The Resurrection of Jesus: Mike Licona & Dale Allison in Dialogue 

Thinking about Dr Allison's idea that Mark's was the first account/Gospel written and "less apologetic", if that is correct, why do you think it was less apologetic? Could it be, that since it was earlier, it was enough, just to tell what happened without all the added details, because they were commonly known or understood already?

Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the kind words.

I have a deep respect for non believers who enjoy Biblical discussion - the teachings, stories, "history", etc. Cheers!

@@SeanMcDowell I really appreciate your Christ centered and Scripturally accurate content for the furtherance of The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ brother McDowell 🙏❤️👊. EXACTLY Faith isn't blind belief in something unproven, unseen and unknowable but trust based on consistent evidence of God's Existence, Character and Word being revealed to us through Creation, history and science. I'm glad there's actual records of Jesus of Nazareth having lived, died and Resurrected because it'll always defeat Atheism's best arguments by having occured in our reality. The Creator God of The Bible in Christianity is consistently loving and Truthful. Many non Christians, Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists obviously haven't read The Bible if that's the conclusion that they've come to because if they read The Bible they'll understand that God does what is in the best interest of the future of those who love Him and doing what's right. Idolatry can come in anything that is put before giving God credit for anything in Creation to a creature. It doesn't have to be images made by human beings but anything in Creation whether artificial or naturally occurring. To ALL the Atheists in the comments section like Mustache, Barbara Bond, Theo Skeptomai, Dux, Mac and all of the others PLEASE STOP parroting Matt Dillahunty's dishonest dodging tactics . Atheism ain't got nothing new or better to offer than the very religious beliefs it's critical of so it's hypocrisy at it's finest 😂. Hello this is for all you Atheists, unbelievers and skeptics. I'm going to address a few misconceptions and lies about God's Character and His Word. The Bible doesn't support chattel slavery or anything else Immoral. Ok so Atheists and unbelievers say God is either Immoral, incompetent or not responsible so let's see what The Scriptures actually say. God revealed himself and created a nation in a real, historical context. It was a world with a slave-based economy, with city states often at war with each other, with polygamous marriages to ensure the continuation of family lines. The laws of the Old Testament regulate this behaviour. Slaves are to be treated humanely (Exodus 21:11). They are given rights and not seen as mere possessions. Hebrew slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Human trafficking is condemned (Exodus 21:16). In contrast to the law code of Babylon, Old Testament Israel was a light to the nations. The Old Testament law and narratives do not stand alone. Jesus is now the best example of what we read. So the moral teaching of the Bible cannot be summarised by a quote taken out of context from the Old Testament to demonize God and His Word. Slavery was permitted in Old Testament law but it was regulated by God giving the Israelites instructions on how to fairly and humanely treat their slaves (it was like indentured servitude where someone could work for you if they owed debts or needed income not cruel like chattel slavery). God allowed the people of Israel to own slaves since they themselves has already experienced over 400 years of generations of Egyptian slavery and knew how inhumane it was to be beaten, overworked and taxed so God set them apart from other nations and cultures around them by giving them a fair way to treat their slaves since slavery had already existed in the world but it doesn't mean God condoned it just used it for His Will to bring Good And in the light of the whole scriptural teaching, we find the reasons for its ultimate abolition (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1-3; Philemon 15-16 and Galatians 3:28). The Word of God provided the moral standard against slavery in the Roman Empire and against the slave trade in the New World. But what of genocide or holy war in the book of Joshua? Several things could be pointed out. The use of warfare in the ancient world did not always mean literal total destruction, even when events are described in such terms. Furthermore, the book of Joshua does not describe a genocide. It is not a race who are being wiped out, as in genocide, but a religious practice which was often appalling and degrading. Those who repent (like Rahab from Jericho or Ruth) are not destroyed but become part of Israel. It is not the racial group that is in view but their "detestable practices". However, after all is said, we must still acknowledge that God brought judgment on the nations of Canaan. It is not our place as believers isn't to sugar-coat the Bible. For some skeptics, this is enough to make God a moral monster. But the fact is that Jesus continued to affirm that God is a Judge who will bring a future judgment on all peoples and all nations. God’s judgment will be just. The list of Old Testament stories rejected by critics often leads to a similar dismissal of the New Testament teaching of Jesus on the existence of hell. After all, what was the Flood of Genesis or the conquest of Joshua if not a glimpse of future judgment? Hell does not demonstrate cruelty on God’s part, but it does demonstrate His Holiness and our moral accountability. Perhaps this is the real reason many people rail against the God of the Bible? It is not that they think He is a moral monster, but that they are afraid He is a moral Judge, and that has implications for our behaviour now. God is an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being and we as His creatures have Eternal souls and spirits so the punishment for our sins against Him must therefore also be Eternal but so must the reward for righteousness that's why He sent His Son Jesus to live a perfectly righteous and sinless Life (which none of us could ever possibly expect to do) suffer the humiliating and torturous death of crucifixion to shed His Own Blood willingly so that all who willingly accept His gift of salvation by grace through faith in Him will be saved and given Eternal life because that's what God wants is for us to willingly accept His gift of salvation and choose life. Exodus 21:20-21 literally speaks about capital punishment befalling anyone who mistreats their slaves so yes people are taking Scripture out of context to demonize God who literally promises that slaves who are mistreated under someone else's authority is to be avenged. When we hear the word “slavery” we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment. The situation described as “slavery” in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of indentured servitude. Many “slaves” were indentured servants, working for a term of years Some other “slaves” were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released. People didn't beat their good slaves but treated them well and protected their assets thus. But no matter how rebellious a slave was, you couldn't just beat them to death. And if you knocked out their tooth or damaged their eye then you had to set them free. (Exodus 21:26). God wasn't using what other nations did because He wanted to set His Chosen People of Israel apart from the cruel, inhumane and unjust systems other cultures had so He gave them a fair way to treat their slaves and servants. There is a lot of ignorance on this topic which is understandable given the age we live in but it's not the nefarious set up we think of when we think of modern slavery. The question Atheists must ask themselves is how come the Jews aren't being accused of slavery and human trafficking if they're guilty of it in The Bible and why would white slave owners rip out pages from The Old and New Testament Scriptures to justify their owning blacks as slaves if The Bible already justified slavery?

@@justingary5322 Hi. Either through ignorance or deception, your attempt at apologetics is dishonest. First, there is no such thing as "the bible". There have been multiple Christian bibles/canons throughout history and none of them match each other nor has one ever been demonstrated to be authoritative. And btw, I am referring to different content and not translations. Christians cannot even agree on what is actually scripture. Secondly, chattel slavery is condoned by Yahweh, the primary god of the Hebrew and Christian bibles. It's quite telling how you cite Exodus 21:20-21 as evidence that Yahweh will befall capital punishment upon anyone "who mistreats their slaves", yet that is not what the verses ACTUALLY state. Let's read these verses, shall we? Exodus 21:20-21 NIV "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." According to the actual verses and not your misrepresentation of them, a slave owner may beat his property repeatedly as long as the injuries are not so severe that the slave is unable to recover in a couple of days. The ONLY "avenging" mentioned is if the slave dies or cannot recover in a couple days time. This is chattel slavery and it mentioned several times in most Hebrew and Christian bibles/canons. Indentured servitude is mentioned also and is almost exclusively reserved for fellow Hebrews. Perhaps more honesty would be refreshing in your comments. Just a thought.

Would like to see a video of these three discussing the latest research on the Shroud of Turin as evidence of Jesus' resurrection. The carbon dating has been proven false and a nuclear physisist has dated it to the time of Jesus, and there's even scientific evidence that the body was floating and moving at the time of the image being formed. They are calling it Christs receipt of purchase .

Thanks for listening, glad you enjoyed Darren!

