Are these 5 facts that show Jesus rose from the dead?

[@basilkearsley2657]

People say they’ve see Elvis alive and we have TV, and Newspapers so we all know what Elvis looked like. Can you imagine 2000 years ago when they only had a vague description of Jesus.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Also of note, depictions of Jesus were in flux for several centuries. So there were many sightings of risen Jesusi that would not have even been recognizable to anyone outside of a given culture.

[@SamEfDee]

Exactly, I think putting things into a modern context very quickly makes Bible stories ludicrous. Wait this dude led all these people into a dessert and they got lost in it for 40 years? This doesn't sound like regular cult behaviour to you?

[@sarahclark5447]

Lol, people didn't rely on what you do, they would have skills that would baffle you. Did it occur to you that because you have TV and newspapers it's easier to propagate lies not harder. Do you know if the guy who made this video is indeed a 'expert' in what he claims to speck of, or have simply believe what the pixels on your screen told you? Now imagine you live in a small community, where everyone knows you, are you not the carpenter's son. What your hero needs to explain is why he the expert is one YT talking to the gullible, and not changing the world (for the better) .I mean he has YT and a following 53000 JC had only 12 and a cross. Be careful of experts who claim to be expert in something that is a lie as if they had value they would be retraining in something of value, otherwise, you will be like dawkins claiming to be a cultural Christian singing its praises while sawing the branch he is sitting one. Now, lets find some wholesome content.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@sarahclark5447 "Now imagine you live in a small community, where everyone knows you" If any of those people had written anything, you might have a point. All we have is one guy who admits to never having met Jesus alive and only having seen him in visions. Then we have a handful of stories written decades later and several cultural groups removed.

[@JasonPrzybycien]

​@@sarahclark5447you watch things you don't like to complain you don't like it? You need a new hovvy.

[@68chewy]

About a month after my mother died, I heard her calling me from another room as clear as day. Freaked me out, even though I was aware these types of events happen to many people all over the world on a routine basis. Not a ghost, not a sign. Evidently, many people experience postmortem visions of deceased loved ones. It fits that if Jesus had followers who loved him, thought he was their only salvation from their horrible existence, they too could have these experiences.

[@rainbowkrampus]

Bereavement hallucinations can happen for a lot of things too. I know someone whose house burned down and they were in their new bathroom and suddenly had an experience as though they were in their old bathroom. Brains are pretty wacky.

[@Witchoftheriver]

I've gotten auditory hallucinations most of my life of a voice I don't recognize calling my name, it's mostly just annoying. I can see how ancient 25 year olds who spent a lot more time mildly drunk and/or sick than we do now could turn something like that into deity worship but boy I wish they hadn't.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

Of course, this bears little resemblance to what is recorded in the gospels and 1 Corinthians, and is not a good explanation of why 1st century Jews came suddenly to believe in a single resurrection…

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness What's recorded in the gospels is a fantasy story concocted by people a generation later and untold geographic distances away from the supposed place of events. Paul doesn't really describe much of anything as he tends to use ambiguous language. And of course, he also acknowledges that everything he knows about Jesus comes from visions and scripture. So he's not a primary witness to anything except his own hallucinations. One person having bereavement hallucinations and imagining that their cult leader came back from the dead is a pretty solid explanation for a handful of 1st century Israelites coming to believe in a salvific resurrection. Ya know, on account of salvific resurrections already being prefigured in existing jewish scriptures and in the greco roman literature common to the period. Hell, ya don't actually even need the dead cult leader. We're talking about a fringe cult of weirdos in a time and culture that already accepted some very wacky stuff. Bathroom demons are my personal favorite. But angels that come and steal men's ejaculate are definitely up there.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

@@rainbowkrampus a few things: 1- the Pauline works and the Synoptics are not written a generation later, they’re all earlier than that 2- even if they were, why is that an issue? 3-is there any evidence that the gospel authors or Paul didn’t live or at least spend much time in 1st century Palestine? 4- bereavement visions don’t match the data we actually have regarding the reports of seeing Jesus, especially for Paul and James, but for the others as well 5-Paul, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, is quite clear in his resurrection views, writing about 20 years after the fact, which is not an issue The skeptical case against the resurrection would be so much stronger if they had actual evidence from history, rather than conjectures driven by methodological naturalism

[@Wally-jw6bh]

For years, I had very vivid dreams about my mother, my father, my grandparents. Incredibly real. In the ancient days, one could easily call that a vision, a spiritual experience, or even reality.

[@Jd-808]

The Road to Emmaus is great but it cracks me up that the first thing Luke did was announce that it was Jesus. Surely even back it was established that it works better if you wait to reveal that.

[@captionhere19]

#spoileralert

[@Excusemebut-oi4tb]

Dan: That is profoundly naive and fallacious. Me: Those people are wingnuts.

[@hellonewman5855]

Yup.

[@blahblahblah6]

2000 years ago, we'd have been dealing with a lot of scientifically untrained people who were desperate for a sign that God was about to help them.

[@jordanmielbrecht3435]

I like the way he deals with these content creators. He attacks ideas, not people. It's very academic and refreshing in a drama-saturated social media landscape.

[@blahblahblah6]

@@jordanmielbrecht3435 When it comes to religion there are a lot of Charlatans. But, there are also people who are just plain misinformed. So, unless someone is plainly a scammer, I'd keep the criticisms impersonal.

[@Excusemebut-oi4tb]

@@blahblahblah6 This criticism is specifically of very informed Christians.

[@thescoobymike]

It seems he’s taking inspiration from both Habermas’ minimal facts and C.S. Lewis’ “lord, liar, or lunatic” into his own argument that remains unsatisfying

[@randycarson9812]

"When all other possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes Only the resurrection accounts for ALL of the Minimal Facts that Habermas has researched among scholars.

[@Wertbag99]

@@randycarson9812 The minimal facts just say that the mundane parts of the story are plausible, but it's still a jump from that to a miraculous resurrection. It's only a challenge if you start by presupposing the bible as inerrant, as if you posit that it was a man-made book, then you aren't forced to accept the gospels as word for word historical accounts, but instead embellished stories recorded for religious conversion and to confirm faith. If the gospels are not accurate then the truth could be one of many other possibilities.

[@LimeyLassen]

@@randycarson9812 Did you watch the same video? There are countless other explanations.

[@randycarson9812]

@@LimeyLassen Really? Why don't you give us one that explains ALL FIVE of the minimal facts at the same time? I have no interest in explanations that explain one or two of the facts...to be conclusive, your choice must explain ALL FIVE. Thanks.

[@Alexander-the-Mediocre]

@@randycarson9812 "I have no interest in explanations that explain one or two of the facts...to be conclusive, your choice must explain ALL FIVE. Thanks." - Sure I'll give a plausible explanation of the actual minimal facts. Not the added ones like the empty tomb. 1. Jesus was crucified - okay 2. Jesus' followers believed he rose from the dead - a few had hallucinations and spread the story 3.The followers had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus - same hallucinations as above 4. The followers' lives were transformed - having a vision or hallucination you believe to be true would also explain this. 5. The resurrection was proclaimed early on - if you had the hallucination and believed you would spread the word 6.James, Jesus' brother, became a Christian - Jesus brother had a hallucination 7.Paul, a former persecutor of Christians, became a Christian - Paul wasn't a eyewitness he just converted because he had a vision. Which is a hallucination. So only 2 actual events need to happen to explain away all of the minimal facts. These 2 events are much more plausible then an actual rising from the dead. The events are Jesus died a few of his close followers or people that cared for him had bereavement or some type of hallucination but believed it to be true told other believers that took what they said as true and spread from there. The Paul who is persecuting christian's has his own vision. Paul then becomes a believer. So 2-6 because they happen relatively near each other timewise can all be explained by one cause. Paul happened way later plus its even described as a different event in the bible so it gets its own answer.

