I recall reading the "crucified sophist" quote for an assignment in college. The professor was a complete atheist, but fully believed in the historical Jesus and was even able to make some very cogent point on what he called "the early cult of Jesus followers". Not my favorite term as a believer, but I appreciated his commitment to the bare facts.
yeah i watch a roman TH-camr (cant recall the name of his channel) but he actually provides some roman documents that proves jesus exist the onlu question is, is he really the son of god jesus and not just a man name jesus.
"Cult of Jesus" is a very academic term. Indeed, all religions classify as cult. It's just that Christians tend to use the term to refer to religions that aren't Christian but claim Jesus as their own in some way.
@@kellyanne7225 it doesn’t prove that. It proves that to a rational person, the claim of a human man existing has a high probability so requires little evidence. The claim that man was the son of a deity has a low probability so requires more (or at least some) evidence. I could tell you that I have a garden, a reasonable claim. You would probably believe me outright. Now if I tell you that my garden has fairies in it… it’s not pride that stops you believing the fairies part, the claim requires better evidence than the mundane claim of having a garden.
My dude. I just discovered your channel and these videos are FANTASTIC. I subscribed and will be sharing many of your videos on my social media. KEEP IT UP!
@@RedPenLogic Yep he is a good looking man. Lol no wonder you're wife married a ginger. I'm jelous of you though assumingly you can grow a beard! God give me a beard!
I'm an atheist and still like your content. Its great quality, straight to the point without insult. Atheists should absolutely be called on badly worded arguments and poorly thought through claims. Of course that goes both ways, but I really appreciate the cool, calm delivery. We can educate each other without it having to turn into a flame war every time. Good work.
@@goldenalt3166 Its true there's no documents that were contemporary to Jesus and the ones commonly quoted are people reporting the religion exists rather than Jesus existing. It's still a hard sell to go from lacking documents for an ancient guy to him being only a myth. It's possible but unlikely.
@@Wertbag99 It's an equally hard sell to go from there must be a guy behind this too we know what he taught and that what he did. I'm not a mythicist because I think the bible has too many contradictions between theology and history for there not to be real accounts that it was based on.
@@goldenalt3166 Agreed. I lean towards Jesus being a real preacher based on how cults usually grow. They have a charismatic leader who takes the worship personally, that leaders legacy is expanded by his followers. It seems a good fit to what we see.
To deny Jesus existed necessarily means we have to deny other people from antiquity from whom we have little evidence, but we don't deny they existed. I mean, consider Roman orators or early Greek philosophers; sometimes, only their ideas are extant, 3rd or 4th hand some of them. It's an impossible standard that no one can hold to, only those who are obsessed with a God they hate and refuse to worship. The time will come when worship will be inevitable, see Philippians 2: 10-11.
@@jeffreyhunt7880 Well there is a book by an anonymous author, who we made up a name for and it was passed down by oral tradition for a very long time and the whole book makes complete sense and there was such a place as ancient Greece which is in the book, so.... of course.I do. I hope you do. I actually wear a little silver image of a heel around my neck in memoriam of how he died because when I die I think he will appreciate the reminder.
@@FoamySlobbers It's not a deception, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see he's not really talking to him. He just did that for entertainment value. However that was never the point of this video. What Bart says was the point.
Ding, ding, ding, ding! Hit the nail right on the head. "Hey, a guy named Pierre performed miracles in Paris during the 15th century!" "How do you know?" "Because I found some accounts from contemporary peasants reproduced in a book compiled in 1860, and they mentioned a Pierre." Yes. Solid.
I get this all the time from athiests and I tell them time & time again that there's plenty of evidence but the one's I've had a discussion with will rather deny than be open minded. It's okay to be a skeptic or doubtful, but to be cynical is just taking it to the extreme.
@James Henry Smith What was Jesus's #1 mission when he walked on earth in the flesh? Was it to perform miracles? Heal the sick? Raise the dead? Feed thousands with a few loaves of bread & fish? Although he did those things so that many would be able to believe that he is the long awaited Messiah, his #1 priority was not so much to save the flesh as it was to save souls. Because a greater punishment awaits to those who rejects God the Son. Heaven will not be full of good people, nor bad people. Heaven will be full of forgiven people that received Jesus Christ as Saviour & as their Lord over their lives. 😉
Well if Atheists were to accept that Jesus existed, they would have to believe He was an ordinary middle-eastern Jew, who had a normal birth, performed no miracles, wasn't God, was crucified, never resurrected and stayed dead, and also suffered from religious delusions and paranoia
@@adamstewart9052 Not entirely true, there have been atheistic researchers who have become believers upon doing the actual research themselves rather than simply repeating what others have said. A few comes to mind, one was a famous author, another was a reporter & another is a retired detective. 👍
@@adamstewart9052 I didn't say that. But now that you point that out, Jesus is quoted in claiming to be God & athiests don't believe in God. So in a way, yes. It's like a professor claiming to be a professor but the listener denying that professors exist.
It's kind of interesting, I've had a lot of atheists tell me they've read the Bible multiple times and study it and some even tell me they know it better than my pastor, and yet they still treat the Bible as a single book rather than 66. I'm honestly a little embarrassed on their behalf.
I too have had this experience and I am sure we are not alone. It does not take long for most to expose their deep ignorance. At that point I usually ask if their multiple readings of the bible was from the inside or just the outside cover.
@@fetormephitis3040 My usual strategy is to ask for what books they've read on the topic, it allows me to gauge whether they have genuine interest on the topic or if they are just some jerk with nothing better to do than waste my time.
I'm so glad you cleared that up... Now evidence for god please? Also other different christian sect have a variety of books in their bible. Some more, some less depending on your flavour of christianity. Here's a chart. www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-1/2014/10/31/whats-in-the-bible
@@josephde-haan1074 So, you come here with the simple intention of changing the subject and with an obvious arrogant tone. Why exactly should I humor you?
there are many other biblical scholars who did a similar research like Bart Erhman and presented their thesis, but the only reason we consider Bart Erhman research more important is because he is not a believer. I think everything has a reason, he may not have fallen away, but he plays a part in Gods plan.
I agree it is very sad… It was also preventable had he had been provided the opportunity to ask questions and understand the problem of evil and how Christianity actually provides a satisfying answer to it, as well as had he not been raised with an unrealistically and unnecessarily high view of Biblical Inerrancy. Those two issues led to his fall to activistic agnosticism. However, I also don’t really respect the man, because while he knows better as a scholar the way he knowingly presents certain facts while suppressing others to ignorant audiences with the express goal of leading them to believe false conclusions causes me not to respect the man. Case in point: He gave a whole lecture on Mark, where he focuses solely on the words Mark records Jesus saying on the cross to imply Jesus was bewildered and confused and felt betrayed and didn’t know why all His supporters abandoned him. However, as a New Testament Scholar he knows full well that other places in Mark’s Gospel make it crystal clear not only did Jesus KNOW He was going to be crucified beforehand, He knew WHY, He CHOSE to allow it to happen, and He also knew His followers were going to abandon Him. It’s that type of preying on ignorant audiences and presenting carefully selected facts presented in a way to lead people to erroneous conclusions that I cannot respect about the man.
@James Henry Smith Lol I could sit in my Room desperately asking a pink Unicorn to appear to me and it eventually would. Learn something about how the human mind works. Come back to me when an amputee grows back a limb with documented evidence that I cannot refute and I'll believe in your nonsense faith healing. It's sad to me all the people who live in this Fairytale land where Magic exists.
Several reasons: 1. the bible isn't a man. 2. The bible isn't on trial. 3. In a real court the testimony of the suspect proclaiming his innocence is generally not accepted as evidence.
Smh. Not the same. A man giving testimony in court is him being able to defend himself or justify his position, however his words alone doesn't make anything he says truth especially if it doesn't align with the material evidence. You cannot use a source to verify itself as a general rule. Doing that essentially says that a testimony is true because it says it's true.
I m always thinking for the unbelievers:They didn t believe HIM while he was on earth performing miracles how can we expect them to believe in HIM now? !
@@grubblewubbles oh dear. So it's not just in religion that you make stuff up, and pretend it's true. In this case in order to pretend you have a point. The evidence is self evident. Just watch the channel. Just watch any apologetics channel for waves of bs being sold as knowledge. If you can't see it you're indoctrinated. and "mad" lol no. Just an ad hominin from you. More self deception from you. :) Try being wise. Do you know where to start?
no major disrespect.. but I listen to folks who are these "true believers" and they spout bizarre word salad of "Jesus is lord, come to salvation blah blah blah". It is cultish. That type of mentality is dangerous. Understand Christ Consciousness and study the esoteric knowledge that has been occulted.. but quit following questionable church leaders that would make you blind and force you to give them money... Use your mind... that is why you have it.
According to historical scholars and the church's position on this matter, they say that the gospels date to 70 AD with mark being the earliest gospel. The others are written later. Mathew and luke use mark as a crib sheet with their own improvements and john splices all three together to give you his gospel. All 4 gospels had their respective names attached to them because the oldest ones that they have are anonymously written. None of the gospels are written from a 1st person perspective and there are differences in them ranging from geneologies to jesus's ministry to his last words and the resurrection accounts and even whom he wants to be saved. The really big problem is that paul's body of work predates the gospels and paul never knew jesus when he was alive. Paul's Jesus is a heavenly christ who was crucified in the heavens and paul never knew of mary or joseph or of anything about jesus's life on earth and his jesus was to come once to transform believers bodies into spiritual bodies which goes against jewish thought on physical resurrection. This is the biggest problem for christianity right here, paul's writings were written 2 decades before the gospels and paul referrred to his preaching as his gospel. The ultimate problem for christianity is this right here: Paul admitted to lying in order to advance his preaching through guile and he said that he became a jew to jews and a greek to greeks. Paul said that abraham was allegorical which is a problem for the nt canon and the entire bible. In a new king james version or any study bible, there is a footnote that informs the reader that mark chapter 16 verse 8 through to the end of mark had those verses added later on,as well as the verses on the woman caught in adultery. Those added verses are not in codex sinaiticus aka the sinai bible and they are not in codex vaticanus or lxx.
@Queen Judith Vallo Yeah, that sucks. It happened to me and they dismissed the nonbiblical evidence as “not really evidence”. Some good nonbiblical evidence includes Josephus’s two references to Jesus in Antiquities 18 and 20. The first one is deemed “not authentic” by mythicists but usually they’re not aware of the “original’’ version of Antiquities 18:63 which was discovered in 1972. Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara bar Serapion (which are all historians) reference Jesus. Jewish scriptures like the Talmud and the Toldoth Yeshu also reference Jesus + that his tomb was empty. I think all of these references mention Jesus as well as that he was a teacher AND even that he was executed by Pilate. In total, we actually have more evidence of Jesus than many pre-1950s “commoners”. You can be very confident that Jesus existed, even if mythicists deny you. Have a great day!
I ask them are there any sources from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, centuries saying 'this Christ didn't exist' .... which of course there isn't. All topics covered are about events in his life- thallus on the 3 hours of darkness (he thinks it was an eclipse of the sun), Terullian debates with a jew of the 2nd century bringing up the theory of the disciples stole jesus body, Celus argued against christianity in late the 2nd century but never using the argument of did he actually exist.
@@salud1541 lol ok .. Hmmm, well I guess I end up asking them "How do they think Christianity actually started" and ask them for the evidence behind their claim. That brings up some interesting results, ie it was an Roman invention. Well all the best anyway.
I'd say that some people want to exclude the strongest evidence and others just don't like religion so they believe that no evidence exists outside the bible without actually looking into it. Most people on the street can't answer a basic question about today like "who is vice president of the United States". (see any old late night show segment) What makes you think they have studied the basic questions about the bible and Jesus' divinity?
Jesus Is King.!!! Jesus Loves You❤.!!! John 14:6 King James Bible Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me..!!! Follow Jesus Take The Narrow Path.!!!😊
Paul was the first BIG SKEPTIC. So much so that he tried to stamp out the early church. It was VERY real to him. And he comes out the other side with a viewpoint that not only did Jesus exist, but that Jesus was truly God. Amazing stuff
@@mythbuster1483 two things. 1) you didnt answer my question about which statement you made was true. Did Paul write 7 or zero of the New Testament books? 2)And none of this changes the fact that even IF(and that's a really big IF) the books were written by others they still confirm what the Gospels claim about who Jesus said He is. Unless you're going to tell me the Gospels weren't written until hundreds of years later too.
@@mythbuster1483 St. Irenaeus(180AD), Tertullian(200AD), Clement(180AD), and Papias(125AD), who all confirmed the writing of the Gospels and the existence and legitimacy of Paul, Luke, etc. were all scholars too. They made their observations much much closer to Jesus and the Apostles time than the scholars you are referring to. So since your scholars are writing 1900(ish) years later, and these scholars are writing only a few decades later, we should take their word as more accurate correct. If your argument hold true.
@@mythbuster1483 The early church Christians had zero motivation to lie, because what they claimed got them killed. They had EVERY reason to not claim those things. They were fed to wild animals and lit on fire for fun, but they did it anyway. And even within this persecution, more generations of people believed. And they were killed, and more believed. People don't knowingly die for a lie. There is more evidence of the life of Jesus, and more scrutiny of the Bible than any other document ever in history, and still it stands. I appreciate your knowledge, and this discussion. We obviously aren't going to convince the other of anything here. Thank you for your input, I wish you well.
Craig Keener's book, Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, contains numerous miracle testimonies made by multiple witnesses up to the present time. The nation of Israel is a miracle itself having been given, taken away and returned to the same Abrahamic descendants more than once. Thus fulfilling both the words of Deuteronomy's blessing and curse, and the major and minor prophets' (both before and during the exile).
Would it help you if I explained what a miracle was, here goes, A amputee grows back a limb and the event is documented by the medical profession and published in a major medical journal, now that would be a miracle, there are claims of miracles by believers in miracles. When something extraordinary happens it doesn't mean its a miracle, it means its unexplained. As for the promised land that is a good example of a self fulfilled prophecy and a great excuse to rob the land of others.
@@jim2003sound How is the promised self-fulfilling wben the Assyrians took it over against the the will of Israelite people? How is it self-fulfilling when they are given permission to return by non-lsraeli king, a Persian?
@@restnxist Once the seed of a promised land is sown you are already half way there. There is no Prophecy specific enough in detail to warrant the name Prophecy, either Christian or Islamist.
@@restnxist Thanks for your response, by self fulfilling I mean that the believer in this case will aim for the promised land and not Chicago. Maybe the best way to understand Prophecy is to talk to a Muslim and witness how convinced his is about Mohamed's accuracy and you will begin to see a mirror image of yourself. The claim of seeing the future is as old as mankind and is still making money today.
@@michaelking1091 Awesome! I agree - atheism sounds convincing if you only look at the small subset of evidence, but looking on the broader scope it falls flat. The Bible stands up to every challenge that's been thrown against it (and seeing at the world hates to have their sin exposed, that's been a pretty constant attack).
@@silversilk8438 By changing the interpretation of it you can stand up to any challenge, same for every other religion's sacred book. Seriously, god found nothing but a book to tell us what he is.
@@chandlersleziak6416 Did you read the gospel according to Mark - this is the guy that Bart Ehrman refers to, the guy who know one Jesus (half-)brother & one close disciple (Peter)?
@@nathanDE The character in the book of Mark wasn't actually related to your Demi-god Mashiach Yeshua Ben Yosef, the word "Brother" in the book of Mark was used as a Title of endearment in that case. he wasn't actually related to Yeshua because Yeshua didn't have any Biological siblings, hell he didn't even have any Half-siblings of any kind.
@@chandlersleziak6416 consider this : there have been many religious or ideological movements throughout history, and they all begin with a charismatic leader. It's highly unlikely that Jesus was just made up. On top of that, there were many witnesses of him at the time, and Luke for example, pieces together several of them from different sources. There are also accounts not contained in the NT, and as mentioned in the video, secular historians from the time, some of whom were anti Christian, in which case, why comment on someone who didn't exist? Did you know there are more copies of ancient manuscripts concerning Jesus than any other ancient historical figure or writings? Did you know there is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar? Lastly, 10 of the original disciples, and many of the early Christians were executed for their beliefs. I don't know about you, but I would lose my enthusiasm for spreading a fairytale pretty quickly if threatened with death. And with all that, is it any wonder that the common consensus amongst history scholars, atheist or otherwise, is that the man Jesus existed? The question isn't whether he existed or not. The real question is whether he was who he said he was.
@@audiomatters9523 Any Historian who says that Yeshua Ben Yosef of Nazareth exists isn't being honest with themselves. Also, having Multiple copies of manuscripts doesn't make a person a real historical figure, especially with someone like Yeshua Ben Yosef because of the fact that ALL of the manuscripts change overtime because of the amount of changes Churches have made in the Bible overtime; which is why Biblical manuscripts aren't actually that reliable of sources.
As someone who's studying classics in college, those was awesome to see. Plus the whole 'The bible is biased' is nonsense, since ALL classical sources are biased in one way or another, but they're still very useful sources. Love your videos dude, keep it up
All modern sources are biased, too, because the question isn't one on which one can stay neutral for long. If it is true, it requires you to believe. The closest thing to a neutral in this is someone who has not addressed the question before but is investigating it honestly.
This is really quality editing. I really appreciating the format of your videos. Subscribed immediately. I have plenty to learn from your video making style.
Ok, some people wrote about Jesus. But these same people wrote about a guy getting swallowed by a whale and then spat out three days later, and another guy departing the Red Sea and walking on dry land. Kinda hard to trust ppl's accounts after that.
@DivineDefecation The topic of this video is the existence of Jesus and debunking claims that He never did. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what Greek words for “brother.” Your entire reply is one giant red herring.
@DivineDefecation Still a complete red herring because using different meanings in different contexts for the same Greek word is not a contradiction. You need to commit the equivocation fallacy to assume that there’s a contradiction there.
@DivineDefecation Wrong. That is an equivocation because it completely ignores the surrounding language and surrounding grammar. You need to literally quote-mine that word out if its sentence to reach that conclusion.
@DivineDefecation No it doesn’t. Again, you need to quote-mine the word out of its sentence to call the evidence weak. You also need to use willful ignorance of the historical-legal method to call the manuscript evidence weak, not to mention willful ignorance of the same to call the corroborating details weak.
The coolest evidence for Jesus existing (or rather Jesus was *going to* exist) is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The books of the Patriarchs, lost for thousands of years, were discovered and you find that EVERY patriarch from Adam to the sons of Jacob speak of the coming holy God-man who comes to take away the sins of the world.
Well of course, Jesus started as the suffering messiah of the Torah. All the original christians were jews and their Jesus did not accomplish any miracles.
There were lots of people named Jesus at the time. Jesus of the Bible did not exist. Where are any of the Miracles that Jesus supposedly performed outside of the Bible. Absolutely nowhere. And the one writing that does mention Jesus outside of the Bible seems to have been forged.
Thank you so much for this, I literally had a debate with a guy for several days about this and one of the first things I asked him was how can he exclude all the evidence for Jesus (6k documents and secular recordings) yet in the same breath say there’s no evidence,
Came across this site looks at historical figures. The Resurrection and Biblical Manuscript Evidence logically and with reason - www.theresurrectiondecree.com/jesus-analysis-of-resurrection/ Worth a read for some interesting information not well known.
Even mythicists agree he is "widely attested", they just think the attestations are false and that he is an invented character. Ehrman has a better argument than that in my opinion. His main argument against mythicism has to do with probability: it's just more probable that he existed because if he was invented they would have made up a character more in line with the Jewish idea of the Messiah. No Jew would expect the Messiah to get crucified, for starters, which was the main reason most Jews thought the idea was ridiculous.
So, this is fairly interesting. I'm an atheist and think religion is nonsense for a plethora of reasons but I've been on the fence specifically regarding Jesus' existence for some time. I don't think it's entirely reasonable to make the claim that Jesus is 100% a myth but at the same time, I'm not yet educated on the matter to say that he absolutely did exist. I trust Ehrman enough to say that he most likely did but I've also heard the explanation that any extra-biblical writings about Jesus, including those of Josephus and Tacitus and the like were simply echoing and addressing the popular new wave amongst certain groups of people instead of independently verifying the claims. This explanation might be completely inaccurate but I also don't particularly care. At the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything for my beliefs. And no, I really just don't accept the Bible as a standalone source of evidence for much of anything since it's consistently internally contradictory, prone to 3rd party meddling, prone to plagiarism, prone to declaring (now known to be) myths as absolute fact, and many more errors. I really doubt Christians would outright accept the idea that the Quaran is a 100% accurate and honest account of history and facts so it seems silly when apologists essentially expected to everyone to not hold the Bible to the same standards of scrutiny.
You are absolutely right my friend, I will say that I'm not expert in this topic but one thing I realise is that Christians and their apologist boast about Jesus existence simply by the fact that some ancient authors mentions jesus in their writings. However that itself is not a good evidence since we are not talking about a mere human but we are talking about a God in the form of human raising death, casting out demons and healing the sick with magical powers, and yet these authors merely mentions the name Jesus and not his attribute. Also non of the actual Historian claims that Jesus existed as in God in a human form, but they say jesus a mere human must have existed. No Historian or scientist have found any physical evidence of Jesus existence even trying DNA test with no result. In short when historians talk about Jesus they are 100% sure Jesus as in son of God never existed, just a mere human must have existed with a name Jesus who is just a man, a political leader of some sort. It's interesting to learn the supposed evidence of Jesus' existence but note that all the evidence these people brings up are just another claims not evidence.
@@hetokaachumi5181 Yeah, exactly. Depending on who you ask, Jesus can be something entirely different. As I said, it doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed or not because we can confidently say that all of those miracles most likely didn't occur and he wasn't a god of any kind. Look at this verse from the Bible: 1 Timothy 2:3-5 (NIV) - 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. In these verses, the author of Timothy is saying that Jesus isn't even God himself, he is just a middle-man between God and humans. This idea was fairly popular during the early years of Christianity tbh and sects of Christianity still believe this kind of thing. We can even look to the other Abrahamic religions; Judaism and Islam. Judaism typically just tells us that Jesus was a Rabbi of the time and Islam says that he was a prophet. Within Christianity itself, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, also don't believe that Jesus is god. It genuinely may be safe to say that even within the group of people who believe that Jesus definitely did exist, more people than not will say that he wasn't god which I think is kind of funny tbh.
@@amarntsitran3406 I would dissent on your interpretation of the passage as it does not specifically say that Jesus Christ is not God. Paul, the author of 1 Timothy, very specifically affirms the deity of Jesus many times in his other letters, with a few examples being: Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV) 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Colossians 2:8-9 (ESV) 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the fullness of deity dwells bodily. Furthermore, Paul also refers to "God our Father" and "Our Lord Jesus Christ" in the same sentence in Philippians 1:2 and Colossians 1:3, which shows that Paul considered Jesus to be both God and distinct from God the father. p.s. One would expect Judaism and Islam to disagree with Christianity on the deity of Christ, seeing as the deity of Christ is a fundamental tenet which differentiates between the three.
@Joanna C Okay, perhaps I worded it poorly or something then. I'll elaborate anyway. So my point with this was simply to point out the interesting fact that even amongst very early Christian circles, Jesus wasn't considered God. He may have been considered a wise speaker of sorts, a refreshing Rabbi, a prophet, or perhaps some other interpretations of the man existed. So even amongst early followers - people who were not only significantly more closely related to the apparent events in regards to both time and space than we are now, but people in general were generally far more superstitious and gullible too - there wasn't unanimous consensus to consider Jesus as God. Now let's turn our attention to the modern consensus regarding Jesus with all of the new information and methods we've managed to gather and develop since back then. Again, as I've already stated, I think it's reasonable to make the inference that most people who do believe Jesus existed, don't accept that he was a divine being. Of course, I'm not making the claim that Jesus definitely wasn't god based on these points, that would be silly. However, I will suggest that it's something worth exploring and seriously considering.
