I love Gary Habermas because he is an intellectual giant but doesn't come across as one. He speaks like a father or uncle and doesn't use a condescending or patronizing tone.
he's an intellectual charlatan, you folks have to be the most gullible ever to swallow that stupidity of this guy, you mus want god so bad you'll give up truth and integrity.
@Dd S Well there may be some truth to that depending on their dissertation topic.😁 I am also researching the various flood stories and various myth stories for me dissertation.
Am I alone in this..I’ve always believed in God and the scriptures, but I’ve often doubted if my interpretation of some things was right. That’s why I keep listening to others points of view. I thank God for UA-cam which has given us access to a whole world of wonderful thinkers. I like these teachings. Thanks Dr Habermas.
Yes, and be careful who, and what you listen to. Check it with Scripture. I can count on one hand, the teachers on here that are not charlatains, or deceivers, or just plain wrong and in error. Jesus warned of the deception to come in the last days, He even warned of the deception more than the earthquakes, famines, pestilence etc.. I would venture to guess that youtube has more than 90% false teachers. Yes, youtube has "given us access to a whole world of wonderful thinkers", remember who is "prince of the air" and be like the Bereans Acts 17-11 Receive the Word with all readiness of mind, Search the Scriptures to see if these things are so
@David Ortiz The blind leading the blind are the hypocritical arrogant Pharisees in Jesus day putting their traditions before God --similar to the Catholic Church we have Jewish leadership dismissing Jesus' words. The Christian churches of today do not contradict each other any less than Catholics. We are all united in knowing that we don't need a pope to guide us in anything --especially falsely invented doctrines that seeped in from fallible church fathers. The numbers of Christians between 60 CE and 90 CE in the early churches didn't have to wait until the 4th century to read the Gospel According to Mark, Luke and Matthew. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has made erroneous additions corrupting the church giving tradition authority and teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Matthew 15 3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. 9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” 10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” 12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” 13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” 15 Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? Do we now need the Roman Pontiff to explain what Jesus said when explaining to Peter what the parable meant when he explained to the hypocritical Pharisees? The apostles gave us fair warning about the dangers the church would immediately face when they were gone. "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears....and remember the words of the Lord Jesus" -- the apostle Paul (Acts 20:29-31, 35) 2 Corinthians 11:3-5 3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. Who is preaching another gospel and leading astray from the SIMPLICITY and purity of devotion to Christ? Door number one: The Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church!
I agree with you 100% about youtube/the internet as I have found invaluable teachings from many ministers teachers and pastors who the Spirit verifies with my spirit that they are my true family, my brothers sisters and mothers just like Jesus said and when I decided to truly seek Him the response I got was nothing short of Truth. There are lots of false Christian's but God even uses them to help us learn how to discern. Thank you Dr Habermas for the great work you choose to share with all
We are glad these videos on Doubt are helping you and strengthening you. We want you to know we are praying for you and that God knows where you are, what you are going through and He will help you.
Shoreline Community Church - I know, God is everything for me and Christ is my Lord and Saviour. This is helping me how to help my son who doesn’t know the Truth yet. Thanks for your prayers, they mean a lot to me and my family
Preview (expand to read full): Answering questions honest people might wonder like why God doesn't always heal miraculously today, bring people back to life, and whether Jesus' resurrection might have been really just "swooning" or faking death like a possum. A fundy atheist/septic made an (implied) argument along these lines in the 200+ conversation to this video, after the deadline I gave for that conversation had passed. However, since he was missing for all of those 200 comments and might possibly (unlikely but who knows) have honestly missed out all this time (it could happen), I want to give him a chance... and this is really more for the sake of others reading along, honestly wondering, so here goes. (More likely he was playing dead all that time. :-P) [Edit: I see he's also posted some of it it in a direct comment to the video, outside of the conversation thread I had been watching. Anyway.] Note: Yes, I know, it's "skeptic," not "septic," but with certain cases like this one, there seems to be little difference. Not that septic tanks don't serve a useful purpose. And although many of them call themselves skeptics, it's interesting how little skepticism they have for the wildly stupid arguments of their own side (as many former "skeptics" have admitted). I would have to say I'm the real skeptic, as I need sound support (and got it for the Bible). 1) Medical experts have said that the only explanation for the clear liquid plus blood that leaked out of Christ according to the gospels when the Roman stabbed him with a spear is that he had been dead for a while and this clear liquid had separated from the blood and pooled in the heart. In other words, Jesus was stabbed in the heart! Even if he had been "faking death" or had "swooned," _this would have killed him._ Good luck getting a possum to "rise again" after stabbing it in the heart! 2) What about the implication that if Jesus was raised, Chucklebury should be able to go into a morgue and see a dead human body raising? This seems to be the argument that if miracles happened during the Bible's formation, they should keep happening. Fundy atheists/etc. seem to be suffering a somewhat understandable oversimplification here; they want empirically observeable evidence, and that's certainly reasonable, but sound support is NOT about blindly assuming "what happened before must happen again." In fact, the whole concept of logic is all about reaching sound conclusions from directly (or indirectly, but always starting originally with directly) verifiable premises, using reliable reasoning, and building to conclusions that are not necessarily themselves directly observed. In this case, for example, we see the texts themselves containing the prophecies of these events in sections written long before this, and we see non-medical-experts writing things like the water and blood flowing out, which would be extremely unlikely to be made up. All experts agree that the disciples really did believe that Jesus rose, even skeptics. And it is likewise universally agreed by experts that Jesus really did die. The only remotely plausible explanation of how the tomb became empty, however, is that the disciples stole the body and lied about his resurrection. The problem is that this would mean they were selfish frauds, and when challenged by Rome to recant or die, the selfish would recant! Worse, the public at large viewed crucifixion as highly shameful (cursed if hung on a tree), and would need VERY solid evidence to accept a resurrection reversing this shame; the Christianizing of the west could not have happened without this solid confirmation. (Plus it all happened in ways OT prophecy foreshadowed, in incredible detail. Contra ignorant claims that "all we have" is the Bible, we actually have all of history backing this up.) So we have sound support that Christ really did rise from the dead. We don't need God to keep doing the Lazarus type of miracle over and over today in order to know this. To demand this would actually be _anti-logic._ It would insist that valid reasoning and true premises are not enough to reach a sound conclusion and instead we must only directly verify every proposition as an observably true premise. Also, the unfakeable prophecies are a type of way-beyond-reasonable-doubt proof that inherently require history to be worked out over time and then stand as proof for all from that point on, thus clearly do not need to be repeated over and over. We can add to this several of the scientific proofs about origins, though we need not and it gets somewhat off-topic, but as it's an area I've studied it's especially hilarious to me to see ignorant septics acting like there's even any room for reasonable beliefs that the gospels etc. might just be made-up stories. Just to name a few examples, focusing just on the Flood to keep this simple: A) The one major Y-chromosome line (male) yet three major mitochondrial lines (passed by females) in humans, which perfectly matches the ark account (Noah's three sons, each with one wife, from whom all others descended afterward), and is very weird in evolutionary or other views. B) The perfect proportions of the ark for surviving sea waves as modern testing has shown, while other later corruptions of the story in surrounding cultures portrayed the boat as various shapes that would not be nearly as ideal (such as Gilgamesh's cube! Notice that ignorant skeptics actually try to argue that the Gilgy story came