3 bad arguments for the existence of Jesus

[@squirrels24seven]

im glad that you show that there are bad arguements that you disagree with, some people will use anything, even without evidence just to help their cause

[@blitzzkrieg1400]

Mr. Horn, I recently purchased your book Made this Way, and it is definitely a good read. By the way, I suggest making a video about bad arguments against homosexuality. Thanks in advance

[@jackdaw6359]

@@TheThreatenedSwan there is an argument that people have forgotten. St Paul's argument that due to idolatry God punished men and women with those inclinations. Wonder why no apologist makes that argument like the great saint.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@TheThreatenedSwan i could certainly make one up lol

[@theTavis01]

@@TheThreatenedSwan I think that treating homosexuality as drastically different from other sexual sins is a bad argument. The punishment for homosexuality was the same in the old testament as the punishment for heterosexual adultery - death.

[@yogurtudhros801]

I remember a friend of mine tried to argue that the New Testament was unreliable because the gospel writers didn't describe what Jesus looked like. They wouldn't be wasting their very expensive ink and parchment to describe something that doesn't matter in comparison to the the good news he preached. The title the video made me remember that.

[@mistermkultra3114]

Thank you for your work Trent , you're like The Sesame Street of the catholic apologetic , so educative

[@nate9331]

A strange analogy, but a good one nonetheless lol

[@cosmiccatholic2838]

Trent, I'm reading Hard Sayings right now and I would love if you did an episode expanding on your view of Noah's flood. It would be a very interesting topic.

[@juanisidro4849]

Check out jimmy akin mysterious word podcast or on his KZbin channel . He just did 2 episodes on Noah’s flood,faith and reason perspective.

[@MZONE991]

Check out inspiring Philosophy as well

[@fergusmcclintock8842]

Top stuff Trent. A Christian with bad arguments can be as bad as an atheist with good ones.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@tony1685 Romans 14

[@andrewferg8737]

@@tony1685 Acts 20:7 1 Corinthians 16:2 Revelation 1:10 John 20:19 Matthew 28:1 Romans 14 etc... and all the testimonies of the Church Fathers, and two millennia of tradition.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@tony1685 "this 'tradition' can't be in contradiction to His Word or it's nonsense"---- Are you suggesting that the New Testament should be discarded and that we should live under the Mosaic law? Or that God, having come to earth in the flesh, was not authorized to initiate a new covenant? "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers" (Jeremiah 31) "Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22)

[@andrewferg8737]

@@colinmatts "Does it scare you when atheists have good arguments?"------ Fear, doubt, and uncertainty are common to all. These are not, however, attributes for one to nurture but rather to dispel through the active engagement of faith and reason.

[@andrewferg8737]

@@colinmatts Whether faith undermines any arguments is a separate, though valid, discussion. I made no such suggestion in my previous statement. Rather, I noted that we all share in feelings of fear, doubt, and uncertainty when our positions are challenged. This a human trait not specific to any particular system of thought, nor is it a positive trait to be desired or nurtured for its own sake. It is the goal of education, in very general terms, to dispel fear, doubt, and uncertainty; to dispel the darkness if you will.

[@issemayhem]

Love your work Trent! I pray God blesses you and guides you in your mission! Though, as a history buff and general buzzkill I just have to point out that Caesar was never crowned emperor, the first emperor was his adoptive son Octavian

[@robertlehnert4148]

I myself use the Justin Martyr (First Apology) reference to the Pilate letter to Tiberius, but I am extremely careful to say 1. We don't have the letter itself, and mention the forgeries 2. That Justin, a Roman lawyer, is telling Emperor Pius "look it up in your archives" is pretty good secondary source evidence of some document that did exist but has long been lost.

[@jackdaw6359]

Exactly. I don't understand why people think we have access to all ancient documents. We should expect the opposite.

[@robertlehnert4148]

@@jackdaw6359 Indeed. I've had atheists (online) rant "why isn't Jesus mentioned in the very careful records the Romans kept", but it's crickets chipping when I ask, "and where are these carefully protected and preserved, reasonably complete Roman archives?"

[@Cklert]

Fact remains is that we have almost next to no original documents that predate the 2nd century. I believe the earliest original roman document we have are the Vindolanda tablets and they date to the late 1st century. Yet we have no original documents of Tacitus' Annals, and the earliest manuscript we have dates to the 11th century, nearly 1,000 years after it was written. Same goes with Plutarch, the earliest we have dates to the 10th century.

