201: James Robinson - He is not here, He is Risen

Automatically transcribed. Accuracy is good but not perfect, and words are sometimes wrong. Trust the audio over the text.

1. 0:13

   Welcome to good for selfie and talks. I’m Levi and I’m Chris and I’m Brian, thank you for joining us this week. On this podcast, we select one taco week to help us get the Bible in our daily news feed. We post a new episode of the start of each week with a short intro before. Hand to kind of set the stage for the talk. You’re about to listen to and now let’s talk more about this week’s talk.

2. 0:50

   Hello. My name is Justin and I’ll be your host for this week and the following week. For this class. I’ve chosen a talk by James Robinson, this class made a fairly significant impact on me several years ago and I really wanted to share it with everyone. This talk gets back to the basics and tries to prove the death but more importantly the resurrection of Jesus a backbone of our faith.

3. 1:19

   So now, we’ll turn it over to James. Good evening, brothers and sisters. I’m glad to see you all here tonight because our subject tonight is he is not here. He has risen. And hopefully it’ll be a very interesting subject for you. All I greatly enjoyed researching it, the subject for tonight officially is he is not here.

4. 1:39

   He has risen, that’ll probably be the subject on whatever board we have outside. If we have a board outside at the moment, if we don’t, that’s the official title. But what you’re going to be here, Tonight is more simply stated as proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. What I’m going to try and do in this talk is go through and get evidence for why we can believe that.

5. 2:01

   Jesus Christ, honestly did rise from the dead and the start off. I’ll explain why this is important because Jesus Christ rising from the dead is the foundation of Christianity. You’ll notice I have a quote up there. First Corinthians 15, this is from the Apostle Paul. All a Christian writing to other Christians and he says, if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith, obviously Paul thought the resurrection was pretty important that quote, by the way, is from The New International Version. All quotations tonight on my slides and that I will be reading our from The New International Version for the simple reason that it’s very easy to understand and tonight I want to make sure that what I’m saying is easy to understand because it should be Easy to understand that we have a firm and good reason to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Now, as for why this is important, Jesus Christ himself, claimed that he rose from the dead. The reference I have up there.

6. 3:05

   Matthew 17, 22 to 23 is pretty much the same as what we already read earlier in Luke 24, Jesus claimed that he was going to be betrayed and killed and Rise. Again, the third day, this is what he said. If Jesus said this, and it didn’t happen, then he is a liar. And therefore, it is hugely important whether or not He rose from the dead identically, his disciples afterwards, all claimed that he rose from the dead Acts 2 and 32 it’s only one reference among many in the New Testament all claiming the same thing that Jesus rose from the day.

7. 3:42

   If he didn’t rise from the dead, then all his disciples are liars to and the entire Christian faith is founded on a lie. If that is the case, then I might as well not be speaking up here. That’s why our subject tonight. Is that the resurrection He did actually happen because if it didn’t actually happen, none of us needs to be here tonight.

8. 4:02

   Finally, there’s one other important Point. Christianity has a lot of things that are important to it and tonight I’m not going to talk about everything that Christianity deals with. Well one thing that you have to understand is Christianity is based on Jesus Christ as a living, savior, if Jesus Christ is dead in a tomb right now or moldering in the ground someplace, then Christianity is useless because Does not have a savior.

9. 4:28

   It’s savior is dead and there is no. Hope you can put in somebody who is dead. But tonight we’re going to get into if he was resurrected and if he was resurrected, that means some things as well. First of all, it means that when Jesus made the claim that he was going to die and be resurrected and it actually happened.

10. 4:52

    That’s pretty astounding. You can go talk to any Undertaker and they will not tell you that their corpses that they’re dealing with rise from the dead. This is not a common occurrence, this is something we call a miracle. And if he is able to accurately predict a miraculous occurrence, then we might want to believe the other things that he said, identical case for his disciples if they’re all saying, something totally astounding happen and it actually did happen. Then we might have reason to believe the other things they say.