Great video! I liked how you used Bart to present this evidence, I know he believes what you are saying on this one point, he just can't wrap his head around how God allows people to mess with His stuff.
Really liked this videos content! I'd say from a video editing standpoint that it would possibly be helpful to not include so many of those swoop sound FXs and possibly use something more subtle or nothing at all, as it can be a bit distracting. Overall great job.
This is very good. I like the creativity here. Keep up the good work. However, since Bart is very wrong on many things evangelical, so I would not necessarily call him a "world class Bible scholar."
Disclaimer: The EP has called the debate for Jesus'non-existence for the atheists. Robust measures are being taken to prevent the spread of misinformation about Jesus actually existing. Follow the links to our blogs for more information.
How about Richard Carrier? He is both a Classist and Ancient Historian. He wrote the book “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why we have a reason to doubt?” He seems to find a way to dismiss all evidence as inauthentic or forgery in that book.
Atheists generally claim to follow the experts’ opinion when it comes to knowledge, it’s interesting how prevalent the Jesus myth is despite virtually no academic historians accepting it.
What atheists want is to sit there, as it were on a throne, and say, "There's no evidence! That's not evidence!", thereby carelessly, flippantly dismissing everything anybody says as though it were utterly worthless. Why? Because doing so is an oh so easy way for them to puff themselves up in an air of self-righteous, supposed intellectual/moral superiority over Christians. Such people, not surprisingly, never seem to want to be bothered by (what should seem fundamentally important) questions regarding the nature of evidence.
No atheists care if Jesus was real. Why should anyone care unless Jesus IS real? If you have to go back to first century stories, you've already admitted that he's not real today.
@@goldenalt3166 How would you what every single atheist cares about? If they did care, they might not be an atheist for very long. I said might. By going back to first-century stories to verify if he was real is an admition that he wasnt real? READ YOUR SENTENCE SLOWLY. Anyway, it is a response to someone saying that there is no evidence outside of the bible that he existed. You just proved that you are scared and you dont want him to exist. boooom
@@nickoD509It is you that missed the point. A dead Jesus is useless. A living Jesus doesn't need 1000 year old hearsay. I'm not scared. Jesus has an open invitation to come visit me for lunch. But existing 2000 years ago, not a big deal, lots of people did that.
I hope this helps out: Luke 1:1-4 1. Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2. just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
I'm not a mythicist, but the manuscript evidence is pretty weak. Most of the documents apologists like to refer to (Josephus, Tasidus etc) don't talk about the truth of the claim, only mentioning the religion of Christianity and the belief the followers hold. Things written centuries later do not attest to the facts, only to the beliefs. This is why the mythicists can make such a claim as nothing directly refutes the idea.
@@Wertbag99 they don’t simply speak of the followers but also of the man whom the followers, follow. At any point they could have made the claim that he was simply a myth and the religion was nothing more than a con, but they didn’t because they knew that the man had lived as it had only been a few decades. You would never, for instance, say that JFK never existed. The fact of the matter is, that if what the disciples said had been an outright lie which they invented out of nothing the religion wouldn’t have taken off, the stories within the gospels wouldn’t look the way they do, everyone who wasn’t a Christian would have said in no uncertain terms that Jesus never existed, and the apostles would never have been willing to be flayed alive for their lie.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 The external documents mention that Christians believe in Jesus, but do not tell us any more than that. I believe he was real, but unlike other historic figures we don't have any external sources to confirm it. Figures such as Caesar had busts cast in their likeness, art work made of them, writing in their own hand, coins minted with their likeness, buildings and provinces named after them and many third party biographies. Sadly we don't have that level of detail for Jesus and are completely reliant on the gospels. "The fact of the matter is, that if what the disciples said had been an outright lie which they invented out of nothing the religion wouldn’t have taken off" - As a counter to that I would point to Mormons. A crazy belief inspired by one mans claims of speaking to angels, and even with zero proof, Mormonism now claims 4 million followers. Or prehaps Scientology, where Ron Hubbard made up some crazy nonsense and now thousands of people believe in alien infestation. But of course this stands for all other religions, as I'm sure you would agree Zeus, Odin, Hercules and other mythical beings never actually existed, and yet entire religions grew up around those myths.
@@Wertbag99 you’re comparing a peasant rabbi to emperors. You need to compare Jesus to other historic individuals of similar status within society. Additionally if he didn’t exist those non Christians discussing him would have just said he didn’t exist.
We have known the eath is round for around 300 years before Jesus.. There are loads of people who still believe the earth is flat today. See youtube. Your logic is illogical.
"Jesus is God“ is "the earth is flat“ of history. Fixed it for you.😂 The probability that Jesus never existed is many magnitudes higher than that he was God.😉
Knew a literary professor who taught a class on the Bible from a literary standpoint, and, though an athiest, they HATED the argument that the Bible was a relatively recent writing instead of the collect of ancient texts it is. That was someone who I could disagree with from a theological standpoint and still have MASSIVE respect for.
Tacitus Was born in present day France and then moved and died in present day Italy. He was born after Jesus's supposed death and to my knowledge never visited present day Israel /Palestine. His work on the Germanic peoples is clear propaganda and full of mistakes. Not so strange since it was all from hearsay. I don't see why he would make a good evidence for the existence of Jesus. Sorry. The same with Josephus by the way. Also, history wasn't written in the same way we do nowadays. People had different goals in mind and checking sources was not interesting to them. Another reason why it's very hard to see "historians" of the day as proof for anything.
@@RedPenLogic Just like the "hostile witness" of ancient records! From the very start people have hated Christ, but have begrudgingly admitted he exists, and that still goes on today. Nothing is new under the sun :)
The best evidence of Jesus Christ's existence is His constant working in my life. I have seen miracles happen in His Name. I have been in situations where I have no business being alive today, but for the Grace of God. To me the biggest proof of Christ is the interaction we have. The second biggest is the way He is viscously attacked, Christianity is the only religion that Atheists(so called) have a major problem with, Budda, he's fine, Mithras , sure why not, but Jesus Christ, no way, very very telling to me that there is a right side and a very wrong side of this selective hate for no Gods other than The God or His Son Messiah Yeshua.
I’m not going to address your personal experiences but I will say this. Atheists get on all kinds of religions not just Christianity. The only reasons it may seem as though atheists only attack Christianity to you is because Christianity is by far the most popular religion where you live, you are probably not very active in the atheist community, and as a Christian it is likely you pay much more attention to attacks on your religion than others. Even if it were the case that atheists only went after Christianity, that still would not be positive evidence for Christianity’s truth. That’s akin to a flat earther saying, “Well I KNOW the Earth is flat now because everyone is always attacking my beliefs.”
@@allentremper8243 Nope, I don’t even understand what it means to say that God exists depending on how you define God. I have yet to come across a definition of God that is coherent or isn’t just “Well maybe God is the universe.” Which is just dumb.
@@steggyweggy I only asked because I want to know who I am talking with. I will tell you this much, that in my youth, I was a wild child. I have been out of my body many times. When you are actually able to look back at your own body laying there, while you are floating above it, it's pretty hard to deny the life after death thing. What was interesting about most of those experiences, I usually had "Entity contact", these beings were always hostile to my belief in Christ, not a God. My Buddhist friend would never have an experience where he was told Buddha doesn't exist, in fact that They nurture. I know those beings to be demonic today, I have had major experience with them, I know it sounds crazy, but I am telling Truth. Today I don't have any out of body experiences, I don't have any further contact with these beings, but I would just as quickly say they were real, because I saw them, as I can say that I know An Almighty God created all of this. I am Christian, I don't do brick and mortar Churches, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, be is very active in my life, and those around me, wether they see it or not. Rather I think He's active in most people's lives and they don't see it. I would also say that those flat earth people have a couple questions that are never answered, and there is much disinformation out there. Just because you are told from 5 that the earth is round, just because you have seen pictures, doesn't mean that it is. The answers for Truth should be easy to find, but that's not the case at all, almost everything breaks down upon close inspection.
@@steggyweggy I can assure you that God isn't the Universe, Lol. God is The Uncreated One, The Creator of EVERYTHING that WE EXPERIENCE in This Plane of Existence. There be many gods, but there be only One Who Is Uncreated, Always Been, Never Changing, All Merciful,All Just, Who Created even the realms I have been while out of body. The best evidence that I can offer for such a Being, is that you and I are here, communicating with one another. That it is much more likely that this was by design than it being the product of chance. It's either one or the other, no wiggle room here. Unfortunately if you had been born before forced Government Education, you would not even entertain the thought of no Creator, because it's Self Evident that we are in a creation. But since the Masonic Order has become the leadership of EVERYTHING, the Great Endeavor or Great Work is to make as many Atheists and Agnostics(I imagine you get attacked personally because you still admit that you are Agnostic, which is the only position an Hates more than Christianity. The whole aim for the Great Endeavor is "To remove God from yonder Heavens, and wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth." If you have a belief system that is based upon Scientism (the belief in Theory built upon theory, until the belief system you have us no less Faith Based than any other Esoteric thinking or Religion. Science falsely so called is the belief system of all Atheists, they buy into the theory of. Evolution, the Big Bang theory, believe in things that you can not verify, such as men on a space station, I don't care about the pictures, I can prove those pictures to all be Hollywood movies, nothing more, nothing less. Do you believe we went to the moon and back during the Apollo missions? Do you believe the official narrative of 9/11? Do you believe much that mainstream media is telling you? If you answer no, to even 2 of those questions, you should realize that the same people who tricked us over and over again are the same people who educated you and I. If this be the case, why do you trust the Corporate Entity called USA when you know that they lie all the time? Why believe some things but hold on fast to others if they came from the same source? I never understood why anyone could think this all happened by accident, but I would love to have a respectful conversation with you on exactly why I can say that I know God exists, while you say you haven't seen any evidence that God does. To your credit you have not boxed yourself into one belief or another as you said you were an Agnostic with Atheists leanings. That is way better than those who have had their conscious seared with a hot iron, you have not, just because you are not denying God exists, but that you have yet to see any proof of. I hope we can have a great dialogue, please don't doge the answers to those very Important questions, if you believe we went to the moon and back, if you believe the official narrative of 9/11, and if you believe that the media is telling you the closest thing to Truth they can get? Thanks
There was also a point a few decades ago when SCHOLARS were very skeptical of the historical existence of the Philistines. Now, there have been unearthed large Philistine cities, graveyards, etc., and the Philistines are a very hot topic among archeologists.
To quote voddie baucham, “We have a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that take place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”
@@ramigilneas9274, Amazing because everything you just said was completely wrong. Every critical scholar on the New Testament believes Jesus was a wise man, teacher, had 12 disciples, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And that’s just at the bare minimum.
Ehrman needs Jesus to exist for his books like "What Jesus Said" to make sense, but he needs Jesus to not exist to maintain his atheist audience/customers. He's like some sort of house divided against itself.
so basically what we have as evidence is a story book (that also claims magic is real) & sources who talk about jesus after he was already dead for centuries? yeah. that's really great evidence 😐 why don't we have writings from jesus? why don't we have reliable contemporary sources or any contemporary sources at all?
@@dceezy15 I’d love to know how Paul’s letters were “centuries” after the crucifixion. I also love how you didn’t mention all the real people mentioned in the Bible, Like Pontius Pilate, John The Baptist, etc.
@@bloodspittingspartan5002 oh- I'm sorry decades after. is that better? 🤦🏽♂️ I'd love to know if the letters paul wrote were even credible. they definitely weren't contemporary & they claim to contain accounts taken directly from ppl who knew jesus, but that's just hearsay. hearsay from decades after jesus' supposed death. my main point is the "evidence" presented for jesus' life & death are trash. I don't even count it as evidence.
Josephus wrote the antiquities almost 70 years after the supposed events. And even then the mentions of jesus or his brother weren't in his writings. Not until the fourth century. It seems as if the Christians added that part into his writings later.
