So this is what WLC was responding to on Capturing Christianity?

Love the rebuttal, thanks for the link!

It's facinating to know more about the historicity of jesus. I heard many arguments though, stating that not even his existance can be proven if you look for evidence contemporary to his supposed existance. It would be very cool if there was somebody reputable enough for this podcast, that could talk about these arguments.

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, I know being immersed in the 'believing' schooling you have seems to have really made you more , um, hopeful? But as for this bit, look at all the Michael Jackson, Elvis , Tupac, sightings. Also, I don't even think much of the bible is real. Nor especially 'good'. The Jesus in it seems too much like most other preachers. Not exceptional. More Paul's religion, honestly. 👍💖💙🥰✌

@@laurajarrell6187 LOL 😆 : speaking from ignorance isn't a logical response. Ehrman's psychotic laughing is his best Argument to WLC. But people like you with 0 theological education can be persuaded by his incoherent statements on the New Testament. Trying to equate Elvis sighing to Jesus Resurrection and resulting Religion of over 2.0 billion people is your psychotic thinking.

Not a great discussion. A wise man (Bart) wasting time on a not-too-clever guy.

​@@fisterklister Alex isn't being an apologist here. He's just wearing a apologetic hat asking the general questions.

@@fisterklister Damn, you're not-too-clever yourself guy lmao

@@fisterklister Where do you find Alex being "not too clever"?

Idk about that, this was a struggle.

@@princegobi5992 Bart says : 6:16 The Romans left Him, (Jesus) on the cross. Also Bart: 10:06 Pilate then handed (Jesus) to the Jews. It doesn't matter.. The Apostles would never gave up their lives for a lier, but they gave up their lives Because Jesus resurrected. Faith is not logic or knowledge.. It's a gift from God.

​​​​@@lpwork6809 Your ability to time stamp out of context quotes is beyond comprehension. When he was talking about crucified victims being left on the cross he was referencing actual historical evidence. When he said Pilate handed him to the Jews he was quoting the bible (that big book he doesn't believe is accurate). He wasn't contradicting himself because he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence for what happened, he was just saying what it says happened. Did you even listen to the conversation? On a side note, martyrdom isn't evidence for the resurrection. Its only evidence that a few people (the evidence for Peter, Paul, James and John is decent, evidence for the rest isn't) thought they saw it and were willing to die.

@@aaronfunnell5220 Martyrdom itself isnt evidence indeed. But thats not the point. Its the many eye witnesses who saw him after his death and then stick with that even when put to death themself.

@@Esico6 I hope you aren't referring to the 500 number which has not be collaborated anywhere. The only reference you have for that number is one bible book. Not one of the 500 wrote about it.

To be fair, I think Alex was playing more of a devil's advocate here, almost as a stand-in for Craig.

@@Brickerbrack Exactly. And a beautiful job playing devils advocate.

Erhman is talking out of his arse and has nothing more to offer other than mere skepticism. If you think about it logically if Jesus' body was left on the cross, there would be no hue and cry about resurrection. It logically follows from our understanding of the culture and practices (of which have literary and archaelogical proof) that Jesus body was kept in a tomb. Show me a good consensus that Jesus was not buried. Most scholars admit that. Even Erhman admitted that few years back till he understood exactly where that road leads

We have the problem to easier accept fan fiction the more often it is repeated as each time we have another copy in our brain.

I think that Alex was merely playing the role of the Devil's Avocado!

1.) To write stuff down in the ancient world was very very expensive and difficult, scrolls cost a fortune. it’s not like anyone could just write something down. This would be normative in our world but not then, We shouldn’t project our Modern world onto the ancient world. 2.) Perhaps someone did, kept the scroll within their communities and was lost to time or damage etc for all we know, scrolls aren’t built to last 2000 years. Although this is unlikely I’m just saying it to point out that we can’t escape it by saying “Why didn’t anyone write it down”. We don’t know if they did.

