So your rebuttal is, that someone wrote something, and did not provide any supporting evidence. Have you considered that Matthew may be just repeating a lie that Peter told without even knowing it?
@jamesSnapp A man told me he saw a horse fly to the moon and the rider cut the moon in half with a sword. Hearsay isn't admissible even in our lowly courts.
@@ericreed4535 The underlying principle of the hearsay rule is: “that a witness ought to testify of his own knowledge or observation." In the field of common law, “Phipson on Evidence” is considered one of the leading works on civil and criminal evidence. One commentator that I read noted that based upon “Phipson on Evidence” hearsay evidence, "… cannot truly be called irrelevant. A belief in hearsay is often regarded as instinctive; at all events it is universally sanctioned by experience, since nine-tenths of the world's business is conducted on its basis; and the fact that relaxations of the rule excluding it are constantly sanctioned by statute is significant both of its logical and legal value. It would be more correct therefore to say that all hearsay connected with the issue is, and must to some extent be, “relevant', whether in law it be admissible or not.” Doing history involves inductive reasoning on what is likely versus unlikely to have happened. The earliest extent Gospel manuscripts that have been found all contain tags (superscripts) identifying their authorship. They were likely added by the writers themselves, or by others shortly after they were published. A “chain of custody” can be reconstructed from the Gospel authors (through their subsequent students) to confirm the authorship of each Gospel, along with the relative dates & order of their writing.
@@JamesSnapp Jesus never wrote a thing down the deciples recorded the kindness Jesus had show others jesus did this kindness because of his comanment love others as I have love you.
the whole "god" concept is too unreal to be true- we don't even know what "god" is ! we are animals like all the others. and death can't exist without life- and heath is good since its the end of pain and its food for the living.
21 час назад+2
Don't be shocked when you see world turning back on God and falling apart. Or persons.
Who are the historically verified credible CONTEMORARY eye witnesses that observed theses supernatural events stated in the gospels and where is their WRITTEN first hand testimony in there language?
You may be interested that funnily enough currently the world and the people overall are better off than they have ever been, and also the least religious and devoted religious that it has ever been.
"There was nobody there taking notes." . . . How the hell does Bart Ehrman know that? And does he think that Mary, who was there, would have forgotten??
Do you really think that someone wrote down every single word Jesus said? Not possible. Anything written in the bible as "quotes" from Jesus is a guess. The BIG question is, why would God want to communicate a supposably important message to humans in this manner. You would think he knows better.
Indeed. What was the degree of literacy of the writers of the Gospels? Matthew was more than a glorified tax collection agent for Rome - ie a hired thug. He worked in the area where Herod was trying to establish as an international export fishing industry. To do a good job Matthew would have needed literary skills to keep good records. John Mark came from an affluent family with a large house. Affluent families made sure their children were highly literate for trading purposes. Mark’s ability to put into words what Peter preached was a crucial aspect of reaching the super affluent Romans, such as the “equite” mentioned by Clement of Alexandria. Papias states that Mark wrote down what Peter was preaching. Clement from the school of Alexandria, who were the custodians of a manuscript brought by Mark, writes that it was upon the request of the equite that Mark wrote what Peter preached. The Gospel of Mark’s rough language, in a fast paced style, is consistent with scribal note taking. The Gospel we know today fits that pattern.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111literacy estimates between 3% and 7%. Your "all big house kids are literate" claim is very suspect. Hearsay isn't admissible even in our lowly courts.
5:40 - When Ehrman says "It depends on which Gospel you read?" he might as well be saying, "It depends on how closely you look." Writers are free to be selective about which details they include in their accounts.
Its not the details it's the direct contradictions. Jesus was not fleeing to Egypt at the same time Mary was presenting him publically at the temple. There are several completely different accounts of who Jesus was. He was not multiple different people but in the bible he is; especially in the book of John. Jesus in the book of John is almost completely opposite to the other books
Indeed. It is fascinating to apply legal reasoning to the arguments from silence: “Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material...” -"The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony," Barbara Tversky, prof. of psychology and George Fisher, prof. of law in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. A talk at Stanford Law School April 5, 1999. One of the principles in the field of hermeneutics, that was common prior to the rise of negative criticism, is to not work with a hermeneutic of suspicion and presumption of error. This charitable attitude is common for interpreting documents as a whole. For example: “[It is] fundamental to a true interpretation of the Scripture, viz., that the parts of a document, law, or instrument are to be construed with reference to the significance of the whole.” (Dean Abbot, Commentary on Matthew, Interpretation, p. 31.) “Where a transaction is carried out by means of several documents so that together they form part of a single whole, these documents are read together as one.... [They are to be so read] that, that construction is to be preferred which will render them consistent.” (Interpretation of Documents, Sir Roland Burrows, p. 49, Lutter-worth & Co., London, 1946.)
