Elevator Pitch for the Resurrection of Jesus
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2023
- Full Interview: ua-cam.com/users/liveRFZvZha2OvU
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
For those, who don't know: Lydia is lying down, because she suffers from horrible back pain and also from other nervious issues. Pray for her.
I also wish her well, but why pray to a deity, that is responsible (either by actively causing it or by not helping her allthough it would be no problem for it) for her pain in the first place?
Thank you for the clarity! I clicked on the video and was like "why is she laying down?" scrolled down and saw this comment. Hope she gets well.
@@TgfkaTrichter Do you think God has zero reason to allow her to have back pain?
@@TgfkaTrichter
ageing & diseases are the consequences of the fall of Adam & Eve
even Jesus had to suffer an agonizing death from such a fall
John the Baptist was beheaded and Jesus did not intervene to save him
why do you think so?
so you see, pain / suffering / death are inextricably part of life's journey that we have to accept
@@sneakysnake2330 the reason does not matter. A creature with the power of god should find a better way. If god has a plan, and this plan requieres all the pain and misery, that is rampant in our reality and can not be explained away by free will, then his plan sucks.
I believe in the Resurrection ❤️🙏
Me too ! Peace
Without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity is doomed to be just another false religion. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation upon which we grow in faith and trust for the Kingdom of God. God bless
@@johnbrzykcy3076 That does not make it true, however.
@@lil-al agreed 👍
She’s amazing!
Hey, Dave Farina posted a video "responding" to yours and Dr. Paul Rimmer's analysis. Personally I would love to see another response video from y'all!
Cameron…I have a question. Can you attest to an argument whose conclusion requires a theistic explanation rather than an argument whose answer could come from other explanations? Curious
Any argument will always have some other type of explanation that is possible. I always tells people that there's a reason that the life and death of Christ is the turning point in human history. So you can compartmentalize the arguments, but when you take the totality of everything. All of the evidence, archaeological evidence, historical documentation from so many different sources, the explosion of the church, the church's tremendously positive effect on the world, it gets to a point where it starts to become ridiculous to think that all of this is just some made up story. Christ has literally changed the world to the point that even time itself is now based on his birth. There was before Christ and after Christ. Christ is the most attested to figure in antiquity, and there's never been a more dissected worldview that has ever existed than Christianity. It has taken on challengers for millenia and it is still growing. So I'd recommend to not compartmentalize the evidence by trying to find one argument that proves Christianity. You have to take all of it together.
A distinct possibility is the apostles didn't claim anything in this regard and the report of their claims were inaccurate, or a story evolved and succumbed to a game of telephone and legend.
The story presented in the Bible have none of the hallmark signs of exaggeration nor do the many documents found of the same text lack substantial contents which would indicate what you're saying; the documents also have a very young geneology disallowing adequate time for embelishment. It isn't possible that the Apostles didn't claim anything because these Apostles weren't the only witnesses and what they testified to is also verified by other historical writers.
@@FullDottle Do you find the hallmark signs of exaggeration in Virgil, Homer, or Dante? Heck, I don't even find the hallmark signs of exaggeration in J. R. R. Tolkien. I think we should rely on the gospel of Mark (the one that had the least time for embellishment) to answer these questions as they are the key to this whole argument... oh wait.
@@ekim051084 You are making the false argument that these records were written 50 years after the death of Christ. This is a false assumption when many scholars place the date of Mark to around A.D. 55.
@@gfxpimp Since when has any of those writings been considered historical narratives aside from Mark? It also seems you are being a little comical stating you don't find embellishment in J.R.R. Tolkein's fiction. I mean really? 🤨
@@ekim051084 yes. From Tolkien himself.
Tolkien described his works as an act of "subcreation." He believed that as an artist, he was creating a secondary world that operated according to its own internal laws and consistent mythology. This concept of subcreation allowed Tolkien to delve into the details of his fictional universe and imbue it with a sense of realism.. He also described his works as "mythopoeia," which means the creation of myth or mythology. He aimed to construct a body of legends and myths that would evoke a sense of wonder and reflect certain universal truths. Tolkien viewed mythology as a powerful means of exploring profound themes and connecting with readers on a deep level.
He often referred to his works as "fairy-stories" or "faerie." Tolkien considered fairy-stories to be not just for children but for adults as well, capable of addressing serious topics and stirring the imagination.
