An Exercise in Refuting Ridiculousness

Yesterday a buddy sent me a note regarding a video YouTube that his friend said was a good argument against Christianity. Always interested in the arguments used against the faith I checked it out without much delay.  What I found was simply an exercise in ridiculousness. At first I was going to offer a point by point refutation of this but what disturbed me most was not his rhetoric (I can’t even call it an argument).  What disturbed me most is that any Christian would not have the basic understanding of the New Testament to just laugh when hearing this guy. Unfortunately too many American churches just may have been busy doing laser light shows on Sundays and teaching repeated series on sex, money, marriage and how to be a winner.

So, what I want to do instead of refuting this is to interact with you guys and let you refute it.  Let’s call it a joint POCBlog “learn in.”  So here is the plan.  Watch the video below.  Then in the comments (if you are reading this on Facebook, go to the blog here to post your comments) list what you hear that is wrong with his argument and offer some thoughts. I’ll weigh in along the way as well and we’ll learn together how to refute this sort of rhetoric not uncommon from Muslim apologists in the West.

Are you game? Drop the knowledge below…I’ll provide a bibliography of sources at some point for reading on the history of the New Testament, but for now lets just do some work together.

Here is the first part of the assignment:

Comments

[Craig]

I'll chime in with a few obvious flaws in his argument. I admit that questions of when exactly books were written is not something I know much of. So I won't refute the first part of his argument. However, here's what I have.

First of course is that there are more than just 5 authors of the New Testament. Aside from the 4 Gospel writers and Paul, we have James, Peter, the unknown author of Hebrews (though I admit, that one doesn't help to combat this guy's arguments), and Jude. Two of these are considered to be Jesus' own brothers. One of them was the disciple on whom Jesus said he would build his church. These people did have experiences and actually meet Jesus.

Also, as far as Jesus never declaring his own divinity and it being these 5 writers who were the first to do it: In John chapter 10, Jesus says "I and the Father are one." If he were to argue that this was the story "According to John" and not what actually happened, I'll take John's word. John was the apostle that Jesus loved. He was also there with Jesus through much of his ministry.

Also, his account of Paul's conversion was inaccurate. In Acts 9:7 it says "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." There were people there who could vouch for the voice from the heavens declaring to be Jesus.

And Saul was not a bounty hunter of sorts. He was an incredibly zealous Jew. He didn't ship people off to Rome to be killed. He was persecuting the church in Jerusalem, and it was in Jerusalem where people like Stephen were tried and killed.

I guess that's enough from me. We miss you Reid.

[Jon Suarez]

This guy's argument is obnoxiously ignorant.

Authors of the bible, as above stated, were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Paul, Peter, and Jude. Where does he get off saying Matthew and John weren't disciples? I'm not sure if he made that argument clear. Is it the whole "40 years" and "80 years" after Jesus Christ? Maybe he thinks 'AD' stands for after death? Because Matthew is said to be written late 50s AD, Mark is said to be written mid to late 50s, Luke in 62 AD and John in sometime soon after 70AD. So a man never lives to be 60+ years old during this time period?

Matthew and John WERE direct disciples of Jesus. Mark obtained most of his account from his close affiliation with Peter, who was also a disciple of Jesus. Luke obtained most of his account from Paul, who was a chosen apostle of Jesus. Now, the argument made about Paul is completely out there. First off, as above stated, there were other witnesses who could attest to this conversion. Not only that, but Paul spent a time with the other apostles, who were disciples, and was legitimately accepted as an Apostle of Christ. Peter, in his letters, even quotes Paul's epistles as being Scripture, which even further shows he had the acceptance from the other apostles as an apostle.

So all the gospel accounts are legitimate. Not only that, they were not collaborative to any large extent. The fact that they coincide so well in their testimonies is astounding considering they were written during different time periods, by different men, at different places, to different people! It only further shows the "God-breathed" attribute about the Scriptures.

I can't even talk about this guy's idea of "last names." Does this guy think Jesus' last name was Christ? I'm just curious...

And finally, Paul's persecution of the church is an absolute key PART of why his testimony is so important to God's work in the Scriptures. The guy has his story all mixed up; Paul was no Hitler. But that's not even important. What's important to note is that he WENT to the apostles and even they and the early church were skeptical at first. But he was accepted and understood to be an apostle, that the Holy Spirit would be used by him. This guy was went with "far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times [Paul] received at the hand of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times [Paul ] was beaten with rods. Once [he] was stoned. three times [Paul] was shipwrecked; a night and day [he] was adrift at sea..." and even more! His devotion to the Gospel message and God's transforming work of grace is beyond admirable; it is miraculous. Yes, he is beyond credible.

