Lecture - Dr Peter Williams - Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus

This lecture by Dr Peter Williams was sponsored by The Lanier Theological Library in Houston, TX and presented at Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston, TX Passover/Easter Weekend April 7th 2012 titled:
"Things Which Ought To Be Better Known About The Resurrection Of Jesus"
For more infomation on the Lanier Theological Library: www.laniertheologicallibrary.org/

[@jamalkhan3708]

First time on your channel and you owned my subscription. Great video. I’m Ex Muslim from Pakistan. Jesus is Lord ✝️

[@fleetwd1]

very happy to have you. please enjoy. Peter Williams videos are a good place to start

[@Okieshowedem]

May Father YAHweh bless your understanding.

[@GreatKingOfLipnice]

Awesome! Greetings form Czech brothers and sisters :-)

[@lukyncz3778]

Jsem rád že tu jsou i mí bratři :)

[@richgarc84]

Dr. Williams is one of my favorite speakers

[@fleetwd1]

he is very quick witted

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

Excellent video...who would dislike this?

[@joanneg7646]

Bart?

[@rodneyplewright7685]

Regarding the hours of darkness on that Crucifixion Friday afternoon, a Coptic (Egyptian) Christian told me that this darkness was also experienced in Egypt on that same day, during those same hours. So when the first Christian missionaries went and preached Jesus in Egypt soon after the crucifixion and resurrection, many Egyptians believed because they had witnessed this same darkness at the same time, as testified by the Christian missionaries.

[@darkknightsds]

lol great source

[@MaxRandall]

Excellent. Thanks for posting this.

[@Ocean_Jack]

Peter briefly commented on the Golden Rule and mentioned how many people consider it the height of morality in a pithy statement and I disagree. I offer this one instead: "He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

[@fleetwd1]

Yes this statement of Jesus is first given as part of the shema in Deuteronomy and follows "Hear o Israel the LORD your God, The LORD is One. Then it gives the greatest commandment and the lessor one.

[@Ocean_Jack]

fleetwd1 Indeed and thanks for the reference!

[@GTX1123]

The later Greco-Roman gnostic writings inadvertently prove the veracity of the Jewish New Testament cannon and the resurrection. Whereas later gnostic writings are more reflective of Greco-Roman beliefs about the after life which did not believe in a resurrection, resurrection was a Jewish concept. This is but one of many examples of the authenticity of the New Testament and the forgeries of the gnostic gospels.

[@tommcewen6047]

Greetings from Zizkov - Sv Tomase

[@Payne2view]

I think it was a mistake to point to the 3rd April AD33 Lunar Eclipse. The gospels say "the sun grew dark" not the moon went blood red. Also haven't we've always been taught the mention in Acts is prophetic not retrospective? The only thing the Passover Lunar Eclipse could suggest is that the darkening of the sun could not have been a solar eclipse but was a divine intervention event interrupting the photosphere of the Sun for a few hours, which would be even more remarkable than a coincidental eclipse of any kind.

[@orovalleydude]

The statement about a Friday crucifixion is not universally accepted as Dr. Williams suggests. This is one of the parameters that he and the mentioned researcher uses to determine the year of of the crucifixion.

[@wilfredmay5231]

"Two men stood beside them in dazzling clothes". OMO, and the blue whitener!

[@oliverjamito9902]

His own will be secured. His own will be one and they all belonged to God. For God have written his name upon all their forehead. Will always remember and wanting more of true conversation with God. Clothes in humility. Humble as a true human lamb but yet, strong, unshakable, can't be uprooted, and solid as the ground. Lion from within. Lion who rather wash my brothers and sisters feet. To show to rather humble

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

Broad scope, close reasoning.

[@tomvondra2632]

Interesting to me from Humphreys research, noted 56 min in, that eve of Passover was Wednesday in 34 AD, and that fulfills "three days and three nights" if Jesus rose Saturday eve. "First Fruits" ceremony going on at that time

[@fleetwd1]

