Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
William Lane Craig is Cool, but This Take Ain't It 👎
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2024
- Jesus clearly called himself God in John. Is there a compelling historical case for the Gospel of John’s accuracy regarding Jesus' self-claims? Not according to the world's most celebrated living apologist William Lane Craig, and well, that’s a bummer. Here I discuss why doing an end-run around John is problematic and unnecessary.
Original podcast: www.reasonablefaith.org/media...
Ehrman's Worst Argument Against John's Christology • Ehrman's Worst Argumen...
Alex O'Connor/Ehrman clip source: • Jesus Never Claimed to...
McGrew, The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage amzn.to/3JYiwpr
Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues Commentary amzn.to/44KWqyq
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
For all of you Craig haters: This is *NOT* your opportunity to bash Craig in the comments. I appreciate him a great deal and he's influenced me in a positive way. I don't want to hear anything off-topic about his views on the early chapters of Genesis or his views on the incarnation and so forth. Stay on topic and speak constructively.
I have a bad feeling this isn't gonna pan out...
@@darkwolf7740so far not so good and I don't get it. Some people need another dip.
@@TestifyApologetics
There is a very simple reason for it.
Many atheistic sceptics despise God and religion, and so, they take any chance they can to ridicule it. For them, this is the perfect opportunity.
Thankfully, I'm not one of those rabid sceptics... I'm one of the nice ones 😛
@@TestifyApologetics I see... so you make a video *about* WLC, but you expect people *not* to comment about WLC, unless it's on the very specific topic you mentioned in the video? That's not only unreasonable, it's highly unrealistic.
@@uncensoredpilgrimsNo, not at all. He simply doesn't want people ridiculing Craig. That doesn't mean that you can't critique him.
Craig's arguments for the existence of God are the reason I am a Christian. This however doesn't mean everything he says has to be taken as 100% correct. He can still be wrong just like the rest of us. Calling it out is a good thing for everybody.
What are some good arguments made by Craig
@@Lurkingdolphin His Kalam Arguement seems to be virtually irrefutable and his historical case for the truth of the Gospel has never been met with a powerful alternative explanation.
"We don't need to let the Bart Ehrmans of the world intimidate us." How true that is. For some reason, so many people want to bow to the ivory tower of anybody with a Ph.D. However, as you so clearly point out over and over again on this channel, having a Ph.D. in theology or some kind-of-sort-of-related area does not make infallible or immune to your own personal biases and blind spots. Motivated reasoning based on what individual scholars have decided "must be true" permeates every facet of New Testament scholarship.
I think the main problem with Ehrman is that he seems to be stuck in the German "higher criticism" of the beginning of the 20th century. Probably the stuff he learned when actually being at university and studying. Most of the stuff he teaches is either outdated, skewed, biased or simply a lie, unfortunately.
Unfortunately this is not unique to New Testament scholarship. It’s quite common in scholarship of other religions and among a lot of disciplines in general.
You don't need a Ph.D to use proper logic.
But we bow down to the appeal of authority
Err-man has the remarkable skill of creating the feeling that he is the only expert in the room. You really have to think about what he says to realize that his arguments don't hold water.
Wild timing that Testify and Trent Horn both put out WLC videos on the same day.
I can't believe you uploaded this video today... I've been talking to a friend most of the day about John and he uses Bart Erhman's arguments..
Praise the Lord
This has nothing to do with the video, but I wanted to say I appreciate your work.
Your channel was the first apologetics channel I (accidentally) discovered and after seeing a few of your videos I got back into my faith as you helped me clear some misconceptions which have unfortunately become to common in today's world.
Now I have kind of moved on to other YT-channels as my interest has shifted, but just keep in mind that what you are doing is awesome and I for one am much happier since I found my way back!
It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the TRUTH and expose lies ❤!!
Hope you and your family are doing well Erik. Thanks for putting me onto "Faith Because of Reason" it's a great channel.
@TestifyApologeticsI think the synoptics provide more than just merely implicit evidence of Christs' deity. You must shed the last layer of alleged "higher criticism" that is holding you back. They are very poor exegetes and hold nothing over the Church Fathers, who outshine them by miles. Explicit evidence of Christ's deity goes back even to the Gospel of Mark the *second* gospel if read carefully.
Although I disagree with Craig on most things (Moral Argument, Causal Finitism, etc.), I have massive respect for him. He was the first person I encountered who introduced a scholarly approach to Christianity.
No doubt! I was an atheist when I first discovered him but back then I wasn't as interested in apologetics but at that time he had the most convincing arguments imo. Around the age of 40 - 42 I had become an agnostic believer (I believed there was more than a 50 percent chance of a God) he was instrumental in pushing me to near 100. Then I started on discovering the 'who.'
Craig also denies the six days of Creation.
@@fredthehead4603 So…? Most Christian scholars do reject a *hyper-literal* six day creation.
@@existential_omost? Do you have a study or some data to back that up or is it just anecdotal evidence? Just curious; I particularly don’t care if people take a literal or allegorical take on Genesis, although the plane reading and understanding is best with a literal perspective (in my opinion).
@@CCiPencil Craig spends a lot of time on debate stages with cosmologists, so arguing for a literal 6 day creation isn’t an option. Imagine being up against Sagan, Krauss, Tyson or Kaku trying to convince an audience that the earth, oceans, plantlife and light itself *came before* the sun. You’re going to be laughed at. Craig knows how to pick his battles.
Dr Craig is the reason I got interested in learning apologetics. And has helped me a ton when it comes to apologetics but this just seems wrong. Why deny the Gospel of John when they have so much strong evidence for the deity of Christ? But together with the other Gospels can give a really strong case.
Dr. Craig never denied the entire Gospel of John.
What evidence do we have for the Deity of Christ?
