For Joseph's question on 1 Chronicles 20:3 and why it is translated such different ways here is some insight from the "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" "cut them with saws, &c.-The Hebrew word, “cut them,” is, with the difference of the final letter, the same as that rendered “put them,” in the parallel passage of Samuel [2 Sa 12:31]; and many consider that putting them to saws, axes, and so forth, means nothing more than that David condemned the inhabitants of Rabbah to hard and penal servitude." Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1 Ch 20:3). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. It seems that it's a debate between whether he "put them" to axes in the sense of labor or in the sense of death. The different translations reflect different decisions about how to understand this. I don't know which is the more accurate one. I hope this at least clarifies the issue for you.
@@davelanger: Davey boy, any idiot can make a claim in the comments section without evidence (as u have). If u have evidence of WLCs dishonesty as an apologist, then please provide it.
I'm from the Navajo tribe, and I really honestly tried to believe and test out my Native Religion. But it was evident that it wasn't true. So after I became a believer in Christ, reading and studying the Bible opened the truth to me. Additionally, other things like miracles, testimonies, and answered prayer...have all added to and built my faith in Jesus! Praise God.
Because you are Native American, it is amazing that you became a believer. So many Native people experienced genocide and destruction, Many are leery of Christianity.
Dee Anderson. Those murderous people were not representing Christianity. They weren't being guided by the holy spirit. I do imagine that the natives and their religious practices seemed savage to the ones professing to be Christians, however, they themselves were savage in how they responded.
Ty Huston. So, in the 21st century you can't believe in your Navajo traditional beliefs BUT you can believe that the earth and everything on it was created in six days, you can believe Mary had a baby from a ghost while married to Joseph ( did you ever think it could have been Joseph's baby ? ) Someone named Jesus came back to life after three days of death.
15 years ago I would have been one of the argueing, taunting, sarcastic, cynical, and semi stuck up smart alecky mockers, on my high horse of agnosticism... and praise God and his mercy he touched me, through painful experiences, logic, and miracles, I was saved. Who would ever guess?? Me?? I was a mocker!! Praise God for his mercy and loving kindness. And the miracles he's shown in my life (escape from prison which i deserved, life after drug overdoses, life for my premature daughter, deliverance from addiction and abuse) praise the lord for your ministry mike!
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 Not sure what you mean. When I relied on my emotions I stayed stuck in my addiction, abuse, and pain. When I chose to trust God, instead of my emotions was when I found healing and rest for my soul. I followed the scientific evidence where it led, and the argument weighed heavier towards a creator.
@@catherinewhisenand5678 there is nothing to support your belief in the existence of God other than your emotions is what I meant. You may "feel" his presence but it's just your brain tricking you. In other words, your feelings are not based on reality. I don't know what scientific evidence you're talking about because I haven't heard of any.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 If you're seeking evidence there are plenty of books and you tube videos on the scientific evidence for God. I could not explain it all here. I KNOW my God is real. He has changed my heart and it is much more than an emotion. I often don't feel his presence physically or emotionally. When I sought him out, he was faithful to reveal himself to me in the way I would personally recognize. He is so personal and loves us so much he knows what we need and if you seek him with all your heart you will find him.
@@justchilling704 Here's a hint, thanks to what is written in Matthew we can't even put a number on it. www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/raised-from-the-dead.html
As an atheist this was incredibly eye opening. I'm really interested in looking into the history of the time. I really want to hear what the Roman's had to say, and I'd love to dig into the eye witness accounts so I can see christ's resurrection objectively. Anyone got anything for me to read?
I just did a teaching yesterday that may interest you. Lots of references in the video description to scholarly sources as well. ruclips.net/video/dK1fU4p43jg/видео.html
@@MikeWinger I'm 25 minutes in and I'm lovin' it so far. I already know I'm gonna have to come back to it a couple times because there is a good bit you're unpacking, but thank you so much for that. Deep down in the scholarly weeds are exactly where I'm tryna go 😂 Lastly, I just wanna say real quick your sarcasm is great. Following arguments and thinking critically is much less cumbersome when you can laugh and joke about what you are discussing.
The writings of the Roman historians and political thinkers Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, as well as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus are excellent sources for this. None were Christian and all are extra-Biblical, yet all reference Jesus from around his time period.
LOL, great comment Kristen! (Matthew 5:11) "Blessed are you, when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you, because of me."
Kristen, I haven't seen any comment like that addressed to Mike. I am an Atheist and I don't think Mike is dumb, at all. He is just badly informed. I think you're kind of bullying him.
@@carlose5751, that’s it, you nailed it. We’re all just badly informed. Do you know who Dr. Alvin Plantinga is? He said that while there is plenty of evidence for God and also the resurrection, the very fact of the Holy Spirit living within is evidence enough for him. Dr. G. Campbell Morgan said that the millions of lives changed is one of the greatest evidences for God in Christ. You should go argue with Dr. Gary Habermas. We’re not badly informed, you’re simply blind to the truth
@@michaelbrickley2443 You could bring on your side someone relevant like Albert Einstein or even Richard Dawkins and I don't give a f@ck about their opinions. Fallacy of authority doesn't make anything to be true.
@@carlose5751 yup that's true, that's why you need to go back to the primary sources yourself and create conclusions based on what you find. People like Mike just relay the distilled info to us who want a summary of what he found with his own studies, to us who do not have the time to go through the sources ourselves and get degrees for this specific type of info. So you don't have to listen to him (or to anyone, for that matter) because you can go and study these things from the *primary* sources yourself. No one is forcing you to listen to this specific pastor, but if you don't, then you have to do your due diligence of going through the research for yourself to see if what Christianity claims to be true is actually true. There is no inherent bias here, just being wise with how we use our limited time in contrast to other dissenting voices and put them against each other (as I was also once an atheist). God bless you. You don't have to assume the appeal of authority to prove things true, *you* do it yourself then.
Schizophrenics, from a medical viewpoint, don't just have mass hallucinations together....it is not like their illnesses just sync to each other and create one hivemind schizophrenic illusion. That's like saying a room full of anxious people just suddenly all become anxious about this one illogical concern.
This is true. I'm wanting to learn I've felt it. This makes sense I mean only certain things I feel him its odd but I agree if we were all mentally ill why does it so happen we have same thoughts and reasoning lol only 24 haven't been into this much but I've had morals close to what he teaches so I've been walking not too far from him! 🙏
No if you want to doubt the resurrection you have to disagree with one of those five points. If you believe those five points resurrection sounds like the most possible.
@@Greyz174 Hello, I"m an RN and I currently work in a Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital here in my city (been working there since 2009). I have seen clients having hallucinations many times than I can count and I can confidently tell you that there's nothing like mass hallucination. Several clients can experience hallucination simultaneously but the content and object of their hallucinations is and can never be the same. I am speaking from experience and my education. Mass hallucination DOES NOT exist, period.
@@ayolovephat this is an open question im reasoning my way through so id love to hear your thoughts: do you think that the environment you've observed this in where people are constantly trying to control and inhibit the hallucinations would be significantly different that an enironment where you let them play out in a cultural framework that would treat them as divine interaction? im not sure to what extent we can extrapolate how hallucinations work based off of our experiences in this culture where we pathologize and actively prevent them from taking off and being rationalized into peoples' worldview and collective experiences. do you have any thoughts on this? and to be clear, this does not mean "so therefore identical hallucinations happened back then" but maybe something more like "people having these hallucinations uninterrupted will eventually talk about and create one story, and harmonize their mental experiences to be more like their friends who are having their own version of that mental experience, and this going uninterrupted leads to them coming to spiritual conclusions about what happened with their dead leader, instead of seeing some stuff and then their parents immediately sending them to a doctor and stopping this hallucination in its tracks"
Please let's remember that a very important part of presenting the gospel to unbelievers (including atheists) is for them to see Christians as truly authentic followers of Jesus Christ, i.e., that we model the love, compassion, kindness, self sacrifice, mercy, etc. for which Jesus was known. Many great principles are given in the NT, especially by Jesus, and especially in Matthew 5 and 6.(Love God, Love your neighbor, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc.) When I was an atheist, I truly enjoyed mocking Christians. Not seeing any difference in the way they reacted to mocking made me feel justified in my atheism. When I finished serving a hitch in the Navy in 1979, I moved up into the mountains to be able to party loudly and consume illegal substances without being bothered by anyone (including by the Law and Christians). After a pretty wild party one Saturday night (during which, both my stereo and my TV became broken), I was awakened the next morning by someone knocking at the door. I peered out and saw my girlfriend's sister, Betsy, knocking at the door. I did not want to let her in because I knew she was one of those outspoken Christians. Only because her sister, Sandy, lived with me did I get up and let her in. They sat down at the dining room table to talk, while I sat in the living room. It's generally pretty quiet in the mountains, especially when one's TV and stereo got broken the previous night, so, without even trying, I easily heard everything being said. As Betsy shared the Gospel with her sister (my girlfriend), Sandy, I became offended as I felt she was violating the "sanctity" of my home. My offense turned to anger when I heard Sandy agreeing to pray a prayer of salvation with her, as I knew it might mean the end of our sexual relationship. But I really hit stage 3 when I heard Betsy say that she was going to come into the living room to talk to me about Jesus. I prepared a litany of obscenities in my mind to share with her. When she asked me if I would like to know more about Jesus, I let go with a stream of obscenities, designed to make her retreat, even as far as leaving my home. She didn't. In fact, she stood there with a kind smile on her face, as if she had expected me to respond that way, and it didn't bother her in the least. Finally, feeling awkward, I sort of ran out of gas and sputtered to and end with "Well, that's just how I feel about that stuff." She responded with something like "Hey, I'm not here to threaten you (or harm you, or something like that). I just want to let you know that God loves you and Jesus died for you." She and Sandy hung around the rest of the day as they planned to go to church that evening. As they were leaving, Betsy handed me a gospel tract, asking me to read it while they were gone. I reluctantly agreed just to get her out the door. While they were gone, I was bored out of my gourd as my TV and stereo were broken, and it was many years until the Internet. And it strangely seemed like the Gospel tract was magnetically drawing me to read it. I finally gave in, justifying it by saying that I could honestly tell her that I read it so she would shut up. I'd read lots of Gospel tracts before, but for entertainment. I'd laugh after I read them and then tore them up and/or threw them away so no one else could read them. But this time I was genuinely open and interested in trying to understand it because of Betsy's kind response to my hateful, obscene speech (which really had me perplexed). I thought maybe she had something I couldn't explain. As I sincerely considered the Bible references, it seemed like it was the first time I had ever read the Gospel. It wasn't the "Be good and stop sinning and maybe, you might get to heaven if you're good enough" message that I'd always thought it was. I truly understood God being able to offer me forgiveness because of Jesus' sacrificial death. I don't think I could ever describe the depth of feeling that I had as I understood what the verses were saying, and suddenly realizing that it was all true. It really, really was like I had been in a totally dark room and someone had just turned on the light! I was in shock and looked up toward God and found myself saying "You're kidding me! THIS is what you've been trying to tell me this whole time??" An inexplicable joy filled me like I had never known (or even could have imagined)! I paced the floor trying to come to grips with the fact that, just minutes before, I was absolutely sure that none of this was true, and now I was even 'surer' that it WAS true! I went outside and stood there staring up at the stars. It was like I had never seen them before. What seems pretty funny in retrospect was what happened when the girls got home. They came in the back door and were in the kitchen chatting. I realized I had to go tell them what had happened, so I walked into the kitchen and I suddenly realized I had no idea what to say! I stood there staring at them, and I must have looked a bit strange because they began asking me "What's wrong? What happened?" Not knowing what to say, all that came out of my mouth was "I did it!" They asked "Did what??", as if they thought I had committed some crime. "That thing, in that piece of paper you gave me. I prayed." They thought that I was making fun of them again, as I had done a little during the afternoon. I had to convince them that I was sincere, that I had become a believer. I'm not sure at all what may have happened had Betsy not responded with kindness to my hostility to the Gospel. What if she HAD stormed out like I had expected her to?
Depends on how you define miracle. If you define it as an extremely rare and unlikely event... then you are correct. But I bet that Hume defined a miracle as an event that violates the laws of nature... so you are wrong.😂
@@ReformationRevelation That’s why only Christians think that the Universe was created from nothing while all scientists say that this is impossible and don’t think that there ever was nothing.😂
Starting out I really have to commend you for your bravery cuz I just lose my temper when I'm dealing with Skeptics like "you're a believer in evidence but you're so quick to deny evidence that goes against what you believe" so good on you man.
Colloquially, they _deny_ the evidence, but what is happening is that the evidence is treated as real, as you not pulling it from thin air, but the evidence is from a book and you are taking what the bible says as literal, which is where is the evidence becomes weak as evidence for the claims being made. Have you heard someone say, "Superman came from Krypton, crashed in America, and can move faster than a speeding bullet." Does that sound right based on what is often portrayed in comics or moves about superman? Does anyone believe superman is a real person, could you argue he does using comic books? The difference is the superman comic books were not meant to control, but to entertain.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 I should keep a record of how many comments I make vs the amount that actually address the claim or question. Many will make assumptions and refuse to admit they are. Nothing is wrong with assumptions of course as long as you are not hiding the fact that they are.
@@BornOnThursday I've seen all of them, hilarious really how Christians put themselves on a pedestal of truth yet can't answer basic questions about their assumptions. Most of these sheep can't make any arguments that's aren't circular or logically fallacious.
4:04 and 4:40 and 5:33 - Historian consensus 8:33 - Alternative explanations 12:45 - The swoon theory 15:38 - Spiritual Resurrection theory 16:35 - Wrong Tomb theory 16:56 - Missing body theory 17:16 - Conspiracy theory 18:05 - The rational explanation 19:03 - David Hume 20:35 and 22:15 - Bart Ehrman 24:30 - Richard Carrier 26:20 and 27:13 and 28:40 - Dan Barker 30:00 - Matt Dilahunty 34:50 - Is the Bible just one source? 38:20 - What about other religious claims?
A few things I might add: 1) atheists really make a big deal out of the "contradictions" in the biblical text. For example they'll say 'well how many horses did Solomon have'? As if that just proves the whole Bible is a lie, they don't even stop to consider any other reasonable explanation (e.g. it could have been different numbers due to the fact that each were taken from different years under his rule). Or even some of the minor details like hiw many angels were at the tomb. Witnesses don't remember every detail the exact same and if they did that would be a bit suspect (this reinforces the independent witnesses point). 2) atheists like to interpret things more liberally than most Christians. To put it bluntly they don't consider any of the original contexts of the passage and therefore completely misunderstand the vast majority of the biblical text. They also tend to cherry pick verses. One example is in Judges when a little girl is sacrificed to YHWH. The book of judges condemned such an action, but they don't care to actually read and follow along with the entire book. It's intellectual laziness.
Mike, It's always a faith position. My wife's grandmother said a very profound statement. She said, "This man says this and this man says that, who is right?" This is a very good point. Many many people are saying to all of us, "listen to me." So for me the question isn't, why I should believe in Jesus but why I should listen to you(other then Christ), who are you that I should believe in what you tell me. Jesus said, "I am the only way, there is no other." This statement forces me to make a choice. So if your position is Christ is not the way, then you are telling me to believe you. So again, who are you that I should listen to you? Jesus said Love God with your whole heart and soul and love others like yourself. He practice this He also said turn the other check. Normally people don't practice what they teach however, Jesus did. He was the man he asked us to be. Jesus represents the best form of God. So all my hope is on Him.
That's the first misconception that we can force someone to believe something. Regardless how you look at it even if something is 100% true you still can't force them to accept (believe) it is true. The Gospel is meant to be accepted or rejected so them not believing in it doesn't bother me. It use to for their sakes, but even then if the Bible is true they know where they are ending up regardless of not believing. I would also argue you can not force someone to accept the gospel otherwise it's a false conversion.
@Kuffar Legion Hey, I am a believer in the resurrection of Jesus. However in myself I have no more natural "faith" then anyone else. I consider that something like a miracle has happened in my heart. God gave me the ability to believe. Naturally though, I have no more faith then the next guy. It is very mysterious to me.
Some people just don’t want to believe. No amount of evidence will convince them. They just don’t want to believe the truth. And you can’t convince those people. They will believe what they want to believe. It’s a heart issue, not a head (knowledge, facts, data) issue. They reject God because they don’t want there to be a God.
This is so disingenuous, that I couldn''t make it half way through the video. And it is insultingly easy to check for everybody, atheist and christian alike. Just watch the debate between WLC and Bart Ehrmann. Ehrmann does *not* grant WLCs historical facts in that debate. It is an obvious and deliberately misleading straw man to claim otherwise. In fact, in his first rebuttal he explicitly critizises the biblical sources from which these "facts" can only be established. Furthermore, it is next to impossible to characterise Ehrmanns position on miracles more unfavorable. You are not even trying to fairly represent the argument Ehrmann makes, before argueing against it. And it is not a complicated argument: Historians try to find the most probable explanation, given certain facts. Probability can only be measured when you look at things that happen regularly and in accordance with laws (like the laws of nature). For instance, you can measure the probability of a coin toss, because you can flip a coin a thousand times and check the results. But you can't measure the probability of a coin toss that results in neither heads or tails, but in some miraculous event (the upper side of the coin shows the entire movie "Spiderman"). That is because such a miracle would be a one-off events that don't happen by any measure of probability. Therefore, the historian cannot establish a miracle as the most probable explanation. It does not mean that miracles have never occured, it just means that by sound historical reasoning they cannot be established as the most likely explanation. Now, you can argue with Ehrmann's position. But you just misrepresented it, basically showing everyone that you did not really understand it, and dismissed it without tackling the issue.
If I was a skeptic James and Paul would have done it for me. James was pious Jew who converted, and Paul was very loyal to Rome. Those two would have done it for me.
“Being in the bible” isn’t synonymous with being a Gospel writer. Their writings are now a part of the Bible, but they only wrote them because of their conversion. Do you see the difference?
@@swotithinkanyway2163 or maybe James wasn't around. Not sure why an atheist would find it so hard to believe someone else might be a skeptic... This argument is self defeating.
The point of David Hume makes sense. Christianity is not the only religion on earth, and most religions will argue that they have miracles to prove their points. Islam does it. Mormonism does it. Of course testimony is not enough to justify a miracle. Be consistent and use the same standards for Christianity that you use for other religions. If your religion is true, it must be able to be proven more easily than just using ancient records. Dan Barker doesn't pick an alternate explanation because he is not pretending to know what he doesn't know. It's called honesty. But yeah, of course when doing history you think that there must be an alternate explanation. Taking anyhing literally will lead you to believe that the Chinese brother of Jesus caused the Taiping rebellion. Just because you don't know what the alternate explanation is doesn't mean that you must assume that the miracle is literal. Matt Dillahunty is right. The fact that people don't believe is evidence that there is no God. Among all of the religions in the world, many are using prophets, alledged miracles and holy scriiptures. Since those are false (we can agree on that for any religion that isn't yours), you must admit that those methods are not reliable ways of communication. An omniscient god would know it, yet that's also what he used. Is your god a moron? In all likeliness, he doesn't exist. That's the point. The fact that Jesus, which is not just a prophet but God himself talked to people but failed to convinced all of the Jews, and the Romans, is to me evidence that your god is not convincing. A god who fails isn't omnipotent, so chances are that Jesus was just a dude. Sam Harris is not saying that evidence doesn't matter, only that testimonies alone don't matter. Historians take every single ancient text with a lot of grains of salt. The first chinese dynasty is considered to be mythological, which means that maube it exists, but we aren't sure. Having many documents is rising the confidence of historians for an event. Archaeology is helping considerably too. Historians doubt that caesar's conquest of Gaul was as epic as what he described in his memoirs. obivously a miracle, which is a fantastic claim, needs a LOT more evidence to be proven. The point this video is making seems to be special pleading. Christians won't hold Christianity to the same level of scrutiny that they would hold any other miracle for another religion religion.
