Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : Listen to the full podcast here👉📱https://bit.ly/3tQGZaU>> <<@paulnash6944 says : “You can’t trust that document. It was written by Christians, they’re biased.” Me: Is that a biased statement?>> <<@jonathanshjrne3690 says : Early is more like AD 50 or before. Think about the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem isn't mentioned. Neither is the death of James in 55.>> <<@steveprofiler says : Why care?>> <<@most_rustic_patrick says : Yall are so close to tradition that you can almost taste the incense.>> <<@aadschram5877 says : “I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)>> <<@Lurkingdolphin says : Mark is earlier>> <<@wax99 says : No Frank, no one argues that we dont believe the bi le because it was "written by christians", that's not even remotely true. The response was also asinine...it's not even comparable. I hope you invite actual historians that dont share your point of view so the conversation actually moves forward instead of being a circlejerk.>> <<@brianharris7243 says : Written early or late doesn't mean they're true>> <<@Moist._Robot says : What if you were studying the American civil war and the only books you had claimed that George Washington was the son of god and rose from the dead. Can any Christian explain why they wouldn’t believe that?>> <<@richardcrow3042 says : I wonder what Cesare Borgia has to say about this.>> <<@voodoochild5440 says : The problem is there is no evidence for any of the so called miracles.>> <<@jd3jefferson556 says : Why would anyone follow the New Testament? Didn't the Catholic Church put the New Testament together, and they are just a bunch of idolaters and pagans I thought, yet we trust them to establish the New Testament?>> <<@MilesDei95 says : I used to bel8ve those things and i wanted to learn more how to burry the christian faith and i learned that i was mistaken>> <<@Redeemer_80 says : The irony about that last question is we should certainly be more circumspect around the honesty of those who wrote historical documents. We’re seeing history being rewritten right now. That being said, I have full faith in the NT. 🙏🏼>> <<@RangerRyke says : No Mark is written in Greek and the author was not an eye witness.>> <<@terryaucoin4708 says : I want more sources when the tale includes magical events.>> <<@fossilfishleg9188 says : Lying for Jesus.>> <<@eugeneking4844 says : They never existed like where's the gave sites>> <<@brendamoya8650 says : If the LORD has the power to bring all he did into existence from just speaking, why wouldn't he have the power to have a book with his words the infallible word of GOD, KJV HOLY BIBLE?>> <<@williamstonesmith7971 says : There are so many more reasons to believe the Bible is true than there are to doubt it.>> <<@tarp-grommet says : Wait a minute. Peter had been telling his story about Jesus over and over for 65 years after which Mark writes it down as if it had not morphed over all that time? Sorry - not credible.>> <<@MarkJones-fw3mo says : Funny because about 2 percent of 1 st century people could read or write.>> <<@jonathansmiddy7224 says : My college edition Bible says all the Gospels are anonymous. Lol 🤣>> <<@michaelgrantham1871 says : Think back, if you are in your 50s, to an event you attended in your 20s. Write it down. How accurate do you think your memory of that event from 30 years ago is?>> <<@ta3p-theannex3project84 says : May you lie and go to heaven.>> <<@Gek1177 says : The answer to this question is mostly but not entirely no.>> <<@davidlenett8808 says : There are very few scholars today who believe that the gospels were written by people who were with Jesus. Even in the traditional ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Mark was NOT a disciple of Jesus, he was a companion of Peter. Luke was not a disciple of Jesus, he was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul. Matthew (allegedly) was the tax collector with Jesus, and John (allegedly) was the beloved disciple,... -(that's the TRADITIONAL view). Most critical scholars DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYMORE. The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and the first point to stress is that, they don't claim to be. Matthew does not claim to be written by somebody named Matthew, Mark does not claim to be written by somebody named Mark. These ascriptions of authorship were added later,... much later,... decades later. The original authors wrote ANONYMOUSLY. The ONE thing we know about these authors is that they were highly educated Greek speaking Christians who were rhetorically trained in Greek composition, following Greek rhetorical strategies. The disciples of Jesus were neither Greek speaking nor highly educated. According to the book of Acts chapter 4, John and Peter were, 'agrammatoi' which is the word for illiterate (they were, 'unlettered') but, of course, very few people in the ancient world were educated. At this time in Palestine, the best estimates indicate that only 3% of the population could read, far fewer could actually write and nobody that scholars know of (with the exception of Josephus) could write in Greek. Jesus's disciples were not well educated Greek speaking Christians, they were lower class Aramaic speaking peasants from rural Galilee so whoever wrote these books were later Christians living somewhere else who were not disciples of Jesus.