@@mrshankerbillletmein491 not even close. Evolution has more data than any other field, multiple disciplines all giving the same results, and evolutionary biology is the source of the medicines keeping humans alive now. Your comment show your biases as well as your lack of rational thinking skills.
I think he knows what undeniable means. What isn't being understood, is that when scholars say they believe something is true. It means they think it is likely to be true. But if you get 90% of scholars that believe something has a 60% likelihood of being true, you would would say it has a 60% likelihood of being true, not that is was undeniably true.
If Peter and Thomas who spent time with Jesus both denied and doubted Jesus respectively, and that Paul needed a vision to be convinced, what chance do we humans 2000 years into the future have?
More to the point, If James the brother of Jesus wasn't convinced, doesn't the put into question both birth narratives? Oh sure, mom was a virgin and the family had to flee but I still don't believe.
I think another thing to consider is if Jesus did suddenly appear to us in modern day, I think we’d need a lot more evidence than just him saying “I’m Jesus Christ”. Like, “okay crazy! Let’s get you back to the asylum!”
That's why it's called faith. If he made it super easy to believe everyone would win without any input. You need to look at evidence for the religion and against it. Try to counter all and then make up your mind.
The members of the Heaven's Gate community were willing to die for their beliefs that they would be taken aboard the spacecraft hiding in the Hale-Bopp comet.
Whenever I get told the dying for their belief argument is "proof", I tell them that Judaism must then be the true religion. Inevitably they ask why. I tell them Christians have murdered Jews by the millions for their beliefs for about 1500 years now. So the final score is Jews win by a mile.
I enjoy them as well, though it is sometimes difficult having to listen to the logical fallacies of these religious apologists, delivered in the most grating arrogance. In the age of logic and science, faith alone is no longer sufficient for these people. They are the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
From a religious standpoint, from a Christian standpoint, these apologetics are on the wrong track. Belief in Jesus will always be a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnThat's not the lesson of that story either. You're taking Thomas being told that those who had more faith to be more blessed to mean he was not.
I don't think the Christian apologist understands why they are doing what they are doing. Their apologetics reek of desperation. The way I think of it is this.. the religious respect Science as if it were a religion. After all, they don't say 'take it on faith" when they could point out some scientific study IF it reinforces their positions. If a scientific paper came out that showed the shroud of Turin was the real deal, every single Cristian would point to that as EVIDENCE and praise the science. The Christians want a science and an academic mindset that reinforces Christianity and that's impossible with the discipline of science or the analytical academic mindset. For example, an evolutionary biologist won't cite the Bible or use it to predict or analyze the science of their academic discipline. The evolutionary biologist will cite studies from peer reviewed academic literature and use the guidelines that were developed for that professional field when it comes to designing studies. What the Christian apologist wants is a way to capture power so that they can hold higher social ranking and have the right to abuse and exploit those who are beneath them. Their religion benefits them and they wish to ensure future benefits by tricking people into giving that institution social credit. Look, the religious will never say they want to oppress others. But look at what they expect or require from society and you see that their actions are oppression. They want us to subsidize their social nonsense so they won't pay taxes but they will use public paid resources. They want the freedom of religion for themselves but they are not concerned about the freedom of religion for their victims. At every point, their freedom is bought by the oppression of another group. If everybody had freedom from religion, these types of religious folks would be unhappy because they only want freedom for themselves.
It's a matter of faith *because * there's no strong evidence. Apologists like to pretend that faith is superior to knowledge. It's not. It's a poor substitute.
Thank you Dan for all your ACCURATE and IMPORTANT WORK here. Most people wouldnt even have the time to investigate about all those claimed "facts" from all those self-declared apologetics in the net.
Alot of us who were Christians and deconverted to Atheism or Agnosticism love Dan’s channel because for the first time in decades without end we’re finally getting answers to questions we asked for many years while in the faith. Apologists had more to do with my deconversion than any Atheist.
More recently, 20 Muslims were willing to crash airplanes into US office buildings because they thought they would get 72 virgins in Heaven if the martyred themselves, therefore Islam is true (and Christianity is false because Islam says Jesus didn't die on a cross and wasn't resurrected).
Ive been wanting to read Dale Allison's book but not got round to it. For the UA-cam crowd Paulogia's minimal witnesses hypothesis is a great summary of how a plausible naturalistic explanation can be made that accounts for the facts of the early speed of Christianity. Bearing in mind the purpose is not to say what did happen but to demonstrate how saying the "most likely" explanation being the resurrection is not based on anything more than preference.
Paulogia's explanation is good if you have the criteria that both Peter and Paul are fully honest people with pure intentions. If you don't insist upon that criteria, there's lots of other highly plausible scenarios you can construct. For example, Peter might have thought Jesus' message was too important to stop preaching just because Jesus died, and started claiming Jesus rose from the dead to make it sound more worthwhile.
@@SpaveFrostKing I had not thought of it that way before. I have always been keen to give the benefit of the doubt and not question motivation but try to argue in good faith that all that needs to be the case is for them to be convinced rather than to be "liars" (as the apologist would frame it). It's an interesting idea I haven't heard, thanks for adding that one 😀
@@christophersandford5888 Oh, I definitely think it's worthwhile to give the benefit of the doubt. But we also know through history that there are dishonest people. If we have to choose between miracles and dishonesty, I know what I think is more likely.
@@SpaveFrostKing There is a fascinating argument that came up in Schweizer's Quest of the Historical Jesus, in a narrative from the 1700s Schweizer reviews, that Jesus's disciples just preferred the preacher racket to their previous jobs -- it is noted that Jesus had people supporting him or caring for his needs, and we see Paul mentioning taking collections for the Jerusalem church a lot and how it's okay for apostles to get paid -- so they stole or hid the body, waited 50 or so days for there to be no possibility of identifying said body, and then proclaimed his resurrection with new instructions to go out and spread. While it makes a number of assumptions, it struck me that this is nevertheless a fairly reasonable naturalistic alternative account that someone came up with 300 years ago. That the disciples could have been financially motivated is not entirely farfetched, though the evidence for it isn't great; still, surely it's more probable than that a guy actually was raised from the dead by God and then never bothered to make any major public appearances?
@@SpaveFrostKing You could - but then you'd have to wonder why Peter would change the message so much. From what Jesus taught to the focus on salvation through his death and resurrection.
I had Betty White visit me last night and she took me to the moon to see Prince and Jimmi Hendrix shred guitar together on stage. This is a historical fact. That guy is right, making a claim and following it up with “that’s a historical fact” really is fun 🤣
@@marknieuweboer8099 oh come on man! The guy said he saw HENDRIX jamming with Prince. Who would lie about Hendrix? What’s it gonna take for you to believe. Pictures?
I have recently debated someone who made the very same assertions. His basic premise was that the consensus of biblical scholars know these things to be true. I explained the difference between knowledge and belief and that scholars do not know these things, even if some of them might be convinced of them. I also had to make it clear that the very existence of a consensus tells us that we are not dealing with facts. If something has been established as a fact, using verifiable evidence, no consensus opinion is required. Needless to say, the debate did not end with agreement. They never do.
One big issue is the gap of what "probably" means. Scholars agree that jesus or a preacher with a similar name probably existed, but that does not mean it is an undeniable fact or a 100% certitude. All in all, the probability that he existed is higher than the probability he did not exist, but by how much?
Even beyond that, most of these assertions aren't the consensus. Sure, Jesus existing and being crucified has consensus. The empty tomb has a good deal of doubt. Someone, most likely Peter, having an initial experience that convinced him Jesus had risen: Consensus. Same for Paul having some such experience a few years later. Not for mass experiences. Not for all the apostles being faithful unto death: That's not even Biblical, just tradition. Other than Peter and John, they drop out of the story after the first few chapters of Acts. Paul doesn't mention them.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Absolutely. Many Christians are unable to tell the difference between what is in the New Testament and later non-biblical traditions and almost no Christians are interested in information which does not confirm their beliefs. I find it interesting that so many of them seek out proof or evidence for their beliefs or are at least eager to believe such claims. It's almost as though their faith isn't really enough.
I wonder how many NT scholars are believers anyway? Also, if they accept "consensus" in one discipline, do they also do it in others (physics, biology, etc)?
@@theunlearnedastronomer3205 Biblical scholars are a very mixed group, between atheists and believers and of course the various denominations of monotheism. Although it should be said that many believers are strictly academic and do not allow their religious conviction to influence their work, Indeed, Dan McLellan is a Mormon and is very strict about being unbiased and academic. As for consensus, reputable scholars would never apply consensus to the physical sciences because these rely strictly on the evidence and opinion is irrelevant. It is important to differentiate between the scholars themselves (who are very clear that they work in a field where evidence is often lacking and that is why opinion matters) and people who incorrectly claim consensus as proof, rather than an educated guess which is probably correct but never definitely.
im dyslexic and currently recovering from a migraine, so read the title as "Are these unreliable historical facts about Jesus?". Turns out my messed up brain got it right after all!
Reading Mark i found the followers were not close to the crucifixion site: the women watched from afar. They went to the tomb the second morning after the burial to find... four completely different versions. The most important event in their lives and the small group of witnesses wasn't able to give a coherent account. Like nothing really happened except for an empty tomb with the suspect that they simply took the wrong one, the only they found open.