@@sinnersaved1033 You said skeptics were being hostile which is very different than fallacious reasoning, something you Christians are extremely good at ;)
Non believers are not on a truth quest you're on a happiness quest. And they know the truth quest will interfere with their happiness quest. And so that's why they deny it.
You have to understand, it's like watching a person take a story and treat it as literal. Also, by believing in this literally, we have a long history of people treating other humans as heretics and setting back scientific progress considerably. We are lucky that people were able to escape the penalty of death for not sharing the beliefs of the Christianity. It is frustrating, and the idea of co-existing is for the sake of peace and not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past. There are still problems, but it is more focused on smaller groups and individuals which is preferable to war and mass loss of life.
I simply marvel at Atheists faith. How can anyone examine the mountains of evidence and still proclaim there is no God were they not whole heartedly devoted to their beliefs.
John L John L The romans did take you down of the cross only when you dead. Woke up and then from inside move a 1t stone after I think May have suffocated in the tomb and were beaten to death and hang to a cross for 3h, 2 day ago come on man come on
People don't "dodge " the evidence they point out the unsubstantiated continuous claims are not evidence. Christian apologists keep making bold assertions, committing logical fallacies and appeal to feelings and personal testimony instead of actual knowledge of demonstrative sufficient evidence.
Exactly. Paul CLAIMED that Jesus first appeared to Peter, then James, then the twelve, then all the disciples, then 500 at once, and finally to him. Very different from the Gospel appearances.
@@Glorious716 sorry but I'm extremely open minded and will be immediately convinced by demonstrated sufficient knowledge of evidence not feelings and appeals to faith in the absence of it. Education has a way of ridding one's ignorance and if one was proven wrong in their belief system age they continue to hold that belief without evidence then they are being by definition irrational
The ressurection of jesus is the only explanation that matches all of the universally accepted facts of the scholary consensus (such as the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the belief in the resurrection), there is nothing else that was able to explain them and virtually all naturalistic theories have been abandoned, moreover we have more documents for the bible than virtually any other historical record, from your angry behavior it is pretty obvious that you dont have any rational objection but you are just a miserable neckbeard atheist that blames others for his failed life and tries to take it out on God
The ressurection of jesus is the only explanation that matches all of the universally accepted facts of the scholary consensus (such as the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the belief in the resurrection), there is nothing else that was able to explain them and virtually all naturalistic theories have been abandoned, moreover we have more documents for the bible than virtually any other historical record, from your angry behavior it is pretty obvious that you dont have any rational objection
God bless you Pastor for equipping me on showing our atheist friends on the BEDROCK of Biblical Christianity the Resurrection of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ
Incredibly well done video! You’re making a 40 year old atheist rethink EVERYTHING! I always struggled with the validity of the resurrection story until your video 🤯👏
@MarisaHoarebut this dude's full ship you should actually do some verification instead of just believe in this dude. First of all he's completely ignoring all the non canonical gospels that were absolutely the word of God according to the people that believe them until a powerful group of bishops decided they were politically inconvenient
@MarisaHoarein order for this guy to be right you have to ignore the entire process that created the Bible that we have documentation for this dude's just lying to you
As I watch this 4 years later, it reminds me of a conversation I had just yesterday with a Ehrman-worshipping family member. To those who work to suppress the knowledge of God (Rom 1:18), there is really no gain asking them why they believe what they believe, or to concede actual historical fact and accept that they may be just flat wrong...they, like me, are sinners and the flesh hates God. Yes, I might be wrong, too, but what other explanation is even plausible for the events of Jesus' life as told in the NT, and, with this understood fully, what other possible, plausible explanation exists for the remainder of the writings of the entire Bible? Yes, I'm a grumpy old Calvinist, but the truth of God's Word keeps ringing true...nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:18-19). I will continue to pray for these folks, atheist/agnostic/resistor-of-Christ alike, that God will reveal Himself to them and they will yield to His truth. Keep those questions coming...I'll be answering them on my death bed, if God is willing.
@@ramigilneas9274 Do you think Christians (and I am a Christian) are simply "individual cult members?" It kinda sounds like you do, but I could also be mistaken.
I just found your channel and I have binge watching it! It would be great if all the videos can be included in different playlists. I know there are some, but how about all of them!!! 🙏🏼
John 14: 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. 2 Chronicles 16: 9 For the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His. You have acted foolishly in this. Indeed, from now on you will surely have wars.”
The mockers of this video are simply writhing and reacting from having to hear truth, logic and evidence that give answers to the skeptic’s doubts of the Bible’s authenticity. Mike does all this out of his love and obedience to Jesus, that is, to obey His commandments by loving his neighbour even strangers by sharing the gospel. It is our prayer that these skeptics will repent and come to Jesus. Thanks Mike.
No, sceptics just aren't convinced by the really quite poor arguments. I would love to see what 'historians' name those five 'facts'. There is no verifiable source to back up that various people 'saw jesus after his death'. The rational explanation is not Jesus was resurrected. There are 101 other possible explanations as to why people say that 2000 years ago, someone rose from the dead. Surely faith is based more on a spiritual belief in something, please don't sit there and tell me it is based in fact, because it simply isnt.
Considering that 2/3 of the people in the world believe something other than Christianity, including God's own chosen people and humans have invented thousands of gods. How are you so sure your not the one deceived?
What's interesting to me is the non-believers efforts to undo what Christians know. We want them to come to the truth because we care about them, we know of the peace and joy that they're missing out on and genuinely don't want them to suffer for all eternity....... but what reason do they have for trying to tell us we're wrong? What fuels that passion? Whatever it is, I'm still thankful for the engagement because it tells me there's some interest, the seed has been planted and it's only a matter of time before their heart is opened 🙏
Great content! One of my friends is a raving atheist, and after years of debating, his argument has been reduced to "I don't want to talk about it" or even better, "Christians are racist." I respect atheists, but their arguments fall flat under serious scrutiny. They never seem to run out of reasons to doubt. Once you address one argument, they move the goal posts. Which proves to me that most of them just don't want to believe for emotional reasons.
@@jasonlee8359he’s just playing super skeptic. Really the only thing they have going for them is the smirk, and boy is that a powerful thing when you don’t have much else
What a coincidence… "you just don’t want to believe“… is what most Christians say after I explain to them why their arguments are fallacious and teach them about logic, reasoning and a sound epistemology. Seems more like try to find excuses why the arguments that convinced you aren’t good enough to convince most other people.😉
@@ramigilneas9274 I highly doubt your arguments (and the arguments of most atheists) are seriously convincing. And I'm sure most of the things you say are fallacious about theism are not. It's easy to break the weakest link in the chain. Try it with someone who knows their stuff and I'm sure you will get a response that you cannot handle. Atheism is logically absurd. The fact that you, apparently an atheist, is trolling the thread of a Christian podcast shows you are not very secure in your position. This is typical of other atheists I know and have seen online. They spend their days obsessing about God and trying to prove he doesn't exist. Reminds me of guys in high school who talked about their ex-girlfriend constantly but then tried to say they were over her, when clearly they were not.
I'm five years late, I know, but I have a small correction to make: Most scholars seem to agree that 1 Corinthians as well as the other early books were written starting around 50 AD That would be 17 years after Christ's Resurrection, not 5. Not too big a deal, just a small correction for a small mistake. But a small mistake that others might latch onto to "prove your dishonesty" or some other nonsense I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do I hope this comment finds you well
Great post, as always, Mike, thanks. The single greatest rebuttal to the arguments for a resurrection is simply that it's supernatural. As Christians, I think we don't fully appreciate how powerful that rebuttal is.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Two things: 1) If you're wanting to demonstrate that atheism is the intelligent choice, then incoherently babbling derogatory names at people like a four year old isn't helping your case. And 2) I'm embarrassed for you that you're not seeing the irony of you completely misreading my post, and then calling ME the doofus. Be a better person from now on.
TheAnimator, I’m glad that you not only apologized, but also left the original comment instead of pretending it didn’t happen, like most people would do. I have the same knee jerk reaction sometimes, so seeing someone 180 like this always warms my heart. Keep growing in Christ brother, and we’ll continue to love our Atheist neighbors as ourselves and pray for their salvation. Hopefully more and more of them will come to Christ
What is the evidence that a resurrection is possible? A resurrection needs to be demonstrated to be possible before any conversation on the probability takes place. None of the so called agreed upon facts is evidence that a resurrection is possible. Possibility has a burden of proof and can not just be asserted.
That's what Hume and also Ehrman like to argue if I remember correctly. The point though of the resurrection is that it was miraculous. The biblical narrative of Jesus resurrection wasnt just that he lived again another 3 years then suffered a heart attack and died again, but he was raised back to life after 3 days, said what up to a bunch of people, and skiiiiirrrrted up to heaven. If I could do this sort of thing, it would both elevate the importance of what I said while on earth, but also come in conflict with and minimize the importance of what Jesus said on earth, plus a myriad of other things. The best evidence though that "God raised Jesus" could be possible is that "God created the Universe." But that's a different discussion. If he could create everything, he can give life back to a man.
@@jacobrubio8214 "God created the Universe." is a claim just like the bible is the claim that Jesus was resurrected. What is the evidence this claim is possible? You answer with "its a miracle" which is another claim. I am willing to be convinced but I am not willing to just accept assertions without sufficient evidence.
@@rubensdesk a little confused, I think by the phrasing. This video was not trying to make a strong case for any of the arguments but there are others that do. Making a case for the resurrection always begins at making a case for a creator. Then you explore what's true about him, and then decide if Jesus is legit. Jesus not only establishes Christianity but helps us prove it with a historical case. I'm not going to do that in the comments of a RUclips video. I'd read William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, C.S. Lewis, Geisler, Zacharias, or Wallace.
@@jacobrubio8214 "Making a case for the resurrection always begins at making a case for a creator" and this is why the case for the resurrection can't even get out of the starting gate.
@@lil-al I mean, that's not a reason something can't be true. If cookies begin by mixing ingredients before I bake them, but then I don't make cookies because it's too much work to get there, it has nothing to do with cookies being a delicious dessert. And if there is a process that makes better cookies than others, you should do that. Atheists, I find, are most often not willing to even look. They scoff, they ridicule, then they move on as if they've truly listened and developed an informed response. Like Li'l Al, you know that sounds stupid. You know you are just saying trash. The claim of the resurrection is that "God raised Jesus from the dead." Roman's 10 + Acts 2. Well I can hand you a video of the moment jesus was raised but if the power of God isn't an explanatory possibility, you would never use it to explain His resurrection.
You may have repented your sins BUT according to Christianity you are still an unworthy sinner who continues to sin. So, It seems to me as long as you keep repenting your sins you can carry on sinning as much as you want to.....exactly like the Catholics who have to go to confession regularly. 🤣
@@WildPhotoShooter Romans 6: " What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
@@germaan1 How can any sane rational thinking person believe such mumbo jumbo ? How can splashing water onto a baby's head have anything to do with the death of a guy 2000 years ago ? The Bible is a nice piece of inventive fictional writing , I'll give it that much.
@@WildPhotoShooter baptism into His death is not talking about infant baptism but it explains what happens in the moment a spiritual dead person is born again as a child of God. Your old self dies and you are born again spiritually. I believe and testify it because I myself was born again December 2019 at age 28. This is no mombojombo, this is reality.
@@germaan1 Do you have any evidence of the alleged "reality" ? I assume you didn't die before being "born gain" . What's this thing about our spirit dying ? Is there any real evidence we have one ? I think it is all in the individuals mind, nothing else changes, only the way one thinks.
Thank you so much Mike, As a former Occultist, got called schizo a lot lmao I'm still bewildered how some Christians don't believe in Christ actually being resurrected, you're just Agnostic.
I love your videos SO MUCH you convinced me to change some of my views (especially about the trinity). Thank you for helping me in my journey to Christ!
Ashley_ brown. You must have been unsure about your beliefs for aa long time if you are thanking this guy for his own "interpretation". You should ask yourself , who is he to change the literal words of God ?????
Mike you are so kind. I've watched several videos by these skeptics. Ehrman flat out has some sort of emotional issue. He's irrational and often just attacking people in debates. He's embarrassing. Carrier is just a joke. He makes logical fallacies constantly, regardless of his position. I wouldn't follow his food recipies he's so confused. Mike, you have such faith in people. Sadly, most are just not capable of following an arguement, and they aren't capable of realizing it. There is literaly nothing you can do to get a deaf man to hear a sympony, they aren't capable. Atheists mostly just repeat nonsense as if it is gospel, not seeing that the positions are garbage thinking, false comparisionns, cherry picking, strawmen. Even the well meaning athiests don't apply thier own standards to thier own thinking. An example, most athiests will believe in the multiverse, yet deny Jesus claiming "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" There is literally zero hard evidence for the multiverse, it's inferred, which btw I think the multiverse might exist. Athiests don't see that the "extraordinary claim/evidence" arguement is just a massively circular way to deny anything you subjectively don't agree with. If you believec something already, your standard for it goes down? If you disbelieve your standard goes up, lol really? You nailed this fallacy in people like Humme. Anyway, keep up the good work. You are an amazingly smart, patient, and kind person. I couldn't do what you do.
He mentioned from a question of other mythical figures having the same life, death, and resurrection as Jesus that came before him. But all these stories if you look into them just simply don’t have anything similar to Jesus. Mike did the Apollonius video debunking that but look at Steven bancarz zeitgeist debunked video. It walks through the other so called legends that parallel Jesus.
They don't have to be similar to Jesus. These stories just show that this was a religious trope going round at the time, and Jesus is just another example. He is really nothing special, and is as made up as Attis and Mithras.
I agree. But I honestly don't think that this is what Matt Dillahunty is doing in this case. The main reason for this is that the 5 facts I spoke of are arrived at through the normal historical method (meaning that these things are not in the category of "unknown" or "unknowable"). Matt's method of rhetoric is to avoid handling the evidence rather than to seek to explain it reasonably.
Expect your explanation is miracle which is by definition impossible, which is the reason why from Hume on everybody position is that miracle is less probable then for example mass halucination. We don't know miracles happen, there is no mechanism for them, no reason (apart to confirm your position). You obviously don't understand this core argument. Not to mention human testimony is one of the less valuable evidence as humans can lie, be wrong, under the influence of drug etc.
By definition as they break the laws of nature, but even If we dismiss this fun answer they are MUCH less probable as they assume that reality as we understand it suddenly stops work in your favor, which is obviously less probable then for example a mass halutination.
@@lexter8379 I understand your way of seeing this, but there we have to remember that miracles do not happen by natural laws and also we have to first define natural laws, what they really are. Are they just descriptions of events happening or are they just probabilities inside the universe what will happen. I think you cannot conclude that miracles cannot happen because of the natural laws by itself. However you are in some way right when we investigate scenes or anything else, but can we assume that there could not be an miracle happening. If we have good reasons to believe that some miracle happened (or how we define miracles) then we should think so but on the other hand we should be careful. There is regularity theorem, casual disposition theorem and nomic necessity theorem about the natural laws.
McCall G. ....I just think that a god would pick and choose his miracles a little better. “What miracle should I perform today, saving the children that are dying of cancer, or let the underdog hockey team win?”
Oh!! Lol That was a joke man..I don’t think anybody actually thinks we won gold because of a supernatural event We won gold because they were better and wanted it more God makes miracles happen, I reckon, so that “the work of god might be displayed”
McCall G....I kind of figured that it was a joke. I am a little skeptical of any miracle claim, though, because they appear to happen no more than random chance.
“Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from the “damned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group… All belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty.” ~ Alan Watts *Alan Watts was protestant minister, but left the religion to pursue the beautiful Eastern philosophy (Truth) of nondualism, such as found in Advaita Vedanta.
I like your work in Christ, but I was thinking in response to people like doubting Thomas; the proof he is looking for is Jesus' words. By seeking to hear, know and understand we spiritually grow and the Holy Spirit reveals all understanding. And we become spiritually changed and have our proof of God.
When it comes down to it, it's just words in a book. In 2000 years we will probably have people worshiping Harry Potter. And why do we not see any writings about jesus while he was alive? They only wrote about him after he was dead for over 30 years. Could it be because they didn't want people going looking for someone they said could do all these miracles, when they knew he either didn't exist or wasn't doing miracles? History is cool, but when I read about King Henry the 8th, I have no real proof he existed either, however, I'm not being asked to go to a building every week to worship him and give other followers my money.
A debate in which the debaters don't even agree on the definitions of the terms they use is no debate at all. I think the issue here is the use of the word "evidence." What Mr Winger presents is historical evidence. This is in no way the same thing as empirical evidence, which most viewers would probably assume he means. With enough empirical evidence about something (without counter evidence of course) one can begin to assert that something is proven. Historical evidence, on the other hand, cannot be used as proof of anything. Historical evidence at most is an assertion of what might have happened. In and of itself it cannot speak to what did happen. In an evidentiary sense the Bible, writings of Josephus and the like, therefore are only indications of what might have happened at best.
You're making one big mistake throughout this. Many of them (sam harris in particular) are saying that any amount of testimonials are insufficient evidence for such a big claim. You then say they don't acknowledge ANY evidence. Testimonials of all sorts can be lies, other types of evidence cannot be, and there is none of the second type.
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Then that wouldn’t tell us anything about if their claims were true. A lot of people believe stuff that is not true for dumb reasons.
@@petarvasiljevic8764 Actually no one knows how most of them died. Historians are pretty certain that Paul, James and 2 of the disciples died as martyrs... but the evidence for the rest of the disciples is mostly contradicting legends from centuries later.
To say, that there is no evidence for the resurrection is pure intellectual dishonesty and they know it. The truth of the matter is, they don’t want to believe based on moral grounds which they will probably never admit to. They love their sin And refuse to depart from it.
Why anyone would listen to Sam Harris, atheist or not, is mind-boggling. He stated that he didn't care if there were ( abused) children in Biden's basement..... as long is Trump is not elected. Everything we need to know about this man character is evidenced in Harris's statement.
Hmmmm. Thats a bad quote. None of these guys are skeptics?? Do you even realize what you said? Your probably right. Skeptics are few and far between. Because only a fool would deny the existance of God. Especially when they feel they dont need to bring another possibility to the table. Theres a few big names that athiests stick to. Hawkins and Dawkins. Hawkins said openly that NO evidence would ever convince him of Gods existence. Who's closed minded? Whos erational? Hawkins got laughed at and mocked by the audience when he tried to explain " nothing" creating everything. Funny thing is God mentions this in the Bible. " where is the philosopher of this age? I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. Thr intelligence of thd intellegent i will frustrate" the Bible is the only book that tells the story from beginning to end. Genesis to Revelation. And dares to tell of things to come before they spring forth. Look at the old testament prophets and consider what they said 1000s of years before Jesus even came. They tell of Why He Came, What He would do, How He would die and the reason for His death. Jesus even spoke of athiesm in the parable of the lost son. The son asked the Father for His inheritance before the Father died. Basically told the Father i dont care about you. Just give me my money. Then went to A FAR COUNTRY to spend that money in wild living and prostitutes. Why a Far Country? To get away from his fathers sight. Thats all athiesm is. A far country away from the Father. Jesus said " they refuse to come to the light because they love darkness" you love your sin and really want to believe that you wont be held accountable. But if you break a law on earth whether you believe it or not, you will be judged. How much more a Holy God who will judge you by the 10 commandments. Have you lied? Stolen? Used Gods name in vain? Sure you have. All have. Nobodys perfect right? The Bible says that also.
