How We Know Jesus and the Early Church Existed 

What is/are the main thing(s) that made you realize that Christianity is true? I have a friend who was previously Muslim but stopped believing in Islam, and she has talked to me about Christianity and said that she is intrigued by Christian teachings but is not sure whether she is atheist or accepts Christianity. She is the kind of person that wouldn't be pressured into anything, but she needs to come to her own conclusions via logic. Do you have any advice?

@@monkiram Actually, my background is muslim as well. I think eventually many former muslims turned atheists become christians, because a life without God is not satisfactory, especially after having but a taste of it under Islam.

@mrjo2thec Yes, lets jusr assume that those who are fully confident in their faith and knowledge are arrogant and unwise. typical athiest.

@mrjo2thec You just made an argument from ignorance. New Athiesm is very much like a cult today, anyone can see that, even if its not a "formal religion". You stil have certain biases and worldview restrictions which are shaped by your "lack of belief." For example, as an athiest, justify objective morality or anything to do with metaphysical certainty. You can't, because you have restrictions and thus are shaped by these restrictions, thus I can generalise based on the knowlegde of these restrictions.

@mrjo2thec you didn't address anything i have said without a mere ramble. You argued against my point in your very 1st sentence. "Im simply saying its ignorant of you to make assertions, all religions do." Mind if i ask you about all the assertions of the 1000+ religions make? Or is that an assertion in itself. Ironic. "Atheism isn't a religion" never said it was. "Do all people who wear the same pair of trainers think the same" they usually are attracted to the same appeals of said shoe. "Objective morality doesn't need to be justified because blah blah blah i assume subjective morality exists and that is all and it is true because im an atheist" yea dude, you literally keep proving my point. I get it, you are an atheist and you assume your beliefs are true.

Andrew Lewarne Now grab a Bible and randomly open it. Read the first thing your eyes see. Write back what you found.

Andrew Lewarne what about those that have been Christians and then became non believers?

Sean Hurley but what about all those who say their religion and God is right and the truth? They get the same feelings and such. Also what those who once were and now believe these things aren’t real or whatever? Why do people go away from religion? If God is real he should be there helping and showing people.

Sean Hurley I don’t get why God would let fallen angels have kids with woman? I though he loved us and was just? And I have never heard that one about Greek mythology, plus we’re are the giant remains? And Noah’s time, we have records from other people in the world who have said there was no flood or disasters back then. Plus a big boat with all those animals? No way. Food, fighting and repopulating the earth? No chance. Inbreeding is bad once or twice imagine doing it over a few thousand years? Yes and no never went to church.

@@kylethedalek People walk away, so to speak, from faith for various reasons - Choice - they simply were part of an expected group for a period of time - and, once finished or the law of diminshing returns, they leave. B. They have faith but ,in Christianity and as explored by Job among others, sometimes their faith is tested or weakened by life in a world that does not exist outside of Disney. But,any honest Christian willl tell you that we don't have all the answers as to God and HIs overall working, C.People grow, mature, and change opinion as they age or are exposed to to different viewpoints - they explore and,as happened throughout history, have their basic faith but add too it as new philosophies seem to make sense- especially since we ant answers and as B point, we don't always have specific answers from God as to our individual lives and why He allows things to occur or natural consequences occur and He doesn't miraculously spare us. AS far as the Genesis accounts, well there are few cultures that don't record a flood disaster, Was it global or local to the 'then known world' that's a debate - Genetically, well we have enivdidence of 1000's of years of occurence in Eygpian succession for Pharohs , Royal European family - Doesn't mean that genetic traits that are bad haven't been the consequence but there are instances of . For better explanations of alternates but plausible try Bio Logos or REasons to Believe - both explain using modern science ,not Young Earth nonsense , much clearer the genetic ,geological,biological, and astronomical explanations better than I .

That's a very kind review. Glad you're enjoying it!

He believes there is evidence for a historical Jesus, not a supernatural, resurrected Jesus.

@@TNK8 Their is no distinction

@@philosophersbench6595 it so happens that the distinction is quite clear. One is a mortal, apocalyptic preacher, and the other is a legendary figure of myth.