Yes a strong case. But Matt Mark & Luke confirm historical places and events. But John is written as a more personal gospel. Craig just doesn't use John to prove historical legitimacy of Gospels
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711the Gospels are not anonymous. There is historical evidence for each author. 2nd Century church fathers affirm the authorship of Gospels.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Irenaeus knew of Polycarp, a student of John the Apostle
I don't see why this is so problematic. I feel like Craig is just saying "I can still defend the faith even without those verses." He does accept John as a Christian, but he sticks to the less easily disputed verses of scripture when doing apologetics with non-Christians. I think his answer sufficiently expressed that.
The point is that the happenstance of scholarly politics does not constrain the force of objective evidence. The fact that something is not granted by skeptical and liberal scholars does not mean that it is weakly supported by non-question-begging evidence. Nor does that mean that it is based only upon a theological presupposition, such as a supposition of inerrancy. And there's ample reasons for John's historicity and no reason to say there can't be a good case made from it.
@@TestifyApologetics Right I'm just saying that if WLC finds it more winsome to avoid those verses when dealing with non-Christians, why is that a problem? Please understand, I do agree with you about the historicity of John and I can't know for sure, but I believe WLC does as well.
@@TestifyApologetics I think it's just his preference on how he wants to defend the faith to unbelievers .
That doesn't mean you can't do it differently.
We've all seen the copy and paste: comments: many atheists say a word for word statement from their favorite( non scholar ) CZcams atheist channel.
I think we honestly should ask the question -- why is there such a strong bias against the gospel of John? What is in there that we shouldn't see or read? I am not accusing anyone here but there might be forces involved beyond our comprehension. The bias against John is very strong in university theology. So strong in fact that I didn't read John's gospel for years and had to rediscover it. And what a discovery it was. Since then I basically fell in love with John's gospel. And I am very annoyed when scholars push it to the sidelines for dubious reasons.
@UCxYF7rSdWauiRo8PY0Itcvw I appreciate this. I love John. It's my favorite Gospel. I think WLC is probably avoiding it for the reason you mentioned about your University experience. But I also sympathize with your sentiment about disregarding it for dubious reasons.
Interesting points. However, some of the descriptions you mentioned of John adding details not found in the Synoptics could be seen as John’s getting these details from the Old Testament. For example, when John mentions that the loaves at the miraculous feeding were “barley loaves” (Jn. 6:9), this is likely intended to link the reader back to 2 Kings 4:42, in which Elisha likewise miraculously feeds a crowd with a small number of “barley loaves,” thereby strengthening the theological connection between Jesus and Elisha. Likewise, when John mentions that the branches the people waved were “palm” branches (Jn. 12:13), this is likely intended to bring in imagery from the Feast of Booths, in which palm branches play a key part (Lev. 23:40). This is especially the case given that the same verse in John that mentions the palm branches also includes a quote from Ps. 118, which belonged to liturgy used in the Feast of Booths.
When John wants to draw attention to Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament, he just comes out and says it. See John 19:36-37. He doesn't do it in some literary way, he saw, he was a witness, etc. See Lydia's book that I rec'd in the vid, she has a full discussion on this very topic.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks for your reply and the book recommendation
There are other details john includes that let's us know he's the one writing. He refers to himself as "the disciple who Jesus loved" which is a huge giveaway. His gospel is the only one to mention that the disciple John outran Peter to the empty tomb. Lastly, he clarifies at the end of the book that Jesus never said he would not die before Jesus returns. This means he was aware of what people believed about him based off a saying of Jesus to Peter, and because he was there, he can clarify the misconception.
Thanks for citing the avalanche of casual references in John that demonstrates that he was an eye witness. I must get Lydia's book.
Who else just watched Trent Horn’s Craig video?
Me!
@@Tzimiskes3506Seems sus
@@darkwolf7740 definitely did not watch Trent's 29:17 minute video of calm and well thought out observations 👀
@@Tzimiskes3506Nope, I haven't yet 😒
Hmmm...
I enjoy Dr. Craig very much; and, if he says a thing I find objectionable, I DON'T automatically reject it; but, recently, some of the stuff he says, well, just doesn't make much sense to me, and, I haven't seen him EXPLAIN those statements. I don't doubt his learnedness or his intellect; but, I wish that he'd *EXPLAIN* his assertions more. And, as for Bart Ehrman: I've *NEVER* seen what the big deal about him is. EVERY TIME I've seen him speak against Christianity/the-Bible, I can refute what he says EASILY, IMMEDIATELY, and, with NO preparation. In my mind, his likeness should be next-to the term 'OVERRATED' in dictionaries.
I do not think from that clip that WLC is saying _all_ of John is unreliable. Nowhere did he say that. He was talking about the historical reliability of the _sayings_ of Jesus, wherever they may be found.
I also disagree with Erik’s take on John being “so much” stronger than the Synoptics when it comes to Jesus’ claims to Divinity.
Sure, they’re very strong, but so is Mark 2, for example, where Jesus forgives the paralytic and proves his Godhood (the Son of Man) by healing him.
Also, 2:20: where in this clip does Dr. Craig say we should “ignore the unique sayings in John’s Gospel”?
Then, in 2:40: where in this clip does Dr. Craig say, or even imply, that we should “dismiss John’s Gospel” when it comes to apologetics?
The _entire_ Gospel (for apologetics at least)?
Erik, if you disagree with WLC’s historical _method_ of determining which verses (in _any_ Gospel) are reliable to use in apologetics, that’s fine.
But we don’t know what that is, at least from this clip, and until we do, it’s not fair for you to lump Craig in with historians whose methods you _do_ disagree with.
Much love and respect, brother. Love your videos, and in this one I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the comic relief called Bart Ehrman.
Blessings!🙏✝️
Thanks for pointing this out. I thought the same thing: "When did Dr. Craig say that?"
