¶1Why Christianity over other religions? [snorts] >> A student asks him why Christianity is true while other religions are not. This is one of the best explanations of why Cliff puts his faith in Jesus over other religions. >> Is it because the student didn't seem to think that he was getting a straight answer? >> I've been I asked my question again like why Christianity over other religions?
¶2>> And again a few minutes later. >> I'm sorry but I still don't feel that you've answered my question. >> All right. Sorry. What's your question?
¶3>> Why Christianity over other religions? Which argument do you think makes the strongest case for Christianity? >> Let's take a look. [music] Welcome to Apologia, where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians. And today we're visiting the YouTube channel Bible Alive, which seems primarily to clip conversations had by Christian apologist Cliff Kley.
¶4This one, Cliff Kekley's most convincing argument for Christianity, has almost a million views. So, let's go. I'm ready to be convinced. >> I'll convince them. >> No, convince me.
¶5>> Why Christianity over other religions? >> Well, first point is I don't put my faith in Christianity. Christianity has been used to justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials. All right. I put my faith in Jesus Christ.
¶6Cliff asked the student to judge Jesus apart from the church's later conduct. But we know Jesus only through texts that Christians preserved and canonized. Cliff can't lean on that tradition to identify his sources and then drop it whenever it gets inconvenient. So grant him the point and ask which teachings count as authentic words of Jesus and by what method are you separating Jesus from the Christian texts and institutions that transmit them? So you're saying that everyone Jews who don't believe that Jesus was like a prophet and that people who believe that Muhammad was the prophet, you're saying that they're wrong.
¶7That's a pretty bold statement. >> Okay, sir. If the atheist speaks the truth, I am wrong. If the Muslim speaks the truth, if Muhammad spoke the truth, I am wrong. If Sedartha Katama Buddha spoke the truth, I am wrong.
¶8Okay? If Jesus Christ spoke the truth, then I'm going to heaven because he promised eternal life to all who trusted in him. So sir, let's be real honest. >> Pardon? >> Do you trust Jesus?
¶9>> I trust Jesus. But sir, let's be real honest. Every time anybody makes a truth claim, I don't care if you're an atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, that means whatever contradicts that truth claim is wrong. This is a bit fuzzy because not every claim of every religion contradicts every claim of the others. A monotheistic creator, for example, is attested across several religions.
¶10But I digress and I agree. Anything that contradicts the truth is wrong. Where in this sentence, the word truth is standing in for reality. Truth is the extent to which a proposition conforms to reality as adjudicated by predictive power. To the extent a claim contradicts with reality, it is false.
¶11Reality is the standard. >> So obviously then the question becomes, who are you going to trust to tell you the truth about God? Who are you going to trust to tell you the truth about heaven? Who are you going to trust to tell you the truth about the way to heaven? >> I'm trusting no one.
¶12I don't think that God or heaven exist. So I'm certainly not inquiring about the properties of non-existent entities. Again, in the broad sense, we don't blindly trust individuals, but rather the ability of a proposition to make predictions about future data. >> And I'm standing here saying the reason that I think it's wise to trust Jesus Christ is because the historical evidence of the way he lived, >> the historical evidence Cliff is referring to is entirely the content of his ethical teaching. Robert Kohl's the psychology professor at Harvard pointed out all the writings on ethics over the past 2,000 years are simply footnotes to the sermon on the mount >> not strictly relevant but Kohl's was a bulitzerinning psychiatrist not psychology professor a psychiatrist is a medical doctor specializing in mental health while a psychology professor is an academic trained in the distinct discipline of psychology more importantly I could find no primary source for the quote in Kohl's's writing it seems to circulate only in apologetics retellings.
¶13It appears to be a play on Alfred North Whitehead's famous line that European philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. But even if genuine, it is merely an opinion. I doubt you'd get much academic support that Aristotle, Confucious, the Stoics, Kant, Mill, etc. are all footnotes to Matthew. And even if Jesus were the greatest moral teacher in history, ethical genius would not entail resurrection, deity, biblical inherency, or an exclusive path to salvation.
¶14>> Ethical brilliance in the sermon on the mount. >> And where did that come from? >> From Jesus. >> I'm saying before that, like you could trace ethical like beliefs in Christianity to like Egyptian beliefs. >> Yes, this is an excellent point.
