The Resurrection: Fact or fiction? Harry Amos vs Joe Boot • Hosted by Ruth Jackson

[@akprice17]

I can’t believe they put an ad in the middle of his opening statement.

[@danlopez.3592]

Did this guy really bring up Socrates? Yes, if Socrates, claimed he rode to heaven on a wing horse, we would absolutely doubt it.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Boot explained the difference between legendary styles of writing and the literal. Are you suggesting Jesus didn't exist or that any reference to his resurrection are invented stories?

[@danlopez.3592]

@@markmooroolbark252 we don’t know for certain if Jesus existed or not, but for someone to exist at that time and claim to be divine, is not out of the ordinary, it happened all the time and still happens so it has a decent degree of probability of being true. . For magic to happen that will always be the least likely probable answer to an event. The most probable explanation is that Mohammed did not fly to heaven on a wing course, Hades does not rule the underworld, and Jesus did not rise from the dead. If you believe that any of these happen, then by definition, you are believing the least likely explanation

[@markmooroolbark252]

@@danlopez.3592 We do know. Those who doubt Jesus' existence are considered fringe conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked. Why, given the circumstances, is Jesus resurrection the least likely explanation for the birth of Christianity? It is in fact, the only explanation which makes sense of what took place three days later. Science was happy to believe in an eternal universe until the Big Bang was discovered. Why was it okay to believe matter could always simply have existed without a beginning but insane to posit the notion that a supreme being created the universe- a mind.

[@danieladsett2089]

​​@@danlopez.3592the claim that supernatural explanations are always the least likely explanations is an a priori assumption, not a conclusion reached through evidence

[@danlopez.3592]

@@danieladsett2089 are you really saying that a supernatural or magical event is statistically more probable than a naturalistic one?

[@theunlearnedastronomer3205]

These resurrection debates end up covering some of the same ground over and over again, so to some extent I agree with Boot: it comes down to worldview, and if you are at the least highly skeptical of miracles, you will also be highly skeptical of the resurrection. I will try to make 2 points I have not heard mentioned. 1. Let's play a game of Guess Who?: There was a 1st century apocalyptic preacher who taught the coming kingdom of God. He was arrested and executed, and there were rumors that he came back from the dead. His teaching was continued after his death by some of his followers. Jesus? Ok, yes, but 1st, there was John the Baptist. The paradigm was already in place. Jesus caught fire (because of Paul), and John, even though the Mandaeans still revere him to this day, mostly died out. 2. There are many natural explanations for the resurrection "appearances," and there is no good reason to fixate on hallucinations or grief visions on the part of skeptics, or to insist only one can be considered at a time. A. Mistaken identity (the gardener, the stranger on the road). B. Dream Visitations C. Mass hysteria (Fatima is example) D. Psychotic episodes (Mary Magdalene may have been mentally ill). Group dynamics would reinforce confirmation bias as having an experience grants status within the floundering cult. E. And yes, just outright fraud. Paul has enough cues in his writings that he is an extremely insecure, manipulative person and there seem to have been accusations of mismanaging funds. Besides that, his alleged experience occurred years after Jesus died, so he certainly is not a valid witness to the resurrection, despite his claim. The typical game is to introduce the "facts" that everyone agrees on and then to claim that a miracle is the best explanation among all the alternative hypotheses. This approach is absolute hogwash. If I have an all-powerful God card, it will be the best play in any situation, and there will be no need to try and explain or analyze anything. Even though apologists for some reason think Hume doesn't have anything to say to them anymore- a miracle should only be invoked if it's rejection would be more miraculous. Put another way: Is it possible to explain events without a miracle? If so, then of course natural explanations hold.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