Apologetics would sound about 25% more plausible if apologists just stopped treating the word "evidence" as if it were a count noun instead of a mass noun. "Evidences" just puts my teeth on edge (and I'm a believer).
This was horrible. You badly misrepresented both Matt and Sam’s statements and views. I really dislike Matt and often disagree with Sam. But You unfairly infer really bad assumptions assigning them to those people instead of yourself.
One of the biggest arguments against the resurrection is that Romans did not allow the crucified to be buried, which makes the idea of jesus being buried in a tomb very unlikely. Second, the gospels were written 40 years after Jesus supposedly died and they were written in Koine Greek, which is a language of educated high class people, not the average fisherman/worker that would have been a Jesus disciple.
These are really unfair cliff notes for some of the guys. Look at their content for yourself. For example, Ehrman doesn't say that you have to flat out deny miracles no matter what, he says that that historians cant prove miracles because historians can only say what probably happened and miracles are by definition improbable. How I understand this take is that if a historian cant come up with a non miraculous explanation for an event, they have to say "I dont know, we need more information before we say what happened" instead of using a by-definition improbable miracle as an explanation. So even if it happened, you cant as a competent historian say it, because historians only work with what probably happened and miracles are by definition improbable. You can say that you believe that God did it, and you can have religious reasons to believe it, but you can't, while being a good historian, use a by definition improbable explanation. Even if you might have reasons to disagree, say you think this misrepresents what historians do or that this miracle isnt as improbable as Brat thinks, Bart's real position is way better than Mike's horribly bad faith "miracles shouldnt be believed even if they happened" version. 21:10, Mike literally used these words to describe it. It's funny because I've heard Mike accuse Bart of playing with reality in another video. If you have reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that skeptic responses to this are bad, at least listen to the skeptics and not just this convenient and superficial run through that makes them all look delusional.
So let me simplify this. The Bible says 1. Jesus was crucified 2. The tomb was empty 3. People saw him after All this from a Bible that we have no idea what it actually originally contained, because we don't have an original Bible and even if we did. Why should anyone believe anything that was in it anyway.
Because the Bible has been accurately transmitted over 2000 years, tens of thousands more than any other ancient text. The Bible is a collection of books, so in the NT alone we have multiple sources; Mathew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Pauls epistles. Also, the NT was written extremely early, at the latest between 30-40 years after the cross. So since the New Testament includes multiple, early, independent attestation to Jesus of Nazareth, and because its the best sources we have about Him (other than the several non-biblical authors like Josephus or Tacitus), and because all the non biblical and archeological evidence confirms what it can, then we have no choice but to considerable the New Testament as reliable. Also, the resurrection argument isn’t founded upon the idea that scripture is inerrant, and the facts are agreed upon by even skeptics who don’t believe anything else in the Bible is true, they can agree on the basic facts of the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the disciples belief. Along with many others. To say we can’t use the Bible is extremely biased and unreasonable and flies in the face of every piece of available data we have thus far.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Of course I do, There’s just way too much evidence to keep track of :) And I’d add that you also have a lot to learn about the Bible too my friend. Jesus died for you, and you have to repent and believe the gospel! God bless you.
@@Adrian-ri8my No Jesus died to prevent his father carrying out the punishment that he decided himself. God decided that the wages of sin would be death He then sacrificed his son/himself to prevent himself from carrying out the punishment for which he decided HIMSELF. It's totally asinine Thanking God or Jesus for "saving" you is the equivalent of thanking an abusive spouse for NOT beating you up.
There’s so many errors in this analysis. If you want to have faith,have faith. If you believe that these are good arguments for the resurrection, then what wouldn’t you believe?
@@braydynniewiadomski5454 There’s no reason to put my fingerprints on anything here. Go watch the debate with Matt Dillahunty and you’ll see why Mike is being silly. If you need one thing from me: the women would have never come to put spices on the dead body in the tomb after burial. There is no reason to do such a thing and it was not a custom. You need another: Mike and others always claim there were 500 witnesses to his resurrection. No there were not, there is just a sentence saying there were 500 witnesses. There’s a distinct difference. You need a third: The earliest gospel is Mark’s and only the first 8 chapters. There it ends with an empty tomb but says nothing more. Fourth: There’s no evidence outside of the Bible that attests to Jesus’ resurrection. What Christians have are claims, not evidence. Matt won’t acknowledge the difference. Have faith if you want but there’s no evidence. Here’s my question to Mike: why didn’t Jesus appear to pilate, ciaphus, or Tiberius in Rome? That would have been difficult to discount.
@@chriswinchell1570 I've seen the debate, I believe Matt did a better job surface-level as he is more experienced in debate and rhetorical flourish but I find his definition and application of epistemology to be narrow-minded, and even silly. The historical documents and archaeological discoveries outside of the scriptures that speak on Jesus and His crucifixion and describe the times and events of Jesus of Nazareth and the Jews and Romans and the geopolitical climate, do so in exactly the same way. This is good evidence for the reliability of the Bible, it is not merely a claim, or no history can be cross-checked, examined and found reliable. I have never once in my life heard that only the first 8 chapters of Mark are accurate. Not one single time. And chapter 8 does not end with an empty tomb. This is how Mark chapter 8 ends... Mark 8:35-38 "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." So, that was just a claim on your part then. The best evidence is a changed heart and true faith in Christ and the evidence of the pure and holy light and love God imparts to you when you repent, believe on Him and are born again. Jesus promised this to His disciples... John 14:21-23 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." You must be in repentance and keeping God's commandments to experience the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, and one needs that power to understand the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Christians have been experiencing this power and presence of God for the past 2,000 years. When you have truly experienced God, you will not doubt His truth anymore (unless one sears his conscience again with sin to the point of unbelief, but that is very difficult to do, and not God's desire). This is not merely anecdotal evidence, as God has promised this same scriptural foundation for personal revelation to whosoever believes in Him. You can prove this to yourself demonstratively by testing the claim. Repent and pray to God to grant you His Holy Spirit. Luke 11:13 “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” I hope and pray that you will take off the atheist blinders, that I myself once wore before I repented and called out to God to reveal the truth to me. Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” 2 Corinthians 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Jesus lived a sinless life and died on the cross to forgive you of your sins, for we have all sinned and come short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” May God grant you repentance to be free from the lies of the devil and be saved from death and hell and granted eternal life in Jesus Christ alone. God bless you. Amen. Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
@@braydynniewiadomski5454 I haven’t read all of your comment yet but you check with Mike that only the first 8 chapters of Mark were original to Mark. He made an entire video about whether the last half was biblical. After doing his Hamlet schtick, he, of course, down on the side that it was biblical.
@@chriswinchell1570 So, it sounds like if I check Mike's video on the matter I'll find that the gospel of Mark doesn't end at chapter 8 then. Please do read the rest of the comment Chris, your very life depends on God's message contained within and your life is important to God. God bless you.
If people died for the belief that Christ was risen, and they all saw Him alive, and they had the choice to tell their executioners that they were lying, and they didn't, that's good enough for me. You don't die believing in a lie.
First of all, I would assume MOST people die believing a lie, but some of us are unknowingly defending a lie to the death (see Jihadists as a clear example from this perspective). Additionally, who’s to say they wouldn’t have been put to death if they denied it anyway?
Christian Slayer well that’s wrong Paul was talking about if Christ had not been risen from the dead but if you put context behind the verse and read the whole chapter you can clearly tell he thinks Christ has risen from the dead
Trevor Haugen So we’re not talking about Jihadists, we’re talking about people who converted to a religion that had not previously believed in and was utterly exclusionary (Judaism) that was heavily persecuted for 300 years in the midsts of the worst oppression of a religious group that had been witnessed in history. Jihadists are war mongerers, Christians are axiomatically peaceful. They had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by believing. Their brothers, wives, children and grand children would all be put to death for their beliefs, yet they still died martyrs. There comes a point where you just gotta say “come on dude.”
He is just making stuff. He just repeats names and asserts if they are right or wrong. He never gives any references at all to his assertions. He is even getting the Bible wrong. There are devote folk who are very learned whom give constructive arguments; eg, N. T. Wright, Bishop Barron, James Dunn, Matthew J. Korpman and many other. They are scholars and church leaders. This dude is crank
Thank you for taking the time to produce the video and being open to comments from those who disagree. It's amazing how you seem to dismiss all of these positions (some of which you don't accurately represent ) as ridiculous when you yourself are advocating the least likely explanation for an event we aren't sure happened and that defies what we know about reality. By point - 1- Irrelevant to resurrection claim; everyone dies. 2 - Writers decades later say so with discrepancies; this doesn't demonstrate there was a tomb, that it was empty, or why it was empty even if it was. But we can accept and still doesn't prove resurrection claim. 3- you are obscuring the important fact that Paul and then anonymous authors simply claimed there were appearances to various people decades later. That's not the same as confirmed appearances (my uncle might think he saw Sasquatch and I can talk to him). Almost all religions have similar fantastical claims. In this case, perhaps spread by word of mouth and exaggerated over time as we can see from the texts themselves. 4- Even if true, it would merely show people believed it; irrelevant to truth of claim. 5- same as 4. How is it folly to not accept the most improbable thing - that a man was resurrected from the dead - something that completely conflicts with our internal model of reality - without more evidence than ancient texts written decades later? Thanks again and take care! I see now that I have BLOVIATED, sorry. Last - your cat is adorable and awesome! :)
Saturn88z all of the New Testament was written y AD 100. There is around 500 sightings of Jesus in the 40days before ascension.By 90Ad all the Apostles were either killed or dead after being put in prison.
@@sheilamclaughlin963 Much of the new testament, including the late forged letters, is probably 2nd century, and many scholars think that the gospels are much later than previously thought. There is ONE second hand tale of 500 witnesses to Jesus, and that most likely just a creedal statement, (ie not even remotely evidence). There is literally no evidence whatsoever of what became of the "apostles" (I think you mean disciples - not the same thing), only fantasy tales of later pious fiction christian story tellers, except James (and which James?). Sorry, still no evidence.
Be encouraged! I saw Cam and Doug's RUclips video of a fake Christian vs. Atheist debate. I was not impressed. I appreciate your hope in the human spirit.
The consistency of translation im seeing with NASB, KJV, and JPS Tanakh, over NIV, have the people of those cities being slaughtered in 1 Chronicles. I would be interested to here your take, Mike
You're totally misrepresenting Bart Ehrmann's position here. What he actually said is that as a historian, establishing what really happened on a certain occasion, is actually never being empirically proven like it is the case in natural science, you always have to rely on probabilities. And a miracle, by definition, would be the least probable thing there is, so it is not a viable option for a historian. This doesn't say that miracles are not to be believed even if they happened. It says that even if they should have happened, the methodology of historical research is not the right tool to prove it.
The facts are often, "Yes, it says this in the gospel, you can read it for yourself." People often want other places to look that corroborate what they are reading, such as sources or citations. That's why we tell people not to rely on Wikipedia, as they are likely not checking the sources and just accepting the data on the page as fact.
We dont just have the bible although the bible is a compilation of separate works by separate people. There is also the letter of lentulus and an empty tomb. Not to mention philosophical and cosmological proofs ect. The thing is when considering Christianity the fact is that you need to consider ALL the proof not just some whenever it seem fit. My coming to Jesus (ex athiest) was when I realized 1. The bible isnt just 1 book written by 1 person (every human name is a separate human) 2. This makes the historical case strong because even considering the fact that the apostles talked with eachother the fact that Paul only went to them once and his book was dated after paired with the book of lentulus puts the MINIMUM total to 3 separate accounts of his crucifixion and 2 separate accounts for his resurrection AND a body not to be found. 3. The fact that we are so far evolutionarily from other animals for no reason and dominate the world despite delusion and suicidal tendencies and laziness being rife is very odd. 4. The infinite complexity of our universe is kinda a big deal 5. The lead theory of creation without God is literally just "and then it happened" 6. If we truly were just evolution then why do we feel the need to "save the turtles" when there is a high probability that it wouldn't matter that much to our survival 7. Why does living a biblical life make me so much happier. Also Pascal's wager and all the other proof blah blah blah those weren't as important but point is the facts are: some people wrote books that scholars agree were indeed wrote by themselves separately describing a crucifixion with a resurrection, these people then held true to what they said when facing death and beatings, one of them gave the death and beatings out before randomly 180ing after claiming to see Jesus, there is a letter confirming Jesus death, there is no progress on finding Jesus body, the Godless explanation for creation is just an atom that blew up and no one knows where the atom came from, we have non-selfish morals despite the fact that is denies logic, the text has predicted events that became true (according to scholarly dating) yeah im with the Christian's on this one
@Fil Ler you are pretty much saying... well nothing else seems to fit the case so it's god! You need to look into some science books and figure out what contradicts the Bible. The earth isn't being held on 4 pillars like the Bible says and the earth isn't in the middle of the universe. Oh and the Bible allows slavery. So even IF the Bible was true.. slavery is something that is practiced in the book.
Hey Mike: you have asked a couple times about what you got wrong about Dillahunty. One example is you say it seems he leans towards mysticism. He moderated a debate between Price and Ehrman and stated that he actual leans thw other way. I would also advise caution about making statements or speculating on the mental states and motivations of others. For example you say Ehrman probably changed his tune as a result of the Craig debate. That may be true but then again maybe not. The problem is these speculations are not without rhetorical effect. They seem to me like efforts to score a point for your side without actually demonstrating the truth of your claims. While ultimately I think you are mistaken to believe in God, I appreciate your content. Best of luck
The New Testament is a collection of the most authentic and verified preserved records from the earliest Christians. So, I say, let's suppose that we compiled in one encyclopedia all the best theories and proofs from all the best physicists in the world from all of history into one collection of books - on a website perhaps. Would it be logical to then say that all future physicists who use any of those ideas were doing invalid work because they all based their work on only one book or on only one collection of books, or because they were using only one website as their source? Of course not. Then why would we expect Christians or historians to base all their work only on the less authentic and less verified works, to the exclusion of the best ones that we have? Gathering all the best work in one collection does not make that collection less trustworthy; it makes it more trustworthy. And it is ludicrous to consider such a collection to be a singular source, when it is so obviously a putting together of different sources.
@@lepidoptera9337 The letters in the New Testament were written between Christians. This is very very good historic source. It shows what they believed. Needless to say the letters do not say things like when you are speaking to non Christians you need to pretend this or claim that. It is clear that the letters were written with integrity. So when you have letters written between those involved why would you look to people who had no interest in Christianity to try and learn what Christians believed.
Could someone please point me to the polling that shows that a majority of qualified worldwide historians believe those things. I'd not heard that before and find it frankly unbelievable. But certainly willing to change my mind with sufficient evidence.
garyhabermas.com has some info on that. What he is doing is, I believe, considered to be better than simply polling scholars in general. He has been surveying the scholarly literature of those who actually work on the topic specifically. He is a scholar in the field himself but seeks, like Bart Ehrman, to be accessible to the lay person.
So then equivalent to only polling Historians who intently study the historicity of the Quran? Or say the historicity of Hindu Holy texts? That would seem to have a self selection sampling problem. No?
It would be if it was limited to only those who are already religiously committed to the thing in question. It's nice to be a scholar but most only have first hand knowledge in very limited areas. Habermas focuses on those who have studied and published in the area in question. This seems a very wise way to survey scholarly views on the issue. Consider the validity of polling a scholar in Shakespearean tragedy to see his view of the implications of the early creed represented in 1 Corinthians 15.
That seems to have the problem backwards. It's not about ensuring you don't exclude some, its making sure you don't have an biased pool to start. Of all historians, are those who tend to study religious historicity generally more inclined to be believers of the religion they are studying? If so that's going to invalidate that argument from authority since there is good reason to think it is no longer an un-biased authority. We would see the same problem with Islam and Hinduism also.
Forgive me for not having time to continue this very worthwhile conversation. Let me share a couple quick but important thoughts before I defer to you to have the last word. 1- It's really important to me that you see why the religious affiliation of those surveyed is not a factor (feel free to do your own research on this but don't just guess at reasons why you might dismiss the scholarly literature on the topic). The literature surveyed by Habermas shows agreement beyond religious lines (that's an important point you seem to be unaware of). 2- The historical claims (the 5 facts) are NOT religious beliefs. They are not miraculous and they are not arrived at through any means other than the normal methods of historical research. This means that we can believe those 5 facts based on normal historical methods. This is a foundational point to the case for the resurrection and I urge you to consider it. 3- It is the explanation of those facts, not the facts, that the debate ought to be about. If you want to challenge the facts themselves then fine but it's more than a little presumptuous to just come up with stuff off the top of your head to discount the mountain of research that has gone into historians being able to make this case. This is probably my biggest beef with those who are trying to reject this evidence for the resurrection. They feel comfortable casually throwing off the scholarship without much more than a fabricated reason they haven't taken the time to consider critically. If they do grant the "facts" (which I note they almost never do) they don't put much thought or effort into explaining them reasonably. But now I am rehashing the content of the video so I'll stop. If you are interested in this case I encourage you to do your own study on it but not to just casually throw off what is a careful, evidence based case for the resurrection. After all, isn't evidence the thing that most skeptics claim they are actually interested in? Thanks for your time and consideration!
Your five "facts" aren't facts. They are claims made in the Bible. Evidence would be something which supports those claims. You kept claiming in the video that historians accept your five "facts." Perhaps certain Christian historians do, but if you were to poll all historians you'd find there aren't many who would accept your five claims as facts. You're being dishonest when you claim skeptics don't care about evidence. Most I've heard, including some of the ones you mentioned, would say you don't have any evidence because the Bible is a set of claims, not evidence. If you had real evidence, something which could be tested and examined, that would be different. But you haven't presented anything like that. By the criteria you used in this video, the National Enquirer would have to be considered evidence for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Unfortunately this video only quotes what other atheists say and I can’t know if there is more to the quote itself. I honestly only follow Sam Harris and I don’t think he’d just say “even if we had more evidence, we should ignore it”. I think what he is saying is that even if we had more witnesses than we already do, the only thing that we could conclude 100% of the time is that they claim to have seen something. Just like people who practice other religions and report similar experiences, that does not mean that their experiences are a cause of the divine or supernatural. I used to use the same argument against Mohammad since he only spoke to the archangel on his own without any other witnesses. But even if there had been other witnesses, that still does not make his claim any more true. However, right now I have no answer as to why anyone would just lie about the whole thing, because as you pointed out in your video, there doesn’t seem to be any gain from this for the disciples or Jesus himself. I’ll have to look into this more.
@@Joe-dz2fl Well, not really. I am also not really entirely certain that the whole story is true. But maybe they did see some gain in lying but it did not work out as they thought it would but were killed anyway. I don’t know, but I have other issues with Christianity anyway. For example, when I look at the universe, I just can’t imagine the creator of the universe wanting blood sacrifices from humans. All of this seems so primitive and unnecessary. It also makes no sense to me that God does not answer prayers or does not contact us immediately if we really are in such terrible danger to go to hell. I mean some people have no choice but to go to to hell and to deceive others because they themselves are deceived. God knows many will deceive others and is simply not doing anything about it. This makes no sense. So I guess I am just giving it all up. If the creator of the universe really wants something from us, it should not be that difficult for us to find him. One should not need to read books, watch sermons on youtube or become a scholar. That would only make sense if you wanted to study physics or something... but God in Christianity is so simple and personal that we should just instantly be able to connect with him... well I can get connected more easily to the internet than have any real spiritual experience with Jesus.. which even if I did... how would I know it was not just in my head? I don’t believe in a creator. I believe that the universe simply exists and we are just a happy accident. Just because it is improbable it does not mean it is impossible. But I am also open to the idea that a creator made all of this.. but then you either believe what I believe about the universe but attributing it to the creator and namely that he just exists... or maybe the creator of this universe was also created by something else. It is impossible to know and I think that if the Christian God was real, we would all know it by now. I may be wrong, but God knows where I am... well, where we all are and he could just correct us, but he won’t.
@@tuckercoffin2164 you make good points, like you I’m not convinced, maybe see my comment above^. And what you said about the spiritual experience that Christians attribute to Jesus, can also be the exact same in multiple Christian sects or multiple religions. That seems to be proof of a deeper principle than a particular religion claiming to be the truth.
"If you're an atheist you know who Bart Ehrtmann is." I genuinely appreciate how much of a laugh that gave me, that was incredible. All atheists sit around in their atheist study groups discussing Bart Ehrtman, it is known.
The problem with this is simple. These are not facts presented here by Mike. All those itemized “ contentions “ are taken from scripture. Where did you get the “ fact” that many people saw Jesus after his death? You will only convince those who believe already. But then you make the statement you are not using the Bible to come up with your facts. About midway through this you claim the Bible is, well, fact. To represent these people in the manner you portrayed is, non Christian. It’s either deliberately dishonest or you are not capable of defending your position. You are pushing people away.
Really disappointed that you didn't let the atheists make their own case rather than offering a butchered weak version of it. Appreciate the encouragement to do our own research.
@@LoraxChannel A YT comment does not require a formal thesis, you muppet. If you really, really want I can rewatch and have specific examples listed. But its kind of dumb to jump in a comment thread handing out demerits as if all comments are fully fleshed out. If youre curious about my claim, just ask.
Mesopotamia is a region of southwest Asia in the Tigris and Euphrates river system that benefitted from the area's climate and geography to host the Beginnings of Human Civilization. The civilization is majorly known for is Prosperity, City Life and its Rich and Voluminous Literature, Religion, Mathematics and Astronomy. They believe Sumerian civilization first took form in southern Mesopotamia around 4000 BCE-or 6000 years ago-which would make it the first urban civilization in the region. Mesopotamians are noted for developing the first written Religious Scripts around 3000 BCE: wedge-shaped marks pressed into clay tablets. Scholars' worked, and published in the international journal of Nature, said the Civilisation predates Egypt's ancient people (7,000 BC to 3,000 BC) and could mark a significant shift in the study of ancient societies. The Literature Written can be Traced through out all other Civilizations Literature after that. Religions Through out time has used this Literature to create there own Religions how they see fit. Basically Misleading People for 1000's of Years. Telling Lie's to Benefit There Agendas and Control. That's why there are 1000+ Religions. And there story's are so similar. SO MAN DID WRIGHT THE BIBLE... If you Can't Understand this, It's Not My Problem.
Mike, You reference a consensus of historians a few times and that made me wonder. Would you still believe in the resurrection of jesus christ If historians didn't agree on those 5 points? Lets say only 10% agreed on the 5 points you mentioned. Would you still be convinced that the resurrection happened?
@@darken3150 And I think he really means biblical historians, of which many, if not most, are christian. If he polled secular biblical historians only he would get a vastly different answer which is why he won't do it.
Hi Darken... I think Christians claim that their faith is evidence based. That history supports the claims, even from non Christian/secular historians. If there was no historical evidence that would be an issue! It’s claimed Science supports faith in God but does not specify to the resurrection account. So I would presume if Historians didn’t agree that could Pose problems. But I suppose we also have to look at the evidence ourselves and make our own minds up.
@@darken3150... hi Darken... in reply to your request. As I said it’s a claim... so... The fine tuning of the universe. The universe expansion suggests that the universe has a beginning and is therefore not eternal, means something must have caused it to begin. The Complexity/ appearance of design in nature. The law of entropy. These are some that spring to mind.
The times I have told people about Paul's conversion, they have said that he must have come to believe so strongly in the principles of Christianity that he thought it was worth lying and die for. It does not compute for me, but I must admit, it is a better explanation than mass hallucination, not resurrection though.
Paul was a Torah observant Hebrew…that argument does not follow. As a believer in Hashem, for Paul to “lie” about his belief in the one true God he would be committing blasphemy and idolatry. Paul would be sending his soul to eternal damnation for Christian ethics even though he did not believe that Yeshua was God manifest in flesh? I think not. 1 Corinthians 15- 14 And if Christ has not been raised,(AD) our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.(AE) But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.(AF) 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep(AG) in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.(AH)
The same skeptics that drowned in the Flood, the same Skeptics that perished in Sodom, the same Skeptics that throughout the Bible doubt God's Love. Love and Truth are one in the same.
Do you have any proof that you exist , and have asked me a question? How is it that I know you were actually responding to my comments, and did not just spill a coke or Pepsi on your key board? lol.
John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
@@theoskeptomai2535 Rather than beat around the bush, its ok , you can just say, your a non believer and have no faith in Biblical content. I would assume that if that is so you choose freely to follow another standard of reasoning which leads to nowhere.
Happy to have found this title. But was looking fwd to better information, Mike. The title was promising, but I think your explanations of skeptics' positions were pretty much just a strawman. I am very familiar with all the skeptics mentioned. You treated their explanations only minimally and created a strawman at best. I am a former Christian (from age 14 until about 55) but am now an atheist. But I watch vids & read from both sides. My hobby, in fact--and it has been since my teen years)--is studying NT history and early Church history and the historicity of the Bible, etc. I love the Bible (as literature, I no longer take it as God's Word) and am interested in both sides, as I said. I think you offered a bum critique of the skeptics. Some truth, but a lot of straw. Still, now that I found your channel, I will be tuning in more as long as I find value and convincing refutation--a little more convincing than this vid. Best wishes.
This particular video is not as much of a specified refutation as many of Mike's, it's a bit more generalized as it's an overview of positions, so while I don't think that was ever intentioned I'm sure it's easier for misteps to be made in representation. I would reccomend something like the two parter Mike does on Aron Ra's video about Christian prophecy, he gets to go more in depth on each point brought up in the videos there and he's directly showing the video to be as accurate as possible about the points given. I know I'm several months late but hope you'll give it a look mate!
@@vuke6931 Interesting, how do you handle a prophecy that even the prophet himself admitted failed? Ezequiel 26-29, How do we dogde that? Why do we dogde that?
You have no contemporary evidence for Jesus let alone his ressurection despite there being 500 "brothers" present. No one recorded that, imagine that??
@@petery6432 Not exactly. John Dominic Crossan had claimed that Jesus was thrown into a shallow grave or eaten by wild dogs back in the 90s I believe. The only thing Ehrman added to that was believing that Jesus was left rotting on the cross. However, neither of them has any evidence for this. We know this happened to some crucified persons, but we also know this wasn't universal. Both Josephus & Philo gives us accounts & times when Romans allowed for proper burial of a crucified person. Also, archaeologists found a Jew named Yohannium (it's possible I misspelled that) in a bone box (ossuary) which is hard evidence of a Jew being given a proper burial after being crucified. Since we know such practices were not universal, the burden of proof is on both John Dominic Crossan & Bart Ehrman to provide the evidence that Jesus didn't receive a proper burial. What is more is that we have strong evidence that Jesus received a proper burial from the early creed in 1 Cor. 15 & the pre-Marcan Passion narrative, not to mention the fact that Joseph of Aramathea taking care of Jesus' burial fulfills the criteria of embarrassment since he sat on the Sanhedrin, the same council that condemned Jesus, making it very improbable that the burial story was made up. So, Bart & others like him, are forced to contend with that very strong historical grounding. Thanks for replying! Blessings!
Ok, I'm skeptical because of the weakness in the stories you use as evidence as POINT#3. Lets quickly examine the few found in the N.T.. 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul gives a list; To Peter and the 12 (which should say the 11 as Judas is dead) then 500 at once, (a claim that is hearsay at best. Paul gives no detail as to who are they, who told Paul this? when or where did this appearance take place? Paul was not there! No where in the Gospels claims this happened and their narratives hardly allow any place in there timeline for this to take place.) Then to James (which James as there as at least 3 possibilities) and to all the Apostles (which is the 11 again?) VERY VAGUE. BUT APOLOGICS REALLY DEPEND ON THIS ALL BEING TRUE. Mk 16: 5-20 3 named women see an empty tomb and and also some unidentified young man and the women "fled" in fear and "told no one, for they were afraid." THE LAST NINE VERSES WERE ADDED HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER BY...... NO ONE KNOWS!!!! MT 28: 2 named women see ONE ANGEL, RAN AWAY IN FEAR AND JOY AND THEY RUN INTO JESUS HIMSELF? (does this sound embellished?) vs 16ff The 11 "saw Him but SOME were DOUBTFUL. (Who exactly and how many. A FEW cannot be just one! If only 2 the text would likely say "A couple." That likely makes it ay least 3, or 4 or maybe even 5. There is no claim they later came around to believe this "appearance Stuff." What makes me get a GUT FEELING that this is contrived is the way the story plays out. THE CLAME THAT THE 11 ALL SAW HIM BUT SOME DOUBTED just sounds strange and stretched. Hang on! This gets even stranger..... Lk 24:10ff At least 5 women (embellished again?) see 2 Men. When they tell the men their experience what the men doubt is their words. IN THIS STORY JESUS APPEARS TO TWO GUY (one named Cleopas, who is is he? The other is suspiciously un-named?
I definitely realize it is a miraculous claim. My point here is that it is a claim which is supported by the evidence. One could say, "if the resurrection did occur it would be the simplest explanation for what we see in history".
Claims of Ghosts , supernatural are not taken seriously anywhere in courtrooms as evidence of any sort...so why take this claim made by people 2K years back any seriously?
Bart Ehrman has a lot to say, why did you pick his weakest most obscure argument? Is it because the mountain of other work he's done is evidence based and unassailable?
You know what’s not unassailable? This comment. Make a response video if you have something to say and show us those big guns you’re tying to flaunt for Ehrman.
The folded cloth was a symbol in commom use. During a meal it meant "Do not take my plate away. I will return." The servants then knew not to remove that person's plate. In the tomb the wrappings were undisturbed, as the body of Jesus arose through them. But the cloth covering the head had been neatly folded. He will return.
Oh, bless you, my dear brother, Mike! Or should I say, Rabbi Winger! My brain feels exceedingly fresh, like the wind of heaven just cleared out all the stale air & shined a great beautiful light from heaven. Clearly & succinctly exposing these atheists attempt at “arguments” is a thing of beauty!
19:19 He is “Lying for Jesus” again. This is what D. Hume actually said: “For I own, that otherwise, *there may possibly be miracles,* or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history.” This is what Mike Winger said: “In David Hume mind miracles are *impossible,* period, end of story. And therefore, no matter what the evidencie is, we deny the resurrection.” And then he proceeds to *misquote* him... Sadly this is a common tactic among apologists.
@@vejeke I really wish fellows like M Wing did not tell lies. He seems such a nice person, and I really want to trust him. It only takes a few intentional lies, and it causes me to start to wonder about the rest of their story. That is why I escaped X'tinsanity. You can let pass one error or lie, but it does not stop at just follow-up lies, but the attempt to cover up with obfuscation is heartbreaking. Is the final message *that* bad to need this sort of deception? You will know them by their maggot filled fruits.
@@vejeke You can’t take that quote and then claim that Winger is being dishonest. Hume flat out denies all miracles in that quote and then says, as Winger brought up, there might be a miracle that he would accept. Edited out last part since it muddled the clarity
@@whatsinaname691 The hell I can't. He deliberately misrepresents Hume's position so that it says *what he is interested in people believing Hume said* even though it is almost the opposite of what Hume actually said. Thus he gets his group members to think "Hume flat out denies all miracles in that quote" when the quote literally says "there may possibly be miracles". 19:31 Here's what Mike Winger said next: "Let me read you one of the things he wrote. He says: «The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle" And then, instead of keep quoting Hume till the end of the sentence, Mike just repeated "that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle". Now I'm asking you, would you read only the first part of an author's quote in front of your public to try to summarize his opinion on a subject when the very next word in the middle of that quote is *"unless"* ? He is being dishonest and manipulative in order to protect the beliefs he already holds, a common tactic among apologists of all kinds of religions. Here is the full text, without repeating or omitting anything. "The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, *unless* the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." Mike tries to manipulate his audience to help convince himself. That's why he talks about methodological naturalism in terms of "a blind faith position", it is a well-known psychological defense mechanism. *_Psychological projection_*_ is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others. For example, a bully may project his or her own feelings of vulnerability onto the target, or a person who is confused may project feelings of confusion and inadequacy onto other people._ _Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping._
@@vejeke I am surprised you are assuming Mike is being deliberately dishonest, but it is common to assume that people on your side of an issue are more moral than people on the other side. It is pretty clear from Hume's essay on miracles that he is not at all open to them. It sounds like Mike understands Hume better than you do.
For Joseph's question on 1 Chronicles 20:3 and why it is translated such different ways here is some insight from the "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible"
"cut them with saws, &c.-The Hebrew word, “cut them,” is, with the difference of the final letter, the same as that rendered “put them,” in the parallel passage of Samuel [2 Sa 12:31]; and many consider that putting them to saws, axes, and so forth, means nothing more than that David condemned the inhabitants of Rabbah to hard and penal servitude." Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1 Ch 20:3). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
It seems that it's a debate between whether he "put them" to axes in the sense of labor or in the sense of death. The different translations reflect different decisions about how to understand this. I don't know which is the more accurate one. I hope this at least clarifies the issue for you.
So....nothing?
William Lane Craig is not a Scholar
@@Calum2244: "William Lane Craig is not a scholar". Neither are you, but WLCs' integrity & honesty is above reproach. So what is your point??
@@gavinhurlimann2910 WLCs' integrity & honesty is above reproach LOL No its not. He is one of the most dishonest apologist I have ever seen.
@@davelanger: Davey boy, any idiot can make a claim in the comments section without evidence (as u have). If u have evidence of WLCs dishonesty as an apologist, then please provide it.
I'm from the Navajo tribe, and I really honestly tried to believe and test out my Native Religion. But it was evident that it wasn't true. So after I became a believer in Christ, reading and studying the Bible opened the truth to me. Additionally, other things like miracles, testimonies, and answered prayer...have all added to and built my faith in Jesus! Praise God.
Because you are Native American, it is amazing that you became a believer. So many Native people experienced genocide and destruction, Many are leery of Christianity.
Dee Anderson.
Those murderous people were not representing Christianity.
They weren't being guided by the holy spirit.
I do imagine that the natives and their religious practices seemed savage to the ones professing to be Christians, however, they themselves were savage in how they responded.
I am so happy for you!! PTL
@Ty Houston, do you live on the Navajo Nation land near Page, AZ?
Ty Huston.
So, in the 21st century you can't believe in your Navajo traditional beliefs BUT you can believe that the earth and everything on it was created in six days, you can believe Mary had a baby from a ghost while married to Joseph ( did you ever think it could have been Joseph's baby ? ) Someone named Jesus came back to life after three days of death.
15 years ago I would have been one of the argueing, taunting, sarcastic, cynical, and semi stuck up smart alecky mockers, on my high horse of agnosticism... and praise God and his mercy he touched me, through painful experiences, logic, and miracles, I was saved. Who would ever guess?? Me?? I was a mocker!! Praise God for his mercy and loving kindness. And the miracles he's shown in my life (escape from prison which i deserved, life after drug overdoses, life for my premature daughter, deliverance from addiction and abuse) praise the lord for your ministry mike!
❤️
It really is amazing how far emotions can take us into illusions of reality.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 Not sure what you mean. When I relied on my emotions I stayed stuck in my addiction, abuse, and pain. When I chose to trust God, instead of my emotions was when I found healing and rest for my soul. I followed the scientific evidence where it led, and the argument weighed heavier towards a creator.
@@catherinewhisenand5678 there is nothing to support your belief in the existence of God other than your emotions is what I meant. You may "feel" his presence but it's just your brain tricking you. In other words, your feelings are not based on reality. I don't know what scientific evidence you're talking about because I haven't heard of any.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 If you're seeking evidence there are plenty of books and you tube videos on the scientific evidence for God. I could not explain it all here. I KNOW my God is real. He has changed my heart and it is much more than an emotion. I often don't feel his presence physically or emotionally. When I sought him out, he was faithful to reveal himself to me in the way I would personally recognize. He is so personal and loves us so much he knows what we need and if you seek him with all your heart you will find him.
Luke 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
Want to take a guess at how many people rose from the dead in the Bible? In the context of the collection of stories it was pretty commonplace.
@@cameronbarge3337 Yeah no sir.
@@justchilling704 Here's a hint, thanks to what is written in Matthew we can't even put a number on it.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/raised-from-the-dead.html
Tristan Sexton Illogical. If you don’t heed outdated moralizing, then you won’t believe what happens in front of your eyes?. Luke lacked logic.
Someone rose from the dead?
As an atheist this was incredibly eye opening. I'm really interested in looking into the history of the time. I really want to hear what the Roman's had to say, and I'd love to dig into the eye witness accounts so I can see christ's resurrection objectively. Anyone got anything for me to read?
I just did a teaching yesterday that may interest you. Lots of references in the video description to scholarly sources as well. ruclips.net/video/dK1fU4p43jg/видео.html
@@MikeWinger I'm 25 minutes in and I'm lovin' it so far. I already know I'm gonna have to come back to it a couple times because there is a good bit you're unpacking, but thank you so much for that. Deep down in the scholarly weeds are exactly where I'm tryna go 😂 Lastly, I just wanna say real quick your sarcasm is great. Following arguments and thinking critically is much less cumbersome when you can laugh and joke about what you are discussing.
The writings of the Roman historians and political thinkers Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, as well as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus are excellent sources for this. None were Christian and all are extra-Biblical, yet all reference Jesus from around his time period.
Aaaaaamen. 🙏
I’ve referenced Gary Habermas to septics due to his simple yet well laid out minimal facts argument for the resurrection.
Man, so many comments are “You’re bad/dumb Mike.”
I think you’re doing good work Mike! Don’t get discouraged!
LOL, great comment Kristen! (Matthew 5:11) "Blessed are you, when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you, because of me."
Kristen, I haven't seen any comment like that addressed to Mike.
I am an Atheist and I don't think Mike is dumb, at all. He is just badly informed.
I think you're kind of bullying him.
