IS ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE? Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic)

[@Pangburn]

NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6nXk5aNeNObrrcsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@Pangburn you’ve got to be kidding with this nonsense. Can you explain how tens of thousands of people, scientists, go to the same universities as atheist scientists and yet, they believe differently? Explain John Polkinghorne?

[@alanwood7874]

Alex O'Connor absolutely crushed this debate with sharp, respectful precision, staying focused on the contradictions and exposing the cracks in Dinesh’s arguments. Meanwhile, D’Souza dodged direct questions, dismissed valid points with condescension, and wrapped himself in philosophical smoke screens to avoid accountability. This is exactly why Alex’s calm logic resonates-he’s here for the truth, not theatrics. 👏

[@chaisma]

Someone good in debate it doesn't mean that whatever winner says is true,,,,,its just simply mean that he know better to manipulate

[@think1416]

I had situation, I witnessed accident, I said that me and 2 cars on front of me sitting on red light, light turn green and we go, pickup got on front first car making left turn and first car ran into truck… Dash cam shows that only first car was sitting on red light me and a car on front was slowing down almost stopped and then we go without completely stopped… Did I lie? Did I pursued some unknown points that will help me in my storytelling? No, it’s just how our brains work, Same in Bible, this contradictions or not contradicting the whole story, just proves that people were telling they were telling the truth from the bottom of their heart!!! There is no contradictions in Bible that would make Bible 100% questionable , it’s just people willing to dismiss it b4 getting to the bottom of it!

[@Wertbag99]

@@think1416 "There is no contradictions in Bible that would make Bible 100% questionable" - Christians don't agree on this point. Fundamentalists types will say that Genesis must be read as a literal history, and to accept any of it as incorrect or metaphor undermines the whole message. There are also many Christians who hold to a view of inerrancy, so to them there cannot be a single mistake or contradiction, every little thing must be fought against tooth and nail to demand perfection. For a person struggling with doubts, being shown that parts do not align, that different authors got things wrong or that text has been changed, can cast everything in doubt. Why accept any part of it if you can't be sure what was said, done or meant? For a lot of Christians it is a real struggle to find a lack of perfection after they have been taught to expect it.

[@moonshoes11]

⁠@@chaisma In this case Alex was able to show his opponent was full of nonsense.

[@moonshoes11]

@@think1416 There are contradictions between supernatural claims and reality.

[@hadara69]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." ~Lucius Anneaus Seneca (4BCE-65CE)

[@qumarthapa]

👏👏👏

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@qumarthapa People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@lilicadillac9833]

👍

[@haase1301]

So the choice is to follow Jesus or burning in hell for eternity? ​@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363

[@Peter_Scheen]

@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 You should read the Bible and not only the bits you like.

[@AudunWangen]

When I hear D'Souza and Peterson say "metaphorical", I just replace it with "lying". It works surprisingly well 😜

[@alwinengelbrecht3012]

You are so funny with your assessment. 🤡

[@AudunWangen]

@alwinengelbrecht3012 Thank you 😊

[@alwinengelbrecht3012]

@@AudunWangen Are you a fool as defined by Psalm 14:1 & reiterated in Psalm 53:1. 😂🤣

[@AudunWangen]

@@alwinengelbrecht3012 I'm being silly, just like most of the Bible.

[@alwinengelbrecht3012]

@@AudunWangen "Most of the Bible". Which parts? Bet you haven't even read through the Bible from cover to cover as i have done in 2023. i did it a bit differently though as i read through the Bible once each month. Stupid (not silly) people comment on the Scriptures without even having completely read the Bible. It's the equivalent of commenting on: - Adolf Hitler without having read Mein Kampf, or - Karl Marx without having read Das Kapital Stupid hey? 🤣😂

[@mickohara7268]

Alex was heroically patient here. He's to be saluted for that. Really enjoyed his "let me say a word." moment. I hope it wasn't lost on Dinesh. Excellent work.

[@TheCuriousAtheist411]

7:54 Dinesh: "The Christians are the sort of metaphorical readers." That sums it up perfectly! Christians don't care what the Bible says, because if the text disagrees with them they change the meaning sying it is metaphor. This is a texbook example of the Equivocation fallacy, changing a definition to suit one's argument.

[@nauxsi]

They just say they believe in jesus

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

The Bible is also written for certain cultures. I wonder how Cultures from the Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist tradition react to stories from the Bible.

[@kateknowles8055]

@@BunnyWatson-k1w They are people with minds open enough to consider the stories you mention. Cultures do not react. People react. Christians believe because they also have open minds. If you disprove the existence of the Garden of Eden, they still have access to a foundation "stone" , to a living Truth.

[@mikedonoghues4018]

Dinesh is so bad at this - despite so much practice. I guess having lots of experience of playing a bad hand doesn’t improve the quality of your hand the next time you’re dealt.

[@kondensmilchkindwalter384]

A poker player here

[@mickohara7268]

Agreed. When he offered "who cares?" as a reply, it was clear he was carrying no aces. That's one of the limpest responses I've heard in a while.

[@shadyzz9549]

Do explain to us how one could possibly be good at defending the historicity & accuracy of a fairy tale…

[@ygolonacable]

I was about to type "Dinesh is so bad at this" and then I scroll down a little and see this.

[@jamesc3505]

Actually, I think Dinesh was weaving and dodging like a pro, and if he'd been up against a lesser opponent, he could well have pulled it off.

[@bra-o-bra]

Its creepy that we are still discussing these things with such seriousness. Like being in a fever dream

[@framethis]

far as i know these gyus make a living from this crap ...tax free

[@thedude9220]

@@framethisso do the atheists that argue with these conservatives and fundamentalists.

[@KeriArzaluzCastro]

​@@thedude9220tax free? Doubt it.

[@everykneeshallbowzao]

The fact that these things are still being discussed and highly debated should open your eyes.

[@vex1669]

And the arguments are not getting better, they're getting worse. Not only are many stuck on points that are decades out of date or outright lying about the facts, no, there are even apologists play-acting as intellectuals teaching bad philosophy. They're literally teaching people to think wrong.