11. 5:24

    And they said some other pretty fascinating things, one of them is quoted on the screen there for the son of man is going to come in his father’s Glory with his angels and then he Reward each person according to what he has done. That’s a pretty scary prediction that Christ is going to come and judge the world. And so if they were right about that, maybe we need to lend some Credence to the other things they said and that’s going to be a scary proposition.

12. 5:51

    So again our subject is important did Jesus rise from the dead or didn’t? That’s what I’m going to try and prove to you tonight. Now proof is an interesting thing, how do we prove something? Especially something quite so amazing as a person rising from the dead. It is not hard to prove to you tonight that gravity exists here.

13. 6:13

    I have a book, I drop the book if falls down that has proven to you that gravity exists. But proving a resurrection from the dead. It’s not quite so easy because dead people do not normally come back to life books. Normally fall when we drop them dead, people do not normally come back to life. It’s called a And to prove a miracle is difficult, in fact, on someone back in the 1700s called David Hume, who was an atheist, wrote a whole book on the subject and one of the things he said, which I thought was quite wise, was that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony of you have such kind that it’s falsehood, would be more miraculous than the fact, which it Endeavors to establish. In other words, if we want to believe that something. Thing happened which seems totally impossible. That the only way we can do that reasonably, is to believe that it would be totally impossible for it not to happen. In other words, if we can discount everything else and say that couldn’t have happened then we might believe in a miracle. Otherwise why would you believe that someone Rose from the day? It doesn’t normally happen.

14. 7:27

    It’s not a recurring fact, we can’t go and make someone else rise from the dead. So if we Prove that we need to prove it by showing that nothing else works. And so tonight I’m going to make two claims I’m going to claim first of all, that it is a reasonable proposition that the Jesus Christ was resurrected from the day that this is a reasonable explanation of the facts.

15. 7:54

    And secondly, I am going to claim that there is no other reasonable explanation of the facts. You’ll notice extensive use of the word reasonable in that. The reason for that is that That in a court of law. When we’re trying to convict someone in a criminal court, the burden of proof that Slade on the prosecution is that they have to prove. He is guilty of beyond all Reasonable Doubt. Obviously, there are some people tonight who are going to be able to doubt me, no matter what I say. But I want to be able to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, rose from the dead. And that’s what we’re working on tonight. We’re not dealing with are reasonable facts. We’re dealing with reasonable facts that you should be able to reasonably Understand.

16. 8:37

    So let’s start off with some documentary evidence. We read Luke 24 tonight which is a documentary account that claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Here is a few other ones. In fact in the Bible we have four different accounts that all claim. The same thing that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.

17. 8:57

    You see short excerpts from the mall up on the slide tonight. I’m not going to go through and read each one but they all say about the same thing and I asked you if you don’t believe me to read it because they all say about the same thing that this man rose from the dead. And the interesting thing about this is it’s not a single witness.

18. 9:17

    We have four different Witnesses, two of them. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses of these events. Mark was not an eyewitness. He was writing based on the testimony of another eyewitness which was Peter and Luke does not claim via night witness. His was a compilation but all These people were writing at about the same time and all claim that this happened, that should give us an inkling that maybe something happened. It doesn’t prove that it did happen because we’re not going to look at these people tonight as inspired by God. That’s the position of the christadelphians. But if their writings inspired by God, I might as well, not be talking tonight, anyway, because the case is already proven. If it’s inspired then we believe it in. That’s it.

19. 9:57

    We’re not going to do that tonight. I’m going to assume that these are historical documents, but I’m not going to say Assume that they’re inspired by God, because if they’re inspired by God we have a circular argument. And my case is already over, we’re going to assume though that they are historical testimony and we have good reason to assume that. Well there’s more documentary evidence. We’re going to skip that for right now though we’re going to let us look at the veracity of these documents. First of all, when were they re if Mark had written his gospel? 500 years.

