You can watch it here. Trent made some good points against Alex's position during the debate, but I want to supplement what he said with some of my own responses to Alex. And I want to respond to Trent to some extent. I've responded to Alex on resurrection issues in the past, and some of what he said in his discussion with Trent covers the same ground. I'll link to some of my previous responses to Alex, since what he said in this recent discussion doesn't advance his side of the argument in any significant way. I also want to add some further comments to what I said in response to him in the past.
Both of them brought up extrabiblical miracle claims, such as some miracles surrounding early Mormonism and Marian apparitions. As often occurs, the discussion was framed as if the explanatory options consist of normal causes, the Divine, and the demonic. But there are other options (paranormal activity from living humans, paranormal activity from deceased humans, place memories, etc.). For a discussion of some problems with neglecting those other explanatory options, see here.
Regarding Marian apparitions, see my post earlier this week, which addresses two apparitions Trent cited, Zeitoun and Fatima. In the years ahead, it's probably going to become significantly more popular to use Marian apparitions in a manner like Trent did. That's not just because of the influence of Trent, but also because of the influence of others who are promoting that sort of argumentation (as discussed in my post earlier this week, for example). It's a significant trend. Protestants and other non-Catholics need to be better prepared to address it.
Concerning Alex's appeal to extrabiblical miracles, there are many posts in our archives addressing skeptical arguments of that sort, such as here. Or you can search our archives for material about particular miracle claims, if you have something specific in mind. Christianity has more than enough explanatory options to adequately address extrabiblical and non-Christian miracle claims, including the ones Alex brought up.
Whether Jesus rose from the dead and how his resurrection fits in with other alleged miracles are related, but distinct issues. There's no need for an argument for Jesus' resurrection to address everything that needs to be addressed about every other miracle claim. His resurrection is one line of argument among others for Christianity. The resurrection of Christ has a foundational role, but it doesn't exist in isolation. It's part of a larger network of miracles, philosophical considerations, etc.
On the alleged evolution of the gospels over time, how the later gospels supposedly say suspiciously more than the earlier ones, see here.
Regarding the objectivity of, physicality of, and evidence for the resurrection appearance to Paul, see here. A couple years later, I wrote an article about the evidence for the appearance to Paul in Acts.
Alex cited John 21:24 against the "we" passages in Acts and Luke's authorship of Luke/Acts and against John 21's testimony about the death of Peter. But first-person plural language can be used for more than one reason. Alex didn't offer an argument that Acts and John are using the language in the same manner. (See here for a discussion of the evidence pertaining to the "we" passages in Acts. Trent is right.) And John 21:24 affirms authorship by the Beloved Disciple rather than denying it. Even if we were to take the "we" in that verse as distinguishing between the Beloved Disciple and the author(s), the verse would still be saying that the Beloved Disciple wrote the large majority of the document, what leads up to 21:24, including the anticipation of Peter's death. And Alex is wrong about 21:24. See my citation of Charles Hill on the subject and my own comments about it here. Just after verse 24, verse 25 uses the first-person singular. There are multiple, converging lines of evidence for the conclusion that the fourth gospel and 1 John claim that the fourth gospel was written by an eyewitness of Jesus. See my recent posts on the subject here and here, for example. And Alex's suggestion that John 21 was added to the gospel later is something he didn't offer any supporting argument for, it contradicts the internal and external evidence (e.g., the manuscript record), and a later date for chapter 21 could still leave us with an early source on Peter's death. If John 21 was added in the late first or early second century, for example, it would still be a significantly early source supporting Trent's argument.
Trent responded to Alex with the possibility that the fourth gospel came from another disciple of Jesus named John, not the son of Zebedee. But the evidence suggests authorship by the son of Zebedee, not some other John. See here, among other relevant posts in our archives.
Alex suggested that the appearance to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5 might be based on the Mount of Transfiguration account in the Synoptics. But the two events are substantially different, making Alex's explanation far from the simplest, 1 Corinthians 15:5 singles out Peter rather than including James and John, and Luke mentions both events and distinguishes between them (Luke 9:28-36, 24:34).
There are too many other problematic claims made by Alex for me to respond to all of them here. He frequently put forward possible scenarios without arguing for their probability, often suggesting multiple potential explanations for one thing without arguing for one explanation over the alternatives (e.g., when discussing the empty tomb). Trent didn't have time to respond to all of that, and Alex didn't provide us enough reason (or any in some contexts) to believe the explanations he was putting forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment