James F. McGrath FACT-CHECKS William Lane Craig & Sean McDowell - And It’s NOT Looking Good!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- James F. McGrath FACT-CHECKS William Lane Craig & Sean McDowell - And It’s NOT Looking Good!
Christian apologist Wesley Huff recently debated Billy Carson, an paleo-contact enthusiast, and somehow caught the attention of none other than Joe Rogan. That led to an interview where Huff made bold claims about Christianity’s historical foundations, which atheist Alex O’Connor @CosmicSkeptic quick to challenge. This set off a chain reaction, with Christian apologists rallying behind their new Heracles of the faith-Wes Huff-declaring him a champion in defense of the Gospel. Enter Sean McDowell (son of legendary apologist Josh McDowell) and William Lane Craig, stepping in with their usual arsenal of apologetic arguments. Their mission? To make the New Testament's resurrection claims so historically undeniable that anyone with a pulse must believe the early Christians really saw the resurrected Jesus. Meanwhile, these same apologists dismiss Mormonism’s eyewitness claims as fabrications and charlatanry-but somehow, the New Testament gets a free pass?
Well, at MythVision, we don’t take apologetic claims at face value. In this series, we’re bringing in top critical Bible scholars to examine Craig and McDowell’s arguments piece by piece. And let’s just say... it’s NOT looking good for these defenders of the faith. Get ready for an eye-opening, educational, and unapologetically honest breakdown of apologetics versus real scholarship!
Dr. James F. McGrath is no stranger to dissecting bold religious claims. As the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, McGrath has spent years critically examining early Christianity, Mandaeism, and the New Testament's historical foundations. He’s also known for his strong critiques of the Christ myth theory and his deep dives into the intersection of religion and science fiction. Holding a Ph.D. from Durham University (1998), McGrath brings both scholarly rigor and sharp analytical skills to the table.
Now, he turns his expertise toward William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell’s apologetic arguments. Do their claims about the resurrection and the reliability of the New Testament hold up under scrutiny? Or do they crumble when examined by a real scholar?
Garb James McGrath's books here amzn.to/4gjxqnm
The original video produced by Sean McDowell @SeanMcDowell & William Lane Craig @drcraigvideos @ReasonableFaithOrg • William Lane Craig Res...
Subscribe to our second channel
@mythvisionTV
SIGN UP FOR ONLINE COURSES HERE
James Tabor: Jesus and The Dead Sea Scrolls - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/dss
Joshua Bowen: Myths Borrowed By The Old Testament - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/ot-myths
James Tabor: Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten? - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/firstgospel
Robyn Faith Walsh: Paul's Legacy - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/paulslegacy
Robyn Faith Walsh: The Gospels Masterclass - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gospels
Dennis MacDonald: The Gospels & Greek Poetry - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/homeric-mimesis
Kipp Davis: Real Ancient Israelite Religions -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/israelite-religions
Richard Carrier: New Testament Studies For Everyone -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-studies
M. David Litwa: The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mysterycults
Dale C. Allison Jr: The Quest For The Historical Jesus -
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jesus-quest
SIGN UP FOR BART EHRMAN COURSES:
Bart Ehrman: Historical Problems with The Bible & Quran - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bible&quran
The Gospel of Matthew - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/matthew
Jodi Magness: Archaeology in the Time of Jesus - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/timeofjesus
Scribal Corruption of Scripture - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/corruption
Mark: The Unknown Jesus - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown-jesus
Finding Moses - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
Other Virgin Births In Antiquity - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/virgins
Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/resurrection
Genesis: In The Beginning - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/genesis
Christmas - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/christmas
Did Jesus Call Himself God? - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
**RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Please support MythVision by joining the Patreon or making a one-time donation through the links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 www.mythvisionpodcast.com
MythVision Patreon: 👉 www.patreon.com/mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
👉👉 Check out MVP Courses for new and upcoming online courses:
www.mvp-courses.com/
#MythVision #Christianity #NewTestament
Stay tuned, because I have a whole series of critical scholars responding to this material.
Like the members of the Jesus Seminar that Craig had very little problem exposing as idiots.
@@TBOTSS And where did you go to seminary at and what university awarded you a PhD?
Mythvisison is your goal to Get Christians to forsake their religion and or get them to think logically and use reason ?
This is so utterly ridiculous. These guys would never accept testimonial evidence for anything supernatural outside of their religion.
At times they claim these are the result of “demonic activity”.
