Thank you very much for your work, Cameron! This was great! I thought it would be nice to have a short overview of the resources mentioned at 14:53 for further studies. So here it goes: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona) The Son Rises (William Lane Craig) The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Richard Swinburne) Resurrecting Jesus (Dale C. Allison Jr.) Jesus, the Final Days (Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright) Timothy and Lydia McGrews article in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Jesus Under Fire (Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland) Fabricating Jesus (Craig A. Evans)
Hey Now thanks for keeping this discussion balanced. Is suspect few Christians understand the evolutionary origins of their religion in both the Hebrew Bible ... ruclips.net/p/PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
I listen to these teachings while I drive...I drive 18 wheelers...all day long! I look forward to the REALLY LONG ONES! You're DEFINITELY improving! Thanks for the great work!
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
@@cygnusustus I never said I wanted to refute your points, learn to read. Just a heads up calling people child when your attitude is childlike is just a projection upon others.
You dont need to be an expert to assess evidence. Something is either true or it’s but not. I have not seen any evidence that Jesus’s is God or the son of God. If the argument is that Jesus existed then I am willing to accept but any supernatural claim attached Jesus existence has to proven. This video wasted 3 hours of my time.
Christians only study the same ole tired arguments for Christ. But if I had such a scholar in front of me, I'd ask him the following: 1. What happened to the non-Greek speak Jewish Christians, that are so prominent in the Christian Scriptures, but are nowhere to be found outside the Gospels? In other words, the trace of Christians that is there is a trace to Jewish heretics from a Greek speaking Christian point of view. 2. How could it be that Jesus, when he was still alive, was considered to be the risen John the Baptist? How could this bit be historical?
@@cygnusustus None of what you've claimed to be debunked has been debunked. You're spewing rhetoric and calling me a child. You have given no credible argument to debunk these stories. I've yet to hear anyone who can give a credible argument against these stories. And i was a huge skeptic/atheist for years I know your arguments, the ins and outs 1 thing that I've learned is that life itself doesn't even agree with the atheist.
@@cygnusustus Why call me a child and a liar? Your assumptions are as bad as your rhetoric. Which is far from truth or of being proven. Your claims are baseless and theoretical at best. I'll wait for science to continue its worm holes based on theory and laugh when it continuously disproves itself - Further proving that no word holds more truth than the word of God. Seeing how I've struck a nerve with you, I'll leave on this. Jesus is LORD. And there is peace with God. You're only hurting yourself by holding true your baseless assumptions instead of searching for truth and answers that so obviously align with the very fabrics of the universe. Praise God. Hope is not lost for you or anyone - I never thought that i would be where I'm at today.
They have no expertise in history or historical research , they are xtains scholars....they don’t have any experience, besides reading the bible...and talking to others about “reading the BIBLE”...not archeologists, not anthropologists, not history anything!
@@epiccollision my friend, how do you think people learn? By reading and seeking knowledge from others. Lack of expetise is a non-issue if whom they sought information from had the expertise.
Cameron this came in my recommendations at a very opportune time. I've been looking at the Bible as a historical record lately and the thought that the Christian belief without the resurrection is empty came to me, so naturally I've been thinking I need to do homework on it. I'm only 1/3 of the way into it, but this has already been a huge blessing. Thank you so much. The Holy Spirit is working in and through you. Keep it up!
Cameron, thank you for your work. It's great to know that in any conversation with a non-Christian I can say "I can literally send you an over 3 hour video of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection with leading scholars discussing it." That would not be possible without ministries like your own. Thank you.
These are biblical scholars, just like Harry Potter scholars, game of thrones scholars...oh they’re just Bible fans, because it’s not a historical representation of historically accurate events like the “Exodus” et al.
I can send you a 6 hour video about ehy this 3 hour video is false Not that the amount of hours should matter but hey if this is the metric we're going by and it matters to you, im not kidding there is actually a 6 hour response to this
@@Greyz174you should do a response. I would like to see it. Their videos are more of just preaching to the choir. Their audience isn't interested in actual evidence
This goes deeper than I ever even thought of and I thought my thoughts were deep. This was SO well worth 3.5 hours. I've never heard anyone explain every single aspect of every single detail and give such a great history and cultural background so we know what's REALLY going on. Stuff like this will absolutely stump almost any atheist in their tracks. They have every single aspect of the resurrection laid on in logical evidence, historical evidence, biblical evidence, non-biblical written evidence, and definitely the evidence that EXPLAINS all there is to know so you can PROPERLY evaluate what we're reading and we need to understand that we don't know Greek or Hebrew and we don't know the original words and what they really mean. We just know how they were translated to English and doesn't give the background (it's not a history book) of the culture or the definition of the original word so we weren't limited to English! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
Nope. Not stumped at all. Hearsay and using the bible to prove the bible is not conclusive evidence. There was most likely a person named Jesus who was very influential (and was possibly an amateur magician) but there is no evidence that any supernatural claims are true, just as there is no evidence of any supernatural claims made in the bible whatsoever. Confirmation bias, delusion, ignorance, wishful thinking, indoctrination and gullibility are powerful things. The universe and life most likely originated naturally and wasn't magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension. Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins, it is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and christianity is no different.
Brother, I doubt this would stop any atheist in their tracks! They don't really care about the evidence! Any amount of evidence that is remotely convincing are "religious lies". They come into the video assuming that the Bible is one big lie, full of "fairytales". They're still using the Humean argument against miracles😂. If you showed them a miracle right now, they would think that you were performing a magic trick or they were hallucinating. Look, no matter however much evidence you give, the philosophical arguments, the scientific evidence, the archaeological evidence, the historical evidence - there's always a naturalistic answer! It really is hard to convince someone so blind. Only God can open their hearts.
Almost any atheist? Well, it didn't stump me and I expect you won't find much other confirmation for your rather daft assumption elsewhere, either. But you are right about one thing: It's NOT a history book. That tells you all you should need to know. Also, the Old Testament is nothing but a book of mythological stories with a few historical characters and even events strewn in, many and the biggest ones of which either neve rhappened, were misrrepresneed or taken from other cultures and woven into a constructed narrative that later has taken hold of humanity like a fungus. So, if the first book of fairy-tales is basically a lie, what does matter the second one matter?
Thank you guys so much. ❤️ I am about to cry like I am so thankful for this ministry. I deal with chronic doubt sometimes for no reason. Having the reassurance that the evidence is so freaking good makes me 😊
If you are having doubts, it's probably a really good idea to seriously engage with the counter arguments instead of listening to spoon fed self-affirming dogma. This kind of self-denial is a temporal fix at best, honestly harmful and can really screw with your head. And here's the great thing about listening to the other side: If they (in part) convince you, you're one step closer to what truth speaks to you and if they can't it'll help with your doubts way more than listening to sicophants (not sure if I'm using that word correctly - not a native speaker) ever could. Please be kind to yourself. You're worth it. Self-indoctrination is not self-love.
Sydney Scott, first, seek a fresh filling of the Holy Spirit daily. 2nd, don’t listen to people telling you to listen to negative comments. They are working for the enemy and they use words like indoctrination. Check out the testimonies on One For Israel on RUclips. Peoples lives being changed is powerful because we’re talking millions and millions of people who have done the 180° turn where they were going to end up in jail or dead and they heard the call of the Shepherd. There is no good evidence against the resurrection. People who don’t believe will listen to the craziest stuff. Dick Carrier is a personal favorite of many skeptics because he claims there never was a Jesus. Look into criticism of this man because he is a dangerous liar. I have had personal experience with Jesus thru the power and agency of the Holy Spirit and I am not alone. He is still speaking. He is still healing. Shalom
@@michaelbrickley2443 "There is no good evidence against the resurrection"?? One could equally say that there is no good evidence against the existence of anything we haven't experienced/yet discovered. How about: 1. There were no real-time accounts written of this supposed miraculous event. Does it not seem strange to you that such an occurrence would have "made the news" of the time rather than only being written down decades later by people who never met or knew Jesus? 2. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible anywhere about virgin births, crucifixions, a dead man rising after 3 days, one person dying for everyone else's sins.
I have just listened to this podcast and after looking through some of the comments below, I am just shocked at some of the idiocy of a few people. These guys put together a very good argument for the basis of Christianity. Maybe you don't believe, maybe you just haven't taken the time and the energy to think, and read and listen. Take from an older man who has been through the struggles of life, these guys put together a very thoughtful and very logical argument. They are open, they are informed, well read, intelligent and well spoken. This is worth three hours of time if you are confused or solid in your faith. This is refreshing and the Moderator and guests need to be applauded. Thank you guys.
What’s true is God according to the Bible is directly responsible for mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing (not to mention the killing of unborn children). I’m guessing we should just skip over those parts of the Bible right?
@@myopenmind527 Did you hear the 3 hours? Have you looked into all the evidences, what the skeptics says and what the Christians respond etc.? Explain the resurrection? What really happened, you think? Im asking, because your answer will show if you have done plenty of serious research of evidences from both Christian and non-christian sources, and how each side responds to their objections. I did street apologetics yesterday. One university student hold to the apparent death theory - which has so many fallacies that not even secular NT schoolars hold to them. If you rise from the death and leave such strong evidences, like for example making 2/3 of an empire who torture, persecute and kills all whom believes in you within 300 years - I will listen VERY carefully to all you say.
This is just not right Adam. Have you seriously looked into what bible schoolars and Christians respond to this comment of yours? You can even find short videos here on RUclips. This is cherry picking of bible verses and out of context. Dont take my word for it, research it for yourself. For example the caananites, where doing all those thing you mention for 400 years, sacrificing babies - burning them on a bronze made god, called Molek. God used the israelites. "utterly destroy them all" ... yet some verse down, it says "dont marry them" so it was clearly hyperbolic language. But what I really should be asking is; Why is all those things evil according to you? If there is no God, there is no good, nor evil. We are just a cosmic accident, not acting, but reacting to our chemicals.
DanielApologetics I don’t have to explain the resurrection. Some would just have to give me good reasons to believe it ever happened. No good reasons have ever been presented to me.
@@CapturingChristianity I don't think it's particularly radical to be sceptical of historical claims of any kind, but especially ones that include miracles. Aren't you sceptical of the claims of Hindus and Muslims?
Argument demonstrating that the resurrection appearances of Jesus didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. 1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him - 1 Cor 15:8. 2. The appearance to Paul was a personal "vision" or "revelation" from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19. 3. Paul uses his vision/revelation from heaven as a "resurrection appearance" - 1 Cor 15:5-8. 4. Therefore, visions/revelations from heaven counted as "resurrection appearances." If Paul can use a personal/subjective "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 then it necessarily follows that early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "revelations" from heaven (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as evidence of the Resurrected Christ "appearing" to them. In other words, not actually seeing Jesus counted as "seeing" Jesus. Even though Jesus wasn't physically present, one could still claim that Jesus had "appeared" to them. Think about that for a moment. We can then proceed with the following argument: 1. Early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "visions/revelations" as "resurrection appearances." 2. Personal/subjective claims of visions/revelations don't necessarily have anything to do with reality. 3. Therefore, early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims that didn't necessarily have anything to with reality as "resurrection appearances." Obviously, you can see the problem now which calls into question the whole basis of the Christian faith. If the earliest evidence can equally referring to experiences that didn't have anything to do with reality the Christianity is necessarily false. www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/cchjqz/a_logical_argument_which_demonstrates_the/ Apologists like to appeal to the later gospel stories to prove the appearances were physical but these accounts are not firsthand sources and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Paul is the earliest and only undisputed firsthand source by someone who claimed to have "seen" Jesus when the appearance to him was a vision, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. He makes no distinction between the "appearances" in the earliest eyewitness list which means apologists have no reason to think they were different than what Paul experienced. All the gospel resurrection narratives grow in the telling which is a sign of legendary embellishment. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
This is false. Yes Jesus appeared to Paul and He was blinded. Did God not also appear to others in the Old Testament through visions before? Paul was also the ONLY one Jesus appeared to in a vision so that he could do the will of God. The gospel to the gentiles was actually preached first by Peter if you read the whole book of Acts, before Paul. Therefore Paul's preaching of the gospel aligned with Peter's, who was actually physically there with Jesus before His resurrection and afterward, who also gave the account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Why don't instead of trying to waste energy "disproving" the Gospels, you actually try to seek the Truth? If you seek truth you will get it. I was like you at one point, but now I came to know the truth. I have no reason to debate with you, but the facts and evidence are there by guy. Be blessed.
