God An Anatomy, shows like yours, and stories like this convinced me that the Bible was man-made and mythology. I tried for a short period to be an agnostic atheist, but then I realized I was an atheist. When I read God An Anatomy it was like a Mac truck and wreaking ball hit my wall of faith. Thank you for your insight and wisdom
Verse 6 completely contradicts the necessity for a savior. It disproves the trope "nobody could keep the law." THEY DID. They were considered righteous and blameless. Luke 1 v6 _And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_ Paul ON PURPOSE truncates (takes away) Deut 30:14-17 to imply that people were not able to keep the Torah, and that error has festered throughout Christianity to re-engineer sin to be an inherent problem and not simply obedience or not.
Also some Christians say Mary was the immaculate conception, born without original sin. So god CAN do that when he wants to, and if we’re born without original sin and we keep the law and don’t sin during our lives we wouldn’t need Jesus to forgive us
I didn’t get this video notification or suggestion at all for 4 days until I went to your channel to see why it had been so long since the last one I saw 8 days ago
I have never been influenced by such extraordinary claims, as I was never pressured into accepting them. On the subject of improbable biblical supernatural claims, one Christian told me “you have to accept the possibility that...” He claimed that god had fixed up the laws of physics to start with, without providing a shred of evidence. I told him that he had the burden of proof, and that I didn't 'have to accept' anything.
Personally I just think Matthew and Luke copy so much literally from Mark that you can't consider them to be independent in any meaningful way, which means 4 'witnessing' gospels suddenly become two.. And then if you remove everything that is clearly impossible from both Mark and John, and then only consider what's in both Mark and John, how much do you really have left? Enough to be worth 10% of your entire existence, that's totally unfalsifiable and therefore can not be proven to not be a con? A true believer will never stop believing, of course, but that's on them..
As I've argued before, I think there is good reason to believe that the third gospel was actually written by Luke. And where did Luke get his information? He will go on to tell the birth of Jesus narrative from Mary's standpoint. Luke says that Mary visited Elizabeth (1:39-56). We are then told a little later that "Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart" (2:19 & 51), which raises the interesting question, did Luke have the opportunity to interview Mary in person?
What good reason? Because you want to believe it? The writer is not named and his sources are not named and documented. I many other ancient documents this would be a basis for saying - the author is unknown. As for Mary being the source material - also not stated and thus conjecture. Conjuncture is rejected by historians and in court as well for good reasons. As for Mary, the next part of the series will deal with that.
@@therabydatheist As I've said before, the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, and the changes in pronouns indicates taht the author was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. And Irenaeus, who had access to better sources of information than we have, states that Luke was the author of this gospel. And no, I wouldn't attempt to try this case in a modern court of law. But it must be remembered that in dealing with ancient history and literature the surviving resources tend to be meager. Would you succeed in trying Brutus in a modern day court of law for having assassinated Julius Caesar?
@@robertwheeler1158 What sources did Irenaus have ? Specfics please. Because this sounds like more conjecture, we also have to concede he could have bene mistaken. Without corroboration his testimony would be dismissed as well. As for Luke and Acts being written by the same author granted, but once again the we passages could indicate the writer is copying another source and not referring to himself. Given that he copies Mark verbatim it is not to much of stretch to think he is copying a source that had the 'we' in it. It does not prove he was a companion of Paul. The point of bringing up the court thing is this - every religion has this problem so by faith I could beleif in any of them. If there is not way to adjudicate between religions then Pick one and you on the same ground as any other.
@@therabydatheist Irenaeus does not tell us his sources, but as an early church father he could appeal to the apostolic succession within the church. Luke himself, in his prologue to the gospel, states that he sources were eyewitnesses. And as Eusebius would later point out, if the author really was Luke, then Luke would have had conversations with various of the apostles. In dealing with an ancient book like the Gospel According to Luke, or any of the biblical writings, what evidence is available to establish the authorship? Typically statements contained within the book itself, along with early church tradition. My huge complaint with modern higher criticism is that they will dismiss the available evidence, and then replace with a purely conjectural scenario.