20. 10:28

    After the events happened, we might have reason to doubt him, but that’s not the case. You see up here, what I found as scholarly opinion by those Scholars, who actually have reason to believe that these authors were not lying, if you believe that the authors were lying, you get a bunch of dates after 80 70. But based on what they actually wrote, the dates are usually in this range 80/50, 27, which puts you at most 40 years after the events in cave question, You’re not accounts by people long after the events are past.

21. 11:00

    These are people who claim to be island us’, and wrote a time period where they could be eyewitnesses. Secondly, it’s often a question of who actually wrote These gospels. However, based on my research again tonight, I’m not going to give you a documentary, go over of everything to do with textual analysis of the gospels.

22. 11:20

    What I will say, though, if the authorship was not questioned for any of these for the next 500 years, Years. And so everyone in those time periods and we have lots of documents says, Mark, wrote Mark, Matthew wrote, Matthew, John wrote, John, and if so we had good reason to believe that that’s the case. These people wrote those books and honestly, believed what they wrote, we have these books, that’s what they say. And just as a bit of comparison Duke, can we trust these books written 2000 years ago, actually got to us in a reasonable condition.

23. 12:01

    So Up here we have a brief comparison of the textual attestation of the New Testament versus some other contemporary documents. For example, we’ve got Julius Caesar, you might have heard of him. He was a Roman general who wrote some rather long accounts, in Latin about his conquest of the gaulish nation. And these have been used as basic Latin texts.

24. 12:25

    If you’re taking Latin for a long time, The written up in the history books. However, as for manuscripts we only actually have 10 different manuscripts, ancient manuscripts, and not like modern copies of these events and the new like the oldest one. As in the closest When It Was Written, is it Thousand Years afterwards?

25. 12:48

    We’re not saying that it was written a thousand years afterwards. We’re saying that it was copied and recopied and we copied and the newest copy. We have is a thousand years after it was originally written. So It’s been lots of time for errors to creep it and yet we we trust that Caesar conquered the Gauls.

26. 13:05

    We have a bunch of other authors here. The last one you’ll notice is the New Testament and the thing is for the New Testament, it’s almost embarrassing. Just how much evidence we have that. The New Testament was written and just how much material we have to go through it. And figure out whether or not, this is a textual Lee accurate document to what was originally written. You’ll notice that the Of manuscripts. We have is two orders of magnitude higher than the closest contemporary manuscript closest contemporary document, which is Homer’s The Iliad You also notice that the time span we have is a lot closer.

27. 13:42

    We have a fragment from the Gospel of John, that’s identical to what we currently have. That was just covered in Egypt that data to 8125, or give or take one or two years. And that’s not much more than 25 years after it was originally written. Now, if you want a complete set, you have to go to about. Yeah, the third Century ad again that totally beats Homer’s. The Iliad in how close we have a copy to when it was originally written, these documents have been well preserved. And there’s a quote that I like to read you, that was from the conclusion of an article.

28. 14:22

    I read on a text to authenticity of the New Testament. And it’s like this simply put. If we reject the authenticity, Of the New Testament on textual grounds. We’d have to reject every ancient worked event equity and declare, null and void. Every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second Millennium 80. In other words, if we throw out the New Testament because we can’t trust the text, we have to throw out a whole lot of other stuff because the New Testament is on much better grounds than most of our knowledge of the ancient world. These are not documents that you can discount simply because they’re old.

