Historical Evidence Jesus is ALIVE

Christianity‌ ‌differs ‌from‌ ‌other‌ ‌religions‌ ‌because‌ ‌it's‌ ‌based‌ ‌on‌ ‌a‌ historical‌ ‌claim of a public miracle.‌ ‌The‌ ‌apostle‌ ‌Paul‌ ‌says‌ ‌that‌ ‌if‌ ‌Christ‌ ‌hasn't‌ ‌risen‌ ‌from‌ ‌the‌ ‌dead, the‌ ‌Christian‌ ‌faith‌ ‌is‌ ‌worthless.‌ ‌ Since ‌the‌ ‌resurrection‌ ‌is‌ ‌a‌ ‌historical‌ ‌claim,‌ ‌then‌ ‌it's‌ ‌subject‌ ‌to‌ ‌historical‌ ‌investigation.‌ ‌And‌ ‌to‌ ‌argue‌ ‌for‌ ‌a‌ ‌historical‌ ‌claim,‌ ‌we‌ ‌need‌ ‌to‌ ‌do‌ ‌a‌ ‌couple‌ ‌of‌ ‌things.‌ ‌
‌
To start,‌ ‌we‌ ‌need‌ ‌to‌ ‌survey‌ ‌the‌ ‌relevant‌ ‌facts.‌ ‌Then‌ ‌we‌ ‌need‌ ‌to‌ ‌examine‌ ‌competing‌ ‌explanations‌ ‌of‌ ‌those‌ ‌facts.‌
0:00. Why Christianity differs from other religions
0:25.The crucifixion of Jesus
0:47. The burial of Jesus
1:08. 5 facts - A.L.I.V.E
1:44. A - Appearances
5:07. L - Low Status of Women
6:39. I - Immediate Persecution
8:03. V - Voluntary Sufferings
9:22. E - Empty Tomb
11:27. Evidence for a miracle
12:00. Low probability of alternative explanations
12:44. Textual assumptions
Tim McGrew original talk: • 06 - The Resurrection ...
Scholarly, 75-page defense of the resurrection by Drs. Tim and Lydia McGrew: www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrecti...
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive.creator-spring...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com

[@TestifyApologetics]

Some have asked me what a maximal data case for the resurrection looks like. Here's my answer.

[@hadmiar8]

@@twitherspoon8954 "someone at the time would have noticed and memorialized it in some way" What exactly do you think the New Testament is?

[@rosegaming8881]

@@twitherspoon8954 and that is the new testament 🤦‍♂️

[@TestifyApologetics]

Oh, look. A mythicist! Ya know, I'm pretty sure Napoleon never existed either.

[@TestifyApologetics]

New atheist debate tactics 101: 1. Contradict the OP. Don't offer an argument, just a contradiction. 2. Don't really offer arguments, just baseless assertions and irrelevant points. But state them with a lot of confidence. (The Gospels are anonymous. Paul is our only eyewitness and he just had a vision. Matthew misread Isaiah. We have 0 contemporary sources. Miracles don't happen.) 3. Repeat a lot of stuff from Richard Carrier and Godless Engineer. Because they are super-geniuses. 4. Throw out a ton of different assertions and watch Christians get baited into running down each one, but when they respond just throw out a bunch of other different assertions and start the process all over again. 5. Pay no attention to the OP's other published works, those are irrelevant. 6. Use tons of arguments from silence. 7. Be condescending and insulting.

[@j.gstudios4576]

@@twitherspoon8954 How do you watch a video and then throw everything out of the window? It's fascinating

[@DanielApologetics]

I want to feed this video grapes and brush its hair..! That's how good it is. *Save to Favorite playlist. *Done.

[@TestifyApologetics]

LOLOLOL

[@MatthewFearnley]

I thought you might appreciate some rough section timings (@Testify feel free to use/adapt if helpful) 0:02: Why Christianity differs from other religions 0:25: The crucifixion of Jesus 0:47: The burial of Jesus 1:08: 5 facts - A.L.I.V.E 1:44: A - Appearances 5:07: L - Low Status of Women 6:39: I - Immediate Persecution 8:03: V - Voluntary Sufferings 9:22: E - Empty Tomb 11:27: Evidence for a miracle 12:00: Other messianic figures 12:22: Low probability of alternative explanations 12:44: We assume the Gospels are trustworthy accounts

[@TestifyApologetics]

wow thanks. I'll definitely use these!