@ 🙄😂 like dinosaur fossils;)
@@zach2980 You're being sarcastic right ?
@@readynowforever3676 oh I’ve heard Christians say that fossils are the result of satan. And I’ve heard them say that humans lived alongside dinosaurs too. 😂
Well of course not. That's because their religion is the one true one. So there are other explanations for every other religion
I'm sat here LAUGHING MY SOCKS OFF!!
Listening to grown men talking bollocks!! Loving it!!
5:35 Craig's logic is: The Gospel of Mark records Jesus saying "X." Therefore, the historical Jesus must have said "X." Does any genuine historian use this logic? Nope. The lack of rational inquiry and special pleading is astoundingly obvious.
Yes. Tacitus is the only source that claims Nero blamed the burning of Rome on Christians and that is generally accepted by historians.
I thought you could do this if the source is generally seen as reliable and there isn't any reason to believe otherwise. Which obviously an apologist is going to see that the Bible is accurate and reliable so they can take it as a given that yes this is actually what Jesus said.
@@tiggerbane4325 Would a historian do that for Philostratus who claimed to rely on several early sources (like Maximus of Aegae, Damis, etc) to tell the life of the miracle-working Apollonius? Historians have to be provisional and skeptical of any claims that are not independently attested.
@@maddam50 I'm sure you can see the difference in content and genre between Tacitus and the Gospel attributed to Mark. For one, the scholarly consensus is that nobody has any idea who even wrote "Mark," but Tacitus doesn't have the same problem with attribution. This is simply apples and oranges. But even then, historians no longer call ancient writers "authorities," they call them "sources" because the historian IS the authority now.
@ I mean there is a difference between believing the direct statements made especially if they are short in length in these and the actions that are miraculous. We have much higher standards around miraculous stuff than we do about spoken words of people who are more extensively attested to exist for obvious reasons.
Apologists often engage in complex hermeneutical gymnastics to mitigate the moral and ethical concerns raised by a plain reading of the text.
The plain reading of the text is nonsensical unless you happen to understand the original language and its idioms. The plain reading of Exodus 34;6 says that God has a long nose, but that was an ancient Hebrew idiom to mean slow to anger. When Trump says he will drain the swamp, do you take that plain reading too? Is he trying to communicate that he will install drains in swamps or dig canals to drain all swamps in the US?
@maddam50 💪😁 Somethings documented do mean what they say. I certainly don't claim to be a biblical scholar in Hebrew or Greek but since I started following critical scholars in such fields it's opened my eyes to the complexities within the pages of what we call the bible. It's all fascinating literature, not just the bible, but all ancient texts.
@@maddam50you conflate plain reading and literal reading tho, of course someone needs to understand the original language to know the idioms, I’m not sure how why you commented that, am I missing something?
@ You can say I'm conflating the two, but what is understood as non-literal today might not have been in the past. When Jesus said "love me with your all your heart", today we understand that emotions do not come from hearts so we plainly read it non-literally but the author probably had a much more primitive understanding of biology and meant it literally.
@ of course, it would still be a plain reading, plain as in the most probable and simplest meaning
28:20 William Laine Craig is the living definition of special pleading
Yes, he's an apologist. The two are one and the same.
I love how his "one chance in a million" throws anything wlc prefaces as "I personally find" the same as irrelevant.
@michaelhenry1763 - Agreed. It's painful. And a Phd!
27:41 Can he prove that the “disciples” were not lying? How is he so certain that Joe Smith and his followers were just lying but Craig’s founders of his religion are telling the truth? Where is his proof? Why can’t they see their own hypocrisy?
It exhausting to hear the BS that apologist need to go in order to dismiss other religions that competes with theirs.
It’s the same shit with a different color. But their shit is special.
No it’s not.
The only reason this religion is treated differently is because it has a monopoly in selling its BS, as we can see with Low Bar Bill.
William Lane "I lowered the bar!" Craig....nuff said
Lol. My favorite "epistemology" quote by Craig as well. And for the apologetic backlash, I think he prefers to have kept that to himself.
I just call him William Lowbar Craig
@@Julian0101How about Willie Lowbar Craig?
Low Bar Bill.
@ That slip of the tongue was epic. Low bar Bill...that's great!
"He was possessed by two thousand supernatural demons, all of whom were terrified of Jesus."
They say things like this with total certainty. They really have no idea how ridiculous they sound.
