jesus saw him alive that they describe as a "resurrection" is certain. Now how do we explain these is the question.
agnostaxian 4 months ago
@agnostaxian No, the only evidence you provide is from the gospels and the accounts there are so conflicted between each that it is impossible to say what the story actually is. Read them side by side and see the many huge contridictions! There were many writers in the 1st century, none wrote anything about those events. You'd think it would have been worth writing about. Read about all the other "resurrected" demi gods of history. LOL
RhondaH 4 months ago
@RhondaH scholars use the historical method to determine what has high probability in the gospels. Yes there are contradictions in the Gospels but that doesn't mean it is entirely wrong. All those things I mentioned have high historical probability- Jesus was crucified, buried, tomb was found empty by women and he appeared to many of his followers and even unbelievers. Historians generally agree that those are very probable using the historical method
agnostaxian 4 months ago
@agnostaxian You do realize that the gospels were written at least 90 yrs AD at the earliest and that the books were not written by those for whom they are named but were written by anonimous writers? Those writers were writing story lines that were quite popular at the time and each writer embellished the work of the previous writer. The character of Jesus is not even the same in each of the gospels. The tomb was not found empty in a couple of the gospels. Geez you are ignorant of your own book
RhondaH 4 months ago
@RhondaH yes, Mark was written around 70, Matt & Luke 80's, John 90's so who is ignorant? also, let's test your knowledge to see how much YOU know with a few easy questions. What book of the New Testament do most scholars think was written first? what date was it written? and why do scholars think it was written then? If you have read "early Christianity for Dipshits" you would know this.
agnostaxian 3 months ago
If there are "facts" what are the sources? In Licona's first speech he mentions Josephus and Tacitus, that's it. I know about those, they are not solid. If someone is about to make a case like Mike's here, he ought to have a number of cogent sources. It's frustrating because there can never be a debate in the first place.
DrHowbeit 4 months ago
@sungate153 How many scholars, not internet self-proclaimed scholars, but real scholars who teach at universities put forward that Jesus was a myth and never existed? If it is discredited as much as you make it seem you should be able cite a lot of scholars! I'd be interested in seeing some of them so I can read their works.
CapsHockey100 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, not contradictory details! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences.
Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
WayneVA1 5 months ago
Oral tradition in the early churches was primarily personal testimonies of individuals in group worship settings and neighborhood encounters. The Gospel accounts did NOT change over the years because the eyewitnesses kept RETELLING about their experiences with Jesus. Matt 8:4, 33-34; 26:13; John 4:28-30, 39-42; 5:15. This is explained in greater detail in my YouTube video, "Oral Tradition in the Early Churches." Again, repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ makes you more Christ-like!
WayneVA1 5 months ago
@WayneVA1 yes, the early church told and retold their stories IN A COMMUNITY and pass them down through communities and groups of people so if big mistakes were made, the community would correct it so the "telephone game" analogy is disingenuous. Also, Jews preferred traditions being preserved orally. The babylonian Talmud was not written down for centuries after the first rabbi's started it.
agnostaxian 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, NOT contradictory! Quit hiding behind your excuses, Bart! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences.
Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
WayneVA1 5 months ago
@sungate153
thank you.. and your very welcome!.. and yes i will look at it.. thanks man
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
you clearly have no clue on what your talking about my friend, not to be rude but that had to be said.. im gonna inbox you a mountain of evidence right now... give me a sec
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
nearly 100% of sholars and historians DISAGREE WITH YOU.. so how do i approach this.. should i believe you or the PROFESSIONALS who provide evidence for this?????
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
ok but listen.. you see this is exactly my point.. YOU just said "there was no empty tomb, 500 witnesses, etc. its a fabricated story.."... this is YOU talking... but SCHOLARS on the other hand disagree, i have over a dozen sources CLEARLY saying what you just said is fabricated, THEY say is true... so please tell me, tell me LOGICALLY.. who do i go with on this.. do i go with YOU.. a person who made a claim with out any evidence.. all you said was it was a fabricated story
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
heres another quotation from the same article "Accordingly, the vast majority of contemporary scholars regard this passage as genuine in its entirety, and concur with ranking Josephus expert Louis H. Feldman in his notation in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus: "
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
you gave me a source written by one scholar and also one of his quotations.. heres a source written by three scholars and in this source it says:
"Scholars fall into three basic camps regarding Antiquities 18:63:"
1) The original passage is entirely authentic—a minority position;
2) it is entirely a Christian forgery – a much smaller minority position;
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
ok.. i see what your saying but you havn't provided the sources i asked for your claim that "most scholars agree that the brief mention of Christ in Josephus writings was inserted by Christian forgers".. please show me that "most scholars" agree to this??
thats all i care about
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
i would tell you to come at this with an open heart.. and maybe ask God sincerely, EVEN if you dont believe in Him, but just ask and say if you do exist.. show it to me!.. and just like He did to me.. He will for you!
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
of Jesus REALLY see Him raised from the dead bodily...? (oh and Paul was hater to the Christians, i forgot to mention lol).. but anyways.. after researching myself and seeing that the Christianity me and you know today, that has 1.6 billion followers would NOT of happened if Jesus's tomb wasn't found empty or His appearances to around 500 people all in one night to friends and non-believers was false.. (and 75% of scholars believe He truly did rise!).. on top of all that..
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago
@sungate153
of Christian and non-christian people who all attest to the three facts Mr. Licona gave in this video.. crucifixion, empty tomb and appearances.. not to mention there all backed up by nearly 100% of scholars/historians... so he quickly realized that ok maybe the Christians do have some evidence to what they believe, but its not enough to convince me Jesus rose and proved He was God.. my question to u is, did Paul, James the non believing brother of Jesus and all the other Disciples
JusJuiceIt 5 months ago