Its just pity that you would not give your valuable time to investigating and thus adding to real world science instead of entertaining yourself with pseudo science.
@@mentalwarfare2038 Theology is solely based on the belief in magic. Science like logic is based on the reality of the real world and not an imaginary one. You could build a theology around the world of Harry Potter and like christian theology all you would end up with is an empty vessel.
@@jim2003sound I understand your frustration. If all that exists is the material world, why waste time considering claims of miracles? If miracles are impossible, they are impossible; why bother investigating claims we already know cannot be true? It is pointless, even if it is a bit circular. In the worldview of materialist naturalism, all that exists is atoms and particles. In that case, as Daniel Dennett explains, the mind is solely a product of physical processes in the brain, without any need for a soul or immaterial component. He stated, "We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else-mere matter." Bertrand Russell also came to this conclusion, saying... "Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins-all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand." As I read your comment, "Its just pity that you would not give your valuable time to investigating and thus adding to real world science instead of entertaining yourself with pseudo science," I get the sense that you agree with Russell and Dennett; while it is bleak, in the end, if this is true, then the pursuit of truth, any truth, is meaningless because there is no way for us to find it. From nothing we came, in nothing we are, and to nothing we go. If this is true, then you are right; listening to leading scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman is pointless because he is nothing more than a pseudo-scientist doing pseudoscience. If we are, as Russell claims, "the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving," that is, we did not evolve to seek truth; the goal of evolution is survival. If this is true, then all science is pseudoscience. Science is as faith-based as any religion, as Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science and an atheist, pointed out when he compared science to religion: "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, without meaning and morality." Paul Feyerabend is another atheist philosopher who discussed the idea that science involves a form of faith. He argued that science is not purely objective and can function similarly to a belief system: "The separation of science and non-science is not a straightforward matter of fact. Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit." Feyerabend believes that, like religion, science operates within certain assumptions and paradigms that are not always empirically justified but accepted as a matter of trust. For this reason, and if this is true, all science is pseudoscience because, as Russell pointed out, “our beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms.” Thank you for your reply.
The only thing that bothers me about Dr. Habermas is that he dismisses everyone who is not a scholar. Does he really think only scholars have the right to speak or have opinions? I'm not sure I'm hearing or understanding him right.
Idk if he dismisses laymen. I think when people make outrageous claims, he likes to say that even critical scholars with doctorate degrees don’t agree with such skepticism.
@@tc4878 - I've read his books, taken courses online that he teaches, listened to most of his online videos. It's comments like the one around the 27 minute mark that I'm talking about. He has said this numerous times over the years. He seems to have contempt for anyone who is not a scholar, but I acknowledge I could be reading him wrong. It's just he says this frequently. Sometimes the criticism of non-scholars is more blatant. When I first began listening to him, his minimal facts approach was different. He really dug deep into the naturalistic theories against the resurrection, and he swatted them away like flies. Over the years, he keeps tweaking his approach, and it's all geared toward the scholars. Scholars don't bring up naturalistic theories anymore because they know they're been scorched by apologists like Habermas. The problem is, the world is not all scholars, and most skeptics still bring up the naturalistic theories. Few are equipped to answer them because the scholars don't address them anymore. Those arguments are still needed. Only answering the scholars seems to matter. I think the approach leaves everyone else behind.
Truth stands. If i come in my name, they will ask me for a sign. Though i am the word, the living one embodying my truth. Truth will blind them, but those who are mine will know who I am. My name is hidden, but my name come with meanings. I come in half time, i come at perfect time
Ive been homeless, ive been imprisoned. Didnt i say this before? Even though ive been with you for such a long time. You said you didnt know, then you did
To gain or retain credibility on any academic topic you need to respond to your biggest critics, if not then you get criticized for dodging them. Not that a layman doesn't have answers too, but you need to address the "experts first and foremost." Just like the average athlete hanging out at the community center gym might have something to say about competitive basketball, but wouldn't you appreciate hearing about that subject from someone like...Michael Jordan?? Habermas, and the guys he refers to are experts in their fields, the Michael Jordans, and have put the work in to be authoritative. Don't take it personal, we cant all be Michael Jordan's lol. Plus!! If Habermas doesn't approach his defense for Christianity the way he does, referring to critics and scholars, he wouldn't even get through the doors of the world's universities to share is message. The academic world would reject him, especially if he quoted the novice armchair scholars of the world. He would get laughed off the campus. That's the world he operates in.
Perhaps one reason is that Muslims and Mormons make similar claims about their books and scholarship of this sort helps to identify which book is more historically reliable.
@@philly5330 good point. With that in mind, I think it is quite clear we have better documentation, eyewitness testimony, and preservation of original manuscripts that testifies to the historical accuracy of Mormonism.
@@Nsrslrs Yeah, one of the significant issues with the Church of Latter Day Saint's historical credibility is the Book of Abraham. The fact that the Quran is one of the fews sources reporting Jesus wasn't crucified and it was written 600 years after Jesus lived, while an atheist like Bart Ehrman reports 15 independent sources within 100 years of Jesus's life for the crucifixion, diminishes the historical credibility of Islam.
An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign... And they have the Resurrection. (Matthew 12:39-40) For us, believers, we have the bible. (John 20:29)
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one.
@@EvilXtianity I dont disagree. But are you really suggesting Mark didnt believe Jesus had been raised? It's also possible there was a longer ending to Mark, now lost. Scholars have different opinions, eg the ending we have is the original end due to the length of parchment available. I dont know, but I wouldnt be surprised if Mark purposefully ended his Gospel like that, with a knowing nod to his readers. At the time of writing, Mark and everyone else knew He had been raised...
Jesus said he is in all of us. If you believe him, it is yours. People will say there he is, but who do YOU say I am? do you now believe? Do you think i will not test your faith? Have you not heard? I come in many faces, i come in many names. I come in the name the father gives me. If you can hear the truth you will know who I am.
"Creedal reports _probably_ circulated within months after resurrection." So much for the "historical sources". With so much _certainty_ I can't see a single person believing this man. Also "data for the deity of Christ" - In other words: let's use science-based vocabulary and apply it to the faith. So a deity can be measured, right? Right....
So disingenuous about Alexander the Great we have monumentla evidence constructed in Alexander's lifetime. We have contemporary accounts of Alexander from those he conquored and from his generals, one of whom Ptolemy went to found an Egyption dynasty. Jesus is much like the Buddah in that we have no eyewitness accounts of his life, no extra-biblical sources that are not just the teahicngs of Christians regurgitated - we don't really know what Jesus taught or did and se certainly no nothing about his birth.
Alexander left PHYSICAL evidence of his existence and the things he did. Jesus left NOTHING. We only have stories told by people who were trying to convince other people that he was the messiah. And almost all of them were anonymous. Habermas has been beating this same dead horse for the last 40 years.
@@philly5330 By calling things facts when they are not. For instance, he says James was not a believer before Jesus' death. There is NO evidence for this. Most of his "facts" are just part of the story. A story told by people trying to convince others that Jesus was the messiah.
The fact that the Quran is one of the fews sources reporting Jesus wasn't crucified and it was written 600 years after Jesus lived, while an atheist like Bart Ehrman reports 15 independent sources within 100 years of Jesus's life for the crucifixion, diminishes the historical credibility of Islam.
If you don´t include astrotheology you will never come to a point to understand this whole Story. There might have been a itinerant preacher around that time called Joshua, who was talking wise, but there was no real virgin birth (this is just about planet and star-constellations) and there was no resurrection, because dead people don´t come back to life. The only thing which is coming (if you see it poetically or in a deep sense of understanding the narrativ - mythological) back every year to LIFE again is our SUN. The cross is in the zodiac and separates the circle into 4 sections and those sections are the four gospels. Just look at very very early depictions of the gospels then you will see a taurus, a lion, a scorpion or eagle and the waterbearer! So, this discussions between so called Scolars, Scientists, or Believers are senseless if you don´t include this!!!!
