It is unbelievable how good you are at arguments. In my persuasive writing class, my english professor is teaching us and we are making low 80s, which is actually barely passable. After carefully analyzing your videos, I got better and my prose and argumentative essays. And with these skills, I'm hoping to at least reach some of the atheists at my high school.
Awww 🥰 I hope you’re still Christian. Sweetest thing I’ve read this year, and it’s from 3 years ago. I hope you’re still strong in Christ. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for remission of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough for remission of some sins, not all. It wasn't infinite, unlike Jesus's. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. The Old Testament sacrifice of animals, the spilled blood of those animals could cleanse people from some sins but not ALL, unlike Jesus's. He was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
Christian Slayer The Truth doesn’t need Any Argument! There are over 300 prophecies Jesus Christ Born of The Virgin Born in Bethlehem Born from Judah His life His miracles His teachings His death His burial His Resurrection His Kingdom Ten even at just 100/1 probability You know The Maths.... ✝️🕊♥️ You were created to become Like Him‼️ Don’t be cheated out of your awesome eternity 🙏🏻
I am a believer with an open mind. I have listened to many Atheist and while agree with them on Religion I don't feel the same way about God/Jesus. Looking into Atheism it appears most have the ALL or NOTHING mentality and throw out many valid points and subjective experiences. Looking at both sides openly I choose Jesus ~
Congratulations, IP, on completing some really impressive work in these two videos which discuss the resurrection. I'm an old guy and have studied the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam since I was a kid. Your videos are the most complete and articulate presentations of the arguments that Jesus of Nazareth was physically raised from the dead which I have ever seen. At the very least, they show that the people who most intimately knew Jesus before his death were certain that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. Skeptics might argue they were mistaken, but it can not be realistically argued that the apostles had fabricated the stories of the resurrected Christ. They readily died for their belief in the resurrected Jesus and would never have done so if they knew it was just something they had dreamed up. People who fabricate miracle stories to build cult followings do so to obtain power over others, wealth and often sexual partners. They do not make up stories that merely expose them to the threat of execution and which gain them nothing in this world. The apostles spread the Gospel despite the risk and sought nothing for themselves as they did so simply because they were certain they had witnessed God acting in an extraordinary way in human history. I'd like to know the name that goes with the voice of these IP videos. I am astonished at your ability to clearly present complex information about matters as diverse as physics and religion. Thanks for what you give the world.
+InspiringPhilosophy ... Great video!.... I have one question why do you keep saiding James and Jesus were Brothers ? John and James were brothers just like Peter and Andrew .They were probably cousins but not brothers to Our Lord . Mary only had one child Christ ! To think other wise is gross. There was no word for cousin in Aramaic. If I'm wrong please explain. .....Sorry to go off topic! God Bless....
Gamers James the brother of Jesus and James the disciple of Jesus were not the same person. The name was just very common back then. See "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" I am not a believer Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
+InspiringPhilosophy ....Am afraid on this point we must differ. Mary was unlike any woman before or after. Her mission was to give birth to the Eternal Word of God. St Joseph would never have touch such a holy Woman in anyway. I repeat the thought is repulsive and gross beyond the bonds of good taste. Please see a compliant Catholic Theologian or early Church Doctor on this point. I know Marys life is little discussed in the New Testament , BUT TO THINK OUR LADY HAD A SEX LIFE WITH ST JOSEPH is Vomit inducing TO SAID THE LEAST!! I respect most of your views on the Bible , but to think that the most holy VIRGIN had a sex life is beyond the pale#! ......if you dont mind please reply....God Bless
I love your videos IP! This one was amazing like all the other videos you've made in the past! You inspire me to defend the Faith like you and so many others so effectively do! God bless you and may you always stay humble and meek like our Savior. :)
I've seen a few of the counter arguments from athiests. They don't necessarily put a case together but they share the same "attitude" where the foundation of their thought process is "there is no evidence I personally can accept as actual evidence therefore........" The concern for them is that attitude can easily be put forth towards evolution theory and other scientific theory sp basically they end up nowhere on the side of no-one but their own.....
Plus Jews would have thought that Jesus was a blasphemer for claiming to be God if Jesus was killed and wasn’t resurrected. So they wouldn’t have expected him to be exalted to heaven, but rather condemned.
Every now and again, I find myself rewatching these videos because of how great they are, and how they changed my life. I do have two questions relating to this though, IP. 1. What is the music that plays during this video? Must I buy it, is it free? 2. I found some objections against the idea that jesus was not found in the tomb because he resurrected. Some skeptics have arguments as to why the Jews or romans didn't bring jesus's body to destroy christianity when rumors of his resurrection started: What if the reason Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb was because he was buried in an unmarked grave, and nobody could find it? Second, what if somebody just moved his body for whatever reason, and moved it somewhere random? (Sure there were guards at the tomb, but this could have just been made up in response to the Jewish idea that the disciples stole jesus's body)
1. I believe I got it from digital juice. 2. I addressed that throughout the video. There is no reason to think they made up the tomb of the Sanhedrin or that women would have discovered the tomb. There is no source which says he was placed in an unmarked grave or that the body was lost.
I’ve always been Catholic (not a very good one, but I believe in Jesus Christ) and I’ve always wondered why Jesus never appeared to Pontius Pilate or Ciaphas. I understand why He appeared to the Apostles but why not His persecutors? Would it not have made tremendous leaps for His Church? It’s not like He was against calling people out, He actively did this to hypocrites all the time. I mean maybe He didn’t need to because He was above such trivial drama and knew all He needed to do was appear to those who already believed in Him to cast their doubt aside. But the Romans are Gods children too and are equally deserving of forgiveness “for they knew not what they were doing.” Idk why but this does bug me a little, never got a decent answer that actually helped explain it to me.
He did appear to a persecutor in Paul. Also, should Pilate or Caiaphas had heard the word, they would've had the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus like everyone else.
@@maxalaintwo3578 so because they persecuted him, that was their choice to reject him? I suppose that makes sense, but even Christ knew it took miracles for common people to believe him, expecting those in power to willfully bow down before a commoner who claims to be God incarnate - especially the Romans who were foreign with their own gods - is a little ignorant, it would take a miracle before their own eyes to make them believe Him as it had done for so many before. So why not appear before His persecutors and show them the error of their ways? Would that not be enough to change their minds? Or would it have driven them mad, rendering His appearance to them useless?
@@autumn-marissamcclounie7868 Perhaps Jesus did, throughout his 40 days in Jerusalem before the Ascension. But we simply don't know, nor would that matter for them to be Christians
perhaps he did but it was never written down, or it was lost to history, really we don't know. But I am sure Pilate/Ciaphas would've heard rumours about his resurrection given how fast it spread
Question: If there was no belief in second-temple Judaism in a resurrection in the middle of history, how-come the gospels claim that there were people who thought that John the Baptist was raised from the dead?
+inspiringphilosophy I didn't know that revelation was talking about 70 AD until the pastor at my college church explained it. The Great Tribulation idea that would happen before Jesus came back actually started after the civil war. the apostles knew revelation was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. When Jesus talks about the judgements to be put on Israel would happen before "this generation passes away which was around 40 years. 70AD is 40 years after Jesus started his ministry.
With the advent of written records, the earliest known recurrent theme of resurrection was in Egyptian and Canaanite religions, which had cults of dying-and-rising gods such as Osiris and Baal. So ressurction isn't only unique to Christianity
+inspiring Philosophy- great work as always and a good follow up the the last one as I was getting questions as well like ' Jesus it just like all the other gods comparing Christianity to a list of Buddhism gods saying there all the same and teachings, will still get back to on the people I had take your channel Down especially the doctors, keep up the great work!
+WHATISTRUTH No He is not. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus far outweighs any other religion as Antony Flew admitted. Thanks for doing that! Keep me posted and if they would like to talk about partnering with me.
+stevie6621 I think Molyneux is much better in political philosophy than in philosophy of religion, fwiw. But a debate between Tim McGrew and J. L. Schellenberg, if it ever happened, could be very interesting.
I hate to be that guy but in The Iliad, Priam was a man, his wife was Hecuba. And in most translations of The Odyssey, Odysseus doesn't actually venture to the Underworld per se, but to a place called Erebus, where after sacrificing a goat, conducts the Bronze Age equivalent to a seance, where the spirits of the dead come to him. Other than that, I still love your videos.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Most people and most adaptations of The Odyssey say that Odysseus went to the Underworld to talk to Tiresias, where from what I've gathered he goes to a place called Erebus in the mortal world, digs a pit, and fills it with goat blood so that the spirits would come to him. Tiresias shows up, followed by Achilles, Agamemnon, and even Odysseus's mother shows up. The ritual is like a seance but with blood. Then again I guess people say "went to the Underworld" as shorthand.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Nothing, it's just I hate when scholars try to make it sync up with the resurrection like on the History Channel. And when you mentioned The Odyssey it just reminded me of that. Thankfully, you didn't perpetuate the misconception.
Michael, I hope you will answer my question. You say that Jews didn't thinked anyone would be resurrected before the end times, but didn't some people thought Jesus was resurrected John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah?
This is my second watch of this video now but I am confused on 19:37 mark of the video, what does it mean by “vary in reports between individuals” when it comes to a hallucination? I have heard apologists countering the claim that the resurrection narratives are “inconsistent” by pointing out that the differences complement each other and the differences shows the reliability of the eyewitnesses. And I think the source you just used makes it sounds like the disciples hallucinated because the gospels give different accounts on the resurrection event. p.s. I believe Jesus actually came back from the dead but I wanted to ask what I have written because I’m confused. Excellent video though.
Jesus was thirty two years old when he was crucified. In human life terms, that is the absolute pinnacle. The whole idea of bodily resurrection sounds great if one is that age. However, what if he had been, say ninety years old when he was crucified. Would his resurrection have had the same affect on human minds and his following been what it is today? Can anyone visualize a wizened up ninety year old man on the cross in every Christian church around the world? How many two year old children are dying in the world at the very moment I write this sentence? How does bodily resurrection work for those human beings whose brain didn’t even get to develop. Will they be two year olds in Heaven after the rapture?
Would you please respond to the theory that Jesus never actually died, but was buried alive and recovered over 3 days (either in a video or personally to me)? My brother proposed it last night and it's been stumping me.
+Turtles Tortellini What? Tell him there is not a scholar who accepts that lunatic theory. Gary Habermas and Joseph W. Bergeron MD say, "The death of Jesus by crucifixion and his bodily resurrection are the cornerstones of orthodox Christian faith. Jesus’ death is considered a historical fact by a majority of modern scholars. The descriptions of Jesus’ crucifixion, recorded in the Gospels by medically uneducated writers, are consistent with modern medical knowledge. Shock, and the complications of progressive blood loss, has become an accepted explanation for the mechanism of Jesus’ death among medical writers." There is no medical expert who has read the Gospels and think Jesus was capable of surviving. We only know of one crucified victim who survived being crucified, as recorded in Josephus, and he was taken down early and given the best medical attention of that day and only barely survived. Plus, the other two pulled down with him were also given medical attention and died. Romans were experts at killing people, they knew what they were doing. And no, Jesus did not die quick but was on the cross from 9AM (Mark 15:25) to about 3PM (Mark 15.33-34, 37).
😂 so His friends took Him down from The Cross & buried Him alive!? 😳 HE was pierced through The Heart and out poured blood & water! By The Roman soldiers they knew HE was dead.
In the beginning of the video, you stated that paganism has no tradition of Messianic figures. However, doesn't the Zoroastrian Saoshyant figure fit the bill? Wouldn't this, combined with Persian influence on Jewish culture (Persia was for centuries if not millennia the cultural superpower of the region and even owned Palestine for quite a while) create enough of an expectation or possibility to borrow from the Saoshyant stories and apply them to Jesus? We can at the very least judge that these beliefs were very close to eachother, as in Islamic Tradition Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians alike are considered Peoples of the Book.
+Kaesoification We are not sure, the Avesta was not written down until after 100AD. It could easily have been influenced by Judaism. Plus, Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and not polytheistic.
So if I'm understanding the hellenic view of death, a person can only be deified before their death, not after? That could harmonize classical polytheism involving deification with platonic thought of the finality of death (for ill in the classical sense and for good in the platonic) I think you should distinguish between epicurean belief and platonic belief, as they are both hellenic, irreconcilably different, and rejected by Christians as the heresies of arianism and gnosticism.
But what about the miracles that Jesus performed in conjunction with him predicting his own death? Because Christ had performed many miracles (including raising people from the dead), the disciples could have been eventually convinced by his prediction that he would be killed and rise again, and thus have an expectation, although initially ceasing to believe on him as the Messiah. Although I do not believe this, it is a strong objection that needs addressing, I believe.
InspiringPhilosophy Yes, but it makes sense that they would not report that they began to see hallucinations. Perhaps they at first did not understand, but "understood" (that is, hallucinate based on what Christ had told them) after time.
There is no evidence hallucination manifest in how Jesus was reported to have been seen. Based on their cultural background hallucinations did not imply a physical resurrection, but a vision of a ghost, most likely.
InspiringPhilosophy Alright, I understand that, based on the accounts of His appearance, there was no hallucination, since His appearances involved both sight and sound, and because He interacted with the real world. Thank you for bringing that to my memory. However, I do not believe that the cultural background of the disciples would matter much, since they could have expected Christ to rise again based on the fact that He said that He was going to, not considering the fact that they doubted it.
i have a question. so you say that the disciples did not have the expectation that Jesus would come back to life in the flesh. yet in Matthew 27, the Pharisees place guards at the tomb because Jesus said he would rise again in 3 days and they were worried about the disciples stealing the body to make it seem like he has risen. so are you suggesting that the Pharisees had an expectation the disciples didn't? they seem to interpret physical resurrection from what Jesus said which is why they guarded the tomb.
The texts of the Gospels indicate that. There is no indication the disciples expected Jesus to rise. They were more concerned with fleeing for their lives.
InspiringPhilosophy so to be clear, the Pharisees expected the disciples to steal the body because Jesus said he would rise in three days. Did the disciples not hear Jesus say this, or did they not understand him?
InspiringPhilosophy but the Pharisees did understand him. His claims were common knowledge enough for the priests to send guards to make sure the disciples didn't steal the body. So you're saying the priests understood what Jesus meant when he said he would rise again in 3 days, but the disciples didn't?
I believe Jesus was resurrected but this video seems to assert the idea that everyone will at some point be resurrected bodily. I don't understand why anyone would believe that. What does that mean for deceased children? Baby's that were never born? People that were cremated? For what reason would we all be bodily resurrected?
You mention Philo at around 06:23, I do find it odd that he never mentions Jesus to my knowledge, he would surely be a prime candidate for mentioning Jesus.
+bonnie43uk Philo wrote very little of actual history, and whatever little he wrote of it was selected for moral teachings. As a Platonist Jew, he would find many Christian ideas offensive and probably would show his disdain by silence. In addition, Philo did not mention other great Rabbis of his day, such as Gamaliel.
***** Thanks for that link to one of JP's cartoons. From my dealings with him, he's someone who is very good at flipping questions around to make it seem you've asked a really stupid question. I don't agree with his premise that we dismiss the writings of well known writers of the day if there work includes reports of miracles, and that they wouldn't at least go and find out a little more, or at least mention it. Going by the gospel reports of MMLJ Jesus came across as a central figure of Judea, word of his miracles would almost certainly have came to the notice of people like Philo, and a little later Josephus. I think JP wants it both ways in that anyone who is crazy enough (in JP's mind) to have doubts in their mind about the divinity of Jesus is what he would call a "fundy atheist", but he also wants people to think writers of the day such as Philo were perfectly reasonable to omit Jesus from their writings because of miracle claims. I have no doubt that virtually everyone living back then would have been a believer in some God or other. It would have been good to hear your own thoughts on this rather than point me towards one of tektons cringeworthy cartoons. I tried to leave a comment on it, but he's done the old trick of disabling comments, he's very selective like that I've noticed. Obviously we can't read the mind of God/Jesus, but wouldn't you think he'd want important writers, commentators, Roman leaders and so on, to be witness to all this to add credence to the story, rather than generations hearing about it from unknown authors and having no original copies. To my skeptical mind, it only adds to my doubt. If my eternal salvation depends on this ( and Christians tell me it does), then this story should be unquestionable and beyond reproach. I'm not rejecting the story out of some rebelliousness and desire to sin as many Christians have told me, I reject it for various honest reasons which I'd be more than happy to divulge. But i have things to do now.