@@chapter404th Did Luke copy Ezekiel's vision when composing Paul's Damascus Road vision? Acts 26:13 About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyesand turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ Compare this to Ezekiel's vision. Ez. 1:4 "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north-an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal" Ez. 1:28 "Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking." Ez. 2:1 "He said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you." Ez. 2:3-4 'He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’ So here we have the shared common themes of a "bright light," "falling down and hearing a voice," then being told to "stand on your feet" in the same verbatim Greek στῆθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου - Acts 26:16, Ez. 2:1 and being ordered to conduct missionary work. The paradigm here is an Old Testament "call vision" where a prophet figure is called upon by God and chosen to become a missionary and ordered to carry out a specific mission. We see similar stories in Job 4:12-16, Isa 6, Dan. 10:4-21, Ezek. 1:1-3:15, Amos 7.1-9:10, 1 Enoch 14, 4 Ezra 3:1-9, 25. So if Luke wanted to compose a fictional account about Paul and since he had access to the Septuagint, this establishes the plausibility for borrowing. Now, the identifiable theme in the Old Testament for a "call vision" is: 1. Address or call. 2. Answer with question. 3. Introduction with charge. The sequence shared between the Ezekiel vision and Paul's Damascus Road vision is as follows: 1. It's a "call vision" 2. It involves a bright light 3. The person falls down 4. He hears a voice 5. And is told to "stand up on his feet" in the same verbatim Greek. 6. Is charged with a specific mission Due to the amount of similarity it's equally likely that Luke was just copying Ezekiel's vision as it is that he was recording what actually happened to Paul. Therefore, the story by itself can't serve as evidence for its historicity.
@@heynow3497 that doesn't disprove, if anything, it PROVES the theme of how God reveals Himself and approaches people to do His will, with Paul it was different because he was a persecutor of the early Church and in the end ended up killed for his faith. It's also very subjective and can't be proven as a fact or even logical at that. Like I said before and I'll say it again, you want to disprove the Word because you don't won't want it to be true. Thing is it's very much true, there is a Creator, because there's creation and there's a lot of archaeological evidence of places in the Bible that just show its validity. Hope you open your eyes up to the truth and actually seek TRUTH, not lies. Be blessed!
@@chapter404th If the evidence is equally explained by: A. Being a historical fact Or B. The author was just borrowing the "call vision" theme from Ezekiel 1-2 and Daniel 10 to create a fictional narrative then _you_ have the burden of proof is to demonstrate historicity is the more probable explanation. Just preaching and making baseless assertions won't work I'm afraid.
@@sandrabanks2392 How about you don't pick and choose from the bible and use reading comprehension? There's a recurring theme in the Bible; God chooses people to bring them unto repentance. It's not that hard. What the other dude made was a baseless claim. Like I told him, as much time as you spend trying to disprove Him why don't you seek Him? Nothing you can do or say will hinder me, because I know what you say is false and I was at that state you are in before.
Just watched the clip with you and Braxton/Winger/Meme.Thank you for acknowledging that animals show signs that they have the capacity to suffer and feel pain. To recoqnize that it's a legitimate argument and that needs some consideration/thinking on the matter. I think you are a caring and compassionate person. That we dont agree on religion matters little to me. You are free and welcome to believe what ever you want. What matters the most to me is how we treat and coexsist with eachother and how we best represent our worldview in a compassionate manner. Have a nice day.
I’m a Christian as well, but I very much respect your kindness, I respect you too, and love and care about you, we need more people like you, you are better at being a respectful person than some Christians I know👍👍😊😊. If most people would respectfully disagree with other people, like you do we would not have the problems we see today. We would be a unit helping each other no matter the world view.🙂
@@colinmatts Many of those are or can be assumed to be facts: the Jesus movement didn’t just die down and disappear like so many other Messiah movements of the time after their leader was killed, but is still alive and well 2,000 years on. Paul was a vicious persecutor of the first Christians, but suddenly made a u-turn after an experience with Jesus. The brother of Jesus, James, didn’t believe his brother was the Messiah (who would?) but changed his mind completely. The disciples were accused of stealing the body, so obviously there was an empty tomb. Just a few from the top of my head. The most convincing one is when you actually ask and the Holy Spirit answers your questions like for so many Jesus followers. That’s the main reason why Christianity survived and always will, despite the constant onslaught.
3 hrs, though long, is a must-listen for its incredible detailed analysis of all written literature on the resurrection of Jesus. Unfettered biblical evidence with lucid commentary from 2 biblical scholars; a brilliant discussion. One of your best pintswithaquinis uploads 🙏..
If the probability that a “Jesus” was crucified in Jerusalem in the first century, he wasn’t buried he died on a stick in a field and was eaten by animals and disposed of in a ditch...that’s it. That’s the end of the story. Then some dudes in the desert got high in a cave and tada the gospels...
@@epiccollision Oh man you got a hearty laugh out of me with that one friend! :) Although I don't think that what you gave is a remotely plausible explanation of events of course (assuming it was intended to be serious rather than merely the excellent display of humor it was), and I say this as an agnostic who definitely leans substantially away from Christianity being likely.
It makes a nice change to hear resurrection apologetics being honestly presented. Without the pre-existing investment in theism and biblical story, a naturalistic explanation of evidence is perfectly valid. Thanks both.
I suppose you could posit some sort of unknown naturalistic explanation for the resurrection event, but why would you do that? What sort of explanatory value does an unknown naturalistic event that we know nothing about have over a theistic explanation?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl You don't need a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection, because the resurrection that occurs in Mark (and is copied by the other gospels) is a parable. Paul's writings about Jesus were about visions, not a resurrection, and he makes it explicit that his teachings differ from Peter's and James's.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Who said anything about a resurrection event? Willard said that a naturalistic explanation of the evidence is perfectly valid. The evidence for the most part is the texts we have, which you can certainly infer some physical facts from such as resurrection appearances to some of the apostles. The resurrection is a hypothesis to explain said evidence, and is not what a naturalistic explanation needs to account for. Rather a naturalistic explanation would be something like bereavement hallucinations, pareidolia, social memory contagion, stories changing over the retellings, etc., as far as resurrection appearances are concerned, and other known natural phenomena for other pieces of evidence.
@@davidlovesyeshua Obviously, the Resurrection is being viewed as a rival alternative explanation against "naturalistic" explanations. If not, what's the point of contrast for naturalistic explanations? I highly doubt Willard believes the Resurrection is a naturalistic explanation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Well yes, I thought you were misunderstanding things, but I guess I just didn't understand your wording. Also though I think you might be mistaken about something else: as I said in my first reply, there's no need for "unknown naturalistic" phenomena to explain the undisputed data, only some combination of known naturalistic phenomena. If what you mean is that we would need to posit some combination of known phenomena which is not a currently known combination, then yes that's kind of how history works. Historical events are in their combination at least unique in various respects compared to all other events. And given that we always have incomplete data about the past, especially before modern education/mass literacy/printing/etc., we won't ever "already know" the exact combination of known phenomena some unique event was actually comprised of. Instead we must reason about the most probable combination based on the evidence available. Now of course it's always possible that it wasn't a combination of known phenomena and some unique phenomena rather than merely combination was required for the event to occur, but this has a lower prior probability for obvious reasons (and is generally if not exclusively the domain of sciences, & preferably hard sciences, to discover). And it's also always possible that said unique phenomena is miraculous rather than natural, but this possibility is again less probable. And this is the case regardless of whether God exists, since God is at any rate not in the habit of commonly breaking (or circumventing or whatever) natural processes. The question is whether any theory utilizing only known phenomena explains the data sufficiently poorly to require unknown phenomena. The answer to this question is disputed, but I definitely lean towards the set of potential natural explanations having a higher final probability than a resurrection, regardless of whether God exists. At the very least, I don't think naturalistic explanations under predict the evidence so massively that the data become significant evidence for God since that would be necessary for the resurrection hypothesis can be invoked.
@@bobbyfischersays1262 My point is that in the Bible, being returned form the dead wasn't that big a deal., there were a number of dead people resurrected in the Bible. Some in the old testament, Some in the new testament during Jesus' life. Some in the new testament at the moment of Jesus' death. Some in the new testament after Jesus had ascended into heaven.
@@cnault3244 well, it absolutely was a big deal, and was definitely a miracle whenever it occurred. A handful over thousands of years doesn't really constitute "all the time". Furthermore, Jesus's resurrection was different in that when He was resurrected, He didn't physically die again, unlike the others. Rather, He ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. Cheers
@@bobbyfischersays1262 "well, it absolutely was a big deal, and was definitely a miracle whenever it occurred." You missed a step. You haven''t proved it occurred. " A handful over thousands of years doesn't really constitute "all the time"." The only person here who used the phrase "all the time" is you, so your point can be dismissed as a strawman argument. "Furthermore, Jesus's resurrection was different in that when He was resurrected, He didn't physically die again, unlike the others." How do you know the others died again? "Rather, He ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. " Prove it. Also, they have chairs in heaven? And physical bodies with a right hand side?
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
So you think that word, whether spoken or written can actually prove a Resurrection? Claiming that the Resurrection is true (not just death and Crucifixion), is making a scientific claim, that a person can actually come back from the dead, for that, a hell of a lot more is needed than just what people claimed.
Not everything can be proven in a scientific sense, that is repeatable and testable by other people. What is required is historical research or scientifically, forensic science. Did this or that happen? Did people witness event xyz.?
@@1969cmp Resurrection is very much a scientific claim because it contradicts everything we know about biology and mortality. If you're going to make such a bland claim that resurrection is real, then you have to provide a HECK TON of evidence to disprove everything we know of biology at the moment. So... good luck
@@scientificmethod1409 Sigh....using the same bench mark, I assume you would not believe that humans evolved ultimately from a singled cell organism. The point of the Resurrection is that it is a miracle that defies normal biological trends. Of course, so does nonliving materials giving rise to life that eventually became us. It would seem that materialistic evolutionist and those who believe in The Resurrection, both worldviews have faith in miracles. 😎
@@1969cmp Not when it comes to a scientific claim no. Before you can prove that Jesus resurrected, you have to prove it is even possible to happen to begin with. There is no way you can actually decide whether or not an actual coming back from the dead happened with forensics or historical research. This is a claim firmly in the realm of science.
@@mansonandsatanrock I do not have to prove it to be scientific at all. It is not a testable, repeatable feat to be retested by others. It is simply a matter of history. It either happened or it did not. And seeing that you and I were not there and nor were the skeptics of the modern era who ignorantly spout 'if even Jesus ever existed' folly, we must go to the earliest known accounts. What do they say? This is forensic science, history.
My brother. 3+ hours later, your interview ended, and I was like nooooo. Youre a great interviewer. Excellent interview, Im going to be recommending to everyone.
43:30 "you can't explain [belief in the resurrection] just by reference to what Jews already believed because everything in the Jewish beliefs before that suggested that that couldn't happen" And yet a quick look in Mark shows that Jews did in fact believe such things prior to Jesus' crucifixion: Mark 6:14-16: King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Others said, “He is Elijah." And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
As a matter of general commonsense and experience, Jewish or not, those that are dead and have been buried never walk and talk again because it is impossible, but it hardly matters because it is utterly irrelevant to whatever the way of christ teaches-for *screamingly_obvious reasons*
You don't need 3 hours of historical evidence for Jesus. If you had some absolutely definitive evidence for the resurrection, you could tell me about it within 3 minutes.
@@rickelmonoggin apologize for being spiteful, but atheist types get off on mocking people who believe in the magical sky fairy as I've seen Him called many times. He's something to consider. 1. Jesus was an actual historical person. 2. 12 men were so convinced He was who He claimed to be 11 died as Marty's 2 of his younger half brothers became leaders of churches and died horrific deaths so if they had His body you couldn't get all of them to die 4 a lie. 3. Roman's hated Him and if they had His body would have produced it. 4 Jewish leaders hated Him and would have also. 5. Hundred claim to have seen Him after they saw Him put to death with their own eyes that's why the faith exploded in growth. That's a start if your truly interested
Listened to this as part of the podcast series. Absolutely worth taking the time to listen, Max and Callum are clearly well versed in this area and Cameron does a great job asking the right questions. Any further word on their potential book?
Yeah I actually sat and took notes from this podcast series to help me along with my study in this area and thought it was great. It was an enjoyable listen with plenty of great insights! Would be keen to read the approach they were talking about taking with the book. You have some quality content on here with some great minds, just purchased knowledge of Christian belief after hearing you discuss about reformed epistemology which I hadn't came across before which has me intrigued. Added bonus that your setup is asthetically on point 👌 Keep it up!
Yeah this was a pile of xtain apologizing for how the bible doesn’t match history, but they then use it to describe history...the bible can’t even get the most basic historical facts correct, like the “exodus” that couldn’t have happened due to physics and human frailty...it’s just so sad, go join amway or something equally pathetic
@@epiccollision So the creator of the UNIVERSE with trillions of trillions of planets, who CREATED physics and human frailty, couldn't do the simple events in Exodus? God doesn't obey physics......He is the CREATOR of it. It doesn't limit HIM. HE can limit IT though. He could change it too. To say you don't believe in God, who is described as all-knowing" and all-powerful because of the laws of physics is like saying you don't believe in quantum mechanics because of the laws of physics. That's a much, much better analogy that you could've used than simply "Exodus." Don't think there's a limit to the God we believe in's power.
