Biblical Encouragement And Truth (The B.E.A.T) is an online video ministry dedicated to communicating God's word in a creative, practical and easy-to-watch format. These short 5-minutes-or-less videos seek to address questions most Christians have and to provide a forum for people to discuss various theological concepts and ideas. This channel also encourages people by challenging them to live out their true calling as a Christian. We release a new video EVERY TUESDAY and FRIDAY. I hope you'll enjoy these videos, share them and engage in the discussion! (see here)He tries to give superficial Christian apologetics arguments a shot in the arm with displays of confidence and the kind of posturing one normally sees in videos entitled "Fast Food Freakouts" (i.e., he is pandering to a younger crowd, who cannot be expected, despite their "new creature in Christ" status (2nd Cor. 5:17) to act like new creatures in Christ. See here.
-----------Here is the reply I posted, just in case it gets deleted.
Well first, there is not the least bit of intellectual obligation upon anybody today to grant the benefit of the doubt to an ancient historical document. Christians don’t care what we do with Lucian of Samosata, so whether we are ‘required’ to believe ancient documents is apparently decided merely based on the personal preferences of whatever person happens to be doing the preaching.
Furthermore, since the OT came first, and the NT doctrine of hell-fire positively contradicts the sense of divine justice in the OT, I have the perfect right to label the NT as heresy, that god’s wrath upon me will never consist of more than permanent extinction of consciousness, and therefore, my rejection of Jesus is not in any way “dangerous”.
Second, Christian scholars routinely try to get rid of early church father beliefs they don't like by saying the father was biased or writing with apologetic tone, but then these Christians turn around and pretend as if the gospel of Matthew is the equal of video tape. This guy in the video is acting like there’s just no way Matthew might be biased or writing with apologetic tone.
Third, nobody manifests a concern the disciples might steal the body, until a full day after the Romans gave up custody of the body to Joseph of Arimathea, plenty of head-start for the disciples to commit foul play. Matthew 27:58-64.
Fourth, if the guards could be so easily bribed to tell a shockingly unbelievable story (they were asleep when the disciples stole the body...but if asleep, how would they know?, Matthew 28:13), the guards could just as easily be bribed by Joseph of Arimathea to lie and say they rolled back the stone to visually verify the corpse was still inside before they stationed the guard. Did Joseph have enough money to achieve such a bribe? Yes, he was “rich” (28:57). And by being rich, the claim that he was a “secret” disciple of Jesus (John 19:38) makes it sound like he only preferred some of what Jesus taught, and wasn’t a true disciple...which increases the probability that Joseph was willing to engage in some foul play in effort to help the disciples concoct a lie in accord with their “visions”.
Fifth, if the guards sealed the tomb then later claimed the disciples stole the body, they would be obligated to have broken their own seal so as to fabricate evidence of grave robbery. But this guy in the video says if any unauthorized person broke the seal, they were subject to the death penalty, so the guards had to have been very stupid and corrupt to accept the Jewish bribe and actually report such story...which makes such guards even more likely to be subject to a bribe from the rich Joseph of Arimathea, a bribe asking them to falsely testify that they visually verified the corpse was still in the tomb before they sealed it.
Sixth, Joseph wrapped Jesus' corpse in a new cloth (27:59), so even if we are to believe the guards rolled away the stone to check that the body was still there, that only requires they would have seen a new linen cloth wrapped around the outline of a body. Given the tremendous significance of laws against grave robbery, the trifle that the guards would also have peeled back the cloth to visually verify there was a real body underneath or to look at Jesus' death face, is not very likely. If they looked inside, all they likely did was view the shape of a body wrapped in this cloth, and conclude this was the body of Jesus. Their hasty generalization fallacy is more likely if they were sufficiently corrupt as to accept bribes to motivate them to engage in dereliction of duty and straight up lying.