29. 14:59

    Second, we have a lot of old documents. We have a lot of new documents that people don’t believe because they’re not believable. We have fairy tales of say Rapunzel, nobody, no scholar that I know of reputably believes that Rapunzel was an actual person with eight foot hair that had a prince climb up. There’s a question of are these were liable documents And for that matter, you have to analyze the document. There have been some excellent books written on this. The one I’d like to point out to you, is this one by Frank Morrison called who moved the stone? The introduction of that book is definitely worth reading because he starts off talking about how he intended to write a book to discover, who the real Jesus was after sifting through all the evidence and finding out where there was just the made up stuff and where the real Jesus shown Through any. So we are going to read through the Book of Mark. Look through the last seven days of Jesus life and find out what was true and what wasn’t true and he intended to prove that Jesus did not actually rise from the dead. He ended up becoming a Christian and his book who moved the stone is not a proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but a proof that he did rise from the dead. Now, Frank Morrison was a lawyer who did this and he didn’t know about it at the time he was writing who Moved Stone but going through and examining the evidence of each of the different Witnesses and cross examining them. And looking at it from a legal

30. 16:32

    perspective was not new. In fact, Simon Greenlee a professor from a little-known university in the It’s called Harvard. I had done it a little bit earlier, back in the 1700s. It’s called the testimony of the evangelists and it did the same thing. It went through each of the different gospels and use the principles of law to go through and figure out were these testimonies accurate? Did it have a case now?

31. 17:01

    I’m not a lawyer. Yeah. So if you want to truly get a legal perspective on these things, So you’re going to have to read those books but they’re worth looking at and I found them very convincing. As well. There’s a whole lot of things in the record itself that are convinced. I’m only going to pull out some of them because I don’t have all night tonight. But this is one that I found particularly interesting in the Gospel of John, John records.

32. 17:31

    But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus side with a spear bringing, a sudden flow of blood and water. And why was this recorded? Its recorded because it’s weird that if you pierce someone outcomes, both blood and water. This is not a normal event, but that’s the sort of thing that makes it seem that if it actually truly happened, it would mean that this witness was telling the truth. So once upon a time, back in about the 1700s again, there was a physiologist at the University of Dublin who decided to run some tests on animals.

33. 18:13

    So key and he was also a physiologist. So we’ve seen a lot with humans. So what he did was, he pierced, lots of left signs with large knives comparable in size with the Romans fear, and he found that there were five distinct cases that could happen. First of all, sometimes he got a flow with nothing if he got nothing at all except some slight trickling up blood. So then lie, sometimes he got a whole lot of blood and then nothing else.

34. 18:41

    Sometimes though he got a flow of water and then a few drops of blood. Now based on these conclusions, he could tell based on what happened, how the thing died. This is going to use some medical terminology for example, of these three cases. The first is that what usually occurs as in on a normal death? You get just a small trickle of blood. Second is found in cases of death by drowning and by strict Nia may be demonstrated by destroying an animal with that poison and it can be proved to be the natural case of a crucified person.

35. 19:17

    The third is found in cases of death from pleurisy pericarditis and rupture of the heart. I’m not a doctor. He’s a doctor, you can have to depend on him or look up these terms to find out exactly what they mean.

36. 19:30

    His point though is that these, he came up with two following cases that aren’t normal. These two cup following cases were a copious flow of water. Succeeded by a, copious flow of blood or a copious flow of blood succeeded by copious flow of water. He determined that these would only occur in a crucified person who had previously separate from pleuritic effusion, or from a crucified person who had died upon the cross from rupture of the heart.

37. 20:00

    In other words, this is a very rare condition. That’s not going to happen. Except if you’re crucified and your heart first and that’s what John saw. Which is really interesting. It’s a strong case. That what he saw was something that actually happened. That this is an eyewitness who saw a very novel circumstance that he wrote down to. The next verse is him going, I actually do believe this and this is what I saw and he wrote it down and now we can look at it and go, this is the only case where it would happen. He saw something amazing and it happened and we can look at it and say, this is an eyewitness.

38. 20:41

    Approach that’s cool. It doesn’t prove it but it’s a very strong Mark of internal consistency. That these are eyewitnesses who are watching what was happening and telling us, there’s another very strong point though and that is the empty too. The quotes up on the screen are kind of long, but they basically explain what the Tomb of Jesus was like. It had a large Stone in front of it and it was sealed by the Romans and it had a garden front of it. This is all a time when the body was assumed to be there. But then we read in the record that the body was not found in this tomb.