[@matthewcollins8148]

I can’t believe any of it survived considering what happened to Rome the city.

[@AJKPenguin]

@@matthewcollins8148 You can thank the Irish, the Muslim School of Mecca, and Byzantium. : ) All 3 preserved a lot of Antiquity and helped the School of Salamanca, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment to continue thought and reflection.

[@Achill101]

Thank you for a well-argued video and, as far as I could see, an interesting KZbin channel. As a Catholic, I enjoy rational explanations of why things are how they are in the church. . . . I had a small comment. @18:22 you ask: "why didn't the disciples of the first Christians, those mythicists, why didn't they fight the heretical historicists later in church history?" I agree that the mythicists would have fought the historicists and that both sides would have written about it. It could be that none of the mythicists' writings have been preserved, because their writings were not considered worth to be preserved by the prevailing historicists. But do we see anything of the fight in the writings of the historicists? Another video pointed to verse 7 in the second letter by John (2 John 7): "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." That could be seen as the author of 2 John, a historicist, fighting against mythicists who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh, as real human being. . . . I watched the video in a KZbin series on the question of mythical versus historical Jesus by a non-believer, the channel Fisher of Evidence. The author tends overall to the side of historicity but gives the mythicists many strong points in some questions. (To myself: I differ from you in my view on Genesis (all mythology) and on the exodus (mostly mythology, maybe some legend), but I certainly confess the historical Jesus as our Christ and savior.)

[@tomgjokaj3716]

Yo Trent I am telling Al Kresta you’re talking about him 😁🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@JohnR.T.B.]

People are so critical about Jesus but they would give less critical assessment for other religious figures like Siddhartha the Buddha, Mohamed, or ancient philosophers like Socrates or Confucius whom I believe do not have that many, some might not have any, authentic written testimonies or biographies by eye-witness accounts about their lives and teachings.

[@paradisecityX0]

Just recovering fundamentalists

[@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски]

Socrates never wrote anything. His disciples however did, e.g. Plato or Xenophon. Yet no one will doubt that he existed. But somehow Jesus never did. Yeah, we're "rational beings".

[@JohnR.T.B.]

@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски Yep, in fact Jesus didn't just exist, He did what He did as the Gospels tell us, that's why His followers would defend to the end His truths and teachings. The Buddha and Mohamed didn't have their life stories written down properly after centuries.

[@Cklert]

@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски Unfortunately there are fringe people who will say Socrates didn't exist just for the matter of being consistent that Christ didn't exist either. People would rather sacrifice their intellectual honesty than to be wrong.

[@HeroQuestFans]

@@paradisecityX0 generally, the Jesus Mythers are still fundamentalists, who've merely gone one God less. they still allow emotion, confirmation bias and lack of self awareness to cloud their reason, and go forth trying to tear down or convert everyone who isn't just like them

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Thank you for your strong scholarship and sharing it in ways that we can easily digest and with integrity that allows us to trust what you teach. You have helped me so much!

[@1001011011010]

I get what you mean but Christians would call Jesus a man (taking on human nature), though more than a man. It is interesting how the Josephus passage's meaning can really change depending on how one interprets it, and a rather negative strain can be in there somewhere. I agree so very much that it is important to use good arguments! Online, though, you don't know what you're gonna get. Not to say that being printed makes an argument any better.

[@williamcurt7204]

A more apt comparison would be that we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Socrates or maybe Plato.

[@PianoForte9096]

@@colinmatts The point here is to prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed, full stop. It answers the objection, "Jesus didn't exist." If your objection is now, "Jesus existed, but wasn't God", then this video worked. If you want your objection answered, you're fully capable of accessing information that will do that

[@PianoForte9096]

@@colinmatts I used to be like you. Then, I started listening when people said that there is evidence for the central Christian tenants, thoughtfully considered the points brought forward, and changed my mind. Trent Horn has entire videos talking about the historicity of the Resurrection. Jesus' existence is a central part of the bedrock to Christianity. There are still those who deny He existed, and this video is for any who would come across those people.

[@PianoForte9096]

@@colinmatts Christians would argue that it is possible to verify a claim of resurrection from death -- and the Catholic Church has existed since the first part of the first century. I would ask you what you think happened to Jesus Christ in 33AD, and yet, I see you're set in your ways, so a measly KZbin comment war is pointless.