@@carlose5751, that’s it, you nailed it. We’re all just badly informed. Do you know who Dr. Alvin Plantinga is? He said that while there is plenty of evidence for God and also the resurrection, the very fact of the Holy Spirit living within is evidence enough for him. Dr. G. Campbell Morgan said that the millions of lives changed is one of the greatest evidences for God in Christ. You should go argue with Dr. Gary Habermas. We’re not badly informed, you’re simply blind to the truth
@@michaelbrickley2443 You could bring on your side someone relevant like Albert Einstein or even Richard Dawkins and I don't give a f@ck about their opinions. Fallacy of authority doesn't make anything to be true.
@@carlose5751 yup that's true, that's why you need to go back to the primary sources yourself and create conclusions based on what you find. People like Mike just relay the distilled info to us who want a summary of what he found with his own studies, to us who do not have the time to go through the sources ourselves and get degrees for this specific type of info. So you don't have to listen to him (or to anyone, for that matter) because you can go and study these things from the *primary* sources yourself. No one is forcing you to listen to this specific pastor, but if you don't, then you have to do your due diligence of going through the research for yourself to see if what Christianity claims to be true is actually true. There is no inherent bias here, just being wise with how we use our limited time in contrast to other dissenting voices and put them against each other (as I was also once an atheist). God bless you. You don't have to assume the appeal of authority to prove things true, *you* do it yourself then.
Schizophrenics, from a medical viewpoint, don't just have mass hallucinations together....it is not like their illnesses just sync to each other and create one hivemind schizophrenic illusion. That's like saying a room full of anxious people just suddenly all become anxious about this one illogical concern.
This is true. I'm wanting to learn I've felt it. This makes sense I mean only certain things I feel him its odd but I agree if we were all mentally ill why does it so happen we have same thoughts and reasoning lol only 24 haven't been into this much but I've had morals close to what he teaches so I've been walking not too far from him! 🙏
No if you want to doubt the resurrection you have to disagree with one of those five points. If you believe those five points resurrection sounds like the most possible.
someone in a room getting stressed out can stress out other people in the room
@@Greyz174 Hello, I"m an RN and I currently work in a Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital here in my city (been working there since 2009). I have seen clients having hallucinations many times than I can count and I can confidently tell you that there's nothing like mass hallucination. Several clients can experience hallucination simultaneously but the content and object of their hallucinations is and can never be the same. I am speaking from experience and my education. Mass hallucination DOES NOT exist, period.
@@ayolovephat this is an open question im reasoning my way through so id love to hear your thoughts: do you think that the environment you've observed this in where people are constantly trying to control and inhibit the hallucinations would be significantly different that an enironment where you let them play out in a cultural framework that would treat them as divine interaction?
im not sure to what extent we can extrapolate how hallucinations work based off of our experiences in this culture where we pathologize and actively prevent them from taking off and being rationalized into peoples' worldview and collective experiences. do you have any thoughts on this?
and to be clear, this does not mean "so therefore identical hallucinations happened back then" but maybe something more like "people having these hallucinations uninterrupted will eventually talk about and create one story, and harmonize their mental experiences to be more like their friends who are having their own version of that mental experience, and this going uninterrupted leads to them coming to spiritual conclusions about what happened with their dead leader, instead of seeing some stuff and then their parents immediately sending them to a doctor and stopping this hallucination in its tracks"
Please let's remember that a very important part of presenting the gospel to unbelievers (including atheists) is for them to see Christians as truly authentic followers of Jesus Christ, i.e., that we model the love, compassion, kindness, self sacrifice, mercy, etc. for which Jesus was known. Many great principles are given in the NT, especially by Jesus, and especially in Matthew 5 and 6.(Love God, Love your neighbor, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc.)
When I was an atheist, I truly enjoyed mocking Christians. Not seeing any difference in the way they reacted to mocking made me feel justified in my atheism.
When I finished serving a hitch in the Navy in 1979, I moved up into the mountains to be able to party loudly and consume illegal substances without being bothered by anyone (including by the Law and Christians).
After a pretty wild party one Saturday night (during which, both my stereo and my TV became broken), I was awakened the next morning by someone knocking at the door. I peered out and saw my girlfriend's sister, Betsy, knocking at the door. I did not want to let her in because I knew she was one of those outspoken Christians. Only because her sister, Sandy, lived with me did I get up and let her in.
They sat down at the dining room table to talk, while I sat in the living room. It's generally pretty quiet in the mountains, especially when one's TV and stereo got broken the previous night, so, without even trying, I easily heard everything being said.
As Betsy shared the Gospel with her sister (my girlfriend), Sandy, I became offended as I felt she was violating the "sanctity" of my home. My offense turned to anger when I heard Sandy agreeing to pray a prayer of salvation with her, as I knew it might mean the end of our sexual relationship.
But I really hit stage 3 when I heard Betsy say that she was going to come into the living room to talk to me about Jesus. I prepared a litany of obscenities in my mind to share with her. When she asked me if I would like to know more about Jesus, I let go with a stream of obscenities, designed to make her retreat, even as far as leaving my home. She didn't. In fact, she stood there with a kind smile on her face, as if she had expected me to respond that way, and it didn't bother her in the least. Finally, feeling awkward, I sort of ran out of gas and sputtered to and end with "Well, that's just how I feel about that stuff."
She responded with something like "Hey, I'm not here to threaten you (or harm you, or something like that). I just want to let you know that God loves you and Jesus died for you."
She and Sandy hung around the rest of the day as they planned to go to church that evening.
As they were leaving, Betsy handed me a gospel tract, asking me to read it while they were gone. I reluctantly agreed just to get her out the door.
While they were gone, I was bored out of my gourd as my TV and stereo were broken, and it was many years until the Internet. And it strangely seemed like the Gospel tract was magnetically drawing me to read it. I finally gave in, justifying it by saying that I could honestly tell her that I read it so she would shut up.
I'd read lots of Gospel tracts before, but for entertainment. I'd laugh after I read them and then tore them up and/or threw them away so no one else could read them.
But this time I was genuinely open and interested in trying to understand it because of Betsy's kind response to my hateful, obscene speech (which really had me perplexed). I thought maybe she had something I couldn't explain.
As I sincerely considered the Bible references, it seemed like it was the first time I had ever read the Gospel. It wasn't the "Be good and stop sinning and maybe, you might get to heaven if you're good enough" message that I'd always thought it was. I truly understood God being able to offer me forgiveness because of Jesus' sacrificial death.
I don't think I could ever describe the depth of feeling that I had as I understood what the verses were saying, and suddenly realizing that it was all true. It really, really was like I had been in a totally dark room and someone had just turned on the light!
I was in shock and looked up toward God and found myself saying "You're kidding me! THIS is what you've been trying to tell me this whole time??"
An inexplicable joy filled me like I had never known (or even could have imagined)! I paced the floor trying to come to grips with the fact that, just minutes before, I was absolutely sure that none of this was true, and now I was even 'surer' that it WAS true! I went outside and stood there staring up at the stars. It was like I had never seen them before.
What seems pretty funny in retrospect was what happened when the girls got home. They came in the back door and were in the kitchen chatting. I realized I had to go tell them what had happened, so I walked into the kitchen and I suddenly realized I had no idea what to say! I stood there staring at them, and I must have looked a bit strange because they began asking me "What's wrong? What happened?"
Not knowing what to say, all that came out of my mouth was "I did it!"
They asked "Did what??", as if they thought I had committed some crime.
"That thing, in that piece of paper you gave me. I prayed."
They thought that I was making fun of them again, as I had done a little during the afternoon. I had to convince them that I was sincere, that I had become a believer.
I'm not sure at all what may have happened had Betsy not responded with kindness to my hostility to the Gospel. What if she HAD stormed out like I had expected her to?
What a great testimony! Hallelujah
Awesome! :)
Long read. Still an atheist though.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 And keep being one for now you will. God will see you through soon enough :)
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Actually I am an agnostic now, I do not make any definite claims on the existence of God.
David Hume didn't know that everything in our reality, according to the probabilities calculated to have them exist, is a miracle. EVERYTHING.
Given that, what would you say is the probability of the Christian god, Douglas?
Depends on how you define miracle.
If you define it as an extremely rare and unlikely event... then you are correct.
But I bet that Hume defined a miracle as an event that violates the laws of nature... so you are wrong.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 creating something from nothing violates the laws of nature :)
@@ReformationRevelation
That’s why only Christians think that the Universe was created from nothing while all scientists say that this is impossible and don’t think that there ever was nothing.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 are you sarcastic or what?
Starting out I really have to commend you for your bravery cuz I just lose my temper when I'm dealing with Skeptics like "you're a believer in evidence but you're so quick to deny evidence that goes against what you believe" so good on you man.
In ecsence they believe in themselves
Colloquially, they _deny_ the evidence, but what is happening is that the evidence is treated as real, as you not pulling it from thin air, but the evidence is from a book and you are taking what the bible says as literal, which is where is the evidence becomes weak as evidence for the claims being made.
Have you heard someone say, "Superman came from Krypton, crashed in America, and can move faster than a speeding bullet."
Does that sound right based on what is often portrayed in comics or moves about superman? Does anyone believe superman is a real person, could you argue he does using comic books?
The difference is the superman comic books were not meant to control, but to entertain.
You probably get angry because skeptics make you realize that your belief is completely nonsensical when thinking logically.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 I should keep a record of how many comments I make vs the amount that actually address the claim or question.
Many will make assumptions and refuse to admit they are. Nothing is wrong with assumptions of course as long as you are not hiding the fact that they are.
@@BornOnThursday I've seen all of them, hilarious really how Christians put themselves on a pedestal of truth yet can't answer basic questions about their assumptions. Most of these sheep can't make any arguments that's aren't circular or logically fallacious.
4:04 and 4:40 and 5:33 - Historian consensus
8:33 - Alternative explanations
12:45 - The swoon theory
15:38 - Spiritual Resurrection theory
16:35 - Wrong Tomb theory
16:56 - Missing body theory
17:16 - Conspiracy theory
18:05 - The rational explanation
19:03 - David Hume
20:35 and 22:15 - Bart Ehrman
24:30 - Richard Carrier
26:20 and 27:13 and 28:40 - Dan Barker
30:00 - Matt Dilahunty
34:50 - Is the Bible just one source?
38:20 - What about other religious claims?
Completely made up theory.
Thx but you forgot Sam harris
Yes! Book of James cuts straight to the heart!
The Bible is not evidence for the things in the bible.
@Chris Worthman I'm aware only the holy spirit can open a man's eyes to the truth!
@@catherinewhisenand5678 Is the holy spirit just another name for gullibility?
A few things I might add:
1) atheists really make a big deal out of the "contradictions" in the biblical text. For example they'll say 'well how many horses did Solomon have'? As if that just proves the whole Bible is a lie, they don't even stop to consider any other reasonable explanation (e.g. it could have been different numbers due to the fact that each were taken from different years under his rule). Or even some of the minor details like hiw many angels were at the tomb. Witnesses don't remember every detail the exact same and if they did that would be a bit suspect (this reinforces the independent witnesses point).
2) atheists like to interpret things more liberally than most Christians. To put it bluntly they don't consider any of the original contexts of the passage and therefore completely misunderstand the vast majority of the biblical text. They also tend to cherry pick verses. One example is in Judges when a little girl is sacrificed to YHWH. The book of judges condemned such an action, but they don't care to actually read and follow along with the entire book. It's intellectual laziness.
I just saw a video with Aaron Ra talking about that same story in Judges. It was so intellectually dishonest I was embarrassed.
Mike Licona's book is called, "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. I have that book!
😊 thanks
I'm going to get me a copy of that soon Lord willing🙏 thank you🤝🙌
@@nutriweh Yw! Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 Blessings brotha!
How good is it? Whats in it? I have heard. Gary Habermas on several talks about the reasurection
Mike, It's always a faith position. My wife's grandmother said a very profound statement. She said, "This man says this and this man says that, who is right?" This is a very good point. Many many people are saying to all of us, "listen to me." So for me the question isn't, why I should believe in Jesus but why I should listen to you(other then Christ), who are you that I should believe in what you tell me. Jesus said, "I am the only way, there is no other." This statement forces me to make a choice. So if your position is Christ is not the way, then you are telling me to believe you. So again, who are you that I should listen to you?
Jesus said
Love God with your whole heart and soul and love others like yourself. He practice this He also said turn the other check. Normally people don't practice what they teach however, Jesus did.
He was the man he asked us to be. Jesus represents the best form of God. So all my hope is on Him.
Some skeptics are just into arguing - "You have not yet forced me to believe."
I never could.
That's the first misconception that we can force someone to believe something. Regardless how you look at it even if something is 100% true you still can't force them to accept (believe) it is true. The Gospel is meant to be accepted or rejected so them not believing in it doesn't bother me. It use to for their sakes, but even then if the Bible is true they know where they are ending up regardless of not believing.
I would also argue you can not force someone to accept the gospel otherwise it's a false conversion.
@@JohnDoe-bt4ps A saying - "A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."
@Kuffar Legion Hey, I am a believer in the resurrection of Jesus. However in myself I have no more natural "faith" then anyone else. I consider that something like a miracle has happened in my heart. God gave me the ability to believe. Naturally though, I have no more faith then the next guy. It is very mysterious to me.
Some people just don’t want to believe. No amount of evidence will convince them. They just don’t want to believe the truth. And you can’t convince those people. They will believe what they want to believe. It’s a heart issue, not a head (knowledge, facts, data) issue. They reject God because they don’t want there to be a God.
This is so disingenuous, that I couldn''t make it half way through the video. And it is insultingly easy to check for everybody, atheist and christian alike. Just watch the debate between WLC and Bart Ehrmann. Ehrmann does *not* grant WLCs historical facts in that debate. It is an obvious and deliberately misleading straw man to claim otherwise. In fact, in his first rebuttal he explicitly critizises the biblical sources from which these "facts" can only be established.
Furthermore, it is next to impossible to characterise Ehrmanns position on miracles more unfavorable. You are not even trying to fairly represent the argument Ehrmann makes, before argueing against it. And it is not a complicated argument: Historians try to find the most probable explanation, given certain facts. Probability can only be measured when you look at things that happen regularly and in accordance with laws (like the laws of nature). For instance, you can measure the probability of a coin toss, because you can flip a coin a thousand times and check the results. But you can't measure the probability of a coin toss that results in neither heads or tails, but in some miraculous event (the upper side of the coin shows the entire movie "Spiderman"). That is because such a miracle would be a one-off events that don't happen by any measure of probability. Therefore, the historian cannot establish a miracle as the most probable explanation. It does not mean that miracles have never occured, it just means that by sound historical reasoning they cannot be established as the most likely explanation.
Now, you can argue with Ehrmann's position. But you just misrepresented it, basically showing everyone that you did not really understand it, and dismissed it without tackling the issue.
If I was a skeptic James and Paul would have done it for me. James was pious Jew who converted, and Paul was very loyal to Rome. Those two would have done it for me.
@@brettdeacon7012 Which are both in the bible , so no , they aren't outside evidence
colonel- yaki ... neither of them are Gospel writers.
“Being in the bible” isn’t synonymous with being a Gospel writer. Their writings are now a part of the Bible, but they only wrote them because of their conversion. Do you see the difference?
@@swotithinkanyway2163 or maybe James wasn't around. Not sure why an atheist would find it so hard to believe someone else might be a skeptic... This argument is self defeating.
@@brunopeixe7949 they also didn’t witness the actual resurrection.
The point of David Hume makes sense. Christianity is not the only religion on earth, and most religions will argue that they have miracles to prove their points. Islam does it. Mormonism does it. Of course testimony is not enough to justify a miracle. Be consistent and use the same standards for Christianity that you use for other religions. If your religion is true, it must be able to be proven more easily than just using ancient records.
Dan Barker doesn't pick an alternate explanation because he is not pretending to know what he doesn't know. It's called honesty. But yeah, of course when doing history you think that there must be an alternate explanation. Taking anyhing literally will lead you to believe that the Chinese brother of Jesus caused the Taiping rebellion. Just because you don't know what the alternate explanation is doesn't mean that you must assume that the miracle is literal.
Matt Dillahunty is right. The fact that people don't believe is evidence that there is no God. Among all of the religions in the world, many are using prophets, alledged miracles and holy scriiptures. Since those are false (we can agree on that for any religion that isn't yours), you must admit that those methods are not reliable ways of communication. An omniscient god would know it, yet that's also what he used. Is your god a moron? In all likeliness, he doesn't exist. That's the point. The fact that Jesus, which is not just a prophet but God himself talked to people but failed to convinced all of the Jews, and the Romans, is to me evidence that your god is not convincing. A god who fails isn't omnipotent, so chances are that Jesus was just a dude.
Sam Harris is not saying that evidence doesn't matter, only that testimonies alone don't matter. Historians take every single ancient text with a lot of grains of salt. The first chinese dynasty is considered to be mythological, which means that maube it exists, but we aren't sure. Having many documents is rising the confidence of historians for an event. Archaeology is helping considerably too. Historians doubt that caesar's conquest of Gaul was as epic as what he described in his memoirs. obivously a miracle, which is a fantastic claim, needs a LOT more evidence to be proven.
The point this video is making seems to be special pleading. Christians won't hold Christianity to the same level of scrutiny that they would hold any other miracle for another religion religion.
Wow skeptics are so hostile on here I think you struck a nerve mike! Haha you're one of those... "Christians" (angry voice)
*confused screaming*
If you think being logical is hostile that's your problem lmao
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 I was talking about the ad hominem attacks. Do you condem ad hominem attacks?
@@sinnersaved1033 You said skeptics were being hostile which is very different than fallacious reasoning, something you Christians are extremely good at ;)
@@sinnersaved1033 Do you believe in God? If so, why?
Thank you again for the daily bread mike!
Non believers are not on a truth quest you're on a happiness quest. And they know the truth quest will interfere with their happiness quest. And so that's why they deny it.
One need only review the comments section for more examples of exactly what Mike was talking about, haha. Keep it up, man! Love all of your videos.
You have to understand, it's like watching a person take a story and treat it as literal. Also, by believing in this literally, we have a long history of people treating other humans as heretics and setting back scientific progress considerably.
We are lucky that people were able to escape the penalty of death for not sharing the beliefs of the Christianity.
It is frustrating, and the idea of co-existing is for the sake of peace and not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past. There are still problems, but it is more focused on smaller groups and individuals which is preferable to war and mass loss of life.
As if that somehow validates your position.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 It's enough validation for them. People don't like my ideas, therefore, they must be true.
@@wakeupthisisntreal8168 n
I simply marvel at Atheists faith. How can anyone examine the mountains of evidence and still proclaim there is no God were they not whole heartedly devoted to their beliefs.
@Kuffar Legion Your comment is the definition of a dodge.
Maybe Jesus survived crucifixion and woke up later in the tomb and walked out. Isn't that more plausible than somebody rising from the dead?
@@JL0007 look up what a crucifixion is and u tell me
@@peyton5149 people have survived crucifixion according to Josephus
John L John L The romans did take you down of the cross only when you dead. Woke up and then from inside move a 1t stone after I think May have suffocated in the tomb and were beaten to death and hang to a cross for 3h, 2 day ago come on man come on
People don't "dodge " the evidence they point out the unsubstantiated continuous claims are not evidence. Christian apologists keep making bold assertions, committing logical fallacies and appeal to feelings and personal testimony instead of actual knowledge of demonstrative sufficient evidence.