@@TNK8 Did you even consider the fact that These historians also affirmed the resurrection and miracles of Jesus ,Even not been a Christian , It not an opinion thing ,its a fact

It's Just Kyle quick question, what happens to your soul when you die? Or do you even believe you have a soul. If you believe you have a soul then Jesus can be this supernatural, resurrected jesus. And also if you don’t believe we have souls then why can’t we create another living human, with free will as well? Think and stop living your life ignorantly

Ben Harber Hey brother, if you are interested you can go to SermonAudio and find a Sunday school series on Church history from Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. You can also find Ryan Reeves on RU-vid. He's a professor at Gordon Conwell university.

Love the series from Ryan Reeves, especially from the early church and the Reformation.

I have been interested in archaeology my entire life. A few years ago (probably around five years ago) I discovered biblical archaeology and it changed my life. The Quran says this, science and archaeology says that. The Bible says this, science and archaeology says...this! It matches! It's always exciting to me to see the Bible proved through these means. But when I started posting about these things, several Christians scolded me, saying that it's a sin to study the Bible outside of the Bible. They always pointed to this verse: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. John 20:29 KJV They say it's a sin to look up biblical archaeology because it's a sin to need proof to believe. But... Jesus didn't actually say that. He said you're blessed if you believe without seeing. Besides, I already believe in Jesus. I'm not looking this up as proof so I'd believe. First and foremost, I'm doing it because I find it fascinating. Also, I can tell other people about what I find. Especially when nonbelievers say things like, "There is absolutely no proof that any of it actually happened", I can say, "Hold my non-alcoholic beverage..."

@@FoggyBadger What do you mean? The Bible and science disagree since Genesis 1.

@@vejeke Okay, sure. Tell yourself that. Whatever makes you feel better. But once you actually start looking at the real evidence with an actual open mind and not just try to disprove it, it's undeniable that science and archaeology prove the Bible.

Your pastor said those things? Wow. I hope you can present this video to him and help him see the truth about the historical evidence. It's important stuff. God bless

He is not a real pastor. I'd leave that church

@Kelly Of course, how about the Shroud of Turin, that's a pretty solid physical evidence! And I have the same thought about these strange phenomenom of people denying Jesus, however instead of going secular atheists, they turn into pagans and worship satan, makes no sense! Or perhaps, makes all the sense...

David La Rosa your pastor is a disgrace and a problem

David LaRosa, you have one of the BEST pastors in the world! He is one of the extremely rare clergy who is actually willing to tell you the truth! People who have really academically studied the bible and the historicity issue will easily come to the conclusion that he told you. However, most who know it will never admit it for sake of hurting their own selfish interests such as their position in the church. He is a jewel and you should keep him as your pastor.

My friend, you are amazing. This should be pinned!

Thanks for the timestamps

Hallelujah

Tf is an agonist

I think you mean agnostic. An agonist likes to inflict pain. If you are an agonist, please leave me alone. I spent last night on a club dance floor in stilettos so I have some pain already.😄

Just dont join catholicism

Guys I've been born again for years ..I'm saying that this is part of how I saw the truth... I walk in an anointing..seeing people saved and healed the lord is doing mighty things through those who walk in him with signs following

the early church still exists unchanged and it is Orthodoxy there is no doubt on this

@@Roman_21 And Catholicism

Maybe you'd like to hear the argument framed in such a way as to not sound ridiculous? On the Historicity of Jesus by Dr Richard Carrier PhD.

@ghostriders_1, why do mythicist like yourself always point to Richard Carrier or Robert Price? It’s because no serious scholar believes as they do.

@@whiskeredtuna What makes a "serious scholar"? Is it one that discounts and denies Christ? That's rich.

@@infinity4evr They suffer from bias of ignorant bias.

Well, there’s more than their conversion than this. There are other powerful arguments for the resurrection and Christ being the messiah.

@@sageseraph5035 please copy those links here. I am preparing for being questioned and need as much knowledge as I can retain

@John Daedalus That... that's just not true?

@@rithvikdsouza1705 You will never be able to reason with someone like that im afraid. Only someone who really truly wants to find the truth will be open to being wrong. He probably did not even watch the video.

@Steve Doud Wrong

Why do you say "conversion to Christ"? Weren't you baptised as a kid? Or were you an atheist? I ask as an atheist who was originally a Catholic and I have a genuine interest because I'd like to understand what made you convert.

