Yay I was just thinking man Joe Heschmeyer needs a podcast. And low and behold this showed up in my feed

@Jonathan_214

Жыл бұрын

The podcast has been going since last December I think. It only just recently started posting on YT. The first 12 episodes are still audio only wherever you find podcasts and have some really great content. Hopefully they will eventually add those to YT as well.

@halleylujah247

Жыл бұрын

@@Jonathan_214 Explains a lot I am more of a KZread person

@JosephHeschmeyer

Жыл бұрын

That's so nice of you to say - thank you!

It's fascinating how the Gospels throw in those seemingly irrelevant details, but are actually massively important. You gotta love those 'throw away' lines. The Gospel, of Luke has something to say about the "spiritual resurrection" claim as well: " They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, 'Do you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence" (Luke 37-43). I was always like "Why is this in here, how is this relevant?" Now it makes sense, lol!

@jaysonb.6669

5 ай бұрын

I've always wondered about this passage? Does this mean ghosts exist? Is it a figure of speech? Are ghosts simply deceiving demonic spirits or could they have came about by God's flood or some other natural disaster in time or even before humans were created?

It kinda bothers me when people dismiss sources as christian. Earliest sources became christian because they saw what happened. People ask for someone from that era, close to the events, who dismisses the claims as false yet writes about them. The fact that we have sources even of that kind attests to the robustness of our case. To me, the fact that most contemporary sources are christian supports christianity. Just like most civil war era sources believe in the civil war. When scientists do that, they call it "consensus" and it's considered a good thing. But if there is a consensus amongst early historical sources about Jesus, that's somehow bad. 🤷‍♂️

@frisco61

3 ай бұрын

Excellent observation.

Top content! Keep up the good work, these are the topics we need in today's society to be informed Christians.

Sharing this is a lot easier than sharing a book like The Case for Christ. And Catholic too!

Unrelated but you have a wonderful podcast voice and manner of speaking. Keep up the good work!

@JosephHeschmeyer

Жыл бұрын

You're too kind!

This is going to help so many people!

Bro is just giving us spiritual ammo for free?!

Excellent - easy to follow and above all else, it makes sense - to be believed because it IS true, not simply true because I believe it. Thank-you. It gives me more confidence to argue the case for the Risen Lord. God bless😊

Had the disciples mistakenly found the wrong tomb empty, Joseph of Arimathea would have said JESUS' Body was still in his actual tomb and ended the false hope at once, rather than continue to be used as an article of testimony to the truth of Christianity. Women were not being pursued at that time, so there is no difficulty wuth their marking the place. And John Domininc Crosson has a weird idea that a place once reached in the magical pixy-mazed land of Israel, it can never be found again. Imagine if someone asked you, " How could someone find the same bank in New York twice?" How could someone find their new house? Roman crucifixion never left survivors. Some mistakenly judge it in light of controlled South American reenactments of crucifixion.

I guess it's hard to give up a pure materialistic scientific worldview in favor of a "more" theistic one. I find it convincing, but the more I think of it the argument for beauty and goodness moves my heart. So thats that. Thx.

Man, you started making your points and the hits just keep coming. Outstanding, brother.

I don't think anyone really espouses the swoon theory anymore, although it's always helpful to cover it. I think the hallucination hypothesis is a far more popular theory, the same with the mythic theory, and those two are probably the two most popular alongside the conspiracy theory in my estimation. Great video Joe!

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

Joe glossed over all the New Testament evidence that Jesus was survived. After the scourging Jesus was walking and talking. Not exactly someone on the verge of esanguination. Blood pouring from a spear wound is evidence of a strong heartbeat. Jesus is not on the cross very long. Everyone is surprised he died so quickly. Joseph of Arimathea has Jesus. If Jesus was alive he was in friendly hands who would have treated him. I'm not saying Jesus survived. I am saying Joe is biased and overlooked evidence supporting the swoon theory.

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

Hmmm...what about the legend theory. The apostles wanted to promote their profitable new religion. Thus they exaggerated certain points. The New Testament depicts Peter, John living long lives and promoting the Gospel for decades. Kinda throws a wrench into this whole exaggerated persecution and martyrdom theory.

@geraldschmerald264

Жыл бұрын

@@danaharper9708 I appreciate the reply but I don't think any historian or scholar familiar with the period would ever say the claims of persecution and martyrdom were exaggerated and the attestation is extensive. I would say the mythic theory fails because I would only argue from established facts that we know are early, such as Jesus died, was buried, Disciples and skeptics claimed to see Him alive after His death, the tomb was found empty, the witnesses immediately proclaimed the resurrection happened in Jerusalem and the witnesses suffered and were killed for their belief in that Jesus rose from the dead, which can all be dated very early so it could not have been made up at a later date. I'd also strongly dispute that it was profitable, we have no evidence of this and plenty evidence against, and given that this theory would entail that the plan of the apostles was to lie about the resurrection for absolutely no gain, be persecuted, get martyred and, as liars and blasphemers, go to hell for all eternity, it doesn't hold water for me at all. As a sidenote, I used to be an atheist and then converted to Christianity and later to Catholicism and it was the resurrection evidence that made me convert, to my shock. The mythic or legend theory would have been the easiest way out but it just doesn't stand up to the historical evidence or reason, so I couldn't even remotely hold to that idea.

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

@@geraldschmerald264 Thanks for your thoughtful response. Joe Heschmeyer stated several times the apostles had “no” reasons to lie. I believe Heschmeyer is wrong. The correct debate is, did the apostles have sufficient reasons to lie? We are focused on money, but there is power, fame and promoting one's religion as well. Those are all reasons to exaggerate and lie. The apostles had multiple revenue streams. Acts 5, Luke 8:3, 2 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 9…Peter is a witness to Mark 12:41. Peter knows money and religion go hand in hand. Paul seems the only guy with an actual job. The poor exaggerate and lie to make a few dollars all the time. Why not poor Apostles doing the same thing? There is no requirement someone be rich to scam a few dollars. Earning supper or a night’s lodging are plenty of reasons to exaggerate a religious claim. Not everyone is out to persecute Peter. Peter is kicken it with Roman Captain, Cornelius (an unbelievable story for sure). In multiple settings Peter is a loved hero and a famed orator. At one point Peter is depicted as having enough followers to get the Roman soldiers to back off. More than once, people literally die after opposing Peter. Ananias, Sapphira, King Herod, the prison guards. Peter and David Koresh had a few things in common. Your timeline for Peter’s martyrdom doesn’t work. Nero was summarily killing everybody decades after Peter started preaching the Gospel. A well know Christian evangelist funning afoul of crazed Emperor Nero amounts to very little. I appreciate your excellent arguments. I also find there are more things to decipher than routine Apologetic talking points. As a side note I used pretend I was a Christian. I just could not pretend anymore and came out as disbelieving the Bible as God's word or in Jesus as any kind of savior. I've never had a Christian do anything but love on me since.

@geraldschmerald264

Жыл бұрын

Your story is very interesting and I'm very glad Christians have great you so well, I hope this conversation is very positive for you too! Thanks for the reply. I think I would qualify Joe's statement there as "no conceivable reason to lie", but in reality that's saying the same thing. I think I'd defend that as such from your following points: As far as a revenue stream goes, this just seems to be in accordance with their roles as priests, bishops and the like. There is no reason to assume all the money isn't going into the Church, as this was the custom with all the bishops and priests (or elders and presbyters). Paul had a travelling role so that also required money, as you pointed out, but all these vocations need money, especially when it comes to shepherding a small community in some cases. With exaggeration, this seems to me to be difficult to uphold as an explanation, because for me it either all stands or all falls. If the resurrection is true, then they would know it to be true, so you would never deceive people in that case. The alternative is it's false and they are lying about everything, so I don't think simple exaggeration is even relevant when that would require it all to be a deception, which would fall into the issues that this hypothesis usually falls afoul of. It's true that not everyone persecuted Peter but it's usually always true that massively persecuted people have some allies through sympathy. For people like you mentioned, such as Ananias and Sapphira, I don't think this demonstrates power because it isn't from Peter that life decisions were made, Peter is just the Holy Father and the Holy Spirit and divine presumably divine providence is what influenced their fate. I don't see an issue with a timeline, as far as age goes which you mentioned previously, that's no surprise to me, and we know of the persecution and executions of multiple witnesses. I take your point about Nero but regardless, they still were under the same circumstance when they were martyred so I think the problems still apply when trying to explain the suffering and martyrdom of witnesses, such as Paul, Peter and James etc. (Writing this quickly at the moment because I'm out so if it seems less thorough, I'll go over anything further in a later reply if needed.) Thanks for this conversation and hope I covered all your points, had to try and remember as I was typing.

I would really enjoy hearing a debate between you and Jimmy Akin on the order of the Gospels. It sounds like you favor Matthean priority, and he favors Marcan priority. Fun times in apologetics!

Extremely well explained. Thank you!!!

Something I've wondered about: Similar to your observations at 42:00-42:30. Can it also be said (maybe) that the reason Mary is not mentioned much in the Acts of the Apostles (only a single mention in Acts 1:14) is because she was still on earth at the time it was written and the first generation of Christian leaders were trying to protect her through their silence about her. Plausible theory in my estimation.

@JosephHeschmeyer

Жыл бұрын

That's a very interesting theory! Another thought: it's not clear how weighty Mary's testimony about her own son would be. You'll notice that the Corinthian creed prioritizes the male eyewitnesses, not because they were first or more important, but because in the world of the first century, the male eyewitnesses were more likely to be trusted.

@crekow

Жыл бұрын

@@JosephHeschmeyer Interesting. I love your work. Please keep it coming!

@capecodder04

6 ай бұрын

Humility is a reason I've come across. Mary wanted the focus on her son and not on her but these suggestions are plausible too. Maybe she had to lie low for her own safety.

Thanks Joe this was a really good presentation. I see there are some people in the comments section who remain in denial .and who have themselves made up some incredible Hypotheses. God Bless

Joe, can you please please please do a video on stigmata and the reality of the nail being in our Lord's wrists and not palms. I find so many Catholic things so true and comepling, but this is one thing that really troubles me. Also, because as an orthodox, I think that the Catholic saints with stigmata remind more of witches and demononzed people rather than saints. I know it sounds insulting and awful. But I am just trying to find out the truth. Because as you had said in a previous vid with Trent Horn, if one believes that the pope is instituted by Christ, then you should be Catholic. I am becoming more convinced about the pope stuff than the saints of the Catholic Church. The stimata and the ghostly spooky aparitions. I am sincerely asking. Hope you see this and do a vid on the topic as your style of explaining is sooo good. Thank you.

@contemplatingchrist

5 ай бұрын

I recall once a medical doctor explaining that the Long nails could be driven through the base of the palm of the hand, at a diagonal, through the wrist. This would offer more physical support, to hold him versus it being driven directly down through wrist at 90 degrees. I could be wrong, but it made sense to me. It's also much more excruciating pain-wise. So it's not an either-or, but a both-and.

@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal

4 ай бұрын

I've never heard of an apparition involving the saints that was ghostly spooky?

Paul as Saul would have knowledge of the burial and resurrection testimonials.

In the course of their lives, every one of the apostles would very likely have walked by and seen a crucifixion. The whole point of crucifying people was to make a public spectacle that would scare non-Romans into complying with Roman law. At a minimum, all of them would have heard about the horror of it. Having seen that, no rationale human in the position of an apostle would be willing to take the risk of getting crucified themselves unless they were highly certain Jesus rose. That’s even more true if people were generally crucified naked and left for days to rot and have birds peck out eyes etc. So it’s extremely unlikely the apostles would have taken a chance like that based on hearsay or some flimsy evidence. And no, getting crucified was a slow, humiliating, and horrifically painful process that isn’t comparable to dying in an instant explosion like 9/11.

@tomasrocha6139

6 ай бұрын

They wouldn't fear crucifixion as the Romans reserved that punishment for 3 categories of crime: escape from slavery, piracy/brigandage and crimes against the state.

@BobBoldt-sp1gr

4 ай бұрын

But they just saw the Romans crucify Jesus despite not committing any of those three crimes. For that reason, I think it’s reasonable to infer that the Apostles would have thought there was a risk. But I agree that’s an inference.

@tomasrocha6139

4 ай бұрын

@@BobBoldt-sp1gr They crucified him for claiming to be King of the Jews which was considered sedition.

@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal

4 ай бұрын

​@@tomasrocha6139 and to be a follower of a seditionist would expose you to accusations of sedition, especially if you were spreading his message and gathering followers. It would have been logical to fear crucifixion

@tomasrocha6139

4 ай бұрын

@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal I don't think so, as I understand it Romans would rather decapitate movements by crucifying the ringleader instead of going after his followers. Furthermore once the client King Herod Agrippa was installed by the Romans crucifixion would have been replaced with a distinct Jewish punishment.

As a rebuttal to the brutality of crucifixion - just some food for thought - modern brutal execution methods often are botched and leave the victim alive. It seems naive to think that the Romans never botched an execution, especially in the time before advanced medical knowledge. It has been difficult for medical professionals to truly define what is the moment of death and when that occurs, even up into the age advaced brain monitoring equipment. There have been many documented cases of people surviving injuries that should be absolutely fatal, speaking to the incredible resiliency of the human body

@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal

4 ай бұрын

Just because an execution is botched in modern times doesn't suggest that Jesus could have survived His execution. Mainly because even in modern executions the person isn't abandoned to make a recovery. It might be botched on the initial attempt, but then the executioner will finish the job. As the Romans would have.

Great video so far, Joe! I'm only about 12 and a half minutes in, and I'm not a medical professional, but I thought I'd say that hypovolemia is not having enough plasma (plasma being the liquid part of blood that the red blood cells float around in). Hypovolemia can, among other things, be caused by blood loss, which seems likely in the case of Jesus. Likewise, hypoxemia is having too little oxygen in the blood, which is caused by either not being able to breathe (and therefore being unable to bring enough oxygen in), or by the lungs not transferring oxygen to the blood. Both options with regards to the hypoxemia seem reasonable, given both His crucifixion and scourging. Hope this is helpful and brings a little more clarity to the medical language!

Interesting note on the blood and water. I believe it has to do with built up blood in specific areas post death where the blood separates from the plasma, creating a red liquid separate from the clear liquid.

Hi you explain it beautiful

How do we reconcile the medical opinion that he was nailed through the wrists with the stigmata that were received by many saints through the palms? I'm not a doctor so I can't offer an alternative opinion about the location of the nails but I would tend to believe the testimony of the stigmatics like St. Francis of Assisi and Padre Pio.

@Quekksilber

8 ай бұрын

I think I read once in the Catholic Encylopedia that the position of the stigmata might be dependent upon the knowledge of the recipient, while the cause is still supernatural.

@capecodder04

6 ай бұрын

That's a good point that I never thought about. I wonder if there's a good explanation. What does that Shroud of Turin show?

@contemplatingchrist

5 ай бұрын

I recall once a medical doctor explaining that the Long nails could be driven through the base of the palm of the hand, at a diagonal, through the wrist. This would offer more physical support, to hold him versus it being driven directly down through wrist at 90 degrees. I could be wrong, but it made sense to me. It's also much more excruciating pain-wise. So it's not an either-or, but a both-and

@thomasjorge4734

4 ай бұрын

Thr nails in the wrists could support the body, IF He had other means of support. Remember the nail or nails in His feet!

@jpesmar

4 ай бұрын

I have seen depictions or our crucified Lord in which He's nailed to the cross at the palms, but his wrists are also tied to the cross with rope, so the nails through the hands serve more of a punishing purpose, than a way of keeping the victim properly crucified. It made sense when I saw that, but I'm not sure if it's accurate or not.

Thanks for the teaching I really appreciate... am requesting you to handle the subject of Joseph the Earthly father of Jesus because I see him when Jesus is being born and I see another Joseph when Jesus is being put in the grave.. what is so special with this name Joseph in relation to Jesus...i will gladdly be happy...

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

The answer is that Joseph was a common name. So was the name Jesus, though in (English) Bible translations every mention of people with the same name as Christ have it rendered as "Joshua", to avoid confusion. Mary was also common, you see at least three in the Gospel of Mark. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus, and Mary mother of Joses/etc. Our Lord was born in an otherwise ordinary family with ordinary names. Grew up in a poor region of Judea, worked a humble profession, etc. Remember that while Jesus was God, He also wanted to show us He lived also as a human, like any other. However, Christ also was in many ways NOT like an ordinary human. He didn't sin, nor committed any faults. His father was a good man, and we are told His mother was Holy. Mary being called Holy/blessed is a big deal. Adam was called such, yet after the Fall it is said he lost it. Since then, *no one* in the Old Testament is called Holy ever again. Not once. Holy the ground, holy the temple, holy the Ark of the Covenant, Leviticus calling people into holiness... but no one ever manages to be worth the title of holy. As I said, a big deal. A perfectly ordinary family, yet also extremely extraordinary.

@thomasjorge4734

4 ай бұрын

In Biblical Typology, Names matter. Saul the King persecuted David. Saul the Pharissee persecuted the Son of David. OT Joseph Provided, Protected and Dreamed like the NT Joseph. If I were directing a film about Christ, I would cast the actor playing Foster-Father Joseph as a much older Joseph of Arimathea. At least I would be saving some money!

Great video!

He is resurected for Sure. Thomas Visited India he was kiled by spear..

A lot of the people in Jerusalem on Pentecost didn't return home because the Lord was soon to return. Some of them sold their property and gave the proceeds to the apostles. Barnabas seems to be one of the first to do this (see Acts 5).

As far as Jesus dying so quickly goes, Jesus says "The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”" (John 10:17-18). And then Matthew tells us, "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit." (Matthew 27:50). I wonder whether, rather than allowing himself to die against his will from the effects of the crucifixion, Jesus chose to lay his life down of his own free will at that moment. That might explain why he died so quickly and why he still had the strength to cry out.

Great stuff. Why didn't you address the hallucination theory? Several people I've spoken to espouse that view. It seems quite popular now.

@follower8815

3 ай бұрын

Because I feel that doesn’t make sense. All these people hallucinated?

Just a question, the theorizing of the doctors cited (in the first part proving that He died) is based on the accounts as per written on the bible or was it based from other historical accounting outside of the bible? It is important to note because precisely of your original premise that you will not be using the bible to prove it, because if they based it on the bible then it also goes into the circular referencing you were trying to avoid.

@bourbonrebel5515

9 ай бұрын

He said he wouldn’t presuppose that it’s inerrant or divinely inspire. That doesn’t mean the historical accounts can’t be used.

@robertdolcetti450

4 ай бұрын

The New Testament is the best source of info we have, even for the purely secular perspective. We can at least give them some credence as somewhat historically accurate for the sake of discussion.

@shamelesspopery, besides joseph @ 26:00, the gospels also spoke of the wealthy man who came and asked Jesus how to get to heaven - and Jesus told him he needs to sell everything and come and follow me. this also provides evidence that the message of Jesus was spreading and some wealthy residents or travellers came to see and listen to who is this Jesus.

I didn't realize the theory three was actually common. My local Protestant says it as "it isn't important if Jesus' body was raised" which just shocked me although a subsequent ignorance of doubting Thomas explains him somewhat. I tried getting him to explain what a resurrection is if not the physical body raising from the dead and he simply refused to give a simple description of what resurrection is without metaphors. I asked him if he would call a wandering soul of a dead person resurrected. My understanding of even Protestant Christianity was the resurrection being so important that to deny it (or call it a metaphor) is declaring yourself not a Christian

@marilynmelzian7370

5 ай бұрын

As a protestant, I have also run into that attitude. It is usually in mainline denominations, which have become either liberal or progressive in their theology. For confessional churches, and most evangelicals, the resurrection is still central.

@marilynmelzian7370

5 ай бұрын

The Jesus seminar was in full bloom when I was in graduate school in Old Testament. They had a lot of influence for a while, and it seemed to be an outgrowth of the tendency in historical critical scholarship to assume a very long history of editorial changes in the books of the New Testament. Their logic was often very odd. In some cases, it seemed that they were determined to find reasons for not believing. At least one of those prominent in the field was what I would call a recovering fundamentalist. His goal, which I heard him say in person, was to get rid of red letter Bibles, in which the sayings of Jesus are in red type. There seemed to be a lot of animus in his attitude, rather than a convinced scholarship.

@danielscalera6057

5 ай бұрын

@@marilynmelzian7370 The protestant I talk with is ignorant of history and seems to not even think history matters. Strangely he tells me that inspired books are missing from the bible but he insists stuff missing from the bible doesn't detract from its perfection. His main example is that Enoch is so important that the lack of writings on him prove stuff is missing from the bible.

@marilynmelzian7370

5 ай бұрын

@@danielscalera6057 Odd. I have to admit that, even though I am a protestant, I am not familiar with that way of thinking.

@danielscalera6057

5 ай бұрын

@@marilynmelzian7370 Well... He also tells me the earth is flat because of the bible sooooooo

Could the heart failure be a result of the sweating of blood, incarceration, torture, and dehydration preceding the scourging and crucifiction?

If you ever have the opportunity to view one of the life sized 3D models made from the Shroud of Turin, do so. It shows the number of wounds, severe, from the scouring. Anyone subjected to that number of lashes with that type of whip must have been close to death. The sheer will power to survive that in order to be crucified is just amazing. He was taken down by Joseph, so he was not eaten by dogs.

@Anna-mc3ll

4 ай бұрын

So, what does it tell us about the resurrection?

The piercing of His side was on the right hand side. An act designed to penetrate both lungs and aimed to puncture the heart with a side placed upwards stab.

What about those who walked around the city the dead saint's, how you prove that.

a year later and I'm just getting to this video, but it's the season of lent so it's very apropos

"He's described as having fallen three times." That's not a scriptural description. That's the Stations of the Cross. That was one of the interesting things I learned after I started reading the bible. All those Stations of the Cross services where I was a server (altar boy) were a lot of fake news. The lady pressing Jesus' image into a towel or whatever isn't in the scriptures either.

1:04:33 the sign-off starting here is a bit out of sync

If wine was presented to Jesus on the cross with a hyssop branch, how did the animals get to the body? Maybe the legs, but not likely the body. Also, how were the nails removed from the body without breaking bones?

I find the spelling of "veiwers" to be disturbing. :D

1 Cor. 9:5 - Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Peter had a wife who was a believer (a sister). The brethren of the Lord also seemed to be onboard with the risen Jesus by this time as well.

@shamelesspopery, you should get fr. Spitzer as a guest snd discuss archeological evidence of the shroud- pollen analysis show evidence of it coming from the region, fiber/strand analysis showing it dating to the time frame, the prior c14 dating discredited, details of the wounds of Jesus from the shroud, potential resurrection evidence and theory- all to add to the eyewitness evidence. this would be fascinating discussion.

(1 Corinthians 15:12-15) Joe, you glossed over something important in these passages. Paul is identifying non-believers. This is one of many New Testament passages in which non-believers are presented. All these miracles, several resurrections (Jesus is not the only resurrection) and yet there are still a robust number of non-believers. If favorable witnesses contribute to a historical resurrection, do non-believing witnesses compromise a historical resurrection?

@capecodder04

6 ай бұрын

Who else was resurrected besides Jesus?

@SergeantSkeptic686

6 ай бұрын

@@capecodder04 Lazarus (John 11:43-44), Jairus’ daughter, (Mark 5:21-43), Tabitha (Acts 9:36-42) Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12) All the saints (Matthew 27:52)

@capecodder04

6 ай бұрын

@@SergeantSkeptic686 All done by Jesus, correct?

@SergeantSkeptic686

6 ай бұрын

@@capecodder04 Negative. All done by the biased fiction of ancient authors.

@tomasrocha6139

6 ай бұрын

@@capecodder04 Samuel was raised by the Witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28

@34:00-that is not what protestants mean when the phrase faith alone is used

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

What do they mean?

Strange how Dominick, being an educated man as well as a trained theologian, seems to lack understanding. We can't know if he was or was not a true believer, but he certainly sounds conflicted.

Hypovolemic ( high po vol ee Mik) low blood pressure to loss of fluid/blood in circulatory system. Hypoxemia, (high pox ee mee ya) low oxygen in blood. Hypoxia not enough oxygen for tissues and organs to function properly.

Mathematically, would the fact that Romans have done this torture thousands of times lend more credence to the likelihood of there being the chance of something like someone surviving? I think of Mary Vincent- well known to the public after surviving a violent attack in which her arms were cut off while hitchhiking in 1978. Not to mention everyone else who have survived insane attacks/accidents/etc. I would also say to those people, it was a miracle they are alive and could only have happened because of a higher power or God and then my head explodes cuz my ADHD won't allow me to concentrate and go further than that thought. lol

There's a female voice at the end talking over what the host is saying? If that's intentional it should be started after you finish speaking.

8:39 No. Not called the pati-BU-lum. Called the pa-TI-bulum.

So look to John 14:26 .

Or that the apostles believed he rose from the dead…

Prove first that Jesus existed before you prove that Jesus resurrected. What are rhe sources of Jesus existence? The anontmously wriiten gospels, based on unknown sources, stories told orally from generation to generation not corroborated by any contenporary writers or historians and manuscripts that are copies of copies of copies, that are full of errors, obvious changes and contradictions.

What were the Jews celebrating with Pentecost?

Dear seekers after divine knowledge and true wisdom, Be fully assured and REALISE: The waiting period of 2,300 years (Dan. 8:14) has been completed and all the signs of His Second Coming, described by the Lord Jesus Himself (Matt. 24) have all been fulfilled !!! The Will of God was realised with complete and irrefutable certainty: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ RETURNED LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT in the Glory of the Father in the most blessed, most holy year of 1844 AD ! Your soul will be blessed when you enquire further leading you to the treasure of all the worlds, visible and invisible, destined for our time and forever ! "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth..." (Rev. 16:15) "...the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." (1 Thess. 5:2). A "new heaven" and "a new Earth" is being formed under a New Covenant replacing all previous denominations or covenants worldwide, as was promised for the Time of the End, the Day of God, which is NOW. For full biblical evidence, make the most important step of your life now: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mp2OtbqBfqXLo8Y.html

@brandonsmith2172

9 ай бұрын

False

@capecodder04

6 ай бұрын

Is this a joke?!?

Does anybody care about the reason Jesus was born why he lived Among Us why he died and most importantly why he rose again people just simply don't want to hear the message it's hard no it's impossible to follow Christ's example and obey God 100% it goes against every instinct that brings us pleasure I don't understand just what is it about Christ and his message that's so scares and offends people that were so desperate to disprove his very existence

Why do people need proof?

This is old stuff. How u prove he is sitting at the right hand of his heavenly father. Because ur popes we're given the title of pontifex maximums or great high priest,

You missed a theory. A few apostles believed they saw him, but didn’t.

Christ was crucified and buried on Passover! Change my mind?

Could Paul be exaggerating knowing people from Corinth would have to travel 800 miles to Galilee and Jerusalem to fact check him?

@tonyl3762

Жыл бұрын

Your question falls under the theory of the apostles lying. Why exaggerate/lie in the face of suffering and death? Go read Acts chapter 18 to see the trouble Paul was bringing upon himself for the sake of an "exaggeration/lie."

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

​@@tonyl3762 Possibly you meant Acts chapter 16? My comment had to do with logistics, not persecution. Joe points out people could have _easily_ fact checked Paul. No they couldn’t. It’s an 800 mile journey. Once a Corinthian arrived in Jerusalem how do they find Paul’s shadowy unnamed witnesses? A Corinthian would have found 100 unconverted Jews and pagan Romans for every resurrection believing Christian. BTW Peter was getting money laid at his feet. He was getting some fame. He was promoting his religion. These are all reasons people exaggerate and lie. As to persecution. How long was Peter in jail for? What happened to Peter after he escaped? What happened to Peter’s guards? What happened to King Herod?

@JosephHeschmeyer

Жыл бұрын

Corinth was a major seaport, and one with a large enough Jewish community to have its own synagogue (cf. Acts 18:1-4). So one wouldn't need to physically go to Judea to fact-check Paul's claims.

@danaharper9708

Жыл бұрын

@@JosephHeschmeyer I’m not following how a large synagog in Corinth provides eyewitnesses to a resurrection in Jerusalem?

@tonyl3762

Жыл бұрын

@@JosephHeschmeyer Are you appealing to the fact that Jews from Corinth would have been traveling to Jersualem for holy days like Passover and Pentecost and then back home?

Of course the resurrection is true,and I am here to prove it today

pa-TIB-you-lum. Not pat-i-BYU-lum.

I have to watch for an hour for the answer?

@follower8815

3 ай бұрын

No. The answer is in the title lmao

Jesus rose from the dead. True. But the three days and three nights do not add up to catholic easter. Also He never went to hell in those three days and three nights. It is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of a simple verse. Same like in Matthew

You forgot the theory that his body was swapped with Judas’

@tonyl3762

Жыл бұрын

Who's theory is that?

@9bridges

Жыл бұрын

@@tonyl3762 Quranic. Jesus is mentioned more in the text than Muhammad. And in its depiction Jesus was risen to Heaven by God and Judas was crucified instead

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

@@9bridges What the heck. It was a public crucifixion, with people close to him present right there. This doesn't make sense logically or historically. I don't think this deserves its own address.

This is absurd. Are people really this Gullible?

@waseemhermiz7565

Жыл бұрын

I might be. What part you talking about makes a person gullible?

Jesus was a wimp - he only lasted for three hours. It is said that some victims hung on the cross for days before expiring.

You should have Googled the medical stuff to clarify...you know how to research

Same old argument he Repeating what been said before. What about Cain murdering his own brother, we're did he have that nature from his parents or did God create him that way.

@mmmail1969

Жыл бұрын

What's your point....murder is (one of) the tragic products of the fall of man! What's your point?

Passover would have started after the events of Jesus'death...so you're completely off, everything you're saying is absolutely nonsensical and you're trying to justify your own faith. This isn't proof of anything, it doesn't change the fact that all of the scriptures are stories.

@billyg898

Жыл бұрын

"Passover would have started after the events of Jesus'death" Why? "all of the scriptures are stories" Well they are ancient documents and they can be assessed as ancient documents. Are Plutarch's biographies also just stories? Clearly, these are documents reporting on historical events and people. Even if you don't think the gospel writings are infallible, there are lots of reasons to find reliable information in the gospel writings, just looking at them the way historians do.

@markpandelidis2079

Жыл бұрын

@@billyg898 Passover started after Jesus' death. Sorry it was supposed to be a statement. Not sure about the other documents you're referring to, but just because one thing is doesn't mean another thing is as well, they're individual things. So your defense is also nonsensical. One thing can be true about something and not true about another.

@billyg898

Жыл бұрын

@@markpandelidis2079 "Passover started after Jesus' death." Oh, well yea. That was the impetus to rush the crucifixion deaths by breaking their legs so they can get the corpses down before Passover started. "just because one thing is doesn't mean another thing is as well, they're individual things." The gospel writings fit within the genre of ancient biographies, very similar to Plutarch's work actually. Textual critics and historians look at these and easily recognize that they purport to be detailing historical events. For instance, the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in 70AD was a huge event in Judaism at the time, yet we only have it mentioned by one ancient report from one guy, Josephus. No scholar denies that Josephus is reporting on an actual historical event. Yet, we have 4 accounts of events associated with Jesus and your conclusion is, "It's all just stories"? No scholar takes such a conclusion seriously. If you think they are just stories, I don't think you have any real reason to believe that, so why do you? There is numerous evidence to suggest they are trying to be records of historical events and people, whether you think they have errors or not.

@markpandelidis2079

Жыл бұрын

@@billyg898 sure, I'm not as versed as you in historical documents, I don't know if what you're saying accurate. But I'll take your word for it. I still don't believe the exaggerations are accurate. So maybe they are depictions of something that actually happened, but grossly exaggerated to the point of being fantastic and therefore not historically accurate. It's like when a movie is "based on a true story"

@billyg898

Жыл бұрын

@@markpandelidis2079 Sure, that's fine, but would you agree that if just one of these fantastic events actually did happened, it wouldn't be so outlandish if the other ones did too then, right? If a guy rose from the dead, it's then not such a leap to think he also raised others from the dead. People don't usually believe that many of the events happened until after believing that the resurrection happened and the gospels are reliable first. That's why so much is made of the case for the resurrection, because it vindicates the rest. If the resurrection happened, and I'd argue that it is the best explanation for the evidence we have, then that confirms miracles and the existence of God, it confirms the message that Jesus spoke, claiming to be the messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, it confirms his church. You can reason from one point to the next and to the next.

this is all kinds of wrong... 21:30 FACT✔Matthew wasn't the first Gospel, Papias isn't a good source. 1Corth 15 buried isn't distinguished robbers grave vs tomb FACT✔A creed isn't witness testimony it's a repeated trope. your blinders for Jesus is so thick and sizzlemanship is off the charts. Facts matter when you advertise "proof" and "accurate" in the thumbnail. Imma make a critique when I have the time, this is bad.

@Gerschwin

Жыл бұрын

Hmm.. I'm not following. I would be interested to hear this objection.

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

@@Gerschwin likewise, I’d like to hear the exact critique on 1 Cor 15.

@JosephHeschmeyer

Жыл бұрын

At 25:38, I specifically address the question of canonical dating: that while the early Christians were basically unanimous that St. Matthew wrote first (it wasn't just Papias - Origen and others also attest to this being the traditional view), many modern critics think that St. Mark wrote first. It's not important for my case whether Matthew or Mark was first, since (as I said in the video) we know that Matthew, Mark, and 1 Corinthians are three of the oldest Christian texts. Which of is the oldest and which is the second oldest, etc., is irrelevant for these purposes. [All that said, it certainly isn't a "FACT" that Matthew wasn't the first Gospel, and I'm happy to see a new wave of critical scholars poke at Marcan priority to see how strong that hypothesis really is.] As for 1 Corinthians, you say "a creed isn't witness testimony it's a repeated trope." That misses the point. The point is that this creed, which even radical skeptics like Richard Carrier have argued originally dates back to the 30s (only a few years after the death of Jesus), speaks to a widespread Christian belief that Jesus was known to have been buried. But if Crossan is right, and Jesus was left up on the Cross to be publicly eaten by animals, that creed wouldn't have spread... since it would be quite obviously false. The creed only works, and is only spread, if the people in the 30s have good reason to believe that Jesus was indeed buried and then that the Tomb was empty.

@user-uc1yb7hy2n

Жыл бұрын

@@JosephHeschmeyer very good point. Against Crossan’s view that is. We unfortunately, aren’t very good at looking at these things with a 1st century perspective in mind. Thank you.

@user-we3df1dm6i

Жыл бұрын

You invest so much time and energy in something you don’t believe in 😅

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA. No. No it f***** didn’t. People don’t rise from the dead. And if one did, it would take a lot more than hearsay in an old book to establish that it happened. How did you rule out that the Romans destroyed the body? How did you rule out that the whole thing was made up? Thanks for the laugh, though. 😂