Obliterating Bart Ehrman's Explanation of Christianity

In this clip, Dr. William Lane Craig responds to a clip in which Dr. Bart Ehrman attempts to explain how Christianity arose.
Link to full interview: kzbin.info...
💸 Want to support CC? capturingchris...
✨ Free books! tinyurl.com/CC...
📱 Business inquiry? capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[@leluyaa]

Ex atheist here. 1. Witnessed a failed exorcism by a shaman at a ayahuasca retreat, he could do absolutely nothing about the person being held down by several people while screaming the whole night. Around 30 of us in there. That threw my worldview upside down and I was terrified day and night after that.. 2. I had a radical encounter with Jesus after opening up the Gospel of John. Been a follower of Jesus Christ since 2016, saved by grace through faith. Hallelujah!

[@UrsaringKrusherX]

Pastors disagree on the bible all the time, of course they would because they are limited in knowledge, and one side would be wrong. Does that mean that Christianity is wrong? Yet you are holding a shaman by the same standards.

[@leluyaa]

The shaman could do absolutely nothing about it. I don't hold any witchdoctor to any standard, he invited me to pagan worship of the moon, 'mother earth', the self, every single religion etc etc so it's just plain demonic in every sense of deceit and falsehood. Vs my encounter with the LORD? There are no words to describe it, he healed and forgave me. Have I had encounters with the demonic after that? Yes! Is there a difference between The Holy Spirit's power in me when confronting darkness now vs back then when I was in darkness, dead in my sins? You wouldn't even believe it if I shared experiences with you. He is the only Way. God bless you!

[@UrsaringKrusherX]

@@leluyaa blessings to you

[@leluyaa]

@@UrsaringKrusherXAnd I wish you the best weekend 🙏🏼

[@bringemyoungpbuh4123]

Capturing Christianity channel has interviewed some exorcists. While rare and sometimes psychiatric issues are mislabeled, demons are real. Glad you found Jesus.

[@t.d6379]

Jimmy Akin already utterly dismantled Ehrman.

[@malirk]

What argument did he make that did this?

[@tomasrocha6139]

Nope, Akin's theory that Joseph, a carpenter owned homes in both Bethlehem and Nazareth holds no water when Jesus was born in a manger. Same with his theory that Joseph is descended from David through both genealogies when they don't even list the same man as his father.

[@t.d6379]

@tomasrocha6139 "nope" have you even seen the debate? How can Ehrmans' rejection of the reliability of the Gospels hold water when, as Jimmy presented masterfully, Ehrman agrees on 63+ individual cases of reliability?

[@t.d6379]

@@malirk his whole presentation on Ehrmans work up to date.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@t.d6379 Jimmy Akin vastly inflated the number of true claims by including incredibly redundant claims: 8. Jesus gathered disciples 9. Jesus had an inner circle of 12 disciples 10. Jesus was crucified 11. The Roman Governor Pilate ordered Jesus crucified. 15. Jesus was connected with John the Baptist. 16. Jesus was baptized at the beginning of his public ministry. 17. John the Baptist baptized Jesus. By this absurdly low bar any biography whatsoever including The Lives of the Twelve Caesars or the Historia Augusta would be reliable

[@francisa4636]

I was expecting an obliteration but left pretty disappointed. Nothing WLC said really undermines BE point, his arguments are purely speculative.

[@BreakingMathPod]

Yes!! Cameron’s starting to sound like Donny from “Standing for Truth.” There’s a phrase “getting a little high on your own supply.” That applies here. This is not what we call a “rigorous” critique. This is more like a… Pro wrestling taunt maybe?

[@randomusername2761]

Bart Ehrman's points are purely speculative. The suggestion that Christianity began as a result of a sort of Chinese Whispers with minimal witnesses is very difficult to take seriously. Alex O'Connor, the guy interviewing him is an atheist and he reacted strangely to it. Craig undermined his point by pointing out all the other evidence and explaining the shear length with which the hallucinations must have occurred for a belief in resurrection to be likely.

[@francisa4636]

@randomusername2761 There has never been a verified ressurection. Ever. There are plenty of examples of mistakes, hallucinations, visions from guilt etc. The problem you have is there is practically no evidence of the ressurection, so why exactly should we take such an extraordinary claim seriously. Especially when other regions that contradict christianity make equally 'valid' claims. Your just not saying anything here

[@randomusername2761]

​@@francisa4636 Wtf? No evidence?? Just read any of the writings of Habermas, Erik Manning and so many more. The creed of the earliest church, describing appearances to the 500, to Peter, James, and the twelve. Many of these are verified by the gospels. You also have the empty tomb--the opponents of Jesus' response to the resurrection presupposed an empty tomb. Also, the Shroud of Turin has been traced back to Judea and is impossible to recreate. Listen to experts like Fr Andrew Dalton who explain why it is so likely the authentic burial cloth of Jesus and shows his resurrection. Of course, there may be rebuttal to some of this, but your claim that there is 'practically no evidence' is embarrassing. As for Muhammad splitting the moon, that was not attributed to Muhammad until 200 years after his death, saying in the Quran that 'the moon split', which can be scientifically explained and has appeared to happen more than once. Of course there's never been a verified resurrection, because God isn't going to rise everyone from the dead--he doesn't constantly break his laws of nature all the time. You mispelled 'resurrection' twice and used 'your' instead of 'you're', so work on grammar first, then have a think about the resurrection. What a completely non-sensical, uninformed comment!

[@elprofeta110]

God has been so Good to me I exalt his name now and everyday of my life. Awesome God ❤️my family are happy once again and can now afford anything for my family even with my Retirement.$67k weekly returns has been life changing, after so much struggles.

[@babytruca02]

Hello how do you make such weekly?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God.

[@elprofeta110]

Maria Angelina Alexander I really appreciate her efforts and transparency.

[@elprofeta110]

I remember giving her my first savings $20000 and she opened a brokerage account for me it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me.

[@marcosvg90]

YES!!! That's exactly her name (Maria Angelina Alexander) so many people have recommended highly about her and am just starting with her from Brisbane Australia.🇦🇺

[@KuramaUchiha-id1ow]

I heard a CNBC news host spoke highly big about this name and her strategies, how she has been helpful to many people. Been trying to reach her since.

[@nymbusDeveloper86]

Thank God for Dr. Craig. God bless him.

[@Lumine777produccines]

Bart fans crying and insulting you in 3, 2,1...

[@bryonstevenson1084]

Exactly 😂

[@rogersacco4624]

If we are resurrected and our brains also in eternity how are they going ro contain constant new realities.?We will all lose our conscious knowledge of who we are now ..always in flux.And a stange afterlife Nothing you know and love will be therexor last

[@Lumine777produccines]

And there you have it XD

[@20july1944]

@@rogersacco4624 Are you an atheist?

[@valveman12]

So what did Dr. Erman get wrong?

[@jayluss]

How can you firmly believe that these three (at least) definitely saw “something they interpreted as Jesus” and conclude the most logical explanation is all of them simply imagined it? I’d sooner believe they didn’t see anything and this is all a fairy tale.

[@malirk]

Maybe it's a combination of: 1) Some imagined it. 2) Some missremembered 3) Some made it up. 4) Some were made up by history to have seen it. Put this all together and it explains everything.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Ehrman openly admits that as a historian, he is not allowed to infer a supernatural conclusion no matter what the circumstances are. Because he is a good historian, he also cannot deny that the attestation is so strong that these claims simply couldn’t have been made up. This leaves him with the only possible explanation - joint/mass hallucinations. The irony here is that these are supernaturally improbable, but since they are wrapped in secular-ese, he feels it doesn’t contradict his academic integrity 🤷‍♂️

[@Justeelisjust]

​@@malirk Great! Now just apply the same standard for rest of written history as well for the contemporary eyewitness testimonies related to crimes, news stories and scientific papers.