TH-cam is now some guy reacting to another guy reacting to another guy 😂
Its a real RDJ/Tropic Thunder scenario in here.
So. Some guy, a couple of millennia ago, is claimed by a person(s) that he said be God. And people have been repeating that for said millennia expecting people to believe it, and they do. How weird is that?
Well there is the talking snake, virgin birth, vampire ideas ... That would have to be weirder
It's a virus. Literally
William Lane Craig says that 500 witnesses were already disposed to Christianity so whatever but Peter wasn’t predisposed to to the idea of the resurrection. That was a low point in his volley
10:35 Craig said it, Jesus forgave sins, however, he did so before any blood was shed. This can be shown in the Old Testament also. This show the cross was arbitrary.... unnecessary.
And a god “dying” is not much of a sacrifice. It’s all blood “magic”, which was practiced by many religions in Western Asia. It’s all mythology.
Atonement...one of various explanations why Jesus was crucified....explain and spiritualise and double down
This !! Exactly !!!!
@@MarthaEllen88 Still very mystical. God shouldn’t need to cast a spell or do a ritual.
Leviticus 5:11 (This passage shows you don’t even need shedding of blood to forgive sins in the Bible)
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
11 “But if you cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, you shall bring as your offering for the sin that you have committed one-tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a purification offering; you shall not put oil on it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a purification offering.
Good to see Bill and Sean making each other feel good.
My sentiments exactly. I thought one of them might even propose to the other.
At least 8 books in the new Testament are said to be forged. What impact would that have on the church if congregations were informed of this?
When people WANT to believe
And when people believe on FAITH
The whole bible could be complete nonsense yet they'll still believe.
My father in law who's a Lutheran Pastor said to me "you need things to make sense before you can believe them"
I thought to myself "and you don't?"
It seems he just believes and has "faith" that it'll all make sense one day.
Sorry, I can't do that
They will just believe they are authentic
I think it is more than 8: gospels+acts+all peter's letters+almost half of paul's
I really appreciate Dr McGrath’s balanced assessment of the evidence. The apologists are really destroying the beauty of what the books of the Bible represent about humanity’s attempts to find peace, god, positivity in a crazy world.
Lol
Sean used to seem like he would admit when the evidence didn’t exactly support his beliefs, but with the alex O’Conner Wes huff stuff I see him pushing bad evidence to support his beliefs now.
I liked Dr. Craig more when he sang for Van Halen.
Best comment so far. 😅
Ok, it took me a second, but holy crap, I never noticed how much he looked like Diamond Dave.
This must be just like living in paradise! Me wise magic!
Surely these apologists realize that their arguments, thus far, has not convince anybody who's aware of these things.... Right?....
They only need to make their own gullible flock feel that their apologists are confident in what they say... they dont need to convince anyone, they dont even need to be right... they just need to "appear" right enough so the sheep can go back to sleep
Their arguments are not to change the minds of nonbelievers. Instead they are trying to make those who believe as they do feel better about their faith and belief structure. In another way it’s like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the crack to stop the leak. It might save them from reality for a moment but eventually the entire sea will come crashing in. 😂
@@enigmaticaljedi6808totally agree. These discussions are to keep the flock in the fold
The book of acts contradicts Paul's letters. And these clowns kwon that. They are liars.
No it doesn’t and Paul’s letters don’t mean shit when it was all done by the Catholic church
Bill’s drunken relationship with logic is a wonder to behold. Pretzels have absolutely nothing on him.
"Hmmmm, pretzels". Sadly a Seinfeld joke.
But point well made. "..drunken relationship with logic..." sums up what being filled up with "the holy spirit(s), hic !" really means. LoL
Nowhere in the old testament does it say that the messiah would be god, so claiming to be the messiah does not mean he's claiming to be god.Jesus said repeatedly that his power and words were given to him by the father.He was not god from his birth.People from his home town did not believe in him-for a reason.
Exactly. People in the comments have so much more "concentrated" rebuttal, that the effusive pretty words of these pretentious apologists.
Who was the stenographer who wrote down exactly what jesus said? crickets chirping....only the story book says this or that. The entire narrative of gods and saviors is ridiculous Iron Age crap to be consumed by the gullible, simple minded and credulous
I’ve always wondered this about Yeshua’s 40 days and 40 nights in the desert culminating with an encounter with Satan. Who was there to witness and record all that?
