Historical Jesus vs. the Mythological Claims of Faith

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]I So, we've got Isaac waiting to get in.

[00:00:03]Isaac's calling in from uh from Alabama and wants to talk about God's existence.

[00:00:08]Well, uh welcome in, Isaac. Uh you're on AXP with Scott and Justin. How are you doing?

[00:00:13]I'm doing all right. How How about you?

[00:00:16]I'm doing all right. Thanks for asking.

[00:00:18]Hey, Isaac.

[00:00:20]Hey.

[00:00:21]Uh I will be real. It's my first time doing anything like this. So, uh forgive me if I get a little nervous, but uh So, it's my first time ever watching you guys.

[00:00:31]You know what? It's okay to be nervous.

[00:00:33]Like Scott, you've been doing this for a while. I've been doing this for a while.

[00:00:36]And even before the beginning of every episode, I take a series of deep breaths and just kind of let the air in, let the old air out, calm your nerves, and and let her rip. We're As long as you're kind to us, we'll always be kind to you. So, how about we start with some simple back and forth. Uh what type of a god do you believe in?

[00:00:55]And what do you think would be good evidence for that god?

[00:01:00]Well, I'm a Christian. I'm kind of non-denominational. I believe in a one god, a triune god.

[00:01:06]Um and I believe that he exists based off the not just the gospels, but the history of it.

[00:01:14]Okay. So, you think that Jesus exists or God exists because of the historical references.

[00:01:24]Sorry, you cut out for a moment.

[00:01:26]Do you think that the historicity of the Bible proves that Jesus existed or that God existed?

[00:01:36]I think it's easier to prove that Jesus existed.

[00:01:42]If we're going off of eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that God does exist.

[00:01:49]Sure. Well, let me Let me start with a couple questions. Um one question I would have is I think I agree with you that Jesus was a real person and probably a lot of the people in the New Testament, probably most of the people in the New Testament are probably real people.

[00:02:03]But the reason why I don't think that this proves God in any way is because uh I've read a lot of other texts. And a lot of these other texts, like the Babylonian Chronicles and other ancient Near Eastern writings, uh we've got lots of like real historical events that are described, real historical people that are described, but I don't believe in their mythological claims. Like the For example, the Cyrus Cylinder, when King Cyrus came in and defeated what was left of the Babylonians um after the Medes, depending on which historical source you're reading, after the Medes got a hold of them, he actually uh credits Marduk with the victory.

[00:02:41]But like obviously I don't believe in Marduk even though I believe in King Cyrus, right? So I would apply the same to the Bible. I agree that Jesus was probably real. I agree that the Bible records some historical events, but I don't have a good reason to believe in the mythological claims given that ancient texts make a lot of claims that are mixing historicity with their mythology.

[00:03:02]And that's totally understandable, but I think that well, it's the reason I'm a Christian, I think that Christ and specifically Christianity is is different from them. And at first you may say, well, you know, it's just another religion and you can put them all in the same box of, you know, mythology, but I don't think there's ever been quite the same set standards of proof put upon Christianity as the other religions. I think it's I think it's pretty easy to say Marduk he didn't have any hand in that victory that day.

[00:03:32]How do we know?

[00:03:33]>> I think it's Well, what do the Okay, so I'm not familiar with that entirely, but was it the king that said that? Was it his transcribers?

[00:03:43]Or was it like eyewitnesses?

[00:03:46]So typically the kings, not all the kings, so there were some kings that could write. And the Neo-Assyrian kings, some of the late ones, were really uh bragadocious about their ability to read and write. Um whether or not Cyrus could read or write, I don't know, but the ones that couldn't read or write had scribes that would uh take their dictation.

[00:04:03]So, um that's why like the Cyrus Cylinder, even if he's not writing it, it's still written in the first person.

[00:04:12]Yeah. Um well, that is just one person though that said that or those that also transcribed it for him, I suppose.

[00:04:21]Uh I mean, I heard somewhere that for Christ, there was about 400 eyewitnesses.

[00:04:27]Can you name any of them?

[00:04:29]>> And I know I Oh, we lost I think we lost the audio.

[00:04:34]Some of them >> count them as eyewitnesses writing down what they saw.

[00:04:40]Can you say that again? Your audio cut out for a second.

[00:04:44]Yours did, too. I'm so sorry. It's probably my phone.

[00:04:47]Uh I think that when it comes to Christ, the number of eyewitnesses, I believe there was about 400 of them. Uh but quote me if I'm wrong. Uh don't quote me if I'm wrong, actually, but Oh, I told you I'm nervous.

[00:05:02]It's okay. Take your time.

[00:05:03]>> amount of eyewitnesses The amount of eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection, I think, is the determining factor versus a king just making a claim on his own.

[00:05:14]Sure. Now, the eyewitnesses, I would say, are I don't know. In terms of eyewitnesses, very few. And I'll explain what I mean.

[00:05:23]So, the In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul mentions that Christ appeared to the disciples, and then he appeared to 500.

[00:05:29]He didn't name any of the 500. We have no idea who they are, and not one of them left us any writings to know who they are or what they saw.

[00:05:36]So, uh that to me is just a nonsensical claim. If I said, um hey, listen, I actually last week I rose from the dead, and Scott saw it, and so did 500 others.

[00:05:47]Well, the fact that I didn't tell you who the 500 others kind of makes that claim a little bit useless cuz you can't go and see who they are. You can't collect the evidence.

[00:05:55]It's just an un- unverifiable claim, right?

[00:05:58]That's understandable, but was he supposed to write down which camps were families? Was he supposed to name every individual? I mean, Roman historians did the same thing and that's treated as history as well though, right?