@@multi-milliondollarmike5127 "And even then the mentions of jesus or his brother weren't in his writings." Jesus and his brother were in his writing. "Let's fact-check this step by step: Josephus and "Antiquities of the Jews": Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94. This work is a history of the Jewish people from creation to the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). Josephus wrote this about 60 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, which most scholars date to around AD 30-36. Mentions of Jesus in Josephus' Writings: There are two passages in Antiquities of the Jews that refer to Jesus: Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3): This passage discusses Jesus, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and describes him as a "wise man" and possibly the Messiah. Reference to James, the brother of Jesus (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1): This passage mentions "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" in the context of James' execution. Authenticity of the Jesus References: Testimonium Flavianum: There is considerable scholarly debate over the authenticity of this passage. Many believe that parts of it were added or altered by later Christian scribes, especially because the text as we have it seems too favorable towards Jesus for a Jewish historian like Josephus. However, most scholars believe that Josephus did make some original reference to Jesus, but that later Christian scribes may have embellished the passage. James, the brother of Jesus: This reference is generally considered authentic by most scholars. It is a brief and less theologically charged mention, which makes it less likely to have been tampered with. Timing of Christian Interpolations: The claim that the references to Jesus weren't added until the fourth century is likely overstated. While some Christian scholars, like Eusebius (early 4th century), are known to have referenced Josephus' works, evidence suggests that the references were already present in some form earlier than that. However, it's clear that by the time of Eusebius, the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it today included embellishments, which could have happened in the centuries following Josephus' death. Conclusion: Josephus did write Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94, about 60 years after Jesus' death. The references to Jesus and his brother James exist in Josephus' works. However, while the mention of James is generally considered authentic, the Testimonium Flavianum likely contains later Christian additions, with scholarly consensus that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus but less favorably than the text currently suggests. The claim that the mentions of Jesus weren’t added until the fourth century is inaccurate. Some Christian interpolations likely occurred earlier, but embellishments were solidified by the time of Eusebius."
@@paradisecityX0 The critical thinking definition of skeptic not common usage. "The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them. The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion...' sites.google.com/site/the83problems/definitions/what-is-a-skeptic
@@paradisecityX0 Cool link. If I say I have not been convinced that Jesus existed, what does that make me? I'm not saying he didn't exist, I'm just saying I don't find the evidence that he does to be insufficient. I mean if you are convinced he existed is not the onus on you to provide evidence that is convincing and has not been debunked? To be honest I don't care if he existed or not. I'm more interested in why you are convinced god exists? If that is what you believe.
I never understood this logic.... Like, I'm a Christian, I don't go around saying Muhammed never existed or Buddha never existed. They weren't right about a lot of things, but sure, they existed as humans as far as I'm aware. Why deny the very existence of Jesus? Can't they just say He wasn't God, or didn't do any miracles? Why does He have to have never existed? lol
Moses was considered a historical figure back in the 1980s. Today’s academic history research does not consider Moses or Abraham to be historical figures. I believe Jesus will do the same - a religious myth, not a historical person. If Jesus is not a historical person but only ink on paper like all other mystery deities we held at that time - Then Christianity cannot be true. This does not mean that Christianity would die out, for there are still people today who believe in the gods of the Greek Pantheon.
So what do you do with all the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? Just curious as a former atheist as I really wish someone would have told me over 2 thousand predictions in a book written over 2 thousand years ago came true, I'd be like let me see that book lol
@@brothersyd602 What prophecy came true? If that is the case(the bible correctly prediting 2,000 prophecies) why are there Hindus, Muslims or Jews or Atheists?
@@brothersyd602 There is no fulfilled prophesy in the bible. There are vague claims that, in some cases, generations of people have worked to make happen. That isn't prophesy.
1) Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian - all either forged or referring to an existing cult and its beliefs, not directly to a historical person. 2) The NT writings - a collection of sectarian recruitment docs, most or all pseudepigraphal (i.e. forged in another person's name), written a generation+ after the alleged events, substantially self-contradictory not just in supposed "historical details" but in points of theology. Only a Christian committed to believing in the Bible as history would credit this as "reliable historical documentation." But they'd be better off saying "We believe on faith, ahead of and irrespective of the opinions of historians or text critics." That would be the truth. After all, who becomes a Christian by sitting down and soberly assessing the "historical evidence" such as it is, maybe doing a Bayesian analysis and arriving dispassionately at the conclusion that the Resurrection is more likely than not - and on that basis checking into the local church? Honestly, you're off the hook. You claim to understand that bias is an issue in scholarship, since you accuse "mythicists" of it. So you're going to say that as a Christian, you're NOT biased in favor of the Bible? You might wrestle with your faith, but that's a struggle AGAINST doubt, a struggle TO believe. Forget about what I think - you shouldn't trust yourself to be unbiased in your approach to bible studies, at least, insofar as you truly take your faith seriously. And since you can't be unbiased, there's no point wading into the argument, except, indeed, to muddy the waters.
"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument. Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."
Uuuummmm. WOW, you got me. I should believe in god on that question. I learned so much from this comment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_(ship)
@@WhereWhatHuh I already responded to your other delusion and will not waste my time with you on the difference between the quality of evidence for Jesus's existance and activities and the quality of evidence for Columbus's existance and activities. I'm not even a mythacist... I couldn't care less if jesus existed or not... I'm more interested in the bigger fantasy you people have THAT IMPACTS OUR LIVES IN SO MANY TERRIBLE WAYS and needs to be eradicated, because I am the antitheist.
@@josephde-haan1074 Clearly you've had your humerii surgically removed, since you missed the joke. ColumbO, a television detective, did NOT sail aboard the Santa Maria... That was Christopher ColumbUS ... I'm glad that you openly confess to being an antitheist and do not hide, as so many of your comrades do, behind the false flag of atheism. Unfortunately, if you wish to say that there is no God and to be logical in doing so, you will need to answer logical and rational arguments with logic and rationality, not with invectives and anti-religious bigotry. Come now, let us reason together. There's nothing to fear. We'll have a few syllogisms, chat about the evidence...
That's one of my favorite Ehman clips....perhaps except the clip (only audio I think) where he says he wouldn't go against Islam like Christianity because , basically, he wanted to stay alive. (I want to say I heard over on David Wood's channel) Anyways, love how you applies this clip.
Disclaimer: No cat was harmed at the throwing of the other colours of pen.
😂
🤣
@@RedPenLogic Blessings Timothy
@@RedPenLogic you have all the evidence in the world for God. But you don't worship Him.
🤣 I had to pause the video to laugh at this.
I recall reading the "crucified sophist" quote for an assignment in college. The professor was a complete atheist, but fully believed in the historical Jesus and was even able to make some very cogent point on what he called "the early cult of Jesus followers". Not my favorite term as a believer, but I appreciated his commitment to the bare facts.
yeah i watch a roman TH-camr (cant recall the name of his channel) but he actually provides some roman documents that proves jesus exist the onlu question is, is he really the son of god jesus and not just a man name jesus.
"Cult of Jesus" is a very academic term. Indeed, all religions classify as cult. It's just that Christians tend to use the term to refer to religions that aren't Christian but claim Jesus as their own in some way.
This is so common with professors! It proves that evidence isn’t their problem, pride is. It’s the oldest sin.
@@Markcus003 Metatron?
@@kellyanne7225 it doesn’t prove that. It proves that to a rational person, the claim of a human man existing has a high probability so requires little evidence. The claim that man was the son of a deity has a low probability so requires more (or at least some) evidence.
I could tell you that I have a garden, a reasonable claim. You would probably believe me outright. Now if I tell you that my garden has fairies in it… it’s not pride that stops you believing the fairies part, the claim requires better evidence than the mundane claim of having a garden.
My dude. I just discovered your channel and these videos are FANTASTIC. I subscribed and will be sharing many of your videos on my social media. KEEP IT UP!
Same here
I like how this guy is like an actually smart Matthew Santoro
Like actually giving information that's also beneficial instead of only entertaining
That Matthew Santoro is one good lookin' dude if I do say so myself.
Thanks, Zac.
@NormiePill That makes me think about a meme of Trump shaving his head and growing a beard which made him look like Alex Jones
@NormiePill you mean males? Yeah all those men are one in the same!
@@RedPenLogic Yep he is a good looking man. Lol no wonder you're wife married a ginger. I'm jelous of you though assumingly you can grow a beard! God give me a beard!
I'm an atheist and still like your content. Its great quality, straight to the point without insult. Atheists should absolutely be called on badly worded arguments and poorly thought through claims. Of course that goes both ways, but I really appreciate the cool, calm delivery. We can educate each other without it having to turn into a flame war every time. Good work.
You can also mislead with carefully worded claims. This video is definitely misleading if not factually incorrect.
@@goldenalt3166 Its true there's no documents that were contemporary to Jesus and the ones commonly quoted are people reporting the religion exists rather than Jesus existing. It's still a hard sell to go from lacking documents for an ancient guy to him being only a myth. It's possible but unlikely.
@@Wertbag99 It's an equally hard sell to go from there must be a guy behind this too we know what he taught and that what he did. I'm not a mythicist because I think the bible has too many contradictions between theology and history for there not to be real accounts that it was based on.
@@goldenalt3166 Agreed. I lean towards Jesus being a real preacher based on how cults usually grow. They have a charismatic leader who takes the worship personally, that leaders legacy is expanded by his followers. It seems a good fit to what we see.
@@goldenalt3166 care to elaborate and cite your argument?
To deny Jesus existed necessarily means we have to deny other people from antiquity from whom we have little evidence, but we don't deny they existed. I mean, consider Roman orators or early Greek philosophers; sometimes, only their ideas are extant, 3rd or 4th hand some of them. It's an impossible standard that no one can hold to, only those who are obsessed with a God they hate and refuse to worship. The time will come when worship will be inevitable, see Philippians 2: 10-11.
Very very few people in antiquity could read and even fewer could write. There isn't going to BE much 'evidence'........
What other people? The usual theist response. making further claims that are not backed up? Should we believe Achilles was real?
@@josephde-haan1074 do you believe Achilles was real?
@@jeffreyhunt7880 Well there is a book by an anonymous author, who we made up a name for and it was passed down by oral tradition for a very long time and the whole book makes complete sense and there was such a place as ancient Greece which is in the book, so....
of course.I do. I hope you do. I actually wear a little silver image of a heel around my neck in memoriam of how he died because when I die I think he will appreciate the reminder.
@@josephde-haan1074 That's your response?
The amount of classy sass from this is exceptional. 👌
Never underestimate the Power of Eyebrows.
You're easily impressed.
Wow that news segment part was EXCELLENT!
Jesus Christ could put a stop to all of these doubters by simply showing up.
I laughed at the “conversation” with Bart
deception is easy for some. Right Red pen?
whats the deception you refer to
@@FoamySlobbers It's not a deception, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see he's not really talking to him. He just did that for entertainment value.
However that was never the point of this video. What Bart says was the point.
@@FoamySlobbers What deception?
Exactly. This channel is a joke
The biggest kicker is are we sure in all the documents they are referring to the same Jesus as that name was popular around that time.
Ding, ding, ding, ding! Hit the nail right on the head. "Hey, a guy named Pierre performed miracles in Paris during the 15th century!" "How do you know?" "Because I found some accounts from contemporary peasants reproduced in a book compiled in 1860, and they mentioned a Pierre." Yes. Solid.
@@sid1gen Do you know how ancient history works?
Not 'Christ' though. Atheist opinions are built on nothing.
Wait, no month-long wait between videos? Yes, please!
Haha. There might even be another one NEXT WEEK. But don't tell anyone.
@@RedPenLogic to late
@@RedPenLogic Brilliant, love these videos
@@RedPenLogic thank you for your service, my brother
@@RedPenLogic I don't mind waiting for quality. It's really lovely to see each of your videos!
Evidence/ truth doesn't matter to a world that believes everything is relative/ subjective to a person.
I get this all the time from athiests and I tell them time & time again that there's plenty of evidence but the one's I've had a discussion with will rather deny than be open minded. It's okay to be a skeptic or doubtful, but to be cynical is just taking it to the extreme.