Sorry for the late response! I was baptized in middle school in a Methodist church but was just going through the motions, understood and cared little for it, and immediately stopped practicing along with my family; I was a practical atheist through the back half of college, even if I maintained a loose belief in a god who might be out there but doesn’t have much to say about how to live life. By “conversion to Christ” I mean that eventually, through various life circumstances, I was confronted with the person of Jesus. Intellectually, experientially, and socially, Christianity-the Gospel, the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ-finally made sense to me, and my life changed in giving it to Him. The base reason I’m still practicing more than ever today is that despite any intellectual difficulties I might wrestle with in faith, the historical Christ and Christian orthodoxy seems inevitable and the most reasonable explanation for history and my own life experiences… Maybe the most I can explain in a RU-vid comment but I appreciate the questions and encourage you to keep seeking in good faith! If Christ is who He claims to be and you remain genuinely open, He’ll find you in His timing and it’ll click. But faith is ultimately a gift which we can’t generate ourselves; the most we can do is ask for it and be receptive! Godspeed!

John Daedalus so what’s your conclusion argument? You have the burden of proof when it comes to making a positive claim. He made it using Historical evidences, and reason what’s your rebuttal?

John Daedalus some people would rather by a lie than believe the truth.

John Daedalus Atheist: so us proof outside the Bible Christian does that: Noooooooo you can’t show dozens of accounts on the life and death of Jesus from no both gentile, and Jewish accounts giving evidence as to the existence of Jesus!

John Daedalus 🤣😂. If I was an Atheist it would make me also pout.

@Steve Doud unfortunately your assertion is baseless garbage.

Thanks for jumping in, and yep, the channel is very active. I do a daily podcast where I work through the book of Matthew for ten minutes a day, and I also make three or four videos a month here.

The Ten Minute Bible Hour yes! I ran one of your playlists last night. I am so impressed at the studies you are passing along .... also shared to FB. You are providing good sound info for conversation with nonbelievers.... I’m not fond of heated exchanges, solves nothing, and I’m looking forward to research in the directions you put out there... so, cool beans and thank you for the reply.

Dd S 🍷

Dd S just to be clear I was offering you more whine. I’m a “christTard” as you put it. No worries we can disagree. I wish you and your family all the best.

If he went into the successors of the apostles, he would not be able to be Protestant so easily. He would have to look to Orthodoxy. May God grant!

Catholicism/Orthodoxy ;)

@@misererenobis8900 Well...Orthodoxy anyway. Where would one look for a monarchial pope ruling the world in the first millennium? No. Just Orthodoxy.

In Between Names Central authority and all that, rather than having to deal with break-away patriarchs..;)

@@misererenobis8900 Christ is the central authority of the Church. The pope was a break-away patriarch.

@@nezumi6554Roman Empire is a fictional entity used to promote European colonialism :-)

Ceasar was a black ✊

These comments progressively got funnier, started out with a nose laugh and when I got to Caesar was black with the balled up fist I lost it.

This is true. Julius Caesar existed long before fedoras. If you see an image of julius caesar in a fedora, you should be highly skeptical

@@lifewasgiventous1614 he is kind of right. All these idol statues/ immages are black. I wonder why

+lbmc 493 Ha! Great comment. Thanks so much.

@Sarah H why do you discount the accounts of Jesus that are in the New Testament such as the four gospels and the letters? They are early, they are from the time when eye witnesses lived, and they corroborate each other. There are extremely early fragments of gospel texts that have been confirmed.

" The Gospels are biographical information on Jesus and his ministry and were preached orally immediately after his ascension into heaven ". The Gospels can't agree on when the crucifixion was or where the ascension took place. @Brian Farley

Alan Crook Hoenstly they do agree. Have you read it? The place is called two different things but one of the guys, probably Luke, explains. One says they walked through a garden but it doesn’t say he was crucified there. The was crucified at the place of the skull. That’s just what I remember off hand. If you look at what that cold case guy says he says it better. He says they actually prove it and not disprove it. He’s a cold case detective. He went from atheist to Christian based on his knowledge of cold cases.

I've read it ALL. I started it as a christian duty and finished it 100% atheist! There are many more discrepecies. It's fiction. @@junelledembroski9183

Daniel Anchondo Thanks so much. As you watch more, you'll see that my entire series on Acts is advancing exactly the thesis you just threw out there. Thanks for checking out the show!

The body of Christ is the one United church no matter what church they are in there are even some in sects that truly believe in Jesus and are born again, but stay in their sect because of many reasons like family and so on, we really don't need a true world wide church made by man there is one global church all ready made by Christ himself

see richard carrier on the topic,

Tracy Walker Yes, I agree! 😁 Fantastic early Church fathers and their superb writings. There are many others to read and explore.

