Im 54 and I recently been struggle with doubts and it is something that draws me to the apologetic side, and I am so happy that God have men and women in this field. I thank God for you people, please if you are thinking you are wasting your time in what you are doing, don’t! Just don’t! God is using you to reach out to a very wide range of people. Thank you !!!☺️💕💕💕
Struggle away, buddy. That's what gives life meaning. Just don't swallow what people say is fact just because they say it is fact. There is no evidence for the resurrection. It's impossible to obtain such evidence. We have only narratives that tell us stories.
@@erichetherington9314 I can't tell what's more pathetic the need for you to reply to someone to tear down what makes them happy or the fact you're dumb enough to believe that historical letters and biographies isn't evidence to determine what happened in history. You'd have to presuppose that a miracle is impossible or isn't an option in historical methodology, but if you go that route then its just as impossible to say that the resurrection didn't happen. Drop your discord or skype and ill debate you on the probability of naturalism being the only reality that corresponds with the universe.
@@CaseClosed So if someone believes something that is false and they write about it on the internet, are they then exempt from scrutiny? If they want to believe something, best that they stay away from the internet, where people might challenge them. If you call my "need" (which it isn't) "pathetic," you might well look at your "need" to respond so vituperatively. Certainly, calling me "dumb" doesn't do much for your argument. Pray, tell us what possible evidence could exist that would persuade a person that a man was crucified and then rose from the dead? What do we know about this "event"? Only what the Gospels say--stories that were written down decades after Jesus lived. They're stories. They may have a point, but there is no way to establish facts about an event like that when all we have are accounts that someone (we don't know who) wrote down. Where's the proof in that? I think I'll start believing that Tolkien's middle earth tales are the actual factual story of the world. It's much more interesting and better written, and I'll just assume what he wrote was true because... well, because he wrote it. Your argument that presupposing miracles don't happen therefore makes it "Impossible to say the resurrection didn't happen" makes no sense. It's not up to me to disprove the resurrection. The truth claim is "The Resurrection happened." That's the claim; where's the evidence? Seems hypocritical of you to ask me to "drop my discord" when you yourself are creating it with me. So let's hear your evidence that the Resurrection happened.
@@erichetherington9314 calculating the Probability of the Resurrection B = Background knowledge E = Specific evidence (empty tomb, postmortem appearances, etc) R = Resurrection of Jesus Pr (R/B & E) = ? Now probability theorists have developed a very complex formula for calculating probabilities like this, and I'm going to walk you through it one step at a time, so that you'll be able to get it. The first factor that we need to consider is the probability of the resurrection on the background knowledge alone: Pr (R/B&E) = Pr (R/B) / Pr (R/B) is called the intrinsic probability of the resurrection. It tells how probable the resurrection is given our general knowledge of the world. Next we multiply that by the probability of the evidence given our background knowledge and the resurrection: Pr (R/B&E) = Pr (R/B) � Pr (E/B&R) / Pr (E/B&R) is called the explanatory power of the resurrection hypothesis. It tells how probable the resurrection makes the evidence of the empty tomb and so forth. These two factors form the numerator of this ratio. Now below the line, in the denominator, just reproduce the numerator. Just move everything above the line down below the line: Pr (R/B&E) = Pr (R/B) � Pr (E/B&R) / Pr (R/B) � Pr (E/B&R) Finally, we add to that the product of two more factors: the intrinsic probability that Jesus did not rise from the dead times the explanatory power of the hypothesis of no resurrection: Pr (R/B&E) = Pr (R/B) � Pr (E/B&R) / Pr (R/B) � Pr (E/B&R) + Pr (not-R/B) � Pr (E/B& not-R)
@@CaseClosed I sure hope you're being ironic here. Otherwise... You have GOT to be kidding. You applied letters and algebra to prove a miracle?? What on earth is " the "intrinsic probability of a resurrection"? Profound misunderstanding. I'm glad that the final formula you put has three question marks in it; that would explain why it's unknowable. If indeed you ARE being ironic, then I take your point about applying this "math" to an event we can never know the facts of, considering we only have copies of copies of copies of oral tales told for decades before being written down. You'd do better to believe that "The Lord of the Rings" is fact. Or perhaps if you want to apply math, do the same for any number of Greek, Norse, or other culture's myths about people returning from the dead. Lemme know.
What makes Gary Habermas such a valuable resource is you can tell how well he knows the field. He can name scholars, what they wrote, and what their stance is left and right
@@sidepot I can tell that your point is invalid due to multiple logical fallacies, especially ad hominem. Why do you hate a guy you believe never existed? (Referring to you recurrent “jebus” statements).
@@heavnxbound I never said jebus never existed. What I don't believe is that he was a god or thee god or a savior of the world. BTW, show me in the first 3 gospels where Jesus said he was god. The burden of proof for the existence of your god is on you. Until then just STFU.
I am sincerely thankful for discussions on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. These discussions provided me more truth (facts) to help me navigate my doctrinally belief.
I only watched a snippet of this but am blessed by what I heard. Thanks to each of you for your work on the resurrection data and sharing that with us. I am blessed.
Gary is one of the best when he shares his minimal facts ,he’s one of those people who reminds me of John Lennox a wise grandfather type now I’m not much younger than him hIs demeanor and wisdom I have always heard from him and these type videos reaffirms it ,to me this is a man of God! thank you Shawn all of these videos I’ve enjoyed so far. I have always thought Mike Lacona was one of the best add exegeteing scripture so thanks again.
What a great podcast. Twas great to see three apologists of different timelines on the same topic, more like one generation handing over to the next...Gary > Mike > Sean 👌🏽👌🏽
Gary Habermas is going to live for at least another 25 yrs, at least, (We need him) and furthermore his remaining years will be ones of vigor, great strength and very good health, both of mind & body. Amen? Amen! God Bless Gary Habermas!
