Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
not one of Josh's best speeches. the ones where he lays out the scholarly evidence are better. at times he seems to slur his speech in this one, as if he is very tired. God please bless Josh with 20 more years of health and speaking.
The only place where the resurrection is mentioned is in the claim, the Bible, and using the claim to prove the claim is circular reasoning, false logic. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, or of him performing miracles, and there are no independent historical records of a miracle-working resurrected Jesus. There is also no evidence. It is no more than a story in a collection ancient books.
@Survival Grandpa "Speaking of evidence, Simon Greenleaf, who wrote the definitive book on legal evidence (still used in many law schools and courts to this day), was an atheist until he examined the gospels and found them to be eyewitness testimony." Nobody agrees with him in the professional field, and this is not evidence of anything. My sister, who is a Harvard Lawyer, has explained that eyewitness testimony is hardly reliable, and scientific experiments and the court agree with her. The gospels are not considered eyewitness accounts by scholars and historians, and the authors are unknown. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and they were written much later. "He said that if you reject the gospel accounts you must, in all intellectual honesty, reject all of ancient history." Not even remotely true. However, if you reject the gospels, you should reject any other historical magical claims made without evidence or proof. "There are extra-Biblical accounts of the belief that Jesus was resurrected that Mr McDowell mentions in his books." No, there aren't. The only extra-biblical mention of a magical Jesus is the Josephus account, that is widely considered a forgery by even the most conservative o scholars. There is a difference between a mention of a crucifixion, of which there are, and which is naturally possible, and mentions of a resurrection, which requires magic. "There are more (and closer to the original in date) manuscripts of the New Testament than any other books of antiquity by hundereds of years and tens of thousands of copies." There are also millions of copies of the Koan and Harry Potter. Does that mean they are true? This is the dumbest argument you have. "Lack of evidence isn't the problem." Okay, then where is the evidence backing up the magical claims of the gospels?
@Survival Grandpa "“Nobody agrees with him in the professional field.....” That would be believable if he had not been quoted before the Supreme Court at least ten times in this century." What are you talking about? What the hell does that have to do with the consensus of scholars who say nobody knows who wrote the gospels, and that it would not have been witnesses who did? "“....and this is not evidence of anything.” Other than the fact that a well respected jurist considered the gospels to be compelling." Are jury members scholars and historians now? I don't think so. "But if you won’t accept Greenleaf’s assessment of Jesus maybe these ancient references will do. probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/ I said 'evidence for the magical claims of the gospels', not 'evidence that an ordinary man existed and got crucified'. Again, do you have any evidence to back up the magical claims of the gospels, such as the resurrection and walking on water? "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}" The above is a known forgery according to scholars and historians, and is the ONLY mention of a magical Jesus. Your biggest problem is that none of your historical mentions are eyewitness accounts of Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. "Your sister may be a great lawyer but if she doesn’t think eyewitness testimony is valuable please explain why the police spend so much time interviewing witnesses before presenting they’re case to a DA or grand jury." My sister says the courts are shying away from eyewitness testimony, because it is not nearly as reliable as we like to think. The police will do whatever they can to convict a criminal, and jury members still value eyewitness accounts out of ignorance of the fact that they are unreliable. People have been cleared with DNA evidence many times after being convicted on eyewitness testimony. Evidence is always better than an eyewitness account. "Without eyewitnesses there would often be nothing upon which to use the science you mention." In science, the experiments can be run by anyone, and the evidence can be seen by anyone. Eyewitness accounts are useless in science. Sure, you may publish your findings, but they must be reproducible by others. You can't do that with eyewitness accounts. "“The gospels are not considered eyewitness accounts by scholars and historians....” Two thoughts: First; If eyewitness testimony is irrelevant why bother with that sentence?" To show that they are even less reliable than unreliable eyewitness accounts full of magical claims. "Second; There are many scholars and historians who date the gospels to within a few decades of Jesus’ death and many more who believe that at least some of the gospels were written by the apostles or their companions." They do not represent most scholars or the scholarly consensus. "Almost nobody, even the most ardent skeptics of the gospel accounts, doubt the historicity of Jesus as a person." You are arguing against a position I don't hold. I never said Jesus wasn't a real person, I rather asked to see evidence backing up the magical claims of the gospels, which you failed to provide. Real men are logically and physically possible. It's the magical parts of the story that have no evidence, and so should not be believed.
