David Wood versus Shabir Ally

Most Christian apologists agree that Shabir Ally is the best Islamic debater currently alive. A few months ago David Wood and Shabir Ally debated six times in 9 days. If anyone is interested the following are links to those debates.

Monday Sept. 28 2015
Debate 1. "Is Jesus the Son of God?"
Debate 2. "Is Jesus a Prophet of Islam?"
https://youtu.be/idHxegbSunQ?t=2m12s

Tuesday Sept. 29 2015
Debate 3. "Does Paul Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
Debate 4. "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
https://youtu.be/XvBB8b4VF6M

Monday, Oct. 5, 2015
Debate 5. "Is the Qur'an a Book of Peace?"
https://youtu.be/NiKtuBH5ggM

Or Here https://youtu.be/Foiu6jsI3SY         Or  Here    https://youtu.be/UVh_GlM2tro


Tuesday Oct. 6, 2015
Debate 6. "Is the Bible a Book of Peace?"
https://youtu.be/DYK-CuWV_Ug

---

More of their continuing debates....

Tuesday, April 26, 2016
"What Is the Quran's View of the Christian Scriptures?"
https://youtu.be/WKqe8fKhfXg

Saturday, March 3, 2018
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
https://youtu.be/WYL5TZ9jJqg

Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief can be read at the following links:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3

or

http://home.sogang.ac.kr/sites/sgphilobk21/%EC%9E%90%EB%A3%8C%EC%8B%A4/Lists/b8/Attachments/3/warranted_christian_belief_alvin_plantinga.pdf

A Response to Jerry Walls on Christian Compatibilism by Steven Cowan and Greg Welty

[UPDATE: ALL the links have been gathered HERE: http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/04/wont-get-foiled-again-a-rejoinder-to-jerry-walls/ ]

1. Jerry L. Walls, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist,” Philosophia Christi Vol. 13 No. 1 (Summer 2011): 75-104. [link]
2.  Steve Cowan and Greg Welty, “Pharaoh’s Magicians Redivivus: A Response to Jerry Walls on Christian Compatibilism,” Philosophia Christi Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 2015): 151-173. [link]
3. Steve Cowan and Greg Welty, “Addendum: More Rebuttals of Walls from Pharaoh’s Magicians’ ‘Bag of Tricks’!” (Evangelical Philosophical Society website, September 16, 2015), 1-12. [link]
4. Jerry L. Walls, “Pharaoh’s Magicians Foiled Again: Reply to Cowan and Welty,” Philosophia Christi Vol. 17, No. 2 (Winter 2015): 411-426. [link]
5. Greg Welty and Steven Cowan, “Won’t Get Foiled Again: A Rejoinder to Jerry Walls,” Philosophia Christi Vol. 17, No. 2 (Winter 2015): 427-442. [link]

What’s Wrong With Jerry Walls’ Argument Against Calvinism by Dan Johnson
http://www.proginosko.com/2016/10/whats-wrong-with-jerry-walls-argument-against-calvinism/





Greg Welty describes their response article on his website:

A Response to Jerry Walls on Christian Compatibilism


Link to the actual article by Steven B. Cowan and Greg. A. Welty:

Pharaoh’s Magicians Redivivus: A Response to Jerry Walls on Christian Compatibilism


The addendum to their article:

Addendum: More Rebuttals of Walls from Pharaoh’s Magicians’ "Bag of Tricks"!

---

---

---

See also my other blogposts:

Massive Debate between Calvinism and Arminianism

Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology by Paul Manata

 

Distinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective

 

Calvinistic Responses to Molinism

 

The History and Theology of Calvinism" by Dr. Curt Daniel (Downloadable MP3 Messages)

 

Sovereign Ruler of the Skies (poem by John Ryland)

 

Calvin and Servetus

short url link: http://alturl.com/doxo6

Calvinistic Responses to Molinism

(originally posted 11/1/2015)

There are many Calvinistic Responses to Molinism both on the internet and in book form. The following are just a sample.



