Christian Scholar Exposes Minimal Resurrection Facts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2022
- Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/Paulogia !
Dr. Lydia McGrew recently discussed whether the 'Maximal Data Case' is better than the 'Minimal Facts Argument' for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Dr. Lydia McGrew Interviews
• What is the STRONGEST ...
• "Maximal Data" Resurre...
Undesigned Consequences Articles
www.richardcarrier.info/archi...
/ some-thoughts-on-undes...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada 
Наука
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/Paulogia !
Hot Take: Atheist-RUclipsrs and Socialism-RUclipsrs are Siblings.
I mean, just look at Holy Koolaid. Does his Channel that all the time calls-out Problems, tackles Issues,
roasts Weirdos and adresses systemic Issues remind you of Someone?
He sure reminds me of Second Thought, a famous Socialist who tries
to fight against the Stigma that was pushed onto Socialism.
Even if we ignore the already listed Similarities like problem-tackling,
the fact that Stigma is pushed 'for reasons...' onto something should be a Thing
Atheists recognize. Atheism and Socialism is both Demonized and known as Satanic,
so what does that tell you?
I have zero interest in hiding, but this "It's not just protection..." could you please elaborate how I, from the USA, could get all kinds of material with a VPN, that somehow I can't get now?
@Paulogia. I will give you some credit where credit is due. At least you interact with those you disagree with, unlike the "MythVision" guy and others. Maybe one day you can come on the warrior channel to discuss some things. I'm having Dr. John Oswalt on my channel tomorrow, and you're welcome to join in the discussion. We will be discussing his book, "The Bible Among the Myths, " on my live stream. The topic will be "Why the Bible is NOT Mythology."
As someone with a chronic pain condition who is currently lying on a couch and would have trouble sitting up for a long conversation, just like Lydia, I really appreciate Paul pushing back against the jerks who mocked her for it. I would have thought it was obvious that she had a health issue.
I watched this in bed in a darkened room because I too have a chronic pain condition. I hope Dr McGrew has many more great days than bad ones.
"The minimalist argument is making too many assumptions, so lets go with an argument with even MORE assumptions!"
Haha. I don't think that's what they're saying. I think it's that the minimalist argument needs more assumptions, so they need more "facts" .... it is also a coincidence that these extra "facts" are either unprovable or require assumptions
Stunning how Lydia McGrew is so good at being a skeptic of the argument she doesn’t like, the minimal facts argument. Then turns around and accepts an even worse argument as some great argument. I guess that is sort of how a Christian an so easily deconstruct Muslim apologetics, then present their own as some grand revelation. I’ve heard of “blind spots”, but, sheesh!
yeah, stunning. it shows that she DOES have a functioning and analytical mind that she can use when it suits her, she just CHOOSES to turn it off when presenting her OWN argument. which, in all fairness, is still better than most of the apologetics crowd because given the brain dead "arguments" they support you can't tell they have a functioning brain in the first place
This is just human nature. It's easy to see the flaws in others but difficult to see them in yourself, and even hard to fix them even if you see them. It is hilarious how extreme this is though, I agree.
@@xipheonj I was going to write the same.
It was incredibly frustrating to realize that I am great at editing other people's text, finding problems in their methodology, asking the critical questions.... but when it comes to my research project or manuscript, all that ability goes away and I make the same mistakes that I've helped others fix.
@@xipheonj this is why I take n active role in listening to people with contrary ideas, and sometimes studying ideas I feel are incorrect.
It's honestly one of the hardest things to do, but it has a few benefits.
1. Know my 'opponents' arguments ahead of time and identify the flaws
2. Correct my own argument, should theirs point out any holes in mine.
You also must do this honestly. Actually consider their points, as well as your own, and the weaknesses and strengths of each.
I've been studying nutrition for the past 5+ years. A couple years ago I ran into a so called paradox.
Paradoxes, do not exist in reality. It simply means there is a lack of understanding, or error in data.
Resolving the paradox lead me to update my position. Now I have a more accurate model.
@James Henry Smith Wh-?
Paulogia: The Monster
Damn dude, you're living rent free in these people's heads.
Keep being the gadfly. You're clearly getting to them.
When they argue among themselves about how convincing this all is, that's proof it is not convincing.
Or at least this isn't the reason (or among the reasons) any of them are convinced.
@@greyeyed123 Great point greyeyed123. Another instance of apologists working hard to keep believers in the faith rather than to convert those outside?
That's not how scholarship works at all and it's embarassing that you think this is some kind of "gotcha". Arguments about the most convincing view, based on the evidence, happens 24/7 between scholars of all stripes.
That's literally one of the things that makes good scholarship...
Peer review, discussion, etc.
@@thingsofinterest603 But let's not equivocate on "scholarship" in areas with falsifiable methodology that can be used to settle such matters, and "scholarship" in a faith based community where the overwhelming number of actual, practicing believers in the faith don't really care about ANY of these arguments. People don't go to church because of Kalam, or because there is tons of predictive, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable evidence for the resurrection. That's just not how this area of "scholarship" works. William Lane Craig himself has written that if evidence and reason contradicts the faith, you must throw out the evidence and reason in favor of the faith. That's certainly not the kind of "scholarship" you (or Craig, or any number of them) are trying to pretend it is.
@@thingsofinterest603 Hi ToI. Thanks for the comment and I agree with you to an extent. I think the issue here is that apologetics is not scholarship but more like propaganda . Indeed it has been called a "tool for evangelism". It may use scholarship but ultimately as William Lane Craig has admitted, the "evidence" and the arguments is not the ultimate arbiters - faith is. It seems to me that apologetics is mostly about constructing "gotcha" arguments rather than presenting often quite complex and nuanced phenomena honestly. Eg have a look at Justin Brierley's video on "How a Dice can show that God exists" which uses the fine tuning argument.
This video gave me whiplash. To hear someone so thoroughly and honestly respond to the minimal facts, I thought quite highly of Dr. McGrew. Then she turned around and was like “we should espouse even less well evidenced beliefs, and it’s not begging the question because I defined the scope of my question narrowly!”
and she has the temerity to talk about 'bait and switch'... hahah...
Is that what she said? It sounds like you’re just projecting your assumptions about the reliability of the New Testament and the fact that she uses to support her case, against her case that doesn’t really work. You could do that with literally anything, I could just say Paulogia dismisses good evidence and good arguments for the resurrection in favor of skepticism and bad reasons to doubt it, see I can do it to you not actually give an argument just protect my assumptions about the issue on the his arguments and just dismiss them, this is pretty lazy and disingenuous.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I seem to recall her saying we should more broadly accept the claims of the Gospels than minimal facts defenders do. Admittedly I don't have a quote because it's been nearly a year since I watched the video, and I didn't include them in the original comment because it was a RUclips comment, not a peer reviewed response paper submitted to a historical journal.
Calling people lazy and disingenuous without even giving them a chance to evidence their statements seems pretty bad faith
@@MrSpleenface well she uses the reliability of the New Testament to support her case, she’s also not an inerranttist. No that’s fair and I get it it’s a RUclips comment, you weren’t intending to have a flushed out, or systematic rebuttal to any of her points, so I really don’t know what I was expecting, so it’s it’s probably a bit disingenuous of me to jump to conclusions about your motives based on that. With that said that you can at least give your reasons, that’s what I thought was lazy I probably shouldn’t jump to conclusions though. That’s probably fair I was specifically responding to your original comment.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 "saying the gospel resurrection accounts record what the people in a position to know claimed while it is not widely granted by scholars, the fact that something isn't widely granted isn't the same thing as question begging" would be the most obvious quote that shows that she is taking the gospels as reliably attesting the experiences of the people there at the time.