The resurrection narratives are clearly stories that developed over time. Reliable eyewitness testimony does not account for how the narratives evolve. We expect consistency when it comes to reliable reports. In Paul, the nature of the appearances are ambiguous because he does not tell us they occurred before or after Jesus went to heaven. He seems to equate his "vision" with the other "appearances" - _"Jesus appeared to them and appeared to me last."_ This is very important because Paul is our earliest source. There is no evidence for the physical touching episodes or a witnessed ascension in Paul's letters. This is quite unexpected because Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians who doubted the Resurrection of the dead - 1 Cor 15:12-19 and also explain the type of body - v. 35. So the details look very conspicuous in their absence. Mark adds the empty tomb narrative but does not narrate what the appearances were like. Matthew adds an appearance to two women, followed by an appearance to the Eleven in Galilee. He also adds a great earthquake, descending angel, and dead people coming out of their graves that "appeared to many." How did the other authors miss this stuff? Luke erases the Galilean appearance tradition and only has Jesus appear near and around Jerusalem. The appearance is an obvious anti-spiritual polemic (Lk. 24:39) which looks apologetically motivated. After this amazing episode, Jesus is witnessed floating to heaven! Then Acts says Jesus appeared for 40 days! John says Jesus could teleport through locked doors, narrates the Doubting Thomas story and then has another appearance in Galilee involving a miraculous catch of fish. So are there any other examples of reliable eyewitness testimony evolving this much in detail over time from other sources which come from people who all experienced the same events? I don't think so.

[@martinploughboy988]

Seeing the oldest of the narratives was still within the Apostles lifetime, how can you say they evolved? Different writers had different purposes, that's why they included different events.

[@theresurrectionexpert]

@@martinploughboy988 The stories being written within the apostles lifetimes doesn't mean any of them heard the stories. That would require close proximity to composition and circulation which you are assuming.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@theresurrectionexpert The writers would have had close proximity, else how would they have access to witnesses?

[@resurrectionnerd]

Most scholars date the gospels after 70 AD and believe they were written in foreign countries. So you'd have to show the witnesses were still around.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@resurrectionnerd Then they are wrong. There is no evidence that the synoptics were written after 70AD & Luke specifically states he consulted witnesses to write his gospel.

[@jordanjohnson9415]

Wow! Joseph Boot is on Unbelievable! Love that.

[@Upat4]

I love Harry Amos.

[@gybx4094]

We Christians need to be honest about this. We cannot prove scientifically that the resurrection occurred. We don't know the exact tomb where he was buried, so we cannot point to an exact empty tomb. This is a matter of faith not scientific evidence. We don't have much written about it outside of our own scriptures. We can't use our own scriptures, because that would be a form of circular reasoning. So, let's be honest about this being a matter of faith, not scientific evidence.

[@mattdonnelly1972]

Nice to see Alex O'Connor's ginger brother in this debate 😀

[@matt_guy_here]

Ruth's choice of shoe for this event clearly indicates she sides with Joseph Boot 🙂🙂Thanks for the upload. 👍 Great discussion.

[@resurrectionnerd]

So Mark (original ending at 16:8), which is traditionally ascribed to being Peter's testimony, leaves out the part where Peter runs to check the tomb, the description of the resurrection appearance, the immediate appearance to the women after they leave the tomb (according to Matthew) and the witnessed Ascension? He also leaves out any mention of an appearance in Jerusalem? Matthew also leaves out any mention of an appearance in Jerusalem and says some even "doubted" the appearance in Galilee - Mt. 28:17. How could they doubt if they had literally witnessed Jesus the same day of the Resurrection as John says - Jn. 20:19? The best explanation of this evidence and evolution of the story is that the Jerusalem appearances in Luke and John are later legends.

[@jazzffer]

The debater is a Christian because somebody has shared him the gospel, not because of the reasons he was saying

[@dougsmith6793]

The manned mood landings are far more believable / credible / plausible / validatable than the resurrection.

[@BarrySometimes]

The fact that we've been having this conversation for roughly 2500 years, suggests the latter

[@jeffnichols7964]

1) why is that? 2) math is off

[@BarrySometimes]

@@jeffnichols7964 Because when every type of believer, from christian to muslim, deist to theist, hindu to animist, expend inordinate amounts of energy, the world over, for many thousands of years in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of a god or multiple gods & fail, time & time again, it’s rational to be unconvinced by claims of gods existence. Much the same way that searching Loch Ness for a further 3000 years only to fail in demonstrating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster only increases the probability of its nonexistence.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

You're off by about 500 years, but okay.