¶15Much of the Sermon on the Mount merely restates earlier Jewish teaching. Love your neighbor comes from Leviticus 19:18. The meek shall inherit the land is Psalm 37:11. The reforms of the golden rule in Tobit 4:15 and hell Shabbat 31a. The biatitudes existed at Kuman 4q 525.
¶16And as the student said, the negative golden rule appears in a late period Egyptian papyrus circa 660 to 320 BC and [clears throat] in Confucious. So if Jesus said these things, he was a popularizer, not an innovator. I mean, you've only shown me that this consistency within people, not within religions. And I've been I asked my question again like why Christianity over other religions? >> Well, first point is I don't put my faith in Christianity.
¶17Christianity has been used to justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials. All right. I put my faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity has been used to justify slavery in the United States. I would never put my faith in Christianity.
¶18All right? Tons of problems with Christianity. Jesus Christ is different. >> I'm not sure this is a distinction that Cliff would carry over to other elements of his theology. Rows slavery Christians cited Leviticus 25:44- 46, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1st Peter 2:18, among others.
¶19It's true that these passages aren't the red letter words of Jesus. But if we limit Christianity to the red letters, then many Christian doctrines like the virgin birth, justification by faith, atonement theology, or Jesus as a pre-existent being would have to be entirely ignored. And to be clear, the Jesus of the Bible never condemns slavery. But he does take time to explicitly warn that calling someone you fool puts you in danger of hellfire. And he casually uses slave beating as a parable image in Luke 12.
¶20The Jesus and Christianity split is thinner than Cliff implies. >> He's reliable. His sinless life, his amazing ethical teachings, his death on a cross forgiving his enemies, and his resurrection from the dead convinces me he's reliable. >> These all presuppose gospel reliability. I mean, but other religions have miraculous like miracles that have happened that make them believe that.
¶21If if you were a Muslim, you would be just as like convinced that Muhammad was a prophet. Just as convinced. And you'd be telling me that Muhammad is the truth and that he had the truth and not Jesus. Jesus was wrong. Everyone before Muhammad's wrong.
¶22>> That's correct. How confident I feel about a belief has no bearing on whether it's true. Suppose I think that the cat's food dish is full. Yet knowing my cat, I don't hold that belief very firmly. Yet, one glance at the bowl might prove me right despite my lack of confidence.
¶23Or suppose I'm completely certain that my car is sitting in its usual spot. If someone stole it overnight, I'm simply wrong. However, I felt. Now let's see if Cliff will answer the question about why miracle claims in other religions that Cliff rejects are somehow different from the miracle claims in Christianity which he accepts or will he perhaps answer a different question that no one asked. So now you and I are going to try and be objective in our search for truth >> which means >> we aim towards that.
¶24I hope I hope you're being taught here at this fine university to try and be as objective as you can. And so you've given every religion an equal chance. That would be objective. >> I could not disagree with you more. I used to be impressed with that line of thinking.
¶25It's impossible to do what you just said. >> Cliff has a point. Nobody can study every world view exhaustively, let alone give each one equal time. Objectivity asks for something more manageable. We need fair criteria applied the same way to every view we examine.
¶26We need to give credible alternatives attention in proportion to their strength. And we need to go looking for the evidence that could prove us wrong. >> And you see what you just said, I think, doesn't show open-mindedness. Quite to the contrary, it shows cynicism towards truth. Obviously, there's no way that any one of us can study every philosophy, every worldview, and every religion equally.
¶27That's impossible. >> You can try it. It's impossible. You don't have that many hours in a day to study every philosophy, every religion, every world view. You had better look out there and say, "Okay, what has the ring of truth?
¶28What seems to be plausible? What seems to be reasonable?" His replacement standard asks whether a view has the ring of truth or simply seems plausible and reasonable. That test is easily swayed by familiarity and confirmation bias. A former Christian may find the language of the Gospels familiar because it shaped their upbringing. While a Muslim or Hindu may feel the same pull toward a different scripture.
¶29A better way to sort world views would look at how much of reality it explains and whether it holds together internally. It would ask for independent evidence and give extra weight to claims that can risk being proven wrong. It would watch for ad hoc moves made to rescue you from trouble. And it would check whether those same methods applied even-handedly would validate rival religions just as well. >> And then you better go after the options.
¶30And if someone presents you an option that's better than yours, you better be willing to change. And I better be willing to change. >> I'm willing to change my mind. And that makes me great. >> You only need to study two, though.
