Christian Philosopher Critiques Dr. Craig's Resurrection Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- I'm joined by Dr. Max Baker-Hytch, a lecturer in philosophy at Wycliffe Hall Oxford University.
Link to Dr. Craig's videos arguing for the Resurrection of Jesus
Part 1- • Did Jesus Rise from th...
Part 2- • Did Jesus Rise from th...
------------------------------------GIVING-------------------------------------
One Time:
You can leave a Super Thanks or give on PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/thean...
Monthly:
To become a patron, go to / theanalyticchristian
-------------------------------MERCHANDISE------------------------------
To purchase TAC shirts, mugs, phone cases, and more, go to
www.theanalyticchristian.com
-----------------------------------CONTACT-------------------------------------
If my videos have been of service to you, I'd love to hear how you have benefitted from them. You can reach me at
theanalyticchristian@gmail.com
-----------------------------------WEBSITE----------------------------------------
www.theanalyticchristian.com - Розваги
If you want to hear an expert in Historical Jesus studies critique both skeptical and apologetic arguments about the resurrection of Jesus, check out my interview linked below. ua-cam.com/video/S7zN6-6g5nQ/v-deo.htmlsi=N8LCwHRlIuVOZSQH
I appreciated this discussion 🙂
Dr. Max is very balanced and clear here, well done!
Unfortunately, what he's criticising is for lay people, not for him to spend nearly an hour discussing.
I'm really quite surprised that this is acceptable - both the mismatch in calibre of content and Dr Max agreeing to do this.
Why not engage with Dr Craig's real work or better still, have him on the same programme, to offer his side?
That's such an important point about the prior probability. I don't know why that isn't discussed more, it's absolutely crucial
Totally agree that prior probabilities are key to supporting the resurrection claim
The answer is yes
the answer is definitely yes
Yes indeed
Why the clickbait title, when Dr Crai8position is a DEFENSE of the position that Jesus DID rise from the dead and the guest is critiquing that position and its nuances, not that Jesus did rise or not - so why the wrong title?
Are we seriously criticising videos for laymen using professional scholars now?
And just like all the other videos, a disagreement is made (such as not all the disciples were martyred) with no evidence whatsoever - just a personal opinion.
Please stop undermining the good work done by WLC and others...you're not doing Christianity any favours.
“No prior probability discussion in Craig” thats just so wrong. Have you not watched his lecture videos? An entire 45 min video just discussing prior probability
I found the video ua-cam.com/video/5NOVep8E0oY/v-deo.htmlsi=EAyXYTOaLGUwYtD2
this was the best video ive seen on the resurrection. It displayed clear, organized reasoning.
Dr. Craig's video says: "In that culture, a woman's testimony was considered next to worthless. A later legend or fabrication would have had men make this discovery."
Does this mean that Craig is admitting that John's gospel is a later legendary development?
(It doesn't say that men made the original discovery, but it does say that men had to verify it which wasn't included in the other gospels)
John 20:1-10
Correction: I hadn't got through the whole video yet. I forgot that Luke also mentioned the male disciples visiting the tomb
One can reasonably infer that after the original discovery of the empty tomb, many other people -friend and foe -would have gone to see what the hullaboo was all about. So Peter and John going to see the tomb is not at all unlikely. But yes, the reason Luke and John narrate it is probably because of the discomfort about presenting only women witnesses for this crucial event. That doesn't mean they cooked up the story of Peter and John's visit.
There are way more problems with the RF videos than what this video even points out.
Feel free to list those problems if you have time and are interested.
@@TheAnalyticChristian
Part 2: ua-cam.com/users/live0NekzBbgzoQ?si=-HEFD9LfHMDBzp3W
@@TheAnalyticChristian I have.
Part 1 of my response: ua-cam.com/video/JAgRrFtepi4/v-deo.htmlsi=z-NBOTta69ggIjEl
Part 2 of my response: ua-cam.com/users/live0NekzBbgzoQ?si=c7U7qrCvy8Ef0JCl
Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb and the other evangelists copied from the first gospel, Mark, obviously.
Maybe Joseph of Arimathea never meant to bury Jesus in the tomb permanently, but only over Saturday and then had the body moved to a common grave after the Sabbath (maybe 8pm on Holy Saturday).
The apostles had heavenly ghost-like visions that they interpreted as the risen Jesus. The earliest appearance accounts were not corporeal, physical, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
The belief in the resurrection is easy to explain. Just look at how happy that belief makes people. It doesn't need to be true, only believed. "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead."
Phew! What a relief! The argument is like this: if Jesus was not resurrected, I would be sad. I am not sad. Therefore Jesus was resurrected.