James Anderson's blogposts dealing with Molinism
(This is a link to Anderson's blogposts with the Tag/Label "Molinism")

How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 1) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 2) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 3) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 4) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 5) by James Anderson
How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 6) by James Anderson

Yes, Molina, There Could Have Been a Santa Claus by James Anderson

 A Brief Philosophical & Dialectical Inquiry on Mere Molinism: A Compatibilist Reply | VOLUME 1 by Colton Carlson
Freely Downloadable HERE or HERE

VOLUME 2 Freely Downloadable HERE or HERE

VOLUME 3 Freely Downloadable HERE

Colton Carlson VIDEO where he is interviewed regarding his 300 PAGE response to Stratton's book Mere Molinism: HERE

Colton Carlson VIDEO SERIES where he reviews Stratton's book Mere Molinism. Here's the link to PART ONE of the Series: HERE


Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique by Travis James Campbell [or HERE]


Greg Welty's Blogposts dealing with Molinism
(This is a link to Welty's blogposts with the Tag/Label "Molinism")


A critical review and fairly comprehensive refutation of“Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism”by Timothy A. Stratton by Guillaume Bignon [or HERE]


Does Molinism Avoid Making God the Author of Sin? | Welty on Molinism by James A. Gibson
[archived HERE]

Tyler Vela's Criticisms of Molinism
http://freedthinkerpodcast.blogspot.com/2018/07/molinism-collection.html

Turretin on Molinism by "Turretinfan"
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6033E4C50E7BEDE8

Triablogue blogposts with the Label/Tag of "Molinism"
(There are more Triablogue blogposts which deal with Molinism but unfortunately they don't have the "Molinism" label)


See also my blogpost: Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology by Paul Manata

Is Calvinism Excusing Sinners and Blaming God? A Conversation with Dr. Guillaume Bignon

(posted 2018-03-05)

 https://youtu.be/YdhKfk47RmA

Is Calvinism Excusing Sinners and Blaming God?
A Conversation with Dr. Guillaume Bignon

Bignon was also interviewed in Dale Tuggy's Trinities podcast in two parts:

Part One Episode 216:
http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-216-bignons-defense-of-calvinism-part-1/

Part Two Episode 217:
http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-217-bignons-defense-of-calvinism-part-2/

See also Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology by Paul Manata

A response to Kevin Timpe’s objections [in his book review] by Guillaume Bignon

Are We Really 99% Chimp? Atheistic Source Says "No"

See the bottom part of this blog for Christian resources. This first video is Non-Christian.

Are We Really 99% Chimp?
https://youtu.be/IbY122CSC5w

Are We 99% Chimps?
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/30394

Zombie science: Humans share 99% of DNA with chimpanzees?
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/zombie-science-humans-share-99-percent-of-dna-with-chimpanzees.html

---

Christian Materials on Human Origins from an Old Earth Creationist Perspective

Evidence from Molecular Anthropology for an Historical Adam and Eve [An Introduction]

- Fazale Rana, PhD
https://youtu.be/nEV5LB0ww3s

MANY MORE in-depth materials on human origins by Fazale Rana:
Resources at RTB Relating to Human Origins

short url: http://alturl.com/2546y

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis

Scanned Version

Digital Version

Questions

You can ask questions in this blogpost.

Undermining Richard Carrier's version of the Christ Myth Hypothesis

(last updated 2/12/16)

With minor editing, I posted the following in a YouTube video where Richard Carrier discussed reasons for why he thinks it's possible there was no historical Jesus. Additional material not included in the YouTube comments are in RED. [My comments might eventually be deleted because the YouTube channel is named  UNCG Atheists]

Minimally, Carrier's version of the Christ Myth hypothesis requires that there be no evidence for a historical/physical Jesus in the undisputed Pauline epistles. Here are some evidences/reasons from the core Pauline corpus to suggest Jesus' historicity which Carrier missed. Like Carrier, I'm excluding the contested Deutero-Pauline epistles in this survey. If I did include them in the survey, there would be EVEN MORE evidence for a historical Jesus [and the physicality of Christ's resurrection].

