What are the proofs for the resurrection of Jesus? 

Just sticking to my view.. This, I think, is what you can "prove."

Dd S believe in Him or not, challenging him will make him known. Pharaoh didn’t believe in him either, many do not and did not. Take him on yourself and ask him to prove himself to you, you might be surprised!

Many people claim a personal encounter / experience that convinces them that they have religious truth. However, others from different religions or denominations may have similar experiences. So what does a personal encounter/ experience prove? I was looking at it from the point of view of historical evidence/proof and suggesting that there is only so much you can "prove."

Exactly, just as millions of Muslims "Believe" that Muhamad split the moon in two and rode to heaven on a winged horse. Millions of people today believe that they have been abducted by aliens. What people believe, is not evidence.

You can’t even prove that these disciples existed😂

Thats exactly how I knew he was Black

You are talking about a story. No one could have survived what they put Harry Potter through either. Doesn't mean he is walking around London.

@Scott Thomas I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong about that. You are no different than Muslims claiming that Mohamad and the Quran radically changed the world. There is not a single contemporary account of anything Jesus ever said or did. Your "Historical reports" are anonymous reports of decades old stories, passed around by Christians for the purpose of recruiting more followers. Christianity was just one of hundreds of new sects Judaism of the time. Just as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are two of the hundreds of new sects Christianity of today. If you are so far gone in your brainwashing that you actually believe in Demons, I am very sorry for you and especially concerned for any children that you may have influence over. I can only hope that another generation or two of education will stamp out such remnants of stone age ignorance. I also hope that you never become convinced to burn anyone as a witch.

@Scott Thomas Pride? Really? Coming from someone who claims to have a personal relationship with the creator of the Universe, that is quite rich? Name a single first century scholar who spoke to an eye witness to the resurrection. (Which, even if you could still wouldn't prove it happened). I used to be like you. Then I read the bible, cover to cover. I studied it's history. I was shocked at it's ridiculous claims, disgusted by it's immorality. I could not believe that a God could be as stupid, narcissistic, cruel and deranged as the God character described in the bible. That is what lead me out of the brainwashing. Even the anonymously written "Gospels" do not claim to be Eye witness accounts. Mark was written first and Mathew, Luke and John are later embellished copies. Even the two oldest manuscripts of Mark (from the 300s) conclude with verse 8, which ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone. Everything after that was added later to make the story more impressive. Did you study your history enough to learn that it was the Apostate Church of Christendom that banned the common people from owning and reading the bible because it was afraid that if her subjects owned and read Bibles, that they might question some of the Church’s actions and teachings? The idea that we have an "Eternal Soul" is one of the most dead concepts in all religion. Everything we know about the brain, memories and mind demonstrates that everything that makes you you, is a product of your physical brain and can be completely altered by brain trauma. There is no reason to believe that your memories or personality can exist without a functioning brain. Religion, like all other superstition has been a poison on society for millennia and can't die soon enough.

@Scott Thomas Once again, I see no answer here or evidence that you thought for a moment about what I said. Yes the bible has been manipulated , altered, embellished, and interpreted so that there are thousands of denominations of Christianity who disagree on every single point of doctrine such as whether Jesus was divine, what is required for salvation, whether it's ok to stone people to death for working on the sabbath etc, etc, etc. Why do you still think it is the inerrant word of a God? Rather than just one more, made up religion like thousands of others.

@HuckFinn What all stupid things are you saying? Which has no relation at all. You really donot know what is truth? or are you using drugs?

@HuckFinn When did i say Bible is stupid? So when i didnot say anything wrong about bible, how did you assume that i believe bible is wrong? Your words jumple here and there. There are many mising things in your words. That's why i asked Do you use drugs?

@HuckFinn If you are saying against Jesus ressurction. Let me point out two people James and paul. James who was the brother of Jesus was a skeptic of Jesus. He later on was the head of the chruch of Jerusalem and suffered a horrible death. So What changed him from a criticizer like you to admire and a martyr. He says he saw the ressurcted Jesus and that changed him. Do you have some other reason that changed him? Then Pau, who was saul and hurt christians. The suddenly he changed and suffered a lot. He even wrote 14 books which are in bible. He also say he saw ressurcted christ and took a u turn. So if you have any reasons please say?

@HuckFinn You said " I 'm glad that you understand the how stupid the bible is' What did you mean by that?. I didnot say that. I donot know from where you get that. And you didnot answer. I asked you critical Questions but skipped them because you have no answer. Then you start saying some rubbish things which i donot understand. Please if you are true say with quotes. You are saying like Abc xyz jhi kml pou qwertyuio he. It seems like that. Because you are not saying 1. About what you are saying? 2. What is your satement? 3. Qutations for the same?. So basically what do you say? i tried to understand you but you are far beyond understanding.

@HuckFinn When i read Jesus is king post only i understood a small part of your conversation. If you could read John 1:11- 14 you may understand. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Basically, The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. So it was not sexual intercourse as you think. I think that is the problem.

Brainwashed

Gullible are those that have not seen and yet believe. People like you are buying 20 million dollar private jets for televangelists and prosperity gospel scammers.

@@greglisk9408 believe as you will but I have NEVER donated to a prosperity preacher

@@craigward8886 Actually you have. By helping perpetuate the irrational beliefs and gullible mind set that they prey on. By supporting an attitude that values faith over reason, ignorance over education, Myth over science, Old books and Imaginary beings over thier own family. People like you helped create the dark ages, the inquisition, witch burnings, flat earthers and anti-vaxers. You can do better.

It’s a mistake to believe in what can’t be proven. We have a rational mind God given.

You do realize that Jesus is only a storybook character?

Mocha Tech well, actually, the fact that Jesus was a real person is pretty much one of the most solid historical facts. whether he truly was divine and died and resurrected is another story.

@@Cloud-wl8lp Sorry, but if you are referring to the Bible storybook Jesus, he is just a storybook character. There is no historical evidence whatsoever for the mythological Jesus. Now if you are referring to the Jewish militant leaders with the title of Jesus, or with the title of Christ, then yes there is historical evidence of the militant Jewish leaders. The first thing you need to do in order to assert that the Bible storybook character ever existed, is to prove that there was a god creature who in reality existed. Give me proof that a god creature ever existed.

Ewwww

Yes in the sense that if you salt the earth, nothing can grow. A world in which educated, 21st century people still allow bronze age myths of gods and demons to run thier lives is insanity.

👏🏿👏🏿Perfectly put ❤️

I'm sorry but these statements are just not true. I recommend Dr. Richard Carrier's books "Proving History" and "On the Historicity of Jesus" which lay out an extremely compelling case that The Gospels were entirely fabricated as a Euhemorization of a Jesus that was already being worshipped by Christian sects that existed in 20-30 ad whose doctrine stated that Jesus never actually walked the Earth.

Amen Roland. Well said.

Good question. Firstly, yes, the Romans carried out the crucifixion, and sometimes they left crucifixion victims dead on the cross as a warning to others. But we have good reason to think that's not the case with Jesus. The Romans were occupying Jerusalem which was a Jewish city and culture. Despite the Romans' total military dominance in this time of history, they actually did strive for peace with who they were currently ruling over (so much that it was given a name, "Pax Romana"). The day after Jesus was crucified it was the Passover, and the Jews did NOT want dead bodies hanging around during that annual holiday celebration. It's entirely historical and accurate to think that the Romans (Pilate in particular) were willing to let them take down the body of Jesus and bury it. They WANTED peace. Pilate in particular wanted peace, as his reputation was in a little hot water at the time. So it is entirely reasonable to think Jesus's body was taken down and buried. And in fact, that's exactly what happened, as Joseph of Arimathea asked for, recorded in Mark 15:42-47. Secondly...people forget that the books of the Bible themselves ARE historical books with mounds of evidence for their accurate copying through history. Some skeptics and nonbelievers will state there's no historical claims for the stories of the 4 gospels, as though the 4 gospel are themselves not historical records! But they ARE. It's not dishonest to treat the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John as accurate historical evidence. Much of human history is told, taught, and trusted on far LESS evidence than these 4 books have.

@@rrvaughn820 interesting what you say about Pax Romana and the political pressures on Pilate specifically. That would definitely make a lot of sense, although I’m sure atheist scholars would clap back and say the sources even for the motives of Pilate come from the Bible and can’t be trusted because they’re not “historical.” This is a great explanation, though. Thank you for the detailed response!

@@elisharp5767 You're probably right about that! Unfortunately true. Sometimes it appears they specifically have a desire NOT to believe, regardless of the evidence. Check out the Mike Winger video "skeptics respond to the evidence for the resurrection" it's pretty wild what some prominent atheists have said. Almost verbatim, some will say "it doesn't matter what the evidence or eyewitnesses say, miracles could never happen, and I'll believe literally any other explanation." Sad to hear. They need their heart softened by the Lord!

