Nah, those 70 cities from the Balkans to Egypt to India changed their name to Alexandria just for kicks
@chables74
2 ай бұрын
I’ve heard the more low-rent apologists say “better attested than Abraham Lincoln.”
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy
2 ай бұрын
Is there such thing as a high rent apologist?
@moonshoes11
2 ай бұрын
Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.
@Tmanaz480
2 ай бұрын
@@michaelf40... How bout "Temu apologist"?
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy
2 ай бұрын
@@Tmanaz480 why would you insult temu like that?
@changer1285
2 ай бұрын
Lord almighty
@dirtydish6642
2 ай бұрын
Guy: _Utters blatant lie._ Other Guy: "Great point!"
@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός
2 ай бұрын
It’s pretty pathetic watching content creators similar to Ruslan and others like him on YT & TikTok, who pedal blatant pseudoscience and misinformation. Especially when they have complete access to data and scholarship that they could spend less than an hour researching to explain why they are wrong.
@BradyPostma
2 ай бұрын
That's a popular rhetorical trick. Having someone tell you that you're right on camera is more effectively manipulative of the audience.
@nonprogrediestregredi1711
2 ай бұрын
To be an apologist, uttering blatant lies is absolutely a key element to your rhetoric. One can not be an effective apologist without lying for Jesus.
@justinandrews520
2 ай бұрын
We Have mountains of Alexander the Great archeological evidence. Hell, I have an Alexander the Great coin on my bedside table
@kamilgregor
2 ай бұрын
Here's how Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander begins: "Wherever Ptolemy son of Lagus and Aristobulus son of Aristobulus have both given the same accounts of Alexander son of Philip, it is my practice to record what they say as completely true, but where they differ, to select the version I regard as more trustworthy and also better worth telling." Not going to find that in the Gospel of Matthew.
@okenogamer
21 күн бұрын
Not only ptolemy and aristobulus but also nearchus mentioned by arrian who is saud to have written about his journey in india where he was made the admiral of Alexander's fleet in the indus
@moehoward01
2 ай бұрын
They've said the same thing about Jesus and Julius Caesar. And were wrong for pretty much the same reasons.
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn
2 ай бұрын
They don't seem to know that Caesar wrote books about the things he did.
@digitaljanus
2 ай бұрын
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Everyone who studied high school or undergraduate Latin and had to read _Commentarii de Bello Gallico_ giving those guys the side-eye...
@KaiHenningsen
2 ай бұрын
Even worse. We have stuff that Caesar wrote _himself._ Stuff like _De Bello Gallico._
@meej33
2 ай бұрын
Not only books, we have the coins that precipitated his murder. Also, when discussing military figures like Caesar and Alexander you can search for archeological evidence of the battles they fought.
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
@@digitaljanus Or had to find a trustworthy translation because of the info on certain cultures that may or may not have been fully accurate but it's one of the best things we have on continental Celtic tribes before the Empire took over...
@keith6706
2 ай бұрын
Oh, my favorite part of this argument is that Alexander, his death, and the subsequent division of his empire is mentioned, albeit not by name, in Daniel. If you believe it was written during the Exile, then Alexander is referenced before he was born. If you accept the consensus that it was written in the 160s BCE, then there is a written reference to Alexander 160ish years after his death in their favorite book.
@timbertome2443
2 ай бұрын
Great point 👌
@Greyz174
2 ай бұрын
The historical alexander the great was a goat with one horn that ran into a ram with two horns. Everything else is legendary development
@MarcillaSmith
2 ай бұрын
I'm certainly willing to discard my belief in a historical Alexander the Great as soon as someone can produce a more plausible hypothesis for who led the conquests which have been historically attributed to him. For similar reasons, I do not subscribe to a "historical" Jesus.
@ChristianCarrizales
2 ай бұрын
Yep agreed. Only problem is that the apologists will try and say, “well, he was given divine revelation to foresee his reign and foretell this prophecy.” Kind of like how they say that Isaiah, who was living in the 700s BCE, somehow foretold King Cyrus of Persia’s reign a few hundred years later 😂
@keith6706
2 ай бұрын
@@ChristianCarrizales Yes, but that also means something: that there were "prophecies" of Alexander the Great and Cyrus that were more precise and detailed than there ever were about Jesus.
@meej33
2 ай бұрын
Dr McClellan, as a non native English speaker I deeply appreciate the subtitles, but could you go back for a font that is clearer? The newer font "bleeds" into neighbouring letters and makes it harder to read quickly. Please and thank you.
@SethRGray
2 ай бұрын
Agreed! The outer glow is very heavy today, makes it look blurry.
@scienceexplains302
2 ай бұрын
Maybe this will help: Open the Description and Show Transcript. (Tap or click on the video title to open the description.)
@chrispysaid
2 ай бұрын
Agreed here too, the blur transition and glow effect make it less legible
@ritawing1064
2 ай бұрын
You can get very clear subs by clicking the CC button.
@meej33
2 ай бұрын
@@ritawing1064 KZitem subtitles work reasonably well, but actual subtitles are better. Also, having youtube subtitles on top of hardcoded subtitles gets confusing.
@kamilgregor
2 ай бұрын
I'd add that we have Alexander's own freaking writings, as well as a letter written to him when he was only a teenager.
@ITSSKUDDUMMY
2 ай бұрын
I dont need alexander the great to have risen from the dead or save me from hell. People often mistake existance for divinity.
@danielcnapich2702
2 ай бұрын
You create your own hell and only you can save yourself from it, nobody else. I wish you the best.
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
Even if Alexander the Great turned out to be a myth. So what? Nothing would change in my life. Jesus isn't in the same category as Alexander the Great. Also, even if could be demonstrated that Jesus definitely existed, that still in no way demonstrates the truth of the claims about Jesus.
@mervynsoo8353
2 ай бұрын
Agreed Alexander did things other normal kings accomplished but Jesus 😮
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
@@mervynsoo8353 I will never understand the "But Jesus was as real as [some historical person]!" It's not the historicity of Jesus* that is in dispute, but the claims that you must believe in him in order to be saved and the miraculous claims made about him. *I know some dispute this, but they are a minority.
@GreenLightMe
2 ай бұрын
That’s my biggest gripe with apologist…they try to scare me by saying if we take Jesus out of history you have to take Socrates out of history too…Like I’ve been living without giving two concerns about Socrates and I live my life without Jesus as well…I’m pretty sure removing Jesus as historical figure won’t change anything - people who believe in Jesus don’t believe in the person who they only know stories from 1 year of his life …they believe in Jesus cause they think he’s some ghost king who will come back to earth and start a new word lol They’re belief in him is completely against any normal way of engaging in history
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
@@GreenLightMe agreed. Socrates is an even worse example than Alexander the Great. I'm willing to concede that Socrates was a work of fiction to them. It's rather amusing to watch them suddenly trying to defend the historicity of Socrates.
@AMoniqueOcampo
2 ай бұрын
As soon as I saw that there's a mention of the Joe Rogan podcast, I rolled my eyes.
