5 Scholars Attempt my Resurrection "What If" Challenge
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 май 2020
- Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Mike Licona, Dr. Sean McDowell, and best-selling author Lee Strobel all make an attempt to answer my "What If" challenge for Christians.
If Peter and Paul were the only actual witnesses of resurrected Jesus, that would make the other appearances in the gospels and creeds legendary developments. Are there any other lines of evidence that would contradict such a scenario?
2 Top Historical Scholars PROVE that Jesus Rose (Gary Habermas and Mike Licona)
• 2 Top Historical Schol...
90-Minute Resurrection Q&A with Dr. Craig and Dr. Hemati
• 90-Minute Resurrection...
A Conversation with Lee Strobel: The Case for the Resurrection
• The Case for the Resur...
Thanks to Shannon Q. / @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
Good thing you didn’t use the “for the Bible tells me so” clip for this one. This video would have been an almost uninterrupted 20 minutes of overlapping chimes.
But that's what we want.
Yeah, my wife hates those chimes... lol
What about that is "a good thing, zod?"
I like it though ding dinga ding.
I'd disagree if the chimes were rock music. But they aren't so I agree that it's a good thing lol
I have always loved the argument that pretty much amounts to: "How do we know that the scriptures are true and reliable? Because of the thousands of eyewitnesses. And how do we know that there were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the scriptures say that there were. And as already established, the scriptures are true and reliable, so we can trust them when they say there were thousands of eyewitnesses."
Apologetics ultimately comes down to "for the bible tells me so!", no matter how much they claim to have external reference or even evidence, it's *always* "for the bible tells me so" in the end.
So now Roswell, the Book of Mormon, Elvis faking his death and the Miracle at Fatima are ALL true, cause they have direct testimony to their veracity, despite the mountains of evidnece against them?
Seems a pisspoor epistemology that only confirms a preconceived notion but does ZERO to actually determine veracity. (of course it would be poor as it's a circular argument... but writing it the other way round is more fun :D)
I get dizzy from how many circles they run
Or in other words "For the bible tells me so".
Yeah it always boils down to the bible is true because the bible says it's true
I like to start with the bible is the claim not the evidence and drop reminders when it starts to go that direction
"I dOnT kNoW hOw To PrOnOuNcE hIs NaMe"
Paul- says his name on literally every episode including the one they critique
these people are paid for not having their views challenged and especially to tell other people their views are not really challenged.
I confess - I occasionally mispronounce his name, because I keep hearing the apologists mispronounce it so often. Drives me nuts!
Apologists are being deliberately snarky in childishly mispronouncing Paulogia.
@@spaceman081447 Surely it's not so!
What is more likely: That the laws of physics might be temporarily suspended so that god can have a human sacrifice to appease himself, or that William Lane Craig might be intellectually disingenuous?
Ooh,ooh. Please sir, I know this one!
@Gabe Norman i subscribe to channels i don't agree with. I was subscribed to fox for a while... until I realized it just pissed me off.
Neither big bang cosmology or abiogenesis violate any scientific laws or require a belief that laws were temporarily suspended.
PS cosmic and chemical evolution are just common names for things that already had definitions. The only reason to refer to them as cosmic and chemical evolution is if you're trying to conflate them with evolution itself in order to deliberately muddy the waters. Neither big bang cosmology or abiogenesis have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.
@Gabe Norman “despite him beint just as disingenuous” is an assertion of fact that would be better stated with supporting evidence. I do not find Stephen Crowder to be deliberately disingenuous. I think he tries to be genuine and only fails when talking about religion. But he does this because he is convinced that his reasons are true. I think he is trying to be genuine. WLC uses the same statements and tactics even though I have seen them being disproven many times. He has seen the evidence that shows that he is wrong and he ignores it. Because his agenda is to sell himself as a scholar and to sell books. The two cannot be fairly compared. Also, my listening to another person (even if they were deliberately disingenuous) does not negate my argument. On a final note: I find Stephen Crowder to be highly entertaining and WLC is not. WLC is a tap dripping all through the night that won’t let you get to sleep. Expect this annoying drip will justify the murder of children as a ‘good thing’ because it meant they would receive special dispensation from god to still go to heaven even though they were from tribes that were doomed to hell. If you aren’t currently subscribed to Steven Crowder I encourage you to check it out. Especially his Crowder Bits channel which is hilarious.
@S Gloobal “Apply what you just said to cosmic and chemical evolution”
OK
What is more likely: That the laws of cosmic evolution might be temporarily suspended so that god can have a human sacrifice to appease himself, or that chemical evolution might be intellectually disingenuous?
I don’t get it. What was I supposed to glean from this exercise?
""All of the evidence contradicts that""
Provides no evidence.
Has GOT no evidence. Only "evidences", the pseudo science equivalent to real supporting documentation.
But he did provide evidence. He did. He did, he did, he did. He quoted Galaxians.
And Space Invaders. And Pacman.
bdf2718 Hey don't diss on my boy Pac Man now. I main him in Smash Ultimate.
