Attitudes Towards the Resurrection of Jesus have Changed Radically
How does the state of research on the resurrection TODAY compare with a few decades ago? This video is part of the grad class I teach at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University): “In Defense of the Resurrection.”
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: @sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: @seanmcdowell
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
I am not sure if you will ever read this Dr. Sean McDowell but if you do I hope what I say will convict and encourage you. When Paul defended the faith in Acts 17 did he really get out the research or the archeological evidence for the resurrection? Now, here’s what I am not saying. I’m not saying we should never look at the evidence or the facts, but when we engage with the unbelievers that’s not the problem. It’s their way of thinking, their worldview. I would go into greater detail of what I mean but the point I am trying to get across is that the Bible tells us how to defend the faith which is to “answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:5). Expose the foolishness of unbelieving thought and their way of accounting for knowledge, reality, and morality. With all due respect I do not see much of that in your channel and forgive me if you have and I just missed it. I hope that what I said helps or makes sense.
People are HUNGRY, but not necessarily HUMBLE.
Ok looks like its an excerpt from a course. the Series is not available online.
Surely you have to demonstrate that supernatural events are possible first, before it can be offered as an explanation of what happened to Jesus. Not one shred of credible evidence has ever been found that anything supernatural has ever occurred. Taking that in to account, when trying to come to a reasonable explanation to what happened to Jesus, the use of a supernatural explanation (resorection) can not reasonably be used as we first need to demonstrate the supernatural exists.
Well that's a stupid title, you imply there's more confusion. why do you need "more research" i thought this was a done deal? or is it just for the sake of making videos?
I don’t think you must believe the deity of Christ to be a Christian.
Great stuff! Absolutely love this Dr. Sean McDowell!
Thank You Jesus
Christianity always gets confused with evidence and a claim , a claim is a different thing to verifiable evidence,
I am a Catholic and I truly respect your and your fathers work!! My favorite books are More than a Carpenter and Evidence that demands a Verdict!! May God bless you both and may The Lord help you find the truth.
such complete nonsense. But Sean has to keep up the family grift. There is still no evidence for the dead rising, neither from a tomb that no one can agree upon or during Passover in Roman-occupied Jerusalem per the bible.
No all scholars don't agree that Jesus Christ, Son of God, lived or died. Some think that there was a human at the basis of the legend, and that there may be evidence for that but at this point there is only a possibility of existence, no evidence. However, this isn't the magical messiah that Christian worship. There is no evidence for that character
I love the "miracle worker in some sense". Nope, they don't think he was a miracle worker, and Sean tries to wiggle "in some sense" to hide his false claims about what others think. You either are a miracle worker or not.
Plenty of people have believed a lot of nonsense. There may have been apostles, they may have believed that the stories told were true. That doesn't make them that. They are no more trustworthy than the nuts who were members of Heaven's Gate.
Paul can't keep the story of his conversion straight so no reason to believe him, especially when he never mentions what JC supposedly said, no parables, no quotes, nothing.
The case hasn't gotten stronger for a Jesus Christ, Son of God. It's become weaker and weaker since Christians admit that they only have a possibility of a rabbi who thought he was the messiah. They know they have nothing to show that their god exists.
Does Gary Habermas publish anything in professional academic journals or presses?
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Gary Habermas' upcoming magnum opus will be epic!
Love how he has from what I can see on his computer venom or spider man:)
Amen. And don't leave out J. Warner Wallace's work as well.
His work was instrumental in convincing me that Christianity is true beyond any reasonable doubt.
Jesus is embodied in my whole being !
I am the Virgin Mary living alive in the Philippines, born again meaning reincarnated,resurrected !
Here is my strongest case against the Resurrection:
1. The origin of the belief in Jesus' resurrection can be explained by contemporary beliefs of apocalyptic Judaism combined with how other religious groups react after their beliefs are falsified (cognitive dissonance). Here is a plausible sequence of events that explains why the early followers of Jesus would apply the concept of Resurrection to him without it actually occurring.
A. There was already an anticipated expectation of the Messiah accompanying the resurrection in some form or another – 4Q521. Luke 7:22, Matthew 11:2-5. https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/archaeology-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/the-signs-of-the-messiah-4q521/
B. Jesus (a Messianic figure) preached/predicted the resurrection – supported by the gospels.
C. Jesus and his followers both believed they were living in the end times (when the resurrection would occur) – supported by the gospels and apocalyptic Jewish writings.
D. Jesus was executed.
E. After cognitive dissonance, theological innovation and discovering this was "foretold in the Scriptures" all along (1 Cor 15:3-4), the Jesus sect just applied their pre-existing belief in resurrection to Jesus and he became the "firstfruits" of it – 1 Cor 15:20. https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/cognitive-dissonance-resurrection-jesus/
F. Very soon some of his followers claimed to have "visions" of him – supported by the fact that Paul places his "vision" of Jesus (Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19) in the list of "appearances" – 1 Cor 15:5-8. This indicates physical interactions with a revived body were not required to believe in a resurrection.
E and F are interchangeable. This explains all the data. If the imminent expectation of the resurrection was already around, some followers coming to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected "a little early" is no longer implausible. It's just a natural reaction to his death. Maintaining that Jesus' followers would just abandon the movement ignores the examples we have of other religious groups doubling down on their beliefs after what would seem to disconfirm them – see examples in link for E.
Moreover, Mark 6:14-16 relays an interesting tradition that Herod and some others were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" which, if historical, proves the concept of a single dying and rising prophet figure existed in Jesus' time and culture before his death. This is interesting because both John and Jesus were apocalyptic preachers who preached a similar message to the same groups of people and both had been unjustly executed. There is also evidence that some thought John might be the Messiah and that his sect continued on after his death. If people were applying the concept to John then it's no surprise that the same circle of people would apply the concept to Jesus after his death. All this provides a perfectly plausible natural explanation for the origin of belief in the resurrection that doesn't actually entail God raising Jesus from the dead. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8gs86v/the_origin_of_belief_in_jesus_resurrection_can_be/
2. The original belief in Jesus' resurrection/exaltation was that he went to heaven simultaneously with the resurrection or immediately afterwards leaving no room for physical earthly encounters. Phil 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20, Heb. 1:3, 10:12-13, 12:2 can all be plausibly interpreted as a simple one-step resurrection/exaltation to heaven without any intermediate earthly physical appearances. The physical resurrection to the earth and Ascension stories were later developments (see below). This means the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were necessarily spiritual encounters of the exalted Lord from heaven and the gospel depictions are all necessarily false. If apologists want to claim that the original view was that Jesus' resurrected corpse actually walked the earth then they need to provide evidence from Paul (the earliest source) which indicates that. The problem is, Paul doesn't give any evidence for this which means they are necessarily reading that assumption into the text. So since the earliest data can be equally interpreted to mean a simultaneous or immediate exaltation to heaven then the apologist has the burden of proof to show Paul believed otherwise. This observation renders the belief in a physical resurrection irrelevant because even if they believed Jesus was physically resurrected, it does not necessarily follow that they really saw the Resurrected Jesus (because he was believed to be in heaven when he "appeared" to them). https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/839xt6/jesus_resurrection_was_originally_understood_as/
3. Second Temple Judaism was a superstitious visionary culture in which people claimed to have "visions" of God and angels quite regularly. This provides a cultural background context which raises the prior probability that the "appearances" of Jesus were originally thought of as "visions" or spiritual revelations from heaven. In fact, the "son of man" figure from Dan. 7:13 was said to have been experienced in a vision. Since Jesus was identified with the "son of man" then it is just expected people would claim to have visions of him. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/8iq6k9/the_cultural_background_of_judaism_supports_the/
4. Empty tombs and miraculous "missing body" stories were part of a recognizable and established literary theme in antiquity. It was a marker used to convey apotheosis/translation of a hero or important person. Since there is no actual independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from Mark), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity. The original story in Mark just has Jesus' body missing from the tomb without an appearance narrative. There were plenty of stories where other Jewish prophets "go missing" so we would just expect the same from the storytellers about Jesus. An extremely interesting Greek example is the novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE (before Mark's gospel) due to a possible mention by Persius "To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe" – (1,134). Just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is the sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/
5. The Resurrection story evolves over time which is consistent with legendary growth. It starts with "spiritual visions" of Jesus from heaven in the earliest firsthand material then gradually evolves to a more physical resurrection over time in the sources which are not firsthand. In order to refute this argument one would have to show it to be implausible and replace it with a better historical hypothesis that explains why the accounts look so much like a legend evolving without it actually being one. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