@Dd S and that is your choice to ignore the Bible eye witness accounts therefore all historical data has to be ignored including Plato ect. You do not have to believe that is your free will but I would encourage u too do the research as biblical archeology is a very transparent field. I also was a sceptic and I needed to research the data which I did. My reasoning is the disciples must have had an event that happened to change then from cowards hiding to dying for their message and the resurrection is the only reasonable explanation. I pray God softens your heart to the truth as we all will have to face him one day. God Bless u.
@Dd S and that is your choice as for me it led me to Christ straight to his feet where all my childhood scars of trauma was healed. My story is long and sad but my ending Is beautiful. No one can convince me otherwise intellectually I reconciled the truth but more than that experiencially I see how I've been transformed. You believe what u want dear. God bless you in the name of our Lord and savior Yesuah Hamashiach
@Dd S Go and do your own research you seem to already have your mind made up so start with the validity of the biblical texts and go from there. Blessing I am already set in my faith I pray u will find the Truth and not your own understanding. Ask God for wisdom.
My grandmother had a near death experience in 1940 during the Blitz in Leatherhead. She was 17 having her appendix out, and she floated up out of her body. Saw everything going on below her. When she came back, her mother told her that the doctors said that they nearly lost her.
There are more and more children coming forward giving testimonials about heaven before they were born. This will continue to increase and needs to be addressed.
Great question. Here’s the three I use for my Resurrection class at Talbot: 1. The Resurrection of Jesus (Licona) 2. The Resurrection of the son of god (Wright) 3. The fate of the apostles (me!) BUT, I really like THE RISEN JESUS AND FUTURE HOPE by Habermas too
@@SeanMcDowell Thank you, follow up question are all theology books so expensive? I can't afford these right now but I will get them when I can. Appreciate the response.
@@Kvothe3 Sorry about that. Email me through seanmcdowell.org and I can send you a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which is a great place to start.
@@Kvothe3, if you’re really serious, go to your library and put in requests and there is Abes Books and Thriftbooks. Josh and Seans books are as good as anything. That’s Josh McDowell (dad) and Sean the Son. Don’t give up, if you’re serious. The Books on Miracles is also good evidence. Eric Metaxas, Craig Keener, Lee Strobel all have books about miracles. Metaxas and Strobels books are easy to read. Not to disparage your intellect but Craig Keener is a top flight scholar and his book is 1.200 pages, 2 volumes. He does lectures on YT and Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also lectures on YT
@@Kvothe3 Greetings! Please continue your search for the truth. I recommend you acquire a monthly subscription to Scribd, which is $9.99, and you'll have access to ALL of those books and more.
My mom suffered from cancer for twelve years from 1958 to 1970. After her little bones began to break due to the cancer in them, the orthopedist convinced me to put her in a Holiday Inn rehab center. She had hallucinations, the first I ever knew her to have, and was worried that the staff were going to harm me. When the staff came and tried to force her into a wheelchair and she cried out as she had never cried out during the twelve years, I called the oncologist to beg him to take her back to Baptist Hospital. My mom called out to her mom, who died before I was born. She also called “Jimmy” but she had never called my Uncle Jim “Jimmy” during my lifetime. She died soon after I witnessed this experience.
We can say that all 4 Gospels were done within 100 years of Jesus's death since P52 (from John) dates between 100-150 (with overall scholarly consensus seeming to be at 125). So since John is the last of the Gospels all 4 Gospels themselves therefore have an early verified date, which makes the possibility of the Gospels actually being eyewitness testimony valid. Scholars also agree that Acts is the history of the ministry of Paul, Luke and Acts are by the same author, and Paul's conversion happened within 5 years of the death of Jesus.
Agree. Although I believe the consensus for John has dropped to 90 A.D. which makes it even more of a case for early Gospels, I believe John could he earlier but Hallelujah!
@River Scott As to your concern that your argument has been misunderstood, I took my cue from you saying that a "person who tells others what they think they saw, is only evidence of just that." I take "that" "they think they saw something." But if eyewitness testimony is only evidence that they think they saw something, then our knowledge of ancient history is significantly undermined. But perhaps you meant something else and I misunderstood. I will confess that I'm having difficulty understanding the points of your argument. One of them seems to be as follows: A key reason to accept the apostle's testimony is their sincerity. The apostle's sincerity is confirmed by their willingness to suffer and die for their testimony. But these scammers are also presumably willing to suffer and die for their testimony. Therefore, since the scammers have the same key reason to accept their testimony, we don't have good reason to prefer the testimony of the apostles over that of the scammers. I can't make out your second argument with respect to the scammer's relationship to hell. Could you clarify? Your third argument seems to be as follows: If there had been an empty tomb and eyewitnesses to the resurrection, then the scammers would have been confronted with this fact and by those witnesses. If such a confrontation took place, then the scammers would have stopped scamming. But the scammers did not stop scamming. Therefore, there were no eyewitnesses and there was no empty tomb. Your fourth argument seems to be as follows: According to Paul, no one could be resurrected outside of the general resurrection event at the end of the age. Therefore, since the general resurrection had not happened, Paul (and the rest of the apostles, presumably) believed that Jesus could not have been resurrected. Since they believed that Jesus was not resurrected, and yet preached that message anyway, they were lying about Jesus' resurrection. EDIT: the last bit of comment got cut out. But this is enough to get us started. If I've understood your correctly, then perhaps I'll be able to respond to a few of your points.
One thing I don’t get is how naturalist say “you are your brain” but then go onto explaining an action as “I didn’t do it my brain did it” but by saying stuff like that they show a separation between “the brain” and “I”
I think the argument is that human consciousness arises from your physical brain. Different neuroscientists will give you a different answer. I suspect that question will never be answered. Even atheists who only believe in a purely materialistic universe dont agree.
What is the anomaly of interest to Science which current models can't explain, and which the "resurrection hypothesis" proposes to finally explain? You folks NEVER say. How come?