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
Dudebros gonna dudebro, and that video he stitched screamed "We think women should shut up and make us sandwiches for Jesus."
@runenorderhaug7646
2 ай бұрын
I swear you keep covering the exact content that i have discussing with apologists. Praise Dan Mcllen lol xd
@Jaymastia
2 ай бұрын
Your new data god. Lol
@keith6706
2 ай бұрын
There's another point: grant that he was correct that the ancient Hebrews orally passed down the equivalent of thousands of pages of text. What does that have to do with the Jews centuries later? That's like saying that just because my ancestors could sail the North Atlantic in a Viking longship they built, I must know how to build and sail one as well.
@sunshowerpainting1
2 ай бұрын
We are very fortunate to have rare breed people like Dan, who help stem the tide of misinformation that can so easily foment into religious fervor, which ultimately causes so much suffering.
@awolf4827
2 ай бұрын
People never take into account that ancient people exaggerated certain things
@lavieestlenfer
2 ай бұрын
Nonsense. Herodotus wrote that people were strictly honest until the Nephalim invented the interwebs.
@work3753
2 ай бұрын
You Really Think Someone Would Do That? Just Go On the Internet and Tell Lies? -Ancient People
@larrywest42
2 ай бұрын
And, as today, usually wrote to persuade others rather than record strictly factual accounts. Of course biographies have some of that, but I mean, that's practically the entire purpose of the New Testament and a good chunk of the Hebrew Bible.
@joshuacromley7439
2 ай бұрын
Ancient people? ALL people
@GreenLightMe
2 ай бұрын
Ancient people never lied!!! Lying was invented by Richard Nixon in 1972 before that everything was 100% true
@CharlesPayet
2 ай бұрын
I vaguely remember reading part of Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” while in undergrad almost 30 years ago and finding it not convincing enough to finish. And that was while I was a devout Christian. Once I started learning more about critical scholarship after dental school, and after reading some critiques of Stroebel’s “A Case for Christ” (I was already an agnostic by that point), I realized how bad their arguments are. That was my first realization, that apologists are either ignorantly or deliberately dishonest in their presentations.
@marknieuweboer8099
2 ай бұрын
Not either ignorantly or deliberately - and ignorantly and deliberately. Correct them (assuming ignorance) and they'll stick to their falsehood (deliberately).
@tbishop4961
2 ай бұрын
You lost me at dental school Sadist!!😂
@CharlesPayet
2 ай бұрын
@@tbishop4961 why, thank you! ;-P It's not often we get recognized for our skills like that. LOL
@langreeves6419
2 ай бұрын
"Devout christian" does not have to mean fundamentalist. I feel like the more I learn, the more progressive I become. As a Christian, shouldn't I seek truth? And the more truth I accept, the more devout I am.
@devinsmith4790
2 ай бұрын
While I do think Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure like Alexander the Great, it's not surprise we have more evidence for the latter (a man who conquered an empire) than the former (a lower class Galilean Jewish preacher)
@KaiHenningsen
2 ай бұрын
Indeed. Only if you assume he's really the son of God is that surprising. Well, or if you believe that the gospels are accurate histories. Then you'd expect much more, more accurate, and earlier writings. What we (as in most people) think we know about him is significantly more than what we actually do know, and that's likely true for more historical figures for non-experts. It's just that he's one of the few where we think what we assume about him is rather more important for us today than most historical figures. And we find myth-building even in cases where we have much better documentation much closer to events. For example, what actually happened in Roswell. Or hey, Hitler is often claimed to have been an atheist, yet we know from his own writings that he was a creationist. (And there's a whole cotton industry of people denying the holocaust.) Hell, even closer. There was this US election in 2020 ...
@JopJio
2 ай бұрын
Jesus alledgly was "God in flesh" doing miracles including raising the dead. At his crucifixion alledgly zombies raised from their graves.😂 so we would expect much more evidence and Josephus and other historians of that time in Israel writing books about Jesus. It even seems that James the brother of Jesus was more important than Jesus
@bobstitzenberger1834
2 ай бұрын
@Texasmade74 , a historical Jesus is the consensus view. Very few serious scholars consider Jesus a myth. If there was no Jesus, why were there so many first century Christians?
@schen7913
2 ай бұрын
@@bobstitzenberger1834 There were many first century _proto-Christians_. And many did not believe Jesus was literally human even in the first century. People questioned his existence as soon as the second century. What Christians did ... was fail to preserve all the writings of people pointing out that Jesus had no evidence of his existence. So we only have the writings of Christians claiming to "refute" the other side, without ever explaining the points of the other side.
@devinsmith4790
2 ай бұрын
@@Texasmade74 It's true no scholar treats the gospels as 100% historical fact, but they don't see them as completely fictious either. Indeed if there's one thing Jesus shares with Alexander, it's that people fabricated parts of his life not long after he died.
@Merrick
2 ай бұрын
Are UFOs better attested than cars?
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn
2 ай бұрын
I would ask these people this question - Why do you suppose we learn about Alexander and Caesar in history books, but not Jesus. Even when school prayer was a thing, they didn't teach that stuff as history.
@andrewsuryali8540
2 ай бұрын
Er, no. They did. You just happen to live in an era where people choose to no longer do so. 200 years ago people DID teach Jesus' live as history in schools. What these apologists are really doing is try to go back to those days.
@work3753
2 ай бұрын
Its not a great help, most of them firmly believe they should have Jesus in the history books. They think its just anti-christian sentiment that keeps it out.
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn
2 ай бұрын
@@work3753 Oh, I know. That's why I said even when we had school prayer. In the 40's and 50's many schools started the day by reciting the Lord's prayer. And they STILL didn't teach Jesus as history.
@Coolguy98765
2 ай бұрын
They don't? The rise of Christianity is a pretty big part of world history.
@JopJio
2 ай бұрын
Christians just rewrite history and science and hope no one else will notice it. So even if Jesus existed, which Jesus are we talking about. The Jesus of the book of Revelation or GJohn is different than Jesus from the synoptics. And if you go back to Jewish Christianity and their gospels, you will again find a different Jesus. They believed Jesus to be a man or prophet. And we know that the Nt authors were no eyewitnesses and even copied and corrected each other.
@zackzimmer7167
2 ай бұрын
The one they conjure up to meet their own expectations and their own narcissism.
@kamilgregor
2 ай бұрын
At some point, I'd like to collect all the information we have about Alexander coming from his contemporaries and publish it together. From what I've seen so far it'd be several times longer than the entire New Testament.
@martifingers
2 ай бұрын
Debates between people of faith and non-believers would be so much productive if they followed Dan's example - we have nothing to fear from this sort of kind of detailed scholarship.
@ufpride83
2 ай бұрын
Any time a Christian makes this point to me my reply is simply this “if you’re telling me there’s more proof of Jesus’ existence than there is of (fill in name of historical figure here) then you just make me doubt that historical figures existence more than you got me to believe in Jesus’”
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
Me too 🙋🏻♂️ it's such a weak argument. If they* are as poorly attested to as Jesus, then I am quite happy to accept that they probably didn't exist. *whatever historic figure they use.
