I think that the fact Peter denied Jesus whilst he was still alive, yet was willing to put his life on the line after Jesus’ death and resurrection is very telling. For someone who was so fearful but suddenly found the courage to stand up for his faith during a time when there was so much persecution can only be one of two things: he was wrecked with guilt for denying Jesus and wanted to do something by way of redemption, or…. The resurrection happened and Peter along with all the other disciples were so overwhelmed by the truth they were willing to continue spreading the gospel even knowing they could be killed at any moment. They knew what the risks were yet were willing to die for their faith!
@@theatre_pigs why do non believers always want the answer neatly given to them? Seek, search , and knock for yourself. Even Jesus spoke in parables. The fact is there is no evidence against God. There is no evidence against the Bible. To take a stand against is a decision you've made without any supporting evidence. When offered a choice between ligh or dark which do you choose? Choose light. Choose a relationship with God and then the proof will follow. I wish you well on this journey and I pray that you ask God for wisdom in this matter.
I feel the same way. Those disciples all (except John) died gruesome deaths, that could have been prevented, had they denied their beliefs and went back to Judaism philosophy that the promised Messiah had not yet come. They saw SOMETHING… SOMETHING HUGE!!! Something beyond comprehension.
Love the interview! I appreciate you covering the Resurrection. This is a very important topic that is sadly not taught thoroughly in most churches today. Thank you both for doing this! I will be buying this book.
@@cygnusustusYou should be hanging out on the Hindu page, they're the ones basing their entire truth plethora on pure subjective and emotional experience.
Just a side note, or a bit of a nit-pick, but when Jeremiah Johnston says that he presented this paper with his early thoughts about the evidence for the resurrection at the 2012 SBL Annual Meeting, that is not entirely true. More accurately, he presented his paper, “How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story,” in 2012 in a session held by the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which will run sessions concurrently with the larger Society of Biblical Literature. This may seem to some like quibbling, but it is important because I very much doubt he would have managed to get this paper past any of the SBL steering committees, precisely because of its obviously biased and confessional nature. The SBL is pretty stringent about ensuring that their sessions do not promote any particular religious, political or ideological viewpoints, and they strive to keep things strictly academic. Johnston's paper was far from that, and it is disingenuous of him to promote it as one that was publicly received in the Annual Meeting. No. The Evangelical Philosophical Society is an apologetics organisation, exclusively dedicated to validating the claims of Christianity. As far as I can tell, Johnston has never presented a paper in any of the SBL sessions at any SBL Annual Meeting.
@@mbb-- I mean, it is right there in the title: "the TRUTH of the Easter Story." There is at the outset a conclusion guiding the direction of the study. One would never see a paper like this in the SBL.
Sounds like Johnston is being Dogmatic in that title. I agree with his assertions, of course. But Johnston is quick to warn others to not be ‘Dogmatic’ regarding the Shroud of Turin.
“C. Stephen Evans and Stephen Davis on the panel ... This was on the Testimony of the Spirit and later was published by Doug in his OUP book. Hope this helps.”
Kip, I would appreciate a little collegiality from one scholar to another or at least the benefit of the doubt. I believe your main question/comment is that my original paper would be too confessional to be taken seriously at an academic conference? I want you to be the judge. In the link above, I have provided you with my original 2012 Chicago SBL handout and the actual paper I presented. In my opinion, the paper is not confessional. The point I was attempting to make in the interview with Sean (and I will try to do better next time) is that Craig Keener, a classicist, made the point I was on to a new/fresh argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, I have presented at learned conferences, and I found an email even from AAR thanking me for my presentation (which I included for you). Perhaps you meant ETS? I have never presented at ETS or claimed to present at ETS. I am not a member of ETS. At any rate, I appreciate your comments because this will sharpen me in being extra clear with my communication and sometimes it is difficult to share all details in a crossfire type interview. I am not sure if you have published with a popular press, but much of my clarification in footnotes are edited down for the "wider" audience.I got away with 33 pages of citations in my Unimaginable book, but the trend of books now is to be shorter. Hopefully my link above is helpful. - Jeremiah.
The goal to defend the resurrection without reference to the Bible was a noble one, but it's quite clear by listening to the interview that the goal was not met. The positions were confidently asserted, though.
Thank you for this. Boy you can so easily see the viewpoints of some of the critics with their questioning. You know, there’s a difference between skepticism (which I have a lot of, and I’m a believer) and cynicism. Some people’s cynicism will not allow themselves to see or even acknowledge the light
Coincidence?... I think not. I just watched the story of a middle-aged woman, who died while walking with her husband, and was without oxygen for 30 minutes. After miraculously awakening in a nearby hospital, she said she saw Christ with outstretched arms (able to heal from beyond the grave). Like Lazarus (who experienced Christ on earth), this woman will die again (unless the Lord returns in her lifetime). Jesus was seen by at least 500 people immediately after his resurrection, plus countless others since then (in various visions and dreams). Actor Ernest Borgnine saw him while playing a Centurion in a famous Easter film, and (most recently) feminist writer and Jew, Naomi Wolfe, saw Christ in a vision. She said it was unmistakably him, and the last person she ever expected seeing. Bottom line... Christ is alive and well, and I sense his return in this alarming world of ours!
I've read "More Than a Carpenter" (including 2011 update with additions from Sean) probably nearing 10 times. Information/evidence/arguments for the resurrection is incredibly powerful for strengthening my faith. Thanks Sean
@@KaijuOfTheOpera I highly recommend to you, the book "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh+Sean McDowell. The book examines the evidence for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the new testament manuscripts and claims. It's a very short book so wouldn't take you long and it presents some very strong evidence and arguments based around apologetics
@@rupertcaney Im a Biblical scholar. I CAN NOT read works from apologists. There is a HUGE difference between apologetics and scholarship. Im not interested in apologetic's (Excuses). Im interested in religious history and the meaning behind scripture. Luke and Matthew copied and edited things from Mark, Revelation is about Rome and so on. Can you give me 1 piece of evidence here? Im curious if you could give me something that other religions dont use.
I do like how you teased out the fact that the resurrection win against what they were expecting. I’ve heard many times they wouldn’t have made it up because they were not ever anticipating their Messiah to die. But you added a little flavor to it which is actually powerful. And Sean that little saying if we were all blind we wouldn’t miss the light because we wouldn’t know there was a thing was pretty profound. Why would someone sick something that no one ever misses?
Shroud of Turin has some very compelling new scientific evidence. When you consider the impossible amount of energetic output it would take to attempt to recreate the image via todays known sophisticated technology, the answer is clear. He was risen
Believing someone has risen from the dead is a very difficult thing to believe, especially for critically thinking adults. I’m really not surprised about Thomas doubting until he saw Jesus for himself. When we put our trust in Him and receive His spirit, we ‘see’ Him in a new way. He is alive in us. It reminds me of when Helen Keller was finally able to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ when her teacher Annie Sullivan got through to her by signing into her hand. We can see Jesus now, working in people and circumstances if His Spirit enables us.
@SeanMcDowell the Thomas touching Jesus's wounds goes against Paul's teachings. And Mark (the 1st gospel written) doesn't mention Jesus after the death on the cross. There was merely an empty tomb (according to the text, anyway) and the women told NO one.
@@monkkeygawd What tomb? No one witnessed Joseph of Arimathea cutting a tomb in the bible. A rich man also wouldn't cut his own tomb, he would pay someone to do it as he's rich.
Take any specific claim that they make, check it thoroughly, and you will always find that they are misrepresenting, overstating, or flat out lying about it in some way to make themselves look better. For example, he claimed to have presented a paper to the SPL, but actually presented it to a much smaller and more sympathetic group that was being housed under the larger conference. It was accepted by a group that already agreed with him, not the larger scholarly body. There is also the massive use of 'argument from authority', mostly talking about Oxford as if it means something when he didn't even earn a degree from Oxford. "Trust me, I have a degree" or "when I was in Oxford..." doesn't work, you need to present proper evidence and show your work. His credentials aren't evidence for a claim, he needs to present _actual_ evidence. Then we are supposed to check his scholarly work before criticizing his presentation here but there is very little even on the topic in his academic publications page on CTS, a page that contains things he hasn't even written or only co-wrote for some reason. FYI his paper "How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story," isn't in Google Scholar and doesn't seem to have been published for peer review. (please point me to the peer reviewed publishing on this if I'm wrong) But that's beside the point, when you present arguments your arguments can, should, and will be examined... Hiding behind "read my other stuff" when your presented arguments don't hold water is nothing more than a very weak dodge designed to make you look good even as you fail. Then to the evidence and arguments... and the first one is... empty word salad. A string of nice sounding, but utterly meaningless platitudes that essentially boil down to "Christianity has transformative value". False ideas and stories have just as much power to transform people's lives. Look at every other religion that exists where people find their lives changed through their false beliefs. Sean asked a hardball, and was congratulated for it... right before he jumped to a Bible verse (remember, this is only moments after saying he didn't need to use the bible) and completely avoided the question with an argument from popularity. Then there are a string of completely empty claims that are galloped out in rapid fire. and with this, I have written enough. The first one should be the best and its basically nothing, so watching the rest is a waste. Edit: I watched a bit farther and WTF! In part of your first point you talked about how it wasn't predicted, and the second point was that Jesus predicted it!? So is this a "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of thing you are trying to set up or do you just not have a competent editor?
Your guest speaker is just talking about things. He thinks are true things that he wants to be true and his personal preferences None of this is scholarly none of this is based on reality You might as well be discussing marvel versus dc
Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows: - Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. - Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. - Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. - Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18. - John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.
Well said " Resurrection Nerd ". It's good to see such a precise analysis from the gospels and how the story was constructed over time. However most people in this tread will not be interested in reading facts that detract from their beliefs . I don't expect you will be getting any reply from Sean either as he would be unable to dispute anything in your article . This Dr. Johnson character is full of B.S. in spite of his PhD.
Most of your issues can be boiled down to two problems: assuming that an omission implies that it was later added, as opposed to just being left out previously; and the accounts given by the women. The accounts given by the women are, at best, second-hand information recounted 40ish years after the fact. It's not unreasonable to suggest that there would be inconsistencies - there's good reason hearsay isn't permissable in court.
@@highfive9835 I disagree. The growth in the Resurrection narratives is not found in reliable eyewitness testimony. We can tell it's an evolving legend because we can compare other sets of eyewitness testimony. With eyewitnessed events we expect consistency. Sonething else is going on here.
We've been going through the book of Acts at the moment. One thing that is very clear is that the resurrection is a central part of an apostolic Gospel.
10:00 Why would Mark be credible evidence of Jesus predicting his death and resurrection when it was written decades after the death? Why would the disciples "not understand" this prediction yet somehow the later oral traditions and Mark written decades later would understand something that the people actually there did not understand? 19:00 Cognitive dissonance on the part of the followers of Jesus. People who study cults see this kind of thing over and over again. 40:00 I really appreciate that Shawn asks tough questions. I may reach different conclusions, but asking the questions shows a real commitment to the truth that many apologists seek to lack.
Another question: if Jesus did predict his resurrection specifically three days after his death, does that not give the disciples psychological motivation to invent (whether consciously or subconsciously) the Jesus-specific resurrection story after three days had passed and no general resurrection had occurred? It seems to me that the “Jesus specifically predicted his resurrection” and the “the apostles had no physiological motivation to invent a resurrection specific to Jesus” arguments presented here can’t both hold up together.
The Shroud of Turin, because of it's qualities, demonstrates the resurrection itself. It's a witness to the truth of it actually happening. Because of this, it's a valuable artifact to study because it serves not only as a witness, but it can also strengthen your faith. I changed from being a witch to being a Christian because of it (at least, in part; it was the catalyst for me that led to me seriously examining the evidence for God and for Jesus Christ).
No answer is also an answer ;-) However, no Shroud was and is needed to believe in the resurrection and overall in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3,16+17 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN [Old and New Testament] by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. John 14,26 (gospels) But the Helper [comforter, PARACLETOS], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 15,26+27 (acts) “But when the Helper [comforter, PARACLETOS] comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning. John 16,13 (epistles and revelation) However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 1 Corinthians 15 (NKJB) 1Now, brothers [siblings], I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth. John 3,16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 8 31Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 14,6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1Joh 1,9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. John 14,23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. Hebrew 4,12 For the WORD OF GOD is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
24:02 According to scientists studying the Shroud, there is no evidence of any rotting or decay of the body. This is reminiscent of the scripture "I will not let my holy one see decay."