Maybe its just me, but I didn't hear any arguments in this discussion that were so compelling as to render skeptics unreasonable. Since reasonableness is not a synonym for accuracy, there is a logical possibility that a belief can be reasonable, even if it is also inaccurate. In that case, if you wish to show that skeptics are "unreasonable", you have to do something more than merely show they are "wrong". The only way out of this is to act like a a deluded fundie and say every time anybody is mistaken or wrong about any subject, it is because they are unreasonable, a self-criticism no Christian apologist would dare argue in favor of. How divided are Christians? Conservative Christian scholar Dr. Lydia McGrew castigates the "minimal facts argument" of Habermas and complains that the canonical gospels are more reliable than Licona is willing to admit. If not even spiritually alive people can come to agreement on what's what in Christian evidences, they have to be FOOLS to expect spiritually dead skeptics to sense which arguments god thinks are the most compelling. That's more than plenty to reasonably justify skepticism toward the resurrection of Jesus. Can we be reasonable to completely ignore resurrection arguments and evidence? Yes. Licona and Habermas cannot really say exactly at what point on what day God wants you to "check out the resurrection" so they forfeit the right to call you unreasonable if you answer that question for yourself in a way that they personally think insufficient. Jesus' resurrection can be mooted by the fact that the NT doctrine of eternal conscious torment is a false alarm, and contradicts the sense of divine justice taught in the OT. The OT teaches that God's justice is fully expended on you by either animal sacrifice, repentance or your physical death. So if the NT teaches that god's wrath continues harming sinners in some afterworld, that is NOT "revealing more", that is the NT CONTRADICTING the OT. Since the OT doesn't threaten a fate to modern unbelievers worse than permanent extinction of consciousness at death, it is going to be reasonable for atheists, who already welcome this unavoidable fate anyway, to conclude that rejecting the gospel doesn't increase the degree of danger to themselves. In that case, the unreasonableness of acting in a way that increases unnecessary danger to oneself, is a criticism inapplicable to modern day atheists. For any hell-fire idiot who says the flames of hell are literal, we can quote many conservative Christian scholars who are more and more denying eternal conscious tormenting and advocating annihilationism. Licona and Habermas, like most apologists, personally believe that the unbeliever is risking demonic affliction by taking interest in Christ, yet Licona and most apologists constantly act as if our "checking out" Jesus' resurrection is no more spiritually dangerous to us than our "checking out" a book from a library. If an honest person invites you to participate in an activity that they think will increase danger to you, shouldn't we expect that they'd make their warning of such danger explicit? Licona will never plausibly escape the stupidity foisted on him by his bible's foolish stories of invisible people who battle each other in the sky. We can justify rejecting the resurrection of Jesus on the grounds that affirming it appears to be no guarantee that we'll steer clear of "heretical" groups or cults, which most resurrection apologists say will send us to hell. The pragmatic reasoning would go like this: If I do nothing, I won't be adding the sin of heresy to my lilfe. But if I join a Christian group, I might be adding the additional sin of heresy to my life. So by doing nothing and simply staying away from all religious claims, I limit the number of ways I'll be allegedly punished by God. And the bible teaches that judgment will be more severe for those who got near the truth, than for those who simply stayed away (Hebrews 6:4-6). Most Christian scholars say Mark is the earliest gospel. Most Christian scholars say authentic Markan text ends at 16:8. So unless an apologist desperately argues that it is unreasonable to agree with the Christian scholarly majority, then it must be reasonable to agree with them on those two points, and thus conclude that the earliest form of the gospel never said anybody actually saw the risen Jesus. Most Christian scholars do not find compelling the arguments of Lunn and Snapp for the authenticity of the long ending of Mark, and one rule of textual criticism says it is the reading that creates the problems, that is likely to be original. Mark ending at 16:8 creates all sorts of problems as we can see from consevative Christian scholarship, but Mark's providing a resurrection eyewitness narrative solves a lot of problems. So the theory that Mark ends at 16:8 cannot possibly be unreasonable. Thus it is equally reasonable to say that the reason the later 3 gospels mention resurrection "witnesses" is because the original less dramatic story became more and more embellished with the passing of time. if Christians can be reasonable to believe what they do without ability to answer scholarly skepticism, then there is a logical possibility that skeptics can be reasonable to reject the gospel even when they cannot answer scholarly apologetics. Reasonableness doesn't require anybody to knock the opposition all the way out of the ballpark. So will apologists ever tell us the conditions under which a skeptic can be reasonable to reject the resurrection of Jesus even where the skeptic cannot answer scholarly apologetics defenses? And don't forget, Irenaeus in the 2nd century tells us Gnosticism was brewing in the days of the apostles and became a popular form of Christianity, so its probably no coincidence that the resurrection narrative embellishments after Mark went in the direction of emphasizing more and more the fleshly physical space/time existence of the risen Jesus...those stories would "refute" the Gnostics who believed in a non-physical Jesus. Such embellishments are most clear in John's resurrection narrative, and Ireanaeus tells us John wrote a gospel to refute Cerinthus the heretic. So while obvious bias doesn't automatically require that the author is lying, obvious bias cannot be dismissed as pointless, the biased author is more likely than a non-biased author to lie about history to make his case sound more compelling ...which might be sufficient to justify the reader's refusal to swallow the story. So there's enough initial probability that the resurrection embellishments were motivated by anti-gnostic tendencies to render the skeptic reasonable to view them not as true history but as fictional tales intended to destroy a competing sect. If the disciples were "amazingly transformed" by viewing the resurrected Jesus, why did they disobey his explicit requirement that THEY evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19), and shove off that responsibility entirely onto Paul (Galatians 2:9)? Did they not see this Jesus? or maybe they did and Matthew's version credits the risen Christ with a Great Commission command that Jesus never actually commanded? According to Deut. 18, the doing of a miracle doesn't necessarily mean the prophet in question is authentically representing God's interests. So it doesn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead, that alone does NOT justify the conclusion that he must be the son of God. Yet this is where Christians run out of steam, because they must then argue theology to unbelievers to make the resurrection case conform to the warning in Deut. 18, which they likely won't want to do because they think unbelievers are spiritually dead and cannot appreciate gospel truths before regeneration. On the basis of Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, most Christian apologists and scholars, including Habermas, Licona and Josh McDowell, insist that Jesus' own brothers remained unbelievers at all times before Jesus died. In other words, it was while Jesus was allegedly working miracles, that they persisted in unbelief. Skeptics could not possibly be unreasonable to say his brothers were not drunk or retarded, and so the reason they didn't find his miracles convincing is because they had good reasons to think those miracles were nothing but purely naturalistic deceptions. We have an analogy in the "faith healers" Christianity produced and placed on tv starting in the 1970's. Apparently, you don't need to be capable of doing miracles, to deceive large crowds of idiots that you are performing real miracles. So skeptics cannot possibly be unreasonable to use Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to justify arguing that the real historical Jesus was incapable of performing genuinely supernatural miracles. I don't know how you will get from "Jesus couldn't do miracles" to "but he still rose from the dead", but good luck trying.
