I kind of find it interesting that the number one excuse that apologists use when questioned about the complete lack of any Egyptian archeological evidence for the Exodus is that the Egyptians were so embarrassed by Moses and God that they removed all record of it. Yet this apologist uses the inverse defending Paul. As if the fabricators of the bible would include the witnesses that saw nothing.
"I saw someone commit a murder!" "Son, your reputation is on the line. You best not be lying!" "No, I can prove it! I have witnesses!" "Great, let's see them." "Awwww... can't you just believe me that there were some other witnesses? There were, like, HUNDREDS of them."
Paul was lying about the ENTIRE incident, PERIOD. Just because Paul can make up a story about witnesses and needing witnesses, doesn't mean its true. Paul was a liar period...
David then claimed, "Psychology has already proven…" No! It has proven the opposite! David is extremely clueless about psychology and/or neuroscience-and I'm guessing science in general! He has his facts completely backwards. What can be said about an individual who will make any claim-and one that has been proven to be demonstrably false?
In so far as anyone knows, NONE of the 12 apostles wrote "gospels." In fact, most of them were probably illiterate. "Mark" and "Luke" were not apostles and there is no evidence that the "Matthew" and "John" associated with the other two "gospels" were the apostles.
David doesn't know his Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is where Paul mentions the witnesses, stating that some of them have since died. Paul doesn't name the witnesses, and doesn't seem to have any intention of having the church of Corinth travel to Jerusalem to verify the accounts. Paul then lists other people to whom Jesus supposedly appeared, including himself - despite existing after the lifetime of Jesus, Paul's Damascus Road vision apparently counts as an eyewitness account.
Yes, I tend to agree. But even Christian theologians will agree that at least Mark and Luke were not written by eyewitnesses, unlike the average Christian who thinks all four are direct accounts.
In I Corinthians 15, Paul talks about Jesus appearing after his resurrection to the 12, then "above 500 brethren at once." This occurred somewhere around Jerusalem, which is 800 miles away from Corinth. How many Corinthians would make the 1600 mile round trip and search for some of the surviving 500 just to fact-check Paul? My guess is zero. Even in the first century, only very gullible people would be swayed by such a claim.
How would we know what the 500 said? If the 'listeners' went and found them and they denied the story, the writers would just not put it in the buybull. What a failed argument.
David claims [regarding 9/11], "I still remember where I was at, what I was doing." Sorry David, 20 years is an extremely long time-especially for human memory. A simple study of 'false memories," will clue him in. Memories change, and they can change quickly. Please study the work of Elizabeth Loftus…
Missed opportunity. You could've pressed him on his claim that it would've been easy to find 500 witnesses in the well populated area. Why not 5000 or 10,000 witnesses? Maybe those thousands said, "Bullshit. I call shenanigans! No messiah for you."
Paul should have made his story more believable by saying there were 487 witnesses or 513 witnesses or some other odd number. Also, Paul wasn't following Jesus while he was supposedly alive so he would have had to have heard about these supposed witnesses through folk tales. So, one proselytizer said something like, "Hey dude, you gotta believe me! There were, like, 500 other people who saw it too!" Other guy asks, "Who are they, so I can ask?" Proselytizer says, "I dunno, just go ask around."
Paul didn't give the names of the "500 witnesses", so how would the Corinthians even know who to talk to? Oh yeah, and the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. By the Bible's own admission, Peter, John, and James were poor fisherman. They wouldn't have been able to write in their own language, let alone Koine Greek, which is the language of the New Testament. In ancient times, it was only the upper class that could read and write. In fact, the NT itself admits that Peter and John were uneducated commoners: Acts 4:13 - "Now when they (the Jewish priests) saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus."
David may (or may not) want to check with his bible, or wiki for that matter, to see that those gospels are anonymous. (And that's perhaps the least of it)
I think David knows he was beaten but it's really hard to admit so at the time. I predict that he will stew over many of the points that bested him for quite some time before realizing he can't account for them with a theist worldview. I see a future atheist in the making.