[00:06:12]Right, but what I'm saying is we don't know that the 500 people existed and not a single one of them wrote anything or left anything for us. So, to me saying that there were that many witnesses is kind of useless. Like, for example, in Tacitus and Suetonius, we read about a healing miracle that Vespasian did. So, he healed because the god Serapis gave a vision to two different gentlemen, one that was blind and one who had a lame leg. And Serapis came to them in a dream and says, "Hey, listen, if you go and beseech the help of Vespasian, he'll lay his hands on you and you'll get you'll get healed." And Vespasian's like, "What? That doesn't make any sense." And then his his advisors are like, "Hey, try it." And so it says that he tried it in front of a large multitude of witnesses and both of them were healed by the power of Serapis. Like, would you agree that then a multitude of people witnessed Serapis using Vespasian to heal people?

[00:07:15]Uh well, you know, I wouldn't, but for me what makes it a little bit different, and you know, it's a little different from Paul's claim of 500, but the other people, like the other apostles, the other 12, right? Them each individually writing their own eyewitness accounts is what I think makes it unique, not just him saying there are 500 people there, but other people also saying the same things, witnessing the same miracles, and writing it down, you know.

[00:07:41]Each in their own way.

[00:07:43]>> So, we've got two supposed accounts of Vespasian. Now, when it comes to the eyewitnesses of Jesus, I don't know who we're talking about. Like, so Mark wasn't an eyewitness. He's the cousin of Barnabas.

[00:07:57]Um if Mark even wrote Mark, according to you know, history, we don't have a good reason to believe that. But, if he did, it's just the cousin of Barnabas who uh was writing, you know, three decades or more after Jesus died. And then, Matthew and Luke, uh whoever wrote those gospels copied from Mark, which is weird. I mean, Luke admits he wasn't a disciple.

[00:08:18]I mean, we know he wasn't a disciple.

[00:08:20]Matthew was listed as one of the disciples, but there's not any good evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew. And like, even the earliest manuscript, P1, is our earliest manuscript. It doesn't have Matthew's name on it, even though it does contain the section of Matthew where the name would have been included.

[00:08:37]So, and it's also weird that uh Matthew copies his own conversion story from Mark and doesn't change it. Like, the only thing he changes is the name. He changes the name from Levi to Matthew.

[00:08:48]And he tells his entire conversion story in the third person without changing anything. Like, even the same word order. It's a very strange behavior if you're writing a gospel and you want to tell about your own conversion story, you're not going to like just copy it from somebody else who hasn't met you, by the way. They don't They don't know who you are.

[00:09:06]Um and then, I mean, obviously, John to me is probably preposterous. The Gospel of John, um the authors admit that there's multiple authors. Uh John never claims to write any of that. And uh the the title Yohanan, um or according to John, akata Yohanan in in Greek, uh just means according to John. We don't know which John. In fact, in chapter 1, John the Baptist is giving the testimony. In chapter 21, um maybe John the disciple is giving the testimony. It says the disciple who Jesus loved. And it's being recorded by multiple scribes who identify themselves as a we. They say we know that his testimony is true. So, John was obviously not written by John either.

[00:09:51]It's just a a group of people that are going around theoretically collecting testimony, but happening in the '90s.

[00:09:58]Like in the like the four decades after Christ died, somehow these people are collecting uh accounts and witnesses. It seems like what's more likely happening is they're collecting fragments that people said were from these people, and then they're they're just assuming that they're legit.

[00:10:17]So, I but but that when it comes to the eyewitnesses, those are the only ones I know about.

[00:10:24]Well, I'm not sure about the historians who saw him like Josephus and such. I'm fairly new to apologetics. Uh I do think though that there has to be some sort of reason. I know this sounds like a cop-out. But to you, why do you think people think that those manuscripts are credible?

[00:10:46]Because they they haven't studied the history, right? So, the man even if they wrote, let's say Matthew wrote something originally, uh there we don't really have a good reason to believe that what we have is what Matthew wrote. Same thing with Mark. Uh we know for a fact that they were being edited and copied and whatnot after what we would consider the originals. I'll give an example of what I'm talking about. So, uh there's a late ending of Mark. I don't have my my Bible with me. I'm I guess I'll use the internet, but the late ending of Mark adds this really interesting snippet. It was added hundreds of years after Mark was already finished. It doesn't show up until late. And it basically says that Jesus first appeared after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, and then to the others, which is weird, cuz that statement contradicts the beginning of Mark 16 where it says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb with the women not [clears throat] by herself.

[00:11:38]And you might be asking, well, why the heck would somebody add that to the ending of Mark? Like, oh, because it was added after John came out. See, when the Gospel of John came out, which is after Mark, Gospel of John depicts Mary Magdalene going to the tomb alone and seeing Jesus alone before anyone else does. And so, they're like, oh, shoot, we need to add a snippet at the end of Mark to make sure Mark and John actually agree with each other. But, what they didn't realize is in trying to make them agree with each other, they created a huge problem, which is at the beginning of Mark, it says that she came uh with the other women and it says that as they were going to the tomb, they were they were going one to spice the body. That's what you you dressed and spiced the body to keep it from smelling as it decayed.

[00:12:22]And they were arguing about, hey, who's going to roll away the stone? Well, listen, if Mary Magdalene had already gone to the tomb because it says in John, but that once she got there, the stone was already rolled away and then she saw Jesus.

[00:12:34]If she had already done all that, it wouldn't make sense that she'd be going back to the tomb with a a gaggle of girls to spice the body knowing it's not there and asking who's going to roll away the stone knowing that the stone's already been rolled away.

[00:12:48]And this is a really good piece of evidence that, hey, people have been tampering with these manuscripts for a long time and there's actually a lot of examples of this.

[00:12:58]Okay.

[00:12:59]Well, you see, I've never actually heard that. I Well, I've heard people mention it before, but not exactly in that depth. So, you're obviously very well read. Uh the guy at the filter guy who had me before I went on told me that and it's true.

[00:13:13]Um I heard that you had read through the Bible, have it like totally memorized.

[00:13:17]So, I think what I need to do is go and read the apologetics, the counter apologetics which you had just mentioned.

[00:13:26]Cuz I truly don't have any idea how to respond to that.