John the Baptist is an interesting figure whose historicity seems to be on more solid ground than other New Testament characters. If I recall, he's mentioned by Josephus, and unlike Josephus' "Jesus passage", this one isn't disputed by scholars. I agree with you that Luke probably made the story up. Now, this is all speculation, and I'm no Biblical scholar, but reading between the lines, it wouldn't surprise me that John the Baptist had a bigger following and had more influence than did Jesus at one time. He wasn't a footnote like the Gospels imply. Acts talks about the "baptism of John" being different from the baptism practiced by the apostles, which says that John's movement was still around even though he'd been dead for some time now. I believe the early Christian movement, since they could not dismiss this rival group, co-opted it and reinvented it for their purposes; hence Luke's origin story. But although they could not get rid of John the Baptist and his followers, they could downplay it as much as possible. And while they were doing that, the Romans intervened and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, effectively ending the Baptist movement which did not survive. This was a major disruption, forcing people to be scattered to the four winds, so when you talk about eyewitnesses, there's no way any of them could have been tracked down if indeed there were any. That was in 70 CE with the coupe de grace coming around 135 CE. So it would have been very easy to make things up; who's going to contradict you? The reason Christianity survived while John the Baptist's movement did not is that while both started out as apocalyptic nationalistic revolutionary movements, Christianity, thanks to Paul, was busy reinventing itself and adapting itself to the broader world and did not need a physical nation to survive. The loss of the Temple meant Judaism had to change as well, but, what a lot of people don't realize is that Judaism has existed far longer without a Temple than with one. The First Temple didn't last very long before it was destroyed and the people sent into exile; and yes, when they finally returned, they rebuilt a new one which Herod remodeled just before its destruction; but they don't have one now and while there are people advocating for a Third Temple to be built, there are so many numerous problems with this that I don't see it happening any time soon--and personally, I don't think it should be. I think it would be a step backwards for the Jewish religion if it returned to the animal sacrifice model laid out by the Torah. Animal sacrifice isn't a big part of religious ritual the way it was back 2,000 years ago and those groups that still practice it often find themselves running into opposition. I cannot imagine animal sacrifices ever returning to Israel on the scale that it was practiced back then without some kind of global outcry--and I don't see it happening at all, because the ones who want this are very much in the minority. What I do see is eventually some kind of agreement where the existing Dome of the Rock complex will be shared between Jews and Muslims. But that's getting off track. I do think that it is quite possible, as I've said, that John the Baptist's movement was much bigger and more organized than the one that replaced it and that it had nothing do to with Jesus but was its own separate thing.
God An Anatomy, shows like yours, and stories like this convinced me that the Bible was man-made and mythology. I tried for a short period to be an agnostic atheist, but then I realized I was an atheist.
When I read God An Anatomy it was like a Mac truck and wreaking ball hit my wall of faith.
Thank you for your insight and wisdom
This was a quick 1
Verse 6 completely contradicts the necessity for a savior. It disproves the trope "nobody could keep the law." THEY DID. They were considered righteous and blameless. Luke 1 v6 _And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_ Paul ON PURPOSE truncates (takes away) Deut 30:14-17 to imply that people were not able to keep the Torah, and that error has festered throughout Christianity to re-engineer sin to be an inherent problem and not simply obedience or not.
Also some Christians say Mary was the immaculate conception, born without original sin. So god CAN do that when he wants to, and if we’re born without original sin and we keep the law and don’t sin during our lives we wouldn’t need Jesus to forgive us
I didn’t get this video notification or suggestion at all for 4 days until I went to your channel to see why it had been so long since the last one I saw 8 days ago
I have never been influenced by such extraordinary claims, as I was never pressured into accepting them. On the subject of improbable biblical supernatural claims, one Christian told me “you have to accept the possibility that...” He claimed that god had fixed up the laws of physics to start with, without providing a shred of evidence. I told him that he had the burden of proof, and that I didn't 'have to accept' anything.
Personally I just think Matthew and Luke copy so much literally from Mark that you can't consider them to be independent in any meaningful way, which means 4 'witnessing' gospels suddenly become two.. And then if you remove everything that is clearly impossible from both Mark and John, and then only consider what's in both Mark and John, how much do you really have left? Enough to be worth 10% of your entire existence, that's totally unfalsifiable and therefore can not be proven to not be a con? A true believer will never stop believing, of course, but that's on them..
As I've argued before, I think there is good reason to believe that the third gospel was actually written by Luke. And where did Luke get his information? He will go on to tell the birth of Jesus narrative from Mary's standpoint. Luke says that Mary visited Elizabeth (1:39-56). We are then told a little later that "Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart" (2:19 & 51), which raises the interesting question, did Luke have the opportunity to interview Mary in person?