It's about 800 miles to Jerusalem from Corinth. Do you think they sent someone there to find 500 unnamed people then come back with the results? With no modern transport
david is totally wrong about his science-ish claim, that we can correctly remember stuff when the incidence is dramatic. that is very often not not the case, no matter how sure we are and how vividly we remember it. in dramatic situations its even often worse. (of course we remember the dramatic experiences more, than all the average daily stuff, thats a no-brainer. but our memories are not reliable at all.) watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI (Elizabeth Loftus: The fiction of memory)
'Well, we have no reason to not accept whatever the bible says as true'.....no, since over the last 2,000 or so years we've discovered a lot of what the bible says if factually incorrect, so in fact it's insanity today to call it 'all true', that's simply factually false.
Odd that none of those 500 witnesses ever wrote a bit of any of this stuff down themselves? Hmm....I guess they had no paper and pencils. Don't laugh, I've actually heard Christians use that excuse before.
Who witnessed the resurrected Jesus? 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15 When Paul witness the resurrected Jesus, what did he see? 13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. Acts 26 I wonder, what did the 500 see?
Actually, nobody actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus. Marry came saw the tomb close/open# with and without stone#, with and without angels#, and saw the tomb empty. And then the man/men/angel# told her that Jesus resurrected. And then later Jesus appeared to his disciples. Appeared could mean here anything from a dream, a vision, or an actually bodily appearance. And an actually bodily appearance is the least probable, because not even Paul himself believed in a bodily resurrection. # depending on what gospel you are going to believe
Hey Corinthians...if you really want to check out my claim of the 500 witnesses, just spend the next 6 months traveling 800 miles (each way) from Corinth to Jerusalem and back.
![[TH] JFT vs RLF - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PuIH7w_jO6c/mqdefault.jpg)
David - flapping around like a goldfish that has just escaped its bowl.
I kind of find it interesting that the number one excuse that apologists use when questioned about the complete lack of any Egyptian archeological evidence for the Exodus is that the Egyptians were so embarrassed by Moses and God that they removed all record of it. Yet this apologist uses the inverse defending Paul. As if the fabricators of the bible would include the witnesses that saw nothing.
"I saw someone commit a murder!"
"Son, your reputation is on the line. You best not be lying!"
"No, I can prove it! I have witnesses!"
"Great, let's see them."
"Awwww... can't you just believe me that there were some other witnesses? There were, like, HUNDREDS of them."
6000 people saw me fly like Magneto.
Paul was lying about the ENTIRE incident, PERIOD.
Just because Paul can make up a story about witnesses and needing witnesses, doesn't mean its true.
Paul was a liar period...
David then claimed, "Psychology has already proven…" No! It has proven the opposite! David is extremely clueless about psychology and/or neuroscience-and I'm guessing science in general! He has his facts completely backwards. What can be said about an individual who will make any claim-and one that has been proven to be demonstrably false?
David is a giant, living, breathing argument from ignorance fallacy
...the look in David's eyes. I think he knows you called him out, but he can't give up :'(
In so far as anyone knows, NONE of the 12 apostles wrote "gospels." In fact, most of them were probably illiterate. "Mark" and "Luke" were not apostles and there is no evidence that the "Matthew" and "John" associated with the other two "gospels" were the apostles.
David doesn't know his Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is where Paul mentions the witnesses, stating that some of them have since died. Paul doesn't name the witnesses, and doesn't seem to have any intention of having the church of Corinth travel to Jerusalem to verify the accounts. Paul then lists other people to whom Jesus supposedly appeared, including himself - despite existing after the lifetime of Jesus, Paul's Damascus Road vision apparently counts as an eyewitness account.
I flew to the moon and back and a billion people saw me.
David thinks that using the bible to prove his point means anything... it doesn't. In fact, it makes him look foolish.
Yes, I tend to agree. But even Christian theologians will agree that at least Mark and Luke were not written by eyewitnesses, unlike the average Christian who thinks all four are direct accounts.
In I Corinthians 15, Paul talks about Jesus appearing after his resurrection to the 12, then "above 500 brethren at once."
This occurred somewhere around Jerusalem, which is 800 miles away from Corinth. How many Corinthians would make the 1600 mile round trip and search for some of the surviving 500 just to fact-check Paul?
My guess is zero. Even in the first century, only very gullible people would be swayed by such a claim.
Also, of the four gospels, only Matthew and John were apostles. Mark and Luke were written by men who were not even eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.
How would we know what the 500 said? If the 'listeners' went and found them and they denied the story, the writers would just not put it in the buybull. What a failed argument.
David appears to be striving to become TH-cam's new "Truthful Christian."
