from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06NtOP84rXo&app=desktop
Most Christian scholars say Mark was the earliest gospel. Most Christian scholars say authentic Mark ended at 16:8. If it be reasonable for anybody to adopt the Christian scholarly majority opinion, then it is going to be reasonable for anybody to conclude that the earliest form of the gospel did not mention Jesus actually appearing to anybody. The reasonableness of that position is not going to disappear just because Lydia doesn't agree with Markan Priority. Reasonableness doesn't require accuracy (you think jurors are always unreasonable if they convict an innocent man?), and reasonableness doesn't require that somebody bat out of the ballpark any other theory that disagrees with them.
Hence, skeptics can be "reasonable", even if not infallible, to conclude the resurrection appearance narratives of later gospels are legendary. Read Acts 21:18-24 before you tell me rumors take decades to take root. If we can be 'reasonable' to be skeptical, how could there possibly be any intellectual compulsion on us to worry about that scholar over there, and her disagreements with us?
Do you think Christians stop being reasonable if they know about some skeptic and they refuse to entertain his replies? No.
Then be consistent with your own logic, and stop saying skeptics cannot be reasonable unless they are willing to stay up with the latest in Christian apologetics trifles.
*You* don't have to answer every last skeptical trifle to be a reasonable Christian, and *I* don't have to answer every last Christian trifle to be a a reasonable skeptic of Jesus' resurrection.
Is that fair, yes or no?
screenshot:
No comments:
Post a Comment