[@malirk]

@@Justeelisjust Yes! You get it. Be consistent. So you doubt the gospels to I take it?

[@Justeelisjust]

​@@malirk Based on the facts and writings related to Resurrection, I believe it's more probable explanation than myth-, group hallucination- and conspiracy -hypothesis IF we don't presuppose naturalism. And because naturalism refutes itself, supernatural explanations are on the table. It happens to be that a supernatural occurance is the most consistent explanation in this case.

[@BabyBilliesBibleBonkers]

At 2:12 Mr. Craig says "Jews believed the resurrection only occurred after the end of the world" Response: Paul and the earliest Christians believed they were living at the end of the world - see 1 Cor 10:11, Mt. 24:3. If they believed they were living in the end times then the resurrection was a necessary falling out of that end time expectation. So we can now see how the resurrection was expected per the historical context in which the earliest Christians found themselves. And this serves to rebut the apologetic that they would only believe Jesus has been "assumed into heaven" after his death. This is especially true if Jesus went around predicting his resurrection (like the gospels say)! At the 7 minute mark, Mr. Craig appeals to the fact that since Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the body, that it must follow that the appearances were physical. This is a non-sequitur as one could believe Jesus had been physically resurrected - due to background resurrection beliefs (Isa. 26:19) but also believe he didn't "appear" to anyone until after his exaltation to heaven, making the experiences visionary in nature i.e. not physical interactions with a resurrected corpse. Christian apologists cannot deny this scenario because they are committed to this happening in the case of Paul - 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 26:19.

[@randomusername2761]

The Jews believed in a resurrection for ALL people at the same time and at the end of time, not just one person towards the end of time, and the former is exactly what it says in Isaiah 26:19, so that's just a misunderstanding entirely. In the gospel accounts, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, and if you are to cite those accounts, you are to cite the fact that his disciples had no idea what he was on about. Apart from anything else, if you believe that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, how did he know that he would be executed and people would be tricked into thinking he rose from the dead? Let's park this aside and say the appearances of Jesus that early sources confirm were all hallucinations, and that because Jesus said so, they thought he rose from the dead, are you seriously telling me either that the tomb was still full and people didn't bother to check, that the burial did not occur, or that, amidst these hallucinations, some secret plot to steal Jesus' body also took place, and some women came to anoint Jesus' body at the exact right time to discover the empty tomb. Hume's already fallacious argument insisted upon rejecting the 'greater miracle'--well, what you're suggesting is a greater miracle than the resurrection.

[@BabyBilliesBibleBonkers]

@@randomusername2761 *The Jews believed in a resurrection for ALL people at the same time and at the end of time,* Right, but if they believed they were living in the end times and their leader was preaching about the resurrection and was suddenly executed then you can see how some might apply the concept to him to start things off - 1 Cor 15:20. Combine this with the observation that some were claiming John the Baptist had been raised from the dead - Mk. 6:14-16 and some believed Jesus to be "one of the prophets from long ago who had arisen" - Lk. 9:8 shows these ideas were being spoken of before the general end times resurrection. *In the gospel accounts, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, and if you are to cite those accounts, you are to cite the fact that his disciples had no idea what he was on about.* They didn't understand in the exact moment. It doesn't follow they didn't come to a different understanding later. In Mark 10:33-34 there really isn't any ambiguity. *Apart from anything else, if you believe that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, how did he know that he would be executed and people would be tricked into thinking he rose from the dead?* The point is if he predicted it, then the idea would be in his followers minds and influence their thinking. *Let's park this aside and say the appearances of Jesus that early sources confirm were all hallucinations, and that because Jesus said so, they thought he rose from the dead, are you seriously telling me either that the tomb was still full and people didn't bother to check, that the burial did not occur, or that, amidst these hallucinations, some secret plot to steal Jesus' body also took place, and some women came to anoint Jesus' body at the exact right time to discover the empty tomb.* I don't believe the empty tomb story is historical. You're assuming Jesus received a burial in a known location which begs the question in favor of historicity of the narrative. *Hume's already fallacious argument insisted upon rejecting the 'greater miracle'--well, what you're suggesting is a greater miracle than the resurrection* Not really. People can be mistaken, especially superstitious folks who believed dreams and visions were real.

[@randomusername2761]

​@@BabyBilliesBibleBonkers I'm not denying 1 Corinthians 15:20 to be true. I'm saying that the Jewish belief that preceded this would never have even imagined this happening--they imagined that it would happen suddenly for all people at the same time, not for one person towards the end. As for Luke 9:8, so what? Jesus was not believed to be 'one of the old prophets'--he was believed to be not only the Jewish messiah, but the living incarnation of God (Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians affirms the trinity). I have to say, I'd love to see where your argument here has been put forward by a well-renowned New Testament Scholar. You seem to believe the disciples would suddenly later work out what Jesus had meant when he was predicting his death and resurrection, but not at the time--that makes very little sense. As for Mark 10:33-34, Jesus never refers to himself as the 'Son of Man', only mentions that the son of man will die and rise again three days later. Regardless, why do you believe these things to have been actually said by Jesus? The vast majority of skeptical scholars say that all quotes where Jesus predicts his death and resurrection are simply made up by the authors of the gospels, that Jesus never claimed any divine status, and some say no messianic status at all. If he did truly think these things, that would be like him thinking he was a 'poached egg', as CS Lewis said, and if he was lying, he had no motivations at all to do this, as the implausibility that his lies would cause him to be revered for centuries on end is just too low. This leads me to my next point, in which I have to respond to a claim I struggle even to take seriously, that Jesus tricked the disciples' minds into thinking he would rise from the dead. Firstly, Jesus predicted his execution accurately, even if what was said in the many gospel verses in which is brought up was exaggerated. If you do take the predictions seriously, Jesus says in Mark 10:33-34 that he will be 'delivered over to the chief priests and enemies of the law' and that he will be 'handed over to the Gentiles'. That sounds like a pretty accurate description, given the role of both the Jews and Romans in Jesus' crucifixion. Secondly, you think a load of people would suddenly come to believe Jesus rose from the dead after three days because they thought he had said so and they saw some kind of vision? You're now suggesting that the accounts of Mary Magdalene witnessing an empty tomb or something else three days after Jesus' death, and taking were all just made up by the disciples, who told others? She hadn't heard of any of this, because Jesus had said this only to the disciples, and if they did make something up, why would they claim an illiterate, allegedly childless prostitute to be the primary witness to the resurrection, why not a more reliable eyewitness? The three days prediction is mentioned so many times in the gospels, so it wasn't just a one-time coincidence. I don't see how the circumstances of Jesus' resurrection could possibly be such that the predictions made by Jesus were correct. Again, I presume you're an atheist, so why are you even affirming that Jesus said anything of the kind? Why don't you say he made no such claims about himself and that the gospel authors made all this up? If the disciples made this up, the evidence in the Book of Acts, which is confirmed by extra-biblical sources (watch the youtuber Testify's many videos on this) is such that the apostles put their lives severely at risk for their faith, and at least two (almost certainly more than that) were executed. This didn't stop them from going to huge lengths to proclaim the news to both the Jews and Gentiles. Why would they risk their lives so much if they were making it up or had only poor evidence for believing in the resurrection, and why would the persecuted early Christians go along with this if there was no evidence for it? Are you seriously ignoring the majority of Biblical scholarly consensus and denying Jesus' burial? You don't deny a burial just because you don't have its exact location of it--that's a ridiculous double standard. If you did, you'd be denying a lot of burials in history. We have recently, in the 1990s and in the 2010s, encountered multiple Roman crucifixion victims who were buried, so it's not unsurprising that this happened to Jesus. The accounts of Tacitus, Josephus (both non-Christian sources), all four gospels, the creed of the earliest church, and many more Christian and secular contemporary sources, all confirm Jesus' burial. (If you think Josephus' writings were not genuine because the later copies mention Jesus' divinity, and Josephus remained a Jew, you might be interested to know that we have uncovered original manuscripts to show that they were only very slightly changed, and he did indeed affirm the burial). The empty tomb is highly credible--don't dismiss it outright--the opponents of Jesus' theories that 'the disciples stole the body' (don't even get me started on that one) presupposed the empty tomb--if the empty tomb was not well-established, why didn't they make something else up more plausible like what you're making up? You should realise that I wasn't just saying that hallucinations alone were a greater miracle than the resurrection, but that many, many hallucinations (Jesus appearing to 500 people in Paul's 1 Corinthians letter corresponds with the mountain-top appearance of Matthew 28; apologies if I have already mentioned this), alongside a tomb from which Jesus' body was stolen (though you deny this, even though it's well-established), alongside four made-up narratives of Jesus' resurrection which copied off each other (but made sure to put in some minor contradictions as well), is a greater miracle. Can people be mistaken? Yes, absolutely, yes, but you're applying some sort of 21st century prejudice against Jews of the first century, who knew just as well as we do that when people die, they don't come back, in order to suggest even a possibility of this having happened. Now, I could be overstating my case, which is why I would encourage you yourself to look into the philosophical arguments against Hume's theory (to get you started, it suggests that there is even any likelihood at all that Jesus rose, which, if atheism is true, is simply impossible, and fails to distinguish it with naturalistic explanations of miracles, which aren't miracles and do not invoke divine intervention). Given that this argument is so problematic, it shouldn't serve as a get-out for atheists who don't want to answer any more questions.