@@GRP--gw1yl scribes were NOT expensive and we know people were often connected via religion and associations. They could have very easily COLLECTIVELY afforded something like this. We know group inscriptions and scrolls from the same period

​@@GRP--gw1ylthat's why it's ridiculous to claim that any of the 12 illiterate (maybe Matthew would be an exception) apostles could write in the first place. These are oral traditions written down by non-primary sources

@@4x4r974 1.) From what I know about scrolls and taking things down in the ancient world through scholars and historians is, it was pretty expensive, Could you provide me some sort of evidence or source to say it wasn’t? 2.) Sure perhaps they could’ve collectively afforded something like this if they wanted to but remember, This was a radical claim that many would not have believed or been even sympathetic to, Christianity wasn’t formed yet, just a Sect of Judaism, this would’ve been a rogue group of people claiming this. Making it even more difficult 3.) The point I was making was, it would not have been as simple as just writing it down, this is the main point I’m getting at. Along with we can’t be sure they didn’t. It doesn’t sit right with me claiming it would’ve been simple.

​@@GRP--gw1ylusing the argument from silence IN FAVOR of a historical event happening is absolutely wild. "We don't have these extant documents therefore it's reasonable to assume they existed." ??? Absolute horsedung.

If you compare Mark's 'Jesus' to John's 'Jesus', they are clearly two different people / characters.

Myths tend to get bigger over time

Reading Mark first really does change a lot

I think thats nothing strange, Because assuming with earlier account, most people still remember the event, so doesn't need to write very detail of it Later on when your audience people outside of the area, you would write more detail

@@DewaHuang Well, the gospel of Mark was written 35-45 years after Jesus died…

you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself

Absolutely.

Richard carrier as well

you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself

Technically he's being Jesus' advocate in this particular video at least lol

​@@SonicluNerdGamerLOL Dad joke FTW!!!

@@pererau "Ok, now just roll the stone back!" - Jesus, probably, returning to the tomb after hearing that joke

That's because Alex isn't your typical atheist. He undoubtedly sides with some of the arguments he represented. There's a reason he's often referred to as a theist that doesn't know it yet. 😅 It's not necessarily true, of course, but from a theist perspective he's got the arguments and he's definitely got the intelligence so he's just lacking the all important experience that pushes him over.

@@CynHicks Considering his entire body of work, that conclusion seems to be a far cry. Utilizing arguments that are compelling to some theists in order to provoke conversation with a Scholar isn’t enough to extrapolate his “secret theism”. That’s purely your inference. It’s far more likely that Alex is playing devils advocate and conceding/accepting some theistic claims that haven’t met their burden of proof

Alex is not in the echo chamber? What does that mean? Alex knows the answer to every question he asked. He's just playing devil's advocate. Or in this case, Christ's advocate.

@@TenTonNuke not even Christ's, more like Christian fanatics. They've long been out of touch with Christ

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@TenTonNuke You said Christ’s advocate 😂

Which echo-chamber?

Here in South Africa too......

@@JacquesMare my brother 🤲🏽

I just saw some crazy thing on the news about people murdering bald guys in Africa to- and I hope this isn't true and I swear I'm not making it up- get the gold inside their heads?

@@shassett79 dude the amount if insanity people believe in here, is off the charts. We had to transfer a security guard two weeks ago because he insisted that the female staff had bewitched him and he just had to get the fuck away from them.

@@JacquesMare lol

The difference is, one is honest, logical, analytical truth seeking. The other is smoke and mirrors, half truths, bluster and outright lies to win people over. A bit like apologetics really.

When Napoleon died on St Helen island, many people in France did not believed it. We even have accounts of people who saw him after his death.

Exactly, and the claim would not be any more plausible even if some of the people claiming it were his bandmates. History can not verify the plausibility of the supernatural. It can only deal with possible natural explanations.

And he didn't even need an empty tomb.

@@basolfjeld The present can't verify the plausibility of the supernatural either.

@@basolfjeldwild that his tomb is empty…

"We have several historical figures for which those four facts are true. Romulus--I don't know if he was a historical figure . . . " My favorite part where Ehrman's first example doesn't meet the four facts.

🤣🤣👍🏼

The bottom line is that people simply don't want to believe. I mean of course there's no evidence (apart from Biblical accounts) that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by certain people. So? But what if it's actually true. No one can prove it's not. Bottom line, if there's even a slight likelihood that it's true, far 'safer' to believe it ... just in case cause there ain't no hope for anyone if it's not.

The difference is that atheists don't generally make a claim, they just don't accept the one that is made because it lacks credible evidence. In that sense, there's really nothing to "challenge". If Christianity were the prosecution in a criminal case, all it would take is a motion to dismiss to have the case thrown out of court.

It seems asymmetric because believers have these unfalsifiable claims, where atheists tend not to. Everything should be challenged though.

The difference is Atheists welcome the challenge to their beliefs the christian is offended by them.

Except this conversation was nothing to do with faith and everything to do with history, the record and what can be reasonably assumed from what we know The fact that you framed it that way reflects how some christians seem desperate to find any semblance of justification of their beliefs in the least adequate places. You don't need any of this to justify your faith and Alex far from does anything here to justify it, neither does Bart attempt to make you question it

He was challenged, but he was off big time he was going around but this, but that was nothing else he was looking for excuses for especially Jesus .He does not understand what evidence is at all ...

Agree, he would be all over this

I doubt you'll ever get it. I've definitely become certain Ehrman will never agree to debate Carrier. He does his absolute best to ignore his existence.

That would be awesome

Carrier is a clown

But did they die

They were supposed to have died....Graves in his novel Hercules My Shipmate, does an epilogue that outlines how they died.@@Logosfollower

These eye witness accounts have no other supporting evidence. Fighting in battle probably plays havoc with the mind.

​@@LogosfollowerPeople rarely are hundreds of years old so yes.

Maybe the Greek soldiers weren't mistaken after all? Maybe they were right?

Brother I see you bloody everywhere. 😅😅

Bro comments this on every channel💀

Fake account with a creepy name and picture

@@strumspicks2456I think the creepy picture is the point. I think he’s trying to expose the fact that the prophet likely married a 6 year old girl.

⁠@@strumspicks2456by fake do you mean he’s impersonating someone?

Exactly. I myself have had experiences where I could have sworn I’ve seen people who have died, for instance my grandfather. Now I am a totally secular atheist person, so I just shake my head, and go “wow, that’s weird, my mind is playing tricks on me.” But superstitious people living in societies that believe in supernatural happenings will take these kinds of things as real. And then further, they will expand in the telling, and people will believe those expanded versions. After 30 years, there could be any kind of stuff going around.

@@willmosse3684 Wouldn't someone who believes in the supernatural just take all of your accounts as further proof? neither you or the commenter you're responding to actually argued against the "visions" as genuine, you merely give more examples of people having these experiences.

@@Mr.Goodkat Yes, superstitious people would take the claims as genuine. But they don’t meet the standards of evidence the have been developed since the rationalist enlightenment and the scientific revolution. So it’s a medieval or ancient way of thinking. The reason for pointing out that people believe all sorts of claims about people rising from the dead, is that Alex was positing that these claims about Jesus amount to evidence he really rose from the dead, because surely all these claims wouldn’t be made about something that didn’t happen. Well, if that’s your standard of evidence, you need to believe all these vampire claims too.

What seems interesting to me is how the apostolic and Roman Catholic Church is skeptical of these testimonies and even centuries ago has an explanation of anemia and hallucinations due to the sadness of losing a loved one as the most likely explanation for the appearance of a nearby dead person. Even criticizing village priests who believed these things and performed exorcisms on corpses or decapitated them so that they would not rise again. how easy it is to look at the straw in the other's eye...

@@RojirigoD Absolutely

Yes? Go on.

@@brotherben4357 wtf is wrong w you xd

That statement appears to be incorrect. There is evidence - including physical evidence - that (at least in Judea) the Romans allowed the Jews to bury crucified people.

Lol that's because you fail to convince the believers otherwise. Please stfu

As well as 2Pac and Santa Claus and myriad other deceased celebrities and fanciful characters. It’s absolutely embarrassing that we cannot come together to see the lethal and obvious climate change in front of our own eyes and even reject its existence outright. Meanwhile, we still play make believe as adults and murmur to invisible beings like we are their prized pets.

Evolution is a slow process, and there is no selection pressure for us to do so. I don't hold much hope for that.

I agree. But don't bet on it!

Please stop. Did Elvis split human history? Did people spend 40 days with Elvis after he had died? To the point that Romans ordinarily left crucified victims on the cross to slowly decompose, William Lane Craig has already provided a citation to an ancient source confirming that a crucified victim WAS given a burial. Why do you believe their normal practice was a fixed law? (Question for you: isn't recorded history literally filled with unusual, sometimes extraordinary events? Of course.) The absurdity of Ehrman's claim is twofold. First, the Biblical records from those who were there. Save your objections. Why should I believe Ehrman in the 21st century instead of those in the 1st century? And remember this was several accounts, not just one. But more to the point: why do YOU write this year as 2024? As does every other person on earth? Who does "2024" point to? Jesus Christ. He ALONE split human history. Not you, not anyone else. Is it rational to believe that Jesus would be the singular person to split human history if his body had rotted for days in view of all witnesses? How much faith does THAT take? And never forget, it was the resurrection alone that gave his BIRTH such history splitting significance. The resurrection of Christ split human history, providing the most extraordinary evidence that Jesus was indeed, God as he said he was. Jesus, whose moral teachings formed the foundation of Western civilization by FIRST TRANSFORMING the Roman empire. (See Tom Holland's "Dominion" on this.) And never forget that Jesus' disciples turned the world upside down preaching everywhere that Christ was risen. Several were killed for this testimony and all suffered greatly for it without A SINGLE ONE recanting their testimony when a recantation would have saved their life. And Ehrman wants us to believe that they did all of this after watching Jesus slowly rot on a cross? And he wants us to believe that the Romans made Christianity the official religion of Rome 300 years later when the founder slowly rotted on a cross? His argument is irrational.

Well done, your path out of Christianity has begun. Look forward to a kinder, less bigoted world. ❤

You should follow your own advice

@@gehrig7593 l have

Welcome to the rational side

Assuming that Christianity does not uphold kindness and is bigoted shows how uneducated you are about anything related to it, what a dumb comment@@possumface2425

I don't see that but rather he's open to understanding and being generous to the rationale others have for believing.

The purpose of crucifixion was to let the body hang there, to be seen by the public. It's for people they didn't intend to bury. There's no reason to think they were changing their minds all the time and letting traitors be buried. They intended for the body to be rotted then thrown in a trench grave.

You can't prove a negative. Of course, the Romans could have done that in some undocumented instances--anything's possible after all--but I believe what Bart said is that there is not a single instance of documented historical evidence to corroborate the Christian claim that they ever did.

Isn't that all history though? How can you prove 500 people actually saw Jesus even if you were a detective in the 1st century? There is no way to verify that only to take 500 witness statements. By iself, as Alex rightfully points out, the evidence is insufficient but when combined with everything else it makes the case.

Sometimes Ehrman is a little loose with the word "fact". I am not used to academics being that way.

Exactly… The data isn’t "Jesus appeared to groups of people.“ The data is "35-45 years after Jesus died an author who doesn’t identify himself and doesn’t identify his sources claims that Jesus appeared to groups of people.“

@@ramigilneas9274 yes, that. 😆

@@ramigilneas9274 Paul's account in 1.Corr 15 is a bit more than that though.

It was a total shit show, he claimed Bart is not a historian because he trained in textual criticism to no push back from the clueless interviewer

Their aggressiveness is necessary to protect their charade.

It's funny that you think both sides are honest. Craig is a bullshit artist.

Wlc is anything but aggressive lol none of my atheist heroes can stand with WLC. Maybe Hitchens could but even he would joke a lot which would undesirable draw attention away from the main point .

@@Sal3600 Bullshit. WLC is a liar who uses the debate platform to pretend he is a scholar. I could mop the floors with his bullshit in any forum.

It was the exact same thing with “election fraud” in the US 2020 election. TONS of claims of fraud and ballot tampering, etc, but no actual evidence. “There’s so many claims, therefore the election was stolen”

A moon landing denier you say?... ukposts.info/have/v-deo/q5pnlWaOqaiZkps.html ukposts.info/have/v-deo/g6Cmf6tqfWZz140.html

Then I guess you've not watched many videos like this. Anyone who makes claims of supernatural events is making a claim of something extraordinary. It is on them to provide evidence to back up their claim.

You don’t listen to many then …. What “ high “ level is this guy ?. He left Christianity.. 🤔🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

That's a dubious distinction. We accept things all the time based on testimony.

@@johnbinford6706 Do you accept Bigfoots existence based on living witness testimonies?

perhaps you haven't had enough reading then. otherwise you would've known that it indeed is evidence - but only for those accepting (the claim, the call, whatever). of course it is not by any means a pure scientific evidence as it was not written by a scolar or a group of such people, but rather is a written compilation of earlier oral memories of number of witnesses and their followers.

Pilates residence was in Caesarea. So we have zero evidence that he was in the area. Nor would the highest Roman official spent his time talking with some criminal. Nor would say Roman official let some crowd vote on which criminal should go unpunished. A Roman official had crucified both Barabas and Jesus side by side. The fan fiction story was invented by uninformed authors or they simply thought their fiction would be enough for the uninformed cultists.

@@Snookerball13 Yes, I see what you may have in mind.

There weren't many aircraft involved in WW1.

@@geoffpoole483 Sure there were, just not as many as WW2, or during the American Revolution where Trump claimed the colonial army took over the airports from the redcoats.

Paulogia responded to it.

whats wrong with pushing back unless you're insecure about the subject?

@@jaromsmiss No, for sure. That's what I was trying to say. I'm not usually insecure about these conversations, but I found myself feeling defensive and not really knowing why. And so I appreciate Alex for being willing to do that and not just quietly nod. It challenged me.

A lot of that questioning really sounded like Alex was doing a questioning exercise entirely unrelated to what a historian's job is, surprisingly out of touch quite frankly. More a push to the side than a pushback imho

@@strumspicks2456yea it’s like he doesn’t understand what historical evidence is

Makes me wonder why he is very soft with religious apologists lately.

Oh that is a good one ! 😂😂😂 Also it is common knowledge among those who are familiar with Greek and Roman plays (literature) that the appearance and disappearance of gods in plays had been staged in such a way that the actors playing these parts would be let down with ropes or hoisted up out of sight of the audience after playing their part. So exits Jesus after doing his thing. The above is strong evidence that the gospels are actually plays, fiction as entertainment for the Roman and Greeks based on actual events, to mock the liberation struggles of the Jews.

>at what speed did he ascend -- Well we know he hit escape velocity, at the very least, since there aren't any reports of him plummeting back to Earth...

Just for reference, the Escape Velocity for an object to leave earth's gravitational influence is about 11 kilometers (7 miles) per second, or over 40,000 kilometers per hour (25,000 miles per hour). Ergo, I don't know why they keep on depicting Jesus as white, as that motherfucker (pun intended), would be burnt to a crisp.

@@rsr789 I literally lol'd

@@rsr789Why do I have flashbacks to African and European swallows carrying coconuts?

I suspect that, to a Christian, "someone could have just removed the body" is perfectly reasonable in the thousand other god myths, but not this one, it's how faith works i guess.

Not only that, but if someone wanted to claim the guy resurrected, who of the populace would honestly know where he had originally been buried? Christians make it seem like the entire city would know where Jesus was buried, but from the accounts it seems all followers of Jesus went into hiding, and only the disciples, a couple of women close to Jesus, and Joseph of Arimathea really knew where the tomb was. The narrative could potentially circulate for months without any of the close followers of Jesus hearing anything about it, especially if they were going back to Galilee to continue on with their day jobs.

It is true, and the importance is that it when combined with the other accepted facts create a hard situation to explain. I will list the facts near-unanimously accepted by all historians (and most new testament scholars with Bart being an exception who at one point AGREED with all of these). Jesus existed, Jesus died via crucifixion, Jesus was put in a tomb, Jesus's tomb was later found empty by female followers, and shortly after other followers of Jesus had become convinced they had seen him, the followers of Jesus whom claimed to have seen him held to this account even when it meant death (the deaths of the apostles are well-documented). Now how do we explain these facts, what you are adhering to seems to be the conspiracy theory. The issue with it is that while it explains the empty tomb, how is it that people believed to have seen a risen Jesus? You seem to believe that those who claimed that simply lied, which does get past this problem the issue is what comes next. The disciples who under the conspiracy theory would KNOW they are lying, instead of recanting, would rather die. The conspiracy theory is not really used much in modern times because it frankly fails even atheist historians don't tend to use it. Many would instead use the hallucination theory, but that runs into the issue of the empty tomb (hence why it is important), while not the only issue hallucination theory has the empty tomb literally can't be explained under hallucination theory because even if people had hallucinated the tomb to be empty the romans would simply have showed it to be occupied and put down the early Christian church which had been causing problems. Bart again used to agree with all the historical facts, I can guess as to the reasons for his rejection but that is neither here nor there.

@@mikesandmire211 It is, if it is the best possible explanation for the evidence. In the case of Jesus's body that fails, conspiracy theory is not well-regarded by even atheist historians and I outlined why in another comment.

Agreed. In fact, the empty tomb does not even convince people in the actual story.

Was Paul saying that, the Gospel’s don’t mention it.

Had it been foretold that Elvis will come back to life before he was born? It's a different story with Jesus.

@@ramebgm1394 It was "foretold" if one wants it to be that way. The great thing about religious prophecies is that they're so vague one can reverse engineer whatever one wants into them. It remains a fact that claims are not evidence, and all we have for this are claims, and such claims are common, and you reject all of the others without even thinking about it...a clear case of culturally-imposed confirmation bias.

@@njhoepner here you did the same claiming prophecy is vague. What makes your claim more right than the desciples who had sacrificed their life for what they have seen. Wouldn't they try to avoid the most brutal death,If the evidence were not clear enough. Who is more bias here? And, have you not listened to William Lane Craig response?

@@ramebgm1394 Feel free to cite me a prophecy that isn't vague or open to multiple interpretations. Take all the time you need. As for "the disciples who had sacrificed their lives," there's no real evidence for that. In your bible we have ONE instance in which all of the twelve were warned and flogged...after that, ten of the twelve disappear from the account and are never heard from again. Shortly thereafter, it's the Peter show until about chapter 9 of Acts, then it's the Paul show. Nothing about any of the others. The idea that they "sacrificed their life" is church tradition (legend) that emerged centuries later, without evidence or backing. So even if I took your bible as literal truth, we hear of no further deaths or suffering or anything for any of the twelve...Peter and Paul are both still alive when the account ends, and as I mentioned the rest have disappeared. So the argument is weak. William Lane Craig argues exactly like you do - he starts with the presumption that the bible is word-for-word literal truth, THEN he adds in whatever he feels he needs from church tradition/legend ("all of the disciples died for their beliefs"), and then declares that he has proven the bible is word-for-word literal truth...a textbook example of circular reasoning.

@@njhoepner The birth of Jesus Long before Jesus’s birth, ancient prophets foretold many events related to His role and mission. These prophecies were given so people would recognize Jesus when He came and have faith in Him as their Savior. Isaiah in the Old Testament wrote about Jesus 700 years before His birth: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). He further declared, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). The life of Jesus Other Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). The death and resurrection of Jesus All of God’s prophets have testified of Jesus. Old Testament prophets described events that would occur hundreds of years later. Isaiah foretold how Jesus would be mocked, spat upon, and struck (see Isaiah 50:6). The prophet Zechariah knew that Jesus would be crucified and yet would pray for His enemies (see Zechariah 12:10). Most importantly, prophets throughout the Bible taught God’s message that Jesus Christ would be resurrected (see Isaiah 25:8) and that because of Him, we will be resurrected too (see Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:26).

What is the standard of evidence needed to satisfy your standard of truth?

Then you are left with the absurd notion of the first disciples dying for what they knew was a LIE.

😂He still has lots of point though Freddy!!😅

Yes, eye-witness accounts are among the most unreliable types of evidence. In many instances we see what we want to see. In the end, our feelings easily corrupt our memories.

Is this a good or bad thing?

@@GRP--gw1ylshits on = bad-mouths them.

Craig reminds me of a certain stripe of evangelical preacher who can say awful things that nobody in his audience notices because he grins and does the "aw shucks, bless his heart" routine the whole time.

@@shassett79 I thought something very similar while reading the comments section of a new Inspiring Philosophy interview with him.

Wow. And you don't mention what Dawkins has to say to people of faith? Not even comparable. Hypocrite you.

Why? I bet she never does.

Why not? I don't bet he ever doesn't.

The line for apologists begins at the left.

There's actually ointment you can use for your little problem.... Jesus on the other hand , has the opposite problem.... 😂😂😂😂

@@JacquesMare I hear that that ointment can also be used to treat itchy trigger finger.

As Christians depend a lot on Paul and for Paul the resurrection is the centerpiece of his theology I can understand their resistence.

This is an incredibly uneducated take

They do happen

@@desertsand8778 Put one up on this channel.

​@@desertsand8778like what?

@tornay131 look up Bruce Van Netta

@@desertsand8778 Please provide evidence

We don't. It's a special pleading claim made for the bible and only for the bible.

​@@rsr789nope. The special pleading is actually used against the Bible not for it. No other text of antiquity has been scrutinized to this extent. Even non Christian historians criticize Christian theologians for not believing their own sources.

@@MrSeedi76 Incorrect. The Bible makes claims that are completely unsubstantiated by any actual evidence. What little the Bible does get right was proven with sources outside of it, and a long time after those claims were written down. The 4 facts mentioned in the video - that a man named Jesus existed, that he was a teacher of ethics, that he was killed via crucifixion and that people _claimed_ to have seen him after his death - are accepted as such not because they're in the Bible, but because _actual evidence_ for them was found.

The problem is that I keep seeing RFK Jr. on TV! 🤮

Did they seem him all together or seriatim? How well did they know Jesus before? Could they pick him out of a line-up? How far away were they? What were the lighting conditions. Did they hear him say anything? Did they all agree on the details? Who counted them? How?

Only he didn't "hijack the movement". That's nonsense that has long been debunked especially by the work of Jewish scholars like Pinchas Lapide or Shalom Ben-Chorin.

@@brianholly3555 There's no other details other than the claim of 500 witnesses, that's what makes it so dubious.

This topic shouldn't even be talked about. It's so idiotic. If I say I saw a dragon fly by yesterday and 500 people saw it too, would people believe me? Ofc not because I'm just one witness.

Why don’t you believe the history of how it all played out…