Umm are you aware of what the minimal facts argument even is? Have you bothered to read their work or just hop in here as an “enlightened intellect” to teach the dummies a few points? These are 90+% secular scholars that affirm the evidences enumerated. So your entire gnostic argument is now predicated on secular scholars desiring to actively affirm gnostic Christianity and the embellished belief that Jesus was resurrected? The entire point of their work is to remove theological bias from the analysis. Additionally, your point regarding the brothers of Jesus converting after his death is actually a wonderful point…for His Resurrection. Please think about it, you’re saying they were wise to Him in life, that they saw through His “miracles” as just tricks and that everyone else was “retarded” (your word, never mine, I’ve known too many wonderful souls who are delayed). Yet somehow after His death, his own brothers began believing. Did they think to themselves, “I’d like to revisit those “miracles” and now be foolish enough to believe them…yes I now choose ignorance!”. Your claim is that they didn’t believe because they were smart skeptics, and yet they later believed to the point of martyrdom! That’s some hard core conviction to a lie if you’re willing to lose your head for it. This is why one of the evidences, again from 90+% secular scholars is precisely the opposite of the point you’re making; they agree, people smarter than either of us who spend their lives studying document/event historicity, that the followers of Christ, even His brothers, died believing He is the Messiah and that He rose from death. If you are really a discerning, fact based, intelligent being (which I genuinely believe you are), then you must allow for all possible explanations. Even if your heart doesn’t want to believe in God, at some point you have to consider that God does exist and He Loves you more than you can possibly know. From Creation in the face of thermodynamic law, the knowledge of good and evil, the profound degree of information transmitted by genetics, the existence of mind, the lack of additional evolved intelligences with moral ethos despite having millions more years to develop as such, NDE’s, etc. The evidence For Him and against pure naturalism is staggering…if you remove your own preconceptions. God Bless You Barry, may He awaken your soul to His Glory.
@@TheVanDeLinderFamily "Umm are you aware of what the minimal facts argument even is?" --------Yes. It boils down to the argument that the stories about the disciples claiming experiences with the risen Christ are historically accurate, and the argument is extended as follows: no naturalistic explanation for these experiences is reasonable, the only reasonble explanation is that Jesus really did rise, and really did appear to them. "Have you bothered to read their work or just hop in here as an “enlightened intellect” to teach the dummies a few points?" -----------I have been making extensive critiques of Habermas and Licona for more than 10 years. " These are 90+% secular scholars that affirm the evidences enumerated." -------I don't care. Under the majority Christian scholar view, Mark is the earliest and did not originally contain the long ending. Therefore I cannot possibly be unreasonable to draw the inference that the earliest form of the gospel never said anybody actually saw the risen Christ. Therefore I cannot possibly be unreasonable to draw the further inference that the only reason the later gospels contain resurrection appearance narratives, is beacuse of embellishment. " So your entire gnostic argument is now predicated on secular scholars desiring to actively affirm gnostic Christianity and the embellished belief that Jesus was resurrected?" --------No, I disagree with the secular scholar who think the gospel reports about the risen Christ appearing to anybody are historically accurate. " The entire point of their work is to remove theological bias from the analysis.' -----------Then you should condemn them, beacuse the bible requires theological bias: the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge, Proverbs 1:7. "Additionally, your point regarding the brothers of Jesus converting after his death is actually a wonderful point…for His Resurrection." ------------If you could make a prima facie case that they converted after his death, then sure. Can you? Since there were two men named "James" included in the original 12 apostles, you are never going to establish that any unqualified "James" in Acts or Galatians is specifically Jesus' brother. "Please think about it, you’re saying they were wise to Him in life, that they saw through His “miracles” as just tricks and that everyone else was “retarded” (your word, never mine, I’ve known too many wonderful souls who are delayed)." -----------Then you are not very godly. Those who delay accepting Christ are blaspheming god, who told them "behold now is the day of salvation". Nice to know you think blasphemers are 'wonderful souls'. I'd guess the pastor of your church is so liberal, he perfroms wedding ceremonies for gay couples? "Yet somehow after His death, his own brothers began believing. " --------------There is nothing in the NT to establish that, and nothing in the NT on the subject is anywhere near clear enough to render my skepticism unreasonable. "Did they think to themselves, “I’d like to revisit those “miracles” and now be foolish enough to believe them…yes I now choose ignorance!”. Your claim is that they didn’t believe because they were smart skeptics, and yet they later believed to the point of martyrdom!" -----------Not only can you NOT show from the NT that any of Jesus' brothers ever converted, you also cannot show that any of his brothers ever suffered "martyrdom". Especially in the case of James who was Jesus' brother. You will never explain how the non-Christian Pharisees could hate Jesus so much, yet love James so much as to condemn their own h igh priest for executing this brother of Jesus. My guess is that whatever that James was preaching, he was NOT preaching that Jesus is god, that he arose from the dead, or that he died for anybody's sins. "That’s some hard core conviction to a lie if you’re willing to lose your head for it." --------I'll lose my head the second you prove that any brother of Jesus ever suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith. Happy hunting. "This is why one of the evidences, again from 90+% secular scholars is precisely the opposite of the point you’re making; they agree, people smarter than either of us who spend their lives studying document/event historicity, that the followers of Christ, even His brothers, died believing He is the Messiah and that He rose from death." -----------Except that I have my own brain, therefore I am not under any more intellectual compulsion to trust their judgment than YOU are under intellectual compulsion from the majority scientific acceptance of evolution, to say evolutioni is true. "If you are really a discerning, fact based, intelligent being (which I genuinely believe you are), then you must allow for all possible explanations." ---------I do. But I overcome