I was told my whole life by the fundamentalist camp that Crossan was a heretic. I must say that while I don’t agree with him on everything, I certainly find him to have a Christ like heart, I wish I had only opened up to him sooner.
I just found him, and just in time, as I'm embarking on about 200 books, from neurophysiology to textual criticism, to better understand what I grew up with. I'd passed on him initially, afraid that he was some other N.T. Wright (there are SO MANY fundamentalists in textual criticism), but then I heard what he said in a "documentary" th-cam.com/video/LKOoPcHxPhU/w-d-xo.html and at 38:30 of that I heard a man who could walk my dog. (It's a test I use for politicians.) More profound than beautiful, but even Keats would have appreciated it as both, because it has the added benefit of being historical. I've been looking for a Zinn's "People's History of Faith" and I might have found it. Anyone who can compare Jesus with Borges ("Raid on the Articulate") has gotta be decent enough to give a read. Otherwise, meh...I've seen Mike Licona trounced by Bart Ehrman. (Nice guy though, as fundamentalists go.) Oh, and it turned out that I'd already had him without knowing, in "The Five Gospels," the findings of the Jesus Seminar. I shoulda gone to DePaul instead of Loyola.
I don’t think you understand what fundamentalist denotes. A better term would be conservative scholar. The meaningful distinction between the 2 terms are an unbridgeable GAP.
Crossan is basically an atheist, agnostic at best, selling himself as christian, I dont see any value in that. Their Jesus seminar thing was rather crafty and unscientific if you read about them, random people deciding truth by hand voting.
Not believing the resurrection was real kind of eliminates him from being a Christian. However, I have ways wondered why Jesus needed to show that He rose again to be the fundamental basis of our faith. To me, it was just like showing Thomas when he wouldn't believe. Jesus even said to Thomas that the blessed ones were the ones who believed without seeing. If Jesus said He was God and would ascend to Heaven He shouldn't have had to come back to "prove" it. Suffering and dying for us is a different story. Im continuing to study this subject to understand.
May I ask, what is the criteria Dr. Crossan use to distinguish literal from metaforic? For example, when he talks about the healing in Lourdes, how can I know if he is talking literally?
This is a nice conversation. Very respectful and really delving in the issues. On a certain level, I think they're both very wrong but again, a good exchange.
The problem I have with Licona is that he wants to argue that there must be some eyewitness account and what they are we can’t say exactly. But then, what do you do with the vast majority of so called believers who take everything literally word by word. I am more comfortable with Dominic’s position where by the big events are not denied like crucifixion but the rest is mostly made up. I also agree his take on resurrection and what it meant for the first Christians and why it is later pushed down on people’s throat as a Roman Imperial Theology to believe it literally. The latter is a culdesac and together with some other dead end Roman Imperial Theology developed later, the Christianity needs to refocus and find its initial meanings all of which are already profound relevant universally, namely that victory through war is untenable and the victory through justice is the way forward for a peaceful humanity. Anything else leads to self destruction. The latter is the path we are on at the moment because the Church is still in a confused and disingenuous manner through the priests and Bishops maintaining this Roman Imperial Theology which is now totally redundant and a time bomb for Christianity. It is killing it.
Who dies,gets whipped to death, jailed, shipwrecked, ect..... Like these guys to tell stories..... :) Paul says in his own writings if Jesus did not come back from the dead, he is but all a miserable man.... These people are not stupid! They saw something and they were willing to be tortured and murdered for it.... What would it take for you? For me to be tied up to that whipping post the TRUTH!
Three independent sources? They are called the synoptic gospels for a reason. Read the gospels in parallel and you find the same story in the same words. Plus all the gospels that did not make it into the bible because why? They tell a different story. These are not eye witnesses. They don't pretend to be. Read the text! No one says Jesus told me or I walked with Jesus here or there or the boat was rocking and I was afraid and Jesus got mad at me. Early Christians disagreed on the very nature of Jesus was he man or spirit Early Christians disagreed. Read the Church father's They talked constantly about heretical Christians.
The gospel are not eye witness the gospel are written anonymously. That just what is true I was told the same thing until I research and found a Christian historian saying there no eye witness for the gospel and many scholar agreed it not eye witness we not sure
1.01 is a weird moment-Licona is asked to answer a question posed by John Dominic and replies “ I would, but I see we’ve run out of time.” Even the moderator looked surprised. Debaters,fiercely defending their point of view, generally aren’t focused on the clock...
Actually this is more commonly done by debaters who realize their arguments are falling on deaf ears, rather than continue to beat a dead horse, let's progress to a question where we might have a more productive discussion. The surprising thing is that he overcomes the very human tendency to want to want to be heard and make a point, rather than advance a discussion and actually accomplish anything meaningful. So rather than act in accordance with his human nature, he's choosing to act in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15.
Jesus is historical based in what? 1. Tacitus wrote 30 years after events 2. Josephus 80 years after and is suspect 3. Bible? We don't know who wrote the Gospels 40-90 years later. 4. Paul had 'visions'. The last time I checked 'visions' are not empirical sources. This is all waffle. You probably need to read some of the research 😅😂😅
odd to me that anyone would think the first gospel mark had no motive to invent a baptism of Jesus by John the baptist. True Mathew, Luke and John later found that baptism embarrassing, but Mark clearly didn't
If you follow the trajectory of the view on Jesus from the 60 - 70 (Mark's dating) to 90 - 110 (John's dating) you may conclude that it changed over time. For Mark Jesus was the adopted son of God, by the time they arrived at the end of the century Jesus was seen, at least by the Johannine community, as God and equal to God. The key question was if John baptised Jesus, wouldn't that make him superior to Jesus? Matthew, Luke and John seem to have been struggling with that question. What you might conclude is that the fact that Jesus was in the beginning a follower of John and that he was baptised by him was a well known fact in the community. John the Baptist was much more well known than Jesus was in the first century. What would be the reason that Mark would come up with the baptism of Jesus? What would it add to his narrative? It is more likely that the baptism was a wellknown fact and as he saw no issue he made it part of his gospel. There was apparently a reason for Matthew and Luke (using Mark) and John to keep it as part of their narritive, but played it down.
@@janvanpoppel2814John the baptizer was well known and it is possible that one of John followers made up his own variation and preached. We had dozens of doomsayers and apologetics to speak about the end of the world and were false messiahs.
There are not 200 verifiable NDEs where the subject was able to describe things which would have been impossible otherwise. A recent study of 2000 subjects found only 1 subject that could apparently recall a conversation between nurse and doctor and she mentioned specifics while they were trying to resuscitate her. The digital display with a number test has thus far got no successes.
You need one sound one with good corroboration...I honestly think you need more than one....but then there is the possibility that consciousness outside of the body is also temporary...lasts only a few minutes or hours. Thats another theory which has some support.
The concept of love thy “enemies” as thyself bespeaks empathy which to me is a key to understanding and peace. The statement “forgive them they know not what they do” bespeaks the fallibility of societies and of all the human race throughout history. We are all of us capable of being mislead. Jesus if he said those things along with basically emphasizing love the poor and share your wealth he had it right. Whether or not he was the son of God. My only disagreement would be that a satan or devil exists and his reign is in hell. Human fallibility as with Adam and Eve(the story) is the root of evil along with greed. The snake is us.
If you take Crossan's view, doesn't Christianity become pointless? I mean, why then would you choose to be a Christian over any other religion based on eloquent metaphors? I'd argue that the metaphors are profoundly more beautiful in Hinduism, so if that's the criteria, then anyone who appreciates literature should be compelled to become a Hindu. If Jesus wasn't literally resurrected in the flesh, Christianity evaporates. I don't see the need Crossan seems to keep pointing at for Paul or anyone else to "fit the story into Jewish tradition." Isn't that why Paul referred to Jesus as a stumbling block for Jews? Crossan seems to me to be making the point that he believes Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures *in the very way that the Jews were interpreting them,* in fact, what Paul and the other apostles were preaching was essentially, "Look guys, we know Jesus isn't what we were expecting, but He IS the Messiah," essentially making the point that the expectations were *wrong.* Why don't you have a description? Because no one saw it happen. If the gospel authors were keen to fabricate details to make their story more believable, we wouldn't have the gospel being preached by a guy who had denied that he knew Jesus, or Jesus revealing Himself first to women. These potentially embarrassing details, among others are often pointed to by scholars of many different faiths to suggest that the authors of the gospels were telling the truth (or doing so at least as far as they knew, depending on what conclusions one makes about the truth.) I don't understand how Crossan arrives at the conclusions that he does and still believes that Christianity is even worth his time.
Depends if you're living it out and see the truth in doing so. The truth is in the eating. I don't see how thinking literal resurrection is true helps at all. In actual fact, I would say that has led to a slothful negation of the responsibility we have for life now and detracts from what Jesus is telling us to do. Jesus wasn't an afterlife insurance broker! Reminds me of when people say they're only good because they fear punishment. That merely serves to highlight the fragility and problems with that person.
Mr.Dominic you are not a christian person ,because you not believe in the resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ and stop to establish your doctrines and to decide what is true and what is not true in Bible!
Why else be a Christine everybody jump into religion do to cause we don’t know what happen after deaths and hope when we die we see heaven . And that for all religions belief I’m agnostic and I respect his honesty the most if anyone could bring someone close to the faith it him he does it without being bias
@@theunrepentantatheist24 you atheist your belief isn’t any better than religions belief im agnostic so I side on some of atheist point but when y’all argue there no Evidence for god yet believe in alien where the evidence of god is more in your face then alien make you guys a very dishonest person when it come to debate atheist never do good the only best thing atheist use is basically science yet science don’t answer everything waiting on them to let us know more about dark matter or dark energy but they not truly someone to believe in neither
@@giovannymendez9587 I never said I believe in aliens. There may be alien life in the universe though it has not been discovered. I am waiting for evidence. My atheism is a rejection of god claims - it is not a belief. I am not saying there is no god. I am saying I do not believe there is a god. I can't explain the mysteries of the universe - but I would need some evidence to believe a god is responsible. Do you have any evidence?
@@theunrepentantatheist24 the only evidence I found is the Jesus story that honestly the only God evidence we have and you sound more agnostic then atheist but they consider us both on the same side I think agnostic just not sure so they just ask question to find out some atheist act like they know it all and that when they lose me cause some argument during debate sound stupid. And the fine tuning argument make room for a theory of God but other then that we can’t prove he live just like we cant prove what created the Big Bang but I do like the God conversation reason I listen to it. And waiting for more evidence of space but I don’t know It just to much to grasp.
A woman lost her sight and went to a witch doctor and a pastor. Hmmmmm. He calls himself a skeptic? And all these miracles always happen on the other side of the world
A side note as an eastern I can give my thoughts about the "fresco". It is depicting the "harrowing of Hell" by Jesus saving Adam and Eve the heads of the human race from their sin. That is its main point not the Resurrection by itself.