Open your heart to the word of God, the transformation will begin to lead you to the “evidence”. Love and blessings brother ✝️❤️🔥🙏🏽
Exactly. Paul CLAIMED that Jesus first appeared to Peter, then James, then the twelve, then all the disciples, then 500 at once, and finally to him. Very different from the Gospel appearances.
@@Glorious716 sorry but I'm extremely open minded and will be immediately convinced by demonstrated sufficient knowledge of evidence not feelings and appeals to faith in the absence of it. Education has a way of ridding one's ignorance and if one was proven wrong in their belief system age they continue to hold that belief without evidence then they are being by definition irrational
The ressurection of jesus is the only explanation that matches all of the universally accepted facts of the scholary consensus (such as the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the belief in the resurrection), there is nothing else that was able to explain them and virtually all naturalistic theories have been abandoned, moreover we have more documents for the bible than virtually any other historical record, from your angry behavior it is pretty obvious that you dont have any rational objection but you are just a miserable neckbeard atheist that blames others for his failed life and tries to take it out on God
The ressurection of jesus is the only explanation that matches all of the universally accepted facts of the scholary consensus (such as the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the belief in the resurrection), there is nothing else that was able to explain them and virtually all naturalistic theories have been abandoned, moreover we have more documents for the bible than virtually any other historical record, from your angry behavior it is pretty obvious that you dont have any rational objection
God bless you Pastor for equipping me on showing our atheist friends on the BEDROCK of Biblical Christianity the Resurrection of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ
Christian Slayer
Read Acts 9
Incredibly well done video! You’re making a 40 year old atheist rethink EVERYTHING! I always struggled with the validity of the resurrection story until your video 🤯👏
@MarisaHoarebut this dude's full ship you should actually do some verification instead of just believe in this dude. First of all he's completely ignoring all the non canonical gospels that were absolutely the word of God according to the people that believe them until a powerful group of bishops decided they were politically inconvenient
@MarisaHoarein order for this guy to be right you have to ignore the entire process that created the Bible that we have documentation for this dude's just lying to you
As I watch this 4 years later, it reminds me of a conversation I had just yesterday with a Ehrman-worshipping family member. To those who work to suppress the knowledge of God (Rom 1:18), there is really no gain asking them why they believe what they believe, or to concede actual historical fact and accept that they may be just flat wrong...they, like me, are sinners and the flesh hates God. Yes, I might be wrong, too, but what other explanation is even plausible for the events of Jesus' life as told in the NT, and, with this understood fully, what other possible, plausible explanation exists for the remainder of the writings of the entire Bible?
Yes, I'm a grumpy old Calvinist, but the truth of God's Word keeps ringing true...nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:18-19). I will continue to pray for these folks, atheist/agnostic/resistor-of-Christ alike, that God will reveal Himself to them and they will yield to His truth.
Keep those questions coming...I'll be answering them on my death bed, if God is willing.
Talking with people who quote Bible verses as if they are more than just the opinions of individual cult members can be just as frustrating.
@@ramigilneas9274 Do you think Christians (and I am a Christian) are simply "individual cult members?" It kinda sounds like you do, but I could also be mistaken.
Your Dillahunty representation is spot on
Vinsanity997 Mike Dillahunty is just a big bully.
He got destroyed
@@pdxnikki1 Why because he swears and raises his voice?
@@davidbermudez7704 I think Matt Dilly is still alive; maybe he just swooned
By who??
I just found your channel and I have binge watching it! It would be great if all the videos can be included in different playlists. I know there are some, but how about all of them!!! 🙏🏼
John 14: 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.
2 Chronicles 16: 9 For the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His. You have acted foolishly in this. Indeed, from now on you will surely have wars.”
I was the same way when I found his channel. So thankful for his hard work
You can easily make your own playlist
The mockers of this video are simply writhing and reacting from having to hear truth, logic and evidence that give answers to the skeptic’s doubts of the Bible’s authenticity. Mike does all this out of his love and obedience to Jesus, that is, to obey His commandments by loving his neighbour even strangers by sharing the gospel. It is our prayer that these skeptics will repent and come to Jesus. Thanks Mike.
No, sceptics just aren't convinced by the really quite poor arguments. I would love to see what 'historians' name those five 'facts'. There is no verifiable source to back up that various people 'saw jesus after his death'. The rational explanation is not Jesus was resurrected. There are 101 other possible explanations as to why people say that 2000 years ago, someone rose from the dead.
Surely faith is based more on a spiritual belief in something, please don't sit there and tell me it is based in fact, because it simply isnt.
Considering that 2/3 of the people in the world believe something other than Christianity, including God's own chosen people and humans have invented thousands of gods. How are you so sure your not the one deceived?
What's interesting to me is the non-believers efforts to undo what Christians know. We want them to come to the truth because we care about them, we know of the peace and joy that they're missing out on and genuinely don't want them to suffer for all eternity....... but what reason do they have for trying to tell us we're wrong? What fuels that passion? Whatever it is, I'm still thankful for the engagement because it tells me there's some interest, the seed has been planted and it's only a matter of time before their heart is opened 🙏
Great content! One of my friends is a raving atheist, and after years of debating, his argument has been reduced to "I don't want to talk about it" or even better, "Christians are racist." I respect atheists, but their arguments fall flat under serious scrutiny. They never seem to run out of reasons to doubt. Once you address one argument, they move the goal posts. Which proves to me that most of them just don't want to believe for emotional reasons.
Amazing. That's the exact experienceI have with theists trying to justify any of the myths in the Bible.
@@dooivid I doubt it.
@@jasonlee8359he’s just playing super skeptic. Really the only thing they have going for them is the smirk, and boy is that a powerful thing when you don’t have much else
What a coincidence… "you just don’t want to believe“… is what most Christians say after I explain to them why their arguments are fallacious and teach them about logic, reasoning and a sound epistemology.
Seems more like try to find excuses why the arguments that convinced you aren’t good enough to convince most other people.😉
@@ramigilneas9274 I highly doubt your arguments (and the arguments of most atheists) are seriously convincing. And I'm sure most of the things you say are fallacious about theism are not. It's easy to break the weakest link in the chain. Try it with someone who knows their stuff and I'm sure you will get a response that you cannot handle. Atheism is logically absurd.
The fact that you, apparently an atheist, is trolling the thread of a Christian podcast shows you are not very secure in your position. This is typical of other atheists I know and have seen online. They spend their days obsessing about God and trying to prove he doesn't exist. Reminds me of guys in high school who talked about their ex-girlfriend constantly but then tried to say they were over her, when clearly they were not.
I heard that the passion of Christ was good but he didn't mentioned the resurrection. I agree with you
Mel Gibson is making a new movie about the Resurrection and the 40 days before Jesus ascended.
I'm five years late, I know, but I have a small correction to make:
Most scholars seem to agree that 1 Corinthians as well as the other early books were written starting around 50 AD
That would be 17 years after Christ's Resurrection, not 5.
Not too big a deal, just a small correction for a small mistake. But a small mistake that others might latch onto to "prove your dishonesty" or some other nonsense
I don't know if you'll see this, but if you do I hope this comment finds you well
Great post, as always, Mike, thanks. The single greatest rebuttal to the arguments for a resurrection is simply that it's supernatural. As Christians, I think we don't fully appreciate how powerful that rebuttal is.
Anyone can make supernatural claims, doofus. None of them are backed up by evidence.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Two things: 1) If you're wanting to demonstrate that atheism is the intelligent choice, then incoherently babbling derogatory names at people like a four year old isn't helping your case. And 2) I'm embarrassed for you that you're not seeing the irony of you completely misreading my post, and then calling ME the doofus. Be a better person from now on.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Hey, man, my last reply was a bit out of line. I should have been kinder in my approach, I'm sorry.
TheAnimator, I’m glad that you not only apologized, but also left the original comment instead of pretending it didn’t happen, like most people would do. I have the same knee jerk reaction sometimes, so seeing someone 180 like this always warms my heart. Keep growing in Christ brother, and we’ll continue to love our Atheist neighbors as ourselves and pray for their salvation. Hopefully more and more of them will come to Christ
What is the evidence that a resurrection is possible? A resurrection needs to be demonstrated to be possible before any conversation on the probability takes place. None of the so called agreed upon facts is evidence that a resurrection is possible. Possibility has a burden of proof and can not just be asserted.
That's what Hume and also Ehrman like to argue if I remember correctly. The point though of the resurrection is that it was miraculous. The biblical narrative of Jesus resurrection wasnt just that he lived again another 3 years then suffered a heart attack and died again, but he was raised back to life after 3 days, said what up to a bunch of people, and skiiiiirrrrted up to heaven. If I could do this sort of thing, it would both elevate the importance of what I said while on earth, but also come in conflict with and minimize the importance of what Jesus said on earth, plus a myriad of other things. The best evidence though that "God raised Jesus" could be possible is that "God created the Universe." But that's a different discussion. If he could create everything, he can give life back to a man.
@@jacobrubio8214 "God created the Universe." is a claim just like the bible is the claim that Jesus was resurrected. What is the evidence this claim is possible? You answer with "its a miracle" which is another claim. I am willing to be convinced but I am not willing to just accept assertions without sufficient evidence.
@@rubensdesk a little confused, I think by the phrasing. This video was not trying to make a strong case for any of the arguments but there are others that do. Making a case for the resurrection always begins at making a case for a creator. Then you explore what's true about him, and then decide if Jesus is legit. Jesus not only establishes Christianity but helps us prove it with a historical case. I'm not going to do that in the comments of a RUclips video. I'd read William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, C.S. Lewis, Geisler, Zacharias, or Wallace.
@@jacobrubio8214 "Making a case for the resurrection always begins at making a case for a creator" and this is why the case for the resurrection can't even get out of the starting gate.
@@lil-al I mean, that's not a reason something can't be true. If cookies begin by mixing ingredients before I bake them, but then I don't make cookies because it's too much work to get there, it has nothing to do with cookies being a delicious dessert. And if there is a process that makes better cookies than others, you should do that. Atheists, I find, are most often not willing to even look. They scoff, they ridicule, then they move on as if they've truly listened and developed an informed response. Like Li'l Al, you know that sounds stupid. You know you are just saying trash. The claim of the resurrection is that "God raised Jesus from the dead." Roman's 10 + Acts 2. Well I can hand you a video of the moment jesus was raised but if the power of God isn't an explanatory possibility, you would never use it to explain His resurrection.
I believe in the resurrection because Jesus gave me eternal life when I confessed my sins, repented of my old life and submitted to Him as my Lord.
You may have repented your sins BUT according to Christianity you are still an unworthy sinner who continues to sin.
So, It seems to me as long as you keep repenting your sins you can carry on sinning as much as you want to.....exactly like the Catholics who have to go to confession regularly. 🤣
@@WildPhotoShooter Romans 6: " What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
@@germaan1 How can any sane rational thinking person believe such mumbo jumbo ? How can splashing water onto a baby's head have anything to do with the death of a guy 2000 years ago ? The Bible is a nice piece of inventive fictional writing , I'll give it that much.
@@WildPhotoShooter baptism into His death is not talking about infant baptism but it explains what happens in the moment a spiritual dead person is born again as a child of God. Your old self dies and you are born again spiritually. I believe and testify it because I myself was born again December 2019 at age 28. This is no mombojombo, this is reality.
@@germaan1 Do you have any evidence of the alleged "reality" ? I assume you didn't die before being "born gain" .
What's this thing about our spirit dying ? Is there any real evidence we have one ? I think it is all in the individuals mind, nothing else changes, only the way one thinks.
Thank you so much Mike, As a former Occultist, got called schizo a lot lmao I'm still bewildered how some Christians don't believe in Christ actually being resurrected, you're just Agnostic.
I love your videos SO MUCH you convinced me to change some of my views (especially about the trinity). Thank you for helping me in my journey to Christ!
Ashley_ brown. You must have been unsure about your beliefs for aa long time if you are thanking this guy for his own "interpretation".
You should ask yourself , who is he to change the literal words of God ?????
@@wantlessworkless.2558He literally used the Bible to support his points. His whole thing is “think biblically” 🫠
Will you should listen to actual skeptics instead of this dude's version of what skeptics say you'll find it a very very different set of problems.
Mike you are so kind. I've watched several videos by these skeptics. Ehrman flat out has some sort of emotional issue. He's irrational and often just attacking people in debates. He's embarrassing. Carrier is just a joke. He makes logical fallacies constantly, regardless of his position. I wouldn't follow his food recipies he's so confused.
Mike, you have such faith in people. Sadly, most are just not capable of following an arguement, and they aren't capable of realizing it. There is literaly nothing you can do to get a deaf man to hear a sympony, they aren't capable.
Atheists mostly just repeat nonsense as if it is gospel, not seeing that the positions are garbage thinking, false comparisionns, cherry picking, strawmen. Even the well meaning athiests don't apply thier own standards to thier own thinking. An example, most athiests will believe in the multiverse, yet deny Jesus claiming "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" There is literally zero hard evidence for the multiverse, it's inferred, which btw I think the multiverse might exist. Athiests don't see that the "extraordinary claim/evidence" arguement is just a massively circular way to deny anything you subjectively don't agree with. If you believec something already, your standard for it goes down? If you disbelieve your standard goes up, lol really? You nailed this fallacy in people like Humme.
Anyway, keep up the good work. You are an amazingly smart, patient, and kind person. I couldn't do what you do.
Excellent
I dont see how you can watch Richard Carrier and think that Mike gave an honest representation of his resurrection argument
He mentioned from a question of other mythical figures having the same life, death, and resurrection as Jesus that came before him. But all these stories if you look into them just simply don’t have anything similar to Jesus. Mike did the Apollonius video debunking that but look at Steven bancarz zeitgeist debunked video. It walks through the other so called legends that parallel Jesus.
They don't have to be similar to Jesus. These stories just show that this was a religious trope going round at the time, and Jesus is just another example. He is really nothing special, and is as made up as Attis and Mithras.
Mike saying "I don't know" is superior to pretending to know things you don't know.
I agree. But I honestly don't think that this is what Matt Dillahunty is doing in this case. The main reason for this is that the 5 facts I spoke of are arrived at through the normal historical method (meaning that these things are not in the category of "unknown" or "unknowable"). Matt's method of rhetoric is to avoid handling the evidence rather than to seek to explain it reasonably.
Expect your explanation is miracle which is by definition impossible, which is the reason why from Hume on everybody position is that miracle is less probable then for example mass halucination. We don't know miracles happen, there is no mechanism for them, no reason (apart to confirm your position). You obviously don't understand this core argument. Not to mention human testimony is one of the less valuable evidence as humans can lie, be wrong, under the influence of drug etc.
@@lexter8379 how is miracles impossible? Because they break natural laws?
By definition as they break the laws of nature, but even If we dismiss this fun answer they are MUCH less probable as they assume that reality as we understand it suddenly stops work in your favor, which is obviously less probable then for example a mass halutination.
@@lexter8379 I understand your way of seeing this, but there we have to remember that miracles do not happen by natural laws and also we have to first define natural laws, what they really are. Are they just descriptions of events happening or are they just probabilities inside the universe what will happen. I think you cannot conclude that miracles cannot happen because of the natural laws by itself. However you are in some way right when we investigate scenes or anything else, but can we assume that there could not be an miracle happening. If we have good reasons to believe that some miracle happened (or how we define miracles) then we should think so but on the other hand we should be careful.
There is regularity theorem, casual disposition theorem and nomic necessity theorem about the natural laws.
thanks from India. i love ur videos
If miracles dont happen..how did we win gold in 1980 on the ice?!
McCall G. ...if miracles do happen, why do children die of cancer? God doesn’t love children, obviously.
D Ross ohhhh scything retort
But we are talking about miracles, which is the opposite of dying of cancer
Unless you think cancer is a miracle!?
McCall G. ....I just think that a god would pick and choose his miracles a little better.
“What miracle should I perform today, saving the children that are dying of cancer, or let the underdog hockey team win?”
Oh!! Lol
That was a joke man..I don’t think anybody actually thinks we won gold because of a supernatural event
We won gold because they were better and wanted it more
God makes miracles happen, I reckon, so that “the work of god might be displayed”
McCall G....I kind of figured that it was a joke. I am a little skeptical of any miracle claim, though, because they appear to happen no more than random chance.
“Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from the “damned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group… All belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty.”
~ Alan Watts
*Alan Watts was protestant minister, but left the religion to pursue the beautiful Eastern philosophy (Truth) of nondualism, such as found in Advaita Vedanta.
I like your work in Christ, but I was thinking in response to people like doubting Thomas; the proof he is looking for is Jesus' words.
By seeking to hear, know and understand we spiritually grow and the Holy Spirit reveals all understanding. And we become spiritually changed and have our proof of God.
When it comes down to it, it's just words in a book. In 2000 years we will probably have people worshiping Harry Potter. And why do we not see any writings about jesus while he was alive? They only wrote about him after he was dead for over 30 years. Could it be because they didn't want people going looking for someone they said could do all these miracles, when they knew he either didn't exist or wasn't doing miracles? History is cool, but when I read about King Henry the 8th, I have no real proof he existed either, however, I'm not being asked to go to a building every week to worship him and give other followers my money.
A debate in which the debaters don't even agree on the definitions of the terms they use is no debate at all. I think the issue here is the use of the word "evidence." What Mr Winger presents is historical evidence. This is in no way the same thing as empirical evidence, which most viewers would probably assume he means. With enough empirical evidence about something (without counter evidence of course) one can begin to assert that something is proven. Historical evidence, on the other hand, cannot be used as proof of anything. Historical evidence at most is an assertion of what might have happened. In and of itself it cannot speak to what did happen. In an evidentiary sense the Bible, writings of Josephus and the like, therefore are only indications of what might have happened at best.
You're making one big mistake throughout this. Many of them (sam harris in particular) are saying that any amount of testimonials are insufficient evidence for such a big claim. You then say they don't acknowledge ANY evidence. Testimonials of all sorts can be lies, other types of evidence cannot be, and there is none of the second type.
Exactly, even if we actually had gospels that were written by real eyewitnesses months after Jesus died then that still wouldn’t be enough.
@@ramigilneas9274 What if they died for their claim?
@@petarvasiljevic8764
Then that wouldn’t tell us anything about if their claims were true.
A lot of people believe stuff that is not true for dumb reasons.
@@ramigilneas9274 They died for a supposed lie. (Early Christians)
@@petarvasiljevic8764
Actually no one knows how most of them died.
Historians are pretty certain that Paul, James and 2 of the disciples died as martyrs... but the evidence for the rest of the disciples is mostly contradicting legends from centuries later.
To say, that there is no evidence for the resurrection is pure intellectual dishonesty and they know it. The truth of the matter is, they don’t want to believe based on moral grounds which they will probably never admit to. They love their sin And refuse to depart from it.
saying people dont believe because they really dont want to is pure intellectual dishonesty
Why anyone would listen to Sam Harris, atheist or not, is mind-boggling.
He stated that he didn't care if there were ( abused) children in Biden's basement..... as long is Trump is not elected.
Everything we need to know about this man character is evidenced in Harris's statement.
Almost any alternative hypothesis is probably a more PLAUSIBLE option.
Yes it would be, if we didn't have historical evidence to support the resurrection.
