Is Jesus' Resurrection True? | Antony Flew & Gary Habermas at Cal Poly 

Good for you. You might also want to check out the vid Jesus And The Shroud of Turin by 15 Decades, and other such YT vids,if you have not done so already. No, carbon 14 dating did not show it to be a medieval forgery, but the vid will tell you why. If you haven't seen the new, literally miraculous, evidence seen on the Shroud thanks to modern technology, you are in for quite a treat.

***** Alright, I will check it out for sure. Thanks!

You are so very welcome. You seem like a very, very sweet soul. May you have many, and great, blessings, and come into all truth. :-)

***** Thank you very much. I started a blog a few months ago about this kind of stuff. You can check it out if you like. unholypastor.tumblr.com

***** I am not submissive to religious dogma. Dogma sickens me. Religion sickens me. He provided very good reason for saying Jesus is God. We can also verify Jesus' existence through the same process used in this video to verify His resurrection. Habermas gave good reason as to why the things mentioned in 1 Corinthians should be taken literally. Therefore, when Paul mentioned Jesus, we can confirm that Jesus probably existed. When Paul mentioned the resurrection of Jesus, we can confirm that it probably happened.

I didn't know that, but you couldn't help but really love A Flew , he was a very easy spoken and genuinely inquiring gentleman. He reminds me of David Berlinsky with his easy way of speaking.

@@adastra123 agreed

@@adastra123 agreed

and from what i,ve heard... dr. Flew had a change of heart and later admitted he was wrong about all the atheist books he wrote

If anyone watched the video Gary says this haha

I agree. I prefer these “older” debates than the debates today. There’s just more respect from both parties

The debate was redicoulous just as the Veritas organisation was to broad cast it. Flew does not seem to be with it and as were Gary Habermas's presentation of his questions idiotic to Flew, what a joke? This was not a good day for the Veritas foundation.

captainunload We have the whole Truth on our side rather than a lie or partial truths.

Scott Harwell The truth always helps. ;-)

There's ONLY one way to win debates on belief: You have to be on the side of the TRUTH. The Bible is the source of truth simply because THE GOD IT PROFESS IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.

why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

Really how so .....lets have a conversation.

why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

Same, I was a rather smug atheist after listening to too many sound bites from Hitchens and Dawkins. It took a muslim trying to convert me to Islam that forced me investigate Christianity. The case for Christ is overwhelming and amazing.

@@sewme7861 The character of Jesus is flawless.

@@sewme7861 I'd be curious to hear what it is that you thought was horrible and disgusting that Jesus Christ ever said. You've left this identical comment on numerous comments here but have not said why.

@@sewme7861 Bro was literally a loving communist who wanted socioreligious reform, how is he evil?

I'm so surprised to hear from "a Thinking Christian" that the Christian won the debate. Funny how that worked out for you.

Thanks for Being a Useful Idiot Facts are stubborn things. They impacted the outcome of this debate, and rightly so. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just using the noggin God gave me to conclude the obvious.

aThinkingChristian for starters Flew never professed a belief in a Christian god, that is innacurate just as was the claim that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. Secondly there is no overwhelming evidence which confirms the supposed Resurrection as an actual historical event as there are no tools available to the historian to make such a claim. Take the Pauline text for example, there us no evidence to support his clam beyond that of a hallucination and why wouldn't it be? If you have strong belief in something why would it be a shock to join in such a parade of claims that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. I don't see where anyone could conclude Habermas "won"? Going further, why would a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin(who wanted Jesus dead) care about any burial? Why would Pilate even let a murderer of Romans off in place of Jesus? Or let a body off the cross after only a few hours when bodies were commonly left up for days? Habermas is a nice enough guy but I would hardly call his "evidence" as a slam dunk for the supernatural.

aThinkingChristian you’re right!

Habermas won nothing. Conjecture is not evidence. I think you will find the Flavian dynasty invented this 'Christian' horseshit, aided by the Jew, Josephus

You couldn't have said it better.

I don't think this was an actual debate. I honestly think Anthony Flew wanted some answer to the new question he was dealing with after he concluded the possibility of an intelligence after realising the enormous complexity of the human genome (DNA). I think he was searching. Just my observation.

+Patricia Ann Becht flew became a theist before he died

I would not feel sorry for him. Flew is not like the current New Atheists, who are loud, stubborn and arrogant. they are not willing to have a civilised discussion on this subject without resorting to insults (just look at the comments). Flew on the other hand was very open and a great philosopher. he went where the evidence took him. he was not embarrassed at all to admit that he believes in God after spending a lifetime arguing for atheism. Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Penn Jilette etc do not have this liberty because they don't just espouse atheism, but they do it in a way that would make it slightly embarrassing for them to accept Christ. that is the biggest problem with new atheism.

Aaaand the thread is bombed by an angry new atheist, so offended by rational and free thought that he must drag completely unrelated ad hominems into discussions that expose his intolerant, belligerent system of group think. If I were an atheist myself, I'd call it religion.

I'm an atheist, and I'm willing to have a civilized discussion.

why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

Sew Me yo if someone said they’d raise themself from the dead then obviously die then rise from the dead, hell yeah im putting all my faith in them, he knows more than me lol

And drunk on the JC Kool Aid to the point where he cannot see the gaping holes in his assumptions.

