Good for you, ex-atheist! As a cradle catholic who at 16 went to the library to research if Jesus actually existed in history etc, thus making the transition to being an informed mature Christian, l am now nearly 80 and my faith in Christ is undimmed. I pray for all to have the greatest of all gifts: faith in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: three Persons in One God ie the Holy Trinity. I pray for all to have faith.
@@robertlight5227 You can't prove scientifically Abraham Lincoln lived let alone Jesus. This isn't a matter of scientific proof, this is a matter.for historical proof and that is addressed in the video. For science to "prove" something, the something has to be repeatable. This isn't the realm of science, not that you are demanding anyway.
@@FullDottle You have no historic proof. All you have are mere TEXT CLAIMS that are copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts by unknown authors in Greek. Lincoln can be proved by real evidence by DNA from his body to known living relatives today, who include Tom Hanks. What is your physical evidence for a physical JC?
As a broken believer I base my hope on this incredible, undeniable moment in history. Only God can raise the dead. Jesus rose and made a way for me to be reconciled to the Father. Have you asked Jesus to forgive you of your sins and have you put your trust in Him?
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.” Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uZdv-TtiMkg.html For evidence for Christianity check out ru-vid.com and ru-vid.com because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever! God bless y’all!
Isaiah 53 lists many things that are not in any of the other stories about Jesus. What sorrows and deepest grief did he have? What evidence do we have of him being despised? One story of the crowd preferring someone else at a ceremony that never occurred (the releasing of one prisoner thing). What troubles did he suffer save for the crucifixion? The word translated as 'pierced' has many other meanings, one of which is much closer to the story of Jesus, 'defiled' is what crucifixion was about. Also none of that text is compatible with a divine person, the afflicted one is to be deemed one of the greats. John 3:16 is to me sufficient reason to not worship its God should he be real. It is a horrific concept. That is a person thing instead of a factual thing so I will not expand upon it unless you wish me to.
I see many critics (and some trolls) being confused about NT sources being independent. New Testament critics have identified a number of sources behind the New Testament, sources on which the New Testament authors drew. For example, Matthew and Luke drew not only upon Mark as a source but also upon a source which scholars designate “Q,” which appears to have been a source containing Jesus’ sayings or teachings. Thus, if you could show that a saying in Matthew or Luke appears in both Mark and Q, that would count as multiple, independent attestation. Now what is amazing is how the burial and empty tomb of Jesus are attested in multiple, independent sources. 1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb. 2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.” 3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel. 4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all. 5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty. 6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts .
In other words… all other gospel authors used Mark as their main source of information for the crucifixion, the burial in a tomb and the resurrection. So in reality you have one source because all other sources copied from Mark word for word.
@@OJ323 It's based on false premises and invalid reasoning. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 does not mention an empty tomb, and none of the other sources besides Mark are necessarily _independent_ of Mark. 1:45 The Gospels do not use the testimony of women. In fact, the earliest Gospel claims that _none_ of the women testified: "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mark 16:8). 2:00 This claim about the "response of the Jewish authorities" comes entirely from a story in the Gospel of Matthew. There is no evidence that the Jewish authorities responded in this way.
@@legron121You took Mark 16:8 out of context. That was right after they saw the Angel. She was afraid, so on their way to meet the disciples, they said nothing to anyone. These verses say she did tell the disciples. “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.” Mark 16:9-11 KJV
God Bless You all. Jesus is King ALL GLORY HONOR PRAISE WORSHIP AND THANKSGIVING TO GOD JESUS IS KING THANK YOU GOD FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THANK YOU JESUS FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I LOVE YOU GOD MORE THAN ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WITH ALL MY HEART SOUL MIND AND STRENGTH ALL HAIL KING JESUS
Hello! In order to maintain the quality of our content, we do not allow direct uploads to third party channels. However, if you send us the translation, we would be happy to upload it to our international channel for public use: ru-vid.com. You can send translations to chapters@reasonablefaith.org. - RF Admin
Thanks for sharing! Another historical fact that isn't mentioned is that Jesus was crucified. Which can also be verified by Jewish historian Josephus which is an external historical source from the bible
I just found this video from a link in a debate video very excellent video Needs more comments I’ll share it with the people in the theology and religion discord servers
The first 2 "facts" are just claims, NOT facts, and the sources you pretend were independent are about as dependent as it's possible to be... including copying entire paragraphs word for word... You say the earlier the source the more reliable, but the earliest of those sources doesn't mention a tomb at all, so you're left with ONE independent source that doesn't mention the tomb and a bunch of derived sources that suddenly add that stuff. Guess what that does to credibility? Woman caring for the dead is not remarkable, it was woman's work at the time. It would be weird if the claimed men were going to do that, while everyone at the time would've been baffled by that idea. Also the weight a women's testimony caries IN COURT has no bearing on anything, AND the stories have the men immediately "verify" what the women said so even if the weight of woman's testimony was relevant (which it isn't) that's easily sidestepped by the very same story. You do realize that it's a story right? People could've just made the entire sequence of events up, which is extremely likely since - again - your earliest source doesn't even mention a tomb, and all those other derived sources have different stories around the suddenly added tomb narrative. The third "fact", while arguably also just a claim, is at least somewhat realistic because obviously people believed this stuff. Otherwise the religion wouldn't exist. Sadly for you belief that something happened is in no way evidence that it happened. Just look at the utterly ridiculous conspiracies existing today that sometimes developed in a matter of days or even hours... If you're going to say that you're going to look at facts that need to be explained it would be a whole lot better if you actually presented facts, and if the explanations were reasonable....
