You realize what you did was give yourself a huge dose of confirmation bias, right? Why not read Remsburg, or Randall Helms, or say, Richard Carriers “Not the Impossible Faith” which contains a lot of scholarship in the early church. These bozos are just telling you what you wanted to hear.

The sword cuts both ways. Carrier is not a respected scholar. Ehrman, a man who is not a Christian, holds the Creeds to be 35 AD. Dunn is a giant in the field and he holds the Creeds to be at least 35 AD, but probably much earlier. Larry Hurtado would also agree. They are far from being "bozos."

If you’re going to list Lee Strobel, and McDowell, and Habermas, you certainly don’t get to complain about Carrier, who actually has relevant credentials in the field. I’ll not that Ehrman has a problem relying on non existant sources, as does Dunn in this instance, as noted by Raphael Lataster. I’ll also note that an early Christian Creed, even if they did exist, don’t point to an historical Jesus any more than the creeds of the Mithras Cult or that of Dionysus. In fact, there are many early creeds And writings, such as the Didiche, which are clearly problematic for this view, you’d do much better to look at some contrary scholarship and not let yourself be led around by this questionable group you’ve chosen.

Seriously? So, you're going to dismiss material that is less than 2 years after the person in question and then elevate Carrier over Dunn and Ehrman? I think you would do well to listen to your own advice.

this is weird...you promise to deal with my comments in a later podcast...but somebody removed my comment and marked it as "spam". Ok.

It shows up as approved on my end. I'm not sure what's going on.

That's weird because I approved your message.

I never understood why Habermas' tries to make such a big deal out of the the "creed" of 1st Cor. 15:3-4.

First, Paul goes on to point out that some in the Corinthian church he founded denied the possibility of resurrection from the dead (v. 12). Makes you wonder what gospel Paul was preaching years prior. Can you imagine somebody joining the Jehovah's Witnesses, and still believing the whole time that the Trinity doctrine is biblical?

Second, doesn't matter if the church was claiming, as soon as the Acts 2 Pentecost, that Jesus rose from the dead. That "early" doesn't necessarily imply "true" is clear from the fact that false rumors about the apostles could and did spread like wildfire within the original Christian church. See Acts 21:18-24. Of course, you have the option of disagreeing with James and saying this rumor about Paul was true. I personally think it was.

Third, Paul obviously disagreed with the Judaizers...which means the Judaizer gospel was sufficiently early as to impress his own churches enough to motivate them to abandon Paul's gospel and go the more legalistic route. Galatians 1:6-9. Does Habermas argue that the early preaching of the Judaizer gospel argues that it was the "true" gospel?

Fourth, Paul said he "received" such creed, but he doesn't say from who, and according to Galatians 1:1, 11-12, he got his revelations by divine telepathy, specifically excluding the possibility of input by any other human beings. If the church was preaching the risen Christ as an "early creed", and if Paul thought that creed reasonable, you'd figure he would admit that it was also by the help of the original apostles and their "creed" that Paul learned such "creed".

Fifth, Paul has credibility problems: he admits that, 14 years after the fact, he still doesn't know whether his flying into the sky was physical or spiritual, 2nd Cor. 12:1-4. If you were on trial for a murder you didn't commit, and the prosecution's only witness against you said that it was while he was flying into the sky by divine powers that he noticed you pulling the trigger... exactly what level of voice-volume would you have as you implored the Court to drop the charges for lack of evidence? If the Court didn't drop the charges, how intensely would you use this religious fanatic's claimed experiences to convince the jury he is simply unworthy of any credence? And you want today's skeptics to view as reliable a man from 2,000 years ago who was similarly prone to such literal flights of fancy?