[@jedphillips9362]

Someone will die for what they believe in but will never die for what they know is a lie. Absolutely 💯 truth.

[@unicyclist97]

Missing the rather obvious answer that someone could be mistaken.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

What Jed is saying is that the Apostles genuinely believed it, obviously we know it doesn’t mean that they were right, that’s when we explore all the potential options.

[@unicyclist97]

@@Nameless-pt6oj it's also wrong because there's no evidence of any apostles dying for their beliefs.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

Peter, Paul and James (the brother of Jesus).

[@unicyclist97]

@@Nameless-pt6oj no evidence that any of them died for their beliefs.

[@farmercraig6080]

A excellent well layered case. I’ll have to watch it again to take it all in. Great stuff.

[@farmercraig6080]

@Johan Abrahams what do you mean?

[@alexantal4417]

Very informative video. Thank you for creating and sharing.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Keep up the good work!

[@faby_baby]

Yeah!! Also, if you didn’t know, Jesus will fulfill you more than anything in this world, I speak from experience (from when i did Romans 10:9-13), he loves you and wants to be in a meaningful (not romantic) relationship with you. :) “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, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬-‭13‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭1‬:‭15‬ ‭KJV‬‬ If you want proof that Jesus and the Bible are true look a documentary called “Ron Wyatt discoveries 2022” on KZbin and a KZbin channel called Expedition Bible. They both examine archeological sites and discoveries that prove the Bible, and even reference secular sources. (Just don’t convert to 7th day Adventism after watching the documentary) And lastly if you don’t know the gospel and want to be saved search up “abc’s of Salvation Teenmissions” on Google and it should be the first or second result. When you click on it read the whole thing, and do what it says and have faith in Jesus while you are doing it, do not doubt, and if it is hard for you to do what it says, ask Jesus to help you, have faith that he will, and *he will.* God Bless :)

[@ExploringReality]

I love this. Great summary!

[@ExploringReality]

@Johan Abrahams the video.

[@iisaverstudio]

Thank you for the playlist!

[@calebjore3295]

Fantastic summary of the evidence for the resurrection! I'm liking the new thumbnails as well. Some brief comments on reburial. While the reburial by Joseph of Arimathea is, in my opinion, the best naturalistic explanation for the strong evidence for the empty tomb, it is rather ad hoc. I've seen it used by many of the skeptics who are actually willing to accept the historicity of the burial (a surprisingly controversial premise). While reburial is definitely possible, its explanatory power is drastically diminished once you consider the improbability of such a hypothesis, the evidence for the general reliability of the Gospels (and thus, the unlikelihood of them getting this wrong), and the accounts of the appearances, for which another unlikely hypothesis would need to be developed and combined with the reburial hypothesis. I'll quote the McGrews from their article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: "A more creative attempt to explain part of the evidence... is the conjecture that Joseph of Arimathea merely stored Jesus’ body in his own tomb temporarily and then moved it on Saturday night after the Sabbath was over to burial in a graveyard of the condemned, unintentionally leaving the women to discover an empty tomb on Sunday morning. The problems with this hypothesis would be difficult to exaggerate. To begin with, it is very difficult to see why Joseph of Arimathea would care enough about what happened to Jesus’ body to provide his own new tomb for it immediately after Jesus’ death but would then want to move it out as quickly as possible after the Sabbath. Joseph Klausner, an early proponent of the theory, merely says, "We must assume that the owner of the tomb, Joseph of Arimathaea, thought it unfitting that one who had been crucified should remain in his own ancestral tomb" (Klausner, 1925, p. 357). Jeffrey Lowder, a more recent advocate of the theory, seems to imply (contrary to Matt. 27:57) that Joseph was not really a follower of Jesus at all, that he was in fact a devout member of the Sanhedrin and (evidently) consenting to Jesus’ crucifixion, and that he merely put the body in his own tomb in the first place because it was near Calvary and he did not want the body to remain unburied over the Sabbath (Lowder, 2005, pp. 267-9). The conjecture that Joseph would have been willing to use his own ancestral tomb for the interment of one he despised and opposed is particularly implausible. The treatment of Joseph of Arimathea by this theory is strikingly ad hoc. The theory accepts his existence from the gospel texts, so as to have a person to whom to attribute the moving of the body, but it alters his attitudes and motives and adds the otherwise unsubstantiated claim that he did in fact move Jesus' body after carefully burying it in his own tomb. Moreover, there is reason to believe that such moving of a body once buried as Jesus’ body was would have been contrary to rabbinic tradition (Talmud, Semahot IV.7, XIII.6, XIII.7).20 Lowder gives only the feeblest account of why his “Joseph” did not speak out after the disciples began to declare that Jesus was risen, suggesting that he would have thought there was no point in bothering to tell what he knew by Pentecost, when the disciples were preaching Jesus’ resurrection, as the body would have been unrecognizable by then (Lowder, 2005, pp. 288-90). Whether this last forensic claim is true or not, it is absurd to say that there would have been no point in Joseph’s speaking, as he could have testified, as a respected member of the Jewish community, to having moved Jesus’ body and to knowing its present location, and he could have shown that in fact he was in possession of the body of a crucified man. If he were opposed to Jesus and his followers, he would certainly have made some such attempt to debunk the resurrection claims. If he were a follower of Jesus, he would have had no reason to keep his action secret and to leave his fellow disciples to promulgate and die for a falsehood. Finally, this theory is entirely powerless to explain the women’s claims actually to have seen Jesus."

