Even the adversaries of Jesus declared the tomb in Jerusalem to be "empty." Why and how, that is still being disputed today. To pull off any "hoax" of this magnitude is also not possible because it happened in Jerusalem during the Allyah of the feast of unleavened bread, the most unlikely place to pull of any deceptive or misleading event that requires a physical proof. No magic trick at Passover in Jerusalem. God bless. Very great video. Very professional!
@@cygnusustus Exobiblical and historical sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus and many other historical and "non-followers" of Jesus have recorded this fact... "The adversaries of Jesus in Jerusalem verified and pronounce 'An Empty Tomb.'" Tomorrow is Pesach (Passover), why don't you take up this issue when you see Him, the Passover Lamb who was now were to be found in His tomb 2K years ago?!? Why deny to greatest truth... He's not here, He is risen. All sins are forgiven, atonement has been secured.
@@Wendell_Hartlauer "Exobiblical and historical sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus and many other historical and "non-followers" of Jesus have recorded this fact" Nope. All they recorded were what early Christian beliefs were. 'Why deny to greatest truth." Why lie to defend your faith?
Michael, the saying you quoted at the beginning should be, "You don't die _for what you know is_ a lie." Many people have died for lies that they thought were true. The disciples were willing to die for Jesus because they knew he was alive! *Hallelujah!*
cyg, you're quite ignorant of the abundance of NT manuscripts from the first century, plus all the other evidence that points to the NT being written while most of the eyewitnesses were around to verify the writings.
Today it's much more difficult to fake a resurrection. We've morgues, science, video and audio recording, DNA tests and so on so forth. Imo not a good argument
I think we should also ask why the leaders had the Roman guards say (under penalty of death any other time), that they fell asleep? I think we should also ask why the Jewish leaders who hated Jesus just didn't drag his dead carcass through the streets and stop the fledgling movement right then and there? I think we should ask why Jesus' brother James, who did not believe Jesus' claims to be the Messiah, became the pastor of the first Christian church in Jerusalem, at a particularly deadly time for Christians when the persecution was ramping up against them? We should further ask why James was thrown off a building and killed as a martyr because he refused to recant that Jesus had risen? I also think we should ask why there are no secular Jewish historian accounts showing this all out to be a hoax, and providing us with the historical accounts of the Jewish and Roman leaders providing Jesus' dead body to the crowds, thereby putting this entire "resurrection" to sleep, once and for all? I think we should also ask why those timid, cowardly disciples went from scared little men, to roaring lions of the Christian faith, willing to die testifying that they had seen the Risen Jesus? I think we should answer those questions as well.
This was the best video for the resurrection evidence by comparing a solid real case. It makes us puts all things into consideration. We can argue that the disciples wanted to apply resurrection prophecies to their leader, and even lied by stealing his corpse from the tomb, but such tiny deception wouldn't have succeeded for few months let alone changed the world and our lives. The comparison was amazing and perfect.
@@cygnusustus his gave evidence for the integrity of the witnesses, that they are more likely to be trustworthy, not liars. See how historical criteria works, also see criteria for Jesus historicity. Watch William Lane Craig debates on the resurrection.
@@OneStepToday "his gave evidence for the integrity of the witnesses" What witnesses? None of the Gospels are eye witness accounts! What was the evidence that the Gospels are credible accounts? Still waiting for that historical criteria, kid!
So they believe that the Messiah would die and rise from the dead?? Why do they continue to reject Jesus since there is far more evidence that He did rise from the dead then that guy who didn’t even give his followers a time in which he would rise from the dead. Therefore he is a con artist. Jesus did give us a time frame that which we can know for sure rather then wait in uncertainty.