I'd trust Craig to talk about Theology, but would I ask him to make me a burger?...
Probably. I'm hungry.
Now I want a WLC burger 😂
@@Young_Christian7
That needs to be on a T shirt
Erik! Get them WLC burgers cooking!
In the eye of the beholder is a great book. Although a bit too detailed for a me. After several hundred pages of evidence for Johns reliability I needed to read something else before I tackled her other books. And it was not because of the book length. I don't mind reading several hundred pages of the same book. But hers was so densly packed with a large variety of angles that it started to get exhausting.
Bart: "Jesus never claimed to be God in the bible."
Christian: "what about the gospel of John?"
Bart: "well that one was written much later."
Christian: Where do we find the gospel of John?"
Bart: "the bible of course"
Christian: 🤔🤔🤔
He'd prob say and we can't trust John
That's two videos from my two favorite apologists talking about William Lane Craig.
Ain't that something
"historical Jesus". That's a warning signal right there. If he doesn't believe that the Gospels _are_ history, there's a problem.
Good video! It would be great if you could interview WLC on this issue.
I've tried in the past to interview him and haven't heard back. I can try again maybe.
I was also thinking about Samson's honey comb in the lion ,its a unique thing I've never come across such a story in any other book or literature. Its not something that come to the imagination, its odd is what I mean which I was thinking must have been experienced by Samson not just a story
In Job chapters 12 and 34 it says Does not the ear test words, as the tongue tastes food? We're all called to be discerning about what we listen to. I like much of WLC, but on rare occasion have had to reject some of the food he's served up. But I don't know of any minister whether from the ancient church up to modern ones that I trusted so much I could remove my armor listening to.
Hey, do you have a video regarding John 7:53-8:11 the woman caught in adultery? I’m interested on its authenticity
I've read a very interesting explanation. I think one of the church fathers wrote it but I'd have to check. It goes like this: the story about the woman caught in adultery was removed from the gospel because it seemed to be to lenient towards the woman. So women might get a "wrong idea". It was later reinserted into the gospel but it was authentic from the start.
@@MrSeedi76 Any way to back that claim up? I haven't heard that explanation.
Consensus view is that its inauthenic to John. Doesn't mean the story isn't true, just the the writer of the gospel didn't write it as it isn't found in early manuscripts of John.
@@aperson4057 I checked again. It was not based on any church father. Just an explanation by some why it might actually be authentic.
@@MrSeedi76 interesting speculation. But the issue would be that the textual evidence would not support this unless we found an older manuscript with it.
Perhaps Craig has not surveyed recent scholarly opinion about the historicity of John. Most of the times I've seen him talk about this he usually refers to a Minimal Facts-esque approach related to his graduate work from back before the Flood. His recent published work hasn't really been about the historicity of the Gospels so he probably hasn't seen a need to look into it.
I think that he's not simply rejecting, but to show unbelievers who don't trust the historicity of the gospels that you can arrive at the same conclusion another way you might want to leave those verses aside. You can always go back to them but to reach someone who isn't "buying" it, this may be your best way in.
Does mr Craig believe that there a different way to God besides God comming to earth as a sacrifice for humanity?
There is a reason why, also in the chapter of John is written:" So that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him.".
Jesus, is God, Jesus teaches us how to live and shows us what God is like and wants to live inside us through the holy spirit, no other religion. Without honoring Jesus we might think that somebody else could be a role model for humanity and will bring us to God, e.g. a certain camel trader from the 6th century.
Erik: Like your critique of the minimal facts argument for the Resurrection, your critique of WLC's apologetic approach to the sayings of Jesus in John's Gospel misses the point. You would be hard pressed to find any prominent NT scholar, conservative or liberal, who considers the "I am" statements verbatim as the very words of Jesus. But this need not imply that John concocted these sayings out of thin air either. It is simply a recognition as to the status of how the vast majority NT scholars read the "I am" sayings, suggesting a development of thought post-Resurrection. However, to the correct side of your point, there is a renewed consideration of the historical character of John's Gospel, even among critical scholars, and you brought up good examples of evidence, such as Jesus walking through the Colonnade of Solomon, to block the wind. I personally had a conversation with Dr. James Charlesworth, recently retired from Princeton, who believes that a good chunk of gJohn might actually predate gMark. You would not have heard something like that thirty years ago from a Princeton scholar. Bottom line: if your audience is willing to accept the authority of the "I am" sayings, then fine, go for it. But if your audience is informed enough to reject the "I am" sayings as authentic, simply appealing to the sense of continuity between Jesus' reference to Daniel 9 for the "son of man" in the Gospels with those "I am" statements should be sufficient to making a case for Jesus' divinity being established throughout the Gospels. Still love your channel. Just needs a few things to be re-tuned.
I mean no disrespect. But, in this instance, are you not ignoring neuance. I don't think craig is denying all of Johns gospel, just some verses in ch.14. And he isn't even dening them just saying that the hostorical case for those verses being accurately attributed to christ is weaker than for others. He does not appear to be denning the historiciry of Johns gospel, rather he is justifying the use of other verses with stronger historical suport. (This is my first encounter with this issue it seems to be blowing up a little I will review it properly in the morning and if I feel ive made a mistake here I will add a comment below, if anyone cares).
You are basically saying, “well prove he didn’t say it”
you're basically saying "I didn't understand your argument about whole document reliability and I don't agree with what you're saying but here's some cheap ridicule"
This really speaks to the insufficiency of man and how we must continue to conform to Christ and seek after Him.
This is very nicely argued, T. Valuable.
7:19 "near by fields of corn"? ??
I thought corn was from the Americas?
Thank you for setting things right.
The gospel of John is of historical value - but there is clear inventions in John - The McGrews view on this is actually quite extreme.