I have looked at this issue very closely. the assumption three days and three nights means literally 48 hours is trying to force our understanding of the phrase upon those whose understanding was quite different from our own. Every Gospel writer mentions the 3 days with no days in between the 3 are Preparation Day our Friday, Sabbath our Saturday, and the first day of the week our Sunday. Now Jewish days begin at Sundown. He was crucified on Friday April 3, 33 AD (according to our calendar today) and Passover and the weekly Sabbath both began at sunset the day he was crucified. he died about the time of the slaying of Passover lambs. He was in the Grave over the Sabbath and was raised again early on the 1st day of the week which could be anytime after sundown Saturday. Some scriptures say it was yet dark others say as the sun was rising. All these theory's of a Wednesday Crucifixion fail to account for every Gospel record naming the 3 days as Preparation Day, Sabbath and the 1st day of the week. Wednesday is the 4th day of the week then you have Thursday the 5th day of the week then you have Preparation Day and Sabbath and the 1st day of the week. the Phrase 3 days and 3 nights is an idiom that simply means any part of 1 day, a full day in between, and any part of the 3rd day. this jives with the 4 Gospel writers reports. A Wednesday Crucifixion does not have the support of the texts. where are the missing days in between Wednesday and Sunday recorded in the 4 Gospels? case closed. Scripture has Friday crucifixion, Sabbath rest, and Sunday resurrection This comes from the eye witnesses testimony recorded in scripture.

[@tomvondra2632]

@@fleetwd1 Passover on Thursday in 34 A.D was a sabbath as well as the Saturday that followed. Women obtained spices on Friday? 3 days and 3 nights works in 34AD. and is an important prophetic fulfillment

[@fleetwd1]

​@@tomvondra2632 if Passover was Thursday, then Jesus passed on Wednesday before Sundown. the Gospel witnesses of all 4 Gospels list the days as Preparation day, Sabbath and 1st day of the week in succession and in that order. Note the only full day is Sabbath for he died just hours before Sabbath and was raised early on the first day of the week. Not enough time for His body to start decaying also scriptural. % days would insure decay. Note Martha and Mary's concern over bad smell at 4 days Wednesday would require two more days to be listed for there are 5 days to list from Wednesday to Sunday but there are only three days listed. if your reasoning were true the 4 Gospels would have listed Preparation day for Wednesday Sabbath for Thursday Preparation for Friday and then Sabbath for Saturday and finally first day of the week for Sunday But none list that many days and they show the three named days successively. One after the other. Besides there are multiple verses that say he was raised "on the third day." which shoots down your literal "three days and three nights." Since he was raised on the 3rd day (See Mt 17:3; Lk 18:33; 24:7;Acts 10:40; 1Cor 15:4) Biblical evidence precludes the expression you cling to from being taken literally. Those like yourself have to ignore other Biblical proofs like the naming the 3 days in all 4 Gospels and multiple statements saying he rose on the 3rd day. Some also say "early" on the 1st day which is the 3rd day when he was to rise he was already risen early in the morning making a full 48 hours impossible. So you have one text you insist must be taken literal and i have given you a host of textual evidences that make it impossible.

[@tomvondra2632]

"first day of the week" began at sundown on Saturday. @@fleetwd1

[@tomvondra2632]

Wednsday, Thursday and Friday night. Thursday, Friday and Saturday is 3 day duration

[@orovalleydude]

If, as Dr. Williams implies, that Jesus was on the cross during the lunar eclipse then the gospels belie this as the bodies had to be taken off the cross before sunset which would have been the start of Passover.

[@solemnexistence]

@35:27 "You see, if I'd been inventing the resurrection, I would have made sure Jesus really sparkled..." 😄😁

[@michaelbrickley2443]

One of the great pieces of evidence is all the very real details in the Gospels. Especially the embarrassing stories of Peter. The man who gave the sermon that birthed the church was asking Jesus to wash him all over. Liars don’t share those truths. Shalom

[@solemnexistence]

@@michaelbrickley2443 absolutely, Williams covers so many great facts that point to the authenticity of the Gospels - mundane details of geography for example, or the popularity of names at the time, e.g, Simon was number one, Mary for women. And the criterion of embarrassment, as you refer to. Like Jesus calling Peter 'Satan'... Who would want to really be saying that unless it really happened?

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@solemnexistence yes, very much so. Yet, the skeptic who doesn’t want to believe will wriggle out of it. One man told me that Lee Strobel wasn’t skeptical enough. He spent two years investigating and left his job after a while and became a pastor. The amount of lives changed is millions upon millions. Keep faithing, and remember, faith is an action word. Shalom Aleichem

[@solemnexistence]

@@michaelbrickley2443 Ah, yes. I've been in more than one discussion where no matter how clear or backed up by evidence a point can be, if one's mind is made up... How did that quote go? 🤔😄 There was once a skeptic who actually seemed to understand the argument I described to them showing how the new testament could _not_ have been altered after the fact. It's an argument I got from James White, Voddie Baucham has presented it too By all means true faith acts, yet having been brought up in the Gospel by closed brethren, if there was one thing they made clear and which I saw the support for everywhere Biblically was that it is faith in Christ alone which saves. For sure it leads to works, but if there's one thing the brethren get right is their always emphasizing how we can't put the cart before the horse when it comes to salvation and saving faith Baruch Hashem! 🙌

[@lucassiyabongamphela2213]

Find more lectures on www.laniertheologicallibrary.org

[@christinee24]

Try reading the Bible - John in the New Testament - Luke Acts Matthew John

[@CyberChrist]

"Natural explanation is that you were seeing an angel" of course :3

[@GhostRider659]

he means from their perspective as believers in angels, not from a modern naturalistic standpoint. confusing choice of words, but it doesn't diminish his point.