New Testament critics have identified a number of sources behind the New Testament, sources on which the New Testament authors drew. For example, Matthew and Luke drew not only upon Mark as a source but also upon a source which scholars designate “Q,” which appears to have been a source containing Jesus’ sayings or teachings. Thus, if you could show that a saying in Matthew or Luke appears in both Mark and Q, that would count as multiple, independent attestation. Now what is amazing is how the burial and empty tomb of Jesus are attested in multiple, independent sources. 1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb. 2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.” 3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel. 4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all. 5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty. 6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts 13. So what corresponds to the second line “and he was buried”? It is Jesus’ burial in the tomb. And what corresponds to the third line “and he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”? It is the story of the discovery of the empty tomb! Confirmation that the third line of the formula summarizes the empty tomb account is found in the phrase “on the third day.” Why on the third day? Why not the seventh? The most plausible answer is that it was on the third day after his crucifixion that the women found Jesus’ tomb empty, and so the resurrection naturally came to be dated on that day. The third day motif is thus a time indicator for the discovery of the empty tomb. Historians think they’ve hit historical paydirt when they have two independent sources for some event. If all we had for the empty tomb were just the pre-Markan Passion story and the pre-Pauline formula, that would be enough to convince most scholars of the historicity of Jesus’ burial and empty tomb. But, in fact, we have at least six sources, some of which are among the earliest material in the New Testament. No wonder most scholars are convinced!
Craig regularly conflates his opinions with facts. In fact, one of his "six best arguments" for the truth of Christianity is _personal experience_ , i.e. anecdotes. That's a pretty poor standard of evidence for a supposed scholar.
For dejected followers of Jesus such as his disciples, the very fact that they gave their life for what they witnessed, which was the resurrection of Christ in the flesh. All bolds proof enough that rose from the dead and is Lord of all and the King Mesiah! Praise Yahweh!
you don't even need to read the Bible to understand that the all the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus with their own eyes. Just study ancient history and the early rise of Christianity outside the Bible for yourself and you will learn this. If you deeply think logically about each of the possible alternative theories, you will find that they have holes. I find it fascinating that you can verify each of these 3 facts without even reading the Bible but its unfortunate that many people do not do that.
If you think that supernatural stories discredit the Bible as a source of historical information, then you are greatly mistaken, because even if you are completely secular, you will only say that they are a make-up of reality and sound historical data from them, and the facts used for the resurrection are not at all controversial among experts .
There are for some people... none for Jesus however. There are some for Pilate though funnily enough, they don't mention Jesus but have him being horrible to Jewish people just for the sake of it, not bowing to their demands/requests like in the bible.
Viced Rhino has pointed out the claim that these are "6 independent sources" for the empty tomb claim is extremely problematic. The earliest of the 6 is 1 Corinthians. This video suggests the earlier the document, the more reliable, so it is rather embarrassing that 1 Corinthians does not in fact mention an "empty tomb" at all. As for the later accounts, both Christian and non-Christian scholars recognise that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source. They also agree that Acts was written by the author of Luke. John is later and itself states that it is based on the testimony of other disciples. Only one independent source exists - Mark. To claim the other accounts are "independent" and "unconnected" is dishonest.
Yep. Here's the video by Viced Rhino (in case anyone wants to find out about the many mistakes in this video): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fph0Gt2glnw.html
I agree that saying that all the sources are "independent" is an overstatement in the sence that some of them knew about each other or each others work. However, the sources are likely to be reliable in what they report. For instance they show incredible knowledge of the area, culture and traditions of its time, and give accurate accounts of details relating to buildings, people in office and so on. Furthermore, they had nothing to gain in lying about these events, quite the opposite - they risked death, and many were in fact killed for their statements about what they knew had happened. For instance Paul - who wrote 1 Cor - who was likely beheaded by Nero's command. Also, the fact that Matthew and Luke most likely used Mark as a source, does very little in undermining the reliability of the events. It is just one of many criterea. Even though they are depentent sources, they are still reliable sources (due to for instance the facts mentioned above. There are much more to cover when it comes to reliability, but I do not have time now). As it is today, it was common to use sources for historical events at that time. 1 Cor states that: "[...] He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." Though not directly stating empty tomb, it states raised, then appeared to "the twelve" (nickname for the disciples). That sounds an aweful lot like the narrative of the others. Mark, which was only written a few years later than 1 Cor, DID however mention the tomb story explicitly. Still a very early source.