[@BabyBilliesBibleBonkers]

@@randomusername2761 *I'm saying that the Jewish belief that preceded this would never have even imagined this they imagined that it would happen suddenly for all people at the same time, not for one person towards the end* But that's false as the examples from Mk. 6:14-16 and Lk. 9:8 show. They obviously _could have_ imagined it otherwise they wouldn't claim John the Baptist or a prophet had risen from the dead prior to the end times resurrection apart from everyone else. *As for Luke 9:8, so what? Jesus was not believed to be 'one of the old prophets'--he was believed to be not only the Jewish messiah, but the living incarnation of God (Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians affirms the trinity).* You're missing the point. If they could envision an individual "prophet rising from the dead" before the general resurrection that everyone was supposed to be involved in then this refutes what you just said - they "couldn't imagine" it. Obviously, they did. *You seem to believe the disciples would suddenly later work out what Jesus had meant when he was predicting his death and resurrection, but not at the time--that makes very little sense.* You've never not understood something at first and then later figure it out or come to a different understanding? That's pretty common. *As for Mark 10:33-34, Jesus never refers to himself as the 'Son of Man', only mentions that the son of man will die and rise again three days later.* Lol! Who does that at the end of the narrative? That would be Jesus, right? Even if they didn't understand him as the Son of Man originally, it doesn't mean some didn't come to believe he was later on. *Regardless, why do you believe these things to have been actually said by Jesus? The vast majority of skeptical scholars say that all quotes where Jesus predicts his death and resurrection are simply made up by the authors of the gospels, that Jesus never claimed any divine status, and some say no messianic status at all.* Wow! All of a sudden you're appealing to what the skeptical scholars think! It seems you don't like it when what the New Testament says is inconvenient for your arguments. *If he did truly think these things, that would be like him thinking he was a 'poached egg', as CS Lewis said, and if he was lying, he had no motivations at all to do this, as the implausibility that his lies would cause him to be revered for centuries on end is just too low.* Again, you are the one who actually believes Jesus said these things, right? So what's the problem? It doesn't matter what I believe. *This leads me to my next point, in which I have to respond to a claim I struggle even to take seriously, that Jesus tricked the disciples' minds into thinking he would rise from the dead.* If they expected the general resurrection to occur any day now, then Jesus (the same guy who predicted the resurrection) was executed, it's not really hard to see how some might interpret that's what happened to him. *Firstly, Jesus predicted his execution accurately, even if what was said in the many gospel verses in which is brought up was exaggerated. If you do take the predictions seriously, Jesus says in Mark 10:33-34 that he will be 'delivered over to the chief priests and enemies of the law' and that he will be 'handed over to the Gentiles'. That sounds like a pretty accurate description, given the role of both the Jews and Romans in Jesus' crucifixion.* And so his followers wouldn't have any room for confusion.... *Secondly, you think a load of people would suddenly come to believe Jesus rose from the dead after three days because they thought he had said so and they saw some kind of vision?* Why not? Paul converted on the basis of a vision - Acts 26:19, Gal. 1:12-16. *You're now suggesting that the accounts of Mary Magdalene witnessing an empty tomb or something else three days after Jesus' death, and taking were all just made up by the disciples, who told others? She hadn't heard of any of this, because Jesus had said this only to the disciples, and if they did make something up, why would they claim an illiterate, allegedly childless prostitute to be the primary witness to the resurrection, why not a more reliable eyewitness?* Uh, Paul, Mark, and Luke all deny an appearance to Mary. You have conflicting stories in each resurrection account. No gospel appearance chronology matches Paul's from 1 Cor 15. The timing of the appearance to Mary in Matthew contradicts John. *The three days prediction is mentioned so many times in the gospels, so it wasn't just a one-time coincidence. I don't see how the circumstances of Jesus' resurrection could possibly be such that the predictions made by Jesus were correct. Again, I presume you're an atheist, so why are you even affirming that Jesus said anything of the kind? Why don't you say he made no such claims about himself and that the gospel authors made all this up?* I was making an internal critique of Mr. Craig's own beliefs. Looks like it was successful because you're actually doubting what the Bible says now! *If the disciples made this up, the evidence in the Book of Acts, which is confirmed by extra-biblical sources (watch the youtuber Testify's many videos on this) is such that the apostles put their lives severely at risk for their faith, and at least two (almost certainly more than that) were executed.* Yawn... *The empty tomb is highly credible--don't dismiss it outright--the opponents of Jesus' theories that 'the disciples stole the body' (don't even get me started on that one) presupposed the empty tomb--if the empty tomb was not well-established, why didn't they make something else up more plausible like what you're making up?* Actually, the opponents could have just been responding to the _Markan story_ of an empty tomb 40-50 years later. There is no evidence of the empty tomb story prior to Mark's composition which the *SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS* maintains was written around the year 70. With Matthew being written around 80 AD, that's 10 years for the story to circulate and people to make up their own counter claim without verifying this was an actual tomb that existed circa 30 AD. *You should realise that I wasn't just saying that hallucinations alone were a greater miracle than the resurrection, but that many, many hallucinations (Jesus appearing to 500 people in Paul's 1 Corinthians letter corresponds with the mountain-top appearance of Matthew 28; apologies if I have already mentioned this),* Mt. 28:16 says it was the "Eleven." There is no independent corroboration of an appearance to 500 people at once.

