The Resurrection of Jesus - Gary Habermas Part 6/6

The Resurrection of Jesus
Some Historical Considerations
Gary Habermas

http://www.garyhabermas.com/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jewish

[therealtony]

excellent material here, five stars

[rodyshusband]

This is an excellent series. Thank you for the post.

[lxAgnosticxl]

@Jesrael1986M

thanks

[Jesrael1986M]

@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.

[lxAgnosticxl]

sorry , but i can't seem to figure out how he knows paul had material in 35AD

can anyone help? thx

[Jesrael1986M]

@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?

[boriato]

@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..

[Jesrael1986M]

@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.

[ChildoftheKing23]

Outstanding message! Praise be to our Risen Savior! The soon and coming King!! Maranatha Lord Jesus! Come Soon!

[boriato]

@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?

[jordan19862000]

@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.

[SilentPrayingmanTis]

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.