[@BarrySometimes]

@@highroller-jq3ix Correction appreciated! I should have said 'the fact that we've been having this conversation for roughly 1,992.5 years, suggests the latter'. Did Jesus die 1,991, 1,992, 1,993, or 1,994 years ago?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@BarrySometimes According to Christians, Jesus never actually died at all.

[@jonathangardner3121]

I'm 41 minutes in so far. Joe keeps bringing up Harry's world view and how that is influencing his conclusions. But he doesn't seem concerned about his own worldview influencing his conclusions. Also, Joe fails to appreciate the fact that Harry shared his world view until the evidence, or lack thereof, lead to Harry changing his mind. So Harry's worldview at the time had nothing to do with how he arrived at his current conclusion. Infact Harry's former supernatural worldview slowed down his arriving at the conclusions he eventually arrived at.

[@MATTHEWJOHNBELL]

Joe brings that up at about the 70 min mark.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

Yeah this is a big issue I noticed with religious apologists. For some reason they can't fathom that someone once believed what they believe and started their deconversion when they still believed, not after obviously. Sure there are some people that were lifelong atheists, but from my observation most people there are atheists used to be theist.

[@geofpichora4521]

We did hear about world views but that seems secondary to Joe’s solid apologetic analysis of the concerns presented by Harry.

[@geofpichora4521]

So awesome to have two people sharing their different view with strong convictions, clear arguments and in such a civil exchange. The world needs this.

[@martinploughboy988]

@@whatwecalllife7034 No one ever ceases being a Christian. If someone claims to have once been a Christian then they were never a Christian in the first place.

[@SAMBUT]

it's sad how Christians get still intimidated by the claims of earlier or more reliable manuscripts - I have collected videos worth watching in a playlist, 'Untold History of the Bible', worthwhile also, 'some picks in a sequence' - "compelling" may as well be applicable if you give that research careful consideration

[@martinploughboy988]

It's not a matter of intimidation, it's the desire to ensure we have what was the originally text.

[@SAMBUT]

@martinploughboy988 what I mean, it's ashame that the research mentioned above is not more widely known

[@martinploughboy988]

@@SAMBUT It would be good to educate Christians on the history of both the Bible & the Church. Something that Premier could use their facilities for.

[@SAMBUT]

@martinploughboy988 there are also things that, for obvious reasons, get slandered as conspiracy theory - it is maybe challenging to dig into these areas

[@jazzffer]

The women were not witnesses of the resurrection. They were just witnesses of an empty tomb. Apostle Paul was not a witness either, he had a personal experience decades after Jesus' death. So technically, there were no eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus when the said event happened.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Just eyewitnesses who spoke and ate with the man who had been crucified a few days before.

[@abedetesfa5158]

I'm not sure what you mean. The account of Mary speaking with Jesus on the day of His Resurrection. The account of the disciples talking with Him on their way to Emaus. The hundreds who saw Him after His Resurrection. I'm a present-day court, these MIGHT be dismissed as hearsay. In the context of ancient history, all we can possibly have is the testimony of those who were there as none of us could have been there personally. It has been pointed out that people often apply a level of skepticism to the Bible that they choose to apply nowhere else and to nothing else in their lives. Western society has almost completely swallowed Eastern philosophy and its religious practices without such skepticism, often touting the "beneficial" teachings associated with them. I believe the main reason for the discrepancy in the levels of skepticism isn't because Christianity is any less "beneficial" in its teachings, but because Jesus asserted that He is God and that the way to peace and paradise isn't doing what I want, but denying my selfish inclinations in favor of doing what is right by His absolute standard. Because this idea cuts against our grain, we have lectures, podcasts, debates, etc seeking to discredit or reinterpret Jesus and the Bible. Let an "original" text be discovered that states we can do what we want and still get to heaven, and there would be no more issue.

[@supersmart671]

1 Corinthians 15 and listen to Gary Habermas..

[@theunlearnedastronomer3205]

Great points. I would only add 1) Paul claims to have had an experience (meaning, we must first evaluate his claim before we concede he had some conversionary experience and then attempt to address the nature of the experience), and 2) While her discovering the empty tomb may be legendary in nature anyway, Mary Magdalene was likely mentally ill, so her reliability as a witness would be low.

[@California1973-o1d]

The resurrection is total bunk. It shouldn't be the subject of a debate any more than the existence of fairies and leprechauns should be the subject of a serious discussion.

