Here before the swarm of mythicists

@truthserum3050

2 жыл бұрын

I don't get why it's unbelievable he lived. It's unbelievable he was a god, but a human who lived before? Sure, why not?

@Shutupyoubird

2 жыл бұрын

There is 0 proof of anything to say your fake magic man exists

@austinapologetics2023

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shutupyoubird grade A argument 👌

@kennylee6499

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shutupyoubird teach me your ways sensei

@Theo_Skeptomai

23 күн бұрын

​@truthserum3050 Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that suggest this Jesus was historical?

I read "mysticism" at first and I was getting annoyed lol

Hey Cameron, could you host a discussion between two fellow Christians who hold firmly to either Maximal data (Lydia and Tim McGrew) or Minimal facts (Licona, Craig, Habermas) arguments for the resurrection? I'd love to see more conversation around the strengths and shortcomings of both approaches if we are to be as effective as possible in our evangelism. Thanks!

@FLP_33

2 жыл бұрын

That would be fantastic. @CapturingChristiany please do this!

@marinarasauce7585

2 жыл бұрын

@CapturingChristianity This would be amazing to do!

@theoskeptomai2535

2 жыл бұрын

@Nicholas Kayban You would have to establish a tomb before you established an _empty_ tomb. Would you not?

An eye witness, to an eyewitness, is hearsay.

I think it is fascinating that the most verifiable fact we can confirm about Jesus is his death. Why is this interesting? Because the OT prophecy we can be most certain to be messianic says that he will die. Daniel 9:26. Other prophecies about the Messiah are really interpreted to be about the Messiah, but this passage in Daniel, as far as I know, is the only messianic prophecy where the word Messiah is actually used. So, the most verifiable messianic prophecy is that he will die, and the most verifiable historical fact about Jesus is his death. Irony? I don't think so.

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

Well yeah if that was important to people who knew about this prophecy. then theyd probably record and talk about it a lot

@Enaccul

2 жыл бұрын

But everyone dies, messiah or not. So saying the messiah will die, or interpreting a verse to be talking about the messiah dying...when literally everyone dies isn't all that impressive. Maybe if it was about something a little less mundane? For a prophecy to be impressive, ONE of the prerequisites is that it has to be about something that isn't already literally guaranteed to happen. Kinda 100% odds on that one, right?

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@Enaccul It's actually not a given that the messiah will die, he's an agent of god bringing on the new world where we get resurrected into glory and immorality, it's pretty reasonable to think that he himself might not die

@Enaccul

2 жыл бұрын

@@Greyz174 But...what if he was just a guy? Then when he DOES die, everyone can be surprised, right? My point is that everyone dies, so predicting someone will die is like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow.

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@Enaccul But it's perfectly reasonable to have to specify he's going to die when that's not taken for granted when you're talking about the savior that God sent to free the Jews from the forces of evil. Different reference class here.

Only thing he smashed was his integrity.

What's even crazier is that Muslims dont believe that he was ever crucified.

@davidstrelec610

2 жыл бұрын

The Quran on a surface level reading apparently denies the crucifixion but a deeper study reveals it does implicitly admit the crucifixion The reason muslims attack the crucifixion is because they hate Christianity to the point they want to bash Christians by any means necessary

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

2 жыл бұрын

What even crazier is that people believe in this blood magic and human sacrifice.

@davidstrelec610

2 жыл бұрын

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus What even crazier is that people believe man is a woman woman is a man etc and there are 100 genders

@truthserum3050

2 жыл бұрын

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus What's even crazier is that people believe the biblical god is good.

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidstrelec610 what’s even crazier is that It never ceases to astound me that in the 21st century, Humans worship the supernatural and base their lives on the anonymous ramblings of the primitive, scientific illiterate ramblings of Bronze Aged goat herders from the Middle East.

Where can i found the full video ?

@adamstewart9052

19 күн бұрын

Check the description box.