[@RealTrentertainment]

Congrats, Justin Brierley! You have finally made it onto Dan’s channel! Miss you, dude! Unbelievable is not the same without you!

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Well, we also have the original ending to Mark (the first gospel written that the others used as inspiration) that says the women never told anyone what they had seen "for they were afraid". No doubt some later scribe read that and realized the gigantic problem that needed to be solved: If those women never told anyone, then how do we know about it?

[@paulallenscards]

Seeing a lot of comments about Dan describing the resurrection as an impossibility. I think Dan is implying that belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection after being three days dead ought to remain strictly within the realm of faith. He is critical of the desire to tease it out of this realm and into the realm of verifiable history, but not of people who take the position as a matter of faith.

[@getasimbe]

Well, it is impossible. One would have to demonstrate that such a thing is possible before you can claim it as such. It's really that simple

[@k98killer]

​​@@getasimbepeople are resurrected pretty regularly, actually -- we typically call it resuscitation. There are even cases in which someone spontaneously resurrects hours after being declared medically dead. Considering that there were ancient mystery cults that had chemically mediated resurrection as a goal, and considering all the mystery cult allusions in the gospels, it seems plausible that Jesus was attempting some version of the mystery when things went sideways.

[@BrianTerrill]

One would have to argue a big case of trauma that affected people who knew Jesus, such as the original 11 and someone who probably hated his guts if he knew him in his life, such as Paul. The trauma includes sitting down and eating with him, at least twice.

[@k98killer]

@@BrianTerrill According to John, after Jesus got naked and pressured his neaniskoi into some unwanted physical intimacy, he put his clothes back on, said "do you know what I've done to you?", and instructed them to perpetuate the practice. Judas then squeals to the cops, identifies the perpetrator, and hangs himself. Cops show up to a public park at 4am and find a naked boy with Jesus after he had drunk whatever was in the cup he didn't want to drink (Mark). Peter then takes some of the boys out to be naked fishers of men one night, wakes up, thinks he sees Jesus, puts his clothes on, and swims to shore. Sounds like plenty of trauma to go around.

[@BrianTerrill]

@@k98killer I guess that's how a person sees things in the Bible after watching porn or something .

[@enoynaert]

Consider Elvis. Soon after his death, people began to report encountering a living Elvis.

[@dethspud]

I prefer Paulogia's "Minimal witnesses" theory.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Beat me to it

[@UplandJones1]

It really is the best theory currently available

[@ratamacue0320]

I'd say I find it to be the most plausible, rather than "I prefer", which could be misinterpreted as the willful rejection in spite of knowledge/evidence that believers accuse non-believers of. But otherwise, yeah.

[@blackwiddowflainfrost6705]

@@UplandJones1 The best? If among the plethora of scholarly, historical and archaeological background theories, the 'minimal witnesses' theory is the best explanation. Then either you have a problem. Or the above mentioned people are completely unreliable. Apocalyptic Preacher? From what source? Not to mention irrelevant. Barely 10% of all Jesus' teachings. Judas Iscariot sold Jesus. This is accepted by many of the above. We know what charge they crucified Jesus for. Sedation. Now to his theory. Not only Peter, this 'grief ghost syndrome' had to affect 15 other people MINIMUM. Including Paul, Mary Magdalene, and James. Peter alone grief ghosting? Ok. Peter and John? Maybe. 15 people? Extremely unlikely. Not to mention the extend of this grief ghost affecting them to completely change them all. No, Jesus' body was not dumped randomly. Jesus was buried. This is accepted among the minimal facts. There is archeological evidence to show that crucified criminals were also buried. The hypothesis' sole basis is the grief ghost syndrome and focuses solely on Peter and John. Which is illogical. Completely trivializes Paul and makes assumptions about Paul. Paul feeling grief for his persecution of Christians is completely hypothetical. Not to mention, as far as Paul, a rabbi who would soon join the Sanhedrin, the Christians were followers of a dead man who was nothing but some backwater healer crucified on charges of sedation. Therefore Christians were traitors. No guilt for traitors. Depends on group delusion 15 people at minimum and likely a lot more. Does not argue whether this grief ghost would guilt them enough to change the cowards completely. Which is again, highly unlikely and unsupported by evidence.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

Why?

[@brandonwilson5218]

Citing Dale Allison’s work on the resurrection of Jesus is both awesome and deeply fascinating given the context of this video. Allison has had many strange things happen to him in his lifetime, synchronicities, apparitions, and other such phenomena (stuff he has recently taken a keen interest in and recently published a book about). In this particular book on Jesus’ resurrection, he makes the fascinating comparison of Jesus’ resurrection with the Tibetan Buddhist rainbow body.

[@matthewmurdoch6932]

If this argument were reconstructed truthfully and pointed to a Hindu figure, would it hit as heavy and be as convincing for Christians I wonder.

[@alexmcd378]

No, because reasons

[@normative]

The most glaring problem with this style of apologetics is that it never makes any remotely serious effort to assess RELATIVE probabilities. As Dan argues, it's not really very implausible at all that devoted followers of a guru in these circumstances would either experience visions of their executed teacher or, perhaps even at great personal cost, seek to vindicate his teaching by fabricating such stories. But suppose you ARE convinced that these alternatives sound improbable. It's still preposterous to claim they're MORE improbable than a miraculous resurrection, and apologists rarely even try to directly make the argument that it is.

[@colincomber8027]

I saw my mother in the street about 5 weeks after her funeral.

[@mojmejl3790]

Were you alone? Were you able to touch her?

[@babisbabinos8075]

Elaborate.

[@danieldelanoche2015]

#3 seems rather dubious considering we have zero first hand accounts of people saying this.

[@RonaldParkinson-fm7km]

We have Paul's account.

[@emptyhand777]

​@@RonaldParkinson-fm7km- we have Joseph Smith's account of the angel Moroni and golden tablets buried in the Missouri woods. Exact same level of evidence. Might as well throw on Mohammed and his word that Allah spoke directly to him. All the same. The one you believe depends on which was taught to you when you were 3 years old.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

They are all dubious except for the first one. The empty tomb is part of the story. James is never specifically mentioned as a non believer. And a few hundred to 10,000 adherents over a fifty year period isn't really "explosive".

[@RonaldParkinson-fm7km]

@@emptyhand777 I am an atheist and agree with your general point, but it is true that we have writings from Paul describing him seeing a resurrected Jesus.

[@emptyhand777]

@@RonaldParkinson-fm7km - Paul only saw visions, he never claimed to see a resurrected, in the flesh Jesus.

[@alittlepieceofearth]

How many people have claimed to see Elvis?

[@Brunoburningbright]

I saw Elvis at Trader Vic's, and his hair...well you know.

[@bengreen171]

we live in an age where Trump fans think Jim Carey is pretending to be Joe Biden....