I think that because our universe had a beginning...it must have been started by something making a decision, and decisions are made by beings....for something eternal to be connected to something mortal I feel a decision would have to bridge that gap from something that needs no cause to create something that needed a cause
2:40 - Ehrman seem to think he is making an important point about literacy. In reality he is forgetting that illiterate people could hire literate people {secretaries, amanuenses) to take dictation.
Ehrman himself likely used an editor in the publishing of his books. It’s interesting how Ehrman writes about the unreliability of memory in one of his books, yet he’s pretty certain about his own ability to recall things that he heard or experienced decades ago.
Weve seen the universe get created once...but it is absolutely true... Only 1 man out of billions has walked on water...but perhaps it too is absolutely true
If you're talking about Christianity then yes, if you're talking about anybody who objects to it, then no, and still even this little bit is so much better supported than anything written about any Supernatural god. Or anything Supernatural, because there is absolutely no supporting this for anything Supernatural.
And let's not have overlook that no one actually saw Jesus rise, the only claims are that they saw him after he had already resurrected, bringing into question whether which is more likely, that he never actually died and never actually rose from death, or the of nature were suspended and the impossible happened, without any actual supporting evidence and has never been repeated?
I am skeptical of the illiteracy rates that are claimed as being so universal at that time. The Jewish tradition was to teach children how to read at an early age (Josephus). Jesus could read Isaiah out loud in a synagogue and once said to others “have you not read?” Bart’s proof text from Acts 4 is capable of different interpretations. The word commonly translated “illiterate" (agrammatos) can also be understood in a broader sense to indicate Peter and John's "lack of formal education” in the sense of their lacking of a formal scribal literacy of the kind possessed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. For example, the Greek writer Epictetus uses this in a non religious broad sense when he speaks about a man "writing in an illiterate way" (graphein agrammatos). See Discourses, 2.9.10). As the footnote to the New English Translation states: “ “Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7.” The disciples owned boats & had hired servants as part of a fishing fleet. Exported fish from the Sea of Galilee were considered luxury items in other parts of the Roman Empire (Tacitus). Keeping records for business & tax purposes would have likely been required at some level.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111That's how Jews stayed separate from other groups of people. The rest were def illiterate. Jews were people who completely refused authoritarianism and felt authority was only in God. No people.
No a charlatan is a person who makes claims with no supported evidence, or makes claims that they could not possibly know with any certainty to be true, just like every person promoting any religion with a supernatural base, because nothing Supernatural has ever been shown or demonstrated to exist, including ghosts spirits and gods. You come across as the poor gullible one.
History exists the moment it happens, Natural Science is and has been evolving and changing every minute of every day. “Doctor,” your career pursuit of a historical Jesus or Ressurection, you are correct, is a waste of time (both yours and mine). The only difference is you have made a career out of it. “ …Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.” John 20:29
Seems to me that keeping the 'contradictions' after the final edit is either monumentally stupid when trying to establish a coherent narrative for a new cult or an honest acceptance of the usual variations in the human experience of understanding and recounting events. I'll let you think about how stupid the Greek writing professional types Ehrman himself lauds were likely to be.
That is a irrational question, if you have faith in something which is not true , and you have faith in the existence of a god, then you don't have anything. Unless of course you were being sarcastic in which case, then you have something.
I do not agree with his conclusion regarding how historians deal with miracles. I think it is possible to find historical evidences that supports miracles and at the same time cannot be explained by our current knowledge of science. e.g. Egyptian pyramids and it geographical alignment with Earth and star systems. (implying our historical understanding is incomplete) In the case of Crucifixion and Resurrection, there is "Shroud of Turin". I think historians should take this debate to the next level, instead of just citing the impossibility of dealing with miracles. (i.e. prove and disprove these evidences)
Out of interest, how how do you determine that the historical evidence is actual evidence unless it can be demonstrated with our current knowledge. The pyramids can be explained scientifically, the shrouded Turin has scientifically been proven to be a fake. You can't take history to the next level because it's validity is based on evidence and if there is no examinable evidence for any miracle or anything Supernatural then it can't be moved to the next step because it cannot be tested for validity.
