Transcription
In Matthew chapter 27, we're told that there's an earthquake, the second earthquake of Matthew, neither of which we have any other reports of, but there's an earthquake and the graves open and the holy ones of Jerusalem exit their graves and walk around the city of Jerusalem appearing to many. Do you think that happened? Yes, I do think that happened.
Welcome back everybody, and if you are new here, you picked a great video to walk in on. So, what we have here is a debate that genuinely kept me pausing and rewinding. You have got Phil Halper and Alex O'Connor on one side, and Cliff Knechtle on the other, and they are going deep into one of the oldest questions humanity has ever argued about. Does the biblical God actually exist? And I am not talking about a surface-level back and forth. These guys are pulling out manuscript evidence, historical sources, and arguments that will genuinely make you stop and think, no matter what you believe. There is a moment in this video that I could not believe when I first heard it. You are going to want to stay all the way through because it only gets more intense as it goes on. Trust me, the back half of this clip is where everything really opens up.
Before we get into it, drop a comment and let me know where in the world you are watching from right now. It genuinely blows my mind how far this community reaches, and I love seeing where you all are coming from. All right, let's get into it.
What is more likely? That they have this completely false description in the Bible? One, because they didn't know any better, it's written by humans, it's an invention of humans, or two, that it's coming from the God who knows the complete description of the universe.
Now, you said, when it comes to your other point, that science just describes process. That's just wrong, right? Science also gives us an account of origins of things. It gives, it describes the nature of the universe. Cosmology is the descrip is the science that studies the origins, the content, and the fate of the universe. Now, astronomy also describes what the heavenly bodies are. So, if there's a So, the fact that it says it's a firmament is a scientific statement. The fact that it says that there was a global flood is a geological statement. And if you speak to geologists, they'll tell you there was no global flood. So, you can't say this Bible doesn't [clears throat] have any science in it. It describes the nature of the universe, the history of humanity, the history of the Earth, and it just gets it wrong. So, the question is, why does it get it wrong? What's the best explanation for that? The best and most simplest explanation is that the God of the Bible is fictitious.
I think that is scarily intellectually dishonest. There's absolutely no description of the process that God used to create. And just because Galileo contradicted the accepted Roman Catholic understanding that the Earth was the center of the solar system tells you nothing about what the Bible says. It was a contradiction of how the Catholic Church interpreted the Bible and how Galileo did good science. And Galileo did a tremendous job in science and in interpreting the Bible. Galileo said, "The Bible does not tell us how the heavens go. The Bible does tell us how to go to heaven." And you are mixing areas of knowledge. Science is not in the Bible. And just because Sumerian and Babylonian cultures believed in a steel dome, and just because a lot of the Jewish rabbis believed in a steel dome, does not mean that the Bible is teaching that there was a steel dome over the Earth. That is so dishonest, it's scary.
That is >> It's not It's not steel. The point is that it says so. I agree the No, it doesn't say that. It does. It absolutely does. >> says that. It is not saying that. That is your interpretation and it's a false interpretation. It's adding where the text is silent and that's intellectually dishonest. If I read the Quran and I add to the Quran, that's intellectually dishonest. I need to study the Quran and quote the Quran. But if I'm going to add to the Quran and then take a potshot at Islam because of my addition to the Quran, that is so intellectually dishonest, it's scary.
Let me ask you a question. Um, firstly, I think even if even if Phil is wrong here, I I would I would not hasten to charge him with dishonesty. I think that he believes what he's what he's saying to a T. Um, you would you would just claim about him choosing to be dishonest. The thinking is dishonest. You were just talking about You were just talking about You were just talking about adding something to the Quran. I have I guess two questions that I want to ask you, Cliff. Um, the first is this, do you agree with the scholarly consensus of biblical scholarship, that is, that both the long ending of the Gospel of Mark and also the story of the adulterous woman in John's Gospel were added later than the earliest manuscripts, were later interpolations of the text?
Due to the precise nature of the manuscript evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there is serious question whether the end of Mark chapter 16 was an addition or whether it was part of the original writing. The same is true for John chapter 7, the end of 7 and the first 11 verses of John 8.
This is the moment where the entire foundation starts cracking. Phil Halper opens with a question that sounds simple but is actually surgical. He asks, "What is more likely? That the Bible gets the description of the universe wrong because it was written by fallible humans or because the God who created the entire universe somehow communicated it incorrectly?" That is not a trick question. That is a logic trap, and once you hear it framed that way, you cannot unhear it. Because here is what people miss. Phil is not just saying the Bible is wrong. He is saying the pattern of errors tells you something. The firmament, described as a solid structure, a global flood presented as geological fact. These are not poetic metaphors tucked inside a song. These are presented as descriptions of how the physical world actually works. Phil makes that distinction very clearly when he says the firmament being described as solid is a scientific statement. And when you ask geologists about a global flood, they will tell you directly the evidence is not there.
