Were The Apostles Just Hallucinating? W/ Trent Horn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 янв 2020
- Trent discusses the historicity of the New Testament, and why it is very difficult to discount the witness and authorship of the apostles, even from a strictly scholarly perspective.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodwo... (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mat...
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #18...
⭐ Trent's Podcast Website: / counseloftrent
Trent's RUclips Channel: / trhorn100
Trent's Bibliography: www.amazon.com...
Catholic Answers Site: www.catholic.com/
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
The goofiest one I hear is "the Apostles made it up for power and money." As if most of the Apostles and the first 30 Popes didn't die horrible martyr's deaths. Would have been easier to be a fish merchant.
@rachel hutchinson Of course power and money! Gotta establish that patriarchy donchya know!
@Jim Merrilees Exhibit A
@Jim Merrilees Yeah cause those early Christians were swimming in money and power lololololol
@Jim MerrileesI agree with your comment 100% but it doesn't refute my comment nor the original comment
@Jim Merrilees do you understand the difference between early christians and christians today? Do you understand that early christians didnt have billions of dollars and massive churches?
It was consideration of the apostles' dramatic, enduring and costly turnaround that brought me back to faith after 25 years of atheism. Ironically (because I was a leftist), It was Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., who in his book “Closer My God,” briefly mentioned this as possible proof of the Resurrection. I believe it to be the BEST proof. I just don’t buy the argument that 11 men, of such varied temperament, could jointly hallucinate or deliberately manufacture a risen Jesus, so that they could spend the rest of their lives suffering harassment, ridicule, beatings, shipwrecks, jail, exile, and execution.
That's what finally brought me back to faith in Christ. It's not just that the apostles believed in Jesus unto death. Terrorists believe things and are willing to die for them. But the apostles believed in Jesus as messiah in the face of every evidence to the contrary. A crucified messiah was definitively not a messiah in any Jewish idea of messiah. The movement should have died right then. But they became thoroughly convinced of the resurrection very soon after. And they carried that message to the outside world and defended it unto death. Even critical scholars agree that belief in the resurrection is absolutely original to Christianity and the focus of the early church's evangelical efforts.
So if no one was expecting a suffering Messiah then how can Isa 53 be explained?
The movement not dying can be easily explained though. Movements and doctrines are reinterpreted all the time to include recent events.
The disciples did think Jesus was going to set up a literal Kingdom of God on Earth. So what could have happened? A single disciple in bereavement having a vision or experience of Jesus and deciding maybe he was wrong, maybe what Jesus meant was He was going to establish His Kingdom in Heaven and provide the way for His followers to get there. Convincing all his fellows along the way.
RUclips Peter Kreeft disputing resurrection doubters. It's a fascinating take on it all.
The Jewish High priests concocted the story about Jesus' tomb being raided by his disciples, as they feared the anticipation that his followers would proclaim that he had bodily risen from the dead. There are multiple problems with such a hypothesis, though.
As Trent mentioned, what the Jews believed was that the saints would all be resurrected, together, at the end of the world. They weren't expecting a single man, in the middle of history, to precede the general resurrection at its consummation. The notion of a dying and bodily rising messiah was such a radical departure from traditional Jewish belief. It would make no sense for a 1st century Jewish person to fabricate such a story because no one would believe it.
Secondly, Jesus' tomb was sealed by a massive stone that had to be rolled into and out of place. The tomb was also guarded, day and night, by the most elite, and heavily armed soldiers in the world. Failure to protect the tomb would have resulted in their certain death. Moreover, how would the disciples, who were unarmed, and untrained in combat, overpower said soldiers, snatch the body (assuming that is was there), and make off with it, without getting caught, and executed themselves?
Not only is such a scenario highly implausible, but the disciples had no motive to steal Jesus' body. When he died, they thought it was game over. They hid away like cowards and were despondent. It wasn't until the empty tomb was discovered by Jesus' women followers, and Peter went to it and saw for himself, that he believed. The rest of the disciples were still skeptical until they claimed that Jesus appeared to them.
What is interesting is that when previous messianic figures died, their respective movements ended with the death of their leaders. Curiously, Christianity is unique in that it grew rapidly in the wake of Jesus' death and harsh, relentless persecution of his followers. One has to account for this anomaly.
The hallucination, and stolen body hypotheses have been largely discarded by contemporary experts who have studied this subject. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis. Virtually all ancient historians and New Testament scholars (Christian, Jewish and critical atheists) affirm the following:
*Fact #1:* *After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named, Joseph of Arimathea. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is one of the most solid facts of history.*
*Fact #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.*
*Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This a fact which is universally acknowledged today by New Testament scholars.*
*Fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead, despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.*
*The Evidence for Jesus:* www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-evidence-for-jesus/
*The Resurrection of Jesus:* www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
*Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate:* www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/
The best explanation for facts #2-4 is that the disciples, Paul, and James were telling the truth. The reason why atheists in this field of study (along with their laymen counterparts), reject the resurrection is because their worldview presupposes the non-existence of God, thus, they rule out the supernatural. If natural law is all that exists, then Jesus’ bodily resurrection is a physical impossibility, as dead bodies remain dead without some miraculous intervention. If one is a theist - or is at least open to the possibility of God’s existence - then they are more likely to be persuaded by the historical evidence that is available to us.
Matt, it would be awesome if you or Trent (or any apologist for that matter) would make a video regarding Joe Rogan’s ridiculous claims against the Church and Christianity, such as Moses was on DMT when he encountered the Burning Bush.
I'll grant that Joe Rogan is entertaining, and he does have quite interesting guests at times, but comedians shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Joe Rogan is a comedian, not a theologian. His opinions on Moses are comedy, not theology.
