One of my favorite speakers. Hope to hear him in person sometime. I am currently reading his books. He has absolutely done his research. So happy for him that he found Jesus and became a Christian so he could share with all of us.
@@kikomaru4366, look up J. Warner Wallace, Gods’ Crime Scene…numerous videos on RUclips. One is as if he is presenting the case to a jury/judge. Wonderful stuff
I am a Christian because it’s the only evidenced based truth (world view) that explains my moral reality. I’m a Christian because I’m a sinner in need of a savior.
@@vejeke no, because he thinks. Something you don't do much. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Sure man, I'm the one who doesn't think too much. 🤭 Keep appealing to thermodynamics to justify your belief in the guy with magical powers who was born of a virgin. With that and the comments about other people's limited brains you've been making for years I'm sure you'll eventually quell your insecurities.
So thankful for his wise and orderly words, helping always to teach us to defend our faith. For we know, if he could tell the disrespect for Christians in 2017, it is more so now, may God help us to be that light on a hill. May God continue to bless his message.
Walter Debnam Hank Moody Newton was one of the greatest ever Minds yet couldnt speak Greek so got everything wrong about the Bible and even Chemistry! Reading the Bible in English is the worst way to fathom it because of the many copies,redactions and forgeries...so you have just made a fallacy!
Junior Vieira The Greek and Aramaic don't work...Christ spoke Aramaic, so Christ obviously didn't speak the words attributed to him...more evidence of Forgery..why would God need to forge the Bible??
@@rationalsceptic7634 Regardless, all christians believe Jesus came to die on the cross and give his life so that we can be saved through him. THAT is the Bible. THAT is the what matters not a different word used here or there. It makes no difference. Youre just complicating the simple.
@@rationalsceptic7634 This is a ridiculous nonsensical objection. Jewish thought, mindset, beliefs and Hebraic word plays, colloquialisms, sayings etc. and accurate geographic references to 1st century Judea and the Galil absolutely permeate the New Testament writings, hiding in plain sight of the Greek text - especially the Gospels. The short answer to such an objection is the Gospel writers chose Greek because they were aiming at a much larger audience than just Judea and the Galil. Same thing applies to today - ministries seeking to bring the Gospel to a world wide audience use English to communicate the message, regardless of their native tongue. It makes no sense to do otherwise.
Sounds similar to Dr Hugh Ross, who since early on in their lives discovered God, and most likely came to the ultimate conclusion that everything we are doing and came from, came from our Creator....God.
i AM A cHRISTIAN, BECAUSE WHEN i AM JUDGED i WOULD BE FOUND GUILTY, BUT jESUS DIED TO PAY THE COST OF MY SINS! I was born a sinner and get stuff wrong and so its by grace that I am saved. Thank you Jesus.
1. So you can basically go around and sin without being found guilty and being judged by your actions since Jesus had already died for your sins and saved you? If that's the case, then what are your purpose in this life, since you have already passed the test and will get to heaven? If you are having a miserable life, you could by your own beliefs theory get over with it by killing yourself and go straight to heaven without enduring the hardships in life, because why not?? You have a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so why not skip the hard and boring part of living on earth? 2. Since Jesus "died for our sins" around 2000 years ago, that would mean that those people who have died since the death of Jesus would be forgiven, because they died after Jesus made a statement about him dying for our sins. So my question is; what about those people who died before the given event? Would they also be forgiven or does it only count for the people who died after the event? If no, then wouldnt that mean that God is unfair to his own creation? For example: If a sinner for 3000 years ago, goes to hell because jesus was not yet alive at that time to die for his sin, and a sinner from 1000 years ago goes straight to heaven because he got saved by gods grace, then that would mean as said before; god is unjust to his own creation, meaning that he treats a creation in another fashion as he treats an equal being, only because they were born in a different time, which by the way, they have zero control over. If you are arguing against my statement above, and saying that he died for every human being on earth, then why all the fuss about us living on earth? What are the reasons for humankind to have stayed on earth since Adam and Eve, if god knew that Jesus would come down and die for our sins, and don't come and tell me that god didnt knew, then why would he even be god? I am not trying to mock Christianity, but all these statements of yours are self-contradicting, and these are just some of the few self-contradicting statements among many.
ghannizaki once born again, the Holy Spirit indwells us and leads us to walk in Holiness . Thus loving the things God loves and hating the things that He hates .
By the way, all the apostles were believers because of their own experiences and encounters with Jesus, nothing wrong there. Apologetics is great, but I would say it is a bonus to personal experience. If you ask Paul why he became a Christian and a believer, it is his encounter with Jesus. Same for Peter, James, John, etc...they saw the risen Christ or they had some other personal experience with Jesus.
I liked everything (as an agnostic person), but I feel like the part where he talks about motives to lie being only in 3 categories is wrong. People lie for safety, people lie to make others feel better(ex. Lying to a dying person, that they'll get better), people lie because they want to believe that what they are saying is true so bad, etc.
He probably didn't clarify but he's is referring in regards to conspiracy. Remember that all apostles died for what they saw and what they testified to. They had no motive to commit conspiracy and the evidence stacks in favor of the eye witness accounts.
@@MadDogGaming The gospels aren’t eyewitness accounts. The authors don’t identify themselves, they don’t identify their sources, they don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they got their informations from eyewitnesses. It’s just anonymous hearsay. And there is barely any evidence for the martyrdom of the disciples… and even less evidence that they specifically died for their belief in the resurrection.
I was raised in the church briefly became atheist then back to Christianity. I have seen the work of God and been able to explain with probable evidence. The only thing I have yet to do is figure out a way that life could exist without some sort of intelligent design. So either this is real and God is real or this is a simulation and the intelligent designer is a programmer of sorts. Possibly we are experiencing different angles of reality under the illusion that we are all individuals, but in fact we are one being of magnificent intellectual ability that has simply decided to meditate on what it would be like to experience a world with set natural laws.
I think what you’ve been looking for is a place called heaven. It’s not known to follow laws of physics. Not bound by time, and we will be in glorified bodies, made of spirit, which also breaks known laws on earth. We are bound to these laws because they are easy for us to understand. Very malleable.
He wants the Christian to have better answers as to why he believes. How about not embracing the damned religion until you know it's true in the first place? You have already swallowed Jesus, now you want to go back in to the teachings to scour for reasons. false securities, that give you comfort in the thing you have already swallowed. This is exactly what every branch of religion does; believe first, come up with good reasons later...
@@CerealDust-nStuff Wallace didn’t present any credible evidence… only fringe nonsense that all actual historians disagree with. It’s strange that someone like him who gives so many presentations and examined the evidence for years refuses to talk with anyone who challenges the nonsense he believes in.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 - that's quite an assumption to think that he hasn't ever been challenged considering he's one of the best cold-case murder investigators in the world. When he was an atheist, he took his skill-set and investigated the claims of The Testament... basically the falsify it. I suggest maybe you should look into this a little bit further, but in the meantime, what nonsense do you think he presented?
@@CerealDust-nStuff The gospels aren’t eyewitness testimony. The authors don’t identify themselves, don’t identify their sources, don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses. That’s the textbook definition of hearsay. His only connection to the time of when John was possibly still alive are Papias and Irenaeus… but we don’t have any writings of them where they actually claim that they were his students or that they ever met him… it’s just church tradition from the 4th century. Also… his dating of the gospels is way off… even the vast majority of Christian historians agree that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written between 65AD and 75AD. He also doesn’t seem to care that much that Matthew and Luke got most of their informations from the gospel of Mark and copied most of it word for word. I bet in his real cases he would think that they collaborated.😂 To make it short… his expertise as a cold case investigator isn’t applicable to historical sources like the gospels. And like I already said… he refuses to defend his views against anyone who disagrees with him. But there is a funny video where he gets corrected by his fellow Apologist Michael Licona… who explains to him why the synoptic problem is so problematic.😉
Question: how do you know if Jesus taught the truth or taught anything for that matter? Being that the gospels were preserved through oral transmission, latter shifting into oral tradition. How could any text have been reliability written down accurately after 40-90+ years since the actual events occured?
@noelhausler8006this is so easy to explain I’m surprised nobody has answered you. First things first you have to understand what the Gospels even are. They are eyewitness accounts. There’s going to be incomplete information between them. However these accounts don’t contradict, they have supplementary information. They all claim the same thing with varying degrees of information. We also have to know what the Gospels are not claiming to be. They are not supposed to be exhaustive narratives. Each of the Gospel writers felt different information was more important than other information. They also likely don’t have the exact same list of people to interview. Hence why we get slightly different accounts. The Gospels are a collection of eye witness accounts from both the authors, as well as people they interviewed, and the end result is piecing together these events to get the historical narrative. I don’t suspect this to convert you, but if nothing else the fact that the four Gospels ARENT exactly the same actually helps our case, as it dispels any conspiracy.
Why do you think God chose to reveal himself in Jesus at a time in history when we had no video, no photography when Jesus spoke in a rudimentary language spoken by only few, that subsequently died out and expects us to accept the recounting by mostly people who never actually met Jesus because Jesus if he could read and write, never actually wrote anything down?
The New Testament writers actually knew Jesus, and Jesus was sent to do a job and that job wasn’t to write down his teachings and such. For ur first question idk why God decided to reveal himself when he did but it was really effective
@@dreyko166 It was only effective because his followers gained political power hundreds of years later.😂 Jesus had almost no measurable impact during the 1st century.
@@dreyko166 Sure, but the impact didn’t have anything to do with the truth of Christianity. In hindsight it looks more like a coincidence that Christianity gained political power and not one of the thousands of other cults.😂
I think people want to know the sources outside the early believers because when challenged by athiests you can go to that too as skeptics will claim the Christian sources are biased. Yes its ungrounded as you've explained. As Christians we already believe so we don't need to know the corroboration from the non Christian sources just for being challenged
@@ramigilneas9274 then show how smart you are. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Easy… if matter and energy can not be created or destroyed then they must have existed forever in some form and only changed states for all eternity. It’s funny how the best arguments that Xtians have to offer always boil down to a god of the gaps fallacy: Science hasn’t discovered the real answer yet, therefore Gawd!🥴
There are exactly zero eyewitness accounts in the Bible. The gospels were written by anonymous authors speculating about what someone in the past may or may not have seen, handed down by word of mouth. That is hearsay, not eyewitness.
@@hotgirl6665 Well... just read the gospels. The authors don’t tell us who they are and don’t tell us where they got their information from. They don’t even claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses.😂
This is just a variation of one of the 3 reasons people always give for why they believe in things. In this case, he's simply defending the story of people he's decided he can trust, which is exactly what people are doing when they believe in something because they were raised in it; in other words, because somebody told them it was true and they trusted that person's judgment so they believe it too. That's how religion propagates across generations. But he's also only justifying the story of Jesus' ministry and *not* Christianity which includes so many more things that cannot be found in the gospels but are instead derived through reason. Not surprisingly he just assumes a lot of things, such that Jesus literally walked on water, or that eyewitnesses can be trusted (as opposed to lying) to accurately report, or that Christian sources have no bias in favour of believing, and then uses those assumptions as a fact to prove later facts. That's a form of circular reasoning. He indicates his own bias when he states he's a Christian "because it's true" when the only thing he can really say--especially as a cop--is that he's a Christian because the *available* *evidence* *indicates* *it's* *more* *true* *than* *not.* IMO (for what it's worth and that might not be much) this is a poor defense of Christianity that only works for people already believing or predisposed to believe. It certainly wouldn't get him a win in court.