first! Clearly it's the other way around). IF Genesis was "made up," the people making it up were shepherds, not seagoing peoples; how would they just guess right?? (Even seagoing peoples' guesses were not as ideal!). C) The massive subducted oceanic plate material very deep in the mantle, where temperatures are high enough that if it subducted there slowly it would all be melted by now, and that we know this material CANNOT subduct that deep at slow speeds anyway. Dr. John Baumgartner's findings confirm that if this happened (and we see here that it had to have happened), the results would be a global flood, as new oceanic plate material would float higher on the mantle for a while until it cooled down later, lifting the oceans, and continental plates would sink lower. There would also be massive steamwalls at the break points as the old plates slipped away, matching the "fountains of the deep" -- "deep" elsewhere in the Bible means deep water; this doesn't mean underground contra popular misconception -- and forty days of "cats and dogs" rain (the modern figure of speech equivalent to their "windows of the heavens". This also ties into the following question, which is one of my focuses and the main reason I decided to opt for this type of reply rather than just ignoring the spammer: 3) Other than some limited modern miracles (read on for some clarifications about this), why is it that we don't see things like amputees getting miraculously healed today like the ear being reattached Jesus (may have) done when he was arrested? (Some say it just means the ear was cut and the cut healed but either way, the God who can make bread from nothing can obviously heal amputation.) This is that "publicly proveable" miracles like that need to be reserved for providing credentials for authors of new Scripture -- and the canon is closed. Although healing our afflictions in the here and now is what God clearly wishes he could do, as Jesus' compassion shows, it's an even higher priority to heal what risks our eternal fate; giving the message that tells us how to be saved is "that much more" important. Remember the Bible teaches to "test everything." He cannot just give us the message and hope we blindly accept it (contra some "anti-intellectualism" ignorant misconceptions, and contra the idiotic strawmanning of the likes of Chucklebury). There's deep pros and cons to this. Unfortunately, using publicly proveable miracles to heal everything today (or prevent it in the first place) would hurt a higher priority. If you must choose between healing temporary problems or healing the eternal problem, everybody who has any love in them at all must choose the eternal problem. So he MUST reserve publicly proveable miracles for credentialing authors of Scripture. (Christ, here, is of course also credentialing himself to the people of the time, but in addition is giving teachings prior to his death which the gospel writers included, and telling them things after his resurrection that they also include for our sake.) [Continued; 1/3]
The pro to this is that we can thus _know for a fact_ that Jesus really did save us! All we have to do is accept (become loyal = have faith; note that good works come afterward DUE to loyalty, rather than being what saves us; they can be evidence of faith, but aren't prerequisites, and note that faith does not mean belief; it is used somewhat interchangeably with it because the sane who believe would of course become loyal, and to imply otherwise would have insulted the audience, but as James mentions, technically demons believe yet are not loyal, so saving faith is loyalty, not mere intellectual assent). 4) What about claims of modern healings? Are these real? Notice I said that this limitation applies to "publicly provable" miracles. This means that it's possible some of the claims of modern healings may in fact be real miracles. (Other than just miracles of timing; I'm talking about direct intervention miracles, DIMs for short, as opposed to MOTs, to use my standard terms.) It's also possible, though, that in some cases well-intentioned people are failing to heed, as much as they should, the Bible's commands to be rational, and are making logical leaps to assuming DIMs where MOTs may be what actually happened. For example, there was a movie about a girl who had a fatal condition who fell into a hollow tree upside-down for a while, and after this, was healed. The people portrayed in the film seem to blindly assume this must be a direct intervention miracle. And while it might be, it's possibly relevant that she was in an unusual physical situation right when the change happened. Something about her positioning inside the tree, or maybe lack of oxygen, might have reset something that modern medicine doesn't yet understand. Note that fundy atheists, as well as less informed Christians, seem to think that we need these modern healings to prove the Bible, but that's actually a strawman argument (or honest misunderstanding in other cases). We already have sound support for the Bible itself that stands for all time; we do not need extra. Though I suspect that God does use some DIMs sometimes to directly convince an individual (a miracle can be proven to that individual while not being provable to others). 5) What about promises of healings in the Bible? Most of these were the general promises that are clarified to be only about asking in prayer for what we already know to be God's will, which actually precludes asking for healing in that sense; in those cases it's more like being honest with God that we hope it's in his will, but merely humbly requesting, not expecting. Some were also about the miracles still happening around then-still-living authors of Scripture or their direct students, all of which were expected to close soon after their deaths or the deaths of their students. Remember the Bible was written to a high-context society, in which sayings like this would never be imagined to have been meant in a wooden-literalist/absolutist/universal sense, and in which the purpose of public miracles was still very well understood by everybody, being the major point of contention between the legitimate prophets like Jeremiah and false prophets in his day, and being a vital piece of the "standing orders" of Moses. To some more spammy "points" that Chucklebury brought up along the way: 6) Obviously he is strawmanning our position. It's so obvious nothing else needs said about that, but for the record! 7) He may be implying the old chestnut that ancients would be too ignorant of what death looks like that they might actually confuse a real dead person for a possum-style faker. But actually ancients were MORE familiar with what death looked like than moderns. For us, when somebody dies, experts tend to hurry in and take over, so the rest of us are shielded from the sight to a large extent. Death is also rarer today. With extremely high infant and early childhood mortality rates back then, nearly everybody had seen dead bodies, however, and even rarer adult cases of it would not have been shielded/hidden. Also, possums are animals judging with animal brains what they think other animals will mistake for death. That's very different from humans mistaking a possum for dead (or a human). Of course, it's all a moot point once the heart is stabbed! (Which is likely why it was standard Roman practice to make sure!) 8) "Preposterous silliness" is a good label for fundy atheists who actually think that the "water" that spilled out from the spear wound either would be made up or might have come from any other (less fatal to be stabbed) body part, according to medical experts. 9) The implied "idea of miracles is silly" argument actually backfires on atheism in light of the causality proof of God. I have shown that if causality is "absolute" (nothing ever happens/happened without sufficient causation), then if you work through the logic to its conclusion, the end result proves God. Although most atheists (not all) don't realize it, atheism actually requires "nonsense" (things happening without sufficient causation) somewhere or another along the line in order for there to be existence without God also existing. Even their best hoped-for copout, the multiverse hypothesis, if taken to its logical conclusion still results in God. This is a long story (given many times before elsewhere), but the point is that actually, atheists need something even more out of the ordinary, in order for atheism to be possible (whether the foolish / ignorant atheists know it or admit it or not). By contrast, miracles are simply a being acting. We are beings and we can act, so there's nothing outlandish about the idea. Only if God did NOT exist could he not act. And to assume he doesn't exist in order to argue that he doesn't exist is blatant circular reasoning. (As I already pointed out in the conversation Chuckles was replying to.) The problem with the atheistic "nonsense" is that it would not sensibly restrict itself only to safe places. It would be like static throughout all existence, destroying any coherent structure -- including living cells. Life should not be possible if atheism is true (even without the design argument, which is also very solid, despite ignorant evolutionist assumptions). Yet here we are. In fact, every single observation we make on a daily basis, of all coherent reality, is constantly affirming to us that God exists, if our subconsciouses can make the logical deduction from it to him -- and I have shown step by step that they can, and we know from psychology that that means the subconscious DOES deduce it. The conscious mind may block thoughts and chain reactions of deductions, but the subconscious doesn't. (Thus all are "without excuse.") I don't absolutely rule it out in extreme cases of mental disorders, but then the "age" of accountability would come in (not due to age in this case but I mean the same principle), so either way it cannot work out to a problem. 10) Chuckles will indignantly object that I have insulted possums. However, I love possums and feel sorry for them when they decide to play dead right in the way of a car and get plowed over, just like Chuckles' arguments. I have also saved possum lives on occasion when they played dead in my dog's yard. I am only a friend to possum-kind! 11) Chuckles is apparently ignorant of what "rigor mortis" means. Rigor mortis CAN be "undone." That's not the same thing as DEATH being undone. Aaaanyway. [Continued; 2/3]
12) He goes on to imply the "lotsa different peeps interpret Bible differently" chestnut closely followed by the contradictions error, both of which I and others have debunked long ago. Holding, to the first, has pointed out that on actually relevant basics, there are really less than ten major disagreements. And everybody sane points out that the ability of fallen man to misunderstand a message doesn't make it unclear. We can use the science of hermeneutics to understand what was meant in most cases, using the rules of the languages in the texts, same way we understand what any other communication means! And I don't see the fundy atheists assuming that it's impossible to understand their own words; if they really believed that they wouldn't bother to speak/write/type at all. On all important basics, and many lesser side details as well, the correct meaning has been proven. If it can't be proven in all trivial side details, so what? Why should it? And if God added more detail to settle those trivial questions, the book would be much longer, and it's already VERY long. The Library of Congress wouldn't be able to fit it... and then who would ever read the whole thing anyway? He did as much as he could reasonably do given the obvious limitations of communication -- far more than enough to prove what we needed to know. So there is no issue here except with how lazy and foolish skeptics are, which is on them. To the latter, I've personally investigated as many contradiction claims as I could find and have actually found that not a single one has panned out logically; they are all cases of foolish skeptics who don't understand logic. Ironically this argument has backfired big time because if the Bible was NOT inspired I would not have expected that result. I find contradictions in septics' own arguments all the time, and in other non-inspired works (though to be fair, it's actually much rarer in non-inspired works than is generally assumed, so I've also pointed out that this may actually not be as useful a test as others, though if we did ever find a real contradiction then we'd have an interesting puzzle). You would think there would be at least one in the Bible if it was really just made up, but the only people claiming that are the most ignorant. (Other than copyist errors, of course, but it's the autographs that matter, and these can be deduced from multiple copies in different geographical areas which tend to have DIFFERENT errors. In some obscure cases, as with math issues in Kings and Chronicles, it may not be possible to conclusively reconstruct the original, but again, trivialities don't matter. And in one case in Nehemiah we are actually told that he is only reporting what he found in records, not claiming they were accurate records, which is the same as quoting an adversary, rather than affirming the adversary spoke only truth.) 13) Yes, the omniscient God favored a text that one as ignorant as yourself, Chuckles, did not expect! 14) I agree about heaven being so much better than this place, though. No wonder Jesus ascended as quickly as he could afterward! 15) Obviously a three-day wait period is better for our purposes than a possum's brief nap! Much clearer he was really dead by the time of the resurrection (given the massive wounds, cold nights in a stone tomb, lack of ventilation, etc. even if his heart hadn't been stabbed). 16) When Aquila and Priscilla encountered Apollos making some well-intentioned but erroneous arguments in their side's favor, they did not simply welcome anything that might possibly seem to help, but took him aside and helped clarify to him what was correct. Likewise, if any genuine Christian ever did attempt such an argument as Huckster's argumment "in our favor," their errors should be pointed out just as they are when it's a basement troll attempting mockery instead (he's really bad at it, but he gets points for mostly proper grammar, or more so than most spam trolls, so there's that). 17) Huckster didn't really bring this up, but a reflection in a mirror did (even though I had already debunked it), and Twainey did not disagree even though that was the subject of discussion, so presumably thought he was defending it indirectly -- so just to reiterate, to the idea of the gospels being late: A) Acts says nothing about Paul's death, which likely happened well before 70 AD, and was written by Luke after the Gospel of Luke which states that other accounts, plural, had been made before this, which almost certainly refers to Matthew and Mark. This puts all three of the Synoptic Gospels very early. John may have been written as late as 70, however. B) Regardless, most ancient documentation is actually MUCH LATER than 30-40 years after the events they describe. And Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and likely Matthew wrote notes as he went along, plus of course had strong personal memories, and Mark recorded the strong personal memories of Peter most likely, and even beyond this, oral transmission was very accurate in their culture. There is no sane room for doubt here. C) The only "out" fundy atheists/etc. could have is if they were much LATER than a mere 30-40 years later (on the order of at least 100 years). But the fatal problem with this (flattened-possum-level fatal) is that such a late writer would have gotten local, contemporary minor details wrong. As I pointed out, this is in fact a testing method the skeptics actually do know about, since they tried to use it against the gospels and Acts, the most famous example being Luke's census depiction, but later and more informed analysis debunked these arguments and confirmed the texts are very early. D) This all still fails to deal with Paul's letters, many of which are agreed by experts to have gone out VERY early, and the creed he reports which has been concluded to likely have been made _within one year_ of the resurrection. E) Very early accounts claiming things or denying things which were contradicted by actual witnesses at the time -- hostile witnesses -- would have failed because in that culture (indeed, in any culture, but especially that collectivist one) they would have been called out for it. Remember the "test everything" emphasis repeatedly throughout the OT and NT. (No, Thomas wasn't told blind faith is good; he already had testimony from men he knew well enough to know wouldn't lie about it; he rejected sound logic and asked for extra proof well beyond reasonable doubt.) If the accounts' public details were false, the movement would have crashed and burned, rather than becoming the rock growing to fill the world prophesied by Daniel. Yet if the public details are TRUE, in this case because of how the specifics of these details "trap" us with mutually exclusive options and all the options being testable and tested, there is NO other rational explanation besides real resurrection -- and that this (among other things) credentials the message as true, in its details beyond merely the then-public events. In other words, the rational investigator MUST conclude that salvation is through faith in Christ, because this message is proven objectively, and it is proven the message teaches this. No possums were harmed in the making of this debunking. [3/3]
Kuffar Legion So not only are you angry at religion, you are angry at how history has turned out because there really are no gods? You would have been one of the woke humans during reign of Julius Caesar calling him a stupid Emperor and every other member of the Senate for worshiping Zues or any other god in the pantheon in blind faith. None of this could have been caused by spiritual demonic activity because that’s part of the fairy tale as well. The inventors of these mythical religions never really believed their own psychotic encounters but always just made these tales up for fun and to control the masses. Then when a man named Jesus popped up in the Gaza region of this great Roman Empire claiming to be the Jewish messiah (another fantasy religion) like others before him, you would have been too smart to fall for such nonsense? Not because you were some leader in the Jewish faith recognizing the falsehood of his claims, but because you would have been the woke atheist saying all humanity arrived on this planet by accident. These were all just stupid religious people living in alternative realities. At the time, you would have been the lone atheist crying in the wilderness benefiting from advanced empirical societal governance and technology for over 5 centuries screaming in anger about human rights and how the world would theoretically be a better place if we just removed gods from our minds. I’m curious, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
@@logicianbones What a great piece of evidence! Thank you for taking the time to write this. Maybe you should think about putting all this into a single case study or paper? I'm sure it would help!