5:00 - Isn't this a matter of starting at the time the Romans started the process of crucifying Jesus (beginning with the point at which the order was given), and actually nailing him to the cross?
@@tonyaone2069 I just find it funny that this youtuber posts commentary from a scholar who believes in Christ’s crucifixion which, if true (and I believe it is) would disagree with one of the basis of Muhammad’s belief of the Christian faith
The gospels come from the notes the deciples wrote down in the three years following jesus the deciples never ment for these notes to be read by others they were only released to christan scribes years after the last deciples died
"The gospels come from the notes the deciples wrote down" I do not think there is any evidence to support that claim. Its far more likely that as Ehrman said, those stories were told in oral traditions to be written down much later. Its impossible to get back to historical fact IMO. You either believe the gospels or you don't but there is not sufficient evidence here. I don't think many would insist that Jesus was not cruxified, Its clear that he was not arround when Paul came along. But the extraordinary claim of the resurrection needs extraordinary evidence (Sagan standard). If that is not present there is no reason to believe that. As Ehrman said, its far more likely that early christians changed and exceggerated the stories to win more souls for Christianity.
No, they are the transcripts made by time travellers who recorded the whole thing. If you have issue with that, there is exactly as much evidence for what I just wrote as what you did. That is to say, none.
Or perhaps Dr Ehrman has destroyed himself. Seems he will likely be among those gnashing their teeth in anger at God on Judgment Day. But is there any justification for any of us to do so when we chose to reject God without coercion? After all, His existence is plain to see. Does any of us really believe life, even in its simplest form, came into being just by chance without a Designer? What madness! The sheer complexity of a human cell makes that laughable.
What a desperate and pathetic position you hold and it is a pointless threat, because nobody is scared of anything that they don't believe exists. And it is disingenuous to claim that is existence is play to see, most people of the world do not believe in your god, nobody has physically seen him and can prove it, there is no evidence for intelligent design, and even if there was evidence for intelligent design there is no proof that any god did it including yours, and your inability to grasp or accept something does not make it impossible, or your insecurity about your beliefs or your need to believe them, does not validate them in the least.
When multiple “eyewitnesses to an event” are called on (in court) to testify to what they witnessed, they, many times, do have differing accounts of the events they observed. Ask any good litigator. The lack of written eyewitness accounts from the Apostles who this idiot says couldn’t read or write, makes written accounts by the Apostles impossible correct? Yes or No.
Just because a objection or a point is old or repeated, it does not make it any less valid, if that were the criteria then all old religious books would be invalid and we would still believe the earth was flat was the son of revolving around it and the problem is that so-called reliable accounts contradict each other and as you said previously in one of your comments do you think they would forget or be completely in contradiction about something they consider so important.?
The number of your separate comments make you sound incredibly insecure and desperate to validate your position , and it hasn't worked , every argument you have posed can and has been can easily refuted many many times before I suggest you look into other sources which don't support your preferred position and try to understand the arguments , before you comment again without actual valid support for stop
It’s interesting to look back in history. Simon Greenleaf also wrote a book “Testimony the Evangelists” (a harmony of the Gospel writers). He was a 19th century expert on the rules of legal evidence. What motivated Greenleaf’s arguments, in demonstrating a harmony of the Gospel accounts, is independent of whether his arguments are consistent with the rules of legal evidence that he famously wrote about as a law professor.
This is such a great and plainly laid out description of the lack of actual history of this myth.
Ehrman: "None of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses."
Peter [primary source for Mark's Gospel]: "With our own eyes we beheld his glory."
So your rebuttal is, that someone wrote something, and did not provide any supporting evidence. Have you considered that Matthew may be just repeating a lie that Peter told without even knowing it?
@jamesSnapp A man told me he saw a horse fly to the moon and the rider cut the moon in half with a sword. Hearsay isn't admissible even in our lowly courts.
@@ericreed4535 The underlying principle of the hearsay rule is: “that a witness ought to testify of his own knowledge or observation."