If you read the Bible you would know Romans didn't bury Jesus. He was buried by Joseph of Arimathea who was a Pharisee, but secret follower of Jesus. He asked Pilate for permission to take the body.

Laurin Amyotte Muslims say the same thing about Allah. What proof do you have that anyone should believe without seeing. Why can't your god just make himself known to the whole world? Then we would all believe. I would think an omnipotent, omniscient being could prove himself to the entire world. Instead he plays a game of hide and seek. It's a bunch of bullcrap, and how date I be threatened with hell for not believing. Fuck your god.

Mark Anthony Lee To ensure that people with clean hearts will love him unconditionally. Why would the LORD want people to be with him, if they dont really love him.

Gullible is he who believes without proof

Crazy prayingmantis Dont you think it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe a religion. The universe couldnt have out of absolutely nothing.

Yrn Cartier You're making the very common mistake of thinking that Atheism makes claims about the beginning of the universe, they don't. Therefore it requires no faith. Theists often say it takes more faith to believe everything came from nothing yet they believe that God itself is timeless spaceless and matter less which would imply something matter less somehow created matter. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or Gods. It makes no claims Theism makes claims e.g A God exists Atheism simply asks the Theist to provide evidence for their claim, so far no evidence has been presented, so Atheism doesn't accept their claim. Atheism also doesn't claim that there is no God (another common misconception) We just reject the claim that there is a God. Two completely different things. To put it simply, in regards to the question, why is there something rather than nothing? (notice I didn't say "Who" or "What" created the universe because in asking who or what you're implying that it had to be some sort of agent but how do you know it had to be) Atheists generally answer the question by saying "I don't know" It's a perfectly honest answer and they usually are puzzled when they hear anyone claim that they do know. Atheists generally think that Theists claim to know something they can't possibly know. We understand that Theists "believe" but just because you believe it doesn't make it so. I hope that helps.

I recommend Dr. Richard Carrier's books "Proving History" and "On the Historicity of Jesus" which lay out an extremely compelling case that The Gospels were entirely fabricated as a Euhemorization of a Jesus that was already being worshipped by Christian sects that existed in 20-30 ad whose doctrine stated that Jesus never actually walked the Earth.

Awesome! Uhm...... what evidence?

No solace in the Catholic Church? You mean you don't want to get up early on Sunday and sit in a half empty church of old people? And listen to the same boring ritual over and over again? Or sit and wonder they don't take take that poor bloody man down from that cross? It's SO fulfilling .

@@lutkedog1 Actually, it's not that hard once you have your frontal lobe well developed

@@joseph8619 And you are a christian? if that is the case it is hard to have a respectful discussion with anyone who believes in fairy tales i once believed in The Great Pumpkin but he never came same as Jesus

I don’t know about hate, just disagreement. Many of what was once thought of truth is just superstition. They used to think thunder was the gods anger etc. if something is proven false, it’s false. You can read that Lazarus was brought back to life after 3 days but unless I see it 1st hand I’m not believing. God created us with a brain , I think we should use it.

Debates are necessary and helpful

@@gabrielchattaway1663 they are when all parties are interested in learning. The internet is crawling with trolls who only want to win augments. They make things ugly. Many are narcissists who will say it's black when you say it's white. You don't know who you are debating with. From personal experience, no thank you. Most end up pitching insults at you. It's not worth it.

@@Episcopalianacolyte You're right. I do think debates are useful when it's not blatant dick-comparison, but you can't really find that on RU-vid or social media anymore. Unless Ad Hominem is specifically what you're after lol

your right, but trying to have a reasonable discussion with a Christian sometimes is like debating Maga people.

@@kenhoyer8601 many commenters are not even Christians. Debating is good but on social media, it easily becomes bullying. Christians are not disciples of the orange monkey with the golden hair either.

Try to do that when your entire country will kill you for it

PROVING BIBLE IS WRONG IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU. TRY IT.

The Bible can rightfully use itself as proof...because the Bible isn't just merely 1 book, it's a compilation of 66 books (various authors) telling the same story even though many have not met each other...so, it can be said that the Bible has separate sources, citing the same thing...in court, it requires 1 eye witness, in the case of Jesus & fallibility of the Word, it's hundreds / thousands (of witnesses)

@Care4Animals AMEN HALLELUJAH 🩵💙🤎

By the power of Grey Skull!

blessed are the cheesemakers

The effect of the brain releasing DMT

But you believe in works

Look, can someone just prove he had powers. Because I read comics and Superman can do everything Jesus can. Jesus was a kryptonian

That’s not proof, that’s a claim. That’s like saying Bigfoot is real because my plumber and his friend saw him.

@@2l84me8 your plumber and your friend would never die for Bigfoot knowing that he will resurrect them - because he can not resurrect them. People wound never go in to a certain death just like that - unless they know that there is another - eternal life. They saw the evidence of that eternal indestructible life . That life and triumph upon death was demonstrated by Christ's resurrection .

@@aleksandarstavric2226 You don’t have any evidence of anything you claimed about jesus, so how do you know Bigfoot didn’t give my plumber eternal life and salvation?

@@2l84me8 I just did :D and I enjoy in this

@@aleksandarstavric2226 No you didn’t, but keep pretending if that gets you through the day.

Jesus died for His people...He came back for the world

The story of Jesus is ridiculous. God came down to Earth to sacrifice himself, to himself, to appease himself for the imperfections of people that he made imperfect. How do you not see that you are in a cult of human sacrifice and blood magic.

@@greglisk9408 it not a cult

@@greglisk9408 "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence" Well done sir, you have just disproven the heresy of modalism, the Father and the Son are different divine persons.

@@tatogl2616 You have just proven that you can string a bunch of meaningless phrases together and that you do not understand what "proven" means. The whole concept of "the Trinity" proves that your belief system is a bunch of nonsense. The Trinity was invented in a desperate attempt to explain your contradictory, irrational beliefs. A nonsensical mystery explains nothing.

+MisterBassBoost Thanks for your encouragement!

@@SouthernSeminary haha.. 😅

Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus Christ in a couple of passages of his work "Antiquities of the Jews," which provides an important non-Christian perspective on Jesus' life. The most significant passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, appears in Book 18, Chapter 3. This passage, though subject to scholarly debate regarding its authenticity and suspected Christian interpolation, mentions Jesus in a manner that affirms His existence and describes Him as a wise man and a doer of wonderful works. It also makes a reference to Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate and suggests that Jesus appeared to His followers alive again on the third day, which aligns with the Christian belief in the resurrection. Here is a part of the passage as it commonly appears, noting the interpolation debate: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." The authenticity of this passage has been a topic of intense scholarly debate. Some argue that portions of the text were added by later Christian copyists, while others suggest that Josephus did make some reference to Jesus but not as extensively as the passage suggests. Despite the controversies, Josephus' mention of Jesus is one of the earliest references to Him outside the New Testament, contributing valuable historical context. The passage from Josephus's works that speaks about Jesus in a manner that seems to align with Christian beliefs has raised questions among scholars. Josephus, being a Jew, would not likely have referred to Jesus as the Christ (the Messiah) or suggested that Jesus rose from the dead, as these are central tenets of Christianity and not accepted in Judaism, which does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The scholarly consensus is that the original text of Josephus did mention Jesus, given that Josephus's goal was to write a comprehensive history of the Jewish people and Jesus was a significant figure in the context of first-century Palestine. However, it is widely believed that the text we have today has undergone Christian interpolation, where later Christian scribes who copied the manuscript added phrases and sentences to make Josephus's account of Jesus conform more closely to Christian beliefs. This view is supported by the fact that the earliest extant copies of Josephus's works come from Christian sources, and there is evidence that Christian copyists were not averse to making such modifications to texts to support Christian doctrine. The exact original wording by Josephus is unknown, and what he precisely said about Jesus is a matter of historical reconstruction. The general consensus is that Josephus did mention Jesus in a neutral or slightly positive light, acknowledging his wisdom and possibly his execution, but without affirming the miraculous events or divine status attributed to him by Christians.

No! You changed your life. Your belief in an imaginary friend may have been part of it, but please demonstrate that Jesus did so much as lift a feather.

@@greglisk9408 Agreed. People should learn to live a free life and not worry about praying and worshipping every moment possible. The only thing that can guarantee you acceptance after death is staying true to yourself and making good decisions. Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that; his existence simply encourages it.