A lot of what you say also applies to materialists. Specifically, deciding who you can trust, being in an environment where everyone else believes the same thing, trusting one source who also based their statements upon another source. These things are all a form a circular reasoning as well. When he says "I'm a Christian because it's true", this is in fact a summary statement because he's made an investigation. Remember, he himself was once an atheist who considered Christianity foolish and unbelievable. Getting where he is now from where he was then should validate his motives and his thought processes. The "more true than not" is a legitimate method to arrive at the truth, especially when the reality is that we already recognize that we are finite creatures simply incapable of knowing everything. To assume that everything must be reliable to the degree that we ONLY can use the scientific method is simply foolish. Christianity is dealing with a different dimension of our existence equivalent to history. You can repeat history. The best you can do ascertain it and say that it is more true than it is not. I have another tool that you can use to test the reality of God if you're interested. Just let me know. It's a tool that going to take a higher order of thinking, and is rather challenging. Hint: It has to do with "You were created in the image of God".
@@kennorthunder2428 Aye, well said...what I said applies to everyone because that's how people operate. I didn't mention scientific reasoning however, just that his arguments are not a very good apology for Jesus specifically and Christianity generally, having only a veneer of reason and logic and scientific inquiry but really just statements of faith. Not sure why you think I need something to test the reality of God, tho.
Every word Jesus ever uttered is absolutely true and when asked by his disciple Thomas to tell him where He was going and to show him the way. Jesus replied with the most perfect statement ever made by man saying, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' John 14:6. Simply analyze each word and see what you come up with. For instance the, 'I am' ......statement, the name given by God to Moses at the burning bush, is Jesus' claim, that He is God himself. Again in John 8: 58, Jesus tells the Jews, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' Just think about it!
The biggest failed prophecy is Jesus assuring the disciples that he will return with the end times before that generation passed away. Mark 13:30 Luke 9:27 Oops! Like Comment Share
I find it interesting that the scriptures were all written by believers in Jehovah mostly Jews and possibly one gentile from Genesis to Revelation and yet so many Jews don’t read or believe this book and the ones that do read it don’t believe it it tell us of the love of God (Jehovah) who made us and by the death of Jesus Christ we are saved if we believe in Him
I have been making the arguments that Wallace is making here in reference to the datings of Acts, and Luke, and for me it is big time sound and on point, but for some strange reasons many scholars just will not accept it, it is crazy frustrating.
This also reminds me of the power biased prejudice has over people, and being highly intelligent, is not an antidote. i’ve known people who were not only intelligent, but who also would look at problems or controversies, or whatever, using objective reasoning skills, to come to a conclusion. But that all went out the window, if the topic dealt with anything that they might have highly biased prejudiced feelings about. And evidently the members of his family who are Mormons, and who he also claims cannot scrutinize what they believe in order to validate it to themselves or to someone else if questioned. And no doubt they’ve heard this video, if not more of his talk’s, and probably have read his book. But not because they were looking for truth, evidently, or were interested for any reason, other than curiosity, since he was a close family member. But they’re still Mormons, no matter what, and nothing is going to change their minds. Such is the power of bias prejudice. But I was lucky like he was, in the sense that I had no bias, one way or another, and I just wanted to know what was true. And like him, it allowed me to believe without needing any faith, or very little anyway. And I guess I wasn’t overly surprised when I discovered that there were so many people who were devout believers in Jesus Christ, but had been prior devout atheists. But not just devout atheists ,but highly intelligent and well-known academic people, who set out to disprove the Bible, by dissecting it with historical research that would prove its falsehoods. And so that’s what motivated them, but instead it did the opposite and proved its accuracy and trustworthiness. And they all used to different words in how they described it, but they all pretty much were saying the same thing in their conclusions. For example, they were all saying, that they found themselves backed into a corner, where they were forced to make a decision, whether to sacrifice their integrity, or their atheism, but they couldn’t keep both.
So you were talking about the Gospel of Luke being written early, and then you jump to talking about Gospel of John having a chain of custody up to the council. There is a disconnect in your argument. John was written quite a bit later, and is thematically very different from the 3 Synoptic gospels. The authorship of John or any of the gospels are not well established. They are anonymous. You are worried about later scribes changing the content, but there are significant differences between the gospels and there absolutely were changes. 1) The earliest version of Mark ends at verse 8 with no sighting of Jesus (although there's a young man dressed in a white robe, presumably an angel? - why bother arguing about the resurrection of Jesus if we can prove angels exist!!!). Mark verses 9 - 19 adds in a couple brief, vague sightings (one of them in a "different form") and it adds in all that funny business about not dying of snake bites and poison. 2) John chapter 21 is clearly an additional chapter written, rather transparently, to confirm Peter as the leader of the church. The last verse of chapter 21 is the same as the last verse of chapter 20, so it has obviously been added on. 3) 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't even make mention of a tomb, only that Jesus was "buried". The Bible itself can't even explain the physical form of the resurrected Jesus. Some parts insist it is a physical body with wounds and eats with people, etc. In other parts he is of a "different form" that vanishes in front of people's eyes. He walks through doors. He ascends into Heaven (are we to believe the physical body of Jesus is now in orbit around the Earth?) In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul argues that Jesus now has an imperishable body, but in Acts Paul's sighting of Jesus is presumably a post-ascension sighting and he only sees a light and hears some noise. Paul is a rhetorical trickster who constantly conflates different experiences and tries to compose them into arguments, but in the end his arguments are incoherent. Your argument fails. Sorry.
No, evidence still stands. You ignore it. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Sadly there is no convincing YT closed minded cynics and career atheists like Bart Erhmann whose lifestyles, income and tenure can never admit to the truth of the Gospels.
@@autolatri2027 Meanwhile in reality most Christian historians work for institutions where they have to sign a statement of faith and get fired immediately if they dare to question even the most obvious fairytales of the gospels. Also... a layman like Wallace can make millions of dollars by inventing nonsensical explanations that serious scholars would only laugh at.😂
Faith does not require evidence. Heb 11;1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for the * evidence of things *unseen. If you have been convinced of Messiah Jesus by evidence you will struggle with faith.
@@chrissonofpear1384 Then you remain a nonbeliever. Or you weigh the matter against what you have studied. Examine where you get your knowledge of what God is like. Or what a god should be like. Most gods are both. Even the Daoist. Yen/Yang.
I like how he's smart enough to turn off the comments on his own videos. I wish I was smart enough to not look at the comments. "Of course you're not smart, that's why you're a Christian". There, I saved you the trouble
@@ramigilneas9274 Relevance to my previous point? I think you missed the part of my comment where I said "...his video series have plenty of comments." This implicitly alludes to his channel. Let's see if I can help you out a bit: ruclips.net/video/SCrVTOhaeAM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Ffu9u395Xjc/видео.html That is just a couple of videos from his channel "Cold Case Christianity" and there are plenty of comments. Need more links are proof?
@@rogerfroud300 you have no idea what they are talking about in those verses do you? Those verses, that chapter is a song that the Jews sang about the Babylonia song, what they wished upon them because of what the Babylonians did to them.
@@rogerfroud300 Well, this will be my last message to you, it is a waste of time... you will not believe anything, there is plenty of proof. He is even mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, but like I said, you choose to be blind and in the dark as to the reality of spiritual things, no amount of dialog will change that unless something changes YOU....
@Daniel Hurley one thing I've learned in my life is there are deep thinking large Brain people like yourself I happen to be a very average and Simple minded Man the depth of my philosophy is no match for you I have reach my competency level in every facet of life I may only Proclaim what I believe and I believe in God almighty good luck my friend in your walk through this beautiful place we call home , planet Earth
Great approach, it has been a trend amongst orthodox Jewish kiruv rabbi’s to make Jewish apologetics in a similar manner. I have not yet been able to see Islam defended in a similar convincing way but I haven’t searched for it so far.
Like his description of how a large percentage people believe in Jesus because of an ‘experience’ or that he’s ‘changed their life’ & exactly the same reasons are given for Mormonism, Islam & other religions. We all know Satan is real and that he’s the great deceiver so if you’re unable to offer something far more concrete based on facts your testimony could be just superficial emotionalism or you could have been deceived.
Did you ever notice that apologetics is the business of trying to explain or cover for God's absence, or to try to make sense out of non-sensical things? If God really existed, apologetics wouldn't be necessary.
Stop pretending you think. How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own.1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Lol. I was wondering how God just popped out of nothing. Well, no, he was always here. How do we know that? We accept the proposition that something is eternal, then? Why does the eternal thing have to be God? There appear to be emergent ordering processes in the universe simple enough that it would be insulting to God to claim that it took a God to create it. I really don't want to blame God for something he didn't do. There's a suspect in the crime of creation called "naturalism" that always seems to be lurking in the background, waaay too many coincidences, so is at least an accomplice, but might actually be the mastermind.
That is greatly dependent upon how one defines TRUTH. If truth is not supported by "reliable" and objective facts, evidence, then one's ideas are relegated to the realm of mere opinion. In any other endeavor in human life, do normal people premise their actions upon the opinions of others? Perhaps, depending upon the circumstances. But the "wise" adult human will preface their choices based upon Evidence. And not just nebulous evidence that can be interpreted 5 different ways... I'm talking about OBJECTIVE evidence, things that can be Proven as true to an objective and reasonable observer. None of that applies to the ancient texts of the Hebrews or Christians [they're not the only ones of course]. Human history is rife with unsubstantiated claims and as a result countless people have been tortured, burned alive, murdered, had land and personal possessions taken from them, starved to death, etc. etc. and in the name of one Opinion or another. In order to put a stop to such human disgraces it is necessary to draw conclusions strictly based upon "objective evidence". Nature does not lie. Nature has no motives. Nature has no "self-interest". A tree blown over by wind has no preordained objective or goal. Such things are "just facts". Wallace and his evangelical compatriots will attempt to present certain "facts" to justify their claims, such as biblical texts and testimonies but everyone should know that the presumed authors of those texts were human just like anyone else. And like anyone else their claims needs to be taken with a grain of salt and not taken as fact. ALL of the biblical testimonies were written, not by Moses, not by Jesus and in many cases no one really knows who wrote them. And academic biblical scholars and historians [minus those even slightly convinced of their authenticity] acknowledge those authors just like modern humans had their own objectives, motives, etc. and in the case of the New Testament it is also acknowledged the early Christians "scoured" the Hebrew Bible for any kind of metaphor or euphemism they could plug in to the New Testament to grant the NT some degree of legitimacy. Those ancients were just as creative as "moderns".
Loved every part of this except for the end. Missed a great opportunity for an invitation to non-believers in the audience or even on RUclips to receive Christ.
Zach Routon... From what I've seen here and in some of his other videos, J. Warner Wallace seems to have been invited to that church to give a presentation, not run the whole service. It's quite possible that once Mr. Wallace's time was up, the pastor went up to the podium and gave an alter call for the unsaved. 💕💕🕊✝️💕💕
5:08 touches on one of the biggest reasons I became an atheist. "I was raised in the Church". Due to the fact I was born in the United States to devoutly Catholic parents, I was raised in the Catholic faith. If I had been born in Japan, I would *maybe* have been a Shinto. If I were born in India, I would have been raised a Hindu. If I had been born in the Middle East, I would have been raised a Muslim. Very few who belong to a religion have chosen it. There is a reason baptism into the Catholic Church is done so young. If you could choose to be baptized into the Catholic Church at a later date, very few would probably choose to do it. That's not the only reason I became an atheist, but the sociological aspects of religion were a big contributing factor to the beginning of the end for my time in the Catholic Church.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp First off, it wasn't the only reason I became an atheist. It was just a big contribution to it. I also became an atheist because nothing about religion made any kind of sense from a scientific standpoint. I don't think recognizing the geographic correlation is a bad reason. It's a good starting point. When you realize you are only of a certain religion because of how you were raised, it opens the door.
Mark Schofield okay well it’s a dumb reason to become an atheist. I’ll give you an example: There are people who were brought up Muslim. But just because they are brought up Muslim doesn’t mean anything. Many Muslims are now converting to Christianity. It’s really wherever the evidence leads. The same thing goes for an atheist being brought up as atheist but becomes a Christian etc. Christianity is the only unique and TRUE religion. It’s the only religion that has testable eyewitness accounts of the events described. It’s also the only grace based religion. Almost all religions you have to work your way to get to god, where as in Christianity, god works his way to you. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and you get to enjoy eternal life. “Nothing about religion made any kind of sense from a scientific standpoint” what do you mean by that? There are many religious texts out there that have many scientific inconsistencies and errors but not the Bible. The Bible conforms to the reality of science and doesn’t contradict it unlike other religious texts.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp I'm sorry. As soon as I saw "Christianity is the only unique and TRUE religion", I stopped reading. You and I both know that is absolute hogwash. Many of the things in the Christian mythos were carbon-copied from previous faiths. Christmas was placed at the end of December purely to coincide with Yule to make the "transition" easier for "converts". Everything about Christianity comes from pagan sources or other religions. There are Egyptian and Greco-Roman myths about women giving birth to children with a divine lineage. Christianity is not unique in any way, shape, or form. On the contrary, it is one of the least original religions on the face of the planet. Hell, the Old Testament isn't even Christian, especially the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are, LITERALLY, the Torah. Christianity derives from the Jewish tradition, as does Islam. They both trace back to the Abrahamic myth as a common ancestor. I've got more to my argument, but I'm incredibly tired right now and can't think straight for too much longer.
@Galaxy Guy I will get into those later, because I have heard none of those comparisons. Lucifer, on the other hand, traces back to various other religions, and thus cannot be original to the Christian mythos. I'll get into all of that later.
You need to search the internet because archaeology has proved numerous aspects of the Bible. As for the flood, many scholars believe it was local. As in the whole cradle of civilization.
@@michaelbrickley2443 If the flood was local then the story no longer makes any sense. If Noah was just a guy who saved his family and a dozen animals from a flood until he reached land a few hours later then the story no longer has that much impact.
A must watch a must listen to a Real True Testimony of how my True Almighty God the eternal Abba Father the Lord Jesus Christ hath saved me from dying on 1/08/2016 right here ruclips.net/video/Qi2zQztjgHE/видео.html Amen.
Modern Christianity is based on the teachings of a murderer and Satanist, Saul/Paul, who was also called the liar and the deceiver. I am glad that I follow Jesus and his teachings.
Why is it only in the latest gospel, the gospel of John (c. 95 A.D.) that Jesus describes himself as the son of God? When he says in the other gospels that he is the messiah, did he mean it with the common Jewish apocalyptic expectation of the time, as a literal earthly king of the Jews? Is this why he keeps his messiahship secret in the earliest gospel, Mark, and only utters one thing during the crucifixion: "my god, why have you forsaken me?"
Mormons believe that Jesus is Lucifer’s brother; they also teach that they can become gods- which of course contradicts scripture they claim to ascribe to... Isaiah 43:10 before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. The entire Book of Mormon also contradicts scripture by its very existence... Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
I have listened with great interest to other lectures by Mr Wallace and find him a fine speaker. However I am puzzled by the entry in Luke 24: 42-48 which states “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” But where was Jesus ever mentioned or written about in this Law of Moses?
Edward Longfellow Glad your interested in this. I always found this to be a rather compelling case for Christianity. Attached is a site from a seminary where they address this topic. www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/Jesus-in-the-Old-Testament.cfm If that is still not enough many other seminaries also deal with this question. Hope this is what you’re looking for.
@Robert Dunn You state "Every story, every prophecy ever written from Genesis on up to Malachi was all about Jesus." I find your comments quite fascinating and curious, seeing that nowhere in Genesis is the name Jesus (Yeshua) ever mentioned.
@Robert Dunn Is-'the entire Tanach (the Old Testament) full of every promise of God regarding Jesus' as you say? Because I have never come across any such wording in my reading of the OT.
@Robert Dunn I am afraid your imagination is running away with you Robert. The so-called serpent in the garden was never a reptile but obviously a title bestowed on the unknown personage who spoke to Adam and Eve. we might read that a person spoke to the chair and the chair answered but we know exactly what this means. Chair as in chairman is a title, a position. So it is with the 'Serpent' And it seems rather pointless for God to tell a snake that it must now crawl on its belly-because that is what snakes do.Therefore the Garden story does not feature a talking snake. Furthermore the 'Serpent' was never alluded to in Garden story as Satan despite stories made up centuries later. As for King David, why would there be any descendent who would wish to be associated with this treacherous man? Even God despised him at one stage saying "Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because [you have not only despised My command, but] you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus says the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun. ( II Samuel 12:10-12 (AMP) And the notion that the Messiah would be descended from the seed of King David does not inspire confidence knowing the character of David. Moreover, what would be the point of raising up a prophet like Moses? 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you." Of course the contradiction to the notion that this alluded to Jesus is found in the words-"You shall listen to him." For how could the people of Moses listen to a prophet they would not see in their lifetime? Jesus would not be born for centuries to come? Therefore this claim is completely invalid.
@@edwardlongfellow5819 Sacrifices from beginning to Christ. From the animal slain in the garden to cover Adam and Eve, all the way to Christ, sacrifices are made to cover sin. In most cases, young, spotless, male lambs. Jesus is the final, young, spotless, male, sacrificial lamb that was foreshadowed in all of the events leading up to the crucifixion.
OK, first question. How can he say the 3 answers he outlines in the beginning are "good answers" when they can be given for what he and his audience obviously believes are false religions. If they are good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, then they would also have to be good reasons to believe the other religions to be true. So obviously they are NOT good answers. OK, he does say they need better answers. So, first problem he talks about evaluating "eye witnesses," but there is NO eyewitness testimony in the New Testament. No scholar without an ideological reason for denying that this is true thinks that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. That of course doesn't mean that nothing in the NT is true or that none of it possibly extends back to accounts from eyewitnesses, but there is no direct eyewitness testimony in it. Most of it is not eyewitness by a long shot, but rather nth hand copies of copies of people who wrote down stories that had previously circulated for decades by word of mouth. The closest we can get to eyewitness accounts are perhaps the writings of Paul, because we can be pretty sure that Paul wrote MOST of the epistles attributed to him. However, Paul never claims to be an eyewitness to anything but his own encounters with the risen Christ, which as described don't seem to be physical encounters of any kind. Yes, it seems likely that Paul indeed personally knew several of the other apostles, but the exact nature of their relationship is hard to suss. Acts makes it out to be rather good, but Pauls own accounts are of a more fraught relationship. As for this guys dating of Acts as having been written before the destruction Jerusalem--BIG PROBLEM--because even skeptical scholars such as Ehrman, who knows this stuff FAR better than this guys does, Luke and Acts were written by the same author and Luke's gospel betrays the authors knowledge of the destruction of the temple "5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” Of course, a believer can say it only shows his knowledge of Jesus' having foreseen the destruction of the temple, but approaching it with any skepticism one should consider this at least possible evidence that the author of Luke was writing after 67-70 AD. Most commonly among all but fundamentalist Biblical scholars, the authorship of Acts is dated from between 80-90 AD.
Y "eye witnesses," but there is NO eyewitness testimony in the New Testament. No scholar without an ideological reason for denying that this is true thinks that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations. See; earlychristianwritings.com/ see top Pre Markien accounts.. You have many errors. Many Liberal Christian and atheist NT scholars believe the gospels came from sources that were written during the life of Jess or shortly after See theoretical Q. Plus Early non biblical letters from the early apostolic Church Fathers. quote from the NT gospels Showing they existed before their lives. You may be correct about the gospels we read now or the autograph canonical copies. As they went through addendums. earlychristianwritings.com/
This guy discovered all of this that he speaks on when he wasn’t a Christian so him trying to be biased is questionable. Also read “Case for Christ”. Lee Strobel was an atheist as he collected evidence to disprove Jesus being the Son of a God and the Bible and ended up becoming a Christian.
@@kelseynicole9661 The conversion story of Strobel is completely invented. He converted in 1981… but the interviews and the investigation that he describes in his book took place 1995-1998 when he was already a pastor for a decade. Also… in that book he suspiciously only interviewed religious fundamentalists who hold the most fringe views among historians.😉
Guy does well overall . As far as why Our Heavenly Father would allow pain and suffering in the world , The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' knowledge of a "pre -mortal" life helps to put this into perspective .
As a former Christian and former fundamentalist, this is just crude fundamentalism with a shiny veneer. It is in John's gospel that some of Jesus disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist, but this is inconsistent with the synoptic gospels. Moreover, why is he assuming that tax collector Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew. No one claims authorship! It is pure supposition that the author of Matthew was once an outsider hostile to Jesus. Like any fundamentalist, this speaker assumes he knows things he doesn't. He should carefully read Bart Ehrman.😇
How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
On the subject of evidence. Please if you have a piece of a puzzle even if you feel it maybe not be anything on a crime PLEASE REPORT IT TO COLD CASE IN YOUR AREA. It may be the missing piece to solve the case on a crime. It could give the victims family piece of mind on their loved ones and be the missing piece to solve the case.
Well. How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Penal substitution and vicarious redemption are immoral . The most immoral choice a person can make is to allow an innocent person to be executed in their just place . That destroys the very principal that justice is meant to uphold . It does nothing to solve the problem . Its a terrible trick that makes you the worst of the worst and reveals true depravity ! Like Comment Share
Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox Christians don’t accept Penal substitution as how Jesus saved us. To them, it’s more about the the blood of Jesus having the supernatural ability to cleanse and heal the soul of sin.
@Daniel Hurley Especially when x has thousands of unknowns. We know x is true because it is translated thousands of different ways so we can just pick the one we like and say "See its true" .
"The Sprit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God". I do not need visible proofs. "God's true children "walk by faith, not by sight". Stop trying to intellectualize the lost. "Ye MUST be born of the Spirit" - Jesus
Wallace is just a sophist. If someone wrote lies about Jesus Christ during his lifetime, and someone complained about it, how would we know? We would only know if the complainant wrote down the complaint, and it was preserved for a couple of thousand years. That would require a lot of people with a vested interest in preserving this complaint. What could that vested interest be? The truth? Pardon me for saying, but humans are just not that enamored of the truth. But there's another reason that is equally acceptable. That is, that Jesus Christ didn't exist at all. If that was the case, there wouldn't be anyone interested in defending him. By the way, any lawyer will tell you eyewitness testimony is the shakiest evidence of all. Circumstantial evidence is much less prone to be false.
@Philo of Eruditia So that doesn't change the statement. If there was a possibility of one word in the bible from a god would you read it until you found it ?
@Philo of Eruditia The first principal of faith is seeing or believing without proof from the natural word. But what is sensed from the esoteric spiritual world. It cannot be detected by natural means. That is why we call it supernatural . If it could be proved using natural reason or logic it would not be supernatural. So i guess the only evidence would be circustancial and that observed from its effect on the world throughout history . .
@Philo of Eruditia All Artist works are not a word or words from a god. Some are inspired by god. Some of the bible is inspired. Some not. The books that make up the bible are many different types of writings. Some very old but non should be compared to modern or even early modern literature. And should not be said to be true unless one knows what it was intended to be. Or the purpose or meaning it is claiming.
