![Faith Because of Reason](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 75
- 149 103
Faith Because of Reason
Приєднався 27 лип 2019
This is an evangelical Christian apologetics and theology channel. I attempt to use the best research in philosophy, science, and biblical studies to make the case for Christian theism.
The Historical Reliability of Acts
What is the book of Acts? Is it a reliable history of the early church and the life of the apostle Paul? Or is it a rather late, largely fictional retelling of these events? It is safe to say that modern New Testament scholarship strongly favors this latter option. But what if there is compelling evidence telling in favor of the historical reliability of Acts? And if so, what are the ramifications of this evidence for the Christian faith and Christian apologetics? This video will explore these questions arguing that there is excellent evidence for the reliability of the book of Acts and that this fact serves an critical role in making the case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
01:05 - Authorship of Luke-Acts
07:12 - Date of Composition of Luke-Acts
08:09 - Does Luke-Acts Know Josephus?
15:47 - Is Luke-Acts Never Quoted Before 150 AD?
20:36 - When Was Papias Writing?
24:29 - Was Acts Written Before 70 AD?
31:01 - Internal Evidence of Reliability
31:30 - Names, Titles, and Places
35:39 - Correlations with the Pauline Corpus
36:28 - Undesigned Coincidences
38:07 - Conclusion
Sources:
Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Gregory A. Boyd
Preface to Luke - Harold Riley
The Medical Language of St. Luke - William Kirk Hobart
"Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts: II. Recent Arguments for Medical Language" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2 (1926) - Henry J. Cadbury
Evidence and Paul’s Journeys - Jefferson White
Josephus and the New Testament, Second Edition - Steve Mason
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament - Jonathan Bernier
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History - Colin J. Hemer
Literary Studies in Luke-Acts - Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Philips (eds.)
Who Chose the Gospels? - C. E. Hill
“The Date of Papias: A Reassessment” JETS 26/2 (June 1983) - Robert W. Yarbrough
The Three Gospels - Martin Mosse
Hidden in Plain View - Lydia McGrew
ua-cam.com/video/VE5UOisT8AY/v-deo.html
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Chapters:
00:00 - Introduction
01:05 - Authorship of Luke-Acts
07:12 - Date of Composition of Luke-Acts
08:09 - Does Luke-Acts Know Josephus?
15:47 - Is Luke-Acts Never Quoted Before 150 AD?
20:36 - When Was Papias Writing?
24:29 - Was Acts Written Before 70 AD?
31:01 - Internal Evidence of Reliability
31:30 - Names, Titles, and Places
35:39 - Correlations with the Pauline Corpus
36:28 - Undesigned Coincidences
38:07 - Conclusion
Sources:
Cynic Sage or Son of God? - Gregory A. Boyd
Preface to Luke - Harold Riley
The Medical Language of St. Luke - William Kirk Hobart
"Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts: II. Recent Arguments for Medical Language" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 45, No. 1/2 (1926) - Henry J. Cadbury
Evidence and Paul’s Journeys - Jefferson White
Josephus and the New Testament, Second Edition - Steve Mason
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament - Jonathan Bernier
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History - Colin J. Hemer
Literary Studies in Luke-Acts - Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Philips (eds.)
Who Chose the Gospels? - C. E. Hill
“The Date of Papias: A Reassessment” JETS 26/2 (June 1983) - Robert W. Yarbrough
The Three Gospels - Martin Mosse
Hidden in Plain View - Lydia McGrew
ua-cam.com/video/VE5UOisT8AY/v-deo.html
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
Переглядів: 2 551
Відео
The Rationality of Belief in Miracles: Answering Hume and his Contemporary Defenders
Переглядів 3,4 тис.6 місяців тому
Is it rational to believe that miracles happen based upon testimony? David Hume famously argued that it is not. But despite over 200 years of steady criticism, there remain a number of philosophers who defend Hume's argument. This video reviews much of the literature surrounding this debate and argues that neither Hume's original argument nor modern reconstructions thereof are successful. Chapt...
Has Science Disproved Free Will?
Переглядів 5717 місяців тому
Full Video: ua-cam.com/video/2GSIuYlvaHM/v-deo.html Sources: Living Without Free Will - Derk Pereboom Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will - Robert M. Sapolsky Free: Why Science Hasn’t Disproved Free Will - Alfred R. Mele Free Will and Luck - Alfred R. Mele Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will - Alfred R. Mele Mind, Brain, & Free Will - Richard Swinburne "Copyright Discl...