@Survival Grandpa I never said that Jesus did not exist, but rather that there is no evidence for his miracles and resurrection. With Santa Claus, there was a real person, St. Nicholas, but that does not mean that he had eight flying reindeer and could stop time to visit all the homes on Christmas eve. Likewise, Jesus could have been real, but would not have actually performed miracles or risen from the dead. Those parts of the story are pure fiction until you can show with evidence that they are indeed factual. "You said eyewitness testimony was unreliable, I showed you why it is necessary." Eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to back a magical claim. You need something better, such as evidence backing up the eyewitness accounts. If a thousand people claimed to be abducted by aliens (many have made such a claim), but then had nothing more than stories to 'prove' it, you wouldn't believe them anymore than I believe the gospels. Do you see how evidence must back the stories before they can be taken seriously? "In short you have set the bar so high for even proving that people in the first century believed in the resurrection and the historocity of Jesus (but not for any other event in history) that it would be impossible to convince you." If you had evidence showing that magic is possible, and has happened, then I will take magical stories more seriously. When you show with evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, then I'll believe it.
@@doctorwebman There is no solid evidence that Simon Greenleaf was a atheist or even an agnoistic. The only evidence that can be found is just Christian articles and websites claiming that he was one of these things and then later converted to Christianity. The more likely scenario here is that Simon Greenleaf was already a Christian and decided to use his definitive books of legal evidence to try and prove his own belief.
It'a rather silly story and obvious le that is utterly irrelevant to the way of christ- the actual details of which are a bit obscure and lost on the mists of time
The past-like the future is a dream. The so-called resurrection is as irrelevant to the way of christ as his favourite colour is irrelevant. It was a stupid lie to inser into the tale becuse not only is it irrelevant, it is completely impossible
Ha has enought to present... But unfortunately you don't have any mindfulness or you are in laziness.... So you don't understand..,🤪🤪🤪 He is smart intelligent and with full back up of understanding relating today's time... But you can't. 😂
Can't really "disprove" any historical event per se, so picking an unfalsifiable premise, and then concluding that it must be true because you can't falsify it is very disingenuous. However, read the Bible closely and I think you can see the hints of the legend development that occurred. In 1 Corinthians 15, written before the gospels, there's not even the mention of a tomb, or stones, or guards, or seals, or angels, or anything like that. Just that he was buried. The story of the 500, a remarkable event if true, contains zero details and is not mentioned in a single place anywhere else in the Bible (including all the alleged prophesies about the Messiah). Then in Mark, the first gospel, we have a tomb, but no guards, and no sightings of him at all until a later addition to Mark adds in a brief mention along with some cockamamie stuff about snakes and poisons. Matthew adds in the guards, but also throws in the Zombie Apocalypse thing, and even William Lane Craig explains that away by arguing that it's metaphorical. Luke, writing to a Roman audience, goes in the reverse direction and subtracts out a lot of detail, especially about how Jesus was abused in Roman custody. The sightings of Jesus in these 2 gospels are vague and ghostly - Jesus just up and disappears in front of people the second they recognize him. Huh? I thought we were talking about a physical, bodily resurrection, so what's this nonsense about him disappearing in front of people? That's not exactly what I would consider "many convincing proofs." John, the last of the gospels, written much later, adds in some more details, but is still very vague, and most notably, throws in the Doubting Thomas story. This makes sense in a lot of ways because we could imagine that there were a lot of grumblings about a lot of people not seeing him, and so to help assuage those that hadn't seen him, the Doubting Thomas story as an addition to the Christian mystique makes sense. But even more significantly, John contains a very significant theological shift - no longer is God going to come down to Earth to establish his kingdom here, but rather, we are going to heaven when we die. It makes sense that the church would shift in this direction since by now several decades had gone by and he hadn't shown back up again like Paul said would happen, so we have a new explanation of theology. Evidence of legend development and of the evolution of Christian theology is right there to see in the very pages of the Bible itself.
