Stereotypes Prove the Resurrection??!? (feat Amy-Jill Levine) (William Lane Craig response) 

Apologists should be called Excusemakers.

I think this is even more apparent when you compare the earliest gospel Mark with the later ones. Mark, which is thought to have been written shortly before Vespasian's forces took Jerusalem, has Jesus' body mysteriously disappearing and then ... a vague promise that He'll come back any day now to save the day. It's not until Luke and Matthew that we see any sort of post-death narrative, which is basically just Jesus passing on the torch to the Disciples. Which to me reads like them saying that "Yeah, Jesus totally came back from the dead. Where is He now? Oh, he had to go off to Heaven, but it was totally true, trust me. Five hundred people saw it. Name them? Oh, is that the time? Must be going...."

According to our understanding, first century Jews were routinely having to deal with failed messiahs. From the Teacher of Light being defeated in the War Scroll of Qumran, to Yeshua Ben Joseph, who died ~6 BCE, to a potential Judas/Theudas recorded by Josephus. Even beyond the 1st century, as the gospels were being developed, we have Simon bar Kochba's defeat. First century Jews needed a Messiah that could rise from the dead, because the supposed messiahs we know from history kept dying. Funny how the one that is said to have risen, we can't point to a corresponding historical figure.

@@rhondah1587 Mr. Deity has dubbed them "Excusegists"

@@sachamm Excellent moniker.

Example of her generalizations here? She constantly emphasized that we don't know how everyone thought at the time even when discussing her own work.

The same could be said of WLC only bringing on people with whom he will agree. Many apologists do this.

@@aGORILLA-g7l How does that excuse Paul from his blatant bias?

Except that Paul has had Christian believers on as guests before. *Somebody* here is sharing their bias...

@@simongiles9749 Like who? Dale Allison? Lol

@@jamiehudson3661 Is not your own bias what is driving your perspective right now? The entire concept of this channel is the deep dive of these topics by a former Christian. You will not find a more balanced perspective that from someone who is knowledgeable about both sides of the argument. Not to mention, when accurate and evidenced counter arguments are made against folklore that has no evidence to back it up, do you actually listen and consider it with a critical mind? Or, does your own bias just immediately shove its fingers in your ears?

mormons lie about what joseph smith looked like and we have actual pictures!

always the funniest thing. they also say who would die for a lie? Well, obviously those people who died while lying about jesus 😅 we already have the data 😅😅

Or “Do you really think people could genuinely think their false beliefs are true?”

Has flashbacks to that one episode of Arthur when Buster was asking that people would just get on the internet and lie about things

@@scripturalcontexts That's what I was going for, haha!

So is the opposite true? If god is a preexisting Jewish belief it therefore must false? Or are we at a heads I win tails you lose proposition.

This is how William Lane Craig and apologists like him often actually think. If something in the New Testament doesn't match with preexisting Jewish beliefs then it must be true because the New Testament writers couldn't have just made this up (Imagination? What's that?) But if it does match with preexisting Jewish beliefs then it must be true because it's fulfilling prophecies or whatever. Literally "heads I win, tails you lose".

And what about all of those dozens of other gospels that were written shortly after the canonical gospels? The only reason why they got rejected by the early church was because they contradicted what the popular Christian denominations already believed… but apparently those stories must have been true.

​@ramigilneas9274 obviously not, they aren't in the Bible so they can't be true. (Hoping my sarcasm is clear enough)

It's also a dubious argument. Some First Century Jews *did* believe that the scriptures predicted a suffering messiah, because those Jews were the first Christians. Craig is saying that's completely inexplicable because Jews wouldn't have thought that, yet he would also say that early Christian interpretations of a suffering messiah in the Jewish scriptures was correct, because he himself believes that stuff like Isaiah 53 is about a suffering messiah. So he's simultaneously saying "Jews could not have come up with this notion from any source other than a historical occurrence" and "The Jewish scriptures clearly and plainly support this notion." Well which is it, was it something that anyone could have found by studying Isaiah or was it entirely unthinkable? Does he believe that absolutely no one could possibly have interpreted the suffering servant passages as messianic until an actual suffering messiah appeared? NOBODY could have anticipated that possibility by reading the scriptures first and concluding the passages might be messianic, but the instant they heard that a guy rose from the dead, suddenly that interpretation was obvious and plain? I call B.S., Bill.