David claims [regarding 9/11], "I still remember where I was at, what I was doing." Sorry David, 20 years is an extremely long time-especially for human memory. A simple study of 'false memories," will clue him in. Memories change, and they can change quickly. Please study the work of Elizabeth Loftus…
How could Paul be a witness for the 500 witnesses when Paul wasn't even a witness? Paul wasn't one of the 12 disciples.
How would Paul talk to 500 witnesses when most were probably already dead of old age or illness.
Missed opportunity. You could've pressed him on his claim that it would've been easy to find 500 witnesses in the well populated area. Why not 5000 or 10,000 witnesses? Maybe those thousands said, "Bullshit. I call shenanigans! No messiah for you."
Paul should have made his story more believable by saying there were 487 witnesses or 513 witnesses or some other odd number. Also, Paul wasn't following Jesus while he was supposedly alive so he would have had to have heard about these supposed witnesses through folk tales. So, one proselytizer said something like, "Hey dude, you gotta believe me! There were, like, 500 other people who saw it too!" Other guy asks, "Who are they, so I can ask?" Proselytizer says, "I dunno, just go ask around."
500 in those days actually meant 1 person.
The Gospels were assigned their names long after they existed. None were written by their attributed Namesakes.
Paul didn't give the names of the "500 witnesses", so how would the Corinthians even know who to talk to? Oh yeah, and the gospels are not eyewitness accounts. By the Bible's own admission, Peter, John, and James were poor fisherman. They wouldn't have been able to write in their own language, let alone Koine Greek, which is the language of the New Testament. In ancient times, it was only the upper class that could read and write. In fact, the NT itself admits that Peter and John were uneducated commoners:
Acts 4:13 - "Now when they (the Jewish priests) saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus."
Poor David.
David may (or may not) want to check with his bible, or wiki for that matter, to see that those gospels are anonymous.
(And that's perhaps the least of it)
"baloney".......judge judy
I think David knows he was beaten but it's really hard to admit so at the time. I predict that he will stew over many of the points that bested him for quite some time before realizing he can't account for them with a theist worldview. I see a future atheist in the making.
It's about 800 miles to Jerusalem from Corinth. Do you think they sent someone there to find 500 unnamed people then come back with the results? With no modern transport
The Corinthians were Greeks and the 'witnesses' were Jewish.
I agree with you 100%
david is totally wrong about his science-ish claim, that we can correctly remember stuff when the incidence is dramatic. that is very often not not the case, no matter how sure we are and how vividly we remember it. in dramatic situations its even often worse. (of course we remember the dramatic experiences more, than all the average daily stuff, thats a no-brainer. but our memories are not reliable at all.)
watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI (Elizabeth Loftus: The fiction of memory)
'Well, we have no reason to not accept whatever the bible says as true'.....no, since over the last 2,000 or so years we've discovered a lot of what the bible says if factually incorrect, so in fact it's insanity today to call it 'all true', that's simply factually false.
this is too funny.
None of them were written by eye witness accounts.
Odd that none of those 500 witnesses ever wrote a bit of any of this stuff down themselves? Hmm....I guess they had no paper and pencils. Don't laugh, I've actually heard Christians use that excuse before.
It's one source that says there were witnesses. One source, not 500. The author could have just as easily said 5000 or 50000.
Who witnessed the resurrected Jesus?
5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born.
1 Cor 15
When Paul witness the resurrected Jesus, what did he see?
13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions.
Acts 26
I wonder, what did the 500 see?
Actually, nobody actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus.
Marry came saw the tomb close/open# with and without stone#, with and without angels#, and saw the tomb empty. And then the man/men/angel# told her that Jesus resurrected. And then later Jesus appeared to his disciples. Appeared could mean here anything from a dream, a vision, or an actually bodily appearance.
And an actually bodily appearance is the least probable, because not even Paul himself believed in a bodily resurrection.
# depending on what gospel you are going to believe
Smoooooooth
Hey Corinthians...if you really want to check out my claim of the 500 witnesses, just spend the next 6 months traveling 800 miles (each way) from Corinth to Jerusalem and back.
FSX wins...Fatality!
Lord of the Rings is all true! Because, well we have gold rings, and why would anyone lie about that! Preposterous.
I love you guys
He's so washed...the brain kind
Probably of Jesus after his crucifiction
So many word games. >_
hey 500 viewer I am the 501st witness.
This what religion can do to you