You know that we don't have original copies of any ancient works right? The evidence just has to be sufficient, not extraordinary, for the claim to be believable. The authors are not unknown, we know who the authors are. And there were historians who mentioned Jesus, just not as a miracle worker because they're not Christians and wouldn't want to offend authorities at the time (free speech wasn't exactly a thing back then). And if you want to know what JP's definition of "fundy atheist" is, he has a video on it. If you don't want to watch that, long story short fundy atheists are people who don't do serious research, believe anything negative they hear about Christianity on the internet, and make ridiculous literal interpretations of the bible that nobody else believes. Regardless of his attitude, though, wouldn't it be better to address his arguments?
I have a Cristian faith but have a question if someone could answer. When Christ died his whole body vanished, when we die the body remains & our spirit moves on. How can that be?
The dead are still dead, they will rise when he comes. To them it will feel like a mere sleep, or instantaneous as it normally feels when I wake up every morning.
3:00 Depends if you count Zoroastrianism as pagan, which is where second temple judaistic views came from. Also, Lazarus came back to life according to the bible, so there is precedent for resurrection. In addition, Jesus told his disciples he would come back to life in 3 days, according to the bible.
IP I hope your head is bigger than the eternal crown from Jesus you will receive for your supablous work. 1 Corinthians 9:25Amplified Bible (AMP) 25 Now every athlete who [goes into training and] competes in the games is disciplined and exercises self-control in all things. They do it to win a [a]crown that withers, but we [do it to receive] an imperishable [crown that cannot wither]. Footnotes: 1 Corinthians 9:25 Lit perishable crown, usually a woven wreath of pine worn as a crown.
+Gaining Understanding I'm studying different theories, but I am leaning towards the idea Hebrews lays out, that Christ is our priest who represents us before the Father and makes sacrifices for our sins.
+InspiringPhilosophy Right on, thanks for sharing. I've heard that the view of the church fathers is known in the west as Ransom Theory (sometimes called the Rescue Theory). In my experience, if you ask an Orthodox Christian about their view of atonement they'll usually reference _On the Incarnation of the Word_ by St. Athanasius. After reading it myself I saw why they kept recommending it. C.S. Lewis has called it a masterpiece and I agree.
+Scientific Censorship Committee You're thinking of Protestantism. These thousands upon thousands of denominations have their roots in the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. If you do some church history you'll discover that who we call the Catholic Christians and the Orthodox Christians were actually one body for the first 1000 years of of Christianity. It was in 1054 they officially split, which is known as The Great Schism. In the 16th century the Protestant Reformation occurred among the Catholics and that's where all these other denominations come from. Meanwhile, the Orthodox remained one as always.
+Illuminated Perspectives The Orthodox and the Catholic were truly in full communion for 1000 years, this is an historical fact. And yes I've heard of the Copts, they're actually Orthodox as well as noted by an official Joint Commission. The Copts were misunderstood all those years ago, it turns out there was no real disagreement after all :) full communion between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox will be complete _very_ soon. So as we can see there has always been one holy catholic apostolic church. Sure there's been some heresies like Arianism, but the church dealt with them and the church has remained one since the beginning. "Old Believers" groups emerged as a result of opposition to the Nikonian reform, but they do not constitute a single monolithic body and the Moscow Patriarchate revoked the anathemas imposed on the Old Believers in the 17th century so there goes whatever point you were trying to make there lol God didn't make salvation a roll of the dice. He became incarnate and conquered death by death. Now there is His church, the one holy catholic apostolic church. The one and only western patriarch is the one who broke off from the other four eastern churches. It was the west that changed the creed and affirmed this new doctrine of the papacy so there was The Great Schism. There's no doubt that its the west that changed things, the east remained the same.
I have a serious objection to what you are saying, namely, that Jesus Christ told His disciples that He would die before He did. Matthew 16:21-- From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matthew 26:28 KJV - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:24 KJV - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. There are many other examples besides these three in the Gospels. This would explain how the disciples could hallucinate the appearances of Jesus. Although the Gospels say that the disciples didn't believe the women when they said that Christ had risen, and they wouldn't have expected Him to rise from the dead based on Jewish beliefs, one could say that they remembered the words of Christ, that He would rise from the dead, after their initial unbelief. How would you respond to this?
Right, but meeting the criteria of embarrassment the disciples reported they did not understand what Jesus was talking about. Even in Acts 1, the apostles did not understand what God was doing and were still waiting for a national restitution.
InspiringPhilosophy I understand. So you are saying, essentially, that they would have discarded these words and forgotten about Christ, that they would have seen his predication as illegitimate?
Because the Arabs denied the resurrection of the dead, the Quran contains several verses highlighting its reasonableness and inevitability. The embryological and ecological “proofs” that were mentioned earlier can be found throughout the Quran. Sūrahs 22 and 51 in particular draw attention to dead earth revived by rain as a clear sign for the resurrection of the dead. Other examples from the Quran include: So observe the vestiges of God’s Mercy, how He revives the earth after its death. Truly that is the Reviver of the dead, and He is Powerful over all things (30:50); And God is He Who sends the winds, then they cause clouds to rise. Then We drive them to a land that is dead, and thereby revive the earth after its death. Thus shall be the Resurrection! (35:9). As further proof of the Resurrection, the Quran cites how easy it is for God to accomplish any creative act, as in 17:51: Then they will say, “Who will bring us back?” Say, “He Who originated you the first time” (see also 2:148; 36:78-79; 56:47-50). Sūrah 56, al-Wāqiʿah, provides a litany of examples of God’s Power in order to establish God’s Ability to resurrect the dead. The Quran also responds to the atheists and naturalists who deny the Resurrection by declaring that they are only following their conjecture: the disbelievers say, There is naught but our first death, and we shall not be resurrected (44:35). In this same vein, 64:7 states: Those who disbelieve claim that they will not be resurrected. Say, “Yea! By my Lord! Surely you shall be resurrected. Then you shall be informed of that which you did; and that is easy for God.” Having created human beings the first time, God should surely find it, by our own reckoning, as easy to do the second time: He it is Who originates creation, then brings it back, and that is most easy for Him. Unto Him belongs the loftiest description in the heavens and on the earth, and He is the Mighty, the Wise (30:27). Sūrah 50, Qāf, deals mostly with eschatological realities: And listen on the Day when the caller calls from near at hand, on the Day when they hear the Cry of Truth; that is the Day of coming forth... . That Day the earth is split asunder from about them-as they hasten forth. That is a gathering easy for Us. We know best that which they say. Thine is not to compel them. So remind, by means of the Quran, those who fear My Threat. (50:41-42, 44-45) In another sūrah, human beings are described as locusts: So turn away from them (the disbelievers) on the Day wherein the caller will call unto a terrible thing. With their eyes humbled they emerge from the graves as if they were scattered locusts, scrambling toward the caller. The disbelievers say, “This is a calamitous day.” (54:6-8)28 Several verses describe this day as extremely difficult for the disbelievers (see, e.g., 74:8-10). Those who had denied it have immense regret, pleading for a second chance. Those who were expecting it are described as having no fear or grief. At this stage, there is no kinship between them (23:101), and on that Day a man will flee from his brother, and his mother and his father, and his spouse and his children (80:34-36). According to the Prophet, the Resurrection occurs on Friday; thus Muslims are encouraged to prepare every Friday for this event with extra acts of devotion, and religious scholars recommend that the Friday sermon be peppered with reminders of death and the Resurrection. The Prophet stated that the animal kingdom is particularly sensitive to the coming of the eschaton, and in fact we see that animals display agitation just prior to any natural disaster, such as an earthquake. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) writes: Once resurrected from their graves, all of humanity is not in one situation; nor will everyone stand together. They differ just as they differed in the worldly abode. There are five stations: the first is the Resurrection itself; the second is the movement and gathering for Judgment; the third is the Reckoning; the fourth is the movement to the place of recompense; and finally, the fifth is taking up residence in one of the two final abodes.29 The “return” (maʿād) refers to the restoration of humanity’s place in the Divine Presence that preceded earthly existence. The Quran describes the pretemporal covenant in these terms: And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness”-lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless.” (7:172) If a true messenger delivers the “reminder” to a community or, as in the case of the Prophet Muhammad, to all of humanity, the covenantal bond, both primordial and binding, should be enough to jar the preexistent memory of the original covenant that all of Adam’s progeny made with God.
This will be fairly lengthy but I think it deserves a response. Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Jobs children were all raised from the dead though. The typical answer is to say there is a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. Resurrection involves a return of a glorified body while the other is just a return to normal existence. Jesus was supposedly resurrected, the names I listen were resuscitated, but there’s no terminological distinction between the two concepts in the sources. They all returned from the dead and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of different “kinds” of coming back from the dead. So? What’s the difference? The difference is that Christians thought Jesus was made immortal. The problem is this happened to individuals too! The names I listed above were all thought to have been bodily immortalized. Most of them didn’t die first, but that only means the language of “resurrection” wouldn’t apply to them. It was applied to Jesus, if they were going to say he had been made immortal because he was * dead *. In other words, his being made immortal presupposes an anthropology where the body is crucial to humanity unlike those circles who adopted Platonism. So Jesus had to be “resurrected” first. His consequent immortalization (or translation) is distinct from his resurrection, not a kind of it. The real question is, could a human be made immortal in the bodily sense? Any Jews say that? Yes! They said it of Enoch and others. This can be illustrated by what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15. The key is that in order to inherit the kingdom of god, one must have changed to be immortal. One does not simply have to be “resurrected” since not everyone will die. But since the body is important to the living, then * if * one is dead, they have to be resurrected first. But the same happens to the living as well as the dead. It is crucial to distinguish between three things- 1. Resurrection, which implies a corpse coming back to life. (Several tales of this in Jewish and pagan lore) 2. * The * resurrection is supposed to be an event that happens in the future, where ‘god’ will bring the righteous dead and often the evil. 3. Immortalization- this can happen without the person dying and usually (not always) does (I.e. they escape death) it’s equivalent to “translation” Apologists who make the argument of resurrection being a special event for Jesus, have confused what some Jewish texts say will happen to humanity at “the” resurrection (the future event) by taking the latter as a “kind” of resurrection, that happened anachronistically, to Jesus, as distinct from other ‘kinds’. But all Jesus’ resurrection means is that he got his life back. The God who made him immortal is just another way of saying what happened to Jesus, is what happened to Enoch and the others. The Christians pretty much had to claim this if they wanted Jesus alive again, because obviously, he didn’t stick around (if he did, there would have been some questions about where he was and why he wasn’t doing messianic stuff, which Christians rationalized he’d do at the “second coming”) he had to exalted like other figures in the Jewish tradition to remove him from the sphere of normal existence. The point is, this isn’t unique or special or unprecedented. Again, sorry for the length but I have these concerns.
"Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Jobs children were all raised from the dead though. " - No, Moses just died. Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven and never died. Job's children died and he had new children. Just read the Bible, none of them were resurrected. "The names I listed above were all thought to have been bodily immortalized. Most of them didn’t die first, but that only means the language of “resurrection” wouldn’t apply to them." - You are admitting it is different. It sounds like you are grasping at straws to try and draw a connection, but if they are not the same you can't say there is a parallel here. "In other words, his being made immortal presupposes an anthropology where the body is crucial to humanity unlike those circles who adopted Platonism. " - Yeah, so? That doesn't show a resurrection happened with these other figures. "So Jesus had to be “resurrected” first." - No, He could have just been assumed into heaven like Enoch or Elijah. He could have died like John the Baptist and vindicated by God. Resurrection was not something they were expecting until the end of time. "The real question is, could a human be made immortal in the bodily sense? Any Jews say that? Yes! They said it of Enoch and others. " - Yeah, but that doesn't mean you need a death and resurrection, which was the main point of Christianity. "But all Jesus’ resurrection means is that he got his life back." - Then you are admitting it is not the same as Elijah, who just never died. Again, the death and resurrection are what is essential to Christianity. Trying to say this is the same as someone who never died is missing the point and try too hard to generalize. " The God who made him immortal is just another way of saying what happened to Jesus, is what happened to Enoch and the others." - Again, Enoch did not die and did not come back to earth. It doesn't parallel. Also, none of this addresses the evidence for the resurrection we go over in the video, nor does it offer a better explanation.
InspiringPhilosophy sorrry for the late reply- Consider: Tammuz, Attis, Adonis,Marduk Taus, Osiris et.al were worshiped as dying and rising gods long before Christianity. The Eucharist fits in more with the Dionysus sect than it does with Judaism. Even the Church philosopher Justin Martyr wrote that Satan came and invented stories of dying and rising gods to fool pagans into rejecting Christ as just another dying and rising god (Dialogue with Trypho). Also, Origin in Contra Celsus says the same thing. Which is more likely, that Christians got the Resurrection of Jesus from Pagans or vice versa? If you think that it was the opposite, then why did Justin et,al insist that the pagan mythemes came first? Perseus was born of a virgin (Dialogue with Trypho). Aeneas, Apollonius of Tyana, Chaitanya, Nityananda, Vallabha, Romulus, Aristaeus, Shankaracharya,and Empedocles were reported as ascending to heaven. Plato even mentions it in his Republic, which predates the Gospels by centuries. The stories of Jesus bringing people back from the dead has precedents in the stories of Chariton, Apollonius of Tyana, and Elijah. There are also way too many errors regarding basic Jewish culture in the entire NT: it was never unlawful to heal on the sabbath (see both Talmuds). The punishment for blaspheming Yahve was not crucifixion (the cross was a symbol for Tammuz) but rather stoning. There is not a shred of evidence that Pilate or the Jews released one criminal per year during Passover. It seems like that story was taken from Yom Kippur about the goats, one of which would be killed for the sins of the Israelites. Nazareth was not a Roman province during the supposed "census" in the first place, so Joe and Mary had no reason to travel to Bethlehem. Mark was ignorant as to the names of Herod's brothers.The triumphal entry gets the festivities wrong. Said palm branches were not used for Passover but for the Festival of Tabernacles. Of course Mark, being a gentile convert, didn't know even that. Nor did he know how massive the Second Temple was (it was several football stadiums large and it wasn't even completed during the events narrated in the Gospels). The Pharisaic sect had no religious authority. It may seem like a red herring but this shows other resurrection beliefs, and the cover ups of early Christians, also, to show the NT cannot provide accurate information surrounding the supposed events of Jesus.
"Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Marduk Taus, Osiris et.al were worshiped as dying and rising gods long before Christianity. " - I don't mean to be rude, but this is just not true: ua-cam.com/video/S7-9aVdOKy0/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/0Z996Ur3foY/v-deo.html Justin Martyr actually thought pagans stole from Moses and modern scholars were not convinced by his arguments. He thinks Plato got his ideas from Moses and we know that is blatantly false. There is no evidence pagans believed in the Jewish belief of resurrection. Marduk, Inanna, Romulus, Tammuz, Adonis, etc., none these were resurrected. All sources on Apollonius of Tyana date to the 2nd century and most scholars believe he is actually based on Jesus, ironically. Romulus was taken up t heaven in a whirlwind, which would correlate to Elijah, not Jesus.. As for Perseus, Zeus came to her as a shower of gold, and impregnated her. There was sex involved according to the legend. Also, the Talmud actually represent later traditions. Most scholars recognize the traditions changed over time. Jesus was actually talking about Pharisee laws, not Talmud laws. What ancient source says crucifixion was a symbol for Tammuz? Because I can find one. As for releasing a prison, allow me to quote scholar Craig Evans, "The Mishnah (Jewish oral law and tradition committed to writing at the beginning of the third century) says that "they may slaughter [the Passover lamb] for one . . . whom they have promised out of prison" on the Passover (m. Pesahim 8:6) Who the "they" are is not made clear (Jewish authorities? Roman authorities?), but it is interesting that the promised release from prison is for the express purpose of taking part in the Passover observance. A papyrus (P.Flor 61, c. A.D. 85), quotes the words of the Romans governor of Egypt: "You were worthy of scourging . . . but I give you to the crowds." In his letters Pliny the Younger (early second century) says, "It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without any authority" (Epistles 10.31)." - Fabricating Jesus, Pages 174-175. As for painting the trial like Yom Kippup goats, Oral Tradition specialist, Albert Lord says, "Traditional narrators tend to tell what happened in terms of already existent patterns of story. Since the already existing patterns allow for many multiform and are the result of often repeated human experience, it is not difficult to adjust another special case to the flexibly interpreted story patterns... The fact that the entry (of Jesus) into Jerusalem, for example, fits an element of mythic pattern does not necessarily mean, however, that the event did not take place... On the contrary, I assume that it did take place, since I do not know otherwise, and that it was an incident that the traditional narrators chose to include, partly at least because its essence had a counterpart in other stories and was similar to the essence of an element in an existing story pattern... That its essence was consonant with an element in a traditional mythic (i.e., scared) pattern adds a dimension of spiritual weight to the incident, bit it does not deny (nor does it confirm, for that matter) the historicity of the incident." Other ancient historians like Tacitus also made use of this style, but never once have I heard a skeptic conclude that means Tacitus made things up. Dr. Rhiannon Ash says about Tacitus that he "...embeds such points in the very language which he uses," and uses "linguistic echoes and structural similarities." Check out "Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels" by Malina and Rohrbaugh. They say, "To be able to quote the tradition from memory, to apply it in creative or appropriate ways . . . not only brings honor to the speaker but lends authority to his words as well . . . Luke 1:68-79 is an example. It is slitched together from phrases of Psalms 41, 111, 132, 105, 106, and Micah 7... The ability to create ouch a mosaic implied extensive, detailed knowledge of the tradition and brought great honor to the speaker able to pull it off." I could keep going on if you want.
Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what? That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure! That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow. And in any case: If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring worship and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.
+lease2coach1 No, miracles do not break the laws of physics or violate anything in nature: ua-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/v-deo.html And I have given more evidence, this is only the 6th argument for God's existence I am uploaded.
***** "miracle _noun_ a surprising and welcome event that is *not explicable by natural or scientific laws* and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Because if it _were_, you know, "explicable by natural or scientific laws" then we would tend to think of it as natural--extraordinarily rare, perhaps, but natural. But, in any case, thanks for ignoring the main thrust of my post: a resurrection is not necessarily evidence for anything besides itself, and _nothing_ from ~2,000 years ago is automatically evidence for the _current_ existence of a being *with the potential to affect us*.
+lease2coach1 That definition you gave doesn't say, as you said in your first comment, that a miracle is, "breaking the laws of physics" and only confirmed my point. A resurrection is evidence of divine agency acting in the physical world, since it is not "explicable by natural or scientific laws," and therefore must have come from elsewhere. So I don't see how your argument avoids this.
***** If it "come[s] from elsewhere," as you say, then it's not following natural or scientific laws. Hence it's breaking the laws of physics...actually a good working definition of "divine intervention," I'd say, as anything else could just be chalked up to nature. But this will truly be my last comment on that point (you can have the last word!) because, once again, it's a distraction from the *main* point: "a resurrection is not necessarily evidence for anything besides itself, and nothing from ~2,000 years ago is automatically evidence for the _current_ existence of a being with the potential to affect us."
+lease2coach1 It is it beyond natural laws, then it is not breaking the laws, since it is not a natural thing, which is suppose to be bound by natural laws and can break them. I already refuted this definition: ua-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/v-deo.html Being beyond natural laws doesn't mean you break them if you act. Only followers of Hume use that incoherent definition, and I did a whole video refuting it. And again, A resurrection is evidence of divine agency acting in the physical world, since it is not "explicable by natural or scientific laws," and therefore must have come from elsewhere. So I don't see how your argument avoids this.
I'm sorry but as usual, your video is filled to the BRIM with misinformation. Resurrection was a VERY common theme in ancient graeco-roman mythology. For example, we have Aristeas of Proconnessus. According to Book 4 of Herodotus" The Histories", Aristeas was an ancient greek poet and sage who died, resurrected, and reappeared to people seven years after his body was declared dead and missing. Not only was he resurrected but according to Celsus and Plutarch he became immortal (notice the similarity to Jesus, who was also declared dead, had his body missing and then resurrected to physical immortality) There's also the Aethiopian King Memnon who fought alongside Achilles but betrayed him later. According to the Iliad, Achilles killed Memnon and he stays dead. But in the epic "Aethiopis" (a later 7th-century bc sequel to the Iliad), Memnon was resurrected to physical immortality by Zeus at the request of his Titan mother Eos. There's also the mythical King of Athens, Theseus, who, after dying, appeared 30 years later to assist the Athenians at the battle of Marathon. This is according to Pausanias, an ancient Greek geographer who wrote "A Description of Greece". In this work, Pausanias speaks of how Athenian art of the time depicted Theseus' return from the dead. And let's not forget Alcestis who you actually mention in your video. This is a clear story of a person returning to bodily life on earth after being dead but you play word games and just call this resuscitation?! This is clearly resurrection just like Jesus (who is also believed to have descended to the Underworld like Alcestis and then resurrected). You characterizing this as just resuscitation is just wrong and an example of special pleading. And i haven't even mentioned the many dying and rising god myths (Romulus, Osiris, Inanna, Asclepius, Zalmoxis, Dionysus and so on). Asclepius (Greek God of Medicine and healing) in particular was renowned for his power of resurrecting the dead. So much so that Zeus actually killed him because Hades complained that his resurrection power was taking people from the Underworld. Asclepius himself was later resurrected. You may disagree as to whether these stories influenced Christian belief but that's not really the point. The point is that there were many pre-Christian pagans who believed in the power of resurrection Resurrection was a VERY common theme in ancient Greek religion. And wider Mediterranean religion. In fact the jews themselves adopted the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrianism! So the idea that resurrection was this unique Christian innovation is just wrong. Christianity was not this new radical movement that fundamentally challenged mainstream belief but rather Christianity was itself was an adaptation of pre-existing ideas frome within ancient Hellenistic and Jewish religion. To quote Dan Brown, "NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY IS ORIGINAl"
"The Histories", Aristeas was an ancient greek poet and sage who died, resurrected, and reappeared to people seven years after his body was declared dead and missing" - This is just false and not true at all. The account doesn't say he was resurrected but that after he died his body went missing. He then is said to have appeared later as a ghost. Herodotus also says in the very next section he could not confirm this report at all in the region form where it came from and calls it hearsay. "in the epic "Aethiopis" - Actually, as far as we can say the Aethiopis never says Memnon was resurrected. Only five lines survive of the Aethiopis' original text. Later commentaries suggest it only says Memnon was made into an immortal, not physically resurrected. "In this work, Pausanias speaks of how Athenian art of the time depicted Theseus' return from the dead." - This postdates the gospels by almost 100 years, so it is irrelevant. "This is a clear story of a person returning to bodily life on earth after being dead but you play word games and just call this resuscitation? This is clearly resurrection just like Jesus (who is also believed to have descended to the Underworld like Alcestis and then resurrected)." - Where do the gospels say Jesus went to Hades after He died? And it is not the same thing since Alcestis comes back to life like the child Elijah raised or like Lazarus. No one today denies returning to life was believed among ancient people, but they were brought back into normal bodies, unlike what happened to Jesus. You cannot commit a hasty generalization. 'And i haven't even mentioned the many dying and rising god myths (Romulus, Osiris, Inanna, Asclepius, Zalmoxis, Dionysus and so on)." - Yeah, I have addressed these: ua-cam.com/video/5FR08QtvapM/v-deo.html "Asclepius (Greek God of Medicine and healing) in particular was renowned for his power of resurrecting the dead. " - This is false. Asclepius healed people with an herb. He had no power, and he only resuscitated them. "Asclepius himself was later resurrected." - No source says this. The closest that comes to it Ovid and he only implies Asclepius was placed among the stars, not a physical return to life. "The point is that there were many pre-Christian pagans who believed in the power of resurrection" - No, and I have looked at the original sources. None of them say "Anastasis" (resurrection). "In fact the jews themselves adopted the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrianism" - This is false: ua-cam.com/video/3x6aOBqc9d0/v-deo.html We have no way of even verifying this because the Avesta can only date to the 4th century AD. "To quote Dan Brown, "NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY IS ORIGINAl"" - The fact that you quote Dan Brown says it all. Try looking at original sources like I have. That guy has no clue what he is talking about.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Herodotus is very clear from his description that Aristeas of Proconessus was resurrected. Here's the full text: " Aristeas, they said, who belonged to one of the noblest families in the island, had entered one day into a fuller's shop, when he suddenly dropt down dead...Seven years afterwards he reappeared, they told me, in Proconnesus, and wrote the poem called by the Greeks The Arimaspeia, after which he disappeared a second time...What follows I know to have happened to the Metapontines of Italy, three hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristeas" So contrary to what you wrongly say, ancient greeks believed Aristeas DID resurrect and appeared to several people long after his death. And the text never really says he was a disembodied "ghost". Herodotus only says the Metapontines thought of him as a ghost. But if they were right (which i don't think they were), why would his body go missing unless it was a physical resurrection? And just because he dismisses this story as hearsay that doesn't mean there weren't people who still believed it. Whether the story is true or not doesn't matter. All that matters is that there were people before christians who believed in a resurrected figure. Likewise, Memnon WAS believed to have resurrected. Yes the Aethiopis survives mostly in fragments but from the little we do have we know Memnon was made immortal by Zeus after having died. Hugh G Evelyn-White, a british archaeologist translated the Aethiopis fragments in his 4 page work "Homerica: The Aethiopis (Fragments)" Here's a quote from Homerica: "The "Cypria", described in the preceding book, has its sequel in the "Iliad" of Homer, which is followed in turn by the five books of the "Aethiopis", the work of Arctinus of Miletus. Their contents are as follows...A battle takes place in which Antilochus is slain by Memnon and Memnon by Achilles. Eos then obtains of Zeus and bestows upon her son immortality" And as for Pausanias describing Theseus' resurrection, your response is ridiculous. SO WHAT if the Pausanias post-dates the gospels. Just because he writes about Theseus after 100 AD, that doesn't mean his story of Theseus isn't any older. He may write after 100 AD but the story is still much older than that. It's very ridiculous to believe that the Gospels could've influenced Pausanias' writing in any way. Why would an educated Greek geographer who never even spoke about Christianity be influenced by the anonymous unsourced gospel texts of the small, uninfluential, unknown, and unliked religion that was early christianity. That is highly highly improbable and shouldn't even be raised as an argument. You also said " No one today denies returning to life was believed among ancient people, but they were brought back into normal bodies, unlike what happened to Jesus" This one statement goes against everything you just said in this video. You made it very clear that NO ancient pagans believed in resurrection. In the video, you just said 1:32 to 1:38 that " Pagans didn't believe it was possible to come back from the dead. From Homer to Plato, All ancient pagans knew one thing. Death was a one-way street" But now you're saying no one denies they believed people could return from the dead but their bodies were different? Where was this in the video? What kind of body they had is irrelevant anyway. All that matters was that they had A body to begin with as opposed to just being a ghost. And with the case of Aristeas and Memnon, they were also clearly given immortal bodies like Jesus. So not all of them had "normal bodies" And as for Asclepius, Ovid actually writes concerning Asclepius " Human beings will often be in your debt, and you will have the right to restore the dead. But if ever it is done regardless of the god’s displeasure you will be stopped, by the flame of your grandfather’s lightning bolt, from doing so again. From a god you will turn to a bloodless corpse, and then to a god who was a corpse, and so twice renew your fate." This is resurrection. Yes other traditions claimed he was just turned into a star but others, like in the case of Ovid, thought otherwise. All that matters is that there were people who BELIEVED he was resurrected. And if you disagree with that you should still agree that Asclepius had the power to resurrect people at the very least. So as we can see from all these examples, its extremely clear that the ancients believed dead people could be restored to life. Some even obtained immortality after resurrection. In fact Celsus even mentions other resurrected deities in his writings against Christianity such as Zalmoxis, Pythagoras, Hercules and so on. The Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, even says "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus" in chapter 69 of his work "Dialogue Against Trypho". He even (and in my opinion humorously) goes on to say that Satan went back in time to create those myths so they could discredit christianity. Thereby showing he acknowledged these resurrection stories were prechristian. Just because pagans didn't necessarily use the word Anastasis in these stories doesn't mean they weren't still talking about the same thing. I don't see how their word choice has any relevance. So again, Christianity is not original. I agree Dan Brown doesn't know what he's talking about. He's not very literate in christian history but he is right on that one statement which is why i quoted it. And i have looked at original sources by the way.
“So contrary to what you wrongly say, ancient greeks believed Aristeas DID resurrect and appeared to several people long after his death” - That doesn’t say he resurrected. it says he appeared, which ghosts and gods often did. Read what Herodotus says right after this, “Aristeas then, as the Metapontines affirm, appeared to them in their own country, and ordered them to set up an altar in honour of Apollo, and to place near it a statue to be called that of Aristeas the Proconnesian. "Apollo," he told them, "had come to their country once, though he had visited no other Italiots; and he had been with Apollo at the time, not however in his present form, but in the shape of a crow." Having said so much, he vanished. Then the Metapontines, as they relate, sent to Delphi, and inquired of the god in what light they were to regard the appearance of this ghost of a man.” So it does say “ghost” and never says anastasis (resurrected). No where does Herodotus imply anyone thought a resurrected occurred, but that he came back with Apollo as a ghost. “Yes the Aethiopis survives mostly in fragments but from the little we do have we know Memnon was made immortal by Zeus after having died.” - This does not refer to a physical resurrected, but being made into a god. “Their contents are as follows...A battle takes place in which Antilochus is slain by Memnon and Memnon by Achilles. Eos then obtains of Zeus and bestows upon her son immortality”” - Yeah, this happened at lot, see Hercules or Asclepius. This is not a resurrection, as it is never described as that, but either being placed among stars or being immortalized as a spirit like a god. “Just because he writes about Theseus after 100 AD, that doesn't mean his story of Theseus isn't any older.” - Speculation at best. You need to show it is, not assume it. “He may write after 100 AD but the story is still much older than that.” - evidence, please. Also, where does Pausanias describe Theseus as anastasis (resurrected)? I can’t find it. “You made it very clear that NO ancient pagans believed in resurrection.” - Yep, because resurrection is different than a resuscitation. A resuscitation means you get a second chance in your body, but you eventually die anyway. “And with the case of Aristeas and Memnon, they were also clearly given immortal bodies like Jesus.” - Where does it say bodies in those accounts. Herodotus doesn’t not believe Aristeas was physical because he reports he took different forms, like the form of a crow, “he had been with Apollo at the time, not however in his present form, but in the shape of a crow.” “This is resurrection. Yes other traditions claimed he was just turned into a star but others, like in the case of Ovid, thought otherwise” - This isa quote mine. Ovid doesn’t say a physical resurrection (anastsis) happened and he even spells out just prior to this what he meant when he said Zeus brought him back to life. "The youth [Acslepius] blasted by ancestral bolts [of Zeus] rises from earth [i.e. rising as the constellation Ophiuchus] and flings his hands coiled with double snakes …” (Ovid, Fasti 6.735) “Zeus feared the precedent and aimed his thunderbolt at the man who employed excessive art. Phoebus [Apollon], you whined. He is a god; smile at your father, who, for your sake, undoes his prohibitions [i.e. when he obtains immortality for Asklepios]." -762 This reading correlates with what other accounts said happened in the legend. For example, a later text, Pseudo-Hyginus (Astronomica 2.14) said Asclepius was put among the stars. Scholars also agree with this interpretation: Emma and Ludwing Edelstein said, “… Eratosthenes asserts that Asclepius, the son of Apollo and Coronis, he whom Zeus killed with his thunderbolt, eventually became a star (T.704a).” (Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Volume 1, Page 51) Sabine G. Oswalt said, “As for Asclepius, it is said that he was made immortal, and Apollo set his image among the stars as Serpentarius, the snakebearer.” (Concise encyclopedia of Greek and Roman mythology, Page 47) Theony Condos said, “[Ophiuchus] is said to be Asclepius, whom Zeus placed among the stars to oblige Apollo.” (Star Myths of the Greeks and Romans, Page 141) “Some even obtained immortality after resurrection.” - You have still failed to show one example of a dead person in pagan literature being anastasis (resurrected). “Celsus even mentions other resurrected deities in his writings against Christianity such as Zalmoxis, Pythagoras, Hercules and so on. “ - And Celsus’s words do not match with earlier sources, much like you, he is exaggerated things that are not there. “The Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, even says “” - Yeah, this is nonsense and has ben debunked if you just read the full context of justin Martyr: ua-cam.com/video/Yqf3OvKqG6E/v-deo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy But Aristeas actually wasn't a ghost. Yes, the word "ghost" is mentioned but from the way Herodotus uses it, he seems to be talking from the perspective of the Metapontines when he says "ghost". The Metapontines, when consulting Delphi, were the ones who mistakenly characterized him as ghost because of his sudden appearance and disappearance. Much like how Jesus was mistakenly thought to be a ghost. But when you read the whole passage, the only sensible conclusion is that Aristeas was physically resurrected. Otherwise, why would his body go missing (again just like Jesus)? And as for Aristeas being a crow, its not unlikely that after his resurrection, he gained special abilities in addition to being immortal. Even Jesus had powers after being resurrected. Like possibly walking through walls (John 20:19) When speaking of Memnon, you say "This does not refer to a physical resurrected, but being made into a god. " Actually Aethiopis (or any greek text that i know of for that matter) never say he's a god. But putting that aside how is this any different from Jesus. The text clearly says Memnon died (after being slain by Achilles) was restored to life as an immortal being. Just like Jesus. How is this not resurrection? All you've simply done is just assert without explanation that this is not resurrection. I really don't know what other word you can call this. You seem to have a very unreasonably specific idea of what resurrection is. You choose to be overly specific about resurrection by questioning what kind of body they had, whether they were made immortal, or if the author used the specific words like "Anastasis" or "body". None of that matters. You limit the concept of resurrection in a very ad hoc way to support your pre-conceived Christian beliefs. In its simplest form, resurrection simply means restoration to bodily life. Under this definition, many mortals, demigods, and gods have been resurrected. You also said concerning Pausanias, that i have to provide proof that he wasn't influenced by Christians. I don't have to PROVE ANYTHING! YOU are the one making the very improbable claim that a man who never even spoke of christians was influenced by their writings in a time when they were small, uninfluential, unknown, and unliked. Why would anyone want to mimic such an obscure religion like early christianity. You have to prove that case. Maybe if Pausanias wrote in the 4th or 5th century you'd have a point. Christianity was a very influential and politically powerful religion at those times. Not the second century (when Pausanias writes). Also Pausanias himself doesn't say in his own words he believed Theseus rose but says instead says that Athenian art depicts him as rising from the world of the dead to aid the Athenians. Here's the citation. Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.15.3. It says " At the end of the painting are those who fought at Marathon...Here is also a portrait of the hero Marathon, after whom the plain is named, of Theseus represented as coming up from the under-world, of Athena and of Heracles. " Or do you also ridiculously believe christianity was so popular in second-century Athens, that they made art mimic christian scenes like the resurrection? And as for Asclepius, you keep saying he was made into a star as if that somehow precludes this from being counted as a resurrection. Its also as if you think being turned into a star meant he was some kind of inanimate object (correct me if i'm wrong in assuming thats how you see Asclepius transformation to a star). Asclepius was killed by Zeus but was transformed into a star because of complaints from Appollo. His bodily transformation into a star IS his resurrection. THAT was his immortality. Just like how Jesus was given a glorified body after his resurrection, Asclepius' corpse was resurrected and transformed into a glorious star. "You, now divine, shall be a LIFELESS CORPSE, and FROM A CORPSE become divine again, and twice you shall renew your destiny." I really don't see how thats different from Jesus' resurrection to divinity . Jesus' resurrection body just wasn't a star. Otherwise, there's no difference in how they were resurrected. So yes you're right that Asclepius became a star but that's exactly what his resurrection body was. Other gods were immortal stars or heavenly bodies too. Like Astrea, Venus and Helios. And as for Justin Martyr, i actually watched the full video you gave me. The entire video is correct in saying that Justin didn't believe christians adopted their beliefs from Pagans. But that's not the argument i (or possibly even Dan Barker) was making. All i'm saying is that Justin says there pagans who believed in resurrection stories similar to Jesus. NOT that christians derived their beliefs from pagans. The video debunks the latter statement but not the former. And its the former that i'm arguing for. There were pagans who believed in the resurrection and justin mentions them. Justin even uses it show the hypocrisy of Romans for persecuting christians when the pagans believe similar stories. So far from saying that resurrection was an uncommon if not impossible thing in ancient graeco roman religion, Justin actually contradicts you, IP, by listing many examples of resurrection stories.