Earthquake data gathered by studying the land strata shows 3 earthquakes in Israel between 30-35 AD. One was strong and killed humans and animals. The other two were minor. I am not going to speculate on which one was mentioned in the Gospel. Also, historians from other countries reported that the sun was "turned off" around the same time. One early morning, the skies went dark though there was no erratic weather going on. This too was mentioned in the Gospels around the time of the crucifixion.
@@mzavros Mespotamia & Sumeria. People within Israel but not near the crucifixion also reported the same. I use the word "historians" loosely as I mean people who were able to write.
@@mzavros Thallus wrote about it in the 2nd Century citing papyrus texts composed at the time of the Crucifixion. Text on papyrus tends to fade over time. Why don't you get on your favorite search engine and research it and China? I don't care if you disagree with me. Darkness or not, that is a minuscule event that happened that day.
Check out Paulogia’s RUclips reply to this. Pretty devastating. And what’s with Cameron referring to his medical doctor guest as a “ scholar“? Is Cam going Ravi Zacharias on us?
Devastating for who? Is one guy's opinion worth more than all the collective knowledge on this video? His channel seems to be a rebellion against YEC in particular.
Reading through some of these comments from Atheists is just depressing. Jesus might aswell show up in the 2nd Coming and they would still say "insufficient evidence". 🤦♀️
Should we take the amount of evidence for the resurrection as a gold standard or benchmark for accepting all other claims, including court trials, etc?
@yabon banania I'm talking about the quality and extent of evidence as a whole. It doesn't have to be the same exact circumstances, but let's say the same number of first, second, third hand written accounts for any other given event or claim, then it should be accepted? And anything better than this would mean even more so?
To the grief hallucination hypothesis I can add a personal anecdote. I dated a guy from the age of 15-21. When we broke up I grieved for a while. It felt as if I were grieving someone’s death and, at one point, I had an auditory hallucination that he said my name. I was alone so it completely startled me. I thought he must have been in my apartment. I was very young so the age theory didn’t apply. I’ve always chalked it up to the grief and that it didn’t actually happen but given that we’re not mere material and we are souls I’ve sometimes wondered if he didn’t actually say my name where he was. He was also grieving. Maybe some hallucinations are supernatural manifestations of something real. Maybe it was just a girl hoping a guy was actually saying her name. I broke up with him though so that doesn’t seem likely. Who knows.
That's a fair example, however it doesn't explain multiple people having the same visual, physical and auditory account of Jesus at the same time. Also, you can acknowledge that your experience felt really but you know that it wasn't real. But all of the disciples were so sure that it was reality that they all gave their lives for the truth that Jesus was resurrected
Super comprehensive - this is a great way to get the important info in a detailed way without having to read a whole book. Not that it wouldn't be really great to read a book lol
The title is: "LOADS of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus" And then proceed to give no evidence at all. Not that surprising as there are no extra-biblical sources for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
I love the comments demanding extra biblical non-Christian sources. So would you believe if there had been extra-biblical sources? Really? As covered at 34:58 Josephus records that Jesus was known for working miracles. So do accept that Jesus really did miracles because Josephus said that? Or to believe that would you require that Josephus state the HE had seen the miracles himself? But for him to have witnessed a miracle he would have had to leave his home, family, income, etc and become a follower of Jesus, traipsing around the countryside until Jesus did a miracle. There was no TV coverage so nobody was watching Jesus from afar. So the best anyone could reasonably expect from a non-biblical source to ANYTHING Jesus did would be 2nd hand testimony from other people who were close enough to Jesus to see him face to face before his death (i.e. followers). Detached objective non-biblical sources would not even know what Jesus looked like, let alone personally witnessed him do something.
@@georgesmith4639 Well, Flavius Josephus wrote his texts ca 94-95 AD. But more importantly, Josephus was born in 37 AD and could thus never have been an eye witness. Josephus wrote in his _Testimonium Flavianum_ about Jesus being the messiah. However, most scholars reject the authenticity of that passage (due to christian redaction). But most scholars accept the authenticity of the passage about the crucifixion. So, in the end we have only the bible as a reference as Jesus being a miracle worker and have risen from the dead. And one source is no source.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 No, it is invalid to reduce the source we do have to nothing. Maybe you could do that if there were clear motives for a deception. In the end we have one source proven to be valid based on tons of circumstantial evidence discussed in the video. No time now but I'll elaborate on this later.
@@georgesmith4639 No, the bible hasn't been validated using (circumstantial) evidence. Maybe, some historical data has been verified. But the miracles certainly haven't been verified.
The seneatorial docket is evidence of the Lord God Jesus Christs ressurection, I have it on my channel and the library of Congress control number that is the Public Record of Jesus Christ, God's ressurection. Jesus Christs ressurection is a fact.
Cameron I think it would be helpful to break this video up into five parts, I find it difficult to start a 3 hour video even knowing I can come back to it any time. Perhaps having a broken part playlist of this video will be helpful
Do you see any sort of problem with having a belief (say that the Christian God is real), and having that belief from some sort of experience, and then looking for evidence in the philosophical sphere to support said belief? Seems to me to just be confirmation bias, along with finding evidence for your belief instead of following the evidence where it leads, as Craig likes to say
I agree. Every other truth I can conceive of came from some observation from some person(s). Not only could they demonstrate the newfound phenomenon to others, those that were curious to understand the phenomenon would look to study it and follow where the evidence lead them. Theism seems to me to contradict this. I have never observed a god, nor have known anyone to have observed a god, nor have been able to find any person's observation of a god that could be verified for validity, accuracy, and authenticity. The evidence is always anecdotal, revelatory, apocalyptic or prophetic - NEVER OBSERVABLE.
Mike Cordner all I’m saying is that Christians have these beliefs, and then they find evidence to confirm their beliefs. That doesn’t seem to be very honest to me
@@HammerFitness1 How did you come to the conclusion that Christians just try to find evidence that support them ? What evidence have you got for/against God, and where has it led you?
Very informative discussion. There is no doubt that they both have put years and years into there research and are open minded enough to consider all the possibilities. I believe in Jesus and don't usually look at videos that "prove" he is real as I already know that he is real. But I am glad I watched this. Thanks.
"If I had only the gospels, I'd still believe, because..." (a rambling description of gospels follows with no reason given to believe them). This was at least the second tease of "Here is the evidence," followed by no evidence.
People have tried to discredit the Gospels and conducted extensive research to come out of the other end at least believing the historical nature of The Gospels, especially Luke's Gospel and his book The Acts of The Apostles.
@@1969cmp I know of a few cases of just the opposite, in general. Studying the Bible is a good way to become an atheist. Luke? The guy who apparently copied others? The guy who claimed to have researched everything, yet never gives a single source? That convinces you?
@@scienceexplains302 The opening line of Luke and Acts gives us a hint of the type of narrative. The Gospel of Luke is an investigation by Luke. He most likely was not at the events but does an investigation like a historian of the events in The Gospel, interviewing people etc, as you'd expect from a historian. Then Acts flows on from there for which he is present in many of the events. Sir William Ramsey, the archeologicalist, tried to disprove Luke as authentic history but hìs investigation made him realise that Luke is a genuine historian of the highest caliber. Cheers.
@@1969cmp No, maybe mediocre caliber. "Luke" does not tell us who he is, what his qualifications are for knowing or analyzing any data, what his sources are, how he decided to include some things and not others, or how he weighed different types of information. He seems to have copied portions of Josephus without attributing it. One clue of this is that he mentions two of the same people together, but he gets the chronological sequence wrong, but matching Josephus' order in J's writings. Luke gives every indication that he believes every theology-related claim that fit his narrative and discarded anything that didn't. If getting some geological names and Roman titles correct makes him a top-caliber historian, then certain fiction writers are Uber high-caliber, because the best authors research the daily lives of that time period and got history correct in much more detail than Luke did and without the ridiculous supernatural claims. "A World Without End" is a great example. How did Luke investigate 1:11 "Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him"?
@@scienceexplains302 ....you are at odds with Ramsey and Wallace. And Ramsey did far more investigation into Luke than you or I will be able to achieve. 😎
R5 Zoeira BR why debate a skeptic when they don’t dare to question their own beliefs by that I mean their existence without God, it makes no sense but they don’t dare to question it
Matthew Kennedy indeed and never thought to look at the other side, that is the atheistic worldview with the same micro lenses and I’ve found many “Christians” reject God not because of God but because of religion which is why most don’t even have correct doctrine, tell me are you a former Christian and do you believe that works saves a person?
@@japexican007 I'm a former Christian and now an atheist. So I don't believe anything saves anyone from hell or from God's wrath. I don't think either exist. I never used to think works saved people either.
Matthew Kennedy nothing saves you but belief, but why did you stop believing and have you examined Atheism with the same micro lens you did with Christianity because if you did then you’d noticed a worldview without God does not logically make sense
I had a dog. 2 1/2 years ago. He wasn't feeling well. I went to work and when I got home He was dead. His body was extremely stiff and gross smelly liquids were seeping from his mouth and rectum. He was dead for probably 10 hours or so. Dead is dead. Cameron, I hope you have another career lined up because lying to people is not a good one.
It takes Gary Habermas 5 minutes to say what these guys can in 30 seconds. This was an excellent review of the material. I avoided it because I figured it was full of fluff but it’s just the opposite. Thank you 🙏.
1:57:45 Did he just claim that a Christian apologist, Paul, would not make claims that when verified turned out to be a lot less convincing than they implied? That's demonstrably false.
I have on my channel the seneatorial docket which confirms Jesus Christ, God's ressurection as part of public record and the Library of Congress control number as the official public record of Jesus Christ God's ressurection. Romans 10:9 if you wish to save your soul.
If an ancient historian says, 'There is this group of people called Christians, and they worship this guy called Jesus they believe was resurrected by God,' I'm not sure how that's evidence for the resurrection. Seems to only be evidence that people believed the story.
Historians don’t accept the resurrection as an historical event. This entire podcast is perhaps the most pathetic special pleading I think that I’ve ever heard. I don’t think I’ve ever heard three people who palpably wanted to believe something were true. You can here the bias and lack of basic skepticism throughout the entire podcast. Here are very bad reasons to believe..... 1. Poor understanding of reality 2. Indoctrination 3. Confirmation bias 4. Emotional appeal 5. Fear 6. Weak epistemology 7. Guilt 8. Herd behavior 9. Narrow mindedness 10. Authority bias I think I heard them all at one time during the podcast. Listen hard and tick them off as you go.
@Gabe Norman I listened to this 'video' as well. Which ONE of the evidentiary presentations do you think best substantiates the claim that Jesus resurrected from death?
Well done! Strong support for Christian resurrection doctrine by two scholars of history, ... wait, ... by two archaeologists, ... uh, ... that is to say rather, by two cultural anthropologists, ... well, ok, one guy is a medical doctor and the other is a lecturer in philosophy of, ... wait for it ... religion. Completely objective scholars who are properly credentialed to speak competently on the subject matter.
Anything that you have to keep repeating over and over to yourself to be true... is probably not true. Do people say to themselves... gravity is true? Over and over again? The Pythagorean theorem is true. The Pythagorean theorem is true. It’s true. It’s actually true. Sounds self deceptive, no?
@@patrickhall901 agnosticism is a person who says that you CAN NOT KNOW anything about the existence or nature of god and therefor does not care. you can be an Agnostic Atheist - saying there is not sufficient evidence because you can't get evidence. An Agnostic Theist - a person saying There is a god but I don't give a flying F because I don't know what he wants! a Gnostic Atheist - a person convinced a god can't exist... and a Gnostic Theist - a person convinced a god - their particular god in fact, exists. and then of course you can be either Atheist by itself, Theist, Deist, Polytheist, Gnostic and Agnostic all by themselves. cleared up for you?
@@MrWeedWacky, agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. That fits what your original comment said and the definition has nothing to do with not caring. Your definition for agnostic atheist is a "in your own words" definition is atheist. Gnostic atheist it's also just an atheist, no real difference in definition. You do know that all theses almost definitions you've given doesn't chamber the fact that you attributed the mindset of an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you had put agnostic atheist I your original reply, it still would fit. The person said "as an atheist" and your example of what you think one thinks doesn't for the actual definition.