@@SeanMcDowell I really appreciate your Christ centered and Scripturally accurate content for the furtherance of The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ brother McDowell 🙏❤️👊. EXACTLY Faith isn't blind belief in something unproven, unseen and unknowable but trust based on consistent evidence of God's Existence, Character and Word being revealed to us through Creation, history and science. I'm glad there's actual records of Jesus of Nazareth having lived, died and Resurrected because it'll always defeat Atheism's best arguments by having occured in our reality. The Creator God of The Bible in Christianity is consistently loving and Truthful. Many non Christians, Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists obviously haven't read The Bible if that's the conclusion that they've come to because if they read The Bible they'll understand that God does what is in the best interest of the future of those who love Him and doing what's right. Idolatry can come in anything that is put before giving God credit for anything in Creation to a creature. It doesn't have to be images made by human beings but anything in Creation whether artificial or naturally occurring. To ALL the Atheists in the comments section like Mustache, Barbara Bond, Theo Skeptomai, Dux, Mac and all of the others PLEASE STOP parroting Matt Dillahunty's dishonest dodging tactics . Atheism ain't got nothing new or better to offer than the very religious beliefs it's critical of so it's hypocrisy at it's finest 😂. Hello this is for all you Atheists, unbelievers and skeptics. I'm going to address a few misconceptions and lies about God's Character and His Word. The Bible doesn't support chattel slavery or anything else Immoral. Ok so Atheists and unbelievers say God is either Immoral, incompetent or not responsible so let's see what The Scriptures actually say. God revealed himself and created a nation in a real, historical context. It was a world with a slave-based economy, with city states often at war with each other, with polygamous marriages to ensure the continuation of family lines. The laws of the Old Testament regulate this behaviour. Slaves are to be treated humanely (Exodus 21:11). They are given rights and not seen as mere possessions. Hebrew slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Human trafficking is condemned (Exodus 21:16). In contrast to the law code of Babylon, Old Testament Israel was a light to the nations. The Old Testament law and narratives do not stand alone. Jesus is now the best example of what we read. So the moral teaching of the Bible cannot be summarised by a quote taken out of context from the Old Testament to demonize God and His Word. Slavery was permitted in Old Testament law but it was regulated by God giving the Israelites instructions on how to fairly and humanely treat their slaves (it was like indentured servitude where someone could work for you if they owed debts or needed income not cruel like chattel slavery). God allowed the people of Israel to own slaves since they themselves has already experienced over 400 years of generations of Egyptian slavery and knew how inhumane it was to be beaten, overworked and taxed so God set them apart from other nations and cultures around them by giving them a fair way to treat their slaves since slavery had already existed in the world but it doesn't mean God condoned it just used it for His Will to bring Good And in the light of the whole scriptural teaching, we find the reasons for its ultimate abolition (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1-3; Philemon 15-16 and Galatians 3:28). The Word of God provided the moral standard against slavery in the Roman Empire and against the slave trade in the New World. But what of genocide or holy war in the book of Joshua? Several things could be pointed out. The use of warfare in the ancient world did not always mean literal total destruction, even when events are described in such terms. Furthermore, the book of Joshua does not describe a genocide. It is not a race who are being wiped out, as in genocide, but a religious practice which was often appalling and degrading. Those who repent (like Rahab from Jericho or Ruth) are not destroyed but become part of Israel. It is not the racial group that is in view but their "detestable practices". However, after all is said, we must still acknowledge that God brought judgment on the nations of Canaan. It is not our place as believers isn't to sugar-coat the Bible. For some skeptics, this is enough to make God a moral monster. But the fact is that Jesus continued to affirm that God is a Judge who will bring a future judgment on all peoples and all nations. God’s judgment will be just. The list of Old Testament stories rejected by critics often leads to a similar dismissal of the New Testament teaching of Jesus on the existence of hell. After all, what was the Flood of Genesis or the conquest of Joshua if not a glimpse of future judgment? Hell does not demonstrate cruelty on God’s part, but it does demonstrate His Holiness and our moral accountability. Perhaps this is the real reason many people rail against the God of the Bible? It is not that they think He is a moral monster, but that they are afraid He is a moral Judge, and that has implications for our behaviour now. God is an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being and we as His creatures have Eternal souls and spirits so the punishment for our sins against Him must therefore also be Eternal but so must the reward for righteousness that's why He sent His Son Jesus to live a perfectly righteous and sinless Life (which none of us could ever possibly expect to do) suffer the humiliating and torturous death of crucifixion to shed His Own Blood willingly so that all who willingly accept His gift of salvation by grace through faith in Him will be saved and given Eternal life because that's what God wants is for us to willingly accept His gift of salvation and choose life. Exodus 21:20-21 literally speaks about capital punishment befalling anyone who mistreats their slaves so yes people are taking Scripture out of context to demonize God who literally promises that slaves who are mistreated under someone else's authority is to be avenged. When we hear the word “slavery” we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment. The situation described as “slavery” in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of indentured servitude. Many “slaves” were indentured servants, working for a term of years Some other “slaves” were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released. People didn't beat their good slaves but treated them well and protected their assets thus. But no matter how rebellious a slave was, you couldn't just beat them to death. And if you knocked out their tooth or damaged their eye then you had to set them free. (Exodus 21:26). God wasn't using what other nations did because He wanted to set His Chosen People of Israel apart from the cruel, inhumane and unjust systems other cultures had so He gave them a fair way to treat their slaves and servants. There is a lot of ignorance on this topic which is understandable given the age we live in but it's not the nefarious set up we think of when we think of modern slavery. The question Atheists must ask themselves is how come the Jews aren't being accused of slavery and human trafficking if they're guilty of it in The Bible and why would white slave owners rip out pages from The Old and New Testament Scriptures to justify their owning blacks as slaves if The Bible already justified slavery?

Dr. Allison would say this was made up as a type of response to the idea at the time that Jesus' resurrection was merely a ghost and not a real body.

@@PineCreekDoug sure buddy!

I will grant the 12 disciples had this inner feeling that Jesus rose and then proclaimed his resurrection. How would you explain the experience of Paul?

Why should we believe those stories are historical?

@@resurrectionnerd Y believe they were willing to die for made up stories?

But they aren’t anonymous, motivated hearsay (whatever that means) of decades of oral tradition that talks about magic events.

@@Mike00513 But they are. By motivated, I mean they were written by someone whose goal was to make the story sound appealing.

​@weirdwilliam8500 It's quite clear you know nothing about New Testament Studies.

@@j.harperscott Among NT historians (who are basically all professing Christians),the consensus of the large majority of them is that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, and that the gospels were written 30-60 years after Jesus died, as summaries of the most popular oral stories that were circulating about Jesus. They can point out the different agendas and motivations of the different gospel writers. Matthew, for example, clearly wanted to appeal to Jews, and went through a list of potential OT prophecies and added details to word-for-word copied chunks of Mark to make the prophecies all seem fulfilled. Maybe your homeschool packets say otherwise? Sorry you’re misinformed. Maybe your parents lied because they were scared you’d be tortured, or they were lied to and passed it on. It’s understandable. But the people who have studied this the most think you’re wrong.

Me too

@@SeanMcDowell "evidence" that anyone from thousands of years ago, was actually (supposedly) the living Lord of the cosmos, and supposedly actually appeared to some people as such, is simply CRAP. There is NO actual evidence for it

Hope you enjoyed!

I respect you and the scholars for this. Course, I have some other issues with that line of thought… but I genuinely respect the intellectual honesty to say that you can’t be sure historically of the resurrection.

Hey, at least your honest. It sounds like you chose Christianity out of a religious buffet.

@@azophi honestly, you can be 100% historically certain a resurrection did not happen.

@@michaelhenry1763 I can be 100% historically certain you have no clue what you're talking about.

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 I guess I deserve that dig. There are many reasons why I do not think that Jesus’ resurrection did not happen: 1. I think we have problems with our written sources. We see the story of the resurrection evolve. Additionally, Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark. 2. YHWH does not raise people from the dead. He exulted Enoch and Elijah to heaven while still living. The only exception is when Elijah raised a girl. 3. Paul believed had a vision of Jesus which lead him to believe that the end of the age was about to occur and he would be alive for it. This never happened. This leads me to believe whatever Paul saw it was not the risen Jesus. 4. YHWH does not demand human blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.

Amen. And He made the evidence as flimsy as possible so a lot of people wouldn't believe and spend eternity in hell. What a loving God!

@@johnendalk6537 A perfect God demands a perfect sacrifice by a perfect High Priest. Logic does point to God. I don't know if your comment was a dig but will pray that HE will lead you towards HIM. For Christ said it best. Whoever ask receive. Whoever knocks the door will be open. Whoever seeks will find.

Yeah me too the same with people like E.P Sanders, J.P Meier, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, Martin Hagel, they are not actively trying to persuade you either way most of the time.

Because faith is a coin toss.

@@pleaseenteraname1103hardly

Agreed. But as an atheist, I continue to be frustrated at the double standard evangelicals hold us to. Allison may have his doubts and pastors can preach on doubts, even Mike has shared his doubts in his debates numerous times. Yet we atheists are “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, deny god so we can sin, live in orgies or ‘be our own god’”. Sheesh.