“the only sensible conclusion is that Aristeas was physically resurrected” - Again, Herodotus doesn’t say that and such a thing is never reported. So you cannot draw that conclusion. The only thing we have to go on is people say his ghost after he died. Nowhere does Herodotus say “anastasis” “Otherwise, why would his body go missing (again just like Jesus)?” - When Elijah’s body went missing no one suggested a resurrection. Again, to claim a resurrection with Aristeas is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t claim that and Herodotus even admits right after this section in Book 4 these tales of Aristeas cannot be confirmed and called them hearsay. Yet you want to claim this is definitely evidence people thought he was resurrected? Give me one line where it says anastasis. “The text clearly says Memnon died (after being slain by Achilles) was restored to life as an immortal being.” - Because immortalization in pagan literature never meant “anastasis” in the 1st century or prior and I am still waiting on one source from you. You are just committing hasty generalizations. “How is this not resurrection? All you've simply done is just assert without explanation that this is not resurrection” - Because it doesn’t say that. You are committing a hasty generalization. They never said “anastasis”. This is why 99% of scholars do not think there were resurrected gods like Jesus. It is only Jesus mythicists who claim this. “You seem to have a very unreasonably specific idea of what resurrection is. You choose to be overly specific about resurrection by questioning what kind of body they had,” - Yeah… because it the details do not match you don’t have a parallel, all you have is a logical fallacy of a hasty generalization. Plus, even if you could find a deity that was “anastasis” you then need to show a connection. Correlation is not causation. All you have done so far is pattern seeking, which is the same tactic ancient astronaut proponents use or 911 truthers. You have to do more than just generalize on patterns you think are there. “You limit the concept of resurrection in a very ad hoc way to support your pre-conceived Christian beliefs.” - No, I limit it to how it is actually defined. I don’t generalize and claim immortalization is a resurrection. People claim to see the Virgin Mary (I am skeptical of these claims), we don’t have her body, but no one says she was resurrected like with Jesus, just that she is immortalized in heaven. For some odd reason, you want to expand the definition of “anastasis” in a way it was never defined so you can shoehorn pagan deities into the category. That is a hasty generalization. “You also said concerning Pausanias, that i have to provide proof that he wasn't influenced by Christians. I don't have to PROVE ANYTHING!” - Yes, you do. You are making positive claims that there were other resurrected gods, yet cannot give good evidence to support those claims, let along show how correlation is causation. You need to back up your claims. You don’t get to say something then expect it to be accepted without skepticism. “YOU are the one making the very improbable claim that a man who never even spoke of christians” - Where did I say that? “Also Pausanias himself doesn't say in his own words he believed Theseus rose but says instead says that Athenian art depicts him as rising from the world of the dead to aid the Athenians.” - And it doesn’t say “anastasis” does it? You do realize no Hellenistic scholar says this is a resurrection “anastasis”? “Asclepius was killed by Zeus but was transformed into a star because of complaints from Appollo. His bodily transformation into a star IS his resurrection.” - Yet again, another example of a hasty generalization. There is a reason no Greco-roman scholar says this is a resurrection, because it is not. You don’t get to redefine a word (anastasis) to be broader than they actually were. That is the very definition of being ad hoc. “Asclepius' corpse was resurrected and transformed into a glorious star.” - That is not a resurrection, Mark Smith that is an astralization. “So yes you're right that Asclepius became a star but that's exactly what his resurrection body was.” - What??? That is not a resurrection. If you are a star you are not returned to life in your body in a glorified state. Again, there is a reason no Hellenist scholar makes this claim. “All i'm saying is that Justin says there pagans who believed in resurrection stories similar to Jesus.” - But he doesn’t actually say that and even if Justin did he would be incorrect. Scholars do not see “anastasis” outside of Christian or Jewish literature in that time period or prior. Justin is purposely fully generalizing so he won’t die. “Justin actually contradicts you, IP, by listing many examples of resurrection stories.” - Name one where a pagan deity died and was resurrected and they described it as “Anastasis”
This still doesn't prove the resurrection theory. As far as ur point about hallucinations. From from science today when loved ones die people claim they physically see that loved one. So just because the Christian belief is different from all other beliefs doesn't make it true it just makes it different.
+InspiringPhilosophy and because Christianities resurrection is different than pagan gods resurrection without proof of Jesus's resurrection doesn't make ur claim true. My point is that science proves we people today can experience what is written in text of the Bible that they claim to have experienced. Only difference is today we have an explanation for that. Resurrection and a lot of the other characteristics of Jesus are not unique to only him.
E JM Science proves what people can experience? How do you know this? have you experienced every life? And see this video. Pagans didn't claim resurrection was possible or believe in resurrection human-gods. That theory doesn't thrive in scholarship.
+InspiringPhilosophy Science proves and there have been experiments done where people say they physically saw a deceased loved one and we know where this activity happens in the brain. So it's no longer a mystery or that person is divine. We no longer think of that in those terms, they are hallucinations.
No dying and rising gods before jesus. Sure if you discout the other myths because they are slightly different from your myth. Why is quoting Christians "evidence"? Do you think what you are saying is convincing?
+Mc_Pyro No, they're aren't any... Any of these supposed dying and rising god claims that thrive on the internet are laughed at by real scholars. Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Romulus, etc., are all lied about on the internet and are in no way true: www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=fe54916c-64bc-11e1-8f66-6067e33f8f11
You can add jesus to the list that is lied about and not true. Your link is pointless comparing people that there is reliable historical evidence for to people there is not. I looked at some of the listed gods and why they are wrong on that list it says there is evidence that isis was a virgin I am pretty sure isis is mythical. Why do Christians think attacking a different position proves their own?
+Mc_Pyro You are just changing your argument now. First Jesus was a copycat, no Jesus is just another myth. Again, I refuted that in part 2 and in this series, so that is just not true: ua-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY.html
***** If a dead and risen Messiah the king isn't in the O.T---than clearly it's not the word of God!! The entire revelation of God and from God is in the O.T!
עמיחי אלימלך Nothing in there contradicts what Jesus did. You are just assuming your position is already true. The evidence shows Jesus rose from the dead and therefore it vindicated what He said.
***** The ressuraction proves NOTING,because God in the O.T never say "the resurraction of the servant will proves his claims". The only prove that A is the Messiah is the fullfilmant of....Jer 23+33,Ezekiel 37,Isaiah 11,Zec 9;9-10. You can't prove that your sins were forgiven. Jesus:i will be dead 3 days and 3 nights. Let's see. Friday-1 day Saturnday-2 day 1 night. Sunday-2 day 2 night. Jesus lied...a lier can't be the Messiah. Why Jesus after the RES didn't reviel himself infront of the Sanhedrin and/or infront of 1000ds of Jews? Jesus was buried in an unknown tomb,his folowers saw AN empty tomb and believed that he was resurrected. The rumor that Jesus was resurrected was known only after a very long time, and the body of Jesus had already rotted beyond recognition and the Romans had no point to take it out from the grave, and show that Jesus was dead. "YOU LIERS!!THIS IS NOT JESUS!" Matthew lied about the tomb gurds!
Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. read his books ...such as God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer
The Bible doesn't fail to reply to the problem of pain, but I understand how some readers might not glean the answer, or might be unsatisfied with it. It's an old problem, and a tough one, but not insurmountable.
@@gregorya1179 Yes it was not well elaborated in the Bible ... An individual approached the Blessed one and ask// “The inner tangle and the outer tangle- GENERATIONS( Hindus vs Muslims,Jews vs Christians,Muslims vs Jews) are entangled in a tangle. And so I ask of YOU this question: Who succeeds in disentangling this tangle? ( Tangle ..Network of craving .. CRAVING upon wealth, career sexual desires, the lead to suffering ) When a wise man, established well in VIRTUE , Develops consciousness and understanding, Then as a Bhikkhu ardent and sagacious He succeeds in disentangling this tangle”..means getting away from suffering
I find the no one was looking for, or this would have been shameful, or any similar arguments really unconvincing even as a Christian…. Because if you are lying or manipulating things the fact that it wouldn’t be expected or that it was shameful could still be part of the calculus for convincing people because then you get to run around saying this isn’t what you expect a liar, a Jew, or a follower to say so it must be true…. Being contrary to *your* expectations is not evidence of honesty.
He literally flipped around the total lack of evidence for a resurrected messiah in Judaism into an argument for a resurrected messiah. Just because a group became convinced that Jesus was the messiah and came up with ad hoc reasoning for why he didn't do anything the messiah was supposed to do doesn't make him the messiah. It shows they were desperately trying to explain something that can't happen to the messiah by cherry picking the old testament and their own hallucinations.
Really well presented though it is, the content of this is absolute embarrassing rubbish. Why can't theists see that their sky fairy storybook is not a source of evidence that can be used to prove itself?
@@InspiringPhilosophy Just another guy who wants secular historians to mention Christ's Resurrection, when 3/4 of those historians hated Christianity with all their hearts and yet, still, this atheist above expects those historians to admit the greatest claim of Christianity. Not just an argument from silence, but also non-sensical demand.
It is unbelievable how good you are at arguments. In my persuasive writing class, my english professor is teaching us and we are making low 80s, which is actually barely passable. After carefully analyzing your videos, I got better and my prose and argumentative essays. And with these skills, I'm hoping to at least reach some of the atheists at my high school.
+Nawfal Elric That is wonderful to hear, thanks for sharing that!
No Fascist Ideologies I refuted the conspiracy theory in part 2:
ua-cam.com/video/A0iDNLxmWVM/v-deo.html
Awww 🥰 I hope you’re still Christian. Sweetest thing I’ve read this year, and it’s from 3 years ago. I hope you’re still strong in Christ. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that.So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for remission of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough for remission of some sins, not all. It wasn't infinite, unlike Jesus's. Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. The Old Testament sacrifice of animals, the spilled blood of those animals could cleanse people from some sins but not ALL, unlike Jesus's. He was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
@@junelledembroski9183lol now it’s seven years ago!
Hands down you are one of the best Christian Apologists on the planet. God bless you.
Christian Slayer The Truth doesn’t need Any Argument!
There are over 300 prophecies Jesus Christ
Born of The Virgin
Born in Bethlehem
Born from Judah
His life
His miracles
His teachings
His death
His burial
His Resurrection
His Kingdom
Ten even at just 100/1 probability
You know The Maths.... ✝️🕊♥️
You were created to become Like Him‼️
Don’t be cheated out of your awesome eternity 🙏🏻
@River Scott your comment is nonsense.
The scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek 3 centuries before Jesus came!
So Yes 300 prophesies!
@@P.H.888 two of Ezekiel's prophesies we're wrong
Agreed. He stands on the shoulders of giants
Thank you very much for making this video! People can't use that "Jesus was stolen from pagan religions" idea anymore.
I am a believer with an open mind. I have listened to many Atheist and while agree with them on Religion I don't feel the same way about God/Jesus. Looking into Atheism it appears most have the ALL or NOTHING mentality and throw out many valid points and subjective experiences. Looking at both sides openly I choose Jesus ~
Congratulations, IP, on completing some really impressive work in these two videos which discuss the resurrection. I'm an old guy and have studied the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam since I was a kid. Your videos are the most complete and articulate presentations of the arguments that Jesus of Nazareth was physically raised from the dead which I have ever seen.
At the very least, they show that the people who most intimately knew Jesus before his death were certain that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. Skeptics might argue they were mistaken, but it can not be realistically argued that the apostles had fabricated the stories of the resurrected Christ. They readily died for their belief in the resurrected Jesus and would never have done so if they knew it was just something they had dreamed up. People who fabricate miracle stories to build cult followings do so to obtain power over others, wealth and often sexual partners. They do not make up stories that merely expose them to the threat of execution and which gain them nothing in this world. The apostles spread the Gospel despite the risk and sought nothing for themselves as they did so simply because they were certain they had witnessed God acting in an extraordinary way in human history.
I'd like to know the name that goes with the voice of these IP videos. I am astonished at your ability to clearly present complex information about matters as diverse as physics and religion. Thanks for what you give the world.
+Joe P Thanks, if you send me a private message on facebook or youtube we can talk more there :)
God Bless!
Let the record show that , this video blessed me at 4:10 AM in the morning, in Kenya .
+Del La Hoya That is so wonderful!