There is only one unpardonable sin. The sin that guarantees one will not go to heaven. And that sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And THAT sin is calling the Holy Spirit a liar. See, the Holy Spirit testifies of the Son and if one rejects that testimony...so by definition that one is not born again...thus never able to enter into heaven. Once born again, saved forever because you cannot take back your testimony when you were born again. You handed over your spiritual rights in the sense once you accept Christ you cannot deny him (legally) nor does anything you do affect your standing. Regardless of your relationship being good, bad or ugly, your standing is legally and will always be in Christ, covered by his blood.
UNPARDONABLE SIN: Please consider these words...God has forgiven us all our sin....M't:12:31: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: ....." and the catcher for some is "......but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." So what is it? The Holy Spirit has one main job and that is testify of Jesus which the HS does to all mankind. If one DENIES that Jesus is the Son of God THEN one has called the Holy Spirit a LIAR......and since one REJECTS the TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, then one is not born again, does not believe Jesus is the Son of God and cannot enter heaven for rejecting the testimony of the Holy Spirit and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit are the same sin. So if you're born again...relax.....you are secure in Christ...forever.
What if someone denies, but later realises they were wrong and then affirms? Where is the boundary of conviction? How many times could doubt and denial convict the innocence of mans need for certainty? Where is the justice in temporary salvation....I understand why you make your argument, but I think it is a weak argument. Go back.
Habermas must be called in to answers questions that are redicoulous in the first placel. Gary should never have left kindigarten never mind grad' school, which institution awarded this man a PhD. Unbelievable!
The unpardonable sin is dying without receiving Christ's free gift of salvation. When a person receives Christ's free gift of salvation, any person who sincerely does receive Jesus free gift is instantaneously given eternal life while still alive on earth, and then goes on to grow in the Lord and there are ups and downs in people growing in the Lord. We will always have the sin nature and never be perfect while still alive on earth. When our Heavenly Father gives us eternal life, that's exactly what it is, "eternal". God won't and cannot take back eternal life or it wouldn't have been eternal in the first place, which it is, the moment you sincerely receive Jesus free gift of salvation. When the doubts come during your life while you are growing in the Lord, that doesn't take away eternal life. We are weak human beings. Don't let Satan cause you to believe and worry about something that isn't true. Remember what God says is true. He gives you eternal life and He won't go back on His word. God cannot lie, when He says you have eternal life the moment you sincerely receive Christ's free gift of salvation, you have eternal life, which never ends, therefore God cannot take it back because He cannot lie. You will have doubts. Pray to God every day, stay in God's word every day, live for Him and confess your sins everyday and grow in the Lord and your faith will grow and stay firm and strong (and missing a day here and there may cause you to doubt and even if you backslide a longer period of time, that will not cause you to lose your salvation because it is eternal from the start. You will be concerned about it and you will come back when you become concerned. Sometimes if you backslide too long from God's perspective, He will bring you to Heaven because you are not a good witness for Him, but you will be in Heaven for all eternity.
And Muslims say it is a sin without Allah and the Jews Yaweh. They have as much evidence as you do. Nothing. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
@@texashoosier7318 There is a second problem -- perhaps pride -- as may be the case with Bart Ehrman: A sensitivity to apparently unjust/gratuitous suffering coupled with an assumed need for everything to "make sense". It's easier to satisfy the "makes sense" criteria to forget the cause-and-effect efficient and final causality of the universe in favor of "no God therefore suffering is random therefore suffering makes sense" than to admit "God loves you and we don't know why you're suffering". Or another way, "Per Colossians 1 you can unite your suffering with Jesus to participate in His redemptive suffering, but we don't know why you need to do that".
There would be no factual doubt if Jesus really existed. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
My dear, you have not done your homework to say this. You are a perfect example of an angry person in relation to God. A simple search in Wikipedia will give you hundreds of names dispelling your claim. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Gary is being intellectually dishonest. What evidence did the professor impart to those students to dissuade them? Honesty requires that this info be shared. Students, regardless of their religion, take that religion, what they were told by their parents and pastors, to college with them. Parents and pastors are the ones who hold major sway over K-12 students. At the college levels, students, more mature, free and less fearful, are exposed to people of accomplishments holding pockets full of higher degrees. Students are taught to hold those who have attained higher levels of success in higher esteem and respect. Professors are able to use common sense and intellect to destroy the lies and myths that are used all to often to keep our youths hamstrung and hogtied to ignorance. Religion should not be a shackle to free thought.
There would be no factual doubt if Jesus really existed. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
@@Itsatz0 The percentage of serious scholars today who doubt Jesus existed is the same as those who deny the holocaust: virtually none. Even among atheist scholars there is no doubt Jesus existed. Hence the fairytale is what you are stating. In additon, even if skeptical scholars might not agree everything in the bible is historical they do agree a portion of it is. .. "Of all the places god could have chosen to appear to mankind he chose ignorant, superstitious Palestine." Sounds to me you are being ignorant and superstitious. To note ancient I century Judea had one of the highest literacy levels in antiquity. In fact recent studies (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1522200113) have shown that literacy in ancient Judea was between 15 and 20% (depending on the area) where in the Roman empire in general at the same time was between 5 and 10% at best.
@@Entropy3ko Bull, only Christian scholars say Jesus existed. The miracles never happened, that's a fact. The Jewish leadership was literate, 500 of them supposedly came back to life. Not one of them wrote a word about the experience. Christianity is proven bullshit and makes people more stupid. Get an education if you want to save yourself.
I pray you at least take the time to read the 4 gospels yourself and actually seek to follow what Jesus taught and slowly but surely if you are sincere and honest with yourself you will realize that Jesus loves you and everyone and is trying to save us through a free gift he has already paid for and offered and it has very little, if nothing at all, to do with what is called "religion" today. May God bless you and draw you closer and open your eyes and change your heart
I love Gary Habermas because he is an intellectual giant but doesn't come across as one. He speaks like a father or uncle and doesn't use a condescending or patronizing tone.
he's an intellectual charlatan, you folks have to be the most gullible ever to swallow that stupidity of this guy, you mus want god so bad you'll give up truth and integrity.
Thank God for Christian thinkers like Dr Gary Habermas.
Sam Shavers amen
@Dd S not at all.
@@samephraimshaversjr8864 So you are getting higher degree in christian MYTHOLOGY ? LOL 🤣
Thinker?You call that bullshit artist a thinker?
@Dd S Well there may be some truth to that depending on their dissertation topic.😁 I am also researching the various flood stories and various myth stories for me dissertation.
Am I alone in this..I’ve always believed in God and the scriptures, but I’ve often doubted if my interpretation of some things was right. That’s why I keep listening to others points of view. I thank God for UA-cam which has given us access to a whole world of wonderful thinkers. I like these teachings. Thanks Dr Habermas.