Is Free Will Random?
Переглядів 4747 місяців тому
Full Video: ua-cam.com/video/2GSIuYlvaHM/v-deo.html Sources: Free Will - Mark Balaguer Four Views on Free Will - John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vagas Freedom, Teleology, and Evil - Stewart Goetz Persons & Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will - Timothy O’Connor Agent-Causation Revisted - Thad Botham "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, a...
An Abductive Argument For Free Will
Переглядів 1,3 тис.7 місяців тому
Full Video: ua-cam.com/video/2GSIuYlvaHM/v-deo.html Sources: A Pragmatic Approach to Libertarian Free Will - John Lemos Free Will: Sourcehood and its Alternatives - Kevin Timpe The Oxford Handbook of Free Will - Robert Kane (ed) How Reason Can Lead to God - Joshua Rasmussen Autonomous Agents - Alfred R. Mele Mind, Brain, & Free Will - Richard Swinburne Freewill and Determinism - R. L. Franklin ...
A Case For Free Will
Переглядів 2,7 тис.7 місяців тому
In this video, I’m going to bring together some of my thoughts on the topic of free will. I’ve been pondering this issue on and off for the past several years and my perspectives are, in many regards, unique. I hold to an indeterministic conception of free will which would probably be considered libertarian by many although I have developed some reservations about using that term. The plan for ...
Does God Use Circular Reasoning? | All Reasoning is Not Circular | Part 2
Переглядів 1,4 тис.7 місяців тому
Many contemporary Christian epistemologists confidently claim that epistemically circular reasoning must be okay because even God engages in it. They always cite the influential Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga to support this claim. This video assesses whether or not Plantinga has offered sufficient justification for this conclusion. (Hint: He hasn't.) Sources: ua-cam.com/video/7F3W1BJY7Z...
Why The Freethinking Argument is Contradictory
Переглядів 9597 місяців тому
In this excerpt, I argue that the third and fourth premises of Tim Stratton's Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism are incompatible with one another. Watch the full video here: ua-cam.com/video/Rd6K8unO3rk/v-deo.html Sources: Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism - Timothy A. Stratton The Foundations of Knowledge - Timothy J. McGrew Four Views on Divine Providence - Stanley N. ...
Why I Don't Use The Freethinking Argument | A Critique of Tim Stratton
Переглядів 2 тис.7 місяців тому
Do we need libertarian free will in order to think rationally? Is determinism somehow epistemically self-defeating? And if so, then does this provide us with some reason to think that God exists? An apologist by the name of Tim Stratton strong believes so. This video will critically assess his defenses of these claims and argue that they are ultimately unsuccessful. After that, I will develop a...
Is The Bible Our Highest Authority?
Переглядів 1,3 тис.8 місяців тому
Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity. In particular, such objections can be found among Christian presuppositional apologists. They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence a greater we...
"How Do You Know Your Reasoning is Valid?" | All Reasoning is Not Circular | Part 1
Переглядів 2,1 тис.8 місяців тому
Presuppositionalists like Sye Ten Bruggencate like to ask "How do you know your reasoning is valid?" in an attempt to demonstrate that all reasoning is circular. But does this question even make sense? And if it does, are there hidden assumptions within it? In this video, I explore these questions and how one might respond when asked to justify their use of reason. Sources: ua-cam.com/video/aQK...
The Argument From Forced Fulfilled Prophecy
Переглядів 2,1 тис.9 місяців тому
There are numerous arguments for the historical reliability of the Gospels based upon their contents. These include the accuracy of the Gospel authors with respect to geographical locations and names, as well as local customs, and cultural references. Then there are undesigned coincidences, unnecessary details, unexplained allusions, and unified personalities throughout the Gospels. All of thes...
Why I Don't Use The Argument From Logic (The Lord of Non-Contradiction)
Переглядів 1,8 тис.9 місяців тому
Many theists have thought that a divine conceptualist account of logic provides the theist with a ready account of the ontology of logic and, as a result, they think that the existence of logic can be used as an argument for theism. The most sophisticated attempt at providing such an argument comes from James N. Anderson and Greg Welty in their 2011 paper “The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argu...