¶31You only need to study two. >> What are the two? >> So I'm saying everyone says that their religion is right. So you only need to study two religions to show that either one of them's wrong. >> This is logically incomplete.
¶32If two religions contradict, at least one of them is false. But it is entirely possible that both may be false. Studying two cannot show that either is correct. Merely which is less wrong. I've got atheist friends, so you're right.
¶33I better listen very carefully to why my friends are atheists if I claim to love them. And that's what I try and do. And so, sir, I'll tell you exactly why I'm not a Muslim. I'll tell you exactly why I'm not an atheist. I'll tell you exactly why I'm a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.
¶34>> Yeah. Because I have friends in these different belief systems. All right, I'll tell you exactly. The majority of my friends are materialists. The majority of my friends live for money.
¶35>> Here, Cliff embarrassingly conflates between two very different meanings of materialism. In philosophy, materialism is the view that reality is fundamentally physical. Sometimes in everyday speech, the word means consumerism or devotion to wealth. But an atheist or naturalist can live modestly with little interest in money and plenty of Christians chase wealth. >> And I can promise you sir, my friends are good at it.
¶36My friends are in Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Wall Street, and I promise you, sir, they are good at it. I am convinced to put your faith ultimately in materialism and making money is an incredibly empty life. Cliff's stories about Goldman Sachs and Wall Street do tell us something about the people he has known, but they tell us nothing at all about whether philosophical naturalism is true. The tangent also eats up time. The student never mentions wealth as part of his worldview.
¶37So, this detour leaves his question about comparing religions unanswered. This is all distraction. Look at me. Look at me. >> Am I saying that money is evil?
¶38No. Money is good. The Bible teaches that repeatedly. parts of the Hebrew Bible's wisdom literature do treat wealth as a sign of God's favor. But Jesus seems to be openly hostile to it.
¶39In Luke, he says, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." In Mark, a rich man asks how to inherit eternal life. And Jesus tells him, "Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." When the man leaves, Jesus tells his disciples, >> "I am saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." [music] >> And in Matthew, he says, >> "A man cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve both God and money." >> I never got your name. >> I'm Cliff. >> Cliff, good to meet you.
¶40>> Cliff, I I'm sorry, but I still don't feel that you've answered my question. >> All right. Sorry. What's your question? >> Why Christianity over other religions?
¶41Because the evidence is Jesus Christ is reliable in a way that none of the options are. >> Only the crucifixion of Jesus rests on solid historical ground. Jesus's moral teaching comes to us through sources written decades later and shaped by theological goals. Sinless is a theological judgment and selective ancient biographies can't establish it. As for the resurrection, sure, belief that Jesus rose appeared relatively early, but evidence of resurrection belief isn't the same as evidence for a resurrection.
¶42People are mistaken or lying every day. To trust Muhammad to give me the truth about God in light of the way he lived his life, in light of the internal contradictions in the Quran, I could never do that. I'd have to part company with my brain. >> But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? >> Yes, I guess you're right.
¶43I can't do that. >> So, you can't have a brain and believe in Muhammad. >> I personally am convinced that there are so many logical inconsistencies in what Muhammad taught that for me to follow him would be I'd have to cut off my mind. >> Like what? >> Like what?
¶44All right. Muhammad lived from 570 to about 632 AD. So obviously he never met Jesus, right? He lives 500 years after. More than 5 years, >> right?
¶45But the eyewitnesses, those who met Jesus, Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James, insisted Jesus claimed to be God. >> Even if one accepts the traditional authorship of the New Testament books, which I do not, but let's roll with it for a minute. Mark was not an eyewitness of Jesus, so shouldn't be on Cliff's list. The Epistle of James doesn't have anything about Jesus's divinity, and neither first nor second Peter say that his high chology comes from Jesus himself. Matthew doesn't give his Jesus character any dialogue explicitly claiming divinity.
¶46Of all these, only the Gospel of John has strong implications of Jesus himself claiming to be God. Again, not explicit, but if I'm feeling generous, I can give Cliff one out of five. There's been a rash of debates in the past year about whether Jesus claimed to be God. Even if both sides are assuming gospel reliability, these debates wouldn't be so contentious if the Bible were clear on this point. Now, Muhammad has a great deal of respect for Jesus, but he says Jesus is just a good teacher.
¶47He denies his deity. >> The Quran calls Jesus the Messiah, a messenger and prophet, and a word from God. It says he was born miraculously and performed signs by God's permission. It does firmly deny that he is God or a person of the Trinity, but just a good teacher falls well short of what the Quran actually says. The bigger problem is that Cliff points to a disagreement between Islam and Christianity and treats that as a contradiction within Islam.
¶48That's not the same thing. When the Quran differs from Christian claims about Jesus, a Muslim resolves the tension easily by seeing the Quran as God's later correction of human error. A Christian rejects that claim, of course. Now, as a skeptic, I can say both of them are wrong, but misrepresenting them wouldn't help my case in the long run. >> That's impossible.
¶49That's the one option about Jesus. you can't take because clearly Jesus claimed to be God which means he's either a false teacher or else he is who he claimed to be. He's not this middle ground option that Muhammad chose which is wow great teacher great prophet from God. No cuz Jesus claimed to be God. He's either a blasphemer or else he spoke the truth.
¶50For some reason, Cliff is reducing CS Lewis's flawed liar lunatic lord trilmma down to an even worse dilemma, eliminating the choice that Jesus was mistaken. But both versions leave off the legend option. They don't allow for the words of Jesus to be misreported or misunderstood. Completely on the table is the idea that Jesus didn't claim to be God or if he did that he was sincerely mistaken about it. >> So there's an internal contradiction.
¶51You know, it's who is Jesus? Just a good prophet the way Muhammad taught or God? Now, because Muhammad never met Christ, I'm not going to trust him to be my primary source of information. >> If Cliff is going to listen only to people who met Jesus, then there are large chunks of the New Testament that he'll be discarding. Traditional Luke didn't meet Jesus.
¶52Traditional Mark didn't meet Jesus. There's no reason to think that the Apostle Paul met Jesus while he was alive. If Muhammad is rejected for simply not meeting Jesus, Paul, Luke, and Mark must be rejected as well. >> So Jesus had no contradictions in anything he ever said and none of the Bible has any contradiction at all. I don't know.
¶53I've only like read I've only read no contradiction in the Bible. Zero. And in what Jesus said, >> you know, I do. >> There are textual problems in the Bible. >> What does that mean?
¶54That means the New Testament that we have today in English is based on over 5,200 Greek manuscripts. This is the right ballpark. But what this number hides is that most of those are medieval coming the 9th 10th century and later. Many are mere fragments and only a small handful date before 300 CE. A large quantity of late copies does not reliably tell us what happened in the first century or two of copying.
¶55which means we have an incredibly high degree of certainty that we really have what the authors wrote. But there are varants in those manuscripts. For instance, Matthew chapter 1. In some of the Greek manuscripts, it's stated once Jesus was the son of Mary, a virgin. But in other Greek manuscripts, twice in Matthew chapter 1, you've got Jesus was the son of Mary who was a virgin.
¶56>> Matthew 1:6 does have textual variants. The most common reading says Jacob father Joseph the husband of Mary from whom Jesus was born who is called the Christ. But in CEX for thei and some others it says Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed bore Jesus who is called the Christ. Seems to be a different level of emphasis on which parent is most involved but not a huge change in meaning. But there is another variant of this passage that is closer to Joseph to whom Mary the virgin was betrothed.
¶57Father Jesus who is called the Christ. That one suggests Joseph's DNA was involved in fertilizing the egg. And that would be a massive theological shift with just a few changed words with hundreds of thousands of variants to choose from. A recitation of benign changes could last for weeks. So Cliff hasn't done much here other than provide one example of a nonproatic variation that doesn't actually affect whether there are more problematic ones.
¶58That said, I don't think the general reliability of the gospels rests significantly on variations. Inherency, sure, but that's a different claim. >> So, you obviously have manuscript variance. And Bartman, head of the religion performant department down at UNC Chapel Hill, I got to debate him about 20 years ago. >> Sadly, despite my best efforts, I've been unable to find any evidence of a formal debate between Cliff and friend of the channel Bartman.
¶59It's entirely possible that it happened and merely wasn't recorded, which is too bad. There is this snippet of Cliff describing the pre-debate lunch. We had lunch before we debated. And during lunch, Bartman looks me in the face and says, "You know, I used to be a more conservative Christian than you, Cliff." I said, "Really? Tell me about it." He said, "I went to Moody Bible College in Chicago.