[@CyberChrist]

GhostRider659 That's why belief is a thing to be avoided as much as possible. What was his point, exactly ?

[@christinee24]

+CyberChrist not at all. Belief and faith and trust in God is a way of life and I wouldn't have it any other way. Jesus heals.

[@CyberChrist]

Christine Fisher Doctors heal better.

[@christinee24]

I disagree. Jesus has healed me in many ways and no doctor did that I can assure you. Jesus heals and he loves you too. Get right with God, are you ready for Jesus return? If you are not - I wouldn't want to be you. Sending up prayer for you.

[@chrischicoine18]

So don’t accept the Septuagint because there were various forms some more literal than others so we should say “them not it”...... isn’t that also true about the Bible? So should we Refer to the Bible as the Bibles and then not it?

[@fleetwd1]

many have the mistaken idea that the LXX was completed by the 70 in Alexandria whereas many of the Greek versions include added books we know came during the intertestamental times. For that reason Pete Williams thinks using the term Septuagint can be misleading. They are Greek Translations of Hebrew writings.

[@fleetwd1]

for those who want to hear Peter's discussion of the word Septuagint at a conference on it. Here is the link, kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpnQfn6toZh-m6c&lc=UgzBuvR4gVlds1nGYcB4AaABAg

[@fleetwd1]

you have a point Paul requested in a letter for Timothy to bring him his "scrolls" (NIV, HCSB) τὰ βιβλία, meaning "the books" 2 Tim 4:13

[@pdanoe]

1:29:00 Jesus was actually in the earth 3 days and 3 nights, because it was a "special sabbath" (John 19:31) one of those 2 yearly sabbaths that would be on a thursday (!)

[@fleetwd1]

every Gospel records the 3 days by name. they are the Preparation day, the Sabbath and the 1st day of the week. Each of the four gospels list all three. Those who insist on having an earlier day of the week do not account for the fact that the 4 witnesses list the 3 days by name and there are no other days listed. He was crucified on the day of Preparation. He was laid in the tomb before the Sabbath He remained in the tomb over the Sabbath and he was raised on the 1st day of the week. This is testified to by each Gospel writer. The special Sabbath John mentions is when the weekly Sabbath and the annual feast Sabbath of Passover happen to be on the same day that year. The expression 3 days and 3 nights does not mean 72 hours. It simply means any part of one day, a full day and any part of a third day. to have a Wednesday or Thursday Crucifixion you would have to show how each Gospel writer reported more days than they do. There are only 3 days mentioned, the day of Crucifixion the weekly Sabbath and Passover Sabbath combined, and the day of Resurrection. Friday is the preparation day for Sabbath and the day Jesus was Crucified. The Weekly Sabbath that was also the Passover Sabbath followed that particular year, and the 1st day of the week, our Sunday, the day of resurrection. don't take biblical expressions and make them fit your understanding. you need to know what the expression meant to the people it was written to. Some words say Jesus was raised "on the 3rd day." If it were 72 hours this record would be proved to be wrong. The Biblical record should be your guide.

[@pdanoe]

flettwd1 I do not know your religious background. I understand that if you are a SDA, you might want to fight this fight. But seriously, it was 72 hours at least. The crucifiction happened on wednesday. Here is a link to some studywork that has been done on the issue: www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/High%20day%20sabbath.htm

[@fleetwd1]

