Even without the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, from Paul alone we get a timeline that leads straight back to the time of Jesus resurrection, we have the earliest Creed, the Sacrament, baptism, witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection, miracles, parables, birth, etc, and a history of the early Church and prophesies about the End Times. It's amazing that Bart Erman is still an agnostic!
I have heard Habermas do this lecture before, only a bit better. There were more cool anecdotes and commentary regarding angry atheist "scholars" online, which were helpful, but he rushed through some stuff he didn't before. Still, this argument is excellently executed, and it is his own, which is simply brilliant. He changed the face of Christian Apologetics forever.
Jesus F. Christ, this has always caused me to wonder about vocal "atheists." If you don't believe in God, then why even call yourself an atheist? The word atheist comes from the Greek word atheos meaning "without god, any god." The Greek word atheos doesn't imply, nor assert that God exists or not. Then why would you see yourself as having to assert the absence of God in the first place? Why would you feel the need to even care? If you don't believe in the existence of a god, then why demean something that doesn't exist? If you don't believe in God, then why watch this video? If you don't believe in God then why create a channel to demean something you don't believe in? If you don't believe in God, then why name your channel "Jesus F. Christ" as to demean His name? There's a difference between a person that's angry at God, hence feels the need to assert power over others by believing that they are delivering these people out of their ignorance. This is called a messiah complex. But in doing so, doesn't that make you the arbitrer of ones own truth over another's? Doesn't that make your beliefs a religion, hence you have replaced God with yourself to be the judge over others moral truths?
_"Why would you feel the need to even care?"_ Because lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions and such actions are holding humanity back as a whole. _"But in doing so, doesn't that make you the arbitrer of ones own truth over another's?"_ Everyone acts as if their interpretation of reality is accurate. Humans can't do any better - and no I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live. In that case, you had better demonstrate your beliefs or I will oppose any attempt to take them seriously in a public setting. _"Doesn't that make your beliefs a religion, hence you have replaced God with yourself to be the judge over others moral truths?"_ No, "religion" is a word reserved for baseless supernatural claims about reality. Atheists don't have those. As for these "moral truths" of yours, if they are claimed to be truths due to the commands of some cosmic skyfascist, then your are obliged to demonstrate the existence of said being for others to take your claim seriously. Otherwise it's as empty as me coming to your house, shitting on your carpet and screaming in your face that you have to accept it because the creator of the universe told me to do it. Ultimately, morality is the science of enabling productive and stable interactions between voluntarily cooperating humans and part of this is that said humans act as rational entities who don't make such bizarre and unfalsifiable claims. Such approaches to cooperation can only create hostility and an utterly unacceptable environment for said cooperation. You're free to have opinions though. You don't have to back up the fact that you like chocolate ice cream for me to believe you. However, if you want to make all other flavors of ice cream illegal because an invisible skyfascist has revealed their sinful nature in your heart - now you're into delusional territory where my response will be along the lines of "Fuck off, you deranged lunatic". At the very least, you're obliged to demonstrate some kind of harmful effect if you want to argue that something is "bad" to the extent that other people should care about it.
Gnomefro, Your assertion: “Because lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions and such actions are holding humanity back as a whole.” My reply: You write “lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions…” Not sure who you are speaking of? If your speaking about Islam tearing the world apart in their violent rage, then yes, you would be correct. If your speaking about pedophile priest in their sick proclivity to act out their perversion, then yes, you would be correct. If your speaking about those who have no moral conscience, such as: Mao Zedong, atheist, 63 million murdered Joseph Stalin, atheist, 7.5 million murdered Pol Pot, atheist, 3 million murdered Adolf Hitler, atheist, secular humanist, 11 million murdered Atheists ultimately deny the reality of evil. While claiming to champion ethics and morality, they undermine the foundations of right and wrong. There is no true evil, everything is relative. There is no absolute good, nor absolute evil. Therefore, if a powerful atheist decides the best path forward is to liquidate the undesirables? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This goes for those who murder in the name of Jesus. They know that murder isn’t what Jesus taught, but they do it anyway. Jesus said these people are not of him. So to blame Jesus for what evil men do in His name is no different then what evil men do in spite of His name. Jesus taught that all are evil. We are born of the “knowledge of good and evil,” but we mostly will choose evil as an end. Without a moral reference point. We will almost always chose what’s the more selfish advantageous path; that means to an end. The bible states in Romans 13:8-10, “Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.” -------------- Your assertion: “Everyone acts as if their interpretation of reality is accurate. Humans can't do any better - and no I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live. In that case, you had better demonstrate your beliefs or I will oppose any attempt to take them seriously in a public setting.” My reply: You state: “I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence.” Wait. The video is “The Emerging Latest Case for Jesus' Resurrection.” So I emailed you and told you watch it? Or did I walk over and put a gun to your head and say “watch this video.” No. You chose to watch it, then remark of the nonsense of this video. Hence, my question “why would you watch a video about Jesus if you don’t believe in God?” Simple question. You go off about “if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live...” So Christian’s shouldn’t have the right to vote? Or people that don’t adhere to your worldview shouldn’t have the right to vote? So this comes down to the issue of a woman’s right to choose? What a farce. If I went to party and got drunk, then got behind the wheel and killed a baby. Due to my irresponsibility should I not be charged? Should there not be a moral responsibility? Should a baby die due to my irresponsibility. Your selfish. -------------- You assert: “No, "religion" is a word reserved for baseless supernatural claims about reality. Atheists don't have those. As for these "moral truths" of yours, if they are claimed to be truths due to the commands of some cosmic skyfascist, then your are obliged to demonstrate the existence of said being for others to take your claim seriously. Otherwise it's as empty as me coming to your house, shitting on your carpet and screaming in your face that you have to accept it because the creator of the universe told me to do it. Ultimately, morality is the science of enabling productive and stable interactions between voluntarily cooperating humans and part of this is that said humans act as rational entities who don't make such bizarre and unfalsifiable claims. Such approaches to cooperation can only create hostility and an utterly unacceptable environment for said cooperation. You're free to have opinions though. You don't have to back up the fact that you like chocolate ice cream for me to believe you. However, if you want to make all other flavors of ice cream illegal because an invisible skyfascist has revealed their sinful nature in your heart - now you're into delusional territory where my response will be along the lines of "Fuck off, you deranged lunatic". My reply: It warms my heart that you show such love, compassion and tolerance to me. This because I have a different worldview? Jesus taught me to truly love. This is the only thing I wish to impart to you. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.