[@sanguillotine]

I mean it’s less impossible than resurrecting from the dead, but still not possible

[@deedeskin2439]

Here's a good one: I've heard plenty of people say, "I don't watch monster movies because I don't believe that a dead person can come back alive from the grave." Yet they'll swallow the resurrection doo-dah hook, line and sinker because "the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead!" They don't even think about what they're saying! I just sit back and think, "Ohhh-kay..."

[@lnsflare1]

I mean, Scientology grew a lot faster than Christianity did, so I guess that is a point in favor of the notion that there was a historical Xenu.

[@jannetteberends8730]

Seeing, or hearing, or noticing a loved dead one is also part of the mourning process. It happens even when you know it’s not real.

[@mojmejl3790]

Except that after all other Jesus' followers saw Jesus, Thomas was absent and did not believe them, yet he too later claims he saw him and was willing to die for it.

[@hellonewman5855]

I would love to hear more about Dan's use of the word "impossible" in this conversation.

[@marlonrodney2457]

I'm guessing he means physically impossible (miraculous).

[@KaiHenningsen]

Impossible is pretty much in the definition of "miracle" when it's not just used as an intensifier.

[@PadraigG8]

I assume Dan means "impossible" in the sense "violates all the laws of nature and reality as we understand them". Which TBF is kinda the whoole theological point of a Miracle, but the flipside of that is you can't argue for Miracles from probability. I'm slightly surprised he didn't throw in the standard "the discples martyred themselves rather than recant the Ressurection" bullet point. Are apologist starting to back off from that?

[@ptgannon1]

The science that backs up that claim is QFT or quantum field theory. Derived from QM (quantum mechanics) and Relativity, QFT tells us what our observable universe is made of (mostly quarks and electrons). It tells us what interacts with those things. As it turns out, based on the last two or three decades of tests and experiments in particle accelerators, this 100 year old theory confirms that there are no god, devil, soul, ghost or spirit forces, fields or particles (vibrating fields), interacting with the stuff we and our material natural world are comprised of. We know this beyond reasonable doubt today. Thirty years ago, one might propose that there were god or devil forces out there interacting with us, but today we know that's total nonsense. This changes everything. If a god created the universe, for some odd reason he gave it rules that do not permit him to participate. If God wants to give you a religious "experience" thought or words he has to make the neurons in your brain fire in complex patterns. No neurons firing = no thoughts. To do this he has to push around the quarks and electrons that the neurons and the rest of our natural world are made of. If he wants to heal tissue, walk on water, turn it to wine or rise from the dead, he has to push around quarks and electrons. That's not happening, or a) we'd know it, and it wouldn't be supernatural, or b) we'd have unexplained interactions to chase down, but we don't. As for "impossible," QFT is derived in part from QM and QM is all about probabilities. As I understand it, the chance that there are gods, devils, souls, etc. interacting with us is about the same as the odds that a living, breathing, full sized T-Rex dressed in a pink tutu will manifest in your dining room next Thursday at exactly 11:02 AM. QM says it could happen. It also says, don't wait up.

[@Wertbag99]

@@PadraigG8 I think there was so little data showing who was martyred and why, that the claim had to be wound back. If they are trying for the scholarly consensus then you generally end up with "I don't know" rather than agreement.

[@batbite_]

Odin/Wotan is one of the characters you randomly meet on the road according to mythology

[@digitaljanus]

And in Greek mythology, the gods are constantly appearing to mortals in the guise of friends and loved ones. Especially when those people are already dead.

[@k98killer]

Weird shit happens. Highly improbable events occur all the time. It makes sense for repeated weird patterns to be categorized and given names.

[@davidholman48]

It also explains why so many people think Trump is the answer to our national woes in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People haven't changed that much within the last 2,000 years.

[@caroler11059]

Jesus’s appearance changed after the resurrection, kind of like Dr. Who.

[@busterfixxitt]

Why are folks assuming that separate events all have the same cause? Parsimony? How is saying, "Superman did it!" a parsimonious explanation for anything, when we haven't demonstrated Superman exists?

[@formerfundienowfree4235]

I LOVE YOUR CONTENT! THANK YOU!!

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Three FACTS that all Christians agree on: 1) On Thursday Jesus and Judas are both alive. 2) On Friday one of them is killed by the Romans. 3) On Monday Jesus is alive and Judas is dead. What best explains these minimal facts?

[@Nymaz]

According to the gospel of Matthew a bunch of people rose on that night, including Jesus. Therefor the only logical conclusion is a mystic comet passed over Jerusalem invigorating the dead and raising them as revenants in order to avenge those that wronged them in life. After Jesus killed and partially ate Judas, he returned to his grave, his work done. Since of all those that rose, Jesus was the only one with a group of followers, he's the only one we have multiple stories of. The other zombies weren't famous enough. It's the only reasonable conclusion.

[@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn]

Sounds plausible.@@Nymaz

[@mojmejl3790]

Except that the crucifixion of Jesus is almost unanimously accepted by all scientists (including non-Christians). On the other hand, even Gospels themselves give different accounts on how Judas died, so there is not nearly enough evidence that he could have been on the cross instead of Jesus (like some Muslims claim).

[@JacobKaiju]

I know that missing people get reported at being somewhere when it turns out they have been dead for a while. People don't realize how faulty our memories are, and sometimes, people are misidentified.

[@VoiceOfIrrationality]

Shortly after Elvis's death there were tons of reports of Elvis being seen alive.

[@karldehaut]

I am always amazed by the simple desire of certain believers to reassure themselves about their dogmas. Of course, the early Christians adhered to the idea that the resurrected Christ was real. Their beliefs are authentic but their material content is not. This is what distinguishes faith from the experience of everything in everyone.

[@BearOfStone]

We live in a world right now where something that didn't occur but is just this side of plausible is accepted quickly, "spreading like wildfire", in a world where sensed data is prevalent to the point of intrusion. The notion that THAT is a means of adding credibility to a claim, that a lot of people agreed to have experienced it 2000 years ago is laughable in the face of how easily we are still duped to this day.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

For Fact #4, do we even have a claim in the NT that James saw the risen Jesus? I don't recall one and the appearance of James being described by Paul as a leader in the church has always seemed a bit mysterious to me.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

As to that, where did he see the risen Jesus? Presumably, as the next oldest brother, he inherited the carpentry business in Nazareth, and as a skeptic, he wouldn't have followed Jesus to Jerusalem. Did he go down to take the body back?I thought you were supposed to wait a year so you could just rebury the bones. Maybe he came to rescue his mother from this crazy cult she has gotten entangled with. When he saw the respect he got from being the (half) brother of Jesus, he decided it was better than fixing broken tables for a living.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@michaelnewsham1412 In some of the Gospel accounts, the disciples either go back to Galillee and see Jesus there or are told to go there and he'll meet them. James could have been with them then, but I don't know of any reference to it.

[@randycarson9812]

James was a skeptical cousin of Jesus who later became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. He had a prominent role at the Council of Jerusalem (cf Acts 15) when he accepted the decision of Peter concerning the Gentile believers and spoke a few words to satisfy his local congregation.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@randycarson9812 One of the unknown things that really fascinates me about the early church is James. How did he go from the skeptic barely mentioned in the Gospels to the leader of the movement we see in Paul? Even Luke glosses over that in Acts, were you'd think it would be discussed. Are the Gospels even reliable about his skepticism and lack of role in Jesus's ministry? Could he have had a larger role from the start that they're glossing over for some reason?