Oh hey I read the book Dan recommended by Dale Allison Jr. just this spring, so I can endorse Dan's recommendation! What I appreciate about Allison's approach is that he does not start with his conclusion in mind (whether it be that the resurrection happened or did not) but, well, he looked at the Data (putting it over either dogma for it or against) and tried to give a fair assessment of what we can actually say about it.
So glad you did a video touching on Habermas and on common misconceptions about the resurrection. Would be cool to see another one where you dive into Habermas’ claims in more detail and maybe talk about why some scholars find the empty tomb story to be untenable.
@@MarcillaSmith tbf, Christians have "evidence". But it's like saying hoofprints (in a snow-covered field) leading up to a river ... are "evidence" for invisible flying unicorns. They are accurately saying "there are hoofprints". They are accurately pointing out that the tracks end at the river. But it's the story they're weaving that evidence into ... which isn't really supported by the evidence. As the late Christopher Hitchens pointed out, "It's called faith ... because it's not knowledge". Faith is a leap beyond the evidence. Faith is a willful choice; a personal investment into hope.
@@MarcillaSmithwhat’s your take? Personally I didn’t see a single “undeniable fact” presented. On the other hand I did see a lot of faith though. I take no issue with a person’s faith, I think it can be a very good thing. But faith is one thing, and facts are another. Facts can prove a person’s faith to be perfectly valid, or invalid. But facts are facts. And the thing about provable facts is that they are PROVABLE.
"Scowlers?" I'm a bit of a scowler, myself. Especially when I have to listen to apologists tell me about "undeniable historical facts." Oh! Scholar. He was saying "scholar."
The only issue I have with Allison's book is that he thinks the tomb being found empty is historical. We can't actually know that though. He seems to just be taking the Gospels at their word. It's just as likely that the empty tomb story is made-up by Mark. Paul doesn't mention anyone finding a tomb empty so we don't know if that story even existed at that point.
The part about Jesus' body being placed in a tomb is itself highly suspect, as it goes against everything that's known about Roman corporal punishment. It's much more likely that Jesus' corpse would've been left on the cross as a deterrent for others considering attempting sedition against the empire. Eventually, it would've more likely been dumped in a shallow pit, to be fed upon by scavaging animals, as a means of humiliation, ie, not being given a proper burial. The fact that Pilate personally presided over not 1, but 2, trials of Jesus, left his fate up to the mob, then allowed his corpse to be laid in a tomb, goes against everything that is known about the Roman administration of law as it concerns suspects convicted of sedition, and about Pilate himself. It is most likely is that a story was concocted among the early followers of Jesus that entailed his body being placed in a tomb, so as to to explain his "resurrection" from the dead. The same was done with Jesus' foretelling of his death and resurrection. After all, how could the one chosen and sent by God to be the messiah - and, as thought by later Christians, the actual son of God - be killed, and without completing his divine mission? Answer: he wasn't! Whew, that's some serious mental gymnastics/contortions right there. 🥵
@@marknieuweboer8099 It would be the most likely thing for a crucified criminal to be left hanging on the cross for days, then dumped in a mass grave. Everyone at the time would have known that, so Mark had to explain it by saying a rich and influential follower got a special exemption.
I always wonder if Christians will apply the same standards for proof they apply to the story of Jesus to the story of the Prophet Muhammed or the Buddha or Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard, etc. Most modern faith traditions have similar sorts of evidence.
Heck, Joseph Smith had signed affidavits! Did Jesus's pals get anything notarized? And yet somehow, lots of people still aren't convinced about Mormonism, hmmmm...
@@marknieuweboer8099 Ah you totally caught me. I was trying to be pithy and clever but phrased it poorly. You are totally right of course because apologetics is about winning the argument not find the truth.
In defense of Buddhism. While they have stories about Buddha that like have embellishments or are made up, non of it is dogmatic. There is no penalty for not believing these stories. What matters is the philosophy of how to become a better person.
I'm really sick of the apologetic argument that people wouldn't die for an untruth. History is riddled with people dying for a cause that is wrong or is later proven to be wrong. Dying for a cause does not prove one single thing. If that were the case then the September 11th would support radical Islam's proof that their religion is the only religion.
It's a decent argument that they weren't deliberately scamming or making it up, that they actually believed. it's not a good argument that the things they believed were really true. And then you have to distinguish between the story as it comes down to us and what they actually said at the time. If Thomas himself was going around saying he knew Jesus was alive because he touched the wounds and refused to recant under torture, that's one thing. If that story grew in the telling until people 40+ years later believed it happened that way, that's something else. (And of course, we don't even know that Thomas died under torture without recanting - that's another story that came down to us.)
@@jeffmacdonald9863 While believing a falsehood is the most likely answer, we still can't rule out liars/scam artists. The disciples would have gained a lot from their claims, having gone from fishermen working long hours at manual labour, to famous preachers with every need taken care of. There are plenty of cases today of priests who do not believe but continue preaching as it is their livelihood, and their skills do not carry to any other line of work. It seems plausible that of the 12, some of them had more selfish reasons for elevating their station to new heights.
@@Wertbag99 Possible, though I think you overstate the benefits and ignore the risks of preaching a new, miniscule cult. More a matter of begging any converts you can make for bread than living in luxury. And if the only stories we have to base their continued preaching on are true, then they met bad ends.
youre strawmanning the argument my friend. there is a qualitative difference between the 9/11 bombers and the disciples: the disciples are in a unique position to falsify their belief. They didnt just die for a belief like any other martyr; They died for what they claimed to have seen, the dead christ risen from the dead.
@@westshot7338 Did they though? That's the story that's come down to us, but the evidence that the disciples "died for what they claimed to have seen, the dead christ risen from the dead" is actually pretty thin. The only thing close to eyewitness testimony for seeing the risen Jesus is Paul's description of his own conversion, which he calls visions and revelations as well as an appearance. It's certainly possible Paul had some experience that he believed was of the risen Jesus, but this is very different than touching and talking to a man you knew to be dead. The other appearances were written about decades after the fact by people who weren't present. And for the disciples, even the Bible doesn't claim they died as martyrs. That's church tradition, only known from much later sources. Peter has pretty early tradition. And since he's mentioned by Paul, as is John, they did apparently keep their belief in Jesus. The other disciples vanish from the narrative after the early chapters of Acts. We don't know that Peter, the only disciple we've got even decent evidence was martyred, would have described his appearance of the risen Jesus in different terms than Paul's. Paul seems to equate them.
What drives me crazy when it comes to these apologists, is not the claim that God supposedly did something amazing beyond belief, but the UNSPOKEN premise that I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT TO BE SAVED! This premise puts the listener in a precarious situation: his salvation hinges on his credulity! Only if you know stuff you cannot know, will God save you! And that is the space were abusers "dwell." Abusers like cult-leaders, demagogs and con-men. They are dependent on the listener making their decisions without enough information, so they can be taken advantage of. I wish apologists would discover what dangers they encourage their listeners to embrace!
What I realise it wierd (now that I'm an atheist) is that we are commanded to "believe" something we don't believe, which of course is impossible to do. We could pretend to believe it and even act like we believe it, but if we don't believe it, then we don't believe it. My decades in teh church taught me that most Christians do not belive (i.e. are not intellectually convinced) that all of the things they claim to "believe" are actually true.
Funny that if someone showed you a video of someone “coming back from the dead”, you wouldn’t believe it. Wouldn’t matter if their friends insisted they ACTUALLY rose from the dead. Wouldn’t matter if their friend wrote a book about it after. It would be far less compelling if the alleged resurrection happened 30 years prior. But if it’s in the Bible, it must be true undeniable historical fact!
Superman actually exists because he has been presented in articles, books, television and film, therefore, it's an undeniable fact that Superman actually exists.
There's also no evidence whatsoever that any of the disciples died for a lie. We do have early attestations to both Peter and Paul being martyred, but those attestations don't say if they were given an opportunity to recant. They may simply have been executed for sedition. The other apostles don't get their hagiographies written for centuries, and they're all works of fiction.
“Don’t deny! Don’t deny!” I sang in my head as he kept repeating the phrase “undeniable” as if he’s saying, “Alakazam!” or “Abrakadabra!” But that’s what they want. You see your denial 100% has the power to invalidate their belief, which is why part of their defense is to hyper emphasize “denial” as the problem. To me though it seems to be to bolster “denial” as a social problem as a crime against the consensus of a group. If that be the case, then it’s clear what power is being worshiped, and it’s not a transcendent Creator-Being.
Note his use of the words "liberal" and "atheist scholars." Code words for "the enemy," the Godless. I came to understand apologists like this better when I realized that they're speaking only to their flock, their believers. Their confidence is meant to discourage investigation. That's the game. So investigate.
I'm so happy to see this post. Dan, this is exactly all I've asked for from people like Ehrman. It isn't undeniable, historical fact. There is just evidence there that people think is enough that it is likely that Jesus existed and/or was crucified. That seems like a small distinction, but it really isn't. I'm not a historicist, but I'm not a mythicist either. I simply don't know, and I only really get my undies in a bunch when someone that should know better scoffs at the idea of being a mythicist.
If we take into account the fact that JC died in the middle of the Zombie Apocalypse of Matthew 27:52-53, the claim that he rose from the dead seems much less farfetched. People who die during Zombie Apocalypses can often turn without having gotten bit - undeniable historical fact. The dead leave their graves during Zombie Apocalypses - undeniable historical fact. Live people move pretty fast during Zombie Apocalypses; their motion is best characterized as running and screaming - undeniable historical fact. JC could easily have turned, left his tomb, and been sighted by people who were running and screaming. Those events would account for the empty tomb, and sightings immediately after the crucifixion. Zombie Apocalypses are commonplace events and don't even require supernatural involvement.
I think the two big hurdles that many people can’t grasp regarding mass hallucinations is that: 1) they view themselves as being unique and special, when that often times is not the case 2) they view the brain as a quasi-computer, which is never the case. The brain can just stimulate itself when it lacks external sources.
Ah but, you see, if you say "undeniable historical fact" many times in front of your mobile phone, then the Undeniable Historical Fact appears, and it's obviously the risen Jesus (and some bees). Checkmate, skeptics.
If youre experiencing anxiety, you can pray and praise the power of the father and son and after praising ask for the anxiety to go away and you will be calmed. I know from first hand experience
My best friend’s sister died of cancer, her family prayed and prayed and prayed and fasted. She still died. So I don’t think you should promise that god is going to answer prayers when that is clearly not true
Місяць тому
@@Moriningland 5000 children starve to death every day, but god took care of this guy's anxiety.
If I say something was written down in a book, but even I don't know who wrote the book nor when it was published, then everything in the book MUST be an undeniable fact.
I am not a Biblical scholar and haven’t been a Christian believer for years, but the creator in the stitch said something I find odd: is it true that (according to the Bible) “James the brother of Jesus” had to be convinced - post resurrection - that his brother was the Son of God who was resurrected from the dead? Having grown up in the same household, wouldn’t he have had a clue that his “brother” was “special?” Especially if he followed him around, listening to him speak and witnessing miracles? I’m probably missing some important Apologetic “indisputable fact” here due to my lack of knowledge …..
Apologists point to some gospel verses that "the brothers" of Jesus didn't believe in him. But NOWHERE does it specifically mention James as being an unbeliever.
"And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, 'He is out of his mind'" (Mark 3:21). Apparently James and the rest of the family did recognize that Jesus was special…
Since James - and not Peter, as was claimed - was made head of the movement after Jesus' death, it's highly unlikely that he denied that Jesus was the messiah. The content creator probably conflated James with those relatives of Jesus who thought the latter was cookoo for cocoa puffs, because he assumed it better supported his claim.
Thank you folks for the explanatory comments. As I implied, my biblical knowledge is very limited. Thanks for the clarification and for adding needed details!
@@Noneya5555 It's well known from Paul (and in the later chapters of Acts) that James was a leader in the movement. James barely appears in the Gospels (and the most obvious assumption is that he would be lumped in with the rest of the family who didn't believe.) It's reasonable that he converted after Jesus's death, especially if he had some kind of experience of Jesus himself, but that's not more than hinted at in Acts. Peter appears to be the leader of the group in the early days and James is in that position by the time we see him again when Paul visits Jerusalem. It's weird and it feels like there's a story there we don't know.
Miracles are never the most likely historical explanation. Ever. Paul Ens of the YT channel Paulogia puts forward the best, most parsimonious explanation of the rise of christianity after the, in my opinion, probable crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
That's only because miracles don't actually happen. And in my mind, kind of weakens the argument. It's basically saying, no matter what evidence you have, I'm not going to believe it. Thing is though, even if we don't rule it out out of hand, the evidence is pretty sketchy. It's easy to imagine better evidence: For example, if the events described in Matthew had really played out - not only Jesus rising, but dead saints coming back to preach the gospel all over the city? That would almost certainly have been documented. That's big. A story like that, with contemporary documentation? And then the ensuing mass conversions of most of Jerusalem that almost certainly would have followed? That's the kind of thing that would be much harder to explain away than the Biblical evidence.
This is like a child's reasoning coming out of the mouth of a fully grown adult. "Blue Gatorade is blue, the ocean is blue, therefore the ocean must be made of blue Gatorade" what?
Fact #1 is very plausible unless you manage to prove he was alive afterwards. In which case it becomes very implausible. Fact #1 is certainly not strong enough to conclude a resurrection.
So basically, his argument boils down to 1. They believed Jesus resurrected 2. They died for that belief Like we're gonna ignore the beliefs and martyrdom of other religions. Moreover, his arguments ≠ evidence 🤦🏾♂️
To be frank, his argument encompasses a bit more than what you boil it down to here: - Multiple individuals claimed to have witnessed the risen Christ. - Local community members, initially skeptics, converted following this alleged event Like Paul and Jesus's brother, James. But you are right though, that does not constitute substantial evidence; seven individuals claimed to have witnessed Joseph Smith's golden plates, and Smith himself perished for his beliefs. And yet, somehow I doubt that this apologist would deem such evidence sufficient to believe such stories from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Also, there is not direct testimony from those who supposedly claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected in the Bible and yes, many died as Christians in the beginning, but people were persecuted for a lot of stuff back then and there is no evidence that they had the chance to recant, but couldn't because they were "sure of what they saw" Also, there is not direct testimony from those who supposedly claimed to have seen Jesus, just claims that such and such person did see him (and many religious do that). Conclusion: One can believe is one wants, but there is not enough evidence to COMPEL belief
Solid evidence for BELIEF in the resurrection is not evidence for the resurrection. Once upon a time people believed that the earth was flat. Does that mean that the earth used to be flat? 🤨
@@pansepot1490 Well, testimony IS considered evidence in modern courts (but is not considered to be the best kind of evidence). So you are right, it is not SOLID evidence. If the belief they had was based on experiences they had (and that may be), it may strenghten likelihood a bit, but not much. Of course, we don't have any direct evidence about what experiences James had that led him to believe that his brother actually was the Messiah (after his death and supposed ressurection). What makes the whole thing "tortured" is that we, living two thousand years later, must trust the supposed belief of these strangers. If not, God will reject us. This causes a dangerous level of credulity to be the basis for our spirituality, and credulity CAN and HAS BEEN used to abuse followers of religion by con-men and cults, so that is a dangerous foundation to have.
@@pansepot1490 Another point I agree with you about is that people like James and the others who supposedly testified to have seen the risen Christ, didn't THEMSELVES provide a TESTIMONY of this fact to US. All we have is OTHER PEOPLE claiming that these people experienced Christ, believed him and was willing to die for him. And second hand testimony is generally NOT admissible in court, due to the "hearsay rule"
@@busylivingnotdying James is one of the interesting curiosities of the story to me. The Gospels barely mention him. He's mentioned in the early chapters of Acts, but again in a very minor role, but the Paul describes him as a leader of the movement and later Acts agrees, but neither give any indication of how he got there.
Even swoon theory, which isn't widely discussed, must be more plausible than a resurrection. Swoon theory posits a natural explanation, that a guy survived crucifixion via intervention and that is something we have other records of having happened. It would be rare, it would be unlikely, but it still matches the data and doesn't need the laws of the universe to be broken to make it happen.
One of the biggest problems with especially this rather...ambitious...version of the minimal facts is that they are only facts IF AND ONLY IF you presuppose that the Bible is true anyway. But then if you already accept that, the min facts argument is pointless. It unfortunately simplifies down to "If the Bible is true then the Bible is true". Ok uh...thanks i guess.
Undeniable historic facts: Romulus founded Rome in 753 BC Romulus was miraculously born and miraculously raised (by wolves!) Romulus died in a miraculous storm or was assassinated. He ascended into the Heavens. He appeared to Proculous on the road, explaining his place in an eternal kingdom. There. That proves Romulus is God.
This is why I deconverted from Christianity, I can prove to myself these events didn’t occur, they don’t occur now, and Jesus and Paul said they WOULD.
We need a reality tv show where an unjustifiably confident Christian has to share a flat with an unjustifiably confident Muslim, Sikh, and whoever else and you tape their circular arguments.
I hope someone has some direction for this question. Is there a rebuttal to the claim "Jesus is the most documented historical figure of the ancient world by a long shot, the historical evidence supporting His existence dwarfs any other person of His time"?
The fact that numerous Jesus-following communities sprang up in Galilee and Jerusalem in the middle of the first century demonstrate that he was a real person, and had believers. Beyond that, everything is evidence-free, pious speculation. There is no reason to think gods exist.
Wait, have i been wasting time doing research and constructing arguments this whole time when I could have just been saying stuff and following it with "Undeniable Historical Fact!" ?
Wondering if Dan has read Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments." Kierkegaard makes similar arguments as to why reason is an insufficient basis for belief in Christian claims.
What's the name of that law again? Is it Betteridge's Law? "If you watch this video and you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, that's a "you" problem, not an evidence problem." That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what it is. It looks like a form of ad hom but also like gaslighting. Any ideas what this specific fallacy would be? "It's not that my argument and evidence are rubbish. The reason you don't believe is because of you." There was an Oxford (I think) professor some years back discussed the details behind what apologists love to call the "swoon theory." Swoon is a really terrible word to use here. NDE might work. I'm sure others can find better words than "swoon." Swoon sounds like all that happened is he came over all funny and passed out. It's a bit more than that with trauma and blood loss. I found the explanation perfectly coherent for the most part and did a decent job of accounting for the stories, probably better than "Hey, magic!" The empty tomb is a can of worms. (He he). "They were willing to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead." Is that the belief they were willing to die for though? Just that one? Not the imminent return of the kingdom of God? And did they even have a choice? As Jesus' closest companions, were they not just more insurrectionists to the Romans to be arrested and executed on sight?
Gotta love how people have "undeniable historical facts" for things that happened 2200 years ago but are totally OK with arguing with "undeniable historical facts" related to things that happened 250 years ago. Edit: Or four years ago.
I agree. I studied history years ago and if you understand the historical method, you know that no historical statement is "undeniable" and "a fact." It is either likely, unlikey or outside the scope of historical evaluation (like claims of miracles in the past), but never an "undeniable historical fact"
@@busylivingnotdying yeah apologists like to conflate and confuse biblical scholars and historians. Idk about religious biblical scholars but historians exclude the supernatural as explanation by default either it is Christian, pagan or extraterrestrial.
You’d think if someone, say Jesus, wanted to start a religion he’d write something down. Or maybe get some followers that could write. Since he supposedly knew he was going to die, you’d think he’d at least try to get a literate follower or two. Oh, they better have some money. Papyrus wasn’t cheap, so that could be a problem for poor peasants from Galilee.
@@SimonTamplar No one would willingly give up their life of comfort to be persecuted and outright hunted and shunned by your own people, for a lie. Paul writes how he sometimes does not have enough money to even live Philippians 4:12: "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." No human would willingly torture themselves, compromise their lives, or ruin their reputation for something they knew to be a lie. Basic psychology tells us that the followers of Jesus TRULY believed they saw him alive, now whether you want to call it schizophrenia or hallucinations that's a different story, but they truly believed these things so much so they were willing to die for it.
But people do it all the time. People today die for their religions and they can't all be based on facts. Some of them have to be wrong. And even if one is right, people today didn't see Jesus rise personally or hear the Koran dictated to Mohammed. People die for beliefs. People can be wrong. We can also tell stories about people who died for their beliefs when it isn't actually true. Peter and Paul, most likely. The other disciples? There's a little bit early in Acts and nothing else in the literature until much later. Tales of their deaths are just church tradition. For all we know, most of them could have fled back to Galilee and back to farming or fishing after Jesus was killed.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 I’ve researched all of the main religions and they actually have so much in common so yes, maybe in a way they all can come from the same Source. God wouldn’t just speak to the Jews and ignore the rest of Their creation.
@@UniversalistSon9 I doubt very much that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is the creator of everything. *IF* there is a god, I doubt anyone knows anything about it.
I've often thrown evangelical Christians off-kilter by agreeing my atheist beliefs are in fact faith-based. I have no undeniable proof or facts of the non-existence of a deity. It's very hard to have a proof of absence unless it's something involving the hard sciences where evidence of facts have a physical basis (a blood test can prove the absence of an antibody, for example). However, the preponderance of the evidence doesn't sufficiently support the existence of a deity, either, just the human propensity for believing in such things. Given the choice, my personal belief is there is nothing supernatural in reality. I'm also agnostic, however, which isn't contradictory. Subjectively speaking, I don't believe any of it, but objectively speaking, I don't actually know because there's no undeniable facts supporting either side of the argument. I think more theists need to recognize that faith-based beliefs not only don't need evidence to back them up, but actually aren't faith-based at all if you need to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll ask them: is your faith really so weak that you need to create supposed "fact-based" arguments to back it up? Some of the Christians I've come to respect most are not only the live-and-let-live folks, but the ones who are also agnostic without even realizing it. They believe, but acknowledge they can't actually know.
@@pansepot1490 Pretty sure that was someone else's later addition, Wikipedia tells me it was Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. (Look up "Lewis' trilemma".)
@@OceanusHelios I won't go that far, but his effort to deduce divinity because Jesus just couldn't be anything else is as weak and desperate as an argument can be.
How can you quantify an event which has the least probability of being the most probabilistic one? Perhaps that's what makes "something" a miracle because if we can quantify miracles, it won't be a miracle anymore. Just my thought.
I often hear these folks talk about these scholars who agree with Biblical mythology as bring "fact", but just who are these scholars? Are these scholars from 100 years ago who had some very bias Christian backgrounds?
The Romans never let anyone be removed from a cross/t-bar crucifixion, it was part of the punishment to leave them there to be eaten by wild animals/birds even if they were Jews they were not permitted to bury them on the same day they died as was the Jewish tradition of the time... This doesnt add up with Christian beliefs that Jesus's body was removed and placed in a tomb, a tomb thats never been found/identified....
I feel like a lot of theological commitments would be thrown out if the evidence for the resurrection were 'undeniable'. What would be the purpose of faith? If any rational mind should be able to look at the data and conclude that the resurrection really did happen, it doesn't seem to make sense that God would reward people for possessing that belief. To me, it would be exactly the same if God saved people based on their belief that, for instance, they live on planet Earth. Forget about skeptics dismissing the evidence. Even from within the Christian perspective, it seems very much like the resurrection CAN'T be undeniable.
The new testament contains scores of eyewitness accounts of sightings of the resurrected messiah, Jesus Christ, though none can be historically verified. A "messiah", in Hebrew tradition. refers to someone who is declared "king" after oil has been applied to his hair. Surely such a "messiah" whose resurrection is attested by so many sources, even if those sources are not reliable, is a god worthy of praise and adulation! Ever hear of Elvis Presley?
State a claim. Declare that the claim is an undeniable fact. Win the argument.
Like evolution for instance
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Nope, not even remotely like evolution, which is one of the best supported scientific theories - possibly the best, period.
@@KaiHenningsen Supported by could be this maybe that. once upon a time long ago and far away.
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 not even close. Evolution has more data than any other field, multiple disciplines all giving the same results, and evolutionary biology is the source of the medicines keeping humans alive now. Your comment show your biases as well as your lack of rational thinking skills.
@@danielhamid5569 When we see plants and animals reproduce they allways produce the same type as themselves.Every time.
"He keeps using those words. I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean." 🤺
Beat me to it!
I think he knows what undeniable means. What isn't being understood, is that when scholars say they believe something is true. It means they think it is likely to be true. But if you get 90% of scholars that believe something has a 60% likelihood of being true, you would would say it has a 60% likelihood of being true, not that is was undeniably true.
You killt my fathur… 🤣
If Peter and Thomas who spent time with Jesus both denied and doubted Jesus respectively, and that Paul needed a vision to be convinced, what chance do we humans 2000 years into the future have?
Excellent point.
More to the point, If James the brother of Jesus wasn't convinced, doesn't the put into question both birth narratives? Oh sure, mom was a virgin and the family had to flee but I still don't believe.
dont got a shot in hell!
I think another thing to consider is if Jesus did suddenly appear to us in modern day, I think we’d need a lot more evidence than just him saying “I’m Jesus Christ”. Like, “okay crazy! Let’s get you back to the asylum!”
That's why it's called faith. If he made it super easy to believe everyone would win without any input. You need to look at evidence for the religion and against it. Try to counter all and then make up your mind.
The guy is just straight up making content for believers.
Exactly, no facts were presented , Assertions .
This guy doesn't understand the definitions of "undeniable," "historical," or "facts." What a clown!!
The members of the Heaven's Gate community were willing to die for their beliefs that they would be taken aboard the spacecraft hiding in the Hale-Bopp comet.
Undeniable, historical fact.
When Christians address atheism, they suddenly forget other religions exist.
Whenever I get told the dying for their belief argument is "proof", I tell them that Judaism must then be the true religion. Inevitably they ask why. I tell them Christians have murdered Jews by the millions for their beliefs for about 1500 years now. So the final score is Jews win by a mile.
The Branch Davidians too. And Jim Jones' Peoples Temple. To name just two other examples.
I’m way too poor. I need to start my own religion. First thing, write a book. I think I’ll write mine on plutonium plates.
The fit being The Punisher was so appropriate for this video.
Now _there's_ an undeniable fact.
For the Nth time, arguments aren't evidence. Good work as usual Dr Dan.
Dan, just let me say that your daily videos are some of the highlights of my day.
I enjoy them as well, though it is sometimes difficult having to listen to the logical fallacies of these religious apologists, delivered in the most grating arrogance. In the age of logic and science, faith alone is no longer sufficient for these people.
They are the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
No facts were harmed in the making of the creator's video.
They weren't even touched.
But do you profess a "historical Jesus"?
@@MarcillaSmith The reality or not of a “historical Jesus” is in no way evidence for his resurrection or that he was a supernatural being.
@@MarcillaSmithmaybe, but even he would be like wtf you guys talking about?
No facts were even touched!!!
From a religious standpoint, from a Christian standpoint, these apologetics are on the wrong track. Belief in Jesus will always be a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence.
It's like they missed the whole point of the "doubting Thomas" story. He was the BAD guy for demanding evidence.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnThat's not the lesson of that story either. You're taking Thomas being told that those who had more faith to be more blessed to mean he was not.
I don't think the Christian apologist understands why they are doing what they are doing. Their apologetics reek of desperation. The way I think of it is this.. the religious respect Science as if it were a religion. After all, they don't say 'take it on faith" when they could point out some scientific study IF it reinforces their positions. If a scientific paper came out that showed the shroud of Turin was the real deal, every single Cristian would point to that as EVIDENCE and praise the science.