6. The Resurrection argument fails its own burden of proof. The only evidence for the resurrection that actually matters are the claimed "post-mortem appearances" since there would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Everything else is just a distraction. Appealing to things like the empty tomb, so called "prophecy fulfillment" and alleged martyrdom stories, etc are all irrelevant red herrings since they do not directly support the hypothesis that a dead man became alive again. Thus, the burden of proof is on the one who claims Jesus' resurrection actually happened, or put simply, they need to show these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Well, according to the earliest evidence, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." Paul makes no distinction in regards to the nature, quality, or type of appearances. He uses the same verb ὤφθη (ōphthē) for each one as if to equate them and makes no reference to a separate and distinct Ascension between the appearances. This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances" because it totally changes the meaning of "appeared." Even though Jesus wasn't physically present on the earth, one could still claim that they just "experienced his presence" and that counted as "seeing Jesus." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream! Thus, the resurrection argument will always fail to meet the burden of proof – "they really saw Jesus alive again after his death." https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/gfx0n0/the_resurrection_argument_fails_to_meet_its/
Can we be sure of Paul himself?…. Paul never knew Christ nor was his follower, he claimed to see Christ in a vision and then developed Christianity into what we know of it today…. it seems like Paul' message is different from Christ… Christ was pro-Jewish while Paul is clearly not….their teachings are also very different….Paul is similar to Joseph Smith who claimed to have a vision and then developed Mormonism…..and we see it throughout history how followers of prophets created movements for example:
Moses who worshipped Yahweh but then his followers created Judaism
Mohammed who was a pagan but then his followers created Islam
Buddha who was Hindu but then his followers created Buddhism
Christ who was a Jew but then his followers created Christianity
your thoughts?… Thanks
Thank you Sean, Loved the video
Sean McDowell – a rare combination of well-researched and highly approachable.
Not Fox News……they believe Trump won by a Massive Massive Landslide too. Get your op-Ed published in Scientific American…..then come talk to me. By the way, if I tell you 100% of elite Muslims scholars are convinced the Quran comes directly from God, what would it mean to you?
223th like
Dr. McDowell, on your father’s (and your) book- does it still maintain in its most recent edition (as it did in the first and “New” versions) that Voltaire’s home was used to print Bibles? I’ve been asking you that for years on Twitter but never got an answer. Just got blocked. Sincere question.
thats so awsome, im enrolled to be a bible major at biola! Fall 2021
Not sure how this came across my feed, but the "evidence" or research hasn't changed from what it has always been; a collection of often anonymous ancient stories and letters from the middle east. Perhaps some attitudes have changed, no one is named or specifically quoted on that point, but attitudes aren't evidence or research. Then again, some people are happy to believe and miserable if they don't, so more power to them if it helps them make it through life.
Need that laptop sticker!
Great presentation…
oh wow this is an ongoing series! Great!!
You are absolutely right. That won’t stop the detractors from denigrating Habermas’s proof as being mere claims. But there is more proof for the resurrection than there is for abiogenesis which is pure myth and fanciful claims as is being shown by Dr James Tour
If someone is not regenerated – and they examine – and examine – and examine the "evidence" – they will never, ever believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
The main argument today, and the one that's always been the most sensible, is that it's legend development. There's plenty of evidence for legend development that can be seen in the scriptures themselves. Jesus goes from a man adopted as God's son at the moment of baptism and dies with no post-resurrection sightings at all in Mark, to having existed from the beginning of time, being with God from the beginning, becoming God incarnate, rising with dramatic (though still vague) post-resurrection appearances in John, and ascending into Heaven. The worldview itself shifts from an apocalyptic view where people are resurrected at the end times, something Paul believed and described in 1 Corinthians 15, to the modern Christian view that believers enter into a Heavenly realm after death rather than returning to this carnal world (John 14 (paraphrasing) – I go to prepare a place for you. I will come back and take you with me so that where I am you will also be). Apologists love to reference the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 and claim that it's a very early creed (an therefore not legend). It likely is an early account. However, it contains no reference to a tomb, Joseph of Arimethea, or an ascension into Heaven. These are features that were tacked on later by other authors. It's clear legend development.