Was the Resurrection a "Collective Delusion"? (Jesus vs. Bigfoot)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- In this episode, Trent answers skeptical arguments that claim post-crucifixion sightings of Jesus are cases of collective delusion like Bigfoot or other unusual sightings.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Timestamps:
00:00 Was the resurrection a “collective delusion”?
00:45 Is the story of Jesus’ Resurrection a fact or folklore?
1:05 History of Bigfoot
1:41 Are sightings of Christ as dismissable as those of Bigfoot?
2:25 Are sightings of creatures like Bigfoot genuine?
3:07 Were people psychologically primed to see the Risen Jesus?
4:45 Did the Disciples misidentify Christ as Big Foot, Elvis, or Leprechaun?
8:55 Did the Disciples hallucinate or misremember Jesus? - Розваги
One point I should have added to the video is that one could also hold the position that Bigfoot exists and Jesus is risen, they aren't mutually exclusive. But it is still fair to point the relevant differences between "sightings" of Bigfoot and "sightings of the Risen Jesus.
Looks like Jimmy Akin just texted you. 🤣
We have one writer, Paul, who says he had the son of God revealed in him. Doesn't sound like a sighting. Also, if there can be lying spirits and demons, how would Paul know the being in-front of him is Christ? He never saw the living precrucified Jesus. Deut 13 1-5 says prophets would come and preach rebellion against gods commands and that even miracles should be ignored if what they preached lead you away from God and his commandments.
I think you're misinterpreting the intention here. I think the intention is less "God doesn't real!" and more that people no longer have this incredible animus towards the religious community, and specifically Christian religion, at least in this case. If you read between the lines, I think what is actually being said here is that you are not liars, and you really believe this stuff, not so much that God and Christianity should be treated like bigfoot. You might not like the idea of "mass delusion", but its significantly kinder and novel than "mass conspiracy".
@@shoopoop21 it’s not beyond humans to misguide other humans for some purpose. The didache tells us people are claiming to be apostles and asking for money. You don’t write entire books if it isn’t a big problem. Jesus didn’t start a church that preached a risen Christ. Guys called apostles started the is church. And FYI, they had a right to an income from converts. 1 Cor 9 - the Mormon church is a billion dollar organization with millions of members in less than 150 years. Trump got millions of Americans to hate democracy and believe a lie about a stolen election. I have many more reasons to believe Christianity is a lie and a conspiracy more than something from an invisible god that happens to like when people believe things.
But I am sure you would like us to hold to the position that if we view the video, then we ought to like, subscribe, and turn on notifications for future content. They need not be mutually exclusive! 😉
Christ is Risen ✝
He is truly risen!
Indeed He is risen!
Truly, he is risen.
Amen
Christ? I havent's seen his footprints, I haven't seen his droppings. I don't know if there is a bigfoot, it sounds at least plausible, but I don't believe a Jewish carpenter who died two thousand years ago caused miracles or was resurrected.
A simple 20-minute walk to the sealed tomb of Jesus would have disabused them of the reality of any hallucination, group or otherwise.
1. Empty tomb + no appearances = somebody stole/moved the body.
2. Appearances + a sealed tomb = Jesus is dead and in Heaven.
3. Empty tomb + tactile, audible, interactive appearances of Christ to individuals and groups, including skeptics like James and enemies like Paul = He is risen; He is risen indeed.
It's so cool to me that any theories trying to debunk the Resurrection are more flimsy than just accepting Jesus literally rose from the dead. Misidentification, group hallucinations...or maybe Jesus is just the holy son of God he said he was 🙌
you need to take a course on skepticism. your standards of evidence are sooooo low
for some people, literally any hypothesis is better than the "Jesus is God" hypothesis. I can sympathize, I used to be one of them. thankfully my curiosity outweighed my stubbornness so I was willing to humor the Holy Spirit, even if only temporarily. the amazing thing is that you don't need to commit to anything, you can just suspend your disbelief and see what happens. there's nothing to lose; if you don't like the person you become, if you aren't convinced by the evidence and arguments you find, you can always go back to your fashionable worldview of scientism and hedonism. but if you give it a chance, after a few months you may find that you no longer _want_ to return to the way you were before. even if you still have reasonable doubts, the love of Jesus is not lightly cast aside. you can never have perfect confidence in a person. when someone says he'll pick you up from the airport, you can't know for certain that he will. but if you've known him for years and he's proven true in every case to date, you have a reasonable basis for having faith in him as a friend. and such faith is grounds for believing that he will honor his word and pick you up from the airport, even if there is no other evidence that he will do so.
it's similar with Jesus, but you can only have such faith in a person if you know him. if you won't even entertain the good news, then nothing anyone says can ever convince you, as God has ordained that he should not be "proved" by empirical evidence, as if he were a theory instead of a person. rather, that humans should independently come to know and have faith in him, as a person. for that, there is good reason to believe, but unless you take the step of suspending your disbelief, you'll always remain in a kind of limbo, seeing the compelling evidence for the Christian claims, but not having any internal sense of Jesus as a person. and it's that latter sense that makes people confident in the more controversial, less well-attested aspects of the faith.
at first I only believed that something weird happened in Judaea around 30-33 AD. but any explanation for that would have been more consistent with my naturalistic worldview than the hypothesis that Jesus is God. still, I couldn't let go of the mystery, of the curiosity about this bizarre event. eventually, there was no other way to assess it. I just had to put some faith in the words of the people who witnessed this mysterious event, and see what happened. it's like trying on a garment before you buy it. like pretending to believe, just to humor your interlocutor for a month, a week, even a day. but once you do that, you start to have faith in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit starts to have an effect on you, and pretty soon you don't want to let go, and you forget about your promise to return to your atheism or former religion after you've seen what all the fuss is about.