The Christians want a science and an academic mindset that reinforces Christianity and that's impossible with the discipline of science or the analytical academic mindset. For example, an evolutionary biologist won't cite the Bible or use it to predict or analyze the science of their academic discipline. The evolutionary biologist will cite studies from peer reviewed academic literature and use the guidelines that were developed for that professional field when it comes to designing studies.
What the Christian apologist wants is a way to capture power so that they can hold higher social ranking and have the right to abuse and exploit those who are beneath them. Their religion benefits them and they wish to ensure future benefits by tricking people into giving that institution social credit. Look, the religious will never say they want to oppress others. But look at what they expect or require from society and you see that their actions are oppression. They want us to subsidize their social nonsense so they won't pay taxes but they will use public paid resources. They want the freedom of religion for themselves but they are not concerned about the freedom of religion for their victims. At every point, their freedom is bought by the oppression of another group. If everybody had freedom from religion, these types of religious folks would be unhappy because they only want freedom for themselves.
From a historical standpoint this is sad. Søren Kierkegaard - a devout christian - akready settled this 200 years ago.
It's a matter of faith *because * there's no strong evidence.
Apologists like to pretend that faith is superior to knowledge. It's not. It's a poor substitute.
Dan McClellan you have helped me become an agnostic and unbeliever better than any human living, thank you for that.
Thank you Dan for all your ACCURATE and IMPORTANT WORK here.
Most people wouldnt even have the time to investigate about all those claimed "facts" from all those self-declared apologetics in the net.
Alot of us who were Christians and deconverted to Atheism or Agnosticism love Dan’s channel because for the first time in decades without end we’re finally getting answers to questions we asked for many years while in the faith. Apologists had more to do with my deconversion than any Atheist.
Millions of Scandinavians were willing to die to enter Valhalla. Odin exists, undeniable historical fact.
More recently, 20 Muslims were willing to crash airplanes into US office buildings because they thought they would get 72 virgins in Heaven if the martyred themselves, therefore Islam is true (and Christianity is false because Islam says Jesus didn't die on a cross and wasn't resurrected).
Umbellumble plumbum FACT!
Umbedum padum FACT!
Umdumpa FACT!
bumbum FACT!
And let's hear it one more time for the small ones at the back:
fafaFACT!
Hundreds of thousands members of the Waffen SS were willing to die for Hitler's racism. White Supremacy must be true.
/sarcasm.
@@creamwobblyOMG we need more than just a thumbs-up button.
Paulogia has been engaging with Habermas's arguments for a long time. Many good videos on his channel. MythVision has a bunch of stuff as well.
Ive been wanting to read Dale Allison's book but not got round to it.
For the UA-cam crowd Paulogia's minimal witnesses hypothesis is a great summary of how a plausible naturalistic explanation can be made that accounts for the facts of the early speed of Christianity. Bearing in mind the purpose is not to say what did happen but to demonstrate how saying the "most likely" explanation being the resurrection is not based on anything more than preference.
Paulogia's explanation is good if you have the criteria that both Peter and Paul are fully honest people with pure intentions. If you don't insist upon that criteria, there's lots of other highly plausible scenarios you can construct. For example, Peter might have thought Jesus' message was too important to stop preaching just because Jesus died, and started claiming Jesus rose from the dead to make it sound more worthwhile.
@@SpaveFrostKing I had not thought of it that way before. I have always been keen to give the benefit of the doubt and not question motivation but try to argue in good faith that all that needs to be the case is for them to be convinced rather than to be "liars" (as the apologist would frame it). It's an interesting idea I haven't heard, thanks for adding that one 😀
@@christophersandford5888 Oh, I definitely think it's worthwhile to give the benefit of the doubt. But we also know through history that there are dishonest people. If we have to choose between miracles and dishonesty, I know what I think is more likely.
@@SpaveFrostKing There is a fascinating argument that came up in Schweizer's Quest of the Historical Jesus, in a narrative from the 1700s Schweizer reviews, that Jesus's disciples just preferred the preacher racket to their previous jobs -- it is noted that Jesus had people supporting him or caring for his needs, and we see Paul mentioning taking collections for the Jerusalem church a lot and how it's okay for apostles to get paid -- so they stole or hid the body, waited 50 or so days for there to be no possibility of identifying said body, and then proclaimed his resurrection with new instructions to go out and spread. While it makes a number of assumptions, it struck me that this is nevertheless a fairly reasonable naturalistic alternative account that someone came up with 300 years ago. That the disciples could have been financially motivated is not entirely farfetched, though the evidence for it isn't great; still, surely it's more probable than that a guy actually was raised from the dead by God and then never bothered to make any major public appearances?
@@SpaveFrostKing You could - but then you'd have to wonder why Peter would change the message so much. From what Jesus taught to the focus on salvation through his death and resurrection.
I enjoyed this video. Undeniable historical fact.
Paulogia also has some good videos on Habermas’ position and related issues.
"Imma quote a religious text to prove the historicity of the events described in the religious text."
Wow.
A few years ago there was a bumper sticker that I used to see way too often. It read “ God said it. I believe it. That settles it!”
If you repeat a lie frequently enough it becomes ingrained, and eventually for most, indiscernible from fact and truth.
I had Betty White visit me last night and she took me to the moon to see Prince and Jimmi Hendrix shred guitar together on stage. This is a historical fact.
That guy is right, making a claim and following it up with “that’s a historical fact” really is fun 🤣
Hendrix? For real?….Lucky!!
I'm totally willing to accept the historical fact that you yourself believe your assertion.
@@ufpride83 You didn't say Simon says undeniable!!!
@@marknieuweboer8099 oh come on man! The guy said he saw HENDRIX jamming with Prince. Who would lie about Hendrix? What’s it gonna take for you to believe. Pictures?
I spend too much money for a drink at Starbucks. Undeniable historical fact!
I have recently debated someone who made the very same assertions. His basic premise was that the consensus of biblical scholars know these things to be true. I explained the difference between knowledge and belief and that scholars do not know these things, even if some of them might be convinced of them. I also had to make it clear that the very existence of a consensus tells us that we are not dealing with facts. If something has been established as a fact, using verifiable evidence, no consensus opinion is required.
Needless to say, the debate did not end with agreement. They never do.
One big issue is the gap of what "probably" means. Scholars agree that jesus or a preacher with a similar name probably existed, but that does not mean it is an undeniable fact or a 100% certitude. All in all, the probability that he existed is higher than the probability he did not exist, but by how much?
Even beyond that, most of these assertions aren't the consensus.
Sure, Jesus existing and being crucified has consensus.
The empty tomb has a good deal of doubt.
Someone, most likely Peter, having an initial experience that convinced him Jesus had risen: Consensus.
Same for Paul having some such experience a few years later.
Not for mass experiences.
Not for all the apostles being faithful unto death: That's not even Biblical, just tradition. Other than Peter and John, they drop out of the story after the first few chapters of Acts. Paul doesn't mention them.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Absolutely. Many Christians are unable to tell the difference between what is in the New Testament and later non-biblical traditions and almost no Christians are interested in information which does not confirm their beliefs.
I find it interesting that so many of them seek out proof or evidence for their beliefs or are at least eager to believe such claims. It's almost as though their faith isn't really enough.
I wonder how many NT scholars are believers anyway? Also, if they accept "consensus" in one discipline, do they also do it in others (physics, biology, etc)?
@@theunlearnedastronomer3205 Biblical scholars are a very mixed group, between atheists and believers and of course the various denominations of monotheism. Although it should be said that many believers are strictly academic and do not allow their religious conviction to influence their work,
Indeed, Dan McLellan is a Mormon and is very strict about being unbiased and academic.
As for consensus, reputable scholars would never apply consensus to the physical sciences because these rely strictly on the evidence and opinion is irrelevant.
It is important to differentiate between the scholars themselves (who are very clear that they work in a field where evidence is often lacking and that is why opinion matters) and people who incorrectly claim consensus as proof, rather than an educated guess which is probably correct but never definitely.
im dyslexic and currently recovering from a migraine, so read the title as "Are these unreliable historical facts about Jesus?". Turns out my messed up brain got it right after all!
Post-bereavement hallucination is common. There was a king of Portugal killed in Morocco that fits that description. Or, of course, Elvis.
Reading Mark i found the followers were not close to the crucifixion site: the women watched from afar. They went to the tomb the second morning after the burial to find... four completely different versions. The most important event in their lives and the small group of witnesses wasn't able to give a coherent account. Like nothing really happened except for an empty tomb with the suspect that they simply took the wrong one, the only they found open.
Oh hey I read the book Dan recommended by Dale Allison Jr. just this spring, so I can endorse Dan's recommendation!
What I appreciate about Allison's approach is that he does not start with his conclusion in mind (whether it be that the resurrection happened or did not) but, well, he looked at the Data (putting it over either dogma for it or against) and tried to give a fair assessment of what we can actually say about it.
So glad you did a video touching on Habermas and on common misconceptions about the resurrection. Would be cool to see another one where you dive into Habermas’ claims in more detail and maybe talk about why some scholars find the empty tomb story to be untenable.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
No doubt no doubt!
Damn Dan, you made me spit out my drink.