Sounds like that nonsense from the zeitgeist that was floating around like 15 years ago. Looked into all that. Ended up combing through history and the sources and realized Jesus Christ was a man, and the profound implications behind that. Pride and arrogance often stands in the way of progress.
@@hannesseebacher While there is some symbolism to be found, it refers back to the old testament, not to the paganism you've been lost in. I suggest you research the topic more.
@@midimusicforever Sorry, that might be your idea to see,it but since you have not the slightest Idea of what I know, I would suggest you keep on believing whatever you believe.
A world class expert. Wonderful to have this.
Thank you Dr. Habermas. God bless you.
Thanks for sharing 🙏🏿
His grace and mercy be upon you and your loved ones 🕊️🥛🍯
There is evidence of biblical place names, but there is no evidence of a God, that's why nobody won an award for finding him or her.
Thank you, Dr. Habermas.
I am taking Theology and Apologetics at Liberty and his course now. It is very good.
Probably the most useless qualification you could hold. People who believe don't need you, and those that don't will not be convinced.
Its just pity that you would not give your valuable time to investigating and thus adding to real world science instead of entertaining yourself with pseudo science.
@@jim2003soundscience is good, God is better. You’ll never see the purpose of Theology without some kind of fundamental supernatural belief.
@@mentalwarfare2038 Theology is solely based on the belief in magic. Science like logic is based on the reality of the real world and not an imaginary one. You could build a theology around the world of Harry Potter and like christian theology all you would end up with is an empty vessel.
@@jim2003sound I understand your frustration. If all that exists is the material world, why waste time considering claims of miracles? If miracles are impossible, they are impossible; why bother investigating claims we already know cannot be true? It is pointless, even if it is a bit circular.
In the worldview of materialist naturalism, all that exists is atoms and particles. In that case, as Daniel Dennett explains, the mind is solely a product of physical processes in the brain, without any need for a soul or immaterial component. He stated, "We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else-mere matter."
Bertrand Russell also came to this conclusion, saying...
"Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins-all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."
As I read your comment, "Its just pity that you would not give your valuable time to investigating and thus adding to real world science instead of entertaining yourself with pseudo science," I get the sense that you agree with Russell and Dennett; while it is bleak, in the end, if this is true, then the pursuit of truth, any truth, is meaningless because there is no way for us to find it. From nothing we came, in nothing we are, and to nothing we go. If this is true, then you are right; listening to leading scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman is pointless because he is nothing more than a pseudo-scientist doing pseudoscience.
If we are, as Russell claims, "the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving," that is, we did not evolve to seek truth; the goal of evolution is survival. If this is true, then all science is pseudoscience. Science is as faith-based as any religion, as Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science and an atheist, pointed out when he compared science to religion:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, without meaning and morality."
Paul Feyerabend is another atheist philosopher who discussed the idea that science involves a form of faith. He argued that science is not purely objective and can function similarly to a belief system:
"The separation of science and non-science is not a straightforward matter of fact. Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit." Feyerabend believes that, like religion, science operates within certain assumptions and paradigms that are not always empirically justified but accepted as a matter of trust.
For this reason, and if this is true, all science is pseudoscience because, as Russell pointed out, “our beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms.”
Thank you for your reply.
👋🥰👍
The Best Historical Sources for Jesus are the gospels.
None of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
The only thing that bothers me about Dr. Habermas is that he dismisses everyone who is not a scholar. Does he really think only scholars have the right to speak or have opinions? I'm not sure I'm hearing or understanding him right.
Idk if he dismisses laymen. I think when people make outrageous claims, he likes to say that even critical scholars with doctorate degrees don’t agree with such skepticism.