[00:13:30]If I could jump in here real quick. I I I have a I have a question for you, Isaac. Um by the way, I I have on my notes here, "Stay out of Justin's way."

[00:13:39]So I'm So I'm going to I'm going to try to do that as much as I can, but I did have a question for you here. And that is um I'm going to ask you the question first, and then I have a little explainer I'd like to give it. And the question is, "What good does 500 eyewitnesses get you?" And so I I want you to think of that in in the context of this this idea that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. And and that's at least the way I read it is that if if you want to make a claim of something extraordinary, you can't rely on the mountains of everyday mundane common evidence that we have. If you're asking, "Do you believe that, you know, Julius Caesar existed?"

[00:14:18]Yeah, we have some evidence that he existed, and some of that evidence might apply to other people as well. But the claim is that this a person exists, and we have lots of evidence that people exist. We have lots of evidence that some of those people attained the rank of Caesar, etc., etc., etc. So if you're making a claim that Jesus existed, that's one thing. And and, you know, Justin was saying that, you know, he kind of thinks that Jesus probably existed, and I'm kind of in that same boat, too. I I'm I'm I'm fine accepting that there was a that there was a a rabbi during that time named Jesus who was who was preaching this message and so on. Uh the question though is related to whether or not this Jesus person was was a god. And so I would ask you, we have these stories and these eyewitness reports, and eyewitness reports, we know are a little can be sketchy in some circumstances, but we use eyewitness reports to uh to justify common beliefs.

[00:15:15]If my wife says, "Yeah, I just got back from McDonald's," you know, I'm going to believe her, you know, because we we do that kind of thing all the time and and so it's a common event and requires common basic evidence. But if you're saying that something outstanding is happening, I think the bar goes a little bit higher because now we have to we have to weigh what's more likely that the stories are true or that these people got the story wrong.

[00:15:40]Okay, they there's lots of ways they could get the story wrong. They could be mistaken, they could be lying, they could be misquoted, they could be, you know, passing on something that they misheard from someone else. There's lots of reasons that somebody could get a story like this wrong. And yes, I agree, it's way less likely for 500 people. And again, I'm stipulating the 500 witnesses here, but it's even less likely for 500 people to get that story wrong.

[00:16:07]But we know that that probability is not zero.

[00:16:10]We know that it's still possible that 500 people could get the story wrong. So the question that I would ask you and piggybacking on on the on on the challenges that that Justin gave is why do you think the the the fact that the story is true is more likely an explanation for the stories than they were just wrong?

[00:16:31]Because that's that's that bar that somebody is God is understandably much higher than saying somebody exists.

[00:16:40]What what do you have to say about that?

[00:16:43]>> Well, I think that well, the prophecies were fulfilled.

[00:16:47]David's Messianic prophecies in Psalms and Isaiah and the like. But when it comes to the eyewitness accounts being credible or not, I know even today eyewitness accounts can be thrown out in court for being, you know, they're not admissible in court, but when we're talking about history that ancient, I think all we have to rely on are the A, the artifacts they left and B, the eyewitness accounts and what those people wrote, right? So I mean, things like the Shroud of Turin, I mean, even NASA took a look at that and they still can't give a proper explanation. I mean, I believe, and don't quote me on this, but the light the amount of light that would be needed to make an imprint on that level would be so immense that it would have to come from some sort of nuclear reaction.

[00:17:36]Uh but then in the 70s >> reaction would destroy the cloth.

[00:17:42]I think they said the amount of light generated.

[00:17:45]I don't know about destroying the cloth itself, but But like it would it would probably get annihilated from like um like alpha radiation or gamma radiation or whatever types of radiation is going they're going to be appealing to like um it has a tendency to like destroy and decay um you know uh other other molecules, other atoms.

[00:18:08]But even if we accepted that even even if we even if we stipulated, boy, a lot of light was needed to to you know, make these markings on this on this cloth.

[00:18:18]So what? Does that get you closer to a god? In or God can't do that unless God exists. So that's really something tying things saying that God caused something is really something that should be addressed further on down the line cuz if there is no God then that's just an unexplained phenomenon.

[00:18:39]Right? And so if unless you already are assuming that God exists, God can't do that to a cloth if God doesn't exist.

[00:18:47]Would you agree with that?

[00:18:50]Well, yeah, you'd have to assume God exists, but I think if you're coming from it from a scientific perspective, there's still no answer. So I don't want to make a god of >> no answer get you to an answer of God though? That's that's a big difference between saying between admitting that you don't have an answer, which happens scientists do that all the time.

[00:19:08]They say, you know, we don't we just don't know. We we we see this thing. We we see we we have this evidence that there must have been a nuclear explosion or nuclear reaction or something or that amount of light, whatever it is.

[00:19:20]But then making the jump to a god must have done it.

[00:19:24]That that I think is specious and I I I think that's unsupported as well.

[00:19:31]Well, I'm I'd I'd like to Man, you know, that's a good point. That really is a good point. I really need to brush up on my apologetics and then you you showed me.

[00:19:41]But uh I think that if there is a lack of explanation from any human means, then it has to be outside of science and our understanding. Because why would that be >> outside of our current understanding of what we can do.

[00:19:58]Of what we can do now, of what we can measure now. That's the way What we know that we can do now.

[00:20:04]There's a difference. Do you see the difference?

[00:20:07]Yeah. So So we might be able to do things that we don't know we can do.

[00:20:14]And so then going back to what I was saying earlier, if that's an if that's a possible explanation, if that's how you're qualifying possible explanations by just saying, you know, it it fits the fits the description, okay, that fits the description. So again, you have the same thing. How do you know your description, your reasoning, how do you know your conclusion is more likely than some other more mundane conclusions?

[00:20:40]And a nuclear reaction is is is an is a is a rare phenomenon, but it's still we know it's we have evidence that that kind of thing happens.

[00:20:51]Mhm.

[00:20:52]Uh not like not like in a tomb, though, I don't think. At least our current understanding uh I don't want to make a god of the gaps sort of argument cuz I know that's been had a million holes poked through it.

