Hello, everyone!
Cosmological here.
I'd first like to thank Genetically Modified Skeptic for having me on his 10,000 subscriber
livestream.
I had a really good time looking at the horrors of tumblr with him and Rachel Oates, and my
subscriber count jumped up a whole bunch thanks to those of you who came to see my videos.
So thank you, and I hope you stick around.
That said, let's get into the video.
I'm responding once again to Impact Video Ministries.
This time, they're going to tell us how to disprove Christianity in one easy step.
So, let's go!
[So Christianity is a pretty big religion and a lot of people tend to believe in God
and the Bible.
But have you ever thought of disproving Christianity?]
I mean, yes, I have thought of the concept of disproving Christianity, but I don't see
the actual reason why anyone should have to.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim so nobody has to "disprove" Christianity
until compelling evidence is presented in favor of it.
[There's people who believe the Bible is false, and they give their reasons why.
But, if you wanted to take a shortcut in destroying the Christian faith, the first thing you'd
have to do is prove that Jesus Christ's resurrection was false.]
I'm going to have to repeat myself a few times, aren't I?
This ultimately will be the main problem with the video.
As I said, the burden of proof is not on me to show that Jesus did not resurrect, it's
on you to show that he did.
[The resurrection of Jesus was the central truth of Christianity, and even Paul, a New
Testament writer for many books of the Bible, says in 1st Corinthians 15:17 :
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."
The word "futile" here means worthless and unprofitable.
Meaning, if anyone disproved the resurrection, it would result in disproving the faith of
all Christians.
Their faith would be worthless.]
How is somebody supposed to disprove something for which there is no evidence?
If there's no evidence to discredit, how do I discredit this idea?
That's why the burden of proof is on you.
[But is it possible to disprove the resurrection?]
I'm gonna go with no.
It is not possible to disprove an account of a poorly recorded historical or possibly
mythical figure dying and then coming back to life.
This is mostly because we don't have any direct access to the past.
But of course, I don't have to do this any more than you have to disprove Muhammad splitting
the moon in half.
It's not the duty of the one rejecting a claim to disprove it.
[Christians actually claim that Jesus died and that he rose again from the dead.
Let's check out some alternative theories (lol) to see if they can stand the test and
prove Christianity to be false and worthless.]
Wait, so we're not giving the resurrection idea any scrutiny?
You're treating that as though it's the default position and assuming if nobody can come up
with an alternative explanation that holds up, it must be true, but that's just not how
it works.
[So maybe someone stole the body then!
That would make sense.
Jesus didn't really come back from the dead; someone took the body!]
Okay, so right off the bat, we're already assuming there was a body to steal in the
first place, which is not necessarily true.
I will, as with last time, be generous enough to grant you a historical Jesus for the sake
of the argument throughout this video.
But, for the record, the evidence there seems pretty shabby to me.
[So did the Romans steal the body?
First off, the Romans would have no reason to steal Christ's body.
Their main motive was to keep the Jews at bay and in control.
They sought to keep peace in Palestine.
Jesus's missing body caused all sorts of commotions that could have easily been avoided if the
Romans just uncovered the body they "stole".
So how about the Jewish religious leaders?
They could have stole it!
Well, these leaders would have no motive in stealing the body, since that would only stir
up the Christian movement.
They killed Jesus to shut him up, so why would they steal his body?
Jesus's disciples were preaching, saying, "Jesus is risen!"
If the religious leaders had the body, they could have said, "We have his body, he didn't
really rise again, and be quiet."
If that happened, Christianity would have stopped then and there.
But you also have Jesus's disciples and followers.
It was them!
They stole the body!
But this doesn't make sense either.
History tells us that all of Jesus's disciples except Judas Iscariot and John died for their
faith.]
Did they, now?
That's a pretty dubious claim.
I'm going to use a clip from a Paulologia video on the subject because he addresses
this very succinctly.
{Each one of these guys is willing to go to their deaths.}
(Still, it seems to be a convincing argument.
But, do we have any reason to believe that the disciples actually died defending their
faith in any way?
Do we have any evidence that any of them could have saved themselves by recanting?
Do we know that they didn't recant?)
{The Bible only records the death of one of them and hints at the death of another one.
So James the brother of John is killed by Herod.}
(That's James, son of Zebedee.
Here's the verse.
Nothing about staying true to his story.