@work3753
2 ай бұрын
I've heard this especially with King Arthur and I'm thinking to myself.... well yeah, maybe the wizard Merlin should have given that away.
@GreenLightMe
2 ай бұрын
Exactly I’m open to the idea Socrates was a figure concocted to spin several philosophies into a single speaker to give it more dramatic weight. Why do Christian’s think we are dogmatic about Socrates or Alexander the Great, etc- these were people living just as we were discovering bronze (long time ago). I’m cool if they were invented by Bronze Age story tellers -- I understand the time period and the need to invent people and stories and gods -- it’s sad Christian’s can’t understand it
@cariboubearmalachy1174
2 ай бұрын
I read the Case for Christ years ago after my evangelical aunt gave it to me. Incredible that anyone finds this persuasive.
@lnsflare1
2 ай бұрын
We've also got several nations who renamed cities after this one dude that came by and kicked their ass but turned out to be pretty cool.
@Jd-808
2 ай бұрын
Yeah, that’s how that worked.
@digitaljanus
2 ай бұрын
No, those settlements were founded anew by Alexander, that's how he got to name them for himself.
@andrewsuryali8540
2 ай бұрын
@@digitaljanusYes and no. There are many cities named Iskandar in the Muslim world that were named after Alexander but not founded by him. There's an Iskandar in Malaysia, for example.
@maryoberschlake1988
2 ай бұрын
Thank you.🙏🏽
@user-pm3mw8xw8d
2 ай бұрын
Socrates would have been a much better example
@zackzimmer7167
2 ай бұрын
Literally anything other than a conquerer…
@user-pm3mw8xw8d
2 ай бұрын
@@zackzimmer7167 You mean because conquerors are typically well documented?
@marknieuweboer8099
2 ай бұрын
Diogenes of Sinope even more so. The historicity of Sokrates has two contemporary witnesses.
@user-pm3mw8xw8d
2 ай бұрын
@@zackzimmer7167 I meant because there's very little evidence for Socrates existing. Most of it Plato's writings, the earliest more than 1000 yrs after Plato lived (if he did).
@jaojao1768
2 ай бұрын
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d the date of the text and that of the extant manuscripts are very different questions
@sobertillnoon
2 ай бұрын
I also instinctively woo wooed
@funkatron101
2 ай бұрын
So what you are saying is he was more like Alexander The Okay.
@GreenLightMe
2 ай бұрын
This is how everyone should treat stories from Bronze Aged peoples…okay this guy might have existed but I’m not buying anything written about him because there was a huge propensity to exaggerate and lie back then - then don’t get me started on the biggest story tellers and fibbers to the current times…the Jews
@ernestschultz5065
2 ай бұрын
I call dudes like him "Jesus Bros"
@theoutspokenhumanist
2 ай бұрын
I have heard Christians make this claim and others with so much enthusiasm but absolutely no evidence. Things they once read or heard and chose to accept, just because they wanted to and then repeat without ever bothering to discover if they are true. The reason is simple, their religion and world view rests upon believing, as opposed to knowing, so why would they ever bother to check?
@pansepot1490
2 ай бұрын
Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to the list of cities founded by Alexander the Great, most of which bore and still bear his name. Even if we discard a lot of them as legendary attribution still there’s quite a few which historians consider attested. Compare that with Jesus. Iirc the very existence of Nazareth was disputed until not long ago.
@andrewsuryali8540
2 ай бұрын
Er, no. Nazareth was never a lost village or anything like that. It remained populated from the 1st century to today. In fact, the village grew into a town of significant wealth after the first Romano-Jewish War because many wealthy Judaeans who escaped Jerusalem ended up in Sepphoris, the Galilean capital. These wealthy Jews then started buying up land in nearby Nazareth, turning it into a suburb of Sepphoris. The existence of Nazareth has never been in doubt. The dispute was whether the Nazareth of Jesus' time could have produced a Jesus. There's a level of development a village needs to be at to produce the kind of wandering preacher the historical Jesus needs to have been. A tiny underpopulated village of illiterates cannot produce a rabbi able to dispute with Pharisees, and that's what Jesus' Nazareth originally looked like to archaeologists. There have been finds much later on that suggest there might have been a synagogue in Nazareth in Jesus' time, so the question is now back in the air.
@Coolguy98765
2 ай бұрын
@andrewsuryali8540 I mean any village could have produced Jesus because He was God incarnate so He was already born with all of the knowledge in the universe.
@andrewsuryali8540
2 ай бұрын
@@Coolguy98765 There is no God. You're worshipping a podunk preacher who got too big for his britches and went to his god the hard way.
@tombritton8583
2 ай бұрын
Thanks! I really love all your content!
@poisontango
2 ай бұрын
Dude's got a TikTok about a guy on a podcast talking about a book by a guy talking about how researchers look at texts written by people who heard from other people stories someone supposedly told at some point, maybe wrote down, maybe not, within a couple decades or centuries or so of the person they were talking about... and they can't BELIEVE we might be a tinge skeptical. Hm.
@stuartdavidson162
2 ай бұрын
Great video as ever but please change the font of the script as I find it's not clear and the pulsing transition is off putting 🙂
@xattuhottu2089
Ай бұрын
Honestly, it's rather easy to refute point that "Jesus's biography was closest to subject's life when created" with Julius Caesar. He wrote 2 "Commentaries" about parts of his life.
@RedStickAtheist
2 ай бұрын
It really gets under my skin everytime, which is quite often, believers will say "We have more evidence for Jesus than..." The simple truth of the matter is we have no evidence for a historical Jesus. Even if the stories were based on a real guy, which I doubt, we have nothing to tell us anything about that character.
@user-kv1po2dm5j
2 ай бұрын
We have no *archeological* evidence for Jesus, but not no evidence at all. It’s foolish to deny the existence of an apocalyptic rabbi living in the first century named Yeshu’. Saying that the historical Jesus never existed is just as crazy as saying there’s more evidence for Jesus than Alexander the Great.
@meej33
2 ай бұрын
@@user-kv1po2dm5j It depends on how you define evidence. I think that Paul mentions a brother of Jesus, but that depends on it being an original verse not a later interpolation, that he meant a literal brother, that he was not exaggerating for effect etc. I think that *somebody* must have been preaching because we know for a fact that a new religion, or at least a new sect, somehow got started around that time. We do not even have evidence that he was crucified, other than "lots of people from around that time thought so, so it is probably true". I find that convincing, but I am not sure I would call it evidence as such because it makes it the most probable scenario, nothing more.
@rainbowkrampus
2 ай бұрын
@@user-kv1po2dm5j "It’s foolish to deny the existence of an apocalyptic rabbi living in the first century named Yeshu’." It would be if anyone had ever made a claim about such a person. But nobody was making that claim at the time. Our earliest evidence talks about knowing Jesus from scripture and visions. All of the texts cited as evidence talk about a supernatural entity. The whole mundane itinerant rabbi thing is a post hoc assertion. It's foolish to assume historicity based on a post hoc assertion.