FYI: Dale is not a Christian. He denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

@@talkaboutdoubts2924 where did he ever say this?

I’m not a believer either but Mike is definitely my favorite apologist by far, you can tell he’s such a genuine dude

@@westong9082 yes, very humble and genuine. I love his interaction with Ehrman. If more apologists were like Licona rather than Turek the world would be such a better place.

Hi Doug, nice to see you here watching these videos. While I'm sure you've heard a lot of what Dale & Mike have said before (including having Mike on your show) I was curious - does anything they're saying here move the needle at all for you? Either in terms of the faith aspect or the historicity? Thank you, (As an observation 53:56 is comparable to your Flying Man)

Can you do a review of this Doug?

@@archiereed4049 it never ceases to amaze me how Atheists like Doug share their message with such missionary-like zeal. I always wonder what is their impetus? What motivates them to discourage people from seeking the beautiful gospel. Truly sad. IMO, there is no evidence that Doug hasn't heard. Nothing will convince him. He is on a mission to destroy Christianity. I just don't get the motivation.

That's a very intentionally false video. If Yeshua resurrected, he is the Incarnate-YHWH, which falsified Morminism on several counts.

What do you think the Bible is about? How much of the Bible percentage wise clearly and plainly relates to that message?

Jeffery Stanley, in light of the fact that no Christian has ever made a prima facie case that anything in the NT "applies to us today", how could today's unbeliever be doing anything "wrong" in rejecting the gospel?

Hahaha! I am seldom surprised by what utterances spew forth from professional "ministers" anymore.

Now watch as all other apologists mysteriously end up never citing what these 2 leading christian scholars said here...

it's hard for me to have respect for them cumulatively though, with all of the things they ignore or sweep under the rug

@@sciencesaves I see what you mean. Despite having a very intellectually honest conversation, especially within a profession of convincing others of a predetermined conclusion, these 2 nor the rest of their community ever seem to lift a finger to inform anyone else of the facts that brought them to these conclusions.

​@@sciencesaves I'm curious what are they sweeping under the rug?

At least Mike was honest about his feelings on Islam, but that's a pretty big ask as far as that hypothetical question @54:00 Because I do believe one of the evidences is the body was not there. So if we didn't have that particular evidence, then obviously there would not have been a bodily resurrection 🤔 He may need to spell out which evidence exactly would we be swapping.

Do you really believe anything Bart Ehrman says?

@David Richmond it's not a matter of believing or not believing. He's a New Testament critical scholar, why wouldn't I at least give what he says an ear?

@@youngknowledgeseeker Well you could have meant either positive or against Bart. Either this proves Bart wrong or Bart’s opinion brings into question the opinion of the two scholars. Truth is the historic evidence suggest Jesus was buried. That said I understand an atheist might look for a plausible alternative explanation if the historic evidence points to someone coming back from the dead. The problem with Jesus was not buried being a plausible alternative explanation is that then you also need plausible explanations for the historic evidence that suggests he was buried. If you find plausible explanations for this historic evidence this has knock on effects and it just mushrooms.

@Philip_325 I thought he claimed that NT Textual Critics are historians of sorts? Regardless, Bart's claim, if I remember correctly, was that he had read through all(?) texts relating to Roman Crucifiction around the time and none suggested they showed would show leniency to the deceased for a proper respectable burial. Perhaps Barts wrong, or perhaps he missed some texts, but that's why I find this information in this video interesting.

I think the best place to start is the 7 genuine Pauline letters. I do not think Paul was considered an apostle by most in the early Church because he was not around for Jesus’ earthly ministry. Acts is much later and cannot be relied on.

I'd like to know that too

@@Vinnymanvinny1 I’m not sure if I knew it at the time and was being a smartass, but did you know Mike got fired for saying he didn’t think the zombies actually marched on the city at the time of JCs death? You gotta watch Paulogia roast Gary’s new “book”. It’s hilarious. One video with Shannon Q and I just started his Mythvision interview.

This is disproved by a few things. (1) Paul was added to the 1 Corinthians 15 creed of people who saw Yeshua resurrected in the body; (2) Paul's experience comes with the disguised language of the OT merkabah revelation, so it was a theophany, not a vision; (3) Later in Acts, Yeshua appears to Paul to tell him about his death, so Yeshua can clearly still appear in the body to whoever he wants to; (4) As the Incarnate-YHWH, Yeshua has the omniporesence necessary to appear in the body wherever he wants.

​@@blanktrigger8863 If he appeared in the body, in flesh and blood then Paul's companions would see him too. Paul also only mentions hearing a voice and being blinded, doesn't he? It sounds more like Paul suffering a stroke or a seizure and hearing voices in his head and if his main occupation at that time was to deal with Christians and their faith in Jesus, it's not surprising that Jesus could be his head all the time and manifested in voices during a breakdown.

You are simply wrong about slavery, I’m afraid. It was absolutely chattel slavery for non-Israelites. Slave owners in the American South weren‘t legally allowed to kill their slaves either. As for their ‘ripping out pages of the Bible’, on the contrary, those who most ardently supported slavery were all Christians. Polk, Jefferson Davis, R.E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, all were fanatical Christians. They saw their ‘peculiar institution’ as justified by biblical passages, and they were right. The fact that both sides of the argument promoted certain verses and rejected others only goes to show that the Bible is inconsistent in its values, as it is in every other sense.

I’m afraid you are also wrong on genocide. In fact, even with all the charity in the world, it is difficult to see how anyone could possibly argue that God doesn’t sanction genocide. Even those who have strong prior commitments to Christianity, such as Randal Rauser, are deeply troubled by those passages. I know it is difficult to put aside one’s prejudices, but don’t you want to know what is actually true?

It is nice to see that people follow a dead preacher who never wrote anything. The cult about a dead preacher is based on fanfiction that are as ireeal as Spiderman and Harry Potter

It was made up as a response to the critique that Jesus' resurrection was a "ghost". I remember him giving an answer like this before.

It was that if this didnt happen we would still not be surprised to see "it wasnt a ghost look he even said hes not a ghost" apologetics in the later stories like Luke and John See his 4 part seties with Licona

The "canonical gospels" are anonymously authored and almost certainly not eyewitness accounts. There is a myriad of reasons that serious modern scholars are aware of this. Also, it's likely that the gospel of "Mark" ended with the women running away as they were afraid. The multiple other endings were added later in order to make the story more "complete", so to speak.

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 I think your "scholarship" is behind the times. You think the authorship of Luke is in question? John's gospel? Ask the scholars on this video if they believe Dr. Luke wrote the gospel that bears his name, and if they believe John's gospel is an eyewitness account.

@ fbcpraise-----Why "consider"? In 25 years of counter-apologetics work, I've never seen any Christian scholar even get near making a prima facie case that anything in the NT "applies to us today". Those today who ignore the NT cannot be doing anything "wrong" because nobody has ever made the case that the NT "applies to us today" in the first place.

@@fbcpraise The notion that John's gospel was authored by apostle John is precisely what is "behind the times". Licona himself describes the apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as "fuzzy", and he conspicuously refuses to ground any of his resurrection arguments on the notion that any gospel is an eyewitness account.

@@gregbooker3535 i must be misunderstanding you. Why would someone even be a Christian if they considered the NT irrelevant? Would the two men in the video say the NT has no application to our lives today?

why?

or maybe scholarly Christians doubt beacuse the fundamentalists are wrong, and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection isn't nearly as convincing as they ceaselessly pretend it to be.

I agree, but I'd go further: Had the Romans been satisfied enough that Jesus deserved the death penalty, they would not likely have allowed the body out of their custody for at least 4 days, especially if they were reminded by a Jew that Jesus had promised to rise from the dead on the 3rd day. However, that's probably granting too much credence to the gospel story, I personally believe Jesus was little more than a fanatical hell-raiser, and the gospels have simply whitewashed him to make it falsely appear he didn't deserve to die, when he most certainly did.

@@gregbooker3535 We know nothing about the details of Jesus' life other than what is told to us by a few Christian believers who were trying to make converts. Which means that we know nothing reliably. (The same goes for Mohamed by the way.) However the "empty tomb" story is obviously fabricated. No one was buried that way in that time and place.