@James Henry Smith What was Jesus's #1 mission when he walked on earth in the flesh? Was it to perform miracles? Heal the sick? Raise the dead? Feed thousands with a few loaves of bread & fish? Although he did those things so that many would be able to believe that he is the long awaited Messiah, his #1 priority was not so much to save the flesh as it was to save souls. Because a greater punishment awaits to those who rejects God the Son. Heaven will not be full of good people, nor bad people. Heaven will be full of forgiven people that received Jesus Christ as Saviour & as their Lord over their lives. 😉
Well if Atheists were to accept that Jesus existed, they would have to believe He was an ordinary middle-eastern Jew, who had a normal birth, performed no miracles, wasn't God, was crucified, never resurrected and stayed dead, and also suffered from religious delusions and paranoia
@@adamstewart9052 Not entirely true, there have been atheistic researchers who have become believers upon doing the actual research themselves rather than simply repeating what others have said. A few comes to mind, one was a famous author, another was a reporter & another is a retired detective. 👍
@@DreDredel3 So you're saying Atheists misunderstand Jesus?
@@adamstewart9052 I didn't say that. But now that you point that out, Jesus is quoted in claiming to be God & athiests don't believe in God. So in a way, yes. It's like a professor claiming to be a professor but the listener denying that professors exist.
It's kind of interesting, I've had a lot of atheists tell me they've read the Bible multiple times and study it and some even tell me they know it better than my pastor, and yet they still treat the Bible as a single book rather than 66. I'm honestly a little embarrassed on their behalf.
I too have had this experience and I am sure we are not alone. It does not take long for most to expose their deep ignorance. At that point I usually ask if their multiple readings of the bible was from the inside or just the outside cover.
@@fetormephitis3040 My usual strategy is to ask for what books they've read on the topic, it allows me to gauge whether they have genuine interest on the topic or if they are just some jerk with nothing better to do than waste my time.
@@Ap31920 Yes yes great!
I'm so glad you cleared that up... Now evidence for god please?
Also other different christian sect have a variety of books in their bible. Some more, some less depending on your flavour of christianity. Here's a chart. www.biblestudymagazine.com/extras-1/2014/10/31/whats-in-the-bible
@@josephde-haan1074 So, you come here with the simple intention of changing the subject and with an obvious arrogant tone. Why exactly should I humor you?
I have a lot of respect for Bart Erhman.
It's sad that he fell away.
there are many other biblical scholars who did a similar research like Bart Erhman and presented their thesis, but the only reason we consider Bart Erhman research more important is because he is not a believer. I think everything has a reason, he may not have fallen away, but he plays a part in Gods plan.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I agree it is very sad… It was also preventable had he had been provided the opportunity to ask questions and understand the problem of evil and how Christianity actually provides a satisfying answer to it, as well as had he not been raised with an unrealistically and unnecessarily high view of Biblical Inerrancy. Those two issues led to his fall to activistic agnosticism. However, I also don’t really respect the man, because while he knows better as a scholar the way he knowingly presents certain facts while suppressing others to ignorant audiences with the express goal of leading them to believe false conclusions causes me not to respect the man.
Case in point: He gave a whole lecture on Mark, where he focuses solely on the words Mark records Jesus saying on the cross to imply Jesus was bewildered and confused and felt betrayed and didn’t know why all His supporters abandoned him. However, as a New Testament Scholar he knows full well that other places in Mark’s Gospel make it crystal clear not only did Jesus KNOW He was going to be crucified beforehand, He knew WHY, He CHOSE to allow it to happen, and He also knew His followers were going to abandon Him.
It’s that type of preying on ignorant audiences and presenting carefully selected facts presented in a way to lead people to erroneous conclusions that I cannot respect about the man.
@James Henry Smith Lol I could sit in my Room desperately asking a pink Unicorn to appear to me and it eventually would. Learn something about how the human mind works. Come back to me when an amputee grows back a limb with documented evidence that I cannot refute and I'll believe in your nonsense faith healing. It's sad to me all the people who live in this Fairytale land where Magic exists.
@@robertpreisser3547 I can forgive him. But respect is earned.
Really well done Tim! Your response to this question and how you communicate it via video!
People don't want facts they want confirmation bias that's why they don't actually look up anything for themselves
Projection.
@@twiedenfeld boom roasted
@@twiedenfeldproved my man without even trying😂
Christians are the worst offenders.
@@spiritsplice Jesus mythers are.
I remember someone saying if the bible can't be used to defend itself, why is a man convicted of a crime able to give his own testimony in court.
Several reasons: 1. the bible isn't a man. 2. The bible isn't on trial. 3. In a real court the testimony of the suspect proclaiming his innocence is generally not accepted as evidence.
Smh. Not the same. A man giving testimony in court is him being able to defend himself or justify his position, however his words alone doesn't make anything he says truth especially if it doesn't align with the material evidence. You cannot use a source to verify itself as a general rule. Doing that essentially says that a testimony is true because it says it's true.
@@sofakingcrazy you expecting a response after 2 fucking years..
I m always thinking for the unbelievers:They didn t believe HIM while he was on earth performing miracles how can we expect them to believe in HIM now? !
You got proof?Besides the Bible?
@@UNPLUGGGEDT.V proof about what?
No eyebrow pause moment ?!🤣
Great video man!
Simply one of the best apologist channels on youtube. Clear, conscise and straight to the point!
and still full of bs :)
@@MrAuskiwi101 Do you wanna point something out? Or just make baseless accusations?
@@MrAuskiwi101 what a claim, any evidence to support that claim about Mr. B? Or are you just mad someone on the internet disagrees with you?
@@oveh.8160 Baseless? lol
Just watch the channel.
What I said is self evident.
If you can't see it you're indoctrinated.
@@grubblewubbles oh dear.
So it's not just in religion that you make stuff up, and pretend it's true. In this case in order to pretend you have a point.
The evidence is self evident.
Just watch the channel.
Just watch any apologetics channel for waves of bs being sold as knowledge.
If you can't see it you're indoctrinated.
and "mad" lol no. Just an ad hominin from you. More self deception from you. :)
Try being wise. Do you know where to start?
I really enjoy the style of your videos! Shared this with some moms of preteens/teens 😊❤️
Awesome!!
Thank You! Those who have Ears! God Bless You! Love the Video!
I watched a video of Bart Erman destroying Bart Erman in a debate about whether Jesus existed. According to Bart Ertman, he does.
This is such a good example of the words "seek, and ye shall find", lol
Always amazing. Thank you for your faithful work brother.
I love your videos. Jesus is real and is lord. For centuries they have been trying to tear him down but he remains strong and church matches on.
You think that's bad? For millenia they have been trying to tear down Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
no major disrespect.. but I listen to folks who are these "true believers" and they spout bizarre word salad of "Jesus is lord, come to salvation blah blah blah". It is cultish. That type of mentality is dangerous. Understand Christ Consciousness and study the esoteric knowledge that has been occulted.. but quit following questionable church leaders that would make you blind and force you to give them money... Use your mind... that is why you have it.
I love this guy and his Michael Rosen facial expressions. Jesus is Lord.
According to historical scholars and the church's position on this matter, they say that the gospels date to 70 AD with mark being the earliest gospel. The others are written later. Mathew and luke use mark as a crib sheet with their own improvements and john splices all three together to give you his gospel. All 4 gospels had their respective names attached to them because the oldest ones that they have are anonymously written. None of the gospels are written from a 1st person perspective and there are differences in them ranging from geneologies to jesus's ministry to his last words and the resurrection accounts and even whom he wants to be saved. The really big problem is that paul's body of work predates the gospels and paul never knew jesus when he was alive. Paul's Jesus is a heavenly christ who was crucified in the heavens and paul never knew of mary or joseph or of anything about jesus's life on earth and his jesus was to come once to transform believers bodies into spiritual bodies which goes against jewish thought on physical resurrection. This is the biggest problem for christianity right here, paul's writings were written 2 decades before the gospels and paul referrred to his preaching as his gospel. The ultimate problem for christianity is this right here: Paul admitted to lying in order to advance his preaching through guile and he said that he became a jew to jews and a greek to greeks. Paul said that abraham was allegorical which is a problem for the nt canon and the entire bible. In a new king james version or any study bible, there is a footnote that informs the reader that mark chapter 16 verse 8 through to the end of mark had those verses added later on,as well as the verses on the woman caught in adultery. Those added verses are not in codex sinaiticus aka the sinai bible and they are not in codex vaticanus or lxx.
I loved this response! Quick question.....which scriptures shows Paul's teaching about Christ crucified in the heavens?
I’m currently in a debate with a mythicist. They are one of the most ignorant smart-sounding people ever. Great video!
You have a new subscriber!
@Queen Judith Vallo Yeah, that sucks. It happened to me and they dismissed the nonbiblical evidence as “not really evidence”. Some good nonbiblical evidence includes Josephus’s two references to Jesus in Antiquities 18 and 20. The first one is deemed “not authentic” by mythicists but usually they’re not aware of the “original’’ version of Antiquities 18:63 which was discovered in 1972. Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and Mara bar Serapion (which are all historians) reference Jesus. Jewish scriptures like the Talmud and the Toldoth Yeshu also reference Jesus + that his tomb was empty. I think all of these references mention Jesus as well as that he was a teacher AND even that he was executed by Pilate. In total, we actually have more evidence of Jesus than many pre-1950s “commoners”. You can be very confident that Jesus existed, even if mythicists deny you. Have a great day!
I ask them are there any sources from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, centuries saying 'this Christ didn't exist' .... which of course there isn't. All topics covered are about events in his life- thallus on the 3 hours of darkness (he thinks it was an eclipse of the sun), Terullian debates with a jew of the 2nd century bringing up the theory of the disciples stole jesus body, Celus argued against christianity in late the 2nd century but never using the argument of did he actually exist.
@@farmercraig6080 I use those arguments, too, but low-and-behold they’re ignored 😂.
@@salud1541 lol ok .. Hmmm, well I guess I end up asking them "How do they think Christianity actually started" and ask them for the evidence behind their claim. That brings up some interesting results, ie it was an Roman invention. Well all the best anyway.
Great video, I always keep asking the question : why OUTSIDE the Bible?
That's like asking for Greek history outside Greek sources
I'd say that some people want to exclude the strongest evidence and others just don't like religion so they believe that no evidence exists outside the bible without actually looking into it. Most people on the street can't answer a basic question about today like "who is vice president of the United States". (see any old late night show segment) What makes you think they have studied the basic questions about the bible and Jesus' divinity?
@@PhillipCummingsUSA Good point
I think most people don’t understand (or even think about) what the Bible is.
@@RedPenLogic That explains the unrealistic amounts of skepticism leveled against it.
Because it's like using "The Fellowship of the Ring" to prove that Frodo existed.
Outside of J. K. Rowling’s novels, we don’t have existence of Harry Potter.
True, but no Harry Potter fans kill people for not believing in Harry Potter.
Jesus Is King.!!! Jesus Loves You❤.!!! John 14:6
King James Bible
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me..!!! Follow Jesus Take The Narrow Path.!!!😊
Atheist believe the 1st living cell rose from the dead but cavalierly reject Jesus Christ rising from the dead.
Another Great Red Pen Logic! Well done Tim.
Paul was the first BIG SKEPTIC. So much so that he tried to stamp out the early church. It was VERY real to him. And he comes out the other side with a viewpoint that not only did Jesus exist, but that Jesus was truly God. Amazing stuff
@@mythbuster1483 wait. So seven of 13 are written by Paul or none are written by Paul? You claim both in your statement are true. Please clarify.
@@mythbuster1483 two things. 1) you didnt answer my question about which statement you made was true. Did Paul write 7 or zero of the New Testament books? 2)And none of this changes the fact that even IF(and that's a really big IF) the books were written by others they still confirm what the Gospels claim about who Jesus said He is. Unless you're going to tell me the Gospels weren't written until hundreds of years later too.