@@sewme7861 The Disciples sure did, so clearly they thought he said good stuff. What bad stuff did Jesus say/do? Sure God in the Old Testament did a lot of harsh things like giving many orders to obliterate entire groups of people, but all of those incidents were perfectly within his rights as the Just God of the world, and the story of Rahab shows that people knew about their eminent destruction but still refused to turn to God. Looking at God as a whole, he really isn't evil, so denying him on those grounds don't come of as enough of reason to not become Christian.

Science matters end of discussion

@River Scott what are you talking about Anthony lost Gary absolutely won. I did not refuse a statement many have tried to refute the resurrection statement but I failed if you do any amount of research you could see just how wrong he is Anthony lost Gary won if you do the research Gary has won

I know exactly what you mean. it seems to me, Today's atheist are rather short tempered and spiteful.

I know right. The internet spawned too many angry people. It seems that just a few years ago academics had discussions in a civil atmosphere and, as they had little to no followers and exposure, were more open minded to change their minds.

+Jim Hampton I've thought of buying the book. What is your opinion on it?

Flew is now a Christian

@@Stevenstiffany77 interesting if true

Sam Doo 😂

Randy Pacchioli If he defended truth he would be an atheist ;)

Oners82 The very reason why he isn't.

Randy Pacchioli He isn't an atheist because like most people he adopts the religion of his culture, and he comes from a majority Christian country. The justifications for belief are post hoc, not reasons that precede the belief.

Oners82 I wouldn't want to be an atheist because it rejects truth.

Randy Pacchioli Do you have anything other than simple minded, unjustified assertions?

Religions can be overwhelming. The Catholic Church is full of problems, because man has manipulated it. When dealing with atheist, tell them to forget about all the religions and debates. Say, if Jesus really died and came back resurrected, would you believe? Then give them evidence to support it. It simplifies everything. Here is a great video for younger people who have questions. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DCHJbO-3-jA.html

Thank you Robert for taking the t me and interest to write,very kind. I have saved your recommended RU-vid and will take a look later before I pass it on to Debbie. I haven’t seen her since for while as I’m grounded with pneumonia and keeping clear of folks ! Blessings to you and yours for Christmas- and our Saviours real Peace

@@grahamlewis6062 hopefully you are all well by now.

*deist

@pokey nose You can't find the evidence for the same reason a thief can't find the police.

@pokey nose, says the typical idiotic atheist.

Deist is a subset of theist. Also atheists can’t see the evidence doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Your statement of personal incredulity should have no bearing on actual scholarship.

@@affinity1746 Theism is a subset of deism not the other way around

@Christian Slayer it's a scripture!

@Christian Slayer it's not meaningless at all. When you live for Christ its everything and when you die it's even better. It's a beautiful fact that means so much in only a few words.

@River Scott if you believe in Jesus , you are saved from condemnation in hell because He is your Savior. He rose from the dead showing He is truly our Savior. And this video shows the strength of the resurrection of Jesus. So when you die believing in Jesus it is indeed in gain.

why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

@@sewme7861 Jesus was claiming to be the messiah, and part of the being the messiah was that you would have to be a suffering servant, be martyred, but then would come back to life as someone who will reconcile sinners back to God: "After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53). Therefore, since Jesus -- as someone who claimed to be this very specific person who had a very specific role to play, and had to perform certain signs to authenticate his claims -- did in fact fulfill the prophetic scriptures by coming back to life, then his Resurrection authenticated him as the Messiah. The resurrection of your average Joe is going to have different implications than the resurrection of someone who claimed to be God in the flesh. Consider how when hanging on the cross, the people witnessing the event all mocked Jesus saying, "save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:40). Well he did not come down from the cross because the Messiah had to die to atone for our sins: "though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days" (Isaiah 53), but by raising himself from the dead, not only did Jesus "save himself", but he thereby also showed how he did in fact possess the power of Yahweh, and therefore was God. Lazarus could not raise himself from the dead; only Jesus, who possessed the power of Yahweh, could do that. Therefore, since Jesus raised himself from the dead without anyone else making intercession for him, he again proved to be God. Similarly, you can see many cases today where people are pronounced clinically dead, but then miraculously come back to life, but only after meeting Jesus in heaven, and only after he speaks their spirits back into their bodies. I'm thinking of the famous case of Ian Maccormick -- you can watch his testimony on youtube.

No it doesn’t.

+Bennjjyy Haayysss - nice bumper sticker. If that level of analysis and critical thinking work for you, you're welcome to it.

@@sewme7861 What do you mean by that?

so why Christ? why Jesus? why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

​@@sewme7861, You asked "Why Jesus? Why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected?" Well his resurrection is evidence that what he said about himself is true, which, in turn, is evidence that the Bible is true. If what Jesus claims is true, then I'm not sure it matters whether we like it, or not. He's the only way to Heaven, so I choose to put my faith in him. Also, I don't agree that what Jesus said is disgusting. He healed lots of people and showed kindness and love towards all of them. He then promises eternal life in a place where there is no grief. None of that seems disgusting to me. My goal isn't to start an argument. I don't argue about this subject anymore. I merely wanted to answer your question. whylogicfails.com states everything I have to say about this issue. Read it, if you want. But there's really not much more to say.