[@DeckerCreek]

Dinesh is so outclassed, I bet he never debates Alex again.

[@nmappraiser9926]

Except he's a perfect Dunning-Kruger subject; he has no idea that he's being outclassed. He always believes that he "wins" every debate, despite a complete lack of facts and reason.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@nmappraiser9926 People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@mileswatkinson8135]

I find it difficult to believe people still put stock in a collection of writings from the bronze age. Especially when you consider the ridiculous assertions these texts make.

[@pirrepe]

I find it also difficult to understand how people can't see the flawed arguments given by the apologist. OR is he freaking doing the "weave"?

[@RichardCranium.]

Yes, that is what most people on the planet believe.

[@mileswatkinson8135]

@RichardCranium. I'd argue that a large percentage of those who profess to believe do so simply because of societal pressures. I know every time I mention I'm an atheist I get one of two responses, either "well, I'm a (Christian/Catholic/Jewish/ Muslim) but I don't actively engage in the religion" or stunned disbelief that anyone could be an atheist. There are more of us than most people think.

[@W.A.J.J.]

People believe irrational things. It’s the way it is. Better to learn it and leverage it to your benefit.

[@Wertbag99]

@@mileswatkinson8135 One study asked people leaving church if they believed in God. They found between 20-25% admitted that they did not, only attending church because their family did, because they were forced to or because they had been raised in that tradition. If 20% of the 2 billion Christians actually don't believe, then there are another 400 million atheists undercover.

[@Starchaser63]

If God exists, no debate would be necessary ....

[@jimmears]

Wouldn't need to make giant billboards declaring God, Heaven, Hell or Satan real either if they were real

[@elkhuntr2816]

"If God exists, no debate would be necessary" Really? Have you followed science? There's plenty of debate. But there is good evidence the God of the bible exists.

[@gerardgauthier4876]

@@elkhuntr2816 Oh please demonstrate that God! Please prepare an experiment that concludes God. Because I'd love to see the equation that has a God included in it.

[@sindibadage]

​@@elkhuntr2816what's the evidence? Enlighten us, because I never heard anyone saying there is a proven evidence of god...

[@vortexlegend101]

If a God does exist, it is not one who has much of a desire to be known.

[@aiboDad]

Poor Dinesh. The more he struggles, the more he goes to his comfort zone of throwing out convoluted, unnecessary words. It's his 'tell'.

[@MrLtia1234]

[It's not mythological], they are just writing what they are seeing. - So you think there'll be a seven headed demon? Of course not. ... and around it goes.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@MrLtia1234]

@ What is this, projection?

[@MelFinehout]

Alex is both the most civil and most vicious religious debater now. He’s top tier.

[@Solsglasses]

Modern Day Hitchens

[@chriswainman3397]

The mental gymnastics required to explain away the contradictions is astounding to me. It must be exhausting to try to continue substantiating beliefs that are often so obviously contradictory and illogical.

[@javierherrera8782]

As It Is exhausting seeing a Rolex in a desert and believing an invisible hand called evolution, Made it😂

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

@@javierherrera8782 People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.

[@innerspaced]

In other words…it’s all bollocks

[@christopherwhittaker2620]

Summarised perfectly.

[@daviousmaximus6446]

Correct.

[@johnrockyryan]

"Do you wanna just stop believing in me cause i really am just a load of ole bollocks aren't i" - NonStampCollectors interpretation of Yahweh 😂

[@christopherwhittaker2620]

@ 😂

[@Frank7489]

For him to say “who the heck cares?” is ridiculous He’s literally in front of an audience of ppl there to see them discuss it

[@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku]

Perhaps, if you're using 'ridiculous' etymologically, i.e., worthy of ridicule. My initial reaction was, 'how revealing', for it illustrates his disregard for historical accuracy and objective truth. So, ridiculous and revealing 😂. Cheers!

[@elizabethryan2217]

I'm a believer and I agree. It was a very unhelpful thing to say. I get the point he was trying to make, but i don't think he made it (or them) very well.

[@CJNooberson]

D'souza is the personification of motivated reasoning.

[@petergibson2035]

‘Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Give a man religion and he dies praying for a fish.’ Benjamin Disraeli

[@bansang3789]

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport, Dinesh would win gold for this performance

[@Ari19904]

Has Dinesh ever made a good point? He just talks and talks and never says anything

[@shatom56]

Similar to Jordan Peterson. (IMO)

[@Ari19904]

@ exactly

[@anthonyjohn9000]

You are absolutely right

[@iamtheblackorchid7214]

Alex: Let me address specific and direct inconsistencies using specific verses. Dinesh: let me interrupt, twist, divert and over explain without explaining. Straw manning the crap out of everything. ( Alex knows more about these books than Dinesh ever will.Alex out debated the apologetics circus act.

[@lopakaholmberg]

So everything is a metaphor unless i need it to be conveniently literal

[@djfrank68]

Apologetics is so cringey. If god was real, there would be no need for apologists.

[@codeP08]

Exactly, it would take NOTHING for an almighty god to prove his existence and shut everybody up once and for all. This is like someone telling you "I don't believe you are strong enough to break a toothpick in half!" What's your next move? A) Snapping one and going "See? There. Don't you feel stupid doubting me?" or B) Going "What do you mean you don't believe it? Prove that I can't do it! And like this book says this thing, and the other book says that thing, so what, you don't believe I can do it?"

[@michaelbrickley2443]

If Yahweh wasn’t “hidden” He’d be so obvious that it would be like an elephant in a living room. How do you explain the origin of life? How do you explain the miraculous? How do you explain the evidence for the resurrection?

[@everykneeshallbowzao]

Stupid statement. If God existed, all humans would just believe him? You’re just not living in reality. You’re living in your own imagination

[@djfrank68]

@everykneeshallbowzao Stupid response. You are the one living in your own reality. I am not convinced a god who only reveals themselves in cryptic signs and spooky coincidences. You apparently are. I mean seriously. Were you convinced by anything Dinesh Dasuza said here?

[@everykneeshallbowzao]

@ exactly. You are not convinced. That’s your own personal problem that you need to work out because you have a really shallow view of God. Cryptic signs and spooky coincidences is absolute nonsense. There are people 100x smarter than you who believe in God. You’re got some learning to do.