the Christian possibility with evidences and argument which thereby increase the PROBABILITY of my hypothesis. If you think mere possibilities gain you any ground in a debate, fairness would require that you extend that luxury to skeptics, which then means as long as what somebody belieeves is within the realm of the logically possible, everybody walks away a winner. Sorry, the search for truth does not stop at possibilities. Historical truth is decided on the basis of probabiities. You need to focus more on answering my direct criticisms, instead of just repeating several times that I'm disagreeing with the majority of secular scholars. And of course I deny your contentnion that those scholars are smarter than myself. My arguments against the resurrection also refute many of those secular scholars. "Even if your heart doesn’t want to believe in God, " ---------There is no such thing as heart-generated thought. It is only the brain. And quit telling yourself that I don't "want" to believe. I deny the gospel because the evidence strongly suggests it is nothing but man-made religion. I could accuse you of "not wanting" to acknowledge the truth of atheism, but I guess I'm less prone to insulting your itelligence , than you are prone to insulting mine. "at some point you have to consider that God does exist and He Loves you more than you can possibly know." ---------------The "god' hypothesis necessarily fails Occam's razor mroe than naturalistic theories because by your own admission this God is infinitely smart, and the Razor makes the more simple hypothesis more likely than any infinitely complex hypothesis. As far as God "loving" me, your bible declares no such thing. Did god "love" the unborn babies whom he subjected to a torturous abortion-by-sword in Hosea 13:16? If God loved the world in the first century as John 3:16 alleges, other texts likel Psalm 5:5 (God's hatred is on the sinner, not merely the "sin") create the possibility that in the last 2,000 years, God has lost his love for many people just like he started out loving the Hebrews during the Exodus, but then started hating them afterward. You are a fool to pretend that because John 3:16 was true in the first century, it must have remained true for the rest of time. And of course, you cannot show that God loves ME. "From Creation in the face of thermodynamic law,' ----the first of which says energy and matter cannot be created. " the knowledge of good and evil" ----Nothing could be more obvious than that an adult's ideas of good and evil are shaped by a combination of their genetic predispositions, how they were raised in childhood, and what beliefs make them happy in adulthood. While on the other hand, the hypothesis of some invisible being "putting" his laws into human hearts is absurd. "the profound degree of information transmitted by genetics" ------------And if God had to have such blueprints in mind before he created anything, then his mind is equally as complex as the genetics, so if there must be an intelligent designer to account for material world complexity, there must also be an intelligent designer for God's own complexity. But you irrationally refuse to go where you own logic leads solely because you think the bible says God is eternal.
@@TheVanDeLinderFamily part 2------------- "the existence of mind" ---------The existence of brain. "the lack of additional evolved intelligences with moral ethos despite having millions more years to develop as such," --------Millions of species have gone extinct over millions of years. You don't have the first clue whether those life forms had moral ethos equal to humans or not. I'll choose to believe the results of archaeology rather than fairy tales about giants in Genesis, thank you, stories you blindly presume to be intended as literal history. "NDE’s, etc." ----------I have good reasons to deny NDE's. You talk like an intentionally stupid KJV Onlyist who thinks piling up a list of apologetics evidences is the end of the debate. "The evidence For Him and against pure naturalism is staggering" ------------The evidence for atheism and against supernaturalism is staggering. Did i just win the debate? Or did I forget there is a law of physics that says only Christians are allowed to win debates via the fallacy of argument by assertion? "…if you remove your own preconceptions. God Bless You Barry, may He awaken your soul to His Glory." --------------I don't want to serve a god who burns little girls to death in Leviticus 21:9, and who forces even innocent faithful wives to drink deliberately poisoned water in Numbers 5. I have no interest in a god who tortures babies for7 days before finally killing them solely for sins they were not personally responsible for, see 2nd Samuel 12:13-18. Your god admits that he is completely irrational, when he admits it was "without cause" that he foisted many terrible catastrophes on a man who did not deserve to suffer such things. See God's confession to Satan in Job 2:3. You need to worry less about apologetics and more about obeying whatever the Pharisees command of you. Matthew 23:3. That command of Jesus applies equally to modern-day Gentiles. 28:20.
It's not rational, but emotional. The rational part is when Habermas says (at 1:03:30) 'my emotions have to be brought in line with the facts' (facts they talked about in the previous hour).
It is astounding to me that two intelligent men are so enamoured by Habermas that he can freely suggest that the shroud "is possibly a photograph of the resurrection of Jesus" without a hint of skepticism, just an exclamation of "wow!". As a skeptic, I am not buying this at all. There is not one problem here, but three.
What do you know about the shroud? The shroud image is most likely the result of radiation from the body. It is a holographic image and photographic negative - it is unique - it is completely reasonable to suggest that it’s possibly a photograph of a very mysterious event which people would identify as the resurrection of Christ. If the shroud is proven to be most likely authentic and to be the result of essentially an explosion of radiation from a dead crucified body which disappeared, then I think the shroud of Turin scientifically verifies the resurrection of Christ which proves the validity of Christianity.
In my local evangelical mega church I have never heard them talk about the believers bodily resurrection. It seems like they think it is going to be a spiritual resurrection. It’s easier to believe in a disembodied existence on some other dimension - heaven. But what does scripture and our creeds say about this?
VERY important comment rhonda! The ultimate and final hope for Biblical Christianity, is "the new order of things." Although Revelation 21 uses highly symbolic imagery to describe it, it's clearly going to be a PHYSICAL reality!
Ultimately believers will receive a resurrection body similar to Jesus' It was clearly physical in nature but with added dimensions, such as being able to walk through walls/appear out of thin air (depending on how you understand it). That shows he was not restricted by normal natural processes. His body is the template for others.