@@lilobee1652 The problem here is that there is no reason to believe that anything that could be described as "You" continues after your death. And everything we know about what makes you "You" Ends with your death. There is also no reason to believe that there is anything or anyone to "Accept" you even if you did. There is no reason to believe that Jesus (Assuming he existed at all) was anything more than an itinerant, apocalyptic street preacher who had some good ideas, some bad ideas and some delusions who dies 2000 years ago leaving behind, a bunch of followers who created a mythology around him. Those mythologies are so well crafted that people are still perpetuating them today. There is a very good reason that followers are urged to take the claims on faith and rebuked if they dare question, further reinforced by the threat of eternal torture if you do. Because any close examination of the facts, history and claims of the Christianity demonstrate it to be no more true than any of the 10,000 other god myths created by humans since the beginning of civilization.

@@greglisk9408 this is all I have to say to you 1: How can you create atoms out of nothing? Its not possible so if they could then that breaks all science laws and the whole understanding of the univers 2: the odds that the universe was created is 1 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, or practically 0 3: No one can disprove the existence of God, so everything you said was an opinion 4: God exists outside the universe, or in another dimension where sounds/smell/taste/sight do not need atoms and other particles to work, because atoms were created as like a code for the univers, like 1&0 for computers. 5: scientists are turning more and more into the idea that God exists, which breaks your whole argument apart 6: what was before the universe? How was it so perfectly created yet we still cant replicate it eh? So maybe do some research before being an idiot in a comment section

@@DisticTV OK! Buckle up buttercup. The Professor of Astronomy that you just called an idiot, is about to take you to school. Everything you just said demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Science, Reason, Logic, math and Epistemology (How we determine what is true) as well as grammar while we are at it. Science does not make pronouncements of TRUTH. That would be foolish. What science does is present a model of the universe that shows the best current understanding of reality which explains everything we observe. that model continues to get better and better the more we learn. And guess what? Every single time we find out the real explanation for things we didn't understand, (Lightning, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, volcanoes, disease, floods etc.) it turns out to be natural. Never has the answer been "A God". Now, lets go through your arguments (if we can be generous enough to call these rambling statements arguments) one by one. 1: How can you create atoms out of nothing? Its not possible so if they could then that breaks all science laws and the whole understanding of the univers. This is very typical of theists like yourself. You claim that something is impossible, and in the same breath, you claim that your magic invisible friend did it. No scientifically literate person is claiming that you can create atoms out of nothing. The question that you are referring to is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "What is the origin of the Big Bang?" We do not know. It may not even be possible to investigate. But your claim that a Magical, intelligent spirit that exists outside space and time created it, (with no evidence that spirits exist, No explanation of how intelligence can exist without a brain, that anything can exist outside space and time, or where such a being could have come from) is no more valid than my claim that I built a time machine, went back 13 billion years and created the universe myself, while refusing to show you my time machine or explain the mechanism I used to create the universe. 2: the odds that the universe was created is 1 to the power of 10 to the power of 123, or practically 0 Your poor grammar here has resulted in you refuting your own argument. I agree that there is no reason to believe that the universe was created. We have one universe to examine. Now please explain how you have calculated the odds of a unique event happening, then go collect your Nobel prize. 3: No one can disprove the existence of God, so everything you said was an opinion. Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of reason and epistemology. We do not go through life believing everything we hear until it has been disproved. If you are doing this, you must be a Jew, a Christian, a Mormon, a Jehovah's witness, a scientologist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, etc.... You would have to believe in Bigfoot, alien abduction, healing crystals, chakra's, astrology, etc. etc. The only way to rationally go through life is to withhold belief in anything until there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is true or likely true. No one has ever done this for a single one of the 10,000 gods that people have believed in. 4: God exists outside the universe, or in another dimension where sounds/smell/taste/sight do not need atoms and other particles to work, because atoms were created as like a code for the univers, like 1&0 for computers. Please demonstrate that anything can exist outside the universe, that there is another dimension and how you know what exists and what is possible in this other dimension. Then collect your second Nobel Prize. (This would be amazing for someone who does not understand binary code or how computers work.) 5: scientists are turning more and more into the idea that God exists, which breaks your whole argument apart. I'm sorry, but this is an outright lie. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in Gods, spooks and spirits. Though it is true that many scientists are religious, they are religious for the same bad, irrational reasons as all the other theists. If they attempt to include supernatural claims in thier application of science, they would be laughed out of the laboratory. 6: what was before the universe? How was it so perfectly created yet we still cant replicate it eh? So maybe do some research before being an idiot in a comment section Not only do we not know what existed before the universe, there my be no way to find out. Since time may have actually begun at the big bang, "what existed before time" may not even be a coherent question. How have you determined that the universe is "Perfect"? almost the entire universe is a lethal radiation filled vacuum which seems to exist for the purpose of creating black holes. The percentage of the universe that can support life is less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, and that place is fraught with deadly natural disasters, diseases, poison creatures, cancer, birth defects, and people who are willing to kill or disown thier own children because of anonymous bronze age book of myths. I can think of hundreds of ways it could have been better. So before you attempt to give advice to strangers, I suggest you go get an education and come back with a coherent argument instead of just putting your ignorance on display for the world to see.

Good stuff.

So you want a historical account, written by a third party who witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and chose not to believe? That’s irrational.

@@Foxygrandpa2131 So you want to put words in my mouth and then attack those words, calling them irrational? Why should I trust you to be an honest interlocutor?

@@jamesyoung1022 I wish more people would investigate a religion before they blindly follow it. I agree with everything you wrote. And I had to look up interlocutor and now know how to say it and it's meaning thanks to you. 👍 I'm curious as to what you think about Hinduism. I grew up christian but the older I became the more I searched for truth and just felt I wasn't getting the answers there. I don't know if I'll ever truly know or if anyone does but I feel there must be some sort of higher intelligence at work for mathematics and everything in the universe to work as it does. I have the same question everyone has of what happens once I die and was I somewhere else before I came to be here, and what is the true purpose of all of this, if there is a purpose at all.

@@MrJhamil2450 You have asked me to address a lot of questions here. I'll give it shot but you'll have to be patient for the answer. Thanks.

Wow this is very informative 😮

@@rosellefuentes7481 yes, and you can all look it up in.... (tataaa)... the Bible!

Those aren’t “proofs”, those are claims. You need evidence to prove your claim.

For example, you claim he appeared to more than 500… That is complete hearsay. You can’t name the 500. You can’t interview the 500. You don’t know where the 500 lived. All you have is hearsay, from anonymous authors, and you accept it as fact.

@@moonshoes11 dont be a joker, go read some books educate yourself come out of illiteracy and know first how the world works to preserve testified investigations. You don't even know how to use the term "Heresy"

Well done, you've come to a grand conclusion.

Part 2 These men are also recorded of suffering persecution and deaths. They all went to the end of their lives believing that they had witnessed Jesus’ miracles, his majesty and him risen from the dead. Firstly Peter, who is written of by Clement of Rome: “By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory” And that Peter and Paul both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time”. Paul, written of by Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius, Tertullian (see John) and Clement of Rome: Ignatius of Antioch “Paul, a real saint and martyr, who deserves to be congratulated” Clement of Rome: “By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith… and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance”. Polycarp - “For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you” Though not talking directly about Paul’s death, he does hold him in high esteem and the fact that Paul was living out his beliefs. The term “glorious” is usually a term of the righteous dead. Paul’s stone coffin was unearthed in Rome’s Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls, buried beneath the church’s alter, under a marble tombstone bearing the Latin words “Paulo Apostolo Mart.,” meaning “Apostle Paul, Martyr.” James, Brother of Jesus, written of by Josephus in his death by the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Festus now dead, and with Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus the high priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions], and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” The Jews had lost their authority for capital punishment, denied that right by the Romans. Josephus revealed how the new high priest of the Jews (Ananus the younger) took advantage of a gap in the Roman rule to kill James. It was 62 A.D, and the Roman governor Festus died suddenly in office. Three months elapsed before his successor, Albinus, could get to Judea, allowing ample time for Ananus to do his dirty work. Now to be stoned by the Jewish authority’s James must have thought to have been breaking a law that required this action. The only law, which going by James upright character that he could have really been thought guilty of, is the law of blasphemy. Most likely calling Jesus the son of God. The equal of God. Which in the Jewish culture calling a man the equal of God was blasphemy. This was also the charge the Jews accused Jesus of, the high priest Caiaphas saying at his trial “He has spoken blasphemy”, the teachers of law and elders answered. “He is worthy of death” Clement of Rome and Hegesippus in the fifth book of his Memoirs also verify that James was killed by the Jewish leaders. And lastly John, is the only one of the company generally thought to have died a natural death from old age, although he did have his trials with persecution. Tertullian: “Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of the apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like *John [the Baptist]’s; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile” *John the Baptist was beheaded by King Herod, Paul being a Roman citizen was probably executed the same way. By order of the Roman Emperor, Domitian, John was exiled to slave labour in the mines on the island of Patmos, a small, rocky island belonging to the group called "Sporades," in that part of the Aegean known as the Icarian Sea. On account of its rocky, barren, and desolate nature the Roman government used the island as a place of banishment for criminals. The prisoners were compelled to work the mines of the island. Domitian ordered his exile because he saw John as a threat to his rule. However, his popularity and influence in the Christian community continued through correspondence with all the churches. When he was released from exile, he returned to Ephesus. John founded and built churches all through Asia until he was old, and died the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion, peacefully in Ephesus. No other religion has this many eyewitnesses to its main claim, usually it’s the case of one man’s testimony, or a vision a man has, such as Muhammad, Joseph Smith and the list goes on. The events of Jesus’ lifetime were on public display, his healings, miracles, teachings and his greatest hour, the Resurrection. Four sober eyewitnesses, who refuse to recant their testimony even under the threat of death, would convict anyone of anything in a court of law. Such eyewitness testimony yields a verdict that is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you were there yourself, you can’t be any more certain than those historical events actually occurred. The New Testament books have been proven time and time again to be correct about events, locations and people. The New Testament includes over thirty public figures which are confirmed in secular sources or archaeology. Luke the author of his Gospel, interviewed eyewitnesses, but he is merely confirming the story of Jesus that Theophilus* already knows. (Luke 1:4). That does not leave room to fabricate his story about Jesus. The book of Acts contains 84 identified facts alone in its last 16 chapters, even the Gospel of John that confines events to the Holy land contains at least 59 historically confirmed/historically probable details. One of the interesting facts of history, is that among those 30 public figures, there was no rebuttals to the claims made by the New Testament writers, nothing from them or their families or employees etc. * The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts is addressed to the ‘Most excellent Theophilus’