For some inexplicable reason the loons that resort to that foem od stupod dreaming that is belief(which ordinarily does not call for proof or evidence have got it into their primitive dopey heads that they might make a weak case stronger by the abuse of language, and of course rthe poor cretins have not the fainest idea what the mea by proof or what evidence is,or what a 'fact' is because they are unaccustomed to questioning anything generally speaking being entirely innocent of any kind of wits or learning Of course there could not possibly be any external evidence of a transitory event tht leaves no external trace of its having occurred. The queer thing is that the money bgs that inserted the resuretion lie into the jesussey(presumably to what contemporary beings call " sex it up") did not have the wits to grasp that that quite apart from the desd comng back to life being impossible, did noy apply their minds to the matter of trlevance, it being self evidently*Utterly_Irelevant* to the teaching of a teacher what happened *After he stopped teaching for ever which could not possibly be relevant to his teaching before he stopped tea.ching In any event the so called resurrection is purely incidental fluff and about as significant or relevant to his teaching as his not liking Mondays or some other similar fluff or purely incidental trivia ayhr Resurrection is about as relevant to the way of christ as the brand of tobacco smoked by einstein is relevant to general relativity or ee-ba-gum gum isn't squareness queer.Come to think of it what possible relevance could the speed of not_X have to the energy of X? Even more come to think of it even the most fervent loon has *absolutely_no* idea of what the teaching of christ consisted, or what he prescribed or what, nor what the main thrust of the teaching was, the jesussey being a little shy of specifics
It's either true or a lie . You choose to believe or you choose not to believe. There is no evidence. They wouldn't take a women's word back then. Then there were 2 other versions . 1 was Sheppards and the other was angels. Which story is it? Women, Sheppards or angels? Don't be so gullible Mcfly!
Nobody chooses what they think is true and what they think is false. Try choosing to believe the Sun doesn't shine, or that Santa Claus is real. See if it works.
@Dd S Again, nobody chooses what convinces them and what does not. All you are describing is the thought process that happens while one is finding out what they believe. Try choosing to believe that Zeus is real, or that the Moon is made of cheese, and see if it works.
@Dd S "I CHOOSE not to believe those" Wrong. It is literally impossible for you to choose to believe those things, and that is why you think you choose not to.
@Dd S When you become convinced that something it true, that is not a choice. To be convinced to the point that you cannot talk yourself out of it is no choice.
@Dd S The only response I can give is that I cannot personally believe something that intellectually I think is false. I personally wish Christianity was not true. I spent a whole year trying to refute the resurrection, but the evidence for the resurrection strikes me as so strong that I'm pretty convinced it happened. I'm intellectually honest enough to accept evidence that I don't personally like. And this is coming from somebody that hated Christianity with an absolute passion - I HATED Christ, the Bible and religion with everything I had in me.
Amazing
I LOVE WHEN INTELLECTUALS COME TO KNOW YESHUA...PRAISE GOD !!! THIS MAN IS SMART...
He's not all that intelligent. He makes poor arguments, and doesn't seem to understand how logic works.
@@doctorwebman do talk looking at mirror.... Brother.. Please dont shake your dumb head everywhere... Nonsense dumb don't make poor soundings...
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
@@vhawk1951kl Hahaha are you afraid of the excitement of an intelectual coming to know the LORD ...??? Boo hoo hoo
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Wow. I needed this. Thank you.
@Dd S that's what you hope for... What a sad hope you have.
@Dd S OK. What do you believe in?
@@theforeigner6988 asked him did he find the remains of Jesus body
He is awesome
There was no stone. It's only your mind that moves.