I hear. I hear. But Muslims also claim Muhammad split the moon. Did miracles, had revelations from God etc. Were all of these people delusional? I don't know how much of the New Testament is embellished and how much is historical. We just don't know who preserved the New Testament writings/tradition before the councils of Nicea, Trent etc after the Apostles were martyed. The Pope wears a Zuchetto. This was to convince Christians the Pope recieved all the traditions from Peter and Paul even down to the head covering. Which many believe became the standard head covering for Jews by the rabbis when the Talmud was codified. Let me ask you this: we don't know all of the authors of the NT. Some scholars claim there was 'pious fraud'. The story about the adulterous whom JC saved and said you who is without sin cast the first stone. Is in some older editions of the bible and not others. Hence why JWs omit it from their NWT Bible. If this is true then we can compare thr writings of the NT to Apocrypha such as Enoch. Although attributed to Enoch enough evidence suggests it is original or has changes, not accepted into Cannon etc. There is 150 Psalms according to Orthodox Jews. But check out Psalms 151 or 152. We reject them as not part of the tradition we recieved. How can I discern for myself what is original and what is fake? So if I compare NT to Apocrypha for similar reasons and JC didn't write it...I would have to throw it aside. Is that fair?!
After the New Testament books were written, copies of the autographs were made and dispersed throughout the early Christian communities. Copies of the copies were also made, and we know that Paul encouraged this because he wrote, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.” (Col 4:16) But how do we know that the texts we have today accurately contain what the authors wrote? Did errors creep into the texts? By comparing the oldest surviving manuscripts, subtle textual variations - called copyist’s glosses - can be identified. For example, a copy of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians sent to the church in Ephesus may have differed slightly from the copy sent to Antioch. Each subsequent copy of the Ephesian text would contain those same unique glosses making it distinguishable from copies made from the manuscript in Antioch. In this way, the small, unique textual variations which passed from generation to generation are traceable in each “family tree” of manuscripts. Following these family trees backwards in time, scholars are able to establish with a high degree of certainty that we know exactly what the original authors wrote.
@randycarson9812 I listened to different scholars such as Bart Erhman. But I am interested to read and learn more. I don't have an agenda. But multiple scholars in the field have claimed the books were not all written by the original authors as claimed. Is there a documentary you would suggest I watch or book to read? Please leave as much material as possible so myself and others can read it.
@@YoelCohen1424 That's an interesting request, and I will give some thought as to where to begin your reading. Yes, I'm familiar with Ehrman and his views. The good news is that he agrees that Jesus was a real person and not a myth. He also accepts many of the facts surrounding the resurrection (eg., that the disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus), but he draws a different conclusion, of course. Here's one question based upon the principle known as the criterion of embarrassment: If you were going to take an anonymously written document about Jesus and assign a name to it, why would you choose two Gentiles (Mark and Luke) who were not direct eyewitnesses or disciples of Jesus? Wouldn't the names of Peter or James have greater gravitas among the early disciples? (Apocryphal gospels written much later did exactly that, but they are not considered inspired.) Similarly, the fact that the resurrection was first reported by women (whose testimony was worthless in court) is another example of an embarrassing detail. These two examples illustrate that the Early Church didn't try to hide the truth but laid out the facts as they actually occurred. So, although the gospels don't begin, "I, Matthew, wrote this book...", there is no evidence that they were ever attributed to anyone other than the authors we know them by today. The Church handed this information down regardless of whether it strengthened or weakened the books' credibility simply because the attributions were true. Update: You might start here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/gospel-authorshipwho-cares
@@YoelCohen1424 Unfortunately, I don't know of a single documentary. I will save this comment and get back to you. What I can say confidently is that scholars have reached a consensus about the authorship of each NT book. But that doesn't 100% agreement, of course! In general, scholars _generally_ believe that there is no reason to dismiss the traditional authorship of most of the books (especially the gospels) while James is much less certain and Hebrews is unknown (with various theories proposed).
@@MultiRm You concede there is nothing written by Jesus. You concede there are no eye witness accounts of Jesus. You concede there are no contemporary Roman or Jewish records of Jesus.
We don't have a single eye witness account of the resurrection, or even of Jesus. So claiming that eye witnesses were willing to die for it is just a fantasy.
@@MultiRm ““But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” Ezekiel 18:21-23 NIV No Jesus needed!!! Your welcome
@@MultiRm lol nice try, The passage literally starts with God talking to Ezekiel. Didn’t know Jesus was Ezekiel but Christian’s make things up as they go. lol “The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: “ ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?” Ezekiel 18:1-2 NIV
@@jamilbiotech91 smh it’s gone over your head, which isn’t a sin, but you’re arrogance is followed by ignorance, meaning your ignorance is caused by your arrogance, that’s where the problem lies.