[@randycarson9812]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 Maybe. But what is to be gained from that? The gospels conclude with Jesus' cousins (not biological brothers) having doubts. The authors had no way of knowing that James would convert nor that Luke would provide this information in his sequel. But you've asked the right question: what DID cause James to become a believer after all those years? Resurrection is one obvious possiblity.

[@hardwork8395]

I think the historical arguments miss a critical factor: historical work is abductive reasoning-which is our best guess for all the facts we have. Since no one has ever risen from the dead, it cannot be part of our available pool of possible hypotheses. We remove all sorts of possibilities like flying dragons made of rainbow skittles raising Jesus or anything else we don’t observe in our lives. So Christians shouldn’t get triggered that Jesus being raised by god can’t exist in the pool of hypotheses, just like that skittle dragon. That claim fits within other types of philosophical and theological inquiry. In other words, the Christian explanation is a non starter in the historical realm of argumentation. It’s an impossible conclusion because it can’t logically follow from the premises, which exclude it, by the very nature of the discipline itself.

[@mannymann321]

Barabbas, the person who was set free, his full name was Jesus Barabbas, which literlly means Jesus Son of the Father. So did Jesus get crucified?

[@danielbond9755]

My problem with the minimal facts argument is that all of these arguments are better attested in Islam. So, if this is your standard, you should be a Muslim.

[@HelliarCOH]

I never understood something. If the consensus is that people indeed saw the resurected Jesus, aren’t we just taking as fact what one (or a few) writer(s) is saying, instead of having a bunch of eyewitness accounts of this miracle?

[@alexmcd378]

You're not confused.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

All we can really say is that relatively soon after Jesus's death, people were claiming he'd risen from the dead and acting as if they actually believed it. This does not mean he actually did of course.

[@HelliarCOH]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 This is precisely my question. Why do we take this as fact if this is coming from one person - say, Luke - who writes this down 40+ years later after these events apparently took place?

[@jckensway2956]

You’re description of ‘having a Jesus experience’ on the road could have been lifted straight from the pages of ‘When Prophecy Fails’ which Dan may have recommended. When you’re looking for a ‘sign’ and when in almost every waking moment you’re primed for a sign you’ll find one almost anywhere. In ‘WPF’ it was as random as an unexpected phone call, a stranger on the tv, or a snippet of tv news.

[@scienceexplains302]

“And then they go and tell people…” And memory is faulty. We reconstruct the memory each time we pull it up. We do not have audio-video recorders in our heads

[@leslieviljoen]

Dan, how many shirts do you have? That's an impressive collection!

[@RustyWalker]

Experiences like the road to Emmaus sometimes have a subject who isn't even dead! They're just not the person that the other person having the experience thinks they encountered.

[@CB66941]

Since Dan is a fan of comic books, I wonder if he believes Alan Moore's claims that he saw the actual John Constantine in real life.

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

Come on, it’s Alan Moore. Who knows? I love the guy. Also, writers tell lies for fun and profit.

[@HandofOmega]

Or Grant Morrison's story about Superman stopping to have a chat at a convention...!

[@DavidAlastairHayden]

@@HandofOmega For Morrison, that’s pretty tame. Have you heard him talk about extra dimensional beings?

[@welcometonebalia]

He was probably having a beer with William Gull, and, obviously, Glycon.

[@piesho]

"History became legend. Legend became myth." -LOTR.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

Justin Brierley.. the poor man's apologist.... insincere x 10

[@foxbat252]

If something is truly impossible, it cannot be made possible even by extraordinary evidence. Here's why: If there is a non-zero probability of that extraordinary evidence existing, then the claim will also have a non-zero probability, and therefore be *possible*. That implies that if the claim is *impossible*, then logically there must be zero probability of the extraordinary evidence existing, i.e it's impossible for that extraordinary evidence to exist!

[@ballasog]

Jesus died in the middle of a Zombie Apocalypse. Zombie Apocalypses are probably the most common form of mass disaster. So who's to say that he didn't turn and walk with the Horde?

[@Ursus-Horribilis]

Mad props Dan! 👏

[@marshlightning]

I am even doubting the crucifixion took place, When you take away all the passages which were written (basically made up) to fulfil prophecy or verses in the OT, there is hardly anything left. Paul says an odd thing. "Jesus that was PORTRAYED as crucified to you." The resurrection appearances are easily explained away.

[@jrobinprescott]

A lot of the Old Testament “prophecies” were actually only interpreted as Messianic predictions after Christianity began to form. The idea that the Messiah needed to suffer and die to absolve the world of sin, for example, is totally foreign to the views that Jews actually held. This is one of the reasons scholars often err on the side of the historicity of the crucifixion: it’s a detail that randomly broke with Jewish tradition and sounded silly to Gentiles. It makes more sense that early followers of Jesus had to come up with a new way of viewing the Messiah after Jesus got tortured to death, rather than someone willingly invented that detail despite all of its baggage

[@marshlightning]

@@jrobinprescott Yes, agree, except they clearly used stories/verses from the Old Testament and wove them into the story of Jesus.

[@StarTrekLivz]

People claimed to have seen Elvis (including in a fast-food restaurant in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which even when he was alive would have been remarkably improbable) years after he was buried.

[@leo--4341]

these response videos keep me sane

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Remember, less than 1% of English people go to church each week. This apologist, for all his confidence, is very lonely across the pond.

[@adamdport]

3:27 can you give an example of "direct evidence" that would suffice? Like if an "impossible" thing happened, what would we need to convince historians today (let alone 2000 years later) that it happened?

[@Wertbag99]

If the religious could prove God exists then that would be a major step towards accepting He can do anything claimed of Him. Really proving any of the supernatural religious claims would be a great start; heaven, hell, demons, angels, souls or people able to perform miracles on demand.

[@paulallenscards]

I think Dan is implying that belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection after being three days dead ought to remain strictly within the realm of faith. He is critical of the desire to tease it out of this realm and into the realm of verifiable history, but not of people who take the position as a matter of faith.

[@paulallenscards]

I think Dan is implying that belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection after being three days dead ought to remain strictly within the realm of faith. He is critical of the desire to tease it out of this realm and into the realm of verifiable history, but not of people who take the position as a matter of faith.

[@adamdport]

@@Wertbag99 so what would an example of evidence of those things be?

[@Wertbag99]

@@adamdport The old problem of Divine Hiddenness. It is claimed God wants us to know Him, wants a relationship with us, and yet does not make contact with those seeking Him. Direct communication would be an obvious choice, but the bible also talks of people performing miracles on demand, and in the case of Elijah's test it was specifically to prove God exists.

[@Adaerus]

It would be interesting if it could be determined that the 500 witnesses of resurected Jesus actually met amongst themselves. It would not be far fetched to think that being under the influence of Jesus' teachings these people acted in a manner similar to Jesus, thus crenting the sensation that Jesus was still alive. Now, while a material, flesh and blood resurection, is beyond the realm of possibility, a spiritual (formula, or rule, or law of human interaction) resurection would be reasonable to conclude. After all, Jesus did promise he would be present amongst them whenever two or more Christians got together. Another point that supports this is when the church (not the institution but the congregation) is considered the body of Christ.