¶60I went to Wheaton College, a very conservative Christian school outside Chicago, and I believed in Jesus, and I was more conservative than you, Cliff. And I say, "Well, what happened?" And he said, "Well, I went to Princeton Seminary and I found out that Genesis teaches that God created in six 24-hour periods. Evolution science contradict that. So, I can't believe." And I said, "You got to be kidding me." I'm not going to say that Cliff is a liar, but >> for some reason I continue to get emails from people or comments from people about how, you know, the reason I decon converted is because I was a fundamentalist. And once I learned there are mistakes in the Bible, I left the faith.
¶61And they want to know why that is. And I said, well, that is not how it is. It wasn't like that at all. What are you talking about? Had nothing to do with why I left the faith.
¶62I mean, maybe and all you had to do is call me and ask. And so [laughter] I just get upset when people like attribute things to me. I left the Christian faith because of I was I I I I could no longer reconcile the the pain and the misery and the suffering in the world with the existence of an allloving and good God, you know, and so um so I just I couldn't so I left the faith for that reason. What the thing that I'm I get upset about is people telling me why I left the faith. [laughter] People who don't know me.
¶63you were, you know, you're just one of these intellectual geeks. And so, you know, when you found some contradictions, you left the faith. What? That's not even true. I mean, it's just like even it's not true.
¶64>> Is Cliff a liar, a lunatic, or maybe was this whole incident just a legend in his mind? Burman has been consistent his whole career about his deconversion resting on the problem of evil. Nothing to do with literal Genesis. and he just put out that bestselling book that a lot of people have bought that says uh you know there over 400,000 manuscript variations. But you see the point he doesn't say is but they are so small they don't change anything.
¶65>> Yeah. Bart never says anything like that. >> One line that some a lot of uh of people have is that well they don't the textual variants don't change any of our cardinal Christian doctrines. you know, none of the major Christian doctrines hang on any variant. And uh I absolutely agree with that.
¶66I absolutely agree with it and I've always said so. They they cite that as if like it's an argument against me even though it's a view I've always had. >> So there's this is no contradiction in the Bible. >> Well, I cannot here's the good news for you. I've been speaking on this university campuses for 32 years and I've had religion professors, philosophy professors, students, brilliant students far more intelligent than I'll ever be tell about all the contradictions in the Bible.
¶67They haven't hit one yet. >> This is a statement about Cliff's standards as much as it is about the text. Harmonization with no limits makes contradiction impossible by definition. Bliff hasn't seen a contradiction, but I haven't seen a Christian who takes this position who would accept these same harmonization strategies for the Quran or the Book of Mormon. In the synoptics, the last supper is the Passover meal and Jesus is crucified at the third hour.
¶68In John, Jesus is still before Pilate at about the sixth hour of the day before on the day of preparation for Passover. Can these both be true? Did Judas buy the field where he died or did the priest buy it? What? What have I done?
¶69>> Is Joseph's father Jacob or Hely? >> The moderator of this thing said, "Okay, look." In the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus sends out his disciples, he tells them, um, don't uh don't don't take a backpack with you. Don't take extra sandals. Don't take any any money. Uh, but do take a staff, you know, to help you walk, a staff to walk with.
¶70And the moderator says, "Okay, that's Mark's version." says, Matthew's version says, uh, sends the apostles out. It says, don't take, don't take, uh, don't take a backpack, you know, don't take a pack, don't take your sandals, don't take any money, and don't take a staff. So, he says, okay. He asked the four of us. We're on stations first.
¶71Is that is that an error? And if so, who who made the mistake? And and the other two tried to say, oh, no, it's not it's not a contradiction. One says one, the other says the opposite. No, that's not a contradiction.
¶72But Mike says, Mike Lakota says uh well, Matthew changed it. And um so that in other words, Matthew Matthew says don't take a staff even though Mark says do take a staff. And so then the next question was, well, is it inherent? And Mike said, yes, they're both inherent. Listen, Mike, you just said that they say the opposite, but his logic was Matthew knew what he was doing.
¶73He wanted to change it and so he changed it intentionally. Since he did it intentionally, he he was trying to teach something by that so it's not an error because he knew what he was doing. Oh my god. You know, and for me that doesn't work. >> Personally, I don't care much about the contradictions.
¶74I care far more about the obvious collusion. and you should too, but we'll get to that. >> So, there's no contradiction in the Bible. So, just say I I want to be sure. I don't want to I don't want to read the Bible today and find one that I think is a contradiction.
¶75>> Good. >> Because according to you, I'd be wrong, but I'd be confused. >> You have different perspectives on Jesus. >> So, it's not as cleancut as you made it seem at first. I >> I I guess I guess >> I would argue it is cleancut.