- Rom. 9:5 states that Jesus was physically from the Jewish (i.e. Israelite) race.
"To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."- Rom. 9:5. If this is a proper translation, then this verse is affirming Christ's dual nature and contrasting Jesus' human nature with His divine nature. See THIS LINK for the evidence of this being properly translated. Notice too that Paul refers to his fellow Jews as his kinsmen "according to the flesh" two verses earlier in verse 3. It is unlikely that Paul's use of the phrase "according to the flesh" has a different sense or meaning in verse 5 than in verse 3. Therefore, Paul is intimating that Jesus was a real historical human being.

- Rom. 1:3 Christ was made/born of the seed of David ACCORDING TO THE FLESH

- 1 Thess. 2:14-15 states that the Jews/Judeans killed Jesus like they did the other prophets. Possibly Carrier missed 1 Thess. 2:14-15 because he mixes it up with 1 Tim. 6:13. First Thessalonians is one of the (if not THE) earliest uncontested Pauline book unlike 1 Timothy which is contested/disputed by liberal scholars. Some claim this is an interpolation. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of any manuscripts that omit it or have major textual variants comparable to the interpolation in Josephus regarding Christ. Some have said, "the final sentence contains a virtually unmistakable reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred after Paul's death" and therefore must be an interpolation. But this is merely a manifestation of an anti-supernaturalistic bias. It reasons (even if only tacitly) that since the supernatural doesn't exist, the seeming prophetic statement must not be an authentic statement by Paul.

- Rom. 8:3 states that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful FLESH and for sin, and that God condemned sin IN THE FLESH. This likely refers to Jesus physical and bodily death. Therefore implying the physicality and historicity of Jesus.

- Gal. 1:19 mentions the apostle James as "the Lord's brother" in distinction from the "other apostles." Carrier did cite 1 Cor. 9:5 which mentions the brothers of the Lord, but his response doesn't address Gal. 1:19. Hence Paul likely believed in a historical/physical Jesus. And that's excluding the siblings mentioned in the Gospels and Acts (e.g. Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55, John 7:3, Acts 1:14).

- 1 Cor. 15:4 states Jesus was buried. The most plausible interpretation is that this refers to a literal physical burial. Hence, an indication that Jesus was a historical and physical person.

- In Galatians when Paul states his gospel was received as a revelation from Christ Paul is CONTRASTING that with how the other apostles received their gospel message (i.e. it was directly by the physical historical Jesus). Later Paul says he compared his gospel with theirs to make sure they were in harmony, and they were (Gal. 2:1-2; 2:7-10). Because of the contrast in the way the rest of the apostles received their Gospel when compared with Paul, the implication is that Jesus was a historical human being.

- Gal. 4:4 states Jesus was born/made UNDER THE LAW. Clearly intimating Jesus' physical and historical reality (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-20 which uses the same phrase). The whole point of saying Jesus was born/made of a woman is to indicate Jesus' historicity (cf. 1 Cor. 11:12). How else is one made/born of a woman than physically and historically? Notice, how Gal. 4:4 talks about "the fullness of time" which further corroborates historicity and physicality. Being under the law (of Moses) was understood to be something literal human Jews were under.

The repeated reference to the "cross" of Christ suggests a physical cross and hence a historical/physical Jesus. 1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12, 14; Phil. 2:8; 3:18.

 - When Paul rhetorically asks whether he was crucified for the Corinthians rather than Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13) he's talking about a physical crucifixion. Hence, Jesus' crucifixion was physical.

- When Paul says (1 Cor. 1:23) that a crucified Messiah is a stumbling block to the Jews its because a physically suffering, dying and apparently defeated Messiah is the exact opposite of what the Jews expected. Besides, most Jews believed in a human messiah. [I take this back. I'm not sure what percentage of Jews at that time believed in a human, or divine, or spiritual or a dual natured messiah during the 1st century. However, many did believe in a human messiah].