Angel Mendez are you 2000 IQ
What they claim as evidences is just a long list of wishful thinking. On this basis, I'm allowed to claim Life of Brian as a proper documentary.
I worked as a performing magician and illusionist for 20 years. False memories are surprisingly easy to implant, and happen unintentionally all the time.Try this experiment: The next time a major news event catches your attention, write down everything you recall about it and your immediate reaction to it. Seal it in an envelope and put it in a safe deposit box for a year. (Be sure to date the envelope, so you'll know when to open it.) A year to the day after the event, before opening the envelope, recall the details of the event and your immediate reaction to it. Then open the envelope and compare your own immediate analysis of the event with your memory of it. You may be surprised.
I still get a chuckle about Craig pretending that the gospels are "independent attestations" or whatever nonsense he likes to call them.
bart ehrman says it can be regarded as such.
This is exactly why I say, "There comes a time when apologists have to either stop being an apologist, or be dishonest."
If these apologists didn't understand the question, then they demonstrate such a low comprehension that they should quit being apologists
If the apologists did understand the question, then they are willfully dishonest in defending their faith.
So many scholars... So many people that give Christianity a bad name
give Christianity a bad name ?
its simple either Christianity is wrong and broken or Christianity is wrong and broken according to what you just said
and it is the case for Islam and every so called divine sent religion so far
so this Christianity being given a ban name thing is only the result of it not getting one until now , but does not change the fact that its bad
@@ravenvalentine4919 "This is exactly why I say, "There comes a time when apologists have to either stop being an apologist, or be dishonest."
This would seem a harsh thing to say but there does seem to be a pattern with apologists. All engaged in the debate would be better served if they listened and checked out thier understanding first with their interlocutor.
@@martifingers personally i don't think factual statements qualify as harsh. I think some people just were not properly raised to be able to deal with reality. When i see a comfy lie, or a painful truth, i choose truth every time. They chose the lie, even tho they know it's a lie. That why they are so defensive and keep themselves so isolated from anyone not in their cult. When reality doesn't make them happy, they retreat into fantasy.
@@ravenvalentine4919
all of that is irrelevant to my comment. I thought it was clear that I was talking about people, and any claims to it being true is not relevant. Nor is the institution itself, and its doctrinal traditions being harmful . These are just irrelevant when talking about the current perception of Christianity as seen by the majority in the US.
You are conflating people's subjective beliefs about Christianity with the assertions Christianity makes about reality. To put it another way: you are using a truth value as a counter to a reputation. One can have a good reputation and still do bad things. For example, one can have a reputation for being a law abiding person, and actually be a kleptomaniac.
@S Gloobal Go outside, wander around, chat with somebody about the weather etc. That's reality.
Given that Dr. Craig is on record as saying no evidence would convince him due to the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit,” he will forgive me if I don’t judge him as an expert on what constitutes good evidence.
The truth is that Christianity is an empty basket that the apologists fill with suppositions.
* Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
* Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
* Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight.
* Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"
Mart TL1000S and flat earthers are like looking for a black cat in a dark room, claiming it’s actually a Bigfoot, and claiming the room is actually a piece of paper while also saying “I found it!”
Fundamental Christianity: The belief that there is a magic skydaddy that exists outside our time while simultaneously having an effect inside our time, that was always here, created everything, set everything in motion, then turned himself into a ghost, raped a young girl, then gave birth to himself.
Moderate Christianity: The same as above except gay people are cool now.
Presuppositional Christianity: The belief that god exists, made everyone and everything, atheists don't exist because everyone knows this god exists, and if anyone disagrees they are a big poopy head.
Or shit-stained used suppositories.
Actually, the basket is filled with suppositories.
"A hypothesis that has virtually nothing to commend it"
WLC describes the claimed miracles perfectly.
Along with the whole of Christianity.
Atheist: "So is there any independent evidence outside of the gospels?"
Theist: "Well lets look at the gospels..."
Atheist: "WTF! Are you serious right now? Did you not understand my question!?"
pretty much
@@Paulogia The interesting question is whether they are incompetent or just despicable
@@phileas007 Not mutually exclusive...
@@Paulogia Yeah I trust the clearly divinely inspired book
@@lileveyc That book you believe is "divinity inspired" because it says so in the book, which is true because it is "divinity inspired"? xD
Paulogia, you are awesome. Those guys should be ashamed of themselves.
They will never be tho. Too much money being shoveled their way by gullible masses.
Not a chance
S Gloobal
Because everyone of them has failed to answer the question being asked they’ve simply made up their own and answered that one.
S Gloobal
Of what ?
S Gloobal
Watch the video
Paul, it appears your really gaining traction here. Your continued calm, polite and open method of presenting a concientious disagreement allows appologists and others a comfortable way to engage. Keep it up, your really making a difference.