Back before Paul converted, he persecuted the Christians violently, by his own admission:

13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; (1 Tim. 1:13 NAU)

A common sense Christian understanding requires that back when Saul was persecuting those Christians, they would have been truthfully testifying to him based on either their own eyewitness sightings of the risen Christ (reliable reports), or based on the "creed" of the same (which you and Habermas insist must be viewed as reliable by people living 2,000 years after the fact). If this is reasonable, then when Saul was persecuting the Christians, he was rejecting the very best quality testimony possible (i.e., this creed coming to him in real-time from the living voices of those who originated the creed...or eyewitnesses). If God wishes to show mercy to somebody who was guilty of rejecting the very best quality resurrection testimony possible, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to deduce that it is more likely that this god has less contempt for skeptics living 2,000 years after the fact....who are deprived of the very best quality testimony. In short, the god of Paul does not view skepticism of "reliable sources" with the same level of contempt that today's evangelical Christian apologists do, otherwise, Paul would have been himself "without excuse". Now if the very best quality testimony wasn't sufficient to deprive Paul of excuse, how could you rationally argue that the lesser quality evidence available to skeptics living 2,000 years after the fact, is sufficient to deprive them of excuse?

Sixth, you have to ask yourself whether the skeptical view of the 1st Cor 15 "creed" can be reasonable. If it can, then you don't win the debate by merely showing that Habermas' viewpoint is reasonable. Surely you realize that you do not prove the other girl's viewpoint unreasonable merely because you can show your own contrary viewpoint to be reasonable. Even courts of law recognize the obvious fact that reasonable people do not always agree on how to weigh and interpret testimony. Habermas' view, if "reasonable" would not automatically render the skeptical view irrational. If you would win the 1st Cor. 15 creed-debate with a skeptic, you'd have to show that Habermas' interpretation has greater explanatory scope and power than the skeptical interpretation. Consider yourself challenged.

Looking forward to dialoging with you.

Barry, you bring up a lot in your response. I may very well record a podcast on this issue to provide a more robust answer. First, it is important to note that the early NT creedal material is not original to Habermas. Concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, guys like Bart Ehrman, James D. G. Dunn, and multiple others consider the text to be early, no later than 35 AD. Critical scholars accept that this material is early.

Second, the creeds themselves are part of a greater body of material that stem from the kerygma, the preaching of the early church. The kerygma stems from a larger body of oral, and possibly written, material that predates Paul and originates with the earliest church. The creedal material posits this larger body of material in accessible information that is easily remembered and makes it identifiable by modern historians. There are many things that go into finding these creeds, much of which deals with the structure and composition of the texts.

Third, the creedal material is not only found within Pauline literature, they are also found in the Pastorals and in the sermon summaries of Acts. Many of the sermon summaries are Petrine in origin. Interestingly, the formulations used by Peter are similar to those employed by Paul.

Lastly, I will not delve into the areas concerning Paul's possible NDE which he records in 2 Corinthians 12. That is for another topic. But, you are right in the sense that just because this material is early does not necessarily mean that it's true. However, what one must say if one is to be true to the evidence is that this is what the earliest church taught within the first 2-5 years of the church and it must have been what the historical Jesus of Nazareth taught himself.

Be looking for a podcast soon that will deal with your comments. I may record one this week on the issue and will give a more thorough treatment there.

Have a great day!

So let's deal with a very basic philosophical issue here: Do you believe that the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection is so compelling that the theory that he rose from the dead is more reasonable than any naturalistic theory?

Absolutely! No naturalistic theory can successfully deal with all the evidence.

Ok, then you'd be open to a dialogue wherein I state the proper criteria for reasonableness of testimony?

It depends on what you mean by "proper criteria." If you are going the route of Humeanism, then you have reached a dead end. Humeanism has long been shown to be nothing more than a bias against anything supernatural. It's ironic that those who claim to be "free thinkers" like David Hume are often the most closed minded when it comes to data that does not verify his or her own worldview. I am going to assume that the reasonableness you would provide would most likely address events that are unlike things that are experienced everyday. If so, the problem is not with evidence but with one's presuppositions.

No. Hume has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Let's get started, then you'll see what I was talking about. Habermas' minimal facts approach isn't the only game in town. Applying specific principles of historical criteria to each alleged individual witness is rather the normative historiographical procedure.

Let's start at the top of the resurrection witness list, and work downward in systematic fashion:

Is the identity of the author of Canonical Greek Matthew sufficiently obscure as to justify striking his resurrection testimony from your list of resurrection witnesses?

Please don't say that your case for the resurrection doesn't depend on what Matthew has to say. You would be running the risk of trivializing some evidence for Jesus' resurrection that, under your own beliefs, God intended for people to lean on when evaluating the subject.