What she is doing is instead of taking "the gospels are reliable" as a premise, and trying to prove "the gospels are reliable" as a conclusion, she is saying "the gospels reliably report the experiences of the people present for these events" and then concluding "the gospels are reliable about the resurrection". That's why I said "It's not question begging because I defined the scope narrowly".
Basically, it seems she is accepting most of the gospels as a premise, and then using that to attempt to prove the rest of the gospels, but my issue is that there isn't particularly good evidence for the parts she DOES accept, and no real delineation between what a "not super well evidenced experience claim she accepts" looks like vs a "not super well evidenced claim she feels she needs to prove".
The most common way my objection is demonstrated is with Spider-Man. What Dr McGrew is doing is the equivalent of looking at the parts of Spider-Man where he's in New York, and New York is described accurately, they ride the right subway line from a real station to another station, and there may even be references to real people who exist and we know were in New York at the time a given story was set, and then concluding that it must be true, there must be a person who got superpowers after being bit by a radioactive spider
My first comment on this channel! Here goes:
Does anyone else think that the Christian apologists make themselves look bad (small/petty) when they disrespect Paulogia by mispronouncing the channel's name (or pretending to struggle with it), considering that:
a) it's easy to pronounce; and
b) Paul pronounces it clearly near the beginning of virtually _every_ video?
Of course, another possibility is that they haven't watched any of the Paulogia commentary, but that doesn't reflect very well on them either.
I was wondering the same thing. Somehow it feels like these little asides about pronunciation keep his brand in the spotlight for a moment or two more than apologists would otherwise and it is usually in a playful way. If these brief pronunciation comments help Christians remember his channel, awesome!
Yes I too think that. I've also seen at least two apologists who had previously watched his videos (which contain his channel name) deliberately mispronounce his name as what I could only interpret to be an ad hominem.
@@davidhoffman6980 I think you are right. It is not even mildly amusing. I wonder if they are now doing it because they have seen other big shot apologists do it. Viral. It is odd. It is not a great look for people pushing their religion of love.
It seems a lot like deadnaming a trans person, it says "I don't respect you enough to call you by the name you chose". Even if it's unintentional it shows sloppy research about the person and ideas they are addressing.
He has been refuting them for years......and doing very well.
All of them know who is is, as anyone should know one's top opponents...and the strengths/weaknesses of each opponent.
The apologists intentionally do it to Aron Ra, too
Love the pull out to reveal the entire studio! Very clever. And probably a lot of work! Just so you know, someone appreciated it! 👍🏽
I'm here to make you happy.
@@Paulogia If only everyone in my life were as attentive as you!
@@misterdeity aww… virtual hug?
There's a lot of talk about pulling out lately for some reason
Another great video.
Side note: I am soooooooo bothered by all these apologists maiming your handle. They literally INVENTED the word "apologetics". To think they don't understand how to pronounce your name is such a stretch. I fully believe they are being condescending and it is frustrating.
Condescending and dismissive.
I honestly don't think they're doing it on purpose. While it's true that Paul announces his name at the start of every video, I suspect none of them actually watch his videos. They watch _clips_ of his videos as pulled out by their peers, and by Kent Hovind. (Just like I don't watch whole AiG or CC videos, only the clips I see from the likes of Paul or Mr D.) If they are all just watching clips from each other, the mispronunciation may have originated with any one of them and just, you know, spread.
It is a bit baffling that none of them seem to get the pun, though.
@@ps.2 They are doing that on purpose.
I was going to say this. It seems like a basic minimum respect thing. It's not like it's hard to say and it's an obvious pun that any a-pologist should immediately understand.
@@ps.2 No, they are definitely doing it on purpose. To begin with, these apologists _do_ watch his videos, since they consistently use clips of his videos in their videos and streams. Since they already use clips of him as is, they already owe it to him to watch the clips where he says his own channel name and know how he pronounces it. They know that they have this responsibility, they just refuse to follow through with it, because they have no interest in being respectful to anyone that is not a Christian.