How to Defeat the Argument From Undesigned Coincidences: A Skeptic's Guide
Переглядів 2,9 тис.9 місяців тому
The argument from undesigned coincidences is an argument which is used in tandem with a series of other arguments to present a holistic argument which concludes that the four canonical Gospels represent a generally historically accurate picture of the life and deeds of Jesus. Lydia McGrew served to revive the argument within contemporary apologetics with the publication of her 2017 book Hidden ...
Making Sense of Old Testament Violence
Переглядів 5 тис.9 місяців тому
The Old Testament in the Bible contains many very challenging passages for modern Christians. Some of the rules and regulations just seem arbitrary such as the well-known dietary laws prohibiting foods like pork and shellfish, or laws prohibiting the mixing of different types of fabric. Some of these seem very cruel such as commands to stone disobedient children to death and to cut off the hand...
Why I Don't Use Adam Lloyd Johnson's Moral Argument
Переглядів 40210 місяців тому
Why I Don't Use Adam Lloyd Johnson's Moral Argument
Why I Don't Use C Stephen Evans' Moral Argument
Переглядів 23510 місяців тому
Why I Don't Use C Stephen Evans' Moral Argument
Why I Don't Use Jerry Walls' And David Baggett's Moral Argument
Переглядів 46310 місяців тому
Why I Don't Use Jerry Walls' And David Baggett's Moral Argument
Why I Don't Use William Lane Craig's Moral Argument
Переглядів 1,1 тис.10 місяців тому
Why I Don't Use William Lane Craig's Moral Argument
Four Arguments For Moral Realism (And Why I Don't Use Them)
Переглядів 57910 місяців тому
Four Arguments For Moral Realism (And Why I Don't Use Them)
Why I Don't Use The Moral Argument For Theism
Переглядів 3,8 тис.10 місяців тому
Why I Don't Use The Moral Argument For Theism
Were the Gospels Originally Anonymous? A Response to @Kevigen
Переглядів 2,2 тис.Рік тому
Were the Gospels Originally Anonymous? A Response to @Kevigen
Why Would Matthew Copy From Mark's Gospel if he was an Eyewitness?
Переглядів 2,1 тис.Рік тому
Why Would Matthew Copy From Mark's Gospel if he was an Eyewitness?
Is Papias Reliable? Answering Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier
Переглядів 3,4 тис.Рік тому
Is Papias Reliable? Answering Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier
Who Was Papias' Source?: Exploring The Identity of John the Elder
Переглядів 2,1 тис.Рік тому
Who Was Papias' Source?: Exploring The Identity of John the Elder
Is Papias Talking About 'Our' Gospels of Matthew and Mark? Answering Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier
Переглядів 1,5 тис.Рік тому
Is Papias Talking About 'Our' Gospels of Matthew and Mark? Answering Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier
Are Papias and Irenaeus Independent Sources for the Authorship of the Gospels?
Переглядів 693Рік тому
Are Papias and Irenaeus Independent Sources for the Authorship of the Gospels?
Did Papias Only Talk About Matthew and Mark?: A 'New' Papian Fragment Tells a Different Story
Переглядів 2,5 тис.Рік тому
Did Papias Only Talk About Matthew and Mark?: A 'New' Papian Fragment Tells a Different Story
Who Wrote the Gospels?: The Case for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Переглядів 10 тис.Рік тому
Who Wrote the Gospels?: The Case for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
The Synoptic Problem Part 5: A Response to @ApocalypseHere on Markan Priority
Переглядів 2,2 тис.Рік тому
The Synoptic Problem Part 5: A Response to @ApocalypseHere on Markan Priority
P1 probably had the title is just ripped off . P1 has the alpha sign above the text . In other manuscripts the Gospel according to …. is above the alpha sign . So the Top of P1 is missing and probably had the title .
What do you think about the passages that describe God's patience with the inhabitants in the promised land? God was reserving judgement, giving room for repentance, just like he was with Israel while they continually acted contrary to his laws and commandments.