@@AleInBywater Thanks. On the initial point, I'm interested in your attitude to this clear "overstatement". This channel appears to be affiliated to Dr WL Craig, one of the most reputable of apologists. Do you think a professional apologist could make such an egregiously misleading statement through incompetence? It's such a crass thing for a scholar to say, it is tempting to say it's actually more likely to be a deliberate act of deception. As for your argument about reliability, this seems weak to me. It is not in dispute that the books we are considering were mostly written in the first century or two CE, in the Near East, by authors who were probably residents of the same region. They were writing about events said to have taken place in that same region at roughly the same time. It would be most peculiar if they hadn't set the stories in the real landscape of the time. The stories of the Quran were recorded at a comparable distance of time from the events they describe, also by authors who were probably residents of the same region. The Quran - and the hadiths - also record real places and events in the region. Do you therefore believe that Muhamadd split the moon in two while standing on Mount Abu Quabys? Or that he was able to cause water to gush from the rock to quench the thirst of thousands of his troops at the battle of Tabouk? If not, what criteria are you using that enables you to accept the extraordinary tale of Jesus' resurrection but reject Muhamadd's miracles? The same argument applies to Islamic martyrs. There have been Islamic martyrs since the days of Muhammad (the first were tortured to death during the prophet's lifetime) and they continue to the present day. Do you think this is good evidence of the truth of Islam? Thanks
@@shinywarm6906 Oh, they had seperate sources, even though some of them knew about each other. In that sence they ARE independent, but not in the way i mentioned above. New Testament critics have identified a number of sources behind the New Testament, sources on which the New Testament authors drew. For example, Matthew and Luke drew not only upon Mark as a source but also upon a source which scholars designate “Q,” which appears to have been a source containing Jesus’ sayings or teachings. Thus, if you could show that a saying in Matthew or Luke appears in both Mark and Q, that would count as multiple, independent attestation. Now what is amazing is how the burial and empty tomb of Jesus are attested in multiple, independent sources. 1. Mark’s Gospel closes with the story of the women’s discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. But Mark did not compose his account out of whole cloth. He appears to have drawn upon a prior source for Jesus’ Passion, that is, the final week of his suffering and death. When you read the Gospel of Mark, you will find that it consists of a series of unconnected anecdotes about Jesus, rather like beads on a string, which may not always be chronologically arranged. But when it comes to the final week of Jesus’ life, we do find a continuous, chronological account of his activities, arrest, trial, condemnation and death. Scholars thus think that Mark drew upon a pre-Markan Passion story in the composition of his Gospel. Interestingly, this pre-Markan Passion source probably included the account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. Since Mark is already the earliest of our Gospels, this pre-Markan Passion story is an extremely early source which is valuable for our reconstruction of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth, including his burial and empty tomb. 2. Matthew clearly had independent sources (designated “M”) apart from Mark for the story of the empty tomb, for he includes the story of the guard posted at Jesus’ tomb, a story not found in Mark. The story is not Matthew’s creation because it is suffused with non-Matthean vocabulary, which indicates that he is drawing upon prior tradition. Moreover, the polemic between Jewish Christians and Jewish non-Christians presupposes a history of dispute that probably goes back before the destruction of Jerusalem to the earliest debates in that city over the disciples’ proclamation, “He is risen from the dead.” 3. Luke also has independent sources (designated “L”) for the empty tomb, since he includes the story of the visit of Peter and another, unnamed disciple to Jesus’ tomb to verify the women’s report. This incident cannot be a Lukan creation because it is also mentioned in John, which is independent of Luke’s Gospel. 4. John’s Gospel is generally recognized to be independent of the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels. John also has an empty tomb narrative which some would say is the most primitive tradition of all. 5. The apostolic sermons in the book of Acts were probably not created by Luke out of whole cloth but also draw upon prior tradition for the early apostolic preaching. In Acts 2, Peter contrasts King David, whose “tomb is with us to this day,” with Jesus, whom “God raised up.” The contrast clearly implies that Jesus’ tomb was empty. 6. In I Corinthians 15.3-5, Paul quotes an old Christian formula summarizing the apostolic preaching. The pre-Pauline formula has been dated to go back to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. The second line of the formula refers to Jesus’ burial and the third line to his rising from the dead. No first century Jew could have understood this in any other way than that Jesus’ body no longer lay in the grave. But was the burial mentioned by the pre-Pauline formula Jesus’ burial by Joseph in the tomb? A comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospels on the one hand and the apostolic sermons, for example in Acts 13, on the other allows us to answer that question with confidence. The pre-Pauline formula is an outline, point for point, of the principal events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as related in the Gospels and Acts. When it comes to the Quran there are many reasons not to trust it, one being the fact that is states Jesus was not killed at the cross, which literally every scholar affirms. The fact that people die for something, does not, as you correctly note, necessarily mean that it is therefore true. However, it makes it very likely that people witnessing an event really believed in the event. Thus, it is sincere. Edit: one more note about martyrdom. There is a difference in dying for an ideology, i.e. nationalism, or a religious belief and an observed event. Me dying for the USA in a war says very little about a truth value of a proposition, rather it is a statement of commitment to an ideology, namely american patriotism. If, however, i die for an observed (or at least claimed observed) event, that event is likely to be either true or an hallusination. The gospel accounts are not the latter, and very few scholars claim that anymore.