>> <<@ryanrockstarsessom768 says : Thank you>> <<@derekardito2032 says : None are original if indeed there were any original gospels. Not written by any that knew him . None are signed. None are written by those acreditted with doing so. As evidence of anything they are not worth a wank.>> <<@55Quirll says : They weren't written during JC's time, nothing exist that was written by JC. It was all written decades after he died. Too bad it couldn't have been written during his life time. - between 30 - 33 CE>> <<@katamas832 says : So even at best a second hand account, ignoring the fact that scholarly consensus highly disputes this, and says that the gospels are anonymously written. Written decades after the events. Not a good look.>> <<@Piproberts23 says : Otherwise known as hearsay>> <<@christophertaylor9100 says : I mean, Mark was there, too. He didn't get this stuff second hand>> <<@jaymichael91 says : Although we are inspired by Dr. Frank Turek, you would agree with the fact that those Christians were inspired by God to put together the truth and the facts surrounding the Gospels.>> <<@BeachsideHank says : The bible is to historical accuracy as is the Flintstones are a legitimate prehistory documentary.>> <<@thomasg627 says : I would certainly discount sources that have for generations been forwarded through mouth to mouth, because it's a known fact this way of forwarding messages leads to absurd exaggerations, insertions that weren't there on start and more. It's like King Arthur was invented and became a legendary hero, who in fact never lived and that story is at least 500 years younger than the bible stories.>> <<@festushaggen2563 says : So we have sworn eyewitness testimony from the apostles and disciples of Jesus vs the opinions of unbelievers today who weren't there. After careful consideration, I'll go with the testimony of the apostles and disciples. "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." II Peter 1:16>> <<@Thyalwaysseek says : Ask the Catholic Church, the Bible only exists in it's current form because of them.>> <<@macmac1022 says : Yes paul, one guy who spread a story. I mean just look at what hamaz did with the hospital strike, said it was isreal and people around the world believed it. Had nothing to do with it being reliable and everything to do with people just believing things they are told.>> <<@larzman651 says : That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. If you dont believe the bible is true , so what.>> <<@jimbob4484 says : It's church tradition that claims that Mark comes from Peter. There is no suggestion in the gospel that this is actually the case.>> <<@somerandom3247 says : So at best you have Peter making claims of supernatural events, and no way to verify them. Sorry, I don't have enough evidence to be a christian.>> <<@XDRONIN says : 1) Mark was not written in 65AD or earlier, it was written after Peter had died, and that is easy to tell because neither Peter nor even Paul ever mentioned or referenced the gospel of Mark 2) Peter was not a martyr because he was not sentenced to death for believing in Jesus, Peter was sentenced to death on the accusation of setting Rome on fire 3) I would discount George Washington *IF he was the Only source* for the American Revolution but, unlike the Gospel which for the resurrection only has one source, Peter, the American Revolution sources include British writers, French writers, Canadians, several mentions across the Americas and the rest of Europe So, the Gospels in terms of Evidence, external historical accounts, and number of independent sources of the American Revolution absolutely failed in comparison as a historical document>> <<@mattr.1887 says : Imagine if God just appeared and spoke to us. Then, we wouldn't even have to have this debate over how many decades out we can stretch "eyewitness testimony".>> <<@jamesw4250 says : No they are not. Even historians generally agree they aren't historically accurate>> <<@Mavors1099 says : Peter being the source of Mark is a mere tradition from the 2nd century. There's nothing in the gospel of Mark that indicates that Peter was the source. If Peter were the source of that gospel, Mark would have mentioned it.>> <<@iamjakebryant says : Amazing>> <<@exactlywhatineeded says : There’s really only one true religion. The rest were made cause one guy had his own Interpretation and wanted to run his own show. Just like now if I wanted to go to a island where there are tribesmen, I’m gonna take a religion, tweak it, and present them with MY religion and boom, now they’re under my control. In 50 years people are gonna be talking about Scientology like this, but it’s funny how we can all agree Scientology is a joke but they literally did what every other religion do, and that’s just to tweak already existing ideas and make it their own. And now they have hundreds of followers, go figure. Just follow god, if that’s what you believe in, Christianity, Catholicism, etc are just labels created by people who want to be in power, that’s how it was back then. Create a tribe, invade new lands and leave your religion behind so your people and power can expand.>> <<@logicalatheist1065 says : Historically reliable for true information? Absolutely not... It's historical literature though>>