[@jonathangardner3121]

If Jesus is all-powerful, knowing, etc, why didn't he at least keep a journal himself and have his "apostles" do the same and ensure they were preserved? Why count on people writing things down after he was already dead and gone and have no originals of those? Or if he was going to do what Christians say he did, and he waited to do it so late in human history to do it, then why didn't he just wait to do it today when he could be recorded, and his resurrection and ascension filmed as well? Very convenient to let it all be lost in the shrouds of history where stories can grow. Legend. Also, we believe in Julius Ceasar crossing the Rubicon (people cross rivers all the time), in what Socrates, Plato, etc, did, because they didn't claim they did supernatural things. If they did, we would doubt those things, while still believing they existed and that they did the non-miracle things they were purported to do and speak. Same with Jesus.

[@Nero-Caesar]

Exactly

[@rolssky1]

Joe Boot went through with the stories. But how could all this be true? The oldest new testament was completed in early 2nd century. The question is where did they copied these books? Nobody could give evidence. So how could we be sure that they are true, that they are not hearsay? If you could not answer that then referring to these stories is not allowed in the argument since their validity is not yet established. According to scholars mark's gospel was written around 70 ce. Paul was the first wrote of new testament books at around 50 ce but still he was not an eye witness. Thus mark was likely a convert of Paul. How they got their stories? The most probable was they just gather circulating hearsay stories. Then, if mark was yet writing hearsay, and during 2nd century they completed the new testament, most probably the hearsay multiplied. Then the reliability of these books greatly questionable. Thus to use these book as dogma for people to go to heaven or hell is so irrational. Much more so of referring to the story of the resurrection.

[@KThamphang]

Well said: the claim is not that Jesus rose from the death naturally but that God raised Jesus from the death.

[@munbruk]

For some he is Dod.

[@adamcosper3308]

Clever 🤣

[@davidkemball-cook559]

Did I hear Joe Boot say that ossuaries proved the Resurrection? It is a shame that he did not justify that claim, as such a claim, if valid, would revolutionise discussion of this question.

[@jobinkoshy8197]

Resurrection of Jesus Christian scholars: Justin Bass (Christian NT Scholar) "Virtually all non-believing scholars agree that Mary Magdalene, Peter, Paul and James, Jesus’ brother were honest and trustworthy when they claimed Jesus appeared to them risen from the dead... it transformed their lives to the point of being willing to suffer and die for what they saw" Gary Habermas (Christian Philosopher) "Virtually no one, believer or critic, denies that it was their convictions that they had seen the resurrected Jesus that caused the disciples' radical transformation. They are willing to die specifically for their resurrection belief" Mike Licona (Historian) "The historian looks for high probability and selects the best explanation of the known facts... The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical facts, and therefore, we can conclude with confidence that it was an event that occured in history" Non Christian scholars: Jews: Paula Fredrikson (Non Christian Jewish scholar) "I know in their own terms what they saw was the risen Jesus. That's what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something" Pinchas Lapide (Non Christian) Jewish NT scholar), "When this scared, frightened band of apostles which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation." "[Admits Jesus rose because of historical evidence] I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event. If the resurrection of Jesus from the dead on that Easter Sunday were a public event which had been made known…not only to the 530 Jewish witnesses but to the entire population, all Jews would have become followers of Jesus.” Atheist: Gred Ludemann (atheist nt professor) "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." (Ludemann believes they hallucinated) Bart Ehrman (agnostic nt scholar) "it is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution"

[@theunlearnedastronomer3205]

To quote Christopher Hitchens, resurrection seems to have been a bit of a banality at the time. Before Jesus, John the Baptist was rumored to have come back from the dead. There are multiple plausible explanations for the "sightings" of Jesus, with varying degrees of self-deception, and there is no reason that a number of them, if not all, came into play: 1. Mistaken identity (the gardener was "really" Jesus, the stranger on the road, etc) 2. Dream visitations (quite common when a loved one dies) 3. A general feeling that a deceased love one is present (wind on the cheek feeling that some feel) 4. Mass hysteria (for example, Fatima) 5 Group pressure leading one to agree (as a "sighting" grants status within the group, there will be a psychological incentive and pressure present) 6. Outright deception 7. Legendary development as in urban legends 8. False memory