[@Mark-cd2wf]

“Joseph of Arimathea moved the body the next day and threw it into a pit.” Wow. What a stretch. Sounds like somebody’s getting pretty desperate.🤔

[@whatsinaname691]

Some of the strongest evidence for the empty tomb is that the Jewish leaders say the body was stolen, and if JoA just said, “nah, I moved the body” then that would have been their story

[@rufusmcplaid9213]

@TestifyApologetics , this remains in my saved videos because it continues to be one of the best short presentations of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus I have come across. I know you have had a recent re-think about your channel and I admire that you continue to listen to the Holy Spirit. But I admittedly hope you continue to publish videos like this one.

[@AnHebrewChild]

What was his recent re-think of his channel?

[@thomasmendez3847]

GREAT WORK! THANK YOU, KEEP WORKING. Greetings from Argentina

[@wesleybasener9705]

Great video!

[@alvinjohn2540]

Amazing video!!

[@VincenzoRutiglianoDiaz]

This is a great summary, easy to explain also

[@sjappiyah4071]

A true maximal argument, well done 💯

[@sjappiyah4071]

@Johan Abrahams okay ?

[@BillJ213]

Awesome content! I understand maximal data now haha.

[@joshuaschaeffer2820]

Yo, love these videos, but that whiteboard sound at the begining kills me haha 🥶😖

[@GoldenRuffian]

Great vid, again! Point of pushup no one changed the Sabbath. People ALSO gathered on Sunday, but there was no change of Sabbath until Constantine in the 4th century. Minor to some, but major in Scripture.

[@thadofalltrades]

Agreed. They gathered every day of the week including Sabbath. There was no change in the sanctity of the Sabbath.

[@believewithyourheart5627]

God bless you! I’m so grateful for your videos!

[@martinwheat1839]

On point!

[@rightwired]

WRONG TOMB? Also: Women have an amazing memory and sense of direction. Have you EVER known a woman to not remember a landmark? If my wife navigate the back streets of Chicago after a single visit, I'm sure these ladies had no problem remember where Christ was buried. He is risen.

[@iranianskeptic]

Great

[@proverbs2522]

The simple fact that most people don’t understand the context of the women’s testimony in ancient Israel shows that we’ve come a long way as a society. It’s only recent that women are to be taken more seriously. But look at the feminist movement. They are why men didn’t think women were capable of testifying or even contributing to important things. Women are way too emotional and that’s not always a bad thing but it is when you’re basing your decisions on emotions. As a woman I understand these things. My husband is a worker not a thinker. He remains stable because I help solve his problems.

[@donaldkeith139]

Surprisingly you are using a modified scientific method... In science, we take facts and try to come up with a model to explain them. If the model explains all the facts really well, we consider that model to be correct. And scientismists would say the model is true. In this case, it is similar - you have many facts and try to find the best model to explain them. So far, the best one is that Jesus rose from the dead.

[@williambillycraig1057]

Another solid video

[@montefleming8390]

Good video. About Sunday, though, Christians only began worshiping on Sunday later (early 2nd century), and many Christians (particularly those not under the control of Rome) continued to keep the Sabbath.