" maby ...newer ment ..to bury jesus permanently....and had the body removed "
educate yourself pal in jews / hebrew ancient burial rituals
yes joseph used his own premises
no jews newer shifted body's
yes in some point they will come with box caled ....( find how it was called )
to collect bones
but that will be few Years after the burial
" Paul doesn't mention empty tomb "
why he should mention it ???
he comes to the scene far after resurrection
i read a book where is explained that he simply did not die on the cross...romans usually left people on cross for few day, Jesus was there few hours...he simply fall into the coma...they tought he is dead, but Joseph from Arimatia with others cured him....
How did the book you read take into account him being pierced in the side? That would definitely expedite death.
Also if we accept a premise that he was simply treated after falling into a coma, how would Jesus as a man be able to walk and travel in three days time after being nailed through his feet and hands, with a wound on his side and a scarred head from the crown of thorns. Let alone the lashes received as he carried the cross.
That seems like way too much trauma for a non supernatural being to endure and recover from in three days time.
@@michaels7325 he did receive serious injuries, and the fact, that he survived does not make his suffering less horrible. Yes, his side was pierced, but he was a young athletic man in good physical condition and he could survive this together with his other injuries. On the cross he fall in the state of "clinical death" (coma) his heartbeat was very week etc so he looked like dead person (for that time state of medicine). There is written that Joseph from Arimatia bought bandages, herbs and salves before the crucification (in exact amount), but these were not used for balsamication of dead body that time, but for curing. Joseph paid romans to claim Jesus body, he covered him with herbs etc and put him in the tomb for 3 day...and Jesus was simply lucky - he recovered. Also, when Mary meets the angel in front of tomb, he ask her: "Why do you seek LIVING among dead?" its explicitly told there....
@@michaels7325 also when he asked Thomas to put his fingers into the hole in his hand after the resurrection - he had those holes in hands and feets, because his WAS really on cross, he just survived....
@@oldmonkey7720 Well your theory then is that Jesus was just a man?
If yes, then it would be documented of the pain he was still currently in. No man in three days could recover and function after that trauma. Even if a premise is granted that he was given drugs for the pain, he would not be clear of mind to walk, talk, etc.
@@michaels7325 Jesus was a man indeed, he says it himself. But that does not mean that he was not a Son of God too. There is whole his story in this book explained - that he was a part of "Essenes" (search wiki) what was a Jewish sect, so he was raised especially for the purpose to become mesiah in the future (because Jews were hoping that mesiah will help them beat romans). That explains why we know so little about his childhood but also how he was able to beat scholars in temple with his knowledge when he was a kid, Its a czech book from czech historian (i am from Czech republic) and its called Biggest secrets of Jesus from Nazareth, but i am not sure if there is an english version (author is Vladimir Liska). He says that he wants to explain Jesus story from the view of science - and for him as an historian and scientist, version that he survived the cross is more likely than some "magical" resurrection. Jesus was young and in good condition and do not forget, that he left the tomb after 3 days but he was first time met by apostles like week after...thats a lot of time for Jesus to cure enough to walk and speak etc....
The answer is no
The gospel resurrection narratives do not pass the test of consistency and cannot be reconciled as being eyewitnesses accounts of the same event. Rather, the discrepancies and obvious growth in the story are better explained as an evolving legend.
Here's the TLDR version for the Resurrection being a legend.
1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7 which makes all the "appearances" ambiguous and insufficient to demonstrate they were even veridical (which is required for the Resurrection argument to even get off the ground).
2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection _narrative_ existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8.
3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17.
4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven!
5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story.
Now for the longer version. Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows:
- Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.
Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
- Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.
Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. There is no evidence an appearance _narrative_ existed at this point.
- Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details.
Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
- Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated.
Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.
- John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21.
John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations for invention.
Even if you dispute the dating of the sources, you still have to reconcile the mass of differences, contradictions and explain why we should believe this is reliable eyewitness testimony when it doesn't look like that at all.
If you want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then you should start by providing other examples from multiple authors describing the same event from history that:
1. All diverge in fantastic detail like the gospels do.
and
2. Scholars still regard them to be reliable historical documents.
I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that look like the gospels do will either be legends themselves or their testimony too questionable to be considered reliable.
6 minutes in and i'm waiting for anything useful. scholarly consensus isn't sufficient to accept a premise? of course it is what are you talking about
The point I would make against the Christian argument here, is that it doesn't seem to be consistent with the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus claims to be a prophet in that tradition, so presumably he should be assessed according to the criteria of the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible doesn't tell us to just have "faith" in anyone that claims to be a prophet, and it explicitly warns us that false prophets can give "signs".
The Hebrew Bible criteria are things like keeping to the Torah commands and not giving false prophecy.
So when we consider the genuine Biblical standards, I think there is a good case that Jesus/Christianity are going to fail them.
Mainstream Christianity has completely abandoned the Torah commands on any kind of literal level; it's also abandoned at least some of the promises to Israel on any kind of literal level, (Dispensationalism is an exception here), and it's a standard skeptical argument that Jesus gave false prophecy in the Olivet Discourse.