@GreenLightMe
2 ай бұрын
Historians need to update their criteria for evidence - a historic figure without one piece of archaelogical evidence should be said to be of dubious existence !! If a person is “mentioned” a bunch and all the mentions have them bringing people back to life and flying into the clouds maybe we need more than mentions and more Archaeology
@rainbowkrampus
2 ай бұрын
@@GreenLightMe TBF, historians don't really have this problem. It's primarily a Biblical scholar problem. Like, most historians will look at the kind of person being claimed and weight their probability accordingly. Biblical scholars, it's a mixed bag. It's not wrong to recognize that most people who ever lived left not archaeological remains. But then, most people also weren't said to be wizards. There's a classification issue that Biblical scholars don't seem to have internalized yet.
@aaronlogan_music
2 ай бұрын
Comedians on Rogan trying to educate people on scholarship and history. Right... Immediate facepalm. Thanks for your videos, Dan!
@theSkyGuardian
2 ай бұрын
If I could get to the soul of the matter, the fact that historians follow around conquerors like Alexander and not people like Jesus is part of the problem with humanity according to the Gospel's message
@munbruk
2 ай бұрын
Religious writings are different than any other writing.
@travis1240
2 ай бұрын
Yes. Much less historically reliable.
@munbruk
2 ай бұрын
@@travis1240 Because religious information is more important that any other information. The motivation for corruption is extremely high.
@vmonk2
2 ай бұрын
Dude-bros like this filling the role of public intellectuals will be the downfall of our civilization
@jonatchley6045
2 ай бұрын
There are multiple Roman emperors, senators, and some of their family members that we not only have written contemporary bios of various accuracy for them, we have portraits, some so numerous and consistent that the person is clearly recognizable even unlabeled, and their names carved into nearly every surviving building they sponsored, lol
@ChristianCarrizales
2 ай бұрын
Depends on which Jesus we’re talking about: Jesus of Nazareth (historical) - eh some references here and there but not much Paul’s Christ - none outside the New Testament
@TheFranchiseCA
2 ай бұрын
Agreed; the most reasonable take for Jesus, from an academic perspective, is as a real itinerant preacher who fell afoul of the Roman authorities, and would have legendary stories attached to him. Believing less than that is simply gainsaying; believing more than that requires more than the material evidences.
@DneilB007
2 ай бұрын
4:07 Just a pet peeve of mine, but I hate it when people say things like, “you cannot compare the historical record of Jesus with that of [fill. In the blank historical figure].” Of course I can. “Jesus is attested to in the historical record, both in written texts and in archaeology, far far less than someone like Alexander the Great.” See? Easy.
@jaojao1768
2 ай бұрын
I suppose this technically might be true if one only counts biographies (most of his contemporaries wrote histories or memoirs), but of course it is laughable, as Dan says, when it comes to comparing the evidence for Jesus and Alexander.
@IheartDogs55
2 ай бұрын
Thank you. I'm saving this for future reference. My comment will also help the algorithm! 😊
@michaelanderson4849
2 ай бұрын
Oh no! A flashy jeezbuz apologist being wrong? What has the world come to? 😟
@Humorless_Wokescold
Ай бұрын
Lotta apologists in this comment section upset someone is calling out a blatantly ridiculous claim.
@tussk.
2 ай бұрын
Hebrews memorized 5000 pages of writing before they invented writing. And books.
@vmonk2
2 ай бұрын
source?
@tussk.
2 ай бұрын
@@vmonk2 watch the video.
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
I hope that's sarcasm, because if it isn't... 🤦🏻♂ How could they have memorized writing if they didn't have writing?
@babydemon90
2 ай бұрын
@@johnburn8031 I think they're simply saying they memorized the words that now fit on 5000 pages. Of course their point is ludicrous there as well, as a) the stories changed as they were passed down, b) changed even further when the editors compiled the OT, and c) much of the Hebrew Bible WAS composed after they started writing things down.
@johnburn8031
2 ай бұрын
@@babydemon90 I was being pedantic. 🤷🏻♂
@freethinker424
Ай бұрын
Is it correct to say that for a lot of, possibly most of history that historians have to weigh the degree of confidence that ancient historical records are accurate?
@metjetfan23
2 ай бұрын
Of course he is a met fan. 🤦🏽♂️
@roberthunter6927
2 ай бұрын
Yes, in history, you must use inter-subjectivity. Take the Falklands war in 1982. I could have easily called it the Malvinas war of 1982. But English, and not Spanish, is my first language. Now, if you ask British or Argentine people about the war in 1982, you will find lots of disagreement about who was at fault, etc. What you won't find disagreement on was that a war in the Islas Malvinas/Falkland islands took place. So despite historical biases on both sides, etc, you can pretty much nail that historical fact, the date of the war, as true. So you can "objectively" construct timelines. And if you can do that, you can get a sequence of events. With a sequence of events, you can CAREFULLY tease out causation. [With due regard for the fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc]. So despite sources which can often conflict, you can often tease out a history that is probably true. Recent history is data-rich, and you even have living eye witnesses and participants of the 1982 conflict. But war, being what it is, contains much pain, sorrow, and hate, so there are not likely to be objective witness. As time passes, newer generations can view the conflict with more objectivity, but as time passes, more data can be lost.
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn
2 ай бұрын
Their argument is - If I have more books about person A than I do about person B, and my books about person A are the more recent, then I have more evidence for person A than for person B. Easy to disprove by analogy. I have one book about Abraham Lincoln written fifty years after his death; I have 42 Superman comics written contemporaneously to his time. Therefore, I have more evidence for Superman than for Abe Lincoln. Right Josh Mcdowell? Right Lee Strobel? Right JWW?
@robinharwood5044
2 ай бұрын
We’ve got film of Superman.
@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn
2 ай бұрын
@@robinharwood5044 And minimal facts too. Fact# 1: Krypton exploded. Fact #2: Ma and Pa Kent found a baby. Fact#3 ...
@marknieuweboer8099
2 ай бұрын
"The first surviving biography ..." That's the point. Jesusmythologists don't accept hearsay. Were they consistent they would argue that the first surviving biography of Alexander the Great is not evidence for his historicity either. Though I think Diogenes of Sinope works better to illustrate this point.
@lightbearer313
2 ай бұрын
The biographical records of Harry Potter were written only about twenty years ago, so he must be much more historical than someone who was written about 50 to 100 years after his death, by this person's reasoning.
@work3753
2 ай бұрын
These are the things that should shatter faiths, not that you can't believe in Jesus, but that you can't believe apologists. We have to assume that apologists are wrong now. And very importantly, there is nothing that God or the Bible does to stop these people from spreading falsehoods about the same in their name and that they have access to the only Truth with a capital T.
@NielMalan
2 ай бұрын
The idea that people who wrote about Jesus shortly after he lived knew more about him than people who wrote later is in any case not a very good argument. Today we know more about the life of Napoleon than any of his contemporaries, simply because we've been able to create a synthesis.