@@JacobStein1960 I agree. I usually push the two-source hypothesis and hold that Mark came first and Matthew and Luke later borrowed from him, so that the empty-tomb story is not only false, even the resurrection appearances of Jesus are late in the sense that they weren't part of the earliest gospel strata. From the fact that Licona and most other apologists zero in nearly exclusively on "Paul" makes it reasonable to deduce that they hold, similarly with Licona, that apostolic authorship of the gospels isn't something they can render very persuasive. So in their own judgment, we skeptics aren't doing much that is "wrong" when we completely discount the canonical gospels. I'm sure there is some truth in those gospels, but there is no danger in that concession since, as many Historical Jesus scholars complain, the gospel authors have so tightly weaved historical truth with fiction that after 2000 years it has become impossible to untangle that mess. And today's skeptics were never under any intellectual obligation to do anything more with the NT than what Christians do with the Dead Sea Scrolls. So when we ignore Christian evangelism today, we aren't doing anything that can be reasonably shown to be "wrong".

@@gregbooker3535 I think that generally Christians base their beliefs either on an emotional experience or on what their parents or spouse believes. The question is, is that a wise way to make major, life altering decisions?

@@JacobStein1960 Despite being an atheist, I disagree with Hitchens that religion "poisons everything", and I confess that Christianity has done much good in the world. The fact that the religion is false doesn't mean it produces nothing but 100% bummer 24 hours per day. What we intellectuals have to remember is that not everybody is an intellectual. Some people simply cannot find purpose in life without talking to the sky. Well, as long as they are obeying society's laws, I leave them alone. Allowing them to persist in that delusion may have benefits for society unless I detect that they are "fundamentalists". Then its war.

You wouldn’t see a resurrection or ascension 😊

What you'd see is Jesus dying at about 2700 meters for the second time from asphyxia. He remains there in orbit to this day still clutching Bertrand Russell's teapot.

@@enkidufive3349 interesting theory 🙂

The sky also can mean the heavens. It's my understanding they used heaven in 2-3 ways. One was for the sky above, the other for space, stars, planets etc and the third is heaven as people would think of where God's home is. My thoughts are with today's expanded words and definitions and theoretical knowledge is that the third heaven, where we think God lives, is possibly another demention. We don't leave this current demention until our bodies die. I think in biblical times they didn't have a thought of a heaven past space or maybe even the sky. Once technology improved and man flew into space, it would have helped many Christians to think of heaven ie Gods home, as in another demention we can't travel to in our bodies but in death our spirits can travel to different dementions.

@@dansmith9724 That would be great (the attempted alternate dimension argument), but they said he ascended, and a cloud took him out of their sight. He is coming back the same way (but riding on a horse this time, according to Revelation, and somehow every eye will see him - and I know the attempted television argument, and locusts are Black helicopters too 🙂). The problem with making these texts for modern-day tech is that those texts were written for a 1st-century audience. To claim alternate dimensions, multiverses, etc., would be saying these people had no idea what they were writing, and no one knew what they were reading - you would arguing it had to be total gibberish to them or they were deceived into thinking they knew what they were reading. Something tells me they knew what the "deeds of the Nicolaitans" were - and it did not involve another dimension.

He’s too clever to believe the Christian claims, but he desperately wants to.

He believes it and says so in this video.

Both believe mostly the same but Dale, is a little bit of agnostic on what the resurrected Jesus looked like.

He sounds more like a mystic. Like when he brings up rainbow bodies, he seems to be hinting that he views the resurrection as a spiritual event (although a spiritual resurrection is of course no resurrection).

I think Dale is an atheist, and only chooses to falsely claim publicly to be a Christian for personal private reasons. His opinions about the NT evidence for Jesus' resurrection do not make his confession sound authentic. He's a liberal at best.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is addressing an idea in this church which he is declaring as wrong. The Jewish group of Sadducee did not believe in the resurrection in general. In a similar way some people in the Corinthian Church though believing Jesus was raised from the dead doubted that they would be raised from the dead. Because of this situation Paul first gives a summary of the truth of the resurrection then addresses their error. If Paul was saying something at odds with what Christians at that time believed then his argument would fall flat. Paul was committed Jew who believed in the resurrection so had no reason to believe Jesus’ bodily resurrection unless he believed it had happened. He risked his life every day. It is hard to believe that Paul and the Christian community were not certain that Jesus had raised from the dead. To expand the evidence and add details that was not generally accepted as true would be a blunder, and counter productive, as it would inevitably risk undermining his argument in the Corinthians church. Thus 1 Corinthians 15 does provide some evidence for the resurrection. How much who can quantify it.

Fall over himself you mean!

@@Philip__325 I'm not saying it's totally unreasonable to come to that conclusion. Certainly, plenty of smart people do. What I'm saying is that it's also reasonable (more reasonable, in my opinion) to come to the opposite conclusion, and many smart, intellectually honest people land there too. So what are we to do with the verses that say that unbelievers are exclusively those who willfully reject the truth? Those verses cannot be right.

@@bellustheshibus638 Take the Resurrection, for example. Listen to the arguments from both sides. Whatever apologists you like on one side vs people like Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, even Paulogia (a RU-vidr who, despite not being a New Testament scholar, is very well read on the subject). What I found out is that most of the claims in support of a resurrection are not as certain as many apologists claim. The more honest ones (including Mike Licona and Sean McDowell) will even admit when there are strong counterarguments or not make arguments they think are weak in the first place. In the end, supernatural claims require very strong evidence to be rationally acceptable, and, at least for me, the evidence simply isn't at that level. Others come to different conclusions, and I don't fault them for it if they have at least thought critically about it. Either way, I encourage you to seek the truth with an open mind, recognizing that whatever views you currently hold could be wrong.

@@montagdp thanks for the response for me personally i dont think we can ever come to an objective conclusion not that i dont believe there is an objective answer i believe that everything has an objective answer its just that humans are anything but objective and the fact that a loving and caring god would make it so that to reasonably conclude that the resurrection occured you have to dedicate basically your entire life to studying this is the biggest problem for me there are arguments for and against the resurrection and there are counter arguments to those arguments and counter arguments to those counter arguments its a mess and i desperately hope that its false i dont want to believe in a god that would punish people for not wanting to waste their lives studying this this rabbit hole is really fucking with my mental health its so annoying that god cant just provide us with a clear answer also can you give me the timestamp for when mike said that the evidence wouldnt be enough to convince someone that isnt already convinced ive watched this video a few times and idk if just keep spacing out but i never heard him say that lol

@@bellustheshibus638 Start at 53:30 and listen for the next minute or so.

@@montagdp thanks :)

Video title - "Fr. Francis V. Tiso - Rainbow Body and Resurrection - 12 April 2016 at CIIS"

We've actually got a video coming out with him shortly so stay tuned for that!

@@SeanMcDowell Sorry "Dr" Sean, but the CLAIMS of a resurrected godman, are NOT "evidence" for their own claims.

What did? That they lost the corpse? Yes. That did happen. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 Cope harder.

Do any scholars argue this point?

@@chrishaynes599 Most secular scholars bring up the cognitive dissonance point and even Allison brings this up as well.

This argument is an ad hoc that, like all of the ad hoc explanations, try to explain pieces of the data away individually, and in doing so, fails to deal with the data as a whole. For example, it skips over the fact that the only contested detail of the Gospels was the resurrection, with the claim that the body was stolen. But there are no texts saying that the guards were attacked etc, let alone any proper explanation of how the guards were defeated. It skips over the Apostles admitting that they were cowards prior to the crucifixion, who scattered when Yeshua was crucified. That they would suddenly become bold enough to die over a vision claim doesn't their character. It skips over the fact that they admit that that they didn't understand Yeshua when he prophesied his death. For example, when carry your cross, they were bewildered, and that over and over again, even in the last moments of Yeshua's life as a free man in Luke. As they wrote, the Spirit brought to their minds all of Yeshua's words concerning himself from the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. So their teaching about messianic prophecy came from Yeshua himself, not from the Apostles reading prophecy ad hoc (albeit, if you go back and read it yourself you'll see the ad hoc explanation itself relies on ad hoc). Etc.

@@blanktrigger8863 The argument explains the origin of the belief. Everything you said doesn't detract from the argument in the slightest. For instance, the stolen body response is a later development _long after_ the origin of the belief. It's not attested until Matthew which was composed 50 years or so after the death of Jesus. Some could have still been cowards prior to the crucifixion. That doesn't change anything. Same with them not necessarily understanding Jesus' message while he was alive. When he was executed things change and my naturalistic explanation explains all the data perfectly. Ancient people thought visions were real and saying they were "bold enough to die" is just exaggerated hyperbole.