Sean: if you want to have civil discussion about abortion you need to engage with the pro-choice arguments. This video mentioned the rights of 2 major stakeholders- the states and the unborn. The rights of women are never mentioned. “This is why they say, “Pro-life isn’t about preserving life, it’s about controlling women.” PS: After listening to the whole video, I don’t think the words “fetus” or “embryo” are used once. It’s dripping in loaded language that makes it hard for outsiders to engage with. -Coming from someone who was formerly anti-abortion and is currently pro-choice.
Good grief, of course no one would be convinced just by NDE data, not even Christians. It's only a small part of the whole body of evidence for Christ's resurrection. Don't believe it's valid, fine, drop it.
Jesus was wrapped in several pieces of linen clothes, therefore a single shroud does not belong to Him: John 20:7 KJV And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John 19:40 KJV Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen CLOTHES with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Luke 24:12 KJV Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen CLOTHES laid by THEMSELVES, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.
Regarding the shroud, I doubt it is Jesus' as it appears a separate head covering was used, separate from the larger one used to wrap his body. As far as I know the Shroud is a single piece of cloth which purportedly covered the whole body including the head, hence the 'face' on the Shroud. That seems to contradict the Gospel description and likely Jewish custom at the time.
Hmm... I never thought of that question before. But I suppose we shouldn't expect that it MUST be mentioned in the bible. If we found one of the items indirectly inferred to, by the Bible writers, I don't think there would be a need for that item to have been EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED. Anyway, that's just a thought...
@@PC-vg8vn No, I mean the actual shroud placed over him that contains His image. If it had been mentioned in the Bible, it would have been excellent evidence of His resurrection.
Christianity may be well served by these kind of apologetics but this isn't for me particularly compelling or necessary for my faith. There are other factors such as the Bible which explains actual history and the future but more importantly the nature and predicament of mankind. More than that it explains the nature and workings of the Spirit realm. I've seen a few miracles sure they did boost my faith levels for a time but for me the greatest proof is in the Spirit realm. Jesus name is unbelievably powerful and He really does literally still cast out demons and has authority to deliver people who are in bondage.
@@mythbuster1483 I would make a few points, in no particular order- - dont assume different writers will relate exactly the same narrative concerning events. - dont assume each writer will include every detail they are aware of (particularly when trying to limit the wording given papyrus limitations). -dont assume each writer is aware of the same details as other writers. - dont assume different writers spoke to exactly the same eye-witnesses. - dont assume each writer provides the details of every single individual involved. Rather expect them to highlight the role of particular individuals. - dont assume each narrative covers exactly the same time-line of events. - per time-line above, dont assume only a single visit was made to the tomb by any given individual. - accept that writers, then and now, often use techniques such as 'compression' to highlight those details the particular writer thinks are important (a good example of this is the healing of Jairus' daughter in Mark and Matthew - Mark uses 20 verses, Matthew uses 9 to describe the same account). - don't assume we know where every disciple, particularly those named, were staying at the time. - read the texts carefully - eg you quote John 20 re 'one woman' ie Mary Magdalene. But in the same chapter when it is described how she goes to tell Peter and the beloved disciple she says "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” Notice the 'we'. It is obvious that there were more women involved than just Mary, and this is confirmed by the other Gospel narratives. John is simply highlighting Mary Magdalene. - re Matthew 28, for example, I get the impression that the angel/stone episode either happens whilst the 2 Mary's are on their way to the tomb (note it doesnt say they had arrived) or it happened before they set off. So it is only once they arrive at the tomb that an angel speaks to them. I'll make one final point. If the Gospel accounts were written exactly the same, would you not be first in the queue to claim 'collusion!'?
@@PC-vg8vn But we know that Matthew and Luke copied most of the gospel of Mark often word for word. Just because they added their own spin to the story doesn’t suddenly make those gospels independent.
@Dd S I think you're overstating your case. Take just one of the topics of this discussion: We know that Saul was an enthusiastic persecutor of the early followers of Jesus because of their beliefs about Jesus, that he had an experience of what he believed was the risen Jesus, and that this experience convinced him that Jesus had actually risen from the dead. This may not be conclusive evidence for you (or, from your perspective, not even good evidence), but it hardly seems like "NO evidence." Would you say that, from a historical perspective, Saul's transformed life really lends no evidential support to the theory that Jesus rose from the dead?
@Dd S if you're going to maintain that kind of skepticism toward a first-hand account of a hostile contemporary and later associate of the first disciples of Jesus, then I don't think we can make much progress. In fact, given your criticism toward Saul/Paul as a source, I don't think we could have a productive conversation about much of anything in ancient history. For example, do you think Jesus was a real person? If so, I'd be interested in hearing a few of your reasons for that belief.
@Dd S I'm not so much interested in your position on the historical Jesus as I am with how you personally draw conclusions about history in general. It seems to me that your critique of Paul as a source of historical information would cut pretty deep into many other areas of ancient history (one of which would be the historical Jesus). As to some indicators of Paul's sincerity: He was hostile to Christianity and so would not have been a likely candidate for "group think" or other things like that. He was a committed Pharisee and staunchly monotheistic, making him an unlikely candidate for sympathy toward the Christian project, let alone a convert. He was willing to suffer and die for something he saw with his own eyes, whereas it seems the examples that you are alluding to would not fall under that category. All in all, Paul is about as ideal for a historian as any other witness. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a better kind of witness than Paul. Back to your skeptical approach, and leaving the question of the historical Jesus, I'd just like you to apply your objection to Paul to some other ancient historical event. It really seems to me that you would either have to reject whole swaths of historical information or else be inconsistent.
@Dd S In my first comment, I only challenged your idea that there is "NO evidence" for Jesus' resurrection. Even if it isn't great evidence, that's not no evidence. I agree that there is some evidence for other religions. I think that evidence needs to be examined on a case by case basis. I just don't see the value of taking the hard stand that Jesus' resurrection has no evidence in its favor. To me, that seems like a position that could only be maintained if someone radically altered the definition of evidence, or if someone really just knew almost nothing about the event.