¶76Okay. >> I would guess what? Why? I would argue if all the gospels said the exact same thing, I'd be really unimpressed because they all copied off each other. They're just carbon copies and I wouldn't be very impressed.
¶77>> Well, then prepare to be unimpressed, Cliff, because the canonical gospels absolutely all copied off of each other. >> We know for a fact that Matthew copied Mark into his gospel. Matthew copies about 90% of Mark into his gospel. We know that Luke also had Mark in front of him when he wrote. So Luke copies about half of Mark into his gospel.
¶78So when Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, it's no mystery. They have the same source. Mark is the primary source for all of them. >> A careful reading of John makes it very clear that he's aware of the synoptic tradition, that is the kinds of traditions about Jesus that we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In particular, it's clear that John knew the Gospel of Mark and expected his readers to know it, too.
¶79Now if you study John carefully it the outline of John carefully interlocks with the gospel of Mark. So that shows us John is deliberately trying to supplement what his readers will already know from the synoptic tradition. >> For centuries we've known that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied large swaths of Mark often word for word. >> Word for word. >> Wow.
¶80The scholarship also agrees that the author of John had copies of the other three gospels available to him as reference and recent books by Mark Goodaker and Hugo Menddees make a very strong case that he too was doing direct copying. So sorry Cliff, they did copy from each other. So you should change your opinion to unimpressed as you promised. >> Unimpressed. And and I love how like energetic you are and like how passionate you're about this, but I feel like a Muslim would be just as passionate about his >> good.
¶81And that is why if you believe in Jesus Christ because I'm passionate, you're a fool. You're absolutely right for you to believe in Jesus cuz I'm a passionate follower of Christ. Not a good reason. Cuz you're absolutely right. I could be a passionate atheist, a passionate materialist, a passionate Muslim.
¶82Just because someone's passionate, you see, not only that, just because someone's sincere doesn't make their belief true, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. >> SOUNDS LIKE WE AGREE on something. >> It's a great point you bring up.
¶83If I sincerely believe in thin ice, when I walk out on that ice, what's going to happen? I'm going through, right? >> If it's thin, >> if it's thin, if if I have sincere faith in thin ice, when I walk out on that thin ice, baby, I'm going through. I don't care how deep my faith is. I don't care how sincere my faith is.
¶84>> Yes, as we said earlier, no amount of sincerity or passion can make a belief true. >> Thin ice, George. Very thin ice. >> This the [snorts] ice example isn't an ad for faith. You don't find out whether ice is thick by praying ice.
¶85Whoever you are, I want to know you. No, you drill a hole and measure it. Faith adds nothing to the ice. The ice holds equally the confident and the non-confident. Such a measurement is independent and no one has to trust a story written by the Isis's followers.
¶86This analogy quietly treats the resurrection as though it has already been measured. So, we're back to the students original question. What measurement shows that Jesus ice is thick and Muhammad ice is thin without simply reading what the followers say about themselves? >> So, you're absolutely right. For you to believe in Jesus cuz I'm passionate would be a foolish decision.
¶87You've got to read the New Testament Gospel, study it yourself, and ask yourself, does the evidence of the way he lived, taught, died, and rose from the dead point to his credibility, or does it not? >> I I I you're right. And and I guess my point I was trying to make is that a Muslim would say that they're consistent and that they're more credible than Christianity. >> Good. And that's why you got to read the Quran.
¶88>> Any any religion Exactly. >> says that they're the most credible. >> Correct. And that's why you got to read it. >> You got to read it.
¶89>> Okay. So that's that's my next step. read all the but I can't I can't read everything. >> Okay, you can't. So, take the ones that you think are serious options that have some degree of credibility and pray.
¶90Lord God, whoever you are, I want to know you if you're there. >> Hey, [screaming] is anybody there? Be open. Be willing and then go look for Asking God sincerely to reveal the truth is the same method the Latter-day Saints recommend. In Moroni 10:4, the Book of Mormon promises that God will show the truth to anyone who asks with a sincere heart.
¶91When men of faith say that they feel the burning of the bosom by the Holy Spirit, I was raised to believe them. >> Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and Hindus all pray this way, and each group reports that God confirmed their own faith. Those answers can't all be right. So, a test that gives contradictory results across religions can't tell us which one is true. But for the record, I have sincerely prayed this prayer myself and received no affirmation.