[@hinduismwithpremananddasbhagat]

My view of dinesh goes down every time I see him in a religious debate.

[@PaulvonBlerk]

Dsoza got his butt handed to him. Great stuff Alex.

[@Conkersbfdgaming]

I'll admit I haven't watched this whole debate, only this little snippet. But if Dinesh starts the debate by saying "The Bible is a strange book to ask these questions of because of it's purpose" already means he's not going to listen to anything O'Conner has to say. He's already denounced O'Conner's ability to study this book in any way shape or form that isn't aligning with the statement "God is real." What an awful way to start a debate and Dinesh should be ashamed for saying such a thing.

[@JakobEslinger]

I recommend watching the whole thing. It's a crazy Trainwreck the whole time

[@Conkersbfdgaming]

@@JakobEslinger I definitely should. Alex O'Connor is a one of a kind.

[@mikekolokowsky]

“Because of its purpose.” What is the purpose?

[@Jorn-sy6ho]

Alex! You’re quite prolific! Always love the content 🫡🫡🫡

[@hinduismwithpremananddasbhagat]

If the Bible was just mundane history laced in all this metaphor and whatever ... then how come histories we have from other ancient cultures doesn't look the same?

[@VisshanVis]

God is the ultimate hide-and-seek champion, for the last 2000 years he's been hiding and for the last 2000 years, those who swear he exists have been seeking him LOL.

[@PrasanthBathula]

Revelation is not a phantasmagorical future event. It is a post factum rendering of events happened in 70 AD.

[@larrypicard8802]

Exactly!! It was written for first century Christians. No one else.

[@Soundbrigade]

Whoever wrote it, did that as a sort of “hate mail” to the Romans who had killed his bff. Very much like Nostradamus who tried to connect various observations with catastrophies, note foretell coming events.

[@anthonyjohn9000]

​@@larrypicard8802 absolutely right.

[@bradgentle354]

This was so embarrassing. The second hand embarrassment I get every time Dinesh tries to filibuster with extreme equivocation gives me appendicitis.

[@Walker-ld3dn]

Well done, Alex. I hope Dinesh learned a lesson to never bloviate with someone who knows more than he does.

[@vincentcross9148]

Dinesh was wrecked on this one way out of his league and I’m shocked he did so poorly given the fact that he battled Hitchens.

[@Jarb2104]

The thing, with hitchens it felt toe to toe because it wasn't a discussion like it was here, plus hitchens knowledge of the bible wasn't as good as that of Alex's, he was a layman in theological terms, but demolished theologians with that layman understanding.

[@mdhj67]

Alex O'Connor is a genius rhetorician. If he wanted he could take D'Souza's side of the argument and still crush it.

[@TRUECRIMEADDICTTT]

Alex looks very skeptical of Dinesh right off the bat

[@blootooth00]

Well, I think he knew Dinesh wasn't prepared, and was hesitant to where the debate was going. It was odd for Dinesh to insist Alex go first, and Dinesh's opening statement was rambling, non-specific, and like 5 minutes over the agreed 10 minute limit even after being given 2 warnings that his time was up. Not to mention, Dinesh opened his statement with an ad hominem attack to make Alex seem less reputable by chalking up Alex's credibility to 'sounding smart because he's English.' It's pretty funny when Alex finally gets to respond, because he has the look of someone who knows the next 2 hrs will be completely in vain.

[@chocopuddingcup83]

Any sensible person would be. The guy's a known propagandist.

[@MrMattSax]

Well, he’s a convicted fraudster and a well known con artist

[@gooddaysahead1]

Naturally. Alex is a human being.

[@tedh9870]

I’m surprised anyone would waste time talking to, debating with, or listening to Dinesh/Diminished. I feel like apologizing to suffering Alex.

[@SteveSmith-hm8ny]

Dinesh is a legend in his own mind. Lol

[@mattvalin1958]

I think this is what bugs me so much. He's just so convinced that he's clever

[@jordanmapfumo9359]

Believers, is this your champion?

[@odinson6348]

"Is there no one else? IS THERE NO ONE ELSE?"

[@Shortpromotions]

no he isnt, stone soup...

[@deitrichhenderson2078]

Dinesh is terrible at apologetics

[@curious968]

They are all terrible in the end. If you hear them on a You Tube video, they can sound convincing. They are certainly confident. Then, you look at a print-out of the actual argument and you go. . .wait a minute. It is almost entirely based on "this might be so, we round up and say it must be." It is also largely based on guesses that are certainly not in the text. Take the "census" around the time of Jesus' birth. There may have well been a handful of censuses that for some obscure reason had people scurrying to the city of their birth. Apologists scour the ancient sources for a handful of "maybe" clues. But, the vast majority did not and we know of _no_ empire wide census at all, much less one that worked in such a peculiar way. They also tended to deal with Roman citizens only, leaving the client states to pay tribute and manage the locality on their own. What's more, for that time and place where travel was actually fairly dangerous (you had to carry cash, for openers), the empire wasn't going to run an empire-wide census that way even if they did it province by province over time (as they actually did). That sort of idea was an invitation to brigandry, insurrection, and general lawlessness. To what end? Just register in the local village or nearby seat of authority. Even stranger is why Mary was on the road at all. Censuses were about two things in those days: Taxation and potential army service. In that time and place, these had nothing whatever to do with women, much less pregnant ones. In short, it's a charming tale, but not one that makes much actual sense. But watch the apologists do double back flips with plausible sounding alternatives that really don't comport with what we actually know of Rome.

[@Howiefm28496]

Dinesh is just a terrible human being.

[@Oksisterlol]

Okay genius

[@curious968]

@@Oksisterlol What, you have some good ones? I've been watching these arguments for fifty years and have found them uniformly disappointing. And, I've seen a lot of them. Apologetics really do seem aimed at the "already half convinced" as opposed to serious counter-arguments. The whole discussion of the genealogies in the Gospels, for instance, are embarrassingly weak, because not one of them I have ever seen addresses the extraordinary unlikely event that either genealogy was kept in the first place. Why should even a half dozen generations of (what would have been) illiterate peasants with no reliable access to parchment or papyrus bothered to keep track? What unrecorded prophesy, now lost, would have told them to even try? It would have had zero effect on their lives or any of their own progeny. It is instead taken for granted that this project happened not once, but twice and that there was this extraordinary string of very pious people that believed in a project and a prophesy we don't have and seems dubious to assume. To say it is unrealistic is a charitable evaluation.

