6 thoughts on “Watch “Rabbi Tovia Singer: There was No Empty TombꟷThe Gospel’s Resurrection Accounts Never Occurred” on YouTube

      1. Thanks you agreeing Michael Brown schooled your scholars.
        When did a Jew became a friend of yours. Because Quran 5:51 says never to take a Jew as your friend. And you are quoting him woww. As a Muslim your brain is in your arsehole.😁😁😁


      2. Monkey, when did I say the coward Michael Brown schooled Tovia Singer? Are you high again monkey? Brown is a liar like all Christian apologists. Your gospels are a pack of lies. It’s no wonder Christianity loses MILLIONS of followers and your churches are empy. I think your brain disappeared long ago. No wonder you can only clean toilets. 😁😁😁


      3. Here is what Raymond Brown, not Michael Brown, said about the BS resurrection stories. He admitted they are contradictory:

        …the resurrection tradition consists of isolated appearances with little agreement among the various Gospels on circumstances and details.  A close study of the reports in the individual Gospels shows how numerous the variations are.”[16]

        Moreover, he also noted in a footnote:

        “Readers should be alerted that scholars tend to think of six different Gospel testimonies to the appearances: Mark 16:1-8; Matt 28; Luke 24 (plus Acts 1:1-11); John 20; John 21; and Mark 16:9-20.  In that arrangement there are two assumptions.  First, that Mark 16:9-20 was not written by Mark but was a later compilation (partly from material similar to Luke) added to the Gospel-the ‘Marcan Appendix’…Second, that John 21, although composed within the Johannine school, was not by the same writer as the rest of John, so that, despite a redactional attempt to make John 2o and 21 consecutive, John 21 contains an independent tradition about the appearances of Jesus.”[17]

        Hahahahaha, even your scholars agree that the Bible is BS, but they still believe it! 😁😁😁🤣🤣🤣


      4. More from Raymond Brown…Zozo’s roasting is just beginning! 😁😁😁 I told you I would bury you. 😉

        When discussing the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John, Brown admitted that:

        “…in all likelihood neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Gospel of John was actually written by the apostle whose name it bears – a position held by almost all the major Catholic commentators today.”[23]

        Furthermore, when discussing the traditional attribution of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, Brown admitted (emphasis in the original):

        “I would regard such arguments as totally devoid of scientific value.  The ecumenical study Peter in the New Testament was quite right in refusing to base any conclusions on the Papias statement.  Mark may be older than the other Gospels, but we know nothing biographical about the writer.  And there is no way to demonstrate that he was directly dependent on any eyewitness preacher, e.g., on Peter.”[24]

        Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Luke (and also the Book of Acts), Brown observed:

        “The tradition that the author of Luke/Acts was Luke, the companion of Paul, is often fixed in popular Catholic writing in English, despite the clear mistakes that Acts make about the career of Paul.”[25]

        Finally, perhaps Brown’s clearest judgment on the issue of the authorship of the Gospels is provided in his book The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus:

        “The Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus were written anywhere from thirty to sixty years after the events they narrate.  The evangelists were second-generation Christians who had not been eyewitnesses themselves.  I accept the common scholarly opinion that Mark was the first of our written Gospels (composed in the 60’s?).  The author of the Gospel that we call ‘according to Matthew’ was not Matthew the tax collector and companion of Jesus, but an unknown Christian who used as his source Mark’s Gospel (and other traditions) and who may have written in the 80’s.  Luke’s Gospel may be dated to the 80’s, give or take ten years, and is also dependent in part on Mark.  John’s Gospel was not written by the son of Zebedee nor by the beloved Disciple (if he was not the son of Zebedee), but by an unknown Christian who was a follower or disciple of the Beloved Disciple.  In its final form it was probably written in the 90’s.  Although not eyewitnesses themselves, the evangelists drew upon early traditions about Jesus.”[26]

        It is clear, then, that Brown did not regard the Gospels to be the actual first-hand testimony of Jesus’ life and teachings, unlike his more conservative brethren who still tend to deny the clear facts.[27]  It is far more likely that the Gospels were either, like many early Christian writings, written by people who claimed to be authoritative figures (like the disciples),[28] or were erroneously attributed to authoritative figures like the disciples of Jesus by later Christians.[29]  How then can they be used to determine what Jesus actually said, let alone what his disciples said or believed about him?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s