You know, Habermas saved my faith. His arguments about the Resurrection of Jesus are so well-founded that no one can refute them. Those arguments brought me from agnosticism to a rekindling of my faith in Christ.
Good for you. You might also want to check out the vid Jesus And The Shroud of Turin by 15 Decades, and other such YT vids,if you have not done so already. No, carbon 14 dating did not show it to be a medieval forgery, but the vid will tell you why. If you haven't seen the new, literally miraculous, evidence seen on the Shroud thanks to modern technology, you are in for quite a treat.
***** I am not submissive to religious dogma. Dogma sickens me. Religion sickens me. He provided very good reason for saying Jesus is God. We can also verify Jesus' existence through the same process used in this video to verify His resurrection. Habermas gave good reason as to why the things mentioned in 1 Corinthians should be taken literally. Therefore, when Paul mentioned Jesus, we can confirm that Jesus probably existed. When Paul mentioned the resurrection of Jesus, we can confirm that it probably happened.
There's ONLY one way to win debates on belief: You have to be on the side of the TRUTH. The Bible is the source of truth simply because THE GOD IT PROFESS IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
I didn't know that, but you couldn't help but really love A Flew , he was a very easy spoken and genuinely inquiring gentleman. He reminds me of David Berlinsky with his easy way of speaking.
I have so much more respect and interest in listening to these gentlemen, than a lot of others I’ve tried to listen to, but tired of how rude, conceited and speaking only to make themselves heard, but not listening to one another. I have very much enjoyed listening to these men actually conversing, speaking and listening to one another. This is a wonderful example of conversation, and hearing different thoughts and points, again with calmness and respect, not putting the other down, seeking to discuss, ask questions and be willing to consider each other’s points. Well done! 👍
The debate was redicoulous just as the Veritas organisation was to broad cast it. Flew does not seem to be with it and as were Gary Habermas's presentation of his questions idiotic to Flew, what a joke? This was not a good day for the Veritas foundation.
This is excellent. Clearly, Habermas "won," although he would say that wasn't his intention. He simply wants to promote the truth, which I believe he did. Flew turned to a belief in God before he died. The evidence is clearly on the side of the resurrection. Jesus is alive. It really happened.
Thanks for Being a Useful Idiot Facts are stubborn things. They impacted the outcome of this debate, and rightly so. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just using the noggin God gave me to conclude the obvious.
aThinkingChristian for starters Flew never professed a belief in a Christian god, that is innacurate just as was the claim that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. Secondly there is no overwhelming evidence which confirms the supposed Resurrection as an actual historical event as there are no tools available to the historian to make such a claim. Take the Pauline text for example, there us no evidence to support his clam beyond that of a hallucination and why wouldn't it be? If you have strong belief in something why would it be a shock to join in such a parade of claims that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. I don't see where anyone could conclude Habermas "won"? Going further, why would a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin(who wanted Jesus dead) care about any burial? Why would Pilate even let a murderer of Romans off in place of Jesus? Or let a body off the cross after only a few hours when bodies were commonly left up for days? Habermas is a nice enough guy but I would hardly call his "evidence" as a slam dunk for the supernatural.
Habermas won nothing. Conjecture is not evidence. I think you will find the Flavian dynasty invented this 'Christian' horseshit, aided by the Jew, Josephus
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
Same, I was a rather smug atheist after listening to too many sound bites from Hitchens and Dawkins. It took a muslim trying to convert me to Islam that forced me investigate Christianity. The case for Christ is overwhelming and amazing.
@@sewme7861 I'd be curious to hear what it is that you thought was horrible and disgusting that Jesus Christ ever said. You've left this identical comment on numerous comments here but have not said why.
This might have been the friendliest debate I have ever seen. Antony Flew had his own viewpoints, but seemed quite open to hearing other points. This was very entertaining. I love how Gary Habermas knows so much about the Gospels that he brings up seven points just to the fact of Jesus' burial in Joseph's tomb. I am in awe of that.
Those who enjoy Anthony Flew may enjoy reading his book: There is a God in which he explains how, by being intellectually honest and following the evidence wherever it may lead, he has reached the conclusion that there must be a God.
so why Christ? why Jesus? why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861, You asked "Why Jesus? Why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected?" Well his resurrection is evidence that what he said about himself is true, which, in turn, is evidence that the Bible is true. If what Jesus claims is true, then I'm not sure it matters whether we like it, or not. He's the only way to Heaven, so I choose to put my faith in him. Also, I don't agree that what Jesus said is disgusting. He healed lots of people and showed kindness and love towards all of them. He then promises eternal life in a place where there is no grief. None of that seems disgusting to me. My goal isn't to start an argument. I don't argue about this subject anymore. I merely wanted to answer your question. whylogicfails.com states everything I have to say about this issue. Read it, if you want. But there's really not much more to say.
@@sewme7861 why Christ? Because without Him our sins and transgressions still have to paid for.. Christ did that, on the cross just before Jesus gave up the Spirit he said "it is finished" meaning the debt has been paid. His sacrifice was a gift to you so you can enter into eternal life with the creator of it all. I urge you to not miss out on this gift simply because of a few words you may disagree with.. And if there is a God, who are we to disagree with Him? If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me what things Jesus said that you deem horrible?
Believing in an intelligent creator does not equate to believing in an amalgamated hebrew god with stories and feats from other cultures contrived on to him. Nor does it equate to believing in this hebrew god sacrificing his special son to himself in a blood ritual death scenario as his "ingenious" plan for him to "save" mankind from he himself sending mankind to a hell he himself made because some people don't worship him exactly how he wants. What we need are stories and descriptions of an actual competent creator that makes sense
@@exillens I agree that not everything that God does, makes sense. However, would we really ever expect to completely understand God? Many people may say that my response is a copout response, but it's not. People often make the assumption that there is no limit to human understanding, and that a human being is capable of understanding any concept. However, it's just not the case. If you think about it, it makes sense that we can't comprehend all that God does. If we could, would he really be God? What impresses me most, about Habermas' testimony, is that he had the courage to be intellectually honest, and not dismiss historical facts. I doubt it would have been easy, but the facts are overwhelming. If they weren't, any atheist would be able to have a conversation with him, and convince him to become an atheist again, by merely showing him where he went wrong in his factual observations. It's one of the things which makes his testimony so powerful, in my view.
Thats because Flew and Habermas are concerned with truth rather than doing any of their views "justice". A real argument should be for both parties to come to the same viewpoint or at least work something out that both can agree to be true. While Flew doesn't throw his hands up and convert at the end, at least he acknowledges that there are good reasons to believe. He is a paragon of open mindedness that is rarely seen in the more recent arguments on these sorts of topics.
I feel sorry for A. Flew here. Habermas is wiping the floor with him, and it's just embarrassing to see. Also Habermas wasn't trying to make him look bad. He was very considerate.
I don't think this was an actual debate. I honestly think Anthony Flew wanted some answer to the new question he was dealing with after he concluded the possibility of an intelligence after realising the enormous complexity of the human genome (DNA). I think he was searching. Just my observation.
I would not feel sorry for him. Flew is not like the current New Atheists, who are loud, stubborn and arrogant. they are not willing to have a civilised discussion on this subject without resorting to insults (just look at the comments). Flew on the other hand was very open and a great philosopher. he went where the evidence took him. he was not embarrassed at all to admit that he believes in God after spending a lifetime arguing for atheism. Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Penn Jilette etc do not have this liberty because they don't just espouse atheism, but they do it in a way that would make it slightly embarrassing for them to accept Christ. that is the biggest problem with new atheism.
Aaaand the thread is bombed by an angry new atheist, so offended by rational and free thought that he must drag completely unrelated ad hominems into discussions that expose his intolerant, belligerent system of group think. If I were an atheist myself, I'd call it religion.
This is a beautiful, brilliant culmination of the genius and sincerity of these two men over the decades of their life ! Thank you for posting, and God bless you all this Easter
Interesting how Flew changed his mind and believed that there was a God. Even when he was an atheist he said he would always follow the evidence. And then in 2004 he announced that after looking at the science that he know believed that there was a God. God bless.
Always a pleasure listening to Dr. Gary Habermas speak. His research in the area of the resurrection of Jesus is well documented. God bless you sir. Keep on defending the truth!!!
Until now, I tony knew of Prof Flew, through brief news bites on the radio. Listening to him engage Gary Habermas is a special treat. Prof. Flew comes across as a British Gentleman. The delicate chemistry of this exchange is helped enormously by the down-to-earth demeanor of Gary Habermas. My heart aches to see more interactions of this calibre.
I know right. The internet spawned too many angry people. It seems that just a few years ago academics had discussions in a civil atmosphere and, as they had little to no followers and exposure, were more open minded to change their minds.
Deist is a subset of theist. Also atheists can’t see the evidence doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Your statement of personal incredulity should have no bearing on actual scholarship.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
Sew Me yo if someone said they’d raise themself from the dead then obviously die then rise from the dead, hell yeah im putting all my faith in them, he knows more than me lol
@@sewme7861 The Disciples sure did, so clearly they thought he said good stuff. What bad stuff did Jesus say/do? Sure God in the Old Testament did a lot of harsh things like giving many orders to obliterate entire groups of people, but all of those incidents were perfectly within his rights as the Just God of the world, and the story of Rahab shows that people knew about their eminent destruction but still refused to turn to God. Looking at God as a whole, he really isn't evil, so denying him on those grounds don't come of as enough of reason to not become Christian.
It seems to me that he was tired of arguing against it and he believed. The entire debate, he’s searching for the something more. He wants to understand why Jesus would do this, especially for him.
@Wayne lawson Wrong. He says in his book how he came to believe Christianity is the one true religion. Appendix B pg 184 (first paperback edition 2008).
@@ltakethefatlplease.3380 No, he was Christian. Read his book and see Appendix B: A Dialogue On Jesus. He explains why Christianity is the true religion. Why would he think that if he wasn't a Christian.
@@Elsupermayan8870 I might want to check that out cause I always thought that he just believed that something rather it be the christian God or not created life.
Josephus was a Jewish historian and renouned as a great historian who wrote about Jesus with great detail from his research. He wrote several years after Jesus resurrection. He even gave details about Pilate and Jesus and Josephus and others as well as the customs of the Jewish people at that time and details about the crucifixion and burial practices. Many other historians also recorded many details about the Jews and Roman cultures at that time in Jerusalem. Not only were the soldiers who crucified Jesus sure about all the details they were held accountable for every action. The soldier would be tortured and killed if he lied or did not do his job the right way. This is why the soldier punctured the sack of water around the heart and the heart itself to get a mixture of blood and water to come out of jesus side. Mixture is not mixture we think of, a watered down blood but had trails of water and blood separately as well as mixed. They were professionals and KNEW Jesus was dead and this is why they did not crush Jesus bones because Jesus was already dead. They had to rush the crucifixion to get all the bodies off crosses in honor of the Jewish sabbath. Simply stated, all kinds of people walked by the crucifixion site, not on the top of skull hill but on the side, and at times of such festivities they were not out to scare all the visitors flooding in to honor the Passover (a festival to remember how God used Moses to set Hebrews free from slavery to Egypt and the miracles God did to get them to the land promised to be theirs by God - the same lands that God had given Abraham essentially before the giants moved into the land after the Hebrews went to Egypt a few hundred years before Moses to be saved from a drought by a young Hebrew named Joseph who had been sold into slavery and raised by God to be Pharoah's right hand man because he saved so many lives of Egyptians by storing grain in 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of drought. Joseph was not called Joseph by the Egyptians and his HUGE grain bins have been found by archaeologists, some still have grain in them. ) The Romans did crucifixions normally to be seen by Jews to remind them of Roman dominance and that if they caused troubles for Rome they would be crucified. Also the soldiers at the resurrection site sent by Pilate at the request of the Jewish High priest Caiphas would be killed if they fell asleep or did not do their job. The tomb has been found in the small garden outside of the walls of Jerusalem. The huge stone that rolled through a trough engraved in stone as was the tomb was missing but located close to the crucifixion site very close to the tomb on the side of Golgatha Skull Hill - two holes in the bed rock up front and one behind them with metal holes in the skull hill wall behind where signs about the criminals were hung to be seen by people walking to and from Jerusalem towards the north side. So many other things discovered like two holes in the wall on each side of where the stone would roll in front of the tomb, one with a metal spike in it sheared off by a force greater than a standard bulldozer. The Bible stated the tomb was sealed by the soldiers and then watched over it without sleep by order - guards. Josephus and the grave site it self testify that sealing the tomb was not wax or something so feeble but that a heavy metal chain was secured into the wall on both sides of the huge stone that rolled to cover the tomb. The Bible said that an angel rolled the stone away after the guards fainted or went to sleep - probably out of fear. Rolling the stone itself would take several men but breaking the seal - pulling one side of the chain out of the wall leaving a hole and the other having the steel spike sheared off --- super strong angel folks. Some won't even check such out with archaeologists that found these things or trust ancient writers or historians because they choose to reject facts and prefer to believe a lie. The wise do not live in a la la fantasy land that selectively believes some things and rejects others automatically - calling them selves objective.
Josephus's writings also says jesus was a short, stalky, balding, unattractive black man. This is why you can't hang your hat on his words. Surely you don't even believe his physical description of jesus
If the resurrection did not occur, then what other explanation can account for the sudden courage of the disciples, the rapid expansion of Christianity, the post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb and the sudden conversion of Paul???
That is right and it should be enough to make proof to other people about Jesus and Bible. Rim accepted Christianity and Jesus as son of God . The Rim that killed him and slaved all Jews. If anyone think that Rim would just accept Jews religion out of anything that were just slaves he is sick in his head. Rim accepted Jesus after they saw he didn't die. 1 million Jews saw Jesus die and than 3 days alive. It was miracle so big that people who killed and tortured Jews accepted their religion. They saw Jesus with their own eyes !!!
@Christian Slayer This is all very interesting, but you haven't shown anything that refutes Jesus empty tomb, resurrection, bodily appearances, early disciples willingness to die for what they saw, Paul suddenly becoming an evangelist when he had a bright future as a Pharisee...You talk about killing Esau, but Esau was way before Paul or anyone else in the first century. You haven't given me anything that suggests that the New Testament is false of historically unreliable.
@Christian Slayer it's not meaningless at all. When you live for Christ its everything and when you die it's even better. It's a beautiful fact that means so much in only a few words.