[@agent_77r11]

​@@curious968 watch cliff many say he has convinced them to Christianity 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@pauls.6360]

The D'Sousa Master Class for "Posturing an Apologetic Expertise in Endless Baseless Assertions"

[@ronaldbezemer8439]

Although Alex is overall morally right, he is still wrong to say that in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt. He mistakenly confused Luke with Matthew here. In Matthew the family flees to Egypt, not in Luke. Who would notice that? Well, me. 😇

[@brentrollens8090]

And neither is true.

[@concernedcitizen5988]

“What does a mushroom taste like?” “Dirt.” // it literally only takes one word to explain

[@Rod-f4u]

So all dirt all over the world tastes the same.

[@concernedcitizen5988]

@ is a joke

[@CodyCarlson-i3p]

I LOVE how Dinesh lashes out at rhetoric when it's convenient but ultimately clings to it

[@doomofthedestiny8065]

When the guy says who the hell cares that undercuts any respect I might have. Obviously Alex tries to stay polite, but seriously "who cares?" The people you want to win over, or do you only chant to the echo chamber?

[@t9j6c6j51]

Dinesh found a way to make a living from spinning this.

[@Egooist.]

Next week's discussion: How historically accurate is Harry Potter?

[@marcgenevey]

Alternative title for this video : "is anything in Dinesh actually accurate ?"

[@AzimuthTao]

Alex is very understanding and patient with Dinesh but you can tell he is internally rolling his eyes as though he's hearing someone describe the powers of a magic purple dragon.

[@eukaryote-prime]

“Who cares???” Is basically an admission of lack of solid foundations of your assertions

[@EndlessSummer-dh]

The obvious answer is that it wasn't written as a history book so there's no reason for it to be accurate and who had access to real history books back then so the 98% of the population who were illiterate couldn't challenge it. Even in Elizabethan England at the time of Shakespeare, 95% of the population was illiterate.

[@toma3447]

It’s history told as narrative. Ancient history is different than modern history. History teachers today when they teach still use narrative to help teach their students. They stand in front of the class and tell what they think happened in a story telling type of language that draws the listener in and make them feel like part of the story.

[@grisflyt]

That's not obvious at all, because you're wrong. I think you should take a cue from Alex and not speak so confidently about things you don't know. Humility goes a long way. Historians like Tacitus didn't stop being accurate because the majority was illiterate. The texts that make up the Bible are inaccurate because they were made up. The text were written with an agenda. To proselyte. First. There is no such thing as THE Bible. There are several collections of texts (biblia) that are known as the Bible. The most controversial of those texts is the Book of Revelation. It was controversial from day one. It may also be the most historically accurate text in the Bible. 616/666, the Beast, is Nero. It describes the time in which it was written. Most texts were written long after the alleged events. (The Book of Revelation also illustrates that the original meaning of the texts are irrelevant. Christians read into the texts what they want to read into it. Christians construed the Book of Revelations into a prophesy because it serves them better.) Then you have the fact that the texts have been altered, mistranslated, changed and added to on many occasions. Whole chapters have been added to the gospels. The OT doesn't say a word about homosexuality. Of course, it does in most Bibles. The Bible is a train wreck. The first mistake was to have two fundamentally different religions in one book. Judaism and Christianity. This is also why I consider the question of God meaningless. As such I rather consider myself to be a post-atheist. Meaning there's nothing to be a- to. I can grant you God. I can grant you a billion Gods. More if you want. I just will never grant you the God of the Bible. Because we know the Bible is nonsense. This means that if there is a God, we know nothing about them and will never know anything about them.

[@prasvasu4217]

​@@toma3447 You are right, in Indian traditions (we have the term Itihaasa) which exactly matches your description... A believer or someone can use the narrative and a story filled with some history and a lot of their metaphors for their religious/spiritual life... And that's fine! The problem lies with the toxic mix of literalism (what you were speaking against) and exclusivism (its surely condemning people who are NOT Christian (Pagans/Heathens), and have to be salvaged from their sinning)... Although there is some toleration of difference within Christianity itself. Islam takes both of those components to the next level, along with strict prescriptions for society, state and people... Talk to them, how the Sunnis despise the Shias, Ismailis etc., how they believe Christianity is incomplete and Judaism outdated, and ofc. Hindus, Buddhists etc. are kafirs and non believers, destroy their places of worship, kill them in masses and tax them so they fall in line... Each time I listen to these evangelists, imams etc. I get an ego boost. That I've thankfully not been brought up with those values, lol! And have been given the liberty to do whatever I want. Although my household was somewhat traditional, I've never been denied liberty.

[@curious968]

@@toma3447 Sure, but in that case, nobody pretends these things _actually happened_ . And for Christian theology to work, unlike other religions, most of the really critical items, Adam and Eve, Jesus and the passion, resurrection, and ascension, it is necessary for all that to be historical. Paul admits as much in one of the letters.

[@toma3447]

@ it does work and a place we can start within a skeptical thinking framework is to establish minimum facts like Gary Habermas does. We establish through the historical method that Jesus lived, died, was buried, his tomb was empty, and that his disciples were genuinely convinced they saw him risen from the dead to the point they would not recant and even die for it. We can abstract these things from the text while it is still narrative and literal history. What’s powerful about the narrative is it helps us remember and understand better while still containing the historical elements.

[@jimmcconnell7328]

I have seen that when a Christian such as a pastor or priest is trying to explain the inconsistencies in the gospels they have to twists themselves into knots in order to validate what they’re saying. If it’s that hard to explain how can it be true ? There is always that feeling you are being lied to in an elaborate way. And yes Christians make liberal use of the metaphor bc it’s all they have to fall back on. TV evangelist use it all the time.