@@sewme7861 why Christ? Because without Him our sins and transgressions still have to paid for.. Christ did that, on the cross just before Jesus gave up the Spirit he said "it is finished" meaning the debt has been paid. His sacrifice was a gift to you so you can enter into eternal life with the creator of it all. I urge you to not miss out on this gift simply because of a few words you may disagree with.. And if there is a God, who are we to disagree with Him? If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me what things Jesus said that you deem horrible?

Believing in an intelligent creator does not equate to believing in an amalgamated hebrew god with stories and feats from other cultures contrived on to him. Nor does it equate to believing in this hebrew god sacrificing his special son to himself in a blood ritual death scenario as his "ingenious" plan for him to "save" mankind from he himself sending mankind to a hell he himself made because some people don't worship him exactly how he wants. What we need are stories and descriptions of an actual competent creator that makes sense

​@@exillens I agree that not everything that God does, makes sense. However, would we really ever expect to completely understand God? Many people may say that my response is a copout response, but it's not. People often make the assumption that there is no limit to human understanding, and that a human being is capable of understanding any concept. However, it's just not the case. If you think about it, it makes sense that we can't comprehend all that God does. If we could, would he really be God? What impresses me most, about Habermas' testimony, is that he had the courage to be intellectually honest, and not dismiss historical facts. I doubt it would have been easy, but the facts are overwhelming. If they weren't, any atheist would be able to have a conversation with him, and convince him to become an atheist again, by merely showing him where he went wrong in his factual observations. It's one of the things which makes his testimony so powerful, in my view.

Such good logic given by Habernas! I admire this and I think Flew must have been moved by him too.

@Wayne lawson Wrong. He says in his book how he came to believe Christianity is the one true religion. Appendix B pg 184 (first paperback edition 2008).

He was more of agnostic not christian

@@ltakethefatlplease.3380 No, he was Christian. Read his book and see Appendix B: A Dialogue On Jesus. He explains why Christianity is the true religion. Why would he think that if he wasn't a Christian.

@@Elsupermayan8870 I might want to check that out cause I always thought that he just believed that something rather it be the christian God or not created life.

Indeed. This is what civilized discussion looks like. Mr. Flew was intellectually honest. He wasn't fighting to be right if he discovered evidence that proves him wrong. Today people fight to keep their lies true. It's insane... and that's why they fight in such ugly ways. It's not about truth. Its about winning no matter what.

@@ronlewis8398 I feel like that's the problem with most modern debates. If someone beats you in a debate, it will go on RU-vid with a clickbatey, "X DESTROYED by Y in debate", so you feel the need to win even if you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to get there.

@Christian Slayer Its been a year since i commented. Can you make your question more clear.

@Christian Slayer I dont remember. Ill look for a few minutes see if i can figure out the section. If i find it ill answer. But i cant commit to watching the video to figure it out.

@Christian Slayer OK I'll try to take a look and see where my comment fit

Lewis Bean Anthony Flew's deism might not have given him much comfort: He didn't believe God was loving or in life after death. And he doesn't personally strike me as dishonest.

Yeah, that is true, he didn't convert to a particular religion, but he certainly gave up on atheism from this point. I think he was certainly more competent than Dawkins and co. nowadays.

Well Flew himself was adamant that he published the book and that varghese helped edit. Even if it was the case of some editing, what Flew says clearly still makes a lot of sense. This video was several years before that when e was still an atheist and is not the first debate that he had with Habermas- again in that case, most people there claimed that Habermas won the debate and none claimed Flew did. Of course I know Flew turning to deism doesn't necessarily add verification to theism, but the way in which he turned is fascinating. Even in his heyday, there are still plenty of arguments against his works such as the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy when applied to faiths behaviours (i.e. the analogy doesn't work). Habermas does do another video where he looks at the historical accounts for the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and Mark Foreman does one refuting the idea of Jesus resulting from pagan mythology. Both of these and many others are ones I would personally recommend.

Josephus's writings also says jesus was a short, stalky, balding, unattractive black man. This is why you can't hang your hat on his words. Surely you don't even believe his physical description of jesus

Crucifixions were done by the Romans .. that has nothing to do with a fairytale about a bearded magic man coming back from the dead

@@exillens he doesn't say he was black.

@@RawChristianSuperman His writings certainly does

@@exillens it certainly does not.

There isn’t another account that could accomplish such a task. Amen.

Beautiful truths, aren't they?

That is right and it should be enough to make proof to other people about Jesus and Bible. Rim accepted Christianity and Jesus as son of God . The Rim that killed him and slaved all Jews. If anyone think that Rim would just accept Jews religion out of anything that were just slaves he is sick in his head. Rim accepted Jesus after they saw he didn't die. 1 million Jews saw Jesus die and than 3 days alive. It was miracle so big that people who killed and tortured Jews accepted their religion. They saw Jesus with their own eyes !!!

@Christian Slayer I absolutely want to know and so do all the atheists. Hit me with your best shot.

@Christian Slayer This is all very interesting, but you haven't shown anything that refutes Jesus empty tomb, resurrection, bodily appearances, early disciples willingness to die for what they saw, Paul suddenly becoming an evangelist when he had a bright future as a Pharisee...You talk about killing Esau, but Esau was way before Paul or anyone else in the first century. You haven't given me anything that suggests that the New Testament is false of historically unreliable.