AffiliatePro haha good one. Keep grinding for that affiliate money. God bless you brother. One day you’ll read the New Testament and see the truth. If you haven’t read it or lived it then you really can’t comment on it.

god won't bless you,its all in your'e mind.see richard carrier.

There are no contemporary historians for Jesus.

@@utubepunk no duh

I didn't get that at first. Thanks for pointing it out. His play with puns is remarkable. I'm still giggling at Tiberius with the picture of Capt Tiberius Kirk

No it wasn't, warlock 🤭🤣

@@cabletelcontar5440 No worries. I wasnt expecting it since it was the very first video of his that I saw, so it kinda caught me off guard when I heard it. He is pretty clever

@@Xfranman Warlock? Is that supposed to be in reference to my name, cause if it is, I dont think you get it. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you're saying.

@@malleusmaleficarum6004 Isn't the MM the guide for dealing with witches and warlocks? Are you a coven leader or stand you on the side of the angels? 👼

Well it wasn’t first hand. Suetonius lived about 100 years after Julius Caesar.

Debbie Suarez I enjoyed the pop culture references. I thought they were funny. They are not in all his videos but added a smile to my face without being overly distracting. I also really enjoyed this video and will be researching the names he gave. We should always do our own research/further study. Not saying you don’t but giving readers a reminder to do your own homework so you are not deceived.

The Library was unlikely to have held much in the way of Christian history as the library was destroyed in 48 AD. The movement had grown quite a bit, but it was only 15 years after the Resurrection, and only one of the writings, as far as we know, was written yet, Galatians. Galatians speaks of the Gospel that Paul had been teaching but not that he had written it down, or used anyone else's written word. It is thought that the Gospel of Mark may be the earliest, but it is thought to have been written no earlier than 53 AD, and more than likely closer to 66 to 70 AD. There is some conjecture that the Gospel of Mathew may have been written as early as 40 AD to 45 AD. This is based on the writings of Clement who gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, knowing the genealogies of Christ, because he says, they were written first in the Gospel. It is Mathew's Gospel that includes these. So there is some possibility of some writings that were lost.

@@imkluu I'm sure nobody had all of those stories bouncing around in their heads for 50+ years without writing any of it down. It was probably written down, but like he said in the video, its old material that didn't survive the ages, and had to be copied onto NEW material over and over again. I highly doubt nobody wrote of Jesus in that library, it was THE pinnacle of information and it was a great tragedy when it was razed to the ground.

Agree 100%! Very encouraging

Casper Howell I respect your intellectual curiosity & objectivity 👌🏿

Is says in the Bible that people will suffer because lack of knowledge... the truth is out there for us to find we must put trust in jesus

The writers you gave didnt smash miracles into all of their writing. Making the world seem like a giant conspiracy theory against christianity is not a good presentation. There are hundreds of these videos and if you will believe in miricles written thousands of years ago are enough evidence god exists, how do you not take other religions with similar stories seriously?

see richard carrier.

@@joshuaabels6066 Because their practices don't make sense. When i read the words of Jesus Christ they make sense, they might not be comfortable, and i might not end up with a bunch of virgins for killing people but i mean... my heart tells me what is right and wrong and that's god. What makes more sense? "Love one another as i have loved you" which almost nobody is doing, or the rest of the nonsense? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Charles Schleicher James Tiberius Kirk made me laugh out loud lol! 😄😁

Cannibalism was never practiced by Christians. That rumor was a vicious attack by the enemies of Christ based on lack of spiritual understanding of Jesus's teaching that His believers must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to enter the kingdom. This was only in reference to Himself, the Christ, and was describing a spiritual act and obviously not meant to be taken literally.

@@patrickfoster4586 When He talked of eating of His flesh and drinking His blood, it was a play on Him being the "Word of God made flesh". While some denominations will say its evidence of the eucharist being important to salvation, its actually a way of saying "read your Bible and believe in the blood atonement".

@@pinesandtraplines it's not just "some denominations"... A quick review of the Church Fathers will give you plenty evidence that they truly believed in the real presence of the body of Christ in the forms of bread and wine. You have to skip forward about 15 centuries to start finding Christians who doubted the real presence. So, Sarah is right: Christians were (some of us still are) cannibals, in a sense...