- 1 Cor. 15:20 states that Jesus' resurrection is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Falling asleep refers to physical death including the death of believers (verse 18). Therefore, Jesus' resurrection was a literal physical resurrection. Which presupposes a literal physical death as well. And a physical death presupposes a bodily historical Jesus who lived as a human being.

- 1 Cor. 2:8 shouldn't automatically be dismissed as heavenly/spiritual rulers rather than human rulers. Especially in light of 1 Thess. 2:14-15. It's possible it refers to both human and angelic rulers. If it does include human rulers, then that presupposes a physical and historical Jesus.

- If the resurrection of Christians is physical, and if Christ's return sets off the resurrection, then the return of Christ is physical. If Christ's return is physical, then his leaving would have been physical as well. That's especially true since the resurrection of the saints is supposed to be similar to Christ's resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:11, 23; Phil. 3:20-21).

- When Paul states (1 Cor. 5:7) that Christ was sacrificed as our Passover, that makes most sense if Jesus was physically slain like the Passover lambs.

- The communion elements of bread and wine as symbolic of Christ's body and blood (1 Cor. 11:27; 10:16) suggests physicality/historicity.

- Phil. 2:7-8 states that Jesus was "born/made in the likeness of men" and found "in human form" and died on a cross. A physical cross makes most sense in context.

- In Phil. 3:10-11 Paul states he wants to SHARE in Christ's sufferings, becoming like Christ in His death in order that he (Paul) might attain the resurrection from the dead. This makes most sense if Paul believed in Jesus' physicality/historicity since Paul's sufferings and persecutions were physical and earthly.

- The centrality and importance of the city of Jerusalem to the early Christians and the Christian community is best consistent with a historical/physical Jesus (cf. Rom. 15:19, 25-26, 31; 1 Cor. 16:3; Gal. 1:17-18; 2:1). Especially since Jesus' physical half-brother James was the main apostle in Jerusalem.

These are just SOME of the evidences and reasons.

2nd comment

In the video Carrier includes Hebrews as an early Christian text. But not as a Pauline epistle (as most scholars, whether conservative or liberal, reject Paul's authorship). 

I commend Carrier for including Hebrews. But he misses the important phrase in Heb. 5:7 which talks about "in THE DAYS OF HIS [i.e. Jesus'] FLESH." Meaning his earthly life before the resurrection and ascension to heaven (without implying Christ no longer has a physical body). There's a contrast being made between Christ's current mediatorial activity in heaven and his previous activity IN THE FLESH on earth.

As well as Heb. 2:14 which specifically states Jesus partook/shared in "flesh and blood" like believers. The whole point of this passage is that Jesus didn't take the nature of angels but of humans (see verses 16-17 just two verses later). Notice earlier that verse 9 states Jesus was, for a while, made lower than the angels. Suggesting a historical and physical incarnation.

As well as Heb. 10:19-20 which mentions Jesus' blood and identifies the curtain of the heavenly temple as Jesus' flesh. The idea being that the sacrifice of Jesus' physical body is the gateway or curtain by which we on earth can enter the spiritual temple and God's presence.

Heb. 2:3-4 states, "...It [i.e. the gospel] was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." This verses suggests that Jesus first preached the gospel on earth physically in the same way human ministers and apostles later did.

"For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."- Heb. 7:14. This verses suggests Jesus was a literal physical descendant of the tribe of Judah.

I don't know how Carrier could miss such passages.

3rd comment

Carrier also missed 2 Cor. 5:16 which states, "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer." This verse contrasts regarding Christ according to the flesh and no longer doing so. It suggests and seems to presuppose a historical and physical Jesus.

Here's a link to an article by a Mythcist which lists 20 arguable references to the Gospel Jesus in the New Testament epistles. Some of the passages should be included in this blog. I'll add them if I find the time. Nevertheless, it's interesting how the writer has to do a lot of work to explain away the natural senses of many of the verses. Sometimes such verses are the only way the New Testament author could refer to Jesus as being a historical human being. That's why many mythicist arguments are unfalsifiable, ad hoc, and implausible.