Just watch Christopher Hitchens' 10 Commandments. The comments by so many people in favor of these, and they actually claim that Hitchens' intellect is superior to God, if there is a god. It's sad to hear so many people who actually have been deceived by Satan and his minion, C. Hitchens. Hardening their hearts is on full display.

It actually is a softening of the heart. It takes a hardening of the heart to defend a bible that commanded the murder of babies...multiple times. Slavery, killing people for what others do, executing gay persons...people who work on a Saturday, etc etc etc It is a softening of the heart that drove me to my deconversion from this religion.

Lawrence Eason Well, sorry to tell you this but that sounds like when a child is talking to his friends about how bad their parents are for not letting him eat his candy and watch tv late at night. We know why they do that, the kid just doesn't understand. Try to read on your own, see if what you argue is really true. And even if it were exactly like you say denying God even against the evidence is not the point if the truth is what you are looking for.

I agree. He eventually became a believer, which may be why he didn't vehemently defend his long held position with the vim and vigor as he did in the past. He was already on his way there. Not to mention his friendship with Gary and of course, his age.

@River Scott When Shoeshine Boy said Believer, I think he just meant that Flew believed in God, not necessarily Christianity.

it doesn't matter what you believe the evidence speaks for itself

Jose Martinez Ok...go on?

+jwrsob there is something called an empty tomb , 500 people saw the risen Christ including Paul so why are against the evidence

Jose Martinez Ok...let me repost my statement (you don't quite get it): "I LACK belief that Jesus was not resurrected!" In other words, I BELIEVE in the resurrection...I LACK belief that it didn't happen....this is a response to the silly arguments about atheism just being a LACK of belief against God!

+jwrsob oh so you do believe ?well if that's the case my apologies for not checking your statement so

I realize that my response is a bit late but I just could not pass up the opportunity to remind you of the other "stories" found in the "New testament" of others who were "resurrected" BEFORE Jesus by Jesus himself!!! Consider the "resurrection" of Lazarus after being "dead" for 4 days or the "resurrection" of the daughter of Jarius not to mention the number of saints "resurrected" during the "resurrection" of Jesus!?!? Add to that the explanation given by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, whoever That was, where it is stated, " And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die...", then accordingly, Lazarus, the daughter of Jarius, the saints and the others that were "resurrected" should STILL be alive and walking around somewhere on this earth awaiting judgement!!! Consider this just something to think about!

@joashsmusic First of all , I take umbrage at your estimation that I lack basic understanding of the concepts of christianity! Au contraire! I understand perfectly that christians have NO revealed "scripture" from "God" to stand upon! All that you have is testimonies from unknown persons, biographies written decades after the fact, by persons who are were not eyewitnesses nor earwitnesses to anything that they wrote about! In essence, just stories written ABOUT the prophet Jesus NOT revelation from "God"! Therefore, nothing that is found recorded in the christian "scripture" can be thought of as "the word of God ", just the words of men! Now to address the individual concerns about the "stories" that you referenced, exactly where do I find references in your "scripture" to back up your assertion that the people who were "resurrected" by Jesus died again? I have done the research and I find that there are few among enlightened christians that know the bible better than I do! But, my question to YOU is, as a christian, can YOU explain to me exactly who is Jesus? Was he "God" or was he the son of "God"??? If he was "God", how in the world did he die, seeing that "God" is IMMORTAL, incapable of dying??? Christianity makes NO rational sense to anyone with common sense! So, unless YOU can provide evidence that the bible IS the "word of God", and you can NOT, I think we have nothing left to discuss.

@Jo-Ash Scott Official Look dude, after all of that claptrap, YOU have yet to answer the question as to "Who is/was Jesus"??? God or son of God? Answer THAT! On top of that, YOU try to cast aspersions against the PROPHET Muhammad, what of the fact that according to YOUR "bible", YOUR "God" Jesus was tempted by the devil himself!?!? Offered all the riches and glory and all that jazz!?!? The devil offering "God" what already belongs to "God"??? LUDICROUS!!! DUDE the very fact that YOU are christian proves that YOU do NOT consider wisely! I have done the research and I find that there is NOTHING found in YOUR so-called "scripture" that supports the conventional "christian" view" that Jesus was "God"!!! To the contrary, YOUR "God" Jesus SAID "I ascend unto MY "God" and your "God"!?!? So logically, if Jesus has a "God" then he can NOT be his OWN "God", silly rabbit! How in the world can "God" cry out, "MY 'God', MY 'God', why have YOU abandoned ME??? How is it that christians just completely ignore the words of their OWN "God" Jesus when he is reported to have SAID, "And this is life eternal, that they may know YOU(The Father), THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and that they may know that YOU sent ME"!!! John 17:3! YOU people know NOT what YOU worship, YOU people are LOST!!! It clearly states in your OWN "scripture", the FATHER is the "ONLY TRUE GOD", sooo what does that make Jesus??? By default, LOGICALLY, LINGUISTICALLY, if words have meaning, that makes Jesus a FALSE "God"!!! IPSO FACTO!!! How little do YOU think! I need NOT quote Bart Ehrman or any other reference, YOUR bible is all the authority needed and COMMON SENSE!!! Christianity makes NO sense!!! In one of YOUR posts, YOU accuse ME of NOT understanding "basic concepts of who Jesus is. Hmm." To the contrary, I DO!!! It is YOU who knows NOT what the hell that YOU are talking about!!! If so, PROVE it using YOUR "scripture"! Go ahead, I'll wait! I eagerly await YOUR response, chapter and verse please!