I am not a SDA member but have looked very carefully at this issue with some SDA's claiming this, and other Messianic groups claiming the same. The arguments fail to account for the Scriptural and historical record which all 4 Gospels record 3 days which are Preparation day followed by Sabbath followed by 1st day of the week. A Wednesday crucifixion would require two more days to be accounted for in the Gospels. The argument is made that the Preparation Day in John is the day before the Passover Sabbath not the weekly. and in that case you need all or even one of the Gospel accounts to acknowledge two Preparation days, and two Sabbaths, the Passover and the weekly. There is no such Gospel record. To affirm a Wednesday crucifixion there is the day of Crucifixion on preparation day for Passover which is on Wednesday, the Sabbath of Passover on Thursday, the Preparation Day on Friday for the weekly Sabbath, the weekly Sabbath and then the 1st day of the week. Can you show a Gospel account that shows this record of 5 days flowing one after another? of course you can't but you want to take an expression to an illogical conclusion despite it conflicts with the biblical record in all other regards. Biblical Experts explain the High Sabbath occurs when the Weekly and The Passover occur on the same day. it does not happen regularly and when it does it is regarded as a High and special Sabbath. The evening after the Crucifixion there was a blood red moon. an Eclipse this happened in AD 33 on April 3rd it was a Friday evening. NASA has a program that confirms this event and date. it was the weekly Sabbath and it was Passover Sabbath the same day. This fits with the Gospel records in all four accounts being 3 consecutive days. The expression 3 days and 3 nights does not mean an exact amount of time as you imply by your meaning of the expression. So look at the facts. Do your own investigation as I have been doing for a great many years. History provided by NASA, the biblical record, and the meaning of the biblical expression 3 day and 3 nights as an expression that does not mean exact time. all three of these witness against your view of a Wednesday Crucifixion.

[@fleetwd1]

your link only proves the author believes Christ was crucified on a different year than AD 33. He seems quite certain of the year but no one has been able to confirm a year that matches all the biblical record until recently. And it is becoming clear to many AD 33 seems most likely. In AD 33 Nissan 14 occurred on April 3rd, a Friday according to our calendar, the weekly Sabbath and Passover were on April 3rd eve and April 4 daylight. all gospels record the succession of the 3 day event and lists them as Preparation day followed by Sabbath followed by the 1st day of the week. and while preparation day can mean the day before Passover Sabbath all those arguments are mute when they occur on the same day as they do in AD 33. you must keep an open mind to facts. the software NASA has to study the star locations from any point on the earth at any given time was only a recent introduction enabling Bible students to discover a more accurate knowledge of what year the crucifixion most likely could have taken place.

[@fleetwd1]

to make sure you understand me when i talk about the Gospel writers writing the successive days independantly. If a Wednesday crucifixion took place it would have been recorded like this: the day of Preparation (Passover) followed by the Sabbath (Passover) followed by the day of Preparation (weekly) followed by the Sabbath (weekly) followed by the 1st day of the week. do you see the absurdity? where are the missing days in the record? to my knowledge no one holding your view answers this.

[@gerryquinn5578]

Peter explains that Christianity was originally a Jewish messianic movement. Members believed that Jesus was the messiah. Did Jew think YHWH's messiah was YHWH? Or did they think the 'anointed One' was the servant/agent/ plenipotentiary of YHWH? Paul differentiates between one LORD God and one lord messiah. The claim in the gospels was that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ ), the Son of God. What this belief later morphed into in the gentile world in post -apostolic times is a matter of historical debate.

[@mrtee3988]

repent

[@gerryquinn5578]

@@mrtee3988 : I hope you do. But if your remark is addressed to me, perhaps you can show me where you think I am wrong.

[@P_Ezi]

Paul was a Jew. Paul considered Jesus to be YHWH. In Rom 10:9 he says we must confess Jesus as "lord" (kyrios). In the rest of that chapter, he applies several OT verses directly to the person of Jesus. Those verses have the Greek word for "lord" filling the place of the Hebrew name "YHWH." Read each of those OT verses in the OT and you will see "LORD" in most of our translations, which follow the example of the LXX in writing "kyrios" instead of YHWH. Again, Paul is applying those verses directly to the person of Jesus. Paul wants you to see and confess Jesus as YHWH. May God bless you.

[@gerryquinn5578]

@@P_Ezi : I agree that Paul was a Jew. Paul NEVER considered Jesus to be YHWH. Here is a simple suggestion : Read the opening verses in all of Paul's letters and you will see that he continually differentiates between the Lord Jesus, the messiah, and the LORD God YHWH) whom he describes as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. ((2 Cor 1 :3; Eph 1 :3). YHWH is referred to as LORD or Lord. Jesus is called 'lord' but never LORD. He is called 'the Lord' or 'my lord ' but the expressions 'the ' or 'my' are never used in relation to YHWH As far as Rom 10 :9 is concerned, you should read the verse carefully. It says : " That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thous shalt be saved." Now did you notice that it says that Jesus was dead and that he had been raised from the dead by God . The verse clearly differentiates between the Lord Messiah (Jesus) who was dead(God cannot die) and the God who raised him from the dead. The Septuagint still used YHWH in Hebrew despite the text being in Greek. The Jesus of the NT has a God. He prays to and worships God. The resurrected Jesus still has a God (John 20 :17) and the glorified Jesus in heaven itself still has a God.(Rev3 :12). So, of Jesus is in fact YHWH, then who is the God of Jesus/YHWH?