“When Jesus returns we are going to be raised” except he hasn’t returned yet and it’s been over 2,000 years so why did he come to give that message at that particular time? Because it never happened
If it never happened then why was Jesus historically crucified on the cross? They wouldn't crucify Him for no reason after all. And you also dont realize that the bible says the 1000 years/days is like 1 day to God. He dwells outside space and time so time is different
Brooke Barnes: Ladies & gentlemen, here we have the distorted mind set of the radicalized online atheist. The historicity of the ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well established & accepted by mainstream scholarship - even by noted atheist scholars.
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Paul never claims to know any disciples only apostles, paul only gets his info from the vision of dead Jesus…this isn’t history it’s myth! The gospel are also not history
I like listening to Dr Cossan but I'm not sure I understand why he feels Christian. I especially respect the manner of their discourse. If politicians would conduct themselves with this level of maturity and consideration I'd watch their debates.
"There's only 1 gospel but several interpretations." I'd ask J D Crossan what he'd make of Michael Hudson's new work, "...and forgive them their debts." If historically it can be shown that by his claim/expectation of becoming king of the Jews he would then thereupon institute the Jubilee year, then the traditional forgiveness of debts (not only a tradition amongst the Jews, but amongst other civilizations like Babylon and Assyria) would be the "good news." This was also the time that Hillel had come up with a workaround for that, essentially nullifying this economic tradition.
The emperor Augustus was the son of god abd his father Gaius Julius Ceasar was a god abd his family descended from the goddess Venus. Unknown arameic dead preacher was executed as a rabel against Rome and was one more false Messiah. Flavius Josephus idrntifies the Roman emperor as the messiah the jews expected.
My problem with People like Casey, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Pagels, Luderman and so on is that there is no need to distinguish from literal and metaphorical that makes the debate useless since lay people understand something different. It's better to utilize words like Concrete and abstract since we Historians mean one thing but the public understand it differently. It is like saying in science, "It's just a theory", the way people understand the word theory is very different from the way Scientists understand the word theory. The gospels contain the words of Jesus and also contains eyewitness testimony I feel that this should have been the course of the debate. Great Job, Dr. Licona, I appreciate your work so much!
How do you know the gospels contain the words of Jesus? And there are no eyewitness testimonies of Jesus. There are 2nd hand accounts of accounts of proclaimed eye witnesses but no actual direct eye witnesses.
@@Keenanville09 As a Historian I can tell you that there are multiple layers of attestation that can be applied methodologically , such as but not limited to , the Criterion of dissimilarity, disinterested comments, criterion of embarrassment, discontinuity, multiple attestation and so on and so forth. We can also do the same with the life of Caesar, Seneca, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Josephus and so on and so forth. It is universally recognized that the words of Jesus are contained in the Gospels, the contention would be if they were kept intact (which I think they did, based on the Criterion of double and multiple attestation), or if they were modified in order to suit the author's "agenda". For example : The Gospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Peter, we know this through the criterion of authenticity, because it shows Peter as a heroic man and so on whereas all the other gospels show Peter as a"different" man so to speak. You can read more about this argument from this book . I think the Gospel of Mark was written within several months after the death of Jesus, because it talks about a kind of judaism (off the cuff comments) that people would not be acquainted several decades later and it has been universally recognized that Mark was Peter's interpreter. (www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802874312/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1) Luke says right off the bat that he IS NOT an eyewitness, but he is reporting and what he has investigated by reading and interviewing other people that were close to Jesus, or perhaps the disciples themselves. The vegetation, Geography, Topography, landscape description, Fauna of Luke matches exactly the details you find in archeology which proves that he wrote it from within Palestine. John was written (I think by John the apostle) by an early follower of Jesus, someone who walked with him and so on I firmly believe that MAtthew was written by the apostle matthew. The criticism that most scholars would have is that apparently he looks like Matthew copied from Mark about his own account of his conversion. But this should not be a problem since we know that Xenophon relied on the account of others when he was an eyewitness to the events he was describing. This is consistent with the way these authors behaved in the Book of Acts. It’s interesting the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses. The earliest writings of the church fathers simply confirm the eyewitness nature of the Gospel authors. Papias, for example, described Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s teachings related to what Peter saw and heard from Jesus. According to Papias, while Mark was not himself an eyewitness to the events described in his Gospel, he did accurately record the firsthand experiences of his teacher and mentor, Peter. Finally, the Canon of Scripture reflects the eyewitness nature of the Gospel accounts. One of the primary criteria for the selection of the Canon was the issue of eyewitness composition. The original Gospels were protected and revered based on their apostolic authorship, and late documents were rejected by the early Church Fathers based on the fact they were considered to be fraudulent narratives offered by authors late in history who were not actually present for the life and ministry of Jesus. The criterion of eyewitness authorship became foundational to the selection process. www.amazon.com/Hidden-Plain-View-Undesigned-Coincidences-ebook/dp/B073GDF3VZ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542475465&sr=1-1&keywords=lydia+mcgrew www.amazon.com/What-Are-Gospels-Comparison-Graeco-Roman/dp/0802809715/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542475497&sr=1-3&keywords=what+are+the+gospels www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-One-Jesus-Symbolic/dp/0802871011/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0802871011&pd_rd_r=c223bb9f-ea8d-11e8-8581-ff357aa136b3&pd_rd_w=ZgWTz&pd_rd_wg=jIj4R&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/ref=pd_sbs_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0310238595&pd_rd_r=c223bb9f-ea8d-11e8-8581-ff357aa136b3&pd_rd_w=Jaxc3&pd_rd_wg=jIj4R&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS
Yeah I need more than this to accept the super natural nature of the claims made in the gospels. Also you know what also would pass this criteria...superman but that doesn't make it true. What's the single best evidence for the supernatural nature of the gospels. I need real actual evidence.
I have a difference of opinion with you. Most critical scholars and historical experts separate the literal and the metaphorical. There is “the concrete” and then there are the meanings assigned to the concrete. For example, the virgin birth of Jesus has nothing to do with the biology of Mary. It speaks instead to the importance of Jesus. Virgin births and miraculous beginnings were often attributed to ancient heroes.
Why should we not expect a consensus on Jesus? This is - as I understand from Christians - the true religion. If there is one area I would expect a consensus - it is on the savior of mankind sent to earth by the one true god.
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
I’m not what people would consider a Christian, and I’ve never read the bible, but I see it as a human endeavour to resonate with the divine. For me, this is a debate between a man who is using his full capacity as a mature human being to work out a way of making sense of existence and a child grasping at literal interpretations which he finds solace in. It’s a delight to listen to the wisdom and kindness of this octogenarian. My mind couldn’t complete with his at half his age.
Whether right or wrong, why would basing your life around a book or story that’s really not true be making more sense of existence than the man who actually believe it?
Crossan is very generous with Licona. Licona is a blind apologist clinging on by the fingertips to the wreakage of his arguments, desperste to be accepted as a historian, yet again completely out of his depth with a veritable and venerable scholar. Other hidtorians snd thinkers have wiped the floor with Licona's unsubstantiated and convoluted fantasies. Crossan treated him with more kindness than Licona deserves. It suprises me that any serious scholar gives this one-trick pony houseroom anymore. His fairy stories wear very thin very quickly and if he continues to show a complete absense of any ability to learn and develop from his repeated and thorough schooling by serious historians and thinkers then I cannot see the ppint of giving him a platform in a forum at this level, so beyond him
@@joeb2588 I'm not clear what credit one could possibly assign to Licona. He is an apologist, not a scholar. He surrendered his academic credibility by signing a compulsory declaration of articles of faith dictated by the organisation he works for, a declaration that precludes any independence of thought. And the arguments that he expounds in that ideologically limited dogma are woefully inadequate. They have been surgically dismantled time and time again by truly independent and academically recognised scholars without Licona ever seeming to notice or respond. As such, a presentation by Licona is an exercise of repetitive pointlessness. The guy is neither credible nor believable.
@@joeb2588 See Pine Creek's first interview with Laura Robinson, an accredited Christian historian who runs TH-cam channel NT Review. Early in the interview Robinso comments on the difference between a real historian and what Licona is up to. It would better inform you. You can also see Robinson"s debate with Licona himself th-cam.com/video/HYW5qG2OCnE/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/uoq4bLxzop4/w-d-xo.html
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
If one were to write the bible today, those believing the fantastical tale based solely on the fact that words were written on a page, would be encouraged to seek help. Belief in unverified text,written 2,000 years ago by unknown people for unknown reasons,should be seriously questioned by anyone who is interested in truth above all else.
@@grantgooch5834This is what historical research is for. We should not mistake Harry Potter for history as it is just a story. Casting demon inzo pigs, walking over water (Poseidon miracle), turning water into wine (Dionysos miracle) healing like Asklepios are all fictional.
"One of the best attested miracles in all profane history, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian [the Roman Emperor], who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the Emperor, for these miraculous cures. [i.e. in Tacitus Hist. Lib. v. cap. 8. Suetonius gives nearly the same account in vita Vesp. ]" David Hume On miracles. Does Licona believe this miracle? Two respected ancient historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, wrote about it.
Examples of "bodily resurrection" can be found in multitudes in historical esoteric and metaphysical literature. It is not exklusive for the Christ story.
Care to provide some testable evidence for this claim that can be investigation? Along with supporting evidence for the time it was produced and testimony from eye witness AND associates of eye witness whom can attest to the credibility of the character of the person giving the testimony AND evidence of actions taken based on the faith in the ideas presented? You are probably drawing a correlation between vastly different things.
@@unclekerr4369 The evidence is there for the asking. Look and you will find. I am not here to argue, debate or provide evidence. I just don't have that energy. I am happy with my statement. All the best
@@Pilgrimsrummet In that case you are here for vanity. It would be helpful if you at least point an interested party in the general direction. I asked you for the evidence and you refused it so I am not sure how you can make that claim with any integrity.
@@Pilgrimsrummet The truth doesn't take any energy. Helping people is a source of energy not a tax in it. You are making specific claims and you refuse to provide the particulars of the cases you sight for investigation therefor you are being evasive and if you are happy with an evasive statement it is likely you are lost. If I search else where for evidence for your claims I can never be sure the case I investigate are the ones you are talking about. The truth must have specificity and accuracy therefore I must investigate the examples you are referring to but you will not share that when asked. I assume you are an Atheist due to your being disinterested in the truth and a barrier to someone trying to investigate what you said.
@@unclekerr4369 Google is your friend. It'll help you find a library or a book shop. Trying to be smart on something as basic as this just doesn't help. It's like refusing to get up yourself to see that it's raining outside when someone tells you it is, and you're trying to make an argument for why it isn't without getting up. Dude, get a grip.
Imagine rising from the dead and then disappearing shortly thereafter. Jesus, was theoretically seen by followers as was Elvis by his followers. Eyewitness reports? Why would Jesus ascend to heaven before confronting Pilate, the Sanhedrine and other skeptics? Always wondered this?