Why we know christianity is true: Noah's ark, slavery, Samson's magical hair, talking snakes, human child sacrifice, burning people alive for imaginary crimes.
adfasd NOAH’S ARK - You would have to be more specific about what objections you have. There are tons of topics about Noah’s ark that could be covered. It is hard to explain everything about the ark in a blanket statement. SLAVERY- When we think of slavery, we think of the horrible types of slavery such as the slavery that was in America or the Middle East. The Bible does NOT permit that slavery (1 Timothy 1:8-10 says that enslavers are lawless, disobedient, ungodly sinners). Paul wanted to dismantle such a horrible institution. When the Bible talks about “slaves” submitting to their masters, and their masters treating them with fairness, it means something totally different. When Paul was talking about slaves in that context, he was talking about servants that were many times actually considered family. If you have a caretaker or housekeeper or even someone who mows your lawn, do you consider them your slaves? Are you enslaving them? No, they are just people helping you. Many times, you become good friends with them and they may even become close enough to be considered family. The Bible was telling people to treat those kinds of people with kindness, love, and respect as they were subject to exploitation and mistreatment. Many people today may even treat workers, or in Biblical kind of language, servants, terribly. The Bible says to treat them with fairness. If you are working for someone who treats you with respect, wouldn’t you not have a problem submitting to them? That’s what the Bible means when it tells masters to treat their servants with respect and servants to submit to their masters. It is better to just say servant in this case, to get the meaning across. SAMSON’S HAIR- Samson was a Nazarite, to be dedicated to God from the womb. It was a command not to cut Samson’s hair. His hair was representative of his dedication to God, and his strength. His strength was from God. His uncut hair was simply a sign of obeying God’s command for him to be a Nazarite. When Samson’s hair was cut, and he was placed in the arena, he was able to push down the pillars. Not because of his “magical” hair, but because of God’s strength. TALKING SNAKES - The snake was not talking. The devil was talking to Eve. The devil just used the snake to capture Eve’s attention so he could talk to her. HUMAN CHILD SACRIFICE- God completely prohibited child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5). It is a horrific and demonic practice. Many ancient peoples who worshipped false gods sacrificed their children to them. This was a total abomination to God. An example of a place that did so was Canaan. They committed horrible child sacrifice. For hundreds of years, God was merciful enough to them and he sent prophet after prophet to warn them to stop. The Canaanites did not listen. Finally, after not listening, they received their punishment. God ended the wicked ways of the Canaanites by sending an army of Israelites to destroy Canaan. They would not stop their horrific practices despite God’s warnings, so God ended it. If you are referring to Abraham and Isaac - God was just testing how obedient Abraham was to God. Before Abraham killed Isaac, God stopped him from doing so. God would not make Abraham go through with an action that He prohibits. BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE FOR IMAGINARY CRIMES - What are you referring to when you say this? All I can think of is the Inquisition, or when the Catholic Church seized too much power and became corrupt and burned people who they thought were heretics at the stake. The Bible forbids murder, and the death penalty is only used when necessary - and the death penalty is not burning people alive. Burning people alive is horrible. So, why do we know Christianity is true? I suggest you actually watch this video with an open mind and open heart.
@@joshuaperrone7706 God tests abraham by telling him to kill his son.... this has NOTHING to do with an open heart. This has to do with you being indoctrinated by an ancient iron age death cult. I would say to you to open your heart and ask why a God of the universe would test someone by telling them to kill a child.. sickening that you can't understand this was written by psychospaths.
@@joshuaperrone7706 also interesting that you say Judaism prohibited child "sacrifice" yet there are bible verses commanding the killing of children of neighboring tribes and taking virgin girls as sex slaves. - Numbers 31:15-18 Burning people alive and stoning can be found in the bible as well.. barbaric and to a person who is not indoctrinated it is repulsive.
adfasd Here is a direct answer to the troubling verses you mentioned. It is only 6 minutes. Please watch it. It answered my questions too. ruclips.net/video/lgOMwRmmH_Y/видео.html
We have several non-christian authors that wrote about Jesus. Open your Bible and you'll find abt 40 of them. The men who wrote our Christian Bible were not Christian but rather Jewish. Drop the Mic
But they wrote after they became Christians… so none of them weren’t Christians. Also… none of the authors of the Old Testament wrote about Jesus or would have accepted him as the Messiah. *drops an even bigger 🎤.
So you conclude the universe just happened on its own? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
So the gospels aren't consistent, just look at the varying accounts of the encounter at the tomb. The gospel writers are unknown, and were all educated Greek speakers, unlike the apostles who were illiterate Aramaic speakers. No really knows who wrote them and we don't have the originals, just copies of copies of copies and we know these copies change over time. He mentions the Council of Nicea, but well before then there were many branches of Christianity with mutually exclusive views of Jesus' divinity. No one witnessed the virgin birth and no one could follow a star. There wasn't a census obligating people to go to the town of their ancestors. So you have to decide whether you take it literally in which case the Bible isn't inerrant, or you have to take it figuratively, which is a poor way to order your affairs. Not to mention the many versions of each of the gospels.
A must watch a must listen to a Real True Testimony of how my True Almighty God the eternal Abba Father the Lord Jesus Christ hath saved me from dying on 1/08/2016 right here ruclips.net/video/Qi2zQztjgHE/видео.html Amen.
Luke is traditionally thought to be the writer of luke and acts but the manuscripts were anonymous and modern scholars don't believe he wrote them. The same holds true for the other gospels, they were anonymous and the church always they were written by the person named in the title because we want that person to have written the book. Once this is known the rest of his argument falls to pieces, the chain of custody is broken.
Why would they intentionally lie? They really didn't have anything to gain from it. In fact they were going against the culture, religion and got persecuted for this testimony.
"Isn't it possible we're all living in a computer, right now, like the matrix?" Well no, it isn't possible, because God didn't make a computer, he spoke and made the heavens and earth. So to say that's possible, isn't right. In fact, it's nigh blasphemous.
@Delon Duvenage I don't have to look at the Video i have a handle on reality and you don't I said the subject matter here ( Bible) is not supported anywhere else outside the Bible You are a deluded coward and i am a expert who can detect persons who don't know the Bible you are hiding behind your ignorance
@Delon Duvenage Hubble Telescope can see light generated about 10-15 billion light-years God did not create light about 6000 years ago... get your head out of tho hole
@Delon Duvenage What a pile of firth Hubble Telescope can see light generated about 10-15 billion light-years God did not create light about 6000 years ago... get your head out of tho hole You are a deluded coward
Interesting Wallace makes a great case that defies everything he tries to assert. 1. Anyone Present - No. 2. Can it be verified? There are no authoritative sources as to whether any disciples even existed. No reliable religious scholar truly knows or even believes that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. 3. Accurate; No. the Gospels contradict themselves many times and even contradict Paul's epistles. The Catholic Church destroyed almost all "heretical" writings including those of fellow Christians (gnostics etc) and forged many others. 4. Biased; yes. The Romans and subsequently the Roman Catholic Church created Christianity to unify their empire. It's well know how much wealth the church gained and how many witnesses they killed over the years (Crusades, Inquisition etc). Wallace wouldn't have "a prayer" of winning this case in court. Fortunately for him, he's preaching to the choir:)
@Philo of Eruditia Paul is one of the most quoted figures in the bible (he actually wrote stuff) and he just CLAIMED to see the ghost/spirit of Jesus, of course christians never look for other or more reasonable explanations.
The authors of the Gospels did not seek to investigate the truth, but to write books that people would believe in their truth, so it is impossible to compare the Gospels to the investigation of murder for many years after all those involved are no longer among the living.
detective j warner wallace reminds me of the dexter show character but if he was healthy instead of corrupt. maybe he will look over the lady found in water tank mystery case. wink wink
For another good apologetic show check out www.cavetothecross.com or check it out on youtube here - ruclips.net/channel/UCFr4iNerb0HEEfidOyGmnmg
Could you send me the pdf with the notes?
I’m glad to see
Thank you. This video helped me stay here.
@melanievictoriamontoya9682 kw
How 😅you feel 1:07
I teach Christian Religious instruction in public schools in Queensland, Australia. On behalf of my students, I bless you, in Jesus’ name.
Do you think that christianity needs reform
@@natalieh7037 thats horrible
@@theguyver4934absolutely NOT
God bless from a fellow Christian and Australian from Victoria
Religious instructions?
One of my favorite speakers. Hope to hear him in person sometime. I am currently reading his books. He has absolutely done his research. So happy for him that he found Jesus and became a Christian so he could share with all of us.
what book he shared his testimony?...thanks in advance
Be grateful he listened to the voice of the Shepherd.
@@kikomaru4366, look up J. Warner Wallace, Gods’ Crime Scene…numerous videos on RUclips. One is as if he is presenting the case to a jury/judge. Wonderful stuff
what? he is an idiot.
@@michaelbrickley2443also Person Of Interest
Hallelujah, 🙏 I am a Christian because it is true! Amen
Just found you. I love your unique ministry. There is someone for everyone to relate to and get the good news.
I am a Christian because it’s the only evidenced based truth (world view) that explains my moral reality.
I’m a Christian because I’m a sinner in need of a savior.
So in yours own words you are a Christian because you are a needy person.
@@vejeke no, because he thinks. Something you don't do much. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Sure man, I'm the one who doesn't think too much. 🤭
Keep appealing to thermodynamics to justify your belief in the guy with magical powers who was born of a virgin. With that and the comments about other people's limited brains you've been making for years I'm sure you'll eventually quell your insecurities.
So thankful for his wise and orderly words, helping always to teach us to defend our faith. For we know, if he could tell the disrespect for Christians in 2017, it is more so now, may God help us to be that light on a hill. May God continue to bless his message.
Disrespect for Christians? Where are you referring to?
you can not reasonably defend your faith. you get disrespected because you are stupid.
@@louiscyfer6944 I pray got save you and guide you to the light, in Jesus' name.
@@lorkhan5994 got save me?
@@louiscyfer6944 I meant God
This was great brother. I so appreciate your honest insightful message. Maranatha.
Walter Debnam
Hank Moody
Newton was one of the greatest ever Minds yet couldnt speak Greek so got everything wrong about the Bible and even Chemistry!
Reading the Bible in English is the worst way to fathom it because of the many copies,redactions and forgeries...so you have just made a fallacy!
@@rationalsceptic7634 i compare the greek words or hebrew translations with an English translation.
Junior Vieira
The Greek and Aramaic don't work...Christ spoke Aramaic, so Christ obviously didn't speak the words attributed to him...more evidence of Forgery..why would God need to forge the Bible??
@@rationalsceptic7634 Regardless, all christians believe Jesus came to die on the cross and give his life so that we can be saved through him. THAT is the Bible. THAT is the what matters not a different word used here or there. It makes no difference. Youre just complicating the simple.
@@rationalsceptic7634 This is a ridiculous nonsensical objection. Jewish thought, mindset, beliefs and Hebraic word plays, colloquialisms, sayings etc. and accurate geographic references to 1st century Judea and the Galil absolutely permeate the New Testament writings, hiding in plain sight of the Greek text - especially the Gospels. The short answer to such an objection is the Gospel writers chose Greek because they were aiming at a much larger audience than just Judea and the Galil. Same thing applies to today - ministries seeking to bring the Gospel to a world wide audience use English to communicate the message, regardless of their native tongue. It makes no sense to do otherwise.
Thank you for uploading this.
Thank you Lord for this man working so hard and tirelessly to find the truth may you bless him and keep him amen
Sounds similar to Dr Hugh Ross, who since early on in their lives discovered God, and most likely came to the ultimate conclusion that everything we are doing and came from, came from our Creator....God.