@@chadevans1101 I've written that very thought too. It's not the only ridiculous story people simply take on "faith"
Am I alone in thinking that the sound of Craig's voice is beyond insufferable, especially with he adds emotional inflections to his words?
Despite his work, it's obvious that he's a pretentious moron and yes, I am aware that this seems like ad hominem, but his arguments have been debunked already so no need to address them.
Sincerity of a belief is not an argument for that belief. We should certainly adapt alien abductions, recovered memories, and demonic procession as real if that was the case.
1:31:02 they finally admit that the only practical source for the resurrection is 1 Corinthian 15; a second or third hand source with a list with embellishments.
" is historically certain" WOW. 😂
I am sick and tired of Bill Craig's circular arguments and the arrogance with which he pontificates them. Please ignore him. We need to hear from people who have some understanding of logic.
Bill Craig is a unstudied babbling charleton
And then it turns out they did not in fact, see the son of a man coming on the clouds
I am amazed that William Lane Craig has any credibility to anyone at all. He's clearly full of shit.
In Judaism the Messiah IS NOT G-d, so claiming to be the Messiah is not claiming divinity
Also was Jesus going around saying what he said in the Gospel according to John?
Apologists will not answer that
Wow, I've never seen Craig so mendaciously deceptive as his Son of Man claims. The Son of Man is PRESENTED TO GOD as an ANGELIC BEING, not as God himself. This means that Jesus is "divine", i.e., godly and exalted, but he is NOT God. Way past time for Craig to observe a noble silence and retire for good.
I think a problem for people like WLC is that they have to profess Christ with all their heart and mind or else they believe they will miss out on heaven and end up in hell. That is what I reckon he is doing at the 1:12 mark even though, as McGrath points out, his attitude is bonkers. God is watching him and so he dare not express any doubt himself. He dare not suggest that back in the good old New Testament days, there was some legitimate doubt.
Craig has a perfect record against Biblical scholars - you would think that at least one would have been able to expose him. McGrath engaging in person attacks is not scholarship.
@@TBOTSS You could be correct. But do the scholars he's debated, along with all other scholars accept your assertion?
Anyway what about my claim? I had verses like these in mind:-
Matthew 22:37
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"
The command is to love God with every part of your being, not just during religious activities
Mark 12:30-31
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength"
The second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself
Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
Revelation 3:15-16
“I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!
Matthew 10:32.
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven".
It's highly unlikely that someone who picks up a Bible for the first time and read it would come to the conclusion that Jesus was Yahweh, let alone the second person of a Trinity. It took a long time for Christians to almost uniformly adopt that idea. Yes some church fathers called him "God" but don't really explain it very well. I've heard apologists say "son of God" = God but for the life of me i can't see anyone in the first century doing that, let alone Jesus himself. And the John 8:58 thing is so dumb. Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Jews would've had to translate that into Hebrew, then translate it again to the Greek from the LXX to get to Exodus 3. I think the author of the story was trying to show Jesus screwing with the Jews, where he had claimed power and authority by the name of God and so was God in some sense, but not really God.
Probably right !! Yet because a lot of humans are pretty dumb, here we are (and at the time of this writing, with a leader of a country who is, like so many, an even bigger idiot assh-le than his followers). Thousands of years, and even with the internet, we are seeing moronic memes of religion CONtinuing to play out.
The proof of a Historical Jesus is so speculative that scholars must tease out any small kernel of truth and present it as fact, but only if they precede it with the following modifying phases:
“Perhaps . . . “; “Well maybe . . .”; “It seems . . . “; “It appears . . . “; “Apparently . . . ”; “It could have been . . .”; “It certainly could have been . . .”; “Obviously . . . .”; “I suppose . . .”; “The Gospels claim . . .; “It’s plausible that . . .”; Let’s consider . . . ; and other dubious introductions to so-called historical proofs for Jesus.
Now if we take the above and temper it with 99% faith and 1 % shear hope, only then does Jesus Christ come into focus as hazy historical fact.
A part of me still wants to become an Orthodox monk. I know it’s not true, but that lifestyle still calls to me. In my mind I can translate everything as a metaphor for my spiritual growth.
I don’t see why you can’t replicate that lifestyle. First step is to choose a job where you deal with people as little as possible.
@@pansepot1490 I’m trying to figure it out. I actually am retired young so literally can do anything
🙄 yawn. So you want to wear a stupid robe, and read made up garbage all day?