[@P_Ezi]

@@gerryquinn5578 There are three persons in the triune god. Again I ask you to look at the OT verses in Rom 10 that are attributed by Paul as referring to Jesus, and those verses referred to YHWH in the OT. Yes, I agree that Jesus referred many times to the father. They are different persons. He also said, "I and the father are one." He also said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Those Jews hearing this wanted to kill him precisely because they understood that he was claiming to be YWHW.

[@gaz1tinsley]

Easy translation from English to Texan = just replace Every vowel with an A ;)

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

Why don't you give me your research? Please explain...are you simply making a statement from your dogmatic unbelief or do you have any research or evidence? I'm guessing you have nothing from our conversation so far.

[@kameelhuseffi5390]

I really wish these lecturers would cover that evil "logo" It's flaunting the devils fruit. ▓

[@fleetwd1]

not sure of your reference to "that evil logo" are you referring to the cross? if so, you are correct. it is flaunting the devil's fruit. it was an instrument of utmost cruelty and torture. designed to inflict fear and trepidation.

[@aaronkemp7789]

Faarrest The Roman emperor Constantine began his rule in the early fourth century. Jesus had been worshiped as the God-man, the risen Savior, for over 200 years before this time, per the non-Christian sources.

[@FramedArchitecture]

I think he meant that Constantine's rule marked the beginning of rapid growth in the christian church. I think this correlation between the growth of the church and Constantine's Edict of Milan may not be warranted. But whether wielded for or against christianity this argument has no teeth, because the number of adherents says nothing about the truth of its claims. Mormonism has grown as fast as early christianity; islam grew faster.

[@aaronkemp7789]

Thank you FramedArchitecture for your comments. I think I agree with you for the most part, though I think that Constantine's Edict of Milan was more of an effect of rapid growth, rather then a cause of it. However, that's certainly up for debate, and I'm certainly not trying to argue a historical event in a comm box. Backing up to the spread of Christianity in the late first, early second century, I think Dr. Williams' point is not that the number of adherents displays the verity of the claims (your point on Mormonism/Islam is well taken), but rather that the fast spread throughout the Roman Empire would have made it impossible to invent a resurrection story (in order to prove Jesus' claims posthumously) and then distribute it out in a homogeneous way to all Christians, in all corners of the empire. That level of organization and communication was simply not available at the time.

[@FramedArchitecture]

***** Minor point, but I described the EoM as correlative. It may have contributed to the growth of christianity, or it may be an effect of increasing christian influence, or both, or neither. I just don't know. I don't remember Williams discussing the "invention" of resurrection stories, but that seems to be a response to the mythicist argument. I may have to listen to this talk again, because I find christian responses to mythicists fascinating. As to "homogeneity", that is the wrong word to describe the beliefs of early christians: Paul mentions false teachings in Galatians; there was a conflict between Paul and Peter over torah observance; and gnosticism and docetism were widely held beliefs in the early 2nd century. But even if christian doctrine had been monolithic since its invention, that still says nothing about the truth of its claims. But your last sentence strikes me as odd... perhaps you are implying that the spread of christianity required some kind of divine intervention?

[@aaronkemp7789]

FramedArchitecture Thank you for clarifying regarding the EoM; I think I was reading into what you said a little too much, I get what you're saying now. Starting at 23:34, Peter Williams discusses the four resurrection accounts, explaining why it would be impossible to get the level of agreement (both overtly and subtly) between them if you were just inventing four separate accounts of the resurrection. At 33:00, Williams specifically says that it's pretty difficult to say that this was all invented. The immediate section following goes into things that you'd be unlikely to invent about a resurrection. Allow me to clarify, I wasn't saying that there was homogeneity among the beliefs of the Christians. Many of the letters of Paul were designed to deal with the problems that had arisen, such as in the Galatian church. My point, and I believe one of Peter Williams' points, is that it would be difficult to make broad stroke changes to the message of Christianity early on by creating a resurrection story and then spreading it far and wide. The apostles had neither the time nor the resources required for such a conspiracy to be created. I believe that the same message was being spread throughout the empire, probably via oral tradition at first, until such a time in the late first / early second century when the New Testament books began to be written down and recorded for posterity. And furthermore, just because the same message is going out doesn't mean you'll have monolithic doctrine understood by all the hearers perfectly. Here's an example from 1 Corinthians 7:10 - 14. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Paul here is giving instruction regarding divorce and remarriage. However, he makes a distinction between the instruction he is giving vs. the instruction that Christ gave during his earthly ministry. I.e., Jesus taught that a wife must not separate from her husband, but he did not address the case where a wife is married to an unbeliever, so Paul addresses that. The implication is that the Corinthians knew Jesus' teaching about divorce but had additional questions that Paul had to address.