[00:21:06]But how are you going to mention or not mention, but measure something that's just unmeasurable? I mean, we don't know how it got there, and I that's you're totally reasonable to say, "Well, how can you attribute that to God?" You're totally reasonable in saying that. But, I think I'm totally reasonable in saying >> Um so, we've had two different scientists, one of them um Italian and one of not that have actually recreated the shroud um using methods that would have been available in the time period where it was carbon dated to, namely the the 1200s and the 1300s.

[00:21:45]So, we do know that it is possible to make it.

[00:21:49]Yeah, yeah, there are at least two different scientists that we know of who have actually published um who have been able to replicate the shroud. Uh the one, let me grab you the name of the one uh that I'm I'm specifically thinking of. I've got his name written down here. Uh let's see. Ba ba I'm looking at a Google I'm looking at Google right now. The name is JB Rinaldi, neutron and proton emissions.

[00:22:16]That No, I'm not I'm looking for the guy who actually recreated the the shroud. Uh give me 1 second. So, the guy that we're looking for is going to be Uh I I got the article right here.

[00:22:32]Um his name is He's [snorts] a professor, if I remember correctly.

[00:22:36]Uh and it's a it's a super diffi- difficult name. Uh it's Luigi Garlaschelli, and don't ask me to pronounce or to spell Garlaschelli. Uh Luigi Garlaschelli uh was on a uh a mission to recreate the shroud using um archaic methods, and he did a pretty good job of it, and I I think we've got a lot of problems with the shroud. One, it that it doesn't make sense From a like a 3D mapping standpoint, like if you've seen if you lay a cloth around something that's round, and then you flatten it out like the shroud, well, the face becomes like elongated. Like you should see the ears like out here rather than out here because it was wrapping around the head. And then we don't see that on the shroud. The other problem is the Gospel of John states that he was wrapped in multiple linens including a head covering.

[00:23:32]Meaning he had a head covering and then he was wrapped as well in multiple linens.

[00:23:37]It wasn't actually customary to just lay a dude on a sheet and then drape the other part over top of him. That wasn't typically how it was done. So, the the Shroud of Turin would contradict the biblical account as well. And then when it was discovered, it the Pope at the time and the bishop who was involved in investigating the discovery found the guy who brought it forward and the guy who brought it forward said that it wasn't real.

[00:24:04]And so, I guess I don't really I don't know why we're still like trying to figure out like if the shroud is archaic since it was a confessed forgery at a time where church relics were, you know, abundantly being forged.

[00:24:20]Well, I suppose it I mean I suppose it's continued to be prevalent because of NASA's analysis of it.

[00:24:29]What did NASA say? Where can I find their article? Yeah, I'm curious to read that.

[00:24:34]Let me let me look cuz this may be hearsay.

[00:24:41]Did NASA look at the Shroud of Turin?

[00:24:51]Because I'm aware that there was there was some imaging done in the '70s, but that's not recent and that same I don't know um that same time period the it went through a battery of different tests including carbon dating from like six different laboratories and they they dated it to the to the 13th century.

[00:25:17]Well, the problem is there was repairs done to the Shroud of Turin cuz there was a fire.

[00:25:22]>> disproven.

[00:25:24]That that's been that's widely disproven. That's a claim that even the people who did the carbon testing has refuted.

[00:25:34]Okay, well, I'm not aware of that. I'll have to go look at that after this, but this is just the AI overview. Yes, scientists affiliated with NASA and other US institutions examined the Shroud of Turin in 1978 as part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, the STURP.

[00:25:51]See if we can find >> Right, so not NASA.

[00:25:55]So, yeah, it would appear they're just scientists that were affiliated.

[00:26:00]Right, so it's a weird >> some of the scientists were were NASA affiliated, right? That's kind of a weird way to phrase it, right? It's kind of like they're trying to borrow um NASA's branding capital, you know?

[00:26:14]Kind of a >> I mean, what would they be saying they did? kind of thing, right?

[00:26:19]I mean if you say you're a Marine, but you retired once a Marine, always a Marine, right?

[00:26:27]Could you still call yourself a Marine if you're a retired >> That's different than saying that the Marine Corps studied it. Right.

[00:26:34]Yeah, good point.

[00:26:36]Also, we don't we don't know if this person was a scientist. Like the person that's associated with NASA, we don't know if they were a scientist with NASA or a janitor. We don't know anything about the person.

[00:26:48]That's very true. By the way, you guys are really great at this. I would this is really eye-opening for me. I really need to read up more.

[00:26:57]Well, listen, we we've been doing this for quite some time, right? So, it's not your fault. You already said you're new to apologetics. We'll just let you know that we've heard like every talking point in the book and we already we we already have opinions on it that are pretty easy to substantiate.

[00:27:17]Um, but let me ask you a question.

[00:27:19]Um, I don't want to a pile too much on you. You're being like super good faith.

[00:27:24]But, I think, you know, one of the things you said earlier that I think for me was one of the reasons why I left Christianity was this idea that Jesus like fulfilled all these Messianic prophecies. I used to believe that. But, then I studied the Hebrew Bible and it he didn't fulfill anything. And like I get that there are some people that would be like, "Well, yeah, but look at he fulfilled these Psalms." But, like Psalms aren't actually prophecies. Like a prophecy is like a real form of speech where God says like, "Hey, something's going to happen."

[00:27:54]And then it happens. And somebody writing in the Psalms just cuz we find a Psalm where like one verse sounds vaguely familiar that something happened later, it doesn't automatically make it prophetic. That's not how prophecy works. So, like I don't Maybe you can help me out. I don't know a single Messianic prophecy that Jesus ever fulfilled.

[00:28:15]I know he had unrolled a scroll from I believe Isaiah 40 or 42.

[00:28:21]Almost. It was Isaiah 61 in Luke chapter 4.

[00:28:27]Oh, man, I was close.

[00:28:29]But, what really caught my eye there was he didn't read the full prophecy and as far as my understanding goes, the second half of that prophecy is understood to be his second coming.