I didn't understand this line. (It seems backwards to me.) Can you explain?
@@ratamacue0320 sarcasm
Ah, the hyper arrogance of the religious person to call things "undeniable", yet have no actual verifiable evidence to support the assertions.
Just remember it’s the Christian faith. Faith as in “no evidemce” but they can’t quite grasp that.
At the summit of Dunning-Kruger's Mount Stewped
@@mickeyhadley4281why do you say that's what it means?
@@MarcillaSmith tbf, Christians have "evidence".
But it's like saying hoofprints (in a snow-covered field) leading up to a river ... are "evidence" for invisible flying unicorns.
They are accurately saying "there are hoofprints".
They are accurately pointing out that the tracks end at the river.
But it's the story they're weaving that evidence into ... which isn't really supported by the evidence.
As the late Christopher Hitchens pointed out,
"It's called faith ... because it's
not knowledge".
Faith is a leap beyond the evidence.
Faith is a willful choice;
a personal investment into hope.
@@MarcillaSmithwhat’s your take? Personally I didn’t see a single “undeniable fact” presented. On the other hand I did see a lot of faith though.
I take no issue with a person’s faith, I think it can be a very good thing. But faith is one thing, and facts are another.
Facts can prove a person’s faith to be perfectly valid, or invalid. But facts are facts. And the thing about provable facts is that they are PROVABLE.
"Scowlers?" I'm a bit of a scowler, myself. Especially when I have to listen to apologists tell me about "undeniable historical facts." Oh! Scholar. He was saying "scholar."
Yeah just saying something is an "undeniable historical fact" certainly doesn't make it so.
Dale Allison's book is pretty exceptional. Well balanced arguement, without being preachy.
The only issue I have with Allison's book is that he thinks the tomb being found empty is historical. We can't actually know that though. He seems to just be taking the Gospels at their word. It's just as likely that the empty tomb story is made-up by Mark. Paul doesn't mention anyone finding a tomb empty so we don't know if that story even existed at that point.
The part about Jesus' body being placed in a tomb is itself highly suspect, as it goes against everything that's known about Roman corporal punishment.
It's much more likely that Jesus' corpse would've been left on the cross as a deterrent for others considering attempting sedition against the empire. Eventually, it would've more likely been dumped in a shallow pit, to be fed upon by scavaging animals, as a means of humiliation, ie, not being given a proper burial.
The fact that Pilate personally presided over not 1, but 2, trials of Jesus, left his fate up to the mob, then allowed his corpse to be laid in a tomb, goes against everything that is known about the Roman administration of law as it concerns suspects convicted of sedition, and about Pilate himself.
It is most likely is that a story was concocted among the early followers of Jesus that entailed his body being placed in a tomb, so as to to explain his "resurrection" from the dead. The same was done with Jesus' foretelling of his death and resurrection.
After all, how could the one chosen and sent by God to be the messiah - and, as thought by later Christians, the actual son of God - be killed, and without completing his divine mission? Answer: he wasn't!
Whew, that's some serious mental gymnastics/contortions right there. 🥵
@ Decades: correct. It can't be excluded, but it's totally possible that Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb at all.
@@marknieuweboer8099 It would be the most likely thing for a crucified criminal to be left hanging on the cross for days, then dumped in a mass grave. Everyone at the time would have known that, so Mark had to explain it by saying a rich and influential follower got a special exemption.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 I mean, the characterisation of Pilate in the gospels is already completely unlike how he was described in Roman sources, so ...
I always wonder if Christians will apply the same standards for proof they apply to the story of Jesus to the story of the Prophet Muhammed or the Buddha or Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard, etc. Most modern faith traditions have similar sorts of evidence.
It’s all BS, the only undeniable historical fact is the Old Testament that’s for sure
Really? After a quarter of a century dealing with apologists I have concluded that the answer is no. Apologetics depends on double standards.
Heck, Joseph Smith had signed affidavits! Did Jesus's pals get anything notarized? And yet somehow, lots of people still aren't convinced about Mormonism, hmmmm...
@@marknieuweboer8099 Ah you totally caught me. I was trying to be pithy and clever but phrased it poorly. You are totally right of course because apologetics is about winning the argument not find the truth.
In defense of Buddhism.
While they have stories about Buddha that like have embellishments or are made up, non of it is dogmatic. There is no penalty for not believing these stories.
What matters is the philosophy of how to become a better person.
I'm really sick of the apologetic argument that people wouldn't die for an untruth. History is riddled with people dying for a cause that is wrong or is later proven to be wrong. Dying for a cause does not prove one single thing. If that were the case then the September 11th would support radical Islam's proof that their religion is the only religion.
It's a decent argument that they weren't deliberately scamming or making it up, that they actually believed. it's not a good argument that the things they believed were really true.
And then you have to distinguish between the story as it comes down to us and what they actually said at the time.
If Thomas himself was going around saying he knew Jesus was alive because he touched the wounds and refused to recant under torture, that's one thing. If that story grew in the telling until people 40+ years later believed it happened that way, that's something else. (And of course, we don't even know that Thomas died under torture without recanting - that's another story that came down to us.)
@@jeffmacdonald9863 While believing a falsehood is the most likely answer, we still can't rule out liars/scam artists. The disciples would have gained a lot from their claims, having gone from fishermen working long hours at manual labour, to famous preachers with every need taken care of. There are plenty of cases today of priests who do not believe but continue preaching as it is their livelihood, and their skills do not carry to any other line of work. It seems plausible that of the 12, some of them had more selfish reasons for elevating their station to new heights.
@@Wertbag99 Possible, though I think you overstate the benefits and ignore the risks of preaching a new, miniscule cult. More a matter of begging any converts you can make for bread than living in luxury.
And if the only stories we have to base their continued preaching on are true, then they met bad ends.
youre strawmanning the argument my friend. there is a qualitative difference between the 9/11 bombers and the disciples: the disciples are in a unique position to falsify their belief. They didnt just die for a belief like any other martyr; They died for what they claimed to have seen, the dead christ risen from the dead.
@@westshot7338 Did they though? That's the story that's come down to us, but the evidence that the disciples "died for what they claimed to have seen, the dead christ risen from the dead" is actually pretty thin.
The only thing close to eyewitness testimony for seeing the risen Jesus is Paul's description of his own conversion, which he calls visions and revelations as well as an appearance. It's certainly possible Paul had some experience that he believed was of the risen Jesus, but this is very different than touching and talking to a man you knew to be dead.
The other appearances were written about decades after the fact by people who weren't present. And for the disciples, even the Bible doesn't claim they died as martyrs. That's church tradition, only known from much later sources. Peter has pretty early tradition. And since he's mentioned by Paul, as is John, they did apparently keep their belief in Jesus. The other disciples vanish from the narrative after the early chapters of Acts.
We don't know that Peter, the only disciple we've got even decent evidence was martyred, would have described his appearance of the risen Jesus in different terms than Paul's. Paul seems to equate them.
What drives me crazy when it comes to these apologists, is not the claim that God supposedly did something amazing beyond belief, but the UNSPOKEN premise that I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT TO BE SAVED!
This premise puts the listener in a precarious situation: his salvation hinges on his credulity! Only if you know stuff you cannot know, will God save you!
And that is the space were abusers "dwell." Abusers like cult-leaders, demagogs and con-men. They are dependent on the listener making their decisions without enough information, so they can be taken advantage of.
I wish apologists would discover what dangers they encourage their listeners to embrace!
What I realise it wierd (now that I'm an atheist) is that we are commanded to "believe" something we don't believe, which of course is impossible to do. We could pretend to believe it and even act like we believe it, but if we don't believe it, then we don't believe it. My decades in teh church taught me that most Christians do not belive (i.e. are not intellectually convinced) that all of the things they claim to "believe" are actually true.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Funny that if someone showed you a video of someone “coming back from the dead”, you wouldn’t believe it. Wouldn’t matter if their friends insisted they ACTUALLY rose from the dead. Wouldn’t matter if their friend wrote a book about it after. It would be far less compelling if the alleged resurrection happened 30 years prior. But if it’s in the Bible, it must be true undeniable historical fact!
personally I believe it was staged by the Romans, as explained in "The Gospel of Afranius"
undeniably historically mostly anonymous unverifiable second-hand anecdotal facts.
I own a thesaurus. that's a historical fact. hey- that is fun . . .
Superman actually exists because he has been presented in articles, books, television and film, therefore, it's an undeniable fact that Superman actually exists.
There's also no evidence whatsoever that any of the disciples died for a lie. We do have early attestations to both Peter and Paul being martyred, but those attestations don't say if they were given an opportunity to recant. They may simply have been executed for sedition. The other apostles don't get their hagiographies written for centuries, and they're all works of fiction.
Do they think the Romans would have let them go free if they just renounced their beliefs? It is beyond silly.
“Don’t deny! Don’t deny!” I sang in my head as he kept repeating the phrase “undeniable” as if he’s saying, “Alakazam!” or “Abrakadabra!”
But that’s what they want. You see your denial 100% has the power to invalidate their belief, which is why part of their defense is to hyper emphasize “denial” as the problem.
To me though it seems to be to bolster “denial” as a social problem as a crime against the consensus of a group. If that be the case, then it’s clear what power is being worshiped, and it’s not a transcendent Creator-Being.
