Can you do a video on how the church is visible, is the body with Jesus the head, and is united? (unlike the protestant view that the church is invisible, and is each person individually: how can individual be the pillars and foundation of truth?)
I was just thinking yesterday how much the Catholic Church has revolutionized my understanding of the Body of Christ. This is a wonderful suggestion and definitely a video I plan to record in the near future. Thank you for this!
@@jd3jefferson556 Saint John was not executed but was a "white martyr" still persecuted and imprisoned for his faith but there were many other non apostles who followed Jesus who were myrtyred for example Saint Photini (The Samaratan woman at the well, martyred under Nero)
At 8:41 you have on screen that the gospels don't start with literary devices like "once upon a time." The beginning of the Gospel of John is as far removed from the ordinary reporting of history (such as your example from Luke) as you can get. "In the beginning" is an awful lot like "once upon a time."
it's actually nothing like that - it's actually John capturing the creation theology of Genesis and applying to the new creation wrought in Christ. I also just mentioned one example of the historical rootedness of the gospels - but it was a 10 minute video. Had I made a video just for all the historical markers in the gospels that distinguish them from fiction, that alone would have taken an hour or more.
@@midairfortress-revert While "in the beginning" is the operative phrase, "John capturing the creation theology of Genesis" is the literary flourish that it introduces. John 1:1-18 is all theology and no documentary-style narrative. That particular gospel goes on to describe lengthy private prayers and conversations from a physically unavailable 3rd-person perspective. It also contains an apparently apocryphal account (John 8:1-11) that has been inserted into the text after it was written. It even has a cheeky epilogue about how much more there is to tell. John is literature, through and through. I understand that in a short video, you can't give a comprehensive argument. I just found it fascinating that your example was so specifically and directly contradicted by John 1.
Anyone who has invested any actual intelligent thought on the actual facts of ancient history know at least one thing: the gospel have none of the indicators of being anything other than straightforward historical accounts.
It’s still just a story, w/ the NT written by anonymous authors in a different culture & in a different language. Nothing we might refer to as contemporary. If it were real - knowledge of it wouldn’t require faith.
I noticed the graphic that contrasts "hallucinations" and "appearances" at 6:14 incorporates details that are not part of the agreed-upon historical facts at the beginning. It's not fair to go from "the disciples experienced what they also thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus" to "and they occurred as described in Acts and the gospels" Can you elaborate on the consensus of historical fact #3? Which disciples are historically agreed to have had experiences?
You'll first explain need to explain why it is "not fair to go from 'the disciples experienced what they also thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus' to 'and they occurred as described in Acts and the gospels.'" The gospels are widely considered within academia to be historical reliable documents, even by those who reject divine inspiration. So it's quite fair to include them as part of the record that helps form the basic facts of history regarding the resurrection.
@@midairfortress-revert it's not fair because you began with a list of limited, agreed-upon facts under the pretense that you can build your case on them. If the details of the gospels aren't in your ingredients list, you shouldn't be cooking with them. "The gospels are widely considered within academia to be historically reliable documents..." You mean it is acknowledged that specific details like names of rulers and geographic details are realistic for the setting? There is absolutely no consensus that the contents of the gospels are generally true. As if scholars agree that the transfiguration took place and Moses and Elijah appeared on the mountain? That Jesus fed thousands with a boy's lunch? You can't be serious.
Well, this isn't a serious objection but I'll play along. Go ahead and offer your explanation of how cognitive dissonance explains the death of Christ (historical fact), the empty tomb (historical fact), or the immediate preaching of the resurrection precluding the time needed for legendary development (also an historical fact).
The empty tomb is not a historical fact. Neither is "immediate preaching". This and "This isn't a serious objection" means that you're determined to reject any and every explanation I'd offer - chances are higher that I'll convince Ken Ham that evolution theory. You didn't say your "we need an adequate naturalistic explanation" in good faith. So you'll have to play on your own. Thanks for exposing yourself as just another intellectually dishonest apologist.
Almost forgot. The burden of proof rests upon you. You assert that all naturalistic explanations fail. You immediately trying to shift this also demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. So again thanks.
Because Thor offered himself for your sins? Because Superman paid for your redemption from death and eternal separation from God? Or because you really like movies with overdone CGI? : )
Probably not the strongest criticism, but a quote from noted apologist C. S. Lewis is less helpful to your case than a critical scholar, or something that *shows* how the gospels aren't legends, rather than just *asserts* it.