[@SimplyVinnie1]

Great video

[@TestifyApologetics]

Why not?

[@froge4300]

the link to the paper in the description doesnt seem to work anymore

[@ortegafilms4575]

Nice

[@nahoalife954]

I have a question about the prior probability or natural and supernatural explanations. Based on what we already know about how reality usually works (background knowledge), a hallucination that is collective, realistic, chronic, poly-modal, and viewed as proof of resurrection is extremely improbable. But can't a skeptics note that, relative to our knowledge about how reality usually works, a resurrection is also extremely improbable? Neither the hallucination hypothesis nor the resurrection hypothesis have major support elsewhere in history. So aren't they comparable with respect to their low prior probability? This is the most challenging objection to the case for the resurrection, in my view as a Christian. Thank you for your channel!

[@lauraandrews1676]

Because their highly improbable claim originates from a materialistic worldview in which such things are impossible (nothing supernatural can happen, period). Whereas the Christian claim arises out of a worldview in which God operates and actually arranged everything in advance (including giving information about it to prophets throughout the centuries).

[@calebe4266]

@@lauraandrews1676 Great response. They use something that they themselfs can't believe in order to dismiss the ressurection. The hallucination is impossible on their own standarts

[@TandemSix]

8:53-8:57 that was Mohammed:))

[@SonofJesus14]

LONG LIVE THE KING!

[@TheFreedThinkerPodcast]

There are more than just those three rival theories.

[@spazomaz]

Could you do a video on the historical evidence of the apostles/1st century people believing in the trinity or Jesus as God? Thanks

[@austinapologetics2023]

This was a great video. Much better than mine without a doubt.

[@calummacritchie7840]

Hallelujah for Reasonable Faith.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

CV 2

[@zekdom]

0:09, 0:20

[@jcorle00]

👍🏻

[@hiddenrambo328]

144,000 = First Fruits & Apostles after the manner of Paul, Sent out ahead of the Judgements.

[@hiddenrambo328]

People not willing to suffer for a known lie is why the prisoner's dilemma works.

[@hiddenrambo328]

​@Johan Abrahams "The prisoner's dilemma is a game used by researchers to model and investigate how people decide to cooperate-or not. ... If only one prisoner confesses, the confessor is set free, but the non-confessor serves a three-year sentence. If neither prisoner confesses, both serve a one-year sentence." I would suggest looking it up as the visual aid is very helpful and I fear I would do a poor Job explaining it. This will not be very well explained but I will try. It is why cops can get people to turn on each other in interrogations I have your friend next door whoever speaks first gets the deal. If one speaks and the other doesn't the one that speaks get's a deal/goes free the one who doesn't speak gets max time. If both speak they both get the max medium amount of time. if neither speak they both get a little time. The problem is one is not willing to suffer for the other with a little time (especially if one is innocent) so they try to get no time by speaking dooming each other. If people were willing to suffer to maintain a known lie this system would not work but this system does work and it's one reason why snitching has such a harsh penalty in the criminal world that way the suffering of a little time is less than the suffering that would come as a result of speaking. I probably butchered that, that is why it is best to look it up for yourself.

[@hiddenrambo328]

@Johan Abrahams It is about people not willing to suffer about a known lie. The Apostles suffered and were Martyred due to their position about Jesus, they would have known if it was a lie or not so them maintaining their position enduring suffering and resulting in their deaths which could have been easily avoided if they abandoned that position, which is a good indication their claim was true, as people are not generally willing to even do jail time for a known lie let alone being tortured, shunned, hated and killed. People might be willing if it helps them maybe if they or their people get respect, money, power or relations or the promise of them but all the evidence for the Apostles is they lost the positions they had they lost respect, power, money and relations they lost earthly riches so this motive to lie is not likely in their case and when it was a motive it was pointed out in scripture "Judas". So no earthly upside in being a Jesus follower huge downsides and they would be the ones who knew if they were speaking lies or not since people are not willing to suffer for a known lie as seen by the effectiveness of the criminals dilemma. All of that indicates their position was most likely true and not a lie.