+InspiringPhilosophy ... Great video!.... I have one question why do you keep saiding James and Jesus were Brothers ? John and James were brothers just like Peter and Andrew .They were probably cousins but not brothers to Our Lord . Mary only had one child Christ ! To think other wise is gross. There was no word for cousin in Aramaic. If I'm wrong please explain. .....Sorry to go off topic!
God Bless....
+Del La Hoya Kenyan here too:)
Gamers James the brother of Jesus and James the disciple of Jesus were not the same person. The name was just very common back then. See "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"
I am not a believer Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
+InspiringPhilosophy ....Am afraid on this point we must differ. Mary was unlike any woman before or after. Her mission was to give birth to the Eternal Word of God. St Joseph would never have touch such a holy Woman in anyway. I repeat the thought is repulsive and gross beyond the bonds of good taste. Please see a compliant Catholic Theologian or early Church Doctor on this point. I know Marys life is little discussed in the New Testament , BUT TO THINK OUR LADY HAD A SEX LIFE WITH ST JOSEPH
is Vomit inducing TO SAID THE LEAST!! I respect most of your views on the Bible , but to think that the most holy VIRGIN had a sex life is beyond the pale#! ......if you dont mind please reply....God Bless
H E L I V E S
O
Amen!
Spoiler Alert:
"He lives now"
EZ ! :3
Amen
IP, all I have to say is that if it weren’t for your videos, I probably wouldn’t be a Christian Right now.
I love your videos IP! This one was amazing like all the other videos you've made in the past! You inspire me to defend the Faith like you and so many others so effectively do! God bless you and may you always stay humble and meek like our Savior. :)
i love this series sm i rewatch it whenever i get doubts and it helps me remember how real my religion is😊❤️
I’m glad I could help.
Over 500 eyewitnesses then Saul who had been killing believers!
The baptism in The Holy Spirit 🔥
I've seen a few of the counter arguments from athiests. They don't necessarily put a case together but they share the same "attitude" where the foundation of their thought process is "there is no evidence I personally can accept as actual evidence therefore........" The concern for them is that attitude can easily be put forth towards evolution theory and other scientific theory sp basically they end up nowhere on the side of no-one but their own.....
Just in time for the Easter season. Great video IP. I hope you have a good Ash Wednesday and Lent. Are you doing Lent?
Hey IP. Do you mind putting this series into text? I wanna give it to my atheist friend.
Nice job again IP!!
Happy Easter InspiringPhilosophy!
Plus Jews would have thought that Jesus was a blasphemer for claiming to be God if Jesus was killed and wasn’t resurrected. So they wouldn’t have expected him to be exalted to heaven, but rather condemned.
Quick note, I believe it was ra who was reborn every night, Horus I believe defended him on his journey through the underworld
love you for what you do bro ! :)
1st comment.. But the first will be last so..
La Lumière Huguenote Brilliant.
im actually reading that series too, nt wright, its spot on. :3 i havnt gotten to the resurrection book yet, im on the first book.
Every now and again, I find myself rewatching these videos because of how great they are, and how they changed my life. I do have two questions relating to this though, IP.
1. What is the music that plays during this video? Must I buy it, is it free?
2. I found some objections against the idea that jesus was not found in the tomb because he resurrected. Some skeptics have arguments as to why the Jews or romans didn't bring jesus's body to destroy christianity when rumors of his resurrection started: What if the reason Jesus' body wasn't in the tomb was because he was buried in an unmarked grave, and nobody could find it? Second, what if somebody just moved his body for whatever reason, and moved it somewhere random? (Sure there were guards at the tomb, but this could have just been made up in response to the Jewish idea that the disciples stole jesus's body)
1. I believe I got it from digital juice.
2. I addressed that throughout the video. There is no reason to think they made up the tomb of the Sanhedrin or that women would have discovered the tomb. There is no source which says he was placed in an unmarked grave or that the body was lost.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Couldn't these evidences have just been made up later to counter Jewish objections? Even if they're embarrassing?
Thank you.
Its possible but unlikely.
@Resurrected Eyes:
Very well said.
great job! wow good research
Even the disciples didn’t believe it when the women told them
I look forward to new glorified physical body as Jesus has.
Don't hold your breath.
I’ve always been Catholic (not a very good one, but I believe in Jesus Christ) and I’ve always wondered why Jesus never appeared to Pontius Pilate or Ciaphas. I understand why He appeared to the Apostles but why not His persecutors? Would it not have made tremendous leaps for His Church? It’s not like He was against calling people out, He actively did this to hypocrites all the time. I mean maybe He didn’t need to because He was above such trivial drama and knew all He needed to do was appear to those who already believed in Him to cast their doubt aside. But the Romans are Gods children too and are equally deserving of forgiveness “for they knew not what they were doing.” Idk why but this does bug me a little, never got a decent answer that actually helped explain it to me.
The offer of forgiveness was taken to them as Christians spread through the empire preaching the gospel just as Jesus had commanded.
He did appear to a persecutor in Paul. Also, should Pilate or Caiaphas had heard the word, they would've had the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus like everyone else.
@@maxalaintwo3578 so because they persecuted him, that was their choice to reject him? I suppose that makes sense, but even Christ knew it took miracles for common people to believe him, expecting those in power to willfully bow down before a commoner who claims to be God incarnate - especially the Romans who were foreign with their own gods - is a little ignorant, it would take a miracle before their own eyes to make them believe Him as it had done for so many before. So why not appear before His persecutors and show them the error of their ways? Would that not be enough to change their minds? Or would it have driven them mad, rendering His appearance to them useless?
@@autumn-marissamcclounie7868 Perhaps Jesus did, throughout his 40 days in Jerusalem before the Ascension. But we simply don't know, nor would that matter for them to be Christians
perhaps he did but it was never written down, or it was lost to history, really we don't know. But I am sure Pilate/Ciaphas would've heard rumours about his resurrection given how fast it spread
Question: If there was no belief in second-temple Judaism in a resurrection in the middle of history, how-come the gospels claim that there were people who thought that John the Baptist was raised from the dead?
Because they believed in resuscitations.
InspiringPhilosophy thank you
Excellent video!
Seconded.
I can't seem to find the original video of N.T. Wright @12:35, do you know if it exists anywhere anymore?
+inspiringphilosophy I didn't know that revelation was talking about 70 AD until the pastor at my college church explained it. The Great Tribulation idea that would happen before Jesus came back actually started after the civil war. the apostles knew revelation was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. When Jesus talks about the judgements to be put on Israel would happen before "this generation passes away which was around 40 years. 70AD is 40 years after Jesus started his ministry.
+Kyle Williams Exactly!
Simon Parker ua-cam.com/video/SQz3HBZEUEQ/v-deo.html
With the advent of written records, the earliest known recurrent theme of resurrection was in Egyptian and Canaanite religions, which had cults of dying-and-rising gods such as Osiris and Baal.
So ressurction isn't only unique to Christianity
+inspiring Philosophy- great work as always and a good follow up the the last one as I was getting questions as well like ' Jesus it just like all the other gods comparing Christianity to a list of Buddhism gods saying there all the same and teachings, will still get back to on the people I had take your channel Down especially the doctors, keep up the great work!
+WHATISTRUTH No He is not. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus far outweighs any other religion as Antony Flew admitted.
Thanks for doing that! Keep me posted and if they would like to talk about partnering with me.
IP how many videos are in this series?
+Kyle Alander CivilianName295 A total of 6 so far. So three more to go and possibly an additional later on if I get a worthy response.
+InspiringPhilosophy ok thanks for letting me know
Keep up the good work.!!
You should call Stefan Molyneux and debate him
+stevie6621 I think Molyneux is much better in political philosophy than in philosophy of religion, fwiw. But a debate between Tim McGrew and J. L. Schellenberg, if it ever happened, could be very interesting.
I hate to be that guy but in The Iliad, Priam was a man, his wife was Hecuba. And in most translations of The Odyssey, Odysseus doesn't actually venture to the Underworld per se, but to a place called Erebus, where after sacrificing a goat, conducts the Bronze Age equivalent to a seance, where the spirits of the dead come to him. Other than that, I still love your videos.
So not sure what you are trying to say, because in the Odyssey they are still shades or spirits, not bodies.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Most people and most adaptations of The Odyssey say that Odysseus went to the Underworld to talk to Tiresias, where from what I've gathered he goes to a place called Erebus in the mortal world, digs a pit, and fills it with goat blood so that the spirits would come to him. Tiresias shows up, followed by Achilles, Agamemnon, and even Odysseus's mother shows up. The ritual is like a seance but with blood. Then again I guess people say "went to the Underworld" as shorthand.
And how does that relate to the resurrection?
@@InspiringPhilosophy Nothing, it's just I hate when scholars try to make it sync up with the resurrection like on the History Channel. And when you mentioned The Odyssey it just reminded me of that. Thankfully, you didn't perpetuate the misconception.
Michael, I hope you will answer my question. You say that Jews didn't thinked anyone would be resurrected before the end times, but didn't some people thought Jesus was resurrected John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah?
This is my second watch of this video now but I am confused on 19:37 mark of the video, what does it mean by “vary in reports between individuals” when it comes to a hallucination? I have heard apologists countering the claim that the resurrection narratives are “inconsistent” by pointing out that the differences complement each other and the differences shows the reliability of the eyewitnesses. And I think the source you just used makes it sounds like the disciples hallucinated because the gospels give different accounts on the resurrection event.
p.s. I believe Jesus actually came back from the dead but I wanted to ask what I have written because I’m confused.
Excellent video though.
Jesus was thirty two years old when he was crucified. In human life terms, that is the absolute pinnacle. The whole idea of bodily resurrection sounds great if one is that age. However, what if he had been, say ninety years old when he was crucified. Would his resurrection have had the same affect on human minds and his following been what it is today? Can anyone visualize a wizened up ninety year old man on the cross in every Christian church around the world? How many two year old children are dying in the world at the very moment I write this sentence? How does bodily resurrection work for those human beings whose brain didn’t even get to develop. Will they be two year olds in Heaven after the rapture?
Did anyone mention Innana's Descent? She died for three days & was resurrected.
Would you please respond to the theory that Jesus never actually died, but was buried alive and recovered over 3 days (either in a video or personally to me)? My brother proposed it last night and it's been stumping me.
+Turtles Tortellini What? Tell him there is not a scholar who accepts that lunatic theory.
Gary Habermas and Joseph W. Bergeron MD say, "The death of Jesus by crucifixion and his bodily resurrection are the cornerstones of orthodox Christian faith. Jesus’ death is considered a historical fact by a majority of modern scholars. The descriptions of Jesus’ crucifixion, recorded in the Gospels by medically uneducated writers, are consistent with modern medical knowledge. Shock, and the complications of progressive blood loss, has become an accepted explanation for the mechanism of Jesus’ death among medical writers."
There is no medical expert who has read the Gospels and think Jesus was capable of surviving. We only know of one crucified victim who survived being crucified, as recorded in Josephus, and he was taken down early and given the best medical attention of that day and only barely survived. Plus, the other two pulled down with him were also given medical attention and died. Romans were experts at killing people, they knew what they were doing.
And no, Jesus did not die quick but was on the cross from 9AM (Mark 15:25) to about 3PM (Mark 15.33-34, 37).
😂 so His friends took Him down from The Cross & buried Him alive!? 😳
HE was pierced through The Heart and out poured blood & water!
By The Roman soldiers they knew HE was dead.
In the beginning of the video, you stated that paganism has no tradition of Messianic figures. However, doesn't the Zoroastrian Saoshyant figure fit the bill? Wouldn't this, combined with Persian influence on Jewish culture (Persia was for centuries if not millennia the cultural superpower of the region and even owned Palestine for quite a while) create enough of an expectation or possibility to borrow from the Saoshyant stories and apply them to Jesus? We can at the very least judge that these beliefs were very close to eachother, as in Islamic Tradition Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians alike are considered Peoples of the Book.
+Kaesoification We are not sure, the Avesta was not written down until after 100AD. It could easily have been influenced by Judaism. Plus, Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and not polytheistic.
If it wasn't for you, Red Pen Logic and Apostate Prophet I would be an atheist.
So if I'm understanding the hellenic view of death, a person can only be deified before their death, not after? That could harmonize classical polytheism involving deification with platonic thought of the finality of death (for ill in the classical sense and for good in the platonic) I think you should distinguish between epicurean belief and platonic belief, as they are both hellenic, irreconcilably different, and rejected by Christians as the heresies of arianism and gnosticism.
But what about the miracles that Jesus performed in conjunction with him predicting his own death? Because Christ had performed many miracles (including raising people from the dead), the disciples could have been eventually convinced by his prediction that he would be killed and rise again, and thus have an expectation, although initially ceasing to believe on him as the Messiah. Although I do not believe this, it is a strong objection that needs addressing, I believe.
The problem is they do not report that but say they did not understand.
InspiringPhilosophy Yes, but it makes sense that they would not report that they began to see hallucinations. Perhaps they at first did not understand, but "understood" (that is, hallucinate based on what Christ had told them) after time.
There is no evidence hallucination manifest in how Jesus was reported to have been seen. Based on their cultural background hallucinations did not imply a physical resurrection, but a vision of a ghost, most likely.
InspiringPhilosophy Alright, I understand that, based on the accounts of His appearance, there was no hallucination, since His appearances involved both sight and sound, and because He interacted with the real world. Thank you for bringing that to my memory. However, I do not believe that the cultural background of the disciples would matter much, since they could have expected Christ to rise again based on the fact that He said that He was going to, not considering the fact that they doubted it.
See here: ua-cam.com/video/HdIM8QoD8UE/v-deo.html
You might want to look up "civil death"
i have a question. so you say that the disciples did not have the expectation that Jesus would come back to life in the flesh. yet in Matthew 27, the Pharisees place guards at the tomb because Jesus said he would rise again in 3 days and they were worried about the disciples stealing the body to make it seem like he has risen. so are you suggesting that the Pharisees had an expectation the disciples didn't? they seem to interpret physical resurrection from what Jesus said which is why they guarded the tomb.
The texts of the Gospels indicate that. There is no indication the disciples expected Jesus to rise. They were more concerned with fleeing for their lives.
InspiringPhilosophy so to be clear, the Pharisees expected the disciples to steal the body because Jesus said he would rise in three days. Did the disciples not hear Jesus say this, or did they not understand him?
The Gospels say they did not understand.
InspiringPhilosophy but the Pharisees did understand him. His claims were common knowledge enough for the priests to send guards to make sure the disciples didn't steal the body. So you're saying the priests understood what Jesus meant when he said he would rise again in 3 days, but the disciples didn't?
The Pharisees heard it as a threat, and so the disciples embarrassingly admit His enemies were smart than them in terms of the resurrection.
I believe Jesus was resurrected but this video seems to assert the idea that everyone will at some point be resurrected bodily. I don't understand why anyone would believe that. What does that mean for deceased children? Baby's that were never born? People that were cremated? For what reason would we all be bodily resurrected?
You mention Philo at around 06:23, I do find it odd that he never mentions Jesus to my knowledge, he would surely be a prime candidate for mentioning Jesus.
Why?
+bonnie43uk Philo wrote very little of actual history, and whatever little he wrote of it was selected for moral teachings. As a Platonist Jew, he would find many Christian ideas offensive and probably would show his disdain by silence. In addition, Philo did not mention other great Rabbis of his day, such as Gamaliel.
+bonnie43uk See here: ua-cam.com/video/pRTkXbQPn0M/v-deo.html
***** Thanks for that link to one of JP's cartoons. From my dealings with him, he's someone who is very good at flipping questions around to make it seem you've asked a really stupid question. I don't agree with his premise that we dismiss the writings of well known writers of the day if there work includes reports of miracles, and that they wouldn't at least go and find out a little more, or at least mention it. Going by the gospel reports of MMLJ Jesus came across as a central figure of Judea, word of his miracles would almost certainly have came to the notice of people like Philo, and a little later Josephus. I think JP wants it both ways in that anyone who is crazy enough (in JP's mind) to have doubts in their mind about the divinity of Jesus is what he would call a "fundy atheist", but he also wants people to think writers of the day such as Philo were perfectly reasonable to omit Jesus from their writings because of miracle claims. I have no doubt that virtually everyone living back then would have been a believer in some God or other.
It would have been good to hear your own thoughts on this rather than point me towards one of tektons cringeworthy cartoons. I tried to leave a comment on it, but he's done the old trick of disabling comments, he's very selective like that I've noticed.