[@randomusername2761]

​@@BabyBilliesBibleBonkers You haven't responded to half my points here. Your whole premises rest on the presupposition that Jesus' burial was false. I've given you evidence that points towards the burial, which you haven't responded to. If the burial was genuine, then you have huge problems if you think the tomb was still full--people could check. Also, you're missing my point entirely about the three days prediction. I'm also not 'doubting what the bible says', I'm pointing out the double standard in that you use the gospels to verify that Jesus predicted his death, but dismiss them when they talk about the empty tomb and Jesus' other claims about himself. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying about Jesus' predictions--the predictions that you affirm to be true undeniably match up quite a bit with the actual events. As for the timings of the empty tomb prediction, they are actually very good in comparison to other historical events, so to dismiss them is naive--ten years is not enough for theories to 'develop', and you offered no indication as to why the eyewitnesses were successful in convincing even Jesus' opponents that there was an empty tomb. An empty tomb in of itself is not a miracle, so you're denying an ordinary claim on grounds of 'lack of evidence'. The evidence is all over the place. Read the Reasonable Faith article on it: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus. Well, of course, I critique what you believe about Jesus' claims. You have set out an argument that also presupposes Jesus' claims about himself as divine. I'm critiquing your beliefs, not mine. About Mt 28, I'm totally willing to drop that point--you're right. However, the creed which Paul is reforming 20 years after Jesus' death (20 years is already very good historically) has been dated within 1-3 years of Jesus' death (some have said within months, though this would presuppose Jesus' death being in 33 AD), and this makes the same claims about appearances, such as to the 500, adding the information 'most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep', which tells us that there were random eyewitnesses at the time, and to James, an unbeliever. Additionally, all the gospels except Mark reference Jesus' appearance to Peter, who denied Jesus three times, which is also mentioned in the original creed. What else matches up? Well, Jesus' appearance to the twelve and then to all the apostles. You're obsessing over really quite minor contradictions here, and ignoring how little they contradict at all. If I point to one source of information, you say it's not sufficient, and then when I point to several, you say they copied off each other. Oh yeah, and responding to a majorly important point--the martyrdom argument--with 'yawn' is not always the most convincing rebuttal--I don't like to spend much time arguing with people who don't actually respond to my arguments because they seem unconvincing to them.

[@marlenesmall5527]

The recent evidence of the Shroud should convince anyone with an open mind that 1) Jesus died 2) Jesus was resurrected Also if you want proof from the gospels, how about Thomas. Jesus told him to put his hand into his side and his finger into the wounds in his hands. Thomas's response "My lord and my God. " Be not unbelieving but believe.

[@ManoverSuperman]

Who says that story isn’t itself a later embellishment? I see no reason, taking the Synoptics at face value, to accept the genuineness of the story.

[@marlenesmall5527]

​@@ManoverSupermanSee that's the problem. It does not matter what evidence you see, you will find a reason to disbelieve. I find it less likely that people facing death for their beliefs would make up things. If you refuse to except contemporary accounts, you will have no reason to believe any of the details of history. By your standards we know only as much about events of 100 years ago as we do about events 100 thousand years ago. Only what we can deduce from physical evidence. Of course in the case of the resurrection God has provided us with physical evidence in the form of the shroud. Of course you can dispute the physical evidence the same way, by accusing scientists of lying or incompetence. I understand the impulse. I feel the same way about quantum theory. But as the saying goes, what is is.

[@Astromancerguy]

Does the existence of New York prove Spiderman exists?

[@SentinelArchivist]

You don't have to be nor become a Christian to recognize the super forceful point Craig is making here. The evidence we have simply is not well-explained by anything like a small series of isolated, individual "experiences" of a highly ambiguous character. Regardless of one's worldview, whatever caused the origination of Christianity certainly involved something a great deal more mysterious and unusual than Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis admits.

[@MarkPatmos]

Bart Ehrman said in one if his videos that Paul may have been persecuting Jesus' followers because Jesus died on a tree (a cross is regarded as a tree), which goes against Torah somewhere. So even Paul was prepared to radically change his beliefs in ways that could be personally dangerous, which would seem hard to believe if his faith wasn't genuine and he had no evidence to believe.

[@malirk]

I don't see why anyone trusts Paul.

[@nodiet8660]

Sheikh Bart Ehrman said somewhere else that Paul's conversion might have been motivated by the guilt he felt for killing and persecuting Christians which lead him to become a Christian himself who was convinced of his belief and helping/restoring the community through his contribution.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@nodiet8660I think Paul was present when Stephen was killed, who is mentioned in Acts.

[@bringemyoungpbuh4123]

@@malirk I don't see why anyone trusts Bart Ehrman.

[@malirk]

@@bringemyoungpbuh4123 Why do you distrust him?

[@ericbess4477]

Dr. Craig is wrong here. 'Resurrection' was not only a corporate, eschatological event, but an individual category. Many individuals in Jewish tradition were resurrected. The distinction Craig tries to make between these and the resurrection of Jesus is not articulated anywhere in the NT sources or in any related literature, Jewish or pagan, of the time for that matter. The distinction wasn't invented until the post-NT patristic debates over the resurrection of the flesh and comes to full expression in Augustine (Letter to Diogratias 102.2; Enchiridion 84; City of God 22.28). Theologians have just been repeating this ever since. You'll never find apologists giving any defense of this idea in their work (including Dr. Craig's work). They just uncritically assert it over, and over, and over again and use it as an apologetic device precisely in the way Craig does here. The fact of the matter is that Jesus's resurrection is conceptually identical to that of e.g., Lazarus. Dr. Craig doesn't understand that the talk about 'immortality', 'transformation', 'glory', and so forth doesn't define or describe what 'resurrection' is. These are discrete categories with different conceptual foundations and precedents. In Paul's case, they describe the fate of Jesus as a result of his transference to heaven (1Cor 15.47-9) and the fate of Christians as a result of reaching the future age (1Cor 15.50), whether they have died, and thus have to be resurrected, or whether they are still alive at that time (1Cor 15.51; 1Th 4.17) and thus don't need to be resurrected (demonstrating that it's not 'resurrection' carrying these concepts, but how Paul imagines the future age). There are several more reasons why Craig is wrong here, and I sent him a Q&A explaining why he is wrong, but received an email saying the question was too long, which was a fair criticism. In any case, Craig is still wrong and I would have no issues explaining that to his face.

[@mbb--]

N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God has about 800 pages explaining how this is wrong, especially the statement: "The distinction Craig tries to make between these and the resurrection of Jesus is not articulated anywhere in the NT sources or in any related literature, Jewish or pagan, of the time for that matter. " Have you read the book?

[@ericbess4477]

@@mbb-- Not only does Wright nowhere show anything I've said to be wrong (he's actually a good example of an apologist who uncritically asserts this over and over again: see The Resurrection of the Son of God, pp. 28, 205, 415, 689), he actually contradicts his own case. According to Wright, Jews were vague or non-committal on what 'resurrection' meant, and it's in fact Christians who invented the distinction (pp. 130f., 205, 315f., 342, 372-4, 551). For example (p. 205): >>The many references to resurrection never describe exactly what the risen body will be like... Nowhere do the pre-70 texts discuss how the body will be like, or unlike, the present one. Though by the time of Jesus it appears that most Jews believed in resurrection, there was no clarity as to what precisely it would look like or what sort of continuity and discontinuity there would be with present existence. This, as we shall see, is one of the striking contrasts between mainstream Jewish belief and the virtually uniform early Christian hope

[@ChopperChad]

When we use our faith to dictate history we betray both -Dr Justin Sledge.