@Jo-Ash Scott Official Wow, dude, I just don't know what to do with YOU??? I have really tried my best to help YOU understand WHY it is that the christian construct is without merit but as has been my fate in life, I have always understood things that the average person only later realizes! The key to life is to just keep things SIMPLE! No need for flowery language or complicated formulation and such. You SAY that you are up for "intellectual challenges" but are you actually? To demonstrate what I mean, in a previous post, I "challenged" YOU to explain from YOUR "scripture", exactly WHO is/was Jesus as in, IS HE GOD or is he the SON of "God"??? And what did YOU do? Completely ignored it !?!? I wonder WHY??? No, sorry! I entirely understand why. Because YOU can't!!! If YOU say that Jesus is "God", then that begs the question, if that is the case, WHO then is "the Father"??? And please, do not continue to bombard me with quotations of YOUR second "God", Paul!!! Whatever "Paul" has to say about ANYTHING, I am NOT interested!!! Paul nor ANY of the "new testament" writers were "prophets" sent from "God"' so whatever THEY contribute to the narrative ABOUT Jesus is NOT the "word of God" as ONLY the "prophets" were ordained to receive and write "the word of God"!!! Those people were NOT and they DIDN'T! So, as NOT to over tax YOUR tremendous "intellectual prowess", is it possible for YOU to constrain YOURSELF to addressing the issue of who is/was Jesus, "God" OR the SON of "God"??? In all actuality, Jo-Ash, I already know that YOU can NOT answer the question because YOU don't KNOW!!! Dude, what YOU fail to recognize is that YOU are waaay out of YOUR league in dealing with ME concerning THIS issue!!! YOU have NOT applied YOUR "intellect" in THIS area and it shows!!!

@Jo-Ash Scott Official OK Jo-Ash, since YOU are offering ME unsolicited advice, allow ME to do the same! YOU need to get a clue!!! The thing that YOU fail to realize is, I don't care how many bible quotes that YOU cite, it means NOTHING to ME because the bible is NOT the "word of or from 'God' "!!! And YOU being a christian, especially the so-called "new testament"!?!? It is very simple deduction Jo-Ash, the " word of or from 'God' " was ONLY "revealed" to HIS prophets, like Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and numerous others BUT the authors of the "new testament" are NOT numbered among THEM!!! The thing is, your OWN biblical, christian scholars will tell you that NO ONE knows exactly WHO wrote WHAT! The history of the bible compilation shows that at one time, what is now referred to as the "according to gospels" were without names and it was the pagan, Roman/Greek church forefathers that assigned names to these "biographies" as such because these "stories" were ALL written ANONYMOUSLY!!! Questions for YOU, who was the writer Mark??? Was he even a disciple of "Jesus"??? NO! Same for the writer of Luke, NOT even a disciple EITHER!?!? NONE of the so-called authors of the "new testament" had ever met the man "Jesus", they were ALL writing "stories" from HEARSAY and for THIS reason alone, can NOT be deemed "the word of or from 'God' "!!! Dude YOU have a LOOOONG way to go and a very short time to get there! Bon voyage! So YOU can cite whatever YOU want from THEIR "new testament" until YOUR fingers fall off or until YOU are blue in the face, it matters NOT a wit, IT IS NOT FROM "GOD"!!!

They say he did..

@@emmanuelmasih2296 Yes, that's what I heard. God bless him.

Flew overlooked that Habermas isn't explaining a valid question. Habermas doesn't have a valid question because there isn't an anomaly generating a question to explain.

@@HegelsOwl ooh. Big brained. Thanks for that amazing observation. Ok class, who's next?

@@regeneratedzed Yeah. You're a Habermas clown--just a real stupid joke

@@HegelsOwl such a brilliant, well developed reproach. Boggles the mind... So thought provoking it's quite possibly the most astounding statement made since "buttered toast" (smh)

@@regeneratedzed ...Pardon me, sir: Would you please pull your pants down--I can't hear anything you're trying to say.

@River Scott Bro, Shlama literally said Flew became a Deist. He straight up acknowledged that Flew didn't believe in Christianity. What's the point of your comment?

@@petery6432 River came back and deleted all his comments lol. I've seen him before, his name used to be "Christian Slayer."

@ DeGaN... when atheists say they don't have an answer for certain things they are just being honest... of course that's something you can't understand

Carl Pen. Predictable anecdotal irrelevant atheist response. Proving my point. Thank you.

@@dallasdien ... what point have you made other than making a statement that you have no proof of... I didn't say I was an atheist... your arrogance is only surpassed by you ignorance and that's a fact borne out of your own comments

Really like the way you put this. We’re should inhabiting bodies. NOT bodies with souls

To start with he changed his mind from atheism to believing in God. What he believed before he died is not known. Did he accept Jesus?

please

GD rex? Are you pleased with the mainstream narrative? Following the herd into hell while chewing the cud? Wide is the gate that leads into hell.