@@resurrectionnerd No, it tries to explain the origin of the belief, by ad hoc explaining away parts of the data and not comprehensively dealing with the whole. You even do it with the missed data points that I brought up. Now, what I'm about to show you is that the problem with as hoc is that by failing to comprehensively deal with all the data, you miss simple things that further disprove both your position and your ad hoc attempt to explain away said data point. (1) You say that the stolen body was a late development (50 years later is basically a new generation, and many of the enemies of Yeshua who witnessed the original event could easily have been dead). So that means the original enemy witnesses to the events didn't dispute the details, and had no good polemic against the resurrection even if they disputed that. That's one nail in your origin story. (2) This dismissal fails to comprehend that a group of scattered cowards who abandoned the movement (as seen on the road to Emaus, if that's how you spell it) don't fit the character that you've laid out in your origin story. For example, that they were scrambling to save their religion and therefore started coming up with novel readings of messianic prophecy. That's nail 2. (3) This dismissal doesn't comprehend that if Yeshua himself prophesied his death, the Apostles didn't need to make up a reinvention of the prophecies, which your origin story claims occured because they were scrambling to save their religion. That's nail 3. (Etc) The claim about ancient people and visions lacks distinction between Jewish Israelites and ancient people, generally. But I've already addressed this in another comment.

You won't be an atheist if you actually study the latest research on the Shroud of Turin. Even the Jews who study it convert. But you are too chicken to study scientific proof of Jesus resurrection like that. 😂

@@eldin14 I am curious to know which Jewish or atheist contemporary scholar has left Judaism and atheism to change to Christianity ??

I think even without the resurrection, the New Testament still has value. Jesus came to warn us about sin, and the evil spirits that he drove out from people. He also passed on the teaching of a path of repentance. There were two forms of baptism, and the baptism of water was the baptism of repentance. Going/turning to Jesus (the only way to the Father is through the Son) was synonymous with repentance. Jesus coming, and his words about it, was also a testimony to the truth of God's (the Father's) existence. I am not saying the resurrection didn't happen though - I don't know for certain. I have watched some very interesting videos showing the evidence of the shroud of Turin.

*At least for Paul (who is our only verified firsthand source), his experience was a revelation of Jesus (Gal **1:16**), no t physical encounter with a revived corpse. Acts 26:19 even describes the experience as a “vision from heaven” which other people do not see or hear properly.* Acts does not seem to imply that Paul just experienced an internal vision. Of all three accounts, they all agree that Paul’s companions experienced something along with Paul. In Acts 9, they heard something. In Acts 22 it says they saw a light, but couldn’t make out the voice. And in Acts 26, it says that they fell to the ground. Despite the possible contradiction, they all agree that Paul’s companions experienced something. Acts also says that Paul was blinded for three days afterwards. Suggesting that the account in Acts, was not an internal vision, but an external appearance that caused a physical blindness. And of course Jesus should appear to Paul in a blinding light from Heaven. In the Luke/Acts narrative, Jesus was resurrected, then Jesus appeared to the disciples, then he ascended into Heaven, then Jesus appeared to Paul from Heaven in a Heavenly light. *Okay, now just look at 1 Cor 15 again and notice how he uses the same verb for every appearance on the list. This wording is more expected under the hypothesis that the appearances were the same or similar in nature. So the inference is that these “appearances” weren’t physical encounters with a revived corpse like we find in the Gospels of Luke and John. Rather, they were experiences of Jesus from heaven like Paul had.* Even if the appearance Paul received was just an internal vision, this doesn’t necessitate the other appearances to the Apostles were internal visions as well. Paul never actually says all the appearances were the same. The creed Paul cites is not about “what” each person saw, but it was a list of “who” saw. This in no way implies that each appearance was the same. Also if you read 1 Corinthians 15, you can see that Paul taught a physical resurrection. The creed that he cites says that Jesus was “buried”and “raised”. It is pretty obvious that what was buried is what was raised. Otherwise, why even mention the burial part? But looking at the context, verse 12 through 34 he talks about the resurrection of the dead specifically. And Paul directly says “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. And this word he uses (Anastasis) means a bodily event of coming back to life. Not a transition into a spiritual existence. From verse 34-41, Paul mentions several times its the type of body that will be raised. And says about how the resurrection of the dead is about how our bodies are perishable. But will be raised to be imperishable. So its clear Paul couldn’t have believed these appearances the other individuals and groups saw were just internal visions like Paul’s was.

@@Mike00513 "Acts does not seem to imply that Paul just experienced an internal vision." It doesn't matter. Once we're in the realm of visionary appearances, we have reason to doubt their veracity. Acts is obviously a narrative dramatization of the encounter written by a later author. The same sequence - seeing a bright light/object, falling down, hearing a voice, and "standing up" is found in other vision stories - Ez. 1-2, Dan. 10, 1 Enoch 14, Joseph and Aseneth 14. So we now know this was just how stories of this type were told. In other words, Paul's "vision" may have been imaginary but just became embellished to look like these other vision stories. "Even if the appearance Paul received was just an internal vision, this doesn’t necessitate the other appearances to the Apostles were internal visions as well. Paul never actually says all the appearances were the same." It makes their nature ambiguous which means you can't claim they actually saw a physical person. This defeats the Resurrection argument which requires the experiences were veridical sightings of a person. "And this word he uses (Anastasis) means a bodily event of coming back to life. Not a transition into a spiritual existence. From verse 34-41, Paul mentions several times its the type of body that will be raised." Paul uses egeiro in 1 Cor 15. But since you believe Jesus appeared to Paul _after_ the ascension then it follows that the sequence "died, buried, raised, appeared" _can imply_ visionary appearances from heaven and so this is not evidence anyone actually "saw" Jesus beforehand.

@@resurrectionnerd *It doesn’t matter. Once we’re in the realm of visionary experiences, we have reason to doubt their veracity.* If I’m not mistaken, your original claim was that in Acts Paul does describe his post-mortem appearance as a visionary experience, and I was trying to saw that Acts describes the opposite of an internal vision. *Acts is obviously a narrative dramatization of the encounter written by a later author.* Why do you think that? *Seeing a bright light/object, falling down, hearing a voice, and standing up is found in other vision stories.* Parallels can be made from plenty of completely separate stories, buy that doesn’t necessarily imply that they borrowed from those stories. *It makes their nature ambiguous which means you can’t claim they actually saw a physical person. Thus defeats the resurrection argument which requires the experiences were veridical sightings of a person.* But it says that large groups of people saw Jesus. And the beginning statement implies a physical resurrection. So the nature isn’t ambiguous. *Paul uses egeiro in 1 Cor 15. But since you believe Jesus appeared to Paul after the ascension then it follows that the sequence “died, buried, raised, appeared” can imply visionary appearances from Heaven and so this is not evidence anyone actually “saw” Jesus beforehand.* Paul uses egeiro and anastasis interchangeably when speaking about the relationship between our future resurrection and Christ’s resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12-14. But before the ascension Jesus appeared to the disciples.

@@Mike00513 Where does Paul say Jesus appeared to the disciples "before the Ascension"?

@@resurrectionnerd Nowhere.

It is hard to believe that life could have evolved from nothing, due to the sheer complexity of (for example) the human body. Not only are there physical elements to the body, but there is also spiritual energy in the form of chi (the Chinese/Asians were right about the existence of chi energy and the chi channels). Science still does not know about or understand chi energy - that is how limited it is! The body is also electrical, and from what I have read also has light energy. I have seen videos suggesting that the big bang theory comes from the occult, and I believe it is also the theory that is in the Buddhist teachings to explain the origin of the universe, and supposedly came from the Buddha. I guess I can't say for certain that there was no big bang (or that there was), but I think there is most likely a God, and that Jesus was probably real.

What are talking about. The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament had stood the test of time. I can imagine why you would think this. It is extraordinary that the New Testament had stood the time.

@@davidrichmond21 what exactly do you mean "stood the test of time"? So has Tacitus and the Apocrypha.

@ngerstner753 And if I similarly ask "why WOULD it apply to today?", is that equally as legitimate to ask? What criteria do you use to assign the burden of proof? You are fallaciously attempting to shift the burden of proof. Everybody's assumption is that the NT authors intended to address their own contemporaries. If you come along and insist their intended audience included people living 2000 years later, that is YOUR claim for which YOU have the burden of proof. The burden is not on anybody with a theory that is accepted by the vast majority of scholars on both sides of the debate.

Yes, good question, what happened? Have there been anymore empty tombs in the world we can examine to find out ? What happened to those bodies?