Yes, and be careful who, and what you listen to. Check it with Scripture. I can count on one hand, the teachers on here that are not charlatains, or deceivers, or just plain wrong and in error. Jesus warned of the deception to come in the last days, He even warned of the deception more than the earthquakes, famines, pestilence etc.. I would venture to guess that youtube has more than 90%
false teachers. Yes, youtube has "given us access to a whole world of wonderful thinkers", remember who is "prince of the air" and be like the Bereans Acts 17-11 Receive the Word with all readiness of mind, Search the Scriptures to see if these things are so
@David Ortiz The blind leading the blind are the hypocritical arrogant Pharisees in Jesus day putting their traditions before God --similar to the Catholic Church we have Jewish leadership dismissing Jesus' words.
The Christian churches of today do not contradict each other any less than Catholics. We are all united in knowing that we don't need a pope to guide us in anything --especially falsely invented doctrines that seeped in from fallible church fathers. The numbers of Christians between 60 CE and 90 CE in the early churches didn't have to wait until the 4th century to read the Gospel According to Mark, Luke and Matthew. It is the Roman Catholic Church that has made erroneous additions corrupting the church giving tradition authority and teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.
Matthew 15
3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” 13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
15 Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
Do we now need the Roman Pontiff to explain what Jesus said when explaining to Peter what the parable meant when he explained to the hypocritical Pharisees?
The apostles gave us fair warning about the dangers the church would immediately face when they were gone.
"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears....and remember the words of the Lord Jesus" -- the apostle Paul (Acts 20:29-31, 35)
2 Corinthians 11:3-5
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
Who is preaching another gospel and leading astray from the SIMPLICITY and purity of devotion to Christ? Door number one: The Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church!
I agree with you 100% about youtube/the internet as I have found invaluable teachings from many ministers teachers and pastors who the Spirit verifies with my spirit that they are my true family, my brothers sisters and mothers just like Jesus said and when I decided to truly seek Him the response I got was nothing short of Truth. There are lots of false Christian's but God even uses them to help us learn how to discern. Thank you Dr Habermas for the great work you choose to share with all
lol habermas is a joke.
Thank you Dr, Habermas, these videos on Doubt are helping me to get through my own.
We are glad these videos on Doubt are helping you and strengthening you. We want you to know we are praying for you and that God knows where you are, what you are going through and He will help you.
Shoreline Community Church - I know, God is everything for me and Christ is my Lord and Saviour. This is helping me how to help my son who doesn’t know the Truth yet. Thanks for your prayers, they mean a lot to me and my family
hey mr habermas, how about you turn on comments on your channel?
Fantastic help, thanks for posting.
Preview (expand to read full): Answering questions honest people might wonder like why God doesn't always heal miraculously today, bring people back to life, and whether Jesus' resurrection might have been really just "swooning" or faking death like a possum. A fundy atheist/septic made an (implied) argument along these lines in the 200+ conversation to this video, after the deadline I gave for that conversation had passed.
However, since he was missing for all of those 200 comments and might possibly (unlikely but who knows) have honestly missed out all this time (it could happen), I want to give him a chance... and this is really more for the sake of others reading along, honestly wondering, so here goes. (More likely he was playing dead all that time. :-P)
[Edit: I see he's also posted some of it it in a direct comment to the video, outside of the conversation thread I had been watching. Anyway.]
Note: Yes, I know, it's "skeptic," not "septic," but with certain cases like this one, there seems to be little difference. Not that septic tanks don't serve a useful purpose.
And although many of them call themselves skeptics, it's interesting how little skepticism they have for the wildly stupid arguments of their own side (as many former "skeptics" have admitted). I would have to say I'm the real skeptic, as I need sound support (and got it for the Bible).
1) Medical experts have said that the only explanation for the clear liquid plus blood that leaked out of Christ according to the gospels when the Roman stabbed him with a spear is that he had been dead for a while and this clear liquid had separated from the blood and pooled in the heart. In other words, Jesus was stabbed in the heart! Even if he had been "faking death" or had "swooned," _this would have killed him._
Good luck getting a possum to "rise again" after stabbing it in the heart!
2) What about the implication that if Jesus was raised, Chucklebury should be able to go into a morgue and see a dead human body raising?
This seems to be the argument that if miracles happened during the Bible's formation, they should keep happening. Fundy atheists/etc. seem to be suffering a somewhat understandable oversimplification here; they want empirically observeable evidence, and that's certainly reasonable, but sound support is NOT about blindly assuming "what happened before must happen again." In fact, the whole concept of logic is all about reaching sound conclusions from directly (or indirectly, but always starting originally with directly) verifiable premises, using reliable reasoning, and building to conclusions that are not necessarily themselves directly observed.
In this case, for example, we see the texts themselves containing the prophecies of these events in sections written long before this, and we see non-medical-experts writing things like the water and blood flowing out, which would be extremely unlikely to be made up. All experts agree that the disciples really did believe that Jesus rose, even skeptics. And it is likewise universally agreed by experts that Jesus really did die. The only remotely plausible explanation of how the tomb became empty, however, is that the disciples stole the body and lied about his resurrection. The problem is that this would mean they were selfish frauds, and when challenged by Rome to recant or die, the selfish would recant!
Worse, the public at large viewed crucifixion as highly shameful (cursed if hung on a tree), and would need VERY solid evidence to accept a resurrection reversing this shame; the Christianizing of the west could not have happened without this solid confirmation. (Plus it all happened in ways OT prophecy foreshadowed, in incredible detail. Contra ignorant claims that "all we have" is the Bible, we actually have all of history backing this up.)
So we have sound support that Christ really did rise from the dead. We don't need God to keep doing the Lazarus type of miracle over and over today in order to know this. To demand this would actually be _anti-logic._ It would insist that valid reasoning and true premises are not enough to reach a sound conclusion and instead we must only directly verify every proposition as an observably true premise.
Also, the unfakeable prophecies are a type of way-beyond-reasonable-doubt proof that inherently require history to be worked out over time and then stand as proof for all from that point on, thus clearly do not need to be repeated over and over.
We can add to this several of the scientific proofs about origins, though we need not and it gets somewhat off-topic, but as it's an area I've studied it's especially hilarious to me to see ignorant septics acting like there's even any room for reasonable beliefs that the gospels etc. might just be made-up stories.
Just to name a few examples, focusing just on the Flood to keep this simple:
A) The one major Y-chromosome line (male) yet three major mitochondrial lines (passed by females) in humans, which perfectly matches the ark account (Noah's three sons, each with one wife, from whom all others descended afterward), and is very weird in evolutionary or other views.
B) The perfect proportions of the ark for surviving sea waves as modern testing has shown, while other later corruptions of the story in surrounding cultures portrayed the boat as various shapes that would not be nearly as ideal (such as Gilgamesh's cube! Notice that ignorant skeptics actually try to argue that the Gilgy story came first! Clearly it's the other way around). IF Genesis was "made up," the people making it up were shepherds, not seagoing peoples; how would they just guess right?? (Even seagoing peoples' guesses were not as ideal!).