As always, great, truthful content! Agree 100%
Do you think Craig's first premise is similar to the presuppositionalist's transcendental argument (maybe one difference is Craig is arguing for a generic theism)? Also, how do you do such deep and broad research for so many videos? I'd love to see a video on it. For example, do you buy all these books? If not, how do you get them all? Do you read all of them? If not, how do you filter through all the content? How do you manage your time? How do you organize all your thoughts into a coherent picture?
all knowledge is ultimately circular reasoning. its a closed system. we accept truth by consensus, and ultimately by force from those in power. and those in power rule by secrecy because ruling openly is to accept an unnecessary liability
I mean I feel like virtue ethics can be argued for rationally which necessarily leads to theism and Christianity. That’s what happened with MacIntyre
Do you have a transcript or powerpoint of this presentation?
You seem to have idea that God's sovereign of sinners to salvation is not in the Book of Acts. However, if you read Acts 15:14 and 18:10 you will see that it is in Acts. Plus, if you read 18:27 you will find that those who believe do so by the grace of God.
So the various times where God basically says His reasoning for what He does is "I'm God" like in Isaiah or Job at least seems to hint at some kind of circularity, isn't really circular?
It's unclear to me why "epistemic circularity" _per se_ is necessarily malignant rather than benign. Different philosophers give different definitions of what epistemic circularity is, one definition from Baron Reed ("Epistemic Circularity Squared? Skepticism about Common Sense" in _Phenomenology and Phenomenological Research_ Vol. 63, No. 1, July 2006) says "Epistemic Circularity occurs when a subject forms the belief that a faculty F is reliable through the use of F." But then, one's cognitive faculties taken as a whole would fit that description, as would God using his own mind in believing that he is omniscient and has reliable cognitive faculties. This type of epistemic circularity is how I understood e.g., Liz Jackson was referring to ("God has to use God's own mind in order to believe 'I am omniscient') when saying God has to use epistemic circularity. But given the quote from the video (0:11), perhaps the claim is not that epistemic circularity as defined above is objectionable, but only believing something on the basis of a epistemically circular _argument_ is objectionable, where an "epistemically circular argument" requires believing an argument's conclusion that some faculty or belief source is reliable requires presupposing that conclusion is true. I would agree that this sort of reasoning is objectionable. I would also agree that the basis for God's belief that he is omniscient etc. is not through an epistemically circular argument, but Plantinga (as far as I can tell) doesn't claim otherwise. Instead he seems to be claiming that not even God himself can construct a noncircular argument for his belief in his cognitive reliability, e.g., when he says "Not even God himself, necessarily omniscient as he is, can give a noncircular argument for the reliability of his ways of forming beliefs" in p. 125 of _Warranted Christian Belief._
If people are predestined for eternal life why would Christ need to die for them? Makes no sense..
Heb. 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
Premise one falls on what you touched upon while arguing against Vilenkin's argument. That we have no evidence the laws of physics existed prior to the universe. The same logic can be used on causation. We only know that what begins to exist has a cause in our universe. We do not have any evidence that this is a requirement outside the universe.
Man Richard carrier has got to be the worst NT scholar in history . I’m gonna believe the opposite of whatever he says from now on , I think should be doing fine then .
Excellent video; I appreciate the amount of research you have put into this subject. I have conceived of a potential objection to classical foundationalism that has been on my mind lately. Under classical foundationalism, the basic beliefs only consist of beliefs we can be certain about which have been characterized as being infallible, indubitable, or incorrigible. These beliefs are non-inferentially justified while the rest of our beliefs must be inferentially justified from these foundational beliefs. Inference involves a reliance upon memory to supply premises to infer beliefs from. In order to utilize inference, one must believe that one’s memory is generally reliable. But how is the belief the one’s memory is generally reliable justified? Under classical foundationalism, such a belief cannot be basic since it is not incorrigible or certain so it must be inferential. But it also cannot be inferential because for the inference to be successful, the truth of the belief must be assumed from the start. Thus, under classical foundationalism, there can be no inferentially justified beliefs, only non-inferentially justified ones. Since belief in classical foundationalism is itself inferentially justified, it would follow that under classical foundationalism, one would not be justified in believing in classical foundationalism itself. The argument could be summarized as follows: 1. Belief in the general reliability of memory can only be justified inferentially under classical foundationalism. 2. To be justified in believing an inferential belief, one must be justified in believing in the general reliability of memory. 3. One cannot be justified in believing in the general reliability of memory solely from an inference that requires one to be justified in believing in the general reliability of memory to be successful. 4. Therefore, under classical foundationalism, no inferential belief can be justified (1-3) 5. Belief in classical foundationalism is itself an inferential belief. 6. Therefore, under classical foundationalism, belief in classical foundationalism is unjustified (4,5) I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this objection.