It doesn't hold a drop of water.
Ok why?
Praying for Lydia’s health.
As a catholic, I do believe in the resurrection. But can anyone please answer this question, for pure speculative purposes: is it possible that, while the apostles were 100% convinced, someone else enacted the Resurrection? (i.e. Mary Magdalen could have lied to the apostles with someone’s help?)
What do you mean by "someone else enacted the Resurrection?" I don't quite understand your question. Are you implying that Mary Magdalen made up the story of the Resurrection?
Respectfully....
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Can you read my question? I’m not “implying” anything.
@@CatholicWisdom I apologize because my logical thinking ability is bad. I'm not sure if it was caused by my cancer chemotherapy treatments or something else.
Anyhow... peace of God to you. Respectfully from Florida
Yes, it is possible that testimony is fallible if it consists out of mere testimony alone. Which is also what entirely dismantles her words. In court proceedings, you can stack as many testimonies on top of each other as you want. But without evidence, proof or recordings, we are still at square one.
@@MrYelly That is not what I meant, absolutely nothing “dismantles” her words and this has NOTHING to do with a court of law, where what matters is legal justice, not truth. I want to meet a believer like me (not an atheist like you) who is open to any rational possibility, although uncomfortable, and still (like me) has faith in the Resurrection.
Something that has always bothered me about the veracity of the gospel stories is that early Christianity was seemingly extremely mocked/hated/disbelieved in Jerusalem. Christianity's success spreading was overwhelmingly in places where there was no one who could verify or check on the accuracy of the claims made. And in the place where people could check on the made claims, everybody thought it was bogus.
I mean we have on the day Jesus died dead people raising from the dead and walking the streets, an earth quake, the sun darkening, etc. It seems like, given that in real life people raising from the dead all of a sudden literally never happens, this would have been a huge deal. But no, Christianity did terribly in Jerusalem, the place all the miracles supposedly occurred.
Thoughts would be appreciated.
I would push back on your premise that Christianity mainly spread outside of Jerusalem at first. The majority scholarly view is that Jerusalem was the center of Apostolic Christianity for at least a couple decades. The early creeds, especially the one in 1 Corinthians 15 detailing the resurrection witnesses, show evidence of having circulated amongst the community in Jerusalem, where the very list of eyewitness (Peter, James, the twelve, and the apostles) were all well known. If any of the people on that list had objected to the accuracy of the resurrection account as presented, the whole movement would have been shut down pretty quickly.
@@EricTheYounger my understanding is that the church fathers stayed in Jerusalem, but that Christianity had little growth there. Right? I mean that's just how it sounds reading the Bible. So it could have been the "center" in a leadership/structural position, but there weren't many converts there
@@mymyscellany I think that Paul was the first person to really spread Christianity to Gentiles which leaves a gap filled by other ideas and tradition before he converted. There would have been some consensus in beliefs as evidenced in pre-Pauline creeds, but I do think that legend, exaggeration, and misunderstandings can form right after an event takes place creating lots of diversity in early Christian beliefs
@@mymyscellany Your original comment, to my understanding, was asserting that since most of the growth of Christianity happened outside of Jerusalem, that could have allowed for room of legends of the resurrection accounts to have grown out of control uncontested. But my point was that since the leadership and direction of the church always came from Jerusalem in those beginning decades, as opposed to coming from outside, that couldn’t have been the case. You’ve already acknowledged that the church leaders were in Jerusalem and this was where all the main doctrine flowed from (evidenced by the council of Jerusalem in 50CE). Whether or not there were actually many new converts in Jerusalem is irrelevant to the point that the main leadership was in Jerusalem, which would have prevented the resurrection stories from becoming corrupted.
@@EricTheYounger Yeah thanks. I do think you're missing the point of what I'm getting at.
My point isn't that the message is being corrupted as it gets further away. It's that the majority of the people closest to where these events supposedly happened didn't believe it and thought Christians were full of crap. And that the message only reached willing converts when it was far away from the actual events.
What reasons are there to think that the disciples claimed that in the first place?
I love it. This is worth memorizing.
If you try to prove Jesus' resurrection to someone, by convincing them that 12 men were willing to die for the fact that they believed it was true.....
..... what happens when that person immediately responds back to you by pointing out that 20 terrorists on September 11th 2001 flew themselves directly into buildings because they believed their God/religion was true?