@@tc4878 - I've read his books, taken courses online that he teaches, listened to most of his online videos. It's comments like the one around the 27 minute mark that I'm talking about. He has said this numerous times over the years. He seems to have contempt for anyone who is not a scholar, but I acknowledge I could be reading him wrong. It's just he says this frequently. Sometimes the criticism of non-scholars is more blatant. When I first began listening to him, his minimal facts approach was different. He really dug deep into the naturalistic theories against the resurrection, and he swatted them away like flies. Over the years, he keeps tweaking his approach, and it's all geared toward the scholars. Scholars don't bring up naturalistic theories anymore because they know they're been scorched by apologists like Habermas. The problem is, the world is not all scholars, and most skeptics still bring up the naturalistic theories. Few are equipped to answer them because the scholars don't address them anymore. Those arguments are still needed. Only answering the scholars seems to matter. I think the approach leaves everyone else behind.
Truth stands. If i come in my name, they will ask me for a sign. Though i am the word, the living one embodying my truth. Truth will blind them, but those who are mine will know who I am. My name is hidden, but my name come with meanings. I come in half time, i come at perfect time
Ive been homeless, ive been imprisoned. Didnt i say this before? Even though ive been with you for such a long time. You said you didnt know, then you did
To gain or retain credibility on any academic topic you need to respond to your biggest critics, if not then you get criticized for dodging them. Not that a layman doesn't have answers too, but you need to address the "experts first and foremost." Just like the average athlete hanging out at the community center gym might have something to say about competitive basketball, but wouldn't you appreciate hearing about that subject from someone like...Michael Jordan?? Habermas, and the guys he refers to are experts in their fields, the Michael Jordans, and have put the work in to be authoritative. Don't take it personal, we cant all be Michael Jordan's lol. Plus!! If Habermas doesn't approach his defense for Christianity the way he does, referring to critics and scholars, he wouldn't even get through the doors of the world's universities to share is message. The academic world would reject him, especially if he quoted the novice armchair scholars of the world. He would get laughed off the campus. That's the world he operates in.
Gary must get paid by the word.
Not sure why scholarship is needed at all when the truth of the bible is self evident and all unbelievers knowingly reject the revelation of God.
Perhaps one reason is that Muslims and Mormons make similar claims about their books and scholarship of this sort helps to identify which book is more historically reliable.
Because scholarship is rooted in truth. You can’t determine evidence for truth if there is no evidence against it…
@@philly5330 good point. With that in mind, I think it is quite clear we have better documentation, eyewitness testimony, and preservation of original manuscripts that testifies to the historical accuracy of Mormonism.
@@Nsrslrs Yeah, one of the significant issues with the Church of Latter Day Saint's historical credibility is the Book of Abraham. The fact that the Quran is one of the fews sources reporting Jesus wasn't crucified and it was written 600 years after Jesus lived, while an atheist like Bart Ehrman reports 15 independent sources within 100 years of Jesus's life for the crucifixion, diminishes the historical credibility of Islam.
An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign... And they have the Resurrection. (Matthew 12:39-40)
For us, believers, we have the bible. (John 20:29)
You only have to look at the very 1st chapter of Mark to see all the Gospel writers had a very high Christology.
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one.
@@EvilXtianity I dont disagree. But are you really suggesting Mark didnt believe Jesus had been raised?
It's also possible there was a longer ending to Mark, now lost. Scholars have different opinions, eg the ending we have is the original end due to the length of parchment available. I dont know, but I wouldnt be surprised if Mark purposefully ended his Gospel like that, with a knowing nod to his readers. At the time of writing, Mark and everyone else knew He had been raised...
@@PC-vg8vn
_"But are you really suggesting Mark didnt believe Jesus had been raised?"_
Who is it that you think wrote that gospel?
@@EvilXtianity Mark, largely based on Peter's testimony per Papias. But I suspect if Jesus had written it himself you still wouldnt believe it?