When we analyze the 3rd category you created it should be obvious that deliberate acts also will be either determined or truly random. The question is what causes a Freewill agent to choose A instead of B. The agent could have choosen A or B but He chooses A. The agent is a mere vessel for the choice to actualize. What goes inside the Agent is important.
There's still no reason to take any of this folklore seriously. A highly gullible person asserting something a few hundred years after the fact does not a good source make.
No one knows who wrote the gospels. They're anonymous. There's no debate about that.
There is no good Christology! Why? Because what Jesus told the disciples in John 16:12. That means the information about the Plan of Salvation is incomplete! And pastors think that they know all about the subject because they read the bible!? And the bible (Jesus) say they are wrong!
Very interesting. The background music is annoying as hell.
If, If, If doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
The very fact that Eusebius, Papias, et al, felt they had to tell us who wrote the gospels means that people were asking who wrote them. They did not originally have their titles "The gospel according to X". If you *really believe* the gospels are telling the truth, let take another look at the intro to Luke. It looks like a cover letter, but it does *not* name who sent it. Cf with the letters, say, of Paul--they always start out saying who sent them, like all letters did in ancient Rome and all (even email) do today. The Author of Luke talks about other gospels written before his, but he doesn't mention any titles or authors of them either. If we just read what the gospel of Luke actually says, we have to conclude that both the gospel he is writing, and all previous gospels, were anonymous. Again, if you think that the gospels are true, well, just believe what the text right there in the gospel says. Same goes for the ending of John--whoever wrote that didn't give us his name---and he didn't even give us the name of the earlier author--he called him "the beloved disciple" specifically *not* to tell us the author's name. The canonical gospels are real standouts here--*every* *single* noncannonical gospel--the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Peter, *always* explicitly says who it was written by. Its one of the ways you can tell that the early church did not take the noncannonical gospels as seriously as they did the canonical gospels--because anybody else who wrote a gospel felt like they had to aedd their name (or pretend they were an apostle adding his name).
Nothing teaches Calvinism. It must be tead into the text.
Saying Mark doesn’t have appearances imo is an unfair argument because Mark ‘s ending seems to be lost .
Carrier got to be worst NT scholar there is .
Its been like 3 months, when is a new video coming?
Currently working on a series defending substance dualism. I don't know when it will be released yet.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 congrats on the series. One question though: someone was asking in the comment section for where did you get your church father quotes and where did Papias and Andrew quote Luke and supposedly found it a stretch to say that they quoted. Are there any answers to these ?
Great video bro! Remember also that the Early Church did not speak openly of the so-called mysteries, including not only Eucharist but also the Trinitarian Creed, in our Orthodox Church in Russia the priest still exclamates "The doors, the doors!" Before we sing the Creed of Nicea, that implying that the doors of the church are to be closed, and the catecumeni (those not yet baptized are instructed to leave (the deacon shouts "Catecumeni go out, catecumeni go out, all the faithful, let's pray to God again... And soon the Creed follows). This may be the case with the story of Birth of our Lord. Keep in mind that pharisees and their followers spread gossip that Jesus was son of Pandira a Roman soldier. No hight doctrines were preached openly, only the basics of the Good News.
How then do you escape subjectivism if one can immediately justify his own concepts?
The question seems confused. Concepts aren't propositional, they can't be true or false and consequently it makes no sense to speak of justifying concepts. Perhaps you are intending to refer to justifying beliefs? The whole video was an explanation of this.
I think Polycarp knew John.
here is the biggest problem with your attempt. you 1. simply presented determinism and indeterminism in such a way that you can claim determinism is a more complex idea and then 2. stated that this shifts the burden of proof away from yourself. this isn't entirely laughable but i don't think it's strong enough to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
Do you disagree that determinism entails more causal/deterministic relations than indeterminism?