Nothing about an offer to live if he changed his story.)
{But Church tradition tells us that other ones were crucified, were stoned, boiled,
impaled and flayed, which is skinned alive, beheaded or hung upside down by iron hooks
through their ankles because of the belief and the conviction that we know Jesus died.}
(Church tradition is how we know this?
Let's take a quick look at each, then.
John is said to have died of old age.
No martyrdom there.
Second century book The Acts of Peter from a hundred years later, which presumably didn't
make it into the Bible for a good reason, had Peter crucified.
The church labeled second century Acts of Andrew as heretical, but that's the source
for Andrews famous X-shaped cross death.
The upside down hooks Tim talks about- from the 4th century, four hundred years after
the fact- story from Acts of Philip.
Now, in that same story, Philip's 40 days of torture is ordered by Jesus himself as
a punishment.
No recanting necessary.
There are at least three different conflicting stories about Bartholomew, though the official
Catholic position is that his death is uncertain.
If you believe the Acts of Thomas, Thomas was speared in India.
But then you'd also have to accept that Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus.
Parent Trap, anyone?
Matthias' crucifixion fate Isn't revealed until the 14th century, though it was contradicted
with beheading in the 17th century.
Catholic.org lists Matthew as dying a natural death.
Acts of Thaddeus has Jude dying of natural causes.
Western tradition has Simon the zealot martyred, while Eastern tradition has him dying naturally.
Proper historian Josephus mentions a James stoned by Pharisees, but most apologists would
rather assign this story to James, the brother of Jesus to help with that Jesus historicity.
The church does not accept the source documents for the martyr accounts as accurate because
of their other apocryphal claims.
If we accept the parts we like, why not others?)
{But we saw him again, and I don't care if you're gonna impale me, I don't care if you're
gonna hang me upside down by the hooks or ankles, he was alive and I saw him!}
{Can we really argue that the Apostles died because of their belief?
We have no first century evidence for any of them, and what we know has most of them
dying naturally.
Please investigate this for yourself.)
[It was believed John died of old age and Judas, well, he was hanging around.]
Are you sure?
I heard he fell down and burst open.
Oh, wait, those are both accounts in the Bible!
[So if Jesus's body really was stolen by his disciples, then why would these other ten
men die horrible deaths for their faith?
Some were crucified, stabbed, hung, beheaded, one had his head clubbed, some were stoned,
and no they weren't high.]
How do you- how do you know they weren't high?
They could have been stoned while stoned.
[So, if these disciples all died for this resurrected Jesus, why would they all be willing
to die for a lie?]
People die for lies.
That's not uncommon.
Spies do it to keep secrets hidden and to maintain certain illusions.
Sometimes people get themselves and their entire lives deeply entrenched in a lie so
it becomes their whole life.
They could even start to believe it if they were living it out.
[It would make more sense for them to save themselves.
On top of that, after Jesus died, all the cowardly disciples were hiding because they
were all freaked out about dying, too.
They were in no condition to fight the Roman soldiers that were, by the way, guarding the
body of Jesus.
So since Jesus' body couldn't have been stolen there has to be another explanation.]
Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster used his noodly appendages to reanimate Jesus.
Or, maybe the story is legend and there wasn't any empty tomb at all.
You tell me which of those two sounds more likely.
[Let's look at the wrong tomb theory.
This theory says that the woman who reported the body missing mistakenly went to the wrong
tomb that morning.
They freaked out, and were all like, "Jesus rose again!"
Thus, Christianity was born.
But this wouldn't make much sense, because the Roman guards protecting Jesus's body would
have produced the body of Jesus before Christianity became a big deal.]
You know, I've noticed you're relying quite a bit on what you think people would have
done in certain circumstances.
I don't think you're making any outlandish assumptions about motivation and practicality,
but keep in mind, you're basing a lot of these ideas about what these guards and others would
have done on essentially nothing.
Who's to say they would have produced the body?
Maybe they didn't think Christianity would grow very big.
Maybe they wouldn't have thought to do that.
Maybe they were secretly colluding with the Christians.
[How about the hallucination theory?
Those crazy Christians were all hallucinating, those religious nuts!
😂😂😂
This theory claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions
or hallucinations.
But this theory is contrary to psychological principles governing the occurrence of hallucinations.]
I don't think so.
Perfectly healthy and sane people can experience hallucinations, and group hallucinations are
a thing.
