Q. Do muslims believe in Jesus Christ ? A. Believing in Jesus and all other prophets of God is a fundamental part of muslim faith. Muslims believe that Jesus is the son of Virgin Mary, and he had no father. God created Jesus and he is a prophet IE saying he is god. Or the son of god is a major sin in Islam
Ah,yea im convinced. A bunch of dead ppl, who was delutional enough to believe in a fairytale, wrote down craploads of pages of unlikely and ignorant happenings, who obviously got insane power afterwards and killed all who objected. THEY said that that was true, yea get real. THEY are probably not even real. If you actually buy this shitheads bs i challenge you to seek a psychologist for the sake of humanity`s survival. Please
@logoRH Your statement just made me realize that you didn't even watch the whole video. Wow, see I knew most of the people didn't watch the whole video! Bonus points for me :D
Embrace me darkened one, strengthen my soul. Spew thy darkness into our world. And through the rotting gates heaven. Shadowy wisps will heal my wounds. Shadowy wisps will wound their prayers. Send me the loving peace of Lucifer. Send me the battered pieces of jesus christ. It is now time, we begin to move forward. Hordes of terror are waiting to strike them. Following a great leader into his war. With hoofs of steel, he'll crush thy body. You will give in to the might of Satan.
I admire Lee Strobel's efforts but the history from that era are hearsay upon hearsay (due to the practice of verbal history), some of them are supported by archaeological evidence, most are not. Nonetheless, there are many evidence and live witnesses TODAY, that can support Jesus as a living God who not only resurrected but changed their lives forever, right now, in this century. Many people practice their faith in countries where they are being persecuted daily, right now.
A bit of a lame creator of the UNIVERSE. A hand full of people witnessed the resurrection of his SON. Apparently the almighty doesn't have 4G. Hey, you humans in the western hemisphere heard about this shit??....no
A long way of saying.. the bible is true because the bible says its true..... how do you explain Christianity being born in the same place he was put to death? Really? Do I need to answer that? Sigh.... where the hell else would it be born other than the same area he preached? Taiwan? Now THAT would have been impressive.
@55k3v1n There's nothing intelligent or comprehensive about arguing against or for the supernatural. He died for our sins? Prove sin in real scientific terms that are quantifiable to out plane of existence. After you fumble around that, try the same for everything else that had been historically proven to be inaccurate thrown to the waste dump of ineffability.
@55k3v1n Unintilligent? I'm gonna make the assumption that you believe us to be unequal, therefor making be some kind of subspecies of human that goes to "hell"? A simple yes will suffice, but I'd be a dulling in foreplay if I thought you wouldn't give me a long drawn out explanation as to why flatulence makes you eligible for damnation. Amirite? :D
@overether No, we are not unequal. It was just that your comment was typical of someone who can't come up with a proper response to a point of view he may differ with. Who are the "us" you refer to? Atheists? Both atheists and believers in a higher power run the full gamet from genius to mentally challenged. And...I'm pretty sure both saints and sinners fart.
@overether Instead of responding in an unintelligent, insulting kind of way, why not come up with some compelling counter argument? Let's hear your sound reasoning that doesn't involve flatulence.
Christianity wouldn't even exist in any form without the resurrection. It begins with those claiming to be the eye witnesses. The same people who fled when Jesus was arrested and remained hidden and filled with feared after He was put to death. If Jesus remains dead all would have ended right then and there. How can the disciples go from such depths of discouragement to boldly proclaiming the risen Lord 40 days later. Nothing: beatings, stonings, the threat of death, etc. could stop them.
@rz4prezi But decades later Christianity was already established and wouldn't have had any reason to exist if the resurrection hadn't been preached from the very beginning. Would preaching a dead Messiah have created the kind of excitement that resulted in thousands of conversions? Not to mention the birth of churches in Rome Ephesus, Phillipi, Thessalonica, etc. whom Paul wrote his epistles to? You'd think the early Christains would have noticed any major doctrinal changes, as the resurrection
@55k3v1n lots of other religions started without stories of resurrections, but sure, there could have been stories about Jesus being resurrected floating about after his death. Not many sources outside of the bible for this amazing event tho, and even the bible has a couple of different versions of how it happened.
@rz4prezi There is a difference between different versions and contradicting versions. Some may contain more details or different details than another. The stories of Jesus resurrection weren't just thrown around. They were boldly proclaimed by previously frightened, devastated disciples in public places where large crowds gathered. The disciples plus other eye witnesses spoke in complete unity and knew that what they claimed would likely result in beatings, stonings, prison and/or execution.
@rz4prezi He ascended to heaven after 40 days of appearances. He instructed them to wait together (after His ascension) until they received "the promise of the Father", as promised in John 14:16,17,26; 15:26,27. The promise is the baptism in the Holy Spirit which occurs in Acts 2:1-4. This empowered the disciples to preach the resurrection of Christ.
If I as a human being decided to write a history of Darwin and used only what people told me happened and did not use any other evidence just as the New Testament is written could I be fooled? Absolutely, if I listened to what Lady Hope had told others about Darwin's death bed conversion or the others that had heard the story and believed it. It isn't until you examine all the writings of Darwin, his wife and many others that the truth is revealed. The bible is flawed in such a manor.
"Carefully investigated everything so he could write an orderly account of the certainty of things"
Well.. Joseph Smith had 11 written testamonials of people who had seen the golden plates on which the book of Mormon was written. This was more or less in modern time.
The result: 14 million people today believe Native americans are emigrated Jews coloured red as a punishment from God, and that we all get our own planet when we die. Eyewitness accounts have to be objective to be valid..
@danielerikskold Three of the eleven recanted their testemonials re: the golden plates. Mormon explain that away by referring to all 3 as Judases. Zero out of 300+ eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus recanted their claim.
If you were to "resurrect" after hours of being dead, you'd undoubtedly be the most brain dead moron in the history of man, better suited for euthanasia than the terminally ill
@overether Every last bit of Jesus' body was dead, all organs completely shut down. That's what makes it such a miracle. "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). Christianity does not begin if Jesus doesn't rise from the dead.
@khughesdc Isn't this enough - "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Tell 1 child a story at the back of a class and ask them to repeat it to the child next to them and pass it on, by the time the story is told to the last child in the front, i bet you it will bear no resemblance to the original. Think about that...
LOL there is one problem with saying jesus rose and again and appears. Can anyone see the problem. Yes if you write books 30 years after an event, guess what probably all the people who are so called witnesses are probably dead. Remember the life span of people in those times. So someone 20+30=50 were they alive to confirm that. If someone writes one book, it's not it available at the corner shop. Alexandra the great, travelled winning battles a trail was left over 20 years. Lee Strobel is Dumb.
@theapeman10 John lived to be like 90 and the authors of John and Matthew were alive when they wrote them. They were copied and circulated as was the norm with historical works and esp with christian works for there were already several churches aropund the empire.
@j919or - You find various dates for most events maybe a span of 100 years. As regards when things were copied and circulated. You didn't have photocopier in these days or printing presses. The other question of the time it takes to copy material and how it assumed that the masses even had writing, reading skills. Did followers have any education, did the poor even have any sort of bibles. It's logical to think information was hearsay until circulation probably over hundreds of years,
@j919or - We see faith feelers all over the world in the last 40 years on TV. Aren't magic tricks on TV miracles. Feeding the 5000 with a few fishes and bread, is this a story we can prove or disprove. Well the physics are impossible, but if you tell the story in writing a100 years later, you have a miracle. A few years ago vets saved my dog by Human Skill & Microsurgery.Religion has NO REGARD for animals in the bible sacrificing them for pagan offerings, religion is for very gullible people
@TheDarvus see the above LOL, just more nonsense that is nothing more than an ill conceived opinion not based in reality. That is all you have for your theory.
@TheDarvus you can go into more nonsense without a shred of evidence if he is interested is what you mean to say. You have zero evidence to support anything that you say. All pure rubbish. His choice of words on this "endorsement" speak volumes.
There were masses of "eye-witness" accounts of Appolonius of Tianna.
Masses of witnesses to the appearance of Zeus, or Minerva, or Krishna.
Their are thousands of "eye-witnesses" of UFO abductions.
Despite the fact that Strobel is talking utter nonsense about the origin of the Gospels, by this exact same reasoning, all those supernatural claims are true as well.
Ok lets say hes right. Does it really matter. I would not worship a god that kills his own creation instead of just making them well. Stop wasting your valuable life on religion and do something good and constructive for the good of all humanity. There probably is no God so relax and enjoy your life.
OK WELL Prove to me this Smartass. I Am Collie Matthew White. And Jesus Gave me the Crown to become The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I Witnessed the Dead Being Raised and the Trumpets sounding. And we are in the 7 years of Tribulations. Congrats. you didnt get taken. You Failed to Learn the Real Teachings of Jesus. But its all good. i got your back. But until you beleive me... Well Lets just say. I own your soul. And i will Enslave you. unless you Unbind my chains. then we shall rise as one.
What unbiased, thoroughly proven true and accurate text does the resurrection appear in? NONE.