Amen to you Jesus`word .. God created time and space&matter at a point which from before there was only God and Angels in the heavenly realm outside of time/space. God is love and so I know God loves atheists, but I am not sure He cares about agnostics. Only joking of course and thats where I get about as nasty towards people who hate a God they dont believe in and also followers like me. Its hard at times being a follower of Jesus, for instance I got my arm broken a couple of weeks ago when it was stomped on by a Hells Angel.. Someone close to me wanted to bomb their clubhouse, but I said no because I have to forgive bad guys, even if they would not care. I still pray to my heavenly father for myself, family and those who, when we lived in the Philippines try to kill us by stabbing me and others. Its not easy, for those like me who were not until in our thirties became followers of the way. I for instance went to approved school after getting caught stealing a shotgun to shoot boys at school who were bullying me. Then later went to prison and finally spent six years in Broadmoor special hospital for stabbing another guy in the throat.I did my time for the crime, six years inside and then release on license for another ten years before the Home Office fully released me. Believe me or not, its harder for me to forgive those who hurt or steal from me than it would be seek my own retribution on them. I am in awe of what some Christians have gone through to become true followers of The Way. Our saint for the area I live in is St Alban. who wasn't even a Christian at the time of his death, but you will have to read about it to see why. On the cross where I believe and thank Him for dying for my sins, He said about those who were crucifying Him and those that jeered at him, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." and so I will wrap it up by saying that even though Jesus stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross He carried for me, you are free to deny him as my namesake Peter did and also free to give thanks. Blessings on you all.
Peter Kimble. Thank you, Brother. We all go through the trials of this life. I have been through many and I don't kid myself that I will go through much more for Him who made me whole. That is the price I'm willing to pay. He through the Spirit and the gospel delivered me from myself, took out that heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. He made me whole, and I no longer fear death. Put your faith in Him, and the words He gave to us for solace. Keep Him as the center of your focus, and don't give in to the fear. _By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. ~ 1 John __4:17__-19_ There is nothing more. As long as you repent and believe in Him to your last breath you will be saved. That is His promise.
Many thanks my brother. What you wrote is a great help in keeping me on the straight and narrow path I keep getting back on track to our Savior. Can I ask for you and anyone else you would be good enough to ask on my behalf, to pray for the spiritual, mental and physical good health of my sons Joshua and Harry and also myself. Blessings to you and your loved ones. Your brother in Christ, Peter.
There are eyewitnesses, there is the empty tomb, there is above all the resurrection. Nobody has survived a Roman crucifixion. What happened to the body of Jesus? How could Roman guards not prevent the disappearance of Jesus, and why did the authorities cover it all up? Then there is the totally changed lives of the believers, willing to go to their deaths for the truth. Would they for a lie? B.G.
@@ethanpurita Yeah, my mom is a psychology professor, there is no such thing as a mass hallucinations. So, if 500 people saw him then there is 99% chance he is alive. If the gospels are correct then Jesus is very likely alive, because if they all saw the same thing then its not hallucinations its real. The only way to get that many people to get hallucinations then they would have to be highly drugged. And none of them would see the same thing. And to drug them you have to have extremely powerful drugs that didn't exist back then
Problem with skeptics is they really don’t want to believe cause they would have to change their lifestyle and focus on God instead of themselves, wealth, power, SIN and material things. They also do t want to believe because they think the books of the New Testament were written down too far from Jesus’s death and resurrection but they forget that the early Christians were already worshipping Jesus as God during and shortly after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Just because some were written years later doesn’t mean it’s not accurate, reliable or true! God bless
+Joel Gehrke What would you think if I'd make a case of the "miracles" performed by the Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba, witnessed by thousands, or the resurrection of a few other non-Christian guys in "history", that were claimed by other people? Why don't you debate with them? Or do you? But think of the fact, that we are living in a society, where a lot of people believe such things, no matter if it is the resurrection of Jesus or some other non-Christian "miracles". Isn't that bizarre? I think we shouldn't throw poo on the apologists of such miracles, but should apply the same benchmarks on all miracle claims.
Just be an empiricist. Try it. The world will keep turning. I can't believe what's happened to the nature of intellectual life. Ridicule is not thought. It's just shame.
+Joel Gehrke Ok, I totally agree, throwing shit on someone is shit (hope I didn't offend the shit-throwers too much) But you can't try every shit. I don't examine miracle claims. I even don't know what a "miracle" is. Do you? But I know very well what the miracle claimers are up to (they often don't themselves). Why do I "know" that? Empirical evidence.
Dr. Gary Habermas is accurate in the chronological events of the earliest testimony of the message of the gospel.This is a historians wish come true to assertane the validity of the information.
Here's why people deny the truth of Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
This is otherwise known as the "nah-ya, nah-ya" apologetic method; Assume from the get go that everyone is wrong and you are correct no matter what, stick your fingers in years, stomp your feet, completely close your mind and praise Jesus when you do so. That anyone of any belief could employ the same tactic, declaring anyone who doesn't agree as being foolish from the start, closing their minds off to any criticism, doesn't seem to matter much. Particularly if you can stomp harder and yell louder.
Cristian Feher Because 99% of all the world's biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, geologists, and paleontologists are either stupid enough, incompetent enough or sufficiently involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fall for "pathetic jokes" and "fairy tales". All those experts don't know what they are talking about, but creationists, most of whom have no background in science, or who probably have never read a book on evolution, they are the secret experts of the world. Color me skeptical.
madmax2976 for your information(as you obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about) the most famous scientists around have been Christians or if not at least Theists: here are some of them. Pascal, sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, Robert Boyle, Descartes Mendel and so on....so please spare us...the greatest science clowns have been atheists so far who willing so much to prove their dead theory made monumental mistakes ....long ago and far away nothing exploded and created everything sure sounds like fairy tales :D
Cristian Feher Most of the greatest scientists were European. They were white. They were men. Do these categorizations mean anything? If all the greatest scientists had been Muslim, would you believe Islam is true?
Your faith came from hearing the Gospel which "is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes..." If a believer actually reads God's breathed words then he or she will gain maturity and a stronger, more grounded faith, growing up in our salvation, etc. The Holy Spirit is behind it all, concerning the Spiritual words, including the Gospel of our salvation. How were believers 1,500 or 1,000 or 600, etc. years ago supposed to have strong enough faith? While it is great to use any evidence available, if one has only the God breathed words and will correctly handle it, that one will have confirmation by the Holy Spirit. If one today doesn't believe that then one does not believe God. I study Intelligent design vs macro evolution; these resurrection arguments; the deity of Christ arguments; etc. but I know and teach, in context what God's breathed words say and they are crystal clear. I have actually never doubted my faith since believing because I actually "believed" God's breathed words. I immediately prayed for a teacher to help me to know where to begin learning God's truth in the Bible. All anyone ever did was confirm from different historical accountings what God had given believers in his truths, opponents of God's truths simply expose their incredible ignorance and unbelief, nearly no atheist, for example, can give God's breathed words in context, why is that? Read 1 Corinthians 2 for Paul's explanation. The power of God Almighty is the power of the Gospel of our salvation, "all people everywhere" (mankind) these are who God calls to repentance since Jesus was murdered/crucified prior to the wrath of God coming on the wicked on the earth on a set day, during the 70th week of years in Daniel 9.