[@FramedArchitecture]

***** Thanks for the time stamps! At 33:00 Williams seems to offer the standard apologetic that the story of jesus is just too weird to have been made up. (This is a poor response to mythicism, so I will assume it wasn't offered as such.) Well that sounds like special pleading to me, but maybe it's offered as a comeback to the skeptic who says, "That sounds like a fairy tale!" Either way, Williams' examples of "impossible christian inventions" are wrong. To pick one, the women at the tomb is not unexpected because it illustrates a main theme in the Gospels that "the least shall be first" (Matthew 19:30, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30). Also, women's testimony was accepted in Jewish courts (kind of irrelevant because conversions didn't happen in court anyhow). You can see Dr. Carrier's careful refutation of this apologetic here: infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/women.html But to address your points, does anybody actually dispute resurrection was an integral part of christian belief from the its very beginnings? If so, they haven't read any of the epistles! And why would changes to the gospel have to be the result of a "conspiracy" of apostles? Even if there was only one creed that every christian was required to know (for example, 1 Corinthians 15:3), that evidently allowed for a wide spectrum of beliefs on the matter. To me, the variety of beliefs is much more interesting and revealing than the creed itself. And even if the creed had never changed, that still doesn't prove the claims of christianity are true.

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

I guess that's all you could do was dislike it...kind of hard to refute.

[@mariaandreaspashi1931]

A martyr is one who serves God through saving others. Jesus died in order to save. Without a service reason of saving it would b for reason of ego attached to faith. Martyrs were in the 1st century when Christianity depended on them. Today 'martyrs' are for reasons of self proving, self declaring, self witnessing, today Christianity is not dependant on any individual. Martyr is through saving others, not the self. Peter suffered disowned himself and denied Jesus in order to serve God... through... saving others and died a martyr.

[@jgvtc559]

No it isnt its dying for professing Christ when its against the law to have faith in him Whoever's told you that you should stop listening to and use a dictionary

[@TauCrossMedia]

Apart from the childish mistake of Christianity being a religion not a language, and the fact that Constantine did not make it the official religion . . . you did listen to the video right? He is talking about Christianity growing so fast in Turkey according to a letter (considered by all historians to be authentic) by the Roman governor of the place shortly after 100 A.D. roughly 250 years before Constantine. You really need both a hearing aid and some history lessons.

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

Yep that's convincing...not.

[@WoundedEgo]

Re: Pliny. As to the Chrestians worshiping Christ, Romans did not speak in terms of "God" because they worshiped many gods. So clearly he was saying "as a god". To say "the one true God" to a Roman one would have to say "the one true god". In fact, that is how the scriptures speak of the Father: 2Sa 22:31, 33, 48 NET - 31 The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the LORD's promise is reliable; he is a shield to all who take shelter in him. ... 33 The one true God is my mighty refuge; he removes the obstacles in my way. ... 48 *The one true God completely vindicates me; he makes nations submit to me.* Psa 18:30, 32, 47 NET - 30 The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the LORD's promise is reliable; he is a shield to all who take shelter in him. ... 32 The one true God gives me strength; he removes the obstacles in my way. ... 47 *The one true God completely vindicates me; he makes nations submit to me. * Isa 42:5 NET - 5 This is what the true God, the LORD, says - the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it: Isa 45:18 NET - 18 For this is what the LORD says, the one who created the sky - he is the true God, the one who formed the earth and made it; he established it, he did not create it without order, he formed it to be inhabited - **"I am the LORD, I have no peer**. Jer 10:10 NET - 10 **The LORD is the only true God**. He is the living God and the everlasting King. When he shows his anger the earth shakes. None of the nations can stand up to his fury. Jhn 17:3 NET - 3 **Now this is eternal life - that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. ** 1Jo 5:20 NET - 20 And we know that **the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true**, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life. But this is not about your scriptures against mine but rather to the scriptures against the creeds. The creeds are full of lies: "the Holy Catholic Church", "same substance", "Trinity"... and even Protestants fall for the Emperor's New Clothes. God is not a three-headed dragon, that's the Satan. But getting back to Pliny... As to the Christians having to have THREE Gods, please tell me where you see any "threeness" whatsoever in Paul's answer to Roman polytheism: 1Co 8:6 NLT - 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life. Paul knew nothing of "three eternally co-equal persons, not dividing the substance, yada, yada, yada". Contrary to the Emperor, the Roman Imperial cult and the Roman Catholic Church, Paul knows of a single God, aka "the Father" (using apposition). Jesus, though he bears the Father's name, is not the Father/one true God but is instead God's **son** whom he brought forth before Genesis 1: Job 15:7 KJV - 7 Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills? Pro 8:25 KJV - 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