Out of the "500" people mentioned in the bible who saw Jesus alive after death, how many wrote something about this extraordinary experience down? NONE
How many eyewitness testimonies to Jesus' death AND subsequent resurrection exist? NONE
@1ProudFemaleAtheist There is no such thing on earth as unbiased, thoroughly proven true text. You can reject anything you want, and never have to accept anything as true. How do you think Neo-Nazis can claim the holocaust never happened? How do you think some people can claim the moon landing never occurred to this day? The tons of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job? The people who believe Obama has no real birth certificate? No amount of proof is enough for you, never will be.
Who the fuck are you to tell me that "no amount of proof is enough for me, never will be" you pompous condescending asshole?
In order for me to believe that a man rose from the dead 3 days after being killed and then "flew up into the sky on a cloud" I would have to SEE IT MYSELF. This is called being RATIONAL. If a guy was walking around today declaring that he was Jesus Christ, returning to earth again - would you believe it? What would you need to believe it?
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Right, I'm the jerk, when you came here telling us all we are morons for believing something that is obviously not true, by your statements. I see your point.
I guess I shouldn't believe the moon landing, because I didn't see it myself. I just saw a video. That isn't proof, its a video. Could have been faked. That is rational too. Not commonly believed, but rational.
You believe the earth is round, but you have not held it in your hand, felt its shape. Why do you believe?
I'm calling you a jerk, not everyone on here. Another lie.
Sure, the moon landing could have been faked. But in addition to the video we have eyewitness accounts of it. And we have pictures of the earth from space. Your analogies are asinine.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I didn't say you were calling everyone a jerk, i said you called us all morons. Don't call me a liar if you didn't even understand what I wrote.
We have eyewitness accounts in the bible of seeing Christ risen from the dead, but you rejected my eyewitnesses so I reject yours. Why should I believe your "eyewitnesses?" The pictures of earth? So what? That doesn't mean people landed on the moon.
Oh excuse me "moron" was the word you used. I did not call everyone on here morons. So, You lie.
And once again your analogies are just fucking ridiculous. The bible is not proof of the bible, and there are NO eyewitness accounts in it. The authorship of Peter is not definitely Peter. Who wrote the bible is a major academic and historical issue - I've read quite a bit on this. Most scholars actually agree that Peter was NOT written by Peter. I"m guessing you were not aware of this?
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Again, I was shortening things. Telling us we are all wrong while we believe this stuff makes all of us "dumb." or "morons" or whatever. Try to follow what Im saying. I know you want to nit pick on everything, but try not to be so personal.
The analogies are meant to be ridiculous. That is my point. That is what your "causes for disbelief" look like to me.
the authorship is "not definitely Peter" yes I've heard this, and its not "most" its "some." Again, your excuses.
Well actually I've read the word "most" used when describing this doubt, and really - what difference does it make? You stated that Peter was an eyewitness and wrote about it. However, we do not know for sure that Peter actually DID write about it, so it is NOT a fact.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Some people who wrote of the experience of seeing Christ after resurrection had their writings (or "books") added to the bible. But since that is the Bible, you automatically disqualified it. Why? Because you are biased yourself.You must be extremely biased to name yourself "ProudFemaleAthiest" when it is completely foolish to declare that you know AS A FACT that there is no god of any kind. That would be completely impossible to know, even if religion had never existed.
What are these books? I would like very much to read them.
It is extremely stupid of you to state that I have "declared for a FACT that there is no God" when I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY SUCH THING, you idiot. There absolutely COULD be a God, of course there could! And no atheist i know states that they know for a "FACT' that there isn't one. We simply do not believe in any god as set forth by any of the world's religions because there is NO PROOF.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist You could read the New Testament. The Disciples all saw Jesus, and some of them wrote books, for example; Peter.
You pretty much made up your own description of atheist there. Perhaps, by that definition, you should change your name to "ProudFemaleAgnostic." Dictionary description for an Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
No proof? Like I said, you'll reject anything because its possible to reject. Example: Prove I exist.
I've read the New Testament. I did not make up "my own definition" of atheism. You're lying, or you're misinformed and need to educate yourself before you begin these discussions with somebody. I am NOT agnostic, I am an atheist. Atheism is a rejection of the claim "God exists" because there is no NO PROOF. I disbelieve the existence of a supreme being, just like you said. That does not mean I am stating that it is a proven FACT that there is no god, like you said.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I just pulled the description from an online dictionary, take it up with them.
How about from wikipedia? "atheism is simply the absence of belief that deities exist." How about Greek? A= No Theos=god
As far as your reading the new testament, You're lying, or you don't understand and need to educate yourself before you begin these discussions with somebody.
Fuck you. I did not remotely lie about reading the New Testament, and you have no basis to say I am lying at all. I am a former Christian. I graduated from Azusa Pacific University which is a Christian University, and bible classes were literally part of the required curriculum to graduate. I had REASON to say you were lying because you did, you told me I called you all morons. You have NO BASIS to say I am lying at all. Now you really are sounding like a major moron.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist That doesn't mean I exist. You can't prove I'm communicating with you. As far as you can "prove" we could all be living in the matrix. I could be a computer, and you cant prove Im not.
"No proof? Like I said, you'll reject anything because its possible to reject"
First, that makes NO SENSE.
Second, I will reject extraordinary claims of events that defy all known natural laws unless there is EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to support the claims. It's called being rational. A book is not "extraordinary evidence" of a resurrected god-man born of a virgin. It's really quite simple.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I had to shorten it so I could fit it in the box. I thought you were smart enough to figure out what I meant. Sorry.
You will reject anything, because it is possible to simply reject what ever you wish. I could deny that grass is green. Maybe you see blue and I see yellow, but we were both raised that grass is green, so we identify it as green, though we actually see differently. See? I just rejected something completely true and logical using a wrong but rational statement
@1ProudFemaleAtheist What did you want Jesus to do? Leave a giant sign burnt in the tombstone that says "Jesus was Here"? You'd then claim that disciples or cultist followers burned it there to fake evidence.
I already told you - in order to believe something like a resurrection I would have to see it myself. It's called being logical. I don't find belief "moronic" and I never called anyone on here morons, or meant to, so quit putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. Your latest list of analogies - the whole grass is green stuff and living in the matrix - what the fuck? You are making absolutely NO SENSE at all. You have utterly derailed and you're not making any "point" at all.
With no solid evidence for the existence of this "Jesus" character, all the other speculations and rationalizations are meaningless. You can't just jump in at some midpoint of the story and use it to justify the other two ends of the argument, any more than you can start building a bridge from a point in the air halfway between where you want the bridge to span and halfway between the top and the bottom of it.
@errskin Comparing Islamic terrorists killing unjustly (themselves included) and Christians that were unjustly killed for not worshipping Caesar isn't analogous. Christians are told to turn the other cheek & pray for the enemy. You must look at motivations!
People witnessed a public event, the resurrected Christ. Folks took the good news pretty seriously. Couple these people's testimonies with the OT prophecies (legitimized by the Dead Sea Scrolls), and you will find a portrait of Jesus as God.
@gunnernaut "People witnessed a public event, the resurrected Christ. Folks took the good news pretty seriously."
All you have backing this is the hearsay of unknown members of the early Jesus cult.
"Couple these people's testimonies with the OT prophecies"
OT was known at the time. Any clown could have made up stuff that fit. What's in dispute is the credibility of what you're pretending as evidence here.
The motivations for accepting death are identical. They have been brainwashed into thinking that death does not matter and that it's more important to follow divine commands. There is a slightly better argument for the disciples, if they ever existed and were eye witnesses, but the textual support for them being executed is so weak it's just comical. ProfMTH has a series on that here on youtube where he'd dug up the sources.
@TheDarvus I mentioned several possibilities,one that you invented the nonsense from your own delusional head,or that you got it from some silly website.You've convinced me,its probably more of the latter.You still havent shown one person though,whom thinks that Josephus and Paul are one and the same.Not one!All you have are crazy conspiracy theories rejected by scholars. Read some of Eisenman's books, or his quote again..."IF it is only partiallys true" is that what you call an endorsement?
There is not a single Roman or Greek source in the first century that mentions Jesus. Don't you think that at the resurrection when there was an earthquake and dead people came out of the graves and visited their families... that a secular historian or poet would have mentioned it? Wouldn't Josephus have mentioned Herod's 'slaughter of the innocents' that the bible claims? I smell a rat.
@paulinator61 Now I'm just spit-balling an idea here, but wouldn't Nero have destroyed all evidence of the Christ he could, hating Christians as much as he did? That would restrict the only written evidence to be held by the believers themselves, the only ones who would be willing to get caught with it.
@derky101 "wouldn't Nero have destroyed all evidence of the Christ he could, hating Christians as much as he did?"
There could be all kinds of reasons, but it really is irrelevant. What our situation is today is that the evidence we have is solely from the early Jesus cultists. We can just ask ourselves if hearsay from them carries enough weight to think the laws of nature were violated 2000 years ago. Especially in light of similar cultists living today, such as the followers of Sai Baba.
@derky101 There's another way to look at this as well. Your approach essentially amounts to a standard conspiracy theoretical technique of explaining why there is no credible evidence that a certain claim is true, rather than presenting the evidence and arguing your positive case. One can then shift from presenting actual evidence to presenting conjecture and circumstantial evidence as well as discussing whether or not people appear to be honest etc.
They, instead, said the disciples stole the bodies (to which without the protection of the Jewish leaders, would have been put to death for failing at their post). They were killed, tortured, for their claims of seeing Jesus Christ risen from the dead.... I don't know about you.... I'm not willing to be tortured for something I KNOW to be false. Id come out with the truth that I had lied... many many people died still proclaiming they had seen the risen Messiah.
The fact that these texts were written while other people were still alive that were also there and more than happy to "smack them" back into line as these texts were tearing apart the Jewish unity. Their silence DOES INDEED give credibility to their accuracy. Just as the Jewish leaders didn't argue the tomb was empty, as they themselves would have walked people there are and said "there is the body of your beloved false Messiah, now repent!"
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining... is that all you can come up with? Robert Eisenman never said any of that referring to your nonsense. Robert Eisenman believes 100% in the historical Paul. He's even written a book on the historical James. You've failed yet again, epically, like only you can
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul anywhere or the gospels being satire. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul anywhere or the gospels being satire. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul, or that the Gospels are satire, anywhere. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul, or mentions the gospels as being satire, anywhere. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it.
you are correct it is possible that the resurrection took place, although a very slim one in my view. A slim probability, on top of all the other plot holes in religious texts does not give me justification to believe in any religion or text written by man. And I do not fall for the fear based "pascals wager" where you must believe in our beleifs or suffer forever, people fail to realize if an all loving god does exist, he does not send people to hell for questioning ancient bronze age writings.
you are correct it is possible that the resurrection took place, although a very slim one in my view. A slim probability, on top of all the other plot holes in religious texts does not give me justification to believe in any religion or text written by man. And I do not fall for the fear based "pascals wager" where you must believe in our beleifs or suffer forever, people fail to realize if an all loving god does exist, he does not send ppl to hell for questioning ancient bronze age writings.
@TheDarvus No it isn't you dummy, and someone who quote mines and thinks they are making a solid case, LOL, is the one whom clearly has no idea about logic.
So, Josephus a non-believer, went through all the trouble of inventing a religion, discipling churches, and writing letters to them despite not having any reason to do so and their not being a shred of evidence to support your idiotic claim. Got it! Someone call the luny bin for Darvus, he's ready to be picked up
@TheDarvus the ages the authors wrote at is not relevant to the discussion. Josephus had no reason to invent the Christ figure. He had no reason to mentor and write to churches. He was not a believer. There is zero evidence to suggest that Josephus profited one bit from the churches. Your really running on empty here. The message of pray or you're going to hell is not even present in any of Paul's letters or anywhere else, so I'm not sure where you're getting that nonsens from.
There were about 10 fails within the first one minute of this video. The stories of jesus were an oral tradition not even written down until about 30-100 years + after his death. And all the "disciples" except perhaps one (MARK) were ACTUAL eyewitnesses, all the other accounts were sourced through stories that were soruced from the book of mark or of other sketchy oral traditions, NOT ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES. This video is for brainwashing, people just love to live in ignorance.
@Koncre7 Excuse me, but there's enough evidence to prove leagally in a court of justice that Jesus did rose from the dead, don't ask me, ask one the principal founders of the Harvard school of Law, Dr. Simon Greenleaf. There's nothing you can do or say to make true christians not believe in the Gospel, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Co 1:18
@188metalhead881 why are you quoting ancient writings of bronze age men with the fraction of knowledge we have today as if it is fact? and it does not matter or not if a Dr. at Harvard believes because as a child your mind can easily be filled by these ancient writing so your entire thought process as an adult still bases around what you learned as a child despite of the amount of education one has. The bible does not prove fact of anything and the resurrection is not outside the bible at all!!!
@Koncre7 Yeah, you´re so right, the bible doesn´t give any irresistable evidence to prove the resurrection, but the bible and history itself leave enough evidence to make room for possibilities, therefore; it is possible that the resurrection really took place, -John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” How easy would it have been to believe in something you can see touch and hear, God was pleased to let faith in.
@TheDarvus The ages that Josephus wrote at is not the subject at all. The subject is why would a non-Christian start up Christianity. Why would a non-Christian start up, disciple, and write letters to churches. You don't answer that because you know you don't have a logical explanation for it. If Josephus continued writing his whole life, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a beliver and would've had zero reason to go through all the trouble of starting up a faith he didn't share.
@TheDarvus you have zero evidence to support Josephus a non-Christian having anything to do with starting up Christianity or pretending to be Paul. You don't have any facts or any evidence except for words that you now admit were quote mined. Using logical fallacies doesn't promote truth, it just confirms that logic is not what you're using to come to your silly conclusions.
@TheDarvus no, it had nothing to do with what the other apostles believed. seriously, read it in context so you wont sound so ridiculous each time you try to mention scripture.
@TheDarvus You've got to be kidding me! There you go quote mining again. Did you even bother to read the first part of that same verse when he says, "Some may argue"... read down to verse 8 when it says their condemnation is deserved. You can't quote mine and expect anybody to take you seriously.
More people saw Big Foot, ET, and dead Elvis and they are alive now! As for zombie saints, sorry Lee, delusion is delusion no matter what century. Seneca quote: Religion is true to the common man, false to the wise man and useful to the politician. (Bear in mind he knew nothing of Christianity, but knew well the imagination of our kind) Regards
@TheDarvus No, he's not lying at all or attempting to deceive anyone. He's simply putting himself under the legalism of others forfeiting his freedom in Christ in hopes of saving them and developing their faith further.
@TheDarvus It comes from actually reading the surrounding verses... you should try that sometime. I know you'd rather just quote mine because that way you can squeeze a quote into your dead thesis. However, you commit a logical fallacy when you do.
@TheDarvus of course you'd prefer your explanation because yours is twisted to fit your own delusional take. He is not saying he's changing anything other than to take into consideration where other people are at in their faith and so choosing not to exercise certain freedoms that he has in Christ.
@TheDarvus ok, nothing about lying there though. He is simply forfeiting some of his freedoms in Christ for the benefit of others. "I am free to all men, but have enslaved myself to all." For the Jews sake, regarding indifferent matters, he became like a Jew, conforming to the practice of Jewish law. To those with a weak conscious, Paul again reframes from exercising his Christian freedom and does as they do. Nothing about lying - anywhere! See, context is good.
So according to this moron any claim any cult makes is true, why isnt he a mormon, a branch devidian or a hindu? Hindus today claim to witness miracles by the thousands. They have gatherings in the MILLIONS where they claim miracles occur.
Not thousands of years ago but today, why dont you believe them? Yet you take the word of cult leaders that lived thousands of years ago. And on top of this he lies about the writers being the actual people that followed "jesus"
@TheDarvus no, I'm saying your wrong and everybody knows why besides you. The rest of us have passed the third grade. There is no way you can come to the conclusion that Paul is admitting some lie. That is pure rubbish and you know it. Read 1 Cor 9:19-27 and it should become real clear. Dust off or go purchase a Bible. It will do you some good.
@TheDarvus The context of the narrative and the surrounding sentences would be a good start. This is a basic elementary school skill.Why havent you acquired it?
@TheDarvus I'm saying go back and read it in context and you can see for yourself the correct interpretation. Don't rely on others for your education... go to the source!
@TheDarvus you need me to explain context clues to you and I'm the idiot? LOL Go back to elementary school, you should have learned that in the third grade.
@TheDarvus You failed to bother to actually read the verse in context so you just made up your own context. or perhaps, you failed elementary school where we learn context clues.
@TheDarvus clearly nothing to do with lying... go back and read it again. Eyewitnesses... pick up one of Strobel's books and actually try reading it. We have accurate testimony. You'd know that if you tried actually reading a book instead of just trolling his videos.
He Lies in a second ! He Claims That Jesus Claimed That He Is God ? WERE"???
Satanic Lies Corrupted hearts Corrupted life Corrupted Minds !
So God Needs To Murder To Forgive Mans Sin ? Why Not Just Forgive Man Kind Since God Is So Loving In The Bible , Apparentley Muslims are Terrorists and hate Humans Why Is It Allah Forgives If You Call Out And Repent to Him With No Need For Blood Shed Nor Murder !!! Because Islam Is Correct & The Truth
So your idiotic cult is the one true one even though it is based on other idiotic cults.
Do you not realize how stupid you make your "god" sound? He makes his will know thought the world by all the different prophets yet he is to incompetent to maintain it? Its just childish nonsense.
In high school, I remember Stories changing Greatly in a matter of days. Is 30 years of word of mouth in the middle east 2000 years ago any better then a modern high school rumor?
Plus when they said Jesus could turn water into wine, I think they meant that water was your wine! The Muslims don't deny that Jesus existed, they just don't believe he was the son of God but a prophet like Mohammed. Muslims don't drink alcohol. Water is their wine. I'm an athiest but even that makes sense to me!
I loved reading about the introduction of the blood and body of christ as a lure to attract the poor to the church and to convert them from their pagan faiths by plying them with bread and alcohol! That's the real reason it spread so fast... Even a muslim would have faith if the only clean fluids he could get was wine and the only thing he got to eat was a piece of bread, not to mention shelter for a few hours. People forget how much of a luxury that was back then.
Jesus was a criminal Jew who lead a guerrilla war against the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics crucified him because of this. The Roman Catholics liked his ideas, so they said the Jews killed him, used his ideas to create the New Testament, then proceeded to genocide the Jews.
As for this mans teaching, it can at most be described as poor. People actually listen to this and take it seriously. I also love this guys timezones for the Gospels. You know he doesn't know what he is talking about when you study the grammar used in the Gospels. The style of grammar used in the synoptic gospels was not used until 90AD. Love to know if this man knows Midrash.
1Cor 15:44 What is sown is a physical body, and what is raised is a spiritual body.
Of course it was a bodily resurrection, but as the bible itself teaches, not a physical body, but it is risen as a spirtual body. So if jesus was raised as a physical body, why would the essense of Christianity teach that all would be raised in the third day, and why if jesus was raised physically would would Corinthians teach this? A physical resurrection is childlike thinking.
The problem is, this man is reading ancient literature in the way a modern man reads a newspaper, like most Christians do. Modern and ancient non-fiction are like comparing chalk and cheese, and the problem here is he is attempting to teaching that cheese is cheese and chalk is also cheese. it isn't.
See in the bible, relating to the resurrection, and the story of the blind translates "understand", not a visual optical sense. Go find out why the blind man was told not to re-enter the village. He was mocked. Does he remember the disciples went back to their normal lives. Look where jesus said I will "meet you"? This man does not understand ancient literature, and certainly doesn't understand Jewish history and the belief in the Messiah. This is a totally new belief.
It's actually genius in terms of propaganda: go on and on about how magnificent and remarkable and how many people etc. seen Jesus... While conveniently forgetting to mention that none of actual historians and actual people in existence did.
In fact, NO ONE did, as far as historical record is concerned. No one even CLAIMED to have seen Jesus with their own eyes, less of all his miracles.
But, hey, if an old myth says so, it must be true.
this guy doesnt make any sense at all. he claims that there are all these eyewitnesses to jesus and yet doesn't back that info up. an ancient book that claims somebody saw jesus perform a miracle is not evidence of a miracle, its merely a claim. strobel is confusing claims with evidence.
@errskin One has to wonder about the amazing growth of the Church. It sprang up in the society that put Jesus to death; and, indeed, many followers of Christ preferred to die than worship Caesar. Ask yourself: would you die for a lie?
@gunnernaut the "church" gained followers just like any other religion, and also just like any other religion it had followers that died for it. your point is invalid. if dying for your religion makes it true then islam probably wins, they blow eachother and themselves up by the thousands.
@gunnernaut "Ask yourself: would you die for a lie?"
Ask yourself: Would you undergo voluntary castration before committing suicide for a lie?
If not, then I guess Heaven's Gate must have gotten it right. Look. It's really simple: The disciples could have been mistaken. The disciples could have believed that it was important to get people to believe Jewish prophecies were being fulfilled to kick the Romans out of Judea - all kinds of motivations are possible.
@gunnernaut People are willing to die for causes, and if those causes involve lying to people, then in a sense yes, you would die "for a lie" as far as the observers were concerned. The psychological literature is also full of examples of delusional people who will confess to crimes they didn't commit to get punished, make up crimes that never happened for the same reason etc. No matter how you look at it, "Would you die for a lie?" is an *excuse* to not provide evidence for the claims.
No one saw Jeses alive becasue he never lived. Jesus is not the Messiah for one very simple reason—he never lived! He was the fictional character created by the Calpurnius Piso’s of Rome. If you want to know the truth about how the Piso’s wrote the entire New Testament search for “Calpurnius Piso” you will see a video called “New Testament Bible Authored by the Calpurnius Piso’s” and watch parts 1-5. That tells you who wrote it and the years many of the books were written.
That theists hold Lee Strobel in such high esteem is bemusing (but totally predictable given the nonsense they believe in, the immoral hypocrites they listen to weekly, and the charlatans they happily give their money to)...every online argument I've had with a bible thumper recently has led to them ordering me to watch some talk or other by him. He merely summarises what's written in The Bible over and over, and then uses it as 'proof'...of what's written in the fucking Bible.
You can no more 'prove' than God doesn't exist than I can `prove' that He does. It's about a choice that God gives everyone while alive to either accept His free gift of eternal life through His Son's sacrifice or not. Your decision does in fact have eternal implications; By accepting Jesus as your Savior, you'll be saved & loved as a child of Heaven. If not, then you'll be separated & judged by God at the appropriate time of the end. Choose wisely, as eternity knocks & is a heartbeat away!
Would you trust an heart surgeon that had never preformed but learned from a mediator, whom had seen a man preform this procedure somewhere between several months to several decades ago?
None of these people are an eye witness. Circular logic, A gifted speaker! But circular logic
@pumpstations You are saying that applying logic laws that existed from Archimedes' time is not valid today because he's no longer! For instance, I don't know my great great father. My dad told me about him, at least the important aspects of his life. Does that mean I shouldn't believe what dad said?
@ukurikose That is not what I said. Logic laws to a certain degree will always be an norm.
EG> Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't eat babies, And were around long before Jesus. As far as your dads story's about your Great grandpa. I'm sure alot of the story's have alot of credibility, However I would also say they had been somewhat stretched good or bad. This is also your family, not a family friend of grandpa. How many stories of/from them would you be willing to accept as gospel?
Q. Do muslims believe in Jesus Christ ? A. Believing in Jesus and all other prophets of God is a fundamental part of muslim faith. Muslims believe that Jesus is the son of Virgin Mary, and he had no father. God created Jesus and he is a prophet IE saying he is god. Or the son of god is a major sin in Islam
DJibby1 2 weeks ago
unimpressive as per usual
artwdog 2 weeks ago
Ah,yea im convinced. A bunch of dead ppl, who was delutional enough to believe in a fairytale, wrote down craploads of pages of unlikely and ignorant happenings, who obviously got insane power afterwards and killed all who objected. THEY said that that was true, yea get real. THEY are probably not even real. If you actually buy this shitheads bs i challenge you to seek a psychologist for the sake of humanity`s survival. Please
TheAllien111 2 months ago
@logoRH Your statement just made me realize that you didn't even watch the whole video. Wow, see I knew most of the people didn't watch the whole video! Bonus points for me :D
jbjrsdbttdl 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TheDarkLordLucifer 5 months ago
I admire Lee Strobel's efforts but the history from that era are hearsay upon hearsay (due to the practice of verbal history), some of them are supported by archaeological evidence, most are not. Nonetheless, there are many evidence and live witnesses TODAY, that can support Jesus as a living God who not only resurrected but changed their lives forever, right now, in this century. Many people practice their faith in countries where they are being persecuted daily, right now.
cutekittykitty00 5 months ago
A bit of a lame creator of the UNIVERSE. A hand full of people witnessed the resurrection of his SON. Apparently the almighty doesn't have 4G. Hey, you humans in the western hemisphere heard about this shit??....no
hicks727 5 months ago 2
A long way of saying.. the bible is true because the bible says its true..... how do you explain Christianity being born in the same place he was put to death? Really? Do I need to answer that? Sigh.... where the hell else would it be born other than the same area he preached? Taiwan? Now THAT would have been impressive.
prophylacticfaith 6 months ago
@prophylacticfaith huh?
cattlexing 3 months ago
@55k3v1n There's nothing intelligent or comprehensive about arguing against or for the supernatural. He died for our sins? Prove sin in real scientific terms that are quantifiable to out plane of existence. After you fumble around that, try the same for everything else that had been historically proven to be inaccurate thrown to the waste dump of ineffability.
overether 6 months ago
@55k3v1n Unintilligent? I'm gonna make the assumption that you believe us to be unequal, therefor making be some kind of subspecies of human that goes to "hell"? A simple yes will suffice, but I'd be a dulling in foreplay if I thought you wouldn't give me a long drawn out explanation as to why flatulence makes you eligible for damnation. Amirite? :D
overether 6 months ago
@overether No, we are not unequal. It was just that your comment was typical of someone who can't come up with a proper response to a point of view he may differ with. Who are the "us" you refer to? Atheists? Both atheists and believers in a higher power run the full gamet from genius to mentally challenged. And...I'm pretty sure both saints and sinners fart.
55k3v1n 6 months ago
@55k3v1n I sent an email? I certainly made a mistake.
overether 6 months ago
wow, so we can trust anyone who just starts their writing with "I will carefully investigate this".
well..... I have carefully investigated this, and found Lee Strobel to be an idiot.
rz4prezi 7 months ago
@55k3v1n you're right.... You have show me the way! *fart sounds* Such sound reasoning, please teach in all the schools what you know. *bullshit*
overether 7 months ago
@overether Instead of responding in an unintelligent, insulting kind of way, why not come up with some compelling counter argument? Let's hear your sound reasoning that doesn't involve flatulence.
55k3v1n 6 months ago
@overether I don't take emails from people I don't know due to viruses, worms, etc. If you have a comment please reply to this youtube site.
55k3v1n 6 months ago
Christianity wouldn't even exist in any form without the resurrection. It begins with those claiming to be the eye witnesses. The same people who fled when Jesus was arrested and remained hidden and filled with feared after He was put to death. If Jesus remains dead all would have ended right then and there. How can the disciples go from such depths of discouragement to boldly proclaiming the risen Lord 40 days later. Nothing: beatings, stonings, the threat of death, etc. could stop them.
55k3v1n 7 months ago
@55k3v1n unless someone just made up a story about it decades later and wrote it down.
rz4prezi 7 months ago
@rz4prezi But decades later Christianity was already established and wouldn't have had any reason to exist if the resurrection hadn't been preached from the very beginning. Would preaching a dead Messiah have created the kind of excitement that resulted in thousands of conversions? Not to mention the birth of churches in Rome Ephesus, Phillipi, Thessalonica, etc. whom Paul wrote his epistles to? You'd think the early Christains would have noticed any major doctrinal changes, as the resurrection
55k3v1n 6 months ago
@55k3v1n lots of other religions started without stories of resurrections, but sure, there could have been stories about Jesus being resurrected floating about after his death. Not many sources outside of the bible for this amazing event tho, and even the bible has a couple of different versions of how it happened.
rz4prezi 6 months ago
@rz4prezi There is a difference between different versions and contradicting versions. Some may contain more details or different details than another. The stories of Jesus resurrection weren't just thrown around. They were boldly proclaimed by previously frightened, devastated disciples in public places where large crowds gathered. The disciples plus other eye witnesses spoke in complete unity and knew that what they claimed would likely result in beatings, stonings, prison and/or execution.
55k3v1n 6 months ago
@55k3v1n alright then, when did he ascend to heaven?
rz4prezi 6 months ago
@rz4prezi He ascended to heaven after 40 days of appearances. He instructed them to wait together (after His ascension) until they received "the promise of the Father", as promised in John 14:16,17,26; 15:26,27. The promise is the baptism in the Holy Spirit which occurs in Acts 2:1-4. This empowered the disciples to preach the resurrection of Christ.
55k3v1n 6 months ago
Luke said he carefully investigated everything. I believe him.
qac1pitt 7 months ago
If I as a human being decided to write a history of Darwin and used only what people told me happened and did not use any other evidence just as the New Testament is written could I be fooled? Absolutely, if I listened to what Lady Hope had told others about Darwin's death bed conversion or the others that had heard the story and believed it. It isn't until you examine all the writings of Darwin, his wife and many others that the truth is revealed. The bible is flawed in such a manor.
simbeau 7 months ago
you guys ever hear of the telephone game?
give me a break.
HugeJohn51 7 months ago
@jnthnnixon the moment has past...
overether 7 months ago
"Carefully investigated everything so he could write an orderly account of the certainty of things"
Well.. Joseph Smith had 11 written testamonials of people who had seen the golden plates on which the book of Mormon was written. This was more or less in modern time.
The result: 14 million people today believe Native americans are emigrated Jews coloured red as a punishment from God, and that we all get our own planet when we die. Eyewitness accounts have to be objective to be valid..
danielerikskold 7 months ago
@danielerikskold Three of the eleven recanted their testemonials re: the golden plates. Mormon explain that away by referring to all 3 as Judases. Zero out of 300+ eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus recanted their claim.
55k3v1n 7 months ago
If you were to "resurrect" after hours of being dead, you'd undoubtedly be the most brain dead moron in the history of man, better suited for euthanasia than the terminally ill
overether 7 months ago
@overether what?
jnthnnixon 7 months ago
@overether Every last bit of Jesus' body was dead, all organs completely shut down. That's what makes it such a miracle. "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). Christianity does not begin if Jesus doesn't rise from the dead.
55k3v1n 7 months ago
Why are there no Roman accounts of the resurrection?
khughesdc 8 months ago
@khughesdc Isn't this enough - "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
hellofireengine 7 months ago
Tell 1 child a story at the back of a class and ask them to repeat it to the child next to them and pass it on, by the time the story is told to the last child in the front, i bet you it will bear no resemblance to the original. Think about that...
ThePictodude 8 months ago
Jesus (allegedly) appeared to skeptics in his own time, and yet we are expected to believe thousands of years later with nothing but heresay?
Reerrpad5515 8 months ago
Paul eye witnessed the resurrection??
Did this guy even read the Bible?
vinniechan 8 months ago
@vinniechan There was NO BIBLES in The Times of Jesus. It had not been written yet. Paul could read, Peter could not.
@Reerrpad5515 1 No one expects anything from you. I guess you have not been chosen. You have NO FAITH.
jesuscomingsoon11 8 months ago
LOL there is one problem with saying jesus rose and again and appears. Can anyone see the problem. Yes if you write books 30 years after an event, guess what probably all the people who are so called witnesses are probably dead. Remember the life span of people in those times. So someone 20+30=50 were they alive to confirm that. If someone writes one book, it's not it available at the corner shop. Alexandra the great, travelled winning battles a trail was left over 20 years. Lee Strobel is Dumb.
theapeman10 8 months ago
@theapeman10 John lived to be like 90 and the authors of John and Matthew were alive when they wrote them. They were copied and circulated as was the norm with historical works and esp with christian works for there were already several churches aropund the empire.
j919or 8 months ago
@j919or - You find various dates for most events maybe a span of 100 years. As regards when things were copied and circulated. You didn't have photocopier in these days or printing presses. The other question of the time it takes to copy material and how it assumed that the masses even had writing, reading skills. Did followers have any education, did the poor even have any sort of bibles. It's logical to think information was hearsay until circulation probably over hundreds of years,
theapeman10 8 months ago
the contemporary enemies of Jesus even report of his miracles as magic arts...but they dont/cant deny them.
j919or 8 months ago
@j919or - We see faith feelers all over the world in the last 40 years on TV. Aren't magic tricks on TV miracles. Feeding the 5000 with a few fishes and bread, is this a story we can prove or disprove. Well the physics are impossible, but if you tell the story in writing a100 years later, you have a miracle. A few years ago vets saved my dog by Human Skill & Microsurgery.Religion has NO REGARD for animals in the bible sacrificing them for pagan offerings, religion is for very gullible people
theapeman10 8 months ago
I wouldn't give this guy a penny. Dumb.
An0maly777 8 months ago
@TheDarvus see the above LOL, just more nonsense that is nothing more than an ill conceived opinion not based in reality. That is all you have for your theory.
Humbler25 8 months ago
@TheDarvus you can go into more nonsense without a shred of evidence if he is interested is what you mean to say. You have zero evidence to support anything that you say. All pure rubbish. His choice of words on this "endorsement" speak volumes.
Humbler25 8 months ago
There were masses of "eye-witness" accounts of Appolonius of Tianna.
Masses of witnesses to the appearance of Zeus, or Minerva, or Krishna.
Their are thousands of "eye-witnesses" of UFO abductions.
Despite the fact that Strobel is talking utter nonsense about the origin of the Gospels, by this exact same reasoning, all those supernatural claims are true as well.
bshieldsbb01 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
newfagscanttrif0rce 9 months ago 5
Sorry but I don't buy it.
iversonmatthew 9 months ago 2
@JustinOwnsHumbler25
Gay? he has a wife and kids...
k12rising 9 months ago
@TheDarvus His words for an endorsement were, "IF it is only partially true". He is not acknowledging that it is even true! - even partially! LOL
You lose!
Humbler25 9 months ago
Add me, I saw Jesus too! And I say he is tall with no pimples.
n5473c 9 months ago
Ok lets say hes right. Does it really matter. I would not worship a god that kills his own creation instead of just making them well. Stop wasting your valuable life on religion and do something good and constructive for the good of all humanity. There probably is no God so relax and enjoy your life.
iceblude 9 months ago
OK WELL Prove to me this Smartass. I Am Collie Matthew White. And Jesus Gave me the Crown to become The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I Witnessed the Dead Being Raised and the Trumpets sounding. And we are in the 7 years of Tribulations. Congrats. you didnt get taken. You Failed to Learn the Real Teachings of Jesus. But its all good. i got your back. But until you beleive me... Well Lets just say. I own your soul. And i will Enslave you. unless you Unbind my chains. then we shall rise as one.
CollieMatthewWhite 9 months ago
"we didnt make up fairytales" sure.
Donal277 10 months ago
What unbiased, thoroughly proven true and accurate text does the resurrection appear in? NONE.
Out of the "500" people mentioned in the bible who saw Jesus alive after death, how many wrote something about this extraordinary experience down? NONE
How many eyewitness testimonies to Jesus' death AND subsequent resurrection exist? NONE
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist There is no such thing on earth as unbiased, thoroughly proven true text. You can reject anything you want, and never have to accept anything as true. How do you think Neo-Nazis can claim the holocaust never happened? How do you think some people can claim the moon landing never occurred to this day? The tons of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job? The people who believe Obama has no real birth certificate? No amount of proof is enough for you, never will be.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
Who the fuck are you to tell me that "no amount of proof is enough for me, never will be" you pompous condescending asshole?
In order for me to believe that a man rose from the dead 3 days after being killed and then "flew up into the sky on a cloud" I would have to SEE IT MYSELF. This is called being RATIONAL. If a guy was walking around today declaring that he was Jesus Christ, returning to earth again - would you believe it? What would you need to believe it?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Right, I'm the jerk, when you came here telling us all we are morons for believing something that is obviously not true, by your statements. I see your point.
I guess I shouldn't believe the moon landing, because I didn't see it myself. I just saw a video. That isn't proof, its a video. Could have been faked. That is rational too. Not commonly believed, but rational.
You believe the earth is round, but you have not held it in your hand, felt its shape. Why do you believe?
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
I'm calling you a jerk, not everyone on here. Another lie.
Sure, the moon landing could have been faked. But in addition to the video we have eyewitness accounts of it. And we have pictures of the earth from space. Your analogies are asinine.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I didn't say you were calling everyone a jerk, i said you called us all morons. Don't call me a liar if you didn't even understand what I wrote.
We have eyewitness accounts in the bible of seeing Christ risen from the dead, but you rejected my eyewitnesses so I reject yours. Why should I believe your "eyewitnesses?" The pictures of earth? So what? That doesn't mean people landed on the moon.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
Oh excuse me "moron" was the word you used. I did not call everyone on here morons. So, You lie.
And once again your analogies are just fucking ridiculous. The bible is not proof of the bible, and there are NO eyewitness accounts in it. The authorship of Peter is not definitely Peter. Who wrote the bible is a major academic and historical issue - I've read quite a bit on this. Most scholars actually agree that Peter was NOT written by Peter. I"m guessing you were not aware of this?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Again, I was shortening things. Telling us we are all wrong while we believe this stuff makes all of us "dumb." or "morons" or whatever. Try to follow what Im saying. I know you want to nit pick on everything, but try not to be so personal.
The analogies are meant to be ridiculous. That is my point. That is what your "causes for disbelief" look like to me.
the authorship is "not definitely Peter" yes I've heard this, and its not "most" its "some." Again, your excuses.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
Well actually I've read the word "most" used when describing this doubt, and really - what difference does it make? You stated that Peter was an eyewitness and wrote about it. However, we do not know for sure that Peter actually DID write about it, so it is NOT a fact.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist Some people who wrote of the experience of seeing Christ after resurrection had their writings (or "books") added to the bible. But since that is the Bible, you automatically disqualified it. Why? Because you are biased yourself.You must be extremely biased to name yourself "ProudFemaleAthiest" when it is completely foolish to declare that you know AS A FACT that there is no god of any kind. That would be completely impossible to know, even if religion had never existed.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
What are these books? I would like very much to read them.
It is extremely stupid of you to state that I have "declared for a FACT that there is no God" when I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY SUCH THING, you idiot. There absolutely COULD be a God, of course there could! And no atheist i know states that they know for a "FACT' that there isn't one. We simply do not believe in any god as set forth by any of the world's religions because there is NO PROOF.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist You could read the New Testament. The Disciples all saw Jesus, and some of them wrote books, for example; Peter.
You pretty much made up your own description of atheist there. Perhaps, by that definition, you should change your name to "ProudFemaleAgnostic." Dictionary description for an Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
No proof? Like I said, you'll reject anything because its possible to reject. Example: Prove I exist.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
I've read the New Testament. I did not make up "my own definition" of atheism. You're lying, or you're misinformed and need to educate yourself before you begin these discussions with somebody. I am NOT agnostic, I am an atheist. Atheism is a rejection of the claim "God exists" because there is no NO PROOF. I disbelieve the existence of a supreme being, just like you said. That does not mean I am stating that it is a proven FACT that there is no god, like you said.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I just pulled the description from an online dictionary, take it up with them.
How about from wikipedia? "atheism is simply the absence of belief that deities exist." How about Greek? A= No Theos=god
As far as your reading the new testament, You're lying, or you don't understand and need to educate yourself before you begin these discussions with somebody.
Sound familiar?
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
Fuck you. I did not remotely lie about reading the New Testament, and you have no basis to say I am lying at all. I am a former Christian. I graduated from Azusa Pacific University which is a Christian University, and bible classes were literally part of the required curriculum to graduate. I had REASON to say you were lying because you did, you told me I called you all morons. You have NO BASIS to say I am lying at all. Now you really are sounding like a major moron.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@derky101
Prove you exist? You're communicating with me.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist That doesn't mean I exist. You can't prove I'm communicating with you. As far as you can "prove" we could all be living in the matrix. I could be a computer, and you cant prove Im not.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
"No proof? Like I said, you'll reject anything because its possible to reject"
First, that makes NO SENSE.
Second, I will reject extraordinary claims of events that defy all known natural laws unless there is EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to support the claims. It's called being rational. A book is not "extraordinary evidence" of a resurrected god-man born of a virgin. It's really quite simple.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist I had to shorten it so I could fit it in the box. I thought you were smart enough to figure out what I meant. Sorry.
You will reject anything, because it is possible to simply reject what ever you wish. I could deny that grass is green. Maybe you see blue and I see yellow, but we were both raised that grass is green, so we identify it as green, though we actually see differently. See? I just rejected something completely true and logical using a wrong but rational statement
derky101 10 months ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist What did you want Jesus to do? Leave a giant sign burnt in the tombstone that says "Jesus was Here"? You'd then claim that disciples or cultist followers burned it there to fake evidence.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101
I already told you - in order to believe something like a resurrection I would have to see it myself. It's called being logical. I don't find belief "moronic" and I never called anyone on here morons, or meant to, so quit putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. Your latest list of analogies - the whole grass is green stuff and living in the matrix - what the fuck? You are making absolutely NO SENSE at all. You have utterly derailed and you're not making any "point" at all.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 10 months ago
With no solid evidence for the existence of this "Jesus" character, all the other speculations and rationalizations are meaningless. You can't just jump in at some midpoint of the story and use it to justify the other two ends of the argument, any more than you can start building a bridge from a point in the air halfway between where you want the bridge to span and halfway between the top and the bottom of it.
ImprobableJoe 10 months ago
@errskin Comparing Islamic terrorists killing unjustly (themselves included) and Christians that were unjustly killed for not worshipping Caesar isn't analogous. Christians are told to turn the other cheek & pray for the enemy. You must look at motivations!
People witnessed a public event, the resurrected Christ. Folks took the good news pretty seriously. Couple these people's testimonies with the OT prophecies (legitimized by the Dead Sea Scrolls), and you will find a portrait of Jesus as God.
gunnernaut 10 months ago
@gunnernaut "People witnessed a public event, the resurrected Christ. Folks took the good news pretty seriously."
All you have backing this is the hearsay of unknown members of the early Jesus cult.
"Couple these people's testimonies with the OT prophecies"
OT was known at the time. Any clown could have made up stuff that fit. What's in dispute is the credibility of what you're pretending as evidence here.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@gunnernaut "You must look at motivations!"
The motivations for accepting death are identical. They have been brainwashed into thinking that death does not matter and that it's more important to follow divine commands. There is a slightly better argument for the disciples, if they ever existed and were eye witnesses, but the textual support for them being executed is so weak it's just comical. ProfMTH has a series on that here on youtube where he'd dug up the sources.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@TheDarvus I mentioned several possibilities,one that you invented the nonsense from your own delusional head,or that you got it from some silly website.You've convinced me,its probably more of the latter.You still havent shown one person though,whom thinks that Josephus and Paul are one and the same.Not one!All you have are crazy conspiracy theories rejected by scholars. Read some of Eisenman's books, or his quote again..."IF it is only partiallys true" is that what you call an endorsement?
Humbler25 10 months ago
There is not a single Roman or Greek source in the first century that mentions Jesus. Don't you think that at the resurrection when there was an earthquake and dead people came out of the graves and visited their families... that a secular historian or poet would have mentioned it? Wouldn't Josephus have mentioned Herod's 'slaughter of the innocents' that the bible claims? I smell a rat.
paulinator61 10 months ago
@paulinator61 Now I'm just spit-balling an idea here, but wouldn't Nero have destroyed all evidence of the Christ he could, hating Christians as much as he did? That would restrict the only written evidence to be held by the believers themselves, the only ones who would be willing to get caught with it.
derky101 10 months ago
@derky101 "wouldn't Nero have destroyed all evidence of the Christ he could, hating Christians as much as he did?"
There could be all kinds of reasons, but it really is irrelevant. What our situation is today is that the evidence we have is solely from the early Jesus cultists. We can just ask ourselves if hearsay from them carries enough weight to think the laws of nature were violated 2000 years ago. Especially in light of similar cultists living today, such as the followers of Sai Baba.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@derky101 There's another way to look at this as well. Your approach essentially amounts to a standard conspiracy theoretical technique of explaining why there is no credible evidence that a certain claim is true, rather than presenting the evidence and arguing your positive case. One can then shift from presenting actual evidence to presenting conjecture and circumstantial evidence as well as discussing whether or not people appear to be honest etc.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to know more go to answering-christianity. com
Unitedbytruth 10 months ago
They, instead, said the disciples stole the bodies (to which without the protection of the Jewish leaders, would have been put to death for failing at their post). They were killed, tortured, for their claims of seeing Jesus Christ risen from the dead.... I don't know about you.... I'm not willing to be tortured for something I KNOW to be false. Id come out with the truth that I had lied... many many people died still proclaiming they had seen the risen Messiah.
carolbaby1775 10 months ago
The fact that these texts were written while other people were still alive that were also there and more than happy to "smack them" back into line as these texts were tearing apart the Jewish unity. Their silence DOES INDEED give credibility to their accuracy. Just as the Jewish leaders didn't argue the tomb was empty, as they themselves would have walked people there are and said "there is the body of your beloved false Messiah, now repent!"
carolbaby1775 10 months ago
Comment removed
carolbaby1775 10 months ago
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining... is that all you can come up with? Robert Eisenman never said any of that referring to your nonsense. Robert Eisenman believes 100% in the historical Paul. He's even written a book on the historical James. You've failed yet again, epically, like only you can
Humbler25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul anywhere or the gospels being satire. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
Humbler25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul anywhere or the gospels being satire. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
Humbler25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul, or that the Gospels are satire, anywhere. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it
Humbler25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDarvus LOL, more quote mining. Robert Eisenman never stated that Josephus was Paul, or mentions the gospels as being satire, anywhere. In fact he believes 100% in the historical Paul. He even believes and has written books on the historical James. Once again, your own sources work against you. Your thesis is dead and once again its been proven that you have nothing to support it.
Humbler25 10 months ago
Good salesman, bad product, IMHO.
blardosplats 10 months ago
you are correct it is possible that the resurrection took place, although a very slim one in my view. A slim probability, on top of all the other plot holes in religious texts does not give me justification to believe in any religion or text written by man. And I do not fall for the fear based "pascals wager" where you must believe in our beleifs or suffer forever, people fail to realize if an all loving god does exist, he does not send people to hell for questioning ancient bronze age writings.
Koncre7 10 months ago
you are correct it is possible that the resurrection took place, although a very slim one in my view. A slim probability, on top of all the other plot holes in religious texts does not give me justification to believe in any religion or text written by man. And I do not fall for the fear based "pascals wager" where you must believe in our beleifs or suffer forever, people fail to realize if an all loving god does exist, he does not send ppl to hell for questioning ancient bronze age writings.
Koncre7 10 months ago
@TheDarvus No it isn't you dummy, and someone who quote mines and thinks they are making a solid case, LOL, is the one whom clearly has no idea about logic.
So, Josephus a non-believer, went through all the trouble of inventing a religion, discipling churches, and writing letters to them despite not having any reason to do so and their not being a shred of evidence to support your idiotic claim. Got it! Someone call the luny bin for Darvus, he's ready to be picked up
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus the ages the authors wrote at is not relevant to the discussion. Josephus had no reason to invent the Christ figure. He had no reason to mentor and write to churches. He was not a believer. There is zero evidence to suggest that Josephus profited one bit from the churches. Your really running on empty here. The message of pray or you're going to hell is not even present in any of Paul's letters or anywhere else, so I'm not sure where you're getting that nonsens from.
Humbler25 10 months ago
There were about 10 fails within the first one minute of this video. The stories of jesus were an oral tradition not even written down until about 30-100 years + after his death. And all the "disciples" except perhaps one (MARK) were ACTUAL eyewitnesses, all the other accounts were sourced through stories that were soruced from the book of mark or of other sketchy oral traditions, NOT ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES. This video is for brainwashing, people just love to live in ignorance.
Koncre7 10 months ago
@Koncre7 Excuse me, but there's enough evidence to prove leagally in a court of justice that Jesus did rose from the dead, don't ask me, ask one the principal founders of the Harvard school of Law, Dr. Simon Greenleaf. There's nothing you can do or say to make true christians not believe in the Gospel, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God." 1 Co 1:18
188metalhead881 10 months ago
@188metalhead881 why are you quoting ancient writings of bronze age men with the fraction of knowledge we have today as if it is fact? and it does not matter or not if a Dr. at Harvard believes because as a child your mind can easily be filled by these ancient writing so your entire thought process as an adult still bases around what you learned as a child despite of the amount of education one has. The bible does not prove fact of anything and the resurrection is not outside the bible at all!!!
Koncre7 10 months ago
@Koncre7 Yeah, you´re so right, the bible doesn´t give any irresistable evidence to prove the resurrection, but the bible and history itself leave enough evidence to make room for possibilities, therefore; it is possible that the resurrection really took place, -John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” How easy would it have been to believe in something you can see touch and hear, God was pleased to let faith in.
188metalhead881 10 months ago
Comment removed
Koncre7 10 months ago
@TheDarvus The ages that Josephus wrote at is not the subject at all. The subject is why would a non-Christian start up Christianity. Why would a non-Christian start up, disciple, and write letters to churches. You don't answer that because you know you don't have a logical explanation for it. If Josephus continued writing his whole life, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a beliver and would've had zero reason to go through all the trouble of starting up a faith he didn't share.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus You're the one using "your" incorrectly, so what's obvious is that you're the idiot.
It is terrible logic to suggest that a non-Christian Josephus had anything to do with the start of Christianity Can't you see that?
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus you have zero evidence to support Josephus a non-Christian having anything to do with starting up Christianity or pretending to be Paul. You don't have any facts or any evidence except for words that you now admit were quote mined. Using logical fallacies doesn't promote truth, it just confirms that logic is not what you're using to come to your silly conclusions.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus no, it had nothing to do with what the other apostles believed. seriously, read it in context so you wont sound so ridiculous each time you try to mention scripture.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus You've got to be kidding me! There you go quote mining again. Did you even bother to read the first part of that same verse when he says, "Some may argue"... read down to verse 8 when it says their condemnation is deserved. You can't quote mine and expect anybody to take you seriously.
Humbler25 10 months ago
More people saw Big Foot, ET, and dead Elvis and they are alive now! As for zombie saints, sorry Lee, delusion is delusion no matter what century. Seneca quote: Religion is true to the common man, false to the wise man and useful to the politician. (Bear in mind he knew nothing of Christianity, but knew well the imagination of our kind) Regards
1Skeptik1 11 months ago
What a nutjob. Where is the proof Jesus was real?
iandeansilk 11 months ago
@TheDarvus No, he's not lying at all or attempting to deceive anyone. He's simply putting himself under the legalism of others forfeiting his freedom in Christ in hopes of saving them and developing their faith further.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus It comes from actually reading the surrounding verses... you should try that sometime. I know you'd rather just quote mine because that way you can squeeze a quote into your dead thesis. However, you commit a logical fallacy when you do.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus of course you'd prefer your explanation because yours is twisted to fit your own delusional take. He is not saying he's changing anything other than to take into consideration where other people are at in their faith and so choosing not to exercise certain freedoms that he has in Christ.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus ok, nothing about lying there though. He is simply forfeiting some of his freedoms in Christ for the benefit of others. "I am free to all men, but have enslaved myself to all." For the Jews sake, regarding indifferent matters, he became like a Jew, conforming to the practice of Jewish law. To those with a weak conscious, Paul again reframes from exercising his Christian freedom and does as they do. Nothing about lying - anywhere! See, context is good.
Humbler25 11 months ago
So according to this moron any claim any cult makes is true, why isnt he a mormon, a branch devidian or a hindu? Hindus today claim to witness miracles by the thousands. They have gatherings in the MILLIONS where they claim miracles occur.
Not thousands of years ago but today, why dont you believe them? Yet you take the word of cult leaders that lived thousands of years ago. And on top of this he lies about the writers being the actual people that followed "jesus"
Disgusting lier.
qarohc 11 months ago
@TheDarvus put it in context and try and explain how he's admitting he's a liar - you can't do it, and you know it!
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus Why can't you actually read it in context? Does reading an actual Bible vese scare you or something? Are you afraid you might convert?
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus no, I'm saying your wrong and everybody knows why besides you. The rest of us have passed the third grade. There is no way you can come to the conclusion that Paul is admitting some lie. That is pure rubbish and you know it. Read 1 Cor 9:19-27 and it should become real clear. Dust off or go purchase a Bible. It will do you some good.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus The context of the narrative and the surrounding sentences would be a good start. This is a basic elementary school skill.Why havent you acquired it?
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus I'm saying go back and read it in context and you can see for yourself the correct interpretation. Don't rely on others for your education... go to the source!
Humbler25 11 months ago
2:26-2:55 sounds about right..
jcnabb22 11 months ago
@TheDarvus you need me to explain context clues to you and I'm the idiot? LOL Go back to elementary school, you should have learned that in the third grade.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus You failed to bother to actually read the verse in context so you just made up your own context. or perhaps, you failed elementary school where we learn context clues.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus clearly nothing to do with lying... go back and read it again. Eyewitnesses... pick up one of Strobel's books and actually try reading it. We have accurate testimony. You'd know that if you tried actually reading a book instead of just trolling his videos.
Humbler25 11 months ago
@TheDarvus you clearly dont understand what paul meant by that.
Just because you weren't an eyewitness doesn't mean that others weren't. Eyewitness accounts suggest it did happen.
Humbler25 11 months ago
None, zip, nada. There is not a single eye witness. Not one of the gospels or any other books of the NT were written by eye witnesses.
Kailoa36 11 months ago
He Lies in a second ! He Claims That Jesus Claimed That He Is God ? WERE"???
Satanic Lies Corrupted hearts Corrupted life Corrupted Minds !
So God Needs To Murder To Forgive Mans Sin ? Why Not Just Forgive Man Kind Since God Is So Loving In The Bible , Apparentley Muslims are Terrorists and hate Humans Why Is It Allah Forgives If You Call Out And Repent to Him With No Need For Blood Shed Nor Murder !!! Because Islam Is Correct & The Truth
drdato 11 months ago
@drdato
So your idiotic cult is the one true one even though it is based on other idiotic cults.
Do you not realize how stupid you make your "god" sound? He makes his will know thought the world by all the different prophets yet he is to incompetent to maintain it? Its just childish nonsense.
qarohc 11 months ago
In high school, I remember Stories changing Greatly in a matter of days. Is 30 years of word of mouth in the middle east 2000 years ago any better then a modern high school rumor?
Lesouder2222Music 11 months ago
Nobody could see Jesus now.
Radiation of his mighty individuality - impossible to endure even for very believing person. It is possible to fall ...dead.
Today on the Earth are very heavy material, dense conditions, therefore even his disciples could not be embodied.
Only - disciples of his disciples: now 2 persons can be embodied in 100 years on all planet.
viefuture 11 months ago
Plus when they said Jesus could turn water into wine, I think they meant that water was your wine! The Muslims don't deny that Jesus existed, they just don't believe he was the son of God but a prophet like Mohammed. Muslims don't drink alcohol. Water is their wine. I'm an athiest but even that makes sense to me!
723398216 1 year ago
I loved reading about the introduction of the blood and body of christ as a lure to attract the poor to the church and to convert them from their pagan faiths by plying them with bread and alcohol! That's the real reason it spread so fast... Even a muslim would have faith if the only clean fluids he could get was wine and the only thing he got to eat was a piece of bread, not to mention shelter for a few hours. People forget how much of a luxury that was back then.
723398216 1 year ago
Jesus was a criminal Jew who lead a guerrilla war against the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholics crucified him because of this. The Roman Catholics liked his ideas, so they said the Jews killed him, used his ideas to create the New Testament, then proceeded to genocide the Jews.
sk8tafrnk 1 year ago
THINK THE MESSIAH IS COMING? TAKE MY MONEY!! watch?v=Tt7eCh_mr3w
inacht26 1 year ago
UFO are real, they have been witnessed?
benaberry 1 year ago
As for this mans teaching, it can at most be described as poor. People actually listen to this and take it seriously. I also love this guys timezones for the Gospels. You know he doesn't know what he is talking about when you study the grammar used in the Gospels. The style of grammar used in the synoptic gospels was not used until 90AD. Love to know if this man knows Midrash.
trixxxy100 1 year ago
1Cor 15:44 What is sown is a physical body, and what is raised is a spiritual body.
Of course it was a bodily resurrection, but as the bible itself teaches, not a physical body, but it is risen as a spirtual body. So if jesus was raised as a physical body, why would the essense of Christianity teach that all would be raised in the third day, and why if jesus was raised physically would would Corinthians teach this? A physical resurrection is childlike thinking.
trixxxy100 1 year ago
The problem is, this man is reading ancient literature in the way a modern man reads a newspaper, like most Christians do. Modern and ancient non-fiction are like comparing chalk and cheese, and the problem here is he is attempting to teaching that cheese is cheese and chalk is also cheese. it isn't.
trixxxy100 1 year ago
See in the bible, relating to the resurrection, and the story of the blind translates "understand", not a visual optical sense. Go find out why the blind man was told not to re-enter the village. He was mocked. Does he remember the disciples went back to their normal lives. Look where jesus said I will "meet you"? This man does not understand ancient literature, and certainly doesn't understand Jewish history and the belief in the Messiah. This is a totally new belief.
trixxxy100 1 year ago
It's actually genius in terms of propaganda: go on and on about how magnificent and remarkable and how many people etc. seen Jesus... While conveniently forgetting to mention that none of actual historians and actual people in existence did.
In fact, NO ONE did, as far as historical record is concerned. No one even CLAIMED to have seen Jesus with their own eyes, less of all his miracles.
But, hey, if an old myth says so, it must be true.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am an eyewitness for Jesus. I see him all the time. He's my gardener and he came from Costa Rica. Nice guy, Jesus.
StanleyMoore 1 year ago
Comment removed
StanleyMoore 1 year ago
Comment removed
StanleyMoore 1 year ago
Lee Strobel is mental,
ANTEKBT 1 year ago 5
1st of all - you have you facts wrong
2nd - listen to this:
I have seen this shit happen and i investigated it - ALIENS ARE COMING!!!!
acording to you, this is true, as there is written "i investigated this"
alonderis 1 year ago
this guy doesnt make any sense at all. he claims that there are all these eyewitnesses to jesus and yet doesn't back that info up. an ancient book that claims somebody saw jesus perform a miracle is not evidence of a miracle, its merely a claim. strobel is confusing claims with evidence.
errskin 1 year ago 2
@errskin One has to wonder about the amazing growth of the Church. It sprang up in the society that put Jesus to death; and, indeed, many followers of Christ preferred to die than worship Caesar. Ask yourself: would you die for a lie?
gunnernaut 10 months ago
@gunnernaut the "church" gained followers just like any other religion, and also just like any other religion it had followers that died for it. your point is invalid. if dying for your religion makes it true then islam probably wins, they blow eachother and themselves up by the thousands.
errskin 10 months ago
@gunnernaut "Ask yourself: would you die for a lie?"
Ask yourself: Would you undergo voluntary castration before committing suicide for a lie?
If not, then I guess Heaven's Gate must have gotten it right. Look. It's really simple: The disciples could have been mistaken. The disciples could have believed that it was important to get people to believe Jewish prophecies were being fulfilled to kick the Romans out of Judea - all kinds of motivations are possible.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@gunnernaut People are willing to die for causes, and if those causes involve lying to people, then in a sense yes, you would die "for a lie" as far as the observers were concerned. The psychological literature is also full of examples of delusional people who will confess to crimes they didn't commit to get punished, make up crimes that never happened for the same reason etc. No matter how you look at it, "Would you die for a lie?" is an *excuse* to not provide evidence for the claims.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
Yes use the bible to prove the bible.
caseybv74 1 year ago
No one saw Jeses alive becasue he never lived. Jesus is not the Messiah for one very simple reason—he never lived! He was the fictional character created by the Calpurnius Piso’s of Rome. If you want to know the truth about how the Piso’s wrote the entire New Testament search for “Calpurnius Piso” you will see a video called “New Testament Bible Authored by the Calpurnius Piso’s” and watch parts 1-5. That tells you who wrote it and the years many of the books were written.
nova12068 1 year ago
That theists hold Lee Strobel in such high esteem is bemusing (but totally predictable given the nonsense they believe in, the immoral hypocrites they listen to weekly, and the charlatans they happily give their money to)...every online argument I've had with a bible thumper recently has led to them ordering me to watch some talk or other by him. He merely summarises what's written in The Bible over and over, and then uses it as 'proof'...of what's written in the fucking Bible.
Pepotamo1985 1 year ago
You can no more 'prove' than God doesn't exist than I can `prove' that He does. It's about a choice that God gives everyone while alive to either accept His free gift of eternal life through His Son's sacrifice or not. Your decision does in fact have eternal implications; By accepting Jesus as your Savior, you'll be saved & loved as a child of Heaven. If not, then you'll be separated & judged by God at the appropriate time of the end. Choose wisely, as eternity knocks & is a heartbeat away!
812LJ 1 year ago
god don't begets , he creates . begitting is an animal act
jesus (pbuh) was one of the mightiest messengers of god ,
jesus (pbuh) was praying for god , because he is not god ,
we believe in his miraculous birth
we believe that he raised the dead and healed the people with god's permission
we believe that god left him to heaven to save him from an humiliated death on the cross .
the message of all the prophets was to worship god alone and to do good deeds , that is islam
ahmad941985 1 year ago
Would you trust an heart surgeon that had never preformed but learned from a mediator, whom had seen a man preform this procedure somewhere between several months to several decades ago?
None of these people are an eye witness. Circular logic, A gifted speaker! But circular logic
pumpstations 1 year ago
@pumpstations You are saying that applying logic laws that existed from Archimedes' time is not valid today because he's no longer! For instance, I don't know my great great father. My dad told me about him, at least the important aspects of his life. Does that mean I shouldn't believe what dad said?
ukurikose 1 year ago
@ukurikose That is not what I said. Logic laws to a certain degree will always be an norm.
EG> Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't eat babies, And were around long before Jesus. As far as your dads story's about your Great grandpa. I'm sure alot of the story's have alot of credibility, However I would also say they had been somewhat stretched good or bad. This is also your family, not a family friend of grandpa. How many stories of/from them would you be willing to accept as gospel?
pumpstations 1 year ago
@fuckmania07 Believe in Allah or burn forever in hell...
See, anyone can say it about any god, can you give any good reasons to believe it?
Hint: this video is by far NOT a good reason.
Zentz29 1 year ago