I totally believe in the death and resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. There's nothing that makes sense and makes me believe that there's a GOD out there than the BIBLE. You can look at the history in it, it's correct; even all the prophecies have and are still being fulfilled. I can't believe that at one point in my life I thought the BIBLE was 50% lies, 50% truth. Thank GOD I've got to realize that the 50% which I assumed were lies/contradiction reflected my ignorance and lack of understanding before death. I'll never worship other gods or become an atheist for my GOD is, was and is❤️🙏🏾

@laften2605

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

@jesushadaegis2189

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

@krishpatel3156

2 жыл бұрын

What prophecies have been fulfilled so far? How many are there in total, and how many out of those have been fulfilled?

@tiisetsothandile8420

2 жыл бұрын

@@krishpatel3156 Read the Bible and do your research

@krishpatel3156

2 жыл бұрын

@@tiisetsothandile8420 No please, I haven't read it, I concede that....all I'd like to know is a few examples of the prophecies that have come true.

This is amazing

But the thing is that cause and effect the universe is a selection of matter and space and so if the Big Bang or anything else created it that would be the universe Another thing explosion don’t just occurs randomly they have a cause

Ok, Bible denies moon landing

15 independent sources? I can only think of Paul’s letters, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, Tacitus (Annals 15.44), and Josephus (AJ 18.3.3). Which is 5 sources. Am I missing anything?

@utubepunk

2 жыл бұрын

I think Paulogia talks about this with Bart Ehrman in a very recent video. Warning: It's not flattering for Habermas.

@delishme2

2 жыл бұрын

I guess this is a good place for you to do some study. I'll give you another, Herodotus.

@Mike00513

2 жыл бұрын

@@delishme2 Herodotus mentions Jesus crucifixion?

@everyzylrian

2 жыл бұрын

Q, probably gospel of Thomas, maybe L and M etc

@KingKing-ky5tt

5 ай бұрын

​@@everyzylrian they are hypothetical sources .

Appeal to Ehrman's expertise when it helps your case, but ignore 90% of what else he says about Christianity. This is embarrassing.

@pleaseenteraname1103

Жыл бұрын

It’s appealing to him to show how ridiculous a theory is that even skeptics rejected it, not embarrassing at all, you can disagree with someone on every single other things but I agree with them on a couple of things.

44 seconds for them?! It's too long.

"Eyewitness to the eyewitnesses" is not very convincing.

@truthserum3050

2 жыл бұрын

Eyewitness alone is unconvincing.

@everyzylrian

2 жыл бұрын

Paul knew Jesus’ family and disciples. That’s that for mythicism. Sorry dummy

@Marz2727

2 жыл бұрын

@@everyzylrian Would you believe Muhammad's disciples and family if they said he rode on a winged horse?

@sadiewhite673

2 жыл бұрын

What do you think history is? Our history books aren't written by the eyewitness 🙄

@jonathanstensberg

2 жыл бұрын

One probably wouldn’t believe that he rode a winged horse, but one probably believe that he was a real person who lived-which is the entire point! Jesus mythicism is the idea that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth; he never lived; he is a made up character. It’s not about what Jesus did when he was alive; it’s about whether or not he was ever alive to begin with.

None of this can be confirmed outside the Bible. Conveniently

Paul Knows nothing about miracles. Or the doubting Thomas touching Jesus. Nor an empty tomb. Knows nothing about the miracles. And Paul is writing before the gospels. Seems pretty important material to leave out.

@pendletondrew

4 күн бұрын

Unfortunately, Paul didn't have the luxury of typing up his letters on Microsoft Word and loading up his printer and giving a full length textbook/manual on every single thing he knew about the Christian faith. He had limited resources, he had to be short and to the point.

What are the 14 independent sources that Bart Ehrman quoted?

'If he died, he had to have lived. Also, we have an atheist on our side!' ...well, this is clearly a waste of my time. No need to bother with the rest.

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Very few atheists believe he never existed. We just believe he was a mortal.