[@abidd]

According to one of the Gospels, when Jesus rose from the dead all the people in the graveyard also rose from the dead and went down to the town. I would think that if something like this really happened that there would be many accounts that spread around the area. This would have been like the "night of the living dead" coming true! The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead. They left the cemetery after Jesus' resurrection, went into the holy city of Jerusalem, and appeared to many people” (Matthew 27:51-53).

[@pansepot1490]

Mike Licona who is I think a historian but also a Christian apologists admits that that episode was in all likelihood a “portent”, that is a narrative device common in antiquity meant to underscore the importance and divine origin of the protagonist of the story (Jesus in this case). In other words, didn’t happen.

[@mrgoober6320]

The standard of proof for magic has to be higher than 'some people two millennia ago said it, so it must be true'.

[@tim57243]

It would be better to give examples to support the claim "things like [falsely thinking you met somebody you know] happen all the time".

[@skyinou]

When dealing with such content, I think it's important to remind everyone that "the majority of scholars agreeing" doesn't change an hypothesis into a fact. At best it could be made into a theory, which I would find particularly funny considering that a large sub-category of those apologists just love to belittle that word in other contexts. 😁

[@williamtomkiel8215]

there's a YT thing out there that shows a time line for the fact that he wasn't in the tomb for 3 days, maybe 36- 40 hours at most . . . selling tht "arisen after 3 days" fairy tale - a bit loosey-goosey with "facts"- of which there are essentially NONE!

[@MusicalRaichu]

an hour or two friday until sunset, friday sunset to saturday sunset, and saturday sunset to sunday dawn, the way they counted it's three days (day or part thereof). by the way the modern western world counts, it's around a day and a half.

[@Sirrus-Adam]

A self-appointed arbiter of what's possible... Calling something "impossible" when it is merely "highly improbable" is what's at issue here. I'm not surprised by his conclusions, (if somewhat disappointed), as this position would be seen by many as the logical one to make. But it also contains a veiled insult to all those who really saw Jesus post crucifixion. It denies their reality. Yes, it was a one time event (if 40 days of similar experiences can be lumped into "one time"). No one has done it before or since. It's non-reproducible (by us anyway). This is what produces incredulity. There's one problem though. It assumes that subsequent people reporting they'd seen Jesus, knew about the first reports, when such is not necessarily the case. People independently reporting similar events more or less spontaneously, without prior knowledge of other reports, kicks that idea in the ass. It rather points to the opposite, that Jesus was really appearing to various groups all over the countryside. (Folks in Alexandria saw him even before they knew he'd been crucified.) Considered significant primarily because the Christian faith is predicated on believing it happened. The problem is, while it was viscerally satisfying for the apostles to thumb their noses at the priests for having Jesus killed, it is not the core of Jesus' messages. Those are found in his teachings and parables. They are far more important than whether or not he came back from the dead!

[@welcometonebalia]

These guys should compete in the Olympics, they jump very, very far away from their starting position in just a second.

[@tussk.]

Ok, by that metric it means all stories of alien abduction are true.

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

It's not impossible. It's theologically irrelevant. The Tanach records many of the miracles Elisha performed hundreds of years before Jesus. Among them: purification of Jericho's drinking water, transformation of a single cruse of oil into many vessels' worth, resurrecting a child, and curing a Gentile general of leprosy.

[@JasonPrzybycien]

@maklelan please make a video about why you are still a Christian given your argument here that it is plausible there was no resurrection and that it it is unlikely there was a resurrection. To me that seems to close the book on Christianity. Do you have another argument in defense which avoids or ignores this probability? Or do you not subject your beliefs to your rational conclusions? I would like to understand.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

There are many learned theologians who believe that the Easter story and the Resurrection was a spiritual event, not a physical one: Don Cupid. Anglican priest and professor of Christianity at Cambridge University. Edward Schillebeeckx, Roman Catholic theologian, author of Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. Willy Marxsenn, Lutheran, Professor of Theology and New Testament studies. Rudolf Boltman., Lutheran and Professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. Episcopal Bishop John Spong John Robinson, Anglican Bishop and Dean of Cambridge. I would guess your objection would be that those are not evangelicals, and only people who agree with you are True Christians.

[@HandofOmega]

Never understood why Minimal Facts was ever considered a good argument at all. It's just more claims, with ZERO evidence to back it up! And they love to point out how the majority of scholars agree to these facts...I would point out the *context* of this, that for the vast majority of Western civ, our culture has been a highly theocentric one, where even people in academia could lose their reputations and careers if they went against the party line. Obviosuly, this is changing, but only in the last few decades; Carrier mentions the first scholar to seriously put forth the idea that Jesus might not be real and how this utterly destroyed his career, and I believe this was in the 1950s...Which might seem like a long time ago, but academia doesn't forget (that's kinda its thing) and an example like that can make people refuse to speak up and lose their livelihoods and ability to support their families, among other social costs. Remember, scholars aren't superpeople, they are just regular folks, with biases and fears like the rest of us. Keep all this in mind next time someone says "most scholars agree these things MUST have happened"!

[@randycarson9812]

Bart Ehrman, Atheist “But as a historian, I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stain-glass window or the Jesus of your least-favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things with relative certainty about him.” (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist?, 5-6.) "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." (Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pgs, 261-262)

[@randycarson9812]

When enemy attestation supports your position, you have a strong ally. So when atheist scholars concede an important point, it matters.

[@randycarson9812]

Why are the Minimal Facts Helpful? 1. If the minimal facts are true, then belief in the resurrection is reasonable. 2. The minimal facts are true. 3. Therefore, belief in the resurrection is reasonable. 4. If belief in the resurrection is reasonable, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus' other claims about Himself are true. 5. Jesus claimed to be God. 6. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

[@alexmcd378]

You fail on the first premise. The argument does not follow.

[@randycarson9812]

@@alexmcd378 Then show which of minimal facts is not reasonable. Remember, Habermas only included facts which had REALLY high acceptance (90+%) by ALL biblical scholars, skeptics, atheists, and Christians. If you reject one of them, I'd be interested in learning more about your academic credentials and why you disagree with your academic community. Thanks.

[@alexmcd378]

@@randycarson9812 Wrong point. You can have all of the minimal facts. The flaw is the jump from those facts to a resurrection. It's far more believable that someone lied than someone rose from the dead.

[@randycarson9812]

@@alexmcd378 Occam's Razor and Sherlock Holmes. Applying Occam's Razor to the facts of the resurrection involves evaluating different explanations for the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and selecting the one that requires the fewest assumptions while still adequately accounting for the observed phenomena. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This principle, known as Holmesian deduction, complements Occam's Razor in problem-solving and investigation. By eliminating the naturalistic scenarios as impossible or overly complex, they might find the resurrection itself as the remaining truth, aligning with Holmes’s deduction.

[@randycarson9812]

@@alexmcd378 Apply Occam's Razor and Sherlock Holmes' Maxim. Applying Occam's Razor to the facts of the resurrection involves evaluating different explanations for the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and selecting the one that requires the fewest assumptions while still adequately accounting for the observed phenomena. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This principle, known as Holmesian deduction, complements Occam's Razor in problem-solving and investigation. By eliminating the naturalistic scenarios as impossible or overly complex, the resurrection itself is the remaining truth. Try it.