@@AleInBywater thanks. This is not really the place for a lengthy exchange of scholarly opinion on the provenance of the gospels. I will just observe that the speculation (and it is speculation) about what other sources the nominal authors of the gospels drew on doesn't solve the problem of independence. It is literally impossible to determine which elements are based on eye witness reports (if any), which on hearsay and which on pure invention or shared tradition amongst the early Christians. Whether I write down the same or a slightly different, or a wildly different version of a story that's been passed around my belief group doesn't make my version "an independent source". Whatever one thinks of the Quran and hadiths, Islam has at least made a serious attempt to attribute its narratives and chains of narrations. The Quran's sura on the crucifixion is a subtle one: "....but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture" In fact, some traditions of Islam hold that Jesus was crucified, but survived. A more recent scholar has written, "The denial of killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is for ever victorious". But that's besides the main point, which is that if you are willing to discard the whole of a sacred text on the basis of what you think is a single historical error, then the Bible has to go too. Its historical and geographical errors include that there was no "massacre of the innocents" by Herod, as reported in Matthew. There was no census anything like that reported at the time of Jesus' birth (and both Matthew and Luke have different and equally problematic versions); at the time of the crucifixion, there was no opening of the tombs, earthquake and darkness, and so on. The narrative paraphenalia surrounding the key moments of Jesus' life and death are obviously mythopoeic constructs, not records of historical happenings. I have no doubt that most martyrs are sincere in their belief. The same could be said of the many death cults throughout history. It is worthless as evidence of the truth of these beliefs.
I find it strange that the books used as independent sources are synoptic gospels from the same Bible. Ultimately the Church decides what canon books they keep in the Bible. Are there no external sources outside of the Bible actually accounting the Resurrection or are they just not present in the graphics here?
It's believed that Josephus bears record of the resurrection claim as being there upon the inception of the Christian movement (e.g., Josephus in Antiquities xviii, 63-64. See Schlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971); as well as Paul L. Maier, Ed., Josephus: The Essential Writings (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988), pp. 264-65. So although this by no means indisputably demonstrates an external account of Jesus' Resurrection, it does show that the claim was well established in that era, and not a later development.
So what the early Church founders should have done would have been to leave some of those early sources out of the Bible. Then they would have more credibility.
Please provide credible, testable evidence that ANY of the supernatural claims made in the bible are even possible. Failing that, provide credible, testable evidence that ANY of the supernatural claims made by anyone, have actually occurred.
Why would the supernatural not be possible as soon as we have no evidence for naturalism that leaves us in agnosticism, there is also plenty of evidence that God exists but even without evidence the argument for the resurrection would require only one ad hoc assumption and that is that God exists. Of course it did because no naturalistic explanation can adequately explain these facts.
Conspiracy to what? To give love, teach love as the base of peace? To be persecuted, poor, hiding, put in jail, tortured and killed horribly??? No sense….
I think he means the _preaching_ (allegedly) preserved in Acts dates to that time. Even though that's largely speculation (much of it could have been invented by the author).
I've examined the evidence, and I must say... it's compelling. I'm convinced that he did in fact rise from the dead, which gives validity to all his teachings.
Early writers fabricated the resurrection hoax by making up fake testimonials that the disciples & others have witnessed an empty tomb & a risen Jesus.
Yeah tonycaine5930. Thats a very good question. A question with no answer. Well, I'll tell you what. I can't give you a straight answer to your question, but perhaps I could offer up a possible answer. Maybe he never existed at all. Maybe all this stuff to do with religion is all a load of gobbly gook.
The sin-sacrifice-resurrection story implies a superstitious God who values blood-sacrifice. Obviously the superstitious early folks, who valued blood sacrifice, created the God of the Bible in their own image.
Christian Apologists' entire rhetorical roadshow relies on establishing the gospels as reliable texts, which they do with fallacious sleight of hand. If you bring up the major authenticity issues of the new testament, their entire case falls apart. They refuse to acknowledge biblical realities that are becoming increasingly apparent in the scholarly community, like the anonymity of the gospels and the greekness of their authors, the pseudo-origins of six of the pauline texts and all of the general epistles, the poor manuscript evidence from the first three centuries, etc... The act of spreading the christian faith is one of using tricks, manipulation and sophistry.
What are you talking about? The bibe has literally 99.5 reliability rate and most of those are just puncation errors and the writers are literally known
He didn’t. All the Bible is, is Chinese whispers exaggerated each time someone says something and finally then written down. It’s like today, you tell someone you drive a black car, as each person tells the next, you are finally driving a red Ferrari 🤣🤣
@@harveylinney you do realise that the Holy Spirit is God and God never makes a mistake right? Jesus was resurrected, it's a historical fact. The grave was empty and two women first saw it, women's opinion and witness was not respected or recognised back then, why would anyone make a lie using women? Also why did Apostle Peter want to be crucified upside down? Why did he chose a horrible death for a lie? The problem with anti-Christians is that you're very smart, but not wise, you can't understand basic logic and can't fix a puzzle, just evidence evidence evidence, which are also plenty but you like to deny, like the Flood, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or even the Crucifixion
Trying to watch this video and give it a shot....only 1:20 in and I'm already really confused. Namely: how can you gloss over using Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts and John as independent sources, when the scholarly view on this is that Matthew/Luke borrow heavily from Mark (more or less word for word, so there is clear textual dependency) and that Acts is from the same author as Luke? This is setting aside the notion that none of these are confirmed to be eyewitness account, and we don't know who wrote them. 1 Corinthians is the real outlier here. Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb in any of his works, and this passage is no exception - the passage in question refers to Christ being buried and risen......thats' it. Subjective (read: highly generous, leading) interpretation much?