C) The massive subducted oceanic plate material very deep in the mantle, where temperatures are high enough that if it subducted there slowly it would all be melted by now, and that we know this material CANNOT subduct that deep at slow speeds anyway. Dr. John Baumgartner's findings confirm that if this happened (and we see here that it had to have happened), the results would be a global flood, as new oceanic plate material would float higher on the mantle for a while until it cooled down later, lifting the oceans, and continental plates would sink lower. There would also be massive steamwalls at the break points as the old plates slipped away, matching the "fountains of the deep" -- "deep" elsewhere in the Bible means deep water; this doesn't mean underground contra popular misconception -- and forty days of "cats and dogs" rain (the modern figure of speech equivalent to their "windows of the heavens".
This also ties into the following question, which is one of my focuses and the main reason I decided to opt for this type of reply rather than just ignoring the spammer:
3) Other than some limited modern miracles (read on for some clarifications about this), why is it that we don't see things like amputees getting miraculously healed today like the ear being reattached Jesus (may have) done when he was arrested? (Some say it just means the ear was cut and the cut healed but either way, the God who can make bread from nothing can obviously heal amputation.)
This is that "publicly proveable" miracles like that need to be reserved for providing credentials for authors of new Scripture -- and the canon is closed. Although healing our afflictions in the here and now is what God clearly wishes he could do, as Jesus' compassion shows, it's an even higher priority to heal what risks our eternal fate; giving the message that tells us how to be saved is "that much more" important. Remember the Bible teaches to "test everything." He cannot just give us the message and hope we blindly accept it (contra some "anti-intellectualism" ignorant misconceptions, and contra the idiotic strawmanning of the likes of Chucklebury).
There's deep pros and cons to this. Unfortunately, using publicly proveable miracles to heal everything today (or prevent it in the first place) would hurt a higher priority. If you must choose between healing temporary problems or healing the eternal problem, everybody who has any love in them at all must choose the eternal problem. So he MUST reserve publicly proveable miracles for credentialing authors of Scripture. (Christ, here, is of course also credentialing himself to the people of the time, but in addition is giving teachings prior to his death which the gospel writers included, and telling them things after his resurrection that they also include for our sake.)
[Continued; 1/3]
The pro to this is that we can thus _know for a fact_ that Jesus really did save us! All we have to do is accept (become loyal = have faith; note that good works come afterward DUE to loyalty, rather than being what saves us; they can be evidence of faith, but aren't prerequisites, and note that faith does not mean belief; it is used somewhat interchangeably with it because the sane who believe would of course become loyal, and to imply otherwise would have insulted the audience, but as James mentions, technically demons believe yet are not loyal, so saving faith is loyalty, not mere intellectual assent).
4) What about claims of modern healings? Are these real?
Notice I said that this limitation applies to "publicly provable" miracles. This means that it's possible some of the claims of modern healings may in fact be real miracles. (Other than just miracles of timing; I'm talking about direct intervention miracles, DIMs for short, as opposed to MOTs, to use my standard terms.) It's also possible, though, that in some cases well-intentioned people are failing to heed, as much as they should, the Bible's commands to be rational, and are making logical leaps to assuming DIMs where MOTs may be what actually happened. For example, there was a movie about a girl who had a fatal condition who fell into a hollow tree upside-down for a while, and after this, was healed. The people portrayed in the film seem to blindly assume this must be a direct intervention miracle. And while it might be, it's possibly relevant that she was in an unusual physical situation right when the change happened. Something about her positioning inside the tree, or maybe lack of oxygen, might have reset something that modern medicine doesn't yet understand.
Note that fundy atheists, as well as less informed Christians, seem to think that we need these modern healings to prove the Bible, but that's actually a strawman argument (or honest misunderstanding in other cases). We already have sound support for the Bible itself that stands for all time; we do not need extra. Though I suspect that God does use some DIMs sometimes to directly convince an individual (a miracle can be proven to that individual while not being provable to others).
5) What about promises of healings in the Bible?
Most of these were the general promises that are clarified to be only about asking in prayer for what we already know to be God's will, which actually precludes asking for healing in that sense; in those cases it's more like being honest with God that we hope it's in his will, but merely humbly requesting, not expecting. Some were also about the miracles still happening around then-still-living authors of Scripture or their direct students, all of which were expected to close soon after their deaths or the deaths of their students.
Remember the Bible was written to a high-context society, in which sayings like this would never be imagined to have been meant in a wooden-literalist/absolutist/universal sense, and in which the purpose of public miracles was still very well understood by everybody, being the major point of contention between the legitimate prophets like Jeremiah and false prophets in his day, and being a vital piece of the "standing orders" of Moses.
To some more spammy "points" that Chucklebury brought up along the way:
6) Obviously he is strawmanning our position. It's so obvious nothing else needs said about that, but for the record!
7) He may be implying the old chestnut that ancients would be too ignorant of what death looks like that they might actually confuse a real dead person for a possum-style faker. But actually ancients were MORE familiar with what death looked like than moderns. For us, when somebody dies, experts tend to hurry in and take over, so the rest of us are shielded from the sight to a large extent. Death is also rarer today. With extremely high infant and early childhood mortality rates back then, nearly everybody had seen dead bodies, however, and even rarer adult cases of it would not have been shielded/hidden.
Also, possums are animals judging with animal brains what they think other animals will mistake for death. That's very different from humans mistaking a possum for dead (or a human).
Of course, it's all a moot point once the heart is stabbed! (Which is likely why it was standard Roman practice to make sure!)
8) "Preposterous silliness" is a good label for fundy atheists who actually think that the "water" that spilled out from the spear wound either would be made up or might have come from any other (less fatal to be stabbed) body part, according to medical experts.
9) The implied "idea of miracles is silly" argument actually backfires on atheism in light of the causality proof of God. I have shown that if causality is "absolute" (nothing ever happens/happened without sufficient causation), then if you work through the logic to its conclusion, the end result proves God. Although most atheists (not all) don't realize it, atheism actually requires "nonsense" (things happening without sufficient causation) somewhere or another along the line in order for there to be existence without God also existing. Even their best hoped-for copout, the multiverse hypothesis, if taken to its logical conclusion still results in God.
This is a long story (given many times before elsewhere), but the point is that actually, atheists need something even more out of the ordinary, in order for atheism to be possible (whether the foolish / ignorant atheists know it or admit it or not).
By contrast, miracles are simply a being acting. We are beings and we can act, so there's nothing outlandish about the idea. Only if God did NOT exist could he not act. And to assume he doesn't exist in order to argue that he doesn't exist is blatant circular reasoning. (As I already pointed out in the conversation Chuckles was replying to.)
The problem with the atheistic "nonsense" is that it would not sensibly restrict itself only to safe places. It would be like static throughout all existence, destroying any coherent structure -- including living cells. Life should not be possible if atheism is true (even without the design argument, which is also very solid, despite ignorant evolutionist assumptions). Yet here we are. In fact, every single observation we make on a daily basis, of all coherent reality, is constantly affirming to us that God exists, if our subconsciouses can make the logical deduction from it to him -- and I have shown step by step that they can, and we know from psychology that that means the subconscious DOES deduce it. The conscious mind may block thoughts and chain reactions of deductions, but the subconscious doesn't.