@River Scott if you believe in Jesus , you are saved from condemnation in hell because He is your Savior. He rose from the dead showing He is truly our Savior. And this video shows the strength of the resurrection of Jesus. So when you die believing in Jesus it is indeed in gain.
The question Anthony seems to be asking is "what is the difference between the few other documented resurrections and Jesus's" All were raised by the interaction of another raising them. Jesus is documented as saying authority is given for Him to raise Himself. John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
@Christian Slayer I dont remember. Ill look for a few minutes see if i can figure out the section. If i find it ill answer. But i cant commit to watching the video to figure it out.
Just watch Christopher Hitchens' 10 Commandments. The comments by so many people in favor of these, and they actually claim that Hitchens' intellect is superior to God, if there is a god. It's sad to hear so many people who actually have been deceived by Satan and his minion, C. Hitchens. Hardening their hearts is on full display.
It actually is a softening of the heart. It takes a hardening of the heart to defend a bible that commanded the murder of babies...multiple times. Slavery, killing people for what others do, executing gay persons...people who work on a Saturday, etc etc etc It is a softening of the heart that drove me to my deconversion from this religion.
Lawrence Eason Well, sorry to tell you this but that sounds like when a child is talking to his friends about how bad their parents are for not letting him eat his candy and watch tv late at night. We know why they do that, the kid just doesn't understand. Try to read on your own, see if what you argue is really true. And even if it were exactly like you say denying God even against the evidence is not the point if the truth is what you are looking for.
@River Scott what are you talking about Anthony lost Gary absolutely won. I did not refuse a statement many have tried to refute the resurrection statement but I failed if you do any amount of research you could see just how wrong he is Anthony lost Gary won if you do the research Gary has won
An interesting debate I have to say. Habermas is a great modern theologian who has a very solid understanding of history and his field. Would love to see more of his works. Funny how almost *all* claims of Flew's declining health came after his conversion, *never* before. How convenient.
Lewis Bean Anthony Flew's deism might not have given him much comfort: He didn't believe God was loving or in life after death. And he doesn't personally strike me as dishonest.
Yeah, that is true, he didn't convert to a particular religion, but he certainly gave up on atheism from this point. I think he was certainly more competent than Dawkins and co. nowadays.
Well Flew himself was adamant that he published the book and that varghese helped edit. Even if it was the case of some editing, what Flew says clearly still makes a lot of sense. This video was several years before that when e was still an atheist and is not the first debate that he had with Habermas- again in that case, most people there claimed that Habermas won the debate and none claimed Flew did. Of course I know Flew turning to deism doesn't necessarily add verification to theism, but the way in which he turned is fascinating. Even in his heyday, there are still plenty of arguments against his works such as the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy when applied to faiths behaviours (i.e. the analogy doesn't work). Habermas does do another video where he looks at the historical accounts for the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and Mark Foreman does one refuting the idea of Jesus resulting from pagan mythology. Both of these and many others are ones I would personally recommend.
this morning i met a sister at church and we prayed for her atheist son. i found this and the later/last interview of Anthony Flew which i am sending to her. Brothers and sisters may i invite and ask any of you who feel led, to pray for her son Michael. I believe Debbie is the first of her family to find Jesus , not the last!! Joan
Religions can be overwhelming. The Catholic Church is full of problems, because man has manipulated it. When dealing with atheist, tell them to forget about all the religions and debates. Say, if Jesus really died and came back resurrected, would you believe? Then give them evidence to support it. It simplifies everything. Here is a great video for younger people who have questions. ua-cam.com/video/DCHJbO-3-jA/v-deo.html
Thank you Robert for taking the t me and interest to write,very kind. I have saved your recommended UA-cam and will take a look later before I pass it on to Debbie. I haven’t seen her since for while as I’m grounded with pneumonia and keeping clear of folks ! Blessings to you and yours for Christmas- and our Saviours real Peace
the resurrection is a one time in human history thats why it is so darn special to humanity it has never really happened before or since this occurance
I realize that my response is a bit late but I just could not pass up the opportunity to remind you of the other "stories" found in the "New testament" of others who were "resurrected" BEFORE Jesus by Jesus himself!!! Consider the "resurrection" of Lazarus after being "dead" for 4 days or the "resurrection" of the daughter of Jarius not to mention the number of saints "resurrected" during the "resurrection" of Jesus!?!? Add to that the explanation given by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, whoever That was, where it is stated, " And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die...", then accordingly, Lazarus, the daughter of Jarius, the saints and the others that were "resurrected" should STILL be alive and walking around somewhere on this earth awaiting judgement!!! Consider this just something to think about!
@joashsmusic First of all , I take umbrage at your estimation that I lack basic understanding of the concepts of christianity! Au contraire! I understand perfectly that christians have NO revealed "scripture" from "God" to stand upon! All that you have is testimonies from unknown persons, biographies written decades after the fact, by persons who are were not eyewitnesses nor earwitnesses to anything that they wrote about! In essence, just stories written ABOUT the prophet Jesus NOT revelation from "God"! Therefore, nothing that is found recorded in the christian "scripture" can be thought of as "the word of God ", just the words of men! Now to address the individual concerns about the "stories" that you referenced, exactly where do I find references in your "scripture" to back up your assertion that the people who were "resurrected" by Jesus died again? I have done the research and I find that there are few among enlightened christians that know the bible better than I do! But, my question to YOU is, as a christian, can YOU explain to me exactly who is Jesus? Was he "God" or was he the son of "God"??? If he was "God", how in the world did he die, seeing that "God" is IMMORTAL, incapable of dying??? Christianity makes NO rational sense to anyone with common sense! So, unless YOU can provide evidence that the bible IS the "word of God", and you can NOT, I think we have nothing left to discuss.
@Jo-Ash Scott Official Look dude, after all of that claptrap, YOU have yet to answer the question as to "Who is/was Jesus"??? God or son of God? Answer THAT! On top of that, YOU try to cast aspersions against the PROPHET Muhammad, what of the fact that according to YOUR "bible", YOUR "God" Jesus was tempted by the devil himself!?!? Offered all the riches and glory and all that jazz!?!? The devil offering "God" what already belongs to "God"??? LUDICROUS!!! DUDE the very fact that YOU are christian proves that YOU do NOT consider wisely! I have done the research and I find that there is NOTHING found in YOUR so-called "scripture" that supports the conventional "christian" view" that Jesus was "God"!!! To the contrary, YOUR "God" Jesus SAID "I ascend unto MY "God" and your "God"!?!? So logically, if Jesus has a "God" then he can NOT be his OWN "God", silly rabbit! How in the world can "God" cry out, "MY 'God', MY 'God', why have YOU abandoned ME??? How is it that christians just completely ignore the words of their OWN "God" Jesus when he is reported to have SAID, "And this is life eternal, that they may know YOU(The Father), THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and that they may know that YOU sent ME"!!! John 17:3! YOU people know NOT what YOU worship, YOU people are LOST!!! It clearly states in your OWN "scripture", the FATHER is the "ONLY TRUE GOD", sooo what does that make Jesus??? By default, LOGICALLY, LINGUISTICALLY, if words have meaning, that makes Jesus a FALSE "God"!!! IPSO FACTO!!! How little do YOU think! I need NOT quote Bart Ehrman or any other reference, YOUR bible is all the authority needed and COMMON SENSE!!! Christianity makes NO sense!!! In one of YOUR posts, YOU accuse ME of NOT understanding "basic concepts of who Jesus is. Hmm." To the contrary, I DO!!! It is YOU who knows NOT what the hell that YOU are talking about!!! If so, PROVE it using YOUR "scripture"! Go ahead, I'll wait! I eagerly await YOUR response, chapter and verse please!
@Jo-Ash Scott Official Wow, dude, I just don't know what to do with YOU??? I have really tried my best to help YOU understand WHY it is that the christian construct is without merit but as has been my fate in life, I have always understood things that the average person only later realizes! The key to life is to just keep things SIMPLE! No need for flowery language or complicated formulation and such. You SAY that you are up for "intellectual challenges" but are you actually? To demonstrate what I mean, in a previous post, I "challenged" YOU to explain from YOUR "scripture", exactly WHO is/was Jesus as in, IS HE GOD or is he the SON of "God"??? And what did YOU do? Completely ignored it !?!? I wonder WHY??? No, sorry! I entirely understand why. Because YOU can't!!! If YOU say that Jesus is "God", then that begs the question, if that is the case, WHO then is "the Father"??? And please, do not continue to bombard me with quotations of YOUR second "God", Paul!!! Whatever "Paul" has to say about ANYTHING, I am NOT interested!!! Paul nor ANY of the "new testament" writers were "prophets" sent from "God"' so whatever THEY contribute to the narrative ABOUT Jesus is NOT the "word of God" as ONLY the "prophets" were ordained to receive and write "the word of God"!!! Those people were NOT and they DIDN'T! So, as NOT to over tax YOUR tremendous "intellectual prowess", is it possible for YOU to constrain YOURSELF to addressing the issue of who is/was Jesus, "God" OR the SON of "God"??? In all actuality, Jo-Ash, I already know that YOU can NOT answer the question because YOU don't KNOW!!! Dude, what YOU fail to recognize is that YOU are waaay out of YOUR league in dealing with ME concerning THIS issue!!! YOU have NOT applied YOUR "intellect" in THIS area and it shows!!!
@Jo-Ash Scott Official OK Jo-Ash, since YOU are offering ME unsolicited advice, allow ME to do the same! YOU need to get a clue!!! The thing that YOU fail to realize is, I don't care how many bible quotes that YOU cite, it means NOTHING to ME because the bible is NOT the "word of or from 'God' "!!! And YOU being a christian, especially the so-called "new testament"!?!? It is very simple deduction Jo-Ash, the " word of or from 'God' " was ONLY "revealed" to HIS prophets, like Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and numerous others BUT the authors of the "new testament" are NOT numbered among THEM!!! The thing is, your OWN biblical, christian scholars will tell you that NO ONE knows exactly WHO wrote WHAT! The history of the bible compilation shows that at one time, what is now referred to as the "according to gospels" were without names and it was the pagan, Roman/Greek church forefathers that assigned names to these "biographies" as such because these "stories" were ALL written ANONYMOUSLY!!! Questions for YOU, who was the writer Mark??? Was he even a disciple of "Jesus"??? NO! Same for the writer of Luke, NOT even a disciple EITHER!?!? NONE of the so-called authors of the "new testament" had ever met the man "Jesus", they were ALL writing "stories" from HEARSAY and for THIS reason alone, can NOT be deemed "the word of or from 'God' "!!! Dude YOU have a LOOOONG way to go and a very short time to get there! Bon voyage! So YOU can cite whatever YOU want from THEIR "new testament" until YOUR fingers fall off or until YOU are blue in the face, it matters NOT a wit, IT IS NOT FROM "GOD"!!!
Indeed. This is what civilized discussion looks like. Mr. Flew was intellectually honest. He wasn't fighting to be right if he discovered evidence that proves him wrong. Today people fight to keep their lies true. It's insane... and that's why they fight in such ugly ways. It's not about truth. Its about winning no matter what.
@@ronlewis8398 I feel like that's the problem with most modern debates. If someone beats you in a debate, it will go on UA-cam with a clickbatey, "X DESTROYED by Y in debate", so you feel the need to win even if you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to get there.
My my, a humble honest atheist, I'm not saying they don't exist elsewhere but the ones we're used to seeing in debates and/or the comment sections are usually very arrogant and condescending...this Flew guy has just endeared himself to me. More of this please.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861 Jesus was claiming to be the messiah, and part of the being the messiah was that you would have to be a suffering servant, be martyred, but then would come back to life as someone who will reconcile sinners back to God: "After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53). Therefore, since Jesus -- as someone who claimed to be this very specific person who had a very specific role to play, and had to perform certain signs to authenticate his claims -- did in fact fulfill the prophetic scriptures by coming back to life, then his Resurrection authenticated him as the Messiah. The resurrection of your average Joe is going to have different implications than the resurrection of someone who claimed to be God in the flesh. Consider how when hanging on the cross, the people witnessing the event all mocked Jesus saying, "save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:40). Well he did not come down from the cross because the Messiah had to die to atone for our sins: "though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days" (Isaiah 53), but by raising himself from the dead, not only did Jesus "save himself", but he thereby also showed how he did in fact possess the power of Yahweh, and therefore was God. Lazarus could not raise himself from the dead; only Jesus, who possessed the power of Yahweh, could do that. Therefore, since Jesus raised himself from the dead without anyone else making intercession for him, he again proved to be God. Similarly, you can see many cases today where people are pronounced clinically dead, but then miraculously come back to life, but only after meeting Jesus in heaven, and only after he speaks their spirits back into their bodies. I'm thinking of the famous case of Ian Maccormick -- you can watch his testimony on youtube.
Jose Martinez Ok...let me repost my statement (you don't quite get it): "I LACK belief that Jesus was not resurrected!" In other words, I BELIEVE in the resurrection...I LACK belief that it didn't happen....this is a response to the silly arguments about atheism just being a LACK of belief against God!
Flew changed his mind that there must be a God after looking into a living cell according to his own testimony, which demonstrates God's glory. I don't know whether he came to believe the Gospel of his salvation though.
This is the first debate I've ever seen where one debater actually seems.to be beginning to be convinced of the other's view. Gary's knowledge seems impeccable.
Flew overlooked that Habermas isn't explaining a valid question. Habermas doesn't have a valid question because there isn't an anomaly generating a question to explain.
@@HegelsOwl such a brilliant, well developed reproach. Boggles the mind... So thought provoking it's quite possibly the most astounding statement made since "buttered toast" (smh)
Flew @ 1:56 ish: “human beings are creatures of flesh and blood”. I would argue that’s hugely short sighted. (Part of the atheists problem ) Beyond that, human beings are firstly spirits dwelling in body’s made of flesh and blood, necessary for habitation on this earth. Which is the explanation for sentience and conscience which atheists do not have and cannot explain.
@ DeGaN... when atheists say they don't have an answer for certain things they are just being honest... of course that's something you can't understand
@@dallasdien ... what point have you made other than making a statement that you have no proof of... I didn't say I was an atheist... your arrogance is only surpassed by you ignorance and that's a fact borne out of your own comments
Christian Slayer blah blah blah you stupid Darwin jack ass! Something comes from nothing is the most Moronic believe in the universe. Go look in the mirror and look at the most dumb jackass of all. Iron Maiden rules! Slayer sucks! Maiden was before slayer and the Maiden machine still rolls on! Selling out coliseums world wide without hardly any air play. Go back in your pathetic existence and shut up!