Obviously we can't read the mind of God/Jesus, but wouldn't you think he'd want important writers, commentators, Roman leaders and so on, to be witness to all this to add credence to the story, rather than generations hearing about it from unknown authors and having no original copies. To my skeptical mind, it only adds to my doubt. If my eternal salvation depends on this ( and Christians tell me it does), then this story should be unquestionable and beyond reproach. I'm not rejecting the story out of some rebelliousness and desire to sin as many Christians have told me, I reject it for various honest reasons which I'd be more than happy to divulge. But i have things to do now.
You know that we don't have original copies of any ancient works right? The evidence just has to be sufficient, not extraordinary, for the claim to be believable. The authors are not unknown, we know who the authors are. And there were historians who mentioned Jesus, just not as a miracle worker because they're not Christians and wouldn't want to offend authorities at the time (free speech wasn't exactly a thing back then). And if you want to know what JP's definition of "fundy atheist" is, he has a video on it. If you don't want to watch that, long story short fundy atheists are people who don't do serious research, believe anything negative they hear about Christianity on the internet, and make ridiculous literal interpretations of the bible that nobody else believes. Regardless of his attitude, though, wouldn't it be better to address his arguments?
I have a Cristian faith but have a question if someone could answer.
When Christ died his whole body vanished, when we die the body remains & our spirit moves on. How can that be?
our resurrection has not happened yet.
The dead are still dead, they will rise when he comes. To them it will feel like a mere sleep, or instantaneous as it normally feels when I wake up every morning.
We don't have any proof the "spirit" exists at this point.
3:00 Depends if you count Zoroastrianism as pagan, which is where second temple judaistic views came from.
Also, Lazarus came back to life according to the bible, so there is precedent for resurrection. In addition, Jesus told his disciples he would come back to life in 3 days, according to the bible.
Could u expand on the differences between Jesus and Horus?
+chikeokjr24 There are a lot: www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=24f9c898-6b92-11e1-b1f8-842b2b162e97
thanks ill check it out!
On the contrary the Jews taught only a bodily resurrection. They never taught the immortality of the soul.
Is there a way to relate the theory of evolution with the Original Sin? I saw it being used in some debates against christians.
lower ur background sound...its annoying
IP I hope your head is bigger than the eternal crown from Jesus you will receive for your supablous work.
1 Corinthians 9:25Amplified Bible (AMP)
25 Now every athlete who [goes into training and] competes in the games is disciplined and exercises self-control in all things. They do it to win a [a]crown that withers, but we [do it to receive] an imperishable [crown that cannot wither].
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 9:25 Lit perishable crown, usually a woven wreath of pine worn as a crown.
+Awurabena1 Thanks, I'm very flattered.
what's the music at the beginning
could u re upload the old videos without the shitty music? it makes the older content unwatchable
InspiringPhilosophy, which video editor software do you use?
+Lucas Pacitti Final Cut
+InspiringPhilosophy Thank you! God bless your work!
Where is the picture from 4:10 from?
I used “Google lens” and I got this :)
trinitypreschurch.org/jesus-signs-zoe-life/?hcb=1
Jesus indeed rose from the dead!
IP do you subscribe to a particular theory of atonement?
+Gaining Understanding I'm studying different theories, but I am leaning towards the idea Hebrews lays out, that Christ is our priest who represents us before the Father and makes sacrifices for our sins.
+InspiringPhilosophy Right on, thanks for sharing. I've heard that the view of the church fathers is known in the west as Ransom Theory (sometimes called the Rescue Theory). In my experience, if you ask an Orthodox Christian about their view of atonement they'll usually reference _On the Incarnation of the Word_ by St. Athanasius. After reading it myself I saw why they kept recommending it. C.S. Lewis has called it a masterpiece and I agree.
+Scientific Censorship Committee You're thinking of Protestantism. These thousands upon thousands of denominations have their roots in the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. If you do some church history you'll discover that who we call the Catholic Christians and the Orthodox Christians were actually one body for the first 1000 years of of Christianity. It was in 1054 they officially split, which is known as The Great Schism. In the 16th century the Protestant Reformation occurred among the Catholics and that's where all these other denominations come from. Meanwhile, the Orthodox remained one as always.
+Illuminated Perspectives The Orthodox and the Catholic were truly in full communion for 1000 years, this is an historical fact. And yes I've heard of the Copts, they're actually Orthodox as well as noted by an official Joint Commission. The Copts were misunderstood all those years ago, it turns out there was no real disagreement after all :) full communion between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox will be complete _very_ soon. So as we can see there has always been one holy catholic apostolic church. Sure there's been some heresies like Arianism, but the church dealt with them and the church has remained one since the beginning.
"Old Believers" groups emerged as a result of opposition to
the Nikonian reform, but they do not constitute a single monolithic body and the Moscow Patriarchate revoked the anathemas imposed on the Old Believers in the 17th century so there goes whatever point you were trying to make there lol
God didn't make salvation a roll of the dice. He became incarnate and conquered death by death. Now there is His church, the one holy catholic apostolic church. The one and only western patriarch is the one who broke off from the other four eastern churches. It was the west that changed the creed and affirmed this new doctrine of the papacy so there was The Great Schism. There's no doubt that its the west that changed things, the east remained the same.
I have a serious objection to what you are saying, namely, that Jesus Christ told His disciples that He would die before He did.
Matthew 16:21-- From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Matthew 26:28 KJV - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 KJV - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
There are many other examples besides these three in the Gospels. This would explain how the disciples could hallucinate the appearances of Jesus. Although the Gospels say that the disciples didn't believe the women when they said that Christ had risen, and they wouldn't have expected Him to rise from the dead based on Jewish beliefs, one could say that they remembered the words of Christ, that He would rise from the dead, after their initial unbelief. How would you respond to this?
Right, but meeting the criteria of embarrassment the disciples reported they did not understand what Jesus was talking about. Even in Acts 1, the apostles did not understand what God was doing and were still waiting for a national restitution.
InspiringPhilosophy I understand. So you are saying, essentially, that they would have discarded these words and forgotten about Christ, that they would have seen his predication as illegitimate?
That is what the gospels seem to report about the disciples.
InspiringPhilosophy Okay.
Because the Arabs denied the resurrection of the dead, the Quran contains several verses highlighting its reasonableness and inevitability. The embryological and ecological “proofs” that were mentioned earlier can be found throughout the Quran. Sūrahs 22 and 51 in particular draw attention to dead earth revived by rain as a clear sign for the resurrection of the dead. Other examples from the Quran include: So observe the vestiges of God’s Mercy, how He revives the earth after its death. Truly that is the Reviver of the dead, and He is Powerful over all things (30:50); And God is He Who sends the winds, then they cause clouds to rise. Then We drive them to a land that is dead, and thereby revive the earth after its death. Thus shall be the Resurrection! (35:9).
As further proof of the Resurrection, the Quran cites how easy it is for God to accomplish any creative act, as in 17:51: Then they will say, “Who will bring us back?” Say, “He Who originated you the first time” (see also 2:148; 36:78-79; 56:47-50). Sūrah 56, al-Wāqiʿah, provides a litany of examples of God’s Power in order to establish God’s Ability to resurrect the dead. The Quran also responds to the atheists and naturalists who deny the Resurrection by declaring that they are only following their conjecture: the disbelievers say, There is naught but our first death, and we shall not be resurrected (44:35). In this same vein, 64:7 states: Those who disbelieve claim that they will not be resurrected. Say, “Yea! By my Lord! Surely you shall be resurrected. Then you shall be informed of that which you did; and that is easy for God.” Having created human beings the first time, God should surely find it, by our own reckoning, as easy to do the second time: He it is Who originates creation, then brings it back, and that is most easy for Him. Unto Him belongs the loftiest description in the heavens and on the earth, and He is the Mighty, the Wise (30:27).
Sūrah 50, Qāf, deals mostly with eschatological realities:
And listen on the Day when the caller calls from near at hand, on the Day when they hear the Cry of Truth; that is the Day of coming forth... . That Day the earth is split asunder from about them-as they hasten forth. That is a gathering easy for Us. We know best that which they say. Thine is not to compel them. So remind, by means of the Quran, those who fear My Threat. (50:41-42, 44-45)
In another sūrah, human beings are described as locusts: So turn away from them (the disbelievers) on the Day wherein the caller will call unto a terrible thing. With their eyes humbled they emerge from the graves as if they were scattered locusts, scrambling toward
the caller. The disbelievers say, “This is a calamitous day.” (54:6-8)28
Several verses describe this day as extremely difficult for the disbelievers (see, e.g., 74:8-10). Those who had denied it have immense regret, pleading for a second chance. Those who were expecting it are described as having no fear or grief. At this stage, there is no kinship between them (23:101), and on that Day a man will flee from his brother, and his mother and his father, and his spouse and his children (80:34-36).
According to the Prophet, the Resurrection occurs on Friday; thus Muslims are encouraged to prepare every Friday for this event with extra acts of devotion, and religious scholars recommend that the Friday sermon be peppered with reminders of death and the Resurrection. The Prophet stated that the animal kingdom is particularly sensitive to the coming of the eschaton, and in fact we see that animals display agitation just prior to any natural disaster, such as an earthquake. Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) writes:
Once resurrected from their graves, all of humanity is not in one situation; nor will everyone stand together. They differ just as they differed in the worldly abode. There are five stations: the first is the Resurrection itself; the second is the movement and gathering for Judgment; the third is the Reckoning; the fourth is the movement to the place of recompense; and
finally, the fifth is taking up residence in one of the two final abodes.29
The “return” (maʿād) refers to the restoration of humanity’s place in the Divine Presence that preceded earthly existence. The Quran describes the pretemporal covenant in these terms:
And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness”-lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless.” (7:172)
If a true messenger delivers the “reminder” to a community or, as in the case of the Prophet Muhammad, to all of humanity, the covenantal bond, both primordial and binding, should be enough to jar the preexistent memory of the original covenant that all of Adam’s progeny made with God.
This will be fairly lengthy but I think it deserves a response.
Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Jobs children were all raised from the dead though. The typical answer is to say there is a difference between resuscitation and resurrection. Resurrection involves a return of a glorified body while the other is just a return to normal existence. Jesus was supposedly resurrected, the names I listen were resuscitated, but there’s no terminological distinction between the two concepts in the sources. They all returned from the dead and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of different “kinds” of coming back from the dead. So? What’s the difference? The difference is that Christians thought Jesus was made immortal. The problem is this happened to individuals too! The names I listed above were all thought to have been bodily immortalized. Most of them didn’t die first, but that only means the language of “resurrection” wouldn’t apply to them. It was applied to Jesus, if they were going to say he had been made immortal because he was * dead *. In other words, his being made immortal presupposes an anthropology where the body is crucial to humanity unlike those circles who adopted Platonism.
So Jesus had to be “resurrected” first. His consequent immortalization (or translation) is distinct from his resurrection, not a kind of it. The real question is, could a human be made immortal in the bodily sense? Any Jews say that? Yes! They said it of Enoch and others.
This can be illustrated by what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15. The key is that in order to inherit the kingdom of god, one must have changed to be immortal. One does not simply have to be “resurrected” since not everyone will die. But since the body is important to the living, then * if * one is dead, they have to be resurrected first. But the same happens to the living as well as the dead.
It is crucial to distinguish between three things-
1. Resurrection, which implies a corpse coming back to life. (Several tales of this in Jewish and pagan lore)
2. * The * resurrection is supposed to be an event that happens in the future, where ‘god’ will bring the righteous dead and often the evil.
3. Immortalization- this can happen without the person dying and usually (not always) does (I.e. they escape death) it’s equivalent to “translation”
Apologists who make the argument of resurrection being a special event for Jesus, have confused what some Jewish texts say will happen to humanity at “the” resurrection (the future event) by taking the latter as a “kind” of resurrection, that happened anachronistically, to Jesus, as distinct from other ‘kinds’. But all Jesus’ resurrection means is that he got his life back. The God who made him immortal is just another way of saying what happened to Jesus, is what happened to Enoch and the others. The Christians pretty much had to claim this if they wanted Jesus alive again, because obviously, he didn’t stick around (if he did, there would have been some questions about where he was and why he wasn’t doing messianic stuff, which Christians rationalized he’d do at the “second coming”) he had to exalted like other figures in the Jewish tradition to remove him from the sphere of normal existence.
The point is, this isn’t unique or special or unprecedented.
Again, sorry for the length but I have these concerns.
"Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Jobs children were all raised from the dead though. "
- No, Moses just died. Elijah and Enoch were taken up to heaven and never died. Job's children died and he had new children. Just read the Bible, none of them were resurrected.
"The names I listed above were all thought to have been bodily immortalized. Most of them didn’t die first, but that only means the language of “resurrection” wouldn’t apply to them."
- You are admitting it is different. It sounds like you are grasping at straws to try and draw a connection, but if they are not the same you can't say there is a parallel here.
"In other words, his being made immortal presupposes an anthropology where the body is crucial to humanity unlike those circles who adopted Platonism. "
- Yeah, so? That doesn't show a resurrection happened with these other figures.
"So Jesus had to be “resurrected” first."
- No, He could have just been assumed into heaven like Enoch or Elijah. He could have died like John the Baptist and vindicated by God. Resurrection was not something they were expecting until the end of time.
"The real question is, could a human be made immortal in the bodily sense? Any Jews say that? Yes! They said it of Enoch and others. "
- Yeah, but that doesn't mean you need a death and resurrection, which was the main point of Christianity.
"But all Jesus’ resurrection means is that he got his life back."
- Then you are admitting it is not the same as Elijah, who just never died. Again, the death and resurrection are what is essential to Christianity. Trying to say this is the same as someone who never died is missing the point and try too hard to generalize.
" The God who made him immortal is just another way of saying what happened to Jesus, is what happened to Enoch and the others."
- Again, Enoch did not die and did not come back to earth. It doesn't parallel.
Also, none of this addresses the evidence for the resurrection we go over in the video, nor does it offer a better explanation.
InspiringPhilosophy
I will reply later today
InspiringPhilosophy sorrry for the late reply-
Consider:
Tammuz, Attis, Adonis,Marduk Taus, Osiris et.al were worshiped as dying and rising gods long before Christianity. The Eucharist fits in more with the Dionysus sect than it does with Judaism. Even the Church philosopher Justin Martyr wrote that Satan came and invented stories of dying and rising gods to fool pagans into rejecting Christ as just another dying and rising god (Dialogue with Trypho). Also, Origin in Contra Celsus says the same thing. Which is more likely, that Christians got the Resurrection of Jesus from Pagans or vice versa? If you think that it was the opposite, then why did Justin et,al insist that the pagan mythemes came first?
Perseus was born of a virgin (Dialogue with Trypho).
Aeneas, Apollonius of Tyana, Chaitanya, Nityananda, Vallabha, Romulus, Aristaeus, Shankaracharya,and Empedocles were reported as ascending to heaven. Plato even mentions it in his Republic, which predates the Gospels by centuries.
The stories of Jesus bringing people back from the dead has precedents in the stories of Chariton, Apollonius of Tyana, and Elijah.
There are also way too many errors regarding basic Jewish culture in the entire NT: it was never unlawful to heal on the sabbath (see both Talmuds). The punishment for blaspheming Yahve was not crucifixion (the cross was a symbol for Tammuz) but rather stoning. There is not a shred of evidence that Pilate or the Jews released one criminal per year during Passover. It seems like that story was taken from Yom Kippur about the goats, one of which would be killed for the sins of the Israelites.
Nazareth was not a Roman province during the supposed "census" in the first place, so Joe and Mary had no reason to travel to Bethlehem. Mark was ignorant as to the names of Herod's brothers.The triumphal entry gets the festivities wrong. Said palm branches were not used for Passover but for the Festival of Tabernacles. Of course Mark, being a gentile convert, didn't know even that. Nor did he know how massive the Second Temple was (it was several football stadiums large and it wasn't even completed during the events narrated in the Gospels).
The Pharisaic sect had no religious authority. It may seem like a red herring but this shows other resurrection beliefs, and the cover ups of early Christians, also, to show the NT cannot provide accurate information surrounding the supposed events of Jesus.
"Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, Marduk Taus, Osiris et.al were worshiped as dying and rising gods long before Christianity. "
- I don't mean to be rude, but this is just not true:
ua-cam.com/video/S7-9aVdOKy0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/0Z996Ur3foY/v-deo.html
Justin Martyr actually thought pagans stole from Moses and modern scholars were not convinced by his arguments. He thinks Plato got his ideas from Moses and we know that is blatantly false. There is no evidence pagans believed in the Jewish belief of resurrection. Marduk, Inanna, Romulus, Tammuz, Adonis, etc., none these were resurrected.