39. 21:22

    In fact, the body was not found anywhere. This is an amazing thing. Usually bodies don’t disappear in a criminal investigation. In fact, a large portion of time is spent looking for the body because if you can’t find a body, it’s hard to establish whether or not the person actually died. And bodies don’t usually just disappear. But that seems to have been the case here, because even the very enemies who did not believe that Jesus was resurrected claimed that the body wasn’t there.

40. 21:55

    You’ll notice in that quote, when the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers. Those are the ones who are guarding the tomb, a large sum of my many telling them, you already say his disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.

41. 22:12

    What that means is that the very people who did not believe in the resurrection, could not explain where the body had gone, they had to lie and say that the disciples had stolen the body. In other words, there was nobody that they could find that is very strong evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead because if he was resurrected, then there would be no dead body to find. But if he was not resurrected, then you would expect to find a body somewhere.

42. 22:40

    You would not expect an empty too. And you’ll notice that throughout the record afterwards, there is no production of the body of Jesus. There was no attempt to say that Jesus actually was dead. When they’re persecuting the disciples afterwards, they put them in jail. They get mad at them, but they don’t say, here’s the body of Jesus.

43. 23:03

    See, he’s dead, he’s dead. They can’t do that because they don’t have a body of Jesus to produce. They had to say that. The disciples had stolen him because they couldn’t find this body. That’s powerful. Finally, the reason I’m saying this today is because I am a Christian. I am Christian in a religion that is based on Jesus Christ.

44. 23:32

    And Christianity is currently a religion of 1.5 to 2 point 1 billion people nowadays, that means it had to come from somewhere. In fact, it was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire 380 ad, And it emerged just about the time that Jesus was said to have died and been resurrected. Large religions, don’t come from nowhere and that’s a large Point as well.

45. 24:00

    Any explanation for this death and resurrection of Jesus? Any explanation for why we have different Witnesses writing around the time period saying that this man was resurrected has to also be able to explain where Christianity came from. If Jesus was not actually resurrected, how did a religion get started about? Where did it come from?

46. 24:26

    And another important point Remember that body that body, that, no one could find Christians are not lacking in veneration of holy artifacts. If you go throughout Europe, you will find lots of pieces of the True Cross or pieces of nails from the cross or Allah, or worship of statues. If you go to the Holy Land, you’ll find out that this is where Jesus walked, and this is where his tomb was etcetera, but there is nowhere, where it’s this was where Jesus is buried.

47. 25:01

    There is no. This is where his body was. There’s a tomb that they’ll say, this is where he’s buried, but it’s an empty tomb in Jerusalem. If Jesus actually died and left a body, you’d expect for all this big religion, based around him to venerate it, and it’s not there. There’s no body of Jesus. That’s venerated by Christians.

48. 25:23

    It’s unanimously. Taught that he rose from the dead and there is nobody, that’s strong. That means that we have this large religion here. That believes that someone rose from the dead and has no evidence against it themselves. Okay, that’s not so strange. But we have to explain where Christianity came from. So, as a general conclusion to the first part of my lecture tonight, Christianity, definitely exists, nowadays, documents from the time period when it was formed say that it started with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

49. 25:58

    Christianity cannot exist without the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And in that Christianity, as a religion is useless without it, the documents we have our original and internally consistent. And for all these things, I say that it is reasonable to assume that if a man actually was resurrected, it is reasonable to assume that documents of the time period would say he was resurrected, it is reasonable to assume that those people who are affected by a miracle like that would go around and preach.

50. 26:29

    It is reasonable to assume that a man who claimed something as Miraculous as his own death and Resurrection, could convince people to go and spread a religion in his name that seems reasonable to assume if he actually was resurrected.