The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
it also records how the effort to "make the messiah prophecies of the OT true" increased throughout early Christianity... Matthew had to do a rewrite for Mark as Mark was so blatantly ignorant about jewish religious habits and rituals, that he brought masses of mistakes into his Jesus story... then the other two rewrites mostly increased the "leanings" from the OT, to "prove" through citations that these events had been "predicted".
And it does nothing to explain the 20 or so other gospels and 5 or 6 other "acts" that reportedly existed and from which we still have a good number in form of preserved manuscripts... Jesus and his talking, walking cross from the gospel of ... ehh was it Thomas or Peter? comes to mind? or him murdering a child in the childhood gospel of which none of the four "official" gospels seems to have heard...
It's also interesting how the use of citations does not necessarily stop with the canonical books, but does integrate a few of these (Enoch and Maccabees for example) that later on were not deemed worthy to be included. It would seem that a careful report would not need to cite inofficial accounts to improve it's own streetcreds ;-)
@@Ugly_German_Truths You're right. Almost the entire passion narrative is built around the Psalms and Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. Jesus' entry in Jerusalem on a donkey (two donkeys in Matthew) comes from Zechariah 9. These authors were intent on "fulfilling" the Old Testament so it's pretty clear this hermeneutic was guiding the story rather than actual eyewitnessing or historical facts.
Well written sir. Thanks.
+Countering Christianity, I've never had it explained, if it's the immaterial soul that goes to heaven (because heaven is outside of space-time), why did jesus bodily rise up into the "heavens"? If jesus did go to heaven shouldn't his body have simply slumped to the ground dead?
@@fred_derf I think the earliest belief we can gather from Paul's letters is that when he said "raised from the dead" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form. The two step physical resurrection to the earth followed by a separate and distinct ascension doesn't develop until Luke/Acts which may be second century. What Paul says in Phil 2:8-9 - exaltation right after death, Rom. 8:34 - raised -> in heaven, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 seems to imply he went straight to heaven. Thus, _all_ the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood as spiritual visions/revelations from heaven. Later, after the story evolved is when we see the physical appearances develop. I don't know exactly what Paul meant by a "spiritual body" in 1 Cor 15:40-44 and scholars still debate the issue. There is evidence in Tertullian, however, in which he says some believed the "animate body" (natural body in our English translations) referred to the soul alone.
Watching this is like a group of guys getting together to talk about a book of fairy tales reminds me of some of my friends who get together to talk about their favorite anime, and they can just cite every little bit of the lore and story.
And explain away illogical issues like how some of the characters are all of a sudden way stronger as the lore allows or why they acted stupid with apologies. ;-) Reminds me of: Why do almost all aliens in Enterprise look humans with some glue in the faces? Budget restrains because of lack of money? Of course not! There must be an in-show reason for it. Not just restricted budget in real life. :-D
You forgot the private gossip that pressured the creator to go a certain arc, such as those from the editor, publisher and fan pressure.
One difference though, Jeremy... almost all of these friends and others like them will KNOW that their favorite book is fictional and won't start letting it dictate their actual life through commandments and doctrinal precepts on behavior... They might even be able to admit that it isn't all that good when you look at it more neutrally than as an avid fan :D
Nothing of that is allowed for the bible believing christian...
@anti-anti-intellectual x I know that episode - while it is a wacky directed evolution just like Intelligent Design - even when people may not always agree with steve here: ruclips.net/video/x1DUrI__OZQ/видео.html
He explained with a Dawkins acting included, why the authors of the show did not really understand Evolution.
I can only conclude that *A)* Paulogia is an incredibly patient person, because no way I could have sat through "biblical scholars of renown" totally missing the point of the exercise. *B)* Their reading comprehension skills are a little subpar - which could explain their total acceptance of the Bible *C)* At least one, or all of them, were being _willfully_ ignorant of the question because they knew (on some level) that to answer it honestly would help them to understand why people become skeptics of their faith. In conclusion, watching these men huff and puff was actually painful.
WLC is a very good debater, as long as he’s debating the question he wishes you had asked.
I’m over a year late to this one but Paul you need to know the level of appreciation I have for that cutting between the two videos explaining your challenge! 👏🏻
Congratulations Paul! You have really had an impact on the apologists community and me as well!
Basically it's "for the bible tells me so!"
I read a nice version of the hallucination hypothesis in James Fodor's book "Unreasonable Faith."
The Bibble should be capitalised, to demonstrate reverence and respect for it, as after all, it is the word of god. Well, it is the *words* of god - bloody loads of them. Maybe it are the words of god is more accurate? Anyway you get my point...?
@S Gloobal Lol. Welcome back Goober. Here to troll more people and refuse to admit when you are repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong?
@S Gloobal Yea, but it is when I and many others have in comments sections have shown you to be wrong. Comment history is a thing you know. I could reference several comments and show it, but I think enough of us know you at this point.
@S Gloobal Well are you still calling Abiogenesis "Chemical Evolution" ?
@S Gloobal Simple, I've seen you mention it numerous times despite it being an incorrect label and demanding that abiogenesis has to be connected with Evolution.