¶92>> Where do I start? >> Well, obviously you know where I'd like you to start. I'd like you to read the Gospels, not as the word of God. Okay? You don't believe that.
¶93So, forget that. Just simply read the Gospels as history. >> Cliff does make one good move here. He tells the student not to assume that the gospels are the word of God and to read them as ancient sources instead. That's the right place to start.
¶94The trouble comes when he calls this simply history without doing any of the work historians actually do. A historian would ask who wrote these texts and when, which ones borrowed from which, what kind of literature they are, how the authors shaped their material, and what was the purpose for their writing, >> and and just read the gospels and ask yourself, does the evidence point to them being reli Jesus being reliable or not? And I won't find any contradictions. Of course, >> you'll find plenty of contradictions with your lifestyle. >> That's what I find when I read.
¶95>> That's a personal attack on it. >> And well, but except that you're right. Except I said that's that's true of me. >> That sure was a personal attack and mode of attribution. Cliff softening it by suddenly including himself doesn't change that he's making a big assumption.
¶96The claim that people reject Jesus because they want to keep sinning is insulting. Many of us left fighting desperately to stay. This is no more helpful than assuming a Christian believes merely because they fear death or need a crutch or need relief from guilt. Not because they've really looked into it. Let's be clear, motive has nothing to do with truth value.
¶97>> You see, I love an indefinite God because an indefinite moral God allows me to do whatever I want to do. I am offended by a definite authoritative God because that means I got to change and I don't want to change. So there's the contradiction. The the contradiction between me and Jesus is I don't want to live the kind of life he says calls me to live and I don't know you but I I can almost guarantee you because you're a fellow sinner like I am. That's going to be the hard part.
¶98>> A sinner? >> Mhm. >> I don't know. Poor Jesus says we all are sinners. And I've only met one student at MIT who claimed to be perfect.
¶99Now, if you want to be the second one, go right ahead and claim to be morally perfect. But I can promise you all of his MIT classmates burst into laughter cuz we know we're not perfect morally. We experience guilt. We know we've done wrong at times. I certainly have.
¶100>> When Christians use the word sin, they typically mean some kind of gap between someone's behavior and God's expectations or something like that with God in the definition. So until you've demonstrated God, the concept of sin is no more helpful than someone in our universe trying to pay with Republic credits. >> Republic credits. Republic credits are no good out here. I need something more real.
¶101>> Moral perfection, of course, is a more general concept that can apply. But since morality is subjective, everyone's concept of moral perfection is going to be at least slightly different than everyone else's. Even people sitting right next to each other in the same church pew will differ somewhere on moral perfection. It's not a constructive concept. Instead, it's more helpful to discuss these things in terms of harm or flourishing.
¶102Those are more concrete ideas with measurements. And that was just the end of the video. So, Cliff was asked, >> "All right, sorry. What's your question? >> Why Christianity over other religions?" >> Because the evidence is Jesus Christ is reliable in a way that none of the options are.
¶103>> That was the closest the student got to a straight answer. if we had to express Cliff's arguments in a syllogism. Premise one, we should trust whichever religious leader is most reliable. Premise two, Jesus is uniquely reliable because of his sinless life, ethical teaching, and resurrection. Premise three, other religious leaders are less reliable because they sinned, didn't teach as well, and didn't rise from the dead.
¶104Conclusion, therefore, trust Jesus. Now, never mind the arbitrariness of the reliability criterion premise too. The evidence that Jesus fulfilled any of these arbitrary criteria are found entirely in the Gospels and the reliability of the Gospels was exactly what the student was questioning. Cliff cannot use the claims in the book as evidence for the book. This is entirely circular.
¶105>> This is one of the best explanations of why Cliff puts his faith in Jesus over other religions. >> It may well be one of his best. I don't watch a lot of Cliff's work, so I don't know, but it's not good. Evaluating which religion is most true would require independent criteria evaluating its claims against reality, proposing falsification criteria and making predictions about future data. But if like Cliff your criterion is which religious leader is most like Jesus, well then sure, Jesus is probably going to win.
¶106But which religion is most like reality? Well, remember that it's very possible that none of them are true. Even if something like the supernatural and gods exist, and if in fact no gods exist, then asking which religion is true is like asking which book in the fiction section is true. None of the above. Thank you so much for watching.
¶107And if you'd like to see more of this former Christian taking a look at the claims of Christians, tap on the thumbnail on screen now and I'll see you over there. Until next time, later.