@@midairfortress-revert like I said, not the strongest criticism. Just saying that an assertion from an apologist doesn't add any weight to the point you're trying to make. A quote of similar length from a different person or with a point other than "trust me, bro" would have been better.
2. Paul's vision is indistinguishable from a hallucination, but he was convinced 3. I don't know about "historical fact", but its pretty reasonable that some did believe he was risen. 4. record of a resurrection is first in Paul's letters in the 50s. "Exceptionally early" is not a fact. 5. I'm not sure James(the brother) was a skeptic, that's not the way I read it. And I think its FAR from a historical fact. (Cite a historian?) 6. This is not a historical fact. "utterly transformed by conviction" nor willing to die for the belief. Especially not for ALL, very reasonable to say that at least one of them was though. And on the explanations: Why didn't the apostles expect a risen Jesus? He was predicting it for days right? At least they were primed for it. Your next set of explanations seems to require a LOT of additional "facts" than your 6. Outline: 1. No apostles ever recanted when put under duress (no citation, not historical, just church tradition) 2. Either the NT doesn't have discrepancies or it does, pick one. 3. Jews/Romans had a request or reason to produce the body or thought it would be useful at the time and were unable to do so 4. Apostles made public proclamations of resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after death. 5. That all 11 apostles claimed witness to the resurrection. 6. Contemporary critics understood gospel accounts to be historical 7. That fantastic/supernatural claims alongside historical details wouldn't have been seen as "story" like the Illiad. The problem is that small cults/groups who are willing to die for their belief about the supernatural are all over the place, evolve quickly and largely dismissed. Even if 11 people being tortured to death claimed they were abducted by aliens, I wouldn't take that as proof of alien abduction. If the only record of these testimonies and torture was in a alien abduction support group I'd be even more skeptical.
Can you do a video on how the church is visible, is the body with Jesus the head, and is united? (unlike the protestant view that the church is invisible, and is each person individually: how can individual be the pillars and foundation of truth?)
I was just thinking yesterday how much the Catholic Church has revolutionized my understanding of the Body of Christ. This is a wonderful suggestion and definitely a video I plan to record in the near future. Thank you for this!
Worth pointing out that myth makers do not make great martyrs and most of the Apostles were martyred.
All but 1 correct?
@@jd3jefferson556 Saint John was not executed but was a "white martyr" still persecuted and imprisoned for his faith but there were many other non apostles who followed Jesus who were myrtyred for example Saint Photini (The Samaratan woman at the well, martyred under Nero)
@@BensWorkshop I need St Photini in my life. Thanks for that
@@jd3jefferson556 You are welcome. Converted Nero's daughter too!
@BensWorkshop no way. That's interesting, I hope that's true
At 8:41 you have on screen that the gospels don't start with literary devices like "once upon a time." The beginning of the Gospel of John is as far removed from the ordinary reporting of history (such as your example from Luke) as you can get. "In the beginning" is an awful lot like "once upon a time."
it's actually nothing like that - it's actually John capturing the creation theology of Genesis and applying to the new creation wrought in Christ. I also just mentioned one example of the historical rootedness of the gospels - but it was a 10 minute video. Had I made a video just for all the historical markers in the gospels that distinguish them from fiction, that alone would have taken an hour or more.
@@midairfortress-revert While "in the beginning" is the operative phrase, "John capturing the creation theology of Genesis" is the literary flourish that it introduces. John 1:1-18 is all theology and no documentary-style narrative. That particular gospel goes on to describe lengthy private prayers and conversations from a physically unavailable 3rd-person perspective. It also contains an apparently apocryphal account (John 8:1-11) that has been inserted into the text after it was written. It even has a cheeky epilogue about how much more there is to tell. John is literature, through and through.
I understand that in a short video, you can't give a comprehensive argument. I just found it fascinating that your example was so specifically and directly contradicted by John 1.
Dude, it's a fable....allegory. As real as Hector vs Achilles.
Anyone who has invested any actual intelligent thought on the actual facts of ancient history know at least one thing: the gospel have none of the indicators of being anything other than straightforward historical accounts.
It’s still just a story, w/ the NT written by anonymous authors in a different culture & in a different language. Nothing we might refer to as contemporary. If it were real - knowledge of it wouldn’t require faith.