Where do you think the church stuck its gnostics and mystics to keep them quiet? The monasteries.
That's why he was killed. ..spilling that bullshit! 😂😂😂😂😂 they said GTFOH!
The Messiah cannot be a deity. Only a human
Wes huff is a good but bill carson is a bigger goof. This dude literally called himself one of the world’s foremost biblical manuscript scholars without being able to read a single language other than English. Billy deserved to be taken down Billy deserves to lose everything because he is a liar
Never heard of Billy until Wes and his minions went around promoting him. 😂
Craig is starting to look at lot like Hide-The-Pain-Harold. His mouth is trying to smile but the entire rest of his face just isn't selling it that well anymore.
Bro, I’m a Mormon and served a mission and have been exposed to a lot of church historical artifacts that no one will talk about. You need to bring me on.
Better to have Dan on. I think he would be more credible than some random person.
People today claim to be god.
43:50 How would a would-be fact checker actually stop the spread of the myth? Write a letter to the editor?
I'd say facts are kryptonite for the apologist, except the analogy fails because Superman can't choose to juat ignore kryptonite.
How often does low-bar-Billy need to admit his dishonesty and double standard for people to stop caring about his nonsense?
Without having to deal with the cementaceous beliefs of Bill Craig, let’s also criticize McGrath.
So out first witness to the events is Gal and 1 Cor, through the eyes of Paul. We deal with Galations we deal with and angry Paul who says basically, I learned nothing from the pillars. Let us juxtapose this 15 days of study with Cephas but emphatically he learned nothing (or nothing new). Where did Paul’s knowledge of Jesus come from.
From his vision. We have to take this at face value, our best and first witness imagined Jesus. We cannot sweep this under the rug or avoid this. Moreover we learn from 2 cor 12 that Paul is somehow learnt Jewish mysticism while in his trip to Aravah. The best we can say then is that Paul learned about Jesus from some who was a mystic. And, McGrath, all these quips about Seek, Find, Marvel,…. rest this highly attested material is about mysticism. So we can’t escape the fact that somehow Paul has entered a mystical cult, and after doing that and being rejected by Jewish followers of the way, he set his eyes on gentiles.
So in that light we need to look at 1 cor 15, who told Paul this if Gal is true and he spent 15 days with Cephas and learned nothing, if not Peter, then a desert mystic who got this information second hand? In Paul’s mind, they have not fallen away but fell asleep, but in Matthew restating the passage and correcting it.
So some had visions, just like Paul and of those some believed he was a messiah.
This is a rather mundane thing. We have a bunch of people some of whom were already practicing and they had a vision of someone who experienced a traumatic death, they had visions (mystics see dead people, anyway) and as mystics will do, they interpreted their visions differently. Matthew is not stating anything godly or bearing on the divinity of Jesus, not for the reason you stated, but because they were a bunch of Jewish mystics.
Yep. Pretty much.
I can't keep up Derek. You are producing too much great stuff!
The mental gymnastics these 2 do about their BS religion are 1976 Olympics Nadia perfect “10” level! Low Bar Bill says number of followers doesn’t equal truth, but then makes some big deal out of rapid growth, as if that isn’t the same basic idea- NUMBERS OF FOLLOWERS!
Did people wish to deify Alexander to continue worshipping him as a savior? If not, isn’t that a major reason why people interpret the deification accounts of Alexander and Jesus differently?
There was a cult of Alexander that continued after his death. I don't think he was worshiped as a savior in the same sense as Jesus though (i.e. a savior from death and afterlife punishment). Jesus as savior is more comparable to Dionysus, Osiris, Isis, Sarapis, Demeter/Persephone, etc.
Special pleading.
Finally! James McGrath is on mythvision
It's pretty embarrassing to hear two grown men refer to the gospels as if they are documented history, in fact, *biography* written by scholars of the time about the factual occurrences in a guy named Jesus' life. The most cursory reading of the gospels exposes them as fantastical fictions written with an agenda and that they do not even claim to be rigorous history.
"son of" refers to the essence of a thing or creature. "Son of a dog, son of a donkey, son of a bitch" these refer to the innate characteristics of a being
This was fascinating for me. It's not often that I hear from someone who is a Biblical scholar and simultaneously maintained their Christianity.
As a Latter-Day Saint who appreciates Derek and his work, thanks for standing up for us a little bit there. Yes they are wrong about the history, but that’s unimportant. They act as if evangelical Christianity is more plausible than the religious claims of Mormonism. It’s not. Both require faith and both require somewhat of a suspension of belief or separation from true scholarship and history.