"What is one of the worst objections you've seen to the resurrection?" Worst, as in a powerful objection or worst, as in an unconvincing objection? Whatever Cameron was looking for, they certainly didn't consider any of my personal favorite objections: * Inconsistencies in the empty tomb narratives Matthew: The tomb-visiting women run into the risen Jesus while returning joyfully from the tomb. John: A tomb-visiting woman runs into the risen Jesus while weeping beside his tomb. Luke: No woman runs into the risen Jesus. Between Matthew, Luke, and John, the tomb angels never say the same thing twice. * Inconsistencies in the appearances to the male disciples Matthew records one appearance to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee while John records three such appearances, none of which matches Matthew's. The ascension is mentioned only by Luke. Pentecost is predicted in Luke, happens prematurely in John 20:22, and isn't mentioned at all in Matthew. The resurrection "evidence" is inconsistent enough to be self-refuting.
@@mzavros Not sure what you mean by that. Science in and of itself does not stop scientists from being biased. It can be abused, buried or misused like any other tool that humans have developed.
@@mzavros You are correct. Just because people are scientists does not mean they are using proper science, just like someone being a preacher doesn't mean they are using their beliefs properly. People are people. Whether in the field of science or religion, we are all equally subject to bias.
japexican007 I don’t need evidence to recognize a bad argument. If the argument is not sound, why accept its conclusion? Watch any other apologist video and you’ll see the same poor arguments. The burden of proof is on the theist making the claim and they fail every time.
If Christianity is true, then you can prove that a man named Jesus is a mind that is responsible for the formation of our universe. How do you go about proving this?
That would be a deduction from if Jesus is actually who he said he is. If Jesus' mind is God's concience then yes, it would have been there from the beginning obviously.
@@HarryNicNicholas only a sinner could say that with their chest like you have sir. Takes one to know one. Your comment alone is revealing to who you are. A prideful man. Many men who have come before you who are just like you have all fallen short. You’re not saying anything at all. Yeah you’re a fool to think Christ never rose from the dead. Man you’d think people would actually figure it out by now if it were a lie. Christ dying for sins of man & rising again is the very fabric of our faith. You’ll have Christians line up to die worldwide then to deny He died & Rose again. It’s based on lies you say. According to who? You? Not a soul that’s ever walked the Earth that’s ever come close to disproving ANYTHING in the Bible. So who are you? You must be one of those smart dudes.. I’ll tell you this fact. You’ll die one day & leave this earth. When you die, the Bible will still be True. The Whole Truth. Bible doesn’t become True whether you believe it or not. It’s true regardless of ANY man. Cause all Men are appointed to live once before Judgment. I dare you to pick up that Bible & read it… coward. Or are you? Don’t be scared. One big reason people deny is they don’t want to answer to a high power. They don’t want the accountability of their actions on their hands. But no one is free from judgment. Not a soul.. A waste of life would mean having a Worldview like yours. That’s a waste of life. Life without God is a waste of time
@@angelamaryquitecontrary4609That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But idk if you simply just jumped around and called it "watching the video"
@@paulhayes5684 Oh dear, you really caught me out there! Yes, I just put on House of Pain and I Jumped Around until it was over. Then I went back - bitches be crazy! - to the job that requires me to speak and write fluently in three modern languages, and be able to read and understand Latin. The video to which you refer I found very basic, poorly argued, and travelled seamlessly from one logical fallacy to the next. Thin gruel, indeed.
There is virtually no evidence for a resurrection. Just anecdotal that flies in the face of all the evidence we know. There is nothing in our evidence catalog that backs up the possibility that a human being could possibly raise from being dead after 3 days. 1. People lived to be 900 years old 2. One man defeated a 1,000 man army with a bone 3. 8.7 million species fit Into a 450 foot boat 4. Mankind began as 2 people in a garden somewhere talking to a talking snake in a tree about fruit 5. A baby was born to a woman who didn't have sex, grew up to walk on water, and died for 3 days and rose again alive. George Romero would be proud 6. Wooden canes turned into snakes 7. Talking donkeys 8. A man lived inside a big fish for 3 days The ingredients of fables
@@lawrenceeason8007 I'm sure can. But can anyone be credited as the father of microbiology? Louis Pastuer was and he believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@1969cmp sure. But how does that prove a resurrection? It isn't remarkable that a Louis Pasteur could believe in a god or a resurrection. What is remarkable is the claim itself. There is no evidence in our possession that a human being could come back alive after 3 days of actual death.
I don't understand. How are written recordings of what people of a religious cult believed, written decades after the supposed resurrection, "historical evidence" of the resurrection? Josephus didn't even believe it himself, which is why he remained a devout Jew.
Here's the problem: There are *loads* of rebuttals to this so-called evidence, readily found on the internet - and its not a secret. In fact, it's not credible to think the participants aren't aware of the counter arguments, yet they don't even seem interested in addressing them, never so much as acknowledging they even exist. Given this, one can only wonder who the target audience is intended to be here. It certainly can't be experienced unbelievers or skeptics who will likely have seen this sort of thing many times before and be versed in the counter arguments. That leaves the intended audience to be those who already believe, or "preaching to the choir" as the saying goes. That's fine of course, if that's what one wants; cheers and agreeable nods from the proverbial pews. If that's the goal, this site will likely "succeed" with video's like this one. On the other hand, if the goal is to reach beyond those who already agree, we can hopefully look forward to at least some attempts to address the popular objections.
madmax2976 you said there are loads of rebuttals, okay, so what? unless you have any that would bring down the origin of Christianity then it’s just pure speculation with no real meaning to your post
@@japexican007 Whether or not counter arguments "bring down the origin of Christianity" is a matter of judgement, looking at all of the evidence and arguments from different perspectives. In fact that was at least one point of my response, to encourage those who are interested in a fair examination to actually look at the other side, rather than just listening to one side. As I noted, the participants in this podcast didn't even attempt that fair examination which in my view calls into question who they are trying to convince. You ask, "So what?" So, who is the intended audience? Are they just trying to convince those who already believe or are they trying to convince those who don't? If the former, that endeavor seems rather pointless as by definition they already believe. If the later, at least attempting to address counter arguments would seem to be more useful. In fact, I think it would make it more useful for believers as well, providing them some insight and preparing them for conversations with those who don't agree.
Come? Repent to Holy Bible Rev.22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, LORD JESUS. THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS be with God's people.Amen." Prays Jesus Christ?
I keep thinking this channel is an atheist spoof! "The evidence is surprisingly strong!" What evidence? It's a matter of faith. You either "believe" it or you don't. I'm not sure these guys are really Christian at all!
One of the lines of evidence is that people still think they see ghosts :-) I have heard Mike Licona's nonsense. These are your proofs? I'm past 23:00 and haven't heard an iota of evidence. OK, Tacitus is the closest to anything (although you haven't yet mentioned what that evidence is) someone would call evidence in any other situation for a character based on supernatural events (e.g. the existence of a god)
I feel better now that you cast a magic spell on me to bless me. Man I wish I had your power to bless people and cast spells. What a waste of power wasted casting spells on random people.
@@mrdrone4253 God you people are insufferable. All he said was "God bless" and you have to be a smartass about it. I guess we just shouldt say goodbye anymore since it originally meant God be with ye.
Grave robbery seems super unlikely - he wouldn't have been buried with anything valuable, and body snatching wasn't really a thing prior to the 19th century when cadavers started to be in demand for medical study.
Thank you very much for your work, Cameron! This was great!
I thought it would be nice to have a short overview of the resources mentioned at 14:53 for further studies.
So here it goes:
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona)
The Son Rises (William Lane Craig)
The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Richard Swinburne)
Resurrecting Jesus (Dale C. Allison Jr.)
Jesus, the Final Days (Craig A. Evans, N.T. Wright)
Timothy and Lydia McGrews article in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
Jesus Under Fire (Michael J. Wilkins, J.P. Moreland)
Fabricating Jesus (Craig A. Evans)
Hey Now thanks for keeping this discussion balanced.
Is suspect few Christians understand the evolutionary origins of their religion in both the Hebrew Bible ...
ruclips.net/p/PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
So the evidence is there were stories that the stories were true ! ok ya got me I am convinced NOT !
Just passing by to tell you that Paulogia debunked you(again) ruclips.net/video/aefb8TrEQLI/видео.html
"Work"?! Pulling unsubstantiated claims out of nowhere is "work"?! That´s not "work": It´s making stuff up.
@@myopenmind527 If you watch those as a Christian, get ready to have your world view shattered.
I listen to these teachings while I drive...I drive 18 wheelers...all day long! I look forward to the REALLY LONG ONES! You're DEFINITELY improving! Thanks for the great work!
Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you for doing what you do. God Bless & Godspeed.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
@@vhawk1951klWHATEVER!😅
@@stevecollins5290 that is the sort thing sulky imbecile teenagers say
i liked this video because you did 3 hrs for jesus
@@cygnusustus, Jesus is THE TRUTH. You can have Him as your advocate and Savior or....you’ll see
@@cygnusustus Are you 12? Or just unable to have a discussion without insulting people?
@@cygnusustus So yes and no, thanks for confirming.
@@cygnusustus I never said I wanted to refute your points, learn to read.
Just a heads up calling people child when your attitude is childlike is just a projection upon others.
@@cygnusustus The only child is you. Grow up.
God bless you all !🤍
Beautiful ! Thank you meticulously explaining and hard work 🙏
It's interesting to me that these guys spend years studying this stuff..
And within a few minutes or hours, everyone on RUclips is suddenly an expert
You dont need to be an expert to assess evidence. Something is either true or it’s but not. I have not seen any evidence that Jesus’s is God or the son of God. If the argument is that Jesus existed then I am willing to accept but any supernatural claim attached Jesus existence has to proven. This video wasted 3 hours of my time.
Christians only study the same ole tired arguments for Christ. But if I had such a scholar in front of me, I'd ask him the following:
1. What happened to the non-Greek speak Jewish Christians, that are so prominent in the Christian Scriptures, but are nowhere to be found outside the Gospels? In other words, the trace of Christians that is there is a trace to Jewish heretics from a Greek speaking Christian point of view.
2. How could it be that Jesus, when he was still alive, was considered to be the risen John the Baptist? How could this bit be historical?
@@cygnusustus People have failed to debunk the Bible since it was created - so if you think you're smarter than Stephen Hawking, I'm listening
@@cygnusustus None of what you've claimed to be debunked has been debunked.
You're spewing rhetoric and calling me a child.
You have given no credible argument to debunk these stories.
I've yet to hear anyone who can give a credible argument against these stories. And i was a huge skeptic/atheist for years
I know your arguments, the ins and outs
1 thing that I've learned is that life itself doesn't even agree with the atheist.
@@cygnusustus Why call me a child and a liar? Your assumptions are as bad as your rhetoric. Which is far from truth or of being proven. Your claims are baseless and theoretical at best. I'll wait for science to continue its worm holes based on theory and laugh when it continuously disproves itself - Further proving that no word holds more truth than the word of God.
Seeing how I've struck a nerve with you, I'll leave on this. Jesus is LORD. And there is peace with God. You're only hurting yourself by holding true your baseless assumptions instead of searching for truth and answers that so obviously align with the very fabrics of the universe.
Praise God.
Hope is not lost for you or anyone - I never thought that i would be where I'm at today.
Apologetics: The Movie
@Terncote you’re scared, keep searching. God bless 🙏🏽
Kababayan ko
Hahaahhahahahaha
Next we need Apologetics 2: Electric Boogaloo
There's no such thing as apologetics nor is there such a people as apologists as no one is apologising.
Unless you count Canadians as people.
Don’t let the atheist comment patrol get you down Cam. Great video and greater arguments!
It doesn’t get me down at all! Thanks!
Sorry that’s not long enough
Yeah.. maybe if its 1 whole day.
How about eternity ?
You're right, this wasn't nearly long enough. You need a full 24 straight hours to even start to properly brainwash someone.
@Gail Hunter, they probably tried but put in the wrong ones, probably why I've been clucking like a chicken every time a bell rings. LOL
@Sievon Redalious Why is it "bad"? Or are you just gonna put a statement and not any defense?
Been checking all your new stuff over the last 8 months or so and this is fantastic. Great work.
Best afternoon at work ever.
I watched the whole thing while on a cross-country road trip. Thanks for the excellent exposition and academic approach to these issues!
They have no expertise in history or historical research , they are xtains scholars....they don’t have any experience, besides reading the bible...and talking to others about “reading the BIBLE”...not archeologists, not anthropologists, not history anything!
@@epiccollision my friend, how do you think people learn? By reading and seeking knowledge from others. Lack of expetise is a non-issue if whom they sought information from had the expertise.
Cameron this came in my recommendations at a very opportune time. I've been looking at the Bible as a historical record lately and the thought that the Christian belief without the resurrection is empty came to me, so naturally I've been thinking I need to do homework on it. I'm only 1/3 of the way into it, but this has already been a huge blessing. Thank you so much. The Holy Spirit is working in and through you. Keep it up!
Historical record 😂😂😂
Look into Bart Ehrman and Joshua Bowen if you want a more honest look at the scholarship on the topic
what" historical record" or the beliefs of who?
