Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "" video.

  1.  @davidagiel8130  " history is written by people who don't care about facts." You're just full of unfounded assertions, aren't you? How about an argument. You've just heard the evidence and documentation, what do you have to set against that but "I don't wanna believe that and I'll keep making outrageous assertions till the cows come home"?
    283
  2.  @endersdragon34  "the gospels were written wayyyyyy after he allegedly died (and we don't have any gospel manuscripts from anywhere near when they were likely first written) anything in them is doubtful." We have COPIES of books of the New Testament dating to the first two centuries, less than two hundred years after the originals were written and incomplete books and fragments much closer to the time of their writing by Jesus' contemporaries. Almost any NT (New Testament)book counts as a historical account of Jesus in his historical and religious context, because all were written by his contemporaries and refer to him. Here are a few of the oldest NT MSS (manuscripts). These manuscripts were dated by antiquity scholars by commonly recognized methods, such as analysis of character styles P67: contains Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28: MS date circa 200AD, approx. 130 years after the original was written: location: Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc.1 P66: John 1:1-6:11, 35-14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9: book originally written 70s AD; MS Date circa 200 AD; approx. 130 years after the original: location: Cologne, Geneva P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus): Rom. 5:17-6:3, 5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1, 9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28: books written 50s - 70s AD; MSS date circa 200 AD, aprox 150 years after orig.: location: Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin & Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan Library P52: John 18:31-33, 37-38: book originally written circa AD 96; MS date circa AD 125; aprox 29 years after orig.: location: John Rylands Library, Manchester, England Continuing with New Testament historical documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles "There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus." This is not the Christian view, this is the view of SECULAR New Testament scholars. The above evidences, among others show that the New Testament itself, is a valid contemporary historical witness to the life and ministry of one Jesus of Nazareth. Of course there are secular Roman and Jewish contemporary and near contemporary references. They confirm the general outlines, that Jesus lived in the place and time described, was reputed to be a miracle worker, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. James Mohr - "No modern historian, including atheist and agnostic historians dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical figure, that Paul wrote the epistles attributed to him (about half the New Testament), or that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by Luke the sometimes companion of Paul." There is no historical reason to reject the internal claims of authorship. The authorship of most of the books are attested to by early sources, external and internal. Based on purely scholarly standards, this would never have become a controversy. It only is such because of philosophical objections to the content of the New Testament works. They blow smoke about the books because they don't like what they say.
    228
  3.  @davidagiel8130  There is no professor of history who doubts that Jesus was a historical figure. Carrier is not a historian, he's an Internet hack.
    217
  4.  @DrachenGothik666  "Those scholars are still working from materials that were created a 100 years after Jesus. It's assumed they're copies of earlier material, when we don't have the originals to hand." Your first sentence approaches accuracy if you substitute "copied" for created. All scholars of antiquity are working with such materials and worse. You only object when it gores your ox. For comparison here is a summary of our MSS attestation for other ancient writings: Author Approx Span Number of Accuracy by comparison between original copies among copies & extant ancient manuscript Lucretius 1100 yrs 2 --- Pliny 750yrs 7 --- Plato 1200yrs 7 --- Demosthenes 800yrs 8 --- Heroditus 1300yrs 8 --- Suetonius 800yrs 8 --- Thucydides 1300yrs 8 --- Euripides 1300yrs 9 --- Astophanes 1200yrs 10 --- Caesar 1000yrs 10 --- Tacitus 1000yrs 20 --- Aristotle 1400yrs 49 --- Sophocles 1400yrs 193 --- Homer 500yrs 643 95% New (see above) 5600 99.5% Testament My source for this info was: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiAxbWlzdDRAhVM1oMKHdLoB54QFggNMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE1O9x3R1MxH6yY1W1m7e5Yik4U_w Their sources are listed, if you wish to check the info. The remainder of your post is just unsupported assertions, cordially ignored.
    2
  5.  @hannajung7512 "Carrier is in fact a historian. He promotes a minority oppinion. And he might be very wrong by doing so, but he is still a historian, with degree and everything." If you have a degree and you lie about your sources (Egyptian legends and myths), you're not a scholar.
    2
  6.  @TorianTammas  The attestation of authorship is better in the case of the Biblical books than the others under consideration. Your "distinction" has no HISTORICAL validity. It is based on assuming you're right about Christianity, thus you're reasoning in a circle (since you were trying to use it as an argument against Christianity). If you want to justify treating the Biblical books differently, you are going to have to produce a reason that ISN"T based on your desires.
    2
  7.  @DrachenGothik666  "Those scholars are still working from materials that were created a 100 years after Jesus." Did you not read the documentary evidence or did you not understand it? Your statement is contradicted by extant documents. "Gods aren't real." That is outside the scope of the subject. I would respond to it, but the thread has nearly the 500 limit of posts. I will just note that if you are not familiar with the evidence for Christianity, you have not looked.
    2
  8.  @duncanbryson1167  "Who are you calling professors of history? Religious 'scholars' I was clear enough, there are no professors, religious or secular that teach that Jesus was not a historical figure. Preeminent Biblical scholar and atheist Bart Ehrman - "I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world... "[of evidence for life of Jesus] I have a whole book on it.... "I know in the crowds you all run around with it is commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave there's nobody. I mean this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity, any related field who doubts that Jesus existed. "The reason for thinking Jesus exists is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That's why.`"
    1