@@michaelhenry1763 "Have there been anymore empty tombs in the world we can examine to find out ?" Don't now, Maybe. Thing is about The Resurrection. Jesus was Dead...no heart beat...flat line...stuck a spear in him...DEAD. He was buried in a in a solid rock tomb. 6-12 armed soldiers guarding it (both Roman & Temple guards).As an aside in the Roman army if you fell asleep on gaurd duty, they Killed You, we're talking Hard Core. 3 days later nobody No Body in the tomb. So for 2000+ years people have been tying to come up with a better answer than the one in the Gospels...He Rose From The Dead, just like he said he would. As I said maybe there are, but not like the Resurrection of Jesus.

@@stevenwiederholt7000 I agree Jesus was dead. However, Matthew’s account was greatly exaggerated from Mark’s account. Matthew added the soldiers to the tomb story. The soldiers were not in Mark’s, Luke’s or John’s. It was added because Matthew was trying to argue against the idea that Jesus’ body was stolen. A stolen body is much more likely then a resurrection. I personally believe there never was an empty tomb. It was a literary device to help explain the visions the early followers had as described in 1 Corinthians. Most likely Jesus was either left on the cross or buried in a common criminal’s grave.

@@michaelhenry1763 And Who Stole The Body from a group of Trained Soldiers? The fact that all 4 Gospels give a slightly different take, is 1 more piece of strong evidence that it Really Happened.

@@stevenwiederholt7000 no, no. No one stole the body from Roman soldiers. The Roman soldiers never guarded the tomb. The Romans would never give a crucified person a proper burial such less guard a tomb. The first written account of the resurrection is by Paul in 1 Corinthians attempting to convince his audience that the resurrection really happened. There were some Corinthian Christians who did not believe in a resurrection. Paul describes seeing visions of Jesus. He never says anything about an empty tomb or Roman soldiers or anything. Mark is the second account. He adds the empty tomb story including adding a man inside the tomb. Then Matthew, embellishes Mark’s account, adds Roman soldiers, adds a conspiracy theory, and adds angels. Luke, also using Mark, embellishes Mark by adding that the women told people even though Mark said they didn’t. Lastly John had a very different story then the other three. This shows how the written legend evolved over 40 years ( 50 CE 90 CE) not that it happened.

Hollywood copies alot from the bible.

@@dansmith9724 good point J. K. Rowling literally said if you’ve read the books the New Testament you read her books.

That’s the sign of a good scholar

He separates his personal belief in the risen Jesus from what the extant data allows us to plausibly deduce as historians. If you read his Resurrecting Jesus, you'd understand. Haven't read his most recent work.

Easy to address. The earliest Christians _believing_ Jesus' body was physically resurrected doesn't mean they actually _saw_ Jesus. This is a problem because only the latter can be evidence Jesus actually was resurrected. But in the earliest account (1 Cor 15) Paul places his "vision" of Jesus in the list which serves as a proof that physical appearances of a resurrected body _were not_ required in order to believe in a resurrection. This debunks the whole thing because visionary claims are not worth taking seriously. Paul never gives any evidence of a physically revived corpse walking around that could be touched. Those stories develop later and look like legends whereas only Paul's testimony is firsthand. I think the earliest Christians believed Jesus was "raised" but also went immediately to heaven. Thus, all the appearances were thought of as Jesus "appearing" from heaven. Later, is when we get a resurrected Jesus who stays on earth, gets touched, eats and so forth but these stories look like apologetic legends and they are inconsistent throughout the gospels.

It is the "Resurrection Nerd"?

@@j.victor You rang? I already responded to this comment but you may have to click on view "new" comments in order for it to show up. Still waiting on a response from "Charles" or anyone else.

@@resurrectionnerd dale Alison: resurrection is almost always about physical things inside judaism. My point is, Therefore paul a Jew talking about appearances of a man he thinks was resurrected would be talking about physical appearances. That’s what you’re missing.

@@charles4208 Not true as demonstrated by the counterexample that the appearance to Paul is described as both a "revealing" in Gal. 1:16 (by a revelation) which, at best, is ambiguous and, at worst, it's a totally subjective spiritual experience. And Acts 26:19 describes it as a "vision from heaven" which shows that Jesus' physical body need not be located on earth in order to claim he "appeared."

To me, this whole idea of ultimate foundation is impractical. Whether God created space-time or first appeared in 1 AD makes no difference. Prove that a particular action results in eternal punishment. Now that would be useful.

@@goldenalt3166 The first problem is nobody has demonstrated that there is a God. Faith is nothing more than an excuse that is given. If somebody actually had good evidence they would present it. The one who makes the claim is responsible for the evidence so when Mike says there is an outside of space and time how does he know that and what is the evidence that he’s going to provide to demonstrate that that is true. The discipline of science only deals with things that manifest themselves in the reality that we experience. Claims of supernatural if they were ever explained or demonstrated would just become part of the natural.

@@markgallemore8856 I agree. However, asking for evidence of outside of space, just falls into their own assumptions. Suppose they did scientifically demonstrate it, what difference would it make?

@@goldenalt3166 The concept of original sin it’s just a dumb idea. it’s an interpretation of a story that tries to explain why humans are smart but they don’t live forever and because they don’t live forever human females have to give birth so that humans can continue existing. In the story Adam wasn’t cursed the ground was… Eve had never given birth so the punishment wasn’t pain it was just that her role was changing having to bring forth new humans because they wouldn’t live forever.

@@markgallemore8856 Also, agree. Though again eliminating "original sin" doctrine would do nothing to Christianity.

The list was a creed, so there's no way Paul could have added himself to it without everybody knowing. He was added to it by the Apostles because like them he saw Yeshua in the body. To quote mysefl: "This is disproved by a few things. (1) Paul was added to the 1 Corinthians 15 creed of people who saw Yeshua resurrected in the body; (2) Paul's experience comes with the disguised language of the OT merkabah revelation, so it was a theophany, not a vision; (3) Later in Acts, Yeshua appears to Paul to tell him about his death, so Yeshua can clearly still appear in the body to whoever he wants to; (4) As the Incarnate-YHWH, Yeshua has the omniporesence necessary to appear in the body wherever he wants."

@@blanktrigger8863 Acts 26:19 calls it a "vision from heaven" (optasia) so it was a vision. Everything else you say is just basically begging the question. Fun fact - the Greek word used for "appeared" (ophthe) in 1 Cor 15 didn't necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person either. We see the same word being used in the Septuagint when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs but without seeing anything physical or describing a sensory experience. So unless you want to claim these people literally saw the physical body of God then you will have to concede the word can be used in the "feel the presence" sense and so our earliest source is vague in regards to the type of appearances. So when an apologist pulls out the "group appearances" card, it should not be persuasive in the slightest since the earliest source in which they are mentioned (1 Cor 15) does not describe them. On the other hand, if the group appearances _were_ described in 1 Cor 15 as actually seeing a physical person walking around, then in order to doubt that, a skeptic would have to use the hallucinatory explanation - which seems implausible and ad hoc. But since the group appearances *are not described* (all you have is the vague term "appear") then it's not clear that a physical encounter with a resurrected figure on the earth was implied. So instead of shifting the burden onto the skeptic to show these were hallucinations, the proponent of the Resurrection argument actually has the burden to show these encounters were originally understood to be physical interactions with the Resurrected body of Jesus on earth before he went to heaven. Since the term is equally likely to refer to a heavenly/visionary appearance, it doesn't matter how many people were said to experience it. None of the resurrection narratives in the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15 and they all grow more dramatic and fantastic in chronological order as if a legend was evolving. So appealing to the gospels as evidence doesn't help either I'm afraid. Moreover, all the gospels are written in third person. They never say "I saw this happen" and describe it from a firsthand perspective. Only Paul's account is firsthand but the appearance to him was a vision that he does not distinguish from the appearances to the others.

@@resurrectionnerd Your second paragraph disproves the first one, and proves my comment about the nature of merkabah revelarions. The word vision and appearance have to interpreted via the bible, not novel speculation about what the words mean. God appearing in the OT refers to YHWH appearing as the angel of YHWH. There several instances that disprove your view: (1) In the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar saw him (not just the men in the fire) and he also later appeared before the lions when Daniel was in the lion's den (as he appeared before the donkey with Balaam; (2) In Daniel, you the same discrepancy in who sees vs who only hears with Daniel vs his group as you do in Acts with Paul vs his group; (3) He spoke to the Israelites as a whole in Judges 2; (4) He of course spoke to all the Israelites in Exodus, but there's also the incident in Exodus 24 where he appears to and speaks to Moses and a group of other elders together; (5) When he appears before Abraham, Abraham offers him cakes to eat. The point being, the merkabah revelation was never depicted as an imagined event, albeit being called a vision. Ergo, one Jewish translation of Beer Lahai-Roi, referencing Hagar's merkabah revelation, is "Well of the Living Vision". Daniel 10 also uses he word vision in relation to the angel of YHWH being the vision, himself. This is the OT context for what "appearance" and "vision" mean. It also establishes what group appearances are (especially in light of the fact that group hallucinations don't seem to be a thing).