Lying for Jesus is a core tenet of christianity
i AM A cHRISTIAN, BECAUSE WHEN i AM JUDGED i WOULD BE FOUND GUILTY, BUT jESUS DIED TO PAY THE COST OF MY SINS! I was born a sinner and get stuff wrong and so its by grace that I am saved. Thank you Jesus.
Nice mythology
I hope you watched the video
1. So you can basically go around and sin without being found guilty and being judged by your actions since Jesus had already died for your sins and saved you? If that's the case, then what are your purpose in this life, since you have already passed the test and will get to heaven? If you are having a miserable life, you could by your own beliefs theory get over with it by killing yourself and go straight to heaven without enduring the hardships in life, because why not?? You have a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so why not skip the hard and boring part of living on earth?
2. Since Jesus "died for our sins" around 2000 years ago, that would mean that those people who have died since the death of Jesus would be forgiven, because they died after Jesus made a statement about him dying for our sins. So my question is; what about those people who died before the given event? Would they also be forgiven or does it only count for the people who died after the event? If no, then wouldnt that mean that God is unfair to his own creation? For example: If a sinner for 3000 years ago, goes to hell because jesus was not yet alive at that time to die for his sin, and a sinner from 1000 years ago goes straight to heaven because he got saved by gods grace, then that would mean as said before; god is unjust to his own creation, meaning that he treats a creation in another fashion as he treats an equal being, only because they were born in a different time, which by the way, they have zero control over.
If you are arguing against my statement above, and saying that he died for every human being on earth, then why all the fuss about us living on earth? What are the reasons for humankind to have stayed on earth since Adam and Eve, if god knew that Jesus would come down and die for our sins, and don't come and tell me that god didnt knew, then why would he even be god?
I am not trying to mock Christianity, but all these statements of yours are self-contradicting, and these are just some of the few self-contradicting statements among many.
ghannizaki once born again, the Holy Spirit indwells us and leads us to walk in Holiness . Thus loving the things God loves and hating the things that He hates .
J Warner Wallace, God bless! Praise the Lord for you!
God bless you. Thank you for talking about this and doing what you do for the Faith.
love listening to wallace talk about these things, it is so needed in our ranks!
This is a wonderful presentation
Praise God for His Truth . Thank you Mr Wallace.
I like Jim and his unique approach to apologetics 😃👐🏼 God bless him 🙏🏽
Dd S explain what’s wrong with what he says? He’s telling the truth.
@Dd S Dude you're like in every video and every other comment just hating on this guy
@Dd S It'd seem moreso if you spent time addressing his claims rather than appealing to (a supposedly lack of) character
@Dd S I think that's your job. I'd rather do my homework alone and decide for myself
@Dd S Hmm. If you read back, I don't think I ever asked a question nor put a question mark.
By the way, all the apostles were believers because of their own experiences and encounters with Jesus, nothing wrong there. Apologetics is great, but I would say it is a bonus to personal experience. If you ask Paul why he became a Christian and a believer, it is his encounter with Jesus. Same for Peter, James, John, etc...they saw the risen Christ or they had some other personal experience with Jesus.
I liked everything (as an agnostic person), but I feel like the part where he talks about motives to lie being only in 3 categories is wrong. People lie for safety, people lie to make others feel better(ex. Lying to a dying person, that they'll get better), people lie because they want to believe that what they are saying is true so bad, etc.
He probably didn't clarify but he's is referring in regards to conspiracy. Remember that all apostles died for what they saw and what they testified to. They had no motive to commit conspiracy and the evidence stacks in favor of the eye witness accounts.
Its not necessarily that they lie they can be wrong. Eyewitnesses arent always reliable can be mistaken
@@MadDogGaming
The gospels aren’t eyewitness accounts.
The authors don’t identify themselves, they don’t identify their sources, they don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they got their informations from eyewitnesses.
It’s just anonymous hearsay.
And there is barely any evidence for the martyrdom of the disciples… and even less evidence that they specifically died for their belief in the resurrection.
I've seen God's Not Dead II - love what you did with the part.
I was raised in the church briefly became atheist then back to Christianity. I have seen the work of God and been able to explain with probable evidence. The only thing I have yet to do is figure out a way that life could exist without some sort of intelligent design. So either this is real and God is real or this is a simulation and the intelligent designer is a programmer of sorts. Possibly we are experiencing different angles of reality under the illusion that we are all individuals, but in fact we are one being of magnificent intellectual ability that has simply decided to meditate on what it would be like to experience a world with set natural laws.
I think what you’ve been looking for is a place called heaven. It’s not known to follow laws of physics. Not bound by time, and we will be in glorified bodies, made of spirit, which also breaks known laws on earth. We are bound to these laws because they are easy for us to understand. Very malleable.
It is indeed a brilliant presentation.
Great content!!!!!!
Some clothing
Fulfilled prophecies is what makes the Bible true
Like what?
Michael Grimes not true at all, there are plenty of fulfilled prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived
Michael Grimes just look up the book of Daniel
@@albusai
That was written long after the fact.😂
Good insight as always Jim.
He wants the Christian to have better answers as to why he believes. How about not embracing the damned religion until you know it's true in the first place? You have already swallowed Jesus, now you want to go back in to the teachings to scour for reasons. false securities, that give you comfort in the thing you have already swallowed. This is exactly what every branch of religion does; believe first, come up with good reasons later...
Exactly!
Congratulations Keith, you are immune to evidence!
@@CerealDust-nStuff
Wallace didn’t present any credible evidence… only fringe nonsense that all actual historians disagree with.
It’s strange that someone like him who gives so many presentations and examined the evidence for years refuses to talk with anyone who challenges the nonsense he believes in.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 - that's quite an assumption to think that he hasn't ever been challenged considering he's one of the best cold-case murder investigators in the world. When he was an atheist, he took his skill-set and investigated the claims of The Testament... basically the falsify it. I suggest maybe you should look into this a little bit further, but in the meantime, what nonsense do you think he presented?
@@CerealDust-nStuff
The gospels aren’t eyewitness testimony.
The authors don’t identify themselves, don’t identify their sources, don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses.
That’s the textbook definition of hearsay.
His only connection to the time of when John was possibly still alive are Papias and Irenaeus… but we don’t have any writings of them where they actually claim that they were his students or that they ever met him… it’s just church tradition from the 4th century.
Also… his dating of the gospels is way off… even the vast majority of Christian historians agree that the earliest gospel (Mark) was written between 65AD and 75AD.
He also doesn’t seem to care that much that Matthew and Luke got most of their informations from the gospel of Mark and copied most of it word for word.
I bet in his real cases he would think that they collaborated.😂
To make it short… his expertise as a cold case investigator isn’t applicable to historical sources like the gospels.
And like I already said… he refuses to defend his views against anyone who disagrees with him.
But there is a funny video where he gets corrected by his fellow Apologist Michael Licona… who explains to him why the synoptic problem is so problematic.😉
There is so many factors to consider in an incredible critical thought.
This is fantastic. God bless from Kalgoorlie, Australia :)
Question: how do you know if Jesus taught the truth or taught anything for that matter? Being that the gospels were preserved through oral transmission, latter shifting into oral tradition.
How could any text have been reliability written down accurately after 40-90+ years since the actual events occured?
I would direct you to the popular works of Dr. Michael J Kruger who answers your questions way better than what a RUclips comment would.
@@CalvaryBibleChurchKzoo - Great, thank you for the information.
Precisely!
I enjoyed this! Thank you!
@noelhausler8006this is so easy to explain I’m surprised nobody has answered you.
First things first you have to understand what the Gospels even are. They are eyewitness accounts. There’s going to be incomplete information between them.
However these accounts don’t contradict, they have supplementary information.
They all claim the same thing with varying degrees of information.
We also have to know what the Gospels are not claiming to be. They are not supposed to be exhaustive narratives. Each of the Gospel writers felt different information was more important than other information.
They also likely don’t have the exact same list of people to interview. Hence why we get slightly different accounts.
The Gospels are a collection of eye witness accounts from both the authors, as well as people they interviewed, and the end result is piecing together these events to get the historical narrative.
I don’t suspect this to convert you, but if nothing else the fact that the four Gospels ARENT exactly the same actually helps our case, as it dispels any conspiracy.
Why do you think God chose to reveal himself in Jesus at a time in history when we had no video, no photography when Jesus spoke in a rudimentary language spoken by only few, that subsequently died out and expects us to accept the recounting by mostly people who never actually met Jesus because Jesus if he could read and write, never actually wrote anything down?
The New Testament writers actually knew Jesus, and Jesus was sent to do a job and that job wasn’t to write down his teachings and such. For ur first question idk why God decided to reveal himself when he did but it was really effective
@@dreyko166
It was only effective because his followers gained political power hundreds of years later.😂
Jesus had almost no measurable impact during the 1st century.
@@ramigilneas9274 because they didn’t have social media. Now look at the impact, the whole world knows Jesus one way or another.
@@dreyko166
Sure, but the impact didn’t have anything to do with the truth of Christianity.
In hindsight it looks more like a coincidence that Christianity gained political power and not one of the thousands of other cults.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 maybe because it’s true 🤷🏼
I think people want to know the sources outside the early believers because when challenged by athiests you can go to that too as skeptics will claim the Christian sources are biased. Yes its ungrounded as you've explained. As Christians we already believe so we don't need to know the corroboration from the non Christian sources just for being challenged
awesome, nothing but the truth
Love this guy!
Wallace proves you can be a crime scene investigator using logic and believe in the supernatural at the same time.
He is a rare exception and pretty much all other crime scene investigators would disagree with him just like almost all actual historians.
@@ramigilneas9274 then show how smart you are. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block
Easy… if matter and energy can not be created or destroyed then they must have existed forever in some form and only changed states for all eternity.
It’s funny how the best arguments that Xtians have to offer always boil down to a god of the gaps fallacy: Science hasn’t discovered the real answer yet, therefore Gawd!🥴
I dont know what church he belongs to but we know christianity is true because of the whiteness of the spirit, same as Simon.
If you get a paper, don't know who wrote it, who the witness is or if the witness was near what happend, would you take that to court?
There are exactly zero eyewitness accounts in the Bible. The gospels were written by anonymous authors speculating about what someone in the past may or may not have seen, handed down by word of mouth. That is hearsay, not eyewitness.
Prove it...
You obviously don’t know the gospel
@@hotgirl6665
Well... just read the gospels.
The authors don’t tell us who they are and don’t tell us where they got their information from.
They don’t even claim that they spoke with eyewitnesses.😂
This is just a variation of one of the 3 reasons people always give for why they believe in things. In this case, he's simply defending the story of people he's decided he can trust, which is exactly what people are doing when they believe in something because they were raised in it; in other words, because somebody told them it was true and they trusted that person's judgment so they believe it too. That's how religion propagates across generations. But he's also only justifying the story of Jesus' ministry and *not* Christianity which includes so many more things that cannot be found in the gospels but are instead derived through reason. Not surprisingly he just assumes a lot of things, such that Jesus literally walked on water, or that eyewitnesses can be trusted (as opposed to lying) to accurately report, or that Christian sources have no bias in favour of believing, and then uses those assumptions as a fact to prove later facts. That's a form of circular reasoning. He indicates his own bias when he states he's a Christian "because it's true" when the only thing he can really say--especially as a cop--is that he's a Christian because the *available* *evidence* *indicates* *it's* *more* *true* *than* *not.* IMO (for what it's worth and that might not be much) this is a poor defense of Christianity that only works for people already believing or predisposed to believe. It certainly wouldn't get him a win in court.