"He “rose” from the dead on the 3rd day 🙄 the most logical answer is he wasn’t even dead in the first place" Before Jesus was crucified on the cross, He was ruthlessly beaten, scourged, a crown of thorns was pierced into His head, and His wrists and feet were finally nailed to the cross, and a spear was pierced into the side of His stomach, and blood and water gushed out. The damage and injuries that were done to His body would make it impossible for Him to survive the crucifixion, let alone walk out of His tomb and appear to more than 500 people in 40 days... So Jesus definitely died on the cross. There is no way a guy could survive all of that.
@@gnhman1878 not sure how any rational human can believe such nonsense stories. It’s such an obvious man made myth. I guess religion was initially started to control the population. Quite a lame story for the apparent creator of the universe. Don’t you find it very strange that if Jesus is all powerful and can do what ever he pleases ,why is everything to do with god so cryptic and mysterious. He wants everyone to have faith why doesn’t he just pop down to earth tomorrow and lift up the Golden Gate Bridge with his bare hands in front of the worlds media. Then people will know he’s a god. But no has to be mysterious 🤨🙄 I would give it less that .00001 % that there is any truth to that story. Humans are so incredibly gullible it’s quite sad. I assume people believe such things so easily because they are very insecure in their life and also afraid of death.
You have a concept of incarnation for jesus. but listen to what the bible says God is not a man if he is god he cannot die., He was mocked as a king, but he was not coronated as a king. Who did he think he was, and why. I know there is a lesson here, and I think the lesson is this when you go through personal problems those who you thought were' kind' of your friends will mock you, insult you, make fun of you and generally have a good time about your situation. Like they did with Jesus. Those who are your true friends will encourage you, look for solutions for your problems and make an offer of help if they can. I think that is the lesson to be learned so when someone has had a good time over your problems learn to ignore them and don't take them seriously, make no attempt to keep their aquantince. p.s. sorry for all the errors
All of these facts presuppose that people believe the Bible as accurate historical testimony. If a person doesn't believe THAT, none of these points resonate.
Well I'm an ex Christian here. Now, I'm prepared to go along with the events that occurred up to his crucifixion( and I even have my doubts about this too). However, its what happens after that that doesn't convince me. I have 2 questions to ask. Firstly, how could Jesus have had the strength to push aside a huge boulder that was covering the entrance to his grave on his own? And, my second question. How could he have managed to slip past the Roman centurion that was supposedly guarding his grave without being seen? Now, before anyone answers these questions, keep this in mind. Roman soldiers were severely punished for failure of duty( I understand that they could even be executed themselves for failure). So, if there was a Roman soldier guarding Jesus tomb, then why didn't he see him? Now, I'll also put this up for consideration. This is something that everyone appears to have overlooked. Jesus was a wanted man. Now what do you think would have happened if the people that killed him found out that he was alive? What do you think would have happened? Well, here's what I think. I think that the Roman soldiers that were involved in Jesus supposed death would have been severely punished for failing their duties. And there would have been garrisons of Roman centurions sent out to look for him with strict orders for either his recapture, or he was to be killed on the spot. That, never happened. Now, I once read somewhere that an Anglican minister said that he believed that Jesus did rise from the dead because Jesus body was never found. So what? Perhaps the reason for that was because there was no body to find to begin with. Its all nonsense. The resurrection never happened.
Those are great points, but the part about the soldiers, though accurate, supposes Pontius Pilate or some other Roman authority cared about his life that deeply. Pontius Pilate, Herod, and the Sanhedrin seemed to consider the "cult" of Christianity to be of little threat at the time. Also, a Roman soldier who failed at his duty would often commit suicide as described in Acts of the Apostles. So, I agree there is only circumstantial evidence, but something did happen that motivated his disciples to continue a life of poverty and ultimately execution. Of course, the same could be said about the followers of early Buddhism in India. They were persecuted, too.
Oh yes, and I'd like to add this to. According to Christian beliefs Jesus is going to come again. Is he? Well, if that's the case, then where is he? Look at all the billions and billions and billions of people who have died waiting for this event to happen. Get over it. The man's been dead( thats if he even existed) for over 2000 years. He ain't comin' back.
@@gybx4094 Hi gybx. You present a very interesting point of view however, if I might just present this. You don't crucify or kill somebody for nothing. I'm not familiar with the reasons why Pilate wanted to crucify Jesus but they were certainly valid enough to want him dead.