[@narancauk]

2:50 You expect that ''rebels '' against ''The Jews'', respect or accept the doctrine of their ''enemies''. (Resurrections at the end of the world) ??????????????????

[@narancauk]

You think that Hamas accepts Tora???????????????????? :)

[@bringemyoungpbuh4123]

Bart is notorious for speculating, then pretending his speculation is factual, then pounding the table like his speculation is fact.

[@Marabarra94]

same with christians. it's a believe without evidence. some christian mythical stories.

[@derwolf7810]

​@@Marabarra94 Christian belief is based on the eyewitness testimony, which is considered evidence.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@derwolf7810just very bad evidence that isn’t commensurate to the claims.

[@malirk]

@@derwolf7810 What eye witnesses? Did you interview them? Did they witness all the events in their books?

[@derwolf7810]

​@@DM-dk7js Just out of curiosity, what's the scale you are using, to qualify for '(very) good' or '(very) bad' evidence and whether or not it 'is' versus 'isn't' commensurate to the claims? Or in other words i want to know (or be able to understand), what instances of (hypothetical) evidence, for the resurrection of Jesus, you would label as: - 'Very bad' evidence that is commensurate to the claims, - 'bad' evidence that isn't commensurate to the claims, - 'bad' evidence that is commensurate to the claims, - 'good' evidence that isn't commensurate to the claims, - 'good' evidence that is commensurate to the claims, - 'very good' evidence that isn't commensurate to the claims and - 'very good' evidence that is commensurate to the claims.

[@He.knows.nothing]

Okay, so all of the reports of people seeing Elvis post mortem means that Elvis also resurrected, right? It's not hard to imagine how absurdly poor this logic is.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Those Elvis sighters did not dedicate their lives to preaching about the still living as opposed to resurrected Elvis did they? None of them would continue to speak of their sighting if threatened with stoning or exile if they continued to talk of Elvis. None of them had their lives changed forever by their supposed sightings. James (Jesus' brother) did not believe in Jesus divinity, but after he died he became the leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem. Your analogy is silly.

[@Alieth]

@@markmooroolbark252Tens of thousands of Muslims have willingly blown themselves up for their beliefs, does that mean their beliefs are true? Ofc not As with the apostles, the fact that people die for their beliefs only shows their conviction on the beliefs not the truthfulness of it.

[@JadDragon]

God was born as Jesus, died on a cross for our sins, and rose physically to life again to conquer death and offer all the chance for redemption of sins and everlasting life. Praise Yahweh the one true God. Revealed Triune as Father, Spirit, and Jesus the Son, each member fully God of which there is only one. 3 distinct Persons coexistant, coequal, and coeternal sharing 1 Divine Essence. Jesus lives and is God, Christ, King. Repent of your sin and believe in Him and be saved to eternal life!

[@BiteSizeBible1]

Love WLC. Thanks for the podcast!

[@NightShade671]

Craig is very articulate and states things very well.

[@johnpro2847]

most of my celestial information is now fact based.. My reports come from NASA (space agency) , reliable and current...the praying class could never match that..amen

[@narancauk]

What about ELVIS ?

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

In every single group appearance story there are one or more persons described as doubting. Why does WLC never mention that verifiable fact?

[@kennethimmekus7788]

What does doubting suggest?

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@kennethimmekus7788 "doubting" suggests they did not believe in Jesus' resurrection. Jesus' apostles were doubting in both Jerusalem and in Galilee. That's his inner circle doubting a risen Jesus over time and in two different locations. _When they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted._ (Matthew 28:17) _Why are you troubled, why do doubts rise in your minds?_ (Luke 24:38 ) _and they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement..._ (Luke 24:41)

[@kennethimmekus7788]

Who exactly are we speaking of who doubted.? Did they remain in doubt? I’m just asking questions to get a picture of what you are saying. What convinced them eventually?

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

@@kennethimmekus7788 Matthew and Luke depict the doubters as some of Jesus' Apostles. It's not stated if they remained in doubt. There is a story in Acts of Peter telling the Jewish High Court he saw a risen Jesus, but insufficient information to suggest all the Apostles agreed with Peter. If these stories have any historical value they indicate some of Jesus' Apostles doubted his resurrection.

[@kimlersue]

No vision and certainly not hearing about someone elses vision..would ever be powerful enough that every one of these men died....because they refused to say it did not happen..but through torture and horrible deaths persisted in saying.."Jesus resurrected from the dead. I saw Him. Believe in Him..as he will do this for all who do. Every single one..to a man..chose death over denying this. What would convince Ehrman? Seeing Jesus!

[@Brucec-x6r]

Convincing just like everything else in reality Yet reality has no reality.very convincing evidence which is all dreamt up, like all convincing evidence is regarding any topic

[@Rosiedelaroux]

No he did not - he’s DEAD and he ain’t coming back either.

[@natokafa5238]

Atheistic historicism is the flimsiest position compared to christianity and mythicism. Bite the bullet

[@apsoles746]

"oBLiTErAtINg!" How humble and Christian. Seriously though are we 14 year old edgy atheists now?

[@craigsmith1443]

Is it untrue?

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

It's for clicks. I don't care for it either, but that's the nature of the beast with KZbin. Provocative title gets clicks and engagement, we're talking about it aren't we?

[@sdud1801]

It’s the wrapping paper for the real content. Everyone has to compete for attention with compelling, clickbaity titles. The sign isn’t the content, it’s just leading to somewhere.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@sdud1801 hopefully, but not always sadly. Just with video titles in general I mean.

[@BreakingMathPod]

@@craigsmith1443yes. This was not an obliteration. History is “fuzzy.” The claims and their criticisms are both limited in their ability to tell- with clarity- what happened. The word “obliterates” doesn’t serve the purpose of a good faith critique. I suspect it is a taunt.

[@stephenbailey9969]

Jesus is risen. And his power moves in the world spreading new life here and now. Where two or three are gathered in his name, there he is. May all his children reflect his love and light to others.

[@cesarsotov2]

Obliterating? Is that an overstatement?

[@alternativefactory7190]

Why would paul, a person who has persecuted Christians and put them to death, claim that he saw Jesus. He hadn't been friends with him. He didn't care for him by any means. Why would he have a vision of him unless Jesus really appeared to him. If he didn't have any emotional connection to Jesus like Peter or Mary, why would he think he saw him?

[@tomasrocha6139]

How would Paul see Jesus years after the supposed ascension and how would he recognize him?

[@alternativefactory7190]

@tomasrocha6139 it was really Jesus that appeared to him.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@tomasrocha6139 Because that is the promise of the Holy Spirit who came at Pentecost after the ascension of Jesus, to reveal Jesus and make him real. More real than if you saw Jesus in the flesh for it was only after by the Holy Spirit the apostles and hundreds of thousand of Christians would rather die as martyrs than deny Jesus.

[@malirk]

All we know about Paul is from Paul. Why trust Paul?

[@alternativefactory7190]

@malirk we know about Paul from the acts of the apostles. There is more historical evidence for the people of the bible than there is for Alexander the Great.