[@fleetwd1]

1Co 8:6 NLT - vs 6 is Paul's restatement of the Shema and shows the Son and The Father as the One God. Father is creator Son through whom God made everything. so co creators. hear you have at least a duality. which explains Let Us make man in Our image male and female created He them.

[@WoundedEgo]

@@fleetwd1 "KURIOS" is not YHVH because Paul says "there are gods many (in the Roman Imperial cult) and KURIOI many" and we know they didn't have "many YHVHs". So there is but one God who is "the Father" and one "Lord", who is the *son of* God who was made so by God. For the Romans, the Emperor was selected by the gods and was their representative ruler. So too Jesus was made by God to be both KURIOS and XRISTOS: Act 2:36 KJV - 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that **God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ**. See **en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome** It is **blasphemous** to suggest that Paul modified the Shema! Jesus was *made Lord* because of his unquestioning obedience to God. "Wherefore God has highly exalted Jesus and given him a title above all". But the good doctor (and I admire so much about Dr. Williams and afford him all due respect but at the end of the day he is another paid shill for the false deity invented in the 4th century and imposed on the world by a pagan, sun worshiping emperor. Dump the creeds and Christianity can become alive again. "Better is a living dog than a dead (creed-bound) lion". But all fear the Emperor and so dutifully admire his wonderful clothes. See Dr. Heiser on the Two Powers in Heaven because though he is a Trinitarian, he has a good understanding of Jewish "binitarianism" where the angel of the LORD is imbued with YHVH's name (Exo 23:21 KJV - 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.): www.google.com/search?q=michael+heiser+jewish+binitarianism&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS819US819&oq=michael+heiser+je&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i60j35i39j0l2.9542j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Dr. Williams specifically argues against the idea that the number of "One True God" partners there were went from one to three over hundreds of years saying that it always had to be three eternally co-equal in majesty Persons. That is a lie, as Paul shows in 1 Cor 8:6.

[@fleetwd1]

You are not doing a careful study of the use of kurios. True there are times in Paul when it is not referring to YHWH but there are specific times when Paul is quoting YHWH texts from the LXX and those are using Kurios for the divine name. Philippians 2:10-11 has one of those from Isa 45:23 where Paul relates the Passage from Isa 45:23 to Jesus directly and this helps solidify the way Paul understands Kurios in relation to Jesus. read Philippians 9 for context it says, "God exalted him/Jesus in the highest place, and gave him/Jesus the name that is above every name." there is no doubt to what this name is. It is in Isa 45:23 as Kurios/YHWH. watch the videos on my channel by David Capes on the divine name or get his recent book. this will help you realize the nuances in the usage of Kurios by Paul and other NT writers. Careful study is the key to alleviate wounded ego ignorance.

[@WoundedEgo]

@@fleetwd1 Jesus said that he came in his Father's name. And God said of Christ (aka The Messenger/Angel of YHVH) that is name was in him. And Paul says that God gave him the title "YHVH" because of his *obedience*. "God has MADE HIM to be both LORD and Messiah".

[@fleetwd1]

​@@WoundedEgo you are not saying anything here that i would disagree with. Jesus said if he came in his own name his opponents would accept him as they had others who came in their own name. He says this in John before he said "Before Abraham was I Am" upon which they attempted to stone him. So yes it is the Fathers name but Paul uses it for both the Father and for Jesus and this has been what I have attempted to be saying. The name that is above every name is LORD all caps but smaller size after the first letter which represents the Divine name YHWH in the LXX. Paul mostly quotes from Greek copies of Hebrew Scriptures. LXX Just means those Greek copies of Hebrew Scriptures.

[@charlesboles9307]

right off the bat he starts with people , who were not even eyewitness . Give me a brake .

[@fleetwd1]

his argument is the content of the gospels come from those to whom the algorithm deems by it's evaluation authentic eyewitnesses. you need to re evaluate what you are listening to. you are looking for something that is not at issue except in your expectation of what the lecture should be about. it is not about your expectation so get over it.