Now, Cliff Knechtle responds by pulling out the Galileo quote. "The Bible does not tell us how the heavens go. The Bible tells us how to go to heaven." And look, that is a clever line. It sounds good the first time you hear it, but Phil does not let it land. Because that argument only works if the Bible was actually staying silent on cosmology. The problem is, it is not staying silent. It is making specific claims. Phil fires back immediately saying, "It does. It absolutely does. Show me where it says that." And the energy in that exchange tells you everything. Cliff is retreating to poetry while Phil is standing on the actual text.
You have to understand what is happening here. When a book makes a specific physical claim and that claim turns out to be wrong, you only have two explanations. Either the authors were human and limited by what they knew at the time, or the divine author of the universe somehow got the universe wrong. One of those explanations is clean and simple. The other one requires you to do a lot of work to explain away.
There is serious question due to the fact those passages are not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts that we have, whether those additions or not. Now, Alex, please answer the question. What is more reasonable than the biblical God, Jesus Christ? Who or what do you put your faith in that is based by more that is based on more evidence of reliability?
We're getting we're getting to this point of reliability because I I don't want to just change the subject here. You didn't answer my question. >> You asked a lot of questions. Now, could you please >> Yeah, but you didn't you didn't answer my question. Do Do you Do you believe Do you believe that they were later additions or not? I don't know, but there's solid evidence that those were possibly additions. I don't know. >> Okay. In which case, cuz we have to follow the thread of the argument here, otherwise it's a useless endeavor. If we have good evidence to suggest that people were adding stories into the Gospel manuscripts even after they were first published, do we not have good reason to therefore think that people could also add stories to these manuscripts before they were written? In other words, that there are all kinds of things that end up in the Gospel manuscripts that did not actually happen and weren't in the earliest of traditions. Historically, that would make zero sense because of the earliest church and how close the events themselves were reported through oral eyewitness testimony, not oral tradition. It was spread throughout throughout the entire universal church and was being preached not just by pastors who were looking for nickels and noses, it was preached by the common people. And so, to say that there were early additions is such a leap of faith. It's scary just because potentially there was later additions. I don't think that follows. Maybe Jesus Alex, maybe Jesus was just a cosmic hoax. It's possible. The question is not what is ultimately possible. The question is, what does the evidence point to as most reasonable, most reliable in light of the evidence that we do have? That's right. Do you think that outside of the people that Jesus and the apostles and the prophets of the Old Testament rose from the dead themselves. Do you think that Jesus is the only person who's ever risen from the dead? No, Jesus raised people from the dead. >> Outside of the people that Jesus raised from the dead and the apostles and the Old Testament prophets rose from the dead. >> It's only falsifiable if there is some type of near-death experience or some type >> I mean like physical bodily resurrection of the I am not intelligent enough to follow all of the claims, but uh the resurrection of Christ I think is historically validated in a very intellectually satisfying manner.
So here's a question. In Matthew chapter 27, we're told that there's an earthquake, the second earthquake of Matthew, neither of which we have any other reports of, but there's an earthquake and the graves open and the holy ones of Jerusalem exit their graves and walk around the city of Jerusalem appearing to many. Do you think that happened? Yes, I do think that happened.
Now, Alex, it's time for you to answer my question. What is the alternative to the biblical God, Jesus Christ, that you accept as more reliable? And secondly, what's the evidence that that alternative to Christ is really reliable? I'm an agnostic. I I don't I don't submit to know what the ultimate answers to human existence are, but I don't think that the evidence for Christianity being the correct one is is plausible. So give me the more plausible one. That was my question, Alex. What's the more plausible one that you have chosen to follow? Cuz obviously you're dressed a certain way. Obviously you have your hair on your face manicured very nicely. So obviously you you have motive. You have ambitions. So you're living for something or someone. What is it and what's the evidence that what you are living for is reliable? I I'm I'm afraid I kind of just reject the grammar of the question. I I don't have a systematized theology because I don't even believe in the existence of God. I'm I'm an agnostic. Like I say, I don't know the answer to these questions. I don't know what my ultimate motivations are. I don't even have access to my own sort of deepest psychology.
This part is where Alex O'Connor shifts the entire conversation. And the move he makes here is genuinely one of the sharpest things in this whole debate. He does not just attack the content of the Bible. He attacks the reliability of the text itself. And that is a completely different level of argument. Alex points out that the long ending of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John were not in the earliest manuscripts we have. These are not fringe claims. This is the scholarly consensus. Biblical scholars across the board acknowledge these were later additions. So Alex builds the logical chain. If we already have documented proof that people were inserting stories into gospel manuscripts after they were first written, then we have a reasonable basis to ask what else may have been added before those manuscripts even existed. And here is what makes this so effective. Cliff cannot simply deny it. He admits there is solid evidence these were possibly additions. So Alex has already established the principle that the gospels are not pristine untouched documents. They were worked on. They were edited. Stories went in that were not originally there. Once you accept that, the entire framework of using these texts as reliable historical evidence becomes much more complicated. Then watch what happens next. Cliff, clearly feeling the pressure, says, "Maybe Jesus was just a cosmic hoax. It's possible." And that moment is fascinating because he is the one who introduced the word possible, not Alex. The man defending the resurrection just casually opened the door to the hoax hypothesis himself. Now, obviously Cliff does not believe that. But the fact that he reached for that framing in the middle of a tight spot tells you he was not on solid ground.