[@PerisaSekondo]

How does dr. Craig explain that the Jewish priests seemed to expect the resurection by employing a guard at the tomb; does their understanding of Jesus contradict the Jewish and the understanding of apostles that the resurection "should be" collective and apocalyptic event? Matthew: "The Guard at the Tomb 62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard." This is from dr. Craig: "According to Matthew's version, on Saturday, that is, on the Sabbath, which Matthew strangely circumnavigates by calling it the day after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate for a guard to secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and thus 'fulfilling' Jesus' prediction of rising on the third day. ".... "Perhaps the most serious difficulty with the guard story, however, is that if the disciples did not grasp the import of the resurrection predictions, then the Jews, who had much less contact with Jesus, would not have grasped them either. This is, however, essentially an argument from silence, since Matthew does not tell us how the Jews learned of Jesus' prediction. It assumes that we have recorded in the gospels all instances on which Jesus spoke of his resurrection or that if this prediction was conveyed to the Jews surreptitiously we must know about it. It is possible that the actions of the Jews were not motivated by any knowledge of resurrection prophecies at all, but were simply an afterthought to prevent any possible trouble that could be caused at the tomb by the disciples during the feast. Taken together these considerations have a cumulative weight, however, and in themselves would probably cause one to be sceptical about the historicity of the guard story." ((www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-guard-at-the-tomb)) How come this does not imply that the priests understood Jesus on His claims about His ressurection and the disciples did not? I do not get dr. Craigs explanation provided in the explanation in that post.

[@mattshieldssmma]

they weren't anticipating a resurrection, they were anticipating his body being stolen, that's why the guards were hired.

[@PerisaSekondo]

​@@mattshieldssmma Matthew: "The Guard at the Tomb 62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard." This is from dr. Craig: "According to Matthew's version, on Saturday, that is, on the Sabbath, which Matthew strangely circumnavigates by calling it the day after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate for a guard to secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and thus 'fulfilling' Jesus' prediction of rising on the third day. ".... "Perhaps the most serious difficulty with the guard story, however, is that if the disciples did not grasp the import of the resurrection predictions, then the Jews, who had much less contact with Jesus, would not have grasped them either. This is, however, essentially an argument from silence, since Matthew does not tell us how the Jews learned of Jesus' prediction. It assumes that we have recorded in the gospels all instances on which Jesus spoke of his resurrection or that if this prediction was conveyed to the Jews surreptitiously we must know about it. It is possible that the actions of the Jews were not motivated by any knowledge of resurrection prophecies at all, but were simply an afterthought to prevent any possible trouble that could be caused at the tomb by the disciples during the feast. Taken together these considerations have a cumulative weight, however, and in themselves would probably cause one to be sceptical about the historicity of the guard story." ((www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-guard-at-the-tomb)) How come this does not imply that the priests understood Jesus on His claims about His ressurection and the disciples did not? I do not get dr. Craigs explanation provided in the explanation in that post.

[@mjt532]

I've listened to Bart, and I imagine that he would say that there was not one single Jewish idea about the resurrection. He would say there were multiple "Judaisms" just like later there were multiple "Christianities." I'm fairly certain I've heard him make this response to Craig's argument. I don't know what the response to that would be. The other alternative explanation is that all religions start out as something unexpected... or else there wouldn't be a need for a new religion.

[@CosmicalChrist]

The burden of proof is on Ehrman to prove his claim, cos that's what they're.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

that's what heretics do. They try to make groups seem more divided than they actually were, to make their own ideas seem more palatable

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Whether or not the Jewish conception of the resurrection was fragmented (reasonable claim, the Bible itself shows differing beliefs on resurrection between Pharisees and Saducees) gives no credence to the claim that some would have been less resistant to the idea of a bodily ressurection or a suffering messiah. Both groups i mentioned still balked at the idea.

[@CosmicalChrist]

@@Papa-dopoulos Lol, your point would be tenable in another universe, not this. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't have different views on the resurrection. The Pharisees affirmed the resurrection, while the sadducees outrightly denied the resurrection of the dead. We aren't told they believed in a different form of resurrection. We only know they rejected the doctrine.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

@@CosmicalChrist What kind of point are you trying to extract from this? You just agreed with me while trying to frame it as an objection lol. Let me rephrase if it helps: The fact that the Pharisees believed in collective end-times resurrection while the Sadducees denied the prospect outright, both of which you and I agree on, does not mean that either group would have been more willing to say “Oh, so it’s just one guy, the messiah who was supposed to conquer his enemies, and not at the end of the world? Cool.” I’m so confused as to what you’re getting at lol. Send help!

[@Marabarra94]

this is just lying. Paul talks about spiritual ressurrection. every scholar agrees on this.

[@MarkPatmos]

He witnessed a spiritual resurrected Jesus on road to Damascus, but this was after Jesus' Ascension so it actually makes more sense

[@YouTubehatesconservativespeech]

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (NASB 2020): For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. As Justin Martyr once said "how does something resurrect unless it first dies?" It was not the Spirit of Jesus that died but the flesh." Notice what Paul says, Christ died and was buried and then rose on the third day. What was buried because it died?(His body) and what was raised on the third day? (His body). His body was raised on the 3rd day so it would not see decay -Psalm 16:10 (NASB 2020): For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. It is not the Spirit that decays but the body. John 2:19-21 (NASB 2020): Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking about the temple of His body. Jesus said that if you destroy this temple that he would raise it up on the third day, but John says He was speaking of the temple as His body ,not His spirit. Jesus appeared to His disciples in His physical body showing them His nailed scared hands and the piercing wound in His side and told them to touch Him and said a spirit does not have flesh and blood as you see that I have. John 20:19-20 (NASB 2020): Now when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were together due to fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. John 20:24-25 (NASB 2020): Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” John 20:27-28 (NASB 2020): Then He said to Thomas, “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, but be a believer.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God! What did Thomas touch the hands of His Spirit the wounded side of His non-coporeal Spirit😂😂😂. If the resurrection was spiritual then what was the purpose of an empty grave?😂. The body could have remained on the slab in the tomb and the disciples could have just said He raised spiritually.😂. Why were the clothes neatly folded and placed away? Surely a spiritual should have left the clothes in the say way that His corpse laid.😂 Jesus even ate food with His disciples in His resurrection body to prove His physical presence 😂. If the resurrection was one of a spiritual nature then why would Jesus appear to His disciples in a crucified body? Wouldn't that be deceitful of Him?😂. What point was Jesus trying to make when He appeared to them in a body with the same wounds that was suffered during the crucifixion?😂 To say that Jesus did not raise physically from the dead but spiritually is first rank heresy and will condem you to hell. You cannot receive salvation unless you believe in the physical bodily resurrection of Christ Romans 10:8-10 (NASB 2020): But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation The so-called experts that you say agree that the resurrection was only spiritual are leading people to hell. Again how does something resurrect unless it first dies. The Spirit of Christ did not die, and therefore did not have need of a resurrection, but His Body did and was in need of a resurrection. The Spirit never died but the body did and now His body has been raised up .

[@theresurrectionexpert]

​@@MarkPatmos Paul's letters don't actually reference a separate and distinct ascension. That's in Acts.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@theresurrectionexpert It's also in gospels. But if Paul claimed to have seen a physically resurrected Jesus, this would be an obvious contradiction to gospels and Acts.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

@@MarkPatmos It's in Luke's gospel who was the author of Acts.

[@AnonymousStranger-up5he]

Ehrman seems to suffer from believing his own assumptions and ignoring refutations of his ideas.

[@billybobwombat2231]

An argument between a rationalist and those from the nut job house

[@astrol4b]

Occam razor Option one: a human corpse defying Entropy and thermodynamics Option two: a bunch of apocalyptic jews thinking that their visions actually meant that the apocalypse was actually started and the messiah was the first to be resurrected.

[@derwolf7810]

I hope you are no Christian, because that doesn't seem to be ... usefull.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

Option three: the truth, the source of all the rationality the universe is based on became flesh to pay a price higher than what took to create the whole of the universe so that he could substitute himself for our sins to redeem us to him eternally solving the problem of sin for eternity as he himself promised he would do many times prior.