@@blanktrigger8863 Why would anyone who isn't already Jewish or Christian believe in these Jewish/Christian supernatural appearances? You're begging the question by assuming these types of experiences are veridical. A non-believer has been given no good reason to believe these are anything other than stories. It doesn't matter what you call them - theophany, vision, revelation. A naturalist will just think they're imaginary until you give a good reason to think otherwise. Just begging the question won't do it.

@@resurrectionnerd You don't seem to understand what begging the question is, but simply adopted it as a shame term because you viewed it as useful for misrepresenting opposition. Your argument is based on what the Paul meant when he used the words vision and appearance, not whether or not the theophanies were imaginary. So it doesn't matter if a nonbeliever views the events as imaginary. What matters is how the text views them. So you're starting a new argument to try to distract from the first one instead of just admitting that you were wrong, and that your argument should always have been what you're now trying to change it to. That's called moving the goal posts.

Yours is stronger!

Funny because he’s the established historian and you’re not. Go home fool

@@Pseudo-Jonathan Ah, the voice of sweet reason, as one comes to expect from Theists.

Of course the resurrection is pure imagination... but it's not because of any particular series of events. They simply made it up. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 I would disagree with your comment. Not the 'resurrection is pure imagination' comment, but the 'particular series of events' comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did Jesus of Christianity and God of Christianity know, just know, that the Roman Empire military would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine and then also be there to torture, kill and murder Jesus. So when Jesus was born on planet Earth, Jesus knew, just knew that the Roman Empire would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine 33 years after his birth. 30 years to adulthood, 3 years ministry. Did the Roman Empire military have Free Will? Could the Roman Empire military just left Judea/Palestine and left the God of the Universe with no military to torture, kill and murder him? Then there would be no Christianity. Also, how did the Roman Empire military know just the exact way to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in the way that Christianity needs Jesus to be tortured, killed and murdered? What if the Roman Empire military only stabbed people in the heart to kill them, but not torture them? Then Christianity would not be fulfilled. What if the Roman Empire military only hanged the people of Judea/Palestine or burned them to death. Then Christianity would not be fulfilled because blood would not have been spilled. The torture, killing and murder of the people of Judea/Palestine by the Roman Empire military and the way the Roman Empire military did it, is the most important thing to Christianity. Jesus must have trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in just the right way, to complete Christianity. Can something like that be left to chance? Did Jesus pay the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea so Jesus of Christianity would have the Roman Empire military available for that Gods torture quest? Jesus is not some hippie, that he thinks he can get the Roman Empire military for free, is he? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What created Christianity more than anything? The Roman Empire military and what it was doing in Judea. There are 2 possibilities. 1. That a God of the Universe directed and trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for the use of the torture, killing and murder of Jesus of Christianity that is on a torture quest. 2. Christianity is an accident of history and the writings of the New Testament are made up by humans using the Old Testament/Jewish Religion writings to create Christianity. Just as the improvements of rockets and space travel during the 1950's and 1960's was a help to make Star Trek, Lost in Space, Forbidden Planet, etc. in movies and TV shows more successful. A God that could survive the Roman Empire military torture and killing would be considered a success even if the only way to succeed is to not actually prevent and stop the Roman Empire military, but to make Supernatural use of it and survive it that way.

It is much the same inspiration with Charles Dickens, and his writing of 'A Christmas Carol.' Charles Dickens wrote stories all his life about the poor of London, because Dickens grew up poor. Dickens father actually spent some time in debtors prison and Scrooge might be Charles Dickens father in real life. Charles maybe wanted to change his father to be more generous.

@ngerstner753 Actually I think my argument is very sound. Christianity reminds me very much of online romance scams. A person is so desperate to find love that he believes whatever someone writes on his computer screen. By the same token Christians so desperately want to go to heaven that they believe whatever someone has written in a book.

@ngerstner753 Ad hominem logical fallacy. In fact I’m 62 and I spent most of my life studying religion.

@ngerstner753 The question is, which is more likely: That a man is God or that he is a liar? That someone has witnessed a resurrection or that he is lying? Many people aren’t honest. Why don’t you accept Joseph Smith’s claims of meeting an angel and receiving gold tablets? A number of his followers testified to seeing the tablets. Mormons consider his death to have been a martyrdom proving his sincerity. Obviously unfortunately many people lie. Likewise it’s obvious that the authors of the gospels (about whom we know nothing even their names except what was written in later years by obviously biased Christian authors) lied. There is not a shred of evidence of anything significant from non Christian sources. Jews and Romans who noticed Jesus at all described him as a sorcerer who was the child of a Roman soldier and a Jewish woman. He was educated by the rabbis, rebelled against them and was then executed by them.

@ngerstner753 Incidentally Saint Stephen the Martyr (whose existence is only known from Christian propaganda) didn't personally know Jesus. He was presumably not knowingly a liar but rather had been duped by the apostles who lied to him. Countless people have given up their lives for false gods. Consider the 1978 Jonestown mass suicide of 909 people including the leader Jim Jones.

​@@JacobStein1960Great arguments, helped me a lot.

The evidence for the resurrection is very strong indeed. It does not depend solely on testimony. The talk addressed only a small amount of the evidence. If the facts were presented in chronological order, then we would all in a position to make a decisive. Start with Old Testament prophesy going through to the peaceful spread of the Christian faith, all with respect to the resurrection.

@@davidrichmond21 lol, ok, old testament "prophecy", give me the VERY BEST one that you think is evidence that Jesus of Nazareth literally came back from the dead as a supernatural cosmic Lord...

@@doctorzeno1914 Before Jesus was born the Jews expected the coming Messiah. So it is a requirement of being the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled prophesy. All Christians are encouraged by the prophesies Jesus fulfilled as Jesus and the New Testament also testify. So it natural to expect the bodily resurrection of Jesus to be prophesied If Jesus’ bodily resurrection is prophesied that does provide evidence for the resurrection. Isaiah 53 say the Jesus would live, there are also prophesies that say Jesus would reign from that day and for ever e.g Isaiah 9. But prophesies of a bodily resurrection? Well yes Jesus point to Jonah which the Jews already suspected had something to do with resurrection. Peter points out that the scripture says Jesus’ body will not decay. Which if nothing else testifies to Peter’s believe he was raised from the dead. John points us to a detail in the Passover narrative. The Passover narrative Exodus 1-15 is the first recorded events of the Jewish nation. Points directly to Jesus’s death. Explicitly states it is about forgiveness of sins for those who believe, Jew or non Jew it says. In Psalm 51 the Psalm of forgiveness David writes “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.” Psalm 53:7. Hyssop was used to paint the blood at Passover in Exodus David is as good as saying wash me in the blood of Christ. So when the narrative says the Lamb must be perfect we naturally understand this points to Jesus who lived a sinless life. So when the narrative shows the lamb being killed we understand this points to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. So when the narrative says that the bones of the lamb must not be broken we naturally understand this points to Jesus’ bones not being broken on the cross. (There is another prophesy of Jesus’ bodily resurrection in the Passover narrative) So in conclusive the Old Testament does testify for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

@@davidrichmond21 lol, all you have done is point out the ways some early christians USED material from Hebrew lore, to express their beliefs. That does not show that those beliefs are true. Please stop screwing around, I'm serious when I say please give your very best evidence

@@doctorzeno1914 I wonder why you keep laughing out loud for no reason. I think maybe you should seek some professional help my friend.

You surprise me. These arguments against the Christian God do not stand up to elementary investigation. They are cleverly spread by atheists but this is quite a new idea. It very unlikely that a child would independently formulate such ideas.

Neither of you clearly have studied the Shroud of Turins latest research. If you won't study it then you are just spewing crap like a good Troll does.

But the response is, why does it matter? You aren't going to ever show that anything in the NT "applies to us today", so why would it matter that any of it is true?