Seventh, this guy in the video is blindly assuming that unless skeptics can positively contradict the gospel accounts, then those accounts "must" be entitled a presumption of truth. There is no such presumption, and since the fates of most apostles are unknown, the legends late and contradictory, you cannot even pretend that they willingly gave up their livesa martyrs. In the case of specifically Matthew, some legends say he merely died. Skeptics don't really care if this or that historian says the benefit of the doubt must be granted to the document. That's about as stupid as saying you should believe every claim you hear until you can positively disprove it. You don’t do that, especially when the claim is one that contradicts your experience of how the world works.
Eighth, the alleged "fearfulness" of the disciples is not consistent with their having seen Jesus raise people from the dead (Lazarus, John 11) and their own ability to raise the dead (Matthew 10:8). Since these miracles aren't really "lesser" than Jesus' own resurrection, we have a right to expect either that the disciples stand their ground when jesus was on the cross and openly confess they were Jesus followers even if this meant death...or that the "miracles" of Jesus the disciples experienced were not very convincing, and so they acted scared exactly the way any followers would when their leader is proven to be a liar. Add to this the ceaseless reports of Jesus' other miracles (what did that loaf of bread look like as Jesus caused it to produce a twin of identical volume?), and the notion that the disciples remained so thickheaded as to remain "scared" after Jesus died, is about as believable as Pharaoh driving his chariot in between the columns of water to chase the Israelites through the parted Red Sea. Sorry, we are entitled to say some stories are just too unlikely to deserve trust.
Ninth, the post-crucifixion faith of the disciples does not mean they saw Jesus with their physical eyes, as religious fanatics can gain a desire for martyrdom solely on the basis of visions. Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus was a 'vision' (Acts 26:19). Visions get rid of the "why would they die for what they knew was a lie?" apologetic: they didn't know it was a lie, like every other religious visionary.
Tenth, the guy in the video quotes Acts 1:3 as if this was one of the most convincing "proofs", but the comment that the risen Christ spoke about the kingdom of God to the disciples over a period of 40 days probably implies something more than 15 seconds of speech...yet Matthew 28 provides no more speech from the risen Christ than what can be mouthed in 15 seconds. Given Matthew obvious love for quoting Jesus extensively, and his love for the "kingdom of God" sayings in particular, it is highly unlikely Matthew would merely "chose to exclude" most of the risen Christ-sayings. It is also highly unlikely, given Matthew's tendency to quote extensively, that he would "chose to condense" the risen Christ's kingdom of God statements to a mere 15 second summary. Matthew’s risen Christ gives us only 15 seconds of speech because that’s all the speech such author believed Jesus spoke. It’s not “excluding” and it’s not “condensation”. If Matthew wrote in 55 a.d., which is a date much earlier than what most fundamentalist dare argue for, this Matthew is still writing at least 20 years after the apostle Paul started all the mess about Gentile salvation, so it is highly unlikely Matthew would chose to deprive the reader of most of the risen Christ's kingdom of God sayings, it is more likely he would have found the risen Christ's specific statements about the kingdom of God much needed to balance out the fact that Paul is running around trying to prove everything about the subject without ever quoting Jesus.
Eleventh, Galatians 2:9 asserts that the leaders among the original Jewish disciples chose to stay away from the Gentile mission field and allocate the entire business to Paul...which means they were then collectively disobeying the risen Christ's command that THEY evangelize the Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20).
Twelfth, the Great Commission, which requires the original 11 apostles to evangelize Gentiles, specifies that such teachings shall consist of their telling new Gentile converts to obey all the things Jesus had previously taught the disciples. That means these original Jewish disciples had a greater responsibility to conduct the Gentile mission than Paul, whose johnny-come-lately status, and dislike for basing doctrine on Jesus’ words, positively disqualify him from obeying the Great Commission. See Matthew 28:20, and compare with Paul's own statement that he didn't get his gospel from any person, but only by divine telepathy(Galatians 1:1, 11-12). Clearly Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles was NOT “teaching them everything Jesus taught the original apostles” (Matthew 28:20).