[@DM-dk7js]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeepdefinitely not that one

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@DM-dk7js The requirement of God for the universe and fact said God said he would do it and did it is a three point factor authentication for you already.

[@malirk]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep How do you know God said he would do it? It seems your evidence for your belief in the Bible is the Bible.

[@les2997]

Ehrman claims that Jesus wasn't buried in a grave and yet we have Jesus' burial cloths - the Shroud of Turin.

[@kulupterkutuk7369]

The shroud was denounced as a forgery by the bishop of Troyes in 1389. Nicolotti, Andrea (2019). The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World's Most Famous Relic. Translated by Jeffrey M. Hunt and R. A. Smith. Baylor University Press.

[@davidqatan]

How is Paul’s gospel and information about Jesus the same as the disciples if they’re all hallucinating about different things? Why does Paul have a vision about a man who is just the leader of people whom Paul legitimately believed were heretics of the faith?

[@theresurrectionexpert]

Here is how to explain the origin of belief in a dying and rising Messiah in the first century without a resurrection actually taking place. All you need to do is combine the empirically observed phenomenon of cognitive dissonance with the specific historical circumstances and beliefs of first century apocalyptic Jews. Step 1: The tradition found in 4Q521 tells us the time of the Messiah will coincide with "wondrous deeds," one of which was raising the dead. So this establishes a connection (in some form or another) of the Messiah with the end times Resurrection. This tradition actually ends up being quoted in Lk. 7:22 and Mt. 11:2-5 so we know the Jesus sect had this expectation. Step 2: Jesus was a Messianic figure who preached and predicted the Resurrection. Apologists cannot deny this since their own Scripture says so. This shows that the idea would have been implanted in his followers minds. Step 3: Both Jesus and his followers believed they were living in the end of times *which is exactly when the Resurrection was thought to take place.* This is supported by the gospels themselves, Paul's letters and other apocalyptic literature that we can compare the gospels to. Step 4: Jesus was suddenly executed. Step 5: Enter cognitive dissonance (which has been empirically observed in other religious groups), plus a little bit of theological innovation and a biased reading of the Old Testament looking for an answer and voila! It was "foretold" all along - 1 Cor 15:3-4, Rom. 16:25-26! Thus, we can now see how the Jesus sect applied their already anticipated belief in the Resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it - 1 Cor 15: 20. Step 6: Soon some of his followers claimed to have visions or spiritual experiences of Jesus which is supported by the fact that Paul calls his experience a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) and a "vision from heaven" (Acts 26:19) which he does not distinguish in nature from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15: 5-8. This provides a proof that physical experiences on earth with a resurrected body *were not required* in order to believe a person had been resurrected. Steps 5 and 6 may be interchangeable. If the imminent anticipation of the end times Resurrection was already part of Jesus and his followers background beliefs then it's no wonder some came to the belief Jesus had been resurrected just a "tad bit early." It's straightforward logic - expecting the Resurrection to occur any day now -> Jesus was preaching the Resurrection -> Jesus suddenly dies -> Jesus must have been resurrected! Apologists who maintain that the followers of Jesus would have abandoned the movement should check out other examples where religious/apocalyptic groups have their expectations falsified but then somehow reinterpret the events and update their beliefs in order keep on believing. See Festinger's book "When Prophecy Fails" as well as the origin of the Seventh Day Adventists (The Millerites), Sabbatai Sevi, and the Lubavitch. *As a side note, the "wondrous deeds" in 4Q521 would also explain *why we have* stories of Jesus performing the same exact miracles in the gospels. Obviously, if you are trying to present Jesus as the expected Messiah, then you better make sure you depict him performing the miracles the Messiah was expected to perform! Understood this way, the Jesus stories are just Jewish Messianic propaganda. The data of the miracle stories is equally expected even if Jesus never performed them in historical reality.

[@oldbenkenob1]

It seems odd that Jesus' tomb was empty and that reports of Jesus' resurrection were circulating within days or weeks of his death and that men who helped spread those reports were willing to risk their health and safety to spread them.

[@20july1944]

@the expert: So do you agree with Dr. Douchebag that Paul's experience was 3 years afer the crucifixion?

[@MetalByzantine]

“The resurrection expert”. Can you get any more cringe

[@20july1944]

@@MetalByzantine We should be honored to have an "expert" in our midst, to supp from his expertise.

[@MetalByzantine]

@@20july1944 lol it’s so funny. I mean his whole argument was cope

[@herbertwraczlavski896]

Jesus appears to me every day, he says Craig is wrong.

[@vincentmcnabb939]

They mocked Christ on the cross, too.

[@tomasrocha6139]

If Jews believed the Resurrection of the Dead was only a corporate event after the end of the world how come the Gospels report the raising from the dead of Lazarus, Jairus' daughter and the Saints?

[@red20753]

To be fair those resurrections are not of the same kind as the resurrection the jews were waiting for. It's expected those people mentioned in the Gospels (assuming they are historic) would die again eventually. Jesus would not

[@mdsmd55]

They were only raised to life as they had known prior to their death. Not a resurrected body like Jesus, which had both physical properties (he ate) and metaphysical properties (he suddenly appeared in a room).

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Why is the assumption that they would be flatly dishonest regardless of their beliefs? If I didn’t believe in dragons, then I saw and touched one myself, guess what. Now I believe.

[@enumaelish6751]

*Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28) Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27) Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30) *He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:* The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34) There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32) He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel. *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62) Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51) *Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also look up: Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*

[@bryansphere6359]

I can already hear the waaaah bulence!!! Atheist troll comments activated.

[@kat8838]

Faith is belief in things unseen. We’re told to be as little children to enter the kingdom. It’s harder for orphans or people abused by their parents. We see Jesus in other people. It’s hard to have mercy for enemies and pray for them especially if we’re abused. We have no choice or it kills us and God has mercy for them over us.

[@valveman12]

Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe in something with zero evidence to support it!

[@Marabarra94]

mythical ancient book without any evidenceq

[@mikescollard6499]

​@@valveman12You can't do anything without faith. Let's begin with faith in yourself to do anything. Otherwise you'd still be crawling.

[@valveman12]

@@mikescollard6499 What do you think I have faith in? I have knowledge that leads me to a reasonable outcome. Example: When I fly on a plane, do I have faith in the pilots? No! Why? I know the pilots are well-trained, and the percentage of fatalities is low. Not faith...knowledge, which leads me to a reasonable conclusion.

[@mikescollard6499]

@@valveman12 Was it a Boeing?

[@roehlanobriones3179]

My neighbor convinced me of his ghost story better than Craig does.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

Paul most likely was not talking about physical appearances of a resurrected body like we see in Luke and John for instance. Originally, these were thought of as Jesus "appearing" from heaven in a spiritual sense. The earliest terminology does not offer any evidence the appearances actually occurred in reality. This is a huge problem for the Resurrection argument because if the physical appearances don't develop until later then the data looks like like an obvious legend developing. "Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5-8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven. This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1Cor 15:5-8; Luke 24:34 and 1Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15.

[@MarkPatmos]

Paul didn't witness a physically resurrected Jesus but a spiritual appearance on road to Damascus. But because this occurred after Jesus' Ascension it actually makes more sense. If Paul claimed to have seen a physical appearance of Jesus this is something that wouldn't correspond with gospels.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

@@MarkPatmos He uses the same verb for his spiritual appearance as he does for the other appearances. No distinction is made.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@theresurrectionexpertPaul didn't experience a physically resurrected Jesus any way you want to interpret it.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

@@MarkPatmos Correct. I'm using Paul's firsthand testimony to refute the idea the others were physical. He seems to equate the appearance to him with that of the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. So if his was spiritual then it follows the others were as well, or at least they're ambiguous at best.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@theresurrectionexpertIt depends on whether he discussed this with those who had witnessed Jesus' resurrection before Ascension. Even though you might think he would have, you still can't be sure.