How exactly are those flimsier than a dead man getting up from the grave 😅?
@@tomasrocha6139 these people just like to pretend their beliefs are reasonable
@@SenorCinema No one dies for a lie he himself invented. Historian has two undeniable facts at his disposal: first - that Jesus' activity ended with his death on the cross, most likely on April 7, 30 AD, and second - that very soon after this shameful death the Christian Church was suddenly born and began to develop very quickly. . It grows from the unwavering conviction of Jesus' disciples that their Master was risen and lives. From that moment on, no consequences of the "good news" preached to everyone matter to them; in its name, they will endure all persecutions and even go to martyrdom.
Two historical facts. How does the second one grow out of the first one? What transformed this handful of lost, scared disciples of the Crucified into unrestrained Apostles of Christ the Messiah? The historian is helpless here. The most he can say is that some incomprehensible change has taken place in the lives of these people, a complete reversal of their previous way of thinking. And this transformation was expressed in their own unshakable certainty that they had experienced something unheard of, that they had encountered the Risen One, and this is what they now have to testify to the whole world.
We should get either Fr Mike Schmitz or Trent onto JRE
Bishop Barron would be ideal
Joe will never have a knowledgeable Christian on his podcast. He loves two things: viewership and his own views.
Another one that Atheists like to point out is the Miracle of the Sun associated with Our Lady of Fatima. I’ve seen several videos where Protestant apologists struggle to articulate why mass testimonies of the resurrection of Jesus are reliable while mass testimonies of the Miracle of the Sun are not.
they both are unreliable
Prots will do an amazing work in the historical evidence for the resurrection and then act like atheists regarding miracles from the Church
@@mgvilaca no one should believe in any miracles
@@SenorCinema Clearly never heard of Tixtla, but as the Muslims say "it's not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts"
@@mgvilaca or you could provide empirical evidence
I can't believe you didn't invite me for this one, Trent! :-D
Another excellent video as always. I always felt there is a difference between several people seeing, eating a meal with, and touching a dear friend of theirs alive again than scattered reports of people catching a glimpse of something in the woods. Happy Belated Divine Mercy Sunday!!
You're viewing the bible as true implicitly. A more robust argument would be that Jesus never did do those things and that they were later embellishments meant to make it more convincing. In practice, it could have easily been a few people in a room where someone felt something, and they all contributed it to Jesus. If you stop assuming the Bible is literally true, it becomes a lot easier to explain.
It's not really a better explanation. They reported things similar to that as well. It is odd to embellish one and not the other. Also not much time between the writing of the new testament and the events for any mythos to form. It's easier but only if you throw out a lot of data not accounted for. We can't be biased and just assume the bible is true but we also can't be biased by staying that the miracles could not have happened. The easy explanation is not always the correct one
@@WaterCat5How is that a "more robust argument"? You're just asserting that without any actual evidence or reliable accounts that substantiate your claim.
@@WaterCat5no evidence to support your premise that they embellished the tale and that Jesus remained in an unburied grave.
The eyewitness of which the Bible reports there to be hundreds and we have good evidence the Apostles who were severely prosecuted and then tortured to death never recanted. People don’t die for something and hold to sever persecution when they know 100% it is a lie.
Now if evidence exists that the Apostles and other eye witnesses recanted there stories and said they made the whole thing up and the Jewish or Roman authorities simply displayed Jesus dead body for everyone to see then you’d have some evidence.
@@bearistotle2820 It's a probabilistic argument, obviously. The evidence is that resurrections have never been clearly shown to happen and run in the face of all natural biology, the gospels were written decades after the fact and contain falsities or embellishments that show bias, and that grief hallucinations, lies, or just being wrong are much more common than resurrection ever could be.
I'm saying it's more robust because your presentation of the "facts" is extremely biased in your favor. Any skeptic isn't going to agree that Jesus appeared and ate with people like that because there's no evidence for it outside the biblical claims, which are themselves made by non-eyewitnesses decades after the fact, and these claims are surrounded by other false and biased claims. It's just more likely that something is wrong about the biblical accounts than that they are true and Jesus resurrected.
Even if Jesus did appear and eat with people, it's more likely that he simply didn't die than that he was resurrected. Or someone was impersonating Jesus.
It's hilarious how people fail to understand that hallucinations happen inside one's mind. It's not like they were all at the same time hallucinating but the hallucination was happening in a movie screen and not their mind
Not only that level of ludicrous improbability, but add the necessary claim that they were combined visual-auditory hallucinations, which do not exist either. And still, even when faced with "impossible squared," they call the resurrection "impossible cubed," forever retreating to bald anti-supernatural "just-so-isms" because human incredulity runs both ways and with no end.
just as Fatima is a joke, the resurrection is a joke too
@@SenorCinema source: Trust me bro
@@mgvilaca surely you mean the sources of Fatima and the resurrection because they did exactly that lmao
@@SenorCinema If you are skeptical, I would recommend Evidence Demands a Verdict. Hallucination theory doesn't make sense because they all stopped seeing Jesus after he rose, so that does not make sense, also, they can not all hallucinate the same thing at the same time. The Disciples lying about it doesn't make sense since they died for Christ. What did they gain? Pain, misery, poverty, threats, etc in this life? So why would they lie about it? No one would die for a lie. So, they must have seen something that convinced them. I know that they must have seen Christ again.
Bro just pulled out one of the funniest OG youtube memes to make a point, I love you Trent 🤣🤣🤣
He forgot to put in the clip with the guy talking about the special leprechaun flute😂💀
Okay, listen, do you really think that 12+ people could all hallucinate the exact same person???