Jackson Turriff well feel to copy it from here if you like.. or I send a copy via messenger or email if you like to

Jackson Turriff .. yeah no worries You can delete that last message of yours with your email in it now

@Christian Slayer Thanks for the comment.

Prove to me that Peter son of Jonah, John son of Zebedee, James son of Joseph (Jesus’ brother) and Paul (Saul) of Tarsus even existed.

Christianity does a lot of good in the world. No need for it to be founded on half-truths and unproven claims.

You probably haven’t met very many atheists.

Where is he then?

@@TruthSaying Where is who?

@@TruthSaying Where is who? Jesus? Dead. Gone. If he ever existed at all.

There is no other explanation.. Jesus is GOD and is Risen!

People die defending all kinds of faiths, including judaism and Islam. Does your argument still appky to those?

People do defend their religions and do die defending them. The difference here is there was no reason for the apostles of Jesus to continue to spread a message from a dead messiah unless something happen that was miraculous that empowered them to do this. They had scattered after he was murdered. They feared they would be next. Peter denied Jesus three times. The apostle Paul before his conversion hated Christians and hunted them down and had them killed. What accounts for his change of heart?@@heyitslupe7528

​@@heyitslupe7528there's a difference between dying for your religion and dying for eyewitness testimony. Christianity wasn't a religion until after Christ.

@@heyitslupe7528 Christianity is set apart from all the other faiths. Because it’s the only faith that teaches that God came down to earth to deal with man’s enslavement to sin. All the others teach that mankind must work out its salvation through good works and religious living. The apostles didn’t die for a religion. They died for their belief in the living God that they literally witnessed risen from the dead. There’s a big difference between dying because of words in a holy book and dying for God who you saw perform miracles before you and did miracles through you.

Prove it!

@@greglisk9408 this world exists....it had to have been God

@@longblondsam4648 WOW!, WOW! Please free your mind.

@@greglisk9408 are you able to disprove Jesus’ existence???

@@longblondsam4648 That is not how reason works. Do you believe in all 10,000 gods proposed by humans and every religion's claims until you disprove them one by one? Do you believe in alien abduction, the Lock Ness monster, ghosts, fairies, healing crystals until you disprove them? I would it be reasonable for me to assert that you must believe that I rose from the dead until you can disprove I didn't? No! The default position for any claim is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant belief. The resurrection and indeed every supernatural claim of every religion, spiritual woo and pseudo science have all failed to meet that burden of proof. If you lower your standard of evidence to the level required to accept the resurrection, and apply that standard to all claims, you would have to believe in alien abductions which are far better supported that the resurrection. You would have to accept multiple religions and simultaneously accept many contradictory claims.

Amen!

Cool Story Bro! Now prove it's more than just a cool story.

@@greglisk9408 if Christianity is true would you become a Christian?

@@bradsipila7478 First I would have to ask "Which Christianity" There are currently somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 different versions of Christianity around the world who all have different opinions of who God is, who Jesus was, what they want from you, what is required for salvation, what happens to non-believers when they die, etc. etc. But if the bible accurately represents the character of God, I would absolutely not worship such an immoral monster.

@@greglisk9408 The Christianity where Jesus paid your fine on the cross so you are free from hell. The problem of God of the bible, from my point of view, is God is Good. The 10 commandments are an eastern way of getting to the Truth. They speak around the truth so you get to the moral character of God. Why is it a sin to lie? God is true. Why is it a sin to steal? God is not a thief? Why is it a sin to commit adultery? God is faithful. The problem of evil is great and hard and makes atheists of mankind. I get it. You have solved the intellectual problem but I notice what you don’t get rid of. All the pain and suffering in the world. Like in arithmetic when we get to a problem we cannot get to the bottom of perhaps it is time to change the question. Granted this is the world we live with a mixed picture of good and evil, is there any evidence that God has done anything about it? If Jesus is who he claims to be what is God doing on a cross? It comes to my mind that God isn’t far from our pain and suffering but has come and shows us the way out of it. Through His Son. Only through the cross can God be both Just and Justifier of those who have broken His moral law. God Bless You Greg. I hope you can change your mind on the triune God of scriptures. Take care.

Your delusion is so deep that you cannot see why your argument is fallacious. There weren't 12 people "lying" about the resurrection, there was only Mark making up stories 40 years later. Paul's letter are not eyewitness accounts of a bodily Jesus going around, Paul believed in a vision that blinded him. He never once discussed Jesus' earthly ministry (feeding 5000, healing dead people, etc). So, this fantasy that 12 people died for their faith is ahistorical, it never happened. It's possible that Paul and Peter were martyred, but so what? People get martyred all the time for things they think and believe are true (but are not). We have no history on whether the "apostles" were martyred, just some legends. And, again, Muslims die for Allah, so people dying for Jesus isn't special. This kind of faith happens all the time for all kinds of gods and prophets. You write "honestly" as if atheists and skeptics are stupid and just "can't see" all the evidence. But you're wrong, most of us ex-Christian atheists know the Bible better than you , know history better than you, and have studied BOTH sides (a thing you obviously haven't done). Why? Are you scared of what that mans if you do? Are you scared to study the evidence that overwhelmingly shows Christianity is made up? Can you STEELMAN the other side or do you just parrot the apologists like a robot slave? Can you think for yourself or are you too scared? _What would you consider as proof that would make you believe?_ The same quality of evidence that "makes" me believe in things like the heliocentric solar system, gravity, and geometry. I believe in chemistry and electricity and physics because they can be seen, observed, tested, and theories about them can be falsified. Why is it that there is no Jehovah's Witness school of gravity and quantum mechanics? Why is there not a Calvinist version of evolution (theistic or otherwise) that contrasts with Hindu evolution? Or any number of sciences, like there's no Catholic algebra that's different from Methodist algebra and there's not a different history of George Washington for Mormons, Muslims, and Baptists. Why? Why does the majority of the world (about 70% in fact) dismiss the resurrection story of Jesus? Is 70% of the world blind and stupid? Or perhaps you're ignoring the OVERWHELMING evidence that Jesus' resurrection story was created by some oral and maybe written tradition some time in the 30s CE and Mark eventually wrote a story about it? We know Matthew and Luke copied and pasted much of Mark into their versions of events, but the way you KNOW it's not historical is where they make changes to the text and story, like Mark's resurrection story has 3 women showing up (that parallels Homer's version of the 3 women who went to get the body of Hector, down to undeniably obvious details) whereas in Matthew and Luke you have COMPLETELY different accounts of the "empty tomb" fiction. Do you really believe the entire sky went dark, massive earthquakes happened, the temple curtain split in half, and dead bodies rose from graves and walked the streets and NOBODY in history noticed this? Come on, you might as well believe in the stories Joseph Smith tells about Jesus 'coming to 'murica to preach to the natives. When you get to John's fictional "empty tomb" story, it's a completely different tale. The obviousness that iit's fiction is right there for you to read, but you refuse for some reason, are you afraid of the truth? John describes a different story, which one of the 4 tales is true and once you pick one, and realize the other 3 MUST be fictional accounts, how can you stand on the one you picked as being the "true" account as being the historical one? Really, it's silly. And obviously fiction, which is why the vast majority of humans who ever lived and lived today reject it. If you wanted truth, you'd do the same.