---

---

---

---

---

Update: 2021-04-14
I got into a discussion on the topic. Here's a copy of my comments. I repeated some of the stuff from above below:

Mythicism is so implausible because it has to resort to using SO MANY ad hoc arguments to explain away all of the evidence for a historical Jesus found in all the epistles of Paul, the other epistles and the Gospels. 

It has to argue for Jesus being historicized in the Gospels which were written later than Paul contrary to what one would expect given the fact that Christianity began with Jews and spread to the Gentiles. Given atheistic assumptions, one would think that the opposite would happen. That the idea of Jesus started out as a mere human among Jews then when it spread to the pagan Gentiles he was divinized via apotheosis. In fact, that's kind of what we actually see in the 2nd century Gnostics where Jesus' divinity is so emphasized that his humanity is denied. That's why near the close of the 1st century the author of the Johannine epistles had to reaffirm the humanity of Jesus against the proto-Gnostics [i.e. he identifies the spirit/teaching of the anti-Christ as denying Jesus has come in the flesh]. 

Mythicism doesn't explain well why the Ebionite Jews would think Jesus was only a mere human messiah. Or why the hostile testimony of the Jewish Talmud alludes to Jesus and maligns him, yet never doubts his historical existence.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with the more [not sole] universal and foundational 2nd Temple Jewish understanding and expectation that the Messiah would be human. This is why of the 30+ proposed Messianic candidates among Jews, all of them [or virtually so] have been historical figures. See the Wiki article

Mythicism doesn't fit well with the more [not sole] universal and foundational understanding that resurrection/anastasis usually means a literally bodily resurrection of a dead corpse which presupposes an actual historical existence. 

Mythcism doesn't fit will with Paul's identification of his own persecution and that of fellow Christians [often by his fellow non-Messianic Jews] as analogous to, and continuation of the persecution of the Messiah through his followers [often by the same Jewish groups]. See Phil. 3:10-11; Rom. 8:17; 2 Cor. 4:10-12; Rom. 15:3; [cf. 2 Cor. 13:4; Heb. 12:3-4; Heb. 13:13-14; Deutero-Pauline Col. 1:24] This persecution of believers was physical, psychological and earthly. In which case, Christ's must have been to since they are likened to one another.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with the idea that Jesus the Messiah was crucified on a cross. Which under normal circumstances presupposes a Roman and earthly execution. cf. 1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12, 14; Phil. 2:8; 3:18.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with the early Christian practice of communion [1 Cor. 11:23-26] where physical bread represents the physical body of Jesus, and physical wine represent the physical blood of Jesus. With Jesus as the NT counterpart to the OT Passover [1 Cor. 5:7] which was believed to be a historical event during the Exodus that used real physical animals originally, and since the tabernacle/Temple. Paul even alludes to Jesus' betrayal which lines up with the Gospels' portrayal of Judas.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with Paul's teaching that our death and resurrection is analogous to Christ's. Implying a historical Jesus. See Phil. 3:21; 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom. 8:11; Rom. 8:17; Rom. 14:7-9; 1 Th. 4:14-17; 1 Cor. 6:14; 1 Cor. 15:16-20. Often the contexts teaches or implies a bodily resurrection for believers. Which implies Jesus' death and resurrection were bodily too.

Mythicism doesn't give a clear and definite explanation of Jesus' brother[s] Gal. 1:19, 1 Cor. 9:5. It provides ad hoc and implausible explanations.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with Paul's understanding of "under the law" in Gal. 4:4 when compared with 1 Cor. 9:20 which suggests a usual literal historical living under the requirements of the Mosaic code.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with Gal. 4:4 that says Jesus was born/made/come (of/to) a woman. The phrase "in the fullness of time" in connection with birth suggests an entrance into the temporal and earthly.

It doesn't fit well with Gal. 3:13 which alludes to Deut. 21:23 [cf. Num. 25:4; Jos. 8:29; Jos 10:26-27; 2 Sa 18:10-15; 2 Sa 17:23; 2 Sam. 21:6-10]. These were historical executions by hanging of some sort.