Have you tried reaching out to Jesus ? Probably best to get his opinion on the matter before speaking for him :)

​@@tookie36 Do you have his phone?

I agree, 2000 years later only 30% of the world identify as Christian, and most of them can't agree with other Christians on interpretation. With your soul on the line I am sure the creator of the universe could come up with a beter plan, even I could.

@@theamalgamut8871 we all do :)

​@@tookie36He didn't make any representations about Jesus. Do you agree that talking about the historicity of Jesus is irrelevent given that we can just talk to Jesus today?

Get on Prometheus' level I say.

@@EmissaryOfStuff now THAT guy knows how to die

Honestly, not even that long. He died in the afternoon on Friday and was raised before the sun came up on Sunday. So, really...like maybe 36 hours for our sins.

@@TheClearwall And we've come up with a buuuunch more sins since then. I'd say with the sin conversion rate he'd have to take a couple weeks off for our current sins.

And we can't tell how much earlier it was from when the tomb was found empty. For all we know, it could have been Friday night and the tomb would be found empty Sunday just the same as being raised early Sunday and it being found slightly after. Nothing in the Gospels says anyone went Friday night or any time Saturday, because of the Sabbath.

My thought too. First, prove to me that Jesus was a real person before any of the legends made up about him.

Harry, we gotta stop meeting like this. 😄

You must not remember that time Craig made a boast about being able to prove the existence of God without using the bible, immediately used the bible as a reference for what he believed God's properties were, and then ended his argument by throwing it under the bus and saying "but none of that matters because I just magically know I'm right" at the end. This right here? This is Craig's _gimmick._ Ray Comfort has his banana, Kent Hovind has his Bureau of Prisons inmade number. Craig? Craig _humiliates himself._

@@EdwardHowton Ah, good ol' "Low bar Bill." Where his god must exist because when standards are lowered to the absolute minimum, it's just obvious that it's true. Not allowed to do this with other gods though - only his favorite one. I really just wish they'd come out and say it - they believe the bible is accurate because they said so, not because it makes sense or "gee whiz the world is complicated," or "evolution just can't be true cause that's uncomfy," or "if you just run around this philosophical circle real quick..." Reality, objective facts and truth don't matter to believers. They have faith that their favorite book is right and that's all they need. Anything that doesn't make sense they waive away with "my god has magic powers." There's no way for us to win with that argument so why do they bother going any further?

@@rapdactyl - "God of the dips"?

Mysterious ways...

Depends on whether Jesus accepted or rejected the Kalam argument. 😂

@@goldenalt3166the kalam argument is so bad idk how people take WLC seriously.

Far from raising his bar, he'd lower it

​@@tookie36 Philosophers like to talk about popular arguments and this one has so many different angles to attack that's it's popular to respond to. Craig interprets that as "taking seriously", but i don't think many are convinced by it. From an apologetics perspective, I see it as highly deceptive.

Depends on what Jesus says. It's all about the vibes. Remember, for this breed of American protestant, anyone is a prophet if they say something that feels right to the mob.

Oh they have some facile handwaves for the comparison. Far better to point out that _the bible specifically says most of his disciples did not die for their faith._ A bunch of them died of old age. I forget the specifics on the rest, but I remember a series by a youtuber called.... ProfMTH I think who went through each apostle's story in the bible and only one of them died for violating some law against being christian, or something. Point that out, and also that parents will happily die for a lie if it saves their kids, and the whole "argument", to misuse the term, becomes null. The fact that they were so brainwashed they threw their lives away isn't a point in favor of the story being true, it's a marker of the evil of cults.

The numbers that have died for their beliefs are numerous and also many are contradictory. Christianity is literally the cult of logical fallacies.

Besides, getting yourself killed ain't the same as willing to die.

@@theunlearnedastronomer3205 No, it isn't. But my main point is that even those who are willing only prove that they are, not that their cause is true. There have always been and are now martyrs to beliefs of all sorts. Mostly they martyr themselves to long dead cult leaders.