You would think your soul would be more interested in other things than numbers ? It could be demonic influence ? Do we consider this option ? -Joys dad
Imagination is God in man so wake up yourself, Paul hinted Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
And as far as James the brother of Jesus becoming a Christian, you cannot show that from the NT. Galatians 1:19 is admitted by inerrantist scholars to be too ambiguous in the Greek to justify dogmatism about whether Paul was saying this brother of Jesus was an "apostle", and after that, there's nothing in the NT remotely suggesting that this specific James ever became a Christian. The reference to two James in Act 1 refers to the two Jameses who were among the original 12 apostles. The reference to James in Acts 15 is not qualified, but because there were two original apostles of the same name, it is more likely this James is one of them, than that Luke the "good" historian is simply thrusting into the narrative a James he hasn't mentioned before. The same for the unqualified James of Acts 21. The James who sees a risen Christ in 1st Cor. 15 is also not qualified, so it cannot possibly be unreasonable to say this James was one of the original 12 apostles not James son of Joseph. So apologists are going to have serious problems trying to prove that skeptics are unreasonable for holding the opinion that James the brother of Jesus remained a non-Christian his entire life. And yet if we can be reasonable to hold that view, the fact that Jesus' own brother didn't find Jesus very compelling, accomplishes an awful lot of skeptical justification in short order. Was James just a drunken retard unable to process reality as he saw Jesus raising the dead and multiplying groceries by magic? Or does it make more sense to say this James was in normal possession of his faculties, and therefore, he was never wowed by Jesus' miracles, because Jesus never did miracles in the first place? The one secular record about this James that Christian scholars deem the most reliable (the report in Josephus) neither expresses nor implies that James ever actually converted to the Christian faith. It's so bad that Licona has to trifle that because the high priest there called James a "law-breaker", the same name the Jews in Acts applied to Christians, that thus the High Priest was saying James was a Christian. Dr. Licona, please clarify: what degree of intellectual obligation do you think that argument foists upon skeptics? Doesn't the rest of the account say the more scrupulous Jews were angry that James was put to death? Doesn't that sound like James at best preached a version of the gospel so opposite to Paul's version that it was found acceptable to non-Christian temple Jews? Aren't you worried that the more you push James being a Christian, the closer you get to admitting the pre-Pauline form of Christianity was the Judaizer gospel? And if the more scrupulous Jews are conspiring to put Jesus to death, then later getting angry at the death of his brother James, doesn't that reasonably justify the skeptical inference that whatever James was preaching, it was far less scandalous of a gospel than the one Jesus preached? Furthermore, Christians cannot tell me what biblical issue "god" wants me to study first, so for all I know, when I "check out" some argument given by Licona or Habermas, I'm not researching the subject "god" wants me to study at that time, which turns my accepting their challenge into a SIN on my part. Or am I, a spiritually dead atheist, more concerned about pleasing God than I should be? Unbelievers are thus reasonable to assume that, at worst, this god doesn't exist and that's why he manifest zero interest in modern unbelievers, or, at best, this "god" is less interested in unbelievers than even Christian apologists are, so that it is reasonable to say they are deceiving us about God's will, and can be safely ignored. Go ahead, seek "god", you will get a reply from nobody except other human beings pretending to speak for God, creating a problem that you couldn't resolve with any reasonable degree of certainty if you were given 500 years to figure it out. Then these fools say this god, who puts forth so much effort to remain hidden that even sincere Christians often doubt to the point of apostasy, wants to have a "personal" relationship with us (LOL!). Regardless, since apologists cannot tell me how long god wants me to study any biblical bullshit, they forfeit the right to balk if I note that they are no help, and answer that question for myself. So if I decide that studying the issue of Jesus' resurrection for one month is plenty of time, and after this I remain an unbeliever and resolve to never study the issue again, apologists could never show that this attitude on my part was the least bit "unreasonable", which logically requires that some unbelievers can be reasonable to reject the resurrection of Jesus. But if that logical possibility exists, we are reasonable to ask Licona what circumstances would have to materialize that would render a resurrection skeptic reasonable.
I often wonder and maybe someone can explain. After Jesus was dead for at least 36 hours, and his body did what bodies do when dead, did his resurrected body begin functioning again? You know, blood pumping, lungs breathing, brain firing? Did his muscles move by the same mechanical hydraulic method we do? When he spoke, did air flow over his vocal chords to produce sounds? Or was everything just animated externally by god?
I would suggest his body was fully restored to full health, but you seem to be forgetting his body had also transformed into a resurrection body. So whilst Lazarus' body was simply restored to normal physical life, Jesus' body was much more than that. It appears, for example, that he was able to walk through walls or appear out of thin air (depending on how you understand the descriptions) which is clearly beyond the normal functioning of the human body! Hope that helps with your query.
@@PC-vg8vn Well at least someone has made an attempt. Thank you. Now I just wonder why the stone needed to be rolled away if he could simply pass through the wall? It's all so confusing.
There will always be questions surrounding the timeline of the passion week. Simply because the timing was not an emphasis item for the writers. There are many plausible explanations. What matters is the tomb was empty.
Thank you👍 The gospel → Christ died for our sins. He was buried. He was raised on the third day. He appeared to the apostles. １ Corinthians １５：１－５ Isaiah ５３ Anyone is saved just by believing in the gospel. Romans １：１６ Ephesians ２：８－９
“Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from the “damned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group… All belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty.” ~ Alan Watts
You're a sinner in need of a savior Jesus Christ is waiting Today is the day of salvation Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord Jesus loves you repent Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24
@@stevenhazel4445 Of course you do. Most folks do. Most folks read the bible with the mind of a believer. Most of us throw out our critical thinking when we read the bible.. This is how you can get grown folks believing in talking donkeys... But i agree that a man waking up from the dead is a smaller miracle than a 500 year old man building a boat and every animal species getting on that boat and 8 people repopulating the earth. When the bible talks about a talking snake as history, it loses credibility with me in regards to history. So i have to ask when does the mythology stop and the history begin... We know the talking snake was mythology so does history start with the next story.. Well the next story got a 500 year old man building a boat... Thats mythology too. Then We have Noahs great grandson Nimrod.. Well Nimrod is mythology.. He has to be mythology because noah never existed... If you have no noah then you have no shem.. No shem no Abe.. No Abe then you have no Isacc and J on down the line. Moses is a mythological character, legend at best..... So goes genesis, so goes the rest of the bible. And greeks are known for awesome mythologies!!! Tell me if that makes sense. Let me ask you a question.. Do you think the creation story is mythology or history?
