Alex O’Connor is one of the most interesting and thoughtful atheists on the Internet. I always enjoy watching his stuff. While I’ve learned a lot from watching his videos, I think there are two significant problems in what he says.
First, the idea that resurrection appearances are merely the product of mythological development over time is significantly undermined by an early creed found in First Corinthians 15. While First Corinthians was written early 50’s (which pre-dates Mark’s Gospel), it contains an early oral creed that likely goes back to within 5 years of the death of Jesus. Granted, these appearances read more like a shopping list than elaborate stories. My point is, there are five different appearances (plus Paul) recorded before Mark writes his Gospel. This historical fact does not fit well with the idea that resurrection appearances are the result of mythological development over time as you move further away from the source.
So, that’s the first problem. Here's the second problem. Alex is wrong about the moral lesson in John’s Gospel. Alex says John’s Gospel culminates with the story of Doubting Thomas to communicate the moral lesson to believe without evidence.
However, that’s not what the account is about. This account isn’t against evidence for faith. In fact, this account is part of the evidence for faith. It’s ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds since John includes the story for one simple reason: to provide evidence for belief. As John says, “These are written so you would believe.”
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: [ Ссылка ]
Stand to Reason University: [ Ссылка ]
Stand to Reason Apps: [ Ссылка ]
————— CONNECT —————
RPL TikTok: [ Ссылка ]
RPL Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
RPL Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
STR YouTube: [ Ссылка ]
STR Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
STR Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
STR Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
STR LinkedIn: [ Ссылка ]
————— GIVE —————
Support RPL: [ Ссылка ]
Support Stand to Reason: [ Ссылка ]