Especially when they actually touched him and Jesus confirmed that he was alive
As unlikely as it is it is possible and therefore far likelier than a resurrection which requires a unique act of divine intervention. And the touching is not found in the earliest sources, it's a later apologetic invention.
@@tomasrocha6139Typical materialist.
@@tomasrocha6139 Why? Under your worldview, neither of those things ever happened even once, before 33 AD. So if you were using an objective standard, at most you could say they're equally likely.
Let me elaborate. To explain the evidence, the atheist needs to appeal to an unknown natural explanation. Since it's unknown what that explanation is, both models are equally likely (that Jesus really rose, or that at lease 12 people had the same hallucination which happened to be something that primed them to be the first chiefs of the most successful religion in world history). On the other hand, someone that doesn't have a bias against a supernatural explanation can have the tiebreaker of "yeah, under naturalism they're equally likely, but under theism it's far more likely Jesus's resurrection was an authentic miracle" for many reasons that if you want we can get into.
overall appealing to "likelyhood" must be done consistently and mathemathically, with a solid grasp of the maths of probability, when you do that you end up a christian, I can point you to many people that found just that.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Because we know hallucinations do happen, even if very infrequently. Not so with resurrections. Since Christianity consists largely of ideas of Paul that Jesus never taught it's not at all clear how Jesus rising would prove Christianity either.
@@tomasrocha6139 no, we don't know how coordinated hallucinations happen, because that has never been proven to have happened, or even to be possible. It's not a tactile hallucination that's proposed, it's a coordinated hallucination, which isn't naturalistically possible, as per our current knowlege. You're equally ignorant to how it would work with coordinated hallucinatins and with resurrections. The prior to both must be equal.
Paul explicitly defers multiple times to the 12 in his letters, they're the undeniable chiefs of the church. Whatever (wrong) idea you have of his theology, Paul was not a chief of christianity, the church was manifestly lead by the 12.
I once discussed this with one of my friends and he said this:
"The apostles were not educated people. Quite the opposite. They were ordinary, "unenlightened", simple people. They did not enjoy much social status in their own nation, nor did they play any political role in their country. The moment Christ was arrested, they fled in fear. They did not face those who came to capture their Master, they did not fight. They were terribly afraid that they would suffer a similar fate. Even Peter, who declared to Christ that he believed in him so strongly that he was ready to give his life for him, denied him three times, probably out of panic that he would also be captured because he was a disciple of Jesus. When Christ was crucified, only one apostle, John, stood beneath his cross. The rest were probably too scared to show up.
And then what happened to these scared people? Suddenly, out of nowhere, they began to travel the length and breadth of the world, preaching the teachings of Christ everywhere! People lie to gain something. But what would the apostles have gained by insisting on Christ's resurrection if it were a fraud? The same people who were so afraid not long ago are suddenly ready to risk their lives!
I don't know of any other case where people allowed themselves to be stoned, whipped, imprisoned, thrown to wild animals, burned at the stake and crucified for a lie they invented. It happens that people die for false faith when they are deceived, but no one dies for the deception of which he is aware! What changed the apostles?
What turned a group of scared villagers into a group of fearless warriors, ready to give their lives for what they believe in? What changed them in such a short time? It is probably safe to assume that in the meantime some event must have taken place that was so extraordinary that it completely changed them, and changed their lives by 180 degrees. Something devastating, shocking. Something that made them completely different people.
Even their enemies noticed this astonishing metamorphosis.
Such a shocking and devastating event can only be the resurrection of their Master, whose death they had seen a few days earlier. I don't know what else could change them so much in such a short time.
Would, for example, seeing a Jesus-shaped cloud in the sky be enough to produce such an effect?
The Gospels also mention that Jesus' family, headed by his brother James, did not believe in His mission when he lived. What must happen for you to believe that your brother is God? Is the resurrection enough?"
And not only that, but the whole story, from the Incarnation to the Resurrection is too humble, if it was man made it.would be extra and full of mundane greatness
What would they gain? Prestige, popularity, social relevance. We're still talking about them today aren't we? That's what they stood to gain., and they seized their opportunity.
To claim you don't understand why people believe in lies and will lay their life down is pretty disingenuous.
Waco, Jonestown, all world religions, the Nazis, every "heretic" burned by the Catholics throughout history, the "witches" of Salem, ect.
People do crazy things for what they believe. You do it by simply following your faith that everything but your god and christ is false.
@@slynt_they were all quite litterally beaten tortured and exiled from their lands, their families ridiculed and they lost all property rights. Some were even thrown to lions. You are assuming the disciples have a 2000 year old hindsight which is not only improbable but factually untrue. They had nothing to gain in the moment whatsoever
All I know is witness accounts are very unreliable, and considering it was a bunch superstitious, mostly uneducated, unenlightened people from 2000 yrs ago and documented from 2nd and 3rd hand accounts. Hmmm?
TRENT ON THE JOE ROGAN PODCAST!!!❤😊
THAT would be amazing.
That will NOT happen
Joe has issues with us Catholics
Kudos to Trent for finding a way to include the Mobile Leprechaun story in this video! Having lived in Mobile for some time, it is near and dear to my heart! 😅. I even have a y-shirt w the “amateur drawing” on it.
Glad you appreciated that reference! The Mobile Leprechaun story is definitely a unique piece of folklore, and it's fun to find connections between such stories and the topics we discuss. Sounds like you've got a great piece of memorabilia with that shirt! Thanks for sharing your connection to the story-it's always special to hear when something we mention resonates with someone's personal experiences. -Vanessa
Factual, not fictional, is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ
nah its a legendary fiction
You have no good evidence for that claim
Not sure if it was touched upon in the video but with the possible exception of John, all apostles met terrible ends because of what they saw and experienced and not one denied it to save their life.
no, the evidence is only good for Peter, Paul and James
You've hit on a truly compelling point! It’s one thing to talk the talk, but those apostles really walked the walk, didn’t they? Facing down lions, swords, and all sorts of grisly ends without flipping their story is hardcore proof that they saw something life-changing. It’s like, if they were all in on a fib, you’d think at least one would've cracked under the pressure, right? But nope, they stood firm, which is mind-blowingly awesome and a huge testament to their faith. Super brave, super inspiring. Thanks for bringing that up! -Vanessa
@@TheCounselofTrent Thank you for responding. For me personally it was Ignatius of Antioch that led me to the Catholic faith. I pray to God everyday to give me the strength and courage he possessed. A personal hero of mine. He reached out over time to touch my heart and to proclaim that Jesus is truly divine.
Just finished Brant Pitres "The Case for Jesus" few days ago. This video makes an excellent addition.
now read bart ehrman
I agree, read Ehrman after Pitre. Nothing will strengthen your faith more.
@@anthonymarchetta8796 I read ehrman after pitre. I became an atheist
@@SenorCinema I'm not sure what to say except obviously we have very different views on what we read. I'm not even sure what Ehrman has to do with atheism (he's a textual critic who argues against Christianity specifically not an atheistic philosopher).
@@anthonymarchetta8796 well I went from thinking the Catholic tradition was correct to thinking that the gospels aren’t reliable
Ideas like this are absolutely insane to me, cause it’s very clearly an absurd cope
More absurd than a dead man getting up from the grave😅?
@@tomasrocha6139yes
@@tomasrocha6139yes. What atheists always miss are the assumptions to the claim. Christians don't simply believe that uncle Bob who passed away last week rose from the dead. We believe that Jesus Christ, God incarnate as a man, rose from the dead. That's a very different claim, with very different conditional probabilities.
The probability of uncle Bob resurrecting given that he is a simple mortal man is practically zero ("practically" just in case that it's one of those comatose states that are confused with actual death). The probability of Jesus resurrecting given that He is Christ the God-man is much higher. Even an atheist should be able to see that if we assume that the premise of Jesus Christ being God incarnate is true, then the claims of His resurrection are much more believable.
Therefore arguing the unbelievableness of the resurrection is a poor argument for atheists. You should focus instead on the independent claim that Jesus is Christ the God-man. If you refute that claim, then it follows that Christ never resurrected. But if the claim is true, then the resurrection is believable.
@@tomasrocha6139 When your objections are more outlandish than the actual claim itself, then it is pure cope. How can multiple people have the exact same hallucination multiple times for 40 days and then have two other men (Paul and Barnabas) have the exact same hallucination about the very same man, whom neither one of them knew personally?
@@Dominus564 how do you know those people encountered Jesus vs the books just say so
Not gonna lie, that leprechaun story is delightful to me
I'm so glad you do these. Praying for you and the ministry!
Thank you for coming to Gettysburg College recently! Student there and many of us really appreciated your visit
Christ is risen!
The episode with Thomas is another great argument against this misbelief: he touched his wounds so there would be no doubts.
There’s a difference between observing a vague figure which looks like Bigfoot from a distance and seeing a specific person close up.
No matter how the world wants to see him only as a good teacher. He is not just that. He is Alpha and Omega, He is beginning and the end, He is the truth and the way and there is no way to father except him. These are his teachings. He claims to be the God of all.
He is God.
hes a bad teacher
Trent I want to thank you for all the good work you do in helping to educate and enlighten people. You are a true man of God and a wonderful example of how the Holy Spirit works in the soul. God bless you and your family.
You had me at Jesus vs. Bigfoot
Jesus W. Bigfoot baptized
Excellent work brother ❤
Love you, Trent. Christ is King.
One more thing about the hallunication objection is that it doesn't even explain how Jesus appeared to the disciple numerous times and ate, touched, and spoke with him. How did Thomas, who doubted Christ, have an hallucination about him at the exact same time that the disciples were (who already saw the risen Savior), and touch him? I'm not an expert in hallunications but it seems pretty suspesious that multiple people can have the exact same hallucination about a man they knew for three years multiple times, and then Paul and Barnabas have the exact same hallucination about a man they never knew and then convert to a religion that they had despised. The hallucination objection sounds more fantastical than the Resurrection itself.
Which suggests two possibilites: either there weren't hallucinations in the way described, or the events surrounding the hallucinations are false. Which is more likely? The most obvious answer is that the events in the bible aren't what happened. Jesus never did appear and eat with people. Seriously, these gospels were written decades after the fact and clearly biased as well. Why would you assume they would be accurate to that level?
@@WaterCat5 biased in what way?
@@aloneinbangkok8534how do you know the gospels weren’t just embellished
Hallucinations are meant to explain what the disciples saw, not what the gospel authors wrote down.
@@SenorCinema what's the evidence for that?
We have to remember that all of these people died for their claims. If they made it up then they were sure it happened because they actually died for that.
no, they didn't. the evidence is good for Peter and Paul, none of the others
Being sure of something and it actually being true are not the same thing.
There are many muslims who strap bombs to themselves and die, does that mean what they believe is true?
Don't forget Thomas wouldn't believe because he wasn't there to see and then Jesus made him physically touch his nail marks and side wound and said don't be unbelieving, but believe.
Or the story is a Christian legend and didn’t happen
@@SenorCinemaWho do we trust ? All the evidence that suggest something very powerful actually happened and even historians have to agree with this or some fedora atheist in the comments that can't stand Jesus is king ? 😂
@@A.Froster the evidence doesn’t suggest that
St Paul is the definitive argument against resurrection deniers
Yep. No matter how many "New Testament scholars" with a PhD and Bri'ish accent say, Jesus is alive
How could Paul witness the resurrection years after the ascension?