The day I understood the Effect of quantum mechanics, I understood that the resurrection can be explained by natural law. It makes a whole difference to me.
I agree. He eventually became a believer, which may be why he didn't vehemently defend his long held position with the vim and vigor as he did in the past. He was already on his way there. Not to mention his friendship with Gary and of course, his age.
The other systems can't begin to explain personality. We discussed this a few years ago at L'abri Australia. We agree, the Bible begins with a polemic tension in the first verse, that put the dreamers away. Flew is a great man. Respect.
Atheist Anthony is of a noble behavior, listening attentively, accepting corrections and learning about the Bible from Gary. But, a Brit is a Brit; slow and cunning. From 1:42:00 he was asked what happened to Jesus' body since he doesn't believe in the resurrection and he goes.....blah, blah, black sheep...he knows nothing!! However, the good part is that the Holy Spirit was already working in his heart which is why he seemed unusually gentle and peaceful.
Very interesting to note that Antony Flew came to believe in God. One thing about Antony Flew that you had to admire was that he would always follow the evidence. And he was true to his word. When he concluded that the scientific evidence pointed to a God that had created the Universe he changed his mind and believed in God.
They were so respectful. I admire Flew for his honesty. Thank you God for this debate, and thank you God for Flew's conversion to at least Deism. It is interesting that Flew became Deist because of the intelligent design argument, one that in this discussion he said was preposterous.
@River Scott Bro, Shlama literally said Flew became a Deist. He straight up acknowledged that Flew didn't believe in Christianity. What's the point of your comment?
53:00 to 55:30 was a huge light bulb moment for Anthony Flew. He must have been at the point that he started wanting answers and was no longer trying to give them. Atheism will break a man to the point of total darkness, there is where the Light of Truth is seen best. There is no denying Jesus unless you plug your ears and close your eyes. Don't stick your head in the sand until it is too late. Drop your pride and believe the truth. Proverbs 14:2-3 2 He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the Lord: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him. 3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them. Philippians 2:10-11 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Flew was a sincere seeker of truth, that much can be said. Both sides were not out to insist on their side, they were there to present what they believe, and it is up to the audience to form their verdict. This is why I hate debates, when there is a better avenue for intelligent and civil discourse.
Loved this. I side with Habermas, and his facts and logic are clever and sound. Good debate, interesting surprises. I have come to worship Christ, personally.
Why didnt nonbelieving Jews and Priests and governement witness Jesus resurrection? Why only a few of his desciples and why did many who did see him NOT recognize him?!
They'd have to cut Krauss' mic...LOL The math alone, can you imagine? Habermas can only add a few years at a time to the alleged crucifixion for Paul's grand mal seizure.
Krauss is afraid to let the other guy speak, lest the audience hear the truth. In his debate with Craig he acted about 16 years old with constant interruptions and a scornful ridiculing attitude. What is most telling though is that he's always trying to talk over, walk over, shut down and silence the opposing view. He can't sit there and let his arguments speak for themselves. He was obviously afraid to let the audience hear Craig's arguments uninterrupted.
Christopher Lees Or he didn't want to let Craig get away with fucking up science. Which, you know, Craig is famous for. Watch his debate with Sean Carroll if you want to see your Craigypoo demolished.
Krauss is a second rate classical historian for one. So no contest in that assertion. I might add the darling of the atheist Anthony Flew this very person has become a believer. At that point the atheist said Flew was not an intellectual. Well he was for 40 years. Which proves one thing atheist are bigots and use science to practice it!
Most ridiculous assertion I heard yet. I know plenty of "Old People" that have very sharp minds and very intelligent. You just brushed it off to prove and assertion using an assumption. Something I would avoid in the future. It makes you more credible!
Here, I fixed the famous Minimal Facts Argument list… 1. Jesus' Crucifixion (if he indeed existed) 2. Buried (again, if he existed) 3. Disciples despaired❌ (said no verse ever) 4. Tomb empty a few days later (claimed anonymous authors 40-70 years later) 5. Disciples believed saw risen Jesus (if they indeed existed) 6. Disciples transformed (again, if they existed) 7. Resurrection: the focus of disciples' message✅ (or rather, the new religion’s message) 8. Proclaimed in Jerusalem✅ 9. Church born & grew✅ 10. Christian Jews worshiped on Sunday (after Constantine ordered it) 11. Jesus' brother James converted (claimed anonymous authors 40-70 years later) 12. Skeptic Paul converted (if he was indeed writing as nonfiction)
Richard Dawkins knew that CHRIST existed he just chose to deny him..which in turn God denied him.. meaning no redemption for him..his free will sent him to wait upon judgement day in a not so nice place to await it.
What really happened between the evening Jesus of Nazareth was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and, just a few days later, is said to have risen from the dead? In just a few weeks, Christians all over the world will be celebrating a holy week, marking the suffering and death of Jesus, and then celebrating his triumphant resurrection. For most Christians, though the exact theology about his death/resurrection is somewhat murky, the idea that Jesus conquered death is a sign they, too, will one day live again after they die, either by surviving as a conscious soul that goes to a pleasant spirit realm called Heaven, or that they, themselves, will also one day physically rise from the dead just as Jesus did...or for a significant number of those Christians often called Evangelicals, who say it will be both, beginning with a Rapture! How, though, can we be sure, as so many Christians seem to be, that Jesus really did come back from the dead? There are, after all, more than a few historical researchers who doubt he even existed! There have been numerous attempts to make the case for Jesus' resurrection purely from the narratives found in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. One that had been very popular among Neo Evangelicals just a few decades ago, argued Jesus had to have risen again, because it could not have been his disciples who moved away the stone from his tomb for, if they had, and they subsequently secreted away his dead body, there is no way they would have gone on to spread the news of his resurrection, at great personal risk, knowing all the while it was all a big lie! On the other hand, might there be some other explanation why his disciples, in just a matter of days after his public execution, became completely convinced he was alive again...and not only that, but it had been God's plan all along? After decades of intensive research, pouring over the biblical narratives and using the very best methods of textual and contextual scholarly criticism, I believe we can know, with as much certainty as is historically possible, what really happened to Jesus and his followers that fateful, final week of Jesus' life, and what really happened in the following days, weeks, years, decades and centuries ever since, leading to well over a 2 billion people in the world today professing faith in him and his message...even though, many of them may have it completely wrong! Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Real-Life-Jesus-Nazareth-Really-Stood/dp/B09TPHRY41/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1647202811&sr=8-1
Anthony Flew doesn’t really make an argument against the deity of Christ. He’s just gonna go to the grave refusing to submit to Jesus’ lordship. He simply let’s his intellect get in the way of what his heart tells him is true.
Plus his tenacious prideful hold on a petrified set of beliefs that keeps him from humbling himself and surrender to his Creator. That battle of such willfulness makes me tired.
I feel like Flew is on here because he himself wants to be convinced. He mentions his “unrelenting” unbelief but doesn’t seem to think there’s anything more than the unwillingness to believe that hinders him from believing.
I believe that C.S. Lewis discarded the hallucination (schizophrenia) possibility straight away. Schizophrenics are anything but magnetic personalities. Habermas chewed Flew up inspite of him having the advantage of a British accent which is worth a few points in any debate.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861, "disgusting and horrible" are not truth statements, they're value statements. I'm going to use my past few years as an example here to explain why this distinction is important. A few years ago, I determined that evolution (from a single common ancestor, not change over time) is not mathematically possible, it is not possible from a genetic data transmission standpoint, and it is not possible from a syllogistic standpoint. I had already discarded catastrophic, anthropogenic global climate change as unscientific. So now, two of the most politicized fields of science were untenable to me (and the more I branched out from my specialization of physics, the more I realized the totality of naturalisms failings). I was, at the time, a staunch agnostic, but I don't like not knowing the answer once I know a question, so I began to look at all kinds of origin stories. I didn't have any interest in Christianity because any organization that claimed a monopoly on truth was no better than the dogmatic sciences and the government they were symbiotic with, in my estimation. First I tried out ancient aliens/astronaut theories, and found that while entertaining, they failed to answer any questions about initial origins. After a few other failed attempts with other explanations, I decided I might as well read the Bible. I started with Genesis and read straight through to the end of Revelation. Some parts were tedious, some were absolutely awesome, some were disgusting and horrible. I started reading it about a year and a half ago, and finished about three months ago. I kept stopping because God would do something horrible like harden Pharaoh's heart so that he could send another plague to prove what a badass he was, or give Satan permission to murder Job's entire family, destroy his house, and scatter his flocks and herds just to see if Job really loved Him, like some kind of stalker girlfriend deleting female Facebook friends and reading your text messages to make sure you're not cheating but 1000x worse, then starting again after a few weeks because not liking something doesn't make it untrue. My conclusion is that every single claim of objective truth about the physical universe made in it is either demonstrably accurate, or in the case of instances of things we can't run physical experiments on to prove, like a global flood, it is built on sound syllogism and is significantly more probable, statistically speaking, than any alternative. The Bible is like an infinite onion of truth, as my best analogy. You read a verse and it will say an objective truth that can be observationally tested, that objective truth will contain within it an allegorical truth that can be broken down logically and tested for internal coherence or logical fallacy, and then it will carry a transcendent truth about the nature of God (At least every word dictated to Moses by God, after Moses smashed the tablets where God had written the first part of Genesis himself, and the parts where Jesus speaks. Sometimes the other books just have one or two of the truth types, rather than all three). These things have caused me to accept the Bible as absolute truth. They did not convince me that God is not disgusting and horrible, and not just for what I listed above that I see as cruelty. As such, I am no better than the demons Jesus cast out, who knew who He was and reviled Him for it. I still don't understand a whole lot more than I do understand, and that will probably become even more apparent to me the more I learn. The Bible says God is good, but I still see a father who left his children in a garden with the deceiver and punished them with death for breaking his rule when they didn't know the difference between good and evil until they did so. What I've learned though, is that while I may not understand God well enough to love Him yet, he seems like he's patient enough to let me learn how. To give soundbite answers to your questions, it matters that Jesus was resurrected because the way it happened proved every other claim he made was true. Witnessing the resurrection and faith that Christ is Lord are not the same thing. Lazarus was resurrected by the hand of Jesus, and I don't know of anyone anywhere that has ever believed him to be God. Furthermore, I didn't witness the resurrection, have had no prophetic visions, and can't feel the presence of the holy spirit, but I'm certain that it occurred, and that one day, if I keep chiseling as hard as I can at my hardened heart, it will finally soften enough to feel the holy spirit. And finally, no, because it wasn't the resurrection that made Jesus the Lord. It was a proof, not a cause. If Jeffrey Epstein, Chairman Mao, or Sigmund Freud were resurrected, I would not believe they were the Lord. I would believe that the Millennial Kingdom was commenced and in spite of the horrible things they did they loved the Lord and were therefore renewed.
Francisco d'Anconia Thanks for sharing your story. Do you think God would have a different opinion on what is horrible? Why or why not? I’d appreciate if you respond, but I’d understand if you feel all commented out after your essay :)
@@gabrieltippery3873 I think that God would define horrible differently than I do because we have a different perspective on creation, though our definitions result in a lot of overlap, so we might both look at the same event and see it as horrible for the same reason, we might look at it and see it as horrible, but for different reasons, and we might look at it and disagree on whether or not it's horrible. If I were to attempt to sum up what I understand as God's definition of horrible in a brief sentence, I would define it as, "Anything which does not glorify God is an abomination before God." Whereas I define horrible more readily by the immediate results. Merriam-Webster has, "marked by or arousing painful and intense fear, dread, dismay, or aversion" as it's definition, and I can't sum it up any better. As such, murder is horrible to both of us, but homosexuality isn't. What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom isn't any of my business, so I don't find it horrible. It doesn't produce offspring, so it doesn't glorify God, so he does. With homosexuality, and a lot of things beyond it, I can see God's point relatively easily, because I can look back through history and see where past civilizations have normalized it, and how that has had long-term deleterious impacts on them, and extrapolate how those impacts will affect current civilization. For instance, native population reduction resulting in a drive to bring in outside populations, which affects the culture, and eventually leads to an end to the civilization. Taking this into account, while I don't have any issue with gay people as individuals, I take massive issue with the promotion of gay culture. It's why I can watch Milo talk about Daddy Trump and get a giggle, but I wouldn't invite him to give a presentation to children. Where I struggle most at our differences in opinion on what's horrible is not so much in where our opinions differ, but in where I see what appears to be counterproductive, irrational responses from God, and where I haven't figured out how his actions are consistent with him being good and caring, yet. I am certain, however, that anywhere God appears to fail to meet my standards, it is, in actuality, a failure of comprehension on my part, so I am compelled to try to understand, and work on my ability to reciprocate God's love for me. I hope that answers your question, and that my example was clarifying rather than obfuscating.
Space , humans and the earth are fluid . All are changing in their forms . Even if God put the earth smack dab in the center it wouldn't stay there . Personally I feel that man in his pride would put the earth in the prized position of center. God is not prideful he just says his creations are good .
SACRIFICE The very idea that a god, a god that could have fashioned any method for redemption, chose bloodshed and suffering for his method. The idea that this god chose sacrifice, and blood sacrifice at that, is telling about such a god. And It tells us that such a god would be incomprehensibly immoral....if indeed it existed
Flew came from a Methodist background, his father being Anthony Newton Flew, a past president of the the Methodist Conference. I still have one book (I think) by Flew which was about crime or the psychology of crime. His interlocutor here was a younger man and much more mentally alert, clearly to Flew's disadvantage.
@Christian Slayer well if your going to make a claim how is it my duty to prove your claim? When the cops come harass me is it my job to prove my innocence? That is a fallacy of logic. You have alot of hate and anger. I gave those up long ago and my life is filled with peace. I'd like the same for you.
@Christian Slayer I've read the amazing book in question have you? I'm not sure you care to much about rudeness since the only one making personal attacks is you. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates We are all individuals. I can say that every atheist is the same but I am friends with several and we have very polite conversations. Why would you question my sincerity? Despite your hate filled arguement I continue to try and have some dialogue. Why? Because I am called to love my neighbor as I love myself. If you are so knowledgeable about the bible again I ask that you back up your own claim with a source. If you are sincere in trying persuade me that is.