(Thus all are "without excuse.")
I don't absolutely rule it out in extreme cases of mental disorders, but then the "age" of accountability would come in (not due to age in this case but I mean the same principle), so either way it cannot work out to a problem.
10) Chuckles will indignantly object that I have insulted possums. However, I love possums and feel sorry for them when they decide to play dead right in the way of a car and get plowed over, just like Chuckles' arguments. I have also saved possum lives on occasion when they played dead in my dog's yard. I am only a friend to possum-kind!
11) Chuckles is apparently ignorant of what "rigor mortis" means. Rigor mortis CAN be "undone." That's not the same thing as DEATH being undone. Aaaanyway.
[Continued; 2/3]
12) He goes on to imply the "lotsa different peeps interpret Bible differently" chestnut closely followed by the contradictions error, both of which I and others have debunked long ago.
Holding, to the first, has pointed out that on actually relevant basics, there are really less than ten major disagreements. And everybody sane points out that the ability of fallen man to misunderstand a message doesn't make it unclear. We can use the science of hermeneutics to understand what was meant in most cases, using the rules of the languages in the texts, same way we understand what any other communication means! And I don't see the fundy atheists assuming that it's impossible to understand their own words; if they really believed that they wouldn't bother to speak/write/type at all.
On all important basics, and many lesser side details as well, the correct meaning has been proven. If it can't be proven in all trivial side details, so what? Why should it? And if God added more detail to settle those trivial questions, the book would be much longer, and it's already VERY long. The Library of Congress wouldn't be able to fit it... and then who would ever read the whole thing anyway?
He did as much as he could reasonably do given the obvious limitations of communication -- far more than enough to prove what we needed to know. So there is no issue here except with how lazy and foolish skeptics are, which is on them.
To the latter, I've personally investigated as many contradiction claims as I could find and have actually found that not a single one has panned out logically; they are all cases of foolish skeptics who don't understand logic.
Ironically this argument has backfired big time because if the Bible was NOT inspired I would not have expected that result. I find contradictions in septics' own arguments all the time, and in other non-inspired works (though to be fair, it's actually much rarer in non-inspired works than is generally assumed, so I've also pointed out that this may actually not be as useful a test as others, though if we did ever find a real contradiction then we'd have an interesting puzzle). You would think there would be at least one in the Bible if it was really just made up, but the only people claiming that are the most ignorant.
(Other than copyist errors, of course, but it's the autographs that matter, and these can be deduced from multiple copies in different geographical areas which tend to have DIFFERENT errors. In some obscure cases, as with math issues in Kings and Chronicles, it may not be possible to conclusively reconstruct the original, but again, trivialities don't matter. And in one case in Nehemiah we are actually told that he is only reporting what he found in records, not claiming they were accurate records, which is the same as quoting an adversary, rather than affirming the adversary spoke only truth.)
13) Yes, the omniscient God favored a text that one as ignorant as yourself, Chuckles, did not expect!
14) I agree about heaven being so much better than this place, though. No wonder Jesus ascended as quickly as he could afterward!
15) Obviously a three-day wait period is better for our purposes than a possum's brief nap! Much clearer he was really dead by the time of the resurrection (given the massive wounds, cold nights in a stone tomb, lack of ventilation, etc. even if his heart hadn't been stabbed).
16) When Aquila and Priscilla encountered Apollos making some well-intentioned but erroneous arguments in their side's favor, they did not simply welcome anything that might possibly seem to help, but took him aside and helped clarify to him what was correct. Likewise, if any genuine Christian ever did attempt such an argument as Huckster's argumment "in our favor," their errors should be pointed out just as they are when it's a basement troll attempting mockery instead (he's really bad at it, but he gets points for mostly proper grammar, or more so than most spam trolls, so there's that).
17) Huckster didn't really bring this up, but a reflection in a mirror did (even though I had already debunked it), and Twainey did not disagree even though that was the subject of discussion, so presumably thought he was defending it indirectly -- so just to reiterate, to the idea of the gospels being late:
A) Acts says nothing about Paul's death, which likely happened well before 70 AD, and was written by Luke after the Gospel of Luke which states that other accounts, plural, had been made before this, which almost certainly refers to Matthew and Mark. This puts all three of the Synoptic Gospels very early. John may have been written as late as 70, however.
B) Regardless, most ancient documentation is actually MUCH LATER than 30-40 years after the events they describe. And Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and likely Matthew wrote notes as he went along, plus of course had strong personal memories, and Mark recorded the strong personal memories of Peter most likely, and even beyond this, oral transmission was very accurate in their culture. There is no sane room for doubt here.
C) The only "out" fundy atheists/etc. could have is if they were much LATER than a mere 30-40 years later (on the order of at least 100 years). But the fatal problem with this (flattened-possum-level fatal) is that such a late writer would have gotten local, contemporary minor details wrong. As I pointed out, this is in fact a testing method the skeptics actually do know about, since they tried to use it against the gospels and Acts, the most famous example being Luke's census depiction, but later and more informed analysis debunked these arguments and confirmed the texts are very early.
D) This all still fails to deal with Paul's letters, many of which are agreed by experts to have gone out VERY early, and the creed he reports which has been concluded to likely have been made _within one year_ of the resurrection.
E) Very early accounts claiming things or denying things which were contradicted by actual witnesses at the time -- hostile witnesses -- would have failed because in that culture (indeed, in any culture, but especially that collectivist one) they would have been called out for it. Remember the "test everything" emphasis repeatedly throughout the OT and NT. (No, Thomas wasn't told blind faith is good; he already had testimony from men he knew well enough to know wouldn't lie about it; he rejected sound logic and asked for extra proof well beyond reasonable doubt.)
If the accounts' public details were false, the movement would have crashed and burned, rather than becoming the rock growing to fill the world prophesied by Daniel. Yet if the public details are TRUE, in this case because of how the specifics of these details "trap" us with mutually exclusive options and all the options being testable and tested, there is NO other rational explanation besides real resurrection -- and that this (among other things) credentials the message as true, in its details beyond merely the then-public events. In other words, the rational investigator MUST conclude that salvation is through faith in Christ, because this message is proven objectively, and it is proven the message teaches this.
No possums were harmed in the making of this debunking.
[3/3]
Kuffar Legion So not only are you angry at religion, you are angry at how history has turned out because there really are no gods? You would have been one of the woke humans during reign of Julius Caesar calling him a stupid Emperor and every other member of the Senate for worshiping Zues or any other god in the pantheon in blind faith. None of this could have been caused by spiritual demonic activity because that’s part of the fairy tale as well. The inventors of these mythical religions never really believed their own psychotic encounters but always just made these tales up for fun and to control the masses. Then when a man named Jesus popped up in the Gaza region of this great Roman Empire claiming to be the Jewish messiah (another fantasy religion) like others before him, you would have been too smart to fall for such nonsense? Not because you were some leader in the Jewish faith recognizing the falsehood of his claims, but because you would have been the woke atheist saying all humanity arrived on this planet by accident. These were all just stupid religious people living in alternative realities. At the time, you would have been the lone atheist crying in the wilderness benefiting from advanced empirical societal governance and technology for over 5 centuries screaming in anger about human rights and how the world would theoretically be a better place if we just removed gods from our minds. I’m curious, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
@@logicianbones What a great piece of evidence! Thank you for taking the time to write this. Maybe you should think about putting all this into a single case study or paper? I'm sure it would help!