And even though I find this explanation unlikely, I think a group hallucination, a real phenomenon
known to occur, is more likely than a dead dude coming back to life, a phenomenon not
known to occur except in fiction.
[According to first Corinthians 15:6, Jesus appeared to over 500 people at one time.]
Here's where we get to the biggest problem with Impact.
Like in the evidence for God video, they expect me to believe that the Bible accurately records
these events.
There's no extrabiblical source for this 500 people thing.
But if I already believed the Bible and accepted that it was an accurate account, there would
be no need for these videos.
You're not going to convince any skeptics that the Bible's account is true this way.
"The Bible is right about Jesus' resurrection because in the Bible it says over 500 people
saw him resurrected!"
That is flat-out circular reasoning.
[It's not credible to think that 500 people all saw the same hallucination and then some
were willing to die for it.]
You're right, it's not.
But that's just a strawman.
Point me to the person that accepts the 500 people figure, but not the resurrection.
[Well, maybe it's the swoon theory!
The swoon theory states that Jesus never died.
He merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood.
Everyone thought he was dead, but later he resuscitated and the disciples thought it
to be a resurrection.]
I mean, again, I don't think any of the ideas you're presenting in this video are definitely
what happened, because I don't see any credible evidence for them, much like the resurrection.
But an unconscious guy getting mistaken for dead in first century Palestine seems much
more likely than a dead guy getting a one-up.
[But, in Mark 15:44 it states that a Centurion checked to see if Jesus was dead.]
Once again, relying on the Bible.
How do you not see the obvious flaw in this argumentation?
This information is coming from the same book that makes all the fantastic claims that I'm
skeptical about, and it was written after the fact.
Do you think I just trust everything in the Bible except the magic stuff, like Thomas
Jefferson?
[A Centurion was a Roman soldier who was in charge of one hundred other soldiers.
He was a leader in the great and all-powerful Roman Empire who was trained to kill and subdue
all who opposed Rome.
Crucifixion was capital punishment, and if the soldier was wrong in determining if Jesus
was dead, the soldier would have severe consequences.
Mistakes weren't allowed.]
One thing you failed to mention is that this Centurion guy appears a few times in Mark
15.
The first time, he sees Jesus in his final moments and says,
"Truly this man was the son of God!"
So this Centurion was apparently swayed from Roman polytheism to Christianity.
That could have a major effect on his motivations.
And he might be persuaded to tell Pilate that Jesus was dead no matter what.
It says in Mark 15:44 that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus should have already died.
So it might even be plausible that Jesus faked his death and the Centurion was just colluding
with him.
Now, do I think this is what happened?
No, I don't.
But if you can use Bible passages to debunk strawmen after shifting the burden of proof,
then I can use Bible passages to defend a dumb strawman.
[Jesus did die, and he was even stabbed with a spear up his side to guarantee his death.
There's also the moved body theory, which says that the body was moved by the authorities
to a different tomb.
But that doesn't make any sense, either.
If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why didn't they explain
that they took it?
This is a weak theory.
Next!]
I agree, there is no credible historical evidence to support this idea, but again, there is
also none for the resurrection, so it's a moot point.
[The relocated body theory.
This one says that the tomb of Jesus was empty, not because he resurrected, but because the
body was simply relocated.
Thus the disciples mistakenly believed that he was resurrected.
This relocation hypothesis gains support from the fact that reburial was common in ancient
Palestine.
However Jewish tradition differs.
Jewish tradition was to bury a body for one year, and then after the flesh deteriorated
and only the bones remained, they would then remove the bones and place them in an ossuary.]
And so why would Joseph of Arimathea have placed him in a cave instead of burying him?
Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Romans who wanted to stifle the religion to have
put Jesus in some sort of mass grave?
Why give him a special tomb if they didn't want people thinking he was special?
[But the main problem for the relocation of the body of Jesus is the complete lack of
historical support...]
Oh, that's rich.
Please continue to complain about the lack of historical support for this idea, as opposed
to the resurrection, which you are right now trying to show is true via process of elimination
rather than presenting evidence.
[...either in biblical or non-biblical sources.]
Oh, that's right, I forgot you considered biblical sources reliable for a second there.
[And it's important to note that the empty tomb didn't convince any of the disciples
that Jesus rose again (except maybe John).