@@Thump40 hey, respect that you stayed respectful. The verse he is talking about is where he says "Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved". Of course devoid of its meaning and context, this can be used as a club to "slay" christians, as his name suggests. You can look the verse up and study the reasoning behind it, there's really nothing here to be worried about..
They crucified Jesus. But they didn't kilked Him. Jesus sails "I have power to give my life. And I have power to take it back". And His last words were "Father I command my spirit into your hands".
Gnomefro, you sound like someone who likes to argue and debate and quite frankly I am not interested in doing either with you. Dr. Habermas is the world's leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if he cannot convince you, I am certain that I cannot. It's a free country, you can be an atheist if you so desire. If you want to contact me about how you can be saved, I would be more than happy to lead you along that path. I am not going to argue with you.-Thomas
+Oners82 Bart Erhman is sometimes hard to trust. In recent times he's gotten himself in trouble with both sides. One day he's says this while another day he says something else. As for Hector avelos yes I agree he does have better credentials elsewhere, but not in the resurrection.
+Oners82 It doesn't matter if his credentials are equivalent. The question is what is his work on the resurrection? Please dont misunderstand me. I am not saying that he doesn't have work on the resurrection.The question is how extensive is it? I've known no researcher or historian who has more work on the resurrection then Garry harbamass.
The Apostles died for their faith, which was that Jesus is the Son of God, died and was raised again for our sins. They died for a lie that they made up. That is the evidence that convinces me that this most unique and fantastic event did happen.
Are you aware that eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable type of evidence? Thats why the innocence project has so many cases vacated by DNA evidence. Actual science, not faith nor belief
Evidently Flew accepts the reliability of the historical witness of the Gospels. Extend this to the rest of the Scriptures and we have numerous reliable historical facts recorded, including the evidence of the Red Sea Crossing of Moses and the route to Mount Sinai today. But Flew seems to be having difficulty accepting that God raises the dead. It is obvious that the man-made theory of evolution did not create the Universe with all its complexity, so surely the Creator would be able to raise the dead--something the fairy of evolution cannot do.
@@Frups12345678 Definitely! Also, why should one extend the reliability from the gospels to all of the Bible? Seems uncalled for. I am a christian but this is not a method we can use.
This was just boring. Flew didn't seem to have any definable stance on what actually happened historically, so all they really did was dance around the topic for an hour and a half.
The two speakers take everything in the Gospels as just true. Whatever it says happened, happened. Right. Now, the only question is how to interpret it. Great. Of course, we might ask why take the Bible as just true? The problem I have with the Bible is that it could be completely mythical in any way at all when it comes to describing the person of Jesus and we would not know. We just don't know if there was such a person, if he was described accurately at all in the Gospels. Heck, we don't know who the authors of the Gospels were or what their real intentions were. Did the Gospel authors all make stuff up to suit whatever purpose they had in mind at the time? Who knows? We DO know there are problems with the Gospels. I don't see why anyone would simply accept all of it as true. Maybe it's because the words "Gospel" and "truth" are simply taken as synonymous... Was Jesus actually crucified? Well, it sure says so in the Gospels. Too bad we can't find anything written down from the Romans to confirm such an event. But, why not just go ahead and take it as a given. After all, it's the gospel truth, isn't it? And the resurrection? Oh... if THAT isn't just true, then the whole Christian project is worthless and untrue. So it better be true. OR ELSE. You don't want to lose your religion, do you? OH no.. we can't have that.
So Jesus' apostles conspired together to create Christianity and then went to preach it in foreign lands to total strangers, all of them apart from John suffering various forms of torture and ultimately being put to death. Do you realise how absurd that sounds? What did any of them stand to gain by giving up their normal, safe lives and travelling to strange lands to evangelise about Jesus, knowing well that they would have to endure terrible hostility, hardships, pain and suffering? As for Roman sources, do some research on Josephus and Tacitus.
Viki Gnjatic "What did any of them stand to gain by..." - Oh, you believe this story as if it were real. Maybe you think you know who the apostles were, who the writers of the Gospels were.. and why these men wrote the stories. That's nice.
Rayvvvone You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record. I would suggest watching a full lecture of Dr. Habermas' to understand his arguments within the context of the discipline of history. The execution of Jesus is documented in Tacitus (Roman) and Josephus (Jewish) as well as referenced in Mara Bar Serapion, Pliny the Younger and Thallos. Not to mention that suggesting the Gospel accounts are not documents of history is categorically false. It shows a bias to 1st century documents that you wouldn't dream of employing for another historical figure, such as Habermas' examples of Alexander the Great or Tiberius. I think the key point you've overlooked is that Habermas' claims are not his alone, he's speaking from the academic consensus within the historical method. That's what he means by the 'minimalist' argument. He takes the bare minimum of evidence that the entire academic community agrees upon, and argues purely from that data. He doesn't bother arguing that Paul was the one who wrote the Pauline epistles, because no one in the field suggests that he doesn't. This may encourage you to ask about the validity of your own scepticism on this point. Habermas is not assuming, he's just addressing the points of contestation. The fact that Paul was a historical figure who wrote the letters ascribed to his name is not in contestation. His authorship is so well documented and the impact of his ministry upon the cities of Corinth and Galatia are so evidenced that it would take a misinformed you tuber to suggest otherwise. Graham Clarke, atheist and professor of history at ANU writes that "I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is overwhelming". The fact that an atheist in the field can make this claim gives me little reason to take your suggestion that "we just don't know that there was such a person" seriously. I seriously recommend taking in the whole of Habermas' arguments, better presented elsewhere (such as the Bethinking seminar), before levelling the above criticisms at them. I think you will find that on the whole there are far better criticisms to be made than the unsubstantiated ones you offered above.
Athuriux " You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record." - You clearly don't know what I know or don't know. You might be surprised. But, please, do continue to MAKE THINGS UP .. because that's your method so far. Yes.. Im quite sure I am exactly the way you imagine me to be. I haven't studied anything .. right. I am unfamiliar, for sure.. that's why I'm in here. I don't know a thing about this.. never heard all of your really quite silly arguments .. what are you going to talk about Alexander the Great? Oh wow.. never heard of that argument... What, are you going to mention people who wrote about Jesus who weren't even BORN before it all was supposed to have happened? Oh wow.. I'm so unfamiliar with THAT fallacious stupidity, too. Never EVER heard it so many times. It's boring. It doesn't even come close to being historical proof of Jesus. So, yeah... I'm unfamiliar with accepting bullshit as the truth. Very unfamiliar with that. If you don't have real evidence, you pretend you have some. And it isn't convincing at all to any outsider. Including Clarke... who doesn't spell his name the way you think he does. And I don't CARE about unfounded opinions. IF CLARKE or anyone else has EVIDENCE, then he should provide that evidence. Otherwise, he and anyone else is completely free to say ANYTHING HE BLOODY WELL LIKES.. it's meaningless drivel. No evidence, no good reason to believe. Period. So, where is Clarke's EVIDENCE.. or do you think opinions are evidence?
The evidence for Messiah is all over the net, easy to find, from archaeology, history both secular and Christian. You are so sure the Resurrection never happened, but there is literally miraculous evidence if you have eyes to see. There is a lot of great info here, but the best evidence for the Resurrection is the Shroud of Turin. If you have heard that carbon 14 testing revealed it to be a medieval forgery, on the Jesus And The Shroud of Turin vid posted by 15 Decades you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 dating saying that the sample taken was invalid due to contamination. Due to modern technology things have been found on the Shroud that were invisible in the medieval ages. For ex. pollen from Jerusalem has been discovered on it. New computer technology shows it has an x ray effect revealing images of bones and dentition. That's for starters. Secular scientists have examined the Shroud for years, and that data is all over the net for you to see with your own eyes. They all agree that they have no clue how that image of the crucified Messiah got on the linen cloth, that there is zero paint on it, and that, further, there is no way even modern technology could duplicate it. Try to explain how that image got there, when they couldn't.
There may be evidence that Jesus was never buried because anyone who goes against government may possibly noycgey a propper Memorial. Is it possible he was never buried? Is there evidence Jesus was for sure buried amd evidence the resurrection was in fact body of Jesus? Some didn't recognize him
It seems like Flew was not even remotely informed enough on the subject to enter this debate. Imagine how differently it would have gone if it was Bart Ehrman and not Flew debating with Habermas.
1:13:41...apparently Habermas is referring to an alleged but non-extant historical writings of Thallus, around 49 - 52 A.D. , and referenced to by Sextus Julius Africanus, wherein he mentions an unusual very dark solar eclipse, presumably during Passover time (a time when an eclipse is naturally impossible)...Africanus also mentions a 2nd non-extant historian's work Phlegon who likewise mentions an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius...
Jesus' sole goal was to teach , to gather onto Him His own , glorify God and be the Sacrifice for all of man kind ... Thru the Resurrection did God glorify Jesus... The acts of Jesus was to show the power of God ...
Jesus is the only man to die and rise again never to die again, he is the only man on earth who made future predictions and to have fulfilled all of them, yes they have been realized Jesus claimed to be one with god
Anthony Flew is responsible for leading a lot of Souls to Atheism and later changed his mind about there being a God towards the end of his life. I would love to hear the conversation he is having with Jesus now.
@River Scott Question begging epithets are generally signs of people not having a rational reason for their beliefs, so what do you think you using one says about you 🤔
Sunday did not become the predominant day of worship by the Apostles. Papal/pagan Rome made that change under Constantine. This was prophesied would be the case.
![[official] The Possibility of Resurrection - William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann at Cal Poly SLO](/img/n.gif)
You know, Habermas saved my faith. His arguments about the Resurrection of Jesus are so well-founded that no one can refute them. Those arguments brought me from agnosticism to a rekindling of my faith in Christ.
Good for you. You might also want to check out the vid Jesus And The Shroud of Turin by 15 Decades, and other such YT vids,if you have not done so already. No, carbon 14 dating did not show it to be a medieval forgery, but the vid will tell you why. If you haven't seen the new, literally miraculous, evidence seen on the Shroud thanks to modern technology, you are in for quite a treat.
***** Alright, I will check it out for sure. Thanks!
You are so very welcome. You seem like a very, very sweet soul. May you have many, and great, blessings, and come into all truth.
:-)
***** Thank you very much. I started a blog a few months ago about this kind of stuff. You can check it out if you like.
unholypastor.tumblr.com
***** I am not submissive to religious dogma. Dogma sickens me. Religion sickens me. He provided very good reason for saying Jesus is God. We can also verify Jesus' existence through the same process used in this video to verify His resurrection. Habermas gave good reason as to why the things mentioned in 1 Corinthians should be taken literally. Therefore, when Paul mentioned Jesus, we can confirm that Jesus probably existed. When Paul mentioned the resurrection of Jesus, we can confirm that it probably happened.
When you watch the best apologists from atheism, Islam, and Christianity, Christians stand head and shoulders above their counterparts.
captainunload We have the whole Truth on our side rather than a lie or partial truths.
Scott Harwell
The truth always helps.
;-)
There's ONLY one way to win debates on belief: You have to be on the side of the TRUTH. The Bible is the source of truth simply because THE GOD IT PROFESS IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
Really how so .....lets have a conversation.
Anthony Flew and Gary Habermas are long time friends just so y'all know.
I didn't know that, but you couldn't help but really love A Flew , he was a very easy spoken and genuinely inquiring gentleman. He reminds me of David Berlinsky with his easy way of speaking.
@@adastra123 agreed
@@adastra123 agreed
and from what i,ve heard... dr. Flew had a change of heart and later admitted he was wrong about all the atheist books he wrote
If anyone watched the video Gary says this haha
I have so much more respect and interest in listening to these gentlemen, than a lot of others I’ve tried to listen to, but tired of how rude, conceited and speaking only to make themselves heard, but not listening to one another. I have very much enjoyed listening to these men actually conversing, speaking and listening to one another. This is a wonderful example of conversation, and hearing different thoughts and points, again with calmness and respect, not putting the other down, seeking to discuss, ask questions and be willing to consider each other’s points. Well done! 👍
I agree. I prefer these “older” debates than the debates today. There’s just more respect from both parties
The debate was redicoulous just as the Veritas organisation was to broad cast it. Flew does not seem to be with it and as were Gary Habermas's presentation of his questions idiotic to Flew, what a joke? This was not a good day for the Veritas foundation.
This is excellent. Clearly, Habermas "won," although he would say that wasn't his intention. He simply wants to promote the truth, which I believe he did. Flew turned to a belief in God before he died. The evidence is clearly on the side of the resurrection. Jesus is alive. It really happened.
I'm so surprised to hear from "a Thinking Christian" that the Christian won the debate. Funny how that worked out for you.
Thanks for Being a Useful Idiot
Facts are stubborn things. They impacted the outcome of this debate, and rightly so. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just using the noggin God gave me to conclude the obvious.
aThinkingChristian for starters Flew never professed a belief in a Christian god, that is innacurate just as was the claim that Darwin had a deathbed conversion. Secondly there is no overwhelming evidence which confirms the supposed Resurrection as an actual historical event as there are no tools available to the historian to make such a claim. Take the Pauline text for example, there us no evidence to support his clam beyond that of a hallucination and why wouldn't it be? If you have strong belief in something why would it be a shock to join in such a parade of claims that Jesus supposedly rose from the dead. I don't see where anyone could conclude Habermas "won"? Going further, why would a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin(who wanted Jesus dead) care about any burial? Why would Pilate even let a murderer of Romans off in place of Jesus? Or let a body off the cross after only a few hours when bodies were commonly left up for days? Habermas is a nice enough guy but I would hardly call his "evidence" as a slam dunk for the supernatural.
aThinkingChristian you’re right!
Habermas won nothing. Conjecture is not evidence. I think you will find the Flavian dynasty invented this 'Christian' horseshit, aided by the Jew, Josephus
I was a none believer. After examining the evidences, the case for Christ is simply overwhelming.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
Same, I was a rather smug atheist after listening to too many sound bites from Hitchens and Dawkins. It took a muslim trying to convert me to Islam that forced me investigate Christianity. The case for Christ is overwhelming and amazing.
@@sewme7861 The character of Jesus is flawless.
@@sewme7861 I'd be curious to hear what it is that you thought was horrible and disgusting that Jesus Christ ever said. You've left this identical comment on numerous comments here but have not said why.