Christian Slayer blah blah blah you stupid Darwin jack ass! Something comes from nothing is the most Moronic believe in the universe. Go look in the mirror and look at the most dumb jackass of all. Iron Maiden rules! Slayer sucks! Maiden was before slayer and the Maiden machine still rolls on! Selling out coliseums world wide without hardly any air play. Go back in your pathetic existence and shut up!

Richard Dawkins knew that CHRIST existed he just chose to deny him..which in turn God denied him.. meaning no redemption for him..his free will sent him to wait upon judgement day in a not so nice place to await it.

@@michelemcguire8995 Your 100% right so Richard has no one to blame but himself!

Dawkins is a biologist....????

@@tomwinchester55 Dr. Dawkins has gotten in dialogues with questions pertaining to God's existence. E.g...his debate with Dr. John Lennox.

@@michelemcguire8995 sorry...that is crazy...he does not think that a god exist.

They'd have to cut Krauss' mic...LOL The math alone, can you imagine? Habermas can only add a few years at a time to the alleged crucifixion for Paul's grand mal seizure.

Krauss is afraid to let the other guy speak, lest the audience hear the truth. In his debate with Craig he acted about 16 years old with constant interruptions and a scornful ridiculing attitude. What is most telling though is that he's always trying to talk over, walk over, shut down and silence the opposing view. He can't sit there and let his arguments speak for themselves. He was obviously afraid to let the audience hear Craig's arguments uninterrupted.

Christopher Lees Or he didn't want to let Craig get away with fucking up science. Which, you know, Craig is famous for. Watch his debate with Sean Carroll if you want to see your Craigypoo demolished.

Krauss is a second rate classical historian for one. So no contest in that assertion. I might add the darling of the atheist Anthony Flew this very person has become a believer. At that point the atheist said Flew was not an intellectual. Well he was for 40 years. Which proves one thing atheist are bigots and use science to practice it!

Most ridiculous assertion I heard yet. I know plenty of "Old People" that have very sharp minds and very intelligent. You just brushed it off to prove and assertion using an assumption. Something I would avoid in the future. It makes you more credible!

Plus his tenacious prideful hold on a petrified set of beliefs that keeps him from humbling himself and surrender to his Creator. That battle of such willfulness makes me tired.

@@sylviac.6778I know this is last, but what you said here is wonderful and I agree completely

diogenes Hearsay? Are you aware of the exceptions to hearsay re ancient documents? Under your definition, nothing of the life of Alexander the Great would be deemed credible.

Is the U.S.Constitution "hearsay", or do we have historical documents?

@Christian Slayer finally coming to your senses. God bless

why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?

@@sewme7861, "disgusting and horrible" are not truth statements, they're value statements. I'm going to use my past few years as an example here to explain why this distinction is important. A few years ago, I determined that evolution (from a single common ancestor, not change over time) is not mathematically possible, it is not possible from a genetic data transmission standpoint, and it is not possible from a syllogistic standpoint. I had already discarded catastrophic, anthropogenic global climate change as unscientific. So now, two of the most politicized fields of science were untenable to me (and the more I branched out from my specialization of physics, the more I realized the totality of naturalisms failings). I was, at the time, a staunch agnostic, but I don't like not knowing the answer once I know a question, so I began to look at all kinds of origin stories. I didn't have any interest in Christianity because any organization that claimed a monopoly on truth was no better than the dogmatic sciences and the government they were symbiotic with, in my estimation. First I tried out ancient aliens/astronaut theories, and found that while entertaining, they failed to answer any questions about initial origins. After a few other failed attempts with other explanations, I decided I might as well read the Bible. I started with Genesis and read straight through to the end of Revelation. Some parts were tedious, some were absolutely awesome, some were disgusting and horrible. I started reading it about a year and a half ago, and finished about three months ago. I kept stopping because God would do something horrible like harden Pharaoh's heart so that he could send another plague to prove what a badass he was, or give Satan permission to murder Job's entire family, destroy his house, and scatter his flocks and herds just to see if Job really loved Him, like some kind of stalker girlfriend deleting female Facebook friends and reading your text messages to make sure you're not cheating but 1000x worse, then starting again after a few weeks because not liking something doesn't make it untrue. My conclusion is that every single claim of objective truth about the physical universe made in it is either demonstrably accurate, or in the case of instances of things we can't run physical experiments on to prove, like a global flood, it is built on sound syllogism and is significantly more probable, statistically speaking, than any alternative. The Bible is like an infinite onion of truth, as my best analogy. You read a verse and it will say an objective truth that can be observationally tested, that objective truth will contain within it an allegorical truth that can be broken down logically and tested for internal coherence or logical fallacy, and then it will carry a transcendent truth about the nature of God (At least every word dictated to Moses by God, after Moses smashed the tablets where God had written the first part of Genesis himself, and the parts where Jesus speaks. Sometimes the other books just have one or two of the truth types, rather than all three). These things have caused me to accept the Bible as absolute truth. They did not convince me that God is not disgusting and horrible, and not just for what I listed above that I see as cruelty. As such, I am no better than the demons Jesus cast out, who knew who He was and reviled Him for it. I still don't understand a whole lot more than I do understand, and that will probably become even more apparent to me the more I learn. The Bible says God is good, but I still see a father who left his children in a garden with the deceiver and punished them with death for breaking his rule when they didn't know the difference between good and evil until they did so. What I've learned though, is that while I may not understand God well enough to love Him yet, he seems like he's patient enough to let me learn how. To give soundbite answers to your questions, it matters that Jesus was resurrected because the way it happened proved every other claim he made was true. Witnessing the resurrection and faith that Christ is Lord are not the same thing. Lazarus was resurrected by the hand of Jesus, and I don't know of anyone anywhere that has ever believed him to be God. Furthermore, I didn't witness the resurrection, have had no prophetic visions, and can't feel the presence of the holy spirit, but I'm certain that it occurred, and that one day, if I keep chiseling as hard as I can at my hardened heart, it will finally soften enough to feel the holy spirit. And finally, no, because it wasn't the resurrection that made Jesus the Lord. It was a proof, not a cause. If Jeffrey Epstein, Chairman Mao, or Sigmund Freud were resurrected, I would not believe they were the Lord. I would believe that the Millennial Kingdom was commenced and in spite of the horrible things they did they loved the Lord and were therefore renewed.

