Is the Bible Reliable?

[@obiwankenobi2520]

I’m an atheist but I respect this guy’s honesty and integrity. I wish more Christian’s were like this, where they wish to find truth wherever it leads even if it disagrees with initial predispositions

[@RespectfullyInspired]

I can’t wait to share these findings with others. Thank you for putting it so beautifully together!

[@bellpaleale]

16:27 I was going down a rabbit hole on this stuff only a couple of weeks ago. This is awesome!

[@susanlowder9385]

I remember this message from several years ago and it was my first download because of the overwhelming TRUTH you provided for me to share with others! May Our AMAZING JESUS Bless You in EVERY Message that opens ALL peoples eyes in His Truth and Love! 🙏♥️✝️

[@downenout8705]

There is not even a single sentence by any historian writing contemporary to Jesus, that mentions Jesus or any of the supposed events associated with him. Later historians only record what Christians believed. To suggest otherwise is simply profoundly intellectually dishonest.

[@davidvernon3119]

I’m no Christian, but your statement is factually incorrect. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus. There are at least three historical mentions of Jesus, one of which might be a different person. Among serious secular scholars of the Bible there is very little (no) disagreement that Jesus existed. The disagreement comes in when the superstition claims get made. That Jesus was God or the son of God. Or the resurrection, or the Virgin birth, ect.

[@downenout8705]

@@davidvernon3119 What part of "contemporary" are you struggling to understand? Josephus wasn't born until 37ce. So instead of asserting that I am wrong, simply shut me up by citing anything written by anyone during the time of Jesus that mentions anything about Jesus or the supposed events associated with him. You won't because you can't because there is none.

[@praveenkumar-op9iv]

Great work my dear brother. You are fabulous. May God anoint you with his power and knowledge to bless the world with the truth about Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ. 🙏Amen

[@downenout8705]

No secular historian considers the "historicity" of the numerous supernatural events that fill otherwise historically accurate historical documents. This is because there is no empirical foundation to assess the supernatural claims against. Arguing for the historical veracity of the mundane doesn't defacto make the supernatural claims true, and it is profoundly intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise.

[@downenout8705]

The gospels are not "eye witness testimony". Just read them, they are anonymous and written in the third person. To suggest otherwise is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

[@samgott8689]

Even if they were, common sense and intuition tells you that even if someone/something is an eye-witness and claims miraculous and fantastical things, then they are lying.

[@hjtapia74]

I used to belive with all my heart all of this, until I did a deep analysis of the Bible. The Pastor started the preach explaining the circular argument "The Bible is truth because the Bible says so", only to use the circular argument in a more elaborated way. Did Jesus exist? Yeah, most likely; was he Crucified? Yes, most likely; was he a Jewish preacher calling people to repent and become better Jews? Yes, most likely. Are many of the historical references in the same Bible historically correct? Not all of them. Was it written by eye witnesses? NO, actually the writers of the New Testament, specially the Gospels don't claim to be eye-witnesses of what happened. To keep repeating is an historical document, written by eye-witnesses is a lie. You do not need a scholar to tell you that, you just need to read it, without a bias that drives you to find what you want to find. Also there is a HUGE difference between saying: "Terry ran the stop sign", than saying "Terry ran the stop sign, while walking on the water, turning water in wine or while telling a fig tree to die". Also there is a HUGE difference to belive Plato probably existed, because nobody is saying Plato died and resurrected. We actually question the historicity of many things said about Plato and even things that he purposely wrote/said, and the claims are not even close to some of the claims we find in the Bible. Those are very bad comparissions. Finally, he makes the case against his argument when he claims Peter died by crucifixion and upside down. Why? Because there is no historical evidence of that, only tradition.

[@MrAuskiwi101]

Of course the bible is reliable myth.

[@onlylettersand0to9]

11:24 says that we don't have the original copies of any ancient documents. This is false. One of the most famous (and meme'd) ancient documents is a 3000+ year old clay tablet where Nanni complained to Ea-nāṣir about substandard copper. Another famous original document is the Rosetta Stone.

[@davidvernon3119]

“Are we willing to give the Bible the same test we would any other document”? Sure. Show me another document that has talking donkeys and talking snakes and Virgin god mommies in it and claims to be the inherent word of God and I will reject it as well.

[@davidvernon3119]

I Find this guys approach to be rather dishonest. To invoke Ehrman’s name and to at least attempt to connect him with the notion that the Bible is accurate is absurd. Ehrman makes the point over and over and over again that the Bible has thousands of observable errors in it.

[@nickrhodes9031]

Surely the cited non-Christian authors wrote about the beliefs of Christians rather than attesting to the veracity of the clains made.

[@davidvernon3119]

Why in earth would we go to a Christian pastor for the answer on this question? Isn’t his opinion pre-determined? Isn’t his paycheck dependent on him giving the wrong answer?

[@davidvernon3119]

As for inserting things into the Bible at a later date. We know this occurred. The parable of the woman coughs in adulterery is a common example. Even my niv study Bible has a footnote explaining that this was added at a later date. This is not a debated point.

[@hoytoy100]

Why the Bible and why Christianity? Why a particular sect of Christianity? It is all cultural normalization.

[@downenout8705]

The martyrdom stories of the supposed witnesses to a bodily risen Jesus can only be found in very late and highly dubious sources. Additionally the is no evidence that anyone was offered clemency if they gave up their beliefs. There is also a very big difference between being honestly mistaken about an experience and lying about an experience. To suggest otherwise is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

[@downenout8705]

To imply that a reconstruction of the original text of a historical document tells you anything about the truth of the content is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

[@Finfie]

I wonder if it is incompetence or dishonesty, that he conveniently "misquoted" ehrman. I don't see how you could make the honest mistake of transforming the statement: "Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence" into: "the crucifixion of jesus is the most well attested event in human history". Seems to me like a stretch.

[@downenout8705]

To imply that the names attributed to the gospels are the actual authors when it is clear from historical writing that these names were added much later is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

[@irrelevant_noob]

1:27 he needs to go back to Logic 101, that's not what a tautology is... -.- 4:09 oh ffs, convicted?! What was the sentencing, is there a parole feature for good behaviour? 35:37 citations needed. What was the decree, when was the census, who was governor, oh and also which day was the birth on? 🙄

[@samgott8689]

A tautology is not the same thing as circular reasoning, it’s something which is true by definition. All bachelors are unmarried men because they don’t have wives: not true based on the premise, true because that’s what a bachelor is. Circular reasoning assumes the truth of the conclusion it’s supposed to be proving and uses it in the premise. One of these necessarily produces valid - if redundant - and sound conclusions, the other is an error in reasoning about a conclusion that may or may not be sound.

[@ΘάνατοςΧορτοφάγος]

You dont. And sometimes, you know it is absolutely NOT true, such as the flood. So why believe

[@davidvernon3119]

To remark at four minutes in. He claims to have done independent study to draw his opinions. Interesting that this independent study landed him at a view that is identical to the modern evangelical party line. Sorry dude. You have no credibility. If you have to lie to defend your faith then it is indefensible.