[00:28:38]What would be fulfilled?

[00:28:39]>> There we go. Perfect. All right, we we touched on a very good point. Yeah, in Luke chapter 4, he's in the synagogue and they hand him the Isaiah scroll and he reads "The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind."

[00:28:55]Although, recovery of sight to the blind is not actually in the Hebrew Bible, that's that's an addition.

[00:29:00]Uh to set free those who are oppressed and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down.

[00:29:07]Uh and then it says, um "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Okay. Now, the problem, and you already know what the problem is cuz you kind of mentioned it, is that if you go to where this originates, it originates from Isaiah 61, like it doesn't actually look like it's about Jesus because you've got just this vague block of text, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me," so on and so forth.

[00:29:29]And then the rest of it, he stops right before it says, uh "to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor," he stops, and then it goes on, "and the day of vengeance of our God."

[00:29:40]That's one sentence.

[00:29:42]The year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, "to comfort all who mourn, to provide the for those who mourn in Zion." And then you already know this if you keep reading like verse four, it's clearly talking about the restoration of the Israelite people after captivity. It says, "They will build up the ancient ruins, they shall raise up the former devastations, they shall repair the ruined cities," so on and so forth. So like, if if the prophecy, if we're reading the prophecy, and it's clearly about the restoration of Israel, and Jesus didn't restore the tribes of Israel or the land or the cities, it just seems to me like he didn't fulfill this. And if you're saying, "Well, he he partially fulfilled it." I mean, to be fair, that's kind of a meaningless point. Like I've partially fulfilled this as long as I get to fulfill the mundane parts that anybody could do and just say, "The spirit of Lord God is upon me because he anointed me."

[00:30:34]Okay. I mean, anyone could have done that. John the Baptist, Simon bar Kokhba, like there's nobody not not a single prophet within Judaism couldn't claim something of that nature.

[00:30:44]That's To me, saying that he partially fulfilled it and then the part that he partially fulfilled is mundane and anyone could have done it. To me, it just tells me that this guy didn't fulfill any prophecies.

[00:30:57]Well, I believe there were also prior prophecies that said he would be strung up. I think Is that in Daniel or is that in another uh book of the prophets? But I think what it's talking about around verse four, rebuilding the old ruins, they shall raise up former desolations, and such, and they shall repair the ruined cities. I think >> Isaac Isaac, could I jump in here real quick? Before you move on to a new prophecy, what do you What's your response on uh what Justin had to say about that prophecy? Do you still think that was a fulfilled prophecy or are you setting that aside and then going to the next one?

[00:31:32]Because it seems like it might be a deflection and I I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[00:31:38]Apologies. I think what this here is about in Isaiah 61 is when it's referring to the second half of the prophecy, stopping mid-sentence. I think it's talking about tribulation and uh not just tribulation, but the millennial kingdom and Israel being raised up, you know, heavenly Jerusalem and the such.

[00:31:57]So, Why?

[00:31:58]>> That's my impression.

[00:32:01]But why would we believe that?

[00:32:07]I know there's concepts of heavenly and earthly Jerusalem referenced earlier book.

[00:32:12]I can't quote you where.

[00:32:13]>> Yeah, but But so if a if a prophecy, let's say the prophecy has five stipulations.

[00:32:20]And the first stipulation is really easy. It's just, "Hey, the spirit of Lord God is upon me and I'm going to do some really cool stuff. I'm going to help a lot of people."

[00:32:28]Um and then the rest of it I just didn't do.

[00:32:31]Like don't you find it weird that you'd be like, "Oh, yeah, that the other stuff, the more difficult stuff in that prophecy, he'll do that when he comes back. To me, that sounds like a cop-out.

[00:32:40]Listen, if you've got a five-point prophecy and Jesus only fulfills one point in the prophecy, it sounds to me like he's just not the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[00:32:51]Well, what about the other prophecies he did fulfill though?

[00:32:54]Like what? I Again, I don't know of a single one.

[00:33:00]Let me do some Googling. Hold on.

[00:33:02]Go ahead. Old Testament >> go ahead. prophecies You're going to You're going to pull up a list of 351 prophecies and it's going to start in Genesis 3:15 and I'm I promise I know every one of them.

[00:33:15]All right. I I hope your Justin, I hope your evening is free tonight cuz we're going to if we're going to go through the entire list tonight.

[00:33:22]Oh, no. Don't drag him through all that.

[00:33:25]>> My first live stream ever that I was was on TikTok a years ago. It's not recorded.

[00:33:31]Uh I went through that list. I had like a two-hour window. I was like, I don't know how many can I get through in a period of two hours and I got through like over a hundred of them. It was pretty fun. All right.

[00:33:42]That's impressive. I mean, I that's that's definitely a feat to have all those answers memorized, but I guess for me and this is one I'm semi familiar with is the lineage, you know, the stump of Jesse.

[00:33:56]Oh, This is one of my favorite topics.

[00:33:59]So, Isaiah 11? Okay.

[00:34:02]Uh yeah, Isaiah 11.

[00:34:05]Sure. Yeah, so for those who don't know, Isaiah 11 says a shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of its roots. The spirit of the Lord will rest upon him, uh the spirit of wisdom and understanding so on and so forth. So, um why would we think that this is Jesus?

[00:34:25]Uh because the lineage can be tracked down in the New Testament where Mary had come from. That's my Perfect. That's what I think.

[00:34:33]Got you. Okay, so we're going to turn then to Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3. Now, um like you, when I was in church, I had people say that actually uh Joseph wasn't the daddy.

[00:34:46]Um so we can't trace him back to David, but uh Mary's lineage is given, and so we can use Mary's lineage. Uh Mary's lineage is typically attributed to Luke chapter 3.

[00:34:57]And unfortunately, when you go to Luke chapter 3, we don't hear anything about Mary's lineage. In fact, if you go to verse 23, which is where we see the the culmination of the lineage, it says, "Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his work. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, uh son of Mathat, son of Levi." So the lineage in Luke is actually for Joseph.