Francisco d'Anconia Thanks for sharing your story. Do you think God would have a different opinion on what is horrible? Why or why not? I’d appreciate if you respond, but I’d understand if you feel all commented out after your essay :)

@@gabrieltippery3873 I think that God would define horrible differently than I do because we have a different perspective on creation, though our definitions result in a lot of overlap, so we might both look at the same event and see it as horrible for the same reason, we might look at it and see it as horrible, but for different reasons, and we might look at it and disagree on whether or not it's horrible. If I were to attempt to sum up what I understand as God's definition of horrible in a brief sentence, I would define it as, "Anything which does not glorify God is an abomination before God." Whereas I define horrible more readily by the immediate results. Merriam-Webster has, "marked by or arousing painful and intense fear, dread, dismay, or aversion" as it's definition, and I can't sum it up any better. As such, murder is horrible to both of us, but homosexuality isn't. What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom isn't any of my business, so I don't find it horrible. It doesn't produce offspring, so it doesn't glorify God, so he does. With homosexuality, and a lot of things beyond it, I can see God's point relatively easily, because I can look back through history and see where past civilizations have normalized it, and how that has had long-term deleterious impacts on them, and extrapolate how those impacts will affect current civilization. For instance, native population reduction resulting in a drive to bring in outside populations, which affects the culture, and eventually leads to an end to the civilization. Taking this into account, while I don't have any issue with gay people as individuals, I take massive issue with the promotion of gay culture. It's why I can watch Milo talk about Daddy Trump and get a giggle, but I wouldn't invite him to give a presentation to children. Where I struggle most at our differences in opinion on what's horrible is not so much in where our opinions differ, but in where I see what appears to be counterproductive, irrational responses from God, and where I haven't figured out how his actions are consistent with him being good and caring, yet. I am certain, however, that anywhere God appears to fail to meet my standards, it is, in actuality, a failure of comprehension on my part, so I am compelled to try to understand, and work on my ability to reciprocate God's love for me. I hope that answers your question, and that my example was clarifying rather than obfuscating.

He did teach among us. He died for us because he loves us. Would you be tortured for someone you love?

@Christian Slayer where are you getting this stuff? Cite me a source or verse and we can talk about it.

@Christian Slayer well if your going to make a claim how is it my duty to prove your claim? When the cops come harass me is it my job to prove my innocence? That is a fallacy of logic. You have alot of hate and anger. I gave those up long ago and my life is filled with peace. I'd like the same for you.

@Christian Slayer I've read the amazing book in question have you? I'm not sure you care to much about rudeness since the only one making personal attacks is you. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates We are all individuals. I can say that every atheist is the same but I am friends with several and we have very polite conversations. Why would you question my sincerity? Despite your hate filled arguement I continue to try and have some dialogue. Why? Because I am called to love my neighbor as I love myself. If you are so knowledgeable about the bible again I ask that you back up your own claim with a source. If you are sincere in trying persuade me that is.

@@Thump40 hey, respect that you stayed respectful. The verse he is talking about is where he says "Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved". Of course devoid of its meaning and context, this can be used as a club to "slay" christians, as his name suggests. You can look the verse up and study the reasoning behind it, there's really nothing here to be worried about..

Thomas Hunter "Dr. Habermas is the world's leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus Christ" No he isn't, there are thousands of biblical scholars with equal/better credentials that disagree with him, you just elevate the one that agrees with you and happens to be quite famous. Hector Avalos for example has superior credentials and argues that Habermas is completely wrong.

+Thomas Hunter An expert in "ressurections"? ROFL! :D

+Oners82 How does Hector avelos have better credentials concerning the resurrection of Christ? Explain.

207 207 I said he has better credentials and he does, he has an additional Bachelors degree. They are both good academics but to say that Habermas is the world's leading expert is overtly biased, he is just a good scholar on one side of the debate.

+Oners82 He may have better credentials but not in the area of the resurrection.

Luckily you are not a judge!

There was over 500

The gospels would get dismissed as hearsay in every modern court.😂

By that criteria Joseph Smith really did find golden plates

Are you aware that eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable type of evidence? Thats why the innocence project has so many cases vacated by DNA evidence. Actual science, not faith nor belief

Tovia singer would wipe the floor with him.