[@robertf6592]

We live in a world of lies and have for 1000's of years now. It's pathetic. We should be better than what we are and it's these lies that prevent us from moving forward.

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

Alex is a worthy opponent for a debate on the Bible.

[@mrasterio8530]

In conclusion, my ancient book is true. You have to read my book the way I tell you to read it, understand it the way I tell you to understand it and respect it the way I tell you to respect it for my book to reveal it's "trueness" to you. 🙄

[@kateknowles8055]

Hold on to these thoughts without scoffing. The ancient date of the book is of minimal concern to a time lord. Other readers find streams of 'living water', answers to prayers, and a door to openmindedness. You live in 'interesting times', so take any blessing that is freely given.

[@jakobmorningstar]

“I don’t want to actually debate that little fragment of Mark” sooo you don’t want to address possible issues with the stories of the Bible? You’ve made that abundantly clear.

[@michaelramos5227]

"You guys want to see a dead body?" -Cosmic Skeptic

[@forwardtothefuture58]

A favorite verse among the fundamentalist Christians is 2 Timothy 3:16. In translations from the most corrupt periods of Christian history, it reads: "All scriptures are inspired by God and are profitable for teaching," etc. And the fundies teach that this means every word in the bible is absolutely true history. In translations from another era when Christians were being heavily persecuted and trying to keep the "Word" from being destroyed, it says : "All scriptures that are inspired by God are profitable," etc. Possibly to state agreement with the Greek philosophers who used the work of Aesop and Homer as their foundation for education, claiming these works were inspired by God which was their custom for 500 years, more or less. Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 1:14, Paul is clearly advising that Christians should not pay attention to the Jewish fables or myths and endless genealogies; which is what much of the book of Genesis seems to be. Clearly, there is a very limited study, by the fundies of the book they call God's word. But, in spite of this, the majority of them are some of the most honest and decent people that you will ever meet; maybe not the smartest.

[@truthgiver8286]

Basically we can twist anything that is wrong in the bible to make it right everything is literal until it isn't 😂

[@davidofoakland2363]

19:10 It was about this time Dinesh knew he f'k'd up.

[@riffhammeron]

0:30 is where D'Souza knows he's in trouble

[@idesel]

When it's contradictory, Dinesh claims it's irrelevant and the author is trying to make some moral point, or trying to transcribe some criptic message from God. When he thinks it's serves as evidence for the truth of his religion like the women finding the tomb empty it's suddenly a historical fact, no longer some metarphor that Alex is "wrongly" reading it too literally. I'm still waiting for someone to suggest to me an honest apologist.

[@askingbetterquestions]

The events in the Bible do not seem to comport with what we know of reality. The morality is abhorrent.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

Your two sentences contradict each other. The morality bring abhorrent DOES COMPORTS with what we know of reality and humans. It matches the morality of most all conflicts of the ancient world AND SEVERAL ones happening right now in that same area of the world.

[@johnwalker6140]

@@rogeriopenna9014you misconstrued his statement, he was stating the the morality of the Bible is absolutely abhorrent compared to what we would consider moral today, which is one of the biggest arguments against the bible

[@grisflyt]

@@rogeriopenna9014 "It matches the morality of most all conflicts of the ancient world AND SEVERAL ones happening right now in that same area of the world." That doesn't make them moral. Sending bears to shred children to death for making fun of a bald old man is not moral by any standard. Also look how hard modern apologists work to make the mauling of children justified. Of course, we see the same thing with defense of the genocide in Gaza. It just means that there are lots of horrible people in the world. And they are not in majority. They are just in power. The conflicts you talk about are opposed by 85% of the world. But it's the "West" -- Europe and its former colonies -- who decide.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

@@johnwalker6140 Where did i misconstruct his statement? He wrote two sentences. Proposition 1 : the Bible does not fit reality Proposition 2: the morality of the Bible is abhorent. NEVER his argument was that Biblical morality fails current morality and therefore it fails. That is only the SECOND sentence. The first sentence is that the Bible does not fit REALITY. When his second sentence is that the morality is abhorent, he establishes a cause and effect: BIBLICAL EVENTS fail to conform with reality because the morality is abhorrent. While the first interpretation you gave also can be possible, by dropping two statements like that one after the other without a connection like "AND", "furthermore", etc, to me, seems to imply a cause and effect connection which to me is a reasoning flawed logically because the moral quality of a text does not determine the factual truth of the events it describes. In logic, these two domains-morality and empirical facts-are distinct. A Moral Statement is Normative: It expresses a value judgment (e.g., “the morality is abhorrent”). A Factual Statement is Descriptive: It expresses an objective claim (e.g., “the events did not happen or align with reality”). Category Error: Linking the two implies a category error-applying a moral evaluation to determine the truth of factual events. Even if a text is morally problematic, it doesn't automatically follow that the events described in it are factually false. The choice not to explicitly connect the two statements with conjunctions like "and," "furthermore," or "therefore", leaves room for interpretation the lack of connective language can create the appearance of a causal link, especially in informal reasoning. Proximity Suggests Relationship and in natural language, statements placed one after the other often suggest they are related logically or sequentially. Implied Argument Through Juxtaposition... even though no explicit conjunction is used, the reader assumes a deeper connection between the two ideas due to how they are arranged.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

@@grisflyt I never said they did. Not even close. This is a strawman. I criticized the logic created by the OP, by accident on purpose, that the Bible events do not match reality BECAUSE they are morally abhorrent. My point was ONLY that events being abhorrent or not do not mean events described were real or not. In fact, abhorrent events are so common in ancient history that they give credence to many historical stories. Like... while the Biblical massacre of the Canaanites by the Israelites is fabulous and has the intervention of the Israelite god (clearly an evil and jealous fantastic entitty), it totally matches other abhorrent events of the past where entire cities that refused to surrender would be erased, with warriors, women and children being massacred.

[@jjt9201]

May I use your web page for my inquiry? High. . I'm an atheist, but I want to know about monotheists for my personal understanding: In your opinion: - Did you read ALL the Bible: All pages. - Is there only one God? Which one? - What, who is God? - Why hasn't anyone ever seen God? Why doesn't he ever show up? A reason? Thank you, Jean-Jacques THIBOUT. My religious CV: Born 1949, French, baptized, cathecism. Then Atheist at / from 20.