Well, the one thing I agree with you is that John Mark wrote the Gospel of John to be integral to the narrative of The Gospel of Mark written by Cornelius immediately after his encounter with Peter in Acts 10. Cornelius wrote The Gospel of Mark around 40 from the contents of what we call Quelle and they referred to as euangeliou,, The Gospel of Peter was the intelligence report Pilate sent to Rome under the cover of euangeliou, a transit protocol that meant "Tidings of Joy for the Eyes of the Emperor, first". Peter received this version of Mark 15 from Cornelius when they traded notes about Jesus in Acts 10 Peter gave Cornelius the executive summary of Jesus's career in Acts 10:34 - 43, which tends to confirming Gary Habermas's p thesis of the early emergence of doctrine. Mark 1:1 is best understood as "everything that occurred around Jesus in the events leading up to Mark 15, aka euangeliou A general outline of The Gospel of Peter circulated throughout the legions by the time Tiberius proposed to enroll Jesus in the Roman Pantheon. The hostility and fear of the Senate towards Tiberius because of the brutal public disgrace and execution of Sejanus prevented this from happening. . The Gospel of Mark begins when Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a possible Zealot when He is baptized as accepts command of John the Baptist's constituency. Everything in the Gospels and Acts that includes εὐθὺς was collected by the Roman spy network and intelligence services before Jesus was arrested and Resurrection, with the exception of Acts 10:16, which is Peter's witness to Cornelius in Acts 10 When Cornelius sat down to write the intelligence abstract we call the Gospel of Mark, εὐθὺς defined Quelle, which is referred to as euangeliou. The Gospel of Mark is in circulation before Paul writes Galatians and is employed by Matthew after the Council of Jerusalem to compose a polemic that connects ass the theological dots Cornelius is unaware of and creates a polemic supporting Peter's Judaizing campaign. Just for the record, the gospel of Matthew anticipates Mohammad and Islam with it's nativity narrative previewing Sura 12 yusef, the only complete narrative in the Koran, and the 28 chapters symbolizing the letters of the Arabic alphabet. The Gospel of Matthew begins in the dark fo the moon and, in Matthew 7 discuses fasting at the beginning of Ramadan with the New Moon. Sura Maryam 19:19 is connected theologically to John 19:19 which refutes the heresy of Sura 4:157. Paul refers to euangeliou 19 times, beginning with Galatians and 5 times Philippians, he end zone celebration for his defense of the Epistle to the Romans before the Italian Cohort of the Praetorian Guard. The edea that Paul is the theological basis of Matthew, Mark and Luke is sheer Fascist sophistry presented to support the Total Depravity Gospel of Campus Crusade for Christ and the Prosperity Gospel business model of Pro-Life Evangelical generally associated with Pat Robertson and the CBN. Pat Robertson was engaged in the heresy of arrogating the agency of the Holy Spirit over the Spirit of the Lord to himself, He was the anti-Christ of Calvinism, incarnate.
I have fallen on hard times. But I still trust in you Jesus. I know you are my Lord and savior. I will stay faithful and true. Please give me the strength to keep supporting my two autistic children. My boys require a lot from me because they are special needs. Due to them having issues in school, I’m now homeschooling them. I’m a single mother my husband passed away unexpectedly years ago. I lost my job at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I have heart disease and I suffer from lupus that’s the major reason why I declined the vaccine. I’m waitressing and I’m grateful but I’m not making enough to make ends meet. Every month is a struggle, to not end up on the streets with my boys. Also now that I’m homeschooling them my schedule is limited. I’m so overwhelmed and ashamed. I get harassed and bullied on this app for sharing my testimony and for asking for prayers but prayers are all I need. But even as I struggle! I have faith in God and I STILL PRAISE HIM! He is the God of possible! GOD WILL PROVIDE!
That anyone would harass and bully you for your testimony is shameful on their part! Through the Lord's strength, you are a hero to your family and those watching your life. Love and prayers for you🙏
Incredible, what a testimony! I love hearing people like yourself tell their story. No other religion has testimony quite the same and in such high volume! Romans 8:38-39 NIV For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, [39] neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 2 Timothy 2:13 NIV if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
What a hard life you have! I pray to the Lord to provide you with strength, the strength you need for every single day and good people with kind hearts and helping hands to surround you.
After listening to this, I am STILL at a loss to know how Dr J thinks archeology could ever prove, or even support, the resurrection of Jesus. Does anyone know?
Dave, I don't think Dr. K thinks it "proves" anything. But it can provide supporting evidence. Just like a cold case detective has to solve a case with only written statements and some physical evidence. The same kind of methodology can be applied to building a case for the resurrection as well as the biblical documents.
@@davidkemball-cook559 What constitutes "archaeology" to you? It seems the only thing mentioned was writings. If I understood his point it was that the gospels got the specifics about time, place, people's names right whereas the non-canonical gospels got a lot of that info wrong. If by archaeology you mean the New Testament documents then I would say that they contain eyewitness statements that can be verified as being an accurate account of what they saw and experienced. The four ways to make that determination are 1) Were they present to witness what they claimed to have seen. 2) Can their account be corroborated with other sources? 3) Did their account of what happened change over time? 4) Did they have any motives for fabricating their account? In other words, did they gain anything like money, power, or relationships? I would say if they pass these four tests their accounts of what happened can be considered to be reliable.
@@skatter44 If I may chime in, are you saying that the gospels get everything right? Luke has Jesus born 10 years after Matthew, and attributes to Augustus a world wide decree that is clearly impossible. As for the ‘cold case’ criteria, they all fail in relation to the canonical gospels.
The disciples just witnessed the man they followed and loved being brutally tortured and killed. I am sure they were in shock. They weren’t thinking about His words about resurrection, they were in deep mourning, emotional pain, suffering and on top of that; fear.
@@gowdsake7103 Jesus is referred to by contemporary sources, such as Pliny, Josephus and Tacitus. St Thomas took Christianity to India. The existence of a Christian community in Kerala before the arrival of Europeans confirms the reality of Thomas, which confirms the reality of Jesus.
@@adamclark1972uk Honestly ? you think contemporary is Tacitus 115/116 AD Pliny around 111 AD Josephus sighs you dont even know that the section you love is a forgery As for Tacitus and Pliny sighs they wrote about CHRISTIANS who told a STORY about a CLAIM sheesh The Christain community in India? They have a tradition that Thomas visited and was martyred. Historically, this community was organised as the Province of India of the Church of the East by Patriarch Timothy I (780-823 AD) in the eighth century. The religious historian Robert Eric Frykenberg notes that: "Whatever dubious historicity may be attached to such local traditions, there can be little doubt as to their great antiquity or to their great appeal in the popular imagination.
His bio is readily available. Any person who has undergone a graduate degree, much less a PhD, has sacrificeds years, family time, and personal interests to complete this level of education. He *is* a PhD and, therefore, deserves the Dr. title. He's earned it, regardless where he got the degree.
@@redbrewsave look, no one is begrudging Jeremiah of his title; yes he certainly earned it. But with how much name-dropping he does in this interview he absolutely deserves all the criticism he gets for promoting the false idea that he earned his PhD from Oxford. In the end, it doesn't actually matter, which is why it is so odd that he is the one making such a big deal of it.
1:07:42 mr. klapp's question shows a lack of sufficient prayerful reading of/study in /meditation on the accounts of the resurrection just found in the written word of god. the question is just that of a nay sayer without understanding of the word of god. god provides enough evidence of the truthfulness of all the accounts in his inspired writing for a lover of truth to be sufficient to determine its truthfulness. one does not have to be a scholar to get this understanding. the bible is written by an infinite mind who has to give the understanding to a finite mind. no finite mind can fathom the truth of the word of god. maybe superficially, but most often coming with incomplete or even erroneous conclusions. that is why there is so much disagreement among scholars and there are so many and growing number of denominations.
It's interesting how Jeremiah is so confident of all this.. yet he CAN'T show ANY of it (again). Just trying to put a new rapper on the same old stuff.
Even today, if someone who had predicted his resurrection and then pulled it off there would people who never believed it unless they "put their fingers in the nail holes".
There's something sad - not to say fishy - about someone who tries so hard to give the impression he is a graduate of the University of Oxford (mentioned 4 times). In fact he was never a matriculated member of the University. His PhD was awarded - a decade ago - by Middlesex University (no mentions).
I didn't get that impression that he was trying to portray he had a degree from Oxford and he didn't really say "You gotta believe me cause I went to Oxford" At the same time an ad homenin attack is no better.
@@Apollos2.2 You're right that the circumstances of an author when presenting an argument should be irrelevant to its credibility. But throughout, both McDowell and Johnson are eager to stress those circumstances. In the opening minute, McDowell stresses that the book is a work of "scholarship" and seems to think that its origin in a "90,000 word dissertation" adds something. The first thing out of Johnston's mouth is to say his book came out of research he did "while I lived in Oxford". When Johnston says a further 3 times that he was "at Oxford" but never once clarifies that his study was actually accredited by Middlesex University (a much less prestigious college), its clear the intention is to bolster his argument through association. I am merely pointing that out.
Did you stop listening before 18 minutes? An entire panel of PhD’s critics conceded that what Dr.Johnson presents in that segment (beginning at 18 mins) represents new evidence in iight of First Century Rabbinical Judaism.
@@erkashbee6504 Wow, speaking of resurrection, you're replying to a comment from two months ago. Anyway, I watched forward from 18 minutes. No new evidence is offered; it's just the assertion that nobody needed to invent a Jesus-specific resurrection claim, because of assumptions about a general resurrection. Aside: Why can't this guy pronounce the word "Judaism?" _Joo-dism!_
Forget the resurrection. The writers couldn't even agree if it was Joseph of Arimathea who collected the body or if Nicodemus was with him. Nor about wrapping the body, was it Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Or was it just Joseph of Arimathea wrapping it himself in Mark and Matthew. But there is no witnesses in the first place in the bible of Joseph of Arimathea cutting a tomb, nor would a rich man cut his own tomb, he would pay for it to be done. Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Joseph of Arimathea gets the body himself then wraps the body himself. John 19:39-40 Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus get the body and they both wrap the body.
So, you Think Joseph being a rich man actually did the work himself in Matthew and Mark but not in John only Nicodemus helped him? Each Gospel doesn't give every detail to the story. That doesn't mean there is a contradiction in telling the story as probably his servants were actually helping him do the work but not given the credit as Joesph was paying for Jesus burial. It's definitely not a one man job or was it complete. How do you know these are not two different times coming to the tomb ? That's why the woman came to the tomb to complete the ritual after the Sabbath ended and were surprised the stone wasn't a problem with them entering the tomb.
I don't know why John added that detail about Nicodemus, but the Mark and Matthew passages could have left out that detail without contradicting it (especially if it was Joseph taking the main initiative by asking Pilate for permission to take the body, and paying for the tomb). Whether or not Joseph carved out the tomb himself, one could still credit Joseph for having had the rock cut out (similar to how you would credit a modern homeowner for remodeling their kitchen even if they use hired hands for the work).
@@davidjanbaz7728 It tells you Joseph cut the tomb himself, Matthew 27:60. The event of collecting the body and wrapping the body only happened once. For Joseph to collect the body Nicodemus had to be with him in both instances (collecting and wrapping). Your witnesses are blind to an actual person with Joseph, so how wrong can they be of a person resurrecting.
1:10:01 "shroud of turin." the biblical description of how jesus was "wrapped in linen clothes [otoniois] with spices" and his face having another cloth covering it could not have created the image on the shroud of turin. if i am to base my evaluation on this shroud solely on the biblical account rather than all the aging etc., i would have dismissed this and save millions of dollars trying to prove it is what was used to bury jesus. look, he was "wrapped" with the clothes to hold the spices, it was not just laid on top of him. the spices will also have to leave stains on the cloth, not just "blood" stains. this does not require scientific testing nor scholarly evaluation. the word of god is so plain and simple. anyone who can read it prayerfully can understand this issue. now it is even an object of veneration. that is idolatry.
I'm a little confused by one of his arguments. On the one hand, he appears to advocate N.T. Wright's argument that the death of Jesus would've proved he wasn't the messiah, so a resurrection was necessary to keep the movement alive. But on the other hand, he claims that there was no motivation for the disciples to invent the resurrection since it wasn't necessary. These two argument do not seem to be consistent with each other.
You have no evidence of what Jesus ever said or did. You only read a book - which is a copy of a copy of a copy of translations of fragments from the 1st century written decades after the fact by anonymous authors of stories passed around like a telephone game. LOL
This is more of "well, it has to be true because why would all these people believe this stuff and even die for this stuff if it wasn't true" and variations of that argument. That's not proof. That's a reason why someone might believe or want to believe, but it is in no way proof that anything they believe in is true.
My biggest issue with believing that Jesus resurrected is that if I took the same evidence for Jesus and applied it to someone today, I wouldn’t believe it. I guess I may be missing something but here is how I understand it. To make a fair comparison it would be like if a relatively small religion 30 years ago had a person who claimed to be the son of god. Their messiah wrote nothing down, but supposedly performed miracles and was resurrected. Some of the people who saw this happened were supposedly killed for their beliefs. They have scriptures saying that this would happen. These events were not written down for 30 years and the authors are anonymous. We don’t even have originals of the documents and there is evidence some things were changed and/or added. We can’t interview the messiah, or anyone who witnessed the miracles or the resurrection. No doctor examined the body and no video or other evidence exists of the events. However there is a growing number of people who believe it to be true. Would this convince you that they resurrected? Would it convince you that their religion is true? It wouldn’t even come close to convincing me, so why would the Christian story convince me? If I wouldn’t accept the same evidence today for a someone coming back to life why would I accept it from 2000 years ago or ever?
I think a problem with your comparison is that we should expect different levels of evidence from different cultures. We can reasonably expect videos of events from recent history, but we can't reasonably expect videos of events that occurred before film or photography existed. We can expect massive amounts of literature from a society with high levels of literacy, where everyone owns multiple devices they can use to write an almost unlimited amount. We should expect less literature from a society where literacy is a valuable skill and writing materials prohibitively expensive. All the best Matthew.
@@jackbarraclough3142 While the expected levels of evidence may be different for different cultures depending on time period and education, my point remains. My level of evidence that I accept is the same regardless of culture and time period. I don’t think I could accept any ancient claim if I couldn’t accept the same claim today. Just because people 2000 years ago accepted it doesn’t mean I should. Would you believe a resurrection happened today with the same evidence as for Jesus? Or for another religion? Edit: I also want to point out that Jesus could have created paper and written out a divine document as a miracle. I do not think that pointing out paper was expensive makes sense when Jesus wasn’t bound by money to get his message across.