No matter how many times you push the ‘gods breathed words’ thing, it won’t make it any more credible. Words written by men who didn’t know what a galaxy was. And even at that, we have the heavily edited and redacted version of a primitive concept … man’s early attempt at explaining where we came from. It’s s a piece of history, is all.
I don't know if that question was directed at me, but my answer would be the same given by the apostle Paul. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead then Christianity isn't true and the faith professed by Christians is vain, empty.
In conventional academic usage, the term "pre-Pauline" refers to the period prior to the appearance of the Pauline letters, the earliest of which (1 Thess) has been guestimated to be about 48 CE. It does not refer to the time between Jesus' death and Paul's conversion as Habermas claims at 55:00. In general, Paul's letters are dated to the 50s, so pre-Pauline refers to the decades of the 30s and 40s. The credal formula, such as it is, had about 20 years to develop prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 15.
Mike Licona offers the same sort of "minimal facts" argument that Habermas does and Ehrman debated Licona twice. Of course I'm biased (I'm an agnostic) but I think Ehrman won both debates quite handily.
There's a big leap between "critics think Paul wrote it" and "critics think what Paul wrote is true". Maybe I'll read one of his books, but his presentation is weak on actual info. A lot of fluff, though.
If Jesus resurrected, why not stick around for another 20 years? using that more than amazing feat to leave no doubt of who he was; he could have done so much more humanity, but no, he quit, he left, he retired at 33 years old, what was the rush? Then of course the answer is simple and obvious, he was, if he existed, just like any other human being, an eccentric Preacher the Romans executed accused of sedition, and death is final, no one comes back from that, no one. And preacher, walking sideways is not going to turn mythology into history.
Gary I have watched and appreciated your presentations more than twice lol. I have no question either that Yeshua was raised. I am confident that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial cloth. That the arguments you present are quite inescapable from the position of logic and reason and yet people don’t believe. I would take the position though that to belief or not isn’t the point. A natural man can believe in god the problem this man will have is in knowing Him; and Yeshua said depart from me you workers of iniquity, I tell you I never knew you…. These were religious people, who in their minds had done great works in His name….. Half of the bridesmaids didn’t make it through the door….. You say tactical faith? When a Christian talks about faith it’s not a matter of evidence, at least not the sort you are speaking of. I know you almost became a Buddhist; my nephew is in Thailand in robes, walking about without shoes. We have had many conversations and he is utterly convinced he loves better than most, better than he has ever been able to before, and I wouldn’t argue that. I would only say that Christianity has nothing to do with me being anything if that anything is outside Christ. So the real trick is in being inside and apologetics can’t get you there. Obviously a Christian could not be a Christian without belief; all those with faith believe but not all who believe have faith; so a correct distinction is essential. Scripture is very clear that works plus grace equal an eternity without God; it’s a deadly mixture and we see that played out in the separation of goats and sheep. Still it’s the most commonly taught formula of salvation, as Paul said, a different gospel. The why in my opinion is that while there is evidence a plenty to convince the natural man it’s not fulfilling. There is a hole, the sons of Adam know they are naked and feel the need to cover up. So they do works and in doing so become all the more convinced all is well. Scripture is very clear that we are saved by grace….but….that grace is effective through faith. I could offer several examples which confirm that belief is not faith, if I’m asked. Scripture describes where faith originates in the saved, what transforms a natural man into the elect of God. I would love to see men of reputation teaching that. Now as for experiencing God and why I know it’s not heartburn? I have a lot of experience with both. I will say that at times they have both brought me to my knees but God has a much better sense of humour. Scripture speaks of miracles and you have mentioned them as well; unsurprisingly I think they are common place in the life of a Christian. Not daily or even every year but common all the same to the point that they are not surprising. Prophecy, wisdom, correction, comfort, are all aspects of a relationship with God and not some much with heartburn. I am sure there are those who fail to test the spirits they encounter by the light of scripture, which we are instructed to do, but that does of course offer the assumption that we will encounter them. Yeshua said My sheep know My voice. Evidence is awesome and as Christians we should have our eyes wide open, but if there was none, if there was no scripture, no shroud, no church, if I couldn’t apprehend Him by looking at the universe; I would still have faith, I would still know God, because I am His child by adoption and He is a Father who takes an interest in His children….. Truth is so much better so much more sure when your personal experience fits the evidence, and that is the experience of knowing God.
"I am confident that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial cloth. " Why are you confident when there is *NO* verifiable evidence it's from the 1st century, much less a supernatural artifact. lol "That the arguments you present are quite inescapable from the position of logic and reason " ...all his "arguments" are nothing more than assertions without evidence....like the Shroud of Turin.
Why are you asking me anything.....Why would you assume I would engage in communications with a Jack44M not even willing to put a name and picture on a comment? A person who wont own their words not willing to stand up for their own opinions? How worthless could they be and you think I should, would be willing to waste my time? My thoughts are none of your busyness Jack44M That comment was addressed to someone else who incidentally has a name..... Now if at some time you happen to find a name and likeness of yourself and what you have to say is worth your standing behind it....then and only then might I be willing to take my time to answer a serious question.... This is social media Jack44M, that means its for people and they have names, not handles.
@@patrickedgington5827 "My thoughts are none of your busyness " Then don't post them on the internet....asshat. lol It doesn't change the fact there is *NO* verifiable evidence to support the bullshit claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus. BTW, posting a name doesn't prove it's that person's actual name. DUH
The questions below are what you would expect with regards to jesus, confusion, contridictions and the like.... but at the end of the day it matters not, because i am sure that even if he actually existed, he was not devine or the son of "himself"
If, as Sufis say, Jesus was a saint, then that might be construed as he being divine in a sense. Don't forget, Jesus, if the Bible is accurate, had to use language that people of the day would understand.
G.H. is good, but he could have majored more on the oral tradition before the appearance of the gospels. How else could the Church have got off the ground so quickly? Also the Holy Spirit was at work in a big way. B.G.
A club foot opening up is a miracle? Seems your god is limited to working with things that are already intact, but can't reconstitute a cremated ash heap or restore an amputated limb. How curious.
When somebody is trying to prove a Magic Man in the Sky is real, and there are musical instruments behind him on stage, you know you the guy is preaching to the choir. There is no "emerging case". Only people who have already made up their mind.
Nope & your ad-homs are as worthless as your overall opinion. Christians believe God to be more than one being for a start. Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Don't tell me what I believe. You just make yourself look even more stupid. Are those sentences OK?
Peter McCluskey No ad hominem. Christianity is the belief in a magic man in the sky. Jesus ascended BODILY into the sky, according to the myth. Its a garbage religion.