[@kennethmckenzie294]

The desperation from Dinesh is embarrassing. Reducing the evidence for God, the almighty creator of everything, to how a mushroom tastes 😂!....

[@f.prince6642]

As comforting as wanting to believe is it’s still so hard to make that leap of faith for myself and I imagine a lot of humans.

[@TontonPourquoiTuGlousses]

Magnifique ce 'holy crap' 😂 C'est juste épique.

[@DanielHill-y6p]

People act like the human beings didn't have an imagination back then. We made up a story.

[@hoodoovoodooyoodoo]

Adults with imaginary friends... and imaginary enemies. Don't waste your time with delusional people.

[@dsprojects136]

I wish we didn't have to, but the delusional people are well-armed and want to rule and teach our children to believe in their imaginary friends.

[@johannbrandstatter7419]

Dinesh D'Souza seriously getting his knickers in a twist ! Trying to justify the impossible is not easy on the other hand...

[@williamh.campbell12]

Dinesh is not aware of the flight to Egypt???? I guess he is no real apologist if he doesn't know the Bible. Actually the story of the flight to Egypt is in Matthew not Luke and he didn't even catch that.

[@johnjameson6751]

This wasn't an isolated slip: Alex repeatedly said the flight was in Luke, and Dinesh didn't know - so he knows neither of the two birth stories.

[@redmed10]

Dinesh - the way i understand it. Says everything about how you should look at the bible. Take it literally when it suits you. And metaphorically when it suits you.

[@realLsf]

Q. “Is the bible historically accurate?” A. “No” Q. “Should people follow the bible?” A. “No” Q. “Is Dinesh a serious theologian to be taken seriously?” A. “No, most definitely not”

[@jaflenbond7854]

The CREATOR and his CHRIST have nothing to do with ALL CHRISTIAN and NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS and Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions who believe and preach the tricks, deceits, fictions, fantasies, and fairy tales of their Pastors and Leaders about - 1. hellfire 2. Armageddon 3. afterlife 4, immortality of the souls 5. Trinity 6. rapture and 7 reincarnation will never be glorified in their make-believe and fairy tale Heaven nor tortured for eternity in their invented and fictitious Hell but just become worthless and useless dusts on earth forever after their inescapable deaths. The CREATOR's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4 is ONLY for loving, kind, respectful, and submissive persons on earth who honor and obey JESUS CHRIST as their loving, kind, and merciful MASTER and HEAVENLY KING and the teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26 are the guarantee that all the loving, kind, respectful, and submissive persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.

[@toni4729]

I want to know why God made light, then the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars. Where did the light come from? Surely if God did it, the sun should have been first, not made on day four.

[@TRUECRIMEADDICTTT]

why would we believe anything in the bible to be historically accurate?

[@Wertbag99]

Because they were taught to. It all comes down to indoctrination.

[@johnniearc]

Religions claim some of it to be so.

[@scp170190]

a shocking number of christians actually would say that it *is* true because it's god's word - and therefore it has to be true because god wouldn't lie :D :D critical skills reminiscent of a 7 year old

[@ronaldbaginski]

Because non Christian authors such as Josephus, even Bart Ehrman testify to the validity of Biblical claims. You would be hard pressed to find a historian anywhere that would refute that Jesus was a historical figure.

[@johnniearc]

@ronaldbaginski that's not true, and a complete fabrication. The majority of historians will agree that Jesus or a figure LIKE Jesus MAY have existed during that time period. There are zero historians of any decent credit that will say Jesus the man written in the Bible existed. What you're doing is spreading a misquoted statement that was from a man who invented the statement with no evidence to support it. With Josephus, he also doesn't testify Jesus existence scholars agree that one mention of Josephus came in after Josephus death, and was a fabrication. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus, was mentioning how a person named Jesus became a high priest (nothing about Biblical Jesus). Barth Ehrman was born in 1955, he cannot testify that Jesus existed 😂 this is all you have. Misquotes, misunderstanding, and BS.

[@peterp3337]

Before we cannot question the word of God it was blasphemy but now with freedom of speech young people want to know the real truth.

[@bskeptical2481]

The bible is a myth.

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

And historical fiction

[@kishintuchis7076]

SO IS JESUS , HIS FAMILY , AND DESCIPLES

[@thrassthrak9091]

You ignoring so many facts , thats disgusting.

[@Nissenov]

I am pretty sure the Bible is a very real thing. Now! The stories in the Bible 😉

[@itsROMPERS...]

It's a collection of myths and fables

[@mindtruthwordlife505]

Does dinesh think the apocalypse was written in 4000 bc?

[@eslideit]

Denish squirms so much trying to explain away this most stupid of books

[@burninggiraffe6615]

“Let’s just say, this happened right?” I love how apologists keep suggesting hypothetical scenarios to justify fictional scenarios

[@michaelcrawford3796]

Wow who cares if it's contradictory? And there you have your answer ?

[@scottm85]

Lots of us care.

[@Perineon]

I agree with Alex. But he made a small mistake at the 7:00 minute point. He said Luke when he should have said Mathew.

[@larslindberg745]

Alex vs Dinesh 10-0 Love his questions, based on thorough reading and logic reasoning

[@hpflashman3328]

September 23, 2014 Dinesh D’Souza Sentenced in Manhattan Federal Court to Five Years of Probation for Campaign Finance Fraud

[@yahleel9]

alex I would love to reason with you and explain to you what Rev. is talking about and help making things clear

[@SprightlyGnome]

Surely this video violates youtube guidelines against violence...

[@Howiefm28496]

Well except when someone does a hari-Kari like Dinesh in this case. Admirable but losing face badly 😅

[@akhilmathew9431]

Did mr D Souza appear in any debate after this???

[@SuperCrazymehdi]

The host is very smart, i am not an atheist but i like this guy

[@Aliasjax]

Is it at least possible that the 4 Gospel authors never imagined their account would be made a part of a collected volume in which their accounts would be read harmoniously?