[@jobinkoshy8197]

@@theunlearnedastronomer3205 J. N. D Anderson (Lawyer) “It is comparatively easy to find an alternative explanation for one or another of the different strands that make up this testimony (eg disciples hallucinated & Paul was mistaken & Jesus' body was stolen). But such explanations are valueless unless they fit the other strands in the testimony as well.” Dale Allison (Liberal nt scholar) “Early Christianity offers us a missing body, plus visions to several individuals, plus collective apparitions, plus the sense of a dead man’s presence, plus the conversion vision of at least one hostile outsider. Taken as a whole, this is, on any account, a remarkable, even extraordinary confluence of events and claims. If there is a good, substantial parallel to the entire series, I have yet to run across it.” Mike Licona (Christian Historian) "Although at least a few if not all of Jesus' disciples may have been in an emotional state that rendered them candidates for a hallucination, the nature of some of the experiences of the risen Jesus, specifically those that occured in group settings and to Jesus' enemy Paul, and the empty tomb strongly suggests that these experiences were not hallucinations" "The historian looks for high probability and selects the best explanation of the known facts. So what about Jesus' resurrection? Certainly it explains all of the facts and does so easily and without strain... The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical facts, and therefore, we can conclude with confidence that it was an event that occured in history" Legend? Christian scholars Mike Licona (Historian) "It is widely accepted today that the (1 Cor 15:3-7) tradition goes back to the Jerusalem Church""(also) widespread agreement that it was composed very early and may very well be the oldest extent tradition pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus" Justin Bass (Christian NT Scholar) "Scholars from all different backgrounds... are virtually unanimous that this creedal tradition dates, on average, to within 5 years of Jesus' death" Non Christian/skeptical scholars Gerd Lüdemann “dated to the first two years after the crucifixion” Robert Funk “time for development was thus two or three years” Michael Goulder “a couple of years after the crucifixion” A. J. M. Wedderburn “first half of the 30s” John Dominic Crossan “in the early 30s” Pinchas Lapide “may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.” Majority of critical scholars conclude that these snippets reflect the early preaching of the Gospel message

[@robbiebobbie2011]

I think it’s a cop out to say he’s not going to prove the proof it’s up to God to prove it 🤦

[@markmooroolbark252]

Forget martyrdom. The lives of a follower of Jesus were indisputably harsher than they would have been had they not become disciples whose mission was to speak out about the Good News. Look at the trauma Paul endured as a result of his preaching.

[@MoNtYbOy101]

All that shows is that he was a genuinely believer, that doesn’t show whether his belief was true or not.

[@markmooroolbark252]

@@MoNtYbOy101 Peter and James were believers and they were witnesses whose actions changed dramatically after the crucifixion of their leader. They were the first to tell others about Jesus's resurrection. Do you think they invented the story and faced years of hardship, threats, abuse and ultimately death for the sake of their lie? Why would they do that? People lie for personal gain be it wealth, fame or power. The disciples gained nothing but hardship and death by preaching the story of Jesus' resurrection.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@markmooroolbark252 Please authenticate that each and every so-called disciple "gained nothing but hardship and death" as a result of spreading the so-called "good news." Please authenticate that Peter and James were the first to spread the resurrection story, and please authenticate the professed 500 witnesses that Paul, an incredibly unreliable source, claims.

[@markmooroolbark252]

@@highroller-jq3ix Let's just look at Paul. He literally lists the different trials and tribulations he endured as a result of his decision to spread the good news. Peter was crucified and James beheaded. Now the bloke in the above debate questions whether James was beheaded due to his speaking of Jesus' resurrection but I find this ridiculous. The Christian church had to operate underground (Literally) due to persecution and James was a leader of the early movement. Is he suggesting James was executed for some other totally unrelated incident or action simply because we don't have a transcript of his trial? Any disciple who chose to devote his life to walking the dusty roads throughout the Middle East or travelling across seas to tell people to discard their old beliefs and gods invariably received a hostile response on many occasions. Paul writes of just such events. Why would the others be treated any differently? That aside, you are not suggesting that any of them gained anything as in personal wealth, power or fame by making up a story about a crucified man being the Son of God are you? That is the key point. What was their motivation if it wasn't to spread the incredible story of Jesus resurrection? Pray tell.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