When all is said & done, not everyone accepts Jesus but in the end not everyone will be accepted by Jesus. You're typical of the new atheist cult we see online more often. You've no problem believing the world & universe began out of nothing, you've no problem believing life came from non-life, yet these things never enter your mind but the mystery of God gets under your skin so much that you have to spend your life denying him. So, if you want to convince yourself it's all a load of lies and myths, fine. It won't make a difference to me
Resurrection more respected today???? Jesus himself is called into question more so today never mind the resurrection! One cannot study minimal science and still accept the nonsense put forth in the bible. I'm talking the entire bible not just the cherry picking about the Jesus myth. Mr Habermas' correlation of George Washington vs Jesus is ridiculous, not to mention childish.
Making historical assessments concerning two purported historical individuals is certainly not childish in and of itself, so it appears your conclusion is simply an ad hominem response to Habermas. What is funny is there are those who make similar accusations toward historians concerning the Jewish holocaust, and that was only about 70 years ago. I bet if I look hard enough I could find someone who believes that Titus was just a myth and therefore the destruction of Jerusalem never occurred in 70 A.D. I can only imagine what ad hominem response would be issued against Roman historians who actually believed he existed.
Dmitriy Cherchenko The resurrection is true because the bible says it is so. This is NOT a valid argument! Well your Honor; Of course I did not commit this crime I'm accused of, just look at my written statement, it says right here I did not commit this crime. Therefore, based upon this unchallengable evidence, you have to find me not guilty and set me free!
***** You're missing the point: I don't care whether Jesus existed or not. His existence does not prove he is GOD! The gospels are hearsay at best! NO eyewitness at all! Stories told to scribes derived from oral; tradition decades after the supposed existence of Jesus is hardy evidence.
How much is this conman worth from this racket has he got his own private jet maybe not yet but he's got an audience of fools willing to listen to him can you blame him for taking their money
"The latest case?" After two thousand years you are still grasping at any straw to prove your nonsense. Matt Dillahunty said that in a universe where a god can and will change the laws of physics at will, we can trust and depend on nothing. I may start praying to Baal to kick Yahweh's ass and take over again. Have you noticed that Christianity is the only religion that requires apologetics ... and is the only religion that is so incredibly profitable to engage in apologetics. Ass hats get rich catering to the childlike faith and belief of fundamentalist christians. Habermas implies that proof of jesus and proof of the historicity of Washington are equal? ... My god, that is so ridiculous that it borders on insane.
God doesn't change laws of physics. He simply supersedes them for a moment when a miracle takes place. And yes, Matt "Dodger" Dillahunty is absolutely correct. You wouldn't know anything. Humanity claiming it knows anything when we're presupposing materialism and an evolved naturalism is frankly arrogant and pathetic. Christianity is the only religion with apologetics because it's the only one with historical basis. No other religion comes close to us. Also, you claiming apologetics is profitable is straight-up disinformation. Please.
Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what? That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure! That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow. If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring worship and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.
Habermas has a lot of stories and demos, but no evidence that anything in the gospels is true. Has he spoken to Paul? Paul who? Are scientists emotion driven? If so, they are not scientific.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, Habermas doesn't get to speak for everyone else, even though he tries here. There was no emotional event tied to my leaving Christianity other than the emotional turmoil caused by the conflict between my wanting to remain a believer / thinking there had to be something wrong with me, and my learning that Christianity does not remotely have the historical / evidential or logical support that many of it's adherents claim. It was explicitly for intellectual reasons that I left Christianity and had I let my emotions rule as Habermas suggests, it's likely I would still be a believer. In other words, he has the whole thing entirely backwards, at least in regards to my own experiences. Habermas suggests that unbelievers should seek a logic course when, according to his convenient scenario, doubters declare the biblical writers biased while also maintaining they are not themselves biased. If they actually maintained such a position he would probably be right since it's pretty safe to say that we are all biased in some way and to some degree. I find it doubtful however that many would offer the answer Habermas uncharitably ascribes to them, but that aside, I think Habermas misses the point. Noting that unbelievers are also biased doesn't change the fact that the biblical writers were also highly biased, with a definite agenda bent on spreading their beliefs. At best then, using Habermas' own reasoning, all parties should be treated with skepticism, including the biblical writers.
hi mad max, the bible and christianity has endured the most scrutiny of all ancient text and religions ,textually, historically etc. to address your last point. christianity has the best affirming historical evidence of all religions.i love to research this subject. i don't want to sound insulting in any way but the evidence in no way gives reason for dismissing the credibility of the new testament. honestly check the historical evidence and don't rely on youtube post that agree with your bias. to restart your inquiring juices, realize that at the highest levels of academia the debate still rages and the evidence for the credibility and historicity of the new testament continues to mount archeologically and historically.
Usually enjoy your talks, BUT this one, could you have spent any more time saying NOTHING for a whole hour ?????????? 26 minutes in, putting me to sleep.
Excelent information. Learned a lot from this great man. Thanks a lot.
Love from India
Even without the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, from Paul alone we get a timeline that leads straight back to the time of Jesus resurrection, we have the earliest Creed, the Sacrament, baptism, witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection, miracles, parables, birth, etc, and a history of the early Church and prophesies about the End Times. It's amazing that Bart Erman is still an agnostic!
I have heard Habermas do this lecture before, only a bit better. There were more cool anecdotes and commentary regarding angry atheist "scholars" online, which were helpful, but he rushed through some stuff he didn't before. Still, this argument is excellently executed, and it is his own, which is simply brilliant. He changed the face of Christian Apologetics forever.
Jesus F. Christ, this has always caused me to wonder about vocal "atheists." If you don't believe in God, then why even call yourself an atheist? The word atheist comes from the Greek word atheos meaning "without god, any god." The Greek word atheos doesn't imply, nor assert that God exists or not. Then why would you see yourself as having to assert the absence of God in the first place? Why would you feel the need to even care? If you don't believe in the existence of a god, then why demean something that doesn't exist? If you don't believe in God, then why watch this video? If you don't believe in God then why create a channel to demean something you don't believe in? If you don't believe in God, then why name your channel "Jesus F. Christ" as to demean His name? There's a difference between a person that's angry at God, hence feels the need to assert power over others by believing that they are delivering these people out of their ignorance. This is called a messiah complex. But in doing so, doesn't that make you the arbitrer of ones own truth over another's? Doesn't that make your beliefs a religion, hence you have replaced God with yourself to be the judge over others moral truths?
_"Why would you feel the need to even care?"_
Because lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions and such actions are holding humanity back as a whole.
_"But in doing so, doesn't that make you the arbitrer of ones own truth over another's?"_
Everyone acts as if their interpretation of reality is accurate. Humans can't do any better - and no I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live. In that case, you had better demonstrate your beliefs or I will oppose any attempt to take them seriously in a public setting.