[00:35:23]Okay.

[00:35:24]Yeah, I've never heard that.

[00:35:27]Yeah, and and there's another problem actually because um inside of this uh lineage, it traces through Nathan, right? So uh traditionally, the lineage was supposed to go through King David and then through Solomon. So if you go to 2 Samuel 7 verse 12 or so, what you'll find is that God made a promise, and it shows up as well in the Book of Kings, if I remember correctly.

[00:35:57]I can uh I can grab that in a second if it becomes uh you know, if it becomes relevant. Uh actually, Psalm 89 is the other place we probably want to look at, Psalm 89. So in uh 2 Samuel 7:12-14, uh it says, "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, so it's got to be a physical offspring, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Now, I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me, and so on and so forth.

[00:36:33]And this This is culminating after God gets done saying this, Solomon takes the throne.

[00:36:39]This is obviously talking about the kingdom that is passed down through Solomon.

[00:36:43]So, going through Nathan in the chapter three of Luke seems like kind of silly.

[00:36:49]And we get kind of the more of the same in Psalm 89. It repeats the promise.

[00:36:54]It says, "You have said I made a covenant with my chosen one. I have sworn to my servant David, I will establish your descendants forever and build your throne for all generations."

[00:37:05]And then he says something similar in 33 and 34. He says, "I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once and for all, I have sworn by my holiness, I will not lie to David. His line shall continue forever, and his throne shall be before me like the sun." But David's line and to the king to the throne didn't continue forever, and Jesus isn't part of David's line.

[00:37:33]I mean, does it have to be Well, does David's family have to still reign as kings and queens and princesses and princes though for that to be fulfilled?

[00:37:44]Well, that's what it says, right? It says that the promise is going to go through Solomon, and that he is going to establish the throne forever. And in fact, we see this repeated in Jeremiah 33. Uh Jeremiah is a really interesting passage when it comes to Jesus's lineage and kingship.

[00:38:02]Cuz in Jeremiah 33 and 22, we've got two very interesting admissions. In 33, when it talks about the Messianic age, it says, "Uh thus saith the Lord, David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.

[00:38:24]So, unfortunately, this is predicting that the Davidic line is never going to have a break in it at all. And when you There's a repeat in a couple other parts of Jeremiah, like Jeremiah 22:30, um there's a a gentleman who gets cursed, Jeconiah, shortened to Coniah in some passages.

[00:38:45]Uh he's kind of a wicked king, God doesn't like him. And it says, "Thus saith the Lord, record this man as childless, who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah." So, even at the time of Jeremiah, they're expecting that the rulers of Judah, the rulers who sit on the throne, are like the physical seed, the physical offspring of the kings. And it just so happens that in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus, his lineage gets traced through Jeconiah, which means in both lineages, neither one of them go back to David, and they both go through an improper line. One goes through Nathan, and one goes through Jeconiah, and none of Jeconiah's descendants are allowed to sit on the throne.

[00:39:34]Okay.

[00:39:35]Uh could this pertain to any sort of spiritual kings? I mean, that's my first thought.

[00:39:42]Cuz I know Christ would be the spiritual king.

[00:39:45]Cuz they were expecting The Jews were expecting for their Messiah to be a physical king.

[00:39:51]Cuz that's what the Hebrew Bible says.

[00:39:53]If you go to Ezekiel 36 and 37, and go to the other passage, like even Isaiah 11 that you quoted earlier, uh which is paralleled in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4, talks about like an actual king that defeats the enemies of Israel. Even Zechariah 9:9 and 10 talk about the same thing. So, uh the minute we go to these passages and we're like, "Hmm, well, they didn't really seem to come true. Let's just spiritualize them." Well, it seems like now the words don't really have any meaning. Like once I get to a text, I'm say listen, I actually don't like what these say at face value. I'm going to spiritualize them. Is there anything that we can not make them say? I can make them say they're about me as long as I get to ignore the context, the history, and the plain, you know, the plain uh reading of the text.

[00:40:40]Well, for me one of the biggest ones was, you know, he was pierced for our transgressions. Didn't it say that somewhere in Isaiah? Uh okay, let me look. Isaiah 53.

[00:40:49]You know where it said that. And then the resurrection, cuz I'm looking at a list of my own here. Psalm 16:10, was not abandoned to the grave.

[00:40:59]Well, we can talk about any one of those that you want.

[00:41:02]Um uh I'm I'm familiar with all of them. I think Isaiah 53, if you're reading the Bible in context, um is admittedly about the righteous remnant of Israel. And the reason why I believe this is one, cuz I've I've read all the prophets. So, I know what the prophets say about the servant.

[00:41:22]And also within this section of Isaiah, um I'm trying to dump too much information on you, but the section of Isaiah that we're dealing with is chapter 40 to 55, which is generally considered Deutero or Second Isaiah. And it's considered a second author from Isaiah, somebody that came from his school. Because the verbiage is different, the time period of writing is different, and the text itself tells you that it comes 200 years later.

[00:41:48]Um which we can we can cover later.

[00:41:50]Anyways, in this section, the theme is that the Israelites are done paying for their crimes. They're They got sent to the Babylonian captivity, and their time of service is up, and God's about to liberate them, and then he's going to exalt them. And then all the nations are going to see that Yahweh has been glorified through the exaltation of his servant, the nation of Israel, which he tells you in the same section, Isaiah 41:8-9, he says, "But you Israel, my servant Jacob, in whom I've chosen, the offspring of Abraham my friend, you who I took from the ends of the earth and called you from its furthest corners, saying that you are my servant, I've chosen you and not cast you off." So, right at the beginning of the section, chapter 41, God's like, "Hey, Israel, you're my servant. I didn't forget you.

[00:42:37]I haven't cast you off." And then 43:10, he says, "You are my witnesses." So, in the plural, "You are my witnesses," says the Lord, "and my servant whom I have chosen." He says something similar in 45:4.