A lot of what you say also applies to materialists. Specifically, deciding who you can trust, being in an environment where everyone else believes the same thing, trusting one source who also based their statements upon another source. These things are all a form a circular reasoning as well. When he says "I'm a Christian because it's true", this is in fact a summary statement because he's made an investigation. Remember, he himself was once an atheist who considered Christianity foolish and unbelievable. Getting where he is now from where he was then should validate his motives and his thought processes.
The "more true than not" is a legitimate method to arrive at the truth, especially when the reality is that we already recognize that we are finite creatures simply incapable of knowing everything.
To assume that everything must be reliable to the degree that we ONLY can use the scientific method is simply foolish. Christianity is dealing with a different dimension of our existence equivalent to history. You can repeat history. The best you can do ascertain it and say that it is more true than it is not.
I have another tool that you can use to test the reality of God if you're interested. Just let me know. It's a tool that going to take a higher order of thinking, and is rather challenging. Hint: It has to do with "You were created in the image of God".
@@kennorthunder2428 Aye, well said...what I said applies to everyone because that's how people operate. I didn't mention scientific reasoning however, just that his arguments are not a very good apology for Jesus specifically and Christianity generally, having only a veneer of reason and logic and scientific inquiry but really just statements of faith. Not sure why you think I need something to test the reality of God, tho.
Every word Jesus ever uttered is absolutely true and when asked by his disciple Thomas to tell him where He was going and to show him the way. Jesus replied with the most perfect statement ever made by man saying, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' John 14:6. Simply analyze each word and see what you come up with. For instance the, 'I am' ......statement, the name given by God to Moses at the burning bush, is Jesus' claim, that He is God himself. Again in John 8: 58, Jesus tells the Jews, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' Just think about it!
"Every word Jesus ever uttered is absolutely true" - but how do you know?
The biggest failed prophecy is Jesus assuring the disciples that he will return with the end times before that generation passed away. Mark 13:30 Luke 9:27 Oops!
Like
Comment
Share
That's not what He predicted at all. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
Did anyone get those resources? Couldn't find that hidden page :(
I find it interesting that the scriptures were all written by believers in Jehovah mostly Jews and possibly one gentile from Genesis to Revelation and yet so many Jews don’t read or believe this book and the ones that do read it don’t believe it it tell us of the love of God (Jehovah) who made us and by the death of Jesus Christ we are saved if we believe in Him
I have been making the arguments that Wallace is making here in reference to the datings of Acts, and Luke, and for me it is big time sound and on point, but for some strange reasons many scholars just will not accept it, it is crazy frustrating.
This also reminds me of the power biased prejudice has over people, and being highly intelligent, is not an antidote. i’ve known people who were not only intelligent, but who also would look at problems or controversies, or whatever, using objective reasoning skills, to come to a conclusion. But that all went out the window, if the topic dealt with anything that they might have highly biased prejudiced feelings about. And evidently the members of his family who are Mormons, and who he also claims cannot scrutinize what they believe in order to validate it to themselves or to someone else if questioned. And no doubt they’ve heard this video, if not more of his talk’s, and probably have read his book.
But not because they were looking for truth, evidently, or were interested for any reason, other than curiosity, since he was a close family member.
But they’re still Mormons, no matter what, and nothing is going to change their minds.
Such is the power of bias prejudice. But I was lucky like he was, in the sense that I had no bias, one way or another, and I just wanted to know what was true. And like him, it allowed me to believe without needing any faith, or very little anyway. And I guess I wasn’t overly surprised when I discovered that there were so many people who were devout believers in Jesus Christ, but had been prior devout atheists. But not just devout atheists ,but highly intelligent and well-known academic people, who set out to disprove the Bible, by dissecting it with historical research that would prove its falsehoods. And so that’s what motivated them, but instead it did the opposite and proved its accuracy and trustworthiness.
And they all used to different words in how they described it, but they all pretty much were saying the same thing in their conclusions. For example, they were all saying, that they found themselves backed into a corner, where they were forced to make a decision, whether to sacrifice their integrity, or their atheism, but they couldn’t keep both.
So you were talking about the Gospel of Luke being written early, and then you jump to talking about Gospel of John having a chain of custody up to the council. There is a disconnect in your argument. John was written quite a bit later, and is thematically very different from the 3 Synoptic gospels. The authorship of John or any of the gospels are not well established. They are anonymous. You are worried about later scribes changing the content, but there are significant differences between the gospels and there absolutely were changes.
1) The earliest version of Mark ends at verse 8 with no sighting of Jesus (although there's a young man dressed in a white robe, presumably an angel? - why bother arguing about the resurrection of Jesus if we can prove angels exist!!!). Mark verses 9 - 19 adds in a couple brief, vague sightings (one of them in a "different form") and it adds in all that funny business about not dying of snake bites and poison.
2) John chapter 21 is clearly an additional chapter written, rather transparently, to confirm Peter as the leader of the church. The last verse of chapter 21 is the same as the last verse of chapter 20, so it has obviously been added on.
3) 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't even make mention of a tomb, only that Jesus was "buried".
The Bible itself can't even explain the physical form of the resurrected Jesus. Some parts insist it is a physical body with wounds and eats with people, etc. In other parts he is of a "different form" that vanishes in front of people's eyes. He walks through doors. He ascends into Heaven (are we to believe the physical body of Jesus is now in orbit around the Earth?) In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul argues that Jesus now has an imperishable body, but in Acts Paul's sighting of Jesus is presumably a post-ascension sighting and he only sees a light and hears some noise. Paul is a rhetorical trickster who constantly conflates different experiences and tries to compose them into arguments, but in the end his arguments are incoherent.
Your argument fails. Sorry.
Is this information still available in PDF?
If Mr. Wallace was accused of a crime and the evidence was a letter from an anonymous author i would hope the case would be thrown out.
Fantastic strawman argument!
No, evidence still stands. You ignore it. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Sadly there is no convincing YT closed minded cynics and career atheists like Bart Erhmann whose lifestyles, income and tenure can never admit to the truth of the Gospels.
The truth is that the gospels are mostly fiction with no confirming extrabiblical evidence.
@@ramigilneas9274 way to be a example of his comment.!
@@autolatri2027
Meanwhile in reality most Christian historians work for institutions where they have to sign a statement of faith and get fired immediately if they dare to question even the most obvious fairytales of the gospels.
Also... a layman like Wallace can make millions of dollars by inventing nonsensical explanations that serious scholars would only laugh at.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 you hit the nail on the head.
Faith does not require evidence. Heb 11;1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for the * evidence of things *unseen. If you have been convinced of Messiah Jesus by evidence you will struggle with faith.
And if we are not convinced god can be a saviour and a jeopardiser at once...?
@@chrissonofpear1384 Then you remain a nonbeliever. Or you weigh the matter against what you have studied. Examine where you get your knowledge of what God is like. Or what a god should be like. Most gods are both. Even the Daoist. Yen/Yang.
I like how he's smart enough to turn off the comments on his own videos. I wish I was smart enough to not look at the comments. "Of course you're not smart, that's why you're a Christian". There, I saved you the trouble
Who, J. Warner Wallace? Comments are not off for his videos.
@@michaelwill7811
They are... always.
@@ramigilneas9274 Is this a J. Warner Wallace video? I am pretty sure we are commenting. As well, his video series have plenty of comments.
@@michaelwill7811
Is this his channel?😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Relevance to my previous point? I think you missed the part of my comment where I said "...his video series have plenty of comments." This implicitly alludes to his channel. Let's see if I can help you out a bit:
ruclips.net/video/SCrVTOhaeAM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Ffu9u395Xjc/видео.html
That is just a couple of videos from his channel "Cold Case Christianity" and there are plenty of comments. Need more links are proof?
Christ died for our sins and rose again. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
He's right... Jesus Christ rose from the dead to redeem me if I believe, then I will have access to God the father, and life Eternal...
@@rogerfroud300 you have no idea what they are talking about in those verses do you? Those verses, that chapter is a song that the Jews sang about the Babylonia song, what they wished upon them because of what the Babylonians did to them.
@@rogerfroud300 Well, this will be my last message to you, it is a waste of time... you will not believe anything, there is plenty of proof. He is even mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, but like I said, you choose to be blind and in the dark as to the reality of spiritual things, no amount of dialog will change that unless something changes YOU....
This was 2017!
At the end, he mentioned the culture and how it made it hard to believe.
2023 is probably WAY more messed up than he was expecting!
Agreed 👍
@@isanna6075 🙏
The most important gospel is your gospel to your family and friends
@Daniel Hurley one thing I've learned in my life is there are deep thinking large Brain people like yourself I happen to be a very average and Simple minded Man the depth of my philosophy is no match for you I have reach my competency level in every facet of life I may only Proclaim what I believe and I believe in God almighty good luck my friend in your walk through this beautiful place we call home , planet Earth
Do you have to hate father and mother (by comparison)?
Great approach, it has been a trend amongst orthodox Jewish kiruv rabbi’s to make Jewish apologetics in a similar manner. I have not yet been able to see Islam defended in a similar convincing way but I haven’t searched for it so far.
Islam can't be defended.
Like his description of how a large percentage people believe in Jesus because of an ‘experience’ or that he’s ‘changed their life’ & exactly the same reasons are given for Mormonism, Islam & other religions. We all know Satan is real and that he’s the great deceiver so if you’re unable to offer something far more concrete based on facts your testimony could be just superficial emotionalism or you could have been deceived.
Did you ever notice that apologetics is the business of trying to explain or cover for God's absence, or to try to make sense out of non-sensical things? If God really existed, apologetics wouldn't be necessary.
Stop pretending you think. How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own.1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block
Lol. I was wondering how God just popped out of nothing. Well, no, he was always here. How do we know that? We accept the proposition that something is eternal, then? Why does the eternal thing have to be God? There appear to be emergent ordering processes in the universe simple enough that it would be insulting to God to claim that it took a God to create it. I really don't want to blame God for something he didn't do. There's a suspect in the crime of creation called "naturalism" that always seems to be lurking in the background, waaay too many coincidences, so is at least an accomplice, but might actually be the mastermind.
That is greatly dependent upon how one defines TRUTH. If truth is not supported by "reliable" and objective facts, evidence, then one's ideas are relegated to the realm of mere opinion. In any other endeavor in human life, do normal people premise their actions upon the opinions of others? Perhaps, depending upon the circumstances. But the "wise" adult human will preface their choices based upon Evidence. And not just nebulous evidence that can be interpreted 5 different ways... I'm talking about OBJECTIVE evidence, things that can be Proven as true to an objective and reasonable observer. None of that applies to the ancient texts of the Hebrews or Christians [they're not the only ones of course]. Human history is rife with unsubstantiated claims and as a result countless people have been tortured, burned alive, murdered, had land and personal possessions taken from them, starved to death, etc. etc. and in the name of one Opinion or another. In order to put a stop to such human disgraces it is necessary to draw conclusions strictly based upon "objective evidence". Nature does not lie. Nature has no motives. Nature has no "self-interest". A tree blown over by wind has no preordained objective or goal. Such things are "just facts".
Wallace and his evangelical compatriots will attempt to present certain "facts" to justify their claims, such as biblical texts and testimonies but everyone should know that the presumed authors of those texts were human just like anyone else. And like anyone else their claims needs to be taken with a grain of salt and not taken as fact. ALL of the biblical testimonies were written, not by Moses, not by Jesus and in many cases no one really knows who wrote them. And academic biblical scholars and historians [minus those even slightly convinced of their authenticity] acknowledge those authors just like modern humans had their own objectives, motives, etc. and in the case of the New Testament it is also acknowledged the early Christians "scoured" the Hebrew Bible for any kind of metaphor or euphemism they could plug in to the New Testament to grant the NT some degree of legitimacy. Those ancients were just as creative as "moderns".