[@MariusVanWoerden]

Where was Jesus crucified. Was it on a hill like we see pictures of the 3 crosses one in the middle usually taller. No Our Lord Jesus was not even crucified on a hill because there was not one matching the Biblical description for the place of the crucifixion. Jesus was crucified on a mountain. The name of the mountain is Mount Moriah, the same mountain where God told Abraham to sacrifice his son and likely the same place. Genesis 22: 6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. Abraham did not need to lay his son on the wood because, God laid His Son on the wood. Genesis 22: 8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself THE LAMB for a burnt offering.”So the two of them went together. Abraham did not have to sacrificed his son, because God sacrificed HIS SON. Abraham brought his son on a donkey and Our God did bring His Son on a Donkey. We see how even here is a fulfilling of the old testament Reason God wanted Abraham to go Mount Moriah is what Jesus was referring to in John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Abraham considered that God could raise Isaac from the dead. But God DID raise His Son up from the dead. God did not want to see what Abraham would do, but God wanted to show Abraham what He would do on that same mountain. The place of Jesus’s crucifixion would have to have been located outside the city in accordance with Roman and Jewish customs of the time. The Gospels, too, seem to suggest that Jesus was crucified outside of the city. Matthew 27: 39 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” They were on their way to Jerusalem for the Passover, But did not see that the real Passover Lamb was hanging on that Cross. Jesus Did not eat the Passover lamb because He Was The Passover LAMB. (Hebrews 13:11-14) The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace that He bore. For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the City that is to come (Hebrews 13:11-14). The name of place of the Crucifixion was Golgotha, as the Bible tells us, which in Aramaic means “PLACE OF THE SKULL.” The Latin word for skull is Calvaria, The Bible refer to this as site of the crucifixion. If it was a hill like some pictures show, a crowd could not have gathered there. Where than was it? Read 1 Samuel 17: 53 And the children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they spoiled their tents. 54 And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent. David a 17 or 18 year old boy walked a day about 40 KM and carried the scull of Goliath. He placed it outside the city. David would not have been allowed in the city with the scull. It must have been placed on something solid or maybe buried. This place was known to the people as a place of a Scull, This was the providence of God Our Lord. God did not let David a days journey without a purpose. Criminals were crucified outside the city wall and not carried on a long distance. Where Jesus was crucified must have been a place where a crowd could gather and people pass by, were on their way to the gate of Jerusalem for the Passover. The wall of Jerusalem was behind Him, which made it possible for the people to hear Him speak. There was not a little sign at the Cross but big letters on the wall of Jerusalem 37 And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Jesus feet must have been not farther from the ground as 3 feet to be able to speak to His Mother and the Disciples. All 3 crosses were the same size Jesus was not counted more worthy than a Criminal. We can conclude from this that: “Place Of A scull” must be where David placed the Scull of Goliath. I personally belief that it was still there and was crushed. Maybe even under the cross so that it signified God’s Word Genesis 3:15, And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your HEAD, And you shall bruise His heels.” The Feet of Jesus were on each side of the cross beam and nails were driven through His Heel(s). The only place in the feet that would break not the bones. The Hebrew word can also mean heels. This HE is Christ The Son Of God No mater what happened to the Scull, Satan’s head was crushed when Jesus said: “IT is finished.”

[@attitudeblack5662]

Wait wait! How can you verify through data alone that Paul infact did see Jesus and didn't make things up?

[@jacqueslucas8616]

What a load of malarkey! Where are all these scholars that believe the disciples saw an erected Jesus??????

[@Ex_christian]

All they can do is lie since they are professional liars like the preachers, pastors, etc…..

[@alexmcd378]

You missed a step. They believe that the Bible authors believed it. Just like I believe that my niece believes in Santa.

[@Brunoburningbright]

Well I have no trouble believing Jesus was "erected". It's happened to me many times.

[@-gearsgarage-]

There are witnesses for Tupac, and Elvis the true king as well.

[@rogersacco4624]

Resurrection by Dale Allison better Than Habermas and he knows it's not historically convincing

[@rodrigorivers2469]

Alisson believes in the Resurrection... And he says based on the facts, he concludes the disciples saw Jesus and "Jesus saw them"...

[@incredulouschordate]

Dan I know you're very private about your religious beliefs but it's very strange that you are a Christian and seem to be saying in this video that the resurrection didn't happen. As an atheist, most of what you're saying here lines up with my beliefs, which is curious. I know you probably won't answer this, but I wonder what exactly you believe about Jesus in order to call yourself a Mormon and a Christian.

[@avishevin1976]

You can believe that the impossible happened without accepting that it happened because you can't think of an alternative explanation for a curated set of facts.

[@seannewell397]

He did not claim the resurrection did not happen.

[@incredulouschordate]

@@seannewell397 yeah he didn't say it didn't happen, I agree. He made an argument that there's better evidence for an alternative and said the resurrection was "impossible" but maybe that's what it is for him? Maybe he's saying, as a scholar this is not a rational thing to believe, but as an individual I have some kind of spiritual belief in it? I'm super curious how he squares that

[@hillbillyhippy]

There's that inspiring, manipulative background music.

[@quetzelmichaels1637]

What do you mean by 'dead'? Of what gain is there in physically raising a sinner from the dead? The real resurrection is seen in the Transfiguration from the Lawless One (sacrifice) to into Christ (resurrection). And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. (Mat 17:2 NABO) And then that lawless one awill be revealed... (by the brightness of the) appearance of His coming; (2Th 2:8 NAS) Once they established the viability of the Fig Tree of Christianity Jesus planted, with prior years of preaching, and for three years went looking for fruit on it, they sealed it with the story of the crucifixion. Jesus was prepared to cut it down and remove it from the soil. Since there at least was foliage, it was allowed to be cultivated and fertilized to see if it produced fruit. From then on, Jesus could go about and continue his preaching, anonymously. His first appearance, the first coming, is within the same generation of his return, when he finds the Fig Tree with only foliage, curses it, cuts it down and removes it from the soil. Jesus was probably Paul, who persecuted the early church just as Jesus was prepared to remove the Fig Tree from the soil. From his conversion on, he cultivated and fertilized it.

[@KJDogluv]

I think the gals found the tomb. 💯

[@lysanamcmillan7972]

But you have no proof.

[@dinkalicious]

The guy looks and sounds like Charlie Brooker a little more than I’m comfortable with…

[@nati0598]

"5 facts that prove Jesus rose from the dead by historians, whether believing or nonbelieving" ... If these are "proofs", why would the historians not believe? And if they "suppress the truth in their heart" why would you count them as people worthy of listening?

[@iamfiefo]

So, it's the Berenstain Bears effect? People swear it was Bernstein but, rather than accept it was a false memory, it's more plausible to think we're in an alternate universe?

[@chadkent327]

Yes and no, both are the results of imperfect cultural memory, but the exact causes of those imperfect memories could be radically different. It’s very possible that the early memories of resurrected Hesus were driven by extreme grief, while I doubt grief plays any part in the Berenstain Bears, or “Luke, I am your father,” (never spoken Empire) or other misreported cultural artifacts. What those do show us is how easy it is for misinformation to slip into cultural consciousness regardless of the original reason.

[@VulcanLogic]

I saw the risen Ed Brayton in my home after he died. Checkmate, theists.

[@Patricia-vf7nb]

Well ..thank god...i had my own supernatural visitation but..i reacted to it during it like any testing disbelieveing person... So i am sure...bcuz also i never read or heard of parts of the bible in that vision visitation.. I know he is risen..but i do not know about how the origional bible or scripture account ended..or what evidence there was what was added...or different..or what style the added resembles in history or seems to copy.. But i did hear it ended at the empty tomb.. Wich is perfect because then you search for if he has risen ..in your own luves or proof.. Each of us is different ..so he knows what proof we need..! Ps explain to me the t shirt connection to any of these videos plz ???anyone ?? How is the shirt a fit ?