It doesn't fit well with Rom. 15:8 which says Christ became a servant/minister to the circumcised/circumcision [i.e. the Jews]. A likely allusion to Jesus' literal earthly ministry to His fellow Jews which Paul implies is continued in his & others' ministry. Compare 2 Cor. 5:16 which might be an allusion to Jesus earthly life and how prior to believing in Him Christians saw Him in a ordinary insignificant light.

It doesn't fit well with Phil. 2:6-11 which contrasts Jesus preexistent state as being in the "form of God" with His incarnation "taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man" [NASB]. Similar to how Rom. 9:5 contrasts Jesus humans and divine nature.

It doesn't fit well with Paul's rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 1:13 whether he was crucified for them instead of Christ. Implying Christ's crucifixion was earthly not celestial. In 1 Cor. 1:23 he calls Christ's cross a stumbling block to Jews because it contradicted the popular belief of a conquering Messiah, not an apparently defeated one on a earthly Roman execution stake/cross.

It doesn't fit well with the centrality and importance of the city of Jerusalem to the early Christians and the Christian community is best consistent with a historical/physical Jesus (cf. Rom. 15:19, 25-26, 31; 1 Cor. 16:3; Gal. 1:17-18; 2:1). Especially if Jesus' physical half-brother James was the main apostle in Jerusalem as Acts claims.

It doesn't fit well with 1 Cor. 15:20 which describes Jesus' resurrection as the FIRSTfruits. Implying a similarity between believers resurrection which will be bodily with Christ's which was bodily. In. 1 Cor. 15:38 & 43, Paul likens death and resurrection to a seed that's sown that and springs up. Implying a literal physical burial and bodily resurrection.

Carrier sometimes accepts Hebrews as early in order to boast his theory. But the book actually undermines his case.

Heb. 2:9 best fits with a literal historical sufferings and death of Jesus. He's said to be made lower than the angels. An allusion to Ps. 8:4-5ff. [cf. Job. 7:17ff.; Ps. 144:3] which is about literal human beings. Just as a few verses later Heb. 2:14 refers to how Jesus partook of flesh and blood like "the children" [i.e. Christians]. Two verses later 2:16-17 it says God didn't help the angels but to the seed/descendants of Abraham [i.e. human believers]. That Jesus might be like His brothers in everything [v. 17]. Implying Jesus took on the nature of humans and not of angels.

Mythicism doesn't fit well with Jesus being likened to the work, actions and consequences of Moses, Adam & Abel's spilled blood whom Paul thought were historical figures [Heb. 3:1-6; Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15:21; Heb. 12:24]. In Heb. 5:7 the author talks about the "days of His flesh" [i.e. Jesus'] and how "He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death". This makes most sense if this was a literal earthly life. Compare Paul's teaching about Jesus being made in the likeness of sinful flesh [Rom. 8:3]. In Heb. 7:14 the author talks about how Jesus was descended from the tribe of Judah. Only ad hoc arguments can explain away the clear meaning of that statement. Hebrews 9:27-28 makes reference to human mortality and corresponds that with Jesus' sacrificial death. Implying an earthly historical death. Hebrews 10:5 quotes the LXX and applies it to Jesus saying a body was prepared for Jesus. Implying a historical incarnation. Like in Paul, Heb. 12:3-4 [cf. 13:12-13] likens Jesus' persecution with Christians' earthly persecution.

It doesn't fit well with Heb. 2:3-4 with refers to the Gospel being declared at first by the Lord, and then by them. Implying their earthly proclamation of the Gospel was a continuation of Jesus' earthy proclamation.

William Lane Craig's Debate with Sean Carroll

https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8

"God and Cosmology" William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll - 2014 Greer Heard Forum

 
Some Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate

Further Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate

Still More Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate

William Lane Craig Regarding Sean Carroll on Science and God
( Three Podcasts on Sean Carroll's views before their [above] debate )