[@tomasrocha6139]

We don't. Socrates was so famous Aristophanes wrote a play mocking him, On The Clouds. For Plato we have his own books and academy and his contemporaries like Xenophon.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

I love your character as an Apologist to provide criticisms for bad arguments which defend your position.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@tony1685 Catholicism assembled the Bible

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@tony1685 The authority and understanding came first from above, for if they lacked such things of the chosen books of the Bible there could have been errant ones. To put simply: Why do you hold the books in the Bible as infallible, but the process of those who chose, which writings were truely God-inspired, as wrong, deceitful, and foolhearty? (To fix your analogy, not all Rachel Ray cook books were written by her.) That's like trusting in a professors' teachings and studies yet saying the teacher never knew anything about the subject! There are handfuls of books and stories the church in the 300~500s had to weed out in order to truely discover God's word, which they did... and you say they never knew God?! Then why cling to such accounts of the gospels written by pagans? Dare I even say the Catholic church wrote the books of the New Testament? Unless you believe the myth that Christians dissapeared for 1500 years.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@tony1685 How about you do the work and study it? You might be surprised rather than whatever someone commenting on youtube has to say.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

@@tony1685 you haven't proven it.

[@fraso7331]

Again a great little video. But I have to explain ways, we can use two of those arguments in a good way. Of course there is more evidence for Caesar. But there are a lot of historical persons from antiquity we have less sources and evidence for. Solon, Sokrates, Boudica and Arminius for instance. Using Caesar is a way to discredit this argument, because most people know of coins, monuments and buildings (e.g. the Basilica Julia and the Regia, both on the Forum Romanum) connected with Caesar. We can explain, that the original argument had nothing to do with Caesar and that he is used to discredit a good argument. It can be shown in different ways, that the Testamonium Flavianum was changed. There are even different versions of it. This makes it a very strong argument, that there was such a Testamonium in the original writings of Josephus. They only could change it, because it was there. Of course you have to know enough about philology to understand this, which makes it an argument not for every discussion, but not a bad one.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Only for Solon. For Socrates he was famous enough that Aristophanes wrote a play mocking him while he lived, On the Clouds. For Boudica we have Tacitus whose father in Law served in Britain during her revolt and for Arminius we have the contemporary Velleius Paterculus and archaelogical evidence confirms the battles.

[@alpha4IV]

I disagree that the Cesar/Alexander/Jesus comparison is immediately a bad argument. For instance, if said mythicist says that they don’t believe Jesus is real because of the claim of demigodhood or divine ancestry, wouldn’t the best subversive respond be to ask “do you believe that Caesar or Alexander is real, Caesar is descended from Venus & Alexander is a secret son of Zeus, if you go by their written biographies?” or is that still a tactical error from your perspective?

[@alpha4IV]

@Brian Farley From my reading of Plutarch, Arrian I’d say by the time Alexander reached Egypt he was very convinced of his own godhood or at least of his divine lineage. Unless you can find something in Rufus to refute this, his ties to Aristotle bringing him to a type of monotheism that would hurt my argument that it is inconsistent to disbelieve in the Bible or in Jesus because of divine claims when you believe in Alexander’s existence & trust his biographies when they also make divine claims & make miracle claims, is a red herring.

[@alpha4IV]

@Brian Farley I sorry brother but I don’t see what Aristotle being a possible monotheist, or Alexander the Great being one, has to do with my claim that pointing to the inconsistency of a mythicists’ standard of proof is a good counter to their argument. Regardless of rather your claim about Aristotle & Alexander is True or False, probable or improbable. I do think it would be hard to prove & would lead to a tangent, hence my labeling it a red herring. But even if it was correct & easily provable, that they had monotheistic leanings, that doesn’t change the fact that their (Caesar & Alexander’s) biographies do not. And their biographies give portents/signs, divine attributes, spiritual evidence , and miraculous deeds as proof of their particular destiny & greatness. Hence, the atheist or mythicist would have to discount these biographies as pure fiction and completely unreliable as they do the Bible. Or if they are going to give latitude based on convention, audience, & style for those works they should at least do the same with our Book, if they want to be consistent.

[@detached9353]

13:47 Wouldn't this be an argument against Mary's perpetual virginity, if he had a brother?

[@Troy-Moses]

Not if "brother" actually means relative.

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@michaelcurtis106]

I saw another video on that supposed letter from Pilate to the emperor. It makes for great entertainment but it seems obvious to me that it's not genuine so I agree with your position on it. For one thing, as I understand it, Pilate was not on good terms with the emperor. Therefore, one would expect Pilate to choose his words carefully knowing they could be his last. He would not have spoken about Jesus in such a favorable light and I would also expect any letter that he would write to be short and to the point. He probably would have said something to the effect that he executed an insurrectionist per his standing orders or something along those lines.

[@MckensyLong]

Great Video, sometimes we can do more damage to using poor arguments than an atheist can do with a good one.

[@Slickwick216]

I’ve heard Gary Habermas say there are more ancient citations for Christ’s Resurrection in 33 AD than for Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC, that seems to be a different, more persuasive claim than the “existence of Christ vs Caesar” argument debunked here

[@Slickwick216]

@Brian Farley I agree where Caesar crossed and whether he said “The die is cast” etc are less consequential, I just thought I’d point it out since that’s literally the only time I’ve heard an argument like this. I’m sure Mr. Horn is aware of a lot more bad arguments than I am, praise God, but I think this might be the source of this one via game of telephone etc

[@Slickwick216]

@Brian Farley Agreed. I think we can all agree that the official story of the Rubicon is far and away the coolest way to remember and teach the event, which makes it good enough for me

[@whatsinaname691]

I think at this point, using some connection to Caesar is just a flex for people. Habermas is just trolling the dudes who’ve done less research in their life then he did in a week for his works

[@tomasrocha6139]

Caesar couldn't conquer Rome without crossing the Rubicon

[@hglundahl]

10:52 _"we have found no such reports at all"_ We don't have those archives any more. Tertullian did. Btw, those archives would obviously also be including lots of now lost proofs for Julius Caesar. Now, Tertullian mentioning Pilate's letter is a very good parallel to people like Velleius Paterculus or Tacitus with Suetonius (both preserved, but around a gap of non-preserved historians - except Synoptics are preserved from the time of this gap) mentioning Caesar from the same archives.

[@protdoomer2305]

What is the definition of a mystic in all religion in general? I sometimes see music called "mystical Jesus prayer" or like "chant of the mystics" and most of that content seems christian or orthodox but I don't get it. I think my friend called me one long ago

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

I like Josephus is interesting, because he says no Books of scripture came After the days of Ataxerxes. Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi. Nothing after those days. Sirach says the same thing. So does Philo. Melito got his determined definition of books of the scriptures inquiring in Israël. And Jerome got his talking to the Jews. And Martin Luther got his canon from Reading Jerome.

[@hglundahl]

12:37 "Lentillus/Lentilius" is very fairly using Renaissance canons of descriptions of persons, ancient authors usually didn't do such.

[@hglundahl]

I know the Renaissance canons of descriptions from Erasmus, Opus de Conscribendis Epistolis - I did my D level essay on it (or fourth term, if that's clearer, in Latin language and literature studies).

[@john-paulgies4313]

I like the letter of Pilate. It's a nice work of fiction. The one I found claims that Pilate met with Jesus before he tried Him and asked Him to be more gentle in His discourse, lest He be attacked and/or killed. The author does a neat job of imitating Jesus' speaking style in the Gospels....

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

I think there's a similar writing about Judas, where Jesus tells him to betray him beforehand like Dumbledor and Snape to fulfill the divine plan. Of course, it an unauthentic writing.

[@samgutierrez5155]

Great video Trent! Can you do a video about the evidence for Jesus being buried, some deny that Pilate would allow that and I have not seen apologist tackle this issue. Thanks, God bless!

[@hhstark8663]

I can recommend these videos about the burial: - "Why Skeptics Don't Think Jesus Was Buried But I Do: The Mark Series pt 67 (15:42-46)" by Mike Winger - "Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15" by Inspiring Philosophy (Michael Jones) - "A Bunch Of Reasons The Empty Tomb Is Historical" by Mike Winger

[@hhstark8663]

I can recommend these videos about the burial: - "Why Skeptics Don't Think Jesus Was Buried But I Do: The Mark Series pt 67" by Mike Winger - "Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15" by Inspiring Philosophy (Michael Jones) - "A Bunch Of Reasons The Empty Tomb Is Historical" by Mike Winger

[@hglundahl]

And the argument about Caesar, you cited Tim O'Neill for Julius leaving an autobiography, and I thought it was the very partial one for which we have so late manuscripts, Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile. I think you mentioned that you left a link to his response on quora, but the link is now not in the description. I then realised, the "autobiography" was that not of Julius Caesar, but of Caesar Augustus. And the autobiography is "monumentum Ancyranum" - the most complete stele being from Ankara, and the (presumed!) original in Rome destroyed. It was presumably not even raised by Augustus but after his death. It's not on par with the Gospels as evidence even for Augustus, let alone for Julius. Again, it is not about how much evidence was available in 50 AD, but how much is so now.

