What is the STRONGEST Case for the Resurrection? w/ Dr. Lydia McGrew

In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Lydia McGrew to discuss whether the 'Maximal Data Case' is better than the 'Minimal Facts Argument' for the Resurrection of Jesus.

---------------------------- FREE STUFF ----------------------------

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[CapturingChristianity]

Sorry folks, my internet cut out toward the end of the stream. Dr. Lydia and I are planning a follow-up Q&A on Monday to make up for the lost questions at the end.

[jamesstandifer]

I love that she gave the interview lounging on the couch

[jozsefnemeth]

Just finished Lydia's Testimony to the Truth. Which Explains the reliability of the Gospels, and teaches attentiveness to the texture of the Gospels and more that most Christians are not so able to appreciate. This biblicist character is a BIG PLUS of the maximalist approach over the minimalist one, which is abstract, arguing based on consensus. Lydia s book helps in a more vivid reading of the Gospel accounts. I really really enjoyed it.

[timdoughty]

Last night I was reading Risen Indeed by Dr. Habermas, and he gives a hat tip to Dr. McGrew, who I had not heard of. This morning this video showed up in my feed. Cool timing!

[Monkofmagnesia]

The Resurrection is so simple to explain, one can do it lying down!

[andrewferg]

Apparently, there were a lot a complaints about empty tombs in Palestine. So much so that the emperor eventually had to get involved.

“if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created… and I wish that violator to suffer capital punishment”
(Nazareth Inscription -- edict of Emperor Claudius Caesar c.41 - 54 AD)

"many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many"
(Matthew 27)

[MissMarie]

Who wants to donate to get her a microphone to replace the tin can and string she is currently using:)
Big points for doing interview from the couch, I love it. Super cool, what a neat and knowledgeable lady

[mkl]

I will leave to scholars (especially Habermas, Licona, and Craig) to better reply…

But my quick amateur take is that her 1 minute pitch was longer than billed (or sure seemed like it, anyhow) and wasn’t very effective for its apologetic purpose…

In a recent interview, Dr McLatchie seemed to ally strongly with Dr McGrew… yet his description of Maximal Data seemed to focus more on proving the reliability (if not inspiration) of Scripture… especially with focus on the Undesigned Coincidences which are complex, tedious, and advanced (even though I think they’re true)…. so his version of Maximal Data was basically “let’s prove the Scriptures are reliable … thus the resurrection happened. Wow, a very long and complex apologetics approach. Maybe works with a few select folks but really impractical to use with most skeptics. Like climbing the Rockies instead of taking a flight. Ouch!

Now Dr McGrew herself presented a slightly more nuanced version of the Maximal Data approach than Dr McLatchie conveyed…. And she’s the source so this is likely more accurate. But it still seems equally impractical for most people. And she denies it but it still seems to ultimately fall back on just proving the reliability of Scripture (though she nuanced it more than McLatchie conveyed).

It would be great to hear a debate between Habermas/Licona and McGrew/McLatchie. If so… folks need to recognize that McLatchie is speaking entirely out of his field of expertise (he should focus on Science/Teleology/Tuning).

It would be fascinating (though not essential) to hear more about the history of debate between the 2 camps. Clearly they’ve had significant differences on several topics for some time. It’s a context worth asking about.

It’s nice to have 2 routes to get to the same destination… and yes I believe Scripture is both reliable and inspired. But the skeptics are really smart … and I think they’d tear up McGrew much easier than Habermas/Licona on this topic…. Their moral outrage at certain biblical verses and their objection to the existence of a deity in the first place would put McGrew at a huge disadvantage out of the gate. She would have to prove a deity and then scripture… then get to the resurrection.

On the other hand, Habermas/Licona can talk directly to skeptics who may not even believe in God in the first place … and they don’t need to see Scripture as inspired or even inherently reliable… and just deal with coming to the best explanation for certain known historical elements (McGrew did not adequately refute them IMO)

McGrew’s quick version would be quite unconvincing. Her extended version would be tedious. At best.

Minimal Facts can also be condensed (even easier than sometimes is seen on the videos… that’s personal style of the speaker).
.

In the end it’s good to have various tools in the toolbox… and different approaches will resonate with different people in different situations. Good to know of both. So thanks to McGrew… but man, her approach isn’t as convincing or as compactable or as practical or likely as effective. It’s the long walk over the Rocky mountains. I’d rather catch a flight.

(Comments edited: I wish Dr McGrew well with her back pain)

[LahSouljacutzup]

I would take Gary Habermas' argument for the resurrection over Mrs. Mcgrews any day. I see what she's saying minimal facts argument is STRONG! Plus, who's studied the resurrection more than Habermas ?

[xiami]

the strongest case for ressurection has to be that it says so in the book ... beware of lord Voldemort kids he's coming for you

[kenhilker]

I don't get it... If the maximal approach relies on the biblical narratives being accurate while acknowledging scholarly consensus doesnt agree with that statement, what epistemology is in play to conclude the gospels are accurate and the scholars are wrong?

[jerimow]

Wow! Dr. McGrew is a wonderful wealth of information! I’m amazed with the level of this discourse. Thanks to both of you for your beautiful caring souls. Sending love and respect from central Florida.

[montagdp]

I honestly don't understand this approach. She is saying that we can take everything the Gospels report as true, but to avoid begging the question, she excludes the actual resurrection claim. Then she uses the rest of the accounts to prove that the resurrection happened. But why? This is arbitrary. If you accept that everything in the Gospels are historically reliable, then by definition you accept that the resurrection really happened, and there's no need to build a case for it. The thing you really need to build a case for is the claim that the Gospels are reliable in the first place. If this is the best case for the resurrection...yikes.

[introvertedchristian]

Here's a question I would like to have asked Lydia: If you make an argument that X is more reasonable to believe than to deny, does that also amount to an argument that X is true? Or in other words, do epistemological arguments about what it's most reasonable or rational to believe amount to ontological arguments about the way the world actually is?

[Gutslinger]

I'm confused.. I've heard people use the minimalist argument, but I don't recall hearing them speak as if all of those scholars believe they actually saw the physical risen Jesus..

If anything, I commonly hear them express how many of them don't believe they actually saw a physical risen Jesus. But they use it to express that Jesus' followers truly believed that they saw a physically risen Jesus.

Or do they not? Is that what Lydia's contention is?

[lolasimmons]

Hi there. I'm a new subscriber and I do have a question. What should I do with videos that ask if I am truly saved? I have repented of all of my sins and completely turn away from them and asked Jesus Christ to be my Lord and Savior. I'm bipolar, so I get very anxious and fearful when I see these videos pop up. I need help. Thanks so much and God bless you and your family.

[ahdcat]

Anyway... no "tomb", no cross, no writings from people who KNEW Jeebus, no e-mail addy or cell phone number either, lol.

[BerishaFatian]

I didn't watch the entire video. Did they mention why is she laying down? Is she sick or something?

[heatherlewis]

Why don't you guys just say that you really really like your religion instead, and that's at the core of your belief? As in... It works for you, you like it, you connected with it (whatever that means for you), etc. The supernatural claims are not supported, especially outside the Bible, and most of the Bible otherwise is just terrible approximation of mythology. But, ultimately, you just love your guy, Jesus.

[malirk]

*THE STRONGEST CASE* - You have to believe by faith because there is no way to verified a supernatural event from 2, 000 years ago. Any argument beyond this is based on the person already being a believer.