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

You misrepresented Ehrman’s statements as a claim of “what actually happened”. He never claimed that was what actually happened. He said that was the “most plausible explanation” which is quite different. Also, by omitting the what he was responding to you took him out of context. This video appears to be intentionally deceptive. Do better.

[@flavioa2252]

The beginning is literally Erhman saying this is what I THINK happened. Pay closer attention, do better.

[@michaeltamajong2988]

@@flavioa2252they always come with a bias. It's no wonder that he did not hear that. These are people who will argue with Erhman about what he himself said.

[@flavioa2252]

@@michaeltamajong2988 yep 100%

[@kirkp_nextguitar]

@@flavioa2252 “I think X is true” is a much different statement than “X is actually true”. Misrepresenting one statement to mean the other is dishonest or ignorant.

[@dougbryant5417]

It could maybe be all made up. Have you considered that?

[@charitysimon-peraboh5555]

I can't remember the last time i watched your videos, what happened? I had literally forgotten your face with the channel name

[@gmlr]

Cam is on a roll! „Demolishing“ and „obliterating“ atheist arguments left and right and at the same time showcasing the creme de la creme of apologetics!

[@erikhaynes5506]

Who really knows. My take is that if Mormonism could get off the ground somehow with people attesting to absolutely ridiculous things like angels and golden plates then anything is possible. The belief Jesus rose most likely had a human explanation rather than a supernatural one.

[@Marabarra94]

you have weak one sided evidence out of christian sources. just admit that it is a believe.

[@derwolf7810]

Does any Christian claim that it's no belief? Beside that usually knowledge is defined as sth along the lines of justified true belief (or would you define knowledge to be something else?). You gave a valid (though abstract) justification for the truthness of that belief (= "weak one sided evidence"), so according to that definition it would also count as knowledge.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

The evidence for Jesus and the resurrection is exemplary. The arguments by current scholars who know it and don't believe are "I just don't want to believe." That is a far cry from what you just presented.

[@Marabarra94]

@@derwolf7810 they see the resurrection as an actual historical event based or christian sources. we don't know who wrote the gospels, they where written in another time in a different language and country. they see that as historical evidence is strange. it's clearly not.

[@Marabarra94]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep we don't even know who wrote the gospels. only christians claim he ressurected. those aren't independent credible sources. how convenient that only christians saw him resurrected. the gospels contradict eachother. if you believe them then it's because you want to.

[@derwolf7810]

@@Marabarra94 I'm also a Christian and i would find it strange if someone would consider himself a Christian (in the usual sense) despite not believing in the historicity of the resurrection. That we don't know, who exactly wrote the gospels, that they are written in another language, doesn't change whether or not they contain recorded eyewitness testimony of actual history. That they are written in another time (and maybe distant place) is indeed a possible indicator for (at least) inaccuracies (and worse). But in my opinion they got too many details right, that are hard to replicate like for example the popularity of names in the times of Jesus. I woder how you have determined to know that "it's clearly not" historical evidence.

[@madmax2976]

And at the end of the day, all we have are some ancient stories. No mattered how it's spruced up, fluffed up, or how many shiny ribbons folks try to stick on it, all we've got are some ancient stories. If that's all someone needs to believe someone rose from the dead, that's entirely their prerogative. I maintain it's it not unreasonable to not accept such claims without a whole lot more.

[@MagnusVonBlack]

If you are content without God, he will respect that and leave you be. Forever.

[@madmax2976]

@@MagnusVonBlack If God is a rational, kind being, I have nothing to fear. If God is the petty monster many believers make him out to be, then no one is safe and any surreptitious gloating is useless.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@madmax2976 It's almost like God came and paid a price greater than what it cost him to create the universe so that you don't have to be eternally separated from him. But lets gloss over the whole reason he did that and call him a petty monster. lol...

[@madmax2976]

@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep Well, to me it's almost like people think they can depict God as a petty monster that needs to first have a bloody sacrifice before it can forgive people and not have to torture them for eternity - an affliction which rational, decent and civil people don't have - and then have the audacity to blame others for the monster they have proposed. I suppose they figure if they just slap the word "love" on it liberally enough, that'll somehow change what they've actually advocated.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@madmax2976 The concept of substitution is quite simple and rational if you'd bother to grasp it. You are willingly in denial as you just showed from the unwillingness to even grasp the simplistic concept of this discussion. Food for thought.

[@s2a1ha1j2a]

Nice work gentleman. Blessings

[@malirk]

*Possible Answer 1:* Paul and others made it all up. Some of the stories from people are actually made up. As in, the women at the tomb never happened, it was just a story people told at that time.

[@20july1944]

Brian Stevens: how would such a lie get started? Sure, anyone can tell a lie, but who would believe it when there were many around to contradict it?

[@20july1944]

Why would Paul make it up, Brian?

[@malirk]

@@20july1944 I think Paul was the start of it. Paul wrote about Jesus but didn't have things like a virgin birth. This then got aggrandized as time went on.

[@malirk]

@@20july1944 You also don't see Paul talking about Jesus healing or doing miracles. Maybe it's because if Paul was writing to the people of that time, they'd be like, "Wait a minute!" because they'd know someone in that area who could confirm it didn't happen.

[@malirk]

@@20july1944 You then get to John which is around 70 years after Jesus left this world. John is a completely different gospel and very different from the writings of Paul. You've got water in to wine (A classic), healing of Lazarus, catching fish, walking on water and feeding 5000... to name a few. Basically John is the book that really goes over 9000 when it comes to Jesus doing miracles.

[@Maranatha275]

Thanks for your vids Cameron they have been incredible.

[@malirk]

*Possible Answer 2:* Someone faked being Jesus after his death. Maybe it was Thomas the Apostle, also known as Didymus. Maybe he was a twin to Jesus and thus looked a lot like him and convinced people he was Jesus. Definitely more likely than someone being the sun of God.

[@20july1944]

No one was smart enough to ask where Thomas was, Brian Stevens?

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

I could possibly see this partially being alternative explanation(although I am not convinced of or think it likely). But without Thomas. That just sounds like an incredibly far reach....

[@Marabarra94]

or they just invented an empty grave. probably never was a grave. mythical stories.

[@20july1944]

@@Marabarra94 So how did Christianity get started?

[@malirk]

@@20july1944 They tossed out his gospel and called it a gnostic gospel. The gospels were written 50-70 years after the events. It's more possible than him being the son of God / also God.

[@adamstewart9052]

What WLC pointed out at the end exposes one flaw out of many in the objection "dead people stay dead" by pointing out Jesus is the one who comes back before everyone else.

[@johnpro2847]

near death experience that took on a life of its own and formed a massive industry that no other can match..jesus would be prideful of his achievements..but he could also be very embarrassed as he is nor really a god,his followers made him into a god..amen

[@markmusatau1929]

Yup, because there are no miracles, no afterlife, no god, universe just blew up out of nowhere and trust science. Come on, man. Do you really think a near death experience began a counter cultural, completely self-less movement that cost early Christians everything. Read some books man, for goodness sake. I am not even saying Christian conservative ones, read the liberal ones too, the background history and culture of second temple Palestine, Rome, Greek thought only reemforce the credibility of Christianity.

[@JadDragon]

Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