Thanks for the respectul response! Regarding D and B the Gospels being written in say, Antioch or Rome rather than Jerusalem decades later. Yes, that's true enough. Good point. The issue is that the resurrection was being proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion (50 days). The church stayed in Jerusalem and only left until persecution drove them out. It's fair enough that I need to defend these claims that the Gospels and Acts pass historical criteria, which is what most of the rest of my channel would be dedicated to. I argue that they're not anonymous in the sense that we don't know who wrote them (of course the authors don't name themselves) and they''re written by people who were reliable, habitually truthful and close up to the facts. Also even many critical scholars who reject the substantial truthfulness of the Gospels believe the church was driven out of Jerusalem due to persecution and that the belief was originally preached in Jerusalem. That's where the 1 Corinthians 15 creed was believed to be originated from according to many scholars, although admittedly not all and you might argue that's more conjectural. As for what Jesus taught, it wasn't just about how one should live but his own self-identity as God's Son and the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy provide a context of the importance of his claims, which I also am making videos about. As far as O and Brigham Young vs the Gospel writers goes, there is enemy attestation that Jesus was a miracle worker because they recorded that it was believed that Jesus healed by the power of the devil. Most scholars believe he drew large crowds based on this belief. “An ability to work cures, further, coheres with another datum from Jesus’ mission: He had a popular following, which such an ability helps to account for.” -Paula Fredriksen, who is not a Christian (‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.’) Also remember I'm using the filter to weed out unpromising claims that even I'd probably accept, so if I'm trying to convince someone that Jesus is the Son of God, I probably won't start with say...the healing of Peter's mother-in-law whereas I'd start with the resurrection. But there is a reason why at least some names are given in the Gospels of those who received a miracle, like Jairus or Bartimaeus. Bauckham argues (cogently I think) that these were people familiar to the recipients of Mark's Gospel. Regarding T - Really good point here. I'll quote philosopher Robert Larmer, who has a few scholarly monographs on the topic of miracles. "I am arguing that the New Testament miracles, taken in conjunction with Jesus’ self-understanding, and moral character, serve as the lens by which other miracles can be best understood. More accurately, I am claiming that the New Testament miracles are an essential part of the fullest expression of divine selfdisclosure, and thus help to serve as a means by which to understand the significance of ongoing miracles, whether these occur in explicitly Christian settings or not. Thus, although all miracles serve to some degree to reveal God’s nature and purposes, not all miracles are equally revelatory. A life-long atheist who has gone blind from macular degeneration but who allows herself to be persuaded to go to a healing service at which she receives her sight might become persuaded that there is a God, but on the basis of that single event be unconvinced of anything but God’s existence and general benevolence. Such an experience may lead her to investigate the claims of various religions, but as a single event it has limited revelatory significance. For this reason, Christian apologists need to be careful not to claim more for the doctrinal implications of various miracles than such events reasonably warrant. Healing miracles, which by far seem to be the most common type of miracle, can reasonably be taken as a sign of God’s care and mercy, and can be taken to confirm the central aspects of Christianity inasmuch as they appear to especially occur in conjunction with Christian outreach or revival. To go further than this, however, and take them as confirming very specific points of disputed doctrines is to project onto them an interpretation that does not seem warranted. Put differently, although miracles can include a very large and very specific element of self-disclosure from God, it is important that whatever element of self-disclosure there is be distinguished from what we attempt to infer on our own concerning the significance of the event. It deserves emphasis in this regard that Jesus insists that genuine miracles are to be identified by their ‘fruits’, that is to say can they be seen over the course of time to further human flourishing and a deeper understanding of God and His purposes." (I'm guessing you'll disagree a lot with that quote, but make with it what you will. He is at least admonishing apologists to use caution when drawing certain conclusions.) S-sef-serving. I mean, I guess one could be the moral police and be motivated by all kinds of weird things but the context of early persecution seems to cut against any self serving interests. Paul worked with his hands, refused offerings for the most part, lived a celibate life and eschewed personal recognition. When the Corinthian Christians argued who was the greatest, he called them a bunch of carnal bozos and said their behavior over who their favorite Chritian leader was was wrong. IDK, I think in the context of early persecution such desire to control people's lives seems a bit weak. Finally, Texas Sharp Shooter - Just admit it! You like the criteria. LOL. Just ribbing you but you repeatedly acknowledged and at times at least tacitly admitted the criteria were good and even used them to argue against the resurrection and Christian miracles. Every single claim that falls on one or more of the criteria decreases the probability of there being a genuine miracle claim. I admittedly put myself in an uphill battle to the point where it is going to take stronger evidence to overwhelm a lower prior in order to argue that the resurrection happened. But sure, I get that it goes back to your standard where miracles could at least in theory still be proven still under Methodological Naturalism. Anyway, I'm sure we could go back and forth for forever but again this was a good response and I appreciate the respectful dialogue! This was a fun exchange and if you wanna reply to this comment, you're welcome to have the last word. (at least for now, maybe we'll argue on twitter again sometime 😉)

I enjoy your videos, but you might try increasing the volume. Since there's no reason I need to be looking at the screen, I like to listen to them while I'm doing something else - like cooking dinner. But they're just not loud enough for that. They're not as loud as most of the videos I listen to. And it's always easy to turn the volume _down._ But there's a limit to how high I can turn it up. Just a suggestion. Thanks!

@Nai61a

2 жыл бұрын

Bill Garthright: My thoughts exactly!

It's always heartwarming when both sides tell their audience to be respectful in the comments. Too many response videos have toxic comment sections, and it only gets worse the larger the channel gets. I definitely think that the Opinions already established is a weak criteria as it would undermine pretty much every modern miracle claim to the point that we would probably reject a modern miracle claim even if it was legitimate. Another thing I would mention is that a lot of Erik's arguments for why the Resurrection is based on his Maximal Data approach (Trustworthy Gospels and traditional, early authorship). Thus, many of your criticisms for why the Resurrection doesn't stand above other Miracle claims wouldn't hold against him (Although it would beat Minimal Facts approaches). Your point about about how these miracle criteria are subconsciously biased toward the Resurrection is reasonable but not certain conjecture, so I wonder what Miracle criteria would look like if it came from a Muslim or Mormon.

@CounterApologist

2 жыл бұрын

So my response to his approach is largely in this video on the specifics, I think it's demonstrable the gospels aren't generally reliable, in fact most apologists won't even argue for that. By "early authorship" they mean within the century, but 30-50 years delta from the time is not all that early and has plenty of time for the stories to grow, and they actually do from Mark -> Mt/L -> John.

I always say that some of the best arguments against miracles comes from the religious when they speak about why we should doubt rival religions miracle claims.

Miracles demonstrate a failure on the part of the Creator to get it right the first time. Why should one expect human coaxing (prayer) to augment its efficiency?

A thorough rebuttal. On to the other one since I watched these out of order.

@CounterApologist

2 жыл бұрын

Nah man, this is part 2, the last video was part 1. I'll update the description. Sorry for the confusion!

@Overonator

2 жыл бұрын

This is part 2.