*Christianity wrong doctrine* Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
Very well noticed... On the question whether the NT contains any eye witnesses Dr. Licona mentions Mark as he is supposed to have been the secretary of Simon Peter (39:00). If that were true (and there seem to be good reasons to think it isn't) then Mark is not an eye witness to the life of Jesus. Simon Peter was..... Hearing the story of an eye witness doesn't make you an eye witness. Dr. Licona has used this reasoning before and I don't see how it holds water.
The moon analogy is a false analogy. This is because the evidence is first person (witness), and is unique. The second is not. The second is not first person, and is not unique (virgin birth is common in the ancient world). Therefore, historical projects are very different from scientific projects. A false analogy.
The metaphorical is more powerful than the literal? Where is the evidence for the claim? What universe does Crossan live in? The literal teachings of Christ have affected history more than any metaphorical concept known to man. Crossan's statement is utter blasphemy. Nothing could be more important and powerful than Jesus' literal life and resurrection.
No one, anytime or anywhere can cause dead people to walk out of their graves. So something else is going on. The resurrection is true, but it has nothing to do with Jesus’ body. Resurrection was an ancient Hebrew concept that was used to explain that after Jesus’ death, his power and presence were still felt by his followers.
The "idea" of a metaphor is more powerful than the literal English translation. If you can't comprehend that the Bible (of course which Bible as well), is a piece of ancient literature and separate it from your religious held beliefs, then you won't understand a damn word Crossan or anyone else who is a critic. Even Licona can get on board with some of the Synoptics use of metaphors...for instance the dead rising during Jesus' death...he doesn't believe it "literally" happened...he lost his job over telling the truth.
@@samirpernell2136 Shortly after the tiny Christian faith got in bed with the Holy Roman Empire [around 325 ACE] Constantine’s mother Helena found a part of Jesus Christ's tunic, pieces of the holy cross, and pieces of the rope with which Jesus was tied on the Cross. The rope, considered to be the only relic of its kind, has been held at the Stavrovouni Monastery, which was also said to have been founded by Helena.
An atheist reviews Lydia McGrew's recently published "Eye of the Beholder" (DeWard, 2021), wherein she upholds the historical reportage model and accuracy of John in rebuttal to other Christian scholars who say otherwise. Lydia argues that many conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical bible scholars, among whom she in her book represents with the writings of Licona, Evans, Keener and W.L. Craig, are misleading the church by arguing that the gospel of John employs a degree of fiction. Nowhere in this book does Lydia express or imply that these scholars aren't saved, aren't walking in the light of Christ, don't study the bible enough, harbor unconfessed sin, etc, etc. She simply provides reasons to disagree with their arguments. So assuming Lydia's entire thesis is correct, she would be forced to conclude that she has made a strong argument justifying skepticism toward the conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical version of Christianity that she and her cited scholars personally follow. After all, according to Lydia, even if I became genuinely born again, faithfully attended a conservative Protestant Trinitarian church, graduated from conservative Trinitarian bible college and seminary with a legitimate ph.d in a field directly implicating the New Testament, and was careful to turn away from sin and walk in the light of Christ the whole time, not even THIS extreme level of dedication to the "right" version of orthodoxy would offer the slightest guarantee or assurance that God would protect me from espousing and teaching errors, which according to Lydia, are so harmful as to justify efforts to uproot the from the church. No, this doesn't prove Christianity is false. It proves the reasonableness of skeptics who assert that the many NT assurances that the Holy Spirit will protect those who truly walk in Christ, are false. If Lydia is correct, then your level of bible-smarts is the only thing in existence that has significant potential to keep you free from an errant view of the gospels. It doesn't matter if Lydia trifles that it isn't her business to figure out God's mysterious ways, the logic within "Beholder" is going to render skepticism toward Christianity reasonable, regardless. turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/05/christian-doscher-reviews-dr-lydia.html
And? Crossan would agree. He’s just saying the gospels should be taken as pseudo biographical and metaphorical. It should be enough that this interpretation would change the world but that’s not what happened. It’s the miracles and resurrection that sealed the deal.
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says: * Jesus was not God. * Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins* * Jesus did not resurrect from death. I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus. * As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc). As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these: 1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed. 2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do? *A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross. *B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven. Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer. *That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
43:51 ''Plutarch changes Plutarch''--- and Luke X changes Word of God(Mark)….And that is the same for Dr Licona!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dr Licona go and change yourself.
Have you ever observed how the NT authors sometimes change the Word of God? See Matthew 27:9-10. You'll search in vain to find this text in Jeremiah because it's in Zechariah. However, Matthew borrowed a single word from Jeremiah, "field," inserted it in the text from Zechariah, paraphrased the text, attributed it to Jeremiah, interpreted it to say something quite different from the original meaning of either text, then claim Scripture has been fulfilled. What Matthew did here is not unique. Composite citations was fairly common among Greco-Roman and even Jewish authors of that era. Our view of Scripture should be consistent with what we observe in Scripture.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial ''Our view of Scripture should be consistent with what WE observe in Scripture.'' ….. To be like Nietzsche's Superman (Ubermensch SS) ????????? At the end ''God is dead''-Zarathustra...…. I am truly flabbergasted and grateful that you have answered personally . Thank you Mike. Good Man.
I think Mike did a great job. In fact I have Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig to thank for helping to motivate and get excited over the life of Jesus. They will say something that will send me off to see if in fact it "works" or is legit. I do the research and see how right they are or my interest is peaked and I keep going. Now those are 3 guys I'd take to dinner any night of the week. (Poor guys would be trying to eat and I'd be asking all sorts of questions!)
I feel so bad for Mike. Dr. Crossan has this sophisticated 21st century model of Christianity and Mike just can't accept it. It has to be the traditional model of Christianity or nothing. This is so sad. I am sorry Mike that you are trapped in your traditional Jesus. This means that you only know Jesus as much as your tradition allows you. I am truly sorry. May the man you worship as your god help you because God won't.
The writers of John were followers of Greek mythology and mystics, they created Jesus from their understanding on gospels and their visions. “How can one human confer divinity on another””Humans cannot confer divinity” Mike Licona My response, humans and only humans can confer divinity. Divinity is only a projection of the human mind and a perception of the supernatural. We project this on others. Colossians is a psuedoepigraphy and Mike Licona should know this. Paul is testifying about Jesusvfrom his visions. What the orthodox religion would say today if you had the same type of vision, spiritual delusion. There are no facts. Yeshua died, a man who never saw him or heard his voice has visions claiming to be the risen spirit of a man he never met. For real Mike, this is what you call evidence. “What do you do with Paul when he says in [1] Corinthians 8:6”. Ignore him as a babbling mystic? Kia Kurios Ihsous Xristos was Paul’s invention, it was based on his hallucination. It was real to him, it was his Metaphor, does it need to be mine? The creation of the Universe was through “violence”. At the moment inflation ends and expansion begins the energy density of the universe is so high, that but not for the ftl-relative inflation of space time it would have immediately form a quantum singularity. The universe was hot for 400,000 years. The stuff our planet was made from came from a supernova, the formation of the planet was “violent”, the interior of the sun is “violent”. Evolution works because of competition and that is “violent”. We see now in many ecosystems “keystone” species and many times the species that keeps the ecosystem running is some sort of Apex predator. Humans are shaped by violence, our size, our ability to fend off apex predators, to build houses and fortifications. This is part of our evolution.
I think dr Licona represents the nonsensical christianity in a man. You cannot be an objective historian and a fundamentalist at the same time. It's like his view that the scripture are well preserved and the words of God, yet Mark got some places wrong! Not sure what dr Licona tries to say!
Robert Mitchell No! What I meant is that dr Licona believes that the bible got corrupted, and he believes that the bible is intact at the same time. How can we understand this mindset? That is why dr Ehrman got puzzeled by Licona in their last debate.
Mike Licona is dead wrong about one thing. He said when we die we immediately go to heaven without a body 1:20:40. The Bible says you can't come before the high priest naked. Man is spirit, soul and body. You can't have a functioning man without a body and there is no party going on in heaven right now of bodiless saved souls. It would be unfair also to have someone enjoy the party beforehand. What happens in reality is that when you die you go to soul sleep. When you are resurrected God gives you a new body that activates your soul life when your spirit touches your new body. It's like when you turn your computer on. The spirit of it is there in 1s and 0s and BIOS, but it needs a casing and software. In 1 Thess. 4 it says those "which sleep in Jesus" (v.14) will be resurrected. This is the general resurrection together. Verse 17 says comfort yourself with these words. Paul repeats verse 14 in other words in 15,16,17. One of the negative things of thinking you go to heaven immediately when you die is you open up necromancy talking to loved ones in heaven which are really just dead people and even worse evil spirits posed as loved ones.
@@gustavmahler1466 These two verses, of course, are metaphorical. That doesn't take away from the fact we will all be resurrected literally physically. 1 Cor. 15.12 But tell me this-since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God-for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. 20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. 21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back. Since you refuse to give your life to Christ for forgiveness of sins and regeneration of your spirit, unto eternal life, you will be resurrected and sent to Hell, a thousand years after the saved are resurrected. In very simple terms you are a bad guy who belongs in Hell, the place of eternal separation from God. That is your choice you bear alone. Some people such as yourself prefer to remain separated from God's love for eternity. You are one of those people. You prefer to remain engrossed in your sinful nature instead of being redeemed. So be it.
Wow. J D Crossan's metaphors know kung fu. Haven't encountered so thoroughgoing a neoplatonist since Plotinus and Boethius. At least Aquinas finally gave up. J D musta glossed over that part. He gives new meaning to Muriel Rukeyser's, "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." Even though he's right that this is 90% of how we actually operate/think, to hear him state it so baldly renders it almost a liberal fundamentalism. As bad as hearing a fiction writer talk about their characters as real people. Literal fundamentalism vs. fundamental liberalism. I actually think they both lost. And WTH is a metaphorical resurrection? A metaphor for a metaphor? (Because if he'd believed in a Hellenized resurrection, he'd still be talking about a literal soul ascension.) I'm looking for a jigsaw puzzle metaphor of a missing piece. At the end, J D you're not even wrong. People will and do die for other non-metaphorical people, even if they're also otherwise asked to for "god and country" or whatever else. Disappointing. Glad I went to Loyola instead. (Sorry, I get it now...we're the metaphor. Heavy. But only if I look at it with averted vision to split difficult double stars through a telescope.)
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Excellent. He is a total tool. I cant stand listening to him. Imagine trying to disprove Jesus claims. For what? To zap the joy out of someone's day? The girl he has on there sometimes looks so miserable. When I see him on my suggestions, I just delete it. I watched once and this kid like 13yrs old called in and schooled him it was awesome. But he got mad at him and threatened to hang up on him. Hes a real winner...although I like your "meathead" name...
Jesus is a mythical product of the Greco-Roman world with the gospels being of the same Greco-Roman myth genre. Jesus is the same demigod that the Greeks and Romans would have been familiar with. To actually believe in the Jesus of the gospels is idolatry. Whoever was the the actual Jesus ended up devoured by scavengers just as every other crucified criminal was. The deification of one's religious leader be it Pythagoras or Jesus was a common practice of the Greeks and Romans.