At 1:14ish, Bill states that the bible had no antecedent for believing that Jesus would rise from the dead, therefore making the appearances to his closest disciples most likely to have been real as opposed to invented.
Does he forget Matt 16:21-23, Matt 17:22-23, Mark 8:31-32, Luke 9:21-22?
If the gospels are true, we have every reason to believe that his disciples, having witnesses Jesus:
1. Raising the dead
2. Feeding the 5,000
3. Calming the storm
4. Healing the sick, lame and blind
5. Casting out demons
Would also have known that he predicted his death and resurrection.
So we cannot reasonably say that they had no antecedent for believing such things to be true.
If gawd is so omnipotent why didn't "he" 😂 wait til the information age where his appearance could be documented for posterity? 🤨 What's "he" afraid of?
25:14 Why speculate about something that no one knows even existed or happened? No one writes from the this so called movement documenting anything factual. It’s all what MIGHT have happened or what people MAY have believed. Why not say wee just don’t know and probably never will. What we do know is that the entire religion and what this Jesus actually taught is gibberish. It’s a spiritual dead end
We Are MythVision‼️
Great subject 😎
What was Derek talking about at 34:40? Where he says we have the novel of something or another?
Now I have to scour all of TH-cam for more McGrath. Great guest!
great guest, hard watch tho with the response to a response to a response to an interview 😭😭
Mt. 28:17 says some doubted in Galilee when they had already touched Jesus according to Jn. 20:19 and Lk. 24 plus, the Doubting Thomas story a week later and also having knowledge of the appearance to Peter and those on the Emmaus Road?
Good gracious! How many appearances are necessary in order to quell doubts?
At the part about non-Canonical gospels - they broad-brushed them as all Gnostic. Not all the non-Canonical gospels were Gnostic. Lots of them weren't - and it's even debatable whether the Gospel of Thomas should count as Gnostic or not.
Jesus was into crystals? 😂;)
33:00 "At most historical methods might be able to say 'Ya, Jesus probably rose from the dead'... and that's still not what these apologists are looking for".
Sean McDowell has a video titled "What is the Evidence Jesus Rose from the Dead?" where he argues for that specifically and never mentions Jesus' divinity.
FANTASTIC interview 👏 👌
Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to his spirit empowered disciples. I guess they are now in ontological unity with the father and are God. So with that one move Jesus increased the distinct persons of the trinity to 15! 🤣
Wow. The same moment that this video appeared on my whatever you call the video choice list on the right of my screen- there were videos on Dietrich Bonhoefer about his theory of 'stupidity'. So is an angel or whatever operating on my you tube video thingy or is it some internet algorithm? Or have the gods Doug and Sharon sent one of their heavenly host?
Greetings from Australia.
I dont think the argument that Mormons grew at the same rate as Christians therefore it's not surprising or remarkable is a good argument. Growing the way it did in the late first/early second century is not the same as something growing in the 19th century. One had the printing press, the other did not for example in getting the message out.
At 1:02 Sean tries to suggest that Wes meant that the gnostic gospels were trying to appropriate known and established gospels about who Jesus was with their pagan views by suggesting things that were not part of the 2nd temple period. That's exactly what the NT gospels did with the messiah and the OT passages! LMAO!
Interesting that WLC and others believe "James the brother of Jesus" was actually Jesus's brother. Being raised Catholic, I was always told that was just ridiculous nonsense. The Catholic dogma was hard against the belief that Jesus had any siblings, I think because it went against the idea of Mary being a pristine sinless virgin, hah!
Why do Craig use the term "appearence" of Jesus? Was the "ressurrected" Jesus a ghost?
3:30 Did Alex strike you for showing clips of his videos? I didn't know the notebook thing was necessary
I'm slightly annoyed by how much gets pinned on the testimony of the apostles with the caveat that they had no possible motivation to lie. And they say this despite the fact that the Bible says that the early Christians gave all of their money to the apostles. (Acts 4:34-35) But then again, who would lie for money.
Subconsciously i think christians know its not all true thats why when others have different beliefs they feel like they have to put others down
Is "FACT CHECK" is possible for miracles, supernatural events, spiritual guidance, and matters of faith? I'm afraid not.