That's a tough question to answer, because the explanation of Jesus in the video above is asinine.
Saying something is definitely true because 12 men were willing to die for it.... Literally proves absolutely nothing.
I love you.
having a one minute pitch for maximal data is the biggest flex on the minimal facts guys
Doofus, it’s the same basic points just said differently. Why so divisive?
@@mkl2237 shouldn't be divisive, good point. Minimal & maximal facts are definitely not the same points said differently though
@@daman7387 semantics. More or less it all boils down to the same.
You and Lydia and McLatchie always bad mouth the Minimal facts method. Whereas Habermas and crew don’t.
Y’all have an attitude issue.
If Habermas would not talk so long it could be booked down to a 1 minute summary too that is just as effective.
And Habermas has way more scholastic credentials than McLatchie and Lydia McGrew… that’s why there insecure and bad mouth the minimal facts.
And A-holes like you feed it.
Nuances differ sure… but it boils down to the same stuff: the resurrection is the best explanation for what we know is verifiable history and etc etc
Poomba.
"Testimony by people is true because they were afraid."
"Maximal data"
???? Are you okay my dude. Are you suffering a stroke?
@@MrYelly in the context of the whole interview she's outlining maximal data, unless it's a different interview
Whoops. Lydia let a little truth slip out there for a moment: "all these different groups seeing him and interacting with him in all these different ways at different times" Yes, indeed, so many different groups seeing him and no two gospels can agree about what those appearances were like. According to both Luke and John, Jesus appeared to his disciples Easter evening in Jerusalem. Read Luke 24 and John 20 and you'll see how little they agree on.
The amount of people who believe a claim to be true or the extent to which people beleive a claim is true hold no bearing on if the claim is true or not
I may make a debunk video for this on my channel! Thank you for the short and to-the-point video
Post a link whet you do.
It will be a short video! The argument is completely vacuous. "Somebody said it happened" is really all she came up with.
If you need more than 10 seconds to debunk these 2 minutes of brain-goop, I would be quite dissapointed.
Then it's also the best explanation for many other claims and worldviews
Name one
@@FullDottle I can name several. Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, Mormonism, the common ancient Greek religion, same with Egyptian religions, take your pick of pagan, shamanistic, and animistic religions which are entirely based on personal experiences of ancestors etc.
@@FullDottle Most interesting is the more tribal religions. When christians and other religious groups conquered their land gave them the option of converting or death and many individuals choose death. Most notably many Native America and Polynesian groups
@@Topazdemonia None of these religions have even close to the historical evidence the documents that make up the New Testament do. I don't know of any of those religions claiming 500 witnesses to any supernatural events. I also no of no historically credible source that attests to any other religion demonstrating resurrection of the dead.
@@Topazdemonia That leads me to believe you have no knowledge of any of these religions and their claims
If you believe that the disciples were "risking their lives" in claiming that Jesus was resurrected, why do you believe this is necessarily the case?
The fact that they were martyred doesn't prove to you that it was a dangerous "lie" to tell?
By proclaiming the resurrection, the disciples challenged the established Jewish religious order, which could have led to persecution and punishment as evidenced by the Saul's persecution of the Christians.
Preaching about the resurrection of Jesus could have been seen as seditious or subversive by the Roman empire, potentially leading to punishment or execution, as evidenced by the execution of Paul and Peter in Rome.
@@obcane3072 Hey this is mostly a question, but that's the actual evidence the apostles were martyred?
My understanding is that the "the apostles were martyred" narrative comes primarily through the Catholic church, and it comes through the "narrative of legend". Meaning that the exact details of their martyrdom aren't meant to be taken 100% literally (like the story of Veronica).
I mean what is the actual evidence we have that the apostles died?
@@mymyscellany
1. New Testament writings (James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-2))
2. Early Christian writings and church traditions:
-Clement of Rome (late 1st century) mention the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
-Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around the early 2nd century, refers to the martyrdom of several apostles in his letters
-Eusebius of Caesarea in his work "Ecclesiastical History," also provide accounts of apostolic martyrdoms
3. Non-Christian sources:
- Tacitus, a Roman historian writing in the early 2nd century, mentions the persecution of Christians under Nero, which likely included the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. -Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the late 1st century, refers to the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus, by the Sanhedrin.