@gillecroisd 92 that's fine. It's your prerogative to interpret it the way you wish. Yet, I would encourage you to read John 6 over a couple of times and ask yourself if somebody speaking figuratively would allow his disciples to leave based on a misunderstanding. It seems that even among the twelve there were some hesitating about it, and would probably have left as well is it wasn't for Peter...

Jesus even says what he’s saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood is on a spiritual level not physical. So yeah

I’m a skeptic and I find it hard to see what facts you refer to. It’s common for believers to push this notion, like you have, that being skeptical is really some form of resistance. As if we have some sort of bias stopping us from accepting what is clearly the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve looked at the historical evidence for the important aspects of Jesus’ life and found it entirely wanting. I’m no expert but for me Tacitus’ writings and common sense are enough to make me think it’s more likely that Jesus was a real person than a myth. It seems much easier to build a religion when there’s some basis than to just conjour it up from nowhere. But the historicity of Jesus tells us absolutely nothing about whether he was the son of God, performed miracles, and ascended to heaven after his death. For these things there is absolutely no credible evidence.

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih The accounts from the seven sources mentioned in this video are extremely similar to the new testament accounts of the same events, so to me, it really supports the idea that the new testament is quite an accurate historical account of Jesus' life and the early church. Of course, the conclusions made from the secular vs. biblical accounts are different, but I encourage you to read the new testament to compare the accounts for yourself and then come to a conclusion for yourself. You may not have a specific agenda for rejecting facts that are contrary to what you previously believed, but perhaps Rick is referring to confirmation bias, which we all have. All of us have a tendency to accept and internalize information that supports what we already believe, while rejecting information that is contrary to our beliefs. We all just need to do our best to look at everything with as little bias as possible and realize we have confirmation bias so that we can look at things from a more open-minded perspective.

@@monkiram *All of us have a tendency to accept and internalize information that supports what we already believe, while rejecting information that is contrary to our beliefs.* I agree. I know I am fallible. I know I can be fooled. That's why I care so much about evidence. What I believe, and how strongly I believe it says nothing about whether that belief is actually true or not. For that we need evidence. *...so that we can look at things from a more open-minded perspective.* I'm not suggesting you've used it in this way, but I often see atheists being accused of not being "open-minded" when it's clear they are not being closed minded at all. Being open-minded means being willing to change your mind based on evidence. Usually when I see theists talk of open-mindedness this isn't what they want at all. What they are really asking for is gullibility. "Yeah, I know there's no evidence for any of the core, extraordinary claims I'm making, but you should believe it anyway!". I feel I've gotten quite negative in my last two posts. That's not something I intended, but I find it impossible not to be negative because this seems such a clear-cut topic. There's no credible evidence for any of the miraculous claims the bible makes (and we know some of them, like the creation story, are completely wrong) so none of them should be believed. I wanted to finish on a more positive note though. It's something I don't often do in these sorts of discussions so I'm sure I often come across more strongly against religion than is actually the case. I see value in the bible. It's in my opinion by far the most comprehensive and best collection of early poetry we have. I also think there are many good messages in the bible, some of which were quite novel for the time. (I also think there are many awful messages, which is why I like being an atheist. I'm free to take on the good messages while dismissing the bad ones and the dogma). On a practical level, I have no doubt that religion fills a hole that is missing for many people by providing brotherhood and a sense of something greater than ones self (in fact I think this is the greatest benefit of religion. There's no secular group that is comparable). My personal (non-online) experience has been that religious people are good people that use their religion to try to better themselves. (I live in Australia. My online experience has been very different, but I don't know how much of that is due to a higher percentage of idiots being online and how much is due to more extreme views that may be more common in America than Australia).