[00:42:55]My favorite reference is 48:20 cuz it gives you the overarching theme of Second Isaiah, which is, "Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea." Chaldea is the people group that lived in Babylon.

[00:43:09]"Declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, and send it forth to the ends of the earth and say that the Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob." Right?

[00:43:18]So, what when I get to chapter 52 and chapter 53, and I see this servant song, I'm saying, "Ah, the author of this text has already told me on nine different occasions that the uh the people of Israel, the remnant, the righteous remnant of Israel specifically, is in fact the servant that he's dealing with."

[00:43:40]Well, I don't really have a good reason to think that it's somehow not Israel when I get to chapter 53. I'm not going to I'm not going to read all of them in context and say, "Actually, the servant's Israel on all these occasions, but actually now that I'm looking at it, I'm going to make this servant somebody that comes, you know, 600 years later."

[00:43:57]To me, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[00:44:01]That's understandable from how you've said it. Uh I mean, I have no way to disprove you.

[00:44:08]From my current understanding and I just have to ask you now, will this be Can this I go back to this when it's not live to rewatch it? Cuz honestly, I'm not really trying to win here or anything like that. I'm really just trying to increase my understanding. Um so you've got a million and a half great points. So hats off to you.

[00:44:27]Um and I might even call back in a month or two's time just to when I've already refreshed over all this stuff, gotten a better understanding.

[00:44:38]Yeah, for sure. And listen, again, this isn't we're not in a competition with each other. We're just here to have some dialogue and I would say I remember when I was a young Christian, I used to engage in apologetics and right before it was the summer before I started Bible College, I had a friend of mine who was in a Bible study with me and she actually just finished Bible College.

[00:45:00]She was a couple years older than me.

[00:45:02]And we were dialoguing about what we think we could present to people who don't believe that might entice them to become believers. I said, well, I think the Messianic prophecies are pretty good cuz it seems like there's quite a few of them and the odds would be pretty slim to fulfill so many of them. And she's like Justin, like all these ones that you're talking about, like if you go back to the Hebrew Bible and read them, it doesn't actually look like he fulfilled them. At least not not in any meaningful way. I was like, well, that's really interesting. I didn't expect that from someone who just graduated from Bible College. And so I went back that summer before I started Bible College and I read all of them. I read all of the Old Testament prophets and all of them as they related to Jesus in the New Testament and I came to the same conclusion. Oh, yeah, he didn't actually fulfill these in any meaningful way.

[00:45:48]Um it seems like they're all like either spiritually fulfilled or partially fulfilled or you have to like went real hard and ignore the context.

[00:45:58]Um and so that to me that was like at the beginning phase of my deconstruction, but I was so confident in this talking point because I hadn't actually fully read them yet. So, um, my only suggestion is, "Hey, spend some time uh this summer. Summer's coming up, my friend, and read through all of the prophets and how they get used in the New Testament, and ask yourself, like, would I accept this if it was in the Quran? Would I accept this if I found it in the Vedas? Or do I only accept it cuz I already believe in the religion?"

[00:46:34]And I would like to add on if if I can, um, to what Justin was saying about this idea about reflecting on your own thought process as you're as you're thinking about these. I think I think we've we've seen in our discussion here, uh, at least from from my perspective that these arguments from from miracles >> I don't know. My phone disconnected for half a second. Can you all hear me?

[00:46:59]Sorry, sorry. I'll Um, I was just saying that it that it seems to me, from my perspective, that these these arguments from Can you hear me now?

[00:47:10]All right. Well, maybe maybe when you go back to watch the recording, you'll you'll you'll catch everything that I'm saying here, but these these arguments from, um, from prophecy fail on two counts. One, as Justin has just given in extensive abundant detail, they fail on content, at least the ones that we've that we've talked about here. And the second thing that I was kind of hinting at is that the arguments also fail on form, too.

[00:47:34]They're also not good logically, either.

[00:47:37]And so, the the premises are failing and the the logical structure is also failing because it doesn't even if the prophet even if there was a prophecy, a very specific and very unlikely prophecy, and things happened exactly the way that the prophecy says, that does not grant you the tie to a god. It just means that something weird happened. And so again, the question that I asked you before is why would that make a god more likely than just coincidence or that the story was made up after the fact by people who had read the prophecy earlier on? I mean, the the people who wrote the new you know, the New Testament, many of them knew the stories from from the Old Testament. And so a lot of that came into play. And one last thing that that I want to ask you here is to you you've been a great caller, by the way. I I I really enjoy how you've you've engaged with what we've been saying. And and it's been clear that you've been thinking about what we've been saying, which is surprisingly uncommon. Right? The the fact that we're that we're saying things and you're actually considering it and giving us considered thoughtful feedback, I think that's awesome. I think we need more of that in the world today, whether you're a theist or an atheist, I think thinking about what the other people say is something that's lost. And so I want to encourage you to reflect on the way you felt while we were having this conversation. Just to give you a very very short example, there was a time, you know, maybe 5 8 years ago or something like that, when something bad happened to somebody that I admired. Or you know, somebody that I admired did something that was questionable. And so as soon as I heard about that, I was like, "Okay, I'm going to watch it myself. How do I react to the stories about this thing happening?" And when I when I started reading the stories about this bad thing happening being done by somebody that I respected, I could I could feel myself wanting to turn away. And I could I could really I could I could see this happening to me.

[00:49:42]I could see the desire to to turn the page and and to and to move on to dismiss it as being, you know, stories or or biased reporting or whatever it is. And I think that kind of self-reflection can can really give you insight into your own thinking process.