@@sewme7861 Bro was literally a loving communist who wanted socioreligious reform, how is he evil?
This might have been the friendliest debate I have ever seen. Antony Flew had his own viewpoints, but seemed quite open to hearing other points. This was very entertaining. I love how Gary Habermas knows so much about the Gospels that he brings up seven points just to the fact of Jesus' burial in Joseph's tomb. I am in awe of that.
Those who enjoy Anthony Flew may enjoy reading his book: There is a God in which he explains how, by being intellectually honest and following the evidence wherever it may lead, he has reached the conclusion that there must be a God.
so why Christ? why Jesus? why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861, You asked "Why Jesus? Why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected?" Well his resurrection is evidence that what he said about himself is true, which, in turn, is evidence that the Bible is true. If what Jesus claims is true, then I'm not sure it matters whether we like it, or not. He's the only way to Heaven, so I choose to put my faith in him.
Also, I don't agree that what Jesus said is disgusting. He healed lots of people and showed kindness and love towards all of them. He then promises eternal life in a place where there is no grief. None of that seems disgusting to me.
My goal isn't to start an argument. I don't argue about this subject anymore. I merely wanted to answer your question. whylogicfails.com states everything I have to say about this issue. Read it, if you want. But there's really not much more to say.
@@sewme7861 why Christ? Because without Him our sins and transgressions still have to paid for.. Christ did that, on the cross just before Jesus gave up the Spirit he said "it is finished" meaning the debt has been paid. His sacrifice was a gift to you so you can enter into eternal life with the creator of it all. I urge you to not miss out on this gift simply because of a few words you may disagree with.. And if there is a God, who are we to disagree with Him?
If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me what things Jesus said that you deem horrible?
Believing in an intelligent creator does not equate to believing in an amalgamated hebrew god with stories and feats from other cultures contrived on to him. Nor does it equate to believing in this hebrew god sacrificing his special son to himself in a blood ritual death scenario as his "ingenious" plan for him to "save" mankind from he himself sending mankind to a hell he himself made because some people don't worship him exactly how he wants. What we need are stories and descriptions of an actual competent creator that makes sense
@@exillens I agree that not everything that God does, makes sense. However, would we really ever expect to completely understand God?
Many people may say that my response is a copout response, but it's not. People often make the assumption that there is no limit to human understanding, and that a human being is capable of understanding any concept. However, it's just not the case.
If you think about it, it makes sense that we can't comprehend all that God does. If we could, would he really be God?
What impresses me most, about Habermas' testimony, is that he had the courage to be intellectually honest, and not dismiss historical facts. I doubt it would have been easy, but the facts are overwhelming. If they weren't, any atheist would be able to have a conversation with him, and convince him to become an atheist again, by merely showing him where he went wrong in his factual observations. It's one of the things which makes his testimony so powerful, in my view.
Thats because Flew and Habermas are concerned with truth rather than doing any of their views "justice". A real argument should be for both parties to come to the same viewpoint or at least work something out that both can agree to be true. While Flew doesn't throw his hands up and convert at the end, at least he acknowledges that there are good reasons to believe. He is a paragon of open mindedness that is rarely seen in the more recent arguments on these sorts of topics.
I feel sorry for A. Flew here. Habermas is wiping the floor with him, and it's just embarrassing to see. Also Habermas wasn't trying to make him look bad. He was very considerate.
I don't think this was an actual debate. I honestly think Anthony Flew wanted some answer to the new question he was dealing with after he concluded the possibility of an intelligence after realising the enormous complexity of the human genome (DNA). I think he was searching. Just my observation.
+Patricia Ann Becht flew became a theist before he died
I would not feel sorry for him. Flew is not like the current New Atheists, who are loud, stubborn and arrogant. they are not willing to have a civilised discussion on this subject without resorting to insults (just look at the comments).
Flew on the other hand was very open and a great philosopher. he went where the evidence took him. he was not embarrassed at all to admit that he believes in God after spending a lifetime arguing for atheism.
Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Penn Jilette etc do not have this liberty because they don't just espouse atheism, but they do it in a way that would make it slightly embarrassing for them to accept Christ. that is the biggest problem with new atheism.
Aaaand the thread is bombed by an angry new atheist, so offended by rational and free thought that he must drag completely unrelated ad hominems into discussions that expose his intolerant, belligerent system of group think. If I were an atheist myself, I'd call it religion.
I'm an atheist, and I'm willing to have a civilized discussion.
This is a beautiful, brilliant culmination of the genius and sincerity of these two men over the decades of their life ! Thank you for posting, and God bless you all this Easter
You couldn't have said it better.
I feel like Habermas is teaching Flew what arguments to use against him.
Sam Doo 😂
Interesting how Flew changed his mind and believed that there was a God. Even when he was an atheist he said he would always follow the evidence. And then in 2004 he announced that after looking at the science that he know believed that there was a God. God bless.
Always a pleasure listening to Dr. Gary Habermas speak. His research in the area of the resurrection of Jesus is well documented. God bless you sir. Keep on defending the truth!!!
Oners82 The very reason why he isn't.
Oners82 I wouldn't want to be an atheist because it rejects truth.
Oners82 I know about atheism and it is wrong. But you are free to believe what you want.
Oners82 Most agree with me.
Habermas use to be an atheist. He changed his mind because he found out that biblical Christianity was genuine.
Until now, I tony knew of Prof Flew, through brief news bites on the radio. Listening to him engage Gary Habermas is a special treat. Prof. Flew comes across as a British Gentleman. The delicate chemistry of this exchange is helped enormously by the down-to-earth demeanor of Gary Habermas.
My heart aches to see more interactions of this calibre.
I know exactly what you mean.
it seems to me, Today's atheist are rather short tempered and spiteful.
I know right. The internet spawned too many angry people. It seems that just a few years ago academics had discussions in a civil atmosphere and, as they had little to no followers and exposure, were more open minded to change their minds.
+Jim Hampton I've thought of buying the book. What is your opinion on it?
Flew is now a Christian
@@Stevenstiffany77 interesting if true
Flew became a Theist before he passed away because of the evidence.
*deist
@pokey nose You can't find the evidence for the same reason a thief can't find the police.
@pokey nose, says the typical idiotic atheist.
Deist is a subset of theist.
Also atheists can’t see the evidence doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Your statement of personal incredulity should have no bearing on actual scholarship.
@@affinity1746 Theism is a subset of deism not the other way around
Gary Habermas is an apologist of the best kind... charitable, knowledgeable and kind! I love listening to him.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
Sew Me yo if someone said they’d raise themself from the dead then obviously die then rise from the dead, hell yeah im putting all my faith in them, he knows more than me lol
And drunk on the JC Kool Aid to the point where he cannot see the gaping holes in his assumptions.
@@sewme7861 The Disciples sure did, so clearly they thought he said good stuff. What bad stuff did Jesus say/do? Sure God in the Old Testament did a lot of harsh things like giving many orders to obliterate entire groups of people, but all of those incidents were perfectly within his rights as the Just God of the world, and the story of Rahab shows that people knew about their eminent destruction but still refused to turn to God. Looking at God as a whole, he really isn't evil, so denying him on those grounds don't come of as enough of reason to not become Christian.
Science matters end of discussion
It seems to me that he was tired of arguing against it and he believed. The entire debate, he’s searching for the something more. He wants to understand why Jesus would do this, especially for him.
I love Anthony Flew's book There Is A God. After a long life of disbelief he eventually turned to Christ.
R.I.P. Anthony Flew, may God rest your soul.
Such good logic given by Habernas! I admire this and I think Flew must have been moved by him too.
@Wayne lawson
Wrong. He says in his book how he came to believe Christianity is the one true religion. Appendix B pg 184 (first paperback edition 2008).
He was more of agnostic not christian
@@ltakethefatlplease.3380
No, he was Christian. Read his book and see Appendix B: A Dialogue On Jesus. He explains why Christianity is the true religion.
Why would he think that if he wasn't a Christian.
@@Elsupermayan8870 I might want to check that out cause I always thought that he just believed that something rather it be the christian God or not created life.
Josephus was a Jewish historian and renouned as a great historian who wrote about Jesus with great detail from his research. He wrote several years after Jesus resurrection. He even gave details about Pilate and Jesus and Josephus and others as well as the customs of the Jewish people at that time and details about the crucifixion and burial practices.
Many other historians also recorded many details about the Jews and Roman cultures at that time in Jerusalem.
Not only were the soldiers who crucified Jesus sure about all the details they were held accountable for every action. The soldier would be tortured and killed if he lied or did not do his job the right way. This is why the soldier punctured the sack of water around the heart and the heart itself to get a mixture of blood and water to come out of jesus side. Mixture is not mixture we think of, a watered down blood but had trails of water and blood separately as well as mixed. They were professionals and KNEW Jesus was dead and this is why they did not crush Jesus bones because Jesus was already dead. They had to rush the crucifixion to get all the bodies off crosses in honor of the Jewish sabbath. Simply stated, all kinds of people walked by the crucifixion site, not on the top of skull hill but on the side, and at times of such festivities they were not out to scare all the visitors flooding in to honor the Passover (a festival to remember how God used Moses to set Hebrews free from slavery to Egypt and the miracles God did to get them to the land promised to be theirs by God - the same lands that God had given Abraham essentially before the giants moved into the land after the Hebrews went to Egypt a few hundred years before Moses to be saved from a drought by a young Hebrew named Joseph who had been sold into slavery and raised by God to be Pharoah's right hand man because he saved so many lives of Egyptians by storing grain in 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of drought. Joseph was not called Joseph by the Egyptians and his HUGE grain bins have been found by archaeologists, some still have grain in them. )
The Romans did crucifixions normally to be seen by Jews to remind them of Roman dominance and that if they caused troubles for Rome they would be crucified. Also the soldiers at the resurrection site sent by Pilate at the request of the Jewish High priest Caiphas would be killed if they fell asleep or did not do their job. The tomb has been found in the small garden outside of the walls of Jerusalem. The huge stone that rolled through a trough engraved in stone as was the tomb was missing but located close to the crucifixion site very close to the tomb on the side of Golgatha Skull Hill - two holes in the bed rock up front and one behind them with metal holes in the skull hill wall behind where signs about the criminals were hung to be seen by people walking to and from Jerusalem towards the north side. So many other things discovered like two holes in the wall on each side of where the stone would roll in front of the tomb, one with a metal spike in it sheared off by a force greater than a standard bulldozer. The Bible stated the tomb was sealed by the soldiers and then watched over it without sleep by order - guards. Josephus and the grave site it self testify that sealing the tomb was not wax or something so feeble but that a heavy metal chain was secured into the wall on both sides of the huge stone that rolled to cover the tomb. The Bible said that an angel rolled the stone away after the guards fainted or went to sleep - probably out of fear. Rolling the stone itself would take several men but breaking the seal - pulling one side of the chain out of the wall leaving a hole and the other having the steel spike sheared off --- super strong angel folks.
Some won't even check such out with archaeologists that found these things or trust ancient writers or historians because they choose to reject facts and prefer to believe a lie. The wise do not live in a la la fantasy land that selectively believes some things and rejects others automatically - calling them selves objective.
Josephus's writings also says jesus was a short, stalky, balding, unattractive black man. This is why you can't hang your hat on his words. Surely you don't even believe his physical description of jesus
Crucifixions were done by the Romans .. that has nothing to do with a fairytale about a bearded magic man coming back from the dead
@@exillens he doesn't say he was black.
@@RawChristianSuperman His writings certainly does
@@exillens it certainly does not.
If the resurrection did not occur, then what other explanation can account for the sudden courage of the disciples, the rapid expansion of Christianity, the post-mortem appearances, the empty tomb and the sudden conversion of Paul???
There isn’t another account that could accomplish such a task. Amen.
Beautiful truths, aren't they?
That is right and it should be enough to make proof to other people about Jesus and Bible. Rim accepted Christianity and Jesus as son of God . The Rim that killed him and slaved all Jews. If anyone think that Rim would just accept Jews religion out of anything that were just slaves he is sick in his head. Rim accepted Jesus after they saw he didn't die. 1 million Jews saw Jesus die and than 3 days alive. It was miracle so big that people who killed and tortured Jews accepted their religion. They saw Jesus with their own eyes !!!
@Christian Slayer I absolutely want to know and so do all the atheists. Hit me with your best shot.
@Christian Slayer This is all very interesting, but you haven't shown anything that refutes Jesus empty tomb, resurrection, bodily appearances, early disciples willingness to die for what they saw, Paul suddenly becoming an evangelist when he had a bright future as a Pharisee...You talk about killing Esau, but Esau was way before Paul or anyone else in the first century.
You haven't given me anything that suggests that the New Testament is false of historically unreliable.
"To live is Christ to die is gain!"
@Christian Slayer it's a scripture!
@Christian Slayer it's not meaningless at all. When you live for Christ its everything and when you die it's even better. It's a beautiful fact that means so much in only a few words.
@River Scott if you believe in Jesus , you are saved from condemnation in hell because He is your Savior. He rose from the dead showing He is truly our Savior. And this video shows the strength of the resurrection of Jesus.
So when you die believing in Jesus it is indeed in gain.
The question Anthony seems to be asking is "what is the difference between the few other documented resurrections and Jesus's" All were raised by the interaction of another raising them. Jesus is documented as saying authority is given for Him to raise Himself.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
@Christian Slayer
Its been a year since i commented. Can you make your question more clear.
@Christian Slayer
I dont remember.
Ill look for a few minutes see if i can figure out the section.
If i find it ill answer. But i cant commit to watching the video to figure it out.
@Christian Slayer OK
I'll try to take a look and see where my comment fit
...and in the end, they will harden their hearts.
Just watch Christopher Hitchens' 10 Commandments. The comments by so many people in favor of these, and they actually claim that Hitchens' intellect is superior to God, if there is a god. It's sad to hear so many people who actually have been deceived by Satan and his minion, C. Hitchens.
Hardening their hearts is on full display.
It actually is a softening of the heart. It takes a hardening of the heart to defend a bible that commanded the murder of babies...multiple times. Slavery, killing people for what others do, executing gay persons...people who work on a Saturday, etc etc etc
It is a softening of the heart that drove me to my deconversion from this religion.
Lawrence Eason Well, sorry to tell you this but that sounds like when a child is talking to his friends about how bad their parents are for not letting him eat his candy and watch tv late at night. We know why they do that, the kid just doesn't understand.