Alex then responds to the question about what he is living for with something genuinely interesting. He says he does not even have full access to his own deepest psychology. And I think audiences sometimes dismiss that as evasion. But actually, that is one of the most honest things said in this entire exchange. Most people cannot explain with full certainty why they believe what they believe. The difference is Alex is admitting that while Cliff is presenting total certainty about claims far more extraordinary than anything Alex is uncertain about.
I I couldn't tell you why it is that I shave my mustache and regrow a beard. I don't know, but I know that it's not because of a man who I don't even believe claims to be God in the first place uh allegedly dying on a cross and leaving some scanty evidence uh behind him. >> Fair. You are far too articulate. You are far too deep a thinker to convince me that there's not something that's powerfully motivating you. You're living for something, for someone, for some worldview, some philosophy, religion, whatever. Come on, sir. You are not just an accident. You didn't just arrive where you are now by chance. You know that as well as I do. I don't know that. I mean That that that's to beg the question. That's that's precisely the kind of thing that we're trying to discuss here. I I I don't know how many times I can tell you I'm an agnostic. I I don't know how we got here. I don't know how the universe began. I don't know if there's a God. What I do know is that the textual evidence for things like the resurrection in the New Testament is simply not enough to to convince me. Um, for example. But what is enough to convince you that whatever you're living for is true? I don't know. Um, but for example the the reason I brought up the raising of the dead in in Matthew in Matthew chapter 27 is because like this is an argument from silence, but some arguments from silence work. And if you'll if you'll allow me to finish this point, you agree that the most extraordinary event in human history was recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. That is that numerous people rose from the dead, walked around the city of Jerusalem and and were seen by many witnesses. That's what we're told. Interestingly, the text is a little unclear because it says that at the time of Jesus's death the graves opened and then they appeared to people after the resurrection, implying that there's this three-day period where they're either laying around in empty graves or hidden somehow. It seems like a bit of a confused text. Now, again, one hypothesis is that this actually happened and for some reason they were I guess like maybe still dead in their graves for three days and then they got up or something. And that this is although I like I say the most extraordinary event that's ever happened in the history of our species and seen by many people recorded in the Gospel of Matthew in one passing sentence, but is not mentioned in Mark or Luke or John. It's not mentioned in Josephus. It's not mentioned in Acts. It's not mentioned in any other historical source. People will say this is an argument from silence. Somebody said to me recently, "Well, we don't have any written sources of the destruction of Pompeii either. That doesn't mean it didn't happen." Sure, but imagine that we had numerous sources writing about the city of Pompeii at the time that it was destroyed by a volcanic eruption that didn't mention the volcano. They were writing about Pompeii at the time it's supposed to supposed to have happened and they don't mention the eruption. That would be incredibly strange and suspect and make me think that we couldn't trust our source. So one hypothesis is that this actually happened and for some inexplicable reason it is just complete radio silence on all of our historical sources.
And this is where Alex O'Connor lands the argument that I think genuinely has no clean answer on the other side. He brings up the Pompeii analogy, and the reason it works so well is because it does not require any theological knowledge to understand. Alex says, "Imagine we had multiple writers all writing about the city of Pompeii at the exact time it was supposedly destroyed by a volcanic eruption and none of them mention the volcano. Not one. You would immediately question whether the eruption actually happened the way we were told." That is exactly the situation with Matthew 27. The most extraordinary mass resurrection event in human history. Multiple holy figures rising from their graves, walking through Jerusalem, appearing to many people is recorded in one single passing sentence in Matthew. And then nothing. Mark does not mention it. Luke does not mention it. John does not mention it. Josephus, who documented Jewish history in extraordinary detail during that exact period, does not mention it. Acts does not mention it. Complete silence everywhere except one sentence in one gospel.
Now, here is what makes this historically significant. We actually have a very well-documented parallel from ancient Rome. When Julius Caesar was assassinated, multiple independent sources, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cicero, all recorded the event and its surrounding signs and omens in detail. The point is that genuinely extraordinary public events that happen in populated cities leave traces across multiple independent sources. That is how history works. Alex is not saying silence automatically means something did not happen. He is saying when you have an event of this scale in a city full of people and the silence across every other source is total, that silence is itself evidence. Not proof, evidence. And the honest answer to that is not easy. The argument does not resolve here, and that is exactly what makes it so compelling to think about.
So what do you guys think of this? Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe, and I will see you in the next video.