Hallucinations, false memories are often times used to dismiss evidence. However as one psychologist studying NDE's said is that the argument of hallucination is a cop out. It is a way to shut down discussion. Because fundumentally a hallucination is what someone, or some group sees, that others dont. This individual or group may be convinced of the reality of this phenomena, it may even seem to affect them however we "norma;" people do not see what they see. So we term it hallucination and assumes it is fiction. this is a pragmatic choice more than anything. It is also based in the concept that -> brain damage = false input. As well as the general common sense idea that if enough people dont see something, then its not there. Since its not testable scientifically we cannot make a claim. (also the antipsychotic argument can be made)
Hallucination is a very strong position as is false memory since both are "materialist" unfalsifiable hypothesise that fudumentally simply exist to dismiss evidence rather than investigate it and ask questions. Of course there is evidence of almost everyone assimilating a false memory. However This explanation is one that is meant to verify belief in situations when we cannot explain something that a patient or otherwise claims to have experienced at times when they for example should have no experience. Its a convenient argument since it throws the entire phenomena into a bag and promptly dumps it down the nearest well, thus preserving the materialist model.
Also great discussion. Love the show!
One thing I'd like to point out (the doesn't seem to get mentioned enough) is that Jews had a tradition of reburying bones after the flesh had rotted away. For criminal who been executed, they would be buried in a criminal graveyard, and their families would be allowed to rebury them. This would be expected to happen to Jesus, had his tomb not been empty.
The fact that his family sincerely believed in his resurrection really only makes sense if his tomb was empty in the first place. There's no realistic way is family could have repaired his bones and continued to believe in bodily resurrection.
So if one accepts the burial of Jesus, it is very difficult to deny the empty tomb
If I put a source from 100 years after the event in my classical history dissertation, and called it a primary source, nobody would blink. The same internet pop skeptics who use this argument against the Gospels would never question accepted 'facts' about Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
The moment Alexander the great or Julius Caesar are touted as gods and have billions of followers with power and government privilege's
pushing others around for 2000 years, you bet people are going to scrutinize every source of the gospels.
Especially any super natural claim. Whatever they are?
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 Yes but doesn't that make my point exactly? You've conceded that you hold it to a different standard than any other historical claim based on how you disagree with it morally, and with what Christianity has done. But should our moral opinions also determine for us whether Julius Caesar was really assassinated? If we disagree with nuclear power can we change the rules of chemistry so plutonium isn't an element anymore? If we follow through with judging things this way where does it stop?
@@Jim-Mc I think you are missing the main point here. Morals etc., aside. The gospels are telling us a god walked among us.
That puts any claim about said god in a category that is not with real people, such as Julius and Alex, but with gods such as Hercules Adonis etc.
Julius and Alex also had some god elements attributed to them, but no historian would consider them for a moment as real but as stories that were embellished about the person. Now if you want to consider the god mentioned in the gospels as a normal person then you need to ignore all stories of any super natural claims etc. The Jefferson bible version if you will.
Now if that normal person in the gospels is what people believe in, let them knock themselves out.
But you and i know that is not the case.
They believe in a super natural deity and there are no" facts" to demonstrate this being/claim etc.
That is what you need to blink at.
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 Almost all ancient texts from virtually every culture contain references to the supernatural. Would you agree that your objection is primarily to the supernatural in general rather than to the Gospels being substantially different from other writings in this regard?
@@Jim-Mc I object to the super natural (what ever it is claimed to be) as a "fact". And then used to bolster the claim of anything.
Yet alone a deity. So yes, first demonstrate a super natural event (no one has yet done this or set any parameters as to what it is etc)
So when a story such as the gospels has these elements in it and then historians (especially theistic historians) try to use it as evidence for whatever they are touting.....it should be dismissed immediately and then that historian should be looked at with narrow eyes on anything they say on a subject in this manner. And yet billions of lay people take the super natural claims of a deity and say, yep that's reasonable.
It's so frustrating to me and especially when PHD/credible historians etc., attempt to justify these super natural claims to those lay people.
It's all bullshit. (emphasis😁 )
I believe it is true.
Wish Trent Horn would go on Pine Creek!
Didn't he?
Were there only two options for Joseph Smith and the beginning of Mormonism? That the Angel of Moroni appeared to him or that he was hallucinating ?
I think it is interesting that we accept that the story written in the Bible actually is “word for word” from any apostle himself. The stories were handed down orally and then written decades later with the possibility that the apostles weren’t even alive.
The Gospels were all written before 100 AD and the epistles are just within a few years after the crucifixion. Even if the apostles weren’t alive (John was for the longest), those who had known the apostles were alive and you continue that chain as you keep going.
I cannot realistically base my beliefs on what others may have experienced. I can only base them on what I experience myself. I believe in a Spirit of Goodness which consists of truth, beauty, love, kindness and gentleness, etc. I also believe in a Spirit of Badness which consists of the opposite traits.
so you don't study history, since it's all other peoples experiences
Thanks for your comment. I need all the help I can get. I would prefer not to lose my faith but I find recently that I keep needing something to pull me back. The difference with history is that it generally can be proven and verified. There is for the most part lots of evidence for events of the past.
@@josephryan5949 There is far less evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great COMBINED than there is for Jesus.
If you count the revelations of Paul the Apostle in his letters you have one. As for the stories in the gospels only Peter so now 2.
So you have 2 one through revelation in the letters of Paul and one through the gospel stories Peter.
This is what the risen story is hanging on. Good luck with that.
Ya I recently discovered who Paulogia is. It's a funny theory. Children's novels rebuke such a theory.