@@matthewwoodard3117 could you help me understand your perspective better? Are you saying that you believe Jesus is still dead because there is no video of a resurrected Jesus? Or are you saying that you believe that if Jesus resurrected then it would have produced more literature than we know about? Or are you making a more humist argument about how miracles are impossible and so the evidential weight is too high to ever believe the claim?
@@jackbarraclough3142I would say that I have no good evidence that any human has ever resurrected. Therefore I would have to say Jesus is probably still dead. I am not sure how the amount of literature produced has any bearing on the truth of a claim. Popularity does not mean something is true. I believe anything I have good evidence for including miracles. But no good evidence has been presented for miracles. Saying I don’t know how something happened therefore it’s a miracle doesn’t make sense. I don’t know if miracles are impossible. My position is as I said above. If I took t he exact same evidence for Jesus and god and changes it to a relatively small religion from 1990 I wouldn’t believe it. This would be the same situation people from the first century would be in that never met Jesus and never saw him. So if I don’t believe it could have happened in 1990 why would I believe it happened 2000 years ago.
I love Jason lisle approach in regard to defending the Bible with the Bible and that is not circular reasoning since there are 66 books with different authors so yeah
When Johnston says "we can't get into the disciple's heads" (to know what they believed or didn't). RIGHT! He's basically making his "explanations" IRRELEVANT. Johnston is saying NOTHING NEW here.. and he cannot get away from the Bible when he's doing it. We've heard all of this before. Kind of expected.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Help me understand...Johnston seems to be leaning here into this Oxford thingy here, implying his degree is from Oxford. Is that the case... is Johnston's degree from Oxford as is implied here?
No. Johnston's PhD is from Middlesex University in London. He was in Oxford as a participant in a programme offered by the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, which is an Evangelical Christian organization that houses PhD students registered at Middlesex in Oxford, and has access to the Oxford libraries (which isn't nothing!) and some faculty and courses. But this IS NOT to be confused with an Oxford PhD. It raises serious questions as to why Johnston would encourage this ambiguity.
Sean asked, "Why didn't the disciples believe" before they actually experienced Him? Seems to me the same reason the Israelites had so much trouble in the wilderness after seeing the Hand of God in the 10 plagues, in the parting of the Red Sea and in the killing of the Egyptians by the Red Sea ... humans are hard hearted. The disciples were told by Jesus that He was going away to prepare a place for them and He would come back for them. Then at the ascension, they looked 'dumbfoundedly' into the clouds. Seems they weren't really changed nor able to understand until Acts 2 with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
COME ON SEAN... I thought you said apologetics had to get much better in '23. This is NOT the way to do it. This was hardly new or compelling at all. You let Jeremiah slide on several questions/answers that he totally circumvented. YOU have brought up many of these points BEFORE on different videos.
Christians are amazingly optimistic. They think that when they are dead, they will be alive ! That's like saying my car will still work after it has been scrapped.
There are thousands of cases of people having near death experiences were they were clinically dead but were fully conscious of what was happening in the room - and also had experiences with Jesus while they were clinically dead. Read the case for heaven by Lee Strobel.
@@kaylaglazebrook1887 So you think that when I am dead, I will still be conscious. I'm not sure I want to be conscious, but unable to move. Imagine not being able to walk any more !
@@kaylaglazebrook1887 Where is Jesus now and what exactly is he doing ? Some witnesses say he stands on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56) Others say he sits on the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1)
Sean appreciate you taking the time to highlight my question. If I’m understanding correctly it sounds like context/theological significance is what makes the difference between Jesus and the pen. I am not a huge fan of this answer because of the Divine psychologizing that takes place to get there. When the problem of evil is brought up suddenly God is mysterious, unknowable, higher than our ways, and has morally sufficient reasons that we are unaware of. But when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus suddenly we can become very confident this is exactly the type of thing God would do. I understand from your perspective God has revealed in his word his desire to save his people. But ask any Jewish person if Jesus lines up with the messianic picture painted in the Old Testament and I think we’d both know how they would answer.
A LOT of it has to do of people not understanding "the Government" that the O.T. prophet Isaiah stated concerning the coming Messiah and Jesus' holding THAT government upon His shoulders. Which stems in part, if not wholly upon one's faith that there was at LEAST one "everlasting(period of eternity)" (dinosaurs, Greek mythology for instance) BEFORE this current "everlasting (period of eternity)." Followed by yet ANOTHER "everlasting" also called and described as that "period of eternity" (in God's way of thinking) as "The Thousand Years" when satan is "locked away", and the "Teachings and Disciplines" are taught and learned and maintained (or not), By Priests of God AND of Christ Jesus of Nazareth. After which? Yet ANOTHER period of eternity, or everlasting (called a short while in the Revelation KJV), where satan is loosed, as the final "filtering" (if you will) or "proofing" of "people called by His Name!" Which brings up "God's conundrum!" Because He HAS ALREADY Angels that do His bidding! The question "How do I, or how many "scenarios" must I create that will cause my children to WANT to DO My bidding?" And then? There's the "Order of Melchizedek." Which begs the "the thinkers" amongst us? To ask the question of: "Just How Many Priests ARE There in this "Order?" What must one DO? When does "eternity" BEGIN for the "saved" believer? From the point of "acceptance" and beyond? What about eternity prior? There ARE points talked about in the N.T. where Disciples "try" to "bring to remembrance" these things. But ya GOTTA THINK! And this takes spiritual sacrifices acceptable TO God BY Jesus! It TAKES one going THROUGH the "first Resurrection" WHEN/WHERE the "love" that COVERS the multitude of sins that "the believer/accept-er" is TAKEN AWAY (so to speak). Or? Where it is written in the book of Isaiah 28 (If memory serves me well): "Where the sheets or blankets, or even ones' bed is too short for them." And THIS occurs when a believer does SOME act of repentance that the "Spirit of God" sees as an "act attributable TOWARDS righteousness!" Much like Abram did!
@@dillanklapp Nope! Not ai. Just Devine psychologizing. Now ya might better understand why Jesus taught using parables. Not everyone CAN understands it. But someone may. A reason may be that the connecting of dots using simple language jez blows away vanity that higher critics are so want to use while fleecing the sheeps. In Love of course. Which covers a multitude of sin. Ya could do yerself a favor and asks Him. Gotta tell ya though. Be careful what ya asks for. From personal experience though? It may well be opening a can of worms, then untangling one worm merely to find another can of worms from just that one worm. And it well may "feels" like yer messing with the author of confusion. Perseverance is the key! And not leaning on yer OWN understanding. Did ya know Baalim's donkey that he rode had a name? His name was Gus! (nah!...jez kidding). Yet? That donkey saw things Baalim didn't, or couldn't. Wonder why that was?
@@glendarjolley3171 check out Tovia Singer, he’s an orthodox rabbi who can explain why Jesus is not the messiah better than Johnathan. Playing the I have a smart guy that agrees with me game could go on forever.
I am commenting before hearing the whole thing because I have read nearly everything Gary Habermas has written in his minimalist approach allowing only what the skeptics concede. What they concede can only lead one to believe the resurrection is historical (apart from being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and his testimony to our hearts). I am looking forward to hearing this interview and the seven reasons. Great interview. I am ordering the book.
To the question of why the resurrection matters, I would have answered differently than that a religion rests on it. I would have answered that in his resurrection, Jesus proved his authority that all who believe in shall have life everlasting.
New evidence, extrabiblical, for the resurrection claimed by the bible. Cites arguments, decades old, right from the bible. Jesus' followers had no reason to expect he would be resurrected, and also the resurrection was completely foretold! Errrm, right. If only we knew what could motivate him to push such smut **cough** book sales **cough...**
44:03 paul did not have just "an" experience of the jesus. jesus was the one who taught him for three years (almost as long as he did with the apostles) in arabia and paul recorded jesus communicating with him several times in his writings.
I’m so glad to know Jeremiah Johnston isn’t David Jeremiah. I got the names mixed up so I had never listen to Dr. Johnston. I ordered his book. Thanks!
Q: JJ Johnston did you get your doctorate from Oxford University, which is the impression you give in this interview. Follow up, which college were you resident at during your time at Oxford.
I have come to notice this about almost all the long form interviews with scholars on this channel. They always present as Dr. Soandso or Myname PhD. But then never tell you what the study was and where it was done. If you can find anything about them online at all, it's almost exclusively a degree in A apologetics or old testament from a Christian seminary. At the website "Christian Thinkers" (a somewhat pretentious name) he is introduced as "Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhD, M.A. , M.Div, BA" New testament scholar, pastor... And probably the funniest.. Jeremiah has *distinguished* himself speaking in churches of *all denominations* " He is a specialist in generality.
Sean McDowell, I used to respect you more. You are smart and aware enough to see the holes in Jeremiah’s claims and evidences and don’t call him out. You don’t even call him out for trying hard to associate himself to Oxford University. This man is just plain dishonest, literally and intellectually, and you associating with him in this paddy cake fashion is suspect to me.
Can you give some specifics to support your claim? I'm not arguing, but would appreciate the details so I understand your point more thoroughly. Thanks so much.
It is actually a pretty good point. If skeptics are going to say we cobble a story .. you had better be willing to consider the implausibility of resurrection to be the response to Jesus dying …. Don’t be the pot✔️
55:47 bless you sean for understanding it is spiritual death that has to be defeated. man was created with mortal bodies and so will have to go through physical death (with the exception of enoch for one reason or another only god knows so far). but in the resurrection, the immortal souls of believers will be clothed with immortal spiritual bodies like jesus has.
I'm afraid that using these arguments when speaking to any informed non-believer will be more likely to lead to them laughing at you, cringing at you, or lecturing you about epistemology and logic than to their conversion.
@@brooklynnlou4 _"Why would God need anybody to convince a non-believer?"_ I was asking @Tanja Smit, not their god. But to address your point, I'm told some gods care about converting unbelievers - if that's not your type of god, you needn't worry.
I recently read a book called He Walked the Americas by L. Taylor Hansen, who collected hundreds of oral accounts from native peoples in North and South America of a white, blue eyed God who visited them and taught them the way of peace. From the account, it is obvious that His visits were AFTER His resurrection. Very intriguing! The similarities between their descriptions, even with no contact between the different groups is fascinating. And I agree, we have to read the scriptures (including the books that were voted to be left out of the canon by those with certain agendas and preconceived beliefs, as well as the books that have come forth since like in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even the Book of Mormon, a 1st Temple book of scripture--just don't join the LDS cult, they have been in a state of apostasy almost since the beginning of that movement when Brigham Young introduced polygamy and tried to pin that on Joseph so that the "saints" would accept it as a "restored principle" because they thought it was "restored" by Joseph. It wasn't. Joseph always spoke and wrote about polygamy as an abomination, gross crime, sin, fornication, adultery, whoredom, and wickedness. He was excommunicating those involved, and was about to excommunicate half of the "leaders" for this abomination when he and his brothers were killed, likely by them and they blamed it on the "mob" according to recent forensic evidence. Got off topic! Read it, study it, it testifies of the divinity of Jesus and His visit to the people in NA after His resurrection. Get to know it well enough to use it along with the Bible it to save the poor souls of those caught in the LDS cult today who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, but think that they do....
Sean asks : “ok, tell me where I’m missing it” Where you’re missing it (the Shroud debate) is super obvious. STURP (the 33 Scientists who were sent over to Turin to study the clothe in 1978) had One Objective - find out how the Image got there ! That is what you are missing, Sean. You think an Image of Jesus is unimportant for some reason. The 33 Scientists ruled out Paint. But left Italy with more questions than when they started. The Shroud is a Much Better Apologetic for the Resurrection than any of the 7 Reasons you two guys spent over one hour hashing out. That’s what you’re missing.
It may help to put timing info to mark the place you mean, preceded by an "at" symbol. UA-cam would then create a link that directly takes the person to the part where Sean says the quote you mention. For example @43:06 Sean talks about his class on the "resurrection of grad students" (obviously he meant "resurrection of Jesus").
This is speaking of the sensationalism culturally of “idoloatry” that took over the souls of marrying aged people. This is a violation of Gods law to value other things or people above Him.
Apologists keep forgetting that "BEST" reasons, don't actually mean they're GOOD reasons :-/ This is obviously geared toward people who ALREADY believe.
loons like that have a habit of preaching to the choir or they arrange a a mutual masturnbation video in which to loons agree eachother off about how right they arere which is a growing habit amongst kinderlander- American loons; gosh those unbelievers are so obviously wrong aren't they sort of mutual masturbation Quite why the loons suppose that something to that could possibly have happened *after* the death of a teacher could have any bearing on his teaching*before* his death, is impossible to fathom, but then there is no doubt tha religion tends to stupefy the reason, the proponents of the resurrection tending to be clearly wholly innocent of any sort of intellectual accomplishment or ability, such that you would be better off addressing a dog
I read that the Gospels were edited. That places faith in man -- that they got it right -- rather than in God. This is not a court of law where you have the luxury of asking the editors questions and maybe finding out more information. We don't know their motivation or how they went about editing the text. We are left with a mystery but not as profound as the mystery of Christ.
Hi Sean I am new to your channel and have a question why would the apostles still be hesitant to believe that JESUS rose from the dead after they witnessed JESUS raising Lazarus I do not get it
Great Q. Lazarus would die again but Jesus rose to a resurrection body. Jesus also claimed to be the messiah and that he would raise himself (John 2) vs Lazarus being raised by another and yet dying again. Plus crucifixion was the worst possible death which means someone was cursed (Deut). This is a few of the reasons…
39:18 -Is it possible to have Q without P? -If P then Q. And there is Q. [Smug face] -Alright, well said. Well said??? That's a super clear red herring PLUS a fallacy of affirming the consequent. 🤦🏻♂
Yeah… he doesn’t seem to address Sean’s concern at all, he simply goes on a tangent about how other writings make claims that do not line up with what archeology says about the time and place. This says nothing about the canonical gospels at all anyway. Afterwards he says that the gospels do like up with archeological evidence about the time and place, but still doesn’t address Sean’s concern that a story simply being set in a real place and time might not necessarily mean it is true. It’s almost like he went on that tangent to avoid addressing the concern. Stuff like that makes me wonder sometimes if people are being purposely deceptive.