@@michaelsbeverly Historical Accuracy of Resurrection Narratives: While skepticism is reasonable, numerous scholars, both religious and non-religious, acknowledge the historical impact of Jesus. Additionally, the criterion of embarrassment-a principle in historical analysis-suggests that the inclusion of embarrassing details (like Jesus' crucifixion) in the Gospels adds credibility to their historical authenticity. Paul's Letters as Eyewitness Accounts: Paul's letters, particularly Galatians and 1 Corinthians, provide insights into the early Christian beliefs and practices. The use of creeds in these letters indicates that Paul was passing on traditions that predate his own writings, possibly stemming from eyewitnesses who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Martyrdom as Not Unique to Christianity: While martyrdom itself is not unique, the apostles' claim of having witnessed the resurrected Jesus is distinctive. The specificity of their testimony adds credibility to their sincerity, especially considering their willingness to endure persecution and death. Challenge to Apologists' Arguments: Apologists present a range of arguments rooted in historical evidence, philosophical reasoning, and theological considerations. Engaging with these arguments requires a comprehensive examination rather than a dismissal based on perceived arrogance or lack of understanding. Demand for Empirical Evidence: Historical events, especially ancient ones, are often assessed using a combination of historical methods, including textual analysis, contextual understanding, and the principle of multiple attestation. Demanding empirical evidence in the scientific sense might overlook the nature of historical inquiry. Questioning the Global Acceptance of Resurrection: The rejection of the resurrection by a majority doesn't necessarily invalidate its historicity. Historical truths aren't determined by popular opinion. Cultural, religious, and social factors can heavily influence belief systems without directly addressing historical evidence. Critique of Gospel Discrepancies: Gospel discrepancies, such as variations in details, are common in historical accounts and don't necessarily invalidate the core events. Each Gospel writer had unique purposes and audiences, explaining differences in emphasis and specific details while maintaining the central narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Alleged Fictional Elements in Resurrection Stories: Extraordinary events, like the supernatural occurrences during the crucifixion, are not automatically dismissed as fiction. The absence of external documentation for specific details doesn't negate the broader historical context. Such events could have been deemed significant by those involved, even if not widely recorded. Conclusion on the Majority's Rejection of the Resurrection: The rejection by a majority doesn't automatically indicate a lack of historical basis. It may result from various factors, including cultural biases, differing religious beliefs, or insufficient exposure to the historical evidence. The truth of historical events is not determined by popular vote.

@@wesleycolemanmusic If you're correct, you worship a God that WANTED most people to be deceived by lies, either false gods, religions, or atheism. What kind of god is that? I say an evil one. You've got the list down that comes from apologists, dude, I was a Christian for nearly 40 years, I know this stuff as well (if not better) than you. I was reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict back in the 1980s....I wrote my high school biology evolution report in the early 1980s using Duane Gish and Jack Chick as reference....haha, I was totally a born again saved Christian who "KNEW" evolution was a lie from the pit of hell and Catholics and Jews were blind and kind of dumb for not believing the "OBVIOUS" facts of Jesus as presented in the Bible. A Mormon would argue that the majority rejecting Joseph Smith doesn't mean he was wrong. A Muslim would say that Jesus was a prophet, but no more (monotheism is true, the Trinity is a lie from Satan). Etc. So, the real question here is: Can you steelman atheism? Can you steelman the mythicist position? Can you steelman why the stories in the Gospels are not true, but in reality, just narratives built on OT scriptures, Greek and other legends, and the works of Homer and other Greek writers? If you cannot steelman them, you're not in the same category as me, as I could Poe a Christian all day long. I know what you know, heck, I could pray convincingly in tongues if I wanted to and preach a message and nobody would know I was an atheist. Can you present the alternative arguments? Have you read Price, Ehrman, and/or others that explain how we know it's not true?

God could just appear. Just like he supposedly did with Paul.

@@mattr.1887 Two questions. If God appeared to you, would you believe? If you say you would, did you have the free choice to believe?

One side is in delusion

@@lutkedog1 Not sure what you mean by Delusion. But, I would ask that you research the information before you judge others.

@@butchfrenchgeekcrowder66 Delusion A belief or altered reality that is persistently held despite evidence or agreement to the contrary, generally in reference to a mental disorder.

@@lutkedog1 On the contrary, there is proof. So I must only assume that the mental disorder is from your belief. Check your historical records before you judge.

@@butchfrenchgeekcrowder66 I have no belief but if i did i would have proof and not something that is in a single book I used to come here to learn but there is a disease to believe something with no merit so the mental Disorder is yours and the tell tale sign is you say there is proof and that is where you end your sentence:)

The Apostles always gathered on Sunday.

At the end of the day, if no evidence is presented no one will be convinced to believe. You cannot be convinced by evidence that is not presented. What is your evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

I tell you This they don't hate nor blaspheme ANY OTHER GOD. Jesus Christ is a curse word they have a church of satan. There is no church against Islam people don’t say oh Ala they say Oh JESUS CHRIST and blaspheme HIM. Its so obviously

If that is your foundtion about trusting the one who is hated the most, then we moslems believe in Jesus and his miracles, we believe him as our mighty prophet. Yet, the most hated and badli acused religion in the world is Islam. So you should believe more in islam than what your churches are saying.

@@15akink People dislike Islam because Islam treats woman horribly.

@@kianaprovost182 islam tells to love your mother 3times more than your father. Heaven is on your mother's foot. Islam (and also Jesus PBUH) want to cover womens body to protect them from disrespect and other bad things. If this is called a horrible act, why most moslem women in many countries are proud to wear hijab without being forced? (I aint talking about muslim countries like Saudi) Islam improved the status of women. The Quran and Hadith contain loads of references acknowledging women’s rights and encourages being kind to women. Prophet Muhammad said many times in the Hadith: “Treat women nicely.” (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). He said: “Women are twin halves of men.” (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi). He emphasised treating women without harshness and violence. Women have been described as fragile as glass and need to be treated gently. Shaykh Mohammed Aslam, a Muslim scholar, described the importance of women in the life of the Prophet. He said, “The Prophet was born in the lap of a woman. He was delicately wrapped up and nursed by a woman. The first person to see his beautiful and illuminated smile was a woman. When his mother died in Abwa, he tearfully returned to Makkah with a woman. “When he returned from Hira, the first person who covered him was a woman and the first person he spoke to was a woman. A woman was the first to believe in him. A woman was the first to pray with him. A woman was the first to die for him. “When he delivered his khutbah (sermon), a woman was the first to build a minbar (pulpit) for him. When he left this world, he left resting his head on a woman. “His lineage continued through a woman; and his final words were, ‘I give you counsel that you be good to your women’.” One of Islam's rules of war is not to kill any women. Quran has a special Surah titled ,Women, In the Koran there are four so called neutral verses where women are considered equal to men (at least not demeaning towards women); to which apologists for Islam refer us repeatedly. Here are those: 3: 195 “Their Lord responded to the: “I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female, you are equal to one another¦.” 4: 124 “As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female. While believing, they enter paradise; without the slightest injustice” 16: 97 “Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works.” 40: 40 “Whoever commits a sin is required for just that, and whoever works righteousness - male or female - while believing, these will enter paradise wherein they receive provision without any limits.” In opposition to above four so-called neutral verses, there are hundreds of versed that deliberately defame and dehumanize women: An-Nisa 4: 34 “As to those women On whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share beds, (and Last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, Great (above you all)” Al - Baqara 2: 223 “Your women are a tilt for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilt as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (o Mohammad)” Al - Baqara 2: 222 “They questioned thee (O Mohammad) concerning menstruation, Say it is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not unto them till they are cleansed.” Al - Baqara 2: 228 “Men, your wives are your tillage. Go into your tillage any way you want.” “Women have such honourable rights as obligations, but men have a (single) degree above them.” “Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their rights.” 4:6 ¦ “And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have contact with a woman & ye find not water, then go to clean high ground & rub your faces & your hands with some of it¦” 33: 32-33 “O ye wives of the prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire to you, but utter customary speech And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, & pay the poor due, 7 obey Allah & His messenger I agree still many peoples treat women horribly, and they're all bad people, if they're moslem, they're all bad moslems

NT: Wrong. We do not hate god or Jesus, we just question their existence until evidence is provided.

It is not nuanced. It is a story. Period. All you have is a story. A story can never be sufficient to believe in magic. A god would know that. So if your god does exist, he is an idiot.

Wrong the earliest account is in the early secound century maybe earlier

Well, why discount the earliest written sources about Jesus and the Resurrection? It doesn’t make sense to throw them out as evidence.