_"Doesn't that make your beliefs a religion, hence you have replaced God with yourself to be the judge over others moral truths?"_
No, "religion" is a word reserved for baseless supernatural claims about reality. Atheists don't have those. As for these "moral truths" of yours, if they are claimed to be truths due to the commands of some cosmic skyfascist, then your are obliged to demonstrate the existence of said being for others to take your claim seriously. Otherwise it's as empty as me coming to your house, shitting on your carpet and screaming in your face that you have to accept it because the creator of the universe told me to do it. Ultimately, morality is the science of enabling productive and stable interactions between voluntarily cooperating humans and part of this is that said humans act as rational entities who don't make such bizarre and unfalsifiable claims. Such approaches to cooperation can only create hostility and an utterly unacceptable environment for said cooperation. You're free to have opinions though. You don't have to back up the fact that you like chocolate ice cream for me to believe you. However, if you want to make all other flavors of ice cream illegal because an invisible skyfascist has revealed their sinful nature in your heart - now you're into delusional territory where my response will be along the lines of "Fuck off, you deranged lunatic".
At the very least, you're obliged to demonstrate some kind of harmful effect if you want to argue that something is "bad" to the extent that other people should care about it.
Gnomefro, Your assertion: “Because lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions and such actions are holding humanity back as a whole.”
My reply: You write “lots of other people are acting in the world based on delusions…” Not sure who you are speaking of? If your speaking about Islam tearing the world apart in their violent rage, then yes, you would be correct. If your speaking about pedophile priest in their sick proclivity to act out their perversion, then yes, you would be correct. If your speaking about those who have no moral conscience, such as:
Mao Zedong, atheist, 63 million murdered
Joseph Stalin, atheist, 7.5 million murdered
Pol Pot, atheist, 3 million murdered
Adolf Hitler, atheist, secular humanist, 11 million murdered
Atheists ultimately deny the reality of evil. While claiming to champion ethics and morality, they undermine the foundations of right and wrong. There is no true evil, everything is relative. There is no absolute good, nor absolute evil. Therefore, if a powerful atheist decides the best path forward is to liquidate the undesirables? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This goes for those who murder in the name of Jesus. They know that murder isn’t what Jesus taught, but they do it anyway. Jesus said these people are not of him. So to blame Jesus for what evil men do in His name is no different then what evil men do in spite of His name. Jesus taught that all are evil. We are born of the “knowledge of good and evil,” but we mostly will choose evil as an end. Without a moral reference point. We will almost always chose what’s the more selfish advantageous path; that means to an end. The bible states in Romans 13:8-10, “Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.”
--------------
Your assertion: “Everyone acts as if their interpretation of reality is accurate. Humans can't do any better - and no I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live. In that case, you had better demonstrate your beliefs or I will oppose any attempt to take them seriously in a public setting.”
My reply: You state: “I have no obligation to respect drivel that you present with no evidence.” Wait. The video is “The Emerging Latest Case for Jesus' Resurrection.” So I emailed you and told you watch it? Or did I walk over and put a gun to your head and say “watch this video.” No. You chose to watch it, then remark of the nonsense of this video. Hence, my question “why would you watch a video about Jesus if you don’t believe in God?” Simple question. You go off about “if you are going to be voting based on that drivel to determine the laws in a society where I live...” So Christian’s shouldn’t have the right to vote? Or people that don’t adhere to your worldview shouldn’t have the right to vote? So this comes down to the issue of a woman’s right to choose? What a farce. If I went to party and got drunk, then got behind the wheel and killed a baby. Due to my irresponsibility should I not be charged? Should there not be a moral responsibility? Should a baby die due to my irresponsibility. Your selfish.
--------------
You assert: “No, "religion" is a word reserved for baseless supernatural claims about reality. Atheists don't have those. As for these "moral truths" of yours, if they are claimed to be truths due to the commands of some cosmic skyfascist, then your are obliged to demonstrate the existence of said being for others to take your claim seriously. Otherwise it's as empty as me coming to your house, shitting on your carpet and screaming in your face that you have to accept it because the creator of the universe told me to do it. Ultimately, morality is the science of enabling productive and stable interactions between voluntarily cooperating humans and part of this is that said humans act as rational entities who don't make such bizarre and unfalsifiable claims. Such approaches to cooperation can only create hostility and an utterly unacceptable environment for said cooperation. You're free to have opinions though. You don't have to back up the fact that you like chocolate ice cream for me to believe you. However, if you want to make all other flavors of ice cream illegal because an invisible skyfascist has revealed their sinful nature in your heart - now you're into delusional territory where my response will be along the lines of "Fuck off, you deranged lunatic".
My reply: It warms my heart that you show such love, compassion and tolerance to me. This because I have a different worldview? Jesus taught me to truly love. This is the only thing I wish to impart to you. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.
Amen to you Jesus`word .. God created time and space&matter at a point which from before there was only God and Angels in the heavenly realm outside of time/space. God is love and so I know God loves atheists, but I am not sure He cares about agnostics. Only joking of course and thats where I get about as nasty towards people who hate a God they dont believe in and also followers like me. Its hard at times being a follower of Jesus, for instance I got my arm broken a couple of weeks ago when it was stomped on by a Hells Angel.. Someone close to me wanted to bomb their clubhouse, but I said no because I have to forgive bad guys, even if they would not care.
I still pray to my heavenly father for myself, family and those who, when we lived in the Philippines try to kill us by stabbing me and others. Its not easy, for those like me who were not until in our thirties became followers of the way. I for instance went to approved school after getting caught stealing a shotgun to shoot boys at school who were bullying me. Then later went to prison and finally spent six years in Broadmoor special hospital for stabbing another guy in the throat.I did my time for the crime, six years inside and then release on license for another ten years before the Home Office fully released me. Believe me or not, its harder for me to forgive those who hurt or steal from me than it would be seek my own retribution on them. I am in awe of what some Christians have gone through to become true followers of The Way. Our saint for the area I live in is St Alban. who wasn't even a Christian at the time of his death, but you will have to read about it to see why.
On the cross where I believe and thank Him for dying for my sins, He said about those who were crucifying Him and those that jeered at him, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." and so I will wrap it up by saying that even though Jesus stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross He carried for me, you are free to deny him as my namesake Peter did and also free to give thanks.
Blessings on you all.
Peter Kimble. Thank you, Brother. We all go through the trials of this life. I have been through many and I don't kid myself that I will go through much more for Him who made me whole. That is the price I'm willing to pay.
He through the Spirit and the gospel delivered me from myself, took out that heart of stone and gave me a heart of flesh. He made me whole, and I no longer fear death.
Put your faith in Him, and the words He gave to us for solace. Keep Him as the center of your focus, and don't give in to the fear.