Him saying that "we need both" minimal facts and max data shows that hes not listening The McGrews and friends stress that "if we are correct in our criticism of the minimal facts _we have no choice_ but to abandon it" Theyre not just saying "oh hey did you know that gospel reliability is a good apologetic too" they are saying "if we dont have a detailed account of what the disciples claim they saw we have no way of knowing if they were rational in believing in a bodily resurrection"
SO, Hiding a mystery in plain sight is how God fooled Satan and the "Rulers of this Age" into thinking they would win in Jesus crucifixion: but the Resurrection was the actual defeat of Satan's kingdom on Earth and the start of The kingdom of God taking over up to the Millennium kingdom at Jesus second coming.
@@josephthomas2226 LOL So the original authors with the original intent way before Christianity were interpreting their scriptures wrong even though there was no Jesus for hundreds of years if not thousand?
Think about this… if God is almighty and there is no power or authority over him to dictate rules… There is only hell and punishment, because He wants there to be.
Why do we have a court of law/prison system in the US? We choose to have one, does that mean we are evil for punishing evil? Or do we understand that people need to pay the consequences for their choices and it benefits them (if they ever learn from it) and the rest of society. Evil doesnt cast out evil.
Yes, that's scary. Add to that that he's watched over the deaths of perhaps 120 billion humans throughout history. The Bible is correct when it advises us to fear God, if he exists. I would add that there are various NT words translated as 'hell', and they refer to completely different concepts, so our one word 'hell' is unhelpful. To go back to the original words, my understanding is that Hades/bossom of Abraham are the waiting rooms for souls before the last judgement, Tartoros (aka the abyss?)is where the demons are waiting and/or acting from, and Gehenna is the fire of eternal destruction to which the unsaved are condemned. The word 'destruction' is in the Greek to describe the condemnation, and I take eternal destruction to mean destruction forever from eternity. But if you're an unbeliever, there is a sense in which you already believe that is your fate: that you will die, and there is will be nothing left of you forever; soon, not even a memory. That codemnation is what Jesus saves us from, by faith. That is the Gospel.
@@jayvansickle7607 We arent God so our understanding of Hell is limited, however, it is separating those who have not been made clean from those who have. If you have a pile of clean clothes, you dont throw dirty laundry into them for then the clean clothes would no longer be clean. The unclean generally taints the clean. Thats why Jews had so many rules about cleanliness. All those rules point to the greater cleansing of sin.
@@NiRaSis if I could make all the clothes cleaned with a snap of my fingers, I would. Good could forgive and remake everyone post death…but, it seems like he Wants people in hell.
“If you and I were observant Jews in the 1st century we would know exactly what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah” “Why didn’t the apostles understand what Jesus meant by his prediction of his resurrection?” “We can’t know or anachronise what the apostles understood in the 1st century”🤔 quotes for effect not accuracy
I haven't heard even ONE evidentiary fact - one that can be demonstrated to be true. It is literally one baseless claim upon another. Can ANYONE state a demonstrable fact about this claim of resurrection?
Don't ask stupid questions. The resurrection isn't a natural mechanism to be measured. Its a historical event. The evidence we get for ancient historical events are reports, inscriptions, papyri and such. There aren't going to be pictures. So to demand a "demonstrable" fact for a single event in history is the demand of a retard who doesn't have a clue how historical sciences work. Get better.
@@blusheep2 Questions aren't stupid. Those instructing others not to ask them are. I haven't asked for this baseless claim to be _measured._ I asked if _anyone_ could present evidence demonstrating the truth of the claim. And YOU cannot. And we haven't any firsthand eyewitness account, official document, credible historical report, forensic artifact, or corrobative correspondence for those events depicted in the gospels. Not one. We have one anonymous fantastical story copied, altered, and embellished over and over under different names resulting in a cult developed like hundreds of similar cults at that time but fortunate enough to have been adopted by both reining emperors of the split Roman Empire in the early 4th century.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Still stupid. You may have intelligence but you aren't thinking through your question intelligently. You asked for a "demonstrable fact" about the claim. That isn't the same as asking for evidence. There is plenty of evidence but you don't like the evidence. Fine. but the question is stupid when you imply that we should have ways to demonstrate a one time historical event. How do we demonstrate that Rameses II built Pi-Rameses. You can't. All we have is the writing of ancient Egyptians and a city identified as Pi-Ramese It sounds like you are always going to view the glass half empty. I also find that to be a stupid way to evaluate evidence, but that is your choice. I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you because I simply think your an idiot that doesn't know how to do their research properly and always takes the low road. I've said my peace. Have a good one.
@@blusheep2 What evidence am I not considering? State these evidentiary facts in complete sentences. I look forward to your excuses as to why you can't or won't present such evidentiary facts.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Go do your own homework and if you can't figure it out Ill help you out but not till you prove that you've actually done the homework.
I didn’t hear him say that either. But, Johnston should answer Kipp Davis here in the questions. Kipp questioned the integrity of Johnston. Crickets from Johnston.
It is important, however, that you know it is true for yourself (especially for people like James below who will question you). It is important to have your own relationship with Jesus Christ, if you haven't done so already.
"New evidence for the resurrection"? Why do we have to scramble so hard to find this evidence, when Jesus could have provided it himself (to everyone interested) so easily after he allegedly rose from the dead? And how can you say that he provided "the sign of Jonah", as he promised to the Pharisees, since he didn't appear to those asking for the sign to confirm its fulfillment and keep his promise? Sean, this little rant is directed at your guest, not at you. But I would appreciate an answer from you, because I value your fairness and your lack of fear in tackling tough questions.
The rapture is only for people who are still alive when Christ returns. The rest of the saints will come back down to Earth with him to meet them in the air, I think is the picture.
@@grantbartley483 Let me help you brother. Lu 11:31-32 The Queen of the south, and the men of Nineveh (Believers) SHALL RISE (Resurrect) IN THE JUDGMENT) The rapture (Resurrection) and the judgment day happen at the same time. Act 24:14 Act 17:31 NO one left behind according to Jesus.
@@markhauserbible7168 I don't think that's the standard meaning of the word 'rapture'. But the resurrection is God's judgement on the world in one sense, true.
@@grantbartley483 Mt 20:19 RISE Mr 9:31 Mr 12:25 Lu 24:7 Jn 11:24 RISE IN THE RESURRECTION. There is ONE resurrection Act 24:15 and ONE day of judgment Act17:31 Yours in Christ
I think by “prioritize the gospel” he means either “to not scrutinize the Bible the way other historical texts are scrutinized” or “to believe the Bible before other sources written at the same time without reason to do so”. I’m not sure which, but either one would have a similar effect.
Recent investigations into the shroud of Turin using newly developed technologies discovered that the images in the shroud actually not only show the image of a person, but also captures the images of a person in motion at multiple points in time, all layered on top of each other. If this was faked, the creator of it would have had to somehow account for technology they could not fathom at the time.
The bodily proportions in the Shroud of Turin are incompatible with 3D human bodies, they are not what you would get if you wrapped a body. Ignoring the warping the proportions not warped are those common to iconography of the time, and also very rare in a living human being. A one piece textile as a shroud is an anachronism, and is not what is described in the New Testament which is the habit of the time of using strips, as in common in cartoon representations of Egyptian mummies. And we have a mundane report of the time of it being a fraud. Why ignore the report written at the time it first hit the antiquities market in favor of believing anachronisms and false reports of modern fancy?
the shroud has been satisfactorily debunked, but tell me, even if it were proved beyond doubt it was jesus, and if it was impregnated with some as yet unknown particle - what exactly does that prove? the shroud is a joke, i'd go for some other less silly proof if i were you. shroud folks are on the same level as flat earthers.
@@histreeonics7770 If you're going to provide a rebuttal, at least answer the proposed question/topic at hand. It makes it seem like you're suspiciously avoiding it. If it is indeed faked, I, among many, would like to know why, including accounting for more recent discoveries that show information the faker should have no knowledge of at the time.
I think that the fact Peter denied Jesus whilst he was still alive, yet was willing to put his life on the line after Jesus’ death and resurrection is very telling. For someone who was so fearful but suddenly found the courage to stand up for his faith during a time when there was so much persecution can only be one of two things: he was wrecked with guilt for denying Jesus and wanted to do something by way of redemption, or…. The resurrection happened and Peter along with all the other disciples were so overwhelmed by the truth they were willing to continue spreading the gospel even knowing they could be killed at any moment. They knew what the risks were yet were willing to die for their faith!
Please prove this happened
Great point.
@@theatre_pigs why do non believers always want the answer neatly given to them? Seek, search , and knock for yourself. Even Jesus spoke in parables. The fact is there is no evidence against God. There is no evidence against the Bible. To take a stand against is a decision you've made without any supporting evidence. When offered a choice between ligh or dark which do you choose? Choose light. Choose a relationship with God and then the proof will follow. I wish you well on this journey and I pray that you ask God for wisdom in this matter.
Please prove gorge Washington existed, prove Harriet Tubman did. Ridiculous it did happened
I feel the same way. Those disciples all (except John) died gruesome deaths, that could have been prevented, had they denied their beliefs and went back to Judaism philosophy that the promised Messiah had not yet come. They saw SOMETHING… SOMETHING HUGE!!! Something beyond comprehension.
To any skeptic reading these comments: God is waiting for anyone to take a step of faith toward him. In humility and submission. That's all it takes.
you realize that a skeptic would require more than "some guy on UA-cam said so" to believe something as outrageous as that, right?
I know deities dont exist. . . including yours. It's like Santa for grownups. One could believe anything on faith. . .including Santa.
Love the interview! I appreciate you covering the Resurrection. This is a very important topic that is sadly not taught thoroughly in most churches today. Thank you both for doing this! I will be buying this book.
My relationship with Jesus is ALL the evidence I need. He promised to baptize believers in the Holy Spirit and He has done so with me!!!
This is the perfect example of delusion and fantasy. What a moron.
Thanks for showing us all how proud you are of your irrationality.
I AGREE, Christ is Great
How can we identify this within ourselves?
@@cygnusustusYou should be hanging out on the Hindu page, they're the ones basing their entire truth plethora on pure subjective and emotional experience.
Just a side note, or a bit of a nit-pick, but when Jeremiah Johnston says that he presented this paper with his early thoughts about the evidence for the resurrection at the 2012 SBL Annual Meeting, that is not entirely true. More accurately, he presented his paper, “How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story,” in 2012 in a session held by the Evangelical Philosophical Society, which will run sessions concurrently with the larger Society of Biblical Literature.
This may seem to some like quibbling, but it is important because I very much doubt he would have managed to get this paper past any of the SBL steering committees, precisely because of its obviously biased and confessional nature. The SBL is pretty stringent about ensuring that their sessions do not promote any particular religious, political or ideological viewpoints, and they strive to keep things strictly academic. Johnston's paper was far from that, and it is disingenuous of him to promote it as one that was publicly received in the Annual Meeting.
No. The Evangelical Philosophical Society is an apologetics organisation, exclusively dedicated to validating the claims of Christianity. As far as I can tell, Johnston has never presented a paper in any of the SBL sessions at any SBL Annual Meeting.
How specifically is it "obviously biased"?
@@mbb-- I mean, it is right there in the title: "the TRUTH of the Easter Story." There is at the outset a conclusion guiding the direction of the study. One would never see a paper like this in the SBL.
Sounds like Johnston is being Dogmatic in that title.
I agree with his assertions, of course.
But Johnston is quick to warn others to not be ‘Dogmatic’ regarding the Shroud of Turin.
“C. Stephen Evans and Stephen Davis on the panel ... This was on the Testimony of the Spirit and later was published by Doug in his OUP book. Hope this helps.”
Kip, I would appreciate a little collegiality from one scholar to another or at least the benefit of the doubt. I believe your main question/comment is that my original paper would be too confessional to be taken seriously at an academic conference? I want you to be the judge. In the link above, I have provided you with my original 2012 Chicago SBL handout and the actual paper I presented. In my opinion, the paper is not confessional. The point I was attempting to make in the interview with Sean (and I will try to do better next time) is that Craig Keener, a classicist, made the point I was on to a new/fresh argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, I have presented at learned conferences, and I found an email even from AAR thanking me for my presentation (which I included for you). Perhaps you meant ETS? I have never presented at ETS or claimed to present at ETS. I am not a member of ETS. At any rate, I appreciate your comments because this will sharpen me in being extra clear with my communication and sometimes it is difficult to share all details in a crossfire type interview. I am not sure if you have published with a popular press, but much of my clarification in footnotes are edited down for the "wider" audience.I got away with 33 pages of citations in my Unimaginable book, but the trend of books now is to be shorter. Hopefully my link above is helpful. - Jeremiah.
The goal to defend the resurrection without reference to the Bible was a noble one, but it's quite clear by listening to the interview that the goal was not met. The positions were confidently asserted, though.
Thank you for this. Boy you can so easily see the viewpoints of some of the critics with their questioning. You know, there’s a difference between skepticism (which I have a lot of, and I’m a believer) and cynicism. Some people’s cynicism will not allow themselves to see or even acknowledge the light
Coincidence?... I think not. I just watched the story of a middle-aged woman, who died while walking with her husband, and was without oxygen for 30 minutes. After miraculously awakening in a nearby hospital, she said she saw Christ with outstretched arms (able to heal from beyond the grave). Like Lazarus (who experienced Christ on earth), this woman will die again (unless the Lord returns in her lifetime). Jesus was seen by at least 500 people immediately after his resurrection, plus countless others since then (in various visions and dreams). Actor Ernest Borgnine saw him while playing a Centurion in a famous Easter film, and (most recently) feminist writer and Jew, Naomi Wolfe, saw Christ in a vision. She said it was unmistakably him, and the last person she ever expected seeing. Bottom line... Christ is alive and well, and I sense his return in this alarming world of ours!
Do u have any physical evidence for JC?
I've read "More Than a Carpenter" (including 2011 update with additions from Sean) probably nearing 10 times. Information/evidence/arguments for the resurrection is incredibly powerful for strengthening my faith. Thanks Sean
10 times? Wow, I’m impressed. Honored to have you here too!
Give 1 piece of evidence for the resurrection Something that doesnt exist in other religions. Ill become a Christian if you can
@@KaijuOfTheOpera I highly recommend to you, the book "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh+Sean McDowell. The book examines the evidence for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the new testament manuscripts and claims. It's a very short book so wouldn't take you long and it presents some very strong evidence and arguments based around apologetics
@@rupertcaney Im a Biblical scholar. I CAN NOT read works from apologists. There is a HUGE difference between apologetics and scholarship. Im not interested in apologetic's (Excuses). Im interested in religious history and the meaning behind scripture. Luke and Matthew copied and edited things from Mark, Revelation is about Rome and so on.
Can you give me 1 piece of evidence here? Im curious if you could give me something that other religions dont use.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera If you're not interested in apologetics then why are you on this channel 😂😂
I do like how you teased out the fact that the resurrection win against what they were expecting. I’ve heard many times they wouldn’t have made it up because they were not ever anticipating their Messiah to die. But you added a little flavor to it which is actually powerful. And Sean that little saying if we were all blind we wouldn’t miss the light because we wouldn’t know there was a thing was pretty profound. Why would someone sick something that no one ever misses?
Shroud of Turin has some very compelling new scientific evidence. When you consider the impossible amount of energetic output it would take to attempt to recreate the image via todays known sophisticated technology, the answer is clear.
He was risen
It cannot be recreated for, if so, it would have been done, simply to prove that it could be created by human hands.
@@soniajfernandoThe radiation from the cloth couldn’t have been made by human hands at the time
Believing someone has risen from the dead is a very difficult thing to believe, especially for critically thinking adults. I’m really not surprised about Thomas doubting until he saw Jesus for himself. When we put our trust in Him and receive His spirit, we ‘see’ Him in a new way. He is alive in us. It reminds me of when Helen Keller was finally able to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ when her teacher Annie Sullivan got through to her by signing into her hand. We can see Jesus now, working in people and circumstances if His Spirit enables us.
I agree. I think we undermine the reality of the claim if we don’t recognize how hard it can be to believe.
@SeanMcDowell the Thomas touching Jesus's wounds goes against Paul's teachings. And Mark (the 1st gospel written) doesn't mention Jesus after the death on the cross. There was merely an empty tomb (according to the text, anyway) and the women told NO one.
@@monkkeygawd What tomb? No one witnessed Joseph of Arimathea cutting a tomb in the bible. A rich man also wouldn't cut his own tomb, he would pay someone to do it as he's rich.
I'm talking about in Mark... I don't think Mark was true... I don't even assume the historicity of Jesus.
@@monkkeygawd we know buddy: your strawman arguments are in all your posts.
Take any specific claim that they make, check it thoroughly, and you will always find that they are misrepresenting, overstating, or flat out lying about it in some way to make themselves look better.
For example, he claimed to have presented a paper to the SPL, but actually presented it to a much smaller and more sympathetic group that was being housed under the larger conference. It was accepted by a group that already agreed with him, not the larger scholarly body.
There is also the massive use of 'argument from authority', mostly talking about Oxford as if it means something when he didn't even earn a degree from Oxford. "Trust me, I have a degree" or "when I was in Oxford..." doesn't work, you need to present proper evidence and show your work. His credentials aren't evidence for a claim, he needs to present _actual_ evidence.
Then we are supposed to check his scholarly work before criticizing his presentation here but there is very little even on the topic in his academic publications page on CTS, a page that contains things he hasn't even written or only co-wrote for some reason. FYI his paper "How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story," isn't in Google Scholar and doesn't seem to have been published for peer review. (please point me to the peer reviewed publishing on this if I'm wrong)
But that's beside the point, when you present arguments your arguments can, should, and will be examined... Hiding behind "read my other stuff" when your presented arguments don't hold water is nothing more than a very weak dodge designed to make you look good even as you fail.
Then to the evidence and arguments... and the first one is... empty word salad. A string of nice sounding, but utterly meaningless platitudes that essentially boil down to "Christianity has transformative value". False ideas and stories have just as much power to transform people's lives. Look at every other religion that exists where people find their lives changed through their false beliefs.
Sean asked a hardball, and was congratulated for it... right before he jumped to a Bible verse (remember, this is only moments after saying he didn't need to use the bible) and completely avoided the question with an argument from popularity. Then there are a string of completely empty claims that are galloped out in rapid fire.
and with this, I have written enough. The first one should be the best and its basically nothing, so watching the rest is a waste.
Edit: I watched a bit farther and WTF! In part of your first point you talked about how it wasn't predicted, and the second point was that Jesus predicted it!? So is this a "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of thing you are trying to set up or do you just not have a competent editor?
JJ went to middlesex university, not oxford, naughty.
Good points. In correction, I think you meant SBL when you typed SPL in the 2nd paragraph.
@@davidkemball-cook559 ... .... spelling is hard.
If Christianity were true, would you believe in the God of the Christian bible?
@@pajtaj If someone demonstrated that Christianity were true to me, I would have no choice but to believe in was true.
Your guest speaker is just talking about things. He thinks are true things that he wants to be true and his personal preferences
None of this is scholarly none of this is based on reality
You might as well be discussing marvel versus dc
Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows:
- Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.
Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
- Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.
Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
- Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details.
Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
- Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated.
Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.
- John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21.
John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.
Well said " Resurrection Nerd ". It's good to see such a precise analysis from the gospels and how the story was constructed over time. However most people in this tread will not be interested in reading facts that detract from their beliefs . I don't expect you will be getting any reply from Sean either as he would be unable to dispute anything in your article . This Dr. Johnson character is full of B.S. in spite of his PhD.
Most of your issues can be boiled down to two problems: assuming that an omission implies that it was later added, as opposed to just being left out previously; and the accounts given by the women.
The accounts given by the women are, at best, second-hand information recounted 40ish years after the fact. It's not unreasonable to suggest that there would be inconsistencies - there's good reason hearsay isn't permissable in court.
@@highfive9835 If one can just say "it was left out previously" how would you be able to identify an actual legend evolving?
@@resurrectionnerd Further evidence would be needed to substantiate either claim. Without it, it's just an assumption.
@@highfive9835 I disagree. The growth in the Resurrection narratives is not found in reliable eyewitness testimony. We can tell it's an evolving legend because we can compare other sets of eyewitness testimony. With eyewitnessed events we expect consistency. Sonething else is going on here.
So, your "new" evidence for the supposed resurrection of jesus is; "the bible says so"... [sigh].
We've been going through the book of Acts at the moment. One thing that is very clear is that the resurrection is a central part of an apostolic Gospel.
10:00 Why would Mark be credible evidence of Jesus predicting his death and resurrection when it was written decades after the death? Why would the disciples "not understand" this prediction yet somehow the later oral traditions and Mark written decades later would understand something that the people actually there did not understand?
19:00 Cognitive dissonance on the part of the followers of Jesus. People who study cults see this kind of thing over and over again.
40:00 I really appreciate that Shawn asks tough questions. I may reach different conclusions, but asking the questions shows a real commitment to the truth that many apologists seek to lack.
Another question: if Jesus did predict his resurrection specifically three days after his death, does that not give the disciples psychological motivation to invent (whether consciously or subconsciously) the Jesus-specific resurrection story after three days had passed and no general resurrection had occurred? It seems to me that the “Jesus specifically predicted his resurrection” and the “the apostles had no physiological motivation to invent a resurrection specific to Jesus” arguments presented here can’t both hold up together.
@@kttyz313That’s pure speculation
The Shroud of Turin, because of it's qualities, demonstrates the resurrection itself. It's a witness to the truth of it actually happening. Because of this, it's a valuable artifact to study because it serves not only as a witness, but it can also strengthen your faith. I changed from being a witch to being a Christian because of it (at least, in part; it was the catalyst for me that led to me seriously examining the evidence for God and for Jesus Christ).
How you examined the evidence of God?
And how you became a Christian?
No answer is also an answer ;-)
However, no Shroud was and is needed to believe in the resurrection and overall in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3,16+17
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN [Old and New Testament] by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
John 14,26 (gospels)
But the Helper [comforter, PARACLETOS], the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
John 15,26+27 (acts)
“But when the Helper [comforter, PARACLETOS] comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
John 16,13 (epistles and revelation)
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
1 Corinthians 15 (NKJB)
1Now, brothers [siblings], I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm.
2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve.
6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.
John 3,16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 8
31Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 14,6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
1Joh 1,9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
John 14,23
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Hebrew 4,12
For the WORD OF GOD is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
24:02 According to scientists studying the Shroud, there is no evidence of any rotting or decay of the body. This is reminiscent of the scripture "I will not let my holy one see decay."
Well, the one thing I agree with you is that John Mark wrote the Gospel of John to be integral to the narrative of The Gospel of Mark written by Cornelius immediately after his encounter with Peter in Acts 10.
Cornelius wrote The Gospel of Mark around 40 from the contents of what we call Quelle and they referred to as euangeliou,,
The Gospel of Peter was the intelligence report Pilate sent to Rome under the cover of euangeliou, a transit protocol that meant "Tidings of Joy for the Eyes of the Emperor, first". Peter received this version of Mark 15 from Cornelius when they traded notes about Jesus in Acts 10 Peter gave Cornelius the executive summary of Jesus's career in Acts 10:34 - 43, which tends to confirming Gary Habermas's p thesis of the early emergence of doctrine.
Mark 1:1 is best understood as "everything that occurred around Jesus in the events leading up to Mark 15, aka euangeliou A general outline of The Gospel of Peter circulated throughout the legions by the time Tiberius proposed to enroll Jesus in the Roman Pantheon. The hostility and fear of the Senate towards Tiberius because of the brutal public disgrace and execution of Sejanus prevented this from happening. .
The Gospel of Mark begins when Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a possible Zealot when He is baptized as accepts command of John the Baptist's constituency. Everything in the Gospels and Acts that includes εὐθὺς was collected by the Roman spy network and intelligence services before Jesus was arrested and Resurrection, with the exception of Acts 10:16, which is Peter's witness to Cornelius in Acts 10 When Cornelius sat down to write the intelligence abstract we call the Gospel of Mark, εὐθὺς defined Quelle, which is referred to as euangeliou. The Gospel of Mark is in circulation before Paul writes Galatians and is employed by Matthew after the Council of Jerusalem to compose a polemic that connects ass the theological dots Cornelius is unaware of and creates a polemic supporting Peter's Judaizing campaign.
Just for the record, the gospel of Matthew anticipates Mohammad and Islam with it's nativity narrative previewing Sura 12 yusef, the only complete narrative in the Koran, and the 28 chapters symbolizing the letters of the Arabic alphabet. The Gospel of Matthew begins in the dark fo the moon and, in Matthew 7 discuses fasting at the beginning of Ramadan with the New Moon. Sura Maryam 19:19 is connected theologically to John 19:19 which refutes the heresy of Sura 4:157.
Paul refers to euangeliou 19 times, beginning with Galatians and 5 times Philippians, he end zone celebration for his defense of the Epistle to the Romans before the Italian Cohort of the Praetorian Guard. The edea that Paul is the theological basis of Matthew, Mark and Luke is sheer Fascist sophistry presented to support the Total Depravity Gospel of Campus Crusade for Christ and the Prosperity Gospel business model of Pro-Life Evangelical generally associated with Pat Robertson and the CBN.
Pat Robertson was engaged in the heresy of arrogating the agency of the Holy Spirit over the Spirit of the Lord to himself, He was the anti-Christ of Calvinism, incarnate.
I have fallen on hard times. But I still trust in you Jesus. I know you are my Lord and savior. I will stay faithful and true. Please give me the strength to keep supporting my two autistic children. My boys require a lot from me because they are special needs. Due to them having issues in school, I’m now homeschooling them. I’m a single mother my husband passed away unexpectedly years ago. I lost my job at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I have heart disease and I suffer from lupus that’s the major reason why I declined the vaccine. I’m waitressing and I’m grateful but I’m not making enough to make ends meet. Every month is a struggle, to not end up on the streets with my boys. Also now that I’m homeschooling them my schedule is limited. I’m so overwhelmed and ashamed. I get harassed and bullied on this app for sharing my testimony and for asking for prayers but prayers are all I need. But even as I struggle! I have faith in God and I STILL PRAISE HIM! He is the God of possible! GOD WILL PROVIDE!
That anyone would harass and bully you for your testimony is shameful on their part! Through the Lord's strength, you are a hero to your family and those watching your life.
Love and prayers for you🙏
Lifting Tiff Miller up in prayer. I pray that God who sees all and knows all rewards your with abundance.