I read Lee Strobles book "The Case for Christ" and all it ended up doing was reinforced my lifelong disbelief in some all knowing all powerful being ... I consider myself one of the lucky ones in that no church or doctrines got pounded into my head when I was young and vulnerable to its clear and present bullshit
Strobel claims to be objective while lobbing softball questions at those he sides with. It would be like me getting you to pay me to write and unbiased biography while only speaking to people who love you.
For the apologist, all questions lead back to the Bible. It's the only place where their mythology makes any sense.
It doesn't even have to make sense to anyone, it's plain argument from authority, for the bible says so, and that's that. Because making sense obviously is, like logic, of satan!!!
@S Gloobal Based on what? Since the Biblical God has shown to be limited by internal factors in other apologetics arguments (see below), then on what basis would we assume that God could, and would, bring somebody (Himself) back to life?
Example of apparent limitations of God - the Crucifixion had to occur in order to redeem humanity from sin, rather than God simply forgiving them, because as an all-just entity, God was somehow forced into obeying (His own?) system of metaphysical law and could *only* satisfy the redemption of original sin by dying Himself. Or so I'm told. But, ergo, Biblical God has limitations.
Edit: Sorry, everyone, for feeding the troll. I'm not really interested in whatever non-sequitor the idiot posts in response, just that he can't even look at a keyboard without falling into a ludicrous fallacy, and I do so enjoy pointing them out.
@S Gloobal Please prove a god exists before you start claiming their responsible for other unproven phenomena. Still waiting on that, troll.
@S Gloobal "you already know there is a God because you already know there is a God" 🤣🤣🤣
Oh Goober. You don't disappoint! Still intellectually dishonest as always.
@S Gloobal Still making the same questions you've been given answers to a thousand times, yet refuse to accept the most intellectually honest position of "we don't know". Keep asking yourself "Explain why there's lightening if there's no Thor" and other completely unhelpful questions.
Anyone ever notice when every apologists talk about what happened in the bible, they talk in a way as if they were actually there lol? Great video they set em you knock em down.
Yes! That sense of certainty about things they can not be certain about grates on me big time!
Paulogia talking to William Lane Craig sounds like me talking to my dad😂
“I know I’m a constant source of disappointment to you, but maybe humor me?”😂😂😂😂
I have a friend who, because of “deep meditation”, was able to see his past lives. This is his claim and I believe him...in so much that that’s what happened in his mind. He’s an eyewitness to a belief system that contradicts ALL of Christianity and it’s teachings. That we are in an endless cycle of death and rebirth in different bodies.
Sure, we can write him off (I’m skeptical of his claim and think he’s a creative guy who’s made up a fantasy), but I can see him, question him, argue with him, and clarify things. We can NOT do this with Paul, nor Peter. So I have an even harder time believing in the writers of the Bible (New and Old Testaments).
Also, anytime some brings up the 500..I am reminded of John Cleese in Life of Brian saying ‘what were their names?” when Brian was trying to blend in with the “prophets” to hide from the Romans. That and, “he’s making it up as he goes along”. 🤣😂
My crazy soon to be ex wife has similar sentiments, but she's also catholic, but she's also a practicing witch, but she thinks the devil is actually the good guy, but also thinks god has cursed her and she's going to hell when she dies.
Na Its totally logical. I mean, 500 trillion people saw my dick, and said it was good. They all exclaimed in one voice that it was the penis of a God. So there you have it. Im God. 500 trillion people agree with me so it must be true.
Question. Were all the past lives famous, special or important people? Cause for some reason it seems that famous people are reborn into hundreds if not thousands of individuals at the same time.
@@krazer9515 Kinda like how Otherkin seem to always believe their spirit animal is a majestic eagle, a proud lion, a rugged wolf or, for the really ambitious, a dragon. No one claims to be a cow or a chinchilla trapped in the body of a man.
One small correction. Your friend didn't tell you what happened in his mind. He told you what he *remembered* about what happened in his mind.
There's a big difference between me showing you a letter I got from my girlfriend forty years ago, versus me telling you what I remember about the letter, which I no longer have, because I threw it away when she broke up with me thirty-nine years ago.
There's a similar problem with "near death" experiences. They aren't telling us what they experienced during the event. They are telling us what they *remember* about it. And that memory could very well be the result of their brain desperately trying to stitch together some nonsensical images to make a narrative. Same thing with alien abduction stories.
BTW, there's a theory that a large fraction of alien abduction stories are actually people who were struck by lightning, wandered around in the woods for several hours, and then their brain invented a story to fill in the gap in their memory.
Well done! I'm still a bit more in the Richard Carrier camp as a mythicist. I think this beautifully explains how even if he did exist that you don't need a resurrection to start Christianity either. Its all just stories and legends handed down.
"Paolo-Gia... Paulogia... I never know how to pronounce his name." Has he ever been on a Prager U video? his research skills indicate it.