@UltraAar
2 ай бұрын
Yes 100 percent
@extjfr
2 ай бұрын
Of course not. That does not make Jesus a mythical figure, but still... Jesus grew in importance after his death, so when he was alive, not so many people thought it would be important to write about him. Alexander conquered a huge empire and his generals kept power after him, how would it be possible that people then consider these events not worthy of being written?
@treystevenson9872
2 ай бұрын
I’ll add that even if Alexander the Great is more documented than Jesus it is irrelevant because God inspired the holy scriptures just how He wanted them to every jot and tittle. The Bible is also the most purchased book in all of human history.
@epicofatrahasis3775
2 ай бұрын
Did "God" inspire the Israelites to borrow from and modify the myths of their *older* surrounding religions and cultures to craft their own myths? I recommend you look into it. ----------------------------------‐---------------------- *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
@jaclo3112
2 ай бұрын
That explains why the bible is such a poorly written book and why there is fat more reliable and verifiable evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great then there is for the mythical magical jesus demigod.
@probablynotmyname8521
2 ай бұрын
This is a false dichotomy, whether one is better attested than the other tells you nothing about whether either existed. How well the yeti is attested tells me nothing about whether Santa exists.
@brock2k1
2 ай бұрын
Yeah, well, that's just, like your opinion, man.
@PhokenKuul
2 ай бұрын
This is the first time I've heard this claim about Alexander the Great and Jesus. But I have heard many times, and it seems fairly valid, that we have just as much evidence for Socrates as we have for Jesus.
@The-Doubters-Diary
2 ай бұрын
But Socrates wasn't claiming to be god. Nor did his followers claim he was god, making his existence more likely
@PhokenKuul
2 ай бұрын
@@The-Doubters-Diary I don't see how this topic was about claiming to be god, but no, claiming to be a god doesn't make you more or less likely to have existed. Alexander the Great himself claimed to be a god as did some Roman emperors. And if you've watched any of this creator's videos you would know that Jesus never claimed to be god and neither did any of his immediate followers. Those were later innovations.
@tbishop4961
2 ай бұрын
I'm so curious if Ruslan will see this. I like the guy, but wowser he drank a whole pitcher of the kool-aid
@RobertSmith-gx3mi
2 ай бұрын
Kind of unfair and completely misses a very huge point by comparing an alleged supernatural deity asserted to have risen from the dead and walked on water with a mortal man who did mortal man type things.
@jeffmacdonald9863
2 ай бұрын
Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus. Miraculous stories are told about him. Historical scholars claim that there is sufficient evidence to accept that a historical figure of Jesus is most likely at the root of the origin of Christianity. A preacher whose followers believed him to be the Messiah and who was crucified. Whose followers then believed he'd been raised from the dead and into heaven. Scholars do not generally argue the evidence shows those miraculous claims to be true, just that people believed them and based the religion on them.
@homophilosofikus8215
2 ай бұрын
And there`s nothing "supernatural" about Alexander the great
@RichardNixon16
2 ай бұрын
I love the grounded reality of this channel!!! *Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $15,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD* ❤️
@KimberlyJones819
2 ай бұрын
I feel sympathy and empathy for our country, low income earners are suffering to survive, and I appreciate Wayne. You've helped my family with your advice. imagine investing $30,000 and receiving $95,460 after 28 days of trading.
@Mark_11798
2 ай бұрын
I'm in a similar situation where should I look to increase income? Do you have any advice? What did you do ? Thank you
@OliviaBuffett
2 ай бұрын
Well I engage in nice side hustles like inves'ting, and the good thing is I do it with one one of the best(Michael Wayne), he's really good!
@RonaldButler019
2 ай бұрын
Did someone just mention Mr Wayne!? Damn! You just made my day; what a coincidence.. I've worked with him for over 2years and I can tell how good he is
@Jake61982
2 ай бұрын
It's great to see you guys talking about Michael Wayne, This man changed the game for me. Good Man ❤️
@benjamintrevino325
2 ай бұрын
Alexander the Great is referenced in the Bible. As for Jesus, it seems to me the Book would contain a lot more about and from him than Paul. Something like 1500 words attributed to Jesus and half the NT attributed to Paul, and half of that may not have even been written by Paul. Too many plot holes.
@FernLovebond
2 ай бұрын
And can we caveat by noting that Jesus never wrote a thing? All these accounts are decades after the fact, third hand, hand copied translations of lost originals, with thousands of discrepancies between them. The Jesus character isn't among the authors.
@jeffmacdonald9863
2 ай бұрын
@@FernLovebond Not really surprising that a rural preacher didn't write anything in the couple years of his ministry before he was killed. Or that a religion that spread at first mostly among the poor and uneducated wasn't well documented from the start. It does make it hard to determine what really happened and what the founder actually taught, but it's not evidence against there actually having been a Jesus. And all our texts from that period are "hand copied translations of lost originals". Paper/parchment almost never lasts over millennia and since there are always more copies than the one original, the chance of an original being preserved through freak accident is vanishingly small. Even texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't thought to be originals, though they are ancient.
@FernLovebond
2 ай бұрын
@jeffmacdonald9863 while I appreciate what you're saying, I am not claiming there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, or asserting that only originals are valid, just noting the things I did as further consideration that the texts are unreliable. I have little expectation of the reliability of any such texts, but I've only ever had one particular set of crappy old writing pushed on me, used as justification for terrible behavior, or attempted to be legislated into law. If we can reasonably dismiss The Oddessey as a rhetorical device for determining health care or marital regulations, then I think it's reasonable to dismiss the pack of myths with all the misogyny and narcissism made deity for the same.
@welcometonebalia
2 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@JosephNobles
2 ай бұрын
Humanity is in possession of the mortal remains of Alexander's father, Philip II of Macedon. That's not Alexander himself, but that's pretty dang close.
@robinharwood5044
2 ай бұрын
But his real father was Zeus.
@vmonk2
2 ай бұрын
Yep, the discoverer of Philip's tomb was my lecturer
@jestingrabbit
2 ай бұрын
The man has strings of cities named after him stretching from the mediterranean into afghanistan ffs.
@retromacman620
2 ай бұрын
Wasn't terribly impressed with Case for Christ, even reading it as a Christian. The guy was a Journalist... seems like he brought some spin on his envidence...
@harryhagman6063
2 ай бұрын
DAN REALLY WANTS MENS TALES ❓️👍👀
@chaiman3761
2 ай бұрын
The alpha course makes the same claim about jesus.
@antinatalope
2 ай бұрын
@maklelan I was watching one of your videos on the KJV, and was wondering what your favourite translation is? Sorry, I probably should have posted this on that video.
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
I think he did a video or two on translations he trusts. Check back a few months.
@antinatalope
2 ай бұрын
@@lysanamcmillan7972 I'll take a look. Thank you. Update: I found it, oddly enough in my feed. New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha.
@StannisHarlock
2 ай бұрын
What is a biography, anyway? If there is a difference between mythology and a biography, then there is no reason to believe there is any biography for Jesus at all. Otherwise, I should ask my cousin how his eighth grade biography on the life of Zeus is going. So far as I can tell, there are zero biographies about humans who weren't born of a union between two other humans. If they want to discuss a biography of the real Jesus, they should start with the truth, that they have no idea who his father was.