Incredible, what a testimony! I love hearing people like yourself tell their story. No other religion has testimony quite the same and in such high volume!
Romans 8:38-39 NIV
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, [39] neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 2:13 NIV
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.
Please connect with your local churches they will be a blessing of resources to you. Test God and see if it isn't true.
What a hard life you have! I pray to the Lord to provide you with strength, the strength you need for every single day and good people with kind hearts and helping hands to surround you.
Just curious if they lower their standards of evidence to the same point with the other religions' claims or just for theirs?
After listening to this, I am STILL at a loss to know how Dr J thinks archeology could ever prove, or even support, the resurrection of Jesus. Does anyone know?
No one knows, including him.
Dave,
I don't think Dr. K thinks it "proves" anything. But it can provide supporting evidence. Just like a cold case detective has to solve a case with only written statements and some physical evidence. The same kind of methodology can be applied to building a case for the resurrection as well as the biblical documents.
@@skatter44 Yes OK, but I don't see how archeology can provide any supporting evidence for the resurrection. Can you give an example?
@@davidkemball-cook559 What constitutes "archaeology" to you? It seems the only thing mentioned was writings. If I understood his point it was that the gospels got the specifics about time, place, people's names right whereas the non-canonical gospels got a lot of that info wrong.
If by archaeology you mean the New Testament documents then I would say that they contain eyewitness statements that can be verified as being an accurate account of what they saw and experienced. The four ways to make that determination are
1) Were they present to witness what they claimed to have seen.
2) Can their account be corroborated with other sources?
3) Did their account of what happened change over time?
4) Did they have any motives for fabricating their account? In other words, did they gain anything like money, power, or relationships?
I would say if they pass these four tests their accounts of what happened can be considered to be reliable.
@@skatter44 If I may chime in, are you saying that the gospels get everything right? Luke has Jesus born 10 years after Matthew, and attributes to Augustus a world wide decree that is clearly impossible. As for the ‘cold case’ criteria, they all fail in relation to the canonical gospels.
I enjoyed this discussion!
The disciples just witnessed the man they followed and loved being brutally tortured and killed. I am sure they were in shock. They weren’t thinking about His words about resurrection, they were in deep mourning, emotional pain, suffering and on top of that; fear.
In the STORY
There is no evidence that the STORY is factual
yep - it's a bunch of stories. dead people tend to stay dead.
@@gowdsake7103 Jesus is referred to by contemporary sources, such as Pliny, Josephus and Tacitus. St Thomas took Christianity to India. The existence of a Christian community in Kerala before the arrival of Europeans confirms the reality of Thomas, which confirms the reality of Jesus.
@@adamclark1972uk Honestly ? you think contemporary is Tacitus 115/116 AD Pliny around 111 AD Josephus sighs you dont even know that the section you love is a forgery
As for Tacitus and Pliny sighs they wrote about CHRISTIANS who told a STORY about a CLAIM sheesh
The Christain community in India? They have a tradition that Thomas visited and was martyred. Historically, this community was organised as the Province of India of the Church of the East by Patriarch Timothy I (780-823 AD) in the eighth century. The religious historian Robert Eric Frykenberg notes that: "Whatever dubious historicity may be attached to such local traditions, there can be little doubt as to their great antiquity or to their great appeal in the popular imagination.
@@gowdsake7103 Thats not true. We literally have Saint Paul and Peters graves. We know that they were persecuted and killed for their beliefs
I am a believer. But, I have a question, It is my understanding that the Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection. Is that correct t?
is it true that "dr" johnson didn't go to university at oxford but his degree is from middlesex uni? some people are saying he's being misleading.....
Yes. This is true.
He worked with the
Oxford Centre for Missions Studies. So he was there, but not at the Uni.
His bio is readily available. Any person who has undergone a graduate degree, much less a PhD, has sacrificeds years, family time, and personal interests to complete this level of education. He *is* a PhD and, therefore, deserves the Dr. title. He's earned it, regardless where he got the degree.
@@redbrewsave look, no one is begrudging Jeremiah of his title; yes he certainly earned it. But with how much name-dropping he does in this interview he absolutely deserves all the criticism he gets for promoting the false idea that he earned his PhD from Oxford. In the end, it doesn't actually matter, which is why it is so odd that he is the one making such a big deal of it.
1:07:42 mr. klapp's question shows a lack of sufficient prayerful reading of/study in /meditation on the accounts of the resurrection just found in the written word of god. the question is just that of a nay sayer without understanding of the word of god. god provides enough evidence of the truthfulness of all the accounts in his inspired writing for a lover of truth to be sufficient to determine its truthfulness. one does not have to be a scholar to get this understanding. the bible is written by an infinite mind who has to give the understanding to a finite mind. no finite mind can fathom the truth of the word of god. maybe superficially, but most often coming with incomplete or even erroneous conclusions. that is why there is so much disagreement among scholars and there are so many and growing number of denominations.
It's interesting how Jeremiah is so confident of all this.. yet he CAN'T show ANY of it (again).
Just trying to put a new rapper on the same old stuff.
Even today, if someone who had predicted his resurrection and then pulled it off there would people who never believed it unless they "put their fingers in the nail holes".
Resurrection does not prove he spoke the universe into existence.
There's something sad - not to say fishy - about someone who tries so hard to give the impression he is a graduate of the University of Oxford (mentioned 4 times). In fact he was never a matriculated member of the University. His PhD was awarded - a decade ago - by Middlesex University (no mentions).
i've been to oxford, many times. anyone can go to oxford.
Oxford Centre for Missions Studies is not a university, but it is in Oxford!
I didn't get that impression that he was trying to portray he had a degree from Oxford and he didn't really say "You gotta believe me cause I went to Oxford"
At the same time an ad homenin attack is no better.
Shiny: Hi!! What did you think about the content of his answers? What about the actual content? (I ask honestly, to know your opinion)
@@Apollos2.2 You're right that the circumstances of an author when presenting an argument should be irrelevant to its credibility. But throughout, both McDowell and Johnson are eager to stress those circumstances. In the opening minute, McDowell stresses that the book is a work of "scholarship" and seems to think that its origin in a "90,000 word dissertation" adds something. The first thing out of Johnston's mouth is to say his book came out of research he did "while I lived in Oxford". When Johnston says a further 3 times that he was "at Oxford" but never once clarifies that his study was actually accredited by Middlesex University (a much less prestigious college), its clear the intention is to bolster his argument through association. I am merely pointing that out.
My FAVORITE interview!! Thank you
Misleading title; no new evidence was offered.
Did you stop listening before 18 minutes? An entire panel of PhD’s critics conceded that what Dr.Johnson presents in that segment (beginning at 18 mins) represents new evidence in iight of First Century Rabbinical Judaism.
@@erkashbee6504 Wow, speaking of resurrection, you're replying to a comment from two months ago.
Anyway, I watched forward from 18 minutes. No new evidence is offered; it's just the assertion that nobody needed to invent a Jesus-specific resurrection claim, because of assumptions about a general resurrection.
Aside: Why can't this guy pronounce the word "Judaism?"
_Joo-dism!_
I have a question,
if there was a Resurrection, shouldn't the guy be alive?" - What's the point of coming back to life?
Forget the resurrection. The writers couldn't even agree if it was Joseph of Arimathea who collected the body or if Nicodemus was with him. Nor about wrapping the body, was it Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Or was it just Joseph of Arimathea wrapping it himself in Mark and Matthew. But there is no witnesses in the first place in the bible of Joseph of Arimathea cutting a tomb, nor would a rich man cut his own tomb, he would pay for it to be done.
Mark 15:46, Matthew 27:59, Joseph of Arimathea gets the body himself then wraps the body himself.
John 19:39-40 Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus get the body and they both wrap the body.
So, you Think Joseph being a rich man actually did the work himself in Matthew and Mark but not in John only Nicodemus helped him?
Each Gospel doesn't give every detail to the story.
That doesn't mean there is a contradiction in telling the story as probably his servants were actually helping him do the work but not given the credit as Joesph was paying for Jesus burial.
It's definitely not a one man job or was it complete. How do you know these are not two different times coming to the tomb ?
That's why the woman came to the tomb to complete the ritual after the Sabbath ended and were surprised the stone wasn't a problem with them entering the tomb.
I don't know why John added that detail about Nicodemus, but the Mark and Matthew passages could have left out that detail without contradicting it (especially if it was Joseph taking the main initiative by asking Pilate for permission to take the body, and paying for the tomb). Whether or not Joseph carved out the tomb himself, one could still credit Joseph for having had the rock cut out (similar to how you would credit a modern homeowner for remodeling their kitchen even if they use hired hands for the work).
@@davidjanbaz7728 It tells you Joseph cut the tomb himself, Matthew 27:60. The event of collecting the body and wrapping the body only happened once. For Joseph to collect the body Nicodemus had to be with him in both instances (collecting and wrapping). Your witnesses are blind to an actual person with Joseph, so how wrong can they be of a person resurrecting.
1:10:01 "shroud of turin." the biblical description of how jesus was "wrapped in linen clothes [otoniois] with spices" and his face having another cloth covering it could not have created the image on the shroud of turin. if i am to base my evaluation on this shroud solely on the biblical account rather than all the aging etc., i would have dismissed this and save millions of dollars trying to prove it is what was used to bury jesus. look, he was "wrapped" with the clothes to hold the spices, it was not just laid on top of him. the spices will also have to leave stains on the cloth, not just "blood" stains. this does not require scientific testing nor scholarly evaluation. the word of god is so plain and simple. anyone who can read it prayerfully can understand this issue.
now it is even an object of veneration. that is idolatry.
My my you have done some research on this haha! Good for you!
Great interview! Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I'm a little confused by one of his arguments. On the one hand, he appears to advocate N.T. Wright's argument that the death of Jesus would've proved he wasn't the messiah, so a resurrection was necessary to keep the movement alive. But on the other hand, he claims that there was no motivation for the disciples to invent the resurrection since it wasn't necessary. These two argument do not seem to be consistent with each other.
You have no evidence of what Jesus ever said or did. You only read a book - which is a copy of a copy of a copy of translations of fragments from the 1st century written decades after the fact by anonymous authors of stories passed around like a telephone game.
LOL
This is more of "well, it has to be true because why would all these people believe this stuff and even die for this stuff if it wasn't true" and variations of that argument. That's not proof. That's a reason why someone might believe or want to believe, but it is in no way proof that anything they believe in is true.
My biggest issue with believing that Jesus resurrected is that if I took the same evidence for Jesus and applied it to someone today, I wouldn’t believe it. I guess I may be missing something but here is how I understand it.
To make a fair comparison it would be like if a relatively small religion 30 years ago had a person who claimed to be the son of god. Their messiah wrote nothing down, but supposedly performed miracles and was resurrected. Some of the people who saw this happened were supposedly killed for their beliefs. They have scriptures saying that this would happen. These events were not written down for 30 years and the authors are anonymous. We don’t even have originals of the documents and there is evidence some things were changed and/or added. We can’t interview the messiah, or anyone who witnessed the miracles or the resurrection. No doctor examined the body and no video or other evidence exists of the events. However there is a growing number of people who believe it to be true.
Would this convince you that they resurrected? Would it convince you that their religion is true? It wouldn’t even come close to convincing me, so why would the Christian story convince me? If I wouldn’t accept the same evidence today for a someone coming back to life why would I accept it from 2000 years ago or ever?
I think a problem with your comparison is that we should expect different levels of evidence from different cultures. We can reasonably expect videos of events from recent history, but we can't reasonably expect videos of events that occurred before film or photography existed. We can expect massive amounts of literature from a society with high levels of literacy, where everyone owns multiple devices they can use to write an almost unlimited amount. We should expect less literature from a society where literacy is a valuable skill and writing materials prohibitively expensive. All the best Matthew.
@@jackbarraclough3142 While the expected levels of evidence may be different for different cultures depending on time period and education, my point remains. My level of evidence that I accept is the same regardless of culture and time period. I don’t think I could accept any ancient claim if I couldn’t accept the same claim today. Just because people 2000 years ago accepted it doesn’t mean I should.
Would you believe a resurrection happened today with the same evidence as for Jesus? Or for another religion?
Edit: I also want to point out that Jesus could have created paper and written out a divine document as a miracle. I do not think that pointing out paper was expensive makes sense when Jesus wasn’t bound by money to get his message across.
@@matthewwoodard3117 could you help me understand your perspective better? Are you saying that you believe Jesus is still dead because there is no video of a resurrected Jesus? Or are you saying that you believe that if Jesus resurrected then it would have produced more literature than we know about? Or are you making a more humist argument about how miracles are impossible and so the evidential weight is too high to ever believe the claim?
@@jackbarraclough3142I would say that I have no good evidence that any human has ever resurrected. Therefore I would have to say Jesus is probably still dead.
I am not sure how the amount of literature produced has any bearing on the truth of a claim. Popularity does not mean something is true.
I believe anything I have good evidence for including miracles. But no good evidence has been presented for miracles. Saying I don’t know how something happened therefore it’s a miracle doesn’t make sense. I don’t know if miracles are impossible.
My position is as I said above. If I took t he exact same evidence for Jesus and god and changes it to a relatively small religion from 1990 I wouldn’t believe it. This would be the same situation people from the first century would be in that never met Jesus and never saw him. So if I don’t believe it could have happened in 1990 why would I believe it happened 2000 years ago.
With all respect that’s a you problem Mathew 😅
Thank you so much. This was excellent and very helpful. God bless you both. ♥
And the evidence is ?
revenue from book sales, what else is christianity about?
You’re missing it
@@va.nessa.chavez No looked again no evidence .