[@charlesboles9307]

@@fleetwd1 , what you just said made no sense whatsoever . Evaluation of what ? again where is the evidence ? extraordinary claim need extraordinary evidence ! This man is going through loops to show that Jesus rose from the dead , with material that is again indirect weak so call evidence . My expectation ? are you kidding me ?

[@charlesboles9307]

@@JM-jj3eg , eyewitnesses would make it more reliable .

[@charlesboles9307]

@@JM-jj3eg , none were born , when jesus walk the earth . Try again . Evidence please .

[@mariaandreaspashi1931]

@@charlesboles9307 Resurrection is true

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

Stories and books made (decades later) during desperate times when everyone had hope of a foretold messiah from one true God uniting all religions to end the constant warfare and chaos. Imagine! Applying logic to the behavior of ancient, mostly illiterate and ignorant, people is a non-starter. I'd sign up today if thought it might bring any hope of ending the madness. Maybe that's why people STILL buy into stupid and pay other people to lie to them. Thank GOD religion is not like that....

[@MrSomethingscary]

i feel like i should add to your description of Bible times being "desperate" that the it's worse now. for most people. statistically. "bloodiest century..." and all that. and logic isn't any more applicable to "modern" man than ancient man. in fact, (and i don't care enough to cite sources for this) i think it's been almost a century since thinking quit being a significant subject in primary school. (in america at least) modern man's education has become the regurgitation of data whereas the management of ideas thru reading, speaking, and debating dominated earlier generations. on second thought, i remember two sources for that observation: paul washer in a sermon of Biblical manhood tells about reading a logic primer for grade 4ish kids from several generations ago and how it was more advanced than the logic he'd had to learn in university. and the much maligned david barton presenting similar textbooks from previous generations on logic and relaying stories of the teaching methods involving debating a topic over simply regurgitating it onto a multiple guess questionnaire. again tho, i'm only giving an opinion here, not trying to make a case, so if u disagree that's fine.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

MrSomethingscary So two evangelical Christians also have old stories of how things used to be, or should be...? If we agree that there is no greater concern than preventing human suffering, we should be pursuing solutions together rather than bickering about whose books are right or better. Maybe we can respectfully discuss diverging books and beliefs when we take breaks from the main conversation. That was then. This is now. If the Christian God is the one true God right, why would s/he condemn all who have the misfortune of being born into a different culture and belief system?

[@MrSomethingscary]

Greg Pearcey two humans gave evidence of the dumbing down of america, yes. are you saying the evidence isn't compelling for you? i'm ok with that. i'm not interested in convincing anyone about it. it's more of just an fyi kinda comment. here's a couple reasons why attempting to learn the truth about history matters: 1 if Jesus was really God then preventing human suffering isn't the greatest concern. at least not directly. the way He put it, being good involves a lot more suffering than being bad. and in my experience, He was right. 2 suffering needs to be defined. suffering for stupidity or evil is called punishment and we all think it's good. suffering for no reason is, of course, undesirable, but human perspectives aren't all that cosmic. people are all over the place when it comes to "justified" suffering. some folks think the good of the species outweighs the good of the individual and therefore eliminating darwin's "less favored races" is seen as "good" even tho it causes suffering. basically, i'm saying that it'll take more than a one liner like "prevent human suffering" to give guidance on how to be a good person. life's more complicated than that. and the Bible is full of examples of how bad it is to follow a rule instead of a Person. anyway, that's another topic. how do you know who God condemns? and if you disagree with God, why would you think it should be Him who needs to fix His beliefs? (i know that sounds a little terse, but it's not meant that way)

[@geoffreyrobinson3627]

"Applying logic to the behavior of ancient, mostly illiterate and ignorant, people is a non-starter." Sounds like you don't have a rejoinder to his arguments and you don't want to believe.

[@SIRMVP14]

MrSomethingscary

[@Resenbrink]

Rattling on about angels - garbage

[@Faarrest]

what the hell? "You need a story like the resurrection to explain why it grew so fast" ? I can tell you it grew so fast because the roman emperor Constantine decided to make christianity the official language of the roman empire... That simple.

[@mackdmara]

Faarrest That did not happen in the first & second centuries. Check your dates.

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

No, that is not Constantine did. His wife was the disciple. You are just repeated tired, old tropes that have been soundly refuted over the centuries. Now they are unfortunately all over the internet.

[@lease2coach170]

Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what? That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure! That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow. If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring worship and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.

[@lease2coach170]

***** Lots of (unjustified) "mights" in there, Jesrael. But I won't even dissect those, because it would be a distraction from the *main* point: if someone is saying that there's a "god" operating in the universe _today_, that proposition can only be established by _current_ evidence--not by events that are alleged to have occurred thousands of years ago.