Dwayne Conaway
And by historical evidence you probably mean anonymous hearsay based on oral traditions.😂
None of these guys are "skeptics". Except Ehrman
Hmmmm. Thats a bad quote. None of these guys are skeptics?? Do you even realize what you said? Your probably right. Skeptics are few and far between. Because only a fool would deny the existance of God. Especially when they feel they dont need to bring another possibility to the table. Theres a few big names that athiests stick to. Hawkins and Dawkins. Hawkins said openly that NO evidence would ever convince him of Gods existence. Who's closed minded? Whos erational? Hawkins got laughed at and mocked by the audience when he tried to explain " nothing" creating everything. Funny thing is God mentions this in the Bible. " where is the philosopher of this age? I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. Thr intelligence of thd intellegent i will frustrate" the Bible is the only book that tells the story from beginning to end. Genesis to Revelation. And dares to tell of things to come before they spring forth. Look at the old testament prophets and consider what they said 1000s of years before Jesus even came. They tell of Why He Came, What He would do, How He would die and the reason for His death. Jesus even spoke of athiesm in the parable of the lost son. The son asked the Father for His inheritance before the Father died. Basically told the Father i dont care about you. Just give me my money. Then went to A FAR COUNTRY to spend that money in wild living and prostitutes. Why a Far Country? To get away from his fathers sight. Thats all athiesm is. A far country away from the Father. Jesus said " they refuse to come to the light because they love darkness" you love your sin and really want to believe that you wont be held accountable. But if you break a law on earth whether you believe it or not, you will be judged. How much more a Holy God who will judge you by the 10 commandments. Have you lied? Stolen? Used Gods name in vain? Sure you have. All have. Nobodys perfect right? The Bible says that also.
@@michaela.kelley7823 Could you please make one salient point as this story is too disjointed- at least make paragraphs.
@@VaughanMcCue i made my points. Im not writing an essay
@@michaela.kelley7823 Well said!!
@@VaughanMcCue I followed everything he wrote. If you didn't, maybe you could just ask for clarification instead of attacking they way he wrote it.
Apologetics would sound about 25% more plausible if apologists just stopped treating the word "evidence" as if it were a count noun instead of a mass noun. "Evidences" just puts my teeth on edge (and I'm a believer).
“Paul, Apostle of Christ” was a good movie
This was horrible. You badly misrepresented both Matt and Sam’s statements and views. I really dislike Matt and often disagree with Sam. But You unfairly infer really bad assumptions assigning them to those people instead of yourself.
It's permissable since Mike is lying for Jesus.
One of the biggest arguments against the resurrection is that Romans did not allow the crucified to be buried, which makes the idea of jesus being buried in a tomb very unlikely. Second, the gospels were written 40 years after Jesus supposedly died and they were written in Koine Greek, which is a language of educated high class people, not the average fisherman/worker that would have been a Jesus disciple.
Thank you for studying the Word and giving us the cliff notes. Thank you for your time and hard work.
These are really unfair cliff notes for some of the guys. Look at their content for yourself.
For example, Ehrman doesn't say that you have to flat out deny miracles no matter what, he says that that historians cant prove miracles because historians can only say what probably happened and miracles are by definition improbable. How I understand this take is that if a historian cant come up with a non miraculous explanation for an event, they have to say "I dont know, we need more information before we say what happened" instead of using a by-definition improbable miracle as an explanation. So even if it happened, you cant as a competent historian say it, because historians only work with what probably happened and miracles are by definition improbable. You can say that you believe that God did it, and you can have religious reasons to believe it, but you can't, while being a good historian, use a by definition improbable explanation.
Even if you might have reasons to disagree, say you think this misrepresents what historians do or that this miracle isnt as improbable as Brat thinks, Bart's real position is way better than Mike's horribly bad faith "miracles shouldnt be believed even if they happened" version. 21:10, Mike literally used these words to describe it. It's funny because I've heard Mike accuse Bart of playing with reality in another video.
If you have reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that skeptic responses to this are bad, at least listen to the skeptics and not just this convenient and superficial run through that makes them all look delusional.
Mike does a great job of explaining and helping us understand God’s word. I’m thankful for him too.
You nor this yammering fool know nothing about "the word"
God's word is no book least of all the Bible
So let me simplify this.
The Bible says
1. Jesus was crucified
2. The tomb was empty
3. People saw him after
All this from a Bible that we have no idea what it actually originally contained, because we don't have an original Bible and even if we did.
Why should anyone believe anything that was in it anyway.
Because the bible says the bible is true. And that is the quality of Mike's evidence.
Because the Bible has been accurately transmitted over 2000 years, tens of thousands more than any other ancient text.
The Bible is a collection of books, so in the NT alone we have multiple sources; Mathew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Pauls epistles.
Also, the NT was written extremely early, at the latest between 30-40 years after the cross.
So since the New Testament includes multiple, early, independent attestation to Jesus of Nazareth, and because its the best sources we have about Him (other than the several non-biblical authors like Josephus or Tacitus), and because all the non biblical and archeological evidence confirms what it can, then we have no choice but to considerable the New Testament as reliable.
Also, the resurrection argument isn’t founded upon the idea that scripture is inerrant, and the facts are agreed upon by even skeptics who don’t believe anything else in the Bible is true, they can agree on the basic facts of the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the disciples belief. Along with many others. To say we can’t use the Bible is extremely biased and unreasonable and flies in the face of every piece of available data we have thus far.
@@Adrian-ri8my
You have got a lot to learn about the Bible.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Of course I do, There’s just way too much evidence to keep track of :) And I’d add that you also have a lot to learn about the Bible too my friend. Jesus died for you, and you have to repent and believe the gospel! God bless you.
@@Adrian-ri8my
No Jesus died to prevent his father carrying out the punishment that he decided himself.
God decided that the wages of sin would be death
He then sacrificed his son/himself to prevent himself from carrying out the punishment for which he decided HIMSELF.
It's totally asinine
Thanking God or Jesus for "saving" you is the equivalent of thanking an abusive spouse for NOT beating you up.
My husband and I just love watching your videos together.
Thank you!
There’s so many errors in this analysis. If you want to have faith,have faith. If you believe that these are good arguments for the resurrection, then what wouldn’t you believe?
Can you name one error?
@@braydynniewiadomski5454 There’s no reason to put my fingerprints on anything here. Go watch the debate with Matt Dillahunty and you’ll see why Mike is being silly. If you need one thing from me: the women would have never come to put spices on the dead body in the tomb after burial. There is no reason to do such a thing and it was not a custom.
You need another: Mike and others always claim there were 500 witnesses to his resurrection. No there were not, there is just a sentence saying there were 500 witnesses. There’s a distinct difference.
You need a third: The earliest gospel is Mark’s and only the first 8 chapters. There it ends with an empty tomb but says nothing more.
Fourth: There’s no evidence outside of the Bible that attests to Jesus’ resurrection.
What Christians have are claims, not evidence. Matt won’t acknowledge the difference.
Have faith if you want but there’s no evidence.
Here’s my question to Mike: why didn’t Jesus appear to pilate, ciaphus, or Tiberius in Rome? That would have been difficult to discount.
@@chriswinchell1570 I've seen the debate, I believe Matt did a better job surface-level as he is more experienced in debate and rhetorical flourish but I find his definition and application of epistemology to be narrow-minded, and even silly.
The historical documents and archaeological discoveries outside of the scriptures that speak on Jesus and His crucifixion and describe the times and events of Jesus of Nazareth and the Jews and Romans and the geopolitical climate, do so in exactly the same way. This is good evidence for the reliability of the Bible, it is not merely a claim, or no history can be cross-checked, examined and found reliable.
I have never once in my life heard that only the first 8 chapters of Mark are accurate. Not one single time. And chapter 8 does not end with an empty tomb. This is how Mark chapter 8 ends...
Mark 8:35-38 "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
So, that was just a claim on your part then.
The best evidence is a changed heart and true faith in Christ and the evidence of the pure and holy light and love God imparts to you when you repent, believe on Him and are born again.
Jesus promised this to His disciples...
John 14:21-23 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
You must be in repentance and keeping God's commandments to experience the power of the Holy Spirit in your life, and one needs that power to understand the scriptures.
1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Christians have been experiencing this power and presence of God for the past 2,000 years. When you have truly experienced God, you will not doubt His truth anymore (unless one sears his conscience again with sin to the point of unbelief, but that is very difficult to do, and not God's desire). This is not merely anecdotal evidence, as God has promised this same scriptural foundation for personal revelation to whosoever believes in Him. You can prove this to yourself demonstratively by testing the claim. Repent and pray to God to grant you His Holy Spirit.
Luke 11:13 “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”
I hope and pray that you will take off the atheist blinders, that I myself once wore before I repented and called out to God to reveal the truth to me.
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
Jesus lived a sinless life and died on the cross to forgive you of your sins, for we have all sinned and come short of God's glory (Romans 3:23).
Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
May God grant you repentance to be free from the lies of the devil and be saved from death and hell and granted eternal life in Jesus Christ alone. God bless you. Amen.
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
@@braydynniewiadomski5454 I haven’t read all of your comment yet but you check with Mike that only the first 8 chapters of Mark were original to Mark. He made an entire video about whether the last half was biblical. After doing his Hamlet schtick, he, of course, down on the side that it was biblical.
@@chriswinchell1570 So, it sounds like if I check Mike's video on the matter I'll find that the gospel of Mark doesn't end at chapter 8 then.
Please do read the rest of the comment Chris, your very life depends on God's message contained within and your life is important to God. God bless you.
If people died for the belief that Christ was risen, and they all saw Him alive, and they had the choice to tell their executioners that they were lying, and they didn't, that's good enough for me. You don't die believing in a lie.
First of all, I would assume MOST people die believing a lie, but some of us are unknowingly defending a lie to the death (see Jihadists as a clear example from this perspective). Additionally, who’s to say they wouldn’t have been put to death if they denied it anyway?
Tell that to Jim Jones followers and many others .
Christian Slayer well that’s wrong Paul was talking about if Christ had not been risen from the dead but if you put context behind the verse and read the whole chapter you can clearly tell he thinks Christ has risen from the dead
Trevor Haugen So we’re not talking about Jihadists, we’re talking about people who converted to a religion that had not previously believed in and was utterly exclusionary (Judaism) that was heavily persecuted for 300 years in the midsts of the worst oppression of a religious group that had been witnessed in history. Jihadists are war mongerers, Christians are axiomatically peaceful. They had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by believing. Their brothers, wives, children and grand children would all be put to death for their beliefs, yet they still died martyrs. There comes a point where you just gotta say “come on dude.”
Christian Slayer Thanks for l that scripture ref!
Lots of great content. Thanks for putting in the work! God bless!
This is AWESOME! only 253 upvotes??? People, give this man credit for his work. I am amazed at the teaching and the fire of his convictions.
I gave him the credit he deserves and downvoted it.
@@lil-al cheer up buttercup :)
There is no credit due to blathering churchy idiocy
He is just making stuff. He just repeats names and asserts if they are right or wrong. He never gives any references at all to his assertions. He is even getting the Bible wrong. There are devote folk who are very learned whom give constructive arguments; eg, N. T. Wright, Bishop Barron, James Dunn, Matthew J. Korpman and many other. They are scholars and church leaders. This dude is crank
Thank you for taking the time to produce the video and being open to comments from those who disagree. It's amazing how you seem to dismiss all of these positions (some of which you don't accurately represent ) as ridiculous when you yourself are advocating the least likely explanation for an event we aren't sure happened and that defies what we know about reality. By point - 1- Irrelevant to resurrection claim; everyone dies. 2 - Writers decades later say so with discrepancies; this doesn't demonstrate there was a tomb, that it was empty, or why it was empty even if it was. But we can accept and still doesn't prove resurrection claim. 3- you are obscuring the important fact that Paul and then anonymous authors simply claimed there were appearances to various people decades later. That's not the same as confirmed appearances (my uncle might think he saw Sasquatch and I can talk to him). Almost all religions have similar fantastical claims. In this case, perhaps spread by word of mouth and exaggerated over time as we can see from the texts themselves. 4- Even if true, it would merely show people believed it; irrelevant to truth of claim. 5- same as 4. How is it folly to not accept the most improbable thing - that a man was resurrected from the dead - something that completely conflicts with our internal model of reality - without more evidence than ancient texts written decades later? Thanks again and take care! I see now that I have BLOVIATED, sorry. Last - your cat is adorable and awesome! :)
Saturn88z all of the New Testament was written y AD 100. There is around 500 sightings of Jesus in the 40days before ascension.By 90Ad all the Apostles were either killed or dead after being put in prison.
This is sadly too logical for Mike. Until he understands what evidence is, he is never going to make progress or appear even remotely educated.
@@sheilamclaughlin963 Much of the new testament, including the late forged letters, is probably 2nd century, and many scholars think that the gospels are much later than previously thought. There is ONE second hand tale of 500 witnesses to Jesus, and that most likely just a creedal statement, (ie not even remotely evidence). There is literally no evidence whatsoever of what became of the "apostles" (I think you mean disciples - not the same thing), only fantasy tales of later pious fiction christian story tellers, except James (and which James?).
Sorry, still no evidence.
I question the historical accuracy of points 2-5 of the ALIVE argument. Just saying these are generally agreed on isn’t convincing.
Be encouraged! I saw Cam and Doug's RUclips video of a fake Christian vs. Atheist debate. I was not impressed. I appreciate your hope in the human spirit.
The consistency of translation im seeing with NASB, KJV, and JPS Tanakh, over NIV, have the people of those cities being slaughtered in 1 Chronicles.
I would be interested to here your take, Mike
You're totally misrepresenting Bart Ehrmann's position here. What he actually said is that as a historian, establishing what really happened on a certain occasion, is actually never being empirically proven like it is the case in natural science, you always have to rely on probabilities. And a miracle, by definition, would be the least probable thing there is, so it is not a viable option for a historian. This doesn't say that miracles are not to be believed even if they happened. It says that even if they should have happened, the methodology of historical research is not the right tool to prove it.
The facts are often, "Yes, it says this in the gospel, you can read it for yourself."
People often want other places to look that corroborate what they are reading, such as sources or citations. That's why we tell people not to rely on Wikipedia, as they are likely not checking the sources and just accepting the data on the page as fact.
We dont just have the bible although the bible is a compilation of separate works by separate people. There is also the letter of lentulus and an empty tomb. Not to mention philosophical and cosmological proofs ect. The thing is when considering Christianity the fact is that you need to consider ALL the proof not just some whenever it seem fit.
My coming to Jesus (ex athiest) was when I realized
1. The bible isnt just 1 book written by 1 person (every human name is a separate human)
2. This makes the historical case strong because even considering the fact that the apostles talked with eachother the fact that Paul only went to them once and his book was dated after paired with the book of lentulus puts the MINIMUM total to 3 separate accounts of his crucifixion and 2 separate accounts for his resurrection AND a body not to be found.
3. The fact that we are so far evolutionarily from other animals for no reason and dominate the world despite delusion and suicidal tendencies and laziness being rife is very odd.
4. The infinite complexity of our universe is kinda a big deal
5. The lead theory of creation without God is literally just "and then it happened"
6. If we truly were just evolution then why do we feel the need to "save the turtles" when there is a high probability that it wouldn't matter that much to our survival
7. Why does living a biblical life make me so much happier.
Also Pascal's wager and all the other proof blah blah blah those weren't as important but point is the facts are: some people wrote books that scholars agree were indeed wrote by themselves separately describing a crucifixion with a resurrection, these people then held true to what they said when facing death and beatings, one of them gave the death and beatings out before randomly 180ing after claiming to see Jesus, there is a letter confirming Jesus death, there is no progress on finding Jesus body, the Godless explanation for creation is just an atom that blew up and no one knows where the atom came from, we have non-selfish morals despite the fact that is denies logic, the text has predicted events that became true (according to scholarly dating) yeah im with the Christian's on this one
@Fil Ler you are pretty much saying... well nothing else seems to fit the case so it's god! You need to look into some science books and figure out what contradicts the Bible. The earth isn't being held on 4 pillars like the Bible says and the earth isn't in the middle of the universe. Oh and the Bible allows slavery. So even IF the Bible was true.. slavery is something that is practiced in the book.
Hey Mike: you have asked a couple times about what you got wrong about Dillahunty.
One example is you say it seems he leans towards mysticism. He moderated a debate between Price and Ehrman and stated that he actual leans thw other way.
I would also advise caution about making statements or speculating on the mental states and motivations of others. For example you say Ehrman probably changed his tune as a result of the Craig debate. That may be true but then again maybe not. The problem is these speculations are not without rhetorical effect. They seem to me like efforts to score a point for your side without actually demonstrating the truth of your claims.
While ultimately I think you are mistaken to believe in God, I appreciate your content.
Best of luck
JekyllendHyde Did you miss the logic trail, dude? Don’t be so easily side tracked. Focus! I believe in you,; you CAN do it.
Well, strawmanning is much easier than steelmanning, especially when your evidence is so pathetic and weak.
Keep searching, God bless
@@ramigilneas9274 Keep searching, God bless
The New Testament is a collection of the most authentic and verified preserved records from the earliest Christians. So, I say, let's suppose that we compiled in one encyclopedia all the best theories and proofs from all the best physicists in the world from all of history into one collection of books - on a website perhaps. Would it be logical to then say that all future physicists who use any of those ideas were doing invalid work because they all based their work on only one book or on only one collection of books, or because they were using only one website as their source? Of course not. Then why would we expect Christians or historians to base all their work only on the less authentic and less verified works, to the exclusion of the best ones that we have? Gathering all the best work in one collection does not make that collection less trustworthy; it makes it more trustworthy. And it is ludicrous to consider such a collection to be a singular source, when it is so obviously a putting together of different sources.
@@lepidoptera9337 The letters in the New Testament were written between Christians. This is very very good historic source. It shows what they believed. Needless to say the letters do not say things like when you are speaking to non Christians you need to pretend this or claim that.
It is clear that the letters were written with integrity.
So when you have letters written between those involved why would you look to people who had no interest in Christianity to try and learn what Christians believed.
Could someone please point me to the polling that shows that a majority of qualified worldwide historians believe those things. I'd not heard that before and find it frankly unbelievable. But certainly willing to change my mind with sufficient evidence.
garyhabermas.com has some info on that. What he is doing is, I believe, considered to be better than simply polling scholars in general. He has been surveying the scholarly literature of those who actually work on the topic specifically. He is a scholar in the field himself but seeks, like Bart Ehrman, to be accessible to the lay person.
So then equivalent to only polling Historians who intently study the historicity of the Quran? Or say the historicity of Hindu Holy texts? That would seem to have a self selection sampling problem. No?
It would be if it was limited to only those who are already religiously committed to the thing in question. It's nice to be a scholar but most only have first hand knowledge in very limited areas. Habermas focuses on those who have studied and published in the area in question. This seems a very wise way to survey scholarly views on the issue. Consider the validity of polling a scholar in Shakespearean tragedy to see his view of the implications of the early creed represented in 1 Corinthians 15.
That seems to have the problem backwards. It's not about ensuring you don't exclude some, its making sure you don't have an biased pool to start. Of all historians, are those who tend to study religious historicity generally more inclined to be believers of the religion they are studying? If so that's going to invalidate that argument from authority since there is good reason to think it is no longer an un-biased authority. We would see the same problem with Islam and Hinduism also.