[@joekeegan937]

thanks Trent

[@hglundahl]

15:09 Josephus could have given the story as told by Christians _without stating how much he agreed._ Up to the destruction of the temple, as you mentioned earlier in the video, things were somewhat less clearly limited between Christians and Jews. Josephus can have been a sympathiser (he had to get an imperially paid lawyer to get him accepted among Jews at one point) without being fully Christian too. Or he could have stated all of these things with some réservations of a nasty type that a Christian copyist left out as blasphemies. Or he could have wavered. Orthodox credit him with being a hagiographer of IV Maccabees (which they consider canonic).

[@hglundahl]

15:53 Christians _do_ call Our Lord true God and true Man. And "if indeed one ought to call him a man" can express either Christian admission of divinity or anti-Christian sentiment stamping Him as subhuman.

[@hglundahl]

16:04 "suprising deeds" could refer to the double cleansing of the temple and dining with sinners.

[@hglundahl]

before 16:11 "he _was_ the Christ" need not be interpolated, it could mean a Jewish rejection about a failed messianity - starting good but "he blew it" ... A Christian would not have used past tense.

[@hglundahl]

The words about resurrection and according to Scripture can have been Josephus' reference about what Christians believed.

[@chronic_corpse4638]

there exist an aramaic copy of josephus without the interpolation

[@woohoo273]

Around time stamp 18:00 you mention the argument of silence however as Richard Carrier points out in 2Peter they must have been battling a mythicist movement by this verse ““For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” There’s no reason to mention this unless some in the church were beginning to believe Jesus was a myth

[@thepalegalilean]

That is a black-and-white fallacy. There could potentially be many reasons to mention that is mentioned that particular passage. You have to assume mythicism is true in order to come to your interpretation.

[@woohoo273]

@@thepalegalilean give me other reason to write that ?

[@thepalegalilean]

@@woohoo273 Easy. No one here is denying the existence of Jesus. He's not being treated as a mythological figure, But rather people are beginning to question whether or not he actually rose from the dead. And this is certainly no real surprise. Paul had to produce the 500 eyewitnesses in order to quell the fears of other Gentile Christians during persecution. Peter, is no doubt having Paul's problem. That's why he calls himself an eyewitness of Jesus Christ's majesty. Peter is making special care to highlight the royalty of Christ. This is important because we believe Christ is ruling in heaven as the Son of God. Now which interpretation is correct? The truth is we don't actually know. Peter never unpacked his material enough to get a more clear view of what's happening in his time. But as you can see mythicism is not the only valid interpretation what's going on here. And when you compare that to the rest of the New Testament and history at large, I think you can make a decent case that mythicism is probably one of the least likely explanations.

[@woohoo273]

@@thepalegalilean I would say that the word "fable" and in some translation "myth" is used tilts it toward mythicism but I do appreciate your response and agree we do not have enough information to make a definitive conclusion as is true with almost all of the Bible :) and why we have over 3,000 Christian sects.

[@hglundahl]

_"There’s no reason to mention this unless some in the church were beginning to believe Jesus was a myth"_ What about all the Pharisees and others (later resumed as *them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,* and even later, in same author's Gospel, by narrator voice, as "the Jews") who, by definition believed the Resurrection was a fable?

[@ortegafilms4575]

Hey Trent, I know you probably won’t see this so if anyone knows that’ll be great. I get into a lot of arguments with atheists, particularly with mythicist who think Richard Carrier represents all historians. I know that most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was historical and that a very small minority are mythicist, but I don’t have a source that can show that information, is there some kind of poll or any source that shows the percentage of scholars who believe Jesus was historical, or at the very least a source that confirms the consensus? Thank you.

[@hhstark8663]

I can recommend this video by the channel "Trinity Radio", where the *non-religous* scholar Bart Ehrmann goes out and says that Jesus mythicism is nonsense repeatedly. - "3 Min of Internet Skeptics vs Skeptic Scholar On "Did Jesus Exist?"