Was John doubting, or trying to get his disciples to recognize the Messiah on their own?
Was Jesus doubting or was he quoting the most appropriate scripture for his situation to dispel the temptations of Satan?
This is the best view on hell I’ve heard of
He's not saying that hell is in our mind.
Hell is a real place
There is only one unpardonable sin. The sin that guarantees one will not go to heaven. And that sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. And THAT sin is calling the Holy Spirit a liar. See, the Holy Spirit testifies of the Son and if one rejects that testimony...so by definition that one is not born again...thus never able to enter into heaven. Once born again, saved forever because you cannot take back your testimony when you were born again. You handed over your spiritual rights in the sense once you accept Christ you cannot deny him (legally) nor does anything you do affect your standing. Regardless of your relationship being good, bad or ugly, your standing is legally and will always be in Christ, covered by his blood.
Atheists' anger is at the hypocrisy and dishonesty in the church, not at a god they don't believe in.
Ads
Uhhh...scripture says God is a consuming fire. Might not the absence of God be a fire that does not consume? Me thinks.
UNPARDONABLE SIN: Please consider these words...God has forgiven us all our sin....M't:12:31: Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: ....." and the catcher for some is "......but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." So what is it? The Holy Spirit has one main job and that is testify of Jesus which the HS does to all mankind. If one DENIES that Jesus is the Son of God THEN one has called the Holy Spirit a LIAR......and since one REJECTS the TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, then one is not born again, does not believe Jesus is the Son of God and cannot enter heaven for rejecting the testimony of the Holy Spirit and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit are the same sin. So if you're born again...relax.....you are secure in Christ...forever.
What if someone denies, but later realises they were wrong and then affirms? Where is the boundary of conviction? How many times could doubt and denial convict the innocence of mans need for certainty? Where is the justice in temporary salvation....I understand why you make your argument, but I think it is a weak argument. Go back.
Habermas must be called in to answers questions that are redicoulous in the first placel. Gary should never have left kindigarten never mind grad' school, which institution awarded this man a PhD. Unbelievable!
The unpardonable sin is dying without receiving Christ's free gift of salvation. When a person receives Christ's free gift of salvation, any person who sincerely does receive Jesus free gift is instantaneously given eternal life while still alive on earth, and then goes on to grow in the Lord and there are ups and downs in people growing in the Lord. We will always have the sin nature and never be perfect while still alive on earth. When our Heavenly Father gives us eternal life, that's exactly what it is, "eternal". God won't and cannot take back eternal life or it wouldn't have been eternal in the first place, which it is, the moment you sincerely receive Jesus free gift of salvation. When the doubts come during your life while you are growing in the Lord, that doesn't take away eternal life. We are weak human beings. Don't let Satan cause you to believe and worry about something that isn't true. Remember what God says is true. He gives you eternal life and He won't go back on His word. God cannot lie, when He says you have eternal life the moment you sincerely receive Christ's free gift of salvation, you have eternal life, which never ends, therefore God cannot take it back because He cannot lie. You will have doubts. Pray to God every day, stay in God's word every day, live for Him and confess your sins everyday and grow in the Lord and your faith will grow and stay firm and strong (and missing a day here and there may cause you to doubt and even if you backslide a longer period of time, that will not cause you to lose your salvation because it is eternal from the start. You will be concerned about it and you will come back when you become concerned. Sometimes if you backslide too long from God's perspective, He will bring you to Heaven because you are not a good witness for Him, but you will be in Heaven for all eternity.
And Muslims say it is a sin without Allah and the Jews Yaweh. They have as much evidence as you do. Nothing. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
Most of humankind need to create a god or gods because of their insecurities, fear of the unknown and their life of indoctrination!!
Atheists need to deny the clear reality, indeed necessity, of God since the moral implications interfere too much with their sinful pleasures.
@@texashoosier7318
Word! 🎯👏👏
@@texashoosier7318 There is a second problem -- perhaps pride -- as may be the case with Bart Ehrman: A sensitivity to apparently unjust/gratuitous suffering coupled with an assumed need for everything to "make sense". It's easier to satisfy the "makes sense" criteria to forget the cause-and-effect efficient and final causality of the universe in favor of "no God therefore suffering is random therefore suffering makes sense" than to admit "God loves you and we don't know why you're suffering". Or another way, "Per Colossians 1 you can unite your suffering with Jesus to participate in His redemptive suffering, but we don't know why you need to do that".
An anthology of fairy tales delivered by a PhD in gullibly.
There would be no factual doubt if Jesus really existed. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
My dear, you have not done your homework to say this. You are a perfect example of an angry person in relation to God. A simple search in Wikipedia will give you hundreds of names dispelling your claim. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus
Gary is being intellectually dishonest. What evidence did the professor impart to those students to dissuade them? Honesty requires that this info be shared. Students, regardless of their religion, take that religion, what they were told by their parents and pastors, to college with them. Parents and pastors are the ones who hold major sway over K-12 students. At the college levels, students, more mature, free and less fearful, are exposed to people of accomplishments holding pockets full of higher degrees. Students are taught to hold those who have attained higher levels of success in higher esteem and respect. Professors are able to use common sense and intellect to destroy the lies and myths that are used all to often to keep our youths hamstrung and hogtied to ignorance. Religion should not be a shackle to free thought.
There would be no factual doubt if Jesus really existed. Not one historian, not one philosopher, not one archeological artifact, Jewish, Greek or Roman said a word about any miracles in the 1st century CE. The bible is a proven fairytale.
@Dd S I agree. Of all the places god could have chosen to appear to mankind he chose ignorant, superstitious Palestine. That makes sense to me.
@@Itsatz0 The percentage of serious scholars today who doubt Jesus existed is the same as those who deny the holocaust: virtually none. Even among atheist scholars there is no doubt Jesus existed. Hence the fairytale is what you are stating.
In additon, even if skeptical scholars might not agree everything in the bible is historical they do agree a portion of it is.
..
"Of all the places god could have chosen to appear to mankind he chose ignorant, superstitious Palestine."
Sounds to me you are being ignorant and superstitious. To note ancient I century Judea had one of the highest literacy levels in antiquity. In fact recent studies (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1522200113) have shown that literacy in ancient Judea was between 15 and 20% (depending on the area) where in the Roman empire in general at the same time was between 5 and 10% at best.
@@Entropy3ko Bull, only Christian scholars say Jesus existed. The miracles never happened, that's a fact. The Jewish leadership was literate, 500 of them supposedly came back to life. Not one of them wrote a word about the experience. Christianity is proven bullshit and makes people more stupid. Get an education if you want to save yourself.
I pray you at least take the time to read the 4 gospels yourself and actually seek to follow what Jesus taught and slowly but surely if you are sincere and honest with yourself you will realize that Jesus loves you and everyone and is trying to save us through a free gift he has already paid for and offered and it has very little, if nothing at all, to do with what is called "religion" today. May God bless you and draw you closer and open your eyes and change your heart