Try to read on your own, see if what you argue is really true. And even if it were exactly like you say denying God even against the evidence is not the point if the truth is what you are looking for.
Anthony Flew seemed to be on the ropes most of the time.
Gary Habermas wouldnt close with a knockout blow , gently gently wins the day.
@River Scott what are you talking about Anthony lost Gary absolutely won. I did not refuse a statement many have tried to refute the resurrection statement but I failed if you do any amount of research you could see just how wrong he is Anthony lost Gary won if you do the research Gary has won
love the Mr Habermas was respectful, considerate and understanding with Mr Flew. He did not embarrass Mr Flew in this discussion
An interesting debate I have to say. Habermas is a great modern theologian who has a very solid understanding of history and his field. Would love to see more of his works. Funny how almost *all* claims of Flew's declining health came after his conversion, *never* before. How convenient.
Lewis Bean Anthony Flew's deism might not have given him much comfort: He didn't believe God was loving or in life after death. And he doesn't personally strike me as dishonest.
Yeah, that is true, he didn't convert to a particular religion, but he certainly gave up on atheism from this point. I think he was certainly more competent than Dawkins and co. nowadays.
Well Flew himself was adamant that he published the book and that varghese helped edit. Even if it was the case of some editing, what Flew says clearly still makes a lot of sense. This video was several years before that when e was still an atheist and is not the first debate that he had with Habermas- again in that case, most people there claimed that Habermas won the debate and none claimed Flew did. Of course I know Flew turning to deism doesn't necessarily add verification to theism, but the way in which he turned is fascinating. Even in his heyday, there are still plenty of arguments against his works such as the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy when applied to faiths behaviours (i.e. the analogy doesn't work). Habermas does do another video where he looks at the historical accounts for the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and Mark Foreman does one refuting the idea of Jesus resulting from pagan mythology. Both of these and many others are ones I would personally recommend.
Did he honestly start out by saying that, perhaps, Jesus wasn't dead!?!?!? I'm stunned...
this morning i met a sister at church and we prayed for her atheist son. i found this and the later/last interview of Anthony Flew which i am sending to her. Brothers and sisters may i invite and ask any of you who feel led, to pray for her son Michael. I believe Debbie is the first of her family to find Jesus , not the last!! Joan
Religions can be overwhelming. The Catholic Church is full of problems, because man has manipulated it. When dealing with atheist, tell them to forget about all the religions and debates. Say, if Jesus really died and came back resurrected, would you believe? Then give them evidence to support it. It simplifies everything.
Here is a great video for younger people who have questions. ua-cam.com/video/DCHJbO-3-jA/v-deo.html
Thank you Robert for taking the t me and interest to write,very kind. I have saved your recommended UA-cam and will take a look later before I pass it on to Debbie. I haven’t seen her since for while as I’m grounded with pneumonia and keeping clear of folks ! Blessings to you and yours for Christmas- and our Saviours real Peace
@@grahamlewis6062 hopefully you are all well by now.
Reading the comments. Rest in peace Mr. Flew.
the resurrection is a one time in human history thats why it is so darn special to humanity
it has never really happened before or since this occurance
I realize that my response is a bit late but I just could not pass up the opportunity to remind you of the other "stories" found in the "New testament" of others who were "resurrected" BEFORE Jesus by Jesus himself!!! Consider the "resurrection" of Lazarus after being "dead" for 4 days or the "resurrection" of the daughter of Jarius not to mention the number of saints "resurrected" during the "resurrection" of Jesus!?!? Add to that the explanation given by the writer of the letter to the Hebrews, whoever That was, where it is stated, " And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die...", then accordingly, Lazarus, the daughter of Jarius, the saints and the others that were "resurrected" should STILL be alive and walking around somewhere on this earth awaiting judgement!!! Consider this just something to think about!
@joashsmusic First of all , I take umbrage at your estimation that I lack basic understanding of the concepts of christianity! Au contraire! I understand perfectly that christians have NO revealed "scripture" from "God" to stand upon! All that you have is testimonies from unknown persons, biographies written decades after the fact, by persons who are were not eyewitnesses nor earwitnesses to anything that they wrote about! In essence, just stories written ABOUT the prophet Jesus NOT revelation from "God"! Therefore, nothing that is found recorded in the christian "scripture" can be thought of as "the word of God ", just the words of men! Now to address the individual concerns about the "stories" that you referenced, exactly where do I find references in your "scripture" to back up your assertion that the people who were "resurrected" by Jesus died again? I have done the research and I find that there are few among enlightened christians that know the bible better than I do! But, my question to YOU is, as a christian, can YOU explain to me exactly who is Jesus? Was he "God" or was he the son of "God"??? If he was "God", how in the world did he die, seeing that "God" is IMMORTAL, incapable of dying??? Christianity makes NO rational sense to anyone with common sense! So, unless YOU can provide evidence that the bible IS the "word of God", and you can NOT, I think we have nothing left to discuss.
@Jo-Ash Scott Official Look dude, after all of that claptrap, YOU have yet to answer the question as to "Who is/was Jesus"??? God or son of God? Answer THAT! On top of that, YOU try to cast aspersions against the PROPHET Muhammad, what of the fact that according to YOUR "bible", YOUR "God" Jesus was tempted by the devil himself!?!? Offered all the riches and glory and all that jazz!?!? The devil offering "God" what already belongs to "God"??? LUDICROUS!!! DUDE the very fact that YOU are christian proves that YOU do NOT consider wisely! I have done the research and I find that there is NOTHING found in YOUR so-called "scripture" that supports the conventional "christian" view" that Jesus was "God"!!! To the contrary, YOUR "God" Jesus SAID "I ascend unto MY "God" and your "God"!?!? So logically, if Jesus has a "God" then he can NOT be his OWN "God", silly rabbit! How in the world can "God" cry out, "MY 'God', MY 'God', why have YOU abandoned ME??? How is it that christians just completely ignore the words of their OWN "God" Jesus when he is reported to have SAID, "And this is life eternal, that they may know YOU(The Father), THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and that they may know that YOU sent ME"!!! John 17:3! YOU people know NOT what YOU worship, YOU people are LOST!!! It clearly states in your OWN "scripture", the FATHER is the "ONLY TRUE GOD", sooo what does that make Jesus??? By default, LOGICALLY, LINGUISTICALLY, if words have meaning, that makes Jesus a FALSE "God"!!! IPSO FACTO!!! How little do YOU think! I need NOT quote Bart Ehrman or any other reference, YOUR bible is all the authority needed and COMMON SENSE!!! Christianity makes NO sense!!! In one of YOUR posts, YOU accuse ME of NOT understanding "basic concepts of who Jesus is. Hmm." To the contrary, I DO!!! It is YOU who knows NOT what the hell that YOU are talking about!!! If so, PROVE it using YOUR "scripture"! Go ahead, I'll wait! I eagerly await YOUR response, chapter and verse please!
@Jo-Ash Scott Official Wow, dude, I just don't know what to do with YOU??? I have really tried my best to help YOU understand WHY it is that the christian construct is without merit but as has been my fate in life, I have always understood things that the average person only later realizes! The key to life is to just keep things SIMPLE! No need for flowery language or complicated formulation and such. You SAY that you are up for "intellectual challenges" but are you actually? To demonstrate what I mean, in a previous post, I "challenged" YOU to explain from YOUR "scripture", exactly WHO is/was Jesus as in, IS HE GOD or is he the SON of "God"??? And what did YOU do? Completely ignored it !?!? I wonder WHY??? No, sorry! I entirely understand why. Because YOU can't!!! If YOU say that Jesus is "God", then that begs the question, if that is the case, WHO then is "the Father"??? And please, do not continue to bombard me with quotations of YOUR second "God", Paul!!! Whatever "Paul" has to say about ANYTHING, I am NOT interested!!! Paul nor ANY of the "new testament" writers were "prophets" sent from "God"' so whatever THEY contribute to the narrative ABOUT Jesus is NOT the "word of God" as ONLY the "prophets" were ordained to receive and write "the word of God"!!! Those people were NOT and they DIDN'T! So, as NOT to over tax YOUR tremendous "intellectual prowess", is it possible for YOU to constrain YOURSELF to addressing the issue of who is/was Jesus, "God" OR the SON of "God"??? In all actuality, Jo-Ash, I already know that YOU can NOT answer the question because YOU don't KNOW!!! Dude, what YOU fail to recognize is that YOU are waaay out of YOUR league in dealing with ME concerning THIS issue!!! YOU have NOT applied YOUR "intellect" in THIS area and it shows!!!
@Jo-Ash Scott Official OK Jo-Ash, since YOU are offering ME unsolicited advice, allow ME to do the same! YOU need to get a clue!!! The thing that YOU fail to realize is, I don't care how many bible quotes that YOU cite, it means NOTHING to ME because the bible is NOT the "word of or from 'God' "!!! And YOU being a christian, especially the so-called "new testament"!?!? It is very simple deduction Jo-Ash, the " word of or from 'God' " was ONLY "revealed" to HIS prophets, like Noah, Abraham, David, Isaiah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and numerous others BUT the authors of the "new testament" are NOT numbered among THEM!!! The thing is, your OWN biblical, christian scholars will tell you that NO ONE knows exactly WHO wrote WHAT! The history of the bible compilation shows that at one time, what is now referred to as the "according to gospels" were without names and it was the pagan, Roman/Greek church forefathers that assigned names to these "biographies" as such because these "stories" were ALL written ANONYMOUSLY!!! Questions for YOU, who was the writer Mark??? Was he even a disciple of "Jesus"??? NO! Same for the writer of Luke, NOT even a disciple EITHER!?!? NONE of the so-called authors of the "new testament" had ever met the man "Jesus", they were ALL writing "stories" from HEARSAY and for THIS reason alone, can NOT be deemed "the word of or from 'God' "!!! Dude YOU have a LOOOONG way to go and a very short time to get there! Bon voyage! So YOU can cite whatever YOU want from THEIR "new testament" until YOUR fingers fall off or until YOU are blue in the face, it matters NOT a wit, IT IS NOT FROM "GOD"!!!
What a civilized discussion, Flew was so different from the brash, dogmatic 'new atheists'!
Indeed. This is what civilized discussion looks like. Mr. Flew was intellectually honest. He wasn't fighting to be right if he discovered evidence that proves him wrong. Today people fight to keep their lies true. It's insane... and that's why they fight in such ugly ways. It's not about truth. Its about winning no matter what.
@@ronlewis8398 I feel like that's the problem with most modern debates. If someone beats you in a debate, it will go on UA-cam with a clickbatey, "X DESTROYED by Y in debate", so you feel the need to win even if you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to get there.
You cannot expect to win agains Jesus Christ 💪🏻
My my, a humble honest atheist, I'm not saying they don't exist elsewhere but the ones we're used to seeing in debates and/or the comment sections are usually very arrogant and condescending...this Flew guy has just endeared himself to me. More of this please.
Honestly, to be an atheist requires more faith than being a Christian.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861 Jesus was claiming to be the messiah, and part of the being the messiah was that you would have to be a suffering servant, be martyred, but then would come back to life as someone who will reconcile sinners back to God: "After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53). Therefore, since Jesus -- as someone who claimed to be this very specific person who had a very specific role to play, and had to perform certain signs to authenticate his claims -- did in fact fulfill the prophetic scriptures by coming back to life, then his Resurrection authenticated him as the Messiah.
The resurrection of your average Joe is going to have different implications than the resurrection of someone who claimed to be God in the flesh. Consider how when hanging on the cross, the people witnessing the event all mocked Jesus saying, "save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:40). Well he did not come down from the cross because the Messiah had to die to atone for our sins: "though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days" (Isaiah 53), but by raising himself from the dead, not only did Jesus "save himself", but he thereby also showed how he did in fact possess the power of Yahweh, and therefore was God. Lazarus could not raise himself from the dead; only Jesus, who possessed the power of Yahweh, could do that. Therefore, since Jesus raised himself from the dead without anyone else making intercession for him, he again proved to be God.
Similarly, you can see many cases today where people are pronounced clinically dead, but then miraculously come back to life, but only after meeting Jesus in heaven, and only after he speaks their spirits back into their bodies. I'm thinking of the famous case of Ian Maccormick -- you can watch his testimony on youtube.
No it doesn’t.
+Bennjjyy Haayysss - nice bumper sticker. If that level of analysis and critical thinking work for you, you're welcome to it.
@@sewme7861
What do you mean by that?
I met Anthony Flew about 25 years ago. He was a good man and I hope he came to Christ before his death.
They say he did..
@@emmanuelmasih2296 Yes, that's what I heard. God bless him.
I lack belief that Jesus was not resurrected!
it doesn't matter what you believe the evidence speaks for itself
Jose Martinez
Ok...go on?
+jwrsob there is something called an empty tomb , 500 people saw the risen Christ including Paul so why are against the evidence
Jose Martinez
Ok...let me repost my statement (you don't quite get it):
"I LACK belief that Jesus was not resurrected!"
In other words, I BELIEVE in the resurrection...I LACK belief that it didn't happen....this is a response to the silly arguments about atheism just being a LACK of belief against God!
+jwrsob oh so you do believe ?well if that's the case my apologies for not checking your statement so
Jesus is Lord!
@Christian Slayer finally coming to your senses. God bless
Flew changed his mind that there must be a God after looking into a living cell according to his own testimony, which demonstrates God's glory. I don't know whether he came to believe the Gospel of his salvation though.
This is the first debate I've ever seen where one debater actually seems.to be beginning to be convinced of the other's view. Gary's knowledge seems impeccable.
Flew overlooked that Habermas isn't explaining a valid question. Habermas doesn't have a valid question because there isn't an anomaly generating a question to explain.
@@HegelsOwl ooh. Big brained. Thanks for that amazing observation. Ok class, who's next?
@@regeneratedzed Yeah. You're a Habermas clown--just a real stupid joke
@@HegelsOwl such a brilliant, well developed reproach. Boggles the mind... So thought provoking it's quite possibly the most astounding statement made since "buttered toast" (smh)
@@regeneratedzed ...Pardon me, sir: Would you please pull your pants down--I can't hear anything you're trying to say.
Flew @ 1:56 ish: “human beings are creatures of flesh and blood”. I would argue that’s hugely short sighted. (Part of the atheists problem ) Beyond that, human beings are firstly spirits dwelling in body’s made of flesh and blood, necessary for habitation on this earth. Which is the explanation for sentience and conscience which atheists do not have and cannot explain.