[@ortegafilms4575]

@@hhstark8663 yeah I’ve seen that, I need a source.

[@johnestes6436]

Meier is on volume 5, not 4. Apparently the 6th will be on the trial and death.

[@sergiomiranda6743]

1:26. Jesus was strongly NOT based on previous mythology. These are one of the false opinions many skeptics hold. I don’t think any respectable PhD person actually believes this. This is very wrong. It is cherry picking and twisting characteristics of some mythical characters into the New Testament Jesus character and seeing a link. The “God of Wine” Greek comparison to Jesus is the most hilarious. Just goes to show where people get their information.

[@zeloraz8101]

How come your debate with Jay ist here? Or mentioned?

[@leogm6725]

Is there anyway you can provide a rebuttal to the gnosticis who claim to be early Christians of that time and even today claim Jesus as theirs because of the nag hamadi texts

[@PianoForte9096]

First -- the gnostics' leaders cannot be faithfully traced back to the Apostles. Somewhere along the line, there will be someone who "rejected the norms" of the established Church to preach gnosticism. On the other hand, Catholicism and Orthodoxy can trace their bishops back to the Apostles -- Pope Francis to St. Peter, Patriarch Bartholomew to St. Andrew, and so on. Second -- the gnostic texts don't have the same historical caliber as the New Testament. All of the New Testament books were written by the end of the first century, many of them reference each other, and all were written by an Apostle or close associate. They were almost universally accepted by the Church at the time, which was only a generation or two past the Apostles. In contrast, the gnostic texts were written later and were often forgeries.

[@leogm6725]

@@PianoForte9096 Hey thank you for your reply this was a generous answer, I never thought about "Apostolic succession" and pitching it from that angle, nice!

[@PianoForte9096]

@@leogm6725 My pleasure! Actually, that's one of the main reasons I joined the Catholic Church -- Apostolic succession (and I did give Orthodoxy a fair hearing). I couldn't be Christian without the Bible, and I couldn't have the Bible without the Church.

[@leogm6725]

@@PianoForte9096 Yes, it was the beauty of the church for me it's 2,000 years of history with so much to learn from, I found it to be a treasure trove of wisdom and then everything else fell into place for me Hey I just recently bumped into a video that I highly recommend,, Michael S Heiser "early Christianity and gnosticisim" this is a thorough myth busting on gnosticisim, but There is more, he shares in this video, the Jewish concept called "the two powers in heaven" for the Trinity in the old testament an Orthodox belief until the 2 century a.d to keep it simple this is a gold mine of resource He's not Catholic but this is good scholarly work

[@christiancalhoun4576]

Trent I have never heard about this, please respond to that guy’s tiktok

[@hglundahl]

You meant me?

[@hglundahl]

Trent Horn, did I get you right, you said, on the authority of "nearly all scholars" that Jesus was a _marginal_ Jew? Would you consider that Martin Luther King and Elvis Presley were marginal US Americans, just because they were not Presidents or Cardinal Archbishops of New York? Or are you referring to "marginal" as in fact little known? Then you are contradicting the Holy Spirit: *And fear came upon all their neighbours; and all these things were noised abroad over all the hill country of Judea.* [Luke 1:65] *And the fame of him was spread forthwith into all the country of Galilee.* [Mark 1:28] *And the fame hereof went abroad into all that country.* [Matthew 9:26] *And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.* [Luke 10:1] *And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name.* [Luke 10:17] *And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days?* [Luke 24:18] *Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know:* [Acts 2:22]

[@wingedlion17]

I'm a former believer and friendly to mythicism and I think this was a good video. I will agree that the James the brother of the lord issue mentioned in Galatians and the born of a woman/born under the law are tough ones to get around. There's also a verse where Paul says "for once we knew him in the flesh". There are solid answers around these by Richard and bob price, but they are not 100% conclusive. Paul's silence and other descriptions of the heavenly christ are the key reasons to propose mythicism in the first place tho. In the end I think the question is 50/50. I think the Josephus testimonium is more likely 100% inserted and any reconstruction is arbitrary. The other reference may be stronger, but it then refers to a Jesus shortly later who became high priest(which the christian Jesus never did, so again this could be the christ/anointed referred to earlier). Fun to think about but I tend to think there no smoking gun on either side.