"There was no stone. It's only your mind that moves", he said, stoned out of his mind
1
Reply
not one of Josh's best speeches. the ones where he lays out the scholarly evidence are better. at times he seems to slur his speech in this one, as if he is very tired. God please bless Josh with 20 more years of health and speaking.
The only place where the resurrection is mentioned is in the claim, the Bible, and using the claim to prove the claim is circular reasoning, false logic. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, or of him performing miracles, and there are no independent historical records of a miracle-working resurrected Jesus. There is also no evidence. It is no more than a story in a collection ancient books.
@Survival Grandpa "Speaking of evidence, Simon Greenleaf, who wrote the definitive book on legal evidence (still used in many law schools and courts to this day), was an atheist until he examined the gospels and found them to be eyewitness testimony."
Nobody agrees with him in the professional field, and this is not evidence of anything.
My sister, who is a Harvard Lawyer, has explained that eyewitness testimony is hardly reliable, and scientific experiments and the court agree with her.
The gospels are not considered eyewitness accounts by scholars and historians, and the authors are unknown. None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts, and they were written much later.
"He said that if you reject the gospel accounts you must, in all intellectual honesty, reject all of ancient history."
Not even remotely true. However, if you reject the gospels, you should reject any other historical magical claims made without evidence or proof.
"There are extra-Biblical accounts of the belief that Jesus was resurrected that Mr McDowell mentions in his books."
No, there aren't. The only extra-biblical mention of a magical Jesus is the Josephus account, that is widely considered a forgery by even the most conservative o scholars. There is a difference between a mention of a crucifixion, of which there are, and which is naturally possible, and mentions of a resurrection, which requires magic.
"There are more (and closer to the original in date) manuscripts of the New Testament than any other books of antiquity by hundereds of years and tens of thousands of copies."
There are also millions of copies of the Koan and Harry Potter. Does that mean they are true? This is the dumbest argument you have.
"Lack of evidence isn't the problem."
Okay, then where is the evidence backing up the magical claims of the gospels?
@Survival Grandpa "“Nobody agrees with him in the professional field.....”
That would be believable if he had not been quoted before the Supreme Court at least ten times in this century."
What are you talking about? What the hell does that have to do with the consensus of scholars who say nobody knows who wrote the gospels, and that it would not have been witnesses who did?
"“....and this is not evidence of anything.”
Other than the fact that a well respected jurist considered the gospels to be compelling."
Are jury members scholars and historians now? I don't think so.
"But if you won’t accept Greenleaf’s assessment of Jesus maybe these ancient references will do.
probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/
I said 'evidence for the magical claims of the gospels', not 'evidence that an ordinary man existed and got crucified'. Again, do you have any evidence to back up the magical claims of the gospels, such as the resurrection and walking on water?
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}"
The above is a known forgery according to scholars and historians, and is the ONLY mention of a magical Jesus. Your biggest problem is that none of your historical mentions are eyewitness accounts of Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead.
"Your sister may be a great lawyer but if she doesn’t think eyewitness testimony is valuable please explain why the police spend so much time interviewing witnesses before presenting they’re case to a DA or grand jury."
My sister says the courts are shying away from eyewitness testimony, because it is not nearly as reliable as we like to think. The police will do whatever they can to convict a criminal, and jury members still value eyewitness accounts out of ignorance of the fact that they are unreliable. People have been cleared with DNA evidence many times after being convicted on eyewitness testimony. Evidence is always better than an eyewitness account.
"Without eyewitnesses there would often be nothing upon which to use the science you mention."
In science, the experiments can be run by anyone, and the evidence can be seen by anyone. Eyewitness accounts are useless in science. Sure, you may publish your findings, but they must be reproducible by others. You can't do that with eyewitness accounts.
"“The gospels are not considered eyewitness accounts by scholars and historians....”
Two thoughts:
First; If eyewitness testimony is irrelevant why bother with that sentence?"