_By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. ~ 1 John __4:17__-19_
There is nothing more. As long as you repent and believe in Him to your last breath you will be saved. That is His promise.
Many thanks my brother. What you wrote is a great help in keeping me on the straight and narrow path I keep getting back on track to our Savior. Can I ask for you and anyone else you would be good enough to ask on my behalf, to pray for the spiritual, mental and physical good health of my sons Joshua and Harry and also myself. Blessings to you and your loved ones. Your brother in Christ, Peter.
There are eyewitnesses, there is the empty tomb, there is above all the resurrection.
Nobody has survived a Roman crucifixion. What happened to the body of Jesus?
How could Roman guards not prevent the disappearance of Jesus, and why did the
authorities cover it all up? Then there is the totally changed lives of the believers,
willing to go to their deaths for the truth. Would they for a lie? B.G.
There are no eyewitness accounts.....stop lying.
@@jack44m97 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection. Was that a group hallucination? Nope, not even a thing.
@@ethanpurita Yeah, my mom is a psychology professor, there is no such thing as a mass hallucinations. So, if 500 people saw him then there is 99% chance he is alive. If the gospels are correct then Jesus is very likely alive, because if they all saw the same thing then its not hallucinations its real. The only way to get that many people to get hallucinations then they would have to be highly drugged. And none of them would see the same thing. And to drug them you have to have extremely powerful drugs that didn't exist back then
@@ethanpurita The hallucination objection is very poor from a psychology standpoint
Can you find evidence without reference to the bible?
Problem with skeptics is they really don’t want to believe cause they would have to change their lifestyle and focus on God instead of themselves, wealth, power, SIN and material things. They also do t want to believe because they think the books of the New Testament were written down too far from Jesus’s death and resurrection but they forget that the early Christians were already worshipping Jesus as God during and shortly after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Just because some were written years later doesn’t mean it’s not accurate, reliable or true! God bless
What utter nonsense. What is a god?
JESUS SAVES FROM JUGDMENT AND HELL .
It's remarkable to me that every one of you detractors are content to fling poo at the speaker and walk away; as if insult were rebuttal.
+Joel Gehrke What would you think if I'd make a case of the "miracles" performed by the Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba, witnessed by thousands, or the resurrection of a few other non-Christian guys in "history", that were claimed by other people?
Why don't you debate with them? Or do you? But think of the fact, that we are living in a society, where a lot of people believe such things, no matter if it is the resurrection of Jesus or some other non-Christian "miracles". Isn't that bizarre?
I think we shouldn't throw poo on the apologists of such miracles, but should apply the same benchmarks on all miracle claims.
Just be an empiricist. Try it. The world will keep turning. I can't believe what's happened to the nature of intellectual life. Ridicule is not thought. It's just shame.
+Joel Gehrke Ok, I totally agree, throwing shit on someone is shit (hope I didn't offend the shit-throwers too much) But you can't try every shit. I don't examine miracle claims. I even don't know what a "miracle" is. Do you? But I know very well what the miracle claimers are up to (they often don't themselves). Why do I "know" that? Empirical evidence.
+Joel Gehrke Because Joel, that is all they have.....they have no rebuttals against the Truth....but they do have invectives and ad hominens.......
That’s Very Funny!! It’s rare a comment makes me actually laugh. Well done Sir well done indeed.
Dr. Gary Habermas is accurate in the chronological events of the earliest testimony of the message of the gospel.This is a historians wish come true to assertane the validity of the information.
Here's why people deny the truth of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
This is otherwise known as the "nah-ya, nah-ya" apologetic method; Assume from the get go that everyone is wrong and you are correct no matter what, stick your fingers in years, stomp your feet, completely close your mind and praise Jesus when you do so.
That anyone of any belief could employ the same tactic, declaring anyone who doesn't agree as being foolish from the start, closing their minds off to any criticism, doesn't seem to matter much. Particularly if you can stomp harder and yell louder.
madmax2976 just like the theory f evolution i guess...pathetic joke ...long ago and far away fairy tales
Cristian Feher Because 99% of all the world's biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, geologists, and paleontologists are either stupid enough, incompetent enough or sufficiently involved in a worldwide conspiracy to fall for "pathetic jokes" and "fairy tales". All those experts don't know what they are talking about, but creationists, most of whom have no background in science, or who probably have never read a book on evolution, they are the secret experts of the world.
Color me skeptical.
madmax2976 for your information(as you obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about) the most famous scientists around have been Christians or if not at least Theists: here are some of them. Pascal, sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, Robert Boyle, Descartes Mendel and so on....so please spare us...the greatest science clowns have been atheists so far who willing so much to prove their dead theory made monumental mistakes ....long ago and far away nothing exploded and created everything sure sounds like fairy tales :D
Cristian Feher Most of the greatest scientists were European. They were white. They were men. Do these categorizations mean anything? If all the greatest scientists had been Muslim, would you believe Islam is true?
Your faith came from hearing the Gospel which "is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes..." If a believer actually reads God's breathed words then he or she will gain maturity and a stronger, more grounded faith, growing up in our salvation, etc. The Holy Spirit is behind it all, concerning the Spiritual words, including the Gospel of our salvation. How were believers 1,500 or 1,000 or 600, etc. years ago supposed to have strong enough faith? While it is great to use any evidence available, if one has only the God breathed words and will correctly handle it, that one will have confirmation by the Holy Spirit. If one today doesn't believe that then one does not believe God. I study Intelligent design vs macro evolution; these resurrection arguments; the deity of Christ arguments; etc. but I know and teach, in context what God's breathed words say and they are crystal clear. I have actually never doubted my faith since believing because I actually "believed" God's breathed words. I immediately prayed for a teacher to help me to know where to begin learning God's truth in the Bible. All anyone ever did was confirm from different historical accountings what God had given believers in his truths, opponents of God's truths simply expose their incredible ignorance and unbelief, nearly no atheist, for example, can give God's breathed words in context, why is that? Read 1 Corinthians 2 for Paul's explanation. The power of God Almighty is the power of the Gospel of our salvation, "all people everywhere" (mankind) these are who God calls to repentance since Jesus was murdered/crucified prior to the wrath of God coming on the wicked on the earth on a set day, during the 70th week of years in Daniel 9.
No matter how many times you push the ‘gods breathed words’ thing, it won’t make it any more credible.
Words written by men who didn’t know what a galaxy was. And even at that, we have the heavily edited and redacted version of a primitive concept … man’s early attempt at explaining where we came from.
It’s s a piece of history, is all.
I don't know if that question was directed at me, but my answer would be the same given by the apostle Paul. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead then Christianity isn't true and the faith professed by Christians is vain, empty.