@@mythbuster1483 St. Irenaeus(180AD), Tertullian(200AD), Clement(180AD), and Papias(125AD), who all confirmed the writing of the Gospels and the existence and legitimacy of Paul, Luke, etc. were all scholars too. They made their observations much much closer to Jesus and the Apostles time than the scholars you are referring to. So since your scholars are writing 1900(ish) years later, and these scholars are writing only a few decades later, we should take their word as more accurate correct. If your argument hold true.
@@mythbuster1483 The early church Christians had zero motivation to lie, because what they claimed got them killed. They had EVERY reason to not claim those things. They were fed to wild animals and lit on fire for fun, but they did it anyway. And even within this persecution, more generations of people believed. And they were killed, and more believed. People don't knowingly die for a lie.
There is more evidence of the life of Jesus, and more scrutiny of the Bible than any other document ever in history, and still it stands.
I appreciate your knowledge, and this discussion. We obviously aren't going to convince the other of anything here.
Thank you for your input, I wish you well.
@@mythbuster1483
Why are you comments missing from the beginning of the thread even though Full Wind was responding to you as if they were there?
2:51 Canadian: CONFIRMED
You’re on to me!
Craig Keener's book, Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, contains numerous miracle testimonies made by multiple witnesses up to the present time. The nation of Israel is a miracle itself having been given, taken away and returned to the same Abrahamic descendants more than once. Thus fulfilling both the words of Deuteronomy's blessing and curse, and the major and minor prophets' (both before and during the exile).
Would it help you if I explained what a miracle was, here goes, A amputee grows back a limb and the event is documented by the medical profession and published in a major medical journal, now that would be a miracle, there are claims of miracles by believers in miracles. When something extraordinary happens it doesn't mean its a miracle, it means its unexplained. As for the promised land that is a good example of a self fulfilled prophecy and a great excuse to rob the land of others.
@@jim2003sound How is the promised self-fulfilling wben the Assyrians took it over against the the will of Israelite people? How is it self-fulfilling when they are given permission to return by non-lsraeli king, a Persian?
@@restnxist Once the seed of a promised land is sown you are already half way there. There is no Prophecy specific enough in detail to warrant the name Prophecy, either Christian or Islamist.
@@jim2003sound you have not responded to my questions. Nor are you using the accepted definirions for the term "self-fulfilling."
@@restnxist Thanks for your response, by self fulfilling I mean that the believer in this case will aim for the promised land and not Chicago. Maybe the best way to understand Prophecy is to talk to a Muslim and witness how convinced his is about Mohamed's accuracy and you will begin to see a mirror image of yourself. The claim of seeing the future is as old as mankind and is still making money today.
I went to a “Christain” private school. Our intro to New Testament was a Bart Ehrman text book 🙄
I'm sorry. I hope that you had enough maturity to think for yourself, and retained your faith through logic and reason.
@@WhereWhatHuh it made my faith stronger because I saw that everything which the other side has to offer is straw
@@michaelking1091 Awesome! I agree - atheism sounds convincing if you only look at the small subset of evidence, but looking on the broader scope it falls flat. The Bible stands up to every challenge that's been thrown against it (and seeing at the world hates to have their sin exposed, that's been a pretty constant attack).
@@silversilk8438 By changing the interpretation of it you can stand up to any challenge, same for every other religion's sacred book. Seriously, god found nothing but a book to tell us what he is.
@@chanseyinthehood8415 Incorrect. You're sort of the epitome of the video right now. You won't find evidence if you just keep your eyes closed.
I love that expression at the intro. 0:41
People may refute Jesus’ deity but they can’t refute his existence based on historical evidence.
@Sandy Faithbringer There is no "Historical evidence" for your made up Demi-god "Christ" Yeshua Ben Yosef.
@@chandlersleziak6416 Did you read the gospel according to Mark - this is the guy that Bart Ehrman refers to, the guy who know one Jesus (half-)brother & one close disciple (Peter)?
@@nathanDE The character in the book of Mark wasn't actually related to your Demi-god Mashiach Yeshua Ben Yosef, the word "Brother" in the book of Mark was used as a Title of endearment in that case. he wasn't actually related to Yeshua because Yeshua didn't have any Biological siblings, hell he didn't even have any Half-siblings of any kind.
@@chandlersleziak6416 consider this : there have been many religious or ideological movements throughout history, and they all begin with a charismatic leader. It's highly unlikely that Jesus was just made up. On top of that, there were many witnesses of him at the time, and Luke for example, pieces together several of them from different sources. There are also accounts not contained in the NT, and as mentioned in the video, secular historians from the time, some of whom were anti Christian, in which case, why comment on someone who didn't exist? Did you know there are more copies of ancient manuscripts concerning Jesus than any other ancient historical figure or writings? Did you know there is more evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar? Lastly, 10 of the original disciples, and many of the early Christians were executed for their beliefs. I don't know about you, but I would lose my enthusiasm for spreading a fairytale pretty quickly if threatened with death. And with all that, is it any wonder that the common consensus amongst history scholars, atheist or otherwise, is that the man Jesus existed? The question isn't whether he existed or not. The real question is whether he was who he said he was.
@@audiomatters9523 Any Historian who says that Yeshua Ben Yosef of Nazareth exists isn't being honest with themselves. Also, having Multiple copies of manuscripts doesn't make a person a real historical figure, especially with someone like Yeshua Ben Yosef because of the fact that ALL of the manuscripts change overtime because of the amount of changes Churches have made in the Bible overtime; which is why Biblical manuscripts aren't actually that reliable of sources.
As someone who's studying classics in college, those was awesome to see. Plus the whole 'The bible is biased' is nonsense, since ALL classical sources are biased in one way or another, but they're still very useful sources. Love your videos dude, keep it up
All modern sources are biased, too, because the question isn't one on which one can stay neutral for long. If it is true, it requires you to believe.
The closest thing to a neutral in this is someone who has not addressed the question before but is investigating it honestly.
This is really quality editing. I really appreciating the format of your videos. Subscribed immediately. I have plenty to learn from your video making style.
Unfortunately he's wrong. but cool editing I guess
@@mr.fahrenheit310 Unfortunately he's right.
Every time I hear Bart Ehrmann speak I find myself agreeing with so much of what he says. I'm Christian. He helps my faith, in fact
Ok, some people wrote about Jesus. But these same people wrote about a guy getting swallowed by a whale and then spat out three days later, and another guy departing the Red Sea and walking on dry land. Kinda hard to trust ppl's accounts after that.
Fish. Not whale.
Mythicism is something that it takes willful ignorance to believe, as this video proves. Great job as always, Tim.
🤜🤛💥
@DivineDefecation The topic of this video is the existence of Jesus and debunking claims that He never did. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what Greek words for “brother.” Your entire reply is one giant red herring.
@DivineDefecation Still a complete red herring because using different meanings in different contexts for the same Greek word is not a contradiction. You need to commit the equivocation fallacy to assume that there’s a contradiction there.
@DivineDefecation Wrong. That is an equivocation because it completely ignores the surrounding language and surrounding grammar. You need to literally quote-mine that word out if its sentence to reach that conclusion.
@DivineDefecation No it doesn’t. Again, you need to quote-mine the word out of its sentence to call the evidence weak. You also need to use willful ignorance of the historical-legal method to call the manuscript evidence weak, not to mention willful ignorance of the same to call the corroborating details weak.
The coolest evidence for Jesus existing (or rather Jesus was *going to* exist) is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The books of the Patriarchs, lost for thousands of years, were discovered and you find that EVERY patriarch from Adam to the sons of Jacob speak of the coming holy God-man who comes to take away the sins of the world.
Well of course, Jesus started as the suffering messiah of the Torah. All the original christians were jews and their Jesus did not accomplish any miracles.
There were lots of people named Jesus at the time. Jesus of the Bible did not exist. Where are any of the Miracles that Jesus supposedly performed outside of the Bible. Absolutely nowhere. And the one writing that does mention Jesus outside of the Bible seems to have been forged.
Thank you so much for this, I literally had a debate with a guy for several days about this and one of the first things I asked him was how can he exclude all the evidence for Jesus (6k documents and secular recordings) yet in the same breath say there’s no evidence,
Came across this site looks at historical figures. The Resurrection and Biblical Manuscript Evidence logically and with reason - www.theresurrectiondecree.com/jesus-analysis-of-resurrection/ Worth a read for some interesting information not well known.
Home run as always ! Thank you brother !
Even mythicists agree he is "widely attested", they just think the attestations are false and that he is an invented character. Ehrman has a better argument than that in my opinion. His main argument against mythicism has to do with probability: it's just more probable that he existed because if he was invented they would have made up a character more in line with the Jewish idea of the Messiah. No Jew would expect the Messiah to get crucified, for starters, which was the main reason most Jews thought the idea was ridiculous.
Fax
So, this is fairly interesting. I'm an atheist and think religion is nonsense for a plethora of reasons but I've been on the fence specifically regarding Jesus' existence for some time.
I don't think it's entirely reasonable to make the claim that Jesus is 100% a myth but at the same time, I'm not yet educated on the matter to say that he absolutely did exist. I trust Ehrman enough to say that he most likely did but I've also heard the explanation that any extra-biblical writings about Jesus, including those of Josephus and Tacitus and the like were simply echoing and addressing the popular new wave amongst certain groups of people instead of independently verifying the claims. This explanation might be completely inaccurate but I also don't particularly care. At the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything for my beliefs.
And no, I really just don't accept the Bible as a standalone source of evidence for much of anything since it's consistently internally contradictory, prone to 3rd party meddling, prone to plagiarism, prone to declaring (now known to be) myths as absolute fact, and many more errors.
I really doubt Christians would outright accept the idea that the Quaran is a 100% accurate and honest account of history and facts so it seems silly when apologists essentially expected to everyone to not hold the Bible to the same standards of scrutiny.
You are absolutely right my friend, I will say that I'm not expert in this topic but one thing I realise is that Christians and their apologist boast about Jesus existence simply by the fact that some ancient authors mentions jesus in their writings. However that itself is not a good evidence since we are not talking about a mere human but we are talking about a God in the form of human raising death, casting out demons and healing the sick with magical powers, and yet these authors merely mentions the name Jesus and not his attribute. Also non of the actual Historian claims that Jesus existed as in God in a human form, but they say jesus a mere human must have existed. No Historian or scientist have found any physical evidence of Jesus existence even trying DNA test with no result. In short when historians talk about Jesus they are 100% sure Jesus as in son of God never existed, just a mere human must have existed with a name Jesus who is just a man, a political leader of some sort. It's interesting to learn the supposed evidence of Jesus' existence but note that all the evidence these people brings up are just another claims not evidence.
@@hetokaachumi5181 Yeah, exactly. Depending on who you ask, Jesus can be something entirely different. As I said, it doesn't matter to me if Jesus existed or not because we can confidently say that all of those miracles most likely didn't occur and he wasn't a god of any kind.
Look at this verse from the Bible:
1 Timothy 2:3-5 (NIV) -
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
In these verses, the author of Timothy is saying that Jesus isn't even God himself, he is just a middle-man between God and humans. This idea was fairly popular during the early years of Christianity tbh and sects of Christianity still believe this kind of thing.
We can even look to the other Abrahamic religions; Judaism and Islam. Judaism typically just tells us that Jesus was a Rabbi of the time and Islam says that he was a prophet. Within Christianity itself, Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, also don't believe that Jesus is god.
It genuinely may be safe to say that even within the group of people who believe that Jesus definitely did exist, more people than not will say that he wasn't god which I think is kind of funny tbh.
@Joanna C Please re-read what I wrote until you understand why I wrote it.
@@amarntsitran3406 I would dissent on your interpretation of the passage as it does not specifically say that Jesus Christ is not God. Paul, the author of 1 Timothy, very specifically affirms the deity of Jesus many times in his other letters, with a few examples being:
Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV)
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Colossians 2:8-9 (ESV)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the fullness of deity dwells bodily.