I think you're missing the concept behind these creeds. These creedal formulations come from multiple witnesses across the board. These creeds come out of historiographic procedures and methodologies that identify early material in any ancient work. For instance, these procedures have identified Aramisms within the material which is indicative of early material. Thus, this material is early, from ground zero (in Jerusalem), and all proclaim the same message of the risen Jesus within 2-5 years of the actual events. Some historians claim that a number of the creeds date to within months of the events themselves.

I think you are missing the point of my attacks on the resurrection witnesses. I'm doing that to justify skepticism of the creeds.

You already agreed that earliness doesn't demonstrate truth. I agree. But I maintain that because the actual "eyewitnesses testimony" to Jesus' resurrection, as recorded in the NT, stands on such sandy evidentiary foundation already, whatever "creed" might have emerged from that state of affairs cannot be so historically reliable as to render the gainsayers unreasonable.

The historical direction is not
creed ---> alleged eyewitnesses, but
alleged eyewitnesses ---> creed.

Therefore, when I attack the resurrection testimony of "Matthew", I am justifying the skeptical choice to ignore the creeds. If similar problems can be demonstrated with the other "eyewitnesses", then complete apathy toward these creeds becomes reasonable.

So here's what's going on: You are saying this 1st Cor. 15 creed's factual allegations are historically reliable. And I'm going back to the creed's alleged sources to show that it emerged from less than reliable information. Matthew's problems are just the tip of the ice-box.

I disagree entirely. Within any historical investigation, the examiner looks for eyewitness testimony. You have testimony coming from multiple areas. There are five independent testimonies within the Four Gospels (M=information only in Matthew, Mark, L=information only in Luke, John, and Q=information in both Matthew and Luke). Not only do you have the five independent sources, you also have early creedal material that Paul received in Jerusalem (c. 35 AD). You have sermon summaries that not only come from Paul but also Petrine sources. So, already you have 7 very early independent witnesses. I could go on. Ehrman counts as many as 11 or more independent witnesses. Your skepticism is built on an anti-supernatural bias. In this case, it's odd because even agnostics like Bart Ehrman accept the data that I have provided.

Call it what you will, and take no offense to what I am about to say, but your doubts stem more from a prepackaged presuppositionalism opposed to the supernatural moreso than an evidentiary historical analysis. That, in turn, comes from a Humean outlook on history which is problematic. Humeans will not accept a miraculous claim no matter how much evidence is given to the contrary. From the information you have already provided, you have shown that no matter how many witnesses, no matter how much evidence is given, you will still remain skeptical because dead people don't rise from the dead according to the Humean outlook. That is well and good as such is your prerogative. It was the way I operated for five years so I understand completely. But I do not think it is being honest with the data that is given. The big question all of us must ask is this, what if it IS true?

I already told you that Hume's miracle-rebuttal had nothing to do with my attack on the resurrection witnesses. I also tried to initiate a dialogue wherein we could discuss the individual merits of individual testimonies. You apparently have less interest in this, and more interest in incorrectly broadbrushing me as deluded by Humean presuppositions.

I haven't broadbrushed you, so i'd appreciate a bit of objective reciprocity on your part.

Are you willing to discuss the creed-sources in systematic one-at-a-time fashion, yes or no?

If God wanted Matthew's resurrection testimony to be viewed and considered by the world, how could you possibly argue that considering his own unique testimony is a bad idea? God did not canonize Habermas' minimal facts approach. Paul's "creed" draws from what he "received" and what he "received" came to him via divine telepathy, not from real human beings conveying information to him.

Your attempt to ground Paul's 1st Cor. 15 "creed" in actual testimony from real live original Christians overlooks Galatians 1:1, 11-12, where Paul's admission to "receiving" the gospel straight from divine telepathy (i.e., "revelation") came with a specific denial that any other human played a part in his acquisition of such knowledge.

That Paul meant this in a literal way is clear from Galatians 2, where he admits that because God is no respecter of persons, Paul cared nothing for the earthly authority that others might see in the Jerusalem Pillar apostles, making clear he does not view the original apostles as highly as other people do, which is consistent with his claim in Gal. 1 that no other human beings were involved in the manner by which he "received" or became knowledgeable of the gospel. Therefore, under your own Christian principle that scripture interprets scripture, it is more likely that Paul was talking about his own solitary revelations, when in 1st Cor. 15 he said he "received" the notion that Jesus died and rose again.