​@@markmooroolbark252 How would Saul/Paul figuratively make a list? Saul/Paul was a delusional narcissist. Can you provide external verification for any of his claims? Tradition holds that Peter was specifically shopping for martyrdom--so he was essentially suicidal--and a clearly deranged Nero complied. It doesn't matter what you find ridiculous. I find belief in multiple zombie events to answer to the drama set in motion by a talking snake and a fruit crime to be ridiculous. But regardless, two out of 10 doesn't uphold your sweeping, unverified claims. Do realize how dopey this proposition is "invariably received a hostile response on many occasions." Trans people today are bombarded with fundie hostility. Does that mean they are the blessed martyrs of a trans god? That aside, you're not suggesting that tradition doesn't hold that Judas sold out for personal wealth, are you? Did the mass suicides at Jonestown expect wealth, power, or fame? Do Hindu ascetics? Do female Korean shamans? Did Mahatma Ghandi? Did the 9/11 hijackers? Did WWII kamikazes? That is the key point. You are elevating alleged individuals to saintly heights without actually knowing anything about them and without recognizing that even the fictional sacrifices you ascribe to them are fairly mundane across the scope of religious and ideological zealotry.

[@wilkimist]

When Christians claim Thomas put his hand in Jesus' side they are lying about what the Bible says. If they're lying about what their holy book says what else are they lying about.

[@MrAuskiwi101]

Is a bizarre and nonsensical cult myth without evidence, fact or fiction. Sad that this question is asked

[@El_Paracleto]

God is the evidence, you just don't know it yet...

[@MrAuskiwi101]

@in_paradiso_58 What you imagine to be true is not evidence of anything in reality except that you don't know the difference.

[@karl5395]

On the textual criticism process what wasnt mentioned , 99% of the variants are not meaningful or viable. Of the 1% that are, they dont change a single doctrinal issue.

in other words you can just make up doctrins out of creative thinking

[@davidsprunt8364]

Prince Charles? When was this recorded?

[@JohnAlexanderBlog]

It was a slip-up. It was recorded recently

[@supersmart671]

"James was not Martyr" what is Amos talking?

[@APR4U]

No human being or group of human beings could ever put the creator of all things on trial. You can’t even begin to comprehend.

[@r1n488]

Yes I can.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

And Yet t Appears They did.

[@claudiaquat]

The bible is a book which documents the ignorance of the men who wrote it.

[@adamcosper3308]

Turns out that god is dead.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@adamcosper3308 Riiight

[@somerandom3247]

Well, the bible says that the bible is right. So obviously the bible is right.

[@bjamal336]

😂😂😂

[@ronaldgouda]

I don’t agree with your statement.

[@Keepcalmcalvin]

Atheist think that atheist are right.. so I guess they are right? See what I did there lol

[@markmooroolbark252]

Much of the bible has been proven historically accurate so which parts are you saying are not right? Be specific.

[@Thenationstestify]

The Bible is axiomatic, it proves itself

[@lewyrbs]

Dr Joe Boot - you did an excellent work again! Blessings to you & family Big brother 🙏🙏

[@DipsyDoodleDaisy]

Does this fella realize how ridiculous he and his expectations of evidence is?? I mean seriously…he said “we don’t have any photographic evidence”. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@danlopez.3592]

Do we? No. No amount of testimonial evidence can ever make magic the most probabilistic explanation.

[@jonathangardner3121]

If Jesus is all-powerful, knowing, etc, why didn't he at least keep a journal himself and have his "apostles" do the same and ensure they were preserved? Why count on people writing things down after he was already dead and gone and have no originals of those? Or if he was going to do what Christians say he did, and he waited to do it so late in human history to do it, then why didn't he just wait to do it today when he could be recorded, and his resurrection and ascension filmed as well? Very convenient to let it all be lost in the shrouds of history. Also, we believe in Julius Ceasar crossing the Rubicon (people cross rivers all the time), in what Socrates, Plato, etc, did, because they didn't claim they did supernatural things. If they did, we would doubt those things, while still believing they existed and that they did the non-miracle things they were purported to do and say. Same with Jesus.