In the hypothetical case that human life was discovered in another planet with different religions would the event disprove the authenticity of religion? Do you understand the point I am making? Why wouldn’t the religious god have revealed the absolute truth to the humans in the other planet? In justness in the other planet they should have the Qurʾan or the Bible too. Do you accept my argument? The possibility gives hope that the religion lie would eventually end. Religious people believe that there are consequences for being wrong and if we don’t obey the religious god’s commands we would suffer terribly the consequences for eternity. Which religious god should we obey? It is not clear because religion is an ambiguous, vague, unintelligible, contradictory, extravagant lie that looks like a lie believed by liars for the empty promise of eternal happiness, because there is not life without death and happiness without unhappiness. Religious people don’t understand obfuscated by their victimism that the consequences of their beliefs and behaviors are harmful to the Creator’s Creation, God’s Life, all reality, love, joy, well-being, happiness, Would the Creator of the Creation of the Miracle of Life and Death punish me for not harming life, love, joy, happiness? The religious beliefs are harmful to God, the perfect living entity all is part of. I wouldn’t exist if God didn’t exist therefore the wise and cautious decision is to live honest understanding i am part of a superior whole, common good, absolute purpose, God’s Life and Death. We are accountable for our own deeds because everything we do we do it to Ourself in perfect karma perfect justice with perfect knowledge because God can not be deceived and all lives would know all reality past present and future being the Miracle of Life and Death designed and created from Self from eternal Existence to become Alive to Live Forever, because life gives meaning to existence and there is not life without death.
Whether they had a true religion or not would not disprove Christianity by any means because you never know what God would do. Also religion is not a lie, I'm just curious what plausible naturalistic explanation you have for these facts? The second part of the comment is just frivolous rambling. Religious pluralism is by no means evidence against Christianity because other religions do not have such evidence and even without it it is obvious that there are only a few serious religions to test. Also, religion is not ambiguous, nor vague, nor contradictory, nor a lie, and obviously people don't follow it just because they believe in heaven. Would God punish you, you are actually punishing yourself because according to the Orthodox and Catholic churches and also according to many Protestants, people end up in hell willingly even though there is no hell in Orthodoxy. Life cannot give meaning to existence when on theism life is meaningless, if you are an atheist then you have to accept that humanity is as small as a pile of stones.
Nope. Also, terrible logic. If strength of faith/conviction of believers was evidence for a religion being true, then Islam must also be true by that same standard. ✝️⃠☪️⃠
You've misunderstood the argument. The strength of conviction of the disciples isn't presented as evidence by itself of the resurrection. Rather, it's presented as evidence that they were not conspirators in some elaborate hoax. They truly believed that they saw Jesus risen from the dead. This, *combined* with the fact of the empty tomb and postmortem appearances, is best explained by the actual resurrection of Jesus. - RF Admin
James was not younger than Jesus, if he was he would have had to respect him by the law. But James was either son of Joseph from a previous marriage or a son of Mary of Clopas (Sister of Mary the mother of Jesus) Mary was a virgin and only gave birth to 1 son. Jesus.
The Holy Scriptures clearly reveal that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. "God of the Old Testament wasn't God the Father as many believe" During Moses' time, Jesus's name wasn't Jesus; Moses did ask God his name". God told Moses "IAM who IAM".Ex-3:14. Scriptures don't contradict. Example: 1 Cor 10: 1-4, complement John 1:18 and John 5:37. In both scriptures; Jesus said, "No one has seen God, or heard his voice, or seen his form". 1 Cor 10:1-4, says that it was Christ who accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness". This proves what 1 Cor 10:1-4 says; that God who spoke with Moses in the wilderness was "I AM who I Am". who later was born as Jesus Christ. If it was God the Father, then Jesus wasn't correct in John 1:18 and John 5:37. But Jesus was correct, He was the God that accompanied Moses and the Israelites during their forty years in the Wilderness, as revealed in 1Cor 10:1-4, and in 1 Cor 10:9."NIV" ".
#Antony Flew was "the world's most influential philosophical atheist" -Richard Carrier praised Flew as 'one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th C'. After debating with Christians (incl WLC) Flew abandoned atheism, "I had to go where the *evidence* leads" ...“The *evidence* for Jesus' resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion." Wrote: 'There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.' Hope this helps, won't be surprised if it doesn't -'none so blind...' #Atheist Charles Colson, known within the Nixon Administration as the Evil Genius, served as Special Counsel to President Nixon, US attorney and political advisor. re. the Watergate Scandal he was imprisoned in 1974 . Became a Christian. “I know the resurrection is a fact, Watergate (1972) proved it to me: 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, they proclaimed it for the rest of their lives never once denying it. They were beaten, tortured, stoned and imprisoned -they would not have endured if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world, they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles kept a lie to the bitter end? Absolutely impossible.” Colson wrote a remarkable memoir: 'Born Again' -over 5 million copies sold. #Atheist astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who believed in an eternal-universe, mocked creationist Lemaître's theory calling it the 'Big Bang'! He later accepted the Big Bang and abandoned atheism. #Atheist archaeologist Sir William Ramsay spent 7 YEARS (most don't spend 7 hours!) in Palestine seeking evidence to discredit the Bible -he focused on gospel of Luke and Acts (many events/place names given to telling Jesus' story). The *evidence8 he found: Luke, a learned physician, never made a single mistake. -Ramsay became a Christian, wrote 'St Paul The Traveler And Roman Citizen' -Read online. #Atheist lawyer Frank Morrison began a legal analysis to discredit the Bible -his research led him to become a Christian. Wrote 'Who Moved The Stone?' #Atheist CS Lewis sought academic evidence against the Bible -on the *evidence* he found he became a Christian.. Wrote God In The Dock and Mere Christianity.
