How would you rebut James Fodor's argument against the Resurrection

[Nick the Greek]

James Fodor has posted a new [video][1] claiming that the Resurrection isn't plausible when naturalism can account better for the facts. How would you respond to him because this has caused me to have extreme doubts.

[1]:

 

[Hawkman]

How would you rebut his claims?

Ask him does he think the Apostles were hallucinating when they interacted with the risen Christ ?

Welcome to the forum Nick the Greek !

 

[Nick the Greek]

Ask him does he think the Apostles were hallucinating when they interacted with the risen Christ ?

Welcome to the forum Nick the Greek !

What he's saying is that they were hallucinating and the hallucinations are part of a shared social process and this kind of stuff has been demonstrated in other faith and non-faith contexts. That's what's bothering me

 

[Hidden In Him]

What he's saying is that they were hallucinating and the hallucinations are part of a shared social process and this kind of stuff has been demonstrated in other faith and non-faith contexts. That's what's bothering me

Don’t be bothered. If you walk closer with the Lord Jesus Christ, He will confirm Himself through signs and wonders following, and you will have no doubts. You will know you are not hallucinating.

These types of arguments come from the enemy who always loves to say “Has God truly said,” but the word of God stands firm.

Trust me. It’s not even worth watching (or for those who make the mistake, taking even remotely seriously).

Blessings,
- H

 

[Hawkman]

What he's saying is that they were hallucinating and the hallucinations are part of a shared social process and this kind of stuff has been demonstrated in other faith and non-faith contexts.

Dang ! I nailed it without even watching the video .

That's what's bothering me

Why did you watch this ( almost 3 hour ) video ? Did you think it would build your faith ?

 

[Nick the Greek]

Dang ! I nailed it without even watching the video .





Why did you watch this ( almost 3 hour ) video ? Did you think it would build your faith ?

I didn't watch it, I saw a dude talking about it on Reddit

 

[Hawkman]

I saw a dude talking about it on Reddit.

And why did you even give that the time of day to think about it ?

If you are a born again Christian the proof of the resurrection is inside of you now .

 

[Nick the Greek]

And why did you even give that the time of day to think about it ?

If you are a born again Christian the proof of the resurrection is inside of you now .

Yeah but the argument still stands. What is the counter-argument to this

 

[Hawkman]

James Fodor has posted a new [video][1] claiming that the Resurrection isn't plausible when naturalism can account better for the facts. How would you respond to him because this has caused me to have extreme doubts.

I didn't watch it, I saw a dude talking about it on Reddit

So the very existence of this video made you have extreme doubts . Satan has his ways .
I am glad you did not watch the video the Lord only knows what would have happened to you !
I am glad I have not watched the video that you thought I should watch .

 

[Free]

James Fodor has posted a new [video][1] claiming that the Resurrection isn't plausible when naturalism can account better for the facts. How would you respond to him because this has caused me to have extreme doubts.

[1]:

I'm only 16 minutes in and already his arguments are problematic and poorly argued for his first claim that "Jesus was Probably not a Divine Messenger." He initially lists seven assumptions he is making, for the sake of keeping things simpler. Yet, when arguing against Jesus likely not being a divine messenger, he violates the second assumption; he shows he doesn't know what the Bible teaches regarding the Fall and the need for a Saviour. All his arguments against this claim are very weak, even bringing in modern ideology as though that is somehow evidence that Jesus wasn't like a divine messenger.

Very similar with his second claim, "Jesus was Probably not the Jewish Messiah." His arguments violate his sixth initial assumption, as it does with what follows.

Skipping ahead to about the 34:35 mark, he starts his naturalistic arguments for the empty tomb, "The RHBS Model." The "R" stands for "removal," that likely Joseph of Arimethea removed the body or it was "stolen by tomb robbers." Both are very unlikely as guards were placed around the tomb for the very purpose of preventing removal of the body. And that would have had to have been under the cover of darkness, since it is prior to Sunday morning. It makes no sense why Joseph would do that. He was a follower, so why do something in secrecy?

The "H" is, of course, for "hallucinations." The hallucination hypothesis, both individual and group, has been around for a long time and was been debunked soundly long ago. There is absolutely no reason why any of the disciples should have hallucinations.

It's too long to watch the whole way through, but if there is anything specific you would like addressed, let me know where in the video. It seems very weak from what I have watched.