[00:49:57]I mean, we all have biases. We all One thing that all human beings have in common is that they we all have a human brain. And human brains work in very similar ways. And and so I think it's it's important that we learn how we that we self-reflect. That we that we know that we try to understand why we're responding the way we are. And I'm not saying that that you should be assuming that you had knee-jerk reactions and were avoiding and that kind of thing. But just think about that that kind of thing. And I think those two those two things go in hand, being thoughtful about what other people say, but also being thoughtful about what you yourself say. And and that can help help you and whether or not it leads you to deeper into your theism or whether it leads you to atheism remains to be seen. But but I'm I'm impressed by by your engagement with what with what we've been saying and I want to encourage you. I'm a teacher. This is what I do. I want to encourage you to think about your process as you move forward. Does that make any sense to you, Isaac?

[00:51:02]Oh, for sure. And I thank you guys for your patience. It's become very evident to me that I am in a lower class of debate than I sure thought I was, you know, cuz there's the people that they aren't exactly familiar with any of this stuff who are like your average person on the street who's like in that Christian culture, you know, they don't exactly go to church, they don't really read it that much. But then you have somebody like me who has, you know, a base level understanding of some of these texts, has read them a couple times, that can give them an answer. But then there's that next level like you guys who can give a counter to that. So, for me, I'm just going to go rewatch what we've looked at right now and I'm going to brush up on all this stuff. I'm going to look at what the apologists before us have said to all this stuff cuz I I've never heard any of this. Usually the quality of debate out there on this kind of thing is so sadly low. It's some Muhammad Hijab level sadness out there. Uh and it especially Christians as well. It's just mudslinging. It's just mudslinging.

[00:52:08]Uh Yeah.

[00:52:09]>> Matt Dillahunty, he's a great guy. I was listening to him last night.

[00:52:13]>> [clears throat] >> Uh I mean he had mentioned and I and I don't know how I am for time, but uh he had mentioned the story of and I'm not going to try to make a debate out of it.

[00:52:22]But uh the story of Elisha sending the two she-bears after the children or the youths.

[00:52:29]And he had said that had started his deconversion.

[00:52:32]Yeah, yeah. He said that had started his deconversion train and he was going to seminary and all that. But my understanding just by reading the Hebrew cuz there's people like him that are so well-read and I may just be overlooking something that he seen that I have not.

[00:52:46]Like there's translation differences.

[00:52:48]Like that word youths in that context could mean young men. I mean I believe that same word was used to refer to Joseph when he was 17.

[00:52:57]>> So So the I think the I'm pretty familiar with this um with the Hebrew in this text as well. So um you've got uh the youth um using the word uh na'arim. So na'ar is Hebrew for like a youth, like a young person, and it's pretty broad. And then you've got a modifier qatan, which means small. So it'd be na'arim qatanim, which would be the plural of little youths.

[00:53:27]Children, basically.

[00:53:29]Um and so that's why, you know, scholars overwhelmingly will translate it as children rather than youth cuz they're not just youths, they're a little youths. And then they're they're probably between like eight and 12. Uh it it's it's a little bit difficult to pinpoint the age.

[00:53:46]Um but we don't have a good reason to believe that they were like a band of like uh roaming 19-year-old uh gangbangers looking to to mess up Elisha. And the other thing is what what were they doing? Well, they're making fun of them because he was bald, something that kids do. Teenagers don't engage in that kind of stuff. They're usually like, "Oh, yeah, I mean in another 10 or 15 years, I'll be bald, too, right?" So, um to me it just looks like they were kids.

[00:54:13]>> up people my age.

[00:54:16]Mhm.

[00:54:17]I've seen some pretty childish people that are like 19 before, but that's I mean I get what you're saying.

[00:54:24]And like so while I agree that the the word na'ar can get used kind of broadly, na'ar qaton doesn't really. And there's like one passage that people turn to in the historical books where as Solomon refers to himself as a na'ar qaton, but he also is using it in a very whimsical idiomatic fashion where when he first gets called, he's going to take over for his dad, he's very emotional, and he's like, uh you know, "Cer- certainly not I. I I don't even know how to come or go. I'm I'm but a small child, right?"

[00:54:59]Well, obviously he knows how to come out of the house and come into the house.

[00:55:02]That's This is a hyperbolic statement where he's abasing himself before Yahweh, basically saying, "Hey, I'm not worthy. I've got the intelligence of a child. I I don't even know how to come in of the house and go out of the house, right?" And that's the only other reference uh to this formulation of words.

[00:55:19]Um and it it's clear in the way that Solomon is using the words, he's comparing himself to a child.

[00:55:27]So, I think it's important Well, the apologetics are good. I used to when I was a young Christian, I read the same apologetics.

[00:55:34]Um and then I read the counter to the apologetics. I was like, "Oh, actually, yeah, the counter to the apologetics makes more sense."

[00:55:42]Well, for me, there's another level above, you know, there's a counter to the counter, and that's just I'm not aware of the counter to the counter that you guys have brought up. And it may just be so that they are not as good as the atheist counter to these scripts. But, for me, I still do believe in Christ, though there is a major lack of understanding on these verses that I have, and that's very apparent.

[00:56:10]Um I will say this, cuz I got to go. I got take some medication. I have a I have hemophilia.

[00:56:16]Uh so, I bleed and whatnot, but I wanted to ask you guys, would you be willing to have me on in a month or two if I were to call back here?

[00:56:24]Oh, anytime. Yeah, yeah, you're always welcome to call back, especially such a good faith caller. These are the type of calls we we want to have with people. We don't, you know, we're not specifically looking for people who are going to crash out and lose their mind. We love these good faith calls.

[00:56:37]Definitely.

[00:56:39]All right.

[00:56:40]Well, uh you were a mathematician, right? Or the Sorry, Scott Dickey, you're the mathematician, and Justin, you were the guy that went to seminary, right? Just getting myself acquainted.

[00:56:52]True. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I went to um I did a My background actually is in electrical engineering. I went to school for robotics and engineering, and then I went to Bible college and seminary, and it was lucky for me because I could work as an engineer once I kind of, you know, decided that Christianity wasn't going to pan out.

[00:57:11]>> [laughter] >> All right. Well, God bless you guys. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your show, and I hope to talk again soon.

[00:57:22]All right. Cheers, friend. Good to hear from you. Thanks, Isaac.