What is evidence?
@@HarryNicNicholas The Resurrection. When understood.
I love Jason lisle approach in regard to defending the Bible with the Bible and that is not circular reasoning since there are 66 books with different authors so yeah
When Johnston says "we can't get into the disciple's heads" (to know what they believed or didn't). RIGHT! He's basically making his "explanations" IRRELEVANT.
Johnston is saying NOTHING NEW here.. and he cannot get away from the Bible when he's doing it.
We've heard all of this before.
Kind of expected.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
The resurrection of Jesus is something that cannot be proven it's a matter of faith
Help me understand...Johnston seems to be leaning here into this Oxford thingy here, implying his degree is from Oxford. Is that the case... is Johnston's degree from Oxford as is implied here?
No. Johnston's PhD is from Middlesex University in London. He was in Oxford as a participant in a programme offered by the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, which is an Evangelical Christian organization that houses PhD students registered at Middlesex in Oxford, and has access to the Oxford libraries (which isn't nothing!) and some faculty and courses. But this IS NOT to be confused with an Oxford PhD. It raises serious questions as to why Johnston would encourage this ambiguity.
Sean asked, "Why didn't the disciples believe" before they actually experienced Him? Seems to me the same reason the Israelites had so much trouble in the wilderness after seeing the Hand of God in the 10 plagues, in the parting of the Red Sea and in the killing of the Egyptians by the Red Sea ... humans are hard hearted. The disciples were told by Jesus that He was going away to prepare a place for them and He would come back for them. Then at the ascension, they looked 'dumbfoundedly' into the clouds. Seems they weren't really changed nor able to understand until Acts 2 with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Just started reading the book and am very impressed with it. Recommended.
Man Sean, your podcast is so awesome and flames the fires of faith.
Awesome thanks!!!
COME ON SEAN...
I thought you said apologetics had to get much better in '23.
This is NOT the way to do it.
This was hardly new or compelling at all. You let Jeremiah slide on several questions/answers that he totally circumvented.
YOU have brought up many of these points BEFORE on different videos.
Great stuff!
Now that I have my dictionary out, let me hit replay. Good stuff!
H hubby b
Christians are amazingly optimistic.
They think that when they are dead, they will be alive !
That's like saying my car will still work after it has been scrapped.
There are thousands of cases of people having near death experiences were they were clinically dead but were fully conscious of what was happening in the room - and also had experiences with Jesus while they were clinically dead. Read the case for heaven by Lee Strobel.
@@kaylaglazebrook1887
So you think that when I am dead, I will still be conscious.
I'm not sure I want to be conscious, but unable to move.
Imagine not being able to walk any more !
@@kaylaglazebrook1887
Millions of people believe in Shiva.
Is that evidence ?
@@kaylaglazebrook1887
Where is Jesus now and what exactly is he doing ?
Some witnesses say he stands on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56)
Others say he sits on the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1)
Unbelievable no evidence at all still just blind faith deluded in the extreme
Well, that's enough about you. What about the evidence?
😂 evidence is there's no evidence 😂@@grantbartley483
Your videos are rather long even when the messages are excellent.
Really enjoyed this interview, one of the better I’ve listened to. Thanks for the time put in!
Thanks for the kind words!
Question: I believe the Shroud of Turin is also huge evidence of Jesus resurrection. Why do people leave this out?
Sean appreciate you taking the time to highlight my question. If I’m understanding correctly it sounds like context/theological significance is what makes the difference between Jesus and the pen. I am not a huge fan of this answer because of the Divine psychologizing that takes place to get there. When the problem of evil is brought up suddenly God is mysterious, unknowable, higher than our ways, and has morally sufficient reasons that we are unaware of. But when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus suddenly we can become very confident this is exactly the type of thing God would do.
I understand from your perspective God has revealed in his word his desire to save his people. But ask any Jewish person if Jesus lines up with the messianic picture painted in the Old Testament and I think we’d both know how they would answer.
A LOT of it has to do of people not understanding "the Government" that the O.T. prophet Isaiah stated concerning the coming Messiah and Jesus' holding THAT government upon His shoulders. Which stems in part, if not wholly upon one's faith that there was at LEAST one "everlasting(period of eternity)" (dinosaurs, Greek mythology for instance) BEFORE this current "everlasting (period of eternity)." Followed by yet ANOTHER "everlasting" also called and described as that "period of eternity" (in God's way of thinking) as "The Thousand Years" when satan is "locked away", and the "Teachings and Disciplines" are taught and learned and maintained (or not), By Priests of God AND of Christ Jesus of Nazareth. After which? Yet ANOTHER period of eternity, or everlasting (called a short while in the Revelation KJV), where satan is loosed, as the final "filtering" (if you will) or "proofing" of "people called by His Name!"
Which brings up "God's conundrum!" Because He HAS ALREADY Angels that do His bidding! The question "How do I, or how many "scenarios" must I create that will cause my children to WANT to DO My bidding?"
And then? There's the "Order of Melchizedek." Which begs the "the thinkers" amongst us? To ask the question of: "Just How Many Priests ARE There in this "Order?" What must one DO? When does "eternity" BEGIN for the "saved" believer? From the point of "acceptance" and beyond? What about eternity prior? There ARE points talked about in the N.T. where Disciples "try" to "bring to remembrance" these things.
But ya GOTTA THINK! And this takes spiritual sacrifices acceptable TO God BY Jesus!
It TAKES one going THROUGH the "first Resurrection" WHEN/WHERE the "love" that COVERS the multitude of sins that "the believer/accept-er" is TAKEN AWAY (so to speak). Or? Where it is written in the book of Isaiah 28 (If memory serves me well): "Where the sheets or blankets, or even ones' bed is too short for them."
And THIS occurs when a believer does SOME act of repentance that the "Spirit of God" sees as an "act attributable TOWARDS righteousness!" Much like Abram did!
@@AmosBHaven I’m sorry but I don’t understand what I just read or how it applies to my comment. Was this written by AI? Had to be…
@@dillanklapp Nope! Not ai. Just Devine psychologizing. Now ya might better understand why Jesus taught using parables. Not everyone CAN understands it. But someone may. A reason may be that the connecting of dots using simple language jez blows away vanity that higher critics are so want to use while fleecing the sheeps. In Love of course. Which covers a multitude of sin. Ya could do yerself a favor and asks Him. Gotta tell ya though. Be careful what ya asks for. From personal experience though? It may well be opening a can of worms, then untangling one worm merely to find another can of worms from just that one worm. And it well may "feels" like yer messing with the author of confusion. Perseverance is the key! And not leaning on yer OWN understanding. Did ya know Baalim's donkey that he rode had a name? His name was Gus! (nah!...jez kidding). Yet? That donkey saw things Baalim didn't, or couldn't. Wonder why that was?
Jonathan Cahn is a Messianic Rabbi and very much believes Jesus IS the Messiah and can show evidence much better than I.
@@glendarjolley3171 check out Tovia Singer, he’s an orthodox rabbi who can explain why Jesus is not the messiah better than Johnathan.
Playing the I have a smart guy that agrees with me game could go on forever.
A new record for the number of times a UA-cam guest says 'I', 'me', or 'my'?
I am commenting before hearing the whole thing because I have read nearly everything Gary Habermas has written in his minimalist approach allowing only what the skeptics concede. What they concede can only lead one to believe the resurrection is historical (apart from being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and his testimony to our hearts). I am looking forward to hearing this interview and the seven reasons.
Great interview. I am ordering the book.
habermas is about as credible as this johnson. they make crap up.
What about the other saviour God stories that are identical to the Jesus Christ story?
@43:06 : Sean talks about his class on the "resurrection of grad students." I can see that would be a very popular class! =)
It’s fun. Join us!
@@SeanMcDowell 😀
To the question of why the resurrection matters, I would have answered differently than that a religion rests on it. I would have answered that in his resurrection, Jesus proved his authority that all who believe in shall have life everlasting.
New evidence, extrabiblical, for the resurrection claimed by the bible.
Cites arguments, decades old, right from the bible.
Jesus' followers had no reason to expect he would be resurrected, and also the resurrection was completely foretold! Errrm, right. If only we knew what could motivate him to push such smut **cough** book sales **cough...**
44:03 paul did not have just "an" experience of the jesus. jesus was the one who taught him for three years (almost as long as he did with the apostles) in arabia and paul recorded jesus communicating with him several times in his writings.
I’m so glad to know Jeremiah Johnston isn’t David Jeremiah. I got the names mixed up so I had never listen to Dr. Johnston. I ordered his book. Thanks!
he's still misleading people about this oxford malarky. do a bit of digging.......
@@HarryNicNicholas what Oxford malarkey?
@@HarryNicNicholas He completed his doctoral residency in Oxford with the Oxford Centre for Missions Studies. So he was working in Oxford.
Ps.16:10 was what confirmed the Everlasting Covenant by the "sure mercies of David" Resurrection Sunday; Isa. 55:3. Dan. 9:27, Acts 13:34.
Q: JJ Johnston did you get your doctorate from Oxford University, which is the impression you give in this interview.
Follow up, which college were you resident at during your time at Oxford.
apparently not, he does construct his sentences carefully. i went to oxford, more than once.
He completed a doctoral residency in Oxford, working with the Oxford Centre for Missions Studies which is independent, but he was there!
I have come to notice this about almost all the long form interviews with scholars on this channel.
They always present as Dr. Soandso or Myname PhD. But then never tell you what the study was and where it was done.
If you can find anything about them online at all, it's almost exclusively a degree in A
apologetics or old testament from a Christian seminary.
At the website "Christian Thinkers" (a somewhat pretentious name) he is introduced as "Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhD, M.A. , M.Div, BA"
New testament scholar, pastor...
And probably the funniest..
Jeremiah has *distinguished* himself speaking in churches of *all denominations* "
He is a specialist in generality.
@@HarryNicNicholasReally? What a ridiculous statement. Grammer Nazis are so irritating. 😢
Sean McDowell, I used to respect you more. You are smart and aware enough to see the holes in Jeremiah’s claims and evidences and don’t call him out. You don’t even call him out for trying hard to associate himself to Oxford University. This man is just plain dishonest, literally and intellectually, and you associating with him in this paddy cake fashion is suspect to me.
i respected sean for the length of one video, then it became apparent he is full of the same lies as every other apologist.
Can you give some specifics to support your claim? I'm not arguing, but would appreciate the details so I understand your point more thoroughly. Thanks so much.
Shouldn’t the time frame from the resurrection and ascension turned the Jewish world upside down??
“Fresh argument.” 😂
It’s funny. But what’s the point?
@@papayamusicofficial7941 I could be, and hope, I’m wrong. But it seems like he’s an arrogant atheist who doesn’t have a point
It is actually a pretty good point. If skeptics are going to say we cobble a story .. you had better be willing to consider the implausibility of resurrection to be the response to Jesus dying …. Don’t be the pot✔️
Not really. Nothing new that a Bible reading christian that goes to a Bible teaching church will not already knows.
55:47 bless you sean for understanding it is spiritual death that has to be defeated. man was created with mortal bodies and so will have to go through physical death (with the exception of enoch for one reason or another only god knows so far). but in the resurrection, the immortal souls of believers will be clothed with immortal spiritual bodies like jesus has.
When you join a religion (cult) you are dead spiritually. Closed to all but what they tell you to be.
@@stultusvenator3233Whats the difference between religion and a cult?
@@Wellthatwasfunny77
Size 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 mostly.
More complicated but little difference.
@stultusvenator3233 Haha wrong! Cults do horrible things and Religions don't. You can leave a Religion but you can't leave a Cult.
@@Wellthatwasfunny77
Ok so there are no religions just cults. Unless you think child rape is not a Horrible Thing.
Fantastic interview and so insightful. I will try and remember some of these arguments when speaking to non believers. Thank you ✝️🇿🇦
If you had to pick one argument, which would it be? I'm an atheist who's (far-from-academically) interested in religions & belief.
Why would God need anybody to convince a non-believer?
I'm afraid that using these arguments when speaking to any informed non-believer will be more likely to lead to them laughing at you, cringing at you, or lecturing you about epistemology and logic than to their conversion.
@@brooklynnlou4 _"Why would God need anybody to convince a non-believer?"_ I was asking @Tanja Smit, not their god. But to address your point, I'm told some gods care about converting unbelievers - if that's not your type of god, you needn't worry.
@@Devious_Dave I kind of like my gods to show up and make it clear exactly what they mean. hehehe
I recently read a book called He Walked the Americas by L. Taylor Hansen, who collected hundreds of oral accounts from native peoples in North and South America of a white, blue eyed God who visited them and taught them the way of peace. From the account, it is obvious that His visits were AFTER His resurrection. Very intriguing! The similarities between their descriptions, even with no contact between the different groups is fascinating.
And I agree, we have to read the scriptures (including the books that were voted to be left out of the canon by those with certain agendas and preconceived beliefs, as well as the books that have come forth since like in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even the Book of Mormon, a 1st Temple book of scripture--just don't join the LDS cult, they have been in a state of apostasy almost since the beginning of that movement when Brigham Young introduced polygamy and tried to pin that on Joseph so that the "saints" would accept it as a "restored principle" because they thought it was "restored" by Joseph. It wasn't. Joseph always spoke and wrote about polygamy as an abomination, gross crime, sin, fornication, adultery, whoredom, and wickedness. He was excommunicating those involved, and was about to excommunicate half of the "leaders" for this abomination when he and his brothers were killed, likely by them and they blamed it on the "mob" according to recent forensic evidence.