@@tomasrocha6139 he witnessed Jesus, not the resurrection
@@tomasrocha6139No one claims Paul saw the resurrection?
@@mgvilaca how do you know he actually encountered Jesus vs just thinking he did
Rogan is a shroom-tripping grifter. Of course he has these takes.
Please, please, please stop saying grift and grifter. It is the most overmisused term circulating now.
@@jeremias-serus the difference between the right and the left is that the right has grifters, but the left has nothing but.
@@jeremias-serus G R I F T.
Rogan has a history of showing that he does very little research on the things he claim to have a wide opinion on.
not everyone you don’t agree with 100% is a grifter.
In case anyone is wondering - the footage from Jesus of Nazareth used in this video was cut by Franco Zeffirelli for the final version.
To me, the fact that people willingly died for this Truth makes it so.
That's a powerful point. The willingness of the early followers to face persecution and even death for their beliefs speaks volumes about their conviction and the impact of those events on their lives. It's a testament to the profound effect of what they witnessed and believed in. Your insight really highlights the depth of their faith.
-Vanessa
@@TheCounselofTrent Their willingness to die is a testament to their conviction NOT the truth of the matter. Many people die and are persecuted for beliefs you and I would reject being true. Its largely irrelevant.
@@AliethThe difference between the apostles and martyrs from other religions/ideologies/political movements is that they claimed to have SEEN something and died defending that claim.
@@asggerpatton7169 are you claiming that those apostles were the ONLY people, in all of history until today, to claim to “see” something and die for that vision? Is that what you’re saying?
@@Alieth No, but they're the only group of people who seemed to be relatively well adjusted, kind and wise who died over a claim to have seen something.
Prayers are more efficacious to those who are holy. When one who steps away from the Church wants to return, his heart will lead him back in an honest way. Making a good confession and receiving the blessed sacrament will effect a faith in you unlike ever before. The reason why most people do not believe is because they have a massive chip on their shoulder. I was smug myself and I am sorry for ever walking away from God. Now I truly feel hopeful in my efforts to please him, and it pleases me to get to know him better each day by living as holy a life as I can.
I think it would be awesome to see you on Rogan.
The entire discipline of history is just reading peoples' reporting on sightings of events. You can't just cite false reports to pick and choose which history you don't like, unless you want to make history all meaningless.
Also, it seems to me like sloppy scholarship to speculate about plausible-ish but completely evidence-less armchair psychology to dismiss what you don't like. You can rationalize any position with a sufficiently complicated chain of logic.
That's a really insightful observation. History, at its core, is indeed about navigating through various accounts, weighing evidence, and understanding the context to piece together the most accurate picture possible. Dismissing certain historical reports while accepting others without a consistent standard undermines the very discipline of history. And when it comes to interpreting historical events, especially ones deeply intertwined with faith, it's crucial to approach them with both rigor and an openness to the complexity of human experience. Rationalizing away what doesn’t fit our preconceived notions does a disservice to the pursuit of truth. Your call for careful scholarship and respect for evidence is a valuable reminder of how we should engage with historical claims. Thanks for bringing depth to this conversation. -Vanessa
Not all history is worth believing in. I can doubt that Marco Polo met dog people while believing in a real Marco Polo. In the same way, I can believe in a real Jesus without believing in any of the miracles or the resurrection
The image of thousands of Jesus impersonators, in the line of Elvis impersonators cracked me up. "Amen, amen, I say to you, thank you very much!"
I don't appreciate "they were primed to see it" or any other psychologizing arguments because they're all, at their core, speculation and cannot be anything but speculation.
In the same way the atheist can argue "the disciples were primed to see and believe the Resurrection", we could make an argument that they are primed to deny it.
It's all speculation.
So many people seeing Christ is a historical fact.
And of course, the modern take that we cannot trust eyewitness testimony (at all), or our own.
@@mr.iankp.5734 "don't trust your lying eyes, comrade"
@@jackieo8693 I agree.
But the gospels were clear that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant when he referred to his resurrection - neither when he spoke of it directly, nor when he spoke allegorically. One of them actually saw him die and one of them refused to believe until he had irrefutable proof. They weren't looking for it at all. So I don't see "primed" for the resurrection.
It's funny how belligerent Rogan will get at even the slightest suggestion some drugs could be bad for you when even weed can cause significant negative psychological outcomes for those who are predisposed. He's not a serious person
Seriously; it's funny how calm and "rational" he is when he talks about any other topic on his show, but the minute somebody questions his drug use or says something positive about Catholicism or Jesus, he flips out and all pretenses of rational discussion get thrown out the window
@@johnbenedictxviii I didn't see him "flipping out" at any point in that clip. As far as I can tell he raised a simple objection to what his guest said.
I'm OK with Christ's resurrection not being scientifically plausible. Actually, isn't that what is so appealing about miracles?
What is science? Do you think scientists already know everything about the universe? When someone says that something is not scientifically plausible, they mean based on today's knowledge of science. Two hundred years from now, science may look very different to what it is now and things we now think are impossible may be commonly used by the teenagers of the future.
@@bobblacka918 There has never been a recorded instance of a resurrection happening. Except Jesus, you'll say - but the evidence is far too weak to suppose that something seemingly impossible happened just because a book from 2000 years ago claims it did. It would be irrational to believe that something like that is possible based on spurious testimony from ancient times before the discipline of rigorous objective history had been established.