I don't know if I left any one of his points out. But this argument sounds like something someone in middle school put together. And I am seriously convinced this guy thinks "AD" means 'After Death'. And I am seriously convinced this guy thinks Jesus' last name is Christ...

[Jon Suarez]

Oh yeah! And the ridiculous point of Jesus not declaring to be God. According to who?! It is riddled all over the gospels. And like Craig said, he would probably just say that was "According to [person]." I would like to know what historically credible documents than he was referring to? That said Jesus never claimed to be God? Or maybe God told him, or Jesus told him. That would make it more credible, I guess =/?

[Denise Montini]

GAME ON!! :)
I could spend the rest of my afternoon refuting this guy's absurd claims. Craig and Jon have already posted some great rebuttals and I will try to not repeat too much of what they have already said.
There are so many inaccuracies in this guy's speech that it becomes (or rather, starts off and remains) laughable. He states that there were no disciples. Really? According to this man, none of the 12 knew, walked with, talked with, ate with, or ever met Jesus? I'd like him to site his source on this one. It is a laughable claim; the New Testament contains chapter upon chapter upon chapter of accounts of the interactions Jesus had with those who followed Him. Matthew, John, Peter, Jude (aka Thaddeus), and James all were Disciples and all wrote according to their first-hand eyewitness experiences. I think Peter said it best in 2 Peter 1:16 "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." To list all the accounts when these writers of the New Testament met, knew, walked with, ate with, and talked with Jesus would be too lengthy for this reply. [ I do wonder how this guy has managed to live his whole life without hearing about The Last Supper, though.]

He also asks us the question "Who were they? What was their last names?" ~ any google search can produce these answers . Maybe he doesn't have internet access.

His whole "according to" argument is such a reach that I am almost embarrassed for him that he included it. These men didn't sit down to "write the Bible", They were writing their accounts of what they saw and heard and experienced ~ sharing the gospel , or "good news" of Jesus Christ. (Btw, got a good chuckle out of Jon's comment stating this guy probably thinks Christ was Jesus' last name. Good point though, and we as Christians need to know the meaning and importance of Christ). Paul was writing letters to people HE KNEW. When is the last time one of us wrote a letter to a good friend and signed it with our full name. James and Jude were also writing letters, although apparently this guy knows nothing of them as he states more than once that Paul wrote everything in the New Testament, but the four Gospel accounts. "That the man called Paul...,that because he wrote all the books from Acts all the way to the end of the New Testament..."
How such a man so ignorant of the Bible feels he has the right to be speaking against it is beyond me. He further reveals his ignorance of the Word when he states that Paul was another man who never walked with or talked to or knew Jesus. Anyone who has read Acts 9 would know that Paul met and talked to Jesus on that road to Damascus. (It was pointed out in the previous comments the other errors in this man's knowledge of the events leading up to and occurring on that road). And further more, who said one has to have met Jesus while He walked on the earth as a man in order to meet Him, know Him, walk with Him, talk with Him, etc? Paul accepted Jesus as Lord and was filled with the Holy Spirit (Act 9:17) and therefore, MET, KNEW, WALKED WITH, ETC Jesus! Just as we can and do today!!!

Already having concluded that this man has never read the Bible, it is more apparent that he has never read any of John. Jesus continually spoke of God The Father as HIS Father and furthermore is clear in stating just exactly who He is ~ the Messiah. That guy needs to read John 4:25-26, John 10:24-38 (esp in the Amplified Bible), John 13:19, Matthew 16:13-20, Luke 22:66-71 , the the list could go on and on.

And then this man falsely states what the Church teaches and accuses us for not reading history. What a fool. He has shown himself to be fully ignorant . After all this man's ranting, I can conclusively say that THIS man has never met, walked with, eaten with, talked to, or known Jesus. I pray that he does.

[BV]

LOL: the guy says you can't take the text seriously as history, and then proceeds to explain Paul's past life, which is explained in the same books he's saying can't be taken seriously as history. booooo

[j-rod]

I've dialogued via email with a professing Muslim and he constantly references the guy in this youtube clip as an authoritative/scholarly/intellectual source. It's pretty frustrating.
Everyone's refuting comments, so far, look to be right on.
I'd be curious what an honest, non-Christian historian would say in response to this guy in the youtube clip...

[Dees]

Did anyone mention that this is not the orthodox Islamic view of the Bible? So that makes him crazy in two religions.