@@EdwardHowton As far as what's in the bible, specifically the NT, the only disciple who dies is James the Less, and the reason isn't stated (Acts 12:2). "The apostles" are flogged once (Acts 5) and then drop out of the account. Peter fades away after Acts 13, except for his brief appearance in the council in Acts 15. After that, it's pretty much the Paul show...but no other disciple/apostle dies for anything anywhere in the NT. The death stories of the various disciples/apostles are all legends that emerge in the next century and later. One could just as easily look at the NT and say that after a brief period of continuing to believe and preach, after one flogging, and no miraculous emergence of The Kingdom, most of the disciples/apostles just gave up and went home...Peter hangs around for a while, trying to work with Jesus' brother James, who is taking over from him, and along comes Paul and starts what amounts to a whole new movement that will bury them both.

That isn't really a good argument. It is equivalent to saying that the existence of scientist is proof of the non-existence of natural laws. After all, if these natural laws existed, they would be apparent to everyone and not need to be explained. It is the fallacy of simplicity. We want the simpler answer to be true so we are bias towards it, but in reality some things are just complicated. That said, I won't deny that "apologists" is a funny pun that the evolution of language has given us.

@@Amir_404 I think you're taking his statement wrong. If an omniscient god wanted a relationship with us, it would know that relying on apologists to convince us it exists would be a *very* bad way to go about having a relationship. Being also omnipotent, it could, with no effort, us a *good* method. Therefore, no such god exists.

@@Amir_404it’s not phrased the best, but if I’m trying to take the best version of it, it’s not an argument against any god or the concept of god or something like that. Rather, it’s an argument against specific versions of god that, if true, would make the existence of apologists completely redundant and unnecessary to an extreme degree; therefore, since they do exist, we can say that those kinds of gods don’t exist.

​@Amir_404 That is not equivalent though. Natural laws are not claimed to be omnipotent and wanting to have a relationship with us

@@Amir_404 = _"That isn't really a good argument."_ - - - - - Yet it mimics many (most?) of the kinds of arguments apologists use.

As a former cathlolic, I noticed that most Protestants will grant temporary Christian status to catholics when they need to argue from popularity, "church authority", or tradition.

@@dougt7580 Yep, as an ex protester myself, I confirm what you say. Catholics were the devil or a cult, or for sure, not true Christians, until they said something we liked. Then after using them for that item, they went back to being the devil, or a cult, or for sure, not true Christians.

@@dougt7580 Yep. The “enemy of my enemy” thing.

Paul is bringing Catholics and Protestants together!

That's because he was forgiving sins that the people actually committed. Jesus died so God could forgive us for our sinful nature. Essentially, Jesus had to die so god could forgive us for being the way god made us. Then Jesus didn't stay dead, and physically went to heaven, which isn't a physical place, but a spiritual one that you can't get to physically, but he's Jesus, so that's ok. Also, Jesus, God, and some other guy, are all the same guy. but three different guys at the same time, and they are all guys, not girls.

@@bskec2177 In the story of the paralytic, he healed him because his friends had faith. You did not deal with the point that Jesus forgave sins without any blood being spilled. He said compared to curing paralysis, forgiving sins was a piece of cake. Which makes total sense because all *you* have to do is let it go.. no special magic words, animals sacrifices or human sacrifices needed. You can argue if you want, but that's what it said in that story about Jesus forgiving sins, so it would be futile for you to try.

​@@bskec2177So how did Enoch and Elijah pull it off?

@@dhwyll Easy...it's a story. Fantasy authors can do whatever they want.

@@njhoepner I know, but the apologists love to trot out this idea that the torture and death of Jesus was required because god supposedly cannot forgive or allow any person into heaven without such sacrifice. And yet the Bible directly says that two people went to heaven long before Jesus existed. They always forget about that....

I like how Low Bar Bill calls random stuff facts. Imagine how he would react if Atheists started all of their arguments with something like "The fact that the disciples invented stories about Jesus to fulfill prophecies clearly shows…“

Wow, earth-shattering. What exactly do you think you’ve added to this video?

@@Celeste-hl1kw - That nastiness was COMPLETELY uncalled for.

@@MossyMozart That’s not what your mom told me.

Yes, I'm just about to watch this episode and hoping for at least one low-bar reference and Paul's jingle.

Hahaha. Mr. Lower-The-Bar himself

😂 The parable

Great... now I'm imagining Jesus on the slopes of Olympus, chatting with Hermes and trying to get Zeus and Hera to stop bickering for five minutes.