Cameron, thank you for your work. It's great to know that in any conversation with a non-Christian I can say "I can literally send you an over 3 hour video of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection with leading scholars discussing it." That would not be possible without ministries like your own. Thank you.
I advise you to actually look into these claims before assuming they are true or count as evidence. Beware of confirmation bias.
These are biblical scholars, just like Harry Potter scholars, game of thrones scholars...oh they’re just Bible fans, because it’s not a historical representation of historically accurate events like the “Exodus” et al.
I can send you a 6 hour video about ehy this 3 hour video is false
Not that the amount of hours should matter but hey if this is the metric we're going by and it matters to you, im not kidding there is actually a 6 hour response to this
@@Greyz174you should do a response. I would like to see it. Their videos are more of just preaching to the choir. Their audience isn't interested in actual evidence
@@Greyz174that would be awesome, send the link to that video
This goes deeper than I ever even thought of and I thought my thoughts were deep. This was SO well worth 3.5 hours. I've never heard anyone explain every single aspect of every single detail and give such a great history and cultural background so we know what's REALLY going on. Stuff like this will absolutely stump almost any atheist in their tracks. They have every single aspect of the resurrection laid on in logical evidence, historical evidence, biblical evidence, non-biblical written evidence, and definitely the evidence that EXPLAINS all there is to know so you can PROPERLY evaluate what we're reading and we need to understand that we don't know Greek or Hebrew and we don't know the original words and what they really mean. We just know how they were translated to English and doesn't give the background (it's not a history book) of the culture or the definition of the original word so we weren't limited to English! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!
Nope. Not stumped at all. Hearsay and using the bible to prove the bible is not conclusive evidence. There was most likely a person named Jesus who was very influential (and was possibly an amateur magician) but there is no evidence that any supernatural claims are true, just as there is no evidence of any supernatural claims made in the bible whatsoever.
Confirmation bias, delusion, ignorance, wishful thinking, indoctrination and gullibility are powerful things.
The universe and life most likely originated naturally and wasn't magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension. Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins, it is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and christianity is no different.
an hour in and not stumped yet 😁 I’m also unconvinced it’s really worth the extra 2.5 hours.
Brother, I doubt this would stop any atheist in their tracks! They don't really care about the evidence! Any amount of evidence that is remotely convincing are "religious lies". They come into the video assuming that the Bible is one big lie, full of "fairytales". They're still using the Humean argument against miracles😂. If you showed them a miracle right now, they would think that you were performing a magic trick or they were hallucinating. Look, no matter however much evidence you give, the philosophical arguments, the scientific evidence, the archaeological evidence, the historical evidence - there's always a naturalistic answer! It really is hard to convince someone so blind. Only God can open their hearts.
Almost any atheist? Well, it didn't stump me and I expect you won't find much other confirmation for your rather daft assumption elsewhere, either. But you are right about one thing: It's NOT a history book. That tells you all you should need to know. Also, the Old Testament is nothing but a book of mythological stories with a few historical characters and even events strewn in, many and the biggest ones of which either neve rhappened, were misrrepresneed or taken from other cultures and woven into a constructed narrative that later has taken hold of humanity like a fungus. So, if the first book of fairy-tales is basically a lie, what does matter the second one matter?
What are you calling " thoughts"?
You have no idea? that you are about to demonstrate.
God Is Love!
Best content on this I have listened to. Congrats for the great work!
Thank you guys so much. ❤️ I am about to cry like I am so thankful for this ministry. I deal with chronic doubt sometimes for no reason. Having the reassurance that the evidence is so freaking good makes me 😊
If you are having doubts, it's probably a really good idea to seriously engage with the counter arguments instead of listening to spoon fed self-affirming dogma. This kind of self-denial is a temporal fix at best, honestly harmful and can really screw with your head. And here's the great thing about listening to the other side: If they (in part) convince you, you're one step closer to what truth speaks to you and if they can't it'll help with your doubts way more than listening to sicophants (not sure if I'm using that word correctly - not a native speaker) ever could. Please be kind to yourself. You're worth it. Self-indoctrination is not self-love.
Sydney Scott, first, seek a fresh filling of the Holy Spirit daily. 2nd, don’t listen to people telling you to listen to negative comments. They are working for the enemy and they use words like indoctrination. Check out the testimonies on One For Israel on RUclips. Peoples lives being changed is powerful because we’re talking millions and millions of people who have done the 180° turn where they were going to end up in jail or dead and they heard the call of the Shepherd. There is no good evidence against the resurrection. People who don’t believe will listen to the craziest stuff. Dick Carrier is a personal favorite of many skeptics because he claims there never was a Jesus. Look into criticism of this man because he is a dangerous liar. I have had personal experience with Jesus thru the power and agency of the Holy Spirit and I am not alone. He is still speaking. He is still healing. Shalom
@@maxpower2480 Why don't you do a thorough study on Christianity itself and come out with your opinion after that.
@@maxpower2480 Perhaps you should take your own advice.
@@michaelbrickley2443 "There is no good evidence against the resurrection"??
One could equally say that there is no good evidence against the existence of anything we haven't experienced/yet discovered.
How about:
1. There were no real-time accounts written of this supposed miraculous event. Does it not seem strange to you that such an occurrence would have "made the news" of the time rather than only being written down decades later by people who never met or knew Jesus?
2. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible anywhere about virgin births, crucifixions, a dead man rising after 3 days, one person dying for everyone else's sins.
Very informative. Thank you.
This is the best apologetic video I've ever seen
I have just listened to this podcast and after looking through some of the comments below, I am just shocked at some of the idiocy of a few people. These guys put together a very good argument for the basis of Christianity. Maybe you don't believe, maybe you just haven't taken the time and the energy to think, and read and listen. Take from an older man who has been through the struggles of life, these guys put together a very thoughtful and very logical argument. They are open, they are informed, well read, intelligent and well spoken. This is worth three hours of time if you are confused or solid in your faith. This is refreshing and the Moderator and guests need to be applauded. Thank you guys.
God bless much love
You'all know what's true? Jesus is risen. Which means - "Christianity is true!"
What’s true is God according to the Bible is directly responsible for mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing (not to mention the killing of unborn children).
I’m guessing we should just skip over those parts of the Bible right?
DanielApologetics so your just adding to the claim?
Have any evidence?
@@myopenmind527 Did you hear the 3 hours? Have you looked into all the evidences, what the skeptics says and what the Christians respond etc.?
Explain the resurrection? What really happened, you think? Im asking, because your answer will show if you have done plenty of serious research of evidences from both Christian and non-christian sources, and how each side responds to their objections.
I did street apologetics yesterday. One university student hold to the apparent death theory - which has so many fallacies that not even secular NT schoolars hold to them. If you rise from the death and leave such strong evidences, like for example making 2/3 of an empire who torture, persecute and kills all whom believes in you within 300 years - I will listen VERY carefully to all you say.
This is just not right Adam.
Have you seriously looked into what bible schoolars and Christians respond to this comment of yours?
You can even find short videos here on RUclips.
This is cherry picking of bible verses and out of context. Dont take my word for it, research it for yourself.
For example the caananites, where doing all those thing you mention for 400 years, sacrificing babies - burning them on a bronze made god, called Molek. God used the israelites. "utterly destroy them all" ... yet some verse down, it says "dont marry them" so it was clearly hyperbolic language.
But what I really should be asking is; Why is all those things evil according to you?
If there is no God, there is no good, nor evil.
We are just a cosmic accident, not acting, but reacting to our chemicals.
DanielApologetics I don’t have to explain the resurrection. Some would just have to give me good reasons to believe it ever happened.
No good reasons have ever been presented to me.
Thank you Cameron ! Your videos are top notch. God bless you. 👍
Great job, guys. Very informative.
Thank you for this!
*Paulogia immediately begins response video*
*radical skepticism intensifies*
Tyler Hood of course. If Cameron thinks he has proven the resurrection of Jesus, Paulogia may have a fair response disagreeing. We’ll wait and see.
@@CapturingChristianity Skepticism (tm)
@@CapturingChristianity
I don't think it's particularly radical to be sceptical of historical claims of any kind, but especially ones that include miracles.
Aren't you sceptical of the claims of Hindus and Muslims?
@@mattsmith1440
When you have good reasons to believe a historical event took place, skepticism isn't necessary.
Argument demonstrating that the resurrection appearances of Jesus didn't necessarily have anything to do with reality.
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him - 1 Cor 15:8.
2. The appearance to Paul was a personal "vision" or "revelation" from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19.
3. Paul uses his vision/revelation from heaven as a "resurrection appearance" - 1 Cor 15:5-8.
4. Therefore, visions/revelations from heaven counted as "resurrection appearances."
If Paul can use a personal/subjective "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 then it necessarily follows that early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "revelations" from heaven (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as evidence of the Resurrected Christ "appearing" to them. In other words, not actually seeing Jesus counted as "seeing" Jesus. Even though Jesus wasn't physically present, one could still claim that Jesus had "appeared" to them. Think about that for a moment.
We can then proceed with the following argument:
1. Early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "visions/revelations" as "resurrection appearances."
2. Personal/subjective claims of visions/revelations don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.
3. Therefore, early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims that didn't necessarily have anything to with reality as "resurrection appearances."
Obviously, you can see the problem now which calls into question the whole basis of the Christian faith. If the earliest evidence can equally referring to experiences that didn't have anything to do with reality the Christianity is necessarily false. www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/cchjqz/a_logical_argument_which_demonstrates_the/
Apologists like to appeal to the later gospel stories to prove the appearances were physical but these accounts are not firsthand sources and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Paul is the earliest and only undisputed firsthand source by someone who claimed to have "seen" Jesus when the appearance to him was a vision, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. He makes no distinction between the "appearances" in the earliest eyewitness list which means apologists have no reason to think they were different than what Paul experienced. All the gospel resurrection narratives grow in the telling which is a sign of legendary embellishment. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
This is false. Yes Jesus appeared to Paul and He was blinded. Did God not also appear to others in the Old Testament through visions before? Paul was also the ONLY one Jesus appeared to in a vision so that he could do the will of God. The gospel to the gentiles was actually preached first by Peter if you read the whole book of Acts, before Paul. Therefore Paul's preaching of the gospel aligned with Peter's, who was actually physically there with Jesus before His resurrection and afterward, who also gave the account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Why don't instead of trying to waste energy "disproving" the Gospels, you actually try to seek the Truth? If you seek truth you will get it. I was like you at one point, but now I came to know the truth. I have no reason to debate with you, but the facts and evidence are there by guy. Be blessed.
@@chapter404th Did Luke copy Ezekiel's vision when composing Paul's Damascus Road vision?
Acts 26:13
About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
“ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyesand turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Compare this to Ezekiel's vision.
Ez. 1:4
"I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north-an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal"
Ez. 1:28
"Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking."
Ez. 2:1
"He said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you." Ez. 2:3-4 'He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day. 4 The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’
So here we have the shared common themes of a "bright light," "falling down and hearing a voice," then being told to "stand on your feet" in the same verbatim Greek στῆθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου - Acts 26:16, Ez. 2:1 and being ordered to conduct missionary work.
The paradigm here is an Old Testament "call vision" where a prophet figure is called upon by God and chosen to become a missionary and ordered to carry out a specific mission. We see similar stories in Job 4:12-16, Isa 6, Dan. 10:4-21, Ezek. 1:1-3:15, Amos 7.1-9:10, 1 Enoch 14, 4 Ezra 3:1-9, 25. So if Luke wanted to compose a fictional account about Paul and since he had access to the Septuagint, this establishes the plausibility for borrowing.
Now, the identifiable theme in the Old Testament for a "call vision" is:
1. Address or call.
2. Answer with question.
3. Introduction with charge.
The sequence shared between the Ezekiel vision and Paul's Damascus Road vision is as follows:
1. It's a "call vision"
2. It involves a bright light
3. The person falls down
4. He hears a voice
5. And is told to "stand up on his feet" in the same verbatim Greek.
6. Is charged with a specific mission
Due to the amount of similarity it's equally likely that Luke was just copying Ezekiel's vision as it is that he was recording what actually happened to Paul. Therefore, the story by itself can't serve as evidence for its historicity.
@@heynow3497 that doesn't disprove, if anything, it PROVES the theme of how God reveals Himself and approaches people to do His will, with Paul it was different because he was a persecutor of the early Church and in the end ended up killed for his faith. It's also very subjective and can't be proven as a fact or even logical at that. Like I said before and I'll say it again, you want to disprove the Word because you don't won't want it to be true. Thing is it's very much true, there is a Creator, because there's creation and there's a lot of archaeological evidence of places in the Bible that just show its validity. Hope you open your eyes up to the truth and actually seek TRUTH, not lies. Be blessed!