@ DeGaN... when atheists say they don't have an answer for certain things they are just being honest... of course that's something you can't understand
Carl Pen. Predictable anecdotal irrelevant atheist response. Proving my point.
Thank you.
@@dallasdien ... what point have you made other than making a statement that you have no proof of... I didn't say I was an atheist... your arrogance is only surpassed by you ignorance and that's a fact borne out of your own comments
Really like the way you put this. We’re should inhabiting bodies. NOT bodies with souls
The source that says Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already died, also says that Jesus died. End of argument.
JESUS is risen. All who deny him will be denied on there judgement day. Hell is licking its chops.
please
GD rex? Are you pleased with the mainstream narrative? Following the herd into hell while chewing the cud? Wide is the gate that leads into hell.
Christian Slayer blah blah blah you stupid Darwin jack ass! Something comes from nothing is the most Moronic believe in the universe. Go look in the mirror and look at the most dumb jackass of all. Iron Maiden rules! Slayer sucks! Maiden was before slayer and the Maiden machine still rolls on! Selling out coliseums world wide without hardly any air play. Go back in your pathetic existence and shut up!
The day I understood the Effect of quantum mechanics, I understood that the resurrection can be explained by natural law. It makes a whole difference to me.
I get that he was in his 80s, but Professor Flew does not seem to be awake for this “debate”
I agree. He eventually became a believer, which may be why he didn't vehemently defend his long held position with the vim and vigor as he did in the past. He was already on his way there. Not to mention his friendship with Gary and of course, his age.
@River Scott When Shoeshine Boy said Believer, I think he just meant that Flew believed in God, not necessarily Christianity.
The other systems can't begin to explain personality. We discussed this a few years ago at L'abri Australia. We agree, the Bible begins with a polemic tension in the first verse, that put the dreamers away. Flew is a great man. Respect.
Absolutely Gold, worth watching every minute! Thx for uploading
Atheist Anthony is of a noble behavior, listening attentively, accepting corrections and learning about the Bible from Gary. But, a Brit is a Brit; slow and cunning. From 1:42:00 he was asked what happened to Jesus' body since he doesn't believe in the resurrection and he goes.....blah, blah, black sheep...he knows nothing!! However, the good part is that the Holy Spirit was already working in his heart which is why he seemed unusually gentle and peaceful.
Thank you for this video. Great content. Godspeed and God's peace be with you.
I can't believe that there people saying that Jesus never existed. All the most educated atheist agreed that he existed.
Very interesting to note that Antony Flew came to believe in God. One thing about Antony Flew that you had to admire was that he would always follow the evidence. And he was true to his word. When he concluded that the scientific evidence pointed to a God that had created the Universe he changed his mind and believed in God.
To start with he changed his mind from atheism to believing in God. What he believed before he died is not known. Did he accept Jesus?
They were so respectful. I admire Flew for his honesty. Thank you God for this debate, and thank you God for Flew's conversion to at least Deism. It is interesting that Flew became Deist because of the intelligent design argument, one that in this discussion he said was preposterous.
@River Scott Bro, Shlama literally said Flew became a Deist. He straight up acknowledged that Flew didn't believe in Christianity. What's the point of your comment?
@@petery6432 River came back and deleted all his comments lol. I've seen him before, his name used to be "Christian Slayer."
Habermas for the win! :D
Do you have any physical evidence for your claim of a physical Jesus?
53:00 to 55:30 was a huge light bulb moment for Anthony Flew. He must have been at the point that he started wanting answers and was no longer trying to give them. Atheism will break a man to the point of total darkness, there is where the Light of Truth is seen best. There is no denying Jesus unless you plug your ears and close your eyes. Don't stick your head in the sand until it is too late. Drop your pride and believe the truth.
Proverbs 14:2-3
2 He that walketh in his uprightness feareth the Lord: but he that is perverse in his ways despiseth him.
3 In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
Philippians 2:10-11
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Flew was a sincere seeker of truth, that much can be said.
Both sides were not out to insist on their side, they were there to present what they believe, and it is up to the audience to form their verdict.
This is why I hate debates, when there is a better avenue for intelligent and civil discourse.
I would like to have seen him debate Christopher Hitchens.
Loved this. I side with Habermas, and his facts and logic are clever and sound. Good debate, interesting surprises. I have come to worship Christ, personally.
Kind regards, will there be someone who can please add subtitles to this extraordinary debate in Spanish?
Why didnt nonbelieving Jews and Priests and governement witness Jesus resurrection? Why only a few of his desciples and why did many who did see him NOT recognize him?!
I'd sure like to see Dr.Gary Habermas present his evidence to Dr.Lawrence Krauss...that,in itself,would be a splendid debate.
They'd have to cut Krauss' mic...LOL The math alone, can you imagine?
Habermas can only add a few years at a time to the alleged crucifixion for Paul's grand mal seizure.
Krauss is afraid to let the other guy speak, lest the audience hear the truth. In his debate with Craig he acted about 16 years old with constant interruptions and a scornful ridiculing attitude. What is most telling though is that he's always trying to talk over, walk over, shut down and silence the opposing view. He can't sit there and let his arguments speak for themselves. He was obviously afraid to let the audience hear Craig's arguments uninterrupted.
Christopher Lees Or he didn't want to let Craig get away with fucking up science. Which, you know, Craig is famous for. Watch his debate with Sean Carroll if you want to see your Craigypoo demolished.
Krauss is a second rate classical historian for one. So no contest in that assertion.
I might add the darling of the atheist Anthony Flew this very person has become a believer. At that point the atheist said Flew was not an intellectual. Well he was for 40 years. Which proves one thing atheist are bigots and use science to practice it!
Most ridiculous assertion I heard yet. I know plenty of "Old People" that have very sharp minds and very intelligent. You just brushed it off to prove and assertion using an assumption. Something I would avoid in the future. It makes you more credible!
Here, I fixed the famous Minimal Facts Argument list…
1. Jesus' Crucifixion (if he indeed existed)
2. Buried (again, if he existed)
3. Disciples despaired❌ (said no verse ever)
4. Tomb empty a few days later (claimed anonymous authors 40-70 years later)
5. Disciples believed saw risen Jesus (if they indeed existed)
6. Disciples transformed (again, if they existed)
7. Resurrection: the focus of disciples' message✅ (or rather, the new religion’s message)
8. Proclaimed in Jerusalem✅
9. Church born & grew✅
10. Christian Jews worshiped on Sunday (after Constantine ordered it)
11. Jesus' brother James converted (claimed anonymous authors 40-70 years later)
12. Skeptic Paul converted (if he was indeed writing as nonfiction)
richard dawkins could take some lessons from this dialog.
Richard Dawkins knew that CHRIST existed he just chose to deny him..which in turn God denied him.. meaning no redemption for him..his free will sent him to wait upon judgement day in a not so nice place to await it.
@@michelemcguire8995 Your 100% right so Richard has no one to blame but himself!
Dawkins is a biologist....????
@@tomwinchester55 Dr. Dawkins has gotten in dialogues with questions pertaining to God's existence. E.g...his debate with Dr. John Lennox.
@@michelemcguire8995 sorry...that is crazy...he does not think that a god exist.
What really happened between the evening Jesus of Nazareth was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and, just a few days later, is said to have risen from the dead?
In just a few weeks, Christians all over the world will be celebrating a holy week, marking the suffering and death of Jesus, and then celebrating his triumphant resurrection.
For most Christians, though the exact theology about his death/resurrection is somewhat murky, the idea that Jesus conquered death is a sign they, too, will one day live again after they die, either by surviving as a conscious soul that goes to a pleasant spirit realm called Heaven, or that they, themselves, will also one day physically rise from the dead just as Jesus did...or for a significant number of those Christians often called Evangelicals, who say it will be both, beginning with a Rapture!
How, though, can we be sure, as so many Christians seem to be, that Jesus really did come back from the dead? There are, after all, more than a few historical researchers who doubt he even existed!
There have been numerous attempts to make the case for Jesus' resurrection purely from the narratives found in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. One that had been very popular among Neo Evangelicals just a few decades ago, argued Jesus had to have risen again, because it could not have been his disciples who moved away the stone from his tomb for, if they had, and they subsequently secreted away his dead body, there is no way they would have gone on to spread the news of his resurrection, at great personal risk, knowing all the while it was all a big lie!
On the other hand, might there be some other explanation why his disciples, in just a matter of days after his public execution, became completely convinced he was alive again...and not only that, but it had been God's plan all along?
After decades of intensive research, pouring over the biblical narratives and using the very best methods of textual and contextual scholarly criticism, I believe we can know, with as much certainty as is historically possible, what really happened to Jesus and his followers that fateful, final week of Jesus' life, and what really happened in the following days, weeks, years, decades and centuries ever since, leading to well over a 2 billion people in the world today professing faith in him and his message...even though, many of them may have it completely wrong!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Real-Life-Jesus-Nazareth-Really-Stood/dp/B09TPHRY41/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1647202811&sr=8-1
Anthony Flew doesn’t really make an argument against the deity of Christ. He’s just gonna go to the grave refusing to submit to Jesus’ lordship. He simply let’s his intellect get in the way of what his heart tells him is true.
Plus his tenacious prideful hold on a petrified set of beliefs that keeps him from humbling himself and surrender to his Creator. That battle of such willfulness makes me tired.
@@sylviac.6778I know this is last, but what you said here is wonderful and I agree completely
I feel like Flew is on here because he himself wants to be convinced. He mentions his “unrelenting” unbelief but doesn’t seem to think there’s anything more than the unwillingness to believe that hinders him from believing.
I believe that C.S. Lewis discarded the hallucination (schizophrenia) possibility straight away. Schizophrenics are anything but magnetic personalities.
Habermas chewed Flew up inspite of him having the advantage of a British accent which is worth a few points in any debate.
why does it matter if Jesus was resurrected? if you witnessed the resurrection of someone who said things you found disgusting and horrible, would you have faith in him?
@@sewme7861, "disgusting and horrible" are not truth statements, they're value statements. I'm going to use my past few years as an example here to explain why this distinction is important. A few years ago, I determined that evolution (from a single common ancestor, not change over time) is not mathematically possible, it is not possible from a genetic data transmission standpoint, and it is not possible from a syllogistic standpoint. I had already discarded catastrophic, anthropogenic global climate change as unscientific. So now, two of the most politicized fields of science were untenable to me (and the more I branched out from my specialization of physics, the more I realized the totality of naturalisms failings). I was, at the time, a staunch agnostic, but I don't like not knowing the answer once I know a question, so I began to look at all kinds of origin stories. I didn't have any interest in Christianity because any organization that claimed a monopoly on truth was no better than the dogmatic sciences and the government they were symbiotic with, in my estimation.
First I tried out ancient aliens/astronaut theories, and found that while entertaining, they failed to answer any questions about initial origins. After a few other failed attempts with other explanations, I decided I might as well read the Bible. I started with Genesis and read straight through to the end of Revelation. Some parts were tedious, some were absolutely awesome, some were disgusting and horrible.
I started reading it about a year and a half ago, and finished about three months ago. I kept stopping because God would do something horrible like harden Pharaoh's heart so that he could send another plague to prove what a badass he was, or give Satan permission to murder Job's entire family, destroy his house, and scatter his flocks and herds just to see if Job really loved Him, like some kind of stalker girlfriend deleting female Facebook friends and reading your text messages to make sure you're not cheating but 1000x worse, then starting again after a few weeks because not liking something doesn't make it untrue. My conclusion is that every single claim of objective truth about the physical universe made in it is either demonstrably accurate, or in the case of instances of things we can't run physical experiments on to prove, like a global flood, it is built on sound syllogism and is significantly more probable, statistically speaking, than any alternative.
The Bible is like an infinite onion of truth, as my best analogy. You read a verse and it will say an objective truth that can be observationally tested, that objective truth will contain within it an allegorical truth that can be broken down logically and tested for internal coherence or logical fallacy, and then it will carry a transcendent truth about the nature of God (At least every word dictated to Moses by God, after Moses smashed the tablets where God had written the first part of Genesis himself, and the parts where Jesus speaks. Sometimes the other books just have one or two of the truth types, rather than all three). These things have caused me to accept the Bible as absolute truth. They did not convince me that God is not disgusting and horrible, and not just for what I listed above that I see as cruelty. As such, I am no better than the demons Jesus cast out, who knew who He was and reviled Him for it.
I still don't understand a whole lot more than I do understand, and that will probably become even more apparent to me the more I learn. The Bible says God is good, but I still see a father who left his children in a garden with the deceiver and punished them with death for breaking his rule when they didn't know the difference between good and evil until they did so. What I've learned though, is that while I may not understand God well enough to love Him yet, he seems like he's patient enough to let me learn how.
To give soundbite answers to your questions, it matters that Jesus was resurrected because the way it happened proved every other claim he made was true. Witnessing the resurrection and faith that Christ is Lord are not the same thing. Lazarus was resurrected by the hand of Jesus, and I don't know of anyone anywhere that has ever believed him to be God. Furthermore, I didn't witness the resurrection, have had no prophetic visions, and can't feel the presence of the holy spirit, but I'm certain that it occurred, and that one day, if I keep chiseling as hard as I can at my hardened heart, it will finally soften enough to feel the holy spirit. And finally, no, because it wasn't the resurrection that made Jesus the Lord. It was a proof, not a cause. If Jeffrey Epstein, Chairman Mao, or Sigmund Freud were resurrected, I would not believe they were the Lord. I would believe that the Millennial Kingdom was commenced and in spite of the horrible things they did they loved the Lord and were therefore renewed.
Francisco d'Anconia Thanks for sharing your story. Do you think God would have a different opinion on what is horrible? Why or why not? I’d appreciate if you respond, but I’d understand if you feel all commented out after your essay :)
@@gabrieltippery3873 I think that God would define horrible differently than I do because we have a different perspective on creation, though our definitions result in a lot of overlap, so we might both look at the same event and see it as horrible for the same reason, we might look at it and see it as horrible, but for different reasons, and we might look at it and disagree on whether or not it's horrible.