Got off topic! Read it, study it, it testifies of the divinity of Jesus and His visit to the people in NA after His resurrection. Get to know it well enough to use it along with the Bible it to save the poor souls of those caught in the LDS cult today who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ, but think that they do....
Sean asks : “ok, tell me where I’m missing it”
Where you’re missing it (the Shroud debate) is super obvious. STURP (the 33 Scientists who were sent over to Turin to study the clothe in 1978) had One Objective - find out how the Image got there ! That is what you are missing, Sean. You think an Image of Jesus is unimportant for some reason.
The 33 Scientists ruled out Paint. But left Italy with more questions than when they started.
The Shroud is a Much Better Apologetic for the Resurrection than any of the 7 Reasons you two guys spent over one hour hashing out.
That’s what you’re missing.
Excellent Live Chat !
Enjoyed the entire show.
It may help to put timing info to mark the place you mean, preceded by an "at" symbol. UA-cam would then create a link that directly takes the person to the part where Sean says the quote you mention. For example @43:06 Sean talks about his class on the "resurrection of grad students" (obviously he meant "resurrection of Jesus").
@109.00 Sean said
@@matthewcollins8148 You need the colon rather than the period. I see "maybe I'm missing something" at: @1:10:09
@@Jaime-SuperSuffix you dont need the @
11:11
how can god be moral if he commanded the murder of children in Numbers 31:17?
All the god commanded atrocities are nothing in comparison to his creating a hell and sending most people to it. But yeah, I agree with ur statement.
This is speaking of the sensationalism culturally of “idoloatry” that took over the souls of marrying aged people. This is a violation of Gods law to value other things or people above Him.
GREAT VIDEO.
Apologists keep forgetting that "BEST" reasons, don't actually mean they're GOOD reasons :-/
This is obviously geared toward people who ALREADY believe.
I am glad you are here. Keep seeking friend.
loons like that have a habit of preaching to the choir or they arrange a a mutual masturnbation video in which to loons agree eachother off about how right they arere which is a growing habit amongst kinderlander- American loons; gosh those unbelievers are so obviously wrong aren't they sort of mutual masturbation
Quite why the loons suppose that something to that could possibly have happened *after* the death of a teacher could have any bearing on his teaching*before* his death, is impossible to fathom, but then there is no doubt tha religion tends to stupefy the reason, the proponents of the resurrection tending to be clearly wholly innocent of any sort of intellectual accomplishment or ability, such that you would be better off addressing a dog
I read that the Gospels were edited. That places faith in man -- that they got it right -- rather than in God. This is not a court of law where you have the luxury of asking the editors questions and maybe finding out more information. We don't know their motivation or how they went about editing the text. We are left with a mystery but not as profound as the mystery of Christ.
If it takes 90,000 words and more to argue for the resurrection, God did not make this clearly evident to all people.
Hi Sean I am new to your channel and have a question why would the apostles still be hesitant to believe that JESUS rose from the dead after they witnessed JESUS raising Lazarus I do not get it
Great Q. Lazarus would die again but Jesus rose to a resurrection body. Jesus also claimed to be the messiah and that he would raise himself (John 2) vs Lazarus being raised by another and yet dying again. Plus crucifixion was the worst possible death which means someone was cursed (Deut). This is a few of the reasons…
39:18
-Is it possible to have Q without P?
-If P then Q. And there is Q. [Smug face]
-Alright, well said.
Well said???
That's a super clear red herring PLUS a fallacy of affirming the consequent. 🤦🏻♂
Yeah… he doesn’t seem to address Sean’s concern at all, he simply goes on a tangent about how other writings make claims that do not line up with what archeology says about the time and place. This says nothing about the canonical gospels at all anyway. Afterwards he says that the gospels do like up with archeological evidence about the time and place, but still doesn’t address Sean’s concern that a story simply being set in a real place and time might not necessarily mean it is true. It’s almost like he went on that tangent to avoid addressing the concern. Stuff like that makes me wonder sometimes if people are being purposely deceptive.
Him saying that "we need both" minimal facts and max data shows that hes not listening
The McGrews and friends stress that "if we are correct in our criticism of the minimal facts _we have no choice_ but to abandon it"
Theyre not just saying "oh hey did you know that gospel reliability is a good apologetic too" they are saying "if we dont have a detailed account of what the disciples claim they saw we have no way of knowing if they were rational in believing in a bodily resurrection"
These are not new arguments, they are the same old arguments put a new way.
in a new money making book form is the important part.
atheists are poor cos we don't need books "how to be a better atheist"
@@HarryNicNicholas I can agree with that.
Basically the "argument" for someone rising from the dead is people believed it?
Thats supposed to be evidence?
Isaiah 53 had an interpretation way before Christianity was even a concept.
SO, Hiding a mystery in plain sight is how God fooled Satan and the "Rulers of this Age" into thinking they would win in Jesus crucifixion: but the Resurrection was the actual defeat of Satan's kingdom on Earth and the start of The kingdom of God taking over up to the Millennium kingdom at Jesus second coming.
It had multiple interpretations but that does not mean that they were correct.
You don't understand how typology works
@@Convexhull210 You mean like foreshadowing and "christ types" in the Christian bible? Do you mean the theological definition of typology I assume?
@@josephthomas2226 LOL So the original authors with the original intent way before Christianity were interpreting their scriptures wrong even though there was no Jesus for hundreds of years if not thousand?
Wait…which college did this guy go to???
NOT Oxford.
Think about this… if God is almighty and there is no power or authority over him to dictate rules…
There is only hell and punishment, because He wants there to be.
Why do we have a court of law/prison system in the US? We choose to have one, does that mean we are evil for punishing evil? Or do we understand that people need to pay the consequences for their choices and it benefits them (if they ever learn from it) and the rest of society. Evil doesnt cast out evil.
Yes, that's scary. Add to that that he's watched over the deaths of perhaps 120 billion humans throughout history. The Bible is correct when it advises us to fear God, if he exists.
I would add that there are various NT words translated as 'hell', and they refer to completely different concepts, so our one word 'hell' is unhelpful. To go back to the original words, my understanding is that Hades/bossom of Abraham are the waiting rooms for souls before the last judgement, Tartoros (aka the abyss?)is where the demons are waiting and/or acting from, and Gehenna is the fire of eternal destruction to which the unsaved are condemned. The word 'destruction' is in the Greek to describe the condemnation, and I take eternal destruction to mean destruction forever from eternity. But if you're an unbeliever, there is a sense in which you already believe that is your fate: that you will die, and there is will be nothing left of you forever; soon, not even a memory. That codemnation is what Jesus saves us from, by faith. That is the Gospel.
@@NiRaSis our prison/court system is mainly for the protection of the community, or for reform…. Neither of which hell is for.
@@jayvansickle7607 We arent God so our understanding of Hell is limited, however, it is separating those who have not been made clean from those who have. If you have a pile of clean clothes, you dont throw dirty laundry into them for then the clean clothes would no longer be clean. The unclean generally taints the clean. Thats why Jews had so many rules about cleanliness. All those rules point to the greater cleansing of sin.
@@NiRaSis if I could make all the clothes cleaned with a snap of my fingers, I would. Good could forgive and remake everyone post death…but, it seems like he Wants people in hell.
“If you and I were observant Jews in the 1st century we would know exactly what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah” “Why didn’t the apostles understand what Jesus meant by his prediction of his resurrection?” “We can’t know or anachronise what the apostles understood in the 1st century”🤔 quotes for effect not accuracy
I haven't heard even ONE evidentiary fact - one that can be demonstrated to be true. It is literally one baseless claim upon another. Can ANYONE state a demonstrable fact about this claim of resurrection?
Don't ask stupid questions. The resurrection isn't a natural mechanism to be measured. Its a historical event. The evidence we get for ancient historical events are reports, inscriptions, papyri and such. There aren't going to be pictures.
So to demand a "demonstrable" fact for a single event in history is the demand of a retard who doesn't have a clue how historical sciences work.
Get better.
@@blusheep2 Questions aren't stupid. Those instructing others not to ask them are.
I haven't asked for this baseless claim to be _measured._ I asked if _anyone_ could present evidence demonstrating the truth of the claim. And YOU cannot.
And we haven't any firsthand eyewitness account, official document, credible historical report, forensic artifact, or corrobative correspondence for those events depicted in the gospels. Not one.
We have one anonymous fantastical story copied, altered, and embellished over and over under different names resulting in a cult developed like hundreds of similar cults at that time but fortunate enough to have been adopted by both reining emperors of the split Roman Empire in the early 4th century.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Still stupid. You may have intelligence but you aren't thinking through your question intelligently. You asked for a "demonstrable fact" about the claim. That isn't the same as asking for evidence. There is plenty of evidence but you don't like the evidence. Fine. but the question is stupid when you imply that we should have ways to demonstrate a one time historical event. How do we demonstrate that Rameses II built Pi-Rameses. You can't. All we have is the writing of ancient Egyptians and a city identified as Pi-Ramese
It sounds like you are always going to view the glass half empty. I also find that to be a stupid way to evaluate evidence, but that is your choice. I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you because I simply think your an idiot that doesn't know how to do their research properly and always takes the low road.
I've said my peace. Have a good one.
@@blusheep2 What evidence am I not considering? State these evidentiary facts in complete sentences. I look forward to your excuses as to why you can't or won't present such evidentiary facts.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Go do your own homework and if you can't figure it out Ill help you out but not till you prove that you've actually done the homework.
Why does Dr johnson refute the church fathers on the virginity of Mary
How so?
I didn’t hear him say that either.
But, Johnston should answer Kipp Davis here in the questions.
Kipp questioned the integrity of Johnston. Crickets from Johnston.
@@matthewcollins8148 He just did.
Best evidence for the resurrection. Both my pastor and my parents said it was true.
Well then the resurrection must be true then, both your christian parents and pastor said so.
@@MediocreUkulelePlayer my comment basically sums up the video
It is important, however, that you know it is true for yourself (especially for people like James below who will question you). It is important to have your own relationship with Jesus Christ, if you haven't done so already.
@@richardcarrier9536 hahaha yes the burning of the bosom
@@IIrandhandleII
I always get that when I eat too many chili cheese burger.
"New evidence for the resurrection"? Why do we have to scramble so hard to find this evidence, when Jesus could have provided it himself (to everyone interested) so easily after he allegedly rose from the dead? And how can you say that he provided "the sign of Jonah", as he promised to the Pharisees, since he didn't appear to those asking for the sign to confirm its fulfillment and keep his promise? Sean, this little rant is directed at your guest, not at you. But I would appreciate an answer from you, because I value your fairness and your lack of fear in tackling tough questions.
"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."
(Matthew 28:17)
any idea who wrote matthew?
@@HarryNicNicholas
Brian
@@tedgrant2it's always funny when the TRUTH hits
@@DPSMattDiggitty
That really made me think.
@@tedgrant2 any answer????
I have a question for my pre-trib brothers and sisters. When are the Old Testament saints raptured? (Future)
The rapture is only for people who are still alive when Christ returns. The rest of the saints will come back down to Earth with him to meet them in the air, I think is the picture.
@@grantbartley483 Let me help you brother. Lu 11:31-32 The Queen of the south, and the men of Nineveh (Believers) SHALL RISE (Resurrect) IN THE JUDGMENT) The rapture (Resurrection) and the judgment day happen at the same time. Act 24:14 Act 17:31 NO one left behind according to Jesus.
@@markhauserbible7168 I don't think that's the standard meaning of the word 'rapture'. But the resurrection is God's judgement on the world in one sense, true.
@@grantbartley483 Mt 20:19 RISE Mr 9:31 Mr 12:25 Lu 24:7 Jn 11:24 RISE IN THE RESURRECTION. There is ONE resurrection Act 24:15 and ONE day of judgment Act17:31 Yours in Christ
best evidence...
1,) it is in the bible
2,) read #1
Enjoyed the interview. Learned a lot. However, what does it mean to “privilege the Bible”?
I think by “prioritize the gospel” he means either “to not scrutinize the Bible the way other historical texts are scrutinized” or “to believe the Bible before other sources written at the same time without reason to do so”. I’m not sure which, but either one would have a similar effect.
Sorry, I meant “privilege” not “prioritize”
Recent investigations into the shroud of Turin using newly developed technologies discovered that the images in the shroud actually not only show the image of a person, but also captures the images of a person in motion at multiple points in time, all layered on top of each other. If this was faked, the creator of it would have had to somehow account for technology they could not fathom at the time.
Look up "THE CRUCIFIX FISH - WHAT THE CRUCIFIX FISH REVEALS"
The shroud of Turin is still a fake.
The bodily proportions in the Shroud of Turin are incompatible with 3D human bodies, they are not what you would get if you wrapped a body.
Ignoring the warping the proportions not warped are those common to iconography of the time, and also very rare in a living human being.
A one piece textile as a shroud is an anachronism, and is not what is described in the New Testament which is the habit of the time of using strips, as in common in cartoon representations of Egyptian mummies.
And we have a mundane report of the time of it being a fraud. Why ignore the report written at the time it first hit the antiquities market in favor of believing anachronisms and false reports of modern fancy?
the shroud has been satisfactorily debunked, but tell me, even if it were proved beyond doubt it was jesus, and if it was impregnated with some as yet unknown particle - what exactly does that prove?
the shroud is a joke, i'd go for some other less silly proof if i were you. shroud folks are on the same level as flat earthers.
@@histreeonics7770 If you're going to provide a rebuttal, at least answer the proposed question/topic at hand. It makes it seem like you're suspiciously avoiding it. If it is indeed faked, I, among many, would like to know why, including accounting for more recent discoveries that show information the faker should have no knowledge of at the time.