You will say he surely didn't get his list of apostolic eyewitnesses in the creed this same way, but on the contrary, since Paul admits to learning facts by flying up into heaven (2nd Cor. 12:1-4) and he admits ability to get information from other humans solely by vision/telepathy (Acts 16:9), and he admits it was by "revelation" that he knew enough about the Judaizer controversy to go to Jerusalem to settle it (Galatians 2:1), and the fact that Paul had an overabundance of "revelations" requiring divine miracle to keep his pride in check (2nd Cor. 12:7 ff), it is perfectly reasonable to conclude Paul's basis for his 1st Cor. 15 list of apostles who saw the risen Christ, was also "revelation" or "vision" no less than his knowledge that Jesus was executed, buried and risen on the third day.

Therefore, the creed itself, along with its list of apostolic eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, f is most reasonably viewed as ultimately stemming, NOT from information Paul gained from other real human beings, but from what 'god' was telling him through 'revelation'.

I cannot understand why you have such reticence to discuss Matthew and the possible SOURCES of the alleged 1st Cor. 15 "creed". You seem hell-bent on just bowling me over with a smorgasbord of "evidence" and then insisting that no skeptic can explain it away naturalistically. That's neither systematic, nor fair, nor objective.

I'm sorry that my attempt to stick solely to the merits of each link in your cumulative chain of resurrection witnesses, did little more than encourage you to start psychoanalyzing my motives. When you are ready to start talking about the issues related to the people whom you think are the source for Paul's "creed" (i.e., the apostles) I'll be happy to discuss that matter with you.

You are not reading the text correctly. You are superimposing something on the text that is not there. 2 Corinthians came AFTER 1 Corinthians. Paul is directing them to material that he passed on to them which he received not by special Revelation but by his meeting with Peter and James in Jerusalem in 35 AD. Your interpretation of the data does not stand.

I'm not seeing why you automatically assume that Paul's phrase "what I received" means "what I received from the apostles". There's nothing in the immediate context to identify the source he got the information from, so you are pretending that information which is absent from the context, is so clear as to render the skeptic unreasonable for questioning the human nature of said source. If it were somebody other than Paul, the human nature of his sources might be a legitimate inference. But Paul as a mystic who already felt himself as having received the gospel solely by divine telepathy. No, that interpretation isn't infallible, but it doesn't need to be, it only needs to be "reasonable", and interpreting Paul's "what I received" in the same manner he is already known to have said he "receives" gospel-things, is reasonable enough to render the skeptic reasonable, even if it doesn't render you, the apologist, unreasonable.

Paul was constantly defending his apostolicity since he a) was not an original apostle and b) was a persecutor of the church. It would be nonsensical for him to provide a message he had secretly received without the backing of the original apostles. Your interpretation is illogical in light of the data. I know of no serious scholar who holds that view.

In Galatians 1, Paul claimed he received his gospel straight from divine telepathy (v. 1), then he pronounces a divine curse on anybody who would disagree with that gospel (v. 6-9), then he specifically disclaims that any other human being was involved in the means by which he acquired his gospel (v. 11-12).

He does that before even mentioning any of the original apostles as he does in ch. 2, and even then, he makes clear he is not as impressed with their authority as other people are (2:6).

He specifically disclaims the notion that he was "taught" his gospel by any other man (1:11, esp. v. 12), and he apparently thinks his notifying the Galatians of such secret solitary telepathic revelation is sufficient to make any gainsayer worthy of the divine curse (1:8).

So I'm not seeing a good biblical basis for your comment that it would be nonsensical for him to provide a message he had secretly received without the backing of the original apostles.

I'm going to cover this issue on the forthcoming podcast and I'll let this be the final statement on the issue because we're not going anywhere in this conversation. Paul notes that he received the gospel message most likely implying that it was from the risen Jesus. So what? He is making a claim to apostolicity which he had to do for the reasons I previously mentioned. He says that he went to Jerusalem to check his message with Peter and James. There are numerous reasons to believe that Paul received the early Creeds and traditions which he passed along to the churches. Again, scholarship strongly holds to this notion. I will give a further response on the podcast. Good talking with you.