@@obcane3072 Ok sorry if this is dumb- but that seems like very little evidence for the martyrdom of all the apostles (I believe in tradition one is not matyred but I don't remember which). Early Christians being killed and martyred is just a historical fact, but that feels like very little evidence for the deaths of those closest to Jesus.
@@obcane3072 I am not sure if the disciples had lied about Jesus being resurrected would have been any more dangerous than if they were telling the truth.
Do you think a good case could be made that Jesus and his disciples posed a both a general political threat to the Roman Empire and a religious threat to Jewish religious leaders, regardless of whether or not the disciples claimed Jesus was resurrected (or preached about it in a subversive way)?
If so, wouldn’t the disciples have sealed their fate with the Roman persecutors, whether they made any claims as to Jesus being resurrected? Do you believe they would not have been persecuted/executed if they hadn’t made this claim or preached about it, but would have otherwise been affiliated with Jesus anyway? Was the disciples’ claims/preaching of Jesus’ resurrection the sole (or primary) reason they were executed?
First!😁👍
Truly excellent elevator pitch!
"Testimony of people is true when they are afraid."
This elevator pitch is for the monster under your bed, Timmy.
Except we don’t have first hand accounts because the gospels were written anonymously. We don’t know what the disciples actually claimed. We know what someone else claims the disciples claimed. That and people are willing to die for lies all the time. Look at mass cult suicides where the leaders know they are lying and have nothing to gain but do it anyways. Bad reasoning.
Wrong.
And… go!!!…..
@@mkl2237 Are YOU going to provide the best evidence you have encountered? I keep asking for it! And… GO!
@@truthseeker7867 I have spun in circles with ya Bubba. You know it. I know it. You’re a sieve. There ain’t no filling you up. Have a good day. ….and…. Go ! 🍺 🌮 🎶 ☀️
@@mkl2237 I’ll be the guy waiting for reasonable evidence to justify believing in a god.
seeing her love for God in the physical state she's in somehow helps me see Christ more
It's sad to see she is in pain.
Would a Muslim in pain worshipping Allah make you believe in Allah?
@@malirk you didn't get his point, this is a strawman argument.
@@steved5960 Here is what I got from his post. Tell me where I am wrong and have strawmanned.
Lydia M is in pain.
Lydia M loves God.
Lydia M worships God while still in pain.
This helps Chris see god more.
Christian here. Maybe you could help me with this brother. I want to be fully honest. I think your experience is interesting and would love to know more. Although I am Christian, I do struggle with doubts, not regarding the Christian faith in itself but about how much God loves his people, especially when I see very commited Christians who devote their whole life to Christ going through terrible suffering that seems unnecessary. I just don't get it and it's a constant struggle I have. So when you say 'seeing her love for God in the physical state she's in somehow helps me see Christ more" what do you mean? how do you experience this?
@@malirk Well simple you were talking about belief, he didn't mention belief.... and I want to understand what he means
What evidence is there that they would be risking their lives?
No no no no no no no.
We do not know that the disciples claimed these things. We have anonymous authors writing years later that the disciples (who they may never have even met) claimed these things. The bare minimum is that these are second hand and it's entirely possible it went through more hand than that before it was written down. We have no way of knowing if the gospels accurately record events that took place or words that were spoken.
I'm a Christian believer and I respect your views and I appreciate your honesty. From my understanding, if the Gospels did not "accurately record events" as you say, then I believe the early followers of Jesus and the disciples themselves would have stood up and opposed these inaccurate writings. We have to remember that the gospels originally were taught in an oral society which strongly opposed inaccurate stories, especially about Jesus Christ.
I agree with you that it's possible the original authors of the Gospels were anonymous. Traditionally the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were associated with the Gospels. No other names of authors were ever recorded or proposed !
I'm not trying to disrespect your feelings. I'm no scholar, either of Christianity or History.
I'm somewhat open-minded to be corrected but if the Gospels do not "accurately record events" then Christianity could be considered just a false religion. And then the events that occurred during Jesus' life would be either inaccurate or false.
So I trust that your statements are wrong.
Peace to you.