Thanks
In conventional academic usage, the term "pre-Pauline" refers to the period prior to the appearance of the Pauline letters, the earliest of which (1 Thess) has been guestimated to be about 48 CE. It does not refer to the time between Jesus' death and Paul's conversion as Habermas claims at 55:00. In general, Paul's letters are dated to the 50s, so pre-Pauline refers to the decades of the 30s and 40s. The credal formula, such as it is, had about 20 years to develop prior to its appearance in 1 Cor 15.
I would love to see a debate between Dr.Habermas and Dr.Bart Ehrman;he mentions him a lot in his lectures. I wonder why that hasn't transpired yet...
Mike Licona offers the same sort of "minimal facts" argument that Habermas does and Ehrman debated Licona twice. Of course I'm biased (I'm an agnostic) but I think Ehrman won both debates quite handily.
I watched the debates you speak of. I am going to agree with you that Ehrman won both debates.
Dan Wallace did a good job with Bart
Very good video!
16 scoffers hate truth.
I've never seen anything from Gary Habermas before . Actually the first time I even heard his name lol was from The Case for Christ movie
There's a big leap between "critics think Paul wrote it" and "critics think what Paul wrote is true". Maybe I'll read one of his books, but his presentation is weak on actual info. A lot of fluff, though.
If Jesus resurrected, why not stick around for another 20 years? using that more than amazing feat to leave no doubt of who he was; he could have done so much more humanity, but no, he quit, he left, he retired at 33 years old, what was the rush? Then of course the answer is simple and obvious, he was, if he existed, just like any other human being, an eccentric Preacher the Romans executed accused of sedition, and death is final, no one comes back from that, no one.
And preacher, walking sideways is not going to turn mythology into history.
Nailed it.
I saw Red Skeleton in Manhattan Ks a few years before he went to be with Jesus
I love Red Skeleton 😃💜🇦🇺
Who didn't? 😊
Irrelevant how old the material is, the question is was it reliable, truthful, accurate?
Almost impossible to prove, I would say.
Gary I have watched and appreciated your presentations more than twice lol. I have no question either that Yeshua was raised. I am confident that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial cloth. That the arguments you present are quite inescapable from the position of logic and reason and yet people don’t believe.
I would take the position though that to belief or not isn’t the point.
A natural man can believe in god the problem this man will have is in knowing Him; and Yeshua said depart from me you workers of iniquity, I tell you I never knew you….
These were religious people, who in their minds had done great works in His name…..
Half of the bridesmaids didn’t make it through the door…..
You say tactical faith? When a Christian talks about faith it’s not a matter of evidence, at least not the sort you are speaking of.
I know you almost became a Buddhist; my nephew is in Thailand in robes, walking about without shoes. We have had many conversations and he is utterly convinced he loves better than most, better than he has ever been able to before, and I wouldn’t argue that. I would only say that Christianity has nothing to do with me being anything if that anything is outside Christ. So the real trick is in being inside and apologetics can’t get you there.
Obviously a Christian could not be a Christian without belief; all those with faith believe but not all who believe have faith; so a correct distinction is essential.
Scripture is very clear that works plus grace equal an eternity without God; it’s a deadly mixture and we see that played out in the separation of goats and sheep. Still it’s the most commonly taught formula of salvation, as Paul said, a different gospel. The why in my opinion is that while there is evidence a plenty to convince the natural man it’s not fulfilling. There is a hole, the sons of Adam know they are naked and feel the need to cover up. So they do works and in doing so become all the more convinced all is well.
Scripture is very clear that we are saved by grace….but….that grace is effective through faith.
I could offer several examples which confirm that belief is not faith, if I’m asked.
Scripture describes where faith originates in the saved, what transforms a natural man into the elect of God.
I would love to see men of reputation teaching that.
Now as for experiencing God and why I know it’s not heartburn? I have a lot of experience with both.
I will say that at times they have both brought me to my knees but God has a much better sense of humour.
Scripture speaks of miracles and you have mentioned them as well; unsurprisingly I think they are common place in the life of a Christian. Not daily or even every year but common all the same to the point that they are not surprising. Prophecy, wisdom, correction, comfort, are all aspects of a relationship with God and not some much with heartburn.
I am sure there are those who fail to test the spirits they encounter by the light of scripture, which we are instructed to do, but that does of course offer the assumption that we will encounter them.
Yeshua said My sheep know My voice.
Evidence is awesome and as Christians we should have our eyes wide open, but if there was none, if there was no scripture, no shroud, no church, if I couldn’t apprehend Him by looking at the universe; I would still have faith, I would still know God, because I am His child by adoption and He is a Father who takes an interest in His children…..
Truth is so much better so much more sure when your personal experience fits the evidence, and that is the experience of knowing God.
"I am confident that the Shroud of Turin is the genuine burial cloth. "
Why are you confident when there is *NO* verifiable evidence it's from the 1st century, much less a supernatural artifact. lol
"That the arguments you present are quite inescapable from the position of logic and reason "
...all his "arguments" are nothing more than assertions without evidence....like the Shroud of Turin.
Why are you asking me anything.....Why would you assume I would engage in communications with a Jack44M not even willing to put a name and picture on a comment? A person who wont own their words not willing to stand up for their own opinions? How worthless could they be and you think I should, would be willing to waste my time? My thoughts are none of your busyness Jack44M That comment was addressed to someone else who incidentally has a name..... Now if at some time you happen to find a name and likeness of yourself and what you have to say is worth your standing behind it....then and only then might I be willing to take my time to answer a serious question.... This is social media Jack44M, that means its for people and they have names, not handles.
@@patrickedgington5827
"My thoughts are none of your busyness "
Then don't post them on the internet....asshat. lol
It doesn't change the fact there is *NO* verifiable evidence to support the bullshit claim that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus.
BTW, posting a name doesn't prove it's that person's actual name. DUH
The questions below are what you would expect with regards to jesus, confusion, contridictions and the like.... but at the end of the day it matters not, because i am sure that even if he actually existed, he was not devine or the son of "himself"
If, as Sufis say, Jesus was a saint, then that might be construed as he being divine in a sense. Don't forget, Jesus, if the Bible is accurate, had to use language that people of the day would understand.
Jesus are we so blind look at dr wyn 2014 presentation on the shroud be glad you have the chance to love your god peace be with you
I do not see how anyone can claim to understand, let alone, know god.
G.H. is good, but he could have majored more on the oral tradition before the appearance of the gospels. How else could the Church have got off the ground
so quickly? Also the Holy Spirit was at work in a big way. B.G.
Oh, this is for believers in God, the bible, and Jesus. well, there has never been any proof that he ever existed or God for that matter.
A club foot opening up is a miracle? Seems your god is limited to working with things that are already intact, but can't reconstitute a cremated ash heap or restore an amputated limb. How curious.
I like Gary but man he has a hard time getting to the point sometimes
When somebody is trying to prove a Magic Man in the Sky is real, and there are musical instruments behind him on stage, you know you the guy is preaching to the choir.