@@DJ-uc8mk each book of the Bible has to be considered and interpreted according to its setting. Genesis is a collection of mythologies from the iron and bronze age. I don't think they were trying to be "historical". There probably is some historic truth in there, but the theological importance is of greater value that historic significance. I think anyone who tries to read the creation story as a literal historic event completely misses the point, and shows a misunderstanding of this entire genre of literature. Much of the so called Old Testament would fall into that category. The Gospels and writings of the apostles, however, are much later, and much easier to corroborate with history. My spirituality is based on the power that rose Jesus from the dead, so to me it's irrelevant whether the creation story is literal. The New Testament is really what I'm most concerned about.
I will explain in two minutes why no one can be reasonable in accepting the resurrection. Imagine for a moment that you saw a live youtube video of a pastor (from a religion that you do not currently accept) performing a resurrection in front of a congregation of 500 people. Now, even given full access to interview the person who performed the resurrection, the person who was resurrected and all the witnesses who were in attendance, as well as the original video tape, The medical records and certificate of death, 3 doctors attestations that they confirmed he was dead for 3 days before the resurrection; what evidence could you possibly hope to find to confirm that this was in fact a resurrection and not an error or deception? Now lets say the witnesses told this story, person to person, for 30 to 80 years, (even granting the unlikely case that there were no exaggerations or embellishments), then someone who heard the stories, wrote them down and buried them for 1000 yrs. 1000 yrs from now these written stories are dug up and a following grows up around them. An investigation confirms that the church, Pastor, resurrected person, all of the witnesses, youtube and the internet were all real people and things that existed at the time and you even managed to recover an actual copy of the original youtube video. Now what evidence would you accept to confirm that this was a real resurrection? The suggestion by these apologists that any amount of hand waving can be sufficient to confirm a resurrection actually took place 2000 yrs ago is absurd.
@@sparkyy0007 My friend, your indoctrination is still preventing you from actually thinking before you speak. I, in no way made any assertion concerning the origin of life and any lack of explanation is not evidence for your God. 1000 yrs ago, the lack of an explanation for lightning was not evidence that Zeus was real. However, since you bring it up, we actually have a pretty good understanding of how the universe formed including stars and planets and how single cell organisms have produced the diversity of life on Earth. The big mysteries that remain are the origin of the Big Bang and how early self replicating molecules made the transition from Non-life to Life. But that is not evidence for a God. What you are in essence saying is that life is just too complex to have arisen from natural forces. So your brilliant explanation is that a God, which defies all known laws of Physics and nature, and is infinitely more complex than even the most advanced life on Earth spoke it into being by magic. You then completely dismiss any need to explain how such a being can even exist or where it came from. I will send your own "Good Grief dude" right back at you times 10!!
@@greglisk9408 And even after all that logical, insightful and might I say very well thought out response, still you believe a bucket of dirt, sunlight and time produced the complete works of Shakespeare. Come to the light my friend, we have cupcakes !
@@sparkyy0007 And after reading that logical etc. response, you still completely miss the point and come back with the same nonsense. You believe that all the great works of art, literature, and science are meaningless next to the ravings of delusional bronze age goat herders. You are stuck in the dark ages and call it light. A bird who treasures it's cage, believes that flying is an illness. Free your mind from superstitious nonsense and join us in the real world. It's not as scary as you have been told..
@@greglisk9408 No Greg, you missed the point, and the point is information which is always the product and invention of intelligence. No genetic information for life, no life possible.
Evidence for the Resurrection is based solely on hearsay which cannot be substantiated: in addition the hearsay is drawn from writings of which the authorship is highly contentious. At best the Gospels which hold such an account are best described as religious propaganda.
If it didnt happen, why didnt the Jewish or Roman authorities produce his dead body to stop any more 'hearsay'? If the disciples stole the dead body, how likely is it that they then, within just a few weeks, proclaimed publicly that Jesus had not been left dead in the tomb, but had been physically resurrected and they were prepared to suffer and die for that belief, all the while knowing full well that his dead body was rotting somewhere? That doesnt make any sense at all. The first Christians believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the start, they didnt wait until a gospel was written years later.
@@PC-vg8vn To my mind the Gospel are a tangled web of deceit. And why would the Roman authorities need to produce the body of any crucified man? Any talk of a resurrection would have been dismissed as out-of-hand as nonsense. But then the stories of a resurrected Jesus never circulated until many years later.
@@edwardlongfellow5819 Im not sure they would have dismissed it out of hand given Romans believed in 'gods' and the supernatural. His dead body would have been proof-positive that he was still dead. As for your last sentence, Jesus' resurrection appears to have been believed and circulated from earliest days, it was only formally written down a few years later. Even though the oral tradition of passing on teachings was very strong within Judaism, it's possible shorter notes were written during Jesus' ministry by some of his followers, though these are now long-lost. Regardless, the resurrection was told from the beginning.
It may the that the story of the resurrection was hastily drawn up in the wake of the execution of Jesus, how else to explain away the death of the man who had promised so much.
@@edwardlongfellow5819 I find it highly unlikely to the point of absurdity that the disciples, who appear to have largely deserted Jesus following his arrest and death, would make up a story about him being raised from the dead, and were quite prepared to be persecuted and killed for a known lie.
and the results are in: no evidence. If Jesus was so obviously real, you wouldn't need this podcast. And of course, it starts by selling you a book so open your wallets! You are nothing but customers to these people.