Respectfully from Florida
Paul isn't at all anonymous. Neither is Luke, John, or John's Disciples who quoted and affirmed them. 🤷♂️
@@thoughtfulpilgrim1521 Paul wasn't a disciple and didn't write a gospel, which is what she is talking about here. The author of the gospel we now know as Luke was also not a disciple and didn't claim to be. He says his information came from other people. There is no reason to think John's gospel was written by a disciple. None of the gospel writers put an author's name to their writings. The gospels are anonymous. We do not know who wrote them or if they had any contact with the disciples. If you have any information otherwise then please share.
Even if there was sufficient evidence that these disciples actually claimed these things, they would still be just that; unsupported claims, completely lacking in proof and evidence. If we lower the bar of truth to that degree; vampires, werewolves and ghosts are fair game too, if not more so.
@@MrYelly Agreed. Unfortunately for Christians their claims can't even reach that low bar. I'd love Christians to acknowledge just how bad their supposed "evidence" is.
Atheist here.
This sounds a lot like the Lewis' Trilemma: Was Jesus a Liar, Lord or Lunatic. The atheist's rebuttal to both of these claims are the same:
they conveniently avoid stating a fourth option: that Jesus' resurrection was just a narrative spun at a later date, and the gospel writers were merely copy-pasting those myths.
I always think this.. if Jesus is not risen then the disciples would not have risked and went to the extent to die for the word... Because Jesus risen they got the courage to die for him .. Their death is the proof of the Jesus trueness of being God sent...
Kamil Gregor refuted all of this. Cameron should host a Gregor vs McGrew debate once and for all.
"refuted"
@@dahudge9 If he hosts a debate, we can see if it was refuted. Agreed?
Circular Reasoning loves me, this I know, because Circular Reasoning tells me so.
.
LOL
Where's the circle?
@@obcane3072 INDOCTRINATED people are unable to see the circle.
Sanjeev never has actual substance to offer. He’s just emotionally very angry at Extians. I suspect an Extian stole his girlfriend or something like that because he’s an Angry Gig…
And it’s not about substance it’s just all about his hostility. Poor baby is sad.
@@mkl2237 "Sanjeev never has actual substance to offer. He’s just emotionally very angry at Extians. I suspect an Extian stole his girlfriend or something like that because he’s an Angry Gig … And it’s not about substance it’s just all about his hostility. Poor baby is sad."
Whatever you say, LIAR and BIGOT.
LOL
Mnas thinks "They wouldn't be brutally killed for what they knew was a lie" is somehow circular reasoning.
1st interview done lying down.
As I said on your short for this, the word "claimed" does a lot of heavy lifting here. Big claim, no credible evidence to support it.
She is missing one possible distinction :
They were not telling THE truth, they were telling THEIR truth.
Lydia seem to presuppose here that there is such a thing as THE truth.
But why can't we presuppose "that there is such a thing as THE truth"? It all depends on how you define "Truth" and how this truth relates to theism and God. Can God Himself be "THE truth"? Something for me to ponder.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you. I actually appreciate your honesty. By the way, I'm a Christian believer.
Respectfully from Florida....
Let T be the proposition there is no truth. Is T true? If T is true, there there is at least one true proposition, T. If T is not-true, there is at least one true proposition. T is self-refuting, thus there necessarily is truth.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 *-"Can God Himself be "THE truth"?"*
If god is truth itself, then can we still say something like : "god tells the truth" ?
Usually, "truth" relates to epistemology, god, arguably, is something that exists, in such it relates to ontology. If god is truth, then somehow epistemology and ontology become mixed. How does that work ?
@@kurtschneider4202 I like your observations. I think there has to be or at least should be, some absolute truth. Especially regarding the existence of God and the ultimate meaning of life.
What do you think?
Respectfully....
@@johnbrzykcy3076 This is strange, because I addressed his *"observations"* in my last comment, but my last comment was deleted...
Let me try again.
I didn't quite catch what the proof is you got a story in book ppl told it whether they believed it or were lying or mistaken doesn't really matter when a claim this big needs solid physical evidence
Else why not believe in any other claim by any other religion their followers did die for their beliefs too
What evidence would be sufficient?
@@Starius65 I don't know, but I know that I'm not convinced by what's been given to me.
Evidence is sufficient when I'm completely convinced
No disciple claimed any such things. There is no record of any direct conversation with 'Jesus'
I’m sorry, but there’s really nothing to suggest that the whole thing wasn’t just a made up story. I wish she explained what she meant more clearly, as that is what most non-believers think.