In the field of common law, “Phipson on Evidence” is considered one of the leading works on civil and criminal evidence. One commentator that I read noted that based upon “Phipson on Evidence” hearsay evidence,
"… cannot truly be called irrelevant. A belief in hearsay is often regarded as instinctive; at all events it is universally sanctioned by experience, since nine-tenths of the world's business is conducted on its basis; and the fact that relaxations of the rule excluding it are constantly sanctioned by statute is significant both of its logical and legal value. It would be more correct therefore to say that all hearsay connected with the issue is, and must to some extent be, “relevant', whether in law it be admissible or not.”
Doing history involves inductive reasoning on what is likely versus unlikely to have happened.
The earliest extent Gospel manuscripts that have been found all contain tags (superscripts) identifying their authorship. They were likely added by the writers themselves, or by others shortly after they were published.
A “chain of custody” can be reconstructed from the Gospel authors (through their subsequent students) to confirm the authorship of each Gospel, along with the relative dates & order of their writing.
How do you know John Mark wrote the Gospel according to Mark?
@@JamesSnapp Jesus never wrote a thing down the deciples recorded the kindness Jesus had show others jesus did this kindness because of his comanment love others as I have love you.
the whole "god" concept is too unreal to be true- we don't even know what "god" is ! we are animals like all the others. and death can't exist without life- and heath is good since its the end of pain and its food for the living.
Don't be shocked when you see world turning back on God and falling apart. Or persons.
Who are the historically verified credible CONTEMORARY eye witnesses that observed theses supernatural events stated in the gospels and where is their WRITTEN first hand testimony in there language?
You may be interested that funnily enough currently the world and the people overall are better off than they have ever been, and also the least religious and devoted religious that it has ever been.
Had to be a Jew talking…..
"There was nobody there taking notes." . . . How the hell does Bart Ehrman know that? And does he think that Mary, who was there, would have forgotten??
Maybe you should look into the evidence he bases his position on. Also who was there taking notes when the world was built before man?
Do you really think that someone wrote down every single word Jesus said? Not possible. Anything written in the bible as "quotes" from Jesus is a guess. The BIG question is, why would God want to communicate a supposably important message to humans in this manner. You would think he knows better.
Just stop
Indeed. What was the degree of literacy of the writers of the Gospels?
Matthew was more than a glorified tax collection agent for Rome - ie a hired thug. He worked in the area where Herod was trying to establish as an international export fishing industry. To do a good job Matthew would have needed literary skills to keep good records.
John Mark came from an affluent family with a large house. Affluent families made sure their children were highly literate for trading purposes. Mark’s ability to put into words what Peter preached was a crucial aspect of reaching the super affluent Romans, such as the “equite” mentioned by Clement of Alexandria.
Papias states that Mark wrote down what Peter was preaching. Clement from the school of Alexandria, who were the custodians of a manuscript brought by Mark, writes that it was upon the request of the equite that Mark wrote what Peter preached.
The Gospel of Mark’s rough language, in a fast paced style, is consistent with scribal note taking. The Gospel we know today fits that pattern.
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111literacy estimates between 3% and 7%. Your "all big house kids are literate" claim is very suspect. Hearsay isn't admissible even in our lowly courts.
8:55 - OMG Bart Ehrman has suddenly realized that the accounts of miracles in the Gospels involve . . . miracles!
5:40 - When Ehrman says "It depends on which Gospel you read?" he might as well be saying, "It depends on how closely you look." Writers are free to be selective about which details they include in their accounts.
Its not the details it's the direct contradictions. Jesus was not fleeing to Egypt at the same time Mary was presenting him publically at the temple. There are several completely different accounts of who Jesus was. He was not multiple different people but in the bible he is; especially in the book of John. Jesus in the book of John is almost completely opposite to the other books
Indeed. It is fascinating to apply legal reasoning to the arguments from silence:
“Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material...”
-"The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony," Barbara Tversky, prof. of psychology and George Fisher, prof. of law in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. A talk at Stanford Law School April 5, 1999.
One of the principles in the field of hermeneutics, that was common prior to the rise of negative criticism, is to not work with a hermeneutic of suspicion and presumption of error.
This charitable attitude is common for interpreting documents as a whole. For example:
“[It is] fundamental to a true interpretation of the Scripture, viz., that the parts of a document, law, or instrument are to be construed with reference to the significance of the whole.” (Dean Abbot, Commentary on Matthew, Interpretation, p. 31.)
“Where a transaction is carried out by means of several documents so that together they form part of a single whole, these documents are read together as one.... [They are to be so read] that, that construction is to be preferred which will render them consistent.” (Interpretation of Documents, Sir Roland Burrows, p. 49, Lutter-worth & Co., London, 1946.)