You hear John Dominic Crossan quoted all the time so you get excited to hear him in a debate for the first time, but as it turns out, he is not very bright. For him to go on and on about the resurrection being a metaphor only which goes so contrary to the Apostles recording this as an actual event, I think Crossan is forever lost and there is no chance he is going to give his life to Christ so I know he is going to Hell. He says the Bible is about non-violence rather than Jesus dying for the sins of the world literally.
Parture there is no "recording by the apostle's" concerning the resurrection beyond Paul and he only supposedly had a vision. Beyond that it's just 2nd hand testimony on back and your remarks concerning Crossan as " not bright"are patently absurd as he's forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know..You post ridiculous video's on your personal channel that no one cares about and this man has written numerous books..🙄
@@alanndrake2619 The minimal facts approach takes data that most scholars on the resurrection agree whether atheist, Christian, or other world view, and see if we can determine a verdict. Most scholars concede Paul genuinely believed and wrote these 3 passages. Paul said in 1 Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 that he spent 15 days with Peter whom he said told him he saw Jesus resurrected, the Jesus he spent 3 years with, along with all 12 Apostles. He also said he spent time with James, the brother of Jesus who converted based on seeing Jesus resurrected; and even after 15 years, Paul caught up again with John (and again James and Peter) who taught the same to confirm all he was teaching was true. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so when they claimed to see Jesus alive from the dead, they were telling you the truth that can set you free. Peter wrote he he saw Jesus resurrected, John wrote he saw Jesus resurrected and the source for Matthew was Matthew (there is no ghost writer). Nobody else fits the bill in his characteristic writing style of a tax collector, emphasizing Jesus as king. When Paul had his vision of Jesus, those with him also heard a loud voice and flashing light, but as they fell to the ground they did not see him. Only Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. In addition to these eyewitness accounts, you had Mark who knew Peter personally who recorded the resurrection, and we have 3 different chains of custody of Apostles confirming with Apostles because they knew each other personally, from the line of Peter and Polycarp, from the line of Paul, and the line of the line of John all to the 4th century of the Nicene Creed. You really can't ask for better evidence. In fact, there are more sources for Jesus than any 10 figures from antiquity combined so the evidence is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone claims Aristotle or Plato did not exist even though they have less than 10% of sources than did Jesus have. Writing lots of books does not save you. Since nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, we know it is true. You see salvation is not based on how smart you are, but whether you have a conscience to accept the Lord Jesus as Savior for no other name under heaven can one be saved when Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. Not accepting atonement is the surest way to Hell. You're a sinner and will die in your sins and the second death which is Hell because you prefer to remain in your flesh hostile to the greatest love the world has ever known when Jesus died for you. This speaks to the type of person you really are.
Parture listen I don't need you to give a 3 page response in regards to the so called resurrection as I'm full aware of the details.. First of all spare me the Habermas "minimal facts" because that is mere wordplay as historians agree on MINIMAL CLAIMS claims aren't facts for the event in question.. Facts are simple.. No eyewitnesses or first hand account of both a resurrection or empty tomb and no contemporary historians spoke of either. Secondly Paul never knew Jesus nor did he ever meet him while alive. He also had a vison nothing at all like the other apostles claimed to have. His traveling companions also saw and heard nothing as explained by Pauls version and Paul never spoke of any empty tomb in his epistles or specifically his letter to Corinth..
Parture there are plenty of explanations for any of the so called claims and they don't require the supernatural. You simply take it on faith by evidence that would never fly in any court of law.. Furthermore your rants as to my destination is meaningless as we will both die and rot in the ground just like Jesus only difference being we won't be thrown in a common unmarked grave or be carrion for birds or wild dogs...I can accept reality on it's terms unlike yourself..
@@alanndrake2619 If I am long I am addressing each of your mistaken assumptions. Obviously you are riff with many. If you said little I would say little. Stating something is not a fact, or that it is word play, is not a valid argument on your part that's just you shutting your mind down vaguely. The logical consistency of the minimal facts remains unchallenged by you. So the best evidence we have is the minimal facts approach which almost scholars agree on no matter their religious or world view. Peter was an eyewitness and said he saw Jesus resurrected in his writing. John did the same. Matthew is the source for Matthew. Mark knew Peter. Luke wrote two large books to recount everything. He was a doctor. Paul said and wrote he saw Jesus resurrected also. This their testimony and none of the Apostles disagreed. Paul even challenged anyone of the Apostles to come before him after all these years to expose if anything he was saying was false. They all held the same view. Seeing Jesus alive from the dead is seeing Him resurrected. Several people are eyewitnesses of the tomb empty recorded in the Bible. John placed himself at the cross when Jesus died. There are no contemporary writings for anyone. The earliest still surviving papyri are late 1st 2nd and 2nd century, yet this is closer to their events than anything form antiquity so Bible holds to the highest of historical standards. Paul likely saw Jesus as he was killing Christians for the Pharisees, unless Jesus escaped his gathering in crowds over 3 years. I doubt that. The vision though not strictly bodily should be different since it is post ascension. Perfectly reasonable. Acts which was Luke writing records those who accompanied Paul heard the voice and saw the light as they fell down. That's what the Bible says. At least get that right. Acknowledge at least that much is what it said. Of course Paul mentioned the empty tomb just not the way you want. The Bible is not required to say things that you need it to say when you want it to be said. Instead try to understand why it says what it says when it says it. It says it from various perspectives of the 40 authors over 1500 years. It's actually a perfect compilation of 66 books not one book buy one guy like Mormons or Muslims or the Atheist Guide to Retardation. Paul's testimony implies an empty tomb. The tomb was discussed amply in the gospel accounts. Paul spoke of Jesus' death plenty. Just like he doesn't have to say the word "Trinity" to teach the Trinity, likewise, he doesn't need to use the phrase "empty tomb" so you are being petty. Court trials have been enacted throughout history and the evidence for Jesus resurrected was overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. You claim there is a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony but you can't find any. That's where your brain shuts down like a zombie for Satan. I could say dogs could fly, but that would not do any good without evidence. Since all this is true, it naturally follows you will be resurrected and go to Hell. One leads to the other. The reason you will never cease to exist is because you like Adam and Eve are made in God's image. God would never give you God-consciousness in your spirit if you would subsequently cease to exist. That's immoral. The immorality of atheism is that it doesn't matter what you do in thinks life you end up as nothing. Meaningless. Pointless. But the universe has intelligence written all over it, and God can't have morals below our own so He has purpose. You have Hell.
I dont agree with that. If you want to see an interrupted debate go watch the 2 clowns we have running for president on their first debate. Although I do want the Republican clown to "win.."
I couldn't make it past Dominic's discussion on metaphors. So painful to listen to. The man actually stated that metaphors create reality. That's the most absurd thing I think I've ever heard. Metaphors reflect truths of reality. They do not create anything.
I don’t believe he means this quite as literally as you perhaps think he is. Metaphors operating upon human perception, thoughts and behaviour are capable of influencing or "creating" reality.
I became a fan of John Crossan about 20 years ago and then lost track of him but glad that he’s still around. Much respect for him.
Porque vc virou ateu?😂😂😂
I was told my whole life by the fundamentalist camp that Crossan was a heretic. I must say that while I don’t agree with him on everything, I certainly find him to have a Christ like heart, I wish I had only opened up to him sooner.
I just found him, and just in time, as I'm embarking on about 200 books, from neurophysiology to textual criticism, to better understand what I grew up with. I'd passed on him initially, afraid that he was some other N.T. Wright (there are SO MANY fundamentalists in textual criticism), but then I heard what he said in a "documentary"
th-cam.com/video/LKOoPcHxPhU/w-d-xo.html
and at 38:30 of that I heard a man who could walk my dog. (It's a test I use for politicians.) More profound than beautiful, but even Keats would have appreciated it as both, because it has the added benefit of being historical. I've been looking for a Zinn's "People's History of Faith" and I might have found it. Anyone who can compare Jesus with Borges ("Raid on the Articulate") has gotta be decent enough to give a read. Otherwise, meh...I've seen Mike Licona trounced by Bart Ehrman. (Nice guy though, as fundamentalists go.) Oh, and it turned out that I'd already had him without knowing, in "The Five Gospels," the findings of the Jesus Seminar. I shoulda gone to DePaul instead of Loyola.
I don’t think you understand what fundamentalist denotes. A better term would be conservative scholar.
The meaningful distinction between the 2 terms are an unbridgeable GAP.
See who needs to take notes and who can simply speak off his head ... that is crystalization of thoughts.
Crossan is basically an atheist, agnostic at best, selling himself as christian, I dont see any value in that.
Their Jesus seminar thing was rather crafty and unscientific if you read about them, random people deciding truth by hand voting.
Not believing the resurrection was real kind of eliminates him from being a Christian. However, I have ways wondered why Jesus needed to show that He rose again to be the fundamental basis of our faith. To me, it was just like showing Thomas when he wouldn't believe. Jesus even said to Thomas that the blessed ones were the ones who believed without seeing. If Jesus said He was God and would ascend to Heaven He shouldn't have had to come back to "prove" it. Suffering and dying for us is a different story. Im continuing to study this subject to understand.
Starts at 7:02
May I ask, what is the criteria Dr. Crossan use to distinguish literal from metaforic? For example, when he talks about the healing in Lourdes, how can I know if he is talking literally?
John Dominic Crossan still going strong aged 89.🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀September 29th 2023🍀🍀🍀
This is a nice conversation. Very respectful and really delving in the issues. On a certain level, I think they're both very wrong but again, a good exchange.
JDC is a saint. He approaches his work from his spiritual life and from his experience as a Christian.
“…But I’m just a metaphor” would be a hell of a headstone.
The problem I have with Licona is that he wants to argue that there must be some eyewitness account and what they are we can’t say exactly. But then, what do you do with the vast majority of so called believers who take everything literally word by word. I am more comfortable with Dominic’s position where by the big events are not denied like crucifixion but the rest is mostly made up. I also agree his take on resurrection and what it meant for the first Christians and why it is later pushed down on people’s throat as a Roman Imperial Theology to believe it literally. The latter is a culdesac and together with some other dead end Roman Imperial Theology developed later, the Christianity needs to refocus and find its initial meanings all of which are already profound relevant universally, namely that victory through war is untenable and the victory through justice is the way forward for a peaceful humanity. Anything else leads to self destruction. The latter is the path we are on at the moment because the Church is still in a confused and disingenuous manner through the priests and Bishops maintaining this Roman Imperial Theology which is now totally redundant and a time bomb for Christianity. It is killing it.
Can i dubbed this debate in hindi ???????
Pastor licona, what church would you recommend in Miami FL area?