The fit for today is the Punisher?
But, Dan, I barely know her...
Note his use of the words "liberal" and "atheist scholars." Code words for "the enemy," the Godless. I came to understand apologists like this better when I realized that they're speaking only to their flock, their believers. Their confidence is meant to discourage investigation. That's the game. So investigate.
I'm so happy to see this post. Dan, this is exactly all I've asked for from people like Ehrman. It isn't undeniable, historical fact. There is just evidence there that people think is enough that it is likely that Jesus existed and/or was crucified. That seems like a small distinction, but it really isn't. I'm not a historicist, but I'm not a mythicist either. I simply don't know, and I only really get my undies in a bunch when someone that should know better scoffs at the idea of being a mythicist.
If we take into account the fact that JC died in the middle of the Zombie Apocalypse of Matthew 27:52-53, the claim that he rose from the dead seems much less farfetched. People who die during Zombie Apocalypses can often turn without having gotten bit - undeniable historical fact. The dead leave their graves during Zombie Apocalypses - undeniable historical fact. Live people move pretty fast during Zombie Apocalypses; their motion is best characterized as running and screaming - undeniable historical fact.
JC could easily have turned, left his tomb, and been sighted by people who were running and screaming. Those events would account for the empty tomb, and sightings immediately after the crucifixion. Zombie Apocalypses are commonplace events and don't even require supernatural involvement.
that's a sharp fit right there...
The tooth faerie left a dollar ‘neath my pillow. Undeniable historical fact.
I think the two big hurdles that many people can’t grasp regarding mass hallucinations is that: 1) they view themselves as being unique and special, when that often times is not the case 2) they view the brain as a quasi-computer, which is never the case. The brain can just stimulate itself when it lacks external sources.
@dan what do you think of Habermas newest volume other than massive.
And Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake. Jeez.
Ah but, you see, if you say "undeniable historical fact" many times in front of your mobile phone, then the Undeniable Historical Fact appears, and it's obviously the risen Jesus (and some bees). Checkmate, skeptics.
If youre experiencing anxiety, you can pray and praise the power of the father and son and after praising ask for the anxiety to go away and you will be calmed. I know from first hand experience
or you could take a nap with the same result
Maybe for some, but for others, trying to nap with anxiety isn't easy
My best friend’s sister died of cancer, her family prayed and prayed and prayed and fasted. She still died. So I don’t think you should promise that god is going to answer prayers when that is clearly not true
@@Moriningland 5000 children starve to death every day, but god took care of this guy's anxiety.
Even though he lectured you about not worrying about what you will eat because god will surely feed you. What a trickster he is.
If I say something was written down in a book, but even I don't know who wrote the book nor when it was published, then everything in the book MUST be an undeniable fact.
I am not a Biblical scholar and haven’t been a Christian believer for years, but the creator in the stitch said something I find odd: is it true that (according to the Bible) “James the brother of Jesus” had to be convinced - post resurrection - that his brother was the Son of God who was resurrected from the dead? Having grown up in the same household, wouldn’t he have had a clue that his “brother” was “special?” Especially if he followed him around, listening to him speak and witnessing miracles? I’m probably missing some important Apologetic “indisputable fact” here due to my lack of knowledge …..
Apologists point to some gospel verses that "the brothers" of Jesus didn't believe in him. But NOWHERE does it specifically mention James as being an unbeliever.
"And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, 'He is out of his mind'" (Mark 3:21).
Apparently James and the rest of the family did recognize that Jesus was special…
Since James - and not Peter, as was claimed - was made head of the movement after Jesus' death, it's highly unlikely that he denied that Jesus was the messiah.
The content creator probably conflated James with those relatives of Jesus who thought the latter was cookoo for cocoa puffs, because he assumed it better supported his claim.
Thank you folks for the explanatory comments. As I implied, my biblical knowledge is very limited. Thanks for the clarification and for adding needed details!
@@Noneya5555 It's well known from Paul (and in the later chapters of Acts) that James was a leader in the movement. James barely appears in the Gospels (and the most obvious assumption is that he would be lumped in with the rest of the family who didn't believe.)
It's reasonable that he converted after Jesus's death, especially if he had some kind of experience of Jesus himself, but that's not more than hinted at in Acts. Peter appears to be the leader of the group in the early days and James is in that position by the time we see him again when Paul visits Jerusalem.
It's weird and it feels like there's a story there we don't know.
Miracles are never the most likely historical explanation. Ever.
Paul Ens of the YT channel Paulogia puts forward the best, most parsimonious explanation of the rise of christianity after the, in my opinion, probable crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
That's only because miracles don't actually happen. And in my mind, kind of weakens the argument. It's basically saying, no matter what evidence you have, I'm not going to believe it.
Thing is though, even if we don't rule it out out of hand, the evidence is pretty sketchy. It's easy to imagine better evidence: For example, if the events described in Matthew had really played out - not only Jesus rising, but dead saints coming back to preach the gospel all over the city? That would almost certainly have been documented. That's big. A story like that, with contemporary documentation? And then the ensuing mass conversions of most of Jerusalem that almost certainly would have followed?
That's the kind of thing that would be much harder to explain away than the Biblical evidence.
This is like a child's reasoning coming out of the mouth of a fully grown adult. "Blue Gatorade is blue, the ocean is blue, therefore the ocean must be made of blue Gatorade" what?
Fact #1 is very plausible unless you manage to prove he was alive afterwards. In which case it becomes very implausible. Fact #1 is certainly not strong enough to conclude a resurrection.
So basically, his argument boils down to
1. They believed Jesus resurrected
2. They died for that belief
Like we're gonna ignore the beliefs and martyrdom of other religions. Moreover, his arguments ≠ evidence 🤦🏾♂️
To be frank, his argument encompasses a bit more than what you boil it down to here:
- Multiple individuals claimed to have witnessed the risen Christ.
- Local community members, initially skeptics, converted following this alleged event Like Paul and Jesus's brother, James.
But you are right though, that does not constitute substantial evidence; seven individuals claimed to have witnessed Joseph Smith's golden plates, and Smith himself perished for his beliefs. And yet, somehow I doubt that this apologist would deem such evidence sufficient to believe such stories from the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Also, there is not direct testimony from those who supposedly claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected in the Bible and yes, many died as Christians in the beginning, but people were persecuted for a lot of stuff back then and there is no evidence that they had the chance to recant, but couldn't because they were "sure of what they saw"
Also, there is not direct testimony from those who supposedly claimed to have seen Jesus, just claims that such and such person did see him (and many religious do that).
Conclusion:
One can believe is one wants, but there is not enough evidence to COMPEL belief
Solid evidence for BELIEF in the resurrection is not evidence for the resurrection. Once upon a time people believed that the earth was flat. Does that mean that the earth used to be flat? 🤨
@@pansepot1490 Well, testimony IS considered evidence in modern courts (but is not considered to be the best kind of evidence). So you are right, it is not SOLID evidence.
If the belief they had was based on experiences they had (and that may be), it may strenghten likelihood a bit, but not much. Of course, we don't have any direct evidence about what experiences James had that led him to believe that his brother actually was the Messiah (after his death and supposed ressurection).
What makes the whole thing "tortured" is that we, living two thousand years later, must trust the supposed belief of these strangers. If not, God will reject us.
This causes a dangerous level of credulity to be the basis for our spirituality, and credulity CAN and HAS BEEN used to abuse followers of religion by con-men and cults, so that is a dangerous foundation to have.
@@pansepot1490 Another point I agree with you about is that people like James and the others who supposedly testified to have seen the risen Christ, didn't THEMSELVES provide a TESTIMONY of this fact to US. All we have is OTHER PEOPLE claiming that these people experienced Christ, believed him and was willing to die for him.
And second hand testimony is generally NOT admissible in court, due to the "hearsay rule"
@@busylivingnotdying James is one of the interesting curiosities of the story to me. The Gospels barely mention him. He's mentioned in the early chapters of Acts, but again in a very minor role, but the Paul describes him as a leader of the movement and later Acts agrees, but neither give any indication of how he got there.
Even swoon theory, which isn't widely discussed, must be more plausible than a resurrection. Swoon theory posits a natural explanation, that a guy survived crucifixion via intervention and that is something we have other records of having happened. It would be rare, it would be unlikely, but it still matches the data and doesn't need the laws of the universe to be broken to make it happen.
you should debate william lane craig or another scholar on the resurrection
Bart Ehrman debated William on this subject.
@@keithnicholas I know but id like to see Dan's take on WLC as well
Dan's said a number of times that debates with apologists are performative and tend to devolve to rhetoric rather than facts and analysis.
Towards the end it sounds as though Dan has read some David Hume.
People die for lies all the time, even when they know they're lies.
example?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
An only slightly less well-known undeniable historical fact is “never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line”
Because I said so, no further questions please.😬
One of the biggest problems with especially this rather...ambitious...version of the minimal facts is that they are only facts IF AND ONLY IF you presuppose that the Bible is true anyway. But then if you already accept that, the min facts argument is pointless. It unfortunately simplifies down to "If the Bible is true then the Bible is true". Ok uh...thanks i guess.
Can we organise Dan to debate Kent Hovind?
Depends on if Hovind happens to be in prison whenever the debate would take place.