Furthermore, Paul also refers to "God our Father" and "Our Lord Jesus Christ" in the same sentence in Philippians 1:2 and Colossians 1:3, which shows that Paul considered Jesus to be both God and distinct from God the father.
p.s. One would expect Judaism and Islam to disagree with Christianity on the deity of Christ, seeing as the deity of Christ is a fundamental tenet which differentiates between the three.
@Joanna C Okay, perhaps I worded it poorly or something then. I'll elaborate anyway.
So my point with this was simply to point out the interesting fact that even amongst very early Christian circles, Jesus wasn't considered God. He may have been considered a wise speaker of sorts, a refreshing Rabbi, a prophet, or perhaps some other interpretations of the man existed. So even amongst early followers - people who were not only significantly more closely related to the apparent events in regards to both time and space than we are now, but people in general were generally far more superstitious and gullible too - there wasn't unanimous consensus to consider Jesus as God.
Now let's turn our attention to the modern consensus regarding Jesus with all of the new information and methods we've managed to gather and develop since back then. Again, as I've already stated, I think it's reasonable to make the inference that most people who do believe Jesus existed, don't accept that he was a divine being.
Of course, I'm not making the claim that Jesus definitely wasn't god based on these points, that would be silly. However, I will suggest that it's something worth exploring and seriously considering.
I wish I could do that thing with my eyebrows! So fun. Thanks for the great content!
1:15 myman stumbles over his words more than me running hurdles at my advanced age
Great video! I liked how you used Bart to present this evidence, I know he believes what you are saying on this one point, he just can't wrap his head around how God allows people to mess with His stuff.
Really liked this videos content! I'd say from a video editing standpoint that it would possibly be helpful to not include so many of those swoop sound FXs and possibly use something more subtle or nothing at all, as it can be a bit distracting. Overall great job.
I dare you to call in to the atheist experience this Sunday.
This is very good. I like the creativity here. Keep up the good work. However, since Bart is very wrong on many things evangelical, so I would not necessarily call him a "world class Bible scholar."
Concise in content and delivery - Very well done!
Excellent content as always 👌
God bless your ministry 🙏
DILDIE DO DILDIE DOO. He builds the lake fire for u after he forgave you.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏😶🌫😶🌫😇😇😇😇🤗🤗🤗🤫🤫
Using one of the world's most prominent atheist to prove Jesus existed. Genius lol
Whar does that mean?
Disclaimer: The EP has called the debate for Jesus'non-existence for the atheists. Robust measures are being taken to prevent the spread of misinformation about Jesus actually existing. Follow the links to our blogs for more information.
Independent Fact-Checkers hate the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
How about Richard Carrier? He is both a Classist and Ancient Historian. He wrote the book “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why we have a reason to doubt?” He seems to find a way to dismiss all evidence as inauthentic or forgery in that book.
Richard Carrier is honest and competent.
Just discovered your channel today. I love it and am now SUBSCRIBED!!
Atheists generally claim to follow the experts’ opinion when it comes to knowledge, it’s interesting how prevalent the Jesus myth is despite virtually no academic historians accepting it.
As Ehrman said, it does atheists' credibility no good at all.
You've just gained a new subscriber
I’m gonna need some hard evidence that atheists want to be convinced that Jesus was real. Outside of a claim based on personal experience.
What atheists want is to sit there, as it were on a throne, and say, "There's no evidence! That's not evidence!", thereby carelessly, flippantly dismissing everything anybody says as though it were utterly worthless. Why? Because doing so is an oh so easy way for them to puff themselves up in an air of self-righteous, supposed intellectual/moral superiority over Christians.
Such people, not surprisingly, never seem to want to be bothered by (what should seem fundamentally important) questions regarding the nature of evidence.
No atheists care if Jesus was real. Why should anyone care unless Jesus IS real? If you have to go back to first century stories, you've already admitted that he's not real today.
@@goldenalt3166 How would you what every single atheist cares about? If they did care, they might not be an atheist for very long. I said might.
By going back to first-century stories to verify if he was real is an admition that he wasnt real? READ YOUR SENTENCE SLOWLY.
Anyway, it is a response to someone saying that there is no evidence outside of the bible that he existed. You just proved that you are scared and you dont want him to exist. boooom
@@nickoD509It is you that missed the point. A dead Jesus is useless. A living Jesus doesn't need 1000 year old hearsay.
I'm not scared. Jesus has an open invitation to come visit me for lunch. But existing 2000 years ago, not a big deal, lots of people did that.
@@goldenalt3166 Sure. If Jesus rose from the dead then He IS real.
I hope this helps out:
Luke 1:1-4
1. Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
It boggles my mind that with the sheer manuscript evidence we have that people still deny the historicity of Jesus.
I'm not a mythicist, but the manuscript evidence is pretty weak. Most of the documents apologists like to refer to (Josephus, Tasidus etc) don't talk about the truth of the claim, only mentioning the religion of Christianity and the belief the followers hold. Things written centuries later do not attest to the facts, only to the beliefs. This is why the mythicists can make such a claim as nothing directly refutes the idea.
@@Wertbag99 they don’t simply speak of the followers but also of the man whom the followers, follow. At any point they could have made the claim that he was simply a myth and the religion was nothing more than a con, but they didn’t because they knew that the man had lived as it had only been a few decades. You would never, for instance, say that JFK never existed. The fact of the matter is, that if what the disciples said had been an outright lie which they invented out of nothing the religion wouldn’t have taken off, the stories within the gospels wouldn’t look the way they do, everyone who wasn’t a Christian would have said in no uncertain terms that Jesus never existed, and the apostles would never have been willing to be flayed alive for their lie.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 The external documents mention that Christians believe in Jesus, but do not tell us any more than that. I believe he was real, but unlike other historic figures we don't have any external sources to confirm it. Figures such as Caesar had busts cast in their likeness, art work made of them, writing in their own hand, coins minted with their likeness, buildings and provinces named after them and many third party biographies. Sadly we don't have that level of detail for Jesus and are completely reliant on the gospels.
"The fact of the matter is, that if what the disciples said had been an outright lie which they invented out of nothing the religion wouldn’t have taken off" - As a counter to that I would point to Mormons. A crazy belief inspired by one mans claims of speaking to angels, and even with zero proof, Mormonism now claims 4 million followers. Or prehaps Scientology, where Ron Hubbard made up some crazy nonsense and now thousands of people believe in alien infestation. But of course this stands for all other religions, as I'm sure you would agree Zeus, Odin, Hercules and other mythical beings never actually existed, and yet entire religions grew up around those myths.
@@Wertbag99 did L Ron Hubbard or Joseph smith get flayed alive for their beliefs? How about boiled in oil? Crucified? No? Ok cool.
@@Wertbag99 you’re comparing a peasant rabbi to emperors. You need to compare Jesus to other historic individuals of similar status within society. Additionally if he didn’t exist those non Christians discussing him would have just said he didn’t exist.
"Jesus never existed" is "the earth is flat" of history.
Not at all. It is very likely that Jesus never existed, like Moses.
We have known the eath is round for around 300 years before Jesus.. There are loads of people who still believe the earth is flat today. See youtube. Your logic is illogical.
"Jesus is God“ is "the earth is flat“ of history.
Fixed it for you.😂
The probability that Jesus never existed is many magnitudes higher than that he was God.😉
@@Dhorpatan, That’s completely false.
@@Mike00513
How so?
God Bless you. You are gifted. Thanks.
No serious scholar, archaeologist, or historian holds the belief that Jesus didn't exist!!!
That's simply not true. But it does show that you are not a serious member of any of those groups.
@@StudentDad-mc3puAre you sure?
@@misterauctor7353 I'm not sure about what I had for breakfast!
Knew a literary professor who taught a class on the Bible from a literary standpoint, and, though an athiest, they HATED the argument that the Bible was a relatively recent writing instead of the collect of ancient texts it is. That was someone who I could disagree with from a theological standpoint and still have MASSIVE respect for.
Tacitus Was born in present day France and then moved and died in present day Italy. He was born after Jesus's supposed death and to my knowledge never visited present day Israel /Palestine.
His work on the Germanic peoples is clear propaganda and full of mistakes. Not so strange since it was all from hearsay.
I don't see why he would make a good evidence for the existence of Jesus. Sorry.
The same with Josephus by the way.
Also, history wasn't written in the same way we do nowadays. People had different goals in mind and checking sources was not interesting to them. Another reason why it's very hard to see "historians" of the day as proof for anything.
Great vid! Do a video on the ressurection.
Oh boy! Bart Error-man meets Red Pen! Is there anyone more deserving of its strokes???
For this video, I’m enlisting Ehrman to show that Jesus existed. Even this “hostile witness” agrees Jesus did, in fact, exist.
@@RedPenLogic 4D Chess!!!!
@@RedPenLogic Just like the "hostile witness" of ancient records! From the very start people have hated Christ, but have begrudgingly admitted he exists, and that still goes on today. Nothing is new under the sun :)
@@silversilk8438 Hostile Witnesses are the BEST! The most fun is when they try to explain the miracles... and thus admit the miracles.
The best evidence of Jesus Christ's existence is His constant working in my life.
I have seen miracles happen in His Name.
I have been in situations where I have no business being alive today, but for the Grace of God.
To me the biggest proof of Christ is the interaction we have.
The second biggest is the way He is viscously attacked, Christianity is the only religion that Atheists(so called) have a major problem with, Budda, he's fine, Mithras , sure why not, but Jesus Christ, no way, very very telling to me that there is a right side and a very wrong side of this selective hate for no Gods other than The God or His Son Messiah Yeshua.
I’m not going to address your personal experiences but I will say this. Atheists get on all kinds of religions not just Christianity. The only reasons it may seem as though atheists only attack Christianity to you is because Christianity is by far the most popular religion where you live, you are probably not very active in the atheist community, and as a Christian it is likely you pay much more attention to attacks on your religion than others.
Even if it were the case that atheists only went after Christianity, that still would not be positive evidence for Christianity’s truth. That’s akin to a flat earther saying, “Well I KNOW the Earth is flat now because everyone is always attacking my beliefs.”
@@steggyweggy Do you know God exists?
@@allentremper8243 Nope, I don’t even understand what it means to say that God exists depending on how you define God. I have yet to come across a definition of God that is coherent or isn’t just “Well maybe God is the universe.” Which is just dumb.
@@steggyweggy I only asked because I want to know who I am talking with.
I will tell you this much, that in my youth, I was a wild child. I have been out of my body many times. When you are actually able to look back at your own body laying there, while you are floating above it, it's pretty hard to deny the life after death thing.
What was interesting about most of those experiences, I usually had "Entity contact", these beings were always hostile to my belief in Christ, not a God.
My Buddhist friend would never have an experience where he was told Buddha doesn't exist, in fact that They nurture.
I know those beings to be demonic today, I have had major experience with them, I know it sounds crazy, but I am telling Truth.
Today I don't have any out of body experiences, I don't have any further contact with these beings, but I would just as quickly say they were real, because I saw them, as I can say that I know An Almighty God created all of this.
I am Christian, I don't do brick and mortar Churches, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, be is very active in my life, and those around me, wether they see it or not. Rather I think He's active in most people's lives and they don't see it.
I would also say that those flat earth people have a couple questions that are never answered, and there is much disinformation out there.
Just because you are told from 5 that the earth is round, just because you have seen pictures, doesn't mean that it is. The answers for Truth should be easy to find, but that's not the case at all, almost everything breaks down upon close inspection.
@@steggyweggy I can assure you that God isn't the Universe, Lol.
God is The Uncreated One, The Creator of EVERYTHING that WE EXPERIENCE in This Plane of Existence.
There be many gods, but there be only One Who Is Uncreated, Always Been, Never Changing, All Merciful,All Just, Who Created even the realms I have been while out of body.
The best evidence that I can offer for such a Being, is that you and I are here, communicating with one another. That it is much more likely that this was by design than it being the product of chance.
It's either one or the other, no wiggle room here.
Unfortunately if you had been born before forced Government Education, you would not even entertain the thought of no Creator, because it's Self Evident that we are in a creation. But since the Masonic Order has become the leadership of EVERYTHING, the Great Endeavor or Great Work is to make as many Atheists and Agnostics(I imagine you get attacked personally because you still admit that you are Agnostic, which is the only position an Hates more than Christianity.