The claim in Chapter 1 Verse 2 is true because it says so in Chapter 3 Verse 4
The bible is true because it says in the bible that the bible is true.
.
LOL
Ah yes, another skeptic who hasn't taken the time to understand the argument or McGrew's work and likely never will.
thats not what she was saying, you lack listening skills
Nice strawman. Got any more?
LOL
@@Mark-cd2wf YOUR invisible sky daddy should have left REAL VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 “Invisible sky daddy.”
Gee, I never heard that before….
But it _is_ another strawman.
Got any more? You’re on a roll.
(Btw, I never knew you could use LOL as a period).
Nothing she said proves the ressurection happened. Its still all a matter of believing by faith.
like with all things, just like the big bang, and just life believing that julias was a roman ruler. What this is, is evidence, evidence by dectuion, since point 1 doesn't seem to make sense(they all could have given up, instead they stayed in poverty their whole lives, were hunted down, eventually caught and brutally murdered, from upside down crusifixtions to having their sin peeled off, all they had to do was forsake Jesus, yet they didnt ), point 2 doesn't seem to make sense(the sheer amount of theology in their Gosepls is unmatched), and out of the 3 main hypothesise, point 3 is the only one left, this provides supporting evidence.
Hallucinations should also be considered.
All beliefs are an act of faith - there is no such thing as "proof", in the sense that what is "proven" will always and forever be true. Even natural laws were different near the moment of the big bang..
Everything requires faith, mate. Do you know for sure that you will eat dinner today or do you believe you will? Everything requires some measurement of faith.
Faith is trust.
No. Faith is believing something without evidence.
This “Doctor” echoes CS Lewis. This isn’t an argument, nor is it proof. It’s the false trichotomy.
IF I had a friend who was in PAIN and s/he asked me for something and I HAD THE POWER ... I would help.
The Xtian god is Omipotent and Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent .... and is everywhere ... and with her in that room and WATCHING HER PAIN ... and doing diddly squat.
Mysterious ways and all those excuses ...
SMH.
What is an “Ex-Tian”? What are you talking about? I’ve never heard of Extians …. What planet are you from? Gigland? Is that the planet where everyone is a disrespectful, sarcastic, A-hole?
@@mkl2237 "Is that the planet where everyone is a disrespectful, sarcastic, A-hole?"
Such a true follower of Jesus.
LOL
If you knew what eternity was....
If you had the omnipotence to heal without omniscience you might just do that.
@@4309chris "If you knew what eternity was...."
DOES that apply to Jesus too ??
Jesus was god before and god after and he only suffered for THREE MEASLY DAYS ?? Compared to being a relaxing god for eternity ??!!!
LOL
*This is easy to refute:* The stories of the disciples meeting with Jesus after he rose from the dead were made up. The books were written somewhere between 30-90 years after Jesus died and people created a legend around this. The stories of the disciples dying for their faith and claiming to have seen Jesus is just church tradition.
You’re just begging the question with zero proof.
Of course it’s easy to hypothetically refute. Let me try:
The gospels were written before any of us were alive, so it’s all made up.
Not impressive lol
@@Papa-dopoulos Is it possible the stories of the disciples meeting Jesus after he died were made up?
I say yes.
What do you say?
Hi Brian. Hope your weekend is shaping up to be good.
The old CS Lewis “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” (? Not sure if he originated it or got to from someone?) indeed has a necessary 4th scenario… that of “Legend” as you correctly point out. That occurred to me in high school when I read Mere Christianity and at the time I hadn’t heard anyone mention it.
I think your characterization of it isn’t complete or accurate. There’s a number of variables that very compellingly argue against it…. Including dating disputes, geographic considerations, historical factors, and especially the very powerful case of early oral creeds that predate the written gospels and epistles …. They are recognized by non-Christian skeptical scholars including Ehrman, Ludemann, and others and are dated to less than 3 years after the cross and likely to within months of the cross …
These were not discovered by evangelicals … and they show the constant themes of Deity/Death/resurrection, and glorification. There are also early sermon summaries inna acts that are distinct from the main flow of the material in acts that show what the early church taught from 30-50 AD.
They are recognized by grammatical, linguistic, cadence, and stylistic parameters.
They blow away the popular narrative that you and many/most have been misled to believe… it wasn’t late/legendary… it was early and explosive. The passages support this… and history such as the very growth of the church, the context of the hostile environment by opposing Jews and Romans, the willingness and actual deaths of the apostles, and other very real historical parameters also corroborates.