In fairness, I have seen both JM & WLC in other contexts explore rational historical and philosophical points -- and the comic level of confabulation often generated in an apologeticsfest maybe doesn't reflect the best of their scholarship? 🤷🏼♀️
Blasphemy is about cognitive dissonance.
You know, there are plenty of accounts of Indian gurus being encountered by some of their students after "dropping the body." It may be that Yeshua's were simply interpreted as both unique and resurrection when it is something ALL of us go through, that is, the transition from one dimension or plane of existence to another.
So all the 500 were male?
Harry Potter is true we no who wrote it. Not religious books full of stories
Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Jesus is the son of god just like in his baptism. Three different beings. God the father , son, Holy Ghost. Three different beings serving one purpose
Jesus never existed. The "Essene" Church of God was gradually repurposed over time and the historical Jesus wasn't created until after Marcion in 144AD. The Church then just made all the previous inconsistent texts "Heretical".
😂😂😂 crikey
At 52 min...most people seem to assume the gospels were each written by just one author in a short period. Could it be that Craig might be on to something (and I haven't yet read his arguments for a pre70AD Luke-Acts yet, which implies an even earlier date for Mark) and that Mark and maybe Luke or Matthew had much earlier first drafts that then were later edited, perhaps in stages over a period of time, and inserted post-70AD information which is what, in spite of earlier material, pushes the estimated date of writing later?
Evidence also suggests that John had multiple authors. Could some Johannine material, independent of the synoptics, have gone back to earlier maybe written sources, and the later theological intro and the high-christology parts added to later on? Also if Q is a single, independent written source, it's lack of Pauline influence more Jewish-consistent flavor suggests earlier (pre-60s) date? Thus, you could argue that parts of the synoptics CAN be earlier dated. I'm not a Christian (in the belief sense) so this doesn't automatically mean to me the stories happened as told, even if early.
Begin with conclusion you want and then twist logic evidence and nonsense to make the conclusion 'true'
OOOOh Cannon the card game what is that?
Dr McGrath suggests that Jesus saw he would have to follow the path of martyrdom to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth. I imagine Jesus would wisely plan a two pronged strategy, a heads I win tails you lose plan, either he achieves the expulsion of the Romans and his elevation to King of Kings in his lifetime, or he lays the groundwork to suggest he's coming back.
Aren't the late stories of jesus brothers not believeing in jesus ministry a way to discredit the the Jewish Chirst followers the Jerusalem Church?
Jesus was indeed a Gnostic and knew EVERYTHING about the demiurge.
I seen dug on the road to work . My rock my fortress
Can we just take the interpretation of the "Son of Man" as is given in Daniel7:27
"The kingship and dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High;
their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey them.”
Alex converted to Mormonism ?
No. But my Mormon friends giddily think the door is open for Alex.
Isaiah 28:9?!. Jeremiah 31:31-34. Hebrew 8:10-12. Isaiah 1:18. Do you know the law or will of God?!. Hebreo 4:12.
The fact that you have many details which are discrepancies and contradictions around the core beliefs (death, burial, Rez, and appearances) should bring into question these 4 general so-called facts. Take the contradictions of who and when saw Jesus first - Mary M. or Peter? The 4 gospels can't even get this correct!
Let's see: Paul (the earliest) has Peter then the 12 (but there was only the 11) and has no woman, Mark does not say unless it's the longer ending then it's Mary M., Matthew has Mary M. and another Mary, Luke has Peter then the two on the Emmaus Rd. then the 11 never "the twelve" (cause Judas killed himself), John has Mary M. only as she went to the tomb a second time not the first. It's a total cluster fuck!
WLC is FOS!
What about the Gospel of Peter? You're happy to take the two letters of Peter as real, but what about his Gospel? Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, who is the father and the founder of the religion that became Christianity. Enter Paul and the cult morphed into what WLC and SMcD follow today, whilst the original faith became a gnostic backwater that continues to this day, the Mandaeans.
Lmfao, the apocryphal gospels bad because nobody knows about them until late 2nd century.
Yeah buddy, theyre mentioned for the 1st by Ireneaus , just like the canonical.
Book of revelations says, and I saw another angel fly down from heaven with ANOTHER testimony of Jesus which is the Book of Mormon but keep talking to Mormon haters and bring them on and yes they will try and debunk it but hey where is the evidence for the ark of the covenant or anything biblical. Just because we haven’t found it DOESNT mean it DOESNT exists. Bring a Mormon on bruh
Boook of Revelation. Singular.