@Theo_Skeptomai

23 күн бұрын

What would you consider to be a "very few"? I am aware of many BIBLICAL SCHOLARS that have publically expressed having profound doubt as to the historicity of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Paul would have seen and heard Christ teach at some point. Given that they would have been at many of the same Feasts of the LORD together. So not only is he an eyewitness of the eyewitnesses, concerning the things he himself would not have been privy to during Christ's ministry, but he would have likely been a direct eyewitness of Christ Himself. Or to put it differently, if Christ never existed as a real person, Paul would have known.

@utubepunk

2 жыл бұрын

Then why would Paul only write about meeting Jesus through a vision?

@beowulf.reborn

2 жыл бұрын

@@utubepunk Because there is a big difference between seeing someone preach off in the distance, and actually meeting, and speaking with them ... that, and the importance of Paul's witness was not that Jesus lived prior to His crucifixion, but that He was risen from the dead, and reigning as Lord.

How is relating to the gospels a 'source' ? No evidence is no evidence sorry. You can word salad it all day the fact is there is no historical evidence. So why believe the scriptures at all?

I totally believe there was a real figure in history about whom the gospels were written. I think the very fact that there are conflicting apologetics in the gospels to square this figure with Old Testament prophecy is pretty compelling in and of itself, although there's a strong historic case apart from that. I think Vlad the Impaler and the Flying Dutchman ship are also based in history.

@Mr.H-YT42

8 ай бұрын

@@WarriorX-pm3uh Thank you, this is an excellent example for my point. I doubt there's every been a professional sporting event during which every person present 100% agrees with every call of "fact" the referees make, even thought the entire stadium are all present to witness the same facts. We perceive things differently. Much of perception is invented on the fly. This is neurological fact. No wonder we can't agree on anything.

@Mr.H-YT42

8 ай бұрын

@@WarriorX-pm3uh Well, I guess so. Apparently not even this is objectively true or we’d all agree. Ah, well.

Of all the things for people to doubt I find it strange that “Jesus even existed” is something that has to be debated.

@livewireOrourke

2 жыл бұрын

Debating the mythers is like debating the flat earthers.

@davidstrelec610

2 жыл бұрын

@@livewireOrourke Some of them do acknowledge that extra biblical sources did indeed mention Jesus but they say it doesn’t mean he actually existed because those authors wrote about him decades later or that they never met him and therefore no amount or quality of sources can ever prove Jesus existed

@davidstrelec610

2 жыл бұрын

@@Devious_Dave Why is it problematic that the gospels were written decades later? It was pretty common for ancient sources to be written CENTURIES after a said event or person In this regard the gospels are standing pretty good Also what kind of physical artifacts would you demand to prove jesus existed? He was a poor person in the bottom class in a backwater province, besides there's a first century inscription on a small burial stone box that says James brother of Christ

@jman518192

2 жыл бұрын

@@Devious_Dave I get what you’re saying but for the sake of debate if the narrative is accurate what physical proof would there be? The body is the only evidence and the witnesses say it not only came back to life but then was taken up to heaven, which is embedded in Christianity that just gets called “faith”. While I think it’s fine that we don’t have clothes or a selfie isn’t it strange that level of expectation is on Jesus who is older than Muhammad but I don’t hear too many people doubting his career and existence but I’ve heard they say he went up into heaven too. Granted at the end of the day I get you and I understand how someone could struggle but that’s only if they didn’t finish reading the narrative and realize this is taking place around 30A.D.