@@chapter404th If the evidence is equally explained by:
A. Being a historical fact
Or
B. The author was just borrowing the "call vision" theme from Ezekiel 1-2 and Daniel 10 to create a fictional narrative
then _you_ have the burden of proof is to demonstrate historicity is the more probable explanation.
Just preaching and making baseless assertions won't work I'm afraid.
@@sandrabanks2392 How about you don't pick and choose from the bible and use reading comprehension? There's a recurring theme in the Bible; God chooses people to bring them unto repentance. It's not that hard. What the other dude made was a baseless claim. Like I told him, as much time as you spend trying to disprove Him why don't you seek Him? Nothing you can do or say will hinder me, because I know what you say is false and I was at that state you are in before.
Just watched the clip with you and Braxton/Winger/Meme.Thank you for acknowledging that animals show signs that they have the capacity to suffer and feel pain. To recoqnize that it's a legitimate argument and that needs some consideration/thinking on the matter. I think you are a caring and compassionate person. That we dont agree on religion matters little to me. You are free and welcome to believe what ever you want. What matters the most to me is how we treat and coexsist with eachother and how we best represent our worldview in a compassionate manner. Have a nice day.
I’m a Christian as well, but I very much respect your kindness, I respect you too, and love and care about you, we need more people like you, you are better at being a respectful person than some Christians I know👍👍😊😊. If most people would respectfully disagree with other people, like you do we would not have the problems we see today. We would be a unit helping each other no matter the world view.🙂
Amazing that we have all this evidence.
@@colinmattsOh, I don’t know… how about watching the video?😉
@@colinmatts He’s talking with two scholars in a podcast. Anyway, if you’ve listened to other scholars telling you the historical facts, that’s good.
@@colinmatts Many of those are or can be assumed to be facts: the Jesus movement didn’t just die down and disappear like so many other Messiah movements of the time after their leader was killed, but is still alive and well 2,000 years on. Paul was a vicious persecutor of the first Christians, but suddenly made a u-turn after an experience with Jesus. The brother of Jesus, James, didn’t believe his brother was the Messiah (who would?) but changed his mind completely. The disciples were accused of stealing the body, so obviously there was an empty tomb. Just a few from the top of my head. The most convincing one is when you actually ask and the Holy Spirit answers your questions like for so many Jesus followers. That’s the main reason why Christianity survived and always will, despite the constant onslaught.
THANKS! God bless you brother.
Looking forward to diving into this! Thank you Cameron!😊
*Very off topic*
but
I like how the first part says "Cameron sips coffee".
3 hrs, though long, is a must-listen for its incredible detailed analysis of all written literature on the resurrection of Jesus. Unfettered biblical evidence with lucid commentary from 2 biblical scholars; a brilliant discussion. One of your best pintswithaquinis uploads 🙏..
Great work!
Looking forward to watching this tonight!👍
This is awwwsmmm 🙏
Wow, I really appreciate the depth in weighing probabilities here!
How do determine the probability of a miracle? And why these miracles and not those of some other religion?
If the probability that a “Jesus” was crucified in Jerusalem in the first century, he wasn’t buried he died on a stick in a field and was eaten by animals and disposed of in a ditch...that’s it. That’s the end of the story. Then some dudes in the desert got high in a cave and tada the gospels...
@@epiccollision Oh man you got a hearty laugh out of me with that one friend! :)
Although I don't think that what you gave is a remotely plausible explanation of events of course (assuming it was intended to be serious rather than merely the excellent display of humor it was), and I say this as an agnostic who definitely leans substantially away from Christianity being likely.
It makes a nice change to hear resurrection apologetics being honestly presented. Without the pre-existing investment in theism and biblical story, a naturalistic explanation of evidence is perfectly valid. Thanks both.
I suppose you could posit some sort of unknown naturalistic explanation for the resurrection event, but why would you do that? What sort of explanatory value does an unknown naturalistic event that we know nothing about have over a theistic explanation?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl You don't need a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection, because the resurrection that occurs in Mark (and is copied by the other gospels) is a parable. Paul's writings about Jesus were about visions, not a resurrection, and he makes it explicit that his teachings differ from Peter's and James's.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Who said anything about a resurrection event? Willard said that a naturalistic explanation of the evidence is perfectly valid. The evidence for the most part is the texts we have, which you can certainly infer some physical facts from such as resurrection appearances to some of the apostles. The resurrection is a hypothesis to explain said evidence, and is not what a naturalistic explanation needs to account for. Rather a naturalistic explanation would be something like bereavement hallucinations, pareidolia, social memory contagion, stories changing over the retellings, etc., as far as resurrection appearances are concerned, and other known natural phenomena for other pieces of evidence.
@@davidlovesyeshua
Obviously, the Resurrection is being viewed as a rival alternative explanation against "naturalistic" explanations. If not, what's the point of contrast for naturalistic explanations? I highly doubt Willard believes the Resurrection is a naturalistic explanation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Well yes, I thought you were misunderstanding things, but I guess I just didn't understand your wording. Also though I think you might be mistaken about something else: as I said in my first reply, there's no need for "unknown naturalistic" phenomena to explain the undisputed data, only some combination of known naturalistic phenomena.
If what you mean is that we would need to posit some combination of known phenomena which is not a currently known combination, then yes that's kind of how history works. Historical events are in their combination at least unique in various respects compared to all other events. And given that we always have incomplete data about the past, especially before modern education/mass literacy/printing/etc., we won't ever "already know" the exact combination of known phenomena some unique event was actually comprised of. Instead we must reason about the most probable combination based on the evidence available.
Now of course it's always possible that it wasn't a combination of known phenomena and some unique phenomena rather than merely combination was required for the event to occur, but this has a lower prior probability for obvious reasons (and is generally if not exclusively the domain of sciences, & preferably hard sciences, to discover). And it's also always possible that said unique phenomena is miraculous rather than natural, but this possibility is again less probable. And this is the case regardless of whether God exists, since God is at any rate not in the habit of commonly breaking (or circumventing or whatever) natural processes.
The question is whether any theory utilizing only known phenomena explains the data sufficiently poorly to require unknown phenomena. The answer to this question is disputed, but I definitely lean towards the set of potential natural explanations having a higher final probability than a resurrection, regardless of whether God exists. At the very least, I don't think naturalistic explanations under predict the evidence so massively that the data become significant evidence for God since that would be necessary for the resurrection hypothesis can be invoked.
Господи, Помилуй! Господи, Прости!
Excellent video! Loved listening to these two scholars speak to Jesus resurrection from the dead.
Why did they stop there? Jesus was only one of many people the Bible tells us were resurrected.
@@cnault3244 what's your point?
@@bobbyfischersays1262 My point is that in the Bible, being returned form the dead wasn't that big a deal., there were a number of dead people resurrected in the Bible.
Some in the old testament, Some in the new testament during Jesus' life. Some in the new testament at the moment of Jesus' death. Some in the new testament after Jesus had ascended into heaven.
@@cnault3244 well, it absolutely was a big deal, and was definitely a miracle whenever it occurred. A handful over thousands of years doesn't really constitute "all the time".
Furthermore, Jesus's resurrection was different in that when He was resurrected, He didn't physically die again, unlike the others. Rather, He ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. Cheers
@@bobbyfischersays1262 "well, it absolutely was a big deal, and was definitely a miracle whenever it occurred."
You missed a step. You haven''t proved it occurred.
" A handful over thousands of years doesn't really constitute "all the time"."
The only person here who used the phrase "all the time" is you, so your point can be dismissed as a strawman argument.
"Furthermore, Jesus's resurrection was different in that when He was resurrected, He didn't physically die again, unlike the others."
How do you know the others died again?
"Rather, He ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father. "
Prove it. Also, they have chairs in heaven? And physical bodies with a right hand side?
GOD BLESS YOU YOUNG MAN!!!!!!!!🙏🕊🙏🏻🙏🙏🏼🙏🏽🙏🏼🙏🌟🌟🌟🌟🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
So you think that word, whether spoken or written can actually prove a Resurrection?
Claiming that the Resurrection is true (not just death and Crucifixion), is making a scientific claim, that a person can actually come back from the dead, for that, a hell of a lot more is needed than just what people claimed.
Not everything can be proven in a scientific sense, that is repeatable and testable by other people.
What is required is historical research or scientifically, forensic science. Did this or that happen? Did people witness event xyz.?
@@1969cmp Resurrection is very much a scientific claim because it contradicts everything we know about biology and mortality. If you're going to make such a bland claim that resurrection is real, then you have to provide a HECK TON of evidence to disprove everything we know of biology at the moment. So... good luck
@@scientificmethod1409 Sigh....using the same bench mark, I assume you would not believe that humans evolved ultimately from a singled cell organism.
The point of the Resurrection is that it is a miracle that defies normal biological trends.
Of course, so does nonliving materials giving rise to life that eventually became us.
It would seem that materialistic evolutionist and those who believe in The Resurrection, both worldviews have faith in miracles. 😎
@@1969cmp Not when it comes to a scientific claim no.
Before you can prove that Jesus resurrected, you have to prove it is even possible to happen to begin with.
There is no way you can actually decide whether or not an actual coming back from the dead happened with forensics or historical research.
This is a claim firmly in the realm of science.
@@mansonandsatanrock I do not have to prove it to be scientific at all. It is not a testable, repeatable feat to be retested by others.
It is simply a matter of history. It either happened or it did not.
And seeing that you and I were not there and nor were the skeptics of the modern era who ignorantly spout 'if even Jesus ever existed' folly, we must go to the earliest known accounts. What do they say? This is forensic science, history.
My brother.
3+ hours later, your interview ended, and I was like nooooo. Youre a great interviewer.
Excellent interview, Im going to be recommending to everyone.
Thanks Cameron
43:30 "you can't explain [belief in the resurrection] just by reference to what Jews already believed because everything in the Jewish beliefs before that suggested that that couldn't happen"
And yet a quick look in Mark shows that Jews did in fact believe such things prior to Jesus' crucifixion:
Mark 6:14-16: King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Others said, “He is Elijah." And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
As a matter of general commonsense and experience, Jewish or not, those that are dead and have been buried never walk and talk again because it is impossible, but it hardly matters because it is utterly irrelevant to whatever the way of christ teaches-for *screamingly_obvious reasons*
I love how they gave a counter argument and then just absolutely destroy it with evidence lol
You don't need 3 hours of historical evidence for Jesus. If you had some absolutely definitive evidence for the resurrection, you could tell me about it within 3 minutes.
And because atheists are so dense minute 4 you'd have needed even more evidence.
@@floydiandreamscapes5145 Sorry, but you need to do a bit better than making spiteful insults.
@@rickelmonoggin apologize for being spiteful, but atheist types get off on mocking people who believe in the magical sky fairy as I've seen Him called many times.
He's something to consider.
1. Jesus was an actual historical person.
2. 12 men were so convinced He was who He claimed to be 11 died as Marty's 2 of his younger half brothers became leaders of churches and died horrific deaths so if they had His body you couldn't get all of them to die 4 a lie.
3. Roman's hated Him and if they had His body would have produced it.
4 Jewish leaders hated Him and would have also.
5. Hundred claim to have seen Him after they saw Him put to death with their own eyes that's why the faith exploded in growth.
That's a start if your truly interested
I love the in depth look at this evidence.
Listened to this as part of the podcast series. Absolutely worth taking the time to listen, Max and Callum are clearly well versed in this area and Cameron does a great job asking the right questions. Any further word on their potential book?
I loved listening back to what they had to say. So much useful information! I'll reach back out to them and see where we're at with it.
Yeah I actually sat and took notes from this podcast series to help me along with my study in this area and thought it was great. It was an enjoyable listen with plenty of great insights! Would be keen to read the approach they were talking about taking with the book. You have some quality content on here with some great minds, just purchased knowledge of Christian belief after hearing you discuss about reformed epistemology which I hadn't came across before which has me intrigued. Added bonus that your setup is asthetically on point 👌 Keep it up!
No ,they are not Paulogia just debunked them (again) ruclips.net/video/aefb8TrEQLI/видео.html
Yeah this was a pile of xtain apologizing for how the bible doesn’t match history, but they then use it to describe history...the bible can’t even get the most basic historical facts correct, like the “exodus” that couldn’t have happened due to physics and human frailty...it’s just so sad, go join amway or something equally pathetic
@@epiccollision So the creator of the UNIVERSE with trillions of trillions of planets, who CREATED physics and human frailty, couldn't do the simple events in Exodus? God doesn't obey physics......He is the CREATOR of it. It doesn't limit HIM. HE can limit IT though. He could change it too. To say you don't believe in God, who is described as all-knowing" and all-powerful because of the laws of physics is like saying you don't believe in quantum mechanics because of the laws of physics. That's a much, much better analogy that you could've used than simply "Exodus." Don't think there's a limit to the God we believe in's power.