Thirteenth, Jesus’ alleged appearance to 500 brothers all at once is suspect since it only comes from Paul, and he leaves it ambiguous whether or not Paul was with them at the time, so that the reader cannot be reasonably certain whether this alleged appearance allegation is coming from hearsay or a first-hand source.
Fourteenth, as an example of what “visions” were like for the original Christians, you might ask yourself how believable you’d find the fool who says that, 14 years ago he flew up into the sky without any mechanical means, but that when he thinks about it now, he still cannot tell whether such flying was physical or spiritual. That’s not a credible witness, yet it precisely what apostle Paul claimed (2nd Corinthians 12:1-4, using the same Greek word optasia that he used in Acts 26:19 to describe his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus as a “vision”).
Fifteenth, Josephus' claim about Jesus is a textual corruption, and the likely recoverable form of the original merely reports that the disciples said they saw Jesus alive after he died. Josephus’ refusal to grant more attention to Christianity makes it all but certain he was not a Christian, therefore, the basis for his reporting what Jesus’ disciples believed, is likely nothing more than popular rumor, rumors he did not himself find very convincing.
Sixteenth, Thomas Arnold of Rome is an 18th century historian, which the guy in the video seems to have confused with a 1st century Roman historian who allegedly mentions Christ, such as Tacitus.
Seventeenth, I am not affected by lesser works by Morrison, Strobel and McDowell, because I have already extensively critiqued the latest arguments given by actual genuine Christian scholars such as Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig. The guy in the video appears to be pandering to a younger crowd of emotionalist juveniles who find more significance in posturing than in scholarly-level investigation. Any person who converts to Christianity on the basis of this video is a fool indeed.
Eighteenth, the guy in the video can find atheists who eventually became Christian? Exactly how hard would it be to find fundamentalist Christians who eventually became atheists? Why don’t stories of ex-fundamentalists’ apostasy mean as much as stories of an atheists’ coming to Christian faith?
Nineteenth, the fact that the missing body of Christ was never found, is hardly relevant. First, Christians who said Jesus rose from the dead had a motive to conveniently forget where the real corpse was. Second, the honor/shame dialect would require the second generation Christians to uphold the beliefs of their teachers/parents, which is sort of like kids today who continue hanging onto the faith taught them by parents and youth pastors despite not knowing dick about how to refute skeptical arguments that are easily found with two google clicks. Moreover, the fact that crucifixion was normative in Jesus’ time means there were others who were also crucified, helping increase the complexity of any but the original Christians being able to verify that any particular body was that of Jesus.
Twentieth, the guy in the video makes a big deal about how easy it would be, if Jesus didn’t rise, for the Jews or Romans to simply exhume the body and wheel it around Jerusalem to disprove the resurrection claims. But the problem is that the disciples didn’t start talking that shit until 40 days after he was crucified (Acts 2:1 ff), by which time the corpse would have decomposed enough to become unrecognizable. But it is probably more important to point out that the guy in the video is fallaciously presuming the original Christian claims would have worried the authorities sufficiently to motivate them to violate grave-robbing laws merely to prove wrong the new claim of yet another religious cult in Palestine. The only people who think Christianity made a powerful impact on unbelievers within one year after Jesus died, are those who do little more than blindly trust the book of Acts. Likely because they only obey the falsely alleged “granting the benefit of the doubt to the document” rule whenever expediency dictates.
This “beat” guy’s argument and demeanor indicate he either doesn’t know what the rules of historiography are, or he doesn’t care. If he is willing to engage in actual scholarship, as opposed to simply giving us a Christian preaching version of "How Homies in da' hood resurrect failed arguments", I’ll be delighted to have a formal debate with him.
See https://turchisrong.blogspot.com for more scholarly articles refuting Christian "apologetics" arguments.
================