[@guigs5574]

I think there are about ten scholars who do not believe in the existence of Jesus

[@salvadorramirez4114]

What good are the best arguments of the people being argued are opinionated lazy people that think everything is subjective and based on perspective. They always ask what is truth. Notice these people never want to make a claim on their foundational beliefs and are roundabout and coy about opening up. Trust is a big factor in having someone open up. These people are very distrustful. Willing to take any side as long as it opposes. Seemingly rebels without a cause; far gone thinking themselves clever under all their masks of grey.

[@astrol4b]

Josephus was quoted by an Arab writer of the x century, it seems that is version is without interpolations, I'll leave the citation directly from the scholarly article about the subject. 6At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus}6 His conduct was good,11 and [he] was known to be virtuous.1 * And many people from among the Jews and the other nations19 became his disciples. Pilate20 condemned him to be crucified and to die.11 But22 those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.23 They reported24" that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accord- ingly25 he was perhaps the Messiah26 concerning whom the prophets have recounted21 wonders.'2 *

[@whatsinaname691]

I think that the last phrase could potentially be commentary not quote, but this secondary source is incredibly valuable

[@truthgiver8286]

Does it really matter the Jesus Of the Bible does not exist he did not walk on water, He was not crucified and he was not resurrected. Even the bible disputes itself as to his birth. Was there a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus quite possible it's a common name but who cares he was not the son of god born of a virgin all this stuff is copied from earlier religions.

[@hglundahl]

3:18 The argument you try to denounce as inadequate is not "there was more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar in the first C. AD" but "there is more evidence for Jesus than for Caesar Julius left to us now" - and the relative positions of Our Lord and Julius Caesar in 1st C BC Rome and 1st C AD Palestine is not relevant to that. It's more a question on which community was best at preserving evidence.

[@hglundahl]

5:54 Your comparison with William Wallace goes to the heart of the comparison with Caesar. While we have knowledge of Caesar _from his own writings,_ earliest example of these _we have_ is a manuscript from Francia written in Carolingian minuscule writing. I. e. it is way less proven by early manuscripts than the Gospels are, since from 1000 years after Caesar lived.

[@Troy-Moses]

Those might not be the best arguments, but they are certainly not "bad arguments".

[@thepalegalilean]

The worst argument for Christ is always going to be stronger than the best argument for mythicism.

[@DANtheMANofSIPA]

What do you think of the supposed Jesus, Yeshu, references in the Talmud?

[@spyroninja]

IMO the worst argument, and only because it is so common among bible-only christians, is "The Bible says so."

[@williamf.buckleyjr3227]

0:55 - 1:08 Opponent's expert: WRONG (You called them experts) Our expert: DING DING DING, CORRRRECT!! Because we have more....experts)

[@stcolreplover]

Isn’t the best argument against the Jesus Mythicism “pfft teehee he’s a Jesus mythicist”. And quietly move away from the person who took Zeitgeist so seriously.

[@marvalice3455]

Mockery can be effective, but only as a supplement to more subsubstancive arguments

[@stcolreplover]

@@marvalice3455 I understand, but since Jesus Mythicism is so fringe and based on conspiracy theories perhaps joking about it is better than actual engagement.

[@marvalice3455]

​@@stcolreplover you are entitled to that opinion

[@stcolreplover]

@@marvalice3455 .. okay, umm, if you were to meet a flat earther how seriously would you engage them?

[@marvalice3455]

@@stcolreplover I may. It would depend on the circumstances

[@d2dolan]

Name one tenured professor of history who questions the historical existence of Jesus. They will tell you there is much more evidence for him than for Julius Caesar ! No sense. Better stick to attacking what people believe about Jesus🙄

[@williamf.buckleyjr3227]

Forty-two SECONDS in -- 0:19 - Incomplete definition of Mysticism. 0:32 - 0:39 - "certain atheist communities online" (Begs the Question Logical Fallacy + Argumentum ad Populum = LAZY) 0:39 - Appeal to Authority/Education Logical Fallacy. Then again, your title does deal with BAD ARGUMENTS.

[@williamf.buckleyjr3227]

Stop dying your hair. (Fear me not, there will be more)

[@williamf.buckleyjr3227]

1:14 Only a handful of "relevant Ph.Ds" say our Blessed Lord never.... And YOUR argument JUST gave credibility to "relevant ---- Dude, JUST STOP. You are not helping ANYTHING at all.