@@fatstrategist unverified

@@icemediapro So, what would make a source verified vs unverified?

@@fatstrategist stories are not evidence

@@icemediapro That doesn’t answer the question. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts. What would make an account verified vs unverified?

Ric T, Except most people then were illiterate and there was no mass media like today,(or at all) with everybody with their personal cameras and stuff,that's why that sort of thing would probably never get off the ground , major investigation, (IF the claim was taken seriously) ,also in those ancient times, unlike today, almost everything was though to have a supernatural cause so people were much more prone to believe those kind of tales without much scepticism (and that's just a fact of the times,not a judgement of the people) Besides I think you have it the wrong way round, lots of people who COULD write unlike the followers of J C, (and probably Jesus himself as he didn't write anything either) would have wrote and commented on the amazing things this guy was doing and I mean literate people who lived AT the time,not some who may have mentiond him years afterwards,

Well have fun in hell I guess

Exactly my thought XD No matter what you're trying to proof, rationally a man cannot rise from the dead after he bled out and lied in a tomb for 3 days. If Jesus was God, okay, I invite him to tell me. But all of this is a matter of private belief not a rational debate. Unfortunately Christians love to preach that people are going to hell, if they don't trust their account or the account of other "Christians". It's a human made religion about fear, exclusion and despair. Just listen to his last words. The resurrection gives him hope but at the same time he rejects hope for those who cannot believe in it. There is no love in that message.

It’s more rational than the atheist stuff you spew

So nice you have an Imaginary Friend !!

@@SuperScratch1 ok troll

: Where does it say that "many tens of thousands" of first century Jewish believers all continued to observe the Torah?

​@@gerryquinn5578 Acts 21:20 "And those having heard began glorifying God, and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jews having believed, and are all zealous ones for the Law." ~ Berean Literal Bible The word Myriads here is literally the Greek for ten thousand and can be used to denote a number so great it is beyond counting. Unfortunately, many translations render it as "Many Thousands," which, whilst technically correct (as ten, or twenty thousand plus is still technically "many thousands"), it can be confusing as some could be led to think it is a number less than ten thousand (or indeed less than twenty or thirty thousand, as the Scriptures do not say "a myriad" but "many myriads"). Nevertheless, many translations are much clearer, in translating it as "many tens of thousands": "And when they had heard, they praised God and said to him: “You see our brother, how many tens of thousands are in Judea who have believed, and they are all zealous of The Law.”" ~ Aramaic Bible In Plain English "Everyone who heard this praised God and said to Paul: My friend, you can see how many tens of thousands of our people have become followers! And all of them are eager to obey the Law of Moses." ~ Contemporary English Version. "When they heard about it, they praised God and told him, "You see, brother, how many tens of thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and all of them are zealous for the Law." ~ International Standard Bible "And they, when they had heard his statement, gave the glory to God. Then they said, "You see, brother, how many tens of thousands of Jews there are among those who have accepted the faith, and they are all zealous upholders of the Law." ~ Weymouth New Testament "And they having heard, honoured the Lord, and said to him, Thou seest, brother, how many ten thousands of Jews there are having believed: and all are zealous of the law:" ~ Smith's Literal Translation.

@@beowulf.reborn : I'm afraid people used symbolic language back in Bible times as they do today. When it comes to numbers, we often talk in exaggerated terms to describe a crowd. It was no different in the past. We know that following Pentecost 3000 or so became believers. However, to take myriads literally in this passage ignores all historical and archaeological evidence. The population of Jerusalem was limited to between 40-150,000. I think you will be hard pressed to find any scholar who believes that there were literally many tens of thousands of Jewish Christians when Paul went to Jerusalem.

​@@gerryquinn5578 In Acts 2, on the Church's very first Pentecost, 3000-odd souls were added to the Church. Just a few verses later, we are then told that the Lord added to the Church, daily. In the next two chapters, Peter and John go preaching in the Temple, and FIVE THOUSAND MEN believe. That's 8000 (plus however many women and children believed after the preaching in the Temple, and however many People the LORD added in the days between), this is in the very first days of the Church, probably 20 to 30 years before James says that there are many tens of thousands of Jews who believe. After this, the Preaching of the Gospel goes forth with even greater boldness, not just with Peter but with all of them. In the next chapter, we read, "And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,." This takes us easily over ten thousand believers (and likely over 20,000) ... and again, this is in the earliest days of the Church. Then in Chapter 6:7, we are told, "the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith." So tell me, at what point do we stop caring what men think and say, and start believing the Word of God? Again in 9:31, the Church is further multiplied. This is all prior to Peter taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. After that, we see still more Jewish people come to the faith through the preaching of the Apostles. And as for Jerusalem only having a population of 40-150,000, that alone would be enough for there to be 20,000+ Jewish Believers in Jerusalem 30-odd years after Pentecost.

@@beowulf.reborn : Firstly, let ma say that I am impressed by the fact that you view scripture as the authority on which we base our arguments. I agree that Acts states that three thousand were added at that time. Does the account in Acts 4 :4 clearly mean that an additional 5000 became believers or is this now giving a running total ? There is no doubt that the early movement grew , but we must be careful not to read into the verse what we think it means. Phrases such as multitudes must be taken with great care. The account in Acts 6 begins by teling us of a dispute that arose and is looking back at the already growing Christian movement.. The problem was resolved and the expansion continued. No specific numbers are mentioned. Again, in Acts 9:31, a general phrase is used with no specifics given. Thus, I think it is fair to conclude from the text that the early Christian movement saw dramatic increases at the start , with several thousands joining. I have no issue with that. However, what I do take issue with is the taking literally of the phrase myriads and the suggestion that the number of believers was already in the region of the entire population of Jerusalem.

I am not even convinced the story is true to begin with, so I don't feel the need to explain how the stone was moved. Maybe it never existed to begin with.

@@doctorwebman Then why didn't the Roman Empire produce a tome refuting it? The "Nazareth Inscription" is an inscription in stone containing the text of a Roman decree pronouncing the death penalty on anyone who would disturb a tomb, remove a body from a tomb, or move a sealing stone from a sepulcher. The vast majority of scholars date the inscription in the first half of the first century AD, and many believe there is a connection between the Roman edict recorded thereon and the early Christian testimony of the empty tomb carm.org/what-is-the-nazareth-inscription

@@jamessheffield4173 I don't think there were no Romans who went to refute the claim that a man rose from the dead. In fact, I bet many Romans had arguments against it. Now, let's say that you are right, and Romans never presented any arguments to refute the resurrection. Well, my inability to explain a thing is not evidence that your explanation is right, as that would be a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. My ignorance about a thing is not evidence that you know the correct explanation for it. Like I said earlier, I am not convinced there was tomb, or that the gospels are true when they claim miracles and a resurrection happened. There is only hearsay, and the story has miracles in it, which means that empirical evidence for those miracles are required, and Christians have no such evidence, and instead have nothing but circular reasoning to offer: "The Bible says so, and some ancient people said so outside the Bible, therefore it must be true." An empty tomb doesn't prove anything. Jesus's body was not destroyed, such as by burning it up, which means he might not have rose from the dead, and was just a shape-shifting alien who could appear to be human, could cause people to hallucinate, and could appear to be dead just long enough for the stone to be rolled in front of the tomb. Nobody has a clue what happened in the tomb. It could also be that Jesus was just an alien who was replaced after he died with another alien that could also shape-shift to look like a human that was indistinguishable from Jesus, who never actually rose from the dead, and was only replaced with a look-alike impostor. This explanation is no more absurd than that a magical ghost who created the universe, kills kids, and tortures souls is responsible for the resurrection.

@@doctorwebman The Romans used torture and murder against the Christians for 300 years when obviously a credible tome refuting it would be simpler. When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire, one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, Blessing.

@@jamessheffield4173 Actually, explanations for the empty tomb would not have any effect on those who were convinced on faith. It doesn't work today, and it would not have worked back then. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not the Romans had some alternative explanation for an empty tomb. You haven't shown the tomb existed, or that there was ever a stone rolled in front of it.

believing in a flying spaghetti monster is better than atheism, atheism breeds ugly people, art, and morals and it's end goal is Nihilism

​@@cameroncampbell7706Atheism does no such thing I'm afraid. And a lot of evil has been done in the name of gods, no one can demonstrate even exists.