@jeffmacdonald9863
2 ай бұрын
Why wouldn't they start with "Son of Joseph"? Or like Mark, ignore his birth and early years as basically unimportant and probably not well known and focus on his time preaching, his message and his death.
@StannisHarlock
2 ай бұрын
@@jeffmacdonald9863 interestingly enough, there are two genealogies for Jesus in the gospels. One says Joseph's father was called Heli, the other says Joseph's father was called Jacob. If they can't even agree on who the adopted grandfather of Jesus was, they have their work cut out for them.
@jeffmacdonald9863
2 ай бұрын
@@StannisHarlock Sure. Both of those are invented for slightly differing theological reasons. Along with basically everything else in the birth narratives. This was actually not uncommon in ancient biographies - to at least some degree. Manufacturing childhood stories and birth circumstances to reflect both the character and importance of the person.
@user-kv1po2dm5j
2 ай бұрын
I think this creator had good intentions, they just executed them poorly. Realistically speaking, you can’t compare a literal conqueror to a lower-class Jew from a small town. If I’m not mistaken, a better example to compare the historicity of Jesus to another figure is Pythagoras.
@boboak9168
2 ай бұрын
It would be cherry picking to compare to Pythagoras. Great things are claimed for Jesus. Things that mean we should expect a higher standard of evidence and verifiability than even that available for the most highly attested person still alive today. But instead of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient standard of evidence we get a very human endeavour that was relatively poor even for it’s period and place.
@MarcosElMalo2
2 ай бұрын
I’m not convinced his intentions are sincere, but I’m not convinced his intentions are relevant. He’s a horseshit salesman. He’s going to smell like hkrseshjt all day and all night, everything he touches will get hkrseshjt on it, and hkrseshjt fills his mind. The last thing you want to do is eat anything he is selling, even if he personally believes that hkrseshjt is tasty and nutritious.
@travis1240
2 ай бұрын
Yeah I mean you can argue that there was a very unpopular Jewish preacher that got mythologized to the point the original was lost and maybe you're right but nobody really cares if that Jesus existed. This creator is saying that the God/Jesus in his mind really existed, which is obviously false.
@rimmersbryggeri
2 ай бұрын
Isnt even John the Baptist better attested than jesus? Also cortinthians is a pretty bad place to go since paul doesnt claim to have met jesus "in the flesh". Clutching at straws would be an over stetement for these guys.
@CryptoSurfer
2 ай бұрын
So Dan, what think ye of Christ?
@larrywest42
2 ай бұрын
How sad it must be, to have such little faith *in one's own religion✻* that they have to resort to outright falsehoods ... I guess they get clout or clicks or money by telling the most gullible people what they want to hear, which puts them in a class with people scamming flat-earthers or "sovereign citizens" or fake Moorish-Americans or Q or whatever the hoax _du jour_ is. ✻ It's my assumption that they actually kinda believe in Christianity and are not full-on scammers.
@UltraAar
2 ай бұрын
There are more books written about Jesus compared to any other person in history. There are more songs about Jesus compared to any other person in history.
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
More about love, sex, and death in both cases as well. What is your point?
@robinharwood5044
2 ай бұрын
Have you counted them? Or are you just repeating something you heard? And if you are impressed by popularity, check the name “Muhammad”.
@UltraAar
2 ай бұрын
@@lysanamcmillan7972 false
@UltraAar
2 ай бұрын
@@robinharwood5044 Who has been written about more than Jesus? Give me your reasoning why they've been written about more
@robinharwood5044
2 ай бұрын
@@UltraAar So you haven’t counted the books and are just repeating something you were told. I haven’t counted, so I’ll give a couple of guesses. 1. Confucius taught long before Jesus, and in a literate society. It seems possible that more has been written about him and his teachings than about Jesus. Consult libraries in China, Korea, and Japan to find out. 2. Buddha taught long before Jesus. It seems possible that more has been written about him and his teachings than about Jesus. Consult libraries in India, Tibet, Nepal, Myanmar, China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Sri Lanka, Singapore , and Cambodia to find out. Or just keep on repeating unsubstantiated claims.
@MrHazz111
2 ай бұрын
It should be noted that because of the movement he spawned, Jesus is very well attested for a figure who shouldn't be. Alexander and Ceasar are giant earth-shaking figures who ruled over their respective societies. Yeshu' on the other hand was another apocalyptic preacher who got crucified like so many others. The fact that we have books and traditions and a world-shaking religion that followed is historically remarkable.
@sdlorah6450
2 ай бұрын
At his first coming, Jesus lived as a humble and poor man who was an itinerant teacher with a small (relatively small?) group of followers. Amazing, then, that much of the world since his life, death, and resurrection from the dead count time itself around him. Not a general or king or noble, yet his life has had impact around the world for 2,000 years. Dr. Titus Kennedy' book Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels is a great read. Talks that he gives on the subject, likewise.
@epicofatrahasis3775
2 ай бұрын
*"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.* Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."* *As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* Also, look up: *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"* *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
@jaclo3112
2 ай бұрын
We mark our time in days and months after other gods. So I'm guessing you also think this is evidence they are also real?
@Merrick
2 ай бұрын
An apologist claim that is literally laughable.
@johnrichardson7629
2 ай бұрын
No
@andrewericjamesclark6808
2 ай бұрын
Nice shirt of my favorite kid shows. Too bad it still doesn't make you a Bible believer. Get saved please.
@Sewblon
2 ай бұрын
So when Bart D. Ehrman said that Jesus is the best documented figure in the ancient world, he was wrong.
@ANCIENTWARRI0R
2 ай бұрын
Hi, I read a lot of Bart Ehrman’s stuff but I don’t recall him saying this. Can you provide a link or the location of where he said this. Thanks.
@epicofatrahasis3775
2 ай бұрын
“In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!” - Bart Ehrman
@Sewblon
2 ай бұрын
@@ANCIENTWARRI0R He said it in an interview with Andrew M. Henry.
@Sewblon
2 ай бұрын
@@epicofatrahasis3775 I never heard Bart Ehrman say that. Even if he did, it isn't true, Because Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus in Antiquities "“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”
@RD-jc2eu
2 ай бұрын
@@Sewblon Except that the passage you quote was both altered and was referring to a different "Jesus." The alteration was the addition of "who was called Christ," an interpolated phrase added by a later (Christian) scribe. The addition could well have been an innocent mistake, done to add clarification (a common practice in those days when copying and recopying texts). The problem is that no such "clarification" was needed. "Jesus" is mentioned again just a bit further down in the text, as the man who is appointed (by the king) as the new high priest of the temple, replacing the high priest who was making trouble for James (the brother of "Jesus"). In other words, this was all part of a political dispute within the Jewish religious leadership, and the guy who was gunning for James (he actually intended to have James and his followers executed) has the game turned around on him and gets replaced by the brother ("Jesus") of the guy he was trying to take down. (The name that we today represent as "Jesus" was not an uncommon one in 1st century Judea, as the story of Barrabas also indicates.) How do we know the suspect phrase was added to Josephus' text later? Because Origen, the first true theologian of the Christian Church, takes issue with Josephus for not "believing" in Jesus or mentioning him in his history. We know that Origen was well familiar with Josephus' "Antiquities" because he quoted from it several times. Why would Origen have taken Josephus to task if, right there in the text of the "Antiquities," Josephus had said, "Jesus, who was called Christ"? Because it wasn't there when Origen was reading the text. Origen died in the mid 3rd century, which means the "who was called Christ" was added AFTER that time. Josephus never truly mentions the "Jesus" who comes to be referred to in later times as the "Christ."