The scientific theory of evolution does not address cosmology, so your whole premise is wrong.

@@Frups12345678 Definitely! Also, why should one extend the reliability from the gospels to all of the Bible? Seems uncalled for. I am a christian but this is not a method we can use.

Except the Bible doesn't teach geocentricism.

Some guy The authors of Genesis didn’t even know how the universe or our solar system look like. They thought that the sun and moon were small lights that orbit earth and that stars were tiny signs in the solid firmament.

@River Scott Question begging epithets are generally signs of people not having a rational reason for their beliefs, so what do you think you using one says about you 🤔

So Jesus' apostles conspired together to create Christianity and then went to preach it in foreign lands to total strangers, all of them apart from John suffering various forms of torture and ultimately being put to death. Do you realise how absurd that sounds? What did any of them stand to gain by giving up their normal, safe lives and travelling to strange lands to evangelise about Jesus, knowing well that they would have to endure terrible hostility, hardships, pain and suffering? As for Roman sources, do some research on Josephus and Tacitus.

Viki Gnjatic "What did any of them stand to gain by..." - Oh, you believe this story as if it were real. Maybe you think you know who the apostles were, who the writers of the Gospels were.. and why these men wrote the stories. That's nice.

Rayvvvone You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record. I would suggest watching a full lecture of Dr. Habermas' to understand his arguments within the context of the discipline of history. The execution of Jesus is documented in Tacitus (Roman) and Josephus (Jewish) as well as referenced in Mara Bar Serapion, Pliny the Younger and Thallos. Not to mention that suggesting the Gospel accounts are not documents of history is categorically false. It shows a bias to 1st century documents that you wouldn't dream of employing for another historical figure, such as Habermas' examples of Alexander the Great or Tiberius. I think the key point you've overlooked is that Habermas' claims are not his alone, he's speaking from the academic consensus within the historical method. That's what he means by the 'minimalist' argument. He takes the bare minimum of evidence that the entire academic community agrees upon, and argues purely from that data. He doesn't bother arguing that Paul was the one who wrote the Pauline epistles, because no one in the field suggests that he doesn't. This may encourage you to ask about the validity of your own scepticism on this point. Habermas is not assuming, he's just addressing the points of contestation. The fact that Paul was a historical figure who wrote the letters ascribed to his name is not in contestation. His authorship is so well documented and the impact of his ministry upon the cities of Corinth and Galatia are so evidenced that it would take a misinformed you tuber to suggest otherwise. Graham Clarke, atheist and professor of history at ANU writes that "I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is overwhelming". The fact that an atheist in the field can make this claim gives me little reason to take your suggestion that "we just don't know that there was such a person" seriously. I seriously recommend taking in the whole of Habermas' arguments, better presented elsewhere (such as the Bethinking seminar), before levelling the above criticisms at them. I think you will find that on the whole there are far better criticisms to be made than the unsubstantiated ones you offered above.

Athuriux " You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record." - You clearly don't know what I know or don't know. You might be surprised. But, please, do continue to MAKE THINGS UP .. because that's your method so far. Yes.. Im quite sure I am exactly the way you imagine me to be. I haven't studied anything .. right. I am unfamiliar, for sure.. that's why I'm in here. I don't know a thing about this.. never heard all of your really quite silly arguments .. what are you going to talk about Alexander the Great? Oh wow.. never heard of that argument... What, are you going to mention people who wrote about Jesus who weren't even BORN before it all was supposed to have happened? Oh wow.. I'm so unfamiliar with THAT fallacious stupidity, too. Never EVER heard it so many times. It's boring. It doesn't even come close to being historical proof of Jesus. So, yeah... I'm unfamiliar with accepting bullshit as the truth. Very unfamiliar with that. If you don't have real evidence, you pretend you have some. And it isn't convincing at all to any outsider. Including Clarke... who doesn't spell his name the way you think he does. And I don't CARE about unfounded opinions. IF CLARKE or anyone else has EVIDENCE, then he should provide that evidence. Otherwise, he and anyone else is completely free to say ANYTHING HE BLOODY WELL LIKES.. it's meaningless drivel. No evidence, no good reason to believe. Period. So, where is Clarke's EVIDENCE.. or do you think opinions are evidence?

The evidence for Messiah is all over the net, easy to find, from archaeology, history both secular and Christian. You are so sure the Resurrection never happened, but there is literally miraculous evidence if you have eyes to see. There is a lot of great info here, but the best evidence for the Resurrection is the Shroud of Turin. If you have heard that carbon 14 testing revealed it to be a medieval forgery, on the Jesus And The Shroud of Turin vid posted by 15 Decades you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 dating saying that the sample taken was invalid due to contamination. Due to modern technology things have been found on the Shroud that were invisible in the medieval ages. For ex. pollen from Jerusalem has been discovered on it. New computer technology shows it has an x ray effect revealing images of bones and dentition. That's for starters. Secular scientists have examined the Shroud for years, and that data is all over the net for you to see with your own eyes. They all agree that they have no clue how that image of the crucified Messiah got on the linen cloth, that there is zero paint on it, and that, further, there is no way even modern technology could duplicate it. Try to explain how that image got there, when they couldn't.

I do!❤