@jman518192

2 жыл бұрын

@@Devious_Dave sorry for taking so long, I’m terrible with communication sometimes but I appreciate the discussion. Speaking of which: you really think that Muhammad had a grander influence and life than Jesus? Christianity is the largest faith and transformed the greater world. Most of their accomplishments are recorded in their individual followers highly debated holy text (Quran, Hadith, Bible) It’s understandable to compare their lives and Muhammad might seem comprable because neither left the region of their homeland but Muhammads life didn’t go much further than a warrior/political leader within Arabia. Sure that’s a greater scale and the scandal that got Jesus killed was for political reasons but that’s as far as it goes. The miracles because of existence/divide between Christianity and Islam is tricky though. Initially I agreed with it that yeah just by existing doesn’t prove miracles but Jesus ends up throwing a wrench into it. Because the claim is that his existence is divine there’s a problem, miracles can only come from the divine usually as proof of divinity. If we were talking about two people that never claimed divine status we’d be clear, Muhammad a prophet is still a human while Jesus claims to be more than a prophet more than just a human. Lastly there’s no “evidence” of miracles outside those faiths holy texts but the texts are what causes and maintains the divide. The divide could be understood like this: in the US there can be only one president at a time if anyone else says “I’m the president follow me” they’re a liar trying to get you to betray your country. These religions say there’s only one God who is like this, has done that, wants this from you. There is conflict within those texts on those issues which means if you are apart of one you can’t be apart of the other. For faith Truth usually makes itself known in only one way.

I'm happy to grant that there was a person named Jesus, or perhaps several people named Jesus who got amalgamated into one person over time, upon whom the Bible is based

@Mike00513

2 жыл бұрын

I suggest you read History for Atheists.

❤️❤️

0:01 Assuming he even existed, which those who say that he died presume from the start, so this is just a self-affirming statement. 0:09 I don't think they are 15 independent sources for the crucifixion as opposed to them being sources citing Christian belief in the execution. We really don't have a secular historical record that wasn't alluding to Christian belief that cites specifically that a Jesus was crucified. 0:22 Again, assuming those eyewitnesses even WERE actually eyewitnesses which is being assumed here but not shown. Paul is simply saying they are eyewitnesses but how does he know they are eyewitnesses other than them telling him they are? He himself is not an eyewitness to the crucifixion after all. 0:32 Paul alludes to Peter and James the brother of Jesus being together. But John? 0:40 Which even if he did, is no proof that Jesus existed! It's unlikely that Jesus was completely mythical, it's far more likely that the story of Jesus and his crucifixion was indeed based on an actual event, an actual person, with actual people surrounding him. This is due to the fact that a.) the context and situation of the time made it very likely that a preacher with followers was indeed crucified since there were a lot of preachers then and a lot of crucifixions going on too. This makes it not much of a stretch to assume that one such preacher that was crucified had that event popularized by his followers who survived and the belief spread from there. Whether the Preacher was named Yeshua or not is not even an important detail as the name could easily have been revised later on. Since it is much easier to construct a story based on actual events and occurrences rather than completely from whole cloth, it's probably more likely that the story of the crucifixion and resurrection was based on an actual person and an actual crucifixion. Of course this doesn't mean that all of the story is real, just that the story we know of today was based on actual events and characters. We don't have evidence that this is indeed the case, but it's a very plausible explanation, and one that's even more plausible than a completely mythical Jesus who never existed.

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

2 жыл бұрын

Nice read and this guys argument is all built on presuppositions. Theist tend to ignore the parts of reality that disagree and/or refute their presuppositions.

@etienneditolve1567

2 жыл бұрын

"We really don't have a secular historical record that wasn't alluding to Christian belief that cites specifically that a Jesus was crucified" I guess Tacitus never existed too. Call me if you need to find some sources for the "Tacitus myth theory".

@DeludedOne

2 жыл бұрын

@@etienneditolve1567 Tacitus was recording Christian belief that Jesus existed. That would be like saying that because you heard the priest in your church say that Jesus existed therefore he does.

@etienneditolve1567

2 жыл бұрын

@@DeludedOne No he wasn't. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" There's nothing in this line that makes it sound like he was merely recording Christian beliefs, considering that he didn't even mention the belief that Christ was of divine origin or that he resurrected. He's treating it as an actual historical event, and since he hated Christians and was a very skeptical person he would have made it clear if he was just reporting what those superstitious Christians were claiming, as he would usually do all throughout the "Annales".