Earthquake data gathered by studying the land strata shows 3 earthquakes in Israel between 30-35 AD. One was strong and killed humans and animals. The other two were minor. I am not going to speculate on which one was mentioned in the Gospel. Also, historians from other countries reported that the sun was "turned off" around the same time. One early morning, the skies went dark though there was no erratic weather going on. This too was mentioned in the Gospels around the time of the crucifixion.
"Historians from other countries".. uh huh... care to be more specific?
@@mzavros Mespotamia & Sumeria. People within Israel but not near the crucifixion also reported the same. I use the word "historians" loosely as I mean people who were able to write.
@@stevehall1218 Any names? Also were there any historians from say China, that recorded such an event?
@@mzavros Thallus wrote about it in the 2nd Century citing papyrus texts composed at the time of the Crucifixion. Text on papyrus tends to fade over time. Why don't you get on your favorite search engine and research it and China? I don't care if you disagree with me. Darkness or not, that is a minuscule event that happened that day.
@@stevehall1218 well I ready know the answer. And the sun "turning off" is not a miniscule event, sir. It just didn't happen.
I think this is the second time I put this on my “watch later” list 😂 I really need to get to it
Check out Paulogia’s RUclips reply to this. Pretty devastating. And what’s with Cameron referring to his medical doctor guest as a “ scholar“? Is Cam going Ravi Zacharias on us?
Devastating for who? Is one guy's opinion worth more than all the collective knowledge on this video? His channel seems to be a rebellion against YEC in particular.
Excellent documentary. Thank you so much,🙏🙏❤️
God bless to our warriors in CHRIST!!!
Why your god needs warriors? Who they will fight?
@@antoniorobles8706Poor iq
@@ranferchristian8050 lol
Blessings to our warriors in Science to totally defeat the Bible and it's lies
This is so great !
And completely inaccurate, and mostly lies and mistruths from non experts talking out of their ass...
Reading through some of these comments from Atheists is just depressing. Jesus might aswell show up in the 2nd Coming and they would still say "insufficient evidence". 🤦♀️
Which evidence from the video do you find convincing? Jesus showing up would be great, but being at least logically congruent would be a great start.
@@Harytus what logical incongruities are you struggling with?
Should we take the amount of evidence for the resurrection as a gold standard or benchmark for accepting all other claims, including court trials, etc?
@yabon banania I'm talking about the quality and extent of evidence as a whole. It doesn't have to be the same exact circumstances, but let's say the same number of first, second, third hand written accounts for any other given event or claim, then it should be accepted? And anything better than this would mean even more so?
@Gabe Norman thanks for being honest
...about your insecurities
Lol probably not
@@Gumpmachine1 If it's good enough evidence to hang the hat of our eternal destiny on, then surely it's good enough for much more mundane claims
To the grief hallucination hypothesis I can add a personal anecdote. I dated a guy from the age of 15-21. When we broke up I grieved for a while. It felt as if I were grieving someone’s death and, at one point, I had an auditory hallucination that he said my name. I was alone so it completely startled me. I thought he must have been in my apartment. I was very young so the age theory didn’t apply. I’ve always chalked it up to the grief and that it didn’t actually happen but given that we’re not mere material and we are souls I’ve sometimes wondered if he didn’t actually say my name where he was. He was also grieving. Maybe some hallucinations are supernatural manifestations of something real. Maybe it was just a girl hoping a guy was actually saying her name. I broke up with him though so that doesn’t seem likely. Who knows.
That's a fair example, however it doesn't explain multiple people having the same visual, physical and auditory account of Jesus at the same time. Also, you can acknowledge that your experience felt really but you know that it wasn't real. But all of the disciples were so sure that it was reality that they all gave their lives for the truth that Jesus was resurrected
Super comprehensive - this is a great way to get the important info in a detailed way without having to read a whole book. Not that it wouldn't be really great to read a book lol
The title is: "LOADS of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus" And then proceed to give no evidence at all. Not that surprising as there are no extra-biblical sources for the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
I love the comments demanding extra biblical non-Christian sources. So would you believe if there had been extra-biblical sources? Really? As covered at 34:58 Josephus records that Jesus was known for working miracles. So do accept that Jesus really did miracles because Josephus said that? Or to believe that would you require that Josephus state the HE had seen the miracles himself? But for him to have witnessed a miracle he would have had to leave his home, family, income, etc and become a follower of Jesus, traipsing around the countryside until Jesus did a miracle. There was no TV coverage so nobody was watching Jesus from afar. So the best anyone could reasonably expect from a non-biblical source to ANYTHING Jesus did would be 2nd hand testimony from other people who were close enough to Jesus to see him face to face before his death (i.e. followers). Detached objective non-biblical sources would not even know what Jesus looked like, let alone personally witnessed him do something.
@@georgesmith4639 Well, Flavius Josephus wrote his texts ca 94-95 AD. But more importantly, Josephus was born in 37 AD and could thus never have been an eye witness. Josephus wrote in his _Testimonium Flavianum_ about Jesus being the messiah. However, most scholars reject the authenticity of that passage (due to christian redaction). But most scholars accept the authenticity of the passage about the crucifixion.
So, in the end we have only the bible as a reference as Jesus being a miracle worker and have risen from the dead. And one source is no source.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 No, it is invalid to reduce the source we do have to nothing. Maybe you could do that if there were clear motives for a deception. In the end we have one source proven to be valid based on tons of circumstantial evidence discussed in the video. No time now but I'll elaborate on this later.
@@georgesmith4639 No, the bible hasn't been validated using (circumstantial) evidence. Maybe, some historical data has been verified. But the miracles certainly haven't been verified.
The seneatorial docket is evidence of the Lord God Jesus Christs ressurection, I have it on my channel and the library of Congress control number that is the Public Record of Jesus Christ, God's ressurection.
Jesus Christs ressurection is a fact.
Cameron I think it would be helpful to break this video up into five parts, I find it difficult to start a 3 hour video even knowing I can come back to it any time. Perhaps having a broken part playlist of this video will be helpful
RadicOmega It’s broken into 5 parts on our podcast. Check there.
@@CapturingChristianityGood rebuff. Well played.
Do you see any sort of problem with having a belief (say that the Christian God is real), and having that belief from some sort of experience, and then looking for evidence in the philosophical sphere to support said belief?
Seems to me to just be confirmation bias, along with finding evidence for your belief instead of following the evidence where it leads, as Craig likes to say
I agree. Every other truth I can conceive of came from some observation from some person(s). Not only could they demonstrate the newfound phenomenon to others, those that were curious to understand the phenomenon would look to study it and follow where the evidence lead them. Theism seems to me to contradict this. I have never observed a god, nor have known anyone to have observed a god, nor have been able to find any person's observation of a god that could be verified for validity, accuracy, and authenticity. The evidence is always anecdotal, revelatory, apocalyptic or prophetic - NEVER OBSERVABLE.
Mike Cordner true, has some of the indicators of being made up
Mike Cordner all I’m saying is that Christians have these beliefs, and then they find evidence to confirm their beliefs. That doesn’t seem to be very honest to me
@@HammerFitness1 And I agree. Peace.
@@HammerFitness1 How did you come to the conclusion that Christians just try to find evidence that support them ?
What evidence have you got for/against God, and where has it led you?
Listening at Easter time …
Very informative discussion. There is no doubt that they both have put years and years into there research and are open minded enough to consider all the possibilities. I believe in Jesus and don't usually look at videos that "prove" he is real as I already know that he is real. But I am glad I watched this. Thanks.
"If I had only the gospels, I'd still believe, because..." (a rambling description of gospels follows with no reason given to believe them). This was at least the second tease of "Here is the evidence," followed by no evidence.
People have tried to discredit the Gospels and conducted extensive research to come out of the other end at least believing the historical nature of The Gospels, especially Luke's Gospel and his book The Acts of The Apostles.
@@1969cmp I know of a few cases of just the opposite, in general. Studying the Bible is a good way to become an atheist.
Luke? The guy who apparently copied others? The guy who claimed to have researched everything, yet never gives a single source? That convinces you?
@@scienceexplains302 The opening line of Luke and Acts gives us a hint of the type of narrative.
The Gospel of Luke is an investigation by Luke. He most likely was not at the events but does an investigation like a historian of the events in The Gospel, interviewing people etc, as you'd expect from a historian.
Then Acts flows on from there for which he is present in many of the events.
Sir William Ramsey, the archeologicalist, tried to disprove Luke as authentic history but hìs investigation made him realise that Luke is a genuine historian of the highest caliber. Cheers.
@@1969cmp No, maybe mediocre caliber. "Luke" does not tell us who he is, what his qualifications are for knowing or analyzing any data, what his sources are, how he decided to include some things and not others, or how he weighed different types of information.
He seems to have copied portions of Josephus without attributing it. One clue of this is that he mentions two of the same people together, but he gets the chronological sequence wrong, but matching Josephus' order in J's writings.
Luke gives every indication that he believes every theology-related claim that fit his narrative and discarded anything that didn't.
If getting some geological names and Roman titles correct makes him a top-caliber historian, then certain fiction writers are Uber high-caliber, because the best authors research the daily lives of that time period and got history correct in much more detail than Luke did and without the ridiculous supernatural claims. "A World Without End" is a great example.
How did Luke investigate 1:11 "Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him"?
@@scienceexplains302 ....you are at odds with Ramsey and Wallace. And Ramsey did far more investigation into Luke than you or I will be able to achieve. 😎
What don't you try and debate a skeptic on that?Instead of just regurgitating what you already believe?
R5 Zoeira BR why debate a skeptic when they don’t dare to question their own beliefs by that I mean their existence without God, it makes no sense but they don’t dare to question it
@@japexican007 a lot of sceptics are atheists because they were Christian or religious and chose to challenge their views.
Matthew Kennedy indeed and never thought to look at the other side, that is the atheistic worldview with the same micro lenses and I’ve found many “Christians” reject God not because of God but because of religion which is why most don’t even have correct doctrine, tell me are you a former Christian and do you believe that works saves a person?
@@japexican007 I'm a former Christian and now an atheist. So I don't believe anything saves anyone from hell or from God's wrath. I don't think either exist. I never used to think works saved people either.
Matthew Kennedy nothing saves you but belief, but why did you stop believing and have you examined Atheism with the same micro lens you did with Christianity because if you did then you’d noticed a worldview without God does not logically make sense
I had a dog. 2 1/2 years ago. He wasn't feeling well. I went to work and when I got home He was dead. His body was extremely stiff and gross smelly liquids were seeping from his mouth and rectum. He was dead for probably 10 hours or so.
Dead is dead. Cameron, I hope you have another career lined up because lying to people is not a good one.
I'm confused. Are you citing your anecdotal experience with your dead dog to prove that Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead?
It takes Gary Habermas 5 minutes to say what these guys can in 30 seconds. This was an excellent review of the material. I avoided it because I figured it was full of fluff but it’s just the opposite. Thank you 🙏.
Dude i thought the same thing about Gary. He just name drops and tells you to go read another book . I never get anything from his talks.
Just heads up if you're listening in the car, those sirens are in the video 😂
1:57:45 Did he just claim that a Christian apologist, Paul, would not make claims that when verified turned out to be a lot less convincing than they implied? That's demonstrably false.
I have on my channel the seneatorial docket which confirms Jesus Christ, God's ressurection as part of public record and the Library of Congress control number as the official public record of Jesus Christ God's ressurection.
Romans 10:9 if you wish to save your soul.
@Vincent Kinney Joseph Smith is demonstration that Christian apologist can be conmen making up their visions.
@Vincent Kinney What does that have to do with the claims of apologists? (aside from demonstrating that they are yet again exaggerations).
If an ancient historian says, 'There is this group of people called Christians, and they worship this guy called Jesus they believe was resurrected by God,' I'm not sure how that's evidence for the resurrection. Seems to only be evidence that people believed the story.
Historians don’t accept the resurrection as an historical event.
This entire podcast is perhaps the most pathetic special pleading I think that I’ve ever heard. I don’t think I’ve ever heard three people who palpably wanted to believe something were true.
You can here the bias and lack of basic skepticism throughout the entire podcast.
Here are very bad reasons to believe.....
1. Poor understanding of reality
2. Indoctrination
3. Confirmation bias
4. Emotional appeal
5. Fear
6. Weak epistemology
7. Guilt
8. Herd behavior
9. Narrow mindedness
10. Authority bias
I think I heard them all at one time during the podcast. Listen hard and tick them off as you go.
R5 Zoeira BR
Yes, I did.
Yes, I can, all the usual things. Nothing new. Nothing which explains any of the supernatural claims.
R5 Zoeira BR they provided lots of narratives from lots of sources. They didn’t provide any #evidence.