[@hiddenrambo328]

@Johan Abrahams My pointing out the prisoners dilemma is less about making a case more about pointing out it is a real world thing that actually happens and if it wasn't than such a tactic would not work/exist

[@lior38]

How do we know that 1 Corinthians 15 is a creed that Paul got from the disciples and not from God?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Here, the author of this post discusses the origin of the creed and touches on your question crossexamined.org/the-evidential-value-of-1-corinthians-153-8-to-the-case-for-the-resurrection/

[@JesusIsLord105]

Everything in this video was great apart from when you said 'first century Palestine'. The Romans renamed the land Palestine later on as an insult to the Jews. In the first century it was called Judaea

[@steved5960]

My only question is : why does Paul look like a freakin’ yellow jacket?!

[@daniellinzel1994]

Great video. Trying to come up with a Dutch translation of the acrostic. So far I've come to V L O L V (which isn't a word). Any Dutchies wanna join in? I now have: V - verschijningen L - Lage status van vrouwen O - Onmiddelijke verkondiging L - Lege graf V - Vrijwillige vervolging

[@calebjore3295]

You could try "L E V E N" as that is the Dutch word for life (as, no doubt, you know). So then you have: L - Lage status van vrouwen E - ? V - Verschijningen (or vrijwillige vervolging) E - ? N - ? I don't know any Dutch though so I can't be of much other help. I hope you can get it figured out!

[@daniellinzel1994]

@@calebjore3295 Thank you Caleb! Great suggestion. Another option then could be 'L E E F T', which means [He] 'lives'. I'll keep puzzling. When I have a nice acrostic I will report back here for my fellow Dutchmen!

[@dalu_dalu]

So we have to assume accounts with supernatural claims are reliable? I feel like this approach lacks a healthy amount of skepticism.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Where did I say we need to assume supernatural claims are reliable?

[@dalu_dalu]

@@TestifyApologetics at the end of the video you mention where the disciples recall miracles you assume their testimony is authentic and describing what they witnessed. Isn’t this assuming an account of a supernatural claim is reliable? Maybe I’m not understanding here

[@TestifyApologetics]

I said my channel is dedicated to making that argument, just see the other videos. Most notably the playlist on the homepage on the reliability of the Gospels.

[@dalu_dalu]

​@@TestifyApologetics hmm I tried to find an answer there I think the closest thing I found was that Paul was a sincere guy so we should believe his accounts. I don't find that too convincing in light of how extreme the claims are.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Then you didn't look too far, since I never said that Paul's conversion is enough evidence by itself for someone to be persuaded of the resurrection. You're not even very good as straw-manning, are you?

[@JesusFilmProject777]

Corrections on 7:35 Mark 2:27-28 - Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Romans 3:31 - Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. I appreciate the content, but we should correct our fellow Christian brethren through the living Word of God.

[@kiwisaram9373]

The logical conclusion of claiming Christ has been resurrected and alive is that He is alive now. The best thing then is to test this by asking Him.

[@epic7224]

You can:) in prayer. Which people do, and have been answered.

[@kiwisaram9373]

@@epic7224 Being mindful that many an athiest will have claimed to have done so and not recieved any answer, what are the limits and preconditions for this happening?

[@meeatyuwhole3889]

Yo

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

The clickbait is real 😂

[@j.gstudios4576]

WHAT DIDNT MY PASTOR TELL ME

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@@j.gstudios4576 that the clickbait is real 👀

[@j.gstudios4576]

@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou I knew it

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@@j.gstudios4576 😂👀

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Excellent. A 13-minute tour-de-force. Another good example is James, the Lord’s brother. To anyone reading this who has a brother: What would it take to convince you that he is God? “Then He appeared to James.” The Apostle Paul (1 Cor.15:7).

[@TestifyApologetics]

Yes I agree. Just wish we had a few more details what his appearance was like.

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@TestifyApologetics Good point. I can only think it was probably physical/tactile/auditory, considering James’ extreme skepticism. This is what the disciples apparently got (“many infallible proofs” Acts 1:3), and they had lived with and believed in Jesus as Lord for _three years,_ seen His miracles firsthand, and even performed miracles in His name. And still had a tough time believing it was He post-resurrection! James, on the other hand, _never_ believed in his brother when He was alive. He thought He was crazy, that He was shaming the family name, and died in disgrace as a criminal condemned by God Himself. Yet he went on to be a leader in the Jerusalem church and died as a martyr. So I think it’s not too much of a stretch to believe that Jesus’ appearance to His brother was at least as convincing as the appearances to His disciples. I think it would have to be, considering that sometimes the hardest ones to convert are our own family members. Again, great video!