@@gregbooker3535 it is applicable to us today

@@fyrerayne8882 Really? How do you know? Did the NT authors have coffee with you last Thursday and tell you "we wanted everybody in the future to read our books and not just the first-century people we clearly had in mind"?

@@barryjones9362 stop being a butthead. Because of unfulfilled prophecy

@@fyrerayne8882 First, you don't talk enough there to enable me to see coherence in what you are saying. Second, it seems to me the only reason you call me a butthead is because you recognized that I hurled an argument that is actually rather conclusive. What, are you six years old? Calling your opponent names is how you justify ducking their arguments? Third, what unfulfilled prophecy? And why should an unbeliever have the least bit of faith that a prophecy in a book filled with errors and lies might actually come true. I've been trouncing inerrantists on messianic prophesy for more than 25 years, I see nothing in the NT indicating that Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 or Psalm 16 or Micha 5:2 were ever "fulfilled". What i find in the NT is NT authors making clear how easily they could pull OT texts out of context. So there is no bible-reliability in existence to motivate me to trust that "unfulfilled prophecy" in the bible would EVER be fulfilled. Fourth, what makes you think your appeal to an area that Christians disagree on most (eschatology) would be found the least bit convincing by an unbeliever? Do you recommend that I spend some of my life evaluating the in-house Christian debate between futurists and historicists? Doesn't the biblical fact that I'm spiritually "dead" sort of imply that bible study by unbelievers is just a disaster waiting to happen? Isn't that a great excuse to justify ignoring the bible? Fifth, why should I care that Christianity is true? I have my own personal knowledge of how sincerely i sought "god" decades ago, and therefore how much this "god" gave every appearance of being 100% disinterested in me. It is not your prerogative to decide the point at which giving up the chase would have become reasonable. I have a personal rule: I don't continually pursue people who know how to reciprocate, and who know how to make their reciprocation known to me, but who do neither.

Even worse, they seem to think that this is the best evidence available today.

You aren’t a historian so no one cares what you deem credible.

No the resurrection claims are definitely intended to be historic fact. You can not get round the evidence like that my friend. They were liars or Jesus was raised from the dead.

@@davidrichmond21 According to Acts 1:9, Jesus was taken up into the sky and disappeared into a cloud. Is that supposed to be a hysterical fact ?

@@davidrichmond21 And the witnesses looked steadfastly toward Heaven as he went up ! (Acts 1:10) So we can infer, from this "fact" that Heaven is in the sky and it is possible to live up there. And that some day in the remote future, we too will meet him in the air! (1st Thessalonians 4:17)

@@davidrichmond21 According to Mark 16:8, the women who went to the tomb trembled and were amazed. They fled from the sepulchre and said nothing to anybody because they were afraid. But according to John 20:2, Mary Magdalene spoke to two disciples.

@@davidrichmond21 According to Matthew 28:8, the women departed quickly and ran to tell the disciples. As they went, they met Jesus and held him by the feet and worshipped him !

And U know how?

Would love some actual evidence for this claim!

@@davidjanbaz7728 The same way I know there are no fairies, leprechauns, trolls

@@michaelcjt9 How about the long long pattern of people inventing gods and building religions around them? If your asking can I definitively prove that gods do not exist… then no. But then I cannot definitively prove fairies, leprechauns, ogres, and imps don’t. I’m as equally sure they and gods do not exist. People just made them up.

@@mickqQ not even in the same category as an Aseity being! Your such a genius ????

This person has received this and not thought it out for themselves. If the Romans had taken the body it would have been dragged through towns and /or locked up on permanent display with his family dragged along as forced testimony it was Jesus. That would have quelled all rebellion and furtherance of Christs followers and teachings. Duh.

😂yeah how sad and little your brain is.

I have never met a real Christian, either. I only know lots of people who pretend to be Christians... as long as it's not too strenuous. ;-)

Edits of translations of a story, written as colluding but somehow still contradictory non-first-hand accounts by anonymous authors, in a book that also mentions talking animals? Yeah no how could anyone possibly have a case against taking that as absolute true fact :^)

@@noneofyourbusiness7055 God made a choice as to who would be eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. you have made a choice to not believe their testimony. that's on you. not God. not His witnesses.

There are no eye witness accounts of zombie body Jesus. There is not a single first hand testimony of that, in a book written by _people._ I have no choice in that, and aside from make-believe, neither do you.

@@noneofyourbusiness7055 that is what unbelief does. it tries to justify itself. just like the people who crucified Christ Jesus.

Damn unbelieving adults with their critical thinking skills, logic, and facts. Members of the religion that gets ~95% of its following as underdeveloped children who were indoctrinated, in an echo chamber where other views are not allowed, to unquestioningly accept a story full of magic often on threat of conscious torment for a literal eternity, though, _those_ people can be trusted to reason without bias or attempts to justify themselves xD

The first question is who determine’s God’s word? In Judaism it is the Hebrew Bible, with the Torah being more scared. To the early Christians it was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. When did the New Testament develop and when was it considered God’s word?

@@michaelhenry1763 God determines his Word and gives it to godly men of his choosing at his determined times throughout the history of his creation. After the flood God chose a man (Abraham) who in his heart desired to know the true God and started a people that became a nation (the Israelites) whom God gave his Word to through godly prophets down through history up to providing a Savior (Jesus Christ who is God in the flesh), who lived a sinless life, shed his blood on the cross for all sins (the perfect and acceptable sacrfice), died and rose again and is now seated in heaven as our redeemer for those who put their faith in him for salvation. The Torah is the first five books of Old Testament (given by God to Moses). The Old Testament bible is recorded in Hebrew because that is the language that the Israelites (Jewish nation) spoke. At the birth of Jesus Christ, the Jews were under Roman control and Greek was the common language known throughout the Roman empire and the New Testament (given by God to the Apostles and godly men who knew Jesus while he was on earth). Here is your problem: 2 Cor. 4:3-5 But if our gospel (the Apostles word from God) be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them. For we (the Apostles) preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

@@kentpaulhamus2158 We do not have any words from the apostles except for Paul. Paul was not writing the word of God. His word of God was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Paul’s gospel is different from the written gospels we have written later, (Mark: 70 CE, Matthew: 80 CE, John: 90 CE and after Luke: 120 CE). If God’s Word is the Hebrew Bible, how can you say the New Testament is as well when the NT writers used the Hebrew Bible in Greek form?

@@michaelhenry1763 Do you believe that Gen. 1:1 is true? Do you believe Joh. 1:1-4 & 12-14 is true? Do you believe that 1 Joh. 1:1-10 is true?

@@kentpaulhamus2158 no, I do not think any of it is true. God did not create the world from a pre-existent mass. The world was formed over billions of years. Jesus was born and died. He was not pre-existent . The prologue of John was influenced by the writings of Philo of Alexandra the personification of Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible.

Have what? Being convinced of the evidence for resurrection doesn't make a person a Christian. Do I need to convince you of the way your car works for you to become a driver?

@@ninjason57 The point is Mike usually makes a big deal about the evidence being convincing for Christianity. It's total BS.

@@ninjason57 Exactly… the vast majority of people become Christians for reasons that don’t have anything to to with the evidence for the core beliefs of Christianity.😉

@@resurrectionnerd Like a minute later, he specifically says he would've lost his faith if not for the evidence of the Resurrection and later still, radically answered prayers and spiritual experiences. You are once again cherry-picking the data and/or quotes to fit your narrative. This is how badly atheists don't want to believe. I'd be ashamed if I were you.

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 Licona is not interested in the truth. When he had doubts, his first action was to seek out Habermas in order to quell his doubts, not take an objective look at the evidence. It's quite clear from Licona'a book, he is approaching the data with the belief it's already true. "I was brought up in a conservative Christian home and made a profession of Christian faith at the age of ten." "My desire is for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus to be confirmed, since it would provide further confirmation of my Christian beliefs." "I confess that my previous research was conducted more in the interest of confirming my faith and for use in apol- ogetic presentations than being an open investigation in which I would follow the evidence where it led me." "I have frequently asked God for his patience and guidance as I have wrestled through the issues. I have been able to experience what I believe was a neutral position for a number of brief periods. During these, I have been so uncertain of what I believe in terms of Jesus’ resurrection that I prayed for God’s guidance and continued patience if the Christianity I was now doubting is true." "I presently enjoy a position of national leadership within the largest Protestant denomination in North America, a position for which I carry influence, am paid fairly and through which I find much satisfaction. I am aware that should my research lead me to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead I would be dismissed from my position and my employment would be terminated." - Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pp. 130-132.