There are all manner of reasons the text we now call Matthew would have been attributed to him - most plausibly, given the spread of second-century pseudepigraphia like the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas etc. it makes sense why the proto-orthodox sect would want to assign apostolic authorship to the four Gospels that conformed with their theology. This certainly makes more sense than the laughably absurd idea that a text which features its supposed author as a minor character, yet contains no qualifications that describe this character as its source or author (or uses their eyewitness as a basis for scenes, instead being a text that cribs entirely from another one) was authored by that person. If you’re going to make the argument that the text Papias is referring to is related to our Matthew, you’re better off arguing that he was referring to the hypothetical Q source, since the text he’s describing sounds like it. Ultimately though, there is not any reason to take Mr. Exploding Giant Judas particularly seriously in the first place, given what little we know about him indicates he was a highly gullible person who fell hook line and sinker for fanciful legends.
This objection was already dealt with the full video defending traditional authorship where I demonstrated that it was not uncommon for ancient authors to refer to themselves in the third person or to fail to identify themselves as the author within the text.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Even historians who write without attaching their names to their works will go out of their way to mention either being present themselves for the events they’re describing, or attest to their sources being people they spoke to directly, because ancient authors actually greatly valued eyewitness testimony. There is a massive gulf between the writings of Julius Caesar and Xenophon, and what the authors of the Gospels (Matthew especially) are doing. I think you can only make the argument that you're making if you have little to no familiarity with the contents of other ancient texts written without bylines, or which make stylistic use of the third person. If the Matthew character really did write GMatt, the text would describe his witness to the events described in detail, or demarcate where the author of the text was present, even if the author never named himself directly in the text. We do not see this - Matthew instead remains an extremely minor character in the Gospel later assigned his name, only mentioned once outside of the list of the Twelve. The story of how he met Jesus, the only mention of the character, is copied word-for-word from Mark, a text recognized as written by a non-eyewitness even in the “traditional authorship” model. No story in GMatt in which the Matthew character is (presumably) present features any signifiers that the author of the text was an eyewitness to these events. If the author were claiming to be one, they would have put such signifiers in.
There is a reason we don't have Hebrew NTs...it's because the NT was written in Greek obviously.
Your apologetic motivation in doing this is relevant because it skews your approach from square one. You are doing things opposite to a proper scholarly approach, you are starting with your conclusion and working backwards to justify it. No scholar would engage in the reaches and brain-pretzel harmonizations you’re employing to support this McGrewian eyewitness crap and authorship folklore. The age of the texts you cite is relevant because you're not keeping up-to-date with the scholarship. The healing in front of the crowd in Matthew is relevant even with your harmonization because Matthew totally lacks the Messianic Secret motif present in Mark outside of this incident. It’s clearly a relic left in from Mark irrelevant to the story Matthew is trying to tell.
Where did I start with my conclusion in any of the arguments I presented? The age is not relevant to the arguments themselves. Arguments don't have expiration dates. If newer scholarship has refuted the older arguments, then my critics should have presented those newer refutations. "That book is too old" is simply not a refutation of an argument. That was the point. And you seem to have missed the other side of my rebuttal namely that most of my citations were actually from newer books on the subject. So the claim that I haven't stayed up to date with more recent scholarship is simply false anyway. That's a different argument. The harmonization was rebutting the argument from editorial fatigue. You are making an argument from Markan themes turning up in Matthean material. But the evidence goes both ways on this as I demonstrated in my series on the SP. There are also Matthean themes and verbiage which turn up in Mark. So that's not a strong argument for Markan priority because similar arguments are available to the Matthean priorist.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 My comment about you starting with your conclusion was not about the specific points you’re making here, but more about your approach to the subject in general - you’re doing apologetics, not scholarship. Your faith depends on the Gospels being literal historical texts authored by the people whose names were later assigned to them, so you make extremely strained arguments for that position. I don’t believe arguments have built-in “expiration dates”, but your lack of familiarity with recent scholarship goes to show that you haven’t considered new information that potentially disproves the arguments you’re making. The problem is not that “the book is too old”, but that “the book predates the discovery of the knowledge we have now”. Chrissy Hansen accurately described approaches like yours as “merely trying to turn back the clock on 200 years of scholarship”. I am not merely arguing that the call to secrecy after the healing is simply a “Markan theme turning up in Matthean material”. The issue is that the call to secrecy makes zero sense in isolate. In Mark it makes sense because it’s a consistent wider motif in the Gospel, but in Matthew it is this totally random thing that appears out of nowhere and makes no sense with the alterations Matthew has made to the story. We can very easily explain its presence by pointing to editorial fatigue, but your apologetic in which Mark is seen as a redacted Matthew cannot explain it.