[@edivaldobarbosa3709]

The t-shirts have nothing to do with the videos "fit" is just an abreviation of outfit

[@KaiHenningsen]

@paulogia's "Minimal Witnesses" hypothesis does this beautifully. I think he reduces it to just two.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

It’s a real shame that Paulogia has no historical evidence that limits the risen-Jesus-experiences to just two people, isn’t it?

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness The point is that there's no historical evidence that requires more than two. It's not as if he claims his is the only correct theory - only that it fits all the known facts, that is, it is possible.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

@@KaiHenningsen Except for the historical sources which mention by name more than two sources!

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness You should look up @Paulogia's version instead of having me try to explain it. I think he just recently published a more polished version.

[@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness]

@@KaiHenningsen Why? Paulogia is not that sharp in my opinion, and his ideas reflect that. If I want to hear a nuanced, informed opinion from someone on the other side of the issue, wouldn’t, say, Cavin or Columbetti or Ehrman be better?

[@MartinVeneroso]

I'm confused by something you said. Is the "impossible" explanation that Jesus rose from the dead? While I agree with that, it seems like an odd position for a professed Mormon to take.

[@MarcoH72]

I don’t think he accepts any of the impossible or unlikely Mormon claims.

[@matthewwright2524]

I get the sense that Dan doesn’t intend to share his personal beliefs on this channel as the primary purpose is to make academic study of the Bible accessible to the wider public. His personal religious beliefs shouldn’t have any bearing on that. Also, while I have no idea what Dan personally believes about the resurrection (or any other Christian or Mormon doctrines), I don’t think his statement here necessarily indicates his personal belief either way. He is talking from the perspective of whether historical facts prove the resurrection, and the truth is they don’t. History is a lot of looking at available data and going with the most probably explanations, and seeing as coming back from the dead is in fact literally impossible, it is not a probable explanation for any set of data - especially when there are much more probable explanations. That said, I would think that a religious believer would have no trouble believing that god can do impossible things, so I don’t see any contradiction in someone believing both that the resurrection is impossible and that it happened. That said I am an atheist so I don’t believe there is any reason to think there is a god, much less one that can do impossible things

[@dividad1]

To be completely fair, to come back from the dead isnt entirely impossible. People have been declared dead and have come back. Granted, they didnt come back 3 days later, but there are people who go through near death experiences, theyre dead for quite some time, and then come back to life. Usually its within a short time frame, but they did come back.​@matthewwright2524

[@PadraigG8]

I am not Dan or a Mormon, but I am a semi-practicing Catholic, so I can give you my take on the matter. To me "Jesus rose from the dead" is a theological claim, not a historical claim. Not necessarilly in the sense that it never happened but in the sense that it cannot be resonably justified using historical methodology.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@dividad1 "Dead" is a moving goal post. People who study the phenomenon today prefer to talk about death as a process. Anyone who has "come back from the dead" can't have died because "capacity to be resuscitated" excludes many characteristics of the state of death. Near death experiences and the like are mostly just limited instances of organ failure. If you have an irregular heartbeat and it stops for a second, are you dead? Of course not. Death is a lot more complicated than any individual organ ceasing to function. A person becomes incapacitated and then is revived once the organ begins functioning again. This is not death.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

FACT 1: Cruxifiction: A story in a book FACT 2: Empty tomb: A story in a book FACT 3: Other followers saw him alive: A story in a book FACT 4: Skeptics were converted: A story in a book FACT 5: The early church experienced explosive growth: Claims allegedly by followers of a religion...which we can't verify, not interview the claimants Yeah, I'm convinced a book and documents allegedly from followers said those things

[@BrianTerrill]

I'm going to challenge the trauma narrative because, at least for Paul, he had no positive interest in Jesus before claiming to have seen him alive. On a personal note my mom prayed to die while spending months in the hospital and Jesus appeared to her and told her she was to live. It's been 12 years now, and because she lost her spleen that time she catches everything now. One of the last times I took her to the ER, the doctor looked over her medical history and asked her, " Lady, how are you still alive?"

[@Wertbag99]

The problem with saying what Paul thought is that we only have his self claimed position. What was he like? What did he do? We have no idea, just a non-collaborated story.

[@keith6706]

That's what Paul says, but we only have his word for it. If I can draw a modern parallels, there are a number of people who claim they were hard-core atheists and then became born-again believers. While this might be true for some, for others the claim of sudden conversion is exaggerated; they might have been, at best, agnostics, or casual Christians doing the Christmas and Easter thing and then became more indoctrinated--sorry, devoted--over time due to social influence or seeking some kind of spiritual expression, or they were believers n something else and switched over, but when they tell the story, often they will literally say they had their Road to Damascus moment, even if they didn't. I find it quite plausible (not merely possible) that Paul was playing up both his early opposition to Christians and sudden conversion to emphasize how powerful Jesus and God were. Why, if they could make someone like him see the light, well then...

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@keith6706 The other idea is that it was a reaction to Paul coming to appreciate what he heard from the Christians he was persecuting and guilt over persecuting them building up in him until he had a kind of breakdown that manifested as a vision of Christ.

[@BrianTerrill]

@keith6706 we don't have just Paul's word, the Lord spoke to Ananias and told him to go to Paul and restore his sight

[@Wertbag99]

@@BrianTerrill The story of Ananias in Acts is of course not written by Ananias, it is a second or third hand report that church tradition says was written by Luke, a follower of Paul (although we don't know if this is the correct authorship as the works are unnamed).

[@MariusVanWoerden]

It is by faith that we know the truth, and Faith is a gift of God. 2 Peter 3:3 Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

faith?.. hebrews 11.:1.. faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the evidence of things YET TO COME... make sense of that sentence if you can.. from an educated Brit ( a snob and non believer )

[@MariusVanWoerden]

@@JohnKerr-bq3vo 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. It’s My faith that gives me surety of the Hope (means longing for) that is in me, once to be with Jesus, my Lord and Savior forever. 2 Corinthians 1: 21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. The Holy Spirit as My Heavenly Father has given me, is for me the Guarantee of eternal life With My Lord God in the New Earth and Heaven, with no longer a distance between Heaven and Earth. The New Paradise most Glorious, and no more pain or death

[@mojmejl3790]

@Dan McClellan People are willing to die for a possible truth (Muslim Jihadists) but no one is willing to die for a known lie (Christian apostles). Christian apostles and followers knew Jesus in person, and they would not have willingly died in millions over simple hearsay (known lie). Such willful sacrifice over a well-documented person has never happened in the past, except after accounts of Jesus' resurrection, and this cannot be explained in any way other than that Jesus had risen from the dead.

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

Except they would have been put down for being the remnants of a dangerous cult, regardless of their opinions.

[@mojmejl3790]

@@DarkAdonisVyers Except all of them had denied any affiliations with Jesus when the persecution started. Only AFTER the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles openly came out with their conviction and were willingly accepting any punishment.

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

@@mojmejl3790 Were they all at the last supper?