Gabe Norman wasn’t so much a video, more a #podcast. No video footage in the duration of the talk.
@Gabe Norman I listened to this 'video' as well. Which ONE of the evidentiary presentations do you think best substantiates the claim that Jesus resurrected from death?
Gabe Norman that statement makes zero sense. Here’s why....
"God exists!"
"Can you prove that?"
"No"
"Then I don't believe you"
TRAGICALLY IMPORTANT: is for author to remember that a Roman platoon of 16 soldiers were dispatched to guard the tomb!!!
Huh thats weird, i just checked mark luke and john and theres no hint of armed guards or a sealed tomb stone......
Well done! Strong support for Christian resurrection doctrine by two scholars of history, ... wait, ... by two archaeologists, ... uh, ... that is to say rather, by two cultural anthropologists, ... well, ok, one guy is a medical doctor and the other is a lecturer in philosophy of, ... wait for it ... religion. Completely objective scholars who are properly credentialed to speak competently on the subject matter.
Very good video. It’s really convincing.
Thank you for posting this
@@vejeke Paulogia, seriously dude?
Paulogia isn't really making any arguments just highlighting concessions, ripping a few things out of context, and then ignoring everything else.
Third
If you won't settle for the evidence we have (which is actually a LOT), you won't settle for that either. Be serious for a moment.
@Not My Real Name Not at all.
@Skeptic Psychologist if it is found...then would you become a Christian?
@Skeptic Psychologist can't tell if you are saying yes or no? Can you explain...starting with either 'yes' or 'no'
@Skeptic Psychologist you found several people who raised themselves from dead and are better evidenced than Jesus?
Anything that you have to keep repeating over and over to yourself to be true... is probably not true. Do people say to themselves... gravity is true? Over and over again? The Pythagorean theorem is true. The Pythagorean theorem is true. It’s true. It’s actually true. Sounds self deceptive, no?
blaisingm no but as an athiest I would say god isn’t real over and over again
@@onepiecefan An atheist says "I am not convinced by the claims and there is not enough evidence to conclude if a god exists"
@@MrWeedWacky, that sounds more like an agnostic rather than an atheist.
@@patrickhall901 agnosticism is a person who says that you CAN NOT KNOW anything about the existence or nature of god and therefor does not care.
you can be an
Agnostic Atheist - saying there is not sufficient evidence because you can't get evidence.
An Agnostic Theist - a person saying There is a god but I don't give a flying F because I don't know what he wants!
a Gnostic Atheist - a person convinced a god can't exist...
and a Gnostic Theist - a person convinced a god - their particular god in fact, exists.
and then of course you can be either Atheist by itself, Theist, Deist, Polytheist, Gnostic and Agnostic all by themselves.
cleared up for you?
@@MrWeedWacky, agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. That fits what your original comment said and the definition has nothing to do with not caring. Your definition for agnostic atheist is a "in your own words" definition is atheist. Gnostic atheist it's also just an atheist, no real difference in definition. You do know that all theses almost definitions you've given doesn't chamber the fact that you attributed the mindset of an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you had put agnostic atheist I your original reply, it still would fit. The person said "as an atheist" and your example of what you think one thinks doesn't for the actual definition.
"What is one of the worst objections you've seen to the resurrection?"
Worst, as in a powerful objection or worst, as in an unconvincing objection?
Whatever Cameron was looking for, they certainly didn't consider any of my personal favorite objections:
* Inconsistencies in the empty tomb narratives
Matthew: The tomb-visiting women run into the risen Jesus while returning joyfully from the tomb.
John: A tomb-visiting woman runs into the risen Jesus while weeping beside his tomb.
Luke: No woman runs into the risen Jesus.
Between Matthew, Luke, and John, the tomb angels never say the same thing twice.
* Inconsistencies in the appearances to the male disciples
Matthew records one appearance to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee while
John records three such appearances, none of which matches Matthew's.
The ascension is mentioned only by Luke.
Pentecost is predicted in Luke, happens prematurely in John 20:22, and isn't mentioned at all in Matthew.
The resurrection "evidence" is inconsistent enough to be self-refuting.
Love it, I could listen to these guys all day (I did lol). Great job 👍
If bias for something automatically makes someone untrustworthy, then no one can be trusted, because we all have biases for and against things.
that Bias" problem ( not your comment) is a non sense, we all have it, and nobody thinks that if is the truth the bias does not matter.
That's why we have science.
@@mzavros Not sure what you mean by that. Science in and of itself does not stop scientists from being biased. It can be abused, buried or misused like any other tool that humans have developed.
@@jameslewis3793 then it is not proper science.
@@mzavros You are correct. Just because people are scientists does not mean they are using proper science, just like someone being a preacher doesn't mean they are using their beliefs properly. People are people. Whether in the field of science or religion, we are all equally subject to bias.
Should be called “loads of bad arguments for the resurrection.” How many times are you people going to rehash the same bad points again and again?
Christopher Perkins any evidence to back up your claims?
japexican007 I don’t need evidence to recognize a bad argument. If the argument is not sound, why accept its conclusion? Watch any other apologist video and you’ll see the same poor arguments. The burden of proof is on the theist making the claim and they fail every time.
Christopher Perkins sure kid, basically white noise and useless comment with no reason for anyone to pay attention to you
japexican007 thanks for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty. Now I don’t have to do it for you.
Omg thank u
If Christianity is true, then you can prove that a man named Jesus is a mind that is responsible for the formation of our universe. How do you go about proving this?
That would be a deduction from if Jesus is actually who he said he is. If Jesus' mind is God's concience then yes, it would have been there from the beginning obviously.
@@Software.Engineer So how do you prove that Jesus is a being that created our universe? Can you step me through how this is proven?
I swear the vast majority of the dislikes come from ppl who didn’t even watch the video 😂😂
@@HarryNicNicholas only a sinner could say that with their chest like you have sir. Takes one to know one. Your comment alone is revealing to who you are. A prideful man. Many men who have come before you who are just like you have all fallen short. You’re not saying anything at all. Yeah you’re a fool to think Christ never rose from the dead. Man you’d think people would actually figure it out by now if it were a lie. Christ dying for sins of man & rising again is the very fabric of our faith. You’ll have Christians line up to die worldwide then to deny He died & Rose again.
It’s based on lies you say. According to who? You? Not a soul that’s ever walked the Earth that’s ever come close to disproving ANYTHING in the Bible. So who are you? You must be one of those smart dudes.. I’ll tell you this fact. You’ll die one day & leave this earth. When you die, the Bible will still be True. The Whole Truth. Bible doesn’t become True whether you believe it or not. It’s true regardless of ANY man. Cause all Men are appointed to live once before Judgment. I dare you to pick up that Bible & read it… coward. Or are you? Don’t be scared. One big reason people deny is they don’t want to answer to a high power. They don’t want the accountability of their actions on their hands. But no one is free from judgment. Not a soul..
A waste of life would mean having a Worldview like yours. That’s a waste of life. Life without God is a waste of time
Well, I watched it and I disliked it intensely.
@@angelamaryquitecontrary4609That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But idk if you simply just jumped around and called it "watching the video"
@@paulhayes5684 Oh dear, you really caught me out there! Yes, I just put on House of Pain and I Jumped Around until it was over. Then I went back - bitches be crazy! - to the job that requires me to speak and write fluently in three modern languages, and be able to read and understand Latin.
The video to which you refer I found very basic, poorly argued, and travelled seamlessly from one logical fallacy to the next. Thin gruel, indeed.
There is virtually no evidence for a resurrection. Just anecdotal that flies in the face of all the evidence we know. There is nothing in our evidence catalog that backs up the possibility that a human being could possibly raise from being dead after 3 days.
1. People lived to be 900 years old
2. One man defeated a 1,000 man army with a bone
3. 8.7 million species fit Into a 450 foot boat
4. Mankind began as 2 people in a garden somewhere talking to a talking snake in a tree about fruit
5. A baby was born to a woman who didn't have sex, grew up to walk on water, and died for 3 days and rose again alive. George Romero would be proud
6. Wooden canes turned into snakes
7. Talking donkeys
8. A man lived inside a big fish for 3 days
The ingredients of fables
ruclips.net/video/rSoKu6Rlo1s/видео.html 😎
@@1969cmp anybody can make a RUclips video. I could send you an atheist RUclips video
@@lawrenceeason8007 I'm sure can. But can anyone be credited as the father of microbiology? Louis Pastuer was and he believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@1969cmp sure. But how does that prove a resurrection?
It isn't remarkable that a Louis Pasteur could believe in a god or a resurrection. What is remarkable is the claim itself. There is no evidence in our possession that a human being could come back alive after 3 days of actual death.
@@1969cmp not sure what you mean
I'm catching this after work but was the archeological find of High Priest Caiaphas burial discussed? This is huge. Thanks for this!
Finally.
Thanks for this!
Cameron, maybe host a debate between Paulogia and Inspiring Philosophy (or WLC, or Boyd etc)?
I don't understand. How are written recordings of what people of a religious cult believed, written decades after the supposed resurrection, "historical evidence" of the resurrection? Josephus didn't even believe it himself, which is why he remained a devout Jew.
Some of the gospel writings came about as early as 2 years …. It wasn’t written decades after and it’s not a religious cult . It’s a belief in fact
Here's the problem: There are *loads* of rebuttals to this so-called evidence, readily found on the internet - and its not a secret. In fact, it's not credible to think the participants aren't aware of the counter arguments, yet they don't even seem interested in addressing them, never so much as acknowledging they even exist. Given this, one can only wonder who the target audience is intended to be here. It certainly can't be experienced unbelievers or skeptics who will likely have seen this sort of thing many times before and be versed in the counter arguments. That leaves the intended audience to be those who already believe, or "preaching to the choir" as the saying goes. That's fine of course, if that's what one wants; cheers and agreeable nods from the proverbial pews. If that's the goal, this site will likely "succeed" with video's like this one. On the other hand, if the goal is to reach beyond those who already agree, we can hopefully look forward to at least some attempts to address the popular objections.
Agreed, these arguments tread a well worn path and fail
madmax2976 any you’d like to bring up that brings all of Christianity crumbling down?
@@japexican007 I don't understand - I didn't mention or even hint anything about such a topic.
madmax2976 you said there are loads of rebuttals, okay, so what? unless you have any that would bring down the origin of Christianity then it’s just pure speculation with no real meaning to your post
@@japexican007 Whether or not counter arguments "bring down the origin of Christianity" is a matter of judgement, looking at all of the evidence and arguments from different perspectives. In fact that was at least one point of my response, to encourage those who are interested in a fair examination to actually look at the other side, rather than just listening to one side. As I noted, the participants in this podcast didn't even attempt that fair examination which in my view calls into question who they are trying to convince. You ask, "So what?" So, who is the intended audience? Are they just trying to convince those who already believe or are they trying to convince those who don't? If the former, that endeavor seems rather pointless as by definition they already believe. If the later, at least attempting to address counter arguments would seem to be more useful. In fact, I think it would make it more useful for believers as well, providing them some insight and preparing them for conversations with those who don't agree.
This is correct.
Come? Repent to Holy Bible Rev.22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, LORD JESUS. THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS be with God's people.Amen." Prays Jesus Christ?
but they weren't "with Two Scholars" of History nor biblical history. Sooo?
You need more subs, my guy.
And I need that mug.
Here you go! teespring.com/stores/capturing-christianity
Debunked by Paulogia (again) ruclips.net/video/JgbZ9m42EVA/видео.html
GREAT MAN LOVE THE WORK YOU DO! TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
I keep thinking this channel is an atheist spoof! "The evidence is surprisingly strong!" What evidence? It's a matter of faith. You either "believe" it or you don't. I'm not sure these guys are really Christian at all!
One of the lines of evidence is that people still think they see ghosts :-) I have heard Mike Licona's nonsense. These are your proofs? I'm past 23:00 and haven't heard an iota of evidence. OK, Tacitus is the closest to anything (although you haven't yet mentioned what that evidence is) someone would call evidence in any other situation for a character based on supernatural events (e.g. the existence of a god)
I was not able to get past him taking a drink out of his coffee mug and then pointing to it and saying ''Did you know Christianity is true?''
Keep searching, God bless 🙏🏽
@@mrdrone4253 keep searching, God bless
I feel better now that you cast a magic spell on me to bless me. Man I wish I had your power to bless people and cast spells. What a waste of power wasted casting spells on random people.
@@mrdrone4253 God you people are insufferable. All he said was "God bless" and you have to be a smartass about it. I guess we just shouldt say goodbye anymore since it originally meant God be with ye.
Grave robbery seems super unlikely - he wouldn't have been buried with anything valuable, and body snatching wasn't really a thing prior to the 19th century when cadavers started to be in demand for medical study.
Wasnt body snatching one of the first things the disciples thought of in the gospels?