Forgive me for not having time to continue this very worthwhile conversation. Let me share a couple quick but important thoughts before I defer to you to have the last word.
1- It's really important to me that you see why the religious affiliation of those surveyed is not a factor (feel free to do your own research on this but don't just guess at reasons why you might dismiss the scholarly literature on the topic). The literature surveyed by Habermas shows agreement beyond religious lines (that's an important point you seem to be unaware of).
2- The historical claims (the 5 facts) are NOT religious beliefs. They are not miraculous and they are not arrived at through any means other than the normal methods of historical research. This means that we can believe those 5 facts based on normal historical methods. This is a foundational point to the case for the resurrection and I urge you to consider it.
3- It is the explanation of those facts, not the facts, that the debate ought to be about. If you want to challenge the facts themselves then fine but it's more than a little presumptuous to just come up with stuff off the top of your head to discount the mountain of research that has gone into historians being able to make this case. This is probably my biggest beef with those who are trying to reject this evidence for the resurrection. They feel comfortable casually throwing off the scholarship without much more than a fabricated reason they haven't taken the time to consider critically. If they do grant the "facts" (which I note they almost never do) they don't put much thought or effort into explaining them reasonably. But now I am rehashing the content of the video so I'll stop.
If you are interested in this case I encourage you to do your own study on it but not to just casually throw off what is a careful, evidence based case for the resurrection. After all, isn't evidence the thing that most skeptics claim they are actually interested in?
Thanks for your time and consideration!
So happy I found this channel. God bless you bro, thanks for this very insightful video
Your five "facts" aren't facts. They are claims made in the Bible. Evidence would be something which supports those claims.
You kept claiming in the video that historians accept your five "facts." Perhaps certain Christian historians do, but if you were to poll all historians you'd find there aren't many who would accept your five claims as facts.
You're being dishonest when you claim skeptics don't care about evidence. Most I've heard, including some of the ones you mentioned, would say you don't have any evidence because the Bible is a set of claims, not evidence. If you had real evidence, something which could be tested and examined, that would be different. But you haven't presented anything like that.
By the criteria you used in this video, the National Enquirer would have to be considered evidence for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Unfortunately this video only quotes what other atheists say and I can’t know if there is more to the quote itself. I honestly only follow Sam Harris and I don’t think he’d just say “even if we had more evidence, we should ignore it”. I think what he is saying is that even if we had more witnesses than we already do, the only thing that we could conclude 100% of the time is that they claim to have seen something. Just like people who practice other religions and report similar experiences, that does not mean that their experiences are a cause of the divine or supernatural.
I used to use the same argument against Mohammad since he only spoke to the archangel on his own without any other witnesses. But even if there had been other witnesses, that still does not make his claim any more true.
However, right now I have no answer as to why anyone would just lie about the whole thing, because as you pointed out in your video, there doesn’t seem to be any gain from this for the disciples or Jesus himself. I’ll have to look into this more.
Did you find it? Possible motives?
@@Joe-dz2fl Well, not really. I am also not really entirely certain that the whole story is true. But maybe they did see some gain in lying but it did not work out as they thought it would but were killed anyway. I don’t know, but I have other issues with Christianity anyway. For example, when I look at the universe, I just can’t imagine the creator of the universe wanting blood sacrifices from humans. All of this seems so primitive and unnecessary. It also makes no sense to me that God does not answer prayers or does not contact us immediately if we really are in such terrible danger to go to hell. I mean some people have no choice but to go to to hell and to deceive others because they themselves are deceived. God knows many will deceive others and is simply not doing anything about it. This makes no sense. So I guess I am just giving it all up. If the creator of the universe really wants something from us, it should not be that difficult for us to find him. One should not need to read books, watch sermons on youtube or become a scholar. That would only make sense if you wanted to study physics or something... but God in Christianity is so simple and personal that we should just instantly be able to connect with him... well I can get connected more easily to the internet than have any real spiritual experience with Jesus.. which even if I did... how would I know it was not just in my head? I don’t believe in a creator. I believe that the universe simply exists and we are just a happy accident. Just because it is improbable it does not mean it is impossible. But I am also open to the idea that a creator made all of this.. but then you either believe what I believe about the universe but attributing it to the creator and namely that he just exists... or maybe the creator of this universe was also created by something else. It is impossible to know and I think that if the Christian God was real, we would all know it by now. I may be wrong, but God knows where I am... well, where we all are and he could just correct us, but he won’t.
@@tuckercoffin2164 you make good points, like you I’m not convinced, maybe see my comment above^. And what you said about the spiritual experience that Christians attribute to Jesus, can also be the exact same in multiple Christian sects or multiple religions. That seems to be proof of a deeper principle than a particular religion claiming to be the truth.
"If you're an atheist you know who Bart Ehrtmann is."
I genuinely appreciate how much of a laugh that gave me, that was incredible. All atheists sit around in their atheist study groups discussing Bart Ehrtman, it is known.
Hatred of Jesus is a longstanding thing, hatred of his believers as well.
Indeed. I don't see many "atheists" hating on Shiva or Ahura Mazda; how "odd" that is, huh?..
I'm atheist and I have never heard of him
@@samlengua because they're not the ones that are the primary deity of the dominant religion in Western society. Simple.
@@samlengua
Pretty odd that Christians in western countries are only arguing with Atheists and not with Hindus or Buddhists… how odd that is.😂
The problem with this is simple. These are not facts presented here by Mike. All those itemized “ contentions “ are taken from scripture. Where did you get the “ fact” that many people saw Jesus after his death?
You will only convince those who believe already.
But then you make the statement you are not using the Bible to come up with your facts. About midway through this you claim the Bible is, well, fact. To represent these people in the manner you portrayed is, non Christian. It’s either deliberately dishonest or you are not capable of defending your position.
You are pushing people away.
Love your work mike!
Thank you Mike, I appreciate your advice, keep up your great work, us Brits need some decent preaching, love it!
You don't need decent preaching. You need reason and evidence. You will not get that from Mike or any preacher.
Really disappointed that you didn't let the atheists make their own case rather than offering a butchered weak version of it. Appreciate the encouragement to do our own research.
Seems this guy doesn’t understand what “evidence” is.
The dishonesty shown here is appalling.
Claim from you.
I know right, so many dishonest statements that you can list . . . . um none.
@@LoraxChannel A YT comment does not require a formal thesis, you muppet. If you really, really want I can rewatch and have specific examples listed.
But its kind of dumb to jump in a comment thread handing out demerits as if all comments are fully fleshed out. If youre curious about my claim, just ask.
Mesopotamia is a region of southwest Asia in the Tigris and Euphrates river system that benefitted from the area's climate and geography to host the Beginnings of Human Civilization.
The civilization is majorly known for is Prosperity, City Life and its Rich and Voluminous Literature, Religion, Mathematics and Astronomy.
They believe Sumerian civilization first took form in southern Mesopotamia around 4000 BCE-or 6000 years ago-which would make it the first urban civilization in the region. Mesopotamians are noted for developing the first written Religious Scripts around 3000 BCE: wedge-shaped marks pressed into clay tablets.
Scholars' worked, and published in the international journal of Nature, said the Civilisation predates Egypt's ancient people (7,000 BC to 3,000 BC) and could mark a significant shift in the study of ancient societies.
The Literature Written can be Traced through out all other Civilizations Literature after that.
Religions Through out time has used this Literature to create there own Religions how they see fit. Basically Misleading People for 1000's of Years. Telling Lie's to Benefit There Agendas and Control. That's why there are 1000+ Religions. And there story's are so similar. SO MAN DID WRIGHT THE BIBLE... If you Can't Understand this, It's Not My Problem.
Mike, You reference a consensus of historians a few times and that made me wonder. Would you still believe in the resurrection of jesus christ If historians didn't agree on those 5 points? Lets say only 10% agreed on the 5 points you mentioned. Would you still be convinced that the resurrection happened?
I ask because you seem to put a lot of stock into the consensus of historians.
@@darken3150 And I think he really means biblical historians, of which many, if not most, are christian. If he polled secular biblical historians only he would get a vastly different answer which is why he won't do it.
Hi Darken... I think Christians claim that their faith is evidence based. That history supports the claims, even from non Christian/secular historians. If there was no historical evidence that would be an issue! It’s claimed Science supports faith in God but does not specify to the resurrection account. So I would presume if Historians didn’t agree that could Pose problems. But I suppose we also have to look at the evidence ourselves and make our own minds up.
@@ColumboE7 "It’s claimed Science supports faith in God" please justify this statement
@@darken3150... hi Darken... in reply to your request. As I said it’s a claim... so... The fine tuning of the universe. The universe expansion suggests that the universe has a beginning and is therefore not eternal, means something must have caused it to begin. The Complexity/ appearance of design in nature. The law of entropy. These are some that spring to mind.
The times I have told people about Paul's conversion, they have said that he must have come to believe so strongly in the principles of Christianity that he thought it was worth lying and die for. It does not compute for me, but I must admit, it is a better explanation than mass hallucination, not resurrection though.
Paul was a Torah observant Hebrew…that argument does not follow.
As a believer in Hashem, for Paul to “lie” about his belief in the one true God he would be committing blasphemy and idolatry. Paul would be sending his soul to eternal damnation for Christian ethics even though he did not believe that Yeshua was God manifest in flesh? I think not.
1 Corinthians 15-
14 And if Christ has not been raised,(AD) our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.(AE) But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.(AF) 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep(AG) in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.(AH)
The same skeptics that drowned in the Flood, the same Skeptics that perished in Sodom, the same Skeptics that throughout the Bible doubt God's Love. Love and Truth are one in the same.
Have you any evidence that this 'Flood' you've mentioned occured?
Do you have any proof that you exist , and have asked me a question? How is it that I know you were actually responding to my comments, and did not just spill a coke or Pepsi on your key board? lol.
John 8:45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
2 Thessalonians 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
@@CRUISERJ1 So that would be a "no"! Thought so.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Rather than beat around the bush, its ok , you can just say, your a non believer and have no faith in Biblical content. I would assume that if that is so you choose freely to follow another standard of reasoning which leads to nowhere.
I think easy-believism is used to mean you you can be saved without repentance (which obviously isn't the case)
Happy to have found this title. But was looking fwd to better information, Mike. The title was promising, but I think your explanations of skeptics' positions were pretty much just a strawman. I am very familiar with all the skeptics mentioned. You treated their explanations only minimally and created a strawman at best. I am a former Christian (from age 14 until about 55) but am now an atheist. But I watch vids & read from both sides. My hobby, in fact--and it has been since my teen years)--is studying NT history and early Church history and the historicity of the Bible, etc. I love the Bible (as literature, I no longer take it as God's Word) and am interested in both sides, as I said. I think you offered a bum critique of the skeptics. Some truth, but a lot of straw. Still, now that I found your channel, I will be tuning in more as long as I find value and convincing refutation--a little more convincing than this vid. Best wishes.
You've hardened your heart and now demand a better job from a Man of God? Do your own research, choosey beggar. With Love💜
This particular video is not as much of a specified refutation as many of Mike's, it's a bit more generalized as it's an overview of positions, so while I don't think that was ever intentioned I'm sure it's easier for misteps to be made in representation. I would reccomend something like the two parter Mike does on Aron Ra's video about Christian prophecy, he gets to go more in depth on each point brought up in the videos there and he's directly showing the video to be as accurate as possible about the points given. I know I'm several months late but hope you'll give it a look mate!
Dude I don't think you know what strawman means, lol. He doesn't have more time. Mike was amazingly clear and direct.
@@vuke6931 Interesting, how do you handle a prophecy that even the prophet himself admitted failed? Ezequiel 26-29, How do we dogde that? Why do we dogde that?
Keep searching, God bless
You have no contemporary evidence for Jesus let alone his ressurection despite there being 500 "brothers" present. No one recorded that, imagine that??
When the theories fail you, change the facts. Got it.
The Sam Harris style.
Ehrman really doesn’t give an explanation for the minimal facts argument in his book how Jesus became god’
Not exactly, but I think he gives his theory on the burial; in fact, that's the book where Bart publicly denied the proper burial of Jesus.
@@apologetics-101 Bart Erhman created the skepticism around how Jesus was buried.
@@petery6432 Not exactly. John Dominic Crossan had claimed that Jesus was thrown into a shallow grave or eaten by wild dogs back in the 90s I believe. The only thing Ehrman added to that was believing that Jesus was left rotting on the cross. However, neither of them has any evidence for this. We know this happened to some crucified persons, but we also know this wasn't universal. Both Josephus & Philo gives us accounts & times when Romans allowed for proper burial of a crucified person. Also, archaeologists found a Jew named Yohannium (it's possible I misspelled that) in a bone box (ossuary) which is hard evidence of a Jew being given a proper burial after being crucified. Since we know such practices were not universal, the burden of proof is on both John Dominic Crossan & Bart Ehrman to provide the evidence that Jesus didn't receive a proper burial. What is more is that we have strong evidence that Jesus received a proper burial from the early creed in 1 Cor. 15 & the pre-Marcan Passion narrative, not to mention the fact that Joseph of Aramathea taking care of Jesus' burial fulfills the criteria of embarrassment since he sat on the Sanhedrin, the same council that condemned Jesus, making it very improbable that the burial story was made up. So, Bart & others like him, are forced to contend with that very strong historical grounding. Thanks for replying! Blessings!
Ok, I'm skeptical because of the weakness in the stories you use as evidence as POINT#3. Lets quickly examine the few found in the N.T.. 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul gives a list; To Peter and the 12 (which should say the 11 as Judas is dead) then 500 at once, (a claim that is hearsay at best. Paul gives no detail as to who are they, who told Paul this? when or where did this appearance take place? Paul was not there! No where in the Gospels claims this happened and their narratives hardly allow any place in there timeline for this to take place.) Then to James (which James as there as at least 3 possibilities) and to all the Apostles (which is the 11 again?)
VERY VAGUE. BUT APOLOGICS REALLY DEPEND ON THIS ALL BEING TRUE.
Mk 16: 5-20 3 named women see an empty tomb and and also some unidentified young man and the women "fled" in fear and "told no one, for they were afraid." THE LAST NINE VERSES WERE ADDED HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER BY...... NO ONE KNOWS!!!!
MT 28: 2 named women see ONE ANGEL, RAN AWAY IN FEAR AND JOY AND THEY RUN INTO JESUS HIMSELF? (does this sound embellished?) vs 16ff The 11 "saw Him but SOME were DOUBTFUL. (Who exactly and how many. A FEW cannot be just one! If only 2 the text would likely say "A couple." That likely makes it ay least 3, or 4 or maybe even 5. There is no claim they later came around to believe this "appearance Stuff." What makes me get a GUT FEELING that this is contrived is the way the story plays out. THE CLAME THAT THE 11 ALL SAW HIM BUT SOME DOUBTED just sounds strange and stretched. Hang on! This gets even stranger.....
Lk 24:10ff At least 5 women (embellished again?) see 2 Men. When they tell the men their experience what the men doubt is their words. IN THIS STORY JESUS APPEARS TO TWO GUY (one named Cleopas, who is is he? The other is suspiciously un-named?
I hope you realize the claims of ressurection is very big claim and not a common thing .
I definitely realize it is a miraculous claim. My point here is that it is a claim which is supported by the evidence. One could say, "if the resurrection did occur it would be the simplest explanation for what we see in history".
Claims of Ghosts , supernatural are not taken seriously anywhere in courtrooms as evidence of any sort...so why take this claim made by people 2K years back any seriously?
Then why isn't your evidence accepted as true all over the world? Lying for Jesus!
@@douglasducoteclown228 because people will always suppress the truth.
@@empires410 because if it wasnt true christianity would never have spread at all
Bart Ehrman has a lot to say, why did you pick his weakest most obscure argument? Is it because the mountain of other work he's done is evidence based and unassailable?
You know what’s not unassailable? This comment. Make a response video if you have something to say and show us those big guns you’re tying to flaunt for Ehrman.
You could just check Amazon for Bart's books and take a look, he has a respectable body of work that was overlooked and dismissed.
The folded cloth was a symbol in commom use. During a meal it meant "Do not take my plate away. I will return." The servants then knew not to remove that person's plate.
In the tomb the wrappings were undisturbed, as the body of Jesus arose through them. But the cloth covering the head had been neatly folded. He will return.
In Pauls letters (the oldest account of the resurrection) he understands it as a spiritual resurrection.
Piano and music is cool, but atheism isn't.
Oh, bless you, my dear brother, Mike! Or should I say, Rabbi Winger! My brain feels exceedingly fresh, like the wind of heaven just cleared out all the stale air & shined a great beautiful light from heaven. Clearly & succinctly exposing these atheists attempt at “arguments” is a thing of beauty!
It takes more faith to be an atheist.
that’s wrong but ok
That's certainly what the bumper sticker says.
Best part of this video is when you quoted Hume.
19:19 He is “Lying for Jesus” again.
This is what D. Hume actually said:
“For I own, that otherwise, *there may possibly be miracles,* or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history.”
This is what Mike Winger said:
“In David Hume mind miracles are *impossible,* period, end of story. And therefore, no matter what the evidencie is, we deny the resurrection.”
And then he proceeds to *misquote* him... Sadly this is a common tactic among apologists.
@@vejeke I really wish fellows like M Wing did not tell lies. He seems such a nice person, and I really want to trust him. It only takes a few intentional lies, and it causes me to start to wonder about the rest of their story. That is why I escaped X'tinsanity. You can let pass one error or lie, but it does not stop at just follow-up lies, but the attempt to cover up with obfuscation is heartbreaking. Is the final message *that* bad to need this sort of deception? You will know them by their maggot filled fruits.
@@vejeke You can’t take that quote and then claim that Winger is being dishonest. Hume flat out denies all miracles in that quote and then says, as Winger brought up, there might be a miracle that he would accept.
Edited out last part since it muddled the clarity
@@whatsinaname691 The hell I can't. He deliberately misrepresents Hume's position so that it says *what he is interested in people believing Hume said* even though it is almost the opposite of what Hume actually said.
Thus he gets his group members to think "Hume flat out denies all miracles in that quote" when the quote literally says "there may possibly be miracles".
19:31 Here's what Mike Winger said next:
"Let me read you one of the things he wrote. He says: «The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle"
And then, instead of keep quoting Hume till the end of the sentence, Mike just repeated "that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle".
Now I'm asking you, would you read only the first part of an author's quote in front of your public to try to summarize his opinion on a subject when the very next word in the middle of that quote is *"unless"* ?
He is being dishonest and manipulative in order to protect the beliefs he already holds, a common tactic among apologists of all kinds of religions.
Here is the full text, without repeating or omitting anything.
"The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, *unless* the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
Mike tries to manipulate his audience to help convince himself. That's why he talks about methodological naturalism in terms of "a blind faith position", it is a well-known psychological defense mechanism.
*_Psychological projection_*_ is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others. For example, a bully may project his or her own feelings of vulnerability onto the target, or a person who is confused may project feelings of confusion and inadequacy onto other people._
_Projection incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping._
@@vejeke I am surprised you are assuming Mike is being deliberately dishonest, but it is common to assume that people on your side of an issue are more moral than people on the other side. It is pretty clear from Hume's essay on miracles that he is not at all open to them. It sounds like Mike understands Hume better than you do.