@thescoobymike
2 ай бұрын
Chris Distefano is a great comedian but knows nothing about this issue at all
@gritch66
2 ай бұрын
Getting back to your trauma healing goal, as far as the trauma of an homosexual boy of homophobic father can be reactivated on a daily basis in a mostly homophobic society, and on my side still in a pretty poor but impoving familly and friends stability, then i can thank you for probably the best possible job already achieved. Or still need more??
@IamAnIdiot35
2 ай бұрын
Without lies, christianity dies.
@GoD1014
2 ай бұрын
The editing on this is a bit much
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
Found the red-piller.
@yourturningpoint777
2 ай бұрын
If there is a video that is pro Jesus, this guy gonna come sprinting at you with some argument
@FernLovebond
2 ай бұрын
Tell me you actually don't pay attention to what Dan explicitly states without saying...
@doncamp1150
2 ай бұрын
Okay. The comparison with Alexander is not a good one. But really, who cares? The data we have for Jesus considered without comparisons is very good. And it is dated closer to Jesus than the 40-50y ears date given here. We have Paul, of course who writes entirely before any of the Gospels. He provides a good amount of information about Jesus. See the compilation in _Jesus and the Logic of History_ pp. 57-58. He was not attempting to write a narrative of Jesus' life; that was already known by those to whom he wrote. He only references certain facts to make his point. We have Mark which is usually considered the first Gospel and written sometime before the mid-60s. But that was still later than the material he uses. The largest portion of his narrative is the oral gospel Peter taught which is the oral gospel with some variations the Apostles taught from early in the 30s. I need not remind you that Peter was an eyewitness of Jesus. And we have in all three of the synoptic gospels the words of Jesus that were translated into Greek prior to the writing of any of the Gospels including Mark and by someone other than the Gospel writers. (The style and grammar and syntax which is unlike any of the Gospel narrators tells that story.) That oral gospel is pretty good documentation of Jesus' life along with his deeds and words. biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/09/according-to-mark.html Some question the validity of oral transmission. It is the problem of the telephone game. But the fact is the oral transmission was not a matter telling one person who tells another and so on. It was the Apostles who told the story over and over again. That constant rehearsal and the correction provided by multiple Apostles who all were telling the same story means that the story was pretty much the same from early on to as long as the Apostles were telling it. There are variation, of course. That is to be expected as these eyewitnesses included their own perspective in their telling. (There are fewer variations in the core of the deeds and words of Jesus.) Nevertheless, there is nothing that messes with the coherence and unity of the oral gospel as transcribed in the three synoptics. Bottom line: we have good documentation of Jesus life, deeds, and words.
@lysanamcmillan7972
2 ай бұрын
Bottom line: you're wrong.
@doncamp1150
2 ай бұрын
@@lysanamcmillan7972 I'll entertain any opinion that is specific and backed by data and reason.
@Greyz174
2 ай бұрын
It is important for the people who ignorantly say stuff like this to hold the L for a bit regardless of whether there is further discussion to be had
@robinharwood5044
2 ай бұрын
We don’t know who wrote any of the Gospels. (But it wasn’t me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.) Scholars produce lots of arguments about the question, but none of them are totally convincing. Eusebius tells us that Papias wrote that John the Elder said that Mark wrote what Peter said. We don’t know that the writing Papias is referring to is the Gospel we have. He is quoted as saying that Mark didn’t write it in any order. The Gospel is an orderly narrative. And it presents Peter in rather bad light. (We don’t know who John the Elder was, either. Eusebius argues that he wasn’t the apostle.) We do have some fragments of the Gospel according to Peter. Everyone now thinks it is a forgery. We also have the Acts of Peter, which is a piece of fantasy fiction. Early Christian writers produced a lot of forgery and fiction. They had no concern truth. We cannot trust them. That speculation about oral transmission is interesting.
@epicofatrahasis3775
2 ай бұрын
Paul never met Jesus. *Paul (c. 50 AD)* The earliest account is in Paul's first letter to the Jesus sect community he founded in Corinth, written some time in the 50s AD: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 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. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1Cor 15:3-8) The first thing worth noting here is that fact that Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus "appeared". *Both his references to his encountering the risen Jesus and the three (slightly different) description of this encounter in Acts all make it clear that this was a vision - a light from heaven and a disembodied voice - not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life.* The verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one - ὤφθη meaning "appeared, was seen" - in each case. He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. Paul then goes on to scold some of the Corinthians for saying there was not going to be a general resurrection of the dead - as already noted above, this idea was not universally accepted by all Jews and it seems to have become disputed in the Corinthian community of the Jesus sect. Paul asks "if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (v. 12) and goes on to call Jesus' resurrection "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", ie the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection. He goes on to address the question of whether this coming resurrection will involve the rising of physical bodies and says in response *"How foolish!".* Then he goes on to explain that the coming general resurrection will not be physical but involve *"spiritual bodies".* If Jesus' resurrection is the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection of the dead, therefore, it is clear that for Paul his rising did not involve a physical body. This is why Paul's references to and insistence on the fact of the rising of Jesus makes no mention of the evidence of a physical revivification of his dead body that features in some of the later accounts: the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven. *For Paul, at this early stage of the development of the story, the risen Jesus is a spiritual concept involving visions, not physical encounters.* *Answer* What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora Mark was certainly not written before the mid-60's. Look up: *"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* The gospels are not eyewitness accounts and the authors are clearly making things up. Look up: *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
@jamiesray
2 ай бұрын
I love you Dan but do you know this is basically falling upon deaf ears? The people who see this on Joe Rogan are being told what they want to hear, and someone saying it is enough
@FernLovebond
2 ай бұрын
Isn't it great that those are not the only outcomes, though? I mean, you and I are here, Dan has tens of thousands of accounts following his materials on TikTok and KZitem, to say nothing of his professional scholarly work... Seems like those who refuse to see the facts are getting the garbage they want instead.
@crow-dont-know
2 ай бұрын
Pfft. Jesus is better attested than John Lennon.