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih I'm sorry if I came off as attacking your beliefs or calling you closed-minded, that was not my intention. I was just suggesting that maybe Rick, as a Christian who desires the salvation of others was expressing sadness that some skeptics might not accept Christian ideas based on confirmation bias, rather than suggesting that all skeptics are closed-minded. I think for an atheist to watch this video means they're likely open to other perspectives. I definitely understand your skepticism and have had my doubts and there are still things I'm searching for answers for. But when I read about Jesus, what He taught, how He loved and what all His contemporaries had to say about Him, and also how He fulfilled all the old testament prophecies, and the work He did and continues to do in people's lives, etc. I can't see how He could have been just an ordinary man. We can agree to disagree :) I'm Canadian, I also find that online discussions are usually pretty toxic. I assume it's the anonymity that allows people to feel they're not socially accountable, but I'm not sure

@@monkiram Thanks for another thoughtful reply. *I'm sorry if I came off as attacking your beliefs or calling you closed-minded, that was not my intention.* It sounds like I wasn't very clear in what I wrote (I can waffle on a bit!). I didn't feel you were attacking me at all, and your closed-minded comment didn't feel like an attack. I've got baggage from a lot of conversations with others on this topic. After a while you see some common fallacies pop up again and again, and one I see consistently is "closed-minded" being used falsely because there was no credible evidence presented... what the person is really asking for is credulity. So I guess my comments on it were me flagging early on that possible, fallacious, use of "closed-minded". *I was just suggesting that maybe Rick, as a Christian who desires the salvation of others was expressing sadness that some skeptics might not accept Christian ideas based on confirmation bias, rather than suggesting that all skeptics are closed-minded.* Yeah, that's actually my point. Comments like that are a poisoning of the well. It's suggesting that people that don't accept what is being presented must have an agenda, or a bias or some reason other than "That doesn't make sense" or "That's possible, but there's absolutely no evidence for it so I don't accept it". *...I can't see how He could have been just an ordinary man. We can agree to disagree :)* Yeah, I think so. I can see why you would feel that way about most of the reasons you just gave (the exception being the prophecies... they are something that need good evidence). I see no point in getting into that here though. A year ago I probably would have been more eager to get into it, but a while back I started questioning why I had come to oppose religion, and felt that some of my exchanges I came across far more one-sided than my position really is. I realised pretty quickly that's it's not religion that I oppose. I oppose indoctrination. I oppose dogma. Needing to accept things on faith and not worrying about, or actively rejecting demonstrable truths. I oppose extreme views, especially when those views are based on faith and not evidence. I oppose people trying to impose their beliefs onto others through law or violence. I oppose claims that others are less human or less moral because they don't believe the right things. I oppose rejection of science and evidence. These things were all very clear to me before, I just somehow hadn't actively thought about them and applied them well enough. So the realisation was I don't actually oppose religions per-se, it's just that many people use their religion as a way to do many of the things I just listed. I most definitely don't want to ban religions or anything along those lines (and have never met an atheist that does). I think the vast majority of people use their faith to better themselves and not to oppress others. With that said, there is one thing I oppose that seems universal among theists - the idea that it is a virtue to accept something for which there is insufficient evidence. If there was one thing I could somehow convince everyone of, it would be to drop this notion. I believe it's a poisonous idea because once you allow yourself to believe one thing for which there isn't justification, it opens the door to believing other things that also aren't justified. So while a religious person might follow a non-violent religion that helps them better themselves, they are more susceptible to believe other things on faith and be convinced of even extreme views. *I'm Canadian, I also find that online discussions are usually pretty toxic. I assume it's the anonymity that allows people to feel they're not socially accountable, but I'm not sure* I agree. And it's something I feel myself. I write things online that I wouldn't say to people face-to-face. There are a combination of reasons: * Anonymity isn't a big one for me personally. * But not knowing the person or having to face them makes it easier for both parties I think. I like to provoke people to think about the beliefs they hold and I feel online I can be more abrupt, which can be more effective. But I feel safe that if I've overstepped a boundary the other person won't be strongly affected by it. They'll very likely brush me off as an online idiot and proceed to forget about me. Whereas if I overstepped the line face-to-face, even with a stranger, I think there's a greater chance of that person being genuinely offended and maybe even affected by it. * I also use online as a bit of a testing ground and learning area. I generally take the time to verify things for myself before accepting it as my belief. But even now I still sometimes take a shortcut and take things someone I trust has said and accept them because they sound reasonable to me and I trust the person that told me. And sometimes I'm caught out overstating something, or asserting something as fact when it actually isn't. I learn a lot from the few times when this happens, but I admit it's easier being caught out like this by a stranger. Anyway, I don't really have an over-arching point in this reply! Just a bit of a stream-of-consciousness in response to what you wrote!

Oh yes, plenty! And the Islamic religion regards Jesus as a prophet and important teacher, but not the Savior, not the Lamb of God. They do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly enough, they DO believe in Mary's virgin birth of Jesus, and they honor Mary and hold her in high regard.