It wasn’t late:legendary… it was early and explosive. And the earliest christology was the highest christilogy. A whole study can be made of dating factors involved as well.
You are correct to raise the “Legend” scenario. But your overall narrative is absolutely incorrect. The only thing your version of the narrative has going for it is that so many people have been led to believe it. High level scholarship refutes it. And even many Christians are not aware of it.
Want some of the verses ? I can cite many.
For starters there’s sources including Tony Costa’s excellent book on them (that in turn references many other scholars) (see references therein) as well as available summaries such as lectures by Habermas and others.
I respect the importance of dealing with “Legend” as a possibility. But for the informed, it has been very well refuted(though not commonly known)
I hope as a genuine seeker, which I have mostly come to believe you are, you’ll explore these in depth. It’s well worth it. I’ve come to care about ya and hope you will. It’s incredibly powerful, rational, historically evidenced, and compelling. But… if you’re mainly driven by other emotional factors against Christianity then this and nothing will ever suffice for you and I do suspect that you lean that way.
You’re smart. You’re educated. We’ve wrestled in play and in adversity but please know I am sincerely offering this as a topic to explore in much greater detail and to consider the full context of the body of supporting. Evidence.
They hit the core of Deity, Atoning Death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification over… and over… and over…. It’s how the church literally grew. And why it did. And it makes sense of all such as how it did so I the face of persecution.
Check it out.
@@malirk who made up the stories? And why did they die for made up stories?
Why did they say they were cowering in fear at his death and only women were at his crucifixion and the first to go to the tombs?
Why did Peter say he betrayed his Lord.
Wouldn't liars tell better stories about themselves?
And they elhasized verifiable events over and over… in the area where they happened … Here’s some key ones recognized by scholars:
Luke 24:34
1 Cor 15:3-4
Rom 1:3-4
Rom 4:24-25, 5:1-2, 5-6, 8
Rom 10:9
1 Cor 8:4, 6
Phil 2:6-11
1 Pet 1:21
1 Pet 3:18, 22
1 Tim 2:5-6
Col 1:15-20
Heb 1:1-3, 13
Heb 8:1
Heb 12:2
Eph 1:20
This is literal nonsense regarding any proof. The 4th possibility is it was all myth/legend and not based upon reality, same as 95% of every religion.
Great evidence that starts with "X claimed". And it's not even true. Authors that wrote the book claimed that the disciples claimed that Jesus resurrected. You guys can't possibly take yourselves seriously
Everything we know from history (even resent history) is based upon reliant knowledge which was transmitted through people.
Your position is to reject everything of history simply because YOU were not there YOURSELF.
That’s very poor thinking.
I always find discussions of the ressurection pointless with anti-theists, so I like to present the question in another way.
What _reasonable_ evidence do you think you would find if the Ressurection _was_ indeed real?
If you take around 5 minutes to really _deeply_ look at the evidence, you'd realize something damning you hadn't recognized before. The only way the Resurrection would ever be transmitted is through witness testimony, which is why the original writings of the New Testament are so powerful.
Law cases start with that all the time….
What hole in the ground are you living in ?
@@WORDFLESHGOD The historical method uses time/place to confirm events and multiple attestations from authors.
1) The gospels were not written by people who saw the events with their own eyes.
2) The gospels are anonymous with names attached by church tradition.
3) Three of the gospels look to be copies of each other.
4) The gospels were not written at the time of the events.
So we're left with anonymous accounts mostly copied from non eye witnesses who weren't around at the time of the events.
Why should we trust them?
@@malirk Wow.
Four assertions, with nothing to back them up, from the guy who’s always demanding evidence from everybody else for what _they_ claim.
I think that’s a record…..
Jesus's body was never resurrected. He was resurrected in spirit. The body was dead and later was disintegrated by Jesus himself. Instead of guessing you could have asked the guy directly about this. You are Christians right or are you not? Dare to connect to the one you claim you follow. He later created another body for himself and lived for some time on Earth, doing spiritual work and helping people come up higher in consciousness.
You have no eyewitnesses , just as Allah confirms in the Qur'an:
and for their boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him-it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever-only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.
Quran 4:157
Okay, can you give evidence that he was not crucified?