Who dies,gets whipped to death, jailed, shipwrecked, ect..... Like these guys to tell stories..... :) Paul says in his own writings if Jesus did not come back from the dead, he is but all a miserable man.... These people are not stupid! They saw something and they were willing to be tortured and murdered for it.... What would it take for you? For me to be tied up to that whipping post the TRUTH!
Three independent sources? They are called the synoptic gospels for a reason. Read the gospels in parallel and you find the same story in the same words. Plus all the gospels that did not make it into the bible because why? They tell a different story. These are not eye witnesses. They don't pretend to be. Read the text! No one says Jesus told me or I walked with Jesus here or there or the boat was rocking and I was afraid and Jesus got mad at me. Early Christians disagreed on the very nature of Jesus was he man or spirit Early Christians disagreed. Read the Church father's They talked constantly about heretical Christians.
The gospel are not eye witness the gospel are written anonymously. That just what is true I was told the same thing until I research and found a Christian historian saying there no eye witness for the gospel and many scholar agreed it not eye witness we not sure
1.01 is a weird moment-Licona is asked to answer a question posed by John Dominic and replies “ I would, but I see we’ve run out of time.” Even the moderator looked surprised. Debaters,fiercely defending their point of view, generally aren’t focused on the clock...
Actually this is more commonly done by debaters who realize their arguments are falling on deaf ears, rather than continue to beat a dead horse, let's progress to a question where we might have a more productive discussion. The surprising thing is that he overcomes the very human tendency to want to want to be heard and make a point, rather than advance a discussion and actually accomplish anything meaningful. So rather than act in accordance with his human nature, he's choosing to act in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15.
It’s because he had nothing else to say
Jesus is historical based in what?
1. Tacitus wrote 30 years after events
2. Josephus 80 years after and is suspect
3. Bible? We don't know who wrote the Gospels 40-90 years later.
4. Paul had 'visions'. The last time I checked 'visions' are not empirical sources.
This is all waffle.
You probably need to read some of the research 😅😂😅
Josephus declared the roman emperor to be the messiah the jews are waiting for.
Excellent Job, Dr. Licona!
odd to me that anyone would think the first gospel mark had no motive to invent a baptism of Jesus by John the baptist. True Mathew, Luke and John later found that baptism embarrassing, but Mark clearly didn't
If you follow the trajectory of the view on Jesus from the 60 - 70 (Mark's dating) to 90 - 110 (John's dating) you may conclude that it changed over time. For Mark Jesus was the adopted son of God, by the time they arrived at the end of the century Jesus was seen, at least by the Johannine community, as God and equal to God. The key question was if John baptised Jesus, wouldn't that make him superior to Jesus? Matthew, Luke and John seem to have been struggling with that question.
What you might conclude is that the fact that Jesus was in the beginning a follower of John and that he was baptised by him was a well known fact in the community. John the Baptist was much more well known than Jesus was in the first century.
What would be the reason that Mark would come up with the baptism of Jesus? What would it add to his narrative? It is more likely that the baptism was a wellknown fact and as he saw no issue he made it part of his gospel. There was apparently a reason for Matthew and Luke (using Mark) and John to keep it as part of their narritive, but played it down.
It’s been great contention that Jesus was baptized by a militaristic Armageddonist but I think it’s very poetic
@@janvanpoppel2814John the baptizer was well known and it is possible that one of John followers made up his own variation and preached. We had dozens of doomsayers and apologetics to speak about the end of the world and were false messiahs.
John Crossan rocks
Came here from the highlight today!
There are not 200 verifiable NDEs where the subject was able to describe things which would have been impossible otherwise. A recent study of 2000 subjects found only 1 subject that could apparently recall a conversation between nurse and doctor and she mentioned specifics while they were trying to resuscitate her. The digital display with a number test has thus far got no successes.
You only need one.
You need one sound one with good corroboration...I honestly think you need more than one....but then there is the possibility that consciousness outside of the body is also temporary...lasts only a few minutes or hours. Thats another theory which has some support.
The concept of love thy “enemies” as thyself bespeaks empathy which to me is a key to understanding and peace. The statement “forgive them they know not what they do” bespeaks the fallibility of societies and of all the human race throughout history. We are all of us capable of being mislead. Jesus if he said those things along with basically emphasizing love the poor and share your wealth he had it right. Whether or not he was the son of God. My only disagreement would be that a satan or devil exists and his reign is in hell. Human fallibility as with Adam and Eve(the story) is the root of evil along with greed. The snake is us.
If you take Crossan's view, doesn't Christianity become pointless? I mean, why then would you choose to be a Christian over any other religion based on eloquent metaphors? I'd argue that the metaphors are profoundly more beautiful in Hinduism, so if that's the criteria, then anyone who appreciates literature should be compelled to become a Hindu. If Jesus wasn't literally resurrected in the flesh, Christianity evaporates. I don't see the need Crossan seems to keep pointing at for Paul or anyone else to "fit the story into Jewish tradition." Isn't that why Paul referred to Jesus as a stumbling block for Jews? Crossan seems to me to be making the point that he believes Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures *in the very way that the Jews were interpreting them,* in fact, what Paul and the other apostles were preaching was essentially, "Look guys, we know Jesus isn't what we were expecting, but He IS the Messiah," essentially making the point that the expectations were *wrong.* Why don't you have a description? Because no one saw it happen. If the gospel authors were keen to fabricate details to make their story more believable, we wouldn't have the gospel being preached by a guy who had denied that he knew Jesus, or Jesus revealing Himself first to women. These potentially embarrassing details, among others are often pointed to by scholars of many different faiths to suggest that the authors of the gospels were telling the truth (or doing so at least as far as they knew, depending on what conclusions one makes about the truth.) I don't understand how Crossan arrives at the conclusions that he does and still believes that Christianity is even worth his time.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Depends if you're living it out and see the truth in doing so. The truth is in the eating. I don't see how thinking literal resurrection is true helps at all. In actual fact, I would say that has led to a slothful negation of the responsibility we have for life now and detracts from what Jesus is telling us to do. Jesus wasn't an afterlife insurance broker! Reminds me of when people say they're only good because they fear punishment. That merely serves to highlight the fragility and problems with that person.
@@tarhunta2111 resurrection is a metaphor Luke 15:32
Absolutely. As an atheist - I am grateful that Crossan saves me the trouble of contradicting literalists.
@@theunrepentantatheist24 I learnt a lot from Crossan
1:24:30 Licona is revealed as a pseudo scientist.
For an outsider it looks like he's just trying too much to defend a inherently weak position.
Suggest you study the issues a bit more
56:18 ''And that is quite different to Senate says Cesar is son of God''----------WHY ?
Did he just say nobody uses double dissimilarity anymore???
DEBATE: "this is not a debate"
Mr.Dominic you are not a christian person ,because you not believe in the resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ and stop to establish your doctrines and to decide what is true and what is not true in Bible!
So basically Licona - without the promise of eternal life - you would not be a Christian. 1:43:00
Why else be a Christine everybody jump into religion do to cause we don’t know what happen after deaths and hope when we die we see heaven . And that for all religions belief I’m agnostic and I respect his honesty the most if anyone could bring someone close to the faith it him he does it without being bias
@@giovannymendez9587 Yes I respect his honesty too even though I think he is wrong about his beliefs.
@@theunrepentantatheist24 you atheist your belief isn’t any better than religions belief im agnostic so I side on some of atheist point but when y’all argue there no Evidence for god yet believe in alien where the evidence of god is more in your face then alien make you guys a very dishonest person when it come to debate atheist never do good the only best thing atheist use is basically science yet science don’t answer everything waiting on them to let us know more about dark matter or dark energy but they not truly someone to believe in neither
@@giovannymendez9587 I never said I believe in aliens. There may be alien life in the universe though it has not been discovered. I am waiting for evidence. My atheism is a rejection of god claims - it is not a belief. I am not saying there is no god. I am saying I do not believe there is a god. I can't explain the mysteries of the universe - but I would need some evidence to believe a god is responsible. Do you have any evidence?
@@theunrepentantatheist24 the only evidence I found is the Jesus story that honestly the only God evidence we have and you sound more agnostic then atheist but they consider us both on the same side I think agnostic just not sure so they just ask question to find out some atheist act like they know it all and that when they lose me cause some argument during debate sound stupid. And the fine tuning argument make room for a theory of God but other then that we can’t prove he live just like we cant prove what created the Big Bang but I do like the God conversation reason I listen to it. And waiting for more evidence of space but I don’t know It just to much to grasp.
A woman lost her sight and went to a witch doctor and a pastor. Hmmmmm. He calls himself a skeptic? And all these miracles always happen on the other side of the world
@Jerome Fray - Thanks
A side note as an eastern I can give my thoughts about the "fresco". It is depicting the "harrowing of Hell" by Jesus saving Adam and Eve the heads of the human race from their sin.
That is its main point not the Resurrection by itself.
“When Jesus returns we are going to be raised” except he hasn’t returned yet and it’s been over 2,000 years so why did he come to give that message at that particular time? Because it never happened
If it’s a true message and he returned earlier than your dumb ass would of never existed
If it never happened then why was Jesus historically crucified on the cross? They wouldn't crucify Him for no reason after all. And you also dont realize that the bible says the 1000 years/days is like 1 day to God. He dwells outside space and time so time is different
Brooke Barnes: Ladies & gentlemen, here we have the distorted mind set of the radicalized online atheist.
The historicity of the ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is well established & accepted by mainstream scholarship - even by noted atheist scholars.
*Christianity wrong doctrine*
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
@@samirpernell2136Rebellion againsr Roman rule, hundreds of jews were crucified like this by the Romans.
Paul never claims to know any disciples only apostles, paul only gets his info from the vision of dead Jesus…this isn’t history it’s myth! The gospel are also not history
I like listening to Dr Cossan but I'm not sure I understand why he feels Christian. I especially respect the manner of their discourse. If politicians would conduct themselves with this level of maturity and consideration I'd watch their debates.
"There's only 1 gospel but several interpretations." I'd ask J D Crossan what he'd make of Michael Hudson's new work, "...and forgive them their debts." If historically it can be shown that by his claim/expectation of becoming king of the Jews he would then thereupon institute the Jubilee year, then the traditional forgiveness of debts (not only a tradition amongst the Jews, but amongst other civilizations like Babylon and Assyria) would be the "good news." This was also the time that Hillel had come up with a workaround for that, essentially nullifying this economic tradition.
Dominic said himself he a Christian I wonder if he still is?
The Moderator should be ashamed of himself for referring to Jesus as "a guy." So disrespectful. He was the divine Son of God.
The emperor Augustus was the son of god abd his father Gaius Julius Ceasar was a god abd his family descended from the goddess Venus. Unknown arameic dead preacher was executed as a rabel against Rome and was one more false Messiah. Flavius Josephus idrntifies the Roman emperor as the messiah the jews expected.
My problem with People like Casey, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, Pagels, Luderman and so on is that there is no need to distinguish from literal and metaphorical that makes the debate useless since lay people understand something different.
It's better to utilize words like Concrete and abstract since we Historians mean one thing but the public understand it differently.