All sources on Apollonius of Tyana date to the 2nd century and most scholars believe he is actually based on Jesus, ironically. Romulus was taken up t heaven in a whirlwind, which would correlate to Elijah, not Jesus.. As for Perseus, Zeus came to her as a shower of gold, and impregnated her. There was sex involved according to the legend.
Also, the Talmud actually represent later traditions. Most scholars recognize the traditions changed over time. Jesus was actually talking about Pharisee laws, not Talmud laws.
What ancient source says crucifixion was a symbol for Tammuz? Because I can find one.
As for releasing a prison, allow me to quote scholar Craig Evans, "The Mishnah (Jewish oral law and tradition committed to writing at the beginning of the third century) says that "they may slaughter [the Passover lamb] for one . . . whom they have promised out of prison" on the Passover (m. Pesahim 8:6) Who the "they" are is not made clear (Jewish authorities? Roman authorities?), but it is interesting that the promised release from prison is for the express purpose of taking part in the Passover observance. A papyrus (P.Flor 61, c. A.D. 85), quotes the words of the Romans governor of Egypt: "You were worthy of scourging . . . but I give you to the crowds." In his letters Pliny the Younger (early second century) says, "It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without any authority" (Epistles 10.31)."
- Fabricating Jesus, Pages 174-175.
As for painting the trial like Yom Kippup goats, Oral Tradition specialist, Albert Lord says, "Traditional narrators tend to tell what happened in terms of already existent patterns of story. Since the already existing patterns allow for many multiform and are the result of often repeated human experience, it is not difficult to adjust another special case to the flexibly interpreted story patterns... The fact that the entry (of Jesus) into Jerusalem, for example, fits an element of mythic pattern does not necessarily mean, however, that the event did not take place... On the contrary, I assume that it did take place, since I do not know otherwise, and that it was an incident that the traditional narrators chose to include, partly at least because its essence had a counterpart in other stories and was similar to the essence of an element in an existing story pattern... That its essence was consonant with an element in a traditional mythic (i.e., scared) pattern adds a dimension of spiritual weight to the incident, bit it does not deny (nor does it confirm, for that matter) the historicity of the incident." Other ancient historians like Tacitus also made use of this style, but never once have I heard a skeptic conclude that means Tacitus made things up. Dr. Rhiannon Ash says about Tacitus that he "...embeds such points in the very language which he uses," and uses "linguistic echoes and structural similarities." Check out "Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels" by Malina and Rohrbaugh. They say, "To be able to quote the tradition from memory, to apply it in creative or appropriate ways . . . not only brings honor to the speaker but lends authority to his words as well . . . Luke 1:68-79 is an example. It is slitched together from phrases of Psalms 41, 111, 132, 105, 106, and Micah 7... The ability to create ouch a mosaic implied extensive, detailed knowledge of the tradition and brought great honor to the speaker able to pull it off."
I could keep going on if you want.
Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what?
That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure!
That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow.
And in any case: If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring worship and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.
+lease2coach1 No, miracles do not break the laws of physics or violate anything in nature: ua-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/v-deo.html
And I have given more evidence, this is only the 6th argument for God's existence I am uploaded.
***** "miracle _noun_ a surprising and welcome event that is *not explicable by natural or scientific laws* and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."
Because if it _were_, you know, "explicable by natural or scientific laws" then we would tend to think of it as natural--extraordinarily rare, perhaps, but natural.
But, in any case, thanks for ignoring the main thrust of my post: a resurrection is not necessarily evidence for anything besides itself, and _nothing_ from ~2,000 years ago is automatically evidence for the _current_ existence of a being *with the potential to affect us*.
+lease2coach1 That definition you gave doesn't say, as you said in your first comment, that a miracle is, "breaking the laws of physics" and only confirmed my point.
A resurrection is evidence of divine agency acting in the physical world, since it is not "explicable by natural or scientific laws," and therefore must have come from elsewhere. So I don't see how your argument avoids this.
***** If it "come[s] from elsewhere," as you say, then it's not following natural or scientific laws. Hence it's breaking the laws of physics...actually a good working definition of "divine intervention," I'd say, as anything else could just be chalked up to nature.
But this will truly be my last comment on that point (you can have the last word!) because, once again, it's a distraction from the *main* point: "a resurrection is not necessarily evidence for anything besides itself, and nothing from ~2,000 years ago is automatically evidence for the _current_ existence of a being with the potential to affect us."
+lease2coach1 It is it beyond natural laws, then it is not breaking the laws, since it is not a natural thing, which is suppose to be bound by natural laws and can break them. I already refuted this definition:
ua-cam.com/video/2hQAi0u5Rs0/v-deo.html
Being beyond natural laws doesn't mean you break them if you act. Only followers of Hume use that incoherent definition, and I did a whole video refuting it.
And again, A resurrection is evidence of divine agency acting in the physical world, since it is not "explicable by natural or scientific laws," and therefore must have come from elsewhere. So I don't see how your argument avoids this.
I'm sorry but as usual, your video is filled to the BRIM with misinformation. Resurrection was a VERY common theme in ancient graeco-roman mythology.
For example, we have Aristeas of Proconnessus. According to Book 4 of Herodotus" The Histories", Aristeas was an ancient greek poet and sage who died, resurrected, and reappeared to people seven years after his body was declared dead and missing. Not only was he resurrected but according to Celsus and Plutarch he became immortal (notice the similarity to Jesus, who was also declared dead, had his body missing and then resurrected to physical immortality)
There's also the Aethiopian King Memnon who fought alongside Achilles but betrayed him later. According to the Iliad, Achilles killed Memnon and he stays dead. But in the epic "Aethiopis" (a later 7th-century bc sequel to the Iliad), Memnon was resurrected to physical immortality by Zeus at the request of his Titan mother Eos.
There's also the mythical King of Athens, Theseus, who, after dying, appeared 30 years later to assist the Athenians at the battle of Marathon. This is according to Pausanias, an ancient Greek geographer who wrote "A Description of Greece". In this work, Pausanias speaks of how Athenian art of the time depicted Theseus' return from the dead.
And let's not forget Alcestis who you actually mention in your video. This is a clear story of a person returning to bodily life on earth after being dead but you play word games and just call this resuscitation?! This is clearly resurrection just like Jesus (who is also believed to have descended to the Underworld like Alcestis and then resurrected). You characterizing this as just resuscitation is just wrong and an example of special pleading.
And i haven't even mentioned the many dying and rising god myths (Romulus, Osiris, Inanna, Asclepius, Zalmoxis, Dionysus and so on). Asclepius (Greek God of Medicine and healing) in particular was renowned for his power of resurrecting the dead. So much so that Zeus actually killed him because Hades complained that his resurrection power was taking people from the Underworld. Asclepius himself was later resurrected. You may disagree as to whether these stories influenced Christian belief but that's not really the point. The point is that there were many pre-Christian pagans who believed in the power of resurrection
Resurrection was a VERY common theme in ancient Greek religion. And wider Mediterranean religion. In fact the jews themselves adopted the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrianism! So the idea that resurrection was this unique Christian innovation is just wrong. Christianity was not this new radical movement that fundamentally challenged mainstream belief but rather Christianity was itself was an adaptation of pre-existing ideas frome within ancient Hellenistic and Jewish religion. To quote Dan Brown, "NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY IS ORIGINAl"
"The Histories", Aristeas was an ancient greek poet and sage who died, resurrected, and reappeared to people seven years after his body was declared dead and missing"
- This is just false and not true at all. The account doesn't say he was resurrected but that after he died his body went missing. He then is said to have appeared later as a ghost. Herodotus also says in the very next section he could not confirm this report at all in the region form where it came from and calls it hearsay.
"in the epic "Aethiopis"
- Actually, as far as we can say the Aethiopis never says Memnon was resurrected. Only five lines survive of the Aethiopis' original text. Later commentaries suggest it only says Memnon was made into an immortal, not physically resurrected.
"In this work, Pausanias speaks of how Athenian art of the time depicted Theseus' return from the dead."
- This postdates the gospels by almost 100 years, so it is irrelevant.
"This is a clear story of a person returning to bodily life on earth after being dead but you play word games and just call this resuscitation? This is clearly resurrection just like Jesus (who is also believed to have descended to the Underworld like Alcestis and then resurrected)."
- Where do the gospels say Jesus went to Hades after He died? And it is not the same thing since Alcestis comes back to life like the child Elijah raised or like Lazarus. No one today denies returning to life was believed among ancient people, but they were brought back into normal bodies, unlike what happened to Jesus. You cannot commit a hasty generalization.
'And i haven't even mentioned the many dying and rising god myths (Romulus, Osiris, Inanna, Asclepius, Zalmoxis, Dionysus and so on)."
- Yeah, I have addressed these: ua-cam.com/video/5FR08QtvapM/v-deo.html
"Asclepius (Greek God of Medicine and healing) in particular was renowned for his power of resurrecting the dead. "
- This is false. Asclepius healed people with an herb. He had no power, and he only resuscitated them.
"Asclepius himself was later resurrected."
- No source says this. The closest that comes to it Ovid and he only implies Asclepius was placed among the stars, not a physical return to life.
"The point is that there were many pre-Christian pagans who believed in the power of resurrection"
- No, and I have looked at the original sources. None of them say "Anastasis" (resurrection).
"In fact the jews themselves adopted the idea of resurrection from Zoroastrianism"
- This is false: ua-cam.com/video/3x6aOBqc9d0/v-deo.html
We have no way of even verifying this because the Avesta can only date to the 4th century AD.
"To quote Dan Brown, "NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY IS ORIGINAl""
- The fact that you quote Dan Brown says it all. Try looking at original sources like I have. That guy has no clue what he is talking about.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Herodotus is very clear from his description that Aristeas of Proconessus was resurrected. Here's the full text: " Aristeas, they said, who belonged to one of the noblest families in the island, had entered one day into a fuller's shop, when he suddenly dropt down dead...Seven years afterwards he reappeared, they told me, in Proconnesus, and wrote the poem called by the Greeks The Arimaspeia, after which he disappeared a second time...What follows I know to have happened to the Metapontines of
Italy, three hundred and forty years after the second disappearance of Aristeas" So contrary to what you wrongly say, ancient greeks believed Aristeas DID resurrect and appeared to several people long after his death. And the text never really says he was a disembodied "ghost". Herodotus only says the Metapontines thought of him as a ghost. But if they were right (which i don't think they were), why would his body go missing unless it was a physical resurrection? And just because he dismisses this story as hearsay that doesn't mean there weren't people who still believed it. Whether the story is true or not doesn't matter. All that matters is that there were people before christians who believed in a resurrected figure.
Likewise, Memnon WAS believed to have resurrected. Yes the Aethiopis survives mostly in fragments but from the little we do have we know Memnon was made immortal by Zeus after having died. Hugh G Evelyn-White, a british archaeologist translated the Aethiopis fragments in his 4 page work "Homerica: The Aethiopis (Fragments)" Here's a quote from Homerica: "The "Cypria", described in the preceding book, has its sequel in the "Iliad" of Homer, which is followed in turn by the five books of the "Aethiopis", the work of Arctinus of Miletus. Their contents are as follows...A battle takes place in which Antilochus is slain by Memnon and Memnon by Achilles. Eos then obtains of Zeus and bestows upon her son immortality"
And as for Pausanias describing Theseus' resurrection, your response is ridiculous. SO WHAT if the Pausanias post-dates the gospels. Just because he writes about Theseus after 100 AD, that doesn't mean his story of Theseus isn't any older. He may write after 100 AD but the story is still much older than that. It's very ridiculous to believe that the Gospels could've influenced Pausanias' writing in any way. Why would an educated Greek geographer who never even spoke about Christianity be influenced by the anonymous unsourced gospel texts of the small, uninfluential, unknown, and unliked religion that was early christianity. That is highly highly improbable and shouldn't even be raised as an argument.
You also said " No one today denies returning to life was believed among ancient people, but they were brought back into normal bodies, unlike what happened to Jesus" This one statement goes against everything you just said in this video. You made it very clear that NO ancient pagans believed in resurrection. In the video, you just said 1:32 to 1:38 that " Pagans didn't believe it was possible to come back from the dead. From Homer to Plato, All ancient pagans knew one thing. Death was a one-way street" But now you're saying no one denies they believed people could return from the dead but their bodies were different? Where was this in the video? What kind of body they had is irrelevant anyway. All that matters was that they had A body to begin with as opposed to just being a ghost. And with the case of Aristeas and Memnon, they were also clearly given immortal bodies like Jesus. So not all of them had "normal bodies"
And as for Asclepius, Ovid actually writes concerning Asclepius " Human beings will often be in your debt, and you will have the right to restore the dead. But if ever it is done regardless of the god’s displeasure you will be stopped, by the flame of your grandfather’s lightning bolt, from doing so again. From a god you will turn to a bloodless corpse, and then to a god who was a corpse, and so twice renew your fate." This is resurrection. Yes other traditions claimed he was just turned into a star but others, like in the case of Ovid, thought otherwise. All that matters is that there were people who BELIEVED he was resurrected. And if you disagree with that you should still agree that Asclepius had the power to resurrect people at the very least.
So as we can see from all these examples, its extremely clear that the ancients believed dead people could be restored to life. Some even obtained immortality after resurrection. In fact Celsus even mentions other resurrected deities in his writings against Christianity such as Zalmoxis, Pythagoras, Hercules and so on. The Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, even says "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus" in chapter 69 of his work "Dialogue Against Trypho". He even (and in my opinion humorously) goes on to say that Satan went back in time to create those myths so they could discredit christianity. Thereby showing he acknowledged these resurrection stories were prechristian. Just because pagans didn't necessarily use the word Anastasis in these stories doesn't mean they weren't still talking about the same thing. I don't see how their word choice has any relevance.
So again, Christianity is not original. I agree Dan Brown doesn't know what he's talking about. He's not very literate in christian history but he is right on that one statement which is why i quoted it. And i have looked at original sources by the way.
“So contrary to what you wrongly say, ancient greeks believed Aristeas DID resurrect and appeared to several people long after his death”
- That doesn’t say he resurrected. it says he appeared, which ghosts and gods often did. Read what Herodotus says right after this, “Aristeas then, as the Metapontines affirm, appeared to them in their own country, and ordered them to set up an altar in honour of Apollo, and to place near it a statue to be called that of Aristeas the Proconnesian. "Apollo," he told them, "had come to their country once, though he had visited no other Italiots; and he had been with Apollo at the time, not however in his present form, but in the shape of a crow." Having said so much, he vanished. Then the Metapontines, as they relate, sent to Delphi, and inquired of the god in what light they were to regard the appearance of this ghost of a man.” So it does say “ghost” and never says anastasis (resurrected). No where does Herodotus imply anyone thought a resurrected occurred, but that he came back with Apollo as a ghost.
“Yes the Aethiopis survives mostly in fragments but from the little we do have we know Memnon was made immortal by Zeus after having died.”
- This does not refer to a physical resurrected, but being made into a god.
“Their contents are as follows...A battle takes place in which Antilochus is slain by Memnon and Memnon by Achilles. Eos then obtains of Zeus and bestows upon her son immortality””
- Yeah, this happened at lot, see Hercules or Asclepius. This is not a resurrection, as it is never described as that, but either being placed among stars or being immortalized as a spirit like a god.
“Just because he writes about Theseus after 100 AD, that doesn't mean his story of Theseus isn't any older.”
- Speculation at best. You need to show it is, not assume it.
“He may write after 100 AD but the story is still much older than that.”
- evidence, please. Also, where does Pausanias describe Theseus as anastasis (resurrected)? I can’t find it.
“You made it very clear that NO ancient pagans believed in resurrection.”
- Yep, because resurrection is different than a resuscitation. A resuscitation means you get a second chance in your body, but you eventually die anyway.
“And with the case of Aristeas and Memnon, they were also clearly given immortal bodies like Jesus.”
- Where does it say bodies in those accounts. Herodotus doesn’t not believe Aristeas was physical because he reports he took different forms, like the form of a crow, “he had been with Apollo at the time, not however in his present form, but in the shape of a crow.”