@@stockraising4609 Mainstream Christianity has abandoned the Torah commands, even if we imagine that the historical Jesus has been misunderstood on this point.
So it's still a problem for the Christian religion, unless you want some fringe version of it where the Torah commands are still to be followed by Jews, and where you look for the literal fulfillment of the promises to Israel.
Maybe there are some Christians like that with a fringe version; but what I'm talking about I think will apply to at least 99% of modern Christianity.
As for the criteria in Deut. 18 where Jesus would be assessed on whether he gives false prophecy, obviously we would need to look at the skeptical case that Jesus gave false prophecy, and the defending arguments used by Christians.
However, note that some "historical Jesus" scholars like E. P. Sanders and Dale Allison will agree that Jesus gave false prophecy.
Note also that Christians are all over the place when it comes to interpreting texts like the Olivet Discourse, so they can't just easily dismiss the skeptical viewpoint as being "ignorant" or whatever.
Even an apologist like C. S. Lewis, although he did qualify his statement that he wasn't an expert on the issue, admitted that Jesus gave false prophecy.
I would argue for the opposite. Christ's perfect fulfillment of the Torah and Tanakh is evidence *for* the truth of Christianity.
A few examples:
1. We are given a date for the coming of Messiah in Daniel 9, a date wich is fulfilled by Christ.
2. Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy that fits extremely well with Jesus. Isaiah also prophecizes of a divine Messiah wich gives more strengh to our case.
3. Psalm 22 propphecizes the crucifixition.
Gavin Ortlund made a video on the argument from fulfilled prophecy, you should check it out.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFIn theory prophecy fulfillment could be a good argument I think, although it wouldn't technically show that the message between the "OT" and "NT" was consistent.
However the texts that Christians use are going to be disputed whether they are actually about Jesus, could apply to Jesus, or are even prophecies if reading them on a literal level. Christians are going to have to admit that at least some of it is non-literal "types".
I think an advantage of using the criteria in Deuteronomy, is that it's certainly coming off the plain meaning of the text, and we are explicitly told to use these criteria when assessing the claims of supposed prophets.
An empty tomb suggest that someone removed the body. Then the story of his immortality arose along side Christianity. Pretty simple actually
Who would have removed the body when guards were present, and especially that well. Then you also have to account for why the disciples moods were changed very dramatically to the point that they became martyrs, as even non Christian history records. Then there’s the conversion of Paul, and his epistles, which pose problems to the theory that the resurrection was a later myth, especially the Corinthian creed. I would also contend that Paul meeting with James and Peter, as recorded in Acts(which, along with Luke, has the most historical corroborations of any book) only supports the consistent narrative. Then you also have to account for the rapid spread of Christianity, especially when there was no motivation as the early church was largely universalist. The Gospels meet many requirements that categorize them as being history, and the extremely early dating of them helps us establish them as viable historical testimony as well. You’re supposed simple explanation faces too many problems that can’t be accounted for, and given that the evidence leans towards there being a God, I’d wager that it’s likely Jesus
I had this same biased at the beginning of my journey, I believed that Jesus body was removed and that accounted for the empty tomb. When you actually look at the evidence for the earliest creed in 1 Cor 15 where Paul is himself testifying that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then you believe liars and you have been fooled.
It makes it incredible for me to believe that the disciples would go to there deaths for something they made up. It makes more sense that either Jesus did rise from the dead or the disciples simply saw a vision or something of that sort and where wrong, but I believe the best inference is that Paul simply is telling us the truth that Jesus did indeed rise from The dead.
@@aydentrevaskis8390you assume that there really were guards at the tomb. But that isn’t one of the minimal facts. In fact it would be VERY VERY unusual to do so and likely developed later in the oral retelling of the story but not likely what really happened. You cannot support water in one bottomless bucket by putting it into another bottomless bucket.
@@TheFreedThinkerPodcast given that we have records of Josephus and others who attest to Jesus and the Jewish objections to Jesus’s resurrection, we would expect at least someone to point that out, but nobody does. In fact, the Jewish objection merely confirms there were guards there
@@aydentrevaskis8390 can you cite where Josephus claims that there were guards?
Refuting Craig, not his books or articles but an animated youtube video. “Analytic” christians 😂
He was as real as 🎅.
As real as the universe being eternal or comeing frome nothing 🤣🤣😂
@@masterjose8483 do you think baby Jesus will sort out the problems in Ukraine & Israel?
The historicity of Jesus is the overwhelming view of academia and there is good evidence for it.
@Testimony_Of_JTF It certainly doesn't overwhelm me.
There is no factual evidence that he existed, and that's a fact.
Charles Darwin was an extremely smart individual.
@@foesure There is much factual evidence that He existed. From it just making more sense a priori for Christianity to be born out of a historical Jesus, to Tacitus and Josephus, etc. The Christ mythicist thesis is widely rejected because it is weak and fails to properly explain events, even when it does explain them the realist one is superior.
What the hell does Darwin have to do with this?