Classic rock Lover Lol. All Believing in Believing is psychosis. Period.

god won't bless you ,its all in your'e mind.see richard carrier on the topic,

Shqipe joh 17 17 Catholics and Orthodox are too into nationalism. It’s more about culture preservation to them.

@@zarnoffa Remember that Catholics live all over the world, in many different nations, including many races and cultures. I'm not a practicing catholic, but I was lucky enough to go to the Vatican for an Easter mass, and there was no divide between race or culture, there where Black, White, Asian and Middle Eastern peoples from all around the world there, all singing and preying together.

smileyShiiZniTZ The same can be said of Pentecostals since the early 1900s. Pentecostalism was actually peculiar for the mixing of races in an age when races were very divided. It’s one thing to be in a country where races naturally mix thru history, such as Rome. It’s another thing mixing races where it’s actually considered taboo.

@@zarnoffaWell the Rome of today is far different then the Rome of 2000 years ago, the entho mixing is not prominent like it use to be, as trade in antiquity was very different then it is today. Majority of the people attending the mass were not even Italian (including me), however I believe its the nation that drives indifference not the religion. US Catholicism for example is dictated by how the nation thinks, so it will slightly be different than that of Catholicism in say Turkey.

Shqipe joh 17 17 Someone said Evangelicals are different from the early church, but my point was that some are and some aren’t... and that Orthodox and Catholic are generally more concerned with culture and nationalism and the state and family tradition than following the teachings of Christ and knowing the Scriptures.

I am praying that he finally gets there with an open mind which I feel this guy has...

@@ProximaCentauri88 Lester, He sounds like he has an open mind. Of course, he has an evangelical subscriber base to consider. I hope he "discovers" and reveals the facts, nevertheless. Thanks for your comment.

@@joecastillo8798 I am very picky in subscribing or following a Catholic convert since I know some Catholic converts or reverts who are loud in social media who suddenly decided to leave the Church despite them claiming that they have "fully understood and studied" the Catholic Church. Still, we should continue to pray for their return and for this guy's amazing journey.

@@joecastillo8798 I am myself a revert. I was born Catholic but grew up a typical ignorant Catholic which lead me to join a cool "Christian" group. I must say they really gave me good jams but the Holy Spirit lead me to the truth. Sadly a quarter of my batch in college became "Born Again". I am trying my best to learn more about the Church and to be a good disciple of Jesus but I think if I cannot become as knowledgable as Catholic apologists, I'm OK with that. For me, what every Catholic should really know and understand are: The Holy Trinity, Jesus as the God-incarnate/ His divine and human nature, The real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, Mary's role in the Church, Primacy of the See of Rome (as affirmed by Early Church Fathers including St. Ignatius of Antioch which I never heard when I was in a Catholic school).

@@ProximaCentauri88 Lester, What you wrote reveals your journey. Let The Holy Spirit guide you through the faith of the early fathers. Read St. Ignatius letters, St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome letters to Damasus to begin your journey of spiritual nutrition. God bless.

..yeah, but it FELT LIKE 10 minutes!

DennisBlaine61 Jesus did real?

Possibly but the bigger question is.... was he supernatural? Was he god in the flesh? 💁🏻

@@src3360 a more important question. Is the evidence suggested in this video, and Apologetics theological debates across the world; enough for you to believe and follow him? And if not why ?

Shaolin Showdown Tis not an important question for me as I do not believe but can you answer my question or will you again ask questions in regard to my question? 🙏🏻

@@src3360 answer to your question... Yes. What he did was real and evidence is enough if you find the right sources. And even opposing sources dont seem rational enough. You see Truh IS NOT subjective. Truth just IS. It's always been. So we can see and feel if somthing is write or wrong by the fruit of the spirit of people. But if they're spirit dark ofcourse they would think truth is perspective.

How did you always know god was real?

Nick, preaching on modern Isreal founded May 14 1948 was 'fulfilled Bible prophecy' stopped me going agnostic back in the seventies when I was a teen!! Since 1948 other prophecies on Isreal & the Jews have come to pass & still others are to be fulfilled!!

Easter is really about the fallen angel or pagan goddess Ishtar. Her symbol is the bunny or egg... sound familiar? Most Christians celebrate satanic holidays. Like christmas... do you know what Christmas really is? !

Praying with you!