These theologies were a spectrum. Thinking “the Jews” had one frame of thought in the 1st century is completely wrong. Similarly to think the Greek theology was a monolith is silly.

​@@tookie36 And that's exactly what Craig does in this video. "The Jews would never think X" as if all Jews had exactly the same thoughts.

It's worse, really; apologists throw the old testament under the bus wholesale, but "Jesus" is only important if he fulfills the old testament messianic prophecies... which he didn't anyway. So they refer back to it when they need to prop up Jesus's magic-ness, but they're like "Old testament who's that" the rest of the time. It's _Schrodinger's Doctrine._ It's dead when you look at it but alive if you pretend it doesn't exist. So in practice, according to apologists, Jesus is the messiah of nobody for no reason. I mean... I agree? I wish _they_ would.

@@tookie36 It’s as if I would say that it’s not possible that a Christian source criticized the Pope because all Christians accept the Pope as an infallible authority.

Somewhere Gary habermas is crying over volume 2 of the book few people are going to read if he ever finishes it

To be fair, it's not unheard of for apologists to update their arguments! -Astonishingly- unsurprisingly rare because they're lazy charlatans by requirement, but it does happen. Like that one time Matt Slick called in to debate Matt Dillahunty, got absolutely thrashed like a ragdoll in a doberman's teeth, and then went to his TAG website to subtly change the wording of his argument so he could say "See Dillahunty attacked a strawman of my argument" despite the fact that the rephrasing didn't actually change anything. In other words: it isn't unheard of for apologists to be even more dishonest than usual.

@@EdwardHowton "Shifting the goal posts counts as an update to the argument. Yeah, the flocks of believers will love this on simple word change"

brutal

I wonder if Peter and James were the "Super Apostles" Paul was bitching about in 2 Corinthians.

the empty tomb argument is so dumb that I don't understand why Christians bring it up. If I build a tomb, pretend I execute a friend and then few days later say "oh the tomb is empty, he must have resurrected", no one should take me seriously.

She definitely drove the nail through the ankle on that one.

The Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures have older manuscripts that are more attested. So it seems great to use them and in the Greek translation it has the virgin prophecy

@@tookie36it's not a prophecy. Whoever the young woman was, the grammar indicates she had *already* conceived

@@tookie36 From what I understand, there isn't any controversy about the Hebrew "alma" reading. The fact that the Septuagint uses a Greek word that implies virgin (parthenos) doesn't retroactively write that reading back onto the source texts. Do you know of any Hebrew source texts that use the actual Hebrew word for virgin as opposed to alma? The Gospel authors were likely using the Septuagint as a reference, but that doesn't make it a "great" idea. It's just the version of the scriptures they had access to in the Greco-Roman period (and because they spoke Greek). I'd love to see some Hebrew manuscripts that have that alternate reading, but I am unaware of any.

@@tookie36 older than the TANAKH?

​@@randykappe8042The LXX is older than then the Masoretic text. But it's also less accurate.

I invented this unwieldy expression for Fox "News", but it's increasingly useful these days: _They're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard, they've dug into new, undiscovered warehouses full of barrel-bottoms to scrape._ Craig's mental issues don't make that stop being the case.

not sure an apologist can be considered a philosopher. To me a philosopher is someone who tries to understand reality through thinking. WLC does the opposite, he's decided what he wants to be true on feelings regardless of reality, and tries to find excuses through rationalizations.

Lazarus was a resuscitation, not a resurrection. A resurrection would mean Lazarus was to live forever and ever and never die. Lazarus was only brought back to human flesh with a resuscitation by Jesus

@@LetteringTheLord - They did not know how to resucitate folks back then. And it needs to be done BEFORE a person actually dies.

@@MossyMozart interesting, where does it say that in the Bible?

That’s the argument rabbi Tovia Singer makes to show it’s a bs story. Spices and ointments were used as “preservatives” and to mask decomposition stench BEFORE the burial. No point in doing that AFTER someone had already been buried. He thinks it’s just a narrative device, an excuse, to explain why women would go to the tomb in the first place. However, imo there’s some weakness in that argument. Anointing the body was also a ritual and a sign of respect and love. One could argue the women wanted to do that as the last act of devotion towards their spiritual leader. Not everything we do has a utilitarian motivation. Why do we bother with funerals and ceremonies when we could just bury or burn the corpse and be done with it?

It wasn't, and it it makes as much sense as if you dug up a recently buried relative just so you could spritz their corpse with perfume. The women are pretty clearly just plot devices to keep the story moving and the whole spice thing was used as a means to give the women motivation to open up the tomb (because opening up people's tombs and fiddling with their corpses for the hell of it is really strange). It also probably reflects the writer's of the gospels of Mark and Luke unfamiliarity with that culture's burial practices. This detail has been criticized likely since the stories entered circulation. In fact, the writer of the last canonical gospel (John) was probably familiar with these criticisms and in that gospel he has a character named Nicodemus wash and anoint Jesus's body PRIOR to burial and omits the reason the women went to visit the tomb. It fixes the problem in the other gospels about women preparing the body of a man (which was not the custom) AND fixes the weird detail about opening the tomb back up to place spices around the body.

The reasons are given in the text. Maybe reread Luke 23:54-56 and see if that helps.

Amy Levine did not use the word 'truth'. She said that answering the the question, "Did this happen or did this not happen?", is not important. My interpretation of her comment is- Those who insist on the story being history are trying to manufacture justification for a dogma. In doing so, they fail to read the story in such a way that it makes a meaningful difference to their lives.

@@sigmaoctantis1892 I know I took some liberties, but I believe it captured the spirit of her comment. Truth, reality, *_what actually happened_** ,* gets discarded in order to prioritise _feel good emotions._ *Could not be more clear.* That's fine, if being happy is your priority, but some of us want to know if the super natural stuff like _Jesus's resurrection,_ actually happened or if it's just more religious mythology. Reminds me of W. L. Craig and his bragging about _lowering the bar to the ground,_ for his preferred (biased), Christian beliefs. Thanks for the reply. _Have a good one, Sigma._

@@moodyrick8503 Easy, super natural stuff never happened, because it does not happen. The resurrection along with virgin birth is mythology. See Horus in Egyptian mythology for an example. All stories. The stories take place in your imagination. When they are real in imagination you can creatively extract the meaning you want. The very concept "super natural" was adopted in an attempt to justify the stories as being real. The ever living, ever dying god is a common mythological feature. See Odin, Norse mythology, for an example. Jesus on the cross could also be an example but the insistence on this being an historical event is designed to take it out of the realm of mythology. The primary message (mythology) of the ever living, ever dying god is that there is little difference between life and death. These states are just two sides of the same coin, something that happens for everyone. Belief in reincarnation is just one way you could interpret this message and make it meaningful in your life. However, if I say this was a real historical event. If I take it out of the realm of mythology and say that it happens only for special people, then I can sell you snake oil that allows you to be special and participate in the story, for real. I can invent a super natural hell world and say you are going there unless you buy my snake oil.

@@sigmaoctantis1892 BTW ; I rehabilitated my original comment for accuracy. Because truth & accuracy _are important._ (but I'm not perfect)

@@moodyrick8503 - To an historian or those interested in history, of course. I believe that Dr AJ was speaking about people who want a more satisfying emotional life.

cheat!

It was released for patron folk first.

It's important to point out the trick, there. "Making concessions" is a strategy con artists use. It's the intellectual equivalent of sticking your foot in someone's door so you can continue your sales pitch. It tricks well-meaning sincere people into thinking they're making progress in the conversation, but the con artist is just waiting for another opportunity to figure out a better lie that'll fool you. D'Souza didn't make concessions, he was _buying time._ Jehovahs do the same thing when they knock on your door and you ask them questions, they respond with "I'll have to get back to you on that" because if they say "No I don't care listen to me or else" they lose a potential victim. It's a *_trick._*

That's pretty neat. Reminds me of one of my favorite alternative explanations. Back in Genesis, during the times of the Nephalim, God declared that the beings of Heaven should no longer mate with the beings of Earth. Fast-forward to the time of Mary....well, God couldn't keep his own command, so as Jesus, God had to be killed for his own sin of mating with Mary.

Belligerent? Or bellicose? I know they're rather similar, but bellicose seems more appropriate. Belligerent strikes me as appropriate for a guy who's got his fists up and is looking to brawl, while bellicose is the one who throws the first punch.

in the OT

I love that story. Apologists try to convince you that Jesus coming back to life was a unique occurrence when in the bible it was an everyday banality.

The first thing I say when people say, "Jesus said...", is to remind me which books HE wrote. Everything else is 2nd and 3rd hand game of telephone.

Foe some, too soon. For some others, _always_ too soon.

Exactly. Craig is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He believes that suffering servant passages like Isaiah 53 are messianic in nature, that they accurately predict and prophesy that a messiah will suffer and possibly die. As a Christian, he thinks that's just the obvious read of those passages. And yet he argues that First Century Jews could never have reached that interpretation... why? If it's obvious in the Jewish scriptures, and some Jews became the first Christians, then at least a FEW Jews could plausibly have already thought those passages were messianic. Who was accepting the first apostles' preaching if not Jews who thought that a dying and rising messiah was a plausible understanding of scripture? Peter couldn't actually prove to them that anybody rose from the dead, but he could argue fulfillment of prophecy, yet no one would've bought his claims if they didn't think that it was plausible that such things actually were prophetic. Which means they had to have already been at least open to the idea that those passages were messianic prophecies. The fact that MOST Jews did NOT become Christians is just proof that such a reading was not mainstream, but the fact they got any converts at all among Jews means that at least some people could be persuaded by it. Possibly because they already were persuaded by it before they heard that there was a guy who fulfilled those things. If even one First Century Jew prior to the Christian movement believed that those passages were prophecies about a suffering messiah with half the conviction Craig believes they are, then his entire argument falls apart. And it's completely unnecessary to stake his argument on such a stupid claim, because one can just as easily argue that First Century Jews DID believe there would be a suffering messiah, and that's why it was plausible that Jesus was the messiah after all! It's still probably false, but it counters the Jewish apologetic that no messiah candidate would be expected to die by arguing that actually some did think that, and those Jews became the first Christians.

They have not used it, not that they have found date. The Egyptians do record mention of King David on a stele recently found, as well as the Egyptians mention the 10 plagues.

They argue that when the sword pierced him, water, then blood came out. This ‘proved’ he was dead to the soldiers. There’s always a story or apologetic.

People back then had to bury their own. They were not taken to a morgue. They were well aware of what a dead person looks like. There’s no way it can be explained away with a death experience. He was stabbed in the side of his chest, blood, and water came out. Although it wasn’t water, we know now that was fluid from your lungs. But back in the day, nobody knew that, they just added that for fun, I guess?

Women's testimony is one of the issues where Shammai was more lenient than Hillel, and the consensus followed Shammai! It's one of my favorite topics we studied this spring semester in the history class I took.

@@Vishanti In the deuterocanonical writings there is the story of Susanna and Daniel who saves her from two male accusers. I don't know when this is supposed to be written, but my understanding is that the septuagint contained the deuterocanonical books. To me this seems like a story that deals with the fact, that men could lie and women can tell the truth, even in a court setting.

Right. Craig is saying that it's obvious that parts of the Jewish scriptures predict a suffering messiah, then turning around and saying no Jew would've thought there was any basis to believe that there could be a suffering messiah. Except, you know, the very passages he claims have obvious interpretations to that effect. He's basically calling First Century Jews stupid, like they somehow were completely incapable of realizing what the text said until they were told that some guy came back from the dead.

@@Uryvichk Yes indeed. Craig is a _cafeteria Christian,_ choosing to ignore all of the prophesy that Jesus does not fulfil, in order to selectively pick his way to an assumed conclusion. Most Christians have no idea that there were all kinds of contradictory stories about Jesus, very early on. Even being a Jewish prophet, that preached their own take on scripture, was not that uncommon.

Long story - the short version is, early Christians were all Jews, but there arose the notion that goyim could follow Jesus too, without necessarily becoming Jews. Not everyone agreed, at first. This was a live debate for awhile amongst early Christian leaders, many of whom naturally assumed that Jesus's teachings only made sense in a strictly Jewish context. But one leader, Paul of Tarsus, was both a proponent of a Christianity that did not depend on Jewish law and custom, and a highly educated Greek speaker who really wanted to make this happen, and was quite successful at doing so across much of the Roman empire. (You might call him a goy rights activist.) Then it was just a numbers game: non-Jewish Christians kept growing in numbers even while Jewish Christians (of whom there were never all that many to begin with) died out.