51. 26:46

    But that doesn’t mean other people haven’t come up with ideas about how this could have worked. We’re going to cover four of them tonight. They’re called the Swoon Theory. The Conspiracy Theory, the hallucination Theory and the myth Theory needs basically run from least plausible to most plausible. So let’s start off with the Swoon Theory.

52. 27:10

    That’s basic idea of the Swoon theory. Is that Jesus? Really died on the cross. He was knocked unconscious by in some way, came back to a state of consciousness inside the tomb and that’s why everyone thought he was resurrected. He didn’t actually die in the first place. There’s a lot of problems with this Theory. The first one is that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion, was designed to kill people, our documents from the time period.

53. 27:43

    Say he was verified to be dead. Romans usually knew what they were doing when they were planted when they were executing people. So it doesn’t seem likely that they would have made a mistake in this circumstance but say they did. We also happen to know that this tomb that Jesus was in was guarded and sealed and had a big Stone in front of it. So this man who is has been beaten and crucified somehow survived that comes to unconsciousness in a tomb with a large Stone.

54. 28:14

    Front of it. Surrounded by soldiers, this is a problem as well. But say for instance he manages is in his weakened state to roll the stone out of the way break through the soldiers or who are around and make it to his disciples. We then have the problem that if Jesus actually didn’t die, his disciples are liars.

55. 28:37

    And in that case, he’s a liar as well. And we’re not dealing with this one Theory at all. What we’re dealing with is a conspiracy where’s disciples made up the fact that he was resurrected for their own benefits because if Jesus wasn’t actually resurrected and managed to survive this thing and came to them, bloody and beaten, and bruised, and dehydrated, and half dead.

56. 29:00

    They wouldn’t believe he was resurrected. So we’re dealing with the wrong Theory here anyway, it’s not the Swoon Theory and you still have to deal with the fact that if he didn’t actually get resurrected, you must have died at some point and where is that body. But we have the next period which is the conspiracy theory that the disciples made it all up. There was some sort of Passover plot where they decided to trick everyone and say that Jesus actually was resurrected. When he’d honestly died, maybe they stole the body. We don’t know what it was.

57. 29:32

    Applied by the disciples. This one has some problems as well. First of all, why what is the motive of these disciples to trick everyone with their Passover? Plot, if Jesus actually was a liar and has risen from the dead? Why would they still believe in him? What is there to be gained from helping a dead man for glorifying? The name of someone who is dead and has Dude, everyone that he can’t save because he couldn’t save himself. We have the problem of motivation that what did they have to gain from supporting someone? They knew was a dead horse.

58. 30:17

    Also, we have the problem that we have documents written by these disciples and then these documents, they say, they didn’t believe, they didn’t believe that he was going to rise from the dead. They thought that he was dead. That’s normal. My she would expect if they come up with this conspiracy to say that he wasn’t Dead when he was dead. Why wouldn’t they have made themselves look a little bit better rather than looking like faithless idiots who didn’t believe their own master?

59. 30:46

    If this is a conspiracy, they could have done a lot to making themselves look better. As part of this conspiracy. Thirdly, usually plots like this come out over the time when they were persecuted when they were going throughout the Roman Empire trying to make these converts. Why didn’t anyone defect, why didn’t anyone get out there and reveal the plot? Then finally when you have authorities who are trying their very best to defeat this movement, why didn’t they managed to Figure this out, find out where the disables had hidden the body and uncover it this is not easy to understand. The conspiracy theory in my opinion requires more faith than to believe that he was resurrected from the dead, because it requires men to do things that give them no benefit pull it off, absolutely perfectly and prevent authorities from finding it out as well. You need perfect actions by people for no reason. That seems unlikely.

60. 31:50

    The next thing we have is the hallucination Theory. Not that these disciples. Deliberately tricked everyone, but let’s avoid the whole motive problem and say they were tricked themselves. They believed Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and they did all these actions because they thought he was resurrected and they just seen a bunch of hallucinations. It’s been known to happen.