@@OuttaMyMind911
Dan's said numerous times that he's not interested in debating, as they tend to focus on rhetoric and popularity rather than facts and analysis.
Undeniable historic facts:
Romulus founded Rome in 753 BC
Romulus was miraculously born and miraculously raised (by wolves!)
Romulus died in a miraculous storm or was assassinated.
He ascended into the Heavens.
He appeared to Proculous on the road, explaining his place in an eternal kingdom.
There. That proves Romulus is God.
‘Facts come from the Bible’, that’s too funny.
So many assertions of fact that simply are not so.
This is why I deconverted from Christianity, I can prove to myself these events didn’t occur, they don’t occur now, and Jesus and Paul said they WOULD.
We need a reality tv show where an unjustifiably confident Christian has to share a flat with an unjustifiably confident Muslim, Sikh, and whoever else and you tape their circular arguments.
I hope someone has some direction for this question. Is there a rebuttal to the claim "Jesus is the most documented historical figure of the ancient world by a long shot, the historical evidence supporting His existence dwarfs any other person of His time"?
The fact that numerous Jesus-following communities sprang up in Galilee and Jerusalem in the middle of the first century demonstrate that he was a real person, and had believers. Beyond that, everything is evidence-free, pious speculation. There is no reason to think gods exist.
Wait, have i been wasting time doing research and constructing arguments this whole time when I could have just been saying stuff and following it with "Undeniable Historical Fact!" ?
"that's a you problem"
Wondering if Dan has read Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Fragments." Kierkegaard makes similar arguments as to why reason is an insufficient basis for belief in Christian claims.
1:40 Dale Allison Jr, The Resurrection of Jesus
What's the name of that law again? Is it Betteridge's Law?
"If you watch this video and you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, that's a "you" problem, not an evidence problem."
That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what it is. It looks like a form of ad hom but also like gaslighting. Any ideas what this specific fallacy would be? "It's not that my argument and evidence are rubbish. The reason you don't believe is because of you."
There was an Oxford (I think) professor some years back discussed the details behind what apologists love to call the "swoon theory." Swoon is a really terrible word to use here. NDE might work. I'm sure others can find better words than "swoon." Swoon sounds like all that happened is he came over all funny and passed out. It's a bit more than that with trauma and blood loss. I found the explanation perfectly coherent for the most part and did a decent job of accounting for the stories, probably better than "Hey, magic!"
The empty tomb is a can of worms. (He he).
"They were willing to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead."
Is that the belief they were willing to die for though? Just that one? Not the imminent return of the kingdom of God? And did they even have a choice? As Jesus' closest companions, were they not just more insurrectionists to the Romans to be arrested and executed on sight?
Gotta love how people have "undeniable historical facts" for things that happened 2200 years ago but are totally OK with arguing with "undeniable historical facts" related to things that happened 250 years ago.
Edit: Or four years ago.
I agree.
I studied history years ago and if you understand the historical method, you know that no historical statement is "undeniable" and "a fact." It is either likely, unlikey or outside the scope of historical evaluation (like claims of miracles in the past), but never an "undeniable historical fact"
@@busylivingnotdying yeah apologists like to conflate and confuse biblical scholars and historians. Idk about religious biblical scholars but historians exclude the supernatural as explanation by default either it is Christian, pagan or extraterrestrial.
It's amazing how many people think that a high degree of belief is scientific proof.
UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACT
You’d think if someone, say Jesus, wanted to start a religion he’d write something down. Or maybe get some followers that could write. Since he supposedly knew he was going to die, you’d think he’d at least try to get a literate follower or two. Oh, they better have some money. Papyrus wasn’t cheap, so that could be a problem for poor peasants from Galilee.
I always come back to Paul, he gave up a pretty good life as a Pharisee to become a follower of Jesus
Millions of people know of Trump and believe he is a agent of the Almighty!
And? You want a list of people who willingly gave their life for their cause? Sacrifing comfort for convictions happens all the time.
We don't actually know anything about his early life. He barely talks about his life and Acts is apostle fan-fiction with no historical basis.
So what? you think people cannot realise they are onto a great con
@@SimonTamplar No one would willingly give up their life of comfort to be persecuted and outright hunted and shunned by your own people, for a lie. Paul writes how he sometimes does not have enough money to even live Philippians 4:12: "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." No human would willingly torture themselves, compromise their lives, or ruin their reputation for something they knew to be a lie. Basic psychology tells us that the followers of Jesus TRULY believed they saw him alive, now whether you want to call it schizophrenia or hallucinations that's a different story, but they truly believed these things so much so they were willing to die for it.
I wish this dude would do a video on the real Mount Sinai that’s in Saudi Arabia.
What persuades me about the validity of Christ is that why would people die for a belief that wasn’t based on facts? This thought makes my head spin
But people do it all the time. People today die for their religions and they can't all be based on facts. Some of them have to be wrong. And even if one is right, people today didn't see Jesus rise personally or hear the Koran dictated to Mohammed.
People die for beliefs. People can be wrong. We can also tell stories about people who died for their beliefs when it isn't actually true. Peter and Paul, most likely. The other disciples? There's a little bit early in Acts and nothing else in the literature until much later. Tales of their deaths are just church tradition. For all we know, most of them could have fled back to Galilee and back to farming or fishing after Jesus was killed.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 I’ve researched all of the main religions and they actually have so much in common so yes, maybe in a way they all can come from the same Source. God wouldn’t just speak to the Jews and ignore the rest of Their creation.
@@UniversalistSon9 I doubt very much that a primitive Hebrew war/storm god that indulges in animal sacrifices, loves the smell of burnt meat, who battles mythological sea creatures like other fictional gods from ancient Canaan, who can't help the Israelites overcome iron chariots and who evolved over time from one of many tribal gods and patron deities to become "God of the universe" is the creator of everything.
*IF* there is a god, I doubt anyone knows anything about it.
Notice Dan doesn't say he whether he does or doesn't believe in the resurrection by faith, he is just stating you can't verify these things as fact.
I've often thrown evangelical Christians off-kilter by agreeing my atheist beliefs are in fact faith-based. I have no undeniable proof or facts of the non-existence of a deity. It's very hard to have a proof of absence unless it's something involving the hard sciences where evidence of facts have a physical basis (a blood test can prove the absence of an antibody, for example). However, the preponderance of the evidence doesn't sufficiently support the existence of a deity, either, just the human propensity for believing in such things. Given the choice, my personal belief is there is nothing supernatural in reality. I'm also agnostic, however, which isn't contradictory. Subjectively speaking, I don't believe any of it, but objectively speaking, I don't actually know because there's no undeniable facts supporting either side of the argument. I think more theists need to recognize that faith-based beliefs not only don't need evidence to back them up, but actually aren't faith-based at all if you need to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll ask them: is your faith really so weak that you need to create supposed "fact-based" arguments to back it up? Some of the Christians I've come to respect most are not only the live-and-let-live folks, but the ones who are also agnostic without even realizing it. They believe, but acknowledge they can't actually know.
I'll point out that your observation about probability applies equally well to the "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument of CS Lewis.
Legend is missing.
@@pansepot1490 Pretty sure that was someone else's later addition, Wikipedia tells me it was Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. (Look up "Lewis' trilemma".)
@@pansepot1490 Even if we exclude the point that it's a false trilemma, Liar and Lunatic still win out on probability.
CS Lewis was a pedantic infant.
@@OceanusHelios I won't go that far, but his effort to deduce divinity because Jesus just couldn't be anything else is as weak and desperate as an argument can be.
This is undeniable evidence that he's a DA.
How can you quantify an event which has the least probability of being the most probabilistic one?
Perhaps that's what makes "something" a miracle because if we can quantify miracles, it won't be a miracle anymore.
Just my thought.
“Ha ha ha ha. Wipeout”
Zeus created the universe. Undeniable fact.
Such a pity when people confuse literature with history. The modern equivalent is the "based on a true story" movie.
I often hear these folks talk about these scholars who agree with Biblical mythology as bring "fact", but just who are these scholars? Are these scholars from 100 years ago who had some very bias Christian backgrounds?
The sin of certainty
The Romans never let anyone be removed from a cross/t-bar crucifixion, it was part of the punishment to leave them there to be eaten by wild animals/birds even if they were Jews they were not permitted to bury them on the same day they died as was the Jewish tradition of the time... This doesnt add up with Christian beliefs that Jesus's body was removed and placed in a tomb, a tomb thats never been found/identified....
I feel like a lot of theological commitments would be thrown out if the evidence for the resurrection were 'undeniable'. What would be the purpose of faith? If any rational mind should be able to look at the data and conclude that the resurrection really did happen, it doesn't seem to make sense that God would reward people for possessing that belief. To me, it would be exactly the same if God saved people based on their belief that, for instance, they live on planet Earth.
Forget about skeptics dismissing the evidence. Even from within the Christian perspective, it seems very much like the resurrection CAN'T be undeniable.
The new testament contains scores of eyewitness accounts of sightings of the resurrected messiah, Jesus Christ, though none can be historically verified. A "messiah", in Hebrew tradition. refers to someone who is declared "king" after oil has been applied to his hair. Surely such a "messiah" whose resurrection is attested by so many sources, even if those sources are not reliable, is a god worthy of praise and adulation! Ever hear of Elvis Presley?