This is a good counter argument to O'Conner's argument. It would be interesting to hear his response. It would be interesting to see if O'Conner would concede to this point or have a counter to it. As to the overall argument. That because there is a claim that there were over 500 living witnesses most of which were supposedly still alive. That this is evidence fails on a major account. The vast majority of the claimed witnesses never actually made the claim to be witnesses. As well the names of the vast majority of suggested witnesses are never recorded. Only these few of the over 500 supposed eyewitnesses actually make any claim to the resurrection. We don't have the accounts of the 500+. So, we cannot include the 500+ as actual witnesses. We only have the few direct members of the potential 'cult' that make the claim that over 500 witnessed Jesus. And while the Old Testament records in detail ad-nauseum the lineage of Adam and Eve. There is no record of anyone making any attempt to verify and record the names of all the witnesses. By all accounts recording of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus has to be recognized as critical for the claim resurrection to be believed. Why do we not see anyone challenge the claim that there were over 500 witnesses? When we see in the bible so many arguments on so many other points. Both, in the time of the claim as well as to act as historical evidence the identities of 500+ is of critical importance. Without this we don't have a reason to trust the few making this claim that Jesus appeared to the number they are claiming he appeared to. Obviously, we are not able to verify the claim by interviewing all these witnesses. But, this would also be just as true for the people of that time. It would have been virtually impossible for any of the ancient people to verify these claims themselves. They didn't have efficient means of travel. They were likely often unable to travel by the necessities of their survival. As well the expense, dangers and restrictions to travel between the different cities, providences or nations as the case may be. They also wouldn't have known who to look for. They were not given the names of the majority of the claimed witnesses. If there truly were over 500 witnesses of the Resurrected Jesus. What we should have seen is the recording of the multitudes of people spreading the gospel of the resurrection. It should have been the gospels of the multitudes, and it should have happened immediately following their act of witnessing Jesus. We should not now be completely dependent upon only these few disciples. It makes no sense that these others would have treated witnessing the resurrected Jesus as insignificant in any way. It should by its very nature have completely transformed their purposes in life. Which would have included sharing the "good news". Yet by the lack of accounts otherwise. It seems these witnesses kept their experiences more or less to themselves. Or more likely the 500+ claimed witnesses never existed in the first place.
Are the gospels lying to us? That is a rather difficult question. I guess it depends what you mean by lying. For example: When we read something like The epic of Gilgamesh, do we ask ourselves if the author is lying to us? Imo, It really depends on how you approach the literature that you're reading. If accept that a story is based on fiction then it's not necessarily lying in the same way that someone may be deliberately withholding the truth. Why does God feel so far away? That is a good question. I've wondered this myself. If God truly exists and wants to have a connection with me then why make it so difficult to have that connection? I can easily make connections with my family and friends because they're part of my reality in which I can make that connection.
Here are a few theist arguments that helped me address the question of whether God really exists, hopefully you’ll find them useful. The kalam cosmological argument, the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morals, the historical evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus, and the fact that God can be personally know and experienced via faith in Christ. Blessings
@@chadblackman_ Kalam and fine tuning hardly lead to a god let alone the one you believe in and have been debunked repeatedly. Your objective morals are subject to the whims of your god. Morals have demonstrably changed throughout history without an update from your god. Historical evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus? I think even you don't believe that one. Divine hiddenness kinda defeats your last assertion.
Awesome video! Really appreciate the way you approached Alex o Connor’s video and respectfully debunked his claim. Though you did great in how you addressed the other issues with truth and grace. Looking forward to the next episode!
I think we need to start introducing the wider biblical theological argument for the resurrection of Christ starting with the first book of the bible and moving from there when we debate atheists like O'Connor. It always seems to get forgotten that beginning with Gen 3 we have a Seed that though "bitten" by the Serpent comes out victorious. The theme gets developed through the Bible. He will come through the lineage of Abraham. He will restore the Dynasty of David. A virgin birth, called out of Egypt as a new Moses, the first man of new creation. John's gospel itself draws attention to Christ the agent of creation in chapter one and ends with him being mistaken for the "Gardener" at the end. Not by accident John records this irony because He wants to remind us that Jesus is the Gardener who made the Garden temple for Adam, the first man in a new creation. Jesus being the 2nd Adam is another "first man of new creation" as he emerges victorious over death and anyone in Christ is "new creation." I respect O'Connor too, let's give him and every other skeptical atheist, the whole story, which sadly, they don't seem to get much.
You do understand that Alex has a degree in theology and that he has debated and conversed with some of the most highly regarded apologists alive? I really don't think he is missing "the whole story".
I understand but not everybody with a degree gets the narrative. For example in a Myth Vision with a "scholar" there was an attempt to dismiss the resurrection using contemporary myths as though the Bible was utilizing those. No effort or understanding of the actual biblical rationale in the narrative itself was put forth. Having said that I think Alex is more honest, a better atheist if you will, than most others. Learning languages, history, philosophy and deconstructing the Bible especially, doesn't necessarily lead to the teaching the Bible itself puts forth.
Plainly stated, the Bible has been calling for someone who could defeat sin, death and the devil from the beginning. Not many atheist scholars are in a hurry to go there. Everything else is fair game though.
@@david9302 " The bible has been calling for someone who could defeat sin,death, and the devil from the beginning." Yet none of that has happened. Whatever the bible puts forth in regards to its teaching is and always will be open to interpretation. There are hundreds of sects of Christianity for the obvious reason of human interpretation. Telling a story about a scholar who believes that Jesus was a myth in no way bolsters your argument that O'Connor may be missing the narrative. Using stories written by anonymous authors, who not only weren't present when the resurrection was said to have occurred they weren't even alive, as if they are some historical fact is only evidence that stories were told and then written down decades later.
@kal22222 I think my point remains in that the scholars are happy to utilize the mythical stories that might relate to something biblically taught, say the ressurection in this case, while ignoring everything the Bible teaches on the subject which in this case was Christ's own teaching that he would lay down his life, as the sacrificial lamb, only to take it up again, that he would bind the strong man and plunder his house, that he claimed to be the true temple, greater Moses etc etc. It's all ignored as though it isn't part of the narrative. Matt 24 is a great example. Critics are so quick to try and dismiss Jesus because he claimed he'd return in that generation and they ignore the huge "BUT" in v36 where he distinguishes the destruction of the temple in AD70 (that generation) from his return. The following parables Jesus told about being faithful during the long wait for the masters return, ignored.
Different author's truth makes the bible's validity pretty solid. Its like having a handful of people critiquing a law, everyone has their good and bad points and then there's at least one argument that unites their thought. I personally believe that the resurrection happened but it is witnessed mostly by grieving people and is made to look ridiculous because of that. That is the very reason i am anti dogma.