@residuejunkie4321
2 ай бұрын
*This is one of the most iconic verses in the bible and anyone who doesn't see that it's been changed obviously never read their's much and evidently ''bible scholars'' are included!* Isaiah 11:6 as it is today *“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”* AS IT WAS: Isaiah 11:6 *"Then the lion shall lie down with the lamb, and the bear shall eat grass like the ox, and the child shall play on the hole of the asp, and nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain." (KJV).* *What Jesus and our Father have spoken will never change, their promises are still good and our prayers are still answered! Hallelujah!!! But as impossible as this sounds, like so many of the true stories in scripture, our bibles have all been supernaturally changed by Satan in the last several years, right in our homes, in the fulfillment of prophecy. It's being done to prepare for the reign of the antichrist and the extermination of all Christians. All languages and all translations have been changed with black magic along with concordances, encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books, the ancient Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls have been changed!* *I'm 71, was saved when I was 10, and have read only the exact same copy of the King James bible my church gave me in 1961. (This does not mean I was a King James onlyist bit now I'm glad I never read other versions or I might not have noticed the changes as easily) I had memorized many scriptures from it through the years. Then in 2014 I started seeing changes in it that I couldn't explain. I have an exceptional memory, I remember my 3rd birthday party and can draw a picture of my baby stroller. I had never owned a computer and had never heard of the Mandela Effect back then. But after finding out about this phenomenon a year and a half later when I was given my first computer, I finally found out why I had been noticing all of the oddities in my bible. I then started diligently studying what should actually be called the Daniel 7:25 effect. That's where God said He would give the antichrist the power to do this. We're seeing the fulfillment of end time prophecies happening SUPERNATURALLY! This is some of the "lying signs and wonders" in 2nd Thessalonians chapter two!* *God said in the end of days, (NOW!) that He would send us a famine for hearing His words in Amos **8:11** and that He would give the antichrist the ability to do this in Daniel 7:25. In Daniel 12:4 He told him to seal his book until the end days. He told John **_not_** to seal his book because the end time is at hand in Revelation 22:10. One of the Greek definitions of seal in Strongs concordance is “to protect from Satan”. He also told us to “write His words in our hearts”, which meant memorize, if not word for word at least the essence of what was written, because He knew this was going to happen. He also warned us in second Thessalonians chapter two, that He would send a strong delusion to all that didn’t receive the love of the truth. I'm convinced that this is at least part of it! (not seeing the changes) The only scary thing about this is that maybe 1% of all Christians have noticed any of the **_thousands_** of changes yet!* *God commanded us to "prove all things", and people **_better_** obey Him, especially on this subject. I urge you to research this. There are many brothers and sisters making videos about the changes with more proof of what was originally written and I have lots more about this in my playlist which you can 👉 find by clicking on my Lion and Lamb profile picture, or by typing into KZitem PROOF OF BIBLE CHANGE RESIDUE JUNKIE.* 👈 *I've continued to study scripture by learning what Satan has been changing. If we don't have internet some day, or YT censors **_all_** truth, we'll only have hard copies of the bible that **_Satan_** wants us to read. At that point, Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled where it says we won't be able to find God's words anymore!* *_May God bless all who read this with eyes to see this proof of the validity and accuracy of God's prophetic word, incredible faith strengthener and how close we are to our Saviour's return!!!!_* ❤✝️💪 P.S. After people have taken all of the required 💉's, they will apply a quantum dot invisible tattoo to their head or hand, but anyone who has had just one has a bluetooth mac # that can be read by any smart phone and when you walk through the deal at an airport they know if you have it. The no buying or selling is happening incrementally and will be complete when cash is abolished and worship can be defined as "to fear, obey and trust in someone or something" which is what they are doing with the Beast System and the Image of the Beast, (NWO and TV!). They also now have triple helix DNA, are no longer human and if they have children they won't be human either! Yes, this absolutely is it, and👉 if you write me at the address on my about page👈 I'll send you 17 _shocking_ films that will PROVE it to anyone who has the courage to watch them.*
@deprogrammershepherd1234
2 ай бұрын
🎯💯Praise YHWH!
@michaelanderson4849
2 ай бұрын
Nurse...nurse! He's out again.
@Aldrnari956
2 ай бұрын
I really hope that was a copy/paste job. I’d hate to think the OP missed out on any time he normally spends sniffing glue to write all that out.
@digitaljanus
2 ай бұрын
So as long as the bear is eating grass, you should probably go out and touch some.
@zackzimmer7167
2 ай бұрын
What in the Reddit copy and paste is this..
@cman04
2 ай бұрын
The memorization that the ancient hebrews did would only be nonsensical if there were inaccuracies or inconsistencies found in their oral transmissions . You are the biggest wolf in sheep's clothing I have ever seen on youtube.
@pansepot1490
2 ай бұрын
How would you 1. find evidence that that amount of oral transmission occurred? 2. prove that there were no inaccuracies nor inconsistencies during transmission? The only way to prove that is by audio recordings. Good luck with that! Furthermore we have written evidence that written text was neither immune from copying mistakes nor from intentional alterations, on what basis should we take for granted that oral transmission was faultless? Trust me bro?
@cman04
2 ай бұрын
@@pansepot1490 because much of the oral translations were eventually written down, and by more than one author, and even though the authors didn't share notes, what they wrote down was overall identical. But there are some books of the Bible who don't have that luxury, like Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. It is agreed by most scholars that these were likely written based on oral transmission. While not everything has or can be verified, much of what has been shared in these texts have been confirmed through archeological and other historical evidence. So then the question for you should be, if oral traditions have been found to accurately describe geography, history, and culture, then is it reasonable to believe that they can be accepted as generally accurate?
@JopJio
2 ай бұрын
Not true at all. The Ot was forgotten and corrupted and later "reestablished" by Esra the scribe. If the memorization was so great, Esra wouldn't have been necessary. Jews have no reliable oral transmission or tradition. And archeologists have shown that Judaism started much later than the tradition claims.
@JopJio
2 ай бұрын
The memorization was poor. The whole OT was forgotten and disappeared according to early sources. This shows there is no such thing as reliable oral tradition. Esra "re established" our OT aka invented it.
@JopJio
2 ай бұрын
@@cman04 your argument doesn't make sense because we have different ots😂 compare the dss, samaritan, the many lxx or the Mt or the targums etc. And these are all young sources and we expect to have had many more versions .the earlier we get. And again, the whole Ot was forgotten and "re established" aka invented by Esra
@apachewraith
2 ай бұрын
The predator in us is praying there's no God 😂
@emirmusinovic7375
2 ай бұрын
No idea why, but I've noticed that more utter rubbish you speak, the faster you speak it. Probably in a hope you skip over the points so nobody can coherently follow you. And these two guys are definitely at it. Almost like 78 RPM vinyl.
@digitaljanus
2 ай бұрын
Look up "gish gallop"--it's an old and very well-established rhetorical tactic, popularized by young-Earth creationists, of unleashing a firehose of bullshit so your debater cannot respond to them all.
@mervynsoo8353
2 ай бұрын
Like Jordan Peterson😅@@digitaljanus
@jeffreyp1855
2 ай бұрын
If there were that much proof for Jesus, I would not be an atheist/agnostic.
@jeffmacdonald9863
2 ай бұрын
Evidence for Jesus's existence isn't evidence for him being the Son of God - or for the miracles or the resurrection or any of that. Just that there was a preacher who got crucified that started it all.
Пікірлер: 356