Thanks for subscribing. It looks like you won a smile on your face for at least a moment! 😃 And I pray that God will bless you and others through the videos I make.
If someone can prove that John wrote the gospel of John, it doesn't prove that what John wrote is true. In the same manner, if you can prove that Homer wrote the Iliad and Odyssey, it doesn't mean that the content of the Iliad and Odyssey is true.
All by itself, the bare fact that John wrote John does not prove that content of the Gospel of John, including the resurrection of Jesus, is true. I agree with that. But it makes it more likely that it is true that Jesus rose from the dead. Having multiple, reliable eyewitnesses makes it much more likely to be true. And when combined with other evidence, I feel deeply confident that Jesus did rise from the dead and that Christianity is true.
@@MarkWCorbett1 Was each of the eyewitnesses interviewed and independently verified? How do you know they were reliable? Or is it merely heresay that there were so many eyewitnesses? I can say that 500 people saw a unicorn....but meanwhile. What other empirical extra biblical evidence is there for the resurrection of Jesus?
@@AnthonyRockliffe , my reply, pt 1 You asked: //Was each of the eyewitnesses interviewed and independently verified?// How do you think that applies to ancient history? Do you discount all of ancient history unless each witness to it was "interviewed and independently verified?"
@@AnthonyRockliffe , my reply, pt 2 Luke may very well have interviewed some of the eyewitnesses. It sounds like he probably did: CSB Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. 3 It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in an orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. Since Paul met with Cephas (Peter) and James, the Lord brother, he likely heard their accounts of seeing Jesus after His resurrection. 18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed with him 15 days. 19 But I didn't see any of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. So, in a way that is relevant to ancient sources, there probably was something like witnesses being interviewed and verified in the sense of being found credible.
@@AnthonyRockliffe , my reply pt 3 You wrote: //How do you know they were reliable?// By reliable I mean: 1. They were not likely deceived since groups of witnesses saw Jesus after His resurrection on several occassions. 2. They were not likely lying since their testimony put them in danger of persecution and suffering and even death.