[@curious968]

More than possible. The development of the canon is a long historical process. There were many candidate gospels. It is true that these four achieved prominence fairly quickly. But if the Gnostics, for instance, had won out and became orthodox Christianity, then none of these we have were likely to make the cut. The gospels we have are a product of the first two or three centuries after Jesus' death. If we read the history with a secular eye, it wasn't immediately obvious who was going to win out. Certainly, the actual authors were long dead by the time anything like a settled canon, even a proto-one, emerged.

[@thedude9220]

The Gospel of John doesn’t jibe with the other three Gospels. It’s hostile towards Jews who don’t go along with Jesus being the messiah. It was written like 30 to 40 years later than the other 3, pretty much representing a different Christianity than the Synoptic Gospels. The apostle Paul contradicts Jesus on several things. Jesus intimates Free Will, while Paul teaches original sin. The pastoral epistles were not Written by the apostle Paul. So there are several different versions of Christianity taught throughout the new testament. The one Jesus taught Nazarene Judaism, Pauline Christianity, and the Pseudo Pauline Christianity of the pastoral epistles.

[@thedude9220]

@@curious968the 4 Gospels were written much earlier than the Gnostic texts. The letters of Paul were the earliest written Christian texts. What the Gnostics believed doesn’t fall in line with what was written in the earliest Christian texts. The Gnostic texts were written much later than the Pauline epistles and the Gospels of the New Testament. It’s most likely that Gnosticism latched onto the character of Jesus.

[@curious968]

@@thedude9220 Yes, but being first hardly guarantees who would have won out. It is hard to read the early history of Christianity without realizing what a contentious time it was. And I don't recall a lot of arguments about who wrote what first, either. It was more like "this is the right doctrine" as opposed to when it was written. We must remember, too, that in those days, there was no canon, nobody had originals (those had already disappeared from history) and today's dating was not a certainty or widely known. In fact, even in the 21st century, Catholic teachings hold to Matthew being earlier than Mark. A given congregation might only have one or two elements of what we today call the New Testament; maybe an epistle and one gospel plus heretical ones, too. Even if absolutely everything you say is true, it simply wasn't going to guarantee a particular outcome. There was, to my reading of the history, nothing particularly inevitable about the orthodoxy we got which itself was a product of a committee Constantine sponsored very late in the day (with doctrinal elements that look suspiciously like compromises, like being both "true God" and "true man").

[@johnniearc]

It's possible, but most likely not and just down to human error because it's not a factual book based on truth.

[@ziploc2000]

Verisimilitude is not a thing in D'Souza'a mind...thank you Alex for pointing that out. But let's not forget that the women go to anoint a body which is sealed in a tomb to which they do not expect to have access. The story doesn't pass the sniff test even in the form in which it has been told, and retold.

[@SolitariusLupus7]

@ 6:14 Alex is bringing up the different accounts of Jesus going to Egypt/Jerusalem, Luke vs Mathew. In all these differences when does the 'Word/Inspired word of God' come into play in writing the bible? If the bible is the word of God/Inspired the word of God, when is it being 'inspired?' Does 'God' take a break with Luke, but inspires Mathew? What parts of the NT being inspired then? Did the scribes/authors fail to fact check the NT? Is this why humanity has so many versions of the NT bible? Good stuff here...

[@ichimeshi8128]

@SolitariusLupus7 It is certainly always there however its inspiration not direct, so the personalities and perspectives of the authors shine through. In this particular example it is actually quite reasonable for both of these accounts to be true but the focus of the accounts is different and for good reason. That reason being the audience which they were written to. The target audience of Matthew was the Jewish people and so it focused on details relating to old testament prophecy and tradition while Luke was written for an audience of Romans who were newly converted or interested in the religion. So the importance of the audience alters the details of the story but only in a matter of perspective not fact.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@ichimeshi8128it is a contradiction. Meaning both gospels CANNOT be true at the same time. The holy family cannot be in Jerusalem and in Egypt at the same time. That’s impossible.

[@SolitariusLupus7]

@@ichimeshi8128 This is the direct reason the Christian bible is not relevant to today/present times. The bible was written for a specific purpose, for a specific time period. If the Christian bible was truly inspired by God, there truly wouldn't be full of errors and contradictions. Man on the other hand, had a purpose of creating the bible. Leaving out reincarnation was a clue, not many were not inspired to hear. The men that wrote the 'bible' we're inspired alright, just not in the fashion the church gives. Thanks for the reply.

[@normanwolfe7639]

Atheist here but I think the comments here are confusing “inspiration” with “inerrant”. If the writing is Inspired it does not necessarily mean it’s inerrant. Something that’s inerrant would probably mean it’s inspired. Neither are true IMO

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@normanwolfe7639 so, the question of the OP remains : what is « inspired » and what is made up?How to make « truth » from fiction? For Catholics, it is whatever the Church says. For other Christian’s, it is open to interpretation and every denomination has its own. In short, there is no reliable method that can be used to make up the differences.

[@jakubosiejewski9859]

The guy who's trying to defend the Bible as the word of god says stuff like "Who cares what is the biblical truth?" or "I think the Book of Mark is true because it contains false things". This is insane.

[@kameelffarag]

Alex was wrong in stating that Luke saying that Jesus was taken to Egypt. In fact Luke was more accurate in saying that after the birth of Jesus his parents returned to Nazareth. It is Matthew who gives the mythical story of the travel to Egypt. (Both debaters were unaware of the facts). Matthew is always trying to invent stories or to attribute some of the stories about Jesus to be a fulfillments of the prophecies in the Old Testament .

[@Brett-ui9zq]

Alex got it reversed, which is easily forgivable, but his proposed contradiction makes the common error of thinking the wise men came within days or weeks of Jesus' birth, and therefore the flight to Egypt and going to Jerusalem are contradictory. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (a 'suburb' of Jerusalem)(both accounts), taken to Jerusalem in first month of life (Luke), taken to Egypt in first 2 years of life (Matthew), returned to Nazareth in Galilee to be raised (both accounts).