Calling something extreme isn't really offering a refutation and it's not just the McGrews
Glory To The Triune GOD😊
Will you do a video on Matt Dillahunty? He pretty much destroyed Jordan Peterson in their debate and on the Atheist Experience he asks good questions that Christians don't seem to have good answers for. It is hard for even one person to justify their faith. Other than personal experience, no one seems to have proof that withstands scrutiny... I don't want to not believe, but I don't think you can help what you actually believe. When things don't make sense it is hard to believe them. What proof do we have of the resurrection?
Matt Dillahunty is one of the lowest tier atheists outside of Dawkins types. I'm surprised people find his work impressive tbh, atheists like Graham Oppy pose much serious challenges to our faith than Dillahunty the meme itself lol.
Anyways, "proof" is typically used in logic and mathematics. Evidence is any piece of information that raises the likelihood of a hypothesis.
What questions does Matt ask that Christians can't answer? Ask them here.
@@DarkArcticTV completely agree. I saw a video of Dillahunty losing a debate to a Muslim at "speaker's corner". It was pretty hilarious honestly. He's low hanging fruit. Nobody should debate this guy. It's like playing chess with a pigeon -- once the pigeon loses, it will just throw around all the chess pieces and crap all over the board to declare itself the winner.
Neither Matt nor Jordan really know what they’re talking about in regards to philosophy and religious topics, I’d advise you to look elsewhere
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness Yet, you do not provide the elsewhere... Real helpful. Could you please direct me to proof of the resurrection?
@@MrSeedi76 low hanging fruit... Pigeon crapping on the chess board... Real original. I will check out the loss to the Muslim. I am a Christian, but I am starting to really question if I have valid reasons for believing.
In some ways I can agree with Dr. Craig that you want to speak to your audience in an agreeable way. But that doesn't mean you concede their ideas. Something I was realizing recently is that John's account of the women discovering the empty tomb is shockingly short (John 20:1). Only one verse before they come and find Peter and John. Once the narrator is in the story, he begins drawing it out (John 20:2-10), including some internal dialogue "He saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture."
Compared to Luke's Gospel, the women get 8 verses (Luke 24:1-8), and the disciples get 4 (9-12). Mark's Gospel gives the women 8 verses (Mark 16:1-8), Mary Magdalene herself gets 3, (9-11), and the disciples aren't in this scene. In Matthew's Gospel, 7 (Matthew 28:1-7), and the disciples get 1 (8) before immediately jumping forward to the next appearance to the ten.
Just as a note, John's Gospel is a theological treatise on the divinity of Jesus against the Gnostics. That's the whole point of the book.
That may be true, and even if that's so, that doesn't mean that John was inventing scenes, stories and words of Jesus that were contrary to historical fact.
Thank you for the video, and book recommendations!
In defence of WLC .
Even tho a good historical case can be made for the gospel of John .
That doesn't mean the skeptics will accept that case . In the same way skeptics won't accept single Bible verses .
Essentially what Craig is doing here is . Appealing to common ground and shared conclusions
Especially since the case for the reliability of John will for the most part come from a Christian
Many sceptics won't accept anything that goes against their narrative 👀
I mean, I think all he's saying is that he's basing his case on verses that are virtually unchallenged as authentic, rather than on passages that have more challenge amongst critical scholars. If you ask him, I am sure he would say he believes these other passages are also genuine.
Testify you are a real treasure to a balanced and fair view on the Bible and Christianity
I genuinely think that you are a much better apologist than William Lane Craig even though you are a fan of him. William Lane Craig is one of those apologists like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona who time to time limit God and does a huge disservice to God and carelessly giving away free weapons to the enemy.
Well said. Free weapons to the enemy indeed.
@@uncensoredpilgrims ..... with which they'll shoot-themselves-in-the-foot, and 'purify' the church.
Applying logic and rationality is not giving away free weapons.
@@brando3342 He wasn't really applying logic and rationality. The logic and rationality that was applied by Craig was very superficial and shallow in nature. And it was genuinely a huge compromise on William Lane Craig's part.
@@brando3342 No, granting liberals their false assumptions just means you're fighting a rigged battle you can't win. It's not logical or rational in the least.
Irenaeus Florinus I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures.
I've been studying this issue of Christ and his deity and so far have not find compelling argument that he is also God. I would really appreciate it you consider Unitarian Christian's argument from Sean Finnegan or and Doug Tuggy. Have you heard of Kermit's book The Restitution: Biblical Proof Jesus Is NOT God.
I've considered Unitarians arguments and they're not just false, they're also heretical
I guess then that Paul's Philippians testimony is the most credible since it was written prior to all the gosepels.
"Christ being in the form of God did think of this as something to hold onto..."
Bingo. That's precisely the issue with people claiming John had a "high christology" therefore must be written late and basically be "exaggerating Jesus's divinity". But in fact he had the same "high christology" as Paul. Maybe slightly "lower" even.
A couple of times in this video, you minimize the case that can be made from the synoptics. This is exactly what you're accusing Craig of doing, but in the opposite direction.
The evidence that John was actually present doesn't prove that he had every single detail right. I haven't looked at it myself, but if it's true that John is the 6th source, but the first one to say that Jesus explicitly claimed to be God, that is a big deal. It's not like not specifying the exact number of women to visit the tomb. However many women went to visit the tomb, that doesn't change who Jesus is. Jesus explicitly claiming to be God does change who he is, or at least changed what he said about himself. That is important info.
The book of Mark has high Christology. I think WLC can use the earlier sources to teach Christ's deity and not have to avoid John as being the latest book and therefore less reliable. I think its odd he avoids that topic in John.
Do either of these books you linked go into the claims that John's gospel is full of interpolation?
Craig worships the God of Philosophy; the social architect, the designer, the unmoved mover. Not the God of the Bible. John is firsthand witness from John himself. Dictated by Papias' hand. We still have the records of that in church documents.