"Destroys". Can't say I agree.
I think that because our universe had a beginning...it must have been started by something making a decision, and decisions are made by beings....for something eternal to be connected to something mortal I feel a decision would have to bridge that gap from something that needs no cause to create something that needed a cause
2:40 - Ehrman seem to think he is making an important point about literacy. In reality he is forgetting that illiterate people could hire literate people {secretaries, amanuenses) to take dictation.
Think you need to listen to the entirety of his Point.
Ehrman himself likely used an editor in the publishing of his books.
It’s interesting how Ehrman writes about the unreliability of memory in one of his books, yet he’s pretty certain about his own ability to recall things that he heard or experienced decades ago.
Yea and if most of your scribes are held against their will, what do you think they'll write for you?
Weve seen the universe get created once...but it is absolutely true...
Only 1 man out of billions has walked on water...but perhaps it too is absolutely true
Is this the best they got?
If you're talking about Christianity then yes, if you're talking about anybody who objects to it, then no, and still even this little bit is so much better supported than anything written about any Supernatural god. Or anything Supernatural, because there is absolutely no supporting this for anything Supernatural.
And let's not have overlook that no one actually saw Jesus rise, the only claims are that they saw him after he had already resurrected, bringing into question whether which is more likely, that he never actually died and never actually rose from death, or the of nature were suspended and the impossible happened, without any actual supporting evidence and has never been repeated?
Woe to ye scribes and Pharisees.
Yeah, none of those scribes thought to write any of it down!
I am skeptical of the illiteracy rates that are claimed as being so universal at that time. The Jewish tradition was to teach children how to read at an early age (Josephus). Jesus could read Isaiah out loud in a synagogue and once said to others “have you not read?”
Bart’s proof text from Acts 4 is capable of different interpretations.
The word commonly translated “illiterate" (agrammatos) can also be understood in a broader sense to indicate Peter and John's "lack of formal education” in the sense of their lacking of a formal scribal literacy of the kind possessed by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.
For example, the Greek writer Epictetus uses this in a non religious broad sense when he speaks about a man "writing in an illiterate way" (graphein agrammatos). See Discourses, 2.9.10).
As the footnote to the New English Translation states: “
“Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly. The objection is like Acts 2:7.”
The disciples owned boats & had hired servants as part of a fishing fleet.
Exported fish from the Sea of Galilee were considered luxury items in other parts of the Roman Empire (Tacitus). Keeping records for business & tax purposes would have likely been required at some level.
Or the Pharisees for that matter. No Jews today claim in Jesus' existence let alone Godhood. Why is that?
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111That's how Jews stayed separate from other groups of people. The rest were def illiterate. Jews were people who completely refused authoritarianism and felt authority was only in God. No people.
He's a world-renowned Charlatan. Poor guy.
No a charlatan is a person who makes claims with no supported evidence, or makes claims that they could not possibly know with any certainty to be true, just like every person promoting any religion with a supernatural base, because nothing Supernatural has ever been shown or demonstrated to exist, including ghosts spirits and gods. You come across as the poor gullible one.
History exists the moment it happens, Natural Science is and has been evolving and changing every minute of every day. “Doctor,” your career pursuit of a historical Jesus or Ressurection, you are correct, is a waste of time (both yours and mine). The only difference is you have made a career out of it. “
…Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.” John 20:29
Seems to me that keeping the 'contradictions' after the final edit is either monumentally stupid when trying to establish a coherent narrative for a new cult or an honest acceptance of the usual variations in the human experience of understanding and recounting events. I'll let you think about how stupid the Greek writing professional types Ehrman himself lauds were likely to be.
Too easy to destroy crucifixion/resurrection.
Faith is not a pathway to truth. So what. Who needs truth when you have a god?
That is a irrational question, if you have faith in something which is not true , and you have faith in the existence of a god, then you don't have anything. Unless of course you were being sarcastic in which case, then you have something.
I do not agree with his conclusion regarding how historians deal with miracles. I think it is possible to find historical evidences that supports miracles and at the same time cannot be explained by our current knowledge of science. e.g. Egyptian pyramids and it geographical alignment with Earth and star systems. (implying our historical understanding is incomplete) In the case of Crucifixion and Resurrection, there is "Shroud of Turin". I think historians should take this debate to the next level, instead of just citing the impossibility of dealing with miracles. (i.e. prove and disprove these evidences)
Out of interest, how how do you determine that the historical evidence is actual evidence unless it can be demonstrated with our current knowledge. The pyramids can be explained scientifically, the shrouded Turin has scientifically been proven to be a fake. You can't take history to the next level because it's validity is based on evidence and if there is no examinable evidence for any miracle or anything Supernatural then it can't be moved to the next step because it cannot be tested for validity.