This challenge was in the fullness of time become a pivotal issue as more become aware of it. All the rest of the debate becomes redundant when you are able to reduce the entire belief system down to these two figures. I love this ongoing debate. 👏
Yes, Minister - of the priestly variety.
@Paulogia, I just want to thank you for all your work. I think the real power of your work is your "kindness" towards apologists. You go out of your way to take their responses as kindly as possible (steelmanning). This both creates a nice civilized discussion, and allows them to make a fool of themselves all on their own. Please never change this attitude and keep up the good work.
Appreciate that, Jan.
Good god. This is like watching elementary school students fail a test because they didn't read the instructions.
Excellent organization of thoughts and dialog presented in a way that keeps circling back to your hypothetical - staying on target - something the herd-of-cats scholars couldn't accomplish. They couldn't come up with any compelling arguments - only assertions of their own hypotheticals and presuppositions. Well done, Paul.
To mispronounce your channel name at this point has to be intentional. It's pronounced in every video.
Anthony Norman He’s done it 3 times now in videos where he makes reference to Paulogia. It’s such a grade school sideways insult. Maybe he thinks it makes him look as if Paulogia is below his notice. What it actually makes him look like he is about 7 years old.
It’s a weak power move that is so pathetic
In other words, "sholars" (in quotes), that is, apologists who only do the sort of "research" that substantiate their huge confirmation bias.
What substantiation
Yes that is correct.
Often under an agreement not to question the Bible
17:13 This is such a good point. For some reason we think "recognizing" someone is infallible. But I know many people, including my own father, who confuses MAJOR celebrities with unknown, unnamed actors in commercials who bear no resemblance to the famous people (and he does this all the time, in a sophisticated society where we see famous, recognizable faces all the time--sometimes thinking a young extra in a commercial is some famous celebrity who hasn't been that young in 30 years). You don't even have to imagine Jesus had a twin. Just another random dude could have claimed he was Jesus. Maybe some thought he looked the same, maybe some thought it was just a "spiritual" resurrection so the person didn't have to look the same, etc. Maybe it's just a story. Maybe in the hysteria of the moment, people convinced themselves it was him and the details just didn't matter. But if it was OBVIOUSLY him, and looked EXACTLY LIKE him, then why wasn't it obvious from the get-go?
From my perspective, the most significant problem with the resurrection claim is that all four gospels are actually _anonymous._
Even that professional _liar_ William Lane Craig agrees that the gospels are anonymous. But he just can't admit that their anonymity obviously undermines their status as reasonable evidence.
Thomas Paine talks about that in the Age of Reason. Not 100% sure I agree, but definitely relevant if they were not eyewitnesses.
@@TheGreatAgnostic - well, I'm more than willing to revisit the evidence presented regarding the actual authorship of the gospels. And I'll happily assess any new evidence too.
But according to the best research I've seen - and that includes from Christian sources - the first time in recorded history that the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were associated with those four gospel narratives was circa 180 CE, when Bishop Irenaeus made the claim.
Prior to that claim, not a single Christian source associated any gospel with any specific name, even though prolific Christian writers such as *Justin Martyr* extensively quoted the gospels.
Justin Martyr _always_ referred to the gospels as a group: "the memoirs of the Apostles", but not once did he claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote them.
Any belief in those actual people as the authors comes from the claim by Bishop Irenaeus, and when looked at from an honest and neutral perspective, that's not even close to being a good reason to believe that the claim is actually true.
Bottom line: *There is no reasonable basis to believe that those four gospels were written by eyewitnesses.*
When you dont like the question, just dont answer it.
Dr Craig's incredulous flapping and puffing protestations about an overstated or simply nonexistent consensus grates after a while.
Grates is the perfect description. Think of the time lost and the misspent money wasted on the apologist quilt, only to have it be so threadbare and poorly sewn.
It provides no warmth and in fact itches and irritates rather than comforting, it unwinds at the smallest string.
It grates. Well said Casper Clemence.
It's by now all they have. Any attempt to pretend good science agrees with them has bit by bit been dismantled, so now it's just "nobody in history or theology doubts these basic facts of the bible"... ignoring that most historians would not make a professional estimate about the bible as their specialty is not in that time or region and they would overwhelmingly not speak the necessary languages to do source studies...
well and also ignoring that there are a couple of mythicists that have shown multiple paths to reasonable doubt about these documents... it doesn't prove anything (yet), but it nicely pulls away this figleave of "nobody doubts it in academia"... now they have to qualify as "nobody that is respected" or "nobody in traditional academia"...
It's the "Historicity of the gaps". And in 50 years it will have even less unexplored ground to stand on and pretend their potemkian village of presupposition is actually a full blown metropolis of evidence.
Another brilliant installment, @Paulogia. Clear and to the point as always.
It is very generous to refer to these people as scholars.
totally agree. the problem is for hundreds of years christians have drilled into the education system and biblical studies is an accepted field. I see it like Harry Potter Studies or Marvel comics studies. Just because you take a mythology and created this huge system of college level education around it, doesn't actually make it...scholarship
I'm so happy you were able to make this happen! Holy cow I hope they do a response video to this. I'm sure Capturing Christianity will at least. It will be 3 hours long. LOL
Longer means better, as we all know.