There is no "emerging case".
Only people who have already made up their mind.
+Martin Koch When you think of God as a "magic man in the sky", you ain't even fit to be in the debate.
Peter McCluskey
That is precisely what Christians believe.
You can't even form a basic sentence.
Nope & your ad-homs are as worthless as your overall opinion.
Christians believe God to be more than one being for a start. Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
Don't tell me what I believe. You just make yourself look even more stupid.
Are those sentences OK?
Peter McCluskey
No ad hominem.
Christianity is the belief in a magic man in the sky.
Jesus ascended BODILY into the sky, according to the myth.
Its a garbage religion.
When all is said & done, not everyone accepts Jesus but in the end not everyone will be accepted by Jesus.
You're typical of the new atheist cult we see online more often. You've no problem believing the world & universe began out of nothing, you've no problem believing life came from non-life, yet these things never enter your mind but the mystery of God gets under your skin so much that you have to spend your life denying him.
So, if you want to convince yourself it's all a load of lies and myths, fine. It won't make a difference to me
Resurrection more respected today???? Jesus himself is called into question more so today never mind the resurrection! One cannot study minimal science and still accept the nonsense put forth in the bible. I'm talking the entire bible not just the cherry picking about the Jesus myth. Mr Habermas' correlation of George Washington vs Jesus is ridiculous, not to mention childish.
Ad hominem comments are vacuous.
I agree: I'll let you know when I make one!
Making historical assessments concerning two purported historical individuals is certainly not childish in and of itself, so it appears your conclusion is simply an ad hominem response to Habermas. What is funny is there are those who make similar accusations toward historians concerning the Jewish holocaust, and that was only about 70 years ago. I bet if I look hard enough I could find someone who believes that Titus was just a myth and therefore the destruction of Jerusalem never occurred in 70 A.D. I can only imagine what ad hominem response would be issued against Roman historians who actually believed he existed.
Dmitriy Cherchenko The resurrection is true because the bible says it is so. This is NOT a valid argument! Well your Honor; Of course I did not commit this crime I'm accused of, just look at my written statement, it says right here I did not commit this crime. Therefore, based upon this unchallengable evidence, you have to find me not guilty and set me free!
***** You're missing the point: I don't care whether Jesus existed or not. His existence does not prove he is GOD! The gospels are hearsay at best! NO eyewitness at all! Stories told to scribes derived from oral; tradition decades after the supposed existence of Jesus is hardy evidence.
How much is this conman worth from this racket has he got his own private jet maybe not yet but he's got an audience of fools willing to listen to him can you blame him for taking their money
"The latest case?" After two thousand years you are still grasping at any straw to prove your nonsense. Matt Dillahunty said that in a universe where a god can and will change the laws of physics at will, we can trust and depend on nothing. I may start praying to Baal to kick Yahweh's ass and take over again. Have you noticed that Christianity is the only religion that requires apologetics ... and is the only religion that is so incredibly profitable to engage in apologetics. Ass hats get rich catering to the childlike faith and belief of fundamentalist christians. Habermas implies that proof of jesus and proof of the historicity of Washington are equal? ... My god, that is so ridiculous that it borders on insane.
God doesn't change laws of physics. He simply supersedes them for a moment when a miracle takes place.
And yes, Matt "Dodger" Dillahunty is absolutely correct. You wouldn't know anything. Humanity claiming it knows anything when we're presupposing materialism and an evolved naturalism is frankly arrogant and pathetic.
Christianity is the only religion with apologetics because it's the only one with historical basis. No other religion comes close to us. Also, you claiming apologetics is profitable is straight-up disinformation. Please.
Resurrection? Okay, for discussion’s sake I’m willing to posit that JC died and returned to life. No tricks, no coma or catatonia: he was straight-up _dead_, then lived again. Hey, why not-according to the Bible, there was a lot of that going on then (Mat 27:52-53)! All of which proves…what?
That JC was very special or very lucky? Yes, for sure!
That there is a “god” that created the universe--a universe with _more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth_? That JC was a son of that being? Oh, and somehow also that “deity” himself? No, there is no logical step by which those conclusions automatically follow.
If you want to convince people that there's a supernatural being operating in the universe nowadays--occasionally breaking the laws of physics (to work miracles), and requiring worship and obedience--you're going to have to give some _current_ evidence for it. JC's (alleged) resurrection, two thousand years ago, doesn't qualify.
If Jesus said X,Y,Z about himself, and Jesus said A,B,C would happen, and these things happen, X,Y,Z is therefore correct.
Habermas has a lot of stories and demos, but no evidence that anything in the gospels is true. Has he spoken to Paul? Paul who?
Are scientists emotion driven? If so, they are not scientific.
@Delon Duvenage Looking at only one wood is narrow thinking. Any film can be made to advocate any view of the world, sometimes totally opposite ones.
@Delon Duvenage No comment.
@Delon Duvenage Then why do you keep writing to me?
@Delon Duvenage Oh, that's nice!
I assume you are a missionary, then?
Fortunately for the rest of the world, Habermas doesn't get to speak for everyone else, even though he tries here. There was no emotional event tied to my leaving Christianity other than the emotional turmoil caused by the conflict between my wanting to remain a believer / thinking there had to be something wrong with me, and my learning that Christianity does not remotely have the historical / evidential or logical support that many of it's adherents claim. It was explicitly for intellectual reasons that I left Christianity and had I let my emotions rule as Habermas suggests, it's likely I would still be a believer. In other words, he has the whole thing entirely backwards, at least in regards to my own experiences.
Habermas suggests that unbelievers should seek a logic course when, according to his convenient scenario, doubters declare the biblical writers biased while also maintaining they are not themselves biased. If they actually maintained such a position he would probably be right since it's pretty safe to say that we are all biased in some way and to some degree. I find it doubtful however that many would offer the answer Habermas uncharitably ascribes to them, but that aside, I think Habermas misses the point. Noting that unbelievers are also biased doesn't change the fact that the biblical writers were also highly biased, with a definite agenda bent on spreading their beliefs. At best then, using Habermas' own reasoning, all parties should be treated with skepticism, including the biblical writers.
hi mad max,
the bible and christianity has endured the most scrutiny of all ancient text and religions ,textually, historically etc. to address your last point.
christianity has the best affirming historical evidence of all religions.i love to research this subject. i don't want to sound insulting in any way but the evidence in no way gives reason for dismissing the credibility of the new testament.
honestly check the historical evidence and don't rely on youtube post that agree with your bias. to restart your inquiring juices, realize that at the highest levels of academia the debate still rages and the evidence for the credibility and historicity of the new testament continues to mount archeologically and historically.
Usually enjoy your talks, BUT this one, could you have spent any more time saying NOTHING for a whole hour ?????????? 26 minutes in, putting me to sleep.
the problem is, you were asleep.