61. 32:12

    When people go through emotional, trying circumstances deal with death, but this again has some problems. First of all that body, where’s the body? If Jesus was not actually Resurrected, We still don’t still have the problem of, where did the body go? And if the disciples were deceived, they couldn’t have stolen the body. So where is the body?

62. 32:35

    Why do we have this empty tomb? It doesn’t answer that question. Secondly, the idea that it could have been a Hallucination is not new. We read in Luke 24 that they thought it was a hallucination by their own testimony. When Jesus appeared to them, they thought they were hallucinating. He had to prove to them.

63. 32:53

    That he wasn’t a hallucination. So if it was a hallucination, this was a mighty good hallucination because it managed to prove to people who were convinced, it was a hallucination that it wasn’t in the way they say. He proved it to them was by eating to the, in front of them, talking to him. And if I touching his wounds, we have a mighty, fine hallucination.

64. 33:17

    If people are able to hallucinate all of that, As well. We’ve got a hallucination that not only manages to prove itself, not to be hallucination, but also manages to hang around for exactly 40 days. So repeated hallucination. And then stop appearing after those 40 days after they have this magnificent hallucination of it going up into heaven. As far as the hallucination Theory goes, we require miraculous hallucination for this to happen and our burden of proof already was that, we want something that seems less miraculous, not more, miraculous to believe in the hallucination Theory, you need to believe in a greater Miracle than Jesus rising from the dead.

65. 34:03

    Now, the final Theory going to look at is the myth Theory. The myth theory is the one you’ll find most often in. Scholarly works the idea of that. These documents were written as a myth and we can compare them with other myths. Such as myths about officer arrests or about certain Roman, Catholic saints and say, those are obviously lousy Tails invented by people to pump up.

66. 34:31

    Someone they thought was important and the gospels, the whole new testament in fact is just the same way, it’s a myth that people came up with that was produced over time and it didn’t really happen. Problem with that is, as far as misko, the New Testament is a pretty lousy myth. First of all, it was written within 40 Years of the events happening. It’s hard to create myths, quite that fast. The reason for that is, let’s take an example of someone who just recently died, say Ronald Reagan, there are people still alive who knew Ronald Reagan, if I wrote a biography of Ronald Reagan in which I said that every morning he would he would strap Wings on his back and fly up in the sky in the area. And then come back down, I might sell a few copies of my biography but anyone who knew Ronald Reagan would know that he didn’t actually do that and they would say that Biography was a pack of Lies.

67. 35:34

    It probably wouldn’t get preserved because people would consider it a pack of lies, and we wouldn’t have 24,000 manuscripts of it to look at. That’s the problem we have with considering in a myth, it’s too soon. Mitch develop over time after people can’t really say, whether something was true or not, not during the time, when we still have eye witnesses as well. You have the problem of myths, don’t develop out of nothing. You need to have some solid fact. And who was this?

68. 36:02

    Real non mythical? Jesus then Who the myth was based around because of Jesus. We have claimed that he was risen from the dead and the disciples. We have writing afterwards, say that he rose from the dead. And if there was actually a real Jesus who didn’t really rise from the dead, and he got made up afterwards.

69. 36:22

    We have to figure out who he actually was and so far. He seems like a liar and a cheat. Because he said things that didn’t actually happen.

70. 36:33

    Ah, ah, ah, So the same argument can be applied to the New Testament as a whole in second Peter 1 in 16. It’s claimed, I’ll read that for you. We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ. But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

71. 36:52

    Obviously people at the time had come up with these same theories and we’re throwing them at them. And in the New Testament, we find offenses that these were not cleverly invented, stories sounds a lot like a myth to me that did come up with to try and make up this wonderful savior. If they say something like that, it leaves to conclusions either they’re telling the truth or they’re lying. If they’re lying, we’re back to the conspiracy theory and if they’re telling the truth, then Jesus was resurrected. so, now that we’ve gone through No, and here’s something else, that’s interesting.