@@ploppysonofploppy6066 Why do assume that evil has been done in the name of gods? Surely religion is just a cover-up (all decent Muslims would condemn the acts of Al Qaeda and the like) and just because evil, in some cases, can be a result of a religion (though with a correct interpretation of any of the religions I am aware of, no), that doesn't mean we should single out religion in this. Humans try to kill each other over absolutely everything, and no-one is saying we should try to eradicate all political ideologies except one particular one, so that there is no disagreement and therefore no war. Additionally, there is another side to this argument. Atheism, in some cases, will cause people to believe in Nietzsche ideology (his way of thinking is thought to have greatly influenced Nazism in the 1920s-40s--evidence would suggest Hitler became an atheist as an adult, and so did many other Nazis and Nazi supporters). A belief in the doctrine of eternal recurrence is all very well and good until you realise that some people have psychopathic tendencies and that everyone would willingly commit evils of some kind under this doctrine. Also, just because we have no outright proof of God/gods doesn't automatically mean religious people are wasting their time. A correct interpretation of the cosmological argument--that is, the universe is contingent (didn't have to exist), because the big bang relies on laws of physics being set out correctly, and therefore, there has to be a necessity existing outside of the universe (which we call God)--is really quite difficult to argue against. This very video, though its evidence here is not the best (I'd recommend reading/watching Lee Strobel), sets out to demonstrate that the resurrection was not at all a historically unsupported claim (by the standards of extraordinary miraculous claims, it's got by far the best evidence). If the resurrection really did happen, I will give you the compliment of assuming you would recognise this as a proof of God. You are entitled to freedom of religion or of no religion, but don't jump to the conclusion that religion somehow needs to be eradicated from society, just because it can be used as an excuse for evil (if there were no religion, people would find other ways of excusing their violence and bigotry).

The problem is that non believers think God is human. He’s not. Therefore they think the same about Jesus. His body was. That’s it. Your worldly little brain could never understand it.

@@Spamyamam what evidence do u have that shows this is true? If god and Jesus are real I would like to know and I would change my beliefs.

@@matthewwoodard3117 nigga jesus aint human , Jesus is God

@@afuroLEGEND383the son of God, not the original creator of the universe. The resurrection would prove him to be one with God, the creator and all would seek God through him. I have struggled with this concept due to it’s polytheistic idealism. It’s the only one of the 3 Abrahamic Monotheistic religions in which he is God, another is said to be his very religion and the other says Jesus is a very important prophet. I believe in God and I do want to know more about Christ and see for myself. I study all religions, and historical texts. Even Hinduism and it’s connection to the Cosmos, India is so old and keeps getting older.

Baz Davies this is talking about the end times, so obviously if the people are to be judged and given their reward or punishment, they have to be brought back.

"Christianity is an evidence-based, more so than you think" Present the evidence for Christ's resurrection.

"Christianity is an evidence-based" I notice you didn't present any evidence. Christianity seems to be lie-based.

what a load of garbage

Roman accounts of the tomb guards.

Well its all based on what's written in history.

@@farmercraig6080 its based on what's written in The Bible. So what

Nuns Of Your Business well the New Testament which this is based on is confirmed as actual history, nothing has been proven to be a fabrication so far.

@@farmercraig6080 Nothing has been proven to be true either

Nuns Of Your Business yeah mate tons of stuff has, though confirmation of early written secular history, modern archaeology etc

Many, many other sources and texts OUTSIDE of the Bible claim the existence, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Would YOU gladly die for something you didn't believe in like the disciples and apostles did?

@@joshuawaddell6640 Name ONE outside the Bible source that confirms the resurrection of Christ. Josephus briefly mentions Christ in 93AD as did Tacitus in 117AD, but they were simply referencing the existence of the Christ cult and were NOT eye witnesses. It's time to OUTGROW the childish fairytale of religion, I finally did, and you can, too

@@parkestanley2436 1. Flavian 2. Tacitus (What if the people who assembled the bible had included those two, would they suddenly also not count because they were in the Bible?)

: But Christianity spread all over the empire before a single NT document was written.

@@gerryquinn5578 _"But Christianity spread all over the empire before..."_ Yes, and? Doesn't mean a thing.

He showed Himself to over 500 people in the span of 40 days. “Select few” my ass.

@@surrealpsalms that is few compared to a million witness when moses went to mt sinai.

@@atabac Here we go, should’ve known you would move the goal post.

@@atabac I’m sorry 500 people is a lot of people. What do you mean by select few? I don’t understand what is 500 people very small to millions OK as if 500 people isn’t a lot of people regardless on how you look at 500 people a lot of people.

Good thing we *don’t* have only the Bible to support it then huh? People almost never wrote stuff down. That’s why for the ancient world there’s often only one source, sometimes hundreds of years later. Had to have a scroll and know how to write. There weren’t newspapers, etc. There is only one good source about Alexander the Great for example. It swept the ancient world because of the number of eyewitnesses. Furthermore, there are non-biblical historians who contemporaneously report the claims. Unsurprisingly, everyone who actually saw the risen Christ became a believer. He appeared on multiple occasions with multiple people. And there are *many* other related evidences. Just one example, Flagon the ancient journalist in Nicea (500 miles from Jerusalem) reported “During the 202nd Olympiad on the fourth month and fourth day, the sky was darkened early in the day to the point that stars were visible, and an earthquake that day destroyed the following buildings: ” 202nd olympiad fourth month is April 33AD. So Mark and Matthew were reporting honestly. And the rock strata show a quake that year. What do YOU think would make scared disciples change from on the run to utterly fearless, and make disbeliever James, and Christian-hater Saul, fearless and glad to die for the immortal Kingdom. And , as mentioned, completely sweep the world, and flip the calendar, and inspire hands-down the most profound book ever to come from man, supposedly the brain-child of twelve young fishermen(?) I could go on. But unless you’ve heard the research, shouldnt conclude things and report memes (only the bible reports the life and witness claims of resurrection etc). They are simply not true. And many historians have documented.

: Perhaps if you were an historian, you would understand that all documents are biased. Just because ancient Greek and Roman historians sometimes mention the Gods etc does not mean that we cannot get a picture of what happened from these biased accounts. Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ was at the hearty of Christian preaching long before any NT document was written. Christianity had spread all over the empire before pen was put to paper. The Mathew account includes the story of the accusation that the disciples stole the body. Empty tomb? Finally, the most important figure in Palestine at the time was the Jewish High Priest and we have NO contemprary accounts. Does this mean he did not exist ?

the bible is a collection of sources up until the 4th century. people who didn't come to christianity didn't want to hear about it because it was a scandalous thing to believe in someone who was crucified.

@@jbd82 : Not only had Christians to contend with the scandal of a crufified messiah, but had to admit that the first witnesses to his supposed resurrection were women.

@Pastor Craig Josephus mentions very little and most scholars believe the expanded quote on Jesus is not authentic. Come on, I expect more from a pastor.

Jesus Christ already suffer pls don't put ur profile like that.

@@htoosaw9012 People Do Not Understand, That's Why They Should See That Lord Jesus Was True And He Died For Our Sin!! Mind Ur Own Business!!

@@htoosaw9012 People Do Not Understand, That's Why They Should See That Lord Jesus Was True And He Died For Our Sin!! Mind Ur Own Business!!

@@htoosaw9012 People Do Not Understand, That's Why They Should See That Lord Jesus Was True And He Died For Our Sin!! Mind Ur Own Business!!

@@htoosaw9012 People Do Not Understand, That's Why They Should See That Lord Jesus Was True And He Died For Our Sin!! Mind Ur Own Business!!

Don't call yourself Catholic then...

All around us. You just have to WANT to find them.

With the help of meditation or sth.?

@@dirtyharry1003 Reading the Bible is a good start! I know there's a lot of it, but everything you need to know about God and Jesus Christ is in there.

You have to reach your own conclusion that God is there for us always.

@Promeldi Tsangala What about the suffering, tortured, neglected loyal believers? The evil hypocrisy and silly stories are beyond belief

No that wouldn't have fulfilled prophecy.

Farmer Craig: I was not asking about prophecy. I was asking could Christianity have flourished if Jesus had been executed any other way? Yes or No? Also, it has been proven that Josephus' paragraph about Jesus was an interpolation. The bible is a piece of literature. The two creation accounts are contradictory. They come from two different segments of the Jewish population of about 2000 years ago. Each is a completely different story. The scribes/priests included both legends in Genesis in order not to offend either group.