@@slynt_ : If you reject the testimony from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw, ate with, talked with, and even touched, the risen Jesus, and then, submitted to torture and death instead of recanting their testimony, if you reject all that, then you have to reject everything else in history because EVERYTHING historical depends on the testimony of someone somewhere.
Did Alexander the Great conquer the entire known world, evidence is weak. Did Shakespeare actually exist, evidence is weak. Did George Washington really exist? All the evidence for GW could be faked.
So basically, the evidence is weak for anything historical.
@@slynt_ It's kind of the point that it is the only recorded instance of a resurrection happening...
The basic claims were exactly the same 1800 years ago. That 1. gives credence to the reliability of the transmission process (so what exactly would lead us to believe that it also wasn't reliable in similar manner back to the original documents and claims?) and 2. kind of lessens the rhetorical weight of "woohoo 2000 year old book". It's not like the Christian claim is "Look we found this single 2000 year old collection of documents, now everybody has to order their lives according to that."
"It would be irrational to believe that something like that is possible"
Well, given that you can make a strong philosophical case for the Existence of God, it's not at all irrational to say that a resurrection is at least possible. To make that claim (resurrection is impossible) is in my view quite the overstatement of the strength of either philosophical skepticism, atheism or agnosticism.
"based on spurious testimony from ancient times"
The New Testament is the best attested collection of documents from the ancient world. Period. By your standard, everything we know about ancient history in document form is spurious and ancient, even more so than the New Testament. That's not "rigorous history", that's just rhetoric.
"rigorous objective history"
Such a thing does not exist. Write a rigorous objective history of the Ukraine War. Or the 2020 election in America. Or even of a single human life.
Also, isn't it funny that the people who established this "rigorous objective history" dated the New Testament much later than the people now who have continued in their tracks?
@@nisonatic : Yes, you nailed it. Science requires things to be repeatable and predictable. But sometimes miracles can be repeatable, like the apparition at Zeitoun, Egypt, beginning on 2 April 1968 and lasting for 3 years. But of course, most miracles are a one time occurrence, and that's why they call them miracles.
Great video!
A debate recommendation: have you heard about David Skrbina? He has a conspiracy theory about how Christianity could have been invented. There is a video of him in a debate, here on youtube, and according to many viewers, he "wins" the debate; however, it would be interesting to see if they still held that view if he was scrutinized more heavily. He doesn't seem to have a very detailed theory of how it could have happened.
The interview at 7:53 lol
Joe Rogan's objection is extremely simple yet the most powerful one there is. Glad this video came out.
I actually saw a sasquatch while on a camping trip when i was a child, lol. It definitely wasn't a misidentification. I've been called crazy, but i know what i saw.
That being said, the arguments in this video are great. No way did ALL the disciples see hallucinations of Jesus. Also, there's no way they all lied about seeing the risen christ. Especially when most of them died for believing so.
Christ is king.
Thank you.
Our King Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried, and resurrected! ✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝
Hey Trent, heads up but there's some pretty bad white or pink noise when you speak. Check your microphone cable connections.
Hoping Jimmy Akin responds to this. 👣
The leprechaun bit 😂😂😂
Ridiculous
I believe in the resurrection as in the gospels. And, to this day perhaps once every few months I feel my dearly loved pet jump on the bed in the exact same manner while in this world. It is truly amazing and unexpected...not influenced by thinking of him or reiterating stories.
Wonderful. 💜
Well.
I usually put it simple.
Would someone put its own life and be killed for an idiotic lie?
you people keep saying that but Peter Paul and James weren't martyred for believing in Jesus. and the other apostles being martyred for their faith doesn't really hold water historically. the historical evidence for the other apostles' deaths is really bad
@@SenorCinemawhy don't they hold water? Lots of Christians were martyred. It would make sense that the leaders were to.
@@mitslev4043 What do you mean martyred? Killed by Roman authorities? Didn't that happen much later?
That leprechaun story is hilarious!
TRENT 🙏 please set up a meeting with Joe Rogan the world needs it
Bruh you put the Leprechaun clip in there 😂💀 You didn't include the clip about the guy with the Leprechaun flute
The plane crash experiment is flawed from the beginning: the way they asked the question, made people think that the crash was televised! It's funny how they use all of those theories and experiments to prove they are right! If they don't want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that's fine, but they should respect the people that believe it! Thanks for the video brother!
Christ is King
I find it hilarious people will sooner go to complete nonsense rather than admit the existence of the divine.
I find it hilarious that people will sooner go to complete nonsense rather than admit the nonexistence of the supernatural.
I am a truck driver for 24 years. I seen so many road kills, horses. Cattle, snakes, Skunks, dogs, cats , coyotes, wolfs, birds, raccoons ever type of Rodents. Human fatalities, deer,. Never a big foot or ape and other truck drivers tell me the same
Ever see a human? There are a lot of us...
@@user-eg4te4kq4f I know lot of hunters, the same thing. Normal people, not crackpots.
@@jmctigret I mean in roadkill
@@user-eg4te4kq4f The real Big Foot went extinct 200,000 years ago called Gigantopithecus. Southern China.
@@jmctigret I've seen a lot of deer, racoons, porcupine, a few boar, various birds, livestock, when I was in Australia I saw a bunch of kangaroos. I've never seen a human, apart from car accidents. Have you ever come across human roadkill?
Okay...but what if you belive both in Jesus and Bigfoot?
Jimmy Akins Mysterious World gang
Then you would probably be a fan of Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World.
Bigfoot is a demon, sorted. ( if you hear many of the reported accounts it makes more sense)😊
then you'd be dumb af
then youre dumb
Bigfoot exists... in my west coast heart
Christ is truly risen indeed
I believe in both
Hundreds of people say they saw Jesus, not just his Apostles.