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

@@mojmejl3790 Also, the underdogs pretending that their leader is still alive against all odds is more common than you might think, such as with the cases of Shingen Takeda and Zhuge Liang. In terms of Zhuge Liang, a common Chinese proverb is that a dead Zhuge can scare about a living Zhongda (Zhuge Liang's rival is named Sima Yi, style name Zhongda), and in terms of Shingen Takeda, George Lucas helped produce a movie about that, Shadow Warrior/Kagemusha.

[@mojmejl3790]

@DarkAdonisVyers Once again, never in history have people been willing to die for a known lie. In my opinion, the apostles definitely knew the truth and would have kept rejecting Christ if he had not been truly resurrected.

[@realhakimrasheed]

But that wouldn't explain Paul seeing the risen Jesus. he was an enemy of the Church.

[@karldehaut]

First, it was not a Church but one of the many Jewish sects of the time. Second, it is not surprising that a person who persecutes people belonging to his religious group would change his mind...

[@KJDogluv]

Lobo!

[@michaelbell3181]

All 3 tombs?

[@SpaveFrostKing]

Jesus appeared to die, and some people claimed to see him after that. There's a million "naturalistic" explanations for that. There could even be naturalistic explanations through mechanisms we don't yet know about. What's funny to me is that I don't think a naturalistic explanation has to undermine Christianity. Why can't God carry out his miracles within the laws of physics that he himself established? Updating the rules of reality on the fly feels like something a crappy programmer would do (like me).

[@k98killer]

Wait a second. I would really like to know how Dr. McClellan maintains his LDS faith after saying that the resurrection was impossible -- it sounds like a direct contradiction of a central doctrine.

[@rodrigorivers2469]

I think he sees it more as a psychological thing/

[@pthelo]

These five facts don't all lead to THEREFORE RESURRECTION. 🤣

[@JEQvideos]

If we take a group of people claiming to have had a certain type of experience, as well as their general belief in certain things being true, to be evidence for supernatural events/beings/etc.--wouldn't that mean we have strong evidence for pretty much every major religion? Would the Egyptians have built the pyramids if they weren't absolutely convinced of a vision of the afterlife?

[@OttoNomicus]

There was no embalming in those days, "dead" people did wake back up occasionally, some inside their buried coffins, which we know from the scratch marks found when graves were reopened for whatever reason. He was taken down quickly after presumed dead, and getting poked in the side by a spear isn't necessarily fatal. The tomb wouldn't have been entirely airtight, like a buried coffin, and 3 days isn't that long, it's possibly to go that long without water, especially in a cool tomb. Apparently he fled to make sure they didn't get him again.

[@alexmcd378]

It was supposedly a new family tomb. For burying many people. Air shouldn't have been a problem.

[@jacqueslucas8616]

And where is the evidence Christianity spread like wild fire after the supposedly sightings of the resurrected Jesus????

[@alexmcd378]

That's the one you're hung up on?

[@briangertz6386]

How are these facts? The only fact is that “the Bible says these” but that isn’t a historical document/book and there are contradictions crucifixion and resurrection stories. So the only facts are that historians agree that the Bible mentions these - not that they actually happened

[@AustGM]

False. There are many non biblical sources that say these things happened.

[@juanjoyaborja.3054]

@@AustGM And again, they aren’t enough to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection as a fact. The reasoning behind these sources is covered in the second half of this video, extreme trauma can cause such delirium as to make people believe that such an event did happen.

[@randycarson9812]

On the first point, props for putting another nail in the coffin of the Jesus mythicists. Hopefully, you and Bart Ehrman have laid that stupidity to rest. Next, you correctly point out that Habermas never included the account of the women at the tomb because he did not feel the consensus was strong enough. Habermas wanted to ensure that the Five Facts were unassailable, so he insisted on a very high bar, a very high % of scholars in agreement; that does not mean that a MAJORITY of scholars do not accept the resurrection accounts which can be synchronized as follows: 1. Early on the first day of the week, an angel rolls away the stone. (Mt. 28:2-4) 2. Mary Magdalene and the other women go to the tomb. (Mt 28:1) 3. Mary Magdalene immediately runs to tell the disciples that the tomb is open. (Jn 20:2) 4. Meanwhile, the other women who stayed behind encounter the angel. (Mt 28:5-7) 5. The other women run to tell the disciples and encounter Jesus on the way. (Mt 28:8-10) 6. Peter and John run to the tomb by a different route. They enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and leave. (Jn 20:3-10) 7. Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb and meets Jesus there. (Jn 20:11-17) You claim that Jesus' followers "had just experienced extreme trauma, they were cognitively motivated, primed and motivated, and it would not take much at all for the to interpret their experiences as the experiences of the resurrected Jesus." This fails to account for the conversion of James, the unbelieving cousin of Jesus, and even less for the conversion of Saul who spent quite some time persecuting the early Church. There was no trauma experienced by either of those individuals. As a scripture scholar, you know the following is also considered by most scholars to contain a proto-creed which pre-dates Paul's conversion: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Cor 15:3-8) Paul is saying, "Hey, if you don't believe me, there are hundreds of people you can ask to verify my story." Pretty gutsy. Since your argument fails to explain all of the five minimal facts, what remains is the explanation that does: Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would. Finally, you fall back on the failed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" line. No, extraordinary claims require SUFFICIENT evidence...just like every other claim. And this we have.

[@alexmcd378]

The minimal facts can all be true and be explained fully with "someone lied". There is no evidence that resurrection is possible at all. We have plenty of evidence that people lie

[@randycarson9812]

​@@alexmcd378 Sure. But no one dies for something that they know is a lie. Sure, people die for lies all the time, but they BELIEVE the lie - they don't know it's a lie. If the disciples all formed a conspiracy and agreed to lie about the resurrection, it is highly unlikely that at least one of them wouldn't have spilled the beans at the point of a sword. One other point, the success of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of conspirators. IOW, the more people involved, the greater the chance that the conspiracy is exposed. The best conspiracy only has two people...then one of them kills the other. So, no, I don't think your explanation works. Thanks for trying, though.

[@terricunningham3965]

There were several messianic movements. None of the followers of those movements claimed their “messiah” rose from the dead after he was crucified. In your previous videos, you state that Jesus never claimed that he would be resurrected. How would they have been cognitively primed if they didn’t believe in bodily resurrection of Jesus? Even in the Bible, if this conversation even happened but Jesus tells the disciples he will be resurrected and they don’t understand? If my closest family members were to die, even in my grief and despair, I would never make up a story that they came back to life because I don’t believe people can come back from the dead. Like nobody’s walking around claiming they saw Martin Luther King at Publix? Who are “these people”? I don’t know, so many questions.

[@terricunningham3965]

Also just a disclaimer, Dan is not a cognitive scientist, behavioral scientist, physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, neuroscientist, etc.

[@lysanamcmillan7972]

@@terricunningham3965 Yes, and?

[@ancientfiction5244]

​@terricunningham3965 You might be interested in the below article. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress

[@moonshoes11]

Justin from Unbelievable isn’t exactly honest. Magic is never the best explanation, Justin. Start being honest.

[@thescoobymike]

You could say he is… unbelievable

[@moonshoes11]

@@ratamacue0320 Thanks, I had already corrected it. ✌️

[@ufpride83]

I love this hilarious word usage. These “facts” are what scholars “believe” to be true. If it was a “fact” then scholars would “know” not “believe. 😂

[@Lee_Bode]

Dan McClellan: cultist/con-artist.