[@unicyclist97]

Appearing in a vision isn't exactly great as evidence.

[@whatsinaname691]

@@unicyclist97 You’d have to provide a reason for why the appearance was a vision and not bodily since most of the appearances were bodily in Galilee where James would have been

[@Mark-cd2wf]

@@whatsinaname691 yes, that was my whole point: a physical, interactive appearance, like the disciples’, because that was what was needed to convince James.

[@ToelJhute]

For the appearances, I’m assuming you’re using the reliability of the gospels as testimony that they truly believed these appearances happened, but wouldn’t the voluntary suffering only be evidence of the disciples truly believing like that in the minimal facts argument.

[@ToelJhute]

@testify

[@TestifyApologetics]

To get a strong case of their willingness to suffer, we need the book of Acts to make that case. There we learn about the arrest of the twelve and their beating, the martyrdom of James, the arrest of Peter and more details on the sufferings of Paul. Minimal facts won't get you that far, although I think MFA can get you that Paul and Peter were willing to suffer and die.

[@ToelJhute]

@@TestifyApologetics their martyrdom is already attested whether Christian or skeptic and it is already given as evidence for the disciple's and enemies' belief. A better argument entirely is to merge both the reliability of the new testament and the martyrdom to show that not only did the disciples and enemies believe Jesus resurrected from the dead, but they are reliable eyewitnesses to it. For me at least, it seems that some of the letters McGrew puts is literally the evidence for the appearances, which is fine if you mentioned it. The argument is far more compelling if you add both martyrdom and reliability of testimony under one category rather than separating them

[@ToelJhute]

@testify

[@ramadadiver59]

Notice that Paul doesn't mention the women who seen Jesus in the creed ? Almost as if Paul knew that would undermine creed so he deliberately left them out .

[@dux657]

Or the story about women discovering the tomb hadn't been developed yet. Women at the tomb is not the only one detail different from the narrative of the gospels.

[@thinkersonly1]

This video gave 3 options of Jesuses resurrection. What about 4 th option? The 4th option being, he was healed ( in the cave by his friends and/ or someone with creams and stuff, his injuries ) and he came by to see his followers to say goodbye for now. He had to run, so he is not found and killed.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Lol. A barely alive Jesus wouldn't convince his followers he was the resurrected Lord of Glory. Creams and stuff don't heal crucifixion wounds.

[@thinkersonly1]

@@TestifyApologetics ok, cult member.

[@aaliyahtorres7496]

That disregards the piercing of the side. If you look at a medical look into this they would say that the fluid coming out would also show he was absolutely dead. Roman’s who have crucified many know what a dead man looks like. They broke the legs off of those alive so they would die faster and if anyone knows how crucifixion works they would know that to survive on a cross you would have to push your self up and let back down in order to breath, if you did not then you would die. If the Roman’s saw Jesus stopped doing this for some time it is a good indicator he is dead because he would no longer be able to breath and without air, he would die, not to mention the scourging he got before that and being beaten badly. Also the falling while carrying his cross is an indicator he was already weak and there is a deeper look into that medically. But all in all it is very unlikely and in my opinion impossible he would have just been wounded and then fled. And there is good reason to believe he was actually dead. Plus the guards at the tomb would recognize a man who’s alive.

[@lauraandrews1676]

Out of all the ridiculous and implausible explanations, this is by far the very stupidest of all. Clearly you don't understand crucifixion, scourging, dehydration, or death.

[@epic7224]

He was verified dead by the Romans and you cannot survive crucifixion. They even stabbed Him to make sure he died.

[@JT-cm6ho]

we dont need proof we know that it happeend becuase the bible says it hapens so it is true aaamen. hashtag i love jesus (cou;dnt find the hastag button)

[@Mike00513]

Watch Paulogia or TMM make a response video to this.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Paulogia? Nah. TMM? I don't know if he's even aware of me.

[@Mike00513]

@@TestifyApologetics Huh. Usually Paulogia always makes response videos to people who makes cases for the historicity of the resurrection. And TMM always finds smaller KZbinr channels and “debunks” their content.

[@petery6432]

@@TestifyApologetics Yeah, Paulogia has yet to respond to your 4 different responses to him: One on the Virgin Birth, one on the Martyrdom of the Apostles, one on that stupid double donkey objection, and a 3-parter on his "debunk" of the resurrection. He hasn't responded to any of those, so I doubt he will start now.