Charlatan
Jesus said he is in all of us. If you believe him, it is yours. People will say there he is, but who do YOU say I am? do you now believe? Do you think i will not test your faith? Have you not heard? I come in many faces, i come in many names. I come in the name the father gives me. If you can hear the truth you will know who I am.
One fact to prove that this Jesus, walked the earth...if he was not then we need to get rid of the Roman history.
_"One fact to prove that this Jesus, walked the earth."_
Provide the single-best evidence you have that Jesus existed.
The historical evidence screams that Jesus is risen!
Jesus is a fictional character.
"Creedal reports _probably_ circulated within months after resurrection." So much for the "historical sources". With so much _certainty_ I can't see a single person believing this man.
Also "data for the deity of Christ" - In other words: let's use science-based vocabulary and apply it to the faith. So a deity can be measured, right? Right....
So disingenuous about Alexander the Great we have monumentla evidence constructed in Alexander's lifetime. We have contemporary accounts of Alexander from those he conquored and from his generals, one of whom Ptolemy went to found an Egyption dynasty.
Jesus is much like the Buddah in that we have no eyewitness accounts of his life, no extra-biblical sources that are not just the teahicngs of Christians regurgitated - we don't really know what Jesus taught or did and se certainly no nothing about his birth.
Alexander left PHYSICAL evidence of his existence and the things he did. Jesus left NOTHING. We only have stories told by people who were trying to convince other people that he was the messiah. And almost all of them were anonymous. Habermas has been beating this same dead horse for the last 40 years.
Do you have an issue with Jesus?
@@philly5330 No. I have an issue with conmen like Habermas.
How is he conning folks?
@@philly5330 By calling things facts when they are not. For instance, he says James was not a believer before Jesus' death. There is NO evidence for this. Most of his "facts" are just part of the story. A story told by people trying to convince others that Jesus was the messiah.
You have evidence James was a believer before he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus?
Jesus was a homosexual and john was his gay partner
Lets look at Mohammed and see what evidence we have for him and what he did.
it is already written on quran he married 6 years old child, had sex with 9 women in one night and waged 88 wars in 10 years....
The fact that the Quran is one of the fews sources reporting Jesus wasn't crucified and it was written 600 years after Jesus lived, while an atheist like Bart Ehrman reports 15 independent sources within 100 years of Jesus's life for the crucifixion, diminishes the historical credibility of Islam.
There is zero evidence for the existence of Mohammed. Mecca did not exist in the Middle Ages. Dr Jay Smith is an expert on this.
It has been going on for a while. Not looking good for them. The latest development is that scholars no longer argue "Perfect Preservation"
Listen to Jay Smith
If you don´t include astrotheology you will never come to a point to understand this whole Story. There might have been a itinerant preacher around that time called Joshua, who was talking wise, but there was no real virgin birth (this is just about planet and star-constellations) and there was no resurrection, because dead people don´t come back to life. The only thing which is coming (if you see it poetically or in a deep sense of understanding the narrativ - mythological) back every year to LIFE again is our SUN. The cross is in the zodiac and separates the circle into 4 sections and those sections are the four gospels. Just look at very very early depictions of the gospels then you will see a taurus, a lion, a scorpion or eagle and the waterbearer! So, this discussions between so called Scolars, Scientists, or Believers are senseless if you don´t include this!!!!
ruclips.net/video/Jor0oevcEK8/видео.html
Sounds like that nonsense from the zeitgeist that was floating around like 15 years ago. Looked into all that. Ended up combing through history and the sources and realized Jesus Christ was a man, and the profound implications behind that. Pride and arrogance often stands in the way of progress.
@@mikek7029 sorry my ... you seem to be a believer and a Man of HOPE. You ll face a hard time.... Luke 22:9-13
@@hannesseebacher While there is some symbolism to be found, it refers back to the old testament, not to the paganism you've been lost in. I suggest you research the topic more.
@@midimusicforever Sorry, that might be your idea to see,it but since you have not the slightest Idea of what I know, I would suggest you keep on believing whatever you believe.