[@danlopez.3592]

@@jonathangardner3121 I agree. Seems so obvious I can’t believe it needs saying but unfortunately it does.

[@SAMBUT]

@jonathangardner3121 the truth is sufficiently revealed - granted, it's not entirely easy, but maybe life would be boring if it was, i.e., we are required to prioritise finding truth - if things would be more revealed than what they already are, there would be no freedom, we would be forced into a relationship, i.e. our relationship with God would not be based on love

[@danlopez.3592]

@@SAMBUT I am sorry, but if you are speaking about Islam, I do not find it very easily revealed. Same goes for Hinduism, Buddhism Christianity, and the pantheon of Greek gods. Interesting you would use the phrase. Boring when we were talking about spending eternity and damnation if we picked the wrong coach.

[@DipsyDoodleDaisy]

Another point…he seems to be regurgitating the same straw man points others make such as Mark and “discrepancies”. These issues have been dealt with, I would say, abundantly sufficient.

[@supersmart671]

Looks quite juvenile argument

[@eli27049]

Harry does not actually know what he believes but he argues that Jesus's resurrection is a myth ....oh boy

[@Alien1375]

You don't have to know everything to argue that Zombie Jesus is improbable.

[@adamcosper3308]

It's so hard to take these apologists seriously. The suit doesn't help matters.

[@TheTheologizingSubject]

Which apologist? The atheist or the Christian

[@adamcosper3308]

@@TheTheologizingSubject Don't act like you don't know. Jesus Christ.

[@TheTheologizingSubject]

@@adamcosper3308 Are you mad? 😲

[@TheTheologizingSubject]

@@adamcosper3308 Is Jesus on the stage? I didn't see him

[@adamcosper3308]

@@TheTheologizingSubject Oh. A failed KZbin apologist. No wonder you're desperate for reactions.

[@APR4U]

Pitiful people carve out points they can challenge with ridiculous arguments to make themselves feel big smart and self important 👽

[@tarikramadaan3342]

Definitely fictional 😂

[@RLBays]

Fiction - obviously.

[@munbruk]

Weak apologetic.

[@captivedesk3168]

Fiction, grow up

[@El_Paracleto]

That's it, let that misguided and ill-informed intolerance out, you'll feel better, even if it is irrelevant and in error...

[@captivedesk3168]

@@El_Paracleto Its fiction, add in all your nonsense blah blah blah and its still fiction

[@El_Paracleto]

@@captivedesk3168 i see

[@markmooroolbark252]

@@captivedesk3168 Blah blah sounds about right as a representation of the atheist argument.

[@captivedesk3168]

@@markmooroolbark252 there is no atheist argument. Theists make a claim they cannot back up, and any rational reasonable person will dismiss it as a claim you cannot back up.

[@KDP316]

Christian should not put God on trial and allow unbelievers to judge God. No amount of evidence will convince an unbeliever the truth of the resurrection.

[@BeyonceStan95]

No amount of evidence will convince the believer that they’re wrong. Your belief is based on faith, which is fine but if you want to claim it’s evidentiary that’s where the problems happen 🤷🏾‍♀️

[@KDP316]

@@BeyonceStan95: Evidence is for Christians to be apart of increasing our faith not to share with unbelievers. It’s not our job to convince anyone but only to share the gospel.

[@soulgalacticlover7281]

​@KDP316 If that was true why are there former unbelievers ?

[@KDP316]

@@soulgalacticlover7281: According to Scripture, they never was.

[@soulgalacticlover7281]

@KDP316 how so ? When many have spoken up on how they arrive to believing.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

There were no such things as Christians at the purported time of Jesus' burial. Jesus was a Jew. Every apostle/disciple was a Jew. That is just a flat out dumb, non-point regarding the dubious burial claim and Joseph of A (at about 38:00).

[@tosafmjcom]

The Romans knew how to identify Christians in AD 64 since they were persecuting Christians for the fire at Rome. If the Gospels were a conspiracy, there would only be one Gospel account. Instead, there are four. The pagans were not complaining that Paul stole their religion to invent Christianity.