[@TestifyApologetics]

exactly. I've even offered to have a discussion with Paulogia, he's just ignored it both times. I think he's too busy debunking J. Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, Mike Licona, WLC, etc to care about me.

[@Mike00513]

@@petery6432 True.

[@austinlincoln3414]

Lmfao he deleted John abraham’s comments. Good riddance.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Huh? I know there was someone here making weird threats, is that what you're referring to?

[@austinlincoln3414]

No, just some idiot making weird comments and questioning anyone saying they liked the video

[@ofirsinn9635]

nice video, but have to disagree at 7:32 on jews leaving the jewish practices. your making it sound like jesus came to abolish the law and make a new religion. jesus is the messiah promised to israel that through him all the nations will be blessed, if he is not israels messiah he is the messiah of nobody. plus, id like to add that in act it is not said for jews to abandon the shabbat or stop worship in the temple (the place of worship doesnt matter to be clear but it is not accurate is my point), the question then was how can A getile believe in jesus not how can a jew. I think dr.micheal brown is on point in this stuff.

[@wellingboroughredburn-yd9yk]

If the list visible at 5:40 doesn't make you question what is wrong with the god of the Bible something is wrong with you. If, in a religiously dominated society, women are seen this way there is something wrong with the religion. If the texts determining the practices of said religion aren't clear on things like this, or can be interpreted to make women inferior or subservient, something is wrong with the god 'inspiring' the text.

[@calebe4266]

That was the culture of the time, not biblical teachings. There is diference between them. Culture change, but bible teachings remain the same. The society changed to respect more woman BECAUSE of bible teachings, that is preached that they are equal in value, but diferent in function and nature.

[@wellingboroughredburn-yd9yk]

@@calebe4266 because of Bible teachings... It sure took them long enough to get to that point. The Bible absolutely does NOT teach that men and women are equal. One is to be subservient to the other according to the Bible...

[@calebe4266]

@@wellingboroughredburn-yd9yk I just love when skeptics take one part of a text and dich out the rest. The beggining of ephesians 5 talk about love and sacrifice, and one way to show love to other person os to serve them in humility, that is for ALL, not just women (verse 21 says "submitting yourselfs *one to another* in the fear of God"). Then Paul says on 25 (not much after the passage you used, mind you) "husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" and in 28-30 "So ought man to love their wives at their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his bones, and of his flesh", and to summary on 33 "Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband". As you can clearly see, there is responsability on both sides and the thing is actually heavier on man's side, since he is the one that should die if things come to it, that's why, for example, the army was male only for so many time. There is a lot of calls to responsability on the bible, some for women, more for man, and even more for both, because, once again, they, biblically speaking, are different but equal in value. It's different than some other religions that calim that "man is the most important thing, so worship it as a god", no, there is responsability and sacrifice on both sides. There are more passages like that on the bible, just look up

[@wellingboroughredburn-yd9yk]

@@calebe4266 I spent 5 years of my life studying the Bible, every day, all day. It was my job. I've already looked it up. You need to look at the bigger picture. Have a nice day.

[@GoatOfAllTrades]

@@wellingboroughredburn-yd9yk Nice copout buddy 💀

[@colonelradec5956]

So Josephis and all of history says dont trust women and were trusting women lol? I'm just sayin 😂

[@darkknightsds]

Apologetics really are something. I'm a Christian, but the evidence does not show Jesus really rose from the dead. It showed his first followers believed he did, and that's a whole different thing. Stop tricking yourself into thinking there's evidence for the resurrection and have some faith.

[@calebe4266]

Be careful man, you can't have blind faith. The work of this guy is provide ground for our belief based on reason and historicak facts. Without it, faith is shallow and blind

[@mnamhie]

It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to assert anything written in the gospels is historic fact. They have been proven to be unreliable in this regard. And outside of the NT writings there is no contemporaneous corroboration for any of the events or protagonists detailed therein. A simple test for you: without using the Bible tell us about the life of Jesus and his supposed apostles.

[@MyWictor]

no evidence

[@TestifyApologetics]

no refutation

[@bobbyfischersays1262]

@@TestifyApologetics no doubt!

[@marcavus1]

The entire arguement is based on presuppositions. Circular reasoning is all we have. I can't believe I watched this whole video to the end. Ugh