The whole aim for the Great Endeavor is "To remove God from yonder Heavens, and wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth."
If you have a belief system that is based upon Scientism (the belief in Theory built upon theory, until the belief system you have us no less Faith Based than any other Esoteric thinking or Religion.
Science falsely so called is the belief system of all Atheists, they buy into the theory of. Evolution, the Big Bang theory, believe in things that you can not verify, such as men on a space station, I don't care about the pictures, I can prove those pictures to all be Hollywood movies, nothing more, nothing less.
Do you believe we went to the moon and back during the Apollo missions?
Do you believe the official narrative of 9/11?
Do you believe much that mainstream media is telling you?
If you answer no, to even 2 of those questions, you should realize that the same people who tricked us over and over again are the same people who educated you and I. If this be the case, why do you trust the Corporate Entity called USA when you know that they lie all the time?
Why believe some things but hold on fast to others if they came from the same source?
I never understood why anyone could think this all happened by accident, but I would love to have a respectful conversation with you on exactly why I can say that I know God exists, while you say you haven't seen any evidence that God does.
To your credit you have not boxed yourself into one belief or another as you said you were an Agnostic with Atheists leanings. That is way better than those who have had their conscious seared with a hot iron, you have not, just because you are not denying God exists, but that you have yet to see any proof of.
I hope we can have a great dialogue, please don't doge the answers to those very Important questions, if you believe we went to the moon and back, if you believe the official narrative of 9/11, and if you believe that the media is telling you the closest thing to Truth they can get? Thanks
When I put faith in Jesus, I didn't even know there is actual evidence of Jesus. But I've put faith in Jesus and I promise even though my body dies.
There was also a point a few decades ago when SCHOLARS were very skeptical of the historical existence of the Philistines. Now, there have been unearthed large Philistine cities, graveyards, etc., and the Philistines are a very hot topic among archeologists.
To quote voddie baucham,
“We have a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that take place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”
I loved that sermon. It was brilliant.
I bet a shiny Canadian nickel Godless Engineer makes a response video to this. Just a guess.
You are a prophet...
No serious scholar of antiquity questions the existence of Jesus.
No serious scholar doubts the fact that we know almost nothing about what the historical Jesus said and did.
The evidence for Jesus is too embarrassing to Christianity to not be real. Of course, this is evidence that Christianity is false rather than true.
@@goldenalt3166 Then you're saying Jesus didn't exist or you haven't opened your mind enough to actually see what the Bible teaches
@@wlonsdale1 That's exactly not what I'm saying. Though I can see how the Jesus described in the Bible isn't good enough for you.
@@ramigilneas9274, Amazing because everything you just said was completely wrong. Every critical scholar on the New Testament believes Jesus was a wise man, teacher, had 12 disciples, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And that’s just at the bare minimum.
2:00 I was hoping that Bart would answer "There are no scholars that doubt that Jesus existed...and don't call me Shirley!".
Lee Strobel went on a mission to disprove Jesus and ended up writing The Case for Christ.
Loved it. Greetings from India 😊😊👍🏽👍🏽
Ehrman needs Jesus to exist for his books like "What Jesus Said" to make sense, but he needs Jesus to not exist to maintain his atheist audience/customers. He's like some sort of house divided against itself.
I admit I do sometimes wonder how Ehrman isn't a Christian.
so basically what we have as evidence is a story book (that also claims magic is real) & sources who talk about jesus after he was already dead for centuries? yeah. that's really great evidence 😐 why don't we have writings from jesus? why don't we have reliable contemporary sources or any contemporary sources at all?
You wouldn’t believe in a Jesus if he walked on water and slapped you with a fish.
Yes, because everyone back then made writing. So do you deny Socrates existed? 🤡
@@bloodspittingspartan5002 idk who socrates is nor do I care.
@@dceezy15 I’d love to know how Paul’s letters were “centuries” after the crucifixion. I also love how you didn’t mention all the real people mentioned in the Bible, Like Pontius Pilate, John The Baptist, etc.
@@bloodspittingspartan5002 oh- I'm sorry decades after. is that better? 🤦🏽♂️ I'd love to know if the letters paul wrote were even credible. they definitely weren't contemporary & they claim to contain accounts taken directly from ppl who knew jesus, but that's just hearsay. hearsay from decades after jesus' supposed death. my main point is the "evidence" presented for jesus' life & death are trash. I don't even count it as evidence.
Josephus wrote the antiquities almost 70 years after the supposed events. And even then the mentions of jesus or his brother weren't in his writings. Not until the fourth century. It seems as if the Christians added that part into his writings later.
Jesus and James actually weren't even mentioned in his writings until the 4th century? How do you know?
@@multi-milliondollarmike5127 "And even then the mentions of jesus or his brother weren't in his writings."
Jesus and his brother were in his writing.
"Let's fact-check this step by step:
Josephus and "Antiquities of the Jews": Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94. This work is a history of the Jewish people from creation to the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). Josephus wrote this about 60 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, which most scholars date to around AD 30-36.
Mentions of Jesus in Josephus' Writings: There are two passages in Antiquities of the Jews that refer to Jesus:
Testimonium Flavianum (Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3): This passage discusses Jesus, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and describes him as a "wise man" and possibly the Messiah.
Reference to James, the brother of Jesus (Book 20, Chapter 9, Section 1): This passage mentions "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" in the context of James' execution.
Authenticity of the Jesus References:
Testimonium Flavianum: There is considerable scholarly debate over the authenticity of this passage. Many believe that parts of it were added or altered by later Christian scribes, especially because the text as we have it seems too favorable towards Jesus for a Jewish historian like Josephus. However, most scholars believe that Josephus did make some original reference to Jesus, but that later Christian scribes may have embellished the passage.
James, the brother of Jesus: This reference is generally considered authentic by most scholars. It is a brief and less theologically charged mention, which makes it less likely to have been tampered with.
Timing of Christian Interpolations: The claim that the references to Jesus weren't added until the fourth century is likely overstated. While some Christian scholars, like Eusebius (early 4th century), are known to have referenced Josephus' works, evidence suggests that the references were already present in some form earlier than that. However, it's clear that by the time of Eusebius, the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it today included embellishments, which could have happened in the centuries following Josephus' death.
Conclusion:
Josephus did write Antiquities of the Jews around AD 93-94, about 60 years after Jesus' death.
The references to Jesus and his brother James exist in Josephus' works. However, while the mention of James is generally considered authentic, the Testimonium Flavianum likely contains later Christian additions, with scholarly consensus that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus but less favorably than the text currently suggests.
The claim that the mentions of Jesus weren’t added until the fourth century is inaccurate. Some Christian interpolations likely occurred earlier, but embellishments were solidified by the time of Eusebius."
Hey would you do a video on the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Mark's accounts of the withering of the fig tree...
Pleeeeeease....
People who deny Jesus' existence are not skeptics
Nor are those who claim his existance. Funny how critical thinking works?
@@josephde-haan1074 A skeptic =/= a denialist
@@paradisecityX0
The critical thinking definition of skeptic not common usage.
"The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them.
The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion...'
sites.google.com/site/the83problems/definitions/what-is-a-skeptic
@@josephde-haan1074 Jesus-mythicists do not fall under that definition
historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
@@paradisecityX0 Cool link. If I say I have not been convinced that Jesus existed, what does that make me? I'm not saying he didn't exist, I'm just saying I don't find the evidence that he does to be insufficient. I mean if you are convinced he existed is not the onus on you to provide evidence that is convincing and has not been debunked?
To be honest I don't care if he existed or not. I'm more interested in why you are convinced god exists? If that is what you believe.
I never understood this logic.... Like, I'm a Christian, I don't go around saying Muhammed never existed or Buddha never existed. They weren't right about a lot of things, but sure, they existed as humans as far as I'm aware. Why deny the very existence of Jesus? Can't they just say He wasn't God, or didn't do any miracles? Why does He have to have never existed? lol
Yes, they don't help their own credibility at all.
Moses was considered a historical figure back in the 1980s. Today’s academic history research does not consider Moses or Abraham to be historical figures. I believe Jesus will do the same - a religious myth, not a historical person. If Jesus is not a historical person but only ink on paper like all other mystery deities we held at that time - Then Christianity cannot be true. This does not mean that Christianity would die out, for there are still people today who believe in the gods of the Greek Pantheon.
So what do you do with all the fulfilled prophecy in the Bible? Just curious as a former atheist as I really wish someone would have told me over 2 thousand predictions in a book written over 2 thousand years ago came true, I'd be like let me see that book lol
@@brothersyd602 What prophecy?
@@brothersyd602
What prophecy came true? If that is the case(the bible correctly prediting 2,000 prophecies) why are there Hindus, Muslims or Jews or Atheists?
@@brothersyd602 There is no fulfilled prophesy in the bible. There are vague claims that, in some cases, generations of people have worked to make happen. That isn't prophesy.
@@colinmatts I take it you've never read the bible then 😂
1) Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian - all either forged or referring to an existing cult and its beliefs, not directly to a historical person. 2) The NT writings - a collection of sectarian recruitment docs, most or all pseudepigraphal (i.e. forged in another person's name), written a generation+ after the alleged events, substantially self-contradictory not just in supposed "historical details" but in points of theology. Only a Christian committed to believing in the Bible as history would credit this as "reliable historical documentation."
But they'd be better off saying "We believe on faith, ahead of and irrespective of the opinions of historians or text critics." That would be the truth.
After all, who becomes a Christian by sitting down and soberly assessing the "historical evidence" such as it is, maybe doing a Bayesian analysis and arriving dispassionately at the conclusion that the Resurrection is more likely than not - and on that basis checking into the local church?
Honestly, you're off the hook. You claim to understand that bias is an issue in scholarship, since you accuse "mythicists" of it. So you're going to say that as a Christian, you're NOT biased in favor of the Bible? You might wrestle with your faith, but that's a struggle AGAINST doubt, a struggle TO believe. Forget about what I think - you shouldn't trust yourself to be unbiased in your approach to bible studies, at least, insofar as you truly take your faith seriously. And since you can't be unbiased, there's no point wading into the argument, except, indeed, to muddy the waters.
"A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.
Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249)."
More good stuff from you Red Pen... I really like your work.
“Columbo sailed on the Santa Maria” - What do you mean by that and how did you come to that conclusion?
Uuuummmm. WOW, you got me. I should believe in god on that question. I learned so much from this comment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_(ship)
Are you Greg Koukl? :^D (Great response).
@@josephde-haan1074 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo_(character) ... Um ... He wasn't even on the Nina or the Pinta.
@@WhereWhatHuh I already responded to your other delusion and will not waste my time with you on the difference between the quality of evidence for Jesus's existance and activities and the quality of evidence for Columbus's existance and activities. I'm not even a mythacist... I couldn't care less if jesus existed or not... I'm more interested in the bigger fantasy you people have THAT IMPACTS OUR LIVES IN SO MANY TERRIBLE WAYS and needs to be eradicated, because I am the antitheist.
@@josephde-haan1074 Clearly you've had your humerii surgically removed, since you missed the joke. ColumbO, a television detective, did NOT sail aboard the Santa Maria... That was Christopher ColumbUS
...
I'm glad that you openly confess to being an antitheist and do not hide, as so many of your comrades do, behind the false flag of atheism. Unfortunately, if you wish to say that there is no God and to be logical in doing so, you will need to answer logical and rational arguments with logic and rationality, not with invectives and anti-religious bigotry.
Come now, let us reason together. There's nothing to fear. We'll have a few syllogisms, chat about the evidence...
Just subbed brother! Keep up the good work!
Blessings!
Great video. Would love if you could provide some kind of summation of the historical sources they were speaking about.
The editing on these videos is so on point
That's one of my favorite Ehman clips....perhaps except the clip (only audio I think) where he says he wouldn't go against Islam like Christianity because , basically, he wanted to stay alive. (I want to say I heard over on David Wood's channel)
Anyways, love how you applies this clip.