72. 37:36

    The gospels, don’t read like myths. They read like eyewitness accounts. We have up there. A comparison for you between the gospel of Peter and the Gospel of John, the gospel of Peter. It’s largely viewed to be a myth. We don’t have many manuscripts of that because it was widely reputed in its own time to be a forgery.

73. 37:58

    But really, it’s kind of interesting. So, let’s see what it says. It says that. Okay, this is talking about when Jesus was resurrected again, they see three men. Come forth from the tomb and two of them supporting one and across following them, and of the, to the Head reached under the heaven, but the head of him who was led by them over past the heavens, and they heard a voice from the heavens saying that was preached to them.

74. 38:23

    That sleep in a response was heard from the cross. Yay. So in this manner, It, we have people with hugely over-exaggerated Dimensions since their heads, our way up there and we have this gigantic talking cross in the Gospel of John, we have, this is the same path as you saw earlier. With another verse attached, we have a description of something, he clearly considers miraculous and annexed, but which we can find out not to be miraculous instead of description of the various This epic event.

75. 39:00

    And we have someone going claiming eyewitness testimony the man who saw it has given testimony. In his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth and he testifies so that you may also believe the gospels don’t read like Miss and I invite you to read submits and compare the gospels to them and see if they’re the same sort of thing, because they aren’t verify me on it.

76. 39:24

    If you want. They don’t read, like, men their wit. They are written, like eyewitness accounts. So, let’s take a look at what conclusions we can make from this. I believe I have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a reasonable explanation of the facts. If a man, honestly, was resurrected from the day, we have a good explanation for why we have the existence of Christianity. As a religion, we have a good explanation for why we have all these accounts.

77. 39:54

    All these documents claiming that he rose from the dead, it makes sense. If a man actually was, were actually did get resurrected from the dead. I also claimed that these other explanations that we’ve looked at at are not reasonable explanations that they require you to believe in a greater Miracle than that. Jesus actually was resurrected from the dead and So based on these two conclusions, I derive a third conclusion and that conclusion, is that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then we have to believe what else you said. And the other thing that he said is that he’s going to come back. When he comes back, we need to be ready for it and acts 17 and verse 31.

78. 40:45

    It says, for God has set a day when he will judge the world with Justice. By the man, he is appointed. He has given proof The best almond by raising him from the dead. It’s not my subject night, but if Jesus was resurrected from the dead, it doesn’t just mean that a man was resurrected from the dead and that’s amazing.

79. 41:04

    It means that the other things he said were true as well because him being resurrected from the dead was the proof that was given for him for the other things that he said and he said that he is going to come back and judge the world and we need to be ready for that. And so tonight, I hope I’ve demonstrated to you that we can believe beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

80. 41:30

    I hope I’ve also demonstrated to you that this is not just head knowledge but that it’s vitally important because of Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. Then it requires action on our part because we need to be ready when the next thing happens that he miraculously approximate Thank you for listening to the good christadelphians talks podcast.

81. 42:04

    We hope this talk helped you in your walk. If you would like to hear more, please subscribe for new episodes and leave a review and apple podcast or whatever service you are using to help more people find the show when they search for it. If you enjoyed this particular talk, please share it with someone who you think might enjoy it as well for show notes on the talk.

82. 42:22

    You just listen to visit our show page at anchor dot, f m size, G, CT, or check the show notes section of your podcast player. Please share your thoughts in the talk from this week on our Facebook or Instagram Pages where we are at good christadelphians, talks on Twitter where we are at GCT underscore podcast or leave a comment on our YouTube channel where these talks are posted as well. If, you know of a great talk, we want to know about it, to send a suggestion to our e-mail at good Christian talks at gmail.com or message us on any of our social media accounts. Thank you for listening.

83. 42:57

    God, bless and talk to you next week.