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@Brett-ui9zqthat’s not what is written : according to Luke, Jesus went to Jerusalem within 7 days after his birth and the holy family went back to Nazareth. No mention of Egypt. In Matthew, the Magi’s visited Jesus when he was born (they are still in Bethlehem) and the holy family left just after for Egypt. No Jerusalem, no Nazareth. There is no way you can reconcile both accounts.

[@JasonHughes-in7xo]

If you asked this to Peterson… “But what does it even mean to be historically accurate … “

[@aprilknight9240]

It’d be great if Dinesh actually let anyone get a word in. He seems to love the sound of his own voice.

[@hifibrony]

Hitch did a good job of getting him to shut up.

[@stevew1904]

As with other 'contradictions' in the Bible, a more thorough reading and a better understanding of what is actually said in the stories in Matthew and Luke will reveal that there is actually no contradiction at all here. Both stories can be completely valid without either contradicting the other. In Luke chapter 2 the story is: 4 Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem 7 Jesus was born in Bethlehem 21 In accordance with Leviticus 12, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day of his life 22 Again in accordance with Leviticus 12, after Mary's purification was complete (33 days), they took Jesus to Jerusalem to present him at the Temple 39 They returned home to Nazareth In Matthew chapter 2, the story is: 1 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem 2 The wise men told Herod they had seen the Messiah's star in the sky and had come to worship him 2 They enquired with Herod as to where the Messiah was to be born, and they were told Bethlehem, which was where Herod told them to go 7 Herod asked the wise men at what time the star had first appeared 9 The star went before them and led them to the place where 'the young child', Jesus, was. Note that it doesn't say this was in Bethlehem 10 The wise men found Jesus, presented their gifts and returned home by a different route 13 An angel warned Joseph to take his family and flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's desire to destroy Jesus 14 He obeyed and they fled to Egypt 16 Herod then massacred all male children who were in Bethlehem up to 2 years old, according to the time he had determined from the wise men. This last phrase is the key to understanding this entire story. The time Herod had determined from the wise men was when the star first appeared. He massacred children up to 2 years old, which can only mean that the star first appeared 2 years previously. But according to Luke, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth about 33 days after Jesus was born, so a little short of 2 years prior to these events. This understanding of the stories puts the flight to Egypt about 2 years after the birth of Jesus, which then does away with any conflict with the visit to the temple after his birth. The Greek word that Matthew uses repeatedly, translated as 'young child' is 'paidion', which means a childling, an infant, a half grown child. It does NOT mean a newborn baby. The Greek word used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to a baby is 'brephos', which means a baby, possibly unborn, or an infant. So, despite the millions of Christmas cards depicting otherwise, the wise men were not present at the birth of Jesus. It was almost 2 years later when they arrived. Other Christian traditions around the Christmas story that don't agree with the Bible: Jesus was born on 25th December. We actually have no direct indication of when Jesus was born, either the month or the year. but scholars seem to agree it was probably around April. The date of 25th December has been adopted by the Catholic Church, and is derived from various other religions. There were 3 wise men.The Bible says wise men came and presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 3 gifts, so 3 wise men, right? Not necessarily true! We don't know how many there were. Jesus was born in a stable, surrounded by donkeys and oxen. There's no stable in the Bible! Luke says they laid him in a manger because there was no room at the inn. The Greek word 'kataluma' translated as 'inn' is a word that means a guest room. It's more likely that Joseph and Mary would have been staying with relatives or friends, but the house was full due to people travelling for the census, so they used a manger as a bed. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. There is a very prevalent tendency, by people like Alex O'Connor, to confuse things that have become church tradition with the truth of God's word. The vast majority of objections to Bible teachings come from arguments that are not even Biblical. I suggest studying any subject in depth before objecting to its content.

[@planetfocus911]

Around 25y after the death of Christ, the movement he inspired, split into 2 factions with very different views on his life and message. The 1 under the guidance of St. Paul (upon which the Christian faith was based), came out victorious - according to which its version of the stories of the life and times of Jesus was told in the gospels of the New Testament. The other faction, composed of the people who really knew Jesus (James his older brother, his family and his disciples), left no written records of its beliefs and withered away. Had they won the power struggle and written the alternative biography of Jesus, one could ask " What sort of person would Jesus be if his life story had been told by those who knew him best." Paul was born in Turkey to wealthy Jewish parents and trained to be a rabbi in Jerusalem. He was sofisticated, well educated, well travelled and also a citizen of the Roman Empire (which at the time occupied Palestine). In great contrast, James, a devout follower of Jewish law, was the leader of the other movement. He was poor and probably illiterate. After Jesus's death, James became head of the Jerusalem Church. On the road to Damascus, Paul had his visionary encounter with the rissen Christ. Up until then Paul had been a persecutor of Christ's followers, but after the encounter with the deceased Jesus, became one of the leaders of the movement with a completely different view of Jesus, in direct conflict with James. Differences included Jesus's birth, his message and whether or not he was devine. In the years after Jesus's death, the question of who he really was, was highly contentious. The ensuing battle between Paul, who by then claimed Jesus to be the human form of God, and James would decide what version of Jesus was handed down to posterity. Paul's version became the basis for a new world religion. By the 2nd century the successors of the Jerusalem Church had dwindled to a small Jewish sect: the Ebionites with a mission closely tide to the historical Jesus, and viewed as heretical by the mainstream Christian Church. But if they had won the battle of the biography of Jesus, there would be no such thing as Christianity - which has been dominating the world for 2000 years - a great blessing for the believers in Paul's version who never met Jesus, whilst the version of those who knew him best, was treated as heresy. A Timeline Documentary Film. Archive: Biblioteque Nationale Paris, Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, The Shrine if the Book, Israel Museum, Jerusalem etc.

[@michaelbentley-jy5rr]

Sure read the book until it make since to you😊 Then continue to read the book over and over again until you understand God.😊

[@ronaldbaginski]

Alex,s question about Mathew and Luke giving two different accounts is true in that both Mathew and Luke mention different events. But thus is in noway contradictory. Both events mentioned could have occurred. The flight to Egypt could have occurred after Jesus appearance in the temple. The fact that Luke does not mention it does not mean that it did not occur.

[@stevensephton367]

Has anyone come across an honest apologist?