To show that they are even less reliable than unreliable eyewitness accounts full of magical claims.
"Second; There are many scholars and historians who date the gospels to within a few decades of Jesus’ death and many more who believe that at least some of the gospels were written by the apostles or their companions."
They do not represent most scholars or the scholarly consensus.
"Almost nobody, even the most ardent skeptics of the gospel accounts, doubt the historicity of Jesus as a person."
You are arguing against a position I don't hold. I never said Jesus wasn't a real person, I rather asked to see evidence backing up the magical claims of the gospels, which you failed to provide. Real men are logically and physically possible. It's the magical parts of the story that have no evidence, and so should not be believed.
@Survival Grandpa I never said that Jesus did not exist, but rather that there is no evidence for his miracles and resurrection. With Santa Claus, there was a real person, St. Nicholas, but that does not mean that he had eight flying reindeer and could stop time to visit all the homes on Christmas eve. Likewise, Jesus could have been real, but would not have actually performed miracles or risen from the dead. Those parts of the story are pure fiction until you can show with evidence that they are indeed factual.
"You said eyewitness testimony was unreliable, I showed you why it is necessary."
Eyewitness testimony is insufficient evidence to back a magical claim. You need something better, such as evidence backing up the eyewitness accounts. If a thousand people claimed to be abducted by aliens (many have made such a claim), but then had nothing more than stories to 'prove' it, you wouldn't believe them anymore than I believe the gospels. Do you see how evidence must back the stories before they can be taken seriously?
"In short you have set the bar so high for even proving that people in the first century believed in the resurrection and the historocity of Jesus (but not for any other event in history) that it would be impossible to convince you."
If you had evidence showing that magic is possible, and has happened, then I will take magical stories more seriously. When you show with evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, then I'll believe it.
@@doctorwebman There is no solid evidence that Simon Greenleaf was a atheist or even an agnoistic. The only evidence that can be found is just Christian articles and websites claiming that he was one of these things and then later converted to Christianity. The more likely scenario here is that Simon Greenleaf was already a Christian and decided to use his definitive books of legal evidence to try and prove his own belief.
It'a rather silly story and obvious le that is utterly irrelevant to the way of christ- the actual details of which are a bit obscure and lost on the mists of time
Thank you, Josh! I understand now.🤓
The past-like the future is a dream.
The so-called resurrection is as irrelevant to the way of christ as his favourite colour is irrelevant. It was a stupid lie to inser into the tale becuse not only is it irrelevant, it is completely impossible
He still does not provide any evidence outside of what's written in the Bible. A lot of talking with no references to back up what he is saying
Ha has enought to present... But unfortunately you don't have any mindfulness or you are in laziness.... So you don't understand..,🤪🤪🤪
He is smart intelligent and with full back up of understanding relating today's time... But you can't.
😂
Can't really "disprove" any historical event per se, so picking an unfalsifiable premise, and then concluding that it must be true because you can't falsify it is very disingenuous. However, read the Bible closely and I think you can see the hints of the legend development that occurred. In 1 Corinthians 15, written before the gospels, there's not even the mention of a tomb, or stones, or guards, or seals, or angels, or anything like that. Just that he was buried. The story of the 500, a remarkable event if true, contains zero details and is not mentioned in a single place anywhere else in the Bible (including all the alleged prophesies about the Messiah). Then in Mark, the first gospel, we have a tomb, but no guards, and no sightings of him at all until a later addition to Mark adds in a brief mention along with some cockamamie stuff about snakes and poisons. Matthew adds in the guards, but also throws in the Zombie Apocalypse thing, and even William Lane Craig explains that away by arguing that it's metaphorical. Luke, writing to a Roman audience, goes in the reverse direction and subtracts out a lot of detail, especially about how Jesus was abused in Roman custody. The sightings of Jesus in these 2 gospels are vague and ghostly - Jesus just up and disappears in front of people the second they recognize him. Huh? I thought we were talking about a physical, bodily resurrection, so what's this nonsense about him disappearing in front of people? That's not exactly what I would consider "many convincing proofs." John, the last of the gospels, written much later, adds in some more details, but is still very vague, and most notably, throws in the Doubting Thomas story. This makes sense in a lot of ways because we could imagine that there were a lot of grumblings about a lot of people not seeing him, and so to help assuage those that hadn't seen him, the Doubting Thomas story as an addition to the Christian mystique makes sense. But even more significantly, John contains a very significant theological shift - no longer is God going to come down to Earth to establish his kingdom here, but rather, we are going to heaven when we die. It makes sense that the church would shift in this direction since by now several decades had gone by and he hadn't shown back up again like Paul said would happen, so we have a new explanation of theology. Evidence of legend development and of the evolution of Christian theology is right there to see in the very pages of the Bible itself.