I noticed the graphic that contrasts "hallucinations" and "appearances" at 6:14 incorporates details that are not part of the agreed-upon historical facts at the beginning. It's not fair to go from "the disciples experienced what they also thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus" to "and they occurred as described in Acts and the gospels"
Can you elaborate on the consensus of historical fact #3? Which disciples are historically agreed to have had experiences?
You'll first explain need to explain why it is "not fair to go from 'the disciples experienced what they also thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus' to 'and they occurred as described in Acts and the gospels.'" The gospels are widely considered within academia to be historical reliable documents, even by those who reject divine inspiration. So it's quite fair to include them as part of the record that helps form the basic facts of history regarding the resurrection.
@@midairfortress-revert it's not fair because you began with a list of limited, agreed-upon facts under the pretense that you can build your case on them. If the details of the gospels aren't in your ingredients list, you shouldn't be cooking with them.
"The gospels are widely considered within academia to be historically reliable documents..."
You mean it is acknowledged that specific details like names of rulers and geographic details are realistic for the setting? There is absolutely no consensus that the contents of the gospels are generally true. As if scholars agree that the transfiguration took place and Moses and Elijah appeared on the mountain? That Jesus fed thousands with a boy's lunch? You can't be serious.
All six facts have a fine naturalistic explanation: cognitive dissonance.
Well, this isn't a serious objection but I'll play along. Go ahead and offer your explanation of how cognitive dissonance explains the death of Christ (historical fact), the empty tomb (historical fact), or the immediate preaching of the resurrection precluding the time needed for legendary development (also an historical fact).
The empty tomb is not a historical fact. Neither is "immediate preaching". This and "This isn't a serious objection" means that you're determined to reject any and every explanation I'd offer - chances are higher that I'll convince Ken Ham that evolution theory. You didn't say your "we need an adequate naturalistic explanation" in good faith. So you'll have to play on your own.
Thanks for exposing yourself as just another intellectually dishonest apologist.
Almost forgot. The burden of proof rests upon you. You assert that all naturalistic explanations fail. You immediately trying to shift this also demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. So again thanks.
If I'm going to believe in a god, I'd rather pick Thor or Superman. At least I get good value for the money.
Because Thor offered himself for your sins? Because Superman paid for your redemption from death and eternal separation from God? Or because you really like movies with overdone CGI? : )
Probably not the strongest criticism, but a quote from noted apologist C. S. Lewis is less helpful to your case than a critical scholar, or something that *shows* how the gospels aren't legends, rather than just *asserts* it.
it's a 10 minute video not a tome?
@@midairfortress-revert like I said, not the strongest criticism. Just saying that an assertion from an apologist doesn't add any weight to the point you're trying to make. A quote of similar length from a different person or with a point other than "trust me, bro" would have been better.
2. Paul's vision is indistinguishable from a hallucination, but he was convinced 3. I don't know about "historical fact", but its pretty reasonable that some did believe he was risen. 4. record of a resurrection is first in Paul's letters in the 50s. "Exceptionally early" is not a fact. 5. I'm not sure James(the brother) was a skeptic, that's not the way I read it. And I think its FAR from a historical fact. (Cite a historian?) 6. This is not a historical fact. "utterly transformed by conviction" nor willing to die for the belief. Especially not for ALL, very reasonable to say that at least one of them was though. And on the explanations: Why didn't the apostles expect a risen Jesus? He was predicting it for days right? At least they were primed for it. Your next set of explanations seems to require a LOT of additional "facts" than your 6. Outline: 1. No apostles ever recanted when put under duress (no citation, not historical, just church tradition) 2. Either the NT doesn't have discrepancies or it does, pick one. 3. Jews/Romans had a request or reason to produce the body or thought it would be useful at the time and were unable to do so 4. Apostles made public proclamations of resurrection in Jerusalem shortly after death. 5. That all 11 apostles claimed witness to the resurrection. 6. Contemporary critics understood gospel accounts to be historical 7. That fantastic/supernatural claims alongside historical details wouldn't have been seen as "story" like the Illiad.
The problem is that small cults/groups who are willing to die for their belief about the supernatural are all over the place, evolve quickly and largely dismissed. Even if 11 people being tortured to death claimed they were abducted by aliens, I wouldn't take that as proof of alien abduction. If the only record of these testimonies and torture was in a alien abduction support group I'd be even more skeptical.
Ridiculous