@DeludedOne

2 жыл бұрын

@@etienneditolve1567 A historical event based on the belief of Christians. If it was an actual historical event catalogued, it would have been more accurate to use the name Jesus, or at least mentioned that name. Christ was his title and not his name. So yeah, this reads more like Tacitus mentioning where the origins of the name "Christians" came from based on their accounts. It's not like Tacitus was writing a first hand account of the event anyway. It's also not a secret to Christians themsrlves that the name of their religion comes from the Christ they believed to have died. His haterd for Christians is irrelevant, he simply reported why Christians are called Christians, based on their beliefs. Many historians probably hate Nazis too, but still are able to mention the origin of their name without any problems.

An eyewitness to the eyewitness is called hearsay. A more familiar term would be to call it a game of telephone. This is the least convincing thing I’ve heard in a longtime.

@CedanyTheAlaskan

2 жыл бұрын

We go off of hearsay all the time then. This is the silliest thing I've heard in a longtime. Also, you're acting like the first part of the video didn't happen lol

@easypimpin123

2 жыл бұрын

@@CedanyTheAlaskan just because people go off hearsay frequently doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. People also go off rumors all the time. Does that mean trusting rumors is smart? There’s a reason why hearsay isn’t admissible in court. And that’s simply because it’s unreliable. Which means your religion is entirely based on something that is demonstrably unreliable.

@CedanyTheAlaskan

2 жыл бұрын

@@easypimpin123 "just because people go off hearsay frequently doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. " -- Then we are almost never reasonable in our day to day lives. -- Example of what I mean, My sister tells me my mother wants me to do something. "Does that mean trusting rumors is smart? " -- Didn't imply that mate. "There’s a reason why hearsay isn’t admissible in court" -- Okay... point? "And that’s simply because it’s unreliable." -- Then many things people tell us on a day to day basis is unreliable. "Which means your religion is entirely based on something that is demonstrably unreliable." -- Nope. Just false mate.

@easypimpin123

2 жыл бұрын

@@CedanyTheAlaskan yes. You agree with me. Many things people say and do in everyday life are completely unreasonable and unreliable. Like the idea that the Bible or Quran is the supreme source of morality inspired by a god. Or a religious organization that claims to do good but fails to acknowledge that any good they do can be done without a god. And in regards to the Catholic Church they position themselves as the authority of the Bible so they can acquire the power and ability to secretly abuse children for hundreds of years. And they all claim to be doing god’s ordained will, yet surprisingly always seem to need my money and support. All you’re saying is “yes I’m being stupid but other people over there are also stupid so it’s ok for me to be irrational.” Just because other people are unreliable doesn’t mean your book of stories is true. And the reason I asked you about rumors is to illustrate that the same reason you wouldn’t trust rumors is the same reason you shouldn’t trust hearsay. This is common sense. I can think of many reasons why trusting hearsay is flawed. For example when you listen to someone tell you something they heard from a 3rd party about a person or event, then you run into the obvious problems with a game of telephone. Listening to direct witnesses about an event also has its problems but your small game of telephone is a million times worse. You don’t even know if anything Paul said about Jesus actually occurred. You don’t even know if Paul did the things that are attributed to him because your access to facts about Paul are based entirely on another massive game of telephone that passed through the centuries. Copies of translations of copies of translations over and over for 2000+ years. You agreed with the statements in this video that your religion is based on hearsay. Therefore your religion is based on something unreliable. That is my point.

@CedanyTheAlaskan

2 жыл бұрын

@@easypimpin123 Damn this is a big reply. It is incredibly late, surprised I caught this. I will try to get back to you tomorrow, peace my dude

Whether you believe Jesus to be a historic figure or not has no bering on the fact that there are no known firsthand eyewitness accounts of Jesus or the supposed events surrounding him.

@Mike00513

2 жыл бұрын

Thats just an assertion. Can you back that up with evidence please?

@jaserader6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mike00513 he won't. Atheist's are just mad at god because they are miserable people. So they deny of truth of our lord and lash out against any Christian that comes their way. It doesn't matter how much evidence we give, they will never accept it because they have a problem of the heart. All we can do is pray for them.

An eyewitness to the eyewitnesss and the stories still conflict. It dont help with the story.

The flip side of this view is that if there's any reason to believe that Paul's writings are unreliable, then mythicism is plausible.