Loved every part of this except for the end. Missed a great opportunity for an invitation to non-believers in the audience or even on RUclips to receive Christ.
Zach Routon... From what I've seen here and in some of his other videos, J. Warner Wallace seems to have been invited to that church to give a presentation, not run the whole service. It's quite possible that once Mr. Wallace's time was up, the pastor went up to the podium and gave an alter call for the unsaved. 💕💕🕊✝️💕💕
Wallace never talks with anyone who challenges his fringe views.😉
5:08 touches on one of the biggest reasons I became an atheist. "I was raised in the Church". Due to the fact I was born in the United States to devoutly Catholic parents, I was raised in the Catholic faith. If I had been born in Japan, I would *maybe* have been a Shinto. If I were born in India, I would have been raised a Hindu. If I had been born in the Middle East, I would have been raised a Muslim. Very few who belong to a religion have chosen it. There is a reason baptism into the Catholic Church is done so young. If you could choose to be baptized into the Catholic Church at a later date, very few would probably choose to do it. That's not the only reason I became an atheist, but the sociological aspects of religion were a big contributing factor to the beginning of the end for my time in the Catholic Church.
I’m sorry but that’s a dumb reason to become an atheist
@@TyrellWellickEcorp First off, it wasn't the only reason I became an atheist. It was just a big contribution to it. I also became an atheist because nothing about religion made any kind of sense from a scientific standpoint. I don't think recognizing the geographic correlation is a bad reason. It's a good starting point. When you realize you are only of a certain religion because of how you were raised, it opens the door.
Mark Schofield okay well it’s a dumb reason to become an atheist. I’ll give you an example: There are people who were brought up Muslim. But just because they are brought up Muslim doesn’t mean anything. Many Muslims are now converting to Christianity. It’s really wherever the evidence leads. The same thing goes for an atheist being brought up as atheist but becomes a Christian etc. Christianity is the only unique and TRUE religion. It’s the only religion that has testable eyewitness accounts of the events described. It’s also the only grace based religion. Almost all religions you have to work your way to get to god, where as in Christianity, god works his way to you. All you have to do is believe in Jesus and you get to enjoy eternal life. “Nothing about religion made any kind of sense from a scientific standpoint” what do you mean by that? There are many religious texts out there that have many scientific inconsistencies and errors but not the Bible. The Bible conforms to the reality of science and doesn’t contradict it unlike other religious texts.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp I'm sorry. As soon as I saw "Christianity is the only unique and TRUE religion", I stopped reading. You and I both know that is absolute hogwash. Many of the things in the Christian mythos were carbon-copied from previous faiths. Christmas was placed at the end of December purely to coincide with Yule to make the "transition" easier for "converts". Everything about Christianity comes from pagan sources or other religions. There are Egyptian and Greco-Roman myths about women giving birth to children with a divine lineage. Christianity is not unique in any way, shape, or form. On the contrary, it is one of the least original religions on the face of the planet. Hell, the Old Testament isn't even Christian, especially the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) are, LITERALLY, the Torah. Christianity derives from the Jewish tradition, as does Islam. They both trace back to the Abrahamic myth as a common ancestor. I've got more to my argument, but I'm incredibly tired right now and can't think straight for too much longer.
@Galaxy Guy I will get into those later, because I have heard none of those comparisons. Lucifer, on the other hand, traces back to various other religions, and thus cannot be original to the Christian mythos. I'll get into all of that later.
Science in the Bible? How did the earth stand still upon command of Joshua? Why is there no evidence of the flood in the geological record?
You need to search the internet because archaeology has proved numerous aspects of the Bible. As for the flood, many scholars believe it was local. As in the whole cradle of civilization.
Maybe the fact itself that the Earth is covered by water in proportion of 80%?
@@michaelbrickley2443
If the flood was local then the story no longer makes any sense.
If Noah was just a guy who saved his family and a dozen animals from a flood until he reached land a few hours later then the story no longer has that much impact.
I am a Christian because of fulfilled Bible prophecy... Never heard that one?
So good, so true.
A must watch a must listen to a Real True Testimony of how my True Almighty God the eternal Abba Father the Lord Jesus Christ hath saved me from dying on 1/08/2016 right here ruclips.net/video/Qi2zQztjgHE/видео.html Amen.
Modern Christianity is based on the teachings of a murderer and Satanist, Saul/Paul, who was also called the liar and the deceiver. I am glad that I follow Jesus and his teachings.
Have you donated everything you have to the poor and live as if the end of the world is imminent?
Why is it only in the latest gospel, the gospel of John (c. 95 A.D.) that Jesus describes himself as the son of God? When he says in the other gospels that he is the messiah, did he mean it with the common Jewish apocalyptic expectation of the time, as a literal earthly king of the Jews? Is this why he keeps his messiahship secret in the earliest gospel, Mark, and only utters one thing during the crucifixion: "my god, why have you forsaken me?"
Mormons believe that Jesus is Lucifer’s brother; they also teach that they can become gods- which of course contradicts scripture they claim to ascribe to...
Isaiah 43:10
before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
The entire Book of Mormon also contradicts scripture by its very existence...
Galatians 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Which "we" are you referencing?
The theist we, or do you presume "we" defines the rest of us?
I have listened with great interest to other lectures by Mr Wallace and find him a fine speaker.
However I am puzzled by the entry in Luke 24: 42-48 which states “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” But where was Jesus ever mentioned or written about in this Law of Moses?
Edward Longfellow Glad your interested in this. I always found this to be a rather compelling case for Christianity. Attached is a site from a seminary where they address this topic.
www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/Jesus-in-the-Old-Testament.cfm
If that is still not enough many other seminaries also deal with this question. Hope this is what you’re looking for.
@Robert Dunn
You state "Every story, every prophecy ever written from Genesis on up to Malachi was all about Jesus." I find your comments quite fascinating and curious, seeing that nowhere in Genesis is the name Jesus (Yeshua) ever mentioned.
@Robert Dunn
Is-'the entire Tanach (the Old Testament) full of every promise of God regarding Jesus' as you say? Because I have never come across any such wording in my reading of the OT.
@Robert Dunn
I am afraid your imagination is running away with you Robert.
The so-called serpent in the garden was never a reptile but obviously a title bestowed on the unknown personage who spoke to Adam and Eve.
we might read that a person spoke to the chair and the chair answered but we know exactly what this means. Chair as in chairman is a title, a position. So it is with the 'Serpent'
And it seems rather pointless for God to tell a snake that it must now crawl on its belly-because that is what snakes do.Therefore the Garden story does not feature a talking snake. Furthermore the 'Serpent' was never alluded to in Garden story as Satan despite stories made up centuries later.
As for King David, why would there be any descendent who would wish to be associated with this treacherous man? Even God despised him at one stage saying "Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because [you have not only despised My command, but] you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus says the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun. ( II Samuel 12:10-12 (AMP)
And the notion that the Messiah would be descended from the seed of King David does not inspire confidence knowing the character of David.
Moreover, what would be the point of raising up a prophet like Moses?
'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you." Of course the contradiction to the notion that this alluded to Jesus is found in the words-"You shall listen to him." For how could the people of Moses listen to a prophet they would not see in their lifetime? Jesus would not be born for centuries to come? Therefore this claim is completely invalid.
@@edwardlongfellow5819 Sacrifices from beginning to Christ. From the animal slain in the garden to cover Adam and Eve, all the way to Christ, sacrifices are made to cover sin. In most cases, young, spotless, male lambs. Jesus is the final, young, spotless, male, sacrificial lamb that was foreshadowed in all of the events leading up to the crucifixion.
OK, first question. How can he say the 3 answers he outlines in the beginning are "good answers" when they can be given for what he and his audience obviously believes are false religions. If they are good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, then they would also have to be good reasons to believe the other religions to be true. So obviously they are NOT good answers. OK, he does say they need better answers.
So, first problem he talks about evaluating "eye witnesses," but there is NO eyewitness testimony in the New Testament. No scholar without an ideological reason for denying that this is true thinks that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses. That of course doesn't mean that nothing in the NT is true or that none of it possibly extends back to accounts from eyewitnesses, but there is no direct eyewitness testimony in it. Most of it is not eyewitness by a long shot, but rather nth hand copies of copies of people who wrote down stories that had previously circulated for decades by word of mouth. The closest we can get to eyewitness accounts are perhaps the writings of Paul, because we can be pretty sure that Paul wrote MOST of the epistles attributed to him. However, Paul never claims to be an eyewitness to anything but his own encounters with the risen Christ, which as described don't seem to be physical encounters of any kind. Yes, it seems likely that Paul indeed personally knew several of the other apostles, but the exact nature of their relationship is hard to suss. Acts makes it out to be rather good, but Pauls own accounts are of a more fraught relationship. As for this guys dating of Acts as having been written before the destruction Jerusalem--BIG PROBLEM--because even skeptical scholars such as Ehrman, who knows this stuff FAR better than this guys does, Luke and Acts were written by the same author and Luke's gospel betrays the authors knowledge of the destruction of the temple "5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” Of course, a believer can say it only shows his knowledge of Jesus' having foreseen the destruction of the temple, but approaching it with any skepticism one should consider this at least possible evidence that the author of Luke was writing after 67-70 AD. Most commonly among all but fundamentalist Biblical scholars, the authorship of Acts is dated from between 80-90 AD.
Y "eye witnesses," but there is NO eyewitness testimony in the New Testament. No scholar without an ideological reason for denying that this is true thinks that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.
See; earlychristianwritings.com/
see top Pre Markien accounts..
You have many errors. Many Liberal Christian and atheist NT scholars believe the gospels came from sources that were written during the life of Jess or shortly after See theoretical Q. Plus Early non biblical letters from the early apostolic Church Fathers. quote from the NT gospels Showing they existed before their lives. You may be correct about the gospels we read now or the autograph canonical copies. As they went through addendums.
earlychristianwritings.com/
This guy discovered all of this that he speaks on when he wasn’t a Christian so him trying to be biased is questionable. Also read “Case for Christ”. Lee Strobel was an atheist as he collected evidence to disprove Jesus being the Son of a God and the Bible and ended up becoming a Christian.
@@kelseynicole9661
The conversion story of Strobel is completely invented.
He converted in 1981… but the interviews and the investigation that he describes in his book took place 1995-1998 when he was already a pastor for a decade.
Also… in that book he suspiciously only interviewed religious fundamentalists who hold the most fringe views among historians.😉
Atheists raise up.
Guy does well overall . As far as why Our Heavenly Father would allow pain and suffering in the world ,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' knowledge of a "pre -mortal" life helps to put this into perspective .
As a former Christian and former fundamentalist, this is just crude fundamentalism with a shiny veneer. It is in John's gospel that some of Jesus disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist, but this is inconsistent with the synoptic gospels. Moreover, why is he assuming that tax collector Matthew wrote the gospel according to Matthew. No one claims authorship! It is pure supposition that the author of Matthew was once an outsider hostile to Jesus. Like any fundamentalist, this speaker assumes he knows things he doesn't. He should carefully read Bart Ehrman.😇
How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Great speaker..
On the subject of evidence. Please if you have a piece of a puzzle even if you feel it maybe not be anything on a crime PLEASE REPORT IT TO COLD CASE IN YOUR AREA. It may be the missing piece to solve the case on a crime. It could give the victims family piece of mind on their loved ones and be the missing piece to solve the case.
There is no credible evidence for any of the baseless propositions presented in the bible. THAT is what is truely miraculous.