They all bloviate...when it takes you 5000 pages to explain a phenomena you've lost already.
Paul had only 3 years to persecute Christians ? As a historian I laugh at the whole Pauline Corpus
paul didn't persecute christians. he created the christian religion.
I'm a patron now!! So exciting... I love what you do Paulogia!
WLC always seems shocked and appalled (to quote Bart Simpson) at anything that goes against his view. It’s hilarious
It’s all part of his schtick. It gives him the appearance of being more credible than he actually is
"What evidence other than the gospels and creed..."
Answer: this gospel, this gospel, this creed, and that gospel. Oh, and traditions of the Roman church invented over a century after the fact.
These apologists have no integrity.or intellectual honesty. If I hadn't seen through this stuff a long time ago, just their responses to your question would persuade me that the Christian creed is based on lies.
You can't be honest, intellectually honest, or have any sort of integrity if you're going to be an apologist. It goes against the job description. Apologetics REQUIRES dishonesty. You have to lie about what scripture says, about what it means, about the science that proves you wrong, twist science to make it say you're right, lie about science in general and philosophy and logic and Reason and even the definition of common words.
"God loves you unconditionally" now here's a list of over 600 rules and conditions, many of which contradict each other, which you must ALL follow for God to forgive you for existing in the broken state he made you in just so he could have you tortured for all eternity because he hates you. Y'know, _unconditional love._
I think they are so committed and used to viewing their religious scripture as the obvious 'truth' that it is almost impossible for them to even consider that it might be otherwise. I am sure dishonesty plays a role in plenty of them- Lee Strobel, for example, comes across as remarkably slippery in this reasoning, almost deliberately so- but there is a profound lack of imagination on their part.
We should keep in mind that for many apologists and religious people of their ilk to pose a hypothetical in which God is not a factor, to genuinely consider such a possibility, is already sinful or at the very least close to it.
Most atheists can consider the question- what if God did exist- without feeling shaken to their core and terrified. That, unfortunately, does not go both ways.
@@Nocturnalux I agree. Some are clearly just frauds who knowing lie for the sake of maintaining their income (Kent Hovind and Banana man come to mind). But for most of these guys, they are willingly deluded, and they will defend the indefensible because ... the alternative is terrifying to them.
@@1970Phoenix Very much so. Even the most 'sophisticated' of them take the text at face value. Craig does this all the time, the way he will announce that 'Jesus appeared to the 500' as if that were a fact as opposed to 'the text claims that Jesus appeared to the 500', which is a very different- and accurate- thing.
On the subject of Craig, there is one debate in which he admits that after his father's death, he considered his own mortality and found the idea of not living forever so horrifying that he dug in deeper into his faith. I wish I knew which debate this one was, Craig repeats himself in virtually all of them but this particular bit was, as far as I can tell, only uttered in this particular one.
@@1970Phoenix I'd believe that Bananaman really is that stupid. I mean, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his being able to tie his bootlaces. Whereas the Hovinds, and Ham, make a fine impression of used car salesmen.
You took on the dream team and whooped it! Amazing!
They'd beat me at basketball.
Good video. Thanks for sharing this with us. Your efforts are appreciated .
Nice Paul 😊👍 that little experience worked surprising well given the quality/status of the those that responded & the even better the fact that they failed the actual challenge haha very clever buddy, keep up the good work
Gonna have to watch a few more times. This is a tough one to follow.
You really should watch the "how Christianity began" one that this one is based on, it's pretty good.
@@vincebuckley1499 thanks! I'm not the best reader. I tried some Bart Ehrman (sp) but it was too difficult. I appreciate the suggestion.
The tl:dr is "the bible proves the bible " and their response to "don't use the bible to prove the bible" was "ok, well what about this passage of the bible?"
I been none stop busy with Covid last few months and haven't watched anything But saw this title and said O sht I have to watch.
keep up the hard work paul, i love seeing the different challenges that you offer and seeing how religious people try to answer them.
Great stuff: the idea of peeling back the layers of accounts to only Peter and Paul, the public challange and this video as summary. The mentioned studies were especially interesting.
Lee Strobel a scholar? Yellow journalist, more like.
So a piss-poor apologist?
Does anyone else feel like Lee Strobel constantly shaking his head as he speaks might be some kind of tell?
I still think the most likely case is that Paul had a vision of Jesus and then went to share the vision with the apostles. He met and told Peter. Peter was embarrassed that Jesus would go to someone else and not the apostles and lied and said he also saw Jesus. Peter of course made sure to say that Jesus went to the apostles first. When Peter had to explain to the other apostles he told them that they also had met Jesus, but Jesus looked different and they just couldn't recognize Jesus. Peter would have been the only one that lied while all the other disciples thought they really saw Jesus. When the apostles told the story of how they met Jesus they embellished the story: it went from someone that they couldn't recognize to the person later telling them that the person was Jesus himself and that's how they truly knew.