“This is resurrection. Yes other traditions claimed he was just turned into a star but others, like in the case of Ovid, thought otherwise”
- This isa quote mine. Ovid doesn’t say a physical resurrection (anastsis) happened and he even spells out just prior to this what he meant when he said Zeus brought him back to life. "The youth [Acslepius] blasted by ancestral bolts [of Zeus] rises from earth [i.e. rising as the constellation Ophiuchus] and flings his hands coiled with double snakes …” (Ovid, Fasti 6.735)
“Zeus feared the precedent and aimed his thunderbolt at the man who employed excessive art. Phoebus [Apollon], you whined. He is a god; smile at your father, who, for your sake, undoes his prohibitions [i.e. when he obtains immortality for Asklepios]."
-762
This reading correlates with what other accounts said happened in the legend. For example, a later text, Pseudo-Hyginus (Astronomica 2.14) said Asclepius was put among the stars. Scholars also agree with this interpretation:
Emma and Ludwing Edelstein said, “… Eratosthenes asserts that Asclepius, the son of Apollo and Coronis, he whom Zeus killed with his thunderbolt, eventually became a star (T.704a).”
(Asclepius: Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, Volume 1, Page 51)
Sabine G. Oswalt said, “As for Asclepius, it is said that he was made immortal, and Apollo set his image among the stars as Serpentarius, the snakebearer.” (Concise encyclopedia of Greek and Roman mythology, Page 47)
Theony Condos said, “[Ophiuchus] is said to be Asclepius, whom Zeus placed among the stars to oblige Apollo.”
(Star Myths of the Greeks and Romans, Page 141)
“Some even obtained immortality after resurrection.”
- You have still failed to show one example of a dead person in pagan literature being anastasis (resurrected).
“Celsus even mentions other resurrected deities in his writings against Christianity such as Zalmoxis, Pythagoras, Hercules and so on. “
- And Celsus’s words do not match with earlier sources, much like you, he is exaggerated things that are not there.
“The Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, even says “”
- Yeah, this is nonsense and has ben debunked if you just read the full context of justin Martyr: ua-cam.com/video/Yqf3OvKqG6E/v-deo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy But Aristeas actually wasn't a ghost. Yes, the word "ghost" is mentioned but from the way Herodotus uses it, he seems to be talking from the perspective of the Metapontines when he says "ghost". The Metapontines, when consulting Delphi, were the ones who mistakenly characterized him as ghost because of his sudden appearance and disappearance. Much like how Jesus was mistakenly thought to be a ghost. But when you read the whole passage, the only sensible conclusion is that Aristeas was physically resurrected. Otherwise, why would his body go missing (again just like Jesus)? And as for Aristeas being a crow, its not unlikely that after his resurrection, he gained special abilities in addition to being immortal. Even Jesus had powers after being resurrected. Like possibly walking through walls (John 20:19)
When speaking of Memnon, you say "This does not refer to a physical resurrected, but being made into a god. " Actually Aethiopis (or any greek text that i know of for that matter) never say he's a god. But putting that aside how is this any different from Jesus. The text clearly says Memnon died (after being slain by Achilles) was restored to life as an immortal being. Just like Jesus. How is this not resurrection? All you've simply done is just assert without explanation that this is not resurrection. I really don't know what other word you can call this. You seem to have a very unreasonably specific idea of what resurrection is. You choose to be overly specific about resurrection by questioning what kind of body they had, whether they were made immortal, or if the author used the specific words like "Anastasis" or "body". None of that matters. You limit the concept of resurrection in a very ad hoc way to support your pre-conceived Christian beliefs. In its simplest form, resurrection simply means restoration to bodily life. Under this definition, many mortals, demigods, and gods have been resurrected.
You also said concerning Pausanias, that i have to provide proof that he wasn't influenced by Christians. I don't have to PROVE ANYTHING! YOU are the one making the very improbable claim that a man who never even spoke of christians was influenced by their writings in a time when they were small, uninfluential, unknown, and unliked. Why would anyone want to mimic such an obscure religion like early christianity. You have to prove that case. Maybe if Pausanias wrote in the 4th or 5th century you'd have a point. Christianity was a very influential and politically powerful religion at those times. Not the second century (when Pausanias writes). Also Pausanias himself doesn't say in his own words he believed Theseus rose but says instead says that Athenian art depicts him as rising from the world of the dead to aid the Athenians. Here's the citation. Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.15.3. It says " At the end of the painting are those who fought at Marathon...Here is also a portrait of the hero Marathon, after whom the plain is named, of Theseus represented as coming up from the under-world, of Athena and of Heracles. " Or do you also ridiculously believe christianity was so popular in second-century Athens, that they made art mimic christian scenes like the resurrection?
And as for Asclepius, you keep saying he was made into a star as if that somehow precludes this from being counted as a resurrection. Its also as if you think being turned into a star meant he was some kind of inanimate object (correct me if i'm wrong in assuming thats how you see Asclepius transformation to a star). Asclepius was killed by Zeus but was transformed into a star because of complaints from Appollo. His bodily transformation into a star IS his resurrection. THAT was his immortality. Just like how Jesus was given a glorified body after his resurrection, Asclepius' corpse was resurrected and transformed into a glorious star. "You, now divine, shall be a LIFELESS CORPSE, and FROM A CORPSE become divine again, and twice you shall renew your destiny." I really don't see how thats different from Jesus' resurrection to divinity . Jesus' resurrection body just wasn't a star. Otherwise, there's no difference in how they were resurrected. So yes you're right that Asclepius became a star but that's exactly what his resurrection body was. Other gods were immortal stars or heavenly bodies too. Like Astrea, Venus and Helios.
And as for Justin Martyr, i actually watched the full video you gave me. The entire video is correct in saying that Justin didn't believe christians adopted their beliefs from Pagans. But that's not the argument i (or possibly even Dan Barker) was making. All i'm saying is that Justin says there pagans who believed in resurrection stories similar to Jesus. NOT that christians derived their beliefs from pagans. The video debunks the latter statement but not the former. And its the former that i'm arguing for. There were pagans who believed in the resurrection and justin mentions them. Justin even uses it show the hypocrisy of Romans for persecuting christians when the pagans believe similar stories. So far from saying that resurrection was an uncommon if not impossible thing in ancient graeco roman religion, Justin actually contradicts you, IP, by listing many examples of resurrection stories.
“the only sensible conclusion is that Aristeas was physically resurrected”
- Again, Herodotus doesn’t say that and such a thing is never reported. So you cannot draw that conclusion. The only thing we have to go on is people say his ghost after he died. Nowhere does Herodotus say “anastasis”
“Otherwise, why would his body go missing (again just like Jesus)?”
- When Elijah’s body went missing no one suggested a resurrection. Again, to claim a resurrection with Aristeas is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t claim that and Herodotus even admits right after this section in Book 4 these tales of Aristeas cannot be confirmed and called them hearsay. Yet you want to claim this is definitely evidence people thought he was resurrected? Give me one line where it says anastasis.
“The text clearly says Memnon died (after being slain by Achilles) was restored to life as an immortal being.”
- Because immortalization in pagan literature never meant “anastasis” in the 1st century or prior and I am still waiting on one source from you. You are just committing hasty generalizations.
“How is this not resurrection? All you've simply done is just assert without explanation that this is not resurrection”
- Because it doesn’t say that. You are committing a hasty generalization. They never said “anastasis”. This is why 99% of scholars do not think there were resurrected gods like Jesus. It is only Jesus mythicists who claim this.
“You seem to have a very unreasonably specific idea of what resurrection is. You choose to be overly specific about resurrection by questioning what kind of body they had,”
- Yeah… because it the details do not match you don’t have a parallel, all you have is a logical fallacy of a hasty generalization. Plus, even if you could find a deity that was “anastasis” you then need to show a connection. Correlation is not causation. All you have done so far is pattern seeking, which is the same tactic ancient astronaut proponents use or 911 truthers. You have to do more than just generalize on patterns you think are there.
“You limit the concept of resurrection in a very ad hoc way to support your pre-conceived Christian beliefs.”
- No, I limit it to how it is actually defined. I don’t generalize and claim immortalization is a resurrection. People claim to see the Virgin Mary (I am skeptical of these claims), we don’t have her body, but no one says she was resurrected like with Jesus, just that she is immortalized in heaven. For some odd reason, you want to expand the definition of “anastasis” in a way it was never defined so you can shoehorn pagan deities into the category. That is a hasty generalization.
“You also said concerning Pausanias, that i have to provide proof that he wasn't influenced by Christians. I don't have to PROVE ANYTHING!”
- Yes, you do. You are making positive claims that there were other resurrected gods, yet cannot give good evidence to support those claims, let along show how correlation is causation. You need to back up your claims. You don’t get to say something then expect it to be accepted without skepticism.
“YOU are the one making the very improbable claim that a man who never even spoke of christians”
- Where did I say that?
“Also Pausanias himself doesn't say in his own words he believed Theseus rose but says instead says that Athenian art depicts him as rising from the world of the dead to aid the Athenians.”
- And it doesn’t say “anastasis” does it? You do realize no Hellenistic scholar says this is a resurrection “anastasis”?
“Asclepius was killed by Zeus but was transformed into a star because of complaints from Appollo. His bodily transformation into a star IS his resurrection.”
- Yet again, another example of a hasty generalization. There is a reason no Greco-roman scholar says this is a resurrection, because it is not. You don’t get to redefine a word (anastasis) to be broader than they actually were. That is the very definition of being ad hoc.
“Asclepius' corpse was resurrected and transformed into a glorious star.”
- That is not a resurrection, Mark Smith that is an astralization.
“So yes you're right that Asclepius became a star but that's exactly what his resurrection body was.”
- What??? That is not a resurrection. If you are a star you are not returned to life in your body in a glorified state. Again, there is a reason no Hellenist scholar makes this claim.
“All i'm saying is that Justin says there pagans who believed in resurrection stories similar to Jesus.”
- But he doesn’t actually say that and even if Justin did he would be incorrect. Scholars do not see “anastasis” outside of Christian or Jewish literature in that time period or prior. Justin is purposely fully generalizing so he won’t die.
“Justin actually contradicts you, IP, by listing many examples of resurrection stories.”
- Name one where a pagan deity died and was resurrected and they described it as “Anastasis”
One thing Moses was no a martyr. Love your videos.
This still doesn't prove the resurrection theory. As far as ur point about hallucinations. From from science today when loved ones die people claim they physically see that loved one. So just because the Christian belief is different from all other beliefs doesn't make it true it just makes it different.
+E JM Different doesn't infer they are also hallucinations.
+InspiringPhilosophy and because Christianities resurrection is different than pagan gods resurrection without proof of Jesus's resurrection doesn't make ur claim true.
My point is that science proves we people today can experience what is written in text of the Bible that they claim to have experienced. Only difference is today we have an explanation for that.
Resurrection and a lot of the other characteristics of Jesus are not unique to only him.
E JM Science proves what people can experience? How do you know this? have you experienced every life?
And see this video. Pagans didn't claim resurrection was possible or believe in resurrection human-gods. That theory doesn't thrive in scholarship.
+InspiringPhilosophy Science proves and there have been experiments done where people say they physically saw a deceased loved one and we know where this activity happens in the brain. So it's no longer a mystery or that person is divine. We no longer think of that in those terms, they are hallucinations.
+InspiringPhilosophy Most characteristics of pagan gods like Hurus and such claim resurrection.
No dying and rising gods before jesus. Sure if you discout the other myths because they are slightly different from your myth. Why is quoting Christians "evidence"? Do you think what you are saying is convincing?
+Mc_Pyro No, they're aren't any... Any of these supposed dying and rising god claims that thrive on the internet are laughed at by real scholars. Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Romulus, etc., are all lied about on the internet and are in no way true:
www.kingdavid8.com/_full_article.php?id=fe54916c-64bc-11e1-8f66-6067e33f8f11
You can add jesus to the list that is lied about and not true. Your link is pointless comparing people that there is reliable historical evidence for to people there is not. I looked at some of the listed gods and why they are wrong on that list it says there is evidence that isis was a virgin I am pretty sure isis is mythical. Why do Christians think attacking a different position proves their own?
+Mc_Pyro You are just changing your argument now. First Jesus was a copycat, no Jesus is just another myth. Again, I refuted that in part 2 and in this series, so that is just not true: ua-cam.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY.html
2:49 WTH?
Dieing and risen Messiah(the King messiah) is not from the O T!
There isn't even ONE prophesie about it!
Yeah, that is the point. See the video.
***** Halleluja!!!סוף סוף!!!finely!!!
***** If a dead and risen Messiah the king isn't in the O.T---than clearly it's not the word of God!!
The entire revelation of God and from God is in the O.T!
עמיחי אלימלך Nothing in there contradicts what Jesus did. You are just assuming your position is already true. The evidence shows Jesus rose from the dead and therefore it vindicated what He said.
***** The ressuraction proves NOTING,because God in the O.T never say "the resurraction of the servant will proves his claims".
The only prove that A is the Messiah is the fullfilmant of....Jer 23+33,Ezekiel 37,Isaiah 11,Zec 9;9-10.
You can't prove that your sins were forgiven.
Jesus:i will be dead 3 days and 3 nights.
Let's see.
Friday-1 day
Saturnday-2 day 1 night.
Sunday-2 day 2 night.
Jesus lied...a lier can't be the Messiah.
Why Jesus after the RES didn't reviel himself infront of the Sanhedrin and/or infront of 1000ds of Jews?
Jesus was buried in an unknown tomb,his folowers saw AN empty tomb and believed that he was resurrected.
The rumor that Jesus was resurrected was known only after a very long time, and the body of Jesus had already rotted beyond recognition and the Romans had no point to take it out from the grave, and show that Jesus was dead.
"YOU LIERS!!THIS IS NOT JESUS!"
Matthew lied about the tomb gurds!
Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity. read his books ...such as God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer
The Bible doesn't fail to reply to the problem of pain, but I understand how some readers might not glean the answer, or might be unsatisfied with it. It's an old problem, and a tough one, but not insurmountable.
@@gregorya1179 Yes it was not well elaborated in the Bible ...
An individual approached the Blessed one and ask//
“The inner tangle and the outer tangle-
GENERATIONS( Hindus vs Muslims,Jews vs Christians,Muslims vs Jews) are entangled in a tangle.
And so I ask of YOU this question:
Who succeeds in disentangling this tangle?
( Tangle ..Network of craving .. CRAVING upon wealth, career sexual desires, the lead to suffering )
When a wise man, established well in VIRTUE ,
Develops consciousness and understanding,
Then as a Bhikkhu ardent and sagacious
He succeeds in disentangling this tangle”..means getting away from suffering
Hell yes!
Hell... No! Heaven... Yes!
I find the no one was looking for, or this would have been shameful, or any similar arguments really unconvincing even as a Christian…. Because if you are lying or manipulating things the fact that it wouldn’t be expected or that it was shameful could still be part of the calculus for convincing people because then you get to run around saying this isn’t what you expect a liar, a Jew, or a follower to say so it must be true…. Being contrary to *your* expectations is not evidence of honesty.
Priam was a man, not a woman.
if steven hocking is so smart y he cant walk
If Jesus was raised from the dead than he was not dead. Its all an overanalyzed fairy tale.
Moore Jeff after an unbelievable beating, torturing, and traspassing a spear through his lungs he was not dead.
Ok.
How do you "know" that this even happend?
@@riebenzahl-524 Have you read the historical records? They mention all of this. It's a typical Crucifixion.
@@Software.Engineer
What historical records confirm especially this Event?
He literally flipped around the total lack of evidence for a resurrected messiah in Judaism into an argument for a resurrected messiah. Just because a group became convinced that Jesus was the messiah and came up with ad hoc reasoning for why he didn't do anything the messiah was supposed to do doesn't make him the messiah. It shows they were desperately trying to explain something that can't happen to the messiah by cherry picking the old testament and their own hallucinations.
Really well presented though it is, the content of this is absolute embarrassing rubbish. Why can't theists see that their sky fairy storybook is not a source of evidence that can be used to prove itself?
Then it should be easy to explain all the data with a better explanation.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Just another guy who wants secular historians to mention Christ's Resurrection, when 3/4 of those historians hated Christianity with all their hearts and yet, still, this atheist above expects those historians to admit the greatest claim of Christianity.
Not just an argument from silence, but also non-sensical demand.
Rising from the dead myth goes back to the Osiris story of ancient Egypt.
That has been thoroughly debunked my friend
ua-cam.com/video/0Z996Ur3foY/v-deo.html
He already debunked this