As a fun challenge, I recommend inputting Hume's Of Miracles (chapter 10 of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding) and chapter 4 of the same volume into your preferred large language model. Ask the chatbot if these chapters are consistent and ask how Hume used the phrase "law of nature" and if it's consistent with his view on induction. Then, input Larmer's interpretation of "laws of nature" and see if the chatbot thinks Larmer is reading Hume correctly. As a side note, I can respect how much work it took to make a video of this length. From that perspective I can see why my criticisms might not be well received. But they are coming from a place of good faith and trying to represent the arguments accurately.
I think I might be shouting into an echo chamber, but here I go: Larmer imputing metaphysical propositions to Hume within the definition of "laws of nature" is antithetical to a preceding chapter of the Enquiry from which Of Miracles is a part. Chapter 4 lays out the case that induction and thereby causality are not justified assumptions, but rather customs adopted by human imagination E 4.18-4.20. These are necessary for the foundations of natural sciences to be justified and so, laws of nature conceived of as "necessary truths" makes no sense because Hume didn't believe in necessary truths outside of things like mathematics. This objection maps to each of the accounts of "laws of nature" that Larmer provides. Norman Geisler presents a disjunction and most of your video seems to be focusing on the wrong part of that disjunction. At 19:55, Larmer denies that the term "law of nature" is being used the way I suggest, not by pointing to the text, but rather by analogy to a contemporary medical procedure. There, our mechanisms of ensuring credibility are all clear so the analogy seems to be a poor one. Hume is having a discussion about testimonial evidence, about historicity, not about metaphysical possibility as is made evident by sections 10.4-10.10. In the IVF for the virgin scenario, this is surely a repeatable event (albeit a first occurrence) and we can interrogate the science involved. This is not the kind of thing Hume is casting doubt on, nor do miracles function like the IVF for a virgin. By divorcing parts 1 and 2 from each other and seeing the former as attempting to establish a solitary, apriori argument is peculiar. In part one, Hume gives us the probability analysis we ought to apply: confidence=evidence-competing evidence; and in part two Hume tells us that he believes the competing evidence to miracles outweighs the evidence for miracles as an empirical case. This a much more plausible, holistic reading An Enquiry that I think has escaped many in the analytic tradition. It's no surprise that apologists, largely following in that tradition with specific ends in mind, fall into the same trap.
As a believing christian, I think the marcian priority is much more convincing and strong with few exceptions left for further exploration than the mathian priority especially when one takes into consideration the motivations of the respective author why he would want to alter the original text. The motivation for mark to alter the mathian text is almost absent and not convincing. On the other hand the motivation for methew to alter the marcian text is strong and convincing. Just looking at the baptism of jesus where mathew adds how john the baptist tried to prevent jesus from being baptized displays the strong motivation for mathew to add and alter the macian text. Dropping this crucial text from mark just doesn’t make sense as there’s no plausible motivation for mark to drop such important texts. I think it’s futile to try and argue for mathian priority and I really don’t know why people want have that?
"A deliberate turning away": What would consist in the performance (or lack of) of that act (non-act)? What would a believer do/not do to be fulfilling the act of "turning away," and what would it result in? Thanks!
Lmao can you please expand on the idea that Mark was developed as Kerygma for the church? It seems so inane to think that Mark, which shares so many word-for-word copying/copied passages, would simultaneously be created to be SHORTER and EASIER to remember for Jesus’ story while FORGETTING the virgin birth and resurrection appearances (which, any gentile who’s heard whispers of Jesus would ask about AND any doubting gentiles or Jews would’ve been served by stories like the Doubting Thomas story etc.) and ADDING what I still see as complete irrelevancies like spit and dirt used to heal (physical method that could produce some doubts about the authenticity of the healing meanwhile Matthew shortens and spiritualizes it so that to Jesus heals with just his words) or even his parents calling him crazy - stuff like this only makes it HARDER to evangelize. Hope my comment doesn’t come off as rude or aggressive. I’m genuinely interested in having (and want to have ONLY) intellectually honest exchanges on this topic. I only highlighted certain words to show how I fail to see the Kerygma explanation as adequate to resolve the points brought up for Markan Priority. I really appreciate your videos and you have demolished a lot of the dumb arguments for Markan priority, but to my mind (I’m new to the Synoptic Problem) you still haven’t convincingly solved some points brought up by the hypothesis’ proponents. Thank you.
