30 AD Crucifixion (Pilate was procurator from 26-36, and Passover falls on Friday only on 30 and 33, so it's got to be one of the two, probably 30).
32 AD Paul's conversion - you get this date from comparing Acts, Galatians and secular records.
3 years later Paul meets Peter and James, the Lord's brother, and interviews them about historical facts they witnessed - Galatians 1. There's NO WAY they wouldn't have discussed the events that changed their lives.
giving to the saints in the end part of his lecture was giving to the jews who gave everything away becouse they are in another program, geting ready for the last days, infact they were in the last day untill God started a new program through Paul, not known to the prophets or the angels or anyone, If satan would have known the gift of Jesus on the cross to the whole he would have never crusified him.
@boriato How is a few ancient people not enough? Other histoical figures we know things about like Alexander the great, buddha, the establishment of Rome...All were recorded by few people, and recorded way after they happened. THis was recorded by people who were there! Also, its not just "a few people", there were thousands of skeptics who instantaneously became believers after he resurrected, and a huge movement was started (christianity), in which many of them were slaughtered.
@jordan19862000 And when you hear extraordinary claims about these other figures, based on a few ancient people you know little about, do you believe them? Were Romulus and Remus raised by wolves? Did the Buddha speak on the day he was born? Did Alexander receive guidance from Hercules? I'd say we need a lot more evidence before believing such things.
It's not clear that stories of the empty tomb & the appearances were written by people who were there. True, Paul talks about his sighting
@jordan19862000 But Paul's account is so vague and surrealistic that I don't see how it can be taken seriously as evidence of any actual event. Of the Four Evangelists, Mark has no accounts of resurrection sightings, and Matthew, Luke, and John certainly do not seem to be - themselves - eyewitness accounts. Thousands became believers only some time after the rumors had spread. If you've ever lived in a small town, you know how rumors can spread & be believed firmly with no evidence at all.
@boriato Yes there is better evidence. But this evidence itself is good. The writings are recorded very close to the time of the events. Way closer than any writings we have of any other even of ancient history. The fall of Rome for example, wasnt recorded until 700 years after it happened. Listen to some other talks Gary Habermas gives. He goes into much greater detail and gives better arguments.
@jordan19862000 The main other argument I recall from him is that several early Christians were executed because they kept their faith, and they would not have sacrificed their lives for a faith of which they were not completely certain ...so they must have witnessed an actual siting of the resurrected Jesus. Is that the argument you have in mind?
I find this claim very extraordinary, but nobody seems to provide any evidence for it. As for me, I OK with the standard criteria used in all historical research. This is a neutral starting point - neither supernaturalist nor naturalist. The evidence for the resurrection is better than for ANY. OTHER. EVENT. in ancient history by a huge margin.
@Jesrael1986M How good is the evidence? We have no clear description of the empty tomb or its location, so even back in the first century, the empty tomb argument was worthless. The accounts fo sightings are not evidencewe. Even St. Mark chose to omit them from his Gospel; maybe he found them weak too. St. John said, the disciples met a man on the beach who seemed like Jesus, but never asked who he was! Matthew & Luke have difering accounts. I'd like to believe, but need more than this..
@boriato No matter how much evidence is given, you can always demand more. All I can say is - it's unreasonable to ask for more evidence than this for something in ancient history. Do you have the same quality of evidence for anything in secular history? Or do you discount history altogether?
Christ says we must follow God's will in order to be saved. God lays out his will in various ways that are very much more in depth than a one time repentance and closet faith. God calls us to DO (verb) his will, and that involves clothing, feeding the sick (for example) in Matthew, for what we do to the least of His brothers we do unto Him. So it is more than a lazy closet faith, or faith alone, that we need to be saved (James 2:24); But a Faith that Works in love, Christ Jesus. (Gal. 5:6).
sorry , but i can't seem to figure out how he knows paul had material in 35AD
can anyone help? thx
lxAgnosticxl 3 weeks ago
@lxAgnosticxl Here's the timeline:
30 AD Crucifixion (Pilate was procurator from 26-36, and Passover falls on Friday only on 30 and 33, so it's got to be one of the two, probably 30).
32 AD Paul's conversion - you get this date from comparing Acts, Galatians and secular records.
3 years later Paul meets Peter and James, the Lord's brother, and interviews them about historical facts they witnessed - Galatians 1. There's NO WAY they wouldn't have discussed the events that changed their lives.
Jesrael1986M 1 week ago
@Jesrael1986M
thanks
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
Outstanding message! Praise be to our Risen Savior! The soon and coming King!! Maranatha Lord Jesus! Come Soon!
ChildoftheKing23 1 year ago
giving to the saints in the end part of his lecture was giving to the jews who gave everything away becouse they are in another program, geting ready for the last days, infact they were in the last day untill God started a new program through Paul, not known to the prophets or the angels or anyone, If satan would have known the gift of Jesus on the cross to the whole he would have never crusified him.
SilentPrayingmanTis 1 year ago
this is actually a classic!!
motykdot 1 year ago
that was amazing!
03fnfup 1 year ago
CS Lewis was right, that not many lose faith for logical reasons, but not many come to faith for logical reasons either.
The arguments presented here are not reasons to believe in the resurrection:
An empty tomb no one can locate?
"Eyewitness" accounts from a few ancient people we know almost nothing about?
Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence ...and this evidence is poor.
I'd love to believe the central claims of the Gospel, but is there no better evidence than this?
boriato 2 years ago
@boriato How is a few ancient people not enough? Other histoical figures we know things about like Alexander the great, buddha, the establishment of Rome...All were recorded by few people, and recorded way after they happened. THis was recorded by people who were there! Also, its not just "a few people", there were thousands of skeptics who instantaneously became believers after he resurrected, and a huge movement was started (christianity), in which many of them were slaughtered.
jordan19862000 1 year ago
@jordan19862000 And when you hear extraordinary claims about these other figures, based on a few ancient people you know little about, do you believe them? Were Romulus and Remus raised by wolves? Did the Buddha speak on the day he was born? Did Alexander receive guidance from Hercules? I'd say we need a lot more evidence before believing such things.
It's not clear that stories of the empty tomb & the appearances were written by people who were there. True, Paul talks about his sighting
boriato 1 year ago
@jordan19862000 But Paul's account is so vague and surrealistic that I don't see how it can be taken seriously as evidence of any actual event. Of the Four Evangelists, Mark has no accounts of resurrection sightings, and Matthew, Luke, and John certainly do not seem to be - themselves - eyewitness accounts. Thousands became believers only some time after the rumors had spread. If you've ever lived in a small town, you know how rumors can spread & be believed firmly with no evidence at all.
boriato 1 year ago
@boriato Yes there is better evidence. But this evidence itself is good. The writings are recorded very close to the time of the events. Way closer than any writings we have of any other even of ancient history. The fall of Rome for example, wasnt recorded until 700 years after it happened. Listen to some other talks Gary Habermas gives. He goes into much greater detail and gives better arguments.
jordan19862000 1 year ago
@jordan19862000 The main other argument I recall from him is that several early Christians were executed because they kept their faith, and they would not have sacrificed their lives for a faith of which they were not completely certain ...so they must have witnessed an actual siting of the resurrected Jesus. Is that the argument you have in mind?
boriato 1 year ago
@boriato "extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence"
I find this claim very extraordinary, but nobody seems to provide any evidence for it. As for me, I OK with the standard criteria used in all historical research. This is a neutral starting point - neither supernaturalist nor naturalist. The evidence for the resurrection is better than for ANY. OTHER. EVENT. in ancient history by a huge margin.
Jesrael1986M 9 months ago
@Jesrael1986M How good is the evidence? We have no clear description of the empty tomb or its location, so even back in the first century, the empty tomb argument was worthless. The accounts fo sightings are not evidencewe. Even St. Mark chose to omit them from his Gospel; maybe he found them weak too. St. John said, the disciples met a man on the beach who seemed like Jesus, but never asked who he was! Matthew & Luke have difering accounts. I'd like to believe, but need more than this..
boriato 9 months ago
@boriato No matter how much evidence is given, you can always demand more. All I can say is - it's unreasonable to ask for more evidence than this for something in ancient history. Do you have the same quality of evidence for anything in secular history? Or do you discount history altogether?
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago
Comment removed
boriato 2 years ago
Wow!! I believe!!
How can anyone doubt????
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
Excellent videos. Thank you.
AnthonyBlunt 3 years ago 5
This is an excellent series. Thank you for the post.
rodyshusband 3 years ago 12
Christ says we must follow God's will in order to be saved. God lays out his will in various ways that are very much more in depth than a one time repentance and closet faith. God calls us to DO (verb) his will, and that involves clothing, feeding the sick (for example) in Matthew, for what we do to the least of His brothers we do unto Him. So it is more than a lazy closet faith, or faith alone, that we need to be saved (James 2:24); But a Faith that Works in love, Christ Jesus. (Gal. 5:6).
Theologica37 3 years ago 7
excellent material here, five stars
therealtony 3 years ago 16