It was the appearance of Jesus that transformed the weanie disciples into brave evangelists
willing to die for their faith.]
So then what was the point of all that empty tomb strawman explanation debunking?
[And the last popular alternative to the resurrection...]
Notice how he says, "alternative to the resurrection", as though everything besides "Jesus really
was crucified and rose for the dead" is a fringe idea.
[And the last popular alternative to the resurrection is the copycat theory, which says nothing
in Christianity is original.
Jesus was just another dying and rising God in the tradition of Osiris, Mithras, Adonis,
and Dionysus.
There's plenty of other gods, religious figures, and mythology guys that died and rose again.]
That is true.
It's a very valid point.
A lot of the Jesus myths do come from and/or share many traits with earlier traditions.
[But the only problem with this view is that Jesus of Nazareth actually ate, slept, performed
miracles, died and returned to life (lol).
All of these accounts are supported by a reliable historical record.]
You didn't actually address the argument!
You just waved it away and said, "Nuh-uh!
Mine's REAL!"
What reliable historical record?
The Bible?
Really?
What's the point of this video, exactly?
You keep acting as though we should and do accept the non-magic parts of the accounts
of Jesus' life in the Bible, therefore, we should also accept the magic parts.
But I don't accept the Bible as a reliable historical source and neither do most historians.
At least not just completely at its word.
And the Gospels are especially contentious, being written decades after the supposed life
of Jesus!
So no, these accounts are not supported by a reliable historical record.
[In contrast, the dying and rising gods of the mystery religions were timeless myths
(unlike MY dying and rising god, who's totally real you guys!), repeated annually with the
changing seasons.
So, after looking at all these other theories, it looks like Christians have some solid evidence
that Jesus not only existed, but died and rose again.]
No, it doesn't!
You didn't even present any!
All you did was try to discredit some strawman explanations for the empty tomb.
That does not count as presenting evidence in favor of the resurrection.
[And if he did rise again from the dead, then it forces us to really consider Christianity.
Rising from the dead after three days is impossible.
He was beat up to the point where he was unrecognizable, whipped with his back torn open to where you
can see his spine and bowels, and then he was nailed to a cross.
You see, if you want to disprove Christianity, you have to answer to Jesus' resurrection.]
Okay, my answer is that there is no reason to believe it really happened.
You haven't presented any good evidence and I haven't seen any anywhere else.
Since the burden of proof is on you and not me, I think my position holds up.
[This isn't something you can dismiss and sweep under the rug, because if Jesus did
rise from the dead, then he is who he claimed to be, and he claimed to be God.
He claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one can come to the Father
except by him.]
If the Bible is accurate and he did claim to be God, then... still no.
I addressed this in the last video response I did to Impact.
Even if the Gospels record Jesus' life perfectly accurately, and even if he did resurrect,
that does not mean he was telling the truth about who he was.
He could have been a trickster god messing with the humans.
[Jesus claimed to be God and then proved it through his resurrection.
We all sinned, messed up, and our penalty was death and separation from God.
But Jesus died on the cross for us and to take our punishment, and he rose again so
he can be the bridge between man and God.]
Yeah, can we talk about this?
How does that make sense?
First of all, the Romans killed him in the Bible, not God.
If Jesus is God, then God is sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself, and he's doing
this via the proxy of the Romans.
What a wonderfully convoluted plan.
[You see, if you're not a Christian, you have to make a choice: either try to disprove Christianity
by thinking of some other possibility or know that Jesus really did die and rise from the
dead.]
Again with the shifting of the burden of the proof!
No, those are not the options.
The options are YOU present some real evidence, or non-believers will continue to not believe.
[Romans 10:9: "Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."]
Well, try again next time.
Third time's the charm, you know?
So, I think Impact has a real problem with this whole over-reliance on the Bible.
I mean, I know they're Christians, but come on, man.
You really expect to use the Bible to prove the Bible and get away with it?
So that's all for now.
Thanks to all my new subscribers, and I'll see you next time!
For more infomation >> ЕЛЕНА ВАЕНГА — КОРОЛЕВА ❂ LIVE ❂ КОЛЛЕКЦИЯ ЛУЧШИХ ВЫСТУПЛЕНИЙ ❂ BEST VIDEO ❂ VAENGA - QUEEN - Duration: 5:32. 
For more infomation >> Video cabalgata Crisostomos - Duration: 13:00. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét