CosmicSkeptic on the Resurrection of Jesus

[Jessymandias]

I accept that Julius Caesar lived. but I don't accept that he was descended from Venus.

[GavTatu]

if god had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

[PerfectlyCrafted]

Good Job Alex, you really nailed him there

[bobon]

Honestly I am atheist since long enough that I consider Jesus simply irrelevant, I don't discuss the divinity of Jesus any more that I discuss the existence of Santa. Nor I live around anyone prepared to discuss properly about religion: the few discussions I had with religious people in the past years were with people that barely read the Bible and those are easily won. But I still find fascinating to look at these debates: it is like the South Park episode about Mormons or Scientology, in the end Christians idea looks less bizarre only because we are more used to them, but they are equally hilarious!

[ThoughtfulLemon]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

[poplionandrew]

Thank you for informed, concerned and participative.

[cultofscriabin]

You can also add that the gospels were written 40-70 years after the death of Jesus, by non-direct witnesses. The epistles of Paul were written 15-20 years after the death of Jesus by someone who never met him. So all the "evidences" that we have concerning Jesus are really questionable.

[scienceexplains]

Zero women discovered an empty tomb in the original gospel, Mark. There was a young man in Jesus’ supposed tomb when they arrived (16:5), so the tomb was not empty. The young man made a preposterous claim and the women believed him without evidence or question. Even of the young man is an angel, as some claim the text implies, it doesn’t change anything stated above. The “angel” is there in human form.
In Matthew, if taken literally, again 0 women discover an empty tomb. Instead, an angel comes down and claims it is empty and invites them to verify, but the text never says they entered or observed anything about the tomb’s contents. This may he the point - they were faithful and accepted the angel’s claim.
In John 0 women discover an empty tomb. In 20:1-2, Mary sees the stone rolled away, but does not go in. Peter is the third on the scene, but the first to enter and see that the tomb was empty.
Luke is the only account where women discover the tomb empty. In 24:10-11, the apostles think the women’s account is nonsense.

[UnderOneLight]

The gospel of John talks about one of the women who saw that the stone from the entrance of the tomb had been removed, it doesn't claim only 1 woman discovered the empty tomb

[dalenixon]

Forget about Jesus, what about Elvis?

[juandiegovarcal]

Is the argument presented at the end that makes this clip a jewel!

[japexican]

The 8 Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Accounts Regarding Jesus:
1. From Thallus (52 AD), we can conclude that Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion.
2. Tacitus (56-120AD):
In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame… Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
3. Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD):
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important.
From Mara’s account, we get:
He was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. The Jewish leadership was somehow responsible for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ followers adopted His beliefs and lived their lives accordingly.
4. From Phlegon (80-140AD), we can add:
Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated His wounds after he was resurrected.
5. Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
In ” a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians”, we can add:
the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.
6. Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian.
From Suetonius:
From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: They were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on His followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.
7. Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters.
From his description of Jesus, we get:
He taught about repentance and about the family of God. These teachings were quickly adopted by Jesus’ followers and exhibited to the world around them.
8. Celsus (175AD)
Celsus was quite antagonistic to the claims of the Gospels, but in his criticism he unknowingly affirmed and reinforced the Biblical authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century.
Celsus confirms several claims:
Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.

The 3 Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Accounts Regarding Jesus:
1. Josephus (37-101AD)
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at an early age, became a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of Roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James (and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ), and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah.
From Josephus, we can conclude:
Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused by the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians.
2. Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish Rabbis appear in the 5th century, the tradition of these Rabbinic authors indicates they are faithfully transmitting teachings from the early “Tannaitic” period of the 1st Century BC to the 2nd Century AD.
From several passages in the Jewish Talmud mentioning Jesus by name, we can conclude:
Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.
3. The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings.
The passages in the Toledot Yehsu confirm the following:
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, healed the lame,  said Isaiah foretold of His life, was worshipped as God, arrested by the Jews, beaten with rods, given vinegar to drink, wore a crown of thorns, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, was betrayed by a man named Judah Iskarioto, and had followers who claimed He was resurrected and ascended, leaving an empty tomb.

[imagineitagain]

I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the Lazarus in Luke is the Lazarus Jesus raised. That’s at least what it seems like he’s saying here. Lazarus is the Greek of Eleazar (God is my help) and the Lazarus of Luke 16 is a throwback to Eleazar of Damascus, the “heir” to Abraham before Abraham had children. It’s nauseating hearing partially educated theologians talk about the Bible, he’s missing so much.

[rationaloutlook]

The stories in the Bible are so pathetic. At the very least, if you are going to write fairy tales, at least write something original instead of copying from other cultures.

[Gumpmachine]

Simply put you can’t have impossible shit in a historical narrative unless you have empirical data to demonstrate the contrary

[thor]

Lazarus Jesus cousin is the same Lazarus from Jesus parable ? This assumption alone should make people realize how ridiculous his arguments are

[JoschuaSchmidt]

I would like to criticize quite some things that you said there. Please – anyone – feel free to react, to correct or confirm me:



- The Gospels were written 1 or 2 generations after the events took place
o That is wrong – even critical researchers date at least Mark to the 1st century AD. This definitely leaves the possibility of a direct eyewitness report. The authorship of at least some Gospels by a disciple / apostle himself is to be taken seriously.


- It can easily be shown how a story adapts and changes over a period of time
o You didn´t say anything else about that claim. If you say that the story changed, there also must be an original. We simply can´t see that the story of Jesus´ resurrection changed since we have only one source.
In fact perhaps you could say that the story changed – When we look at the gnostic gospels. But their great difference to the 4 canonic gospels just shows us how much more consistent the canonic bible is.

Contradictions:
- Number of women who discover the empty tomb (Joh: 1, Mt: 2, Mk: 3; Lk 3+)
o The four evangelists put a different perspective on each gospel. That the number of women differs doesn´t show us a contradiction, in fact it is more of a sign that those texts aren´t just written forms of a dogmatic legend. They are documents that try to recap the historic events by asking different eyewitnesses. Yet still the main story is incredibly persistent. Those little “contradictions” are an argument for the accuracy of the gospels.
Claim: Agreement within the Bible itself must be expected when we speak of “God's Word”; A small contradiction like this is therefore to be condemned.


- The earthquake is only reported in Matthew; The other evangelists should´ve heard about it and reported it accordingly
o That contradicts with your thesis that the authors of the gospels were from the 1st or 2nd generation. As said before, the 4 Evangelists point out very different aspects of the story of Jesus. It is not always their first goal to give all historic information.


- Other contradictions in the Gospels, e.g. Lazarus, who is raised in John but is fictional in Luke because he appears in a parable
o The claim that the Lazarus in John and Luke is the same person is completely random.
o Jesus does not speak in the parable, nor is it required that Lazarus be resurrected.


Mythology:
- “Great” parallel between the Emmaus story and the Roman myth of Prokulus, who proclaimed Romulus
- The Gospels are riddled with myths, so it is not clear what is historical and what is mythological
o Yes, the New Testament, especially the gospels are built upon the Judaic tradition. Jesus sees himself as the fulfiller of those prophecies. It is therefore not so extraordinary when we find something myth-like in the gospels.
Your claim about the parallel between the Emmaus story and the myth of Romulus does also not work. Κλεοπᾶς [Kleopas] is a short version of Κλεοπάτρος [Kleopatros], which means “glory to the father”. The name you probably would want this Kleopas to have is Καλέοπας [Kaleopas]. ;)

- Because the assertion of a resurrection is so extraordinary, its evidence should also be extraordinary detailed, and well founded.
o But that's nonsense. A resurrection can never be justified “well enough”. The evangelists pass on what they have either experienced or learned through others. It is an approach - an attempt to make this miracle story understandable. The fact that this event is so hard to believe does not lead them to give more historical data than what they have. Your text is primarily not a historical one, but a spiritual one.

- The resurrection is not evidence of divinity
o Resurrection from the dead is something supernatural. It is nothing that a person could ever do. Of course – if we can't be sure that Jesus was really resurrected, that makes things a lot more complicated. But if he was actually resurrected and we ourselves were convinced of it, then it would simply be stupid not to believe that he is God. Jesus doesn't say that sometimes rape is okay or that the earth is flat. He claims things that we don't like and about which we take offense. It's always been that way, that's why he was crucified. But he's not claiming anything that we can safely say is wrong.
To believe that Jesus Christ is god means that we have to rethink quite a lot of our believes. But if he actually rose from the dead, I think we should risk that.

You also didn´t even mention the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. For example the woman as eyewitnesses, whose testimony was worth nothing in the 1. Century AD. (It is therefore pretty unlikely that the disciples made up the story of the resurrection and used women as witnesses to strengthen it) Or the fact that it is pretty hard to explain how and why the disciples and so many other followers of Jesus suddenly changed from being depressed about his death to preaching his teachings and dying for him.
Many people have died for something that they believed was true, but few for something that they know was not true.
And if you say that it was some kind of psychological effect, some vision that come unto the first witnesses, you are left to explain how 500 men at the same time saw Jesus Christ resurrected (1st Corinthians 15, 6).


Thank you for making me rethink investigate my beliefs. :)

[naturalisted]

Alex, May I suggest that you put your name alongside "Cosmicskeptic" in your video titles? Perhaps like this: Cosmicskeptic (Alex O'Connor) | Do We Have Free Will?

This way you can get your name out there more -- which will be useful in the future for if you decide to write books, etc.

[Howzernn]

There are only two things that need to be accepted for one to be convinced of Jesus' status as God:

1. That Jesus died
2. That He was later seen alive

Everything in between His death and resurrection is secondary. Resurrection in Jesus' case absolutely does prove divinity because if Christ was not God, then He'd have been a liar and a blasphemer, and His revival would tend to imply divine affirmation of lies and blasphemy.

[udmgraduate]

I've watched a number of this guy's videos, and he's quite intelligent in my estimation, which is why I'm really surprised his arguments against the Gospels are so bad. I only have a bachelor's degree in philosophy and I'm studying for a doctorate in anesthesia, so my philosophical background isn't that extensive...yet even I can see the obvious holes in this presentation. These arguments have been refuted time and time again.