You have succinctly nailed it with this most probable explanation of where the legends started. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
You might be right but I think it’s more likely that the whole thing is simply an ancient fable.
This was great! I have really enjoyed your latest videos. They keep getting better. It’s so refreshing to see atheists engage with Christianity in a way that demonstrates they understand the arguments and the Bible. I hope to catch you on a live stream or hangout sometime to discuss these topics in person.
I find it both funny and frustrating that apologists assert with such confidence various hypotheses and conjectures which are based on the most flimsy of evidence. I am not a mythicist, but even the existence of Jesus himself is far from certain.
18:35 I seem to recall that on this side of the pond it is considered that Paul was at odds with Peter and the disciples, and they certainly didn't exchange Christmas cards. Paul is also noted as correcting Peter, including (a one wag put it) reminding Peter about his dream meal and that bacon butties were on the menu.
It pretty much says so in the bible, they had to make several attempts at meeting to discuss about this stuff and in the end while agreeing to a kind of theological ceasefire they did only split up the areas of proselyzation but did not come to a single, unified doctrine... and in the end Paul won, most modern belief is designed around his letters and the prescriptions therein, while the words of Jesus (like "sell your stuff and follow me") do mostly fall away silently... Christians should technically be called Paulians ;-) Even the catholics that pretend to get so much from Peter...
@@Ugly_German_Truths Imagine living with Jesus for years, leading the group after he died, and then a few years later some guy just shows up and starts telling people what Jesus was *really* like...that had to ruffle some feathers.
@@rbgg2010 sure. But that makes only sense for a human Jesus that died and of whom they never heard again... IF there was a "holy spirit" in them, that connected them to God and directed their actions, they would already know what the new guy said... Inspired by the same "spirit". Allegedly!
@@Ugly_German_Truths Even if that was the case, it's still got to hurt a little knowing that the new guy basically took over after you've been there since the beginning.
OK I’ve watched this one a few times and must tune out towards the end but tonight I heard the last few minutes 21:13 onwards and I have to say Mind Blown. Love your work man.
Again, kudos for a well made video. Love your work!
Here's a thought experiment:
Some bloke walks up to you and tells you he's actually your dead friend risen from the grave. What could he possibly say or do that would convince you that's true?
If I'd seen him dead and been to his funeral, him just standing there talking to me would be pretty compelling evidence. However, I would probably have to ask someone else to confirm that I'm not just losing my mind or dreaming.
And who did that happen to? Nobody in the bible soooo.... not a very worthwhile experiment is it?
@@Griexxt you know they used to be soo bad at telling a dead guy from one that was just unconscious, that they put bells attached to strings on graves? So let's say you ran into a friend who last time you saw him, he was unconscious. Would you question your sanity next time you saw him alive? Or would you just be happy he recovered?
@@Griexxt oh and btw, the'tomb' was added in later stories. There was nothing after the cross in the oldest versions. So we don't know anyone who knew him ever attended a funeral. If he even existed, the Romans would have either left him up, or cut him down and thrown him in a mass grave without ceremony or notice to his friends and loved ones...
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 I'm not defending the Christian narrative. I'm merely answering the question as it was asked.
Apologist is just a synonym for liar.
Literally looks at the facts of a proven historical record but ok
@JevvoBruv creep
@JevvoBruv but I like it hot!
Well done Paul. Some truely beautiful momments in this video.
If you love your mother, appearing to her to ease the pain would be a wonderful story.
The five fools of the resurrection apologetics apocalypse.
And to think an actual divine Jesus could put an end to centuries after centuries of debates whenever he wants.
Doesn't really help their case.
@S Gloobal I would agree with that statement.
@S Gloobal Do you ever get tired of showing you're an ignorant troll to dozens of people at a time? Will you ever want a serious answer, or are you just going to keep dishonestly trolling people?
@S Gloobal Belief in a resurrection is foolish, because it doesn't actually prove he's God.
@S Gloobal A resurrection doesn't involve creation of a universe ex nihilo, so no, it would prove nothing about the perpetrator being The Creator.
If we rule out a skilled physician and absolutely must go for the divine option, could as well be some kind of deity of healing; Apollo perhaps.
21:12 lmao the actual were saying the same words
Curtis Mahon my favorite part of this whole video 😂
2 people coming up with an identical argument without conversing before hand would be a greater miracle than the resurrection
@@Dee-Eddy For apologists, it is pretty standard fair. They always seem to bring up the same arguments, same talking points, and even in the same order. Apparently the first thing they train themselves in, is to not hear anyone else refute their statements. So once they learn whatever, normally from a single source for all of them, they just repeat it without ever thinking.
YAY, sitting here at the dealership waiting for them to finish with the brakes and Paul has an upload...excellent!!!
Is that the Christian second hand dealership ? Certainly these guys are full of spiel !
@@tonydarcy1606 Nissan, and buy is my butthole sore after they finished 🤣
I think it is really funny that YOU are the humble one. They chatter on condescendingly, trying to look humble as they reveal their vast knowledge and faith. Well done!!
"Scholar" isn't the way to describe Strobel.
A piece of the courtroom scene from "Inherit the Wind" comes to mind:
Brady: I do not think about things...I do not think about.
Drummond: Well, do you ever think about things you DO think about?
Multiple, independent traditions written by Pauline converts?
Great work, Paul. A thorough beatdown.
another excellent video.
WLC can't leave you alone.
Is WLC demonstrating a level of repressed sexual tension toward the person who confounds him so easily, multiple times, yet he 'can't remember them at all'? I'm not saying he is... I'm just saying we cannot be sure.
Edit: or was it a pumpkin? Shit, wrong video/people... 😉
It must be exhausting to work so hard to ignore the evidence and keep defending a baseless bias. I'm sure it is very profitable as far as money goes, but how do they sleep at night?
@David Parry only sociopaths can stomach such dishonesty.
Great video!
You got yourself another subscriber!! Great meeting you on Dan's video!
Thanks for the sub!
I hope these xtian scholars get paid well, because if there's a hell they're going there
Also, WLC appears to want his appearance to be as ridiculous as his argument.
What's not to like about the 'Heath Ledger as The Joker' look?
Very nicely done, Paulogia! I find all your videos to be very well thought out and researched (and entertaining too!). Keep up the good work! Has WLC ever acknowledged you directly for your response to his response to your response to his resurrection claims (I think I got that right)?
great video!
Church is just a weekly book review.
(Just skim over the first half)
And 90% of the rest.
The first half is the most fun tho.
I love dark fantasy.
Is it just me, or does Craig looking like he's really going off the deep end?
He certainly looks like he's wearing lipstick. In fact, I'm reasonably sure I wore that very same shade in the early 90's. Absolutely bugger to take off, if memory serves.
Paul, I LOVED you analogy of the friends corroborating the suspect's alibi!! Genius!!
My youtube isn't showing the closed caption. By any chance do you have the script of that part you could post here?
This is very interresting. Thank you.
Telling and sad that these “academics” with all their books and lectures cant acknowledge what is right in front of them because of how much it would cost them socially
And economically. Never forget that all of them have turned lying into a career.
They remind me of the civil war in Red Dwarf's Felis Sapiens population.
When will they leave for Fushal?
@ Nope. It was a corrupted version of Fiji where Lister wanted to have a sheep and a cow and raise horses.
I had to stop ALL my work to follow this keenly. Not disappointments at all after 20 min!
Excellent 👏
I’m a bit with the apologists here, you’re question is not specific enough, there’s a lot of room for interpreting what you are trying to say.
Not a fan of the wording of your question.
Huge fan of your videos and thoughts!
I suppose I should also say I’m an atheist who shares nothing in common with the preachers in the video, perhaps this is where I’m getting tripped up 🤷🏼♂️
I agree with you. I think it was clear when I watched his original video, but taken out of that context it is vague enough to let them hem and haw around the question.
FIRST
**Update** Second :(
First in my book. 😉
Did you consider lag creating a false time stamp memory in the youtube servers?
But you are first (with just a small error margin of 1), so everything's fine ;-)
Could you check if Laura Robinson would be willing to take a look at Paul's argument and offer feedback?
Perhaps if you have enough faith, then you can be first even though the evidence contradicts that claim.
This is one of your best.
thank you!
Thank you Paul, awesome vid!
Craig's had a scalp reduction, I'd lay money on it. Gotta keep up appearances if you're going to rake in the dough.
Awesome refutation. I nominate you as a Bible scholar. You floored them. And you didn't have to get a Ph.D. to do that. You're awesome.
Well, that's the thing. The 5 scholars here don't have actual facts on their side to debunk Pauls stated possibility. So they couldn't do anything else but make themselves look bad. Or ignore Paul.
The latter would have been the better and smarter option for them.
Awesome
I've experienced that myself, reading something and imagining it and then later having a hard time recalling if it was actually me that did it or if I'd watched someone else...and that was without telling & retelling. (Later reread & realized all this)
Is WLC wearing makeup?
It's the Stan Laurel look
Well, that was interesting! Scholars keen to keep themselves in work! . I wonder if your hypothetical, Paul, is perhaps generous? We could imagine that Paul had some sort of experience and when he found the original disciples, the 'experience' was seen as the resurrection of Jesus and thus Paul is then convinced. All the stuff about Peter preaching in Jerusalem could have been added by Luke.
Of course, we might have a look at the Mormons (sorry, no time for their new, long name) and in particular the groups of people who claimed they saw the golden plates. They signed a statement to say they saw them but later at least one said they did not actually see them but saw them in something like a vision - or imagination. Yet they were happy to say what they did. So maybe that is what the other appearance stories are like.
Well done
I added this to my Easter playlist