I'd say, calling yourself Lord of the Sabbath is a pretty strong claim. The Sabbath is the day of the Lord and God's seal of authority. By keeping the Sabbath, you confirm that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. If Jesus now calls himself Lord of the Sabbath, what does that mean?
The Sabbath is neglected today by many, but back in those days, claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath would be a blasphemous claim of someone, who either doesn't know who he's claiming to be, or of someone who knows exactly who he's claiming to be.
Also, Luke called Jesus "Lord" multiple times, and the stoning of Stephen and conversion of Paul in Acts of the Apostles are also strong evidence for who Jesus is.
What Bart Erhman says in the interview that Jesus suddenly starts calling himself God only in John's gospel is flatly wrong. Starting from the second chapter of Matthew, we begin to see the clear indications of Jesus's divinity. Before Jesus is born, every single important prophet in Israel uttered divine revelations and oracle about different aspects of his life. Isaiah calls him "the mighty God". Three wise men bring divinely significant gifts to Jesus, and pay him homage even while Jesus is in the cradle.
At baptism (3, 13-17), Matthew reports that John the Baptist initially refuses to baptise Jesus in recognition of his glory and sinlessness. After the encounter, says Matthew, "the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove; and lo, a voice from heaven saying, 'This is my beloved Son ...' "
At the temptation (Matt. 4, 3b), Satan himself addresses Jesus Christ as "the Son of God" and wants him to change stones into bread.
From the very beginning of Jesus's ministry (4, 23ff.), every single disease, pain, evil spirit, epilepsy, paralysis, and so on, is cast out at the name of Jesus. Matthew also reports Jesus as having power over men, nature, demons, death, blindness and the forgiveness of sins (chaps. 8 and 9). Every Jewish person knows the ultimate theological implications of these things.
In chap. 10, v.8, Jesus sends out his disciples and gives them large measures of his authority and power to "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons."
At the Sermon on the Mount (ch.5 and 6), Jesus Christ completely redefined and recalibrated the ancient Jewish religion and law into Christianity. This is an indication of divine authority; and the Jews who witness the event recognise it as such, acknowledging that none of their own rabbis ever had such level of authority (Matt. 4, 28-29). Jesus refers to God as "my Father who is in heaven" (10, 33); he tells his apostles point blank that anyone who receives them receives both Jesus and God "who sent me" (v.40).
He heals on the Sabbath and calls himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (12, 8).
And so on ...
Of course, there's so much more in the following chapters. Mind you, this is only Matthew. I didn't even get to Mark and Luke yet.😊
So, my question is, how on earth would Bart Erhman call himself an expert on the gospels and a New Testament scholar, and yet does not know what is in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke?😅 It's absolutely amazing and ridiculous.
Yikes! Skeptics and atheists are going to have a field day with this comment by WLC, much like they did with his “lower the bar“ comment. Only, this time, his assertion is more clear.
I think Dr. Craig and Craig Blomberg would have a great conversation. Christian apologists should not disregard the historical evidence for John and expect unbelievers to accept orthodox Christian teachings. I love WLC, but this is a bad take.
I'm a Christian but I have a question.
Bart Ehrman points out that Jesus was never quoted explicitly saying He's God in the synoptic gospels. It's honestly a good question, why is that?
What if one made the argument "what is more expected? That John is a developed legend or Jesus never claimed to be God given He was never quoted saying as such in the synoptic gospels?" I suppose pointing out the evidence for John's reliability can undermine this, but it is still a little odd the first three gospels don't mention it. Perhaps it's because each gospel was written for a different purpose. What do you think, testify? Thanks. 😊
I ma sure there are many that are many much more qualified than me to answer you, but my take is that God remains hidden enough that people who choose to ignore His existence and who choose not to believe in Him and who do not want to enter a loving relationship with Him can follow that path by looking the other way.
I do think that it is natural that the later gospel writers add elements that they feel are lacking in earlier texts and John being the latest I think he wanted to make some things clear that he felt had not been properly addressed in the synoptic gospels.
That said I also think there are many ways in which Jesus makes it clear that He is God. I often recommend an article "THE DEITY OF CHRIST IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS" by DANIEL DORIANI. It can be found at Academia for instance. It describes 12 different ways in which Jesus shows Himself to be divine.
God Bless!
Speaking of poor biblical studies, I heard Mark Goodark's scholarship, about gospel of John, his knowledge of Synoptic Gospels, and I was about to burst out laughing at his arguments.🥲
Craig is simply acknowledging what is fairly standard debate practice, namely that in order to have a fruitful discussion there must be common ground. Craig does not seem to be saying he thinks John is ahistorical; only that critics do, and therefore he prefers to emphasize other scriptures that are harder for critics to question when debating those critics. This is very similar to demonstrating from within the Koran that Jesus is God when speaking with Muslims; of course the Bible makes those claims as well but if the Muslim denies the authority of scripture then you have a non-discussion if all you can do is make your argument from the Bible. Start pointing things out from within territory the opponent thought was safe ground though, and then your case builds dangerous strength against its opposition.
You have to keep in mind, Craig is answering the question from the perspective of a historian. In other words, he's not saying that those ARENT the words of Jesus. He's saying we can't prove historically that they ARE the words of Jesus.
It's like saying we can't scientifically prove that God exists. But it doesn't mean that we think God doesn't exist. It just recognizes the limits of science.
Ever since Biologos got their claws in him he has strayed from evidential apologist arguments to secular views on evolution and origins. I think he likes to be "midstream" on certain topics so he can a larger audience in general for the BIG issues. As evidence for teleology in biology is growing, Craig is, ironically, retreating from his pro- design stance.
Why do the majority of scholars (consensus) deny the gospels being eyewitness anyway?
Mulltiple reasons come to mind (as a theologian myself):
1) so they don't have to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
2) so they have more "wriggle room" to come up with fancy theories to get a doctorate degree
3) because they don't know how ancient biographies look like
4) because they lost their faith (like Ehrman)
5) because of dark forces in this world that want to keep people from accepting the truth of the gospel
6) because they have a naturalism bias
Because throughout their training and professional careers they have been told by other scholars that it is the scholarly consensus that the Gospels are anonymous and have just accepted that it is true.
How many biblical scholars are actually experts specifically in the authorship of the Gospels? Probably very few. And how many of the non-specialists actually read the published work of other non-specialists and take it seriously when it goes against "the consensus"? Again, probably not many.
I'd say it's probably likely that most biblical scholars don't have any special expertise in who actually wrote the Gospels and that they just repeat what other scholars before them have said.
As for actual arguments:
1. The author does not mention themselves by name in the body of the text.
2. The earliest complete manuscripts of the Gospels that have authorial attribution are from the third century.
3. The earliest indisputable attestation of authorship of the Gospels is from the late second century.
4. The Gospels are written in a way that makes it unlikely that lower class people from Galilee could have written them.
5. The authors traditionally thought to be eyewitnesses don't narrate in the first person.
7. The Gospels were written too late to have been written by the traditional authors.
8. There is some degree of literary dependence amongst the Gospels that isn't expected if each author was an eyewitness relying on their own recollection.
@@willard73 they aren't.
@@grantgooch5834 As for actual arguments:
1. The author does not mention themselves by name in the body of the text.
(which is the usual way of writing biographies, even today -- or any other form of non-fictional work -- rarely if ever does an author name himself apart from the preface)
2. The earliest complete manuscripts of the Gospels that have authorial attribution are from the third century.
(because the first complete manuscripts -- named or not -- are from that time -- anything else is just fragments. The material was just not that durable)
3. The earliest indisputable attestation of authorship of the Gospels is from the late second century.
(true but "argument from silence")
4. The Gospels are written in a way that makes it unlikely that lower class people from Galilee could have written them.
(not only lower class people followed Jesus. In fact being a "tekton" was not being lower class. Neither were fishermen necessarily lower class and some of the followers of Jesus were in fact upper class as the gospels themselves mention)
5. The authors traditionally thought to be eyewitnesses don't narrate in the first person.
(because that was not necessarily the usual way of writing a biography, especially when the hero of the story was not the author)
7. The Gospels were written too late to have been written by the traditional authors.
(this has been thoroughly refuted multiple times by now, by John A.T. Robinson and more recently and even more convincingly by Jonathan Bernier. Also -- why would anyone name a gospel "Mark" or "Luke"? The apocryphical gospels that are actually late are named after people closer to Jesus to give them more authority, so names like "Mark" and "Luke" are almost certainly authentic)
8. There is some degree of literary dependence amongst the Gospels that isn't expected if each author was an eyewitness relying on their own recollection.
(there are many explanations for that -- besides, the gospels never state that each author was an eyewitness at all -- only Matthew and John were)
literally just did a livestream on this on Monday Willard, try and keep up. ;)
i like him, glad you made a video critizing him in a good way so that he can become a better apologist
Craig is NOT saying that the verses are NOT true nor that they are NOT historical nor that they are NOT important. He is simply saying you'd be hard pressed to try and prove these particular verses are true using strictly historical evidence. That doesn't mean there are not OTHER ways of doing so.
John says he wrote down His Gospel so that everyone would hear these stories that they had not heard AND BELIEVE. At the time, John is the ONLY LIVING apostle and there are plenty of living eyewitnesses to the resurrection... but there are also a lot of rising heresies BECAUSE the other apostles have gone to sleep. And not a SINGLE early church Father said that the gospel of John was unreliable in any way, they all refer to his gospel as scripture and John as the Holy Elder.
It would be great if you joined some of the more popular youtube channel to get some exposure. I still can't believe your channel is only at 25k
What Jesus "clearly" calling himself God is to some people: Before Abraham was, I am (he).
What Jesus "clearly" calling himself God is in reality: I am God.
"clearly" is by far the most misused word by trinitarians.
btw, I love your job about the gospel reliability, Erik
Was Willian Lane Craig suggesting that some parts of the Bible are more defendable than others? Lol ... the falling away must have started already. What I don't understand is the fact that the Trinity is all over the Bible, why does he have issues with it? This is not an issue with John. Perhaps he understand a Trinity with a separate rather than distinct Jesus in it. That's my experience with some educated Christians.
I find it weird that one can defend the foundation of Christianity, the resurrection, which is the "craziest" thing of all to the non believing world, but one can't defend the fact that Jesus identities Himself as the Almighty? That makes sense (sarcastic). The resurrection proved that Jesus was God. The gospel of John is possibly the strongest witness for that.
Just because someone excels in the intelligent-design, cosmological argument as an outstanding philosopher does not mean he is also an expert in all theology. Most scholars are so focused on one subject at a time, I don't understand the logic of undermining one's credibility with other subjects. I guess, everyone has a role to play but the point is that if the Bible was not divinely preserved, there is no way to know for certain which parts are correct and which parts are false.
Apologetics is the discipline of defending the scriptures. Disappointing to see him coming up short here
Craig has been getting decidedly *less cool* over the past several years. Very disappointed. I have his book On Guard and it's very useful.
Honestly, even if YECs are ultimately correct, it’s probably a good thing that theistic evolutionists like Craig exist to, at the very least, open people up to Christianity who wouldn’t give YEC the time of day.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 I really don't think that's a good way to look at it. If somebody won't give YEC the time of day, that means they won't give the word of God the time of day. I don't think people get attracted to Christianity because we water it down with secularism.
@@uncensoredpilgrims I won't give a YEC the time of day [because it's VERY OBVIOUSLY just willful-ignorance and manipulation-of-the-facts for the purpose of "forcing" what we know of physical reality to SEEM to go-along-with a hyper-"literal", unreasonable, and ill-informed "interpretation" of a book that its proponents know only enough about to allow them to parrot it] ; and, I WILL give the word of god the time of day. So.....
@@uncensoredpilgrims
While I generally agree that watering stuff down is usually for the worse, in this case I think you’re dealing with an issue that most people find rather intuitive (random mutation + natural selection + lots of time) and that appears to have a lot of evidence in its favor.
I get where you’re coming from, though. I really do.
@@martyfromnebraska1045
On one hand, we don't need everyone to accept everything immediately and become experts on scripture overnight to be saved. Proclaiming Christ is lord and repenting (In true faith) is enough to be saved.
BUT.
Evolutionary theory and deep time are the two biggest contemporary stumbling blocks. I know every single intellectual has had to fight their way through the presuppositions and decades of conditioning to accept the word of God at face value when it comes to creation. Many don't. Those who are never taught creation have no idea how to defend themselves.
What people need is to be mentored and guided with love and patience. Not for someone to give them an out.
Reminds me a bit of the controversy with Jordan Peterson; You have Intellectual philosophers who appear thoughtful, rigorous and openminded but for whatever reason they err against the plain reading of scripture and accepting it at face value.
If you believe God, don't you think he would ensure his word was carried on? And if his word is carried on, is understandable to even the layman? And if understandable to the layman and carried on, why would anyone need to engage in the mental gymnastics required to appeal to academic views of historical documents when it is by your own admission; The word of God?
2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now the second letter I have written to you; in both letters, I want to develop a genuine understanding with a reminder, 2 so that you can remember the words previously spoken by the holy prophets and the command of our Lord and Savior given through your apostles. 3 First, be aware of this: Scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, living according to their own desires, 4 saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? Ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation.” 5 They willfully ignore this: Long ago the heavens and the earth were brought about from water and through water by the word of God. 6 Through these waters the world of that time perished when it was flooded. 7 But by the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Scoffers aren't going to suddenly accept God when they hear the right facts. They're in rebellion. They can be saved, but it comes from outreach, not academics.
Regarding your pinned comment, its pretty unrealistic to comment on Craig's flawed reading of John and not bring up his utterly inconsistent views of Genesis in contrast to the rest of the Bible. It is worth noting that Craig has useful arguments in favor of Christianity, while also espousing views that torture the very logic his apologetics are based on. I'm not here to "Craig bash," but when it come to Genesis he is more of a scoffer than most atheists.
Can you summarize what WLC says about Genesis that you consider problematic?
The book of John starts with the Good News which is the gospel.
I disagree with WLC on many things as he argues from Philosophy. I think this is a L for him. It comes across in my opinion as wise foolishness. Though also in my opinion this is nothing new from WLC. Not bashing, just thoroughly disagree.
It sounds to me like the synoptic gospels have a more historical proof to them. But Dr Craig is not specific. So you prove the historicity with Matt Mark & Luke, then your clean up hitter John cones in and shows that Jesus said he was God, the Messiah. The listener will not say 'thats just Bible verses' because John is part of the 4.
I think your take on this is in error. Nobody is throwing out the Gospel of John, least of all Dr. Craig. He's saying that from an apologetic standpoint, John is the weakest argument, not that John isn't authentic or inspired. The strongest argument is from Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, which even Ehrman admits is from within 20 years of the life of Jesus, and Mark 14:60-64, properly understood, is the go-to argument for proving the deity of Christ. Ehrman is just wrong about what he asserts here, and he likely knows he's wrong, but he's playing to his audience.
Let's be a little more gracious before we make a video tearing down a major Christian figure, shall we?
He said a good case can't be made. I never said he didn't treasure the Gospel of John or tear him down.
He's been wrong for years now as far as the account of Genesis is concerned. You start refuting one part of the Bible , it's only a matter of time, when the entire book will become questionable to you. Happens so often with those who try to appease and please people rather than God.
It seems to me that WLC is highly influenced by his doctoral dissertation supervisor, Pannenberg, who himself was flawed in many ways though admirable in others.
What minimal facts arguments does to fella
Bart Ehrman ever fishing for a warm earlet. But good work there Eric.
Craig is a terrible apologist. I mean, the dude LITERALLY said there is NO genocide in the Old Testament. Clearly he hasn't read 1 Samuel 15...
If you see in the paper a sport team destroyed another sport team do you think they were wiped out of existence when they play against another team the next week? When a nation in ancient times totally wipe out another nation's stronghold where they can no longer able to fight they will record it as if the entire nation has been totally eliminated. It's obvious that Saul was told to destroy the stronghold where the king of Amalekites was staying as Saul captured the king.
If you actually read the Bible you would have noticed Saul didn't totally kill all Amalekites since in 1 Samuel David had a lot of dealing with the Amalekites.
If Saul comment genocide and destroyed the Amalekites then explain how David invaded the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 27:8?
You are a terrible at reading. I know you don't really care about the truth.
@smidlee7747 God literally told Saul to kill ALL of the Amalekites. This wasn't a figure of speech, and you can tell by the fact that god was upset because he DIDN'T kill the king and the animals. God was even specific enough to tell him to kill ALL men, women, children and infants.
Also, you should probably look up the definition of genocide because you clearly don't know what it means. Genocide is the killing of a specific group of people (in this case the Amalekites) with the INTENTION of destroying the entire group. Just because ALL of the Amalekites on earth were not killed doesn't mean it wasn't genocide. Check out the dictionary before you call me a liar...
@@Ejaezy Again look up 1 Samuel 27:8 Amelekites were still around in David's day. Historians know from other writings like from Egypt they wrote they totally destroyed Israel. Historians knows Egypt did not totally wipe out the nation Israel but instead destroyed their strongholds. This is exactly what happen with King Saul declaring war on the Amelekites destroying their strongholds so they could no longer fight. This is also mention in Joshua where he totally wiped out the strongholds yet the people failed to drive out the Canaanites.
1 Samuel 27:8 as well as history proves you are wrong.
@@smidlee7747 I see you missed my point earlier. Let's look at the DEFINITION of genocide shall we?
"The deliberate killing of a large number of people FROM A PARTICULAR NATION OR ETHNIC GROUP with the AIM of destroying that nation or group".
If you notice the AIM (or intention) is to destroy the group. This means that the group does NOT need to be completely wiped out for genocide to occur. That's like saying that there was no genocide committed against the Native Americans in the U.S. because there are still Native Americans in existence...
The real problem with 1Samuel 15 is not the number of people killed, or that they happened to be of a specific ethnicity, but the reasons given, and that some of them were clearly innocent, atleast the children were.
🙏 blessing brother
I found your channel because he once recomended it in one of his videos, or if it wasn’t him it was red pen logic.
What a bizarre coincidence that both you and Trent Horn did videos criticizing William Lane Craig today....on two completely different issues
Where does Jesus clearly and unambiguously claim to be God in the gospel of John? When we read the gospel, Jesus presents himself as one other than God. He may make messianic claims and claim God as his father., but that makes him one other than God. He is sent by his Father to do the will of his Father. He is always in subjection to his God and Father. Indeed, if we read the gospel, Jesus prays to his God. He has a God. The resurrected Jesus has a God. And what was the purpose of John's gospel ? Was it to show that he was God ? NO ! It was to show that he was the messiah (Christ) the Son of God.
In this discussion, Dr Craig has to play the historical Jesus game by its rules. Testify is quite right to object to the rules. Different horses for different courses ?
We mush reclaim the strength of our case.
I realize that the issue at stake here is John, but you have to have some serious blinders on to read any of the other Gospels, especially Matthew and not see that Jesus is the son of God. The Pharisees want to stone him in Matthew 9 for daring to forgive sins (something only God could do).
I don’t see anything especially remarkable here about WLC’s concessions vs what we apologists do all the time (to be clear, I disagree with him respectfully). But this is what happens when we allow agenda-driven, incomprehensibly methodologically flawed Biblical scholars to drive the narrative. They’re winning and we’re losing because we always concede ground-needlessly. And those with fragile faith who are seeking answers end up walking away (I was there once).
We concede-without a lick of evidence-that the Gospels weren’t written until after 70AD. We concede-without a shred of evidence-that Mark (not an eyewitness) wrote the first Gospel. We concede-without evidence-that it was Paul who gave us our first account of Christ’s divinity. We concede that time-honored passages (eg Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11) couldn’t have been original (despite our earliest preserved records saying otherwise)-on dubious “text critical” grounds which have been shown to be agenda-driven and of questionable validity time and time again. Apostles didn’t die as martyrs, minimal facts, etc. I could go on and on.
We don’t make them defend these positions against withering counter-attacks -the way they force us to have silly debates (eg was there even a historical Jesus?). We don’t go on the offensive against their dreadfully bad arguments that lack even an iota of evidence.
Not only do we concede so much without evidence, but we do so AGAINST the overwhelming weight of evidence (by historical standards) that shows the contrary. Multiple attested written records, early historians documenting/corroborating numerous facts, archaeological evidence also corroborating said facts, etc. etc. It’s one thing to concede for argument sake, but quite another to just capitulate over and over as accepted fact…
I’m not gonna hate on Craig for this or other errors but I get it. He’s got the credentials to be a scholar and, unfortunately, you kind of have to go with scholarly trends. It’s why so many scholars outside the specific discipline of the synoptic problem default to Markan priority.
New Testament> New Testament scholars.
As a side note, your meme game is very strong
Isaiah 9:6 closes the case way before.
Erik Manning is cool, but this take ain't it...still ❤you
Be a maximalist Daniel. You must assimilate.
@@TestifyApologetics Execute the heretic!
I think you tip your hand a little when you lead by talking about the undesirable (for apologetics) results of Craig's position. The best scholarship is curious (doesn't begin already knowing the answer), is most concerned with what is true not what props my position up, and follows the data to inference to the best explanation regardless of whete it leads. The argument you follow up with after saying you don't like the results of Craig's stance, doesn't account for other data scholars look at that you don't mention, and seems to me to draw a picture of Johanine reliability the way ancients drew constellations in the stars. I like the video from that big apologetics conference where Mike Licona sets J Warner Wallace straight on the synoptic problem while answering a question on the diffferences between John and the synoptics. Licona while still a committed evangelical Christian, strikes me as both more scholarly and more unbiased in his approach:
Independent Gospels?? Christian vs Christian (J Warner Wallace vs Mike Licona response)
Independent Gospels?? Christian vs Christian (J Warner Wallace vs Mike Licona response)
Agree that Erik shoots himself in the foot by saying that we "need" John to be reliable because it's better for apologetics. He should simply make the case for the reliability of John (which I believe is very strong, contra Licona/Craig) because that's where the historical evidence points, and we should just follow the evidence where it leads.
Interesting ,but in truth Jesus never does say he is God in those words he says "IAm" which means he is using the name of God .think about it I might say I'm human but or a christian but more often I will use my name to introduce my self.a new thing happened when the Father begot his son Jesus .Jesus cannot say I am God he can only say I and the father are one .he cannot deny the Father or Say out right I am God apart from the Father.the problem is with our concept of God who is one .
Thank you 😊
1:19 Not the "scholars"
Great work
Live by the consensus of scholars, die by the consensus of scholars. BTW, great and gracious video.