I believe in proposition "X." What you say refutes proposition "X," which makes me feel bad; therefore, what you said is a lie.
5:00 - Isn't this a matter of starting at the time the Romans started the process of crucifying Jesus (beginning with the point at which the order was given), and actually nailing him to the cross?
Ehrman believes that Jesus was crucified, unlike Muslims.
A person named Jesus was crucified, he doesn't believe that the person Jesus was any type of God or capable of miracles or that he was resurrected.
@@tonyaone2069 I just find it funny that this youtuber posts commentary from a scholar who believes in Christ’s crucifixion which, if true (and I believe it is) would disagree with one of the basis of Muhammad’s belief of the Christian faith
The gospels come from the notes the deciples wrote down in the three years following jesus the deciples never ment for these notes to be read by others they were only released to christan scribes years after the last deciples died
"The gospels come from the notes the deciples wrote down"
I do not think there is any evidence to support that claim. Its far more likely that as Ehrman said, those stories were told in oral traditions to be written down much later.
Its impossible to get back to historical fact IMO. You either believe the gospels or you don't but there is not sufficient evidence here.
I don't think many would insist that Jesus was not cruxified, Its clear that he was not arround when Paul came along.
But the extraordinary claim of the resurrection needs extraordinary evidence (Sagan standard). If that is not present there is no reason to believe that.
As Ehrman said, its far more likely that early christians changed and exceggerated the stories to win more souls for Christianity.
No, they are the transcripts made by time travellers who recorded the whole thing.
If you have issue with that, there is exactly as much evidence for what I just wrote as what you did. That is to say, none.
Ehrman is a joke and simping for him just shows everyone that you are extremely biased and desperate.
Or perhaps Dr Ehrman has destroyed himself. Seems he will likely be among those gnashing their teeth in anger at God on Judgment Day. But is there any justification for any of us to do so when we chose to reject God without coercion? After all, His existence is plain to see. Does any of us really believe life, even in its simplest form, came into being just by chance without a Designer? What madness! The sheer complexity of a human cell makes that laughable.
Sounds like we are being tasked with believing under coercion. The threat of eternal torment seems like coercion
@@Backwoodsmachinist If that notion makes you feel comfortable, go with it.
What a desperate and pathetic position you hold and it is a pointless threat, because nobody is scared of anything that they don't believe exists. And it is disingenuous to claim that is existence is play to see, most people of the world do not believe in your god, nobody has physically seen him and can prove it, there is no evidence for intelligent design, and even if there was evidence for intelligent design there is no proof that any god did it including yours, and your inability to grasp or accept something does not make it impossible, or your insecurity about your beliefs or your need to believe them, does not validate them in the least.
When multiple “eyewitnesses to an event” are called on (in court) to testify to what they witnessed, they, many times, do have differing accounts of the events they observed. Ask any good litigator. The lack of written eyewitness accounts from the Apostles who this idiot says couldn’t read or write, makes written accounts by the Apostles impossible correct? Yes or No.
Correct, if you cannot write, then obviously you could not have written.
4:52 - the old "different days" objection - See H. Hoehner, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ."
Just because a objection or a point is old or repeated, it does not make it any less valid, if that were the criteria then all old religious books would be invalid and we would still believe the earth was flat was the son of revolving around it and the problem is that so-called reliable accounts contradict each other and as you said previously in one of your comments do you think they would forget or be completely in contradiction about something they consider so important.?
The number of your separate comments make you sound incredibly insecure and desperate to validate your position , and it hasn't worked , every argument you have posed can and has been can easily refuted many many times before I suggest you look into other sources which don't support your preferred position and try to understand the arguments , before you comment again without actual valid support for stop
It’s interesting to look back in history. Simon Greenleaf also wrote a book “Testimony the Evangelists” (a harmony of the Gospel writers). He was a 19th century expert on the rules of legal evidence.
What motivated Greenleaf’s arguments, in demonstrating a harmony of the Gospel accounts, is independent of whether his arguments are consistent with the rules of legal evidence that he famously wrote about as a law professor.