It is like saying in science, "It's just a theory", the way people understand the word theory is very different from the way Scientists understand the word theory.
The gospels contain the words of Jesus and also contains eyewitness testimony I feel that this should have been the course of the debate.
Great Job, Dr. Licona, I appreciate your work so much!
How do you know the gospels contain the words of Jesus? And there are no eyewitness testimonies of Jesus. There are 2nd hand accounts of accounts of proclaimed eye witnesses but no actual direct eye witnesses.
@@Keenanville09 As a Historian I can tell you that there are multiple layers of attestation that can be applied methodologically , such as but not limited to , the Criterion of dissimilarity, disinterested comments, criterion of embarrassment, discontinuity, multiple attestation and so on and so forth.
We can also do the same with the life of Caesar, Seneca, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Josephus and so on and so forth.
It is universally recognized that the words of Jesus are contained in the Gospels, the contention would be if they were kept intact (which I think they did, based on the Criterion of double and multiple attestation), or if they were modified in order to suit the author's "agenda".
For example :
The Gospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Peter, we know this through the criterion of authenticity, because it shows Peter as a heroic man and so on whereas all the other gospels show Peter as a"different" man so to speak.
You can read more about this argument from this book . I think the Gospel of Mark was written within several months after the death of Jesus, because it talks about a kind of judaism (off the cuff comments) that people would not be acquainted several decades later and it has been universally recognized that Mark was Peter's interpreter.
(www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802874312/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1)
Luke says right off the bat that he IS NOT an eyewitness, but he is reporting and what he has investigated by reading and interviewing other people that were close to Jesus, or perhaps the disciples themselves.
The vegetation, Geography, Topography, landscape description, Fauna of Luke matches exactly the details you find in archeology which proves that he wrote it from within Palestine.
John was written (I think by John the apostle) by an early follower of Jesus, someone who walked with him and so on
I firmly believe that MAtthew was written by the apostle matthew. The criticism that most scholars would have is that apparently he looks like Matthew copied from Mark about his own account of his conversion. But this should not be a problem since we know that Xenophon relied on the account of others when he was an eyewitness to the events he was describing.
This is consistent with the way these authors behaved in the Book of Acts. It’s interesting the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses.
The earliest writings of the church fathers simply confirm the eyewitness nature of the Gospel authors. Papias, for example, described Mark’s Gospel as a record of Peter’s teachings related to what Peter saw and heard from Jesus. According to Papias, while Mark was not himself an eyewitness to the events described in his Gospel, he did accurately record the firsthand experiences of his teacher and mentor, Peter.
Finally, the Canon of Scripture reflects the eyewitness nature of the Gospel accounts. One of the primary criteria for the selection of the Canon was the issue of eyewitness composition. The original Gospels were protected and revered based on their apostolic authorship, and late documents were rejected by the early Church Fathers based on the fact they were considered to be fraudulent narratives offered by authors late in history who were not actually present for the life and ministry of Jesus. The criterion of eyewitness authorship became foundational to the selection process.
www.amazon.com/Hidden-Plain-View-Undesigned-Coincidences-ebook/dp/B073GDF3VZ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542475465&sr=1-1&keywords=lydia+mcgrew
www.amazon.com/What-Are-Gospels-Comparison-Graeco-Roman/dp/0802809715/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1542475497&sr=1-3&keywords=what+are+the+gospels
www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-One-Jesus-Symbolic/dp/0802871011/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0802871011&pd_rd_r=c223bb9f-ea8d-11e8-8581-ff357aa136b3&pd_rd_w=ZgWTz&pd_rd_wg=jIj4R&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS
www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/ref=pd_sbs_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0310238595&pd_rd_r=c223bb9f-ea8d-11e8-8581-ff357aa136b3&pd_rd_w=Jaxc3&pd_rd_wg=jIj4R&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=86W30CNFESR89HW3SDDS
Yeah I need more than this to accept the super natural nature of the claims made in the gospels. Also you know what also would pass this criteria...superman but that doesn't make it true. What's the single best evidence for the supernatural nature of the gospels. I need real actual evidence.
I have a difference of opinion with you. Most critical scholars and historical experts separate the literal and the metaphorical.
There is “the concrete” and then there are the meanings assigned to the concrete.
For example, the virgin birth of Jesus has nothing to do with the biology of Mary. It speaks instead to the importance of Jesus. Virgin births and miraculous beginnings were often attributed to ancient heroes.
Maurice Casey was one of the major critics of Crossan. How you class them together I genuinely have no clue.
Why should we not expect a consensus on Jesus? This is - as I understand from Christians - the true religion. If there is one area I would expect a consensus - it is on the savior of mankind sent to earth by the one true god.
*Christianity wrong doctrine*
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
I’m not what people would consider a Christian, and I’ve never read the bible, but I see it as a human endeavour to resonate with the divine. For me, this is a debate between a man who is using his full capacity as a mature human being to work out a way of making sense of existence and a child grasping at literal interpretations which he finds solace in. It’s a delight to listen to the wisdom and kindness of this octogenarian. My mind couldn’t complete with his at half his age.
If you haven't read the Bible, whether you are are a believer or not you cannot claim to be a modern man.
Whether right or wrong, why would basing your life around a book or story that’s really not true be making more sense of existence than the man who actually believe it?
Crossan is very generous with Licona. Licona is a blind apologist clinging on by the fingertips to the wreakage of his arguments, desperste to be accepted as a historian, yet again completely out of his depth with a veritable and venerable scholar. Other hidtorians snd thinkers have wiped the floor with Licona's unsubstantiated and convoluted fantasies. Crossan treated him with more kindness than Licona deserves. It suprises me that any serious scholar gives this one-trick pony houseroom anymore. His fairy stories wear very thin very quickly and if he continues to show a complete absense of any ability to learn and develop from his repeated and thorough schooling by serious historians and thinkers then I cannot see the ppint of giving him a platform in a forum at this level, so beyond him
Wow. I totally disagree. That's really not giving any credit to Mike at all.
@@joeb2588 I'm not clear what credit one could possibly assign to Licona. He is an apologist, not a scholar. He surrendered his academic credibility by signing a compulsory declaration of articles of faith dictated by the organisation he works for, a declaration that precludes any independence of thought. And the arguments that he expounds in that ideologically limited dogma are woefully inadequate. They have been surgically dismantled time and time again by truly independent and academically recognised scholars without Licona ever seeming to notice or respond. As such, a presentation by Licona is an exercise of repetitive pointlessness. The guy is neither credible nor believable.
@@joeb2588 See Pine Creek's first interview with Laura Robinson, an accredited Christian historian who runs TH-cam channel NT Review. Early in the interview Robinso comments on the difference between a real historian and what Licona is up to. It would better inform you. You can also see Robinson"s debate with Licona himself
th-cam.com/video/HYW5qG2OCnE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/uoq4bLxzop4/w-d-xo.html
It's pointless to quibble about whether Jesus could raise the dead, early Christians thought that Zenobius could
If Trump and Biden debated this way we all would have been winners.
*Christianity wrong doctrine*
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
If one were to write the bible today, those believing the fantastical tale based solely on the fact that words were written on a page, would be encouraged to seek help. Belief in unverified text,written 2,000 years ago by unknown people for unknown reasons,should be seriously questioned by anyone who is interested in truth above all else.
So we can't know anything ever happened outside of living memory. Got it.
@@grantgooch5834This is what historical research is for. We should not mistake Harry Potter for history as it is just a story. Casting demon inzo pigs, walking over water (Poseidon miracle), turning water into wine (Dionysos miracle) healing like Asklepios are all fictional.
"One of the best attested miracles in all profane history, is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian [the Roman Emperor], who cured a blind man in Alexandria, by means of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; in obedience to a vision of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to the Emperor, for these miraculous cures. [i.e. in Tacitus Hist. Lib. v. cap. 8. Suetonius gives nearly the same account in vita Vesp. ]" David Hume On miracles.
Does Licona believe this miracle? Two respected ancient historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, wrote about it.
brilliant point. I will make a note of it.
Examples of "bodily resurrection" can be found in multitudes in historical esoteric and metaphysical literature. It is not exklusive for the Christ story.
Care to provide some testable evidence for this claim that can be investigation? Along with supporting evidence for the time it was produced and testimony from eye witness AND associates of eye witness whom can attest to the credibility of the character of the person giving the testimony AND evidence of actions taken based on the faith in the ideas presented? You are probably drawing a correlation between vastly different things.
@@unclekerr4369
The evidence is there for the asking.
Look and you will find. I am not here to argue, debate or provide evidence. I just don't have that energy. I am happy with my statement.
All the best
@@Pilgrimsrummet In that case you are here for vanity. It would be helpful if you at least point an interested party in the general direction. I asked you for the evidence and you refused it so I am not sure how you can make that claim with any integrity.
@@Pilgrimsrummet The truth doesn't take any energy. Helping people is a source of energy not a tax in it. You are making specific claims and you refuse to provide the particulars of the cases you sight for investigation therefor you are being evasive and if you are happy with an evasive statement it is likely you are lost. If I search else where for evidence for your claims I can never be sure the case I investigate are the ones you are talking about. The truth must have specificity and accuracy therefore I must investigate the examples you are referring to but you will not share that when asked. I assume you are an Atheist due to your being disinterested in the truth and a barrier to someone trying to investigate what you said.
@@unclekerr4369 Google is your friend. It'll help you find a library or a book shop. Trying to be smart on something as basic as this just doesn't help. It's like refusing to get up yourself to see that it's raining outside when someone tells you it is, and you're trying to make an argument for why it isn't without getting up. Dude, get a grip.
great representation for believers Dr. Licona, well done keep up the wonderful work
Why do you call yourself a believer? Shouldn't you know?
Imagine rising from the dead and then disappearing shortly thereafter. Jesus, was theoretically seen by followers as was Elvis by his followers. Eyewitness reports? Why would Jesus ascend to heaven before confronting Pilate, the Sanhedrine and other skeptics? Always wondered this?
The Ascension is shrouded in mystery in nebulous ways and the unknown.
Interesting analogy between Jesus and Elvis.... science does have something to say about that; seems they're not unique cases in that.
*Christianity wrong doctrine*
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
@@failyourwaytothetopImagined, created in writing to cover up the shame of following a dead false nessiah the Romans executed.
eye witness told to eye witness...…...…….Dr Licona then you are eye witness too.
Very well noticed... On the question whether the NT contains any eye witnesses Dr. Licona mentions Mark as he is supposed to have been the secretary of Simon Peter (39:00). If that were true (and there seem to be good reasons to think it isn't) then Mark is not an eye witness to the life of Jesus. Simon Peter was..... Hearing the story of an eye witness doesn't make you an eye witness. Dr. Licona has used this reasoning before and I don't see how it holds water.
@@janvanpoppel2814 Then again God moves in mysterious ways :)
@@narancaukThen again pretending to know is what belief is about.