We all know Jesus most probably existed and was quite possibly a prominent public figure. We also know that virgins do not give birth and that dead people cannot come back to life. The people of the time made these fabulous stories and exaggerated his importance because that is what people were doing at the time. There are hundreds of records of people just like Jesus, not just from that exact time period, but from previous as well as subsequent time periods. It's all a human invention.

Proving someone existed is a far cry from proving that they were divine.

@austinapologetics2023

2 жыл бұрын

This video doesn't say otherwise, nor do most apologists.

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

2 жыл бұрын

@@austinapologetics2023 I never said it did and my point still stands 😂

@Mike00513

2 жыл бұрын

But that wasn’t the point of the video. The video was about mythicism which is the rejection of Jesus existence historically not about his divinity.

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mike00513 I never said it was the point of the video, I’m expressing my valid point and it seems some can’t handle that 😂

@etienneditolve1567

2 жыл бұрын

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus No one uses Jesus existence alone to prove that he resurrected, so what are you even talking about?

Why should we believe those claims are true? Ah because the bible say so

@petarvasiljevic8764

2 жыл бұрын

Why would you believe anything in the history is true? Ah, because historians say so

@ottomann5294

2 жыл бұрын

@@petarvasiljevic8764 we have documentation and evidence from the past. But not talking snakes or giant ark

@petarvasiljevic8764

2 жыл бұрын

@@ottomann5294 We also have documentation and evidence from the past in the New Testament.

@ottomann5294

2 жыл бұрын

@@petarvasiljevic8764 what documents?

@petarvasiljevic8764

2 жыл бұрын

@@ottomann5294 Paul's letters and the 4 Gospels.

It would never happen because Gary is a coward but it would be cool to have Bart and Gary do a debate on your channel. Make it happen, that would be huge!

@immanuel829

2 жыл бұрын

Bart is going to be debunked by Mike Licona on April 9th. Just go to the youtube channel of Inspiring Philosophy. Gary Habermas is such a wise and warmhearted person, a role model for you and me.

@jacoblee5796

2 жыл бұрын

@@immanuel829 This is sarcasm, right?

"15 *independent* sources" lol You guys should check out paulogia if you're interested in Jesus resurrection apologetics.

@delishme2

2 жыл бұрын

Question, do you believe Homer was real and lived ? Because there is more sources for Jesus than Homer, and yet no one is sitting around calling people Homer apologists, just saying 🤷🏼‍♀️✌️

@Enaccul

2 жыл бұрын

@@delishme2 you should check out paulogias videos on the resurrection. People often think of the sources as independent, when they really aren't. But im not saying Jesus didn't exist, im sure he did. Its specifically the resurrection I take issue with.

@jaserader6107

2 жыл бұрын

@@Enaccul here. watch inspiring philosophies video on the resurrection. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c2SdprCFqNC9hrA.html Plus it doesn't matter if the 15 independent sources all come from one source, because if that source is true, than all the others are true. and guess what, it's true. I honestly pity atheist's like you. Not only is your blind faith skepticism anti-intellectual, it will bar you from entering the kingdom of heaven and that's sad. It's clear as day you have a problem with the heart and despise god, which is why you lash out against the truth. I hope you see the error of your ways and come to Christ, because you will regret it if you don't on judgement day.

Ummm lol 😂 not proof

@austinapologetics2023

2 жыл бұрын

15 independent sources isn't proof?

@Shutupyoubird

2 жыл бұрын

@@austinapologetics2023 no dude 15 unverified sources are not proof of a fake magic man

@austinapologetics2023

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shutupyoubird what do you mean by verified? Also, doesn't it at all bother you that there's literally more scientists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old than historians or scholars of the New Testament that think Jesus didn't exist?

@ceceroxy2227

2 жыл бұрын

@@austinapologetics2023 I dont there is absolute proof of anything almost, only quite strong evidence, that magic man existed.

@andres.e.

2 жыл бұрын

With that mindset, you can't prove even you yourself exist, @@Shutupyoubird ;-)