If I were to attempt to sum up what I understand as God's definition of horrible in a brief sentence, I would define it as, "Anything which does not glorify God is an abomination before God." Whereas I define horrible more readily by the immediate results. Merriam-Webster has, "marked by or arousing painful and intense fear, dread, dismay, or aversion" as it's definition, and I can't sum it up any better. As such, murder is horrible to both of us, but homosexuality isn't. What two consenting adults do in their own bedroom isn't any of my business, so I don't find it horrible. It doesn't produce offspring, so it doesn't glorify God, so he does.
With homosexuality, and a lot of things beyond it, I can see God's point relatively easily, because I can look back through history and see where past civilizations have normalized it, and how that has had long-term deleterious impacts on them, and extrapolate how those impacts will affect current civilization. For instance, native population reduction resulting in a drive to bring in outside populations, which affects the culture, and eventually leads to an end to the civilization. Taking this into account, while I don't have any issue with gay people as individuals, I take massive issue with the promotion of gay culture. It's why I can watch Milo talk about Daddy Trump and get a giggle, but I wouldn't invite him to give a presentation to children.
Where I struggle most at our differences in opinion on what's horrible is not so much in where our opinions differ, but in where I see what appears to be counterproductive, irrational responses from God, and where I haven't figured out how his actions are consistent with him being good and caring, yet. I am certain, however, that anywhere God appears to fail to meet my standards, it is, in actuality, a failure of comprehension on my part, so I am compelled to try to understand, and work on my ability to reciprocate God's love for me. I hope that answers your question, and that my example was clarifying rather than obfuscating.
Space , humans and the earth are fluid . All are changing in their forms . Even if God put the earth smack dab in the center it wouldn't stay there . Personally I feel that man in his pride would put the earth in the prized position of center. God is not prideful he just says his creations are good .
55:00 that's when Flew admits that he has an unfalsifiable belief
SACRIFICE
The very idea that a god, a god that could have fashioned any method for redemption, chose bloodshed and suffering for his method. The idea that this god chose sacrifice, and blood sacrifice at that, is telling about such a god. And It tells us that such a god would be incomprehensibly immoral....if indeed it existed
Death is one of Satans names..Christ defeated him on the cross and resurrected on the 3rd day..so Satan aka death has been defeated already!!
Flew came from a Methodist background, his father being Anthony Newton Flew, a past president of the the Methodist Conference. I still have one book (I think) by Flew which was about crime or the psychology of crime. His interlocutor here was a younger man and much more mentally alert, clearly to Flew's disadvantage.
What a brutal way to die! He did it for us!
He did teach among us. He died for us because he loves us. Would you be tortured for someone you love?
@Christian Slayer where are you getting this stuff? Cite me a source or verse and we can talk about it.
@Christian Slayer well if your going to make a claim how is it my duty to prove your claim? When the cops come harass me is it my job to prove my innocence? That is a fallacy of logic. You have alot of hate and anger. I gave those up long ago and my life is filled with peace. I'd like the same for you.
@Christian Slayer I've read the amazing book in question have you? I'm not sure you care to much about rudeness since the only one making personal attacks is you.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Socrates
We are all individuals. I can say that every atheist is the same but I am friends with several and we have very polite conversations. Why would you question my sincerity? Despite your hate filled arguement I continue to try and have some dialogue. Why? Because I am called to love my neighbor as I love myself. If you are so knowledgeable about the bible again I ask that you back up your own claim with a source. If you are sincere in trying persuade me that is.
@@Thump40 hey, respect that you stayed respectful. The verse he is talking about is where he says "Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved". Of course devoid of its meaning and context, this can be used as a club to "slay" christians, as his name suggests.
You can look the verse up and study the reasoning behind it, there's really nothing here to be worried about..
They crucified Jesus. But they didn't kilked Him. Jesus sails "I have power to give my life. And I have power to take it back".
And His last words were "Father I command my spirit into your hands".
Gnomefro, you sound like someone who likes to argue and debate and quite frankly I am not interested in doing either with you. Dr. Habermas is the world's leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if he cannot convince you, I am certain that I cannot. It's a free country, you can be an atheist if you so desire. If you want to contact me about how you can be saved, I would be more than happy to lead you along that path. I am not going to argue with you.-Thomas
+Thomas Hunter An expert in "ressurections"? ROFL! :D
+Oners82
How does Hector avelos have better credentials concerning the resurrection of Christ? Explain.
+Oners82
He may have better credentials but not in the area of the resurrection.
+Oners82
Bart Erhman is sometimes hard to trust. In recent times he's gotten himself in trouble with both sides. One day he's says this while another day he says something else.
As for Hector avelos yes I agree he does have better credentials elsewhere, but not in the resurrection.
+Oners82
It doesn't matter if his credentials are equivalent. The question is what is his work on the resurrection? Please dont misunderstand me. I am not saying that he doesn't have work on the resurrection.The question is how extensive is it? I've known no researcher or historian who has more work on the resurrection then Garry harbamass.
I have some questions! Do you believe in Jesus? And if so, do you believe in his death and resurrection?
I do!❤
The Apostles died for their faith, which was that Jesus is the Son of God, died and was raised again for our sins. They died for a lie that they made up. That is the evidence that convinces me that this most unique and fantastic event did happen.
If the truth is veiled it veiled to those perishing.
I can't be an atheist because I experience real exorcism
Two blind men, overcomplicating that which is elementary. God is, as his name implies. 'He who by necessity must exist'.
Three witnesses is good enough in court!
Luckily you are not a judge!
There was over 500
The gospels would get dismissed as hearsay in every modern court.😂
By that criteria Joseph Smith really did find golden plates
Are you aware that eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable type of evidence? Thats why the innocence project has so many cases vacated by DNA evidence. Actual science, not faith nor belief
I hope this old man accepted Christ after all this. The Spirit of Unbelief rules him.
Evidently Flew accepts the reliability of the historical witness of the Gospels. Extend this to the rest of the Scriptures and we have numerous reliable historical facts recorded, including the evidence of the Red Sea Crossing of Moses and the route to Mount Sinai today. But Flew seems to be having difficulty accepting that God raises the dead. It is obvious that the man-made theory of evolution did not create the Universe with all its complexity, so surely the Creator would be able to raise the dead--something the fairy of evolution cannot do.
The scientific theory of evolution does not address cosmology, so your whole premise is wrong.
@@Frups12345678 Definitely!
Also, why should one extend the reliability from the gospels to all of the Bible? Seems uncalled for. I am a christian but this is not a method we can use.
I like the format of this debate--let them go at it.
This was just boring. Flew didn't seem to have any definable stance on what actually happened historically, so all they really did was dance around the topic for an hour and a half.
If he didn't, your lives will be lived as they are. If he did, there is an eternity of loving you're missing out on.
The two speakers take everything in the Gospels as just true. Whatever it says happened, happened. Right. Now, the only question is how to interpret it. Great.
Of course, we might ask why take the Bible as just true? The problem I have with the Bible is that it could be completely mythical in any way at all when it comes to describing the person of Jesus and we would not know. We just don't know if there was such a person, if he was described accurately at all in the Gospels. Heck, we don't know who the authors of the Gospels were or what their real intentions were.
Did the Gospel authors all make stuff up to suit whatever purpose they had in mind at the time? Who knows? We DO know there are problems with the Gospels. I don't see why anyone would simply accept all of it as true. Maybe it's because the words "Gospel" and "truth" are simply taken as synonymous...
Was Jesus actually crucified? Well, it sure says so in the Gospels. Too bad we can't find anything written down from the Romans to confirm such an event. But, why not just go ahead and take it as a given. After all, it's the gospel truth, isn't it?
And the resurrection? Oh... if THAT isn't just true, then the whole Christian project is worthless and untrue. So it better be true. OR ELSE.
You don't want to lose your religion, do you?
OH no.. we can't have that.
So Jesus' apostles conspired together to create Christianity and then went to preach it in foreign lands to total strangers, all of them apart from John suffering various forms of torture and ultimately being put to death. Do you realise how absurd that sounds?
What did any of them stand to gain by giving up their normal, safe lives and travelling to strange lands to evangelise about Jesus, knowing well that they would have to endure terrible hostility, hardships, pain and suffering?
As for Roman sources, do some research on Josephus and Tacitus.
Viki Gnjatic "What did any of them stand to gain by..."
- Oh, you believe this story as if it were real. Maybe you think you know who the apostles were, who the writers of the Gospels were.. and why these men wrote the stories.
That's nice.
Rayvvvone You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record. I would suggest watching a full lecture of Dr. Habermas' to understand his arguments within the context of the discipline of history. The execution of Jesus is documented in Tacitus (Roman) and Josephus (Jewish) as well as referenced in Mara Bar Serapion, Pliny the Younger and Thallos. Not to mention that suggesting the Gospel accounts are not documents of history is categorically false. It shows a bias to 1st century documents that you wouldn't dream of employing for another historical figure, such as Habermas' examples of Alexander the Great or Tiberius.
I think the key point you've overlooked is that Habermas' claims are not his alone, he's speaking from the academic consensus within the historical method. That's what he means by the 'minimalist' argument. He takes the bare minimum of evidence that the entire academic community agrees upon, and argues purely from that data. He doesn't bother arguing that Paul was the one who wrote the Pauline epistles, because no one in the field suggests that he doesn't. This may encourage you to ask about the validity of your own scepticism on this point. Habermas is not assuming, he's just addressing the points of contestation. The fact that Paul was a historical figure who wrote the letters ascribed to his name is not in contestation. His authorship is so well documented and the impact of his ministry upon the cities of Corinth and Galatia are so evidenced that it would take a misinformed you tuber to suggest otherwise.
Graham Clarke, atheist and professor of history at ANU writes that "I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is overwhelming". The fact that an atheist in the field can make this claim gives me little reason to take your suggestion that "we just don't know that there was such a person" seriously.
I seriously recommend taking in the whole of Habermas' arguments, better presented elsewhere (such as the Bethinking seminar), before levelling the above criticisms at them. I think you will find that on the whole there are far better criticisms to be made than the unsubstantiated ones you offered above.
Athuriux " You're clearly very unfamiliar with the historical record."
- You clearly don't know what I know or don't know. You might be surprised.
But, please, do continue to MAKE THINGS UP .. because that's your method so far.
Yes.. Im quite sure I am exactly the way you imagine me to be.
I haven't studied anything .. right.
I am unfamiliar, for sure.. that's why I'm in here. I don't know a thing about this.. never heard all of your really quite silly arguments .. what are you going to talk about Alexander the Great?
Oh wow.. never heard of that argument...
What, are you going to mention people who wrote about Jesus who weren't even BORN before it all was supposed to have happened?
Oh wow.. I'm so unfamiliar with THAT fallacious stupidity, too.
Never EVER heard it so many times. It's boring. It doesn't even come close to being historical proof of Jesus.
So, yeah... I'm unfamiliar with accepting bullshit as the truth.
Very unfamiliar with that.
If you don't have real evidence, you pretend you have some. And it isn't convincing at all to any outsider.
Including Clarke... who doesn't spell his name the way you think he does.
And I don't CARE about unfounded opinions. IF CLARKE or anyone else has EVIDENCE, then he should provide that evidence.
Otherwise, he and anyone else is completely free to say ANYTHING HE BLOODY WELL LIKES.. it's meaningless drivel.
No evidence, no good reason to believe. Period.
So, where is Clarke's EVIDENCE.. or do you think opinions are evidence?
The evidence for Messiah is all over the net, easy to find, from archaeology, history both secular and Christian. You are so sure the Resurrection never happened, but
there is literally miraculous evidence if you have eyes to see.
There is a lot of great info here, but the best evidence for the Resurrection is the Shroud of Turin. If you have heard that carbon 14 testing revealed it to be a medieval forgery, on the Jesus And The Shroud of Turin vid posted by 15 Decades you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 dating saying that the sample taken was invalid due to contamination.
Due to modern technology things have been found on the Shroud that were invisible in the medieval ages. For ex. pollen from Jerusalem has been discovered on it. New computer technology shows it has an x ray effect revealing images of bones and dentition. That's for starters.
Secular scientists have examined the Shroud for years, and that data is all over the net for you to see with your own eyes. They all agree that they have no clue how that image of the crucified Messiah got on the linen cloth, that there is zero paint on it, and that, further, there is no way even modern technology could duplicate it.
Try to explain how that image got there, when they couldn't.
I love listening to both of these gentlemen
There may be evidence that Jesus was never buried because anyone who goes against government may possibly noycgey a propper Memorial. Is it possible he was never buried? Is there evidence Jesus was for sure buried amd evidence the resurrection was in fact body of Jesus? Some didn't recognize him
It seems like Flew was not even remotely informed enough on the subject to enter this debate. Imagine how differently it would have gone if it was Bart Ehrman and not Flew debating with Habermas.
It was a bad day to be an atheist ..
Habermas should debate Tovia Singer. Jsmh
Tovia singer would wipe the floor with him.
1:13:41...apparently Habermas is referring to an alleged but non-extant historical writings of Thallus, around 49 - 52 A.D. , and referenced to by Sextus Julius Africanus, wherein he mentions an unusual very dark solar eclipse, presumably during Passover time (a time when an eclipse is naturally impossible)...Africanus also mentions a 2nd non-extant historian's work Phlegon who likewise mentions an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius...
This was quite cordial and interesting.
Jesus' sole goal was to teach , to gather onto Him His own , glorify God and be the Sacrifice for all of man kind ... Thru the Resurrection did God glorify Jesus... The acts of Jesus was to show the power of God ...
Jesues was and is the son of god he was resurrected after his death mary was and is the. Virgen mary
Jesus is the only man to die and rise again never to die again, he is the only man on earth who made future predictions and to have fulfilled all of them, yes they have been realized Jesus claimed to be one with god
Hi can I ask you a bible question ?
Spelled with a capitol "G" God. I agree, Anthony.
Anthony Flew is responsible for leading a lot of Souls to Atheism and later changed his mind about there being a God towards the end of his life. I would love to hear the conversation he is having with Jesus now.
We don't know if Anthony Flew ever became a true Christian. He consistently stated that he believed in God, but he considered himself a Deist.
@@petery6432 No, not a Christian but he came to a Faith in a higher Being, I guess what we call God but to him more of a designer.
I hope mr. Flew became a believer before he passed, nice fella.
@River Scott Question begging epithets are generally signs of people not having a rational reason for their beliefs, so what do you think you using one says about you 🤔
Sunday did not become the predominant day of worship by the Apostles. Papal/pagan Rome made that change under Constantine. This was prophesied would be the case.