Bible is just some crappy old stories.
Richard Carrier just pulls it out of his backside. I dont believe him at all
The argument that Matthew could not have been written in Hebrew, because he depends on the LXX is probably one of the more problematic claims. Matthew probably has one of the highest concentrations of non-LXX readings of any of the books. He consistently quotes the minor prophets from something that isn't the LXX. I think Cousland's critique might be self-destructive if those things are considered.
52:50 also reveals Bart Ehrman to be a charlatan. His argument is basically as if someone had addressed Ehrman after he published his first book and told him: "Well, all these years of studying and learning and all you know fits unto 300 or so pages. You must be very ignorant." Given that Ehrman has written books aimed at being read, his argument is totally dishonest.
48:04 is typical of Carrier's MO. He starts out with a true or at least defensible statement, then jumps to an extreme conclusion way off the mark and going beyond the actual issue. So if Papias was wrong on particular book (and even that isn't clear), Carrier concludes that he had "NO idea what he was talking about", "NO reliable sources of information about the first century of Christianity", all that despite the fact that Papias actually lived in the first century of Christianity. All that doesn't follow and is extremist hogwash. Carrier uses scholarly sounding arguments to attain not knowledge but non-knowledge in order not to critique or reflect but to simply dismiss.
Great video. I wouldn't however say that the past tense in "what Peter said, or ...." denotes that the speakers were all dead (some were, but John wasn't) but rather that Papias enquired of the followers of the Elders what the Elders had said. That necessarily referred to things they said in the past, before their followers related it to Papias. But then he relates what John (Elder and disciple) and Ariston (only disciple), being alive, told him themselves.
If you are determined by God to see that the wall you are looking at is blue, or if you freely see that the wall you are looking at is blue, does either case change the fact that the wall being looked at is blue? In either case a false belief can also obtain. If you are determined by God to see water on the road which in fact is a mirage, or if you freely see water on the road which in fact is a mirage, does either case change the fact that the water on the road is a mirage? As you think about that keep these scriptures in mind... 19 Then Micaiah continued, “Listen to what the Lord says! I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so he can be killed?’ “There were many suggestions, 21 and finally a spirit approached the Lord and said, ‘I can do it!’ 22 “‘How will you do this?’ the Lord asked. “And the spirit replied, ‘I will go out and inspire all of Ahab’s prophets to speak lies.’ “‘You will succeed,’ said the Lord. ‘Go ahead and do it.’ 23 “So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all your prophets. For the Lord has pronounced your doom.” - 1 Kings 22:19-23 New Living Translation And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. - Ezekiel 14:9 King James Version 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 King James Version
If you are determined by God to see that the wall you are looking at is blue, or if you freely see that the wall you are looking at is blue, does either case change the fact that the wall being looked at is blue? In either case a false belief can also obtain. If you are determined by God to see water on the road which in fact is a mirage, or if you freely see water on the road which in fact is a mirage, does either case change the fact that the water on the road is a mirage? As you think about that keep these scriptures in mind... 19 Then Micaiah continued, “Listen to what the Lord says! I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the armies of heaven around him, on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who can entice Ahab to go into battle against Ramoth-gilead so he can be killed?’ “There were many suggestions, 21 and finally a spirit approached the Lord and said, ‘I can do it!’ 22 “‘How will you do this?’ the Lord asked. “And the spirit replied, ‘I will go out and inspire all of Ahab’s prophets to speak lies.’ “‘You will succeed,’ said the Lord. ‘Go ahead and do it.’ 23 “So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all your prophets. For the Lord has pronounced your doom.” - 1 Kings 22:19-23 New Living Translation And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. - Ezekiel 14:9 King James Version 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 King James Version
Thank you for looking at these matters from a fair and unbiased perspective.
This was excellent!
I'm a new Christian, can I ask something ?
The middle way in my opinion is: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Provisionism are all okay and tools for our limited minds to discern on how best to comport ourselves to the Glory of God in any or every situation. The best thing we can do with concerns over these perspectives and the proponents of each, is to love and sharpen one another.