Farmer Craig: If god can do anything, he could have just forgiven us without all the bloodshed, or even thought of any other way besides using blood. Are you saying god was so into prophecy that he had to have his son tortured, bloodied, and crucified? The bible does say that god "finds the aroma of blood pleasing." The bible is anonymous and historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate. It is written like a fiction story, it contradicts known science, knowledge, and history. There is no extra-biblical evidence to support it. All sources contradict it. The temple records have no record or trial of Jesus. In fact, the Romans have no record of any trial or execution. Why? Pilate was not even in Judea in those years, and he ruled from Caesarea. They did not execute people on Passover, and the Egyptians never heard of the Jews, no exodus, and the tale of the flood violates known geology. The Israelis, who otherwise would love having a historical claim to the land, cannot find evidence of any Moses, exodus, or millions of people wandering the Sinai for 40 years. That would have left a mark and it was written 50 years after the supposed event, which is suspicious, just the amount of time needed to makes sure anyone who would contradict the narrative was dead. Think, Farmer Craig, for Pete's sake. We evolved from a common ancestor of the apes 2 million years ago. Two people could never have bred and produced a viable species, the genetics of interbreeding prevent it. This is how the bible was written - the bible writers (scribes) presented imaginary information as if it isn't made up and as if it is real religious doctrine. The bible writers (scribes) go on as if they do have the answer. The bible writers (scribes) write paper after paper. They are peer reviewed and passed and go into the bible. The bible writers (scribes) pass one imaginary paper in hopes that their imaginary paper will be passed. One paper piles on top of another until there is an immense pile of papers. The bible, even though it is imagination, is then quoted as if it is real evidence. Understand now, Farmer Craig? We can see this on a global scale when we look at the overall format of the bible. That format is literary anthology, a collection of varied literary genres written by multiple authors over the span of many centuries. In its detail, too, the bible is a literary book. Most of it is embodied in the genres of narratives, poetry, letters, and visionary writings. Keep it real, Farmer Craig,. Peace to you.

anonymous johnson Some interesting topics you’ve covered there... haha actually you’ve covered everything I believe... it what you say right? Well thankfully no. I’ll answer more when I get on my computer later... keep it real, yep I intend to.

@@anonymousjohnson976 I was not asking about prophecy. “I was asking could Christianity have flourished if Jesus had been executed any other way? Yes or No?” Well I guess if it was God’s plan, then yes I would have. “Also, it has been proven that Josephus' paragraph about Jesus was an interpolation” Yes I agree with you, the quote with appears in Josephus manuscripts isn’t what I believe a non believing Jew would say about Jesus. But knowing that we have found a quote of Josephus with the interpolations left out. You can clearly see what he originally wrote.. Quote with interpolations : “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared” Quote found that clearly doesn’t have the interpolations in it: “At this time (the time of Pilate) there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders” “The bible is a piece of literature. The two creation accounts are contradictory. They come from two different segments of the Jewish population of about 2000 years ago. Each is a completely different story” Ok so your talking about Genesis chapter 1 and 2. Lol so what information are you basing that on? Onto the so called contradiction, At first glance this seems to be a contradiction because Genesis 1 has the animals and trees created prior to the creation of man; however, both issues can be resolved by an understanding of the original language and the translation process.2 The Hebrew word for formed in both passages is yatsar. The New King James Version translates the verb in its perfect form. However, this Hebrew word may also be translated in its pluperfect form. In this case, it would read that God “had formed” these creatures, as some other translations have it (e.g. ESV, NIV, etc.) For example, Genesis 2:19 in the NIV states: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. This rendering eliminates any problem with the chronology because it refers to what God had already done earlier in Creation Week. This would mean that the plants (Genesis 2:9) and the animals (Genesis 2:19) had already been formed by God earlier in Creation Week. William Tyndale was the first to translate an English Bible directly from the original languages, and He also translated the verb in its pluperfect form. "And after that the LORD God had made of the earth all manner beasts of the field, and all manner fowls of the air, he brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called all manner living beasts: even so are their names". (Tyndale, Genesis 2:19) Hope that helps clear that up. “If god can do anything, he could have just forgiven us without all the bloodshed, or even thought of any other way besides using blood. Are you saying god was so into prophecy that he had to have his son tortured, bloodied, and crucified?” God is God, and if he knows how everything will play out and how to reach us. He is doing what is best. What are we to really question him, what do we really know. Most if not all problems of this world are man made. “The bible is anonymous and historically inaccurate, scientifically inaccurate. It is written like a fiction story, it contradicts known science, knowledge, and history. There is no extra-biblical evidence to support it. All sources contradict it” *Are you sure you want to stick with this statement, feel free to withdrawn it, and I wont mention any more about it…. But if you do want to continue with that topic, well lets just say, there is an embarrassment of riches on this topic flavouring the Bible. “The temple records have no record or trial of Jesus. In fact, the Romans have no record of any trial or execution. Why? Pilate was not even in Judea in those years, and he ruled from Caesarea. They did not execute people on Passover” *Again see my answer above. “the Egyptians never heard of the Jews, no exodus, and the tale of the flood violates known geology. The Israelis, who otherwise would love having a historical claim to the land, cannot find evidence of any Moses, exodus, or millions of people wandering the Sinai for 40 years. That would have left a mark and it was written 50 years after the supposed event, which is suspicious, just the amount of time needed to makes sure anyone who would contradict the narrative was dead”. *Again see above quote “We evolved from a common ancestor of the apes 2 million years ago. Two people could never have bred and produced a viable species, the genetics of interbreeding prevent it.” I don’t really want to get into an evolution debate, I’m more into history. “This is how the bible was written - the bible writers (scribes) presented imaginary information as if it isn't made up and as if it is real religious doctrine. The bible writers (scribes) go on as if they do have the answer. The bible writers (scribes) write paper after paper. They are peer reviewed and passed and go into the bible. The bible writers (scribes) pass one imaginary paper in hopes that their imaginary paper will be passed. One paper piles on top of another until there is an immense pile of papers. The bible, even though it is imagination, is then quoted as if it is real evidence. Understand now, Farmer Craig? We can see this on a global scale when we look at the overall format of the bible. That format is literary anthology, a collection of varied literary genres written by multiple authors over the span of many centuries. In its detail, too, the bible is a literary book. Most of it is embodied in the genres of narratives, poetry, letters, and visionary writings. Keep it real, Farmer Craig,. Peace to you.” Ah yeah…Nah. I don’t think so.

A short list of those who do not believe would be easier to send.

Yes, we can. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all eyewitness accounts. Why would anyone die for what they know to be a lie? What would they have gained preaching what they KNOW they saw.

@@alexcameron2880 "The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all eyewitness accounts." 1) all the accounts differ. If they are actual eyewitness accounts, the text shows that they are unreliable witnesses. If you take the gospel accounts of the tomb (Mark, Luke, John, and Matthew) you will read the following: - the number of people to first visit the tomb was two, three, at least five, or only one - they arrived close to dawn, after sunrise, at dawn, or when it was still dark - the tomb was sealed when they arrived, the tomb was open when they arrived, an angel arrived during an earthquake and removed the stone - there was no one else there when they arrived or there was a young man sitting outside the tomb or two men suddenly appear in the tomb or two angels are in the tomb - Jesus' first appearance after the resurrection was near the tomb or was in the vicinity of Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem) or was right at the tomb. These discrepancies show the so-called "eyewitness accounts" are not reliable. Then there is the fact that biblical scholars will tell you we do not know who actually wrote these gospels. This means we have accounts by unknown writers transcribing what they have been told happened. Then there is the fact that these accounts are what you have been asked to prove with evidence. You cannot take the texts you have been asked to prove and use them as the proof they are true. "Why would anyone die for what they know to be a lie?" So you are arguing that Islam must be true because Muslim suicide bombers will die for Islam. "What would they have gained preaching what they KNOW they saw." They may know what they saw, but the fact they may have seen something isn't evidence for what they claim to have seen. What would they gain? Well, they could work as carpenters of farmers or fishermen or stonecutters or herders or they could make a living telling stories.

who are these mathew mark and luke? we dont even know who these people were. there is no sacrifice if one can still live. even who jesus was, was he lord? was he god? was he king? . come on get the story right. plus jesus didnt wanted to die in the first place.

what evidence?

Let’s be real there is absolutely no real evidence other than what some people said. I have no idea how anyone in the modern world could believe anything written by Iron Age peasants that didn’t even know the earth orbits the Sun. So much irrational superstition. There are many mysteries in the universe that’s for sure but the say Jesus created everything seems like the most ridiculous and unlikely reason.

The fact something can't be explained by science doesn't mean a miracle must have happened. And there is no need for science to even try to find an explanation for an event that hasn't been proven to have occurred. "I truly believe that there is plausible evidence showing Jesus did indeed resurrect." Present it.

Right, what evidence ? Like all other believers, he simply believes what he wants to with no regard for evidence ( or the lack thereof ) facts, logic or even truth. @@jacobterrell69

Go on...

Sorry for your loss. But that's not the best point to base your entire worldview on, especially in the light of this evidence and the mountains of facts you'll find that point to the Bible's authenticity. And the fact is, if you're wrong, and there is a resurrection, it will be too late. Carpe Diem

she will resurrected on the last day if she was truly saved as in born again .. but you wont be with her if she was your in the wrong kingdom ... unsaved or unrepentant . lost in sin.. thats why jesus came to save the lost .. what do yp\ou have against not being cast into hell becouse of jesus loved us egnough to die for us