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6) - RF Admin
Everyone in the comments section here is innocent but you are a murderer. See, I can throw out wild claims with potentially _massive_ consequences, too.
@@drcraigvideos They can express their considered opinions of dubious texts. They were not there circa 35 CE.. I am asking for physical confirmations. Do you have any physical evidence for your physical claim there was a Jesus?
@@robertlight5227 Textual evidence is still evidence. People who deny that Jesus really existed are more fringe in academia than flat-earthers. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos "People who deny that Jesus really existed are more fringe in academia than flat-earthers." Wow. You went from simply reasserting your initial error to name calling in record time. Craig should not allow hacks to respond in his name. You are making your boss look even worse than he actually is.
I do see your point. Perhaps, I can suggest what is indeed written elsewhere particularly regarding how 11 of the 12 Apostles died. They were brutally executed because of what they claimed in seeing and experiencing. For example, there are records in Roman history that Paul was indeed executed in Rome for being a true apostle of Jesus (though not original 12). There are even Roman documents, sovereign biblical scripture, which indicate Jesus was at least known as a miracle worker and healer.
@@d.s.v.6404 Please list those record of Roman history with respect to Paul. All I can find is stuff written by church leaders well over a hundred years later.
@@d.s.v.6404 So what is written elsewhere about how the apostles died? As far as I know only 2 or 3 died in any way that was even slightly related to their beliefs. What source do you have?... don't just present the name of a random historian, give the specific source.
So, your 'facts' are basically misrepresenting your own biblical passages about this event, completely overstating what little 'evidence' you have, and lying through your teeth about things like the scholarly consensus on this matter, all in an attempt to make this story appear credible. Literally *none* of these tactics have worked for Apologists at any point, so why are you acting like they'll magically work for you now?
@@Christisthetruce Strange for you to claim that someone who's been dead for a couple thousand years (provided he even existed to begin with) has any feelings for someone they've never known.
@palladin1337 Well, that someone happens to be the infinite God of the universe and who created you fearfully and wonderfully and lived you so much he suffered on the cross just so you can be in heaven with him and no he's not dead he lives
@@Christisthetruce "Well, that someone happens to be the infinite God of the universe" No, at best he was one of many different flavors of religious preachers at the time who pissed off local authorities enough to get executed and was then made into a martyr by the followers he managed to gather prior to that moment, most likely because someone had a bereavement hallucination after he was killed which was then built up in the minds of the superstitious until it became your resurrection story. And that's me being charitable and granting that the character of Jesus was based upon a real man at one point, since we have such little evidence he ever existed that it's just as reasonable to assume he is 100% fiction. "who created you" Then he's responsible for my lack of belief in his existence, and will therefore also be directly responsible for where I end up because of that lack of belief. "and no he's not dead he lives" I encourage you to look up what death by crucifixion actually entails, because it is neither quick, nor painless, nor is it likely to leave any survivors. Then, I challenge you to explain how someone can die like that and then come back to life without relying on modern medicine or appeals to literal magic.
The idea that Jesus didn't exist is treated by ancient historians (including atheist ones) like flat-eartherism. The historical evidence is overwhelming: Jesus existed. - RF Admin
@@Shytot-1 Sure. One of the fundamental indicators of historicity is multiple, early, independent attestation. We have about a dozen different sources within 100 years of Jesus' life (most within 50 years), which meet this standard, including both Christian sources such as the Gospels and writings of Paul and non-Christian sources like Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. For historians, this is sufficient to establish with certainty that Jesus in fact existed. Atheist textual critic Bart Ehrman (whom Dr. Craig debated on the resurrection) wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?" defending the existence of Jesus. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos There is no firm evidence (only hearsay) for the existence of Jesus but that doesn't matter, if everything you mentioned is good enough for you, that's all that matters.
This is pretty flimsy "facts"😅😂 Dedicating your only one life to worshipping something based on this makes my heart sad. Live your beautiful life and don't live in fear. I wish you all well.
Using the bible as proof itself is a fallacy. There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
The historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus doesn't assume that the Bible is inspired. It applies the standard methods of historiography to the texts. This is why the argument is so strong. Even atheist historians largely recognize the facts outlined in the video. They simply disagree that the best explanation of those facts is the resurrection, largely due to a presupposition of naturalism. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I am an Atheist. We aren't claiming a god doesn't exist we just need proof. Definition of Atheism is simple: it's simply a rejection of Theistic claims. So, after two thousand years we're still waiting.