Well. How did you make it past the first verse of the bible about God creating? Do tell how it happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Penal substitution and vicarious redemption are immoral . The most immoral choice a person can make is to allow an innocent person to be executed in their just place . That destroys the very principal that justice is meant to uphold . It does nothing to solve the problem . Its a terrible trick that makes you the worst of the worst and reveals true depravity !
Like
Comment
Share
Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox Christians don’t accept Penal substitution as how Jesus saved us. To them, it’s more about the the blood of Jesus having the supernatural ability to cleanse and heal the soul of sin.
"How we can know x is true," is less meaningful when the person giving the explanation has a vested interest in x.
I wouldn't mind there being something. But nothing I've been told about heaven convinces me it is safe or stable.
About why one THIRD of the angels might mysteriously grow prideful and rebellious, perhaps?
@Daniel Hurley Especially when x has thousands of unknowns. We know x is true because it is translated thousands of different ways so we can just pick the one we like and say "See its true" .
"The Sprit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God". I do not need visible proofs. "God's true children "walk by faith, not by sight". Stop trying to intellectualize the lost. "Ye MUST be born of the Spirit" - Jesus
Wallace is just a sophist. If someone wrote lies about Jesus Christ during his lifetime, and someone complained about it, how would we know? We would only know if the complainant wrote down the complaint, and it was preserved for a couple of thousand years. That would require a lot of people with a vested interest in preserving this complaint. What could that vested interest be? The truth? Pardon me for saying, but humans are just not that enamored of the truth. But there's another reason that is equally acceptable. That is, that Jesus Christ didn't exist at all. If that was the case, there wouldn't be anyone interested in defending him. By the way, any lawyer will tell you eyewitness testimony is the shakiest evidence of all. Circumstantial evidence is much less prone to be false.
Many think every word in the bible must be of god to be perfect and true . But to the atheist only one word needs to be from god for them to be wrong.
@Philo of Eruditia So that doesn't change the statement. If there was a possibility of one word in the bible from a god would you read it until you found it ?
@Philo of Eruditia The first principal of faith is seeing or believing without proof from the natural word. But what is sensed from the esoteric spiritual world. It cannot be detected by natural means. That is why we call it supernatural . If it could be proved using natural reason or logic it would not be supernatural. So i guess the only evidence would be circustancial and that observed from its effect on the world throughout history . .
I have heard music that i feel is divine. Such as the early composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozark . truly inspired by God and most genius are.
@Philo of Eruditia All Artist works are not a word or words from a god. Some are inspired by god. Some of the bible is inspired. Some not. The books that make up the bible are many different types of writings. Some very old but non should be compared to modern or even early modern literature. And should not be said to be true unless one knows what it was intended to be. Or the purpose or meaning it is claiming.
The whole Book of Numbers is fairly serious grounds for thinking a lot of the information is suspect...
To quote Tonto "what you mean we white man?".
Why we know christianity is true: Noah's ark, slavery, Samson's magical hair, talking snakes, human child sacrifice, burning people alive for imaginary crimes.
adfasd
NOAH’S ARK - You would have to be more specific about what objections you have. There are tons of topics about Noah’s ark that could be covered. It is hard to explain everything about the ark in a blanket statement.
SLAVERY- When we think of slavery, we think of the horrible types of slavery such as the slavery that was in America or the Middle East. The Bible does NOT permit that slavery (1 Timothy 1:8-10 says that enslavers are lawless, disobedient, ungodly sinners). Paul wanted to dismantle such a horrible institution. When the Bible talks about “slaves” submitting to their masters, and their masters treating them with fairness, it means something totally different. When Paul was talking about slaves in that context, he was talking about servants that were many times actually considered family. If you have a caretaker or housekeeper or even someone who mows your lawn, do you consider them your slaves? Are you enslaving them? No, they are just people helping you. Many times, you become good friends with them and they may even become close enough to be considered family. The Bible was telling people to treat those kinds of people with kindness, love, and respect as they were subject to exploitation and mistreatment. Many people today may even treat workers, or in Biblical kind of language, servants, terribly. The Bible says to treat them with fairness. If you are working for someone who treats you with respect, wouldn’t you not have a problem submitting to them? That’s what the Bible means when it tells masters to treat their servants with respect and servants to submit to their masters. It is better to just say servant in this case, to get the meaning across.
SAMSON’S HAIR- Samson was a Nazarite, to be dedicated to God from the womb. It was a command not to cut Samson’s hair. His hair was representative of his dedication to God, and his strength. His strength was from God. His uncut hair was simply a sign of obeying God’s command for him to be a Nazarite. When Samson’s hair was cut, and he was placed in the arena, he was able to push down the pillars. Not because of his “magical” hair, but because of God’s strength.
TALKING SNAKES - The snake was not talking. The devil was talking to Eve. The devil just used the snake to capture Eve’s attention so he could talk to her.
HUMAN CHILD SACRIFICE- God completely prohibited child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5). It is a horrific and demonic practice. Many ancient peoples who worshipped false gods sacrificed their children to them. This was a total abomination to God. An example of a place that did so was Canaan. They committed horrible child sacrifice. For hundreds of years, God was merciful enough to them and he sent prophet after prophet to warn them to stop. The Canaanites did not listen. Finally, after not listening, they received their punishment. God ended the wicked ways of the Canaanites by sending an army of Israelites to destroy Canaan. They would not stop their horrific practices despite God’s warnings, so God ended it.
If you are referring to Abraham and Isaac - God was just testing how obedient Abraham was to God. Before Abraham killed Isaac, God stopped him from doing so. God would not make Abraham go through with an action that He prohibits.
BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE FOR IMAGINARY CRIMES - What are you referring to when you say this? All I can think of is the Inquisition, or when the Catholic Church seized too much power and became corrupt and burned people who they thought were heretics at the stake. The Bible forbids murder, and the death penalty is only used when necessary - and the death penalty is not burning people alive. Burning people alive is horrible.
So, why do we know Christianity is true? I suggest you actually watch this video with an open mind and open heart.
@@joshuaperrone7706 you know noahs ark was mostly plagiarized from a previous sumerian religion before yahwism right?
@@joshuaperrone7706 God tests abraham by telling him to kill his son.... this has NOTHING to do with an open heart. This has to do with you being indoctrinated by an ancient iron age death cult. I would say to you to open your heart and ask why a God of the universe would test someone by telling them to kill a child.. sickening that you can't understand this was written by psychospaths.
@@joshuaperrone7706 also interesting that you say Judaism prohibited child "sacrifice" yet there are bible verses commanding the killing of children of neighboring tribes and taking virgin girls as sex slaves. - Numbers 31:15-18
Burning people alive and stoning can be found in the bible as well.. barbaric and to a person who is not indoctrinated it is repulsive.
adfasd Here is a direct answer to the troubling verses you mentioned. It is only 6 minutes. Please watch it. It answered my questions too. ruclips.net/video/lgOMwRmmH_Y/видео.html
In my experience Truth doesn't exist in the God of the bible as claimed
Excellent congratulations 📣💞🇬🇧
A good stuart doesn't Express disdain
We have several non-christian authors that wrote about Jesus. Open your Bible and you'll find abt 40 of them. The men who wrote our Christian Bible were not Christian but rather Jewish. Drop the Mic
But they wrote after they became Christians… so none of them weren’t Christians.
Also… none of the authors of the Old Testament wrote about Jesus or would have accepted him as the Messiah.
*drops an even bigger 🎤.
I think this guys problem is that he already has his conclusions before looking at 'evidence'. Im glad he's not a cop where I live.
He was an atheist when he first started investigating
@@TheMrSONIC4 I dont know his personal history, Im talking about his presentation.
So you conclude the universe just happened on its own? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
When he said David Warner I thought he's talking about Australian player..
So the gospels aren't consistent, just look at the varying accounts of the encounter at the tomb. The gospel writers are unknown, and were all educated Greek speakers, unlike the apostles who were illiterate Aramaic speakers. No really knows who wrote them and we don't have the originals, just copies of copies of copies and we know these copies change over time. He mentions the Council of Nicea, but well before then there were many branches of Christianity with mutually exclusive views of Jesus' divinity. No one witnessed the virgin birth and no one could follow a star. There wasn't a census obligating people to go to the town of their ancestors. So you have to decide whether you take it literally in which case the Bible isn't inerrant, or you have to take it figuratively, which is a poor way to order your affairs. Not to mention the many versions of each of the gospels.
Excellent teacher
brilliant.
A must watch a must listen to a Real True Testimony of how my True Almighty God the eternal Abba Father the Lord Jesus Christ hath saved me from dying on 1/08/2016 right here ruclips.net/video/Qi2zQztjgHE/видео.html Amen.
Luke is traditionally thought to be the writer of luke and acts but the manuscripts were anonymous and modern scholars don't believe he wrote them.
The same holds true for the other gospels, they were anonymous and the church always they were written by the person named in the title because we want that person to have written the book.
Once this is known the rest of his argument falls to pieces, the chain of custody is broken.
His Siri Falls apart if any of the writers of the Bible were intentionally lying
Why would they intentionally lie?
They really didn't have anything to gain from it. In fact they were going against the culture, religion and got persecuted for this testimony.
Really Great!
U know, it seems like both sides of the comment section are a bit too aggressive... I'm on one of the sides though so I guess I'm biased eh
"Isn't it possible we're all living in a computer, right now, like the matrix?"
Well no, it isn't possible, because God didn't make a computer, he spoke and made the heavens and earth. So to say that's possible, isn't right. In fact, it's nigh blasphemous.
@Delon Duvenage
Nothing complicated about a religion that has a book full of absurdities and is never supported outside of itself
@Delon Duvenage
I don't have to look at the Video i have a handle on reality and you don't
I said the subject matter here ( Bible) is not supported anywhere else outside the Bible You are a deluded coward and i am a expert who can detect persons who don't know the Bible you are hiding behind your ignorance
@Delon Duvenage
Hubble Telescope can see light generated about 10-15 billion light-years
God did not create light about 6000 years ago... get your head out of tho hole
@Delon Duvenage
What a pile of firth
Hubble Telescope can see light generated about 10-15 billion light-years
God did not create light about 6000 years ago... get your head out of tho hole
You are a deluded coward
@Delon Duvenage
There are NO contemporary historical scholars who wrote about Jesus
Did Moses write about his death ?
All BS
Interesting Wallace makes a great case that defies everything he tries to assert. 1. Anyone Present - No. 2. Can it be verified? There are no authoritative sources as to whether any disciples even existed. No reliable religious scholar truly knows or even believes that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. 3. Accurate; No. the Gospels contradict themselves many times and even contradict Paul's epistles. The Catholic Church destroyed almost all "heretical" writings including those of fellow Christians (gnostics etc) and forged many others. 4. Biased; yes. The Romans and subsequently the Roman Catholic Church created Christianity to unify their empire. It's well know how much wealth the church gained and how many witnesses they killed over the years (Crusades, Inquisition etc). Wallace wouldn't have "a prayer" of winning this case in court. Fortunately for him, he's preaching to the choir:)
@Philo of Eruditia Paul is one of the most quoted figures in the bible (he actually wrote stuff) and he just CLAIMED to see the ghost/spirit of Jesus, of course christians never look for other or more reasonable explanations.
The authors of the Gospels did not seek to investigate the truth, but to write books that people would believe in their truth, so it is impossible to compare the Gospels to the investigation of murder for many years after all those involved are no longer among the living.
Financial, sexual, pursuit of power....the exact things that bring down evangelical preachers.
detective j warner wallace reminds me of the dexter show character but if he was healthy instead of corrupt. maybe he will look over the lady found in water tank mystery case. wink wink