Dan McDowell and Trent horn is the weirdest crossover ever:)
I really liked this video... You mentioned that James was a relative of Jesus. Do you believe he is Jesus brother? Or cousin?
That’s typically a Protestant argument, but I see nothing in the book pointing to James’ skepticism. @counseloftrent You sure about that?
The cope people have to use to try to disbelieve the gospels is insane. Its not a logical issue, its their hardness of heart
Christians have to cope with the fact that the gospels describe physically impossible events, i.e. "miracles". Disbelieving the gospels is not difficult at all, no cope is needed.
@garrysmodsketches Thats kind of why they're miracles. They're impossible for humans to change physics, not God. Physics are contingent, and can change if God wanted it to. They're not constants like math that are impossible to change
@@johnxina-uk8in There is no evidence that the laws of physics can be changed, it doesn't happen today. Moreover, the Bible doesn't say "Jesus rose from the dead by suspending the laws of physics", it just describes this impossible event. Maybe Jesus rose from the dead entirely in accordance to the laws of physics. "God can break laws of physics" is something you are making up. For example, when the Bible describes Jesus's entrance into Jerusalem, you don't say that Jesus entered that city despite the laws of physics because a man entering a city is something that is physically possible. So this stuff about God suspending laws of physics is arbitrary and selective.
@@garrysmodsketchesthat seems like a post-hoc interpretation of Scripture. Either way, that's definitely not what the Apostles and the Apostles' successors believed about it.
there is a high pitched static noise in this video.
Maybe we shouldn’t be so dismissive about Bigfoot.
The real risk of Christianity
Well, I'm not a particularly huge fan of the theory of collective delusions or hallucinations....
In risk of standing in defense of collective delusions there is also a certain point to be made in the events surrounding how Joe Biden became president.
I'm a Christian, but I think a big problem with a lot of these videos is that we seem to be ignoring that the sceptic is coming from a position of thinking the Gospel narratives are unreliable, which is why they propose hypotheses that do not necessarily fit completely with every Gospel detail. To properly respond, we have to either argue for the general reliability of the Gospels, or show reasons to believe why those specific details of the Gospels that contradict their hypotheses from historical methods.
Some Roman soldier or pharisee would have noticed a resurrected Jesus and re-arrested him. Word would have spread quickly and attracted a lot of attention.
Amen❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
I just wonder if people who believe that the resurrection was a collective hallucination have heard of Occam’s Razor
I know. People always talk about Occam's Razor as if it somehow supports atheism, which seems ridiculous to me. There are so many cases where it supports religious beliefs.
...
What's a simpler solution to the infinite causal chain problem? That there's an uncaused cause, or that the chain actually goes to infinity in a mind-bending logical impossibility?
...
What's a simpler solution to the Resurrection? That a preestablished God did in fact fulfill a long-recorded prophesy, or that twelve (or even as many as five hundred, according to Saint Paul) had the exact same hallucination? If you've determined that God cannot exist, well then there's that, but to anyone who's open to the concept of God, this works.
...
This kind of stuff can be carried on to more recent miracles, like stigmatism and the Miracle of Fatima.
@@gunsgalore7571 You know I tried to show people a scientific article on the Eucharistic miracle of Sokolka, but these were some of the comments on it:
“It does matter, although my example is a bit old: Rett syndrome was essentially identified in 1966 but the original papers were published in German. Only once papers started being published in English in 1983 did awareness of the disease start spreading rapidly (it’s a rare genetic disorder that affects brain development in children). (But that paper you linked to sounds wild and the implication - for all humans not just individuals from a specific religion - would be immense. One might say almost unbelievable…)”
“I think publishing in another language can be an indication of a paper that went through less-through peer review. English is science’s standard language. Even so, it’s hard enough to find experts who will do peer review in English. But when you limit potential reviewers to another language, that issue is even more severely restricted.
This paper, which is published in Polish, claims to use scientific evidence (and the multiverse, I think?) to show that bread at the Last Supper really was Jesus’s body and therefore was a simultaneous event with his execution. In other words, hot garbage. Publishing it in Polish helps to limit peer review scrutiny.”
“The journal matters. There are journals that publish pretty much anything (without real peer review) in every language. The field matters too - I am guessing this article wasn’t published in a physics journal, so the claims about physics likely weren’t subject to peer review by experts in physics.”
is this a joke? it's far more likely that the gospels were embellished and that the apostles were mistaken or the resurrection sightings were embellished as well.
@@SenorCinema Might you have some popcorn with you?
@@SenorCinema Although along the way, I’d recommend you give Trent Horn’s Martyrdom Argument video a watch since you’re here
Imagine how silly that argument would end up being if we actually found a bigfoot?
Something I find amusing to think about is if something like this happened, big foot would be given a scientific name and classified as a new species like any other animal that has been newly discovered.
@@mellieg.7543maybe bigfoot is a demon and disappears and thats why is not found or classified
They actually made that argument about the colossal squid.
Bigfoot is in the same category for me as UFOs. I spent almost half my life (I'm 28, so 14-15 years) learning all I could about them. The conclusion I have come to, for now, is it all feels very paranormal and one of the best diversions away from God, the Bible, and Christ.
Ancient Aliens (ancient astronaut theory) are supposed beings that have come to earth to help and guide humanity. We may have even been put here by them. If I was a demon looking to deceive humanity, blending unknown, mysterious beings with extreme scientific prowess could work very well with prideful people who think of themselves as "too smart for religion."
The amount of stories I've heard of people having an alien encounter or bigfoot encounter and then devoting their lives and free time to the study of it are too many to keep track of. It becomes like a spiritual drug that occupies the place for the Holy Spirit.
I find the video evidence for Bigfoot rather compelling, have you seen the highlight reels of Bill Walton from Portland in the 70's?! 😱
Jimmy Akin might object to your Bigfoot analysis
Great video as always.But you should drop the idea that James is the Lord's unbelieving relative.Tradition and reason are unanimous that James the brother of Lord is James the apostle, son of Alphaeus
He wasn’t the brother of Jesus. Mary was a virgin not just until, but after too.
@@zacharyahearn4069
How do we know that ? Is there any scripture of that
@@jimmyh7529Yes. 2 of Jesus brothers are explicitly said to be from ”the other Mary” which is also identified as Mary the wife of Clopas/Alpheus. So if 2 of the ”brothers” are not literal, we should understand the rest not to be either.
@@Mach15-20 thanks brother, this always confused me.
@@darklurkerirl6101 God bless!
Question: If this was in the Court of Law in the U.S. with 500 witnessing the same thing, would that be solid admissible evidence?
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think US Courts accept the supernatural since the Salem Witch Trials. And of course all of the 500 would have to testify, merely Paul saying there are 500 witnesses would be hearsay.
except we don't have 500 witnesses. we have someone saying that 500 people saw Jesus which would be inadmissible as hearsay
I think ever since the Salem Witch Trials supernatural claims aren't taken seriously in US courts.
@@SenorCinemathen why did so many people go along with it? A big part of the churches defense was just telling people that didn't believe to go ask the witnesses. Considering how fast Christianity grew it would make sense that the events happened and were spread around. Even criticism of the Christians at the time didn't attack these claims. If they were untrue that would have been a great way to call them out. But instead they confirmed the events and talked about how humiliating they were. If they didn't happen why would they act as though they did. I mean even the critics could not get away with outright denying their claims.
I have a question that's quite common but I ask with goodwill. Why do I have to believe in someone who supposedly died 2000 years ago in some far-off for my sins land as God and if I don't I burn in hell?
To the admin of this channel, can i ask a question please?????
Of course! Feel free to ask your question. I'm here to help with whatever you need. -Vanessa
@@TheCounselofTrent is it really true that long time ago when the council of Trent happened and bishops gather together that they declare and put it in a document/book that if a person commit even a single mortal sin he/she is automatically excommunicated in the church of God in the sight of God and only in confession he/she can go back again and be accepted in the church???? And if a person committed even a single mortal sin no matter how big or many good works or charity works he/she does is still will not get good merits in the sight of God???? Are these true and written in a document????
No guilt by Paul? Seriously? He called himself the 'Chief of sinners' and "unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
The resurection is something we cannot explain because humans just don't have the faculties to understand it. Go ask the egyptians...
Just a quick correction but the Paterson film is of a female Bigfoot, not a male. I personally do not think it is a fake film, though.
Of course, this has nothing to do with Jesus truly having rose from the dead and being God the Son, which is also true.
of course you don't think it's a fake film. you believe in Jesus lol
@@SenorCinema Jesus is historical fact brother
@@edmonddantes2745 Jesus as a human existed, yeah but he didn't do those supernatural things.
@@SenorCinema of what benefit was it to the Gospel writers to lie about said supernatural things? Most were executed or lived impoverished.
@@edmonddantes2745 no, most weren't killed. what was the reason for Joseph smith? or Muhammad? or buddha?
Christianity being under attack every single day. These individuals just can't let people have beliefs, even though we are not imposing them the same beliefs as something they should be obliged to accept otherwise we will do things to them, this is not Christianity, it maybe any other religion but not the religion Jesus Christ gave to us. Why do you want so much to disprove Jesus Christ and his resurrection? These people believe "life is meaningless" so they want others to be as miserable as them. Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to the heavens, there's no argument that can disprove this *fact*.
Does anyone happen to know what is the least reliable form of evidence is?
All these witnesses were his followers. I'd be more convinced if we had a letter from, say, Pontius Pilate testifying to this event. His followers had a vested interest in this belief, and the ONLY document testifying to his resurrection come from his followers, who wrote it.
This is pretty weak evidence.
Sasquatch, leprechauns, and apologetics. It doesn’t get much better than this!
the thing is bigfoot might also be real
How come I rarely ever hear people bring up the Shroud of Turin, in their arguments of a fact that exist that we can look at as a potential object of the proof of Jesus. Clearly right now science is totally lost on how the image got on the fabric. It’s baffling some of the best scientist. I think it gives us some kind of evidence to something that takes us outside of the realm of understanding. In this physical place, we are. It would be nice for someone to come up with a book. That gave some outside the Bible objects and information that has been found that relate to what we find in the Bible. Perhaps they’re such a book I don’t know. if there is it clearly isn’t a popular book for a lot of people too recognize as a good example to use in these types of debates.
Because the shroud is a known forgery. Bringing it up only hurts your credibility.
1 John 1:1-10 Fact
Around the year 33AD the Romans were crucifying about 300 men a year who claimed to be the messiah. Did you have any individual in mind.
Ok, cool. 6:25
What disciples said they spent an extended period of time with Jesus after his death? I mean that is the biggest sticking point that you don't even seem to be realising here, that some people don't think that the gospels were authored by eyewitnesses. What would you point at to convince someone like myself that Jesus spent an extended time in person with the disciples post-death? So far as I can tell, no-one who knew any of the disciples is claiming that is what the disciples said.
Surely not , because Eucharistic Miracles have proven that Jesus exists.
lol
The difference between Bigfoot and Jesus is that Bigfoot didn’t spend forty days teaching devoted disciples after being publicly executed and buried.
Neither did Jesus...
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 14-16
Both are real
All of the apostles (except John), men who knew Jesus personally, were martyred. You don’t allow yourself to be killed for that which you know to be false.