What good reason? Because you want to believe it? The writer is not named and his sources are not named and documented. I many other ancient documents this would be a basis for saying - the author is unknown. As for Mary being the source material - also not stated and thus conjecture. Conjuncture is rejected by historians and in court as well for good reasons. As for Mary, the next part of the series will deal with that.
@@therabydatheist As I've said before, the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, and the changes in pronouns indicates taht the author was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul. And Irenaeus, who had access to better sources of information than we have, states that Luke was the author of this gospel.
And no, I wouldn't attempt to try this case in a modern court of law. But it must be remembered that in dealing with ancient history and literature the surviving resources tend to be meager. Would you succeed in trying Brutus in a modern day court of law for having assassinated Julius Caesar?
@@robertwheeler1158 What sources did Irenaus have ? Specfics please. Because this sounds like more conjecture, we also have to concede he could have bene mistaken. Without corroboration his testimony would be dismissed as well.
As for Luke and Acts being written by the same author granted, but once again the we passages could indicate the writer is copying another source and not referring to himself. Given that he copies Mark verbatim it is not to much of stretch to think he is copying a source that had the 'we' in it. It does not prove he was a companion of Paul.
The point of bringing up the court thing is this - every religion has this problem so by faith I could beleif in any of them. If there is not way to adjudicate between religions then Pick one and you on the same ground as any other.
@@therabydatheist Irenaeus does not tell us his sources, but as an early church father he could appeal to the apostolic succession within the church.
Luke himself, in his prologue to the gospel, states that he sources were eyewitnesses. And as Eusebius would later point out, if the author really was Luke, then Luke would have had conversations with various of the apostles.
In dealing with an ancient book like the Gospel According to Luke, or any of the biblical writings, what evidence is available to establish the authorship? Typically statements contained within the book itself, along with early church tradition. My huge complaint with modern higher criticism is that they will dismiss the available evidence, and then replace with a purely conjectural scenario.
John the Baptist is an interesting figure whose historicity seems to be on more solid ground than other New Testament characters. If I recall, he's mentioned by Josephus, and unlike Josephus' "Jesus passage", this one isn't disputed by scholars. I agree with you that Luke probably made the story up. Now, this is all speculation, and I'm no Biblical scholar, but reading between the lines, it wouldn't surprise me that John the Baptist had a bigger following and had more influence than did Jesus at one time. He wasn't a footnote like the Gospels imply. Acts talks about the "baptism of John" being different from the baptism practiced by the apostles, which says that John's movement was still around even though he'd been dead for some time now. I believe the early Christian movement, since they could not dismiss this rival group, co-opted it and reinvented it for their purposes; hence Luke's origin story. But although they could not get rid of John the Baptist and his followers, they could downplay it as much as possible. And while they were doing that, the Romans intervened and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, effectively ending the Baptist movement which did not survive. This was a major disruption, forcing people to be scattered to the four winds, so when you talk about eyewitnesses, there's no way any of them could have been tracked down if indeed there were any. That was in 70 CE with the coupe de grace coming around 135 CE. So it would have been very easy to make things up; who's going to contradict you? The reason Christianity survived while John the Baptist's movement did not is that while both started out as apocalyptic nationalistic revolutionary movements, Christianity, thanks to Paul, was busy reinventing itself and adapting itself to the broader world and did not need a physical nation to survive. The loss of the Temple meant Judaism had to change as well, but, what a lot of people don't realize is that Judaism has existed far longer without a Temple than with one. The First Temple didn't last very long before it was destroyed and the people sent into exile; and yes, when they finally returned, they rebuilt a new one which Herod remodeled just before its destruction; but they don't have one now and while there are people advocating for a Third Temple to be built, there are so many numerous problems with this that I don't see it happening any time soon--and personally, I don't think it should be. I think it would be a step backwards for the Jewish religion if it returned to the animal sacrifice model laid out by the Torah. Animal sacrifice isn't a big part of religious ritual the way it was back 2,000 years ago and those groups that still practice it often find themselves running into opposition. I cannot imagine animal sacrifices ever returning to Israel on the scale that it was practiced back then without some kind of global outcry--and I don't see it happening at all, because the ones who want this are very much in the minority. What I do see is eventually some kind of agreement where the existing Dome of the Rock complex will be shared between Jews and Muslims. But that's getting off track. I do think that it is quite possible, as I've said, that John the Baptist's movement was much bigger and more organized than the one that replaced it and that it had nothing do to with Jesus but was its own separate thing.