@@may_it_please_the_court Words can have multiple definitions. The definition you're using - a lack of belief in God - is the psychological definition. It merely reports the psychological state of a person. But, of course, this has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether or not God exists. Dr. Craig is using the definition which does have relevance to the ontological question, the same definition used by, for example, atheist philosopher Graham Oppy in the Cambridge Elements book he authored, "Atheism and Agnosticism." As he says on page 4, "Atheists believe that there are no gods. Hence, in suitable circumstances, atheists affirm that there are no gods and endorse the claim that there are no gods." This claim, of course, bears a burden of proof. This is why Dr. Craig pressed Hitchens on how he was defining the term. You still haven't answered the question, though. What part of the argument do you reject and why? If you're unwilling to actually interact with the argument, then it seems like you're not really rejecting it in good faith. - RF Admin
An interesting read and listen to, but I'll be frank. I'm on the camp that religion is a mistake, albeit a necessary one. So first point: Seems like a classic case of delusion. Missing tomb, decay or he was moved after being laid to rest, due to Judas or whoever wanted the bounty on his head. Considering these scholars assumedly, have a religious background, I call their biases into question. Second point: As for the appearances, either he or someone who looked like him appeared to these aforementioned persons. Third point: Once again, these scholars and their biases and agendas are called into question. So, in conclusion. I'm biased against the idea that a 'Jesus' rose from the dead. As for the 'God' idea, the possibility of a 'Godlike' entity existing, I can't rule out. Life and the universe has and will continue to prove that if an absurd idea exists, it will be made manifest.
What did you offer here instead of unjustified skepticism, here you simply ignored all the sources that confirm these facts just because they suit you, that's not history, that's a conspiracy.
@@kenandzafic3948 It was meant to be a shitpost, if nothing else. But yes, you're right. I choose to ignore the 'evidence' because it suits my delusions of this limited we have on this rock, as it does for people who believe in a supposed 'higher power'.
"Applying the historical method to various ancient texts to assess the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" Fixed it for you. - RF Admin
@@Mr.Comment-k1jur committing the fallacy known as poisoning the well. u can’t u just can’t dismiss someones arguments or their evidence because of biases. everyone has biases. for example a marketing team may have very good evidence for their product and that’s why they are using it to promote the product. and the new testament authors may have been biased towards christianity because they were convinced of the evidence for it. and so we study the evidence of the new testament to see if it’s reliable and accurate history. not dismiss it outright because it came from biased authors.
Thank you. The gospel of Christ→ Christ died for our sins. He was buried. He was raised on the third day. He appeared to the apostles. 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 Isaiah 53 Anyone is saved just by believing in the gospel. Romans 1:16 Ephesians 2:8-9
@@drcraigvideos Several Gospel authors were writing after the new religion was already taking hold. They bought into the creation because they had already seen its effectiveness. The "owner's manuals" for the religion were written two or more decades after it supposedly started. That is more than enough time for the legend to become firm. Especially with the "old law fulfilled", the gentiles being drawn in, the religion gaining strength.
@@UnconventionalReasoning Let's assume that the Gospel writers introduced some legend into their writing. This wouldn't undermine the argument for the resurrection, since the relevant facts have multiple, independent attestation and are therefore reliably authentic, as even most atheist historians will confirm. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Every time someone says, "multiple, independent attestation", I sort of laugh. It is impossible to "prove" the independence, people can only assert the independence. I know I disagree with some atheist historians on this, but that's quite easy. First Century Historians use the words prove and certain far too easily for what they have actually determined. Rather than expecting a 'mathematical' level of proof, at least a typical 'scientific' level would be nice. But when a historian uses the words more freely than a physicist, I'm going to dismiss the historian. So no, the argument for the resurrection is entirely built on the word of very few people, perhaps as few as two: Paul and Peter. Josephus reports what others told him. Tacitus writes what others tell him. Anyone from the second century on is into very unreliable attestation.
@@UnconventionalReasoning //Every time someone says, "multiple, independent attestation", I sort of laugh. It is impossible to "prove" the independence, people can only assert the independence. I know I disagree with some atheist historians on this, but that's quite easy. First Century Historians use the words prove and certain far too easily for what they have actually determined. Rather than expecting a 'mathematical' level of proof, at least a typical 'scientific' level would be nice.// Historians typically assess the historicity of claims on a scale of probability. For the putative facts relevant to the resurrection (those Dr. Craig uses in his argument) historians both theist and atheist agree that they are highly probably historical based on criteria such as (among others) multiple independent attestation. So, if you're going to deny that they happened, you have the task of showing why all of these historians are mistaken. Regarding attestation, each of the Gospels reports details on the relevant facts which are not reported in the others. To say that all of them derive from a single legendary source is wildly implausible, which is why no historian at an accredited university makes such a claim. Given that the documents reporting these events do not and will not change, the historical assessment is actually much stronger than many scientific claims, the latter being quite provisional, especially in light of the incompatibility of the fundamental tenets of physics, namely relativity theory and quantum theory. - RF Admin
good lord, this is such a blatant case of the bible says it, so I believe it. and the blatant misappropriation of the role of Textual Criticism is shocking. yikes!!!
These comments are so cringe. The Biblical text didn't always existed as one Book, but rather multiple independent documents. If we had 27 different early documents attesting to the life of Josephus, we'd all gladly accept it. However, since people start losing their minds over the Bible and start fuming & melting down when Christians speak, they fail to realize the abundance of historical evidence for life, ministry, and resurrection of Christ.
