I just wanna say shout-out to the immense clarity of the discussion here. I just listened to the most recent back and forth between Paulogia and CC, and there are critical underlying assumptions about epistemology/philosophy of science which absolutely need to be addressed, but which are barely brought up, let alone treated with sufficient precision and clarity. I wish more of the discussion online was of this nature
Thank you. So many apologetics debates/discussions go nowhere because atheists/skeptics are not asked to provide warrant at the outset for their naturalistic presupposition that the supernatural is impossible or impossible to rationally believe. All evidence of the supernatural, no matter how strong, will be insufficient for someone locked into that presupposition so it must be challenged forcefully and directly
@@ElectricalpenguinThis is not really true. There are biblical scholars who agree with her work and others who don't. She's not saying many things that are radically new to scholarship. Her background in epistemology definitely spices things up though.
@@Electricalpenguin Not at all. Much of her work on the gospels has simply been reviving popular arguments that were mainstream since the 18th century but have recently fallen out of favour (not for good reasons, in my opinion). They only recently were considered by many modern scholars to be "fringe". Regardless, being fringe in the moment doesn't have any bearing on the truth of one's claims, as scholarly consensus in biblical studies has shifted constantly. If there are modern scholars who agree with her and many more modern scholars who don't, we're still left to examine the evidence. I think that's all I have to say on that (If you respond, I'll still happily read it and ponder it).
Matthew asks really well thought out and researched questions and respectfully pushes Lydia on a number of relevant issues. Lydia consistently gives precise, clear answers. What a great conversation! Thanks Matthew and Lydia. You two should talk more. It might be worthwhile to get into how Lydia takes on the critical scholars to defend the reliability of the New Testament. Of course, that's a really big, complex topic with lots of details and debates. You might need a whole series! But then there are lots of other topics relevant to the question of the truth of Christianity, and I know you can't cover all of it. But what you, Matthew, are covering, you are covering well.
Love this talk! Wouldn't mind some more with Lydia. Perhaps re-discussing development theories/independence after you've gone through her material on it?
I haven't paid attention to Dr. McGrew's work in a while so I am not aware of what's happening to her. Why is she lying down? Is there something wrong with her back?
I had never gotten the sense that the minimal facts proponents were granting for discussion purposes that the gospels are unreliable. I take their approach to be more along the lines of “Look, the evidence is so strong we don’t even need to take you through all that stuff, just these few facts are enough to show that Jesus was resurrected”. It doesn’t require assuming, even for the sake of argument, that the rest of the stuff in the gospels is unreliable.
The Minimalist approach is compatible with general unreliability of the Gospels. Proponents of this view often do explicitly say they can grant the skeptic all she wants on the matter of general reliability, but these few facts are still near-universally acknowledged, and so a case built on them still goes through.
The feeding of the 5000 involved food for thought. No wonder they left there feeling enlightened. Fast your body, feed your mind. Maximal data approach.
(1) are there ANY miracle claims in the Bible that she thinks are made up, exaggerations, apologetic excess? Anything? (2) what does she believe are the most difficult to believe or likely false miracle claims in the Bible?
@@landon5105You don’t think it’s ever useful to look at a person’s work more broadly for indicators of credibility? When someone always finds overwhelming support for their conclusions and always finds their opponent’s conclusions totally devoid of support, it’s immensely suspicious.
I just wanna say shout-out to the immense clarity of the discussion here. I just listened to the most recent back and forth between Paulogia and CC, and there are critical underlying assumptions about epistemology/philosophy of science which absolutely need to be addressed, but which are barely brought up, let alone treated with sufficient precision and clarity. I wish more of the discussion online was of this nature
Thank you. So many apologetics debates/discussions go nowhere because atheists/skeptics are not asked to provide warrant at the outset for their naturalistic presupposition that the supernatural is impossible or impossible to rationally believe. All evidence of the supernatural, no matter how strong, will be insufficient for someone locked into that presupposition so it must be challenged forcefully and directly
great interaction. lydia is a very careful and lucid thinker. highly underrated
criminally underrated
She is certainly intelligent and I envy her intellectual energy. But her theories are not taken seriously in mainstream New Testament studies.