The moon analogy is a false analogy. This is because the evidence is first person (witness), and is unique. The second is not. The second is not first person, and is not unique (virgin birth is common in the ancient world). Therefore, historical projects are very different from scientific projects. A false analogy.
The metaphorical is more powerful than the literal? Where is the evidence for the claim? What universe does Crossan live in? The literal teachings of Christ have affected history more than any metaphorical concept known to man. Crossan's statement is utter blasphemy. Nothing could be more important and powerful than Jesus' literal life and resurrection.
No one, anytime or anywhere can cause dead people to walk out of their graves. So something else is going on.
The resurrection is true, but it has nothing to do with Jesus’ body. Resurrection was an ancient Hebrew concept that was used to explain that after Jesus’ death, his power and presence were still felt by his followers.
The "idea" of a metaphor is more powerful than the literal English translation. If you can't comprehend that the Bible (of course which Bible as well), is a piece of ancient literature and separate it from your religious held beliefs, then you won't understand a damn word Crossan or anyone else who is a critic. Even Licona can get on board with some of the Synoptics use of metaphors...for instance the dead rising during Jesus' death...he doesn't believe it "literally" happened...he lost his job over telling the truth.
@@aikido7 The historical place where Jesus died has been found and His body is missing from the tomb.
@@samirpernell2136 Shortly after the tiny Christian faith got in bed with the Holy Roman Empire [around 325 ACE] Constantine’s mother Helena found a part of Jesus Christ's tunic, pieces of the holy cross, and pieces of the rope with which Jesus was tied on the Cross.
The rope, considered to be the only relic of its kind, has been held at the Stavrovouni Monastery, which was also said to have been founded by Helena.
@@aikido7 Yeah but His body wasn't there now was it?
According to dr moffats the gosphel of john is pagan idea
An atheist reviews Lydia McGrew's recently published "Eye of the Beholder" (DeWard, 2021), wherein she upholds the historical reportage model and accuracy of John in rebuttal to other Christian scholars who say otherwise.
Lydia argues that many conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical bible scholars, among whom she in her book represents with the writings of Licona, Evans, Keener and W.L. Craig, are misleading the church by arguing that the gospel of John employs a degree of fiction.
Nowhere in this book does Lydia express or imply that these scholars aren't saved, aren't walking in the light of Christ, don't study the bible enough, harbor unconfessed sin, etc, etc. She simply provides reasons to disagree with their arguments.
So assuming Lydia's entire thesis is correct, she would be forced to conclude that she has made a strong argument justifying skepticism toward the conservative Protestant Trinitarian Evangelical version of Christianity that she and her cited scholars personally follow. After all, according to Lydia, even if I became genuinely born again, faithfully attended a conservative Protestant Trinitarian church, graduated from conservative Trinitarian bible college and seminary with a legitimate ph.d in a field directly implicating the New Testament, and was careful to turn away from sin and walk in the light of Christ the whole time, not even THIS extreme level of dedication to the "right" version of orthodoxy would offer the slightest guarantee or assurance that God would protect me from espousing and teaching errors, which according to Lydia, are so harmful as to justify efforts to uproot the from the church.
No, this doesn't prove Christianity is false. It proves the reasonableness of skeptics who assert that the many NT assurances that the Holy Spirit will protect those who truly walk in Christ, are false. If Lydia is correct, then your level of bible-smarts is the only thing in existence that has significant potential to keep you free from an errant view of the gospels.
It doesn't matter if Lydia trifles that it isn't her business to figure out God's mysterious ways, the logic within "Beholder" is going to render skepticism toward Christianity reasonable, regardless.
turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/05/christian-doscher-reviews-dr-lydia.html
Dear Dominic, numbers are also metaphors and the base of the whole world of our reality
And? Crossan would agree. He’s just saying the gospels should be taken as pseudo biographical and metaphorical. It should be enough that this interpretation would change the world but that’s not what happened. It’s the miracles and resurrection that sealed the deal.
@@chriswinchell1570 I like your wording ''that sealed the deal.'' Very inspiring
@@narancauk That’s how most think of me.
Prominent Bible scholar & ex Catholic priest John Dominic Crossan says:
* Jesus was not God.
* Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. *Jesus was crucified* because he threatened Roman stability -- *not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins*
* Jesus did not resurrect from death.
I myself 75℅ agree with Crossan's views of Jesus.
* As a Muslim I believe that Jesus was sent to Israelites. What for? Just the same mission as other Jewish prophets (Moses, Elija, Isaiah, Jeremia, etc), ie to ENFORCE Torah Law that had been violated many times by Jews (worship idols, kill, steal, bribery, adultery, etc).
As strong indications that Jesus was sent not to redeem original sin on the cross, let's observe these:
1. Before Jesus was caught by Roman, he was afraid, hid, told his disciples to buy swords, sad, prostrated & prayed.
2. By time machine, I'm flying to Golgotta hill 2000 years ago. *I see Jesus was hanging on the cross, naked & tortured with blood shedding.* What will I do?
*A. I am very sad & must save Jesus.* I will beg Pilate to free him from the cross.
*B. I am sad but also joyful* because Jesus will atone for my sins. So, *I just watch Jesus being tortured* because only through such a sadistic way I can live eternally in heaven.
Muslims and JD Crossan will definitely choose A. Meanwhile, Christians who hold traditional view will not choose an answer.
*That means Jesus was sent NOT to redeem original sin on the cross.*
@@chriswinchell1570 Hahahahaha I like your style.
43:51 ''Plutarch changes Plutarch''--- and Luke X changes Word of God(Mark)….And that is the same for Dr Licona!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dr Licona go and change yourself.
Have you ever observed how the NT authors sometimes change the Word of God? See Matthew 27:9-10. You'll search in vain to find this text in Jeremiah because it's in Zechariah. However, Matthew borrowed a single word from Jeremiah, "field," inserted it in the text from Zechariah, paraphrased the text, attributed it to Jeremiah, interpreted it to say something quite different from the original meaning of either text, then claim Scripture has been fulfilled. What Matthew did here is not unique. Composite citations was fairly common among Greco-Roman and even Jewish authors of that era. Our view of Scripture should be consistent with what we observe in Scripture.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial ''Our view of Scripture should be consistent with what WE observe in Scripture.'' ….. To be like Nietzsche's Superman (Ubermensch SS) ????????? At the end ''God is dead''-Zarathustra...…. I am truly flabbergasted and grateful that you have answered personally . Thank you Mike. Good Man.
Oh Mike tell me. Is Jesus a communist? OK you live in USA :) Socialist???
Three is a charm...…. What if this World lives and exists because we believe in Jesus? And not because of exact and precise laws of Nature?
I think Mike did a great job. In fact I have Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig to thank for helping to motivate and get excited over the life of Jesus. They will say something that will send me off to see if in fact it "works" or is legit. I do the research and see how right they are or my interest is peaked and I keep going. Now those are 3 guys I'd take to dinner any night of the week. (Poor guys would be trying to eat and I'd be asking all sorts of questions!)
Mike Licona is one of the worst debaters and makes Christians sound and look dumb.
what a stupid comment
I feel so bad for Mike. Dr. Crossan has this sophisticated 21st century model of Christianity and Mike just can't accept it. It has to be the traditional model of Christianity or nothing. This is so sad. I am sorry Mike that you are trapped in your traditional Jesus. This means that you only know Jesus as much as your tradition allows you. I am truly sorry. May the man you worship as your god help you because God won't.
The writers of John were followers of Greek mythology and mystics, they created Jesus from their understanding on gospels and their visions.
“How can one human confer divinity on another””Humans cannot confer divinity” Mike Licona
My response, humans and only humans can confer divinity. Divinity is only a projection of the human mind and a perception of the supernatural. We project this on others.
Colossians is a psuedoepigraphy and Mike Licona should know this. Paul is testifying about Jesusvfrom his visions. What the orthodox religion would say today if you had the same type of vision, spiritual delusion. There are no facts. Yeshua died, a man who never saw him or heard his voice has visions claiming to be the risen spirit of a man he never met. For real Mike, this is what you call evidence.
“What do you do with Paul when he says in [1] Corinthians 8:6”. Ignore him as a babbling mystic?
Kia Kurios Ihsous Xristos was Paul’s invention, it was based on his hallucination. It was real to him, it was his Metaphor, does it need to be mine?
The creation of the Universe was through “violence”. At the moment inflation ends and expansion begins the energy density of the universe is so high, that but not for the ftl-relative inflation of space time it would have immediately form a quantum singularity. The universe was hot for 400,000 years. The stuff our planet was made from came from a supernova, the formation of the planet was “violent”, the interior of the sun is “violent”. Evolution works because of competition and that is “violent”. We see now in many ecosystems “keystone” species and many times the species that keeps the ecosystem running is some sort of Apex predator. Humans are shaped by violence, our size, our ability to fend off apex predators, to build houses and fortifications. This is part of our evolution.
Crossan is a delight.
In the middle ages he would have been disemboweled and burned after hot branding torture
@@theunrepentantatheist24 possibly. Good thing we're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
I think dr Licona represents the nonsensical christianity in a man. You cannot be an objective historian and a fundamentalist at the same time. It's like his view that the scripture are well preserved and the words of God, yet Mark got some places wrong! Not sure what dr Licona tries to say!
البريق اللامع so are you saying that anyone with a preconceived notion is not fit to be a historian? Or just the Christians...
Robert Mitchell
No! What I meant is that dr Licona believes that the bible got corrupted, and he believes that the bible is intact at the same time. How can we understand this mindset? That is why dr Ehrman got puzzeled by Licona in their last debate.
LOL
@Joe Smith exactly
“Intact” and “corrupt” are two different things.
Mike Licona is dead wrong about one thing. He said when we die we immediately go to heaven without a body 1:20:40. The Bible says you can't come before the high priest naked. Man is spirit, soul and body. You can't have a functioning man without a body and there is no party going on in heaven right now of bodiless saved souls. It would be unfair also to have someone enjoy the party beforehand.
What happens in reality is that when you die you go to soul sleep. When you are resurrected God gives you a new body that activates your soul life when your spirit touches your new body. It's like when you turn your computer on. The spirit of it is there in 1s and 0s and BIOS, but it needs a casing and software. In 1 Thess. 4 it says those "which sleep in Jesus" (v.14) will be resurrected. This is the general resurrection together. Verse 17 says comfort yourself with these words. Paul repeats verse 14 in other words in 15,16,17. One of the negative things of thinking you go to heaven immediately when you die is you open up necromancy talking to loved ones in heaven which are really just dead people and even worse evil spirits posed as loved ones.
When we are told we go to sleep when we die that doesn't make much sense if we go to heaven to a sleeping bed. No! What sleep means is soul sleep.
@@Parture Tou may want to read the Bible a bit more closely. It does not support your claim about "soul sleep". 2 Cor. 5:8
You know absolutely nothing about what you are saying here. Just theories that matches your blind faith. Just head tripping.
Zero facts in this.
@@Parture the resurrection is a metaphor Luke 15:32 KJV Ephesians 5:14 KJV
@@gustavmahler1466 These two verses, of course, are metaphorical. That doesn't take away from the fact we will all be resurrected literally physically. 1 Cor. 15.12 But tell me this-since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God-for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died.
21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man. 22 Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life. 23 But there is an order to this resurrection: Christ was raised as the first of the harvest; then all who belong to Christ will be raised when he comes back.
Since you refuse to give your life to Christ for forgiveness of sins and regeneration of your spirit, unto eternal life, you will be resurrected and sent to Hell, a thousand years after the saved are resurrected. In very simple terms you are a bad guy who belongs in Hell, the place of eternal separation from God. That is your choice you bear alone. Some people such as yourself prefer to remain separated from God's love for eternity. You are one of those people. You prefer to remain engrossed in your sinful nature instead of being redeemed. So be it.
Mike is not interested in truth or historical truth, Mike is an apologist not a historian and to. Claim to be one is insulting
Wow. J D Crossan's metaphors know kung fu. Haven't encountered so thoroughgoing a neoplatonist since Plotinus and Boethius. At least Aquinas finally gave up. J D musta glossed over that part. He gives new meaning to Muriel Rukeyser's, "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." Even though he's right that this is 90% of how we actually operate/think, to hear him state it so baldly renders it almost a liberal fundamentalism. As bad as hearing a fiction writer talk about their characters as real people. Literal fundamentalism vs. fundamental liberalism. I actually think they both lost. And WTH is a metaphorical resurrection? A metaphor for a metaphor? (Because if he'd believed in a Hellenized resurrection, he'd still be talking about a literal soul ascension.) I'm looking for a jigsaw puzzle metaphor of a missing piece. At the end, J D you're not even wrong. People will and do die for other non-metaphorical people, even if they're also otherwise asked to for "god and country" or whatever else. Disappointing. Glad I went to Loyola instead. (Sorry, I get it now...we're the metaphor. Heavy. But only if I look at it with averted vision to split difficult double stars through a telescope.)
I want to see another debate with Matt Dillahunty!
Brandon Fontenot: I doubt anyone wants to listen to that meathead.
@@gavinhurlimann2910 Excellent. He is a total tool. I cant stand listening to him. Imagine trying to disprove Jesus claims. For what? To zap the joy out of someone's day? The girl he has on there sometimes looks so miserable. When I see him on my suggestions, I just delete it. I watched once and this kid like 13yrs old called in and schooled him it was awesome. But he got mad at him and threatened to hang up on him. Hes a real winner...although I like your "meathead" name...
Jesus is a mythical product of the Greco-Roman world with the gospels being of the same Greco-Roman myth genre. Jesus is the same demigod that the Greeks and Romans would have been familiar with. To actually believe in the Jesus of the gospels is idolatry. Whoever was the the actual Jesus ended up devoured by scavengers just as every other crucified criminal was. The deification of one's religious leader be it Pythagoras or Jesus was a common practice of the Greeks and Romans.
I don’t think M. Licona can honestly call himself a historian. He believes in ghosts and goblins
And you believe you are an overgrown talking fish.
I mean his whole doctoral dissertation is literally him minimizing his biases, and using the historical method, to determine his conclusion
I like crossan argument
The Jesus of Christian Faith, it's the real Historical Jesus!!!
Say it louder and show us the uncertainty. In reality pretending does not work.
You hear John Dominic Crossan quoted all the time so you get excited to hear him in a debate for the first time, but as it turns out, he is not very bright. For him to go on and on about the resurrection being a metaphor only which goes so contrary to the Apostles recording this as an actual event, I think Crossan is forever lost and there is no chance he is going to give his life to Christ so I know he is going to Hell. He says the Bible is about non-violence rather than Jesus dying for the sins of the world literally.
Parture there is no "recording by the apostle's" concerning the resurrection beyond Paul and he only supposedly had a vision. Beyond that it's just 2nd hand testimony on back and your remarks concerning Crossan as " not bright"are patently absurd as he's forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know..You post ridiculous video's on your personal channel that no one cares about and this man has written numerous books..🙄
@@alanndrake2619 The minimal facts approach takes data that most scholars on the resurrection agree whether atheist, Christian, or other world view, and see if we can determine a verdict. Most scholars concede Paul genuinely believed and wrote these 3 passages. Paul said in 1 Gal. 1 & 2, 1 Cor. 15 that he spent 15 days with Peter whom he said told him he saw Jesus resurrected, the Jesus he spent 3 years with, along with all 12 Apostles. He also said he spent time with James, the brother of Jesus who converted based on seeing Jesus resurrected; and even after 15 years, Paul caught up again with John (and again James and Peter) who taught the same to confirm all he was teaching was true. People don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so when they claimed to see Jesus alive from the dead, they were telling you the truth that can set you free. Peter wrote he he saw Jesus resurrected, John wrote he saw Jesus resurrected and the source for Matthew was Matthew (there is no ghost writer). Nobody else fits the bill in his characteristic writing style of a tax collector, emphasizing Jesus as king.
When Paul had his vision of Jesus, those with him also heard a loud voice and flashing light, but as they fell to the ground they did not see him. Only Paul saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. In addition to these eyewitness accounts, you had Mark who knew Peter personally who recorded the resurrection, and we have 3 different chains of custody of Apostles confirming with Apostles because they knew each other personally, from the line of Peter and Polycarp, from the line of Paul, and the line of the line of John all to the 4th century of the Nicene Creed. You really can't ask for better evidence. In fact, there are more sources for Jesus than any 10 figures from antiquity combined so the evidence is overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone claims Aristotle or Plato did not exist even though they have less than 10% of sources than did Jesus have.
Writing lots of books does not save you. Since nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, we know it is true. You see salvation is not based on how smart you are, but whether you have a conscience to accept the Lord Jesus as Savior for no other name under heaven can one be saved when Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. Not accepting atonement is the surest way to Hell.
You're a sinner and will die in your sins and the second death which is Hell because you prefer to remain in your flesh hostile to the greatest love the world has ever known when Jesus died for you. This speaks to the type of person you really are.
Parture listen I don't need you to give a 3 page response in regards to the so called resurrection as I'm full aware of the details.. First of all spare me the Habermas "minimal facts" because that is mere wordplay as historians agree on MINIMAL CLAIMS claims aren't facts for the event in question.. Facts are simple.. No eyewitnesses or first hand account of both a resurrection or empty tomb and no contemporary historians spoke of either. Secondly Paul never knew Jesus nor did he ever meet him while alive. He also had a vison nothing at all like the other apostles claimed to have. His traveling companions also saw and heard nothing as explained by Pauls version and Paul never spoke of any empty tomb in his epistles or specifically his letter to Corinth..
Parture there are plenty of explanations for any of the so called claims and they don't require the supernatural. You simply take it on faith by evidence that would never fly in any court of law.. Furthermore your rants as to my destination is meaningless as we will both die and rot in the ground just like Jesus only difference being we won't be thrown in a common unmarked grave or be carrion for birds or wild dogs...I can accept reality on it's terms unlike yourself..
@@alanndrake2619 If I am long I am addressing each of your mistaken assumptions. Obviously you are riff with many. If you said little I would say little. Stating something is not a fact, or that it is word play, is not a valid argument on your part that's just you shutting your mind down vaguely. The logical consistency of the minimal facts remains unchallenged by you. So the best evidence we have is the minimal facts approach which almost scholars agree on no matter their religious or world view. Peter was an eyewitness and said he saw Jesus resurrected in his writing. John did the same. Matthew is the source for Matthew. Mark knew Peter. Luke wrote two large books to recount everything. He was a doctor. Paul said and wrote he saw Jesus resurrected also. This their testimony and none of the Apostles disagreed. Paul even challenged anyone of the Apostles to come before him after all these years to expose if anything he was saying was false. They all held the same view.
Seeing Jesus alive from the dead is seeing Him resurrected. Several people are eyewitnesses of the tomb empty recorded in the Bible. John placed himself at the cross when Jesus died. There are no contemporary writings for anyone. The earliest still surviving papyri are late 1st 2nd and 2nd century, yet this is closer to their events than anything form antiquity so Bible holds to the highest of historical standards. Paul likely saw Jesus as he was killing Christians for the Pharisees, unless Jesus escaped his gathering in crowds over 3 years. I doubt that. The vision though not strictly bodily should be different since it is post ascension. Perfectly reasonable. Acts which was Luke writing records those who accompanied Paul heard the voice and saw the light as they fell down. That's what the Bible says. At least get that right. Acknowledge at least that much is what it said. Of course Paul mentioned the empty tomb just not the way you want. The Bible is not required to say things that you need it to say when you want it to be said. Instead try to understand why it says what it says when it says it. It says it from various perspectives of the 40 authors over 1500 years. It's actually a perfect compilation of 66 books not one book buy one guy like Mormons or Muslims or the Atheist Guide to Retardation. Paul's testimony implies an empty tomb. The tomb was discussed amply in the gospel accounts. Paul spoke of Jesus' death plenty. Just like he doesn't have to say the word "Trinity" to teach the Trinity, likewise, he doesn't need to use the phrase "empty tomb" so you are being petty.
Court trials have been enacted throughout history and the evidence for Jesus resurrected was overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. You claim there is a naturalistic explanation to account for their eyewitness testimony but you can't find any. That's where your brain shuts down like a zombie for Satan. I could say dogs could fly, but that would not do any good without evidence. Since all this is true, it naturally follows you will be resurrected and go to Hell. One leads to the other. The reason you will never cease to exist is because you like Adam and Eve are made in God's image. God would never give you God-consciousness in your spirit if you would subsequently cease to exist. That's immoral.
The immorality of atheism is that it doesn't matter what you do in thinks life you end up as nothing. Meaningless. Pointless. But the universe has intelligence written all over it, and God can't have morals below our own so He has purpose. You have Hell.
Crossan so boring I pity anyone who dedicated their life & celibacy to a myth
Dr Licona never let him finish. It was like he was just determined to let his voice be the only voice heard. Yeeeeesh
I dont agree with that. If you want to see an interrupted debate go watch the 2 clowns we have running for president on their first debate. Although I do want the Republican clown to "win.."
I couldn't make it past Dominic's discussion on metaphors. So painful to listen to. The man actually stated that metaphors create reality. That's the most absurd thing I think I've ever heard. Metaphors reflect truths of reality. They do not create anything.
I don’t believe he means this quite as literally as you perhaps think he is. Metaphors operating upon human perception, thoughts and behaviour are capable of influencing or "creating" reality.
Crossan is just horribly confused
No you are just plain fundamentalist
Crossan was disappointing
No, you are disappointing.
Licona will tell you that the bible has errors, but it is inerrant...
@@mamertosumagaysay9453 - Who are you keyboard warrior? Never heard of you, so you are irrelevant :(
@@gavinhurlimann2910 so you think you are more relevant...who are you?...ah you are an unthinking fundamentalist....
@@mamertosumagaysay9453 disappoint your face