Your last sentence contradicts everything you said prior!😄
For some inexplicable reason the loons that resort to that foem od stupod dreaming that is belief(which ordinarily does not call for proof or evidence have got it into their primitive dopey heads that they might make a weak case stronger by the abuse of language, and of course rthe poor cretins have not the fainest idea what the mea by proof or what evidence is,or what a 'fact' is because they are unaccustomed to questioning anything generally speaking being entirely innocent of any kind of wits or learning
Of course there could not possibly be any external evidence of a transitory event tht leaves no external trace of its having occurred. The queer thing is that the money bgs that inserted the resuretion lie into the jesussey(presumably to what contemporary beings call " sex it up") did not have the wits to grasp that that quite apart from the desd comng back to life being impossible, did noy apply their minds to the matter of trlevance, it being self evidently*Utterly_Irelevant* to the teaching of a teacher what happened *After he stopped teaching for ever which could not possibly be relevant to his teaching before he stopped tea.ching
In any event the so called resurrection is purely incidental fluff and about as significant or relevant to his teaching as his not liking Mondays or some other similar fluff or purely incidental trivia
ayhr Resurrection is about as relevant to the way of christ as the brand of tobacco smoked by einstein is relevant to general relativity or ee-ba-gum gum isn't squareness queer.Come to think of it what possible relevance could the speed of not_X have to the energy of X?
Even more come to think of it even the most fervent loon has *absolutely_no* idea of what the teaching of christ consisted, or what he prescribed or what, nor what the main thrust of the teaching was, the jesussey being a little shy of specifics
There is so much evidence for the invisible sky god. It's a slam dunk, rofl.
There as much evidence as there is for your arrogance & laziness to research on your own. =)
History cannot prove miracles. So no.
It's either true or a lie . You choose to believe or you choose not to believe. There is no evidence. They wouldn't take a women's word back then. Then there were 2 other versions . 1 was Sheppards and the other was angels. Which story is it? Women, Sheppards or angels? Don't be so gullible Mcfly!
Nobody chooses what they think is true and what they think is false. Try choosing to believe the Sun doesn't shine, or that Santa Claus is real. See if it works.
@Dd S Again, nobody chooses what convinces them and what does not. All you are describing is the thought process that happens while one is finding out what they believe. Try choosing to believe that Zeus is real, or that the Moon is made of cheese, and see if it works.
@Dd S "I CHOOSE not to believe those"
Wrong. It is literally impossible for you to choose to believe those things, and that is why you think you choose not to.
@Dd S When you become convinced that something it true, that is not a choice. To be convinced to the point that you cannot talk yourself out of it is no choice.
@Dd S The only response I can give is that I cannot personally believe something that intellectually I think is false.
I personally wish Christianity was not true. I spent a whole year trying to refute the resurrection, but the evidence for the resurrection strikes me as so strong that I'm pretty convinced it happened. I'm intellectually honest enough to accept evidence that I don't personally like. And this is coming from somebody that hated Christianity with an absolute passion - I HATED Christ, the Bible and religion with everything I had in me.
He's not a believer! He's a false teacher!
Who is he?