@@ElectricalpenguinThis is not really true. There are biblical scholars who agree with her work and others who don't. She's not saying many things that are radically new to scholarship. Her background in epistemology definitely spices things up though.
@@christiang4497 I think you are grossly understating how fringe she is.
@@Electricalpenguin Not at all. Much of her work on the gospels has simply been reviving popular arguments that were mainstream since the 18th century but have recently fallen out of favour (not for good reasons, in my opinion). They only recently were considered by many modern scholars to be "fringe". Regardless, being fringe in the moment doesn't have any bearing on the truth of one's claims, as scholarly consensus in biblical studies has shifted constantly. If there are modern scholars who agree with her and many more modern scholars who don't, we're still left to examine the evidence. I think that's all I have to say on that (If you respond, I'll still happily read it and ponder it).
Really fantastic discussion. Matthew was mot afraid to ask good challenging questions and Lydia offered very clear and compelling answers.
Thanks!
Matthew asks really well thought out and researched questions and respectfully pushes Lydia on a number of relevant issues.
Lydia consistently gives precise, clear answers.
What a great conversation!
Thanks Matthew and Lydia. You two should talk more. It might be worthwhile to get into how Lydia takes on the critical scholars to defend the reliability of the New Testament. Of course, that's a really big, complex topic with lots of details and debates. You might need a whole series! But then there are lots of other topics relevant to the question of the truth of Christianity, and I know you can't cover all of it. But what you, Matthew, are covering, you are covering well.
Love this talk! Wouldn't mind some more with Lydia. Perhaps re-discussing development theories/independence after you've gone through her material on it?
This was a great discussion!
Thanks Jonathan, glad you liked it. Happy to have you on the channel some time!
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 Sure. How about doing a conversation on the evidential value of the conversion of Saul, for example?
@@JonathanMcLatchiehow about the lies you tell about evolution?
@@pabloandres6179 Can you be more specific?
@@JonathanMcLatchie ua-cam.com/video/oz8q2g2uQDE/v-deo.htmlsi=rbpwAdRLU3xESfte
Came from Capturing Christianity, awesome discussion man
I haven't paid attention to Dr. McGrew's work in a while so I am not aware of what's happening to her. Why is she lying down? Is there something wrong with her back?
I think she has severe back pain.
I had never gotten the sense that the minimal facts proponents were granting for discussion purposes that the gospels are unreliable. I take their approach to be more along the lines of “Look, the evidence is so strong we don’t even need to take you through all that stuff, just these few facts are enough to show that Jesus was resurrected”. It doesn’t require assuming, even for the sake of argument, that the rest of the stuff in the gospels is unreliable.
The Minimalist approach is compatible with general unreliability of the Gospels. Proponents of this view often do explicitly say they can grant the skeptic all she wants on the matter of general reliability, but these few facts are still near-universally acknowledged, and so a case built on them still goes through.
Re: 33:50, interesting to see the type of circumstances in which Lydia is willing to acknowledge a possible error.
The feeding of the 5000 involved food for thought.
No wonder they left there feeling enlightened.
Fast your body, feed your mind. Maximal data approach.
(1) are there ANY miracle claims in the Bible that she thinks are made up, exaggerations, apologetic excess? Anything?
(2) what does she believe are the most difficult to believe or likely false miracle claims in the Bible?
What relevance do these questions have? Deal with her arguments.
(2) all of them?
@@landon5105You don’t think it’s ever useful to look at a person’s work more broadly for indicators of credibility? When someone always finds overwhelming support for their conclusions and always finds their opponent’s conclusions totally devoid of support, it’s immensely suspicious.
@@Electricalpenguin It's better to look at the credibility of the arguments than the credibility of the person making the arguments.
yea... no... yea... no...