😆 It must be a little awkward when Lydia tells all the apologists and christians who attempt to dodge and ignore Paulogia, that they need to listen to Paulogia.
She's not the only one! Paul has had conversations with a few theistic philosophers / apologists that seem to generally like him and like talking with him about these things.
I don't really have a question. I just appreciate what you do!
I appreciate that!
As someone who struggles with fibromyalgia, and has for years, I'm very familiar with 'good days and bad days'. Whoever has a problem with that can ... go visit Kent Hovind or Ken Hamm or something.
"How do you pronounce the name of this guy who clearly pronounces his name in every video?"
It's just being passive-aggressively contemptuous.
It's either a weak attempt at trolling, or their comprehension skills are just _that_ bad that they seriously can't figure out something so utterly easy to confirm.
...and they're seriously expecting us to take any credence on their take of biblical scholarship when they can't handle something so basic? I wonder if they even realize how much they're hurting their own case? All it does it make people think 'Gee, if they can't even get THIS right...what ELSE are they getting horribly wrong?'
Great video, as always!
I'd love to see more on Biblical canon and how arbitrary it is and how it has changed over the years and from church to Church. Like how the Shepherd of Hermas kinda fell out of canon and how Martin Luther came so close to removing Revelation.
Whenever a street preacher tries to talk to me I ask if the Bible is the word of God and when they say yes I ask "which one?" and list the various canons, including the Ethiopian canon which has the Book of Enoch which is quoted in Jude 14-15. Yet, Enoch appears in no other canon. So either Jude has to be exacto-knifed out or Enoch has to be added.
I have never met a street preacher who could answer that question.
Anyway, love you channel!
Interesting suggestion... will ponder that. When I was a Christian, those canonicity issues didn't bother me or my faith... it was just other groups of humans getting things wrong. (of course, I was getting everything right.) Appreciate the support!
Ethiopians just don't have the same idea of canon as everyone else. Which is good, otherwise Enoch probably would have been lost.
The standard Christian position is that while Enoch is not inspired as a whole, the parts quoted in Jude must have been.
I think a more reasonable position would be that Enoch was well known to the original audience, and Jude is a sermon, so it's no different from when modern preachers talk about football or whatever. It's a relevant cultural reference that helps Jude convey the intended meaning.
It's Paulogia, as in "apologetics" or more to the point 'apaulogetics'. They deliberately mispronounce the name of the channel to make it seem like the channel is trivial, when it's obviously having a huge impact on them and their adhereants.
Pretty much.
Even a few of the big names did it when they reacted to his video about the resurrection.
Mispronouncing, misnaming, pretending to forget someone's name, all seem to be one of the most basic stealth insults used very widely in the right in my experience, having even myself been a repeated target of that from the exact same type of people, while on one forum. Ive even seen it in television pundits.
@@sairassiili Agree but the only thing I would add is that it's something that goes beyond political parties and I've even seen it when I was in elementary school.
Let’s not forget if you type Paul oger in your search it doesn’t bring up Paul’s channel. One less person to show to your ever believing audience. Notice how they don’t “miss pronounce “ others who hold their view?
To be fair, I would not be sure how to pronounce Sairasiili
HOW DO THEY STILL NOT KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE THIS
Once again thinking about how people's inability to get your name right reflects on them as interlocutors.
It's what a bully does when they want to discredit their opposition.
@@Lobsterwithinternet See also Wretched Radio's "itkthit... theosisis... ick eee theso sis... ictheosaur" diatribe. Done PURELY to pretend that the dinosaur didn't exist because Wretched pretended to be unable to say it.
2:15 - I'm sorry to hear about Dr. McGrew's condition. I hope she's able to manage it well and maybe even eventually recover!
No negative comments here. I only wish Lydia the best even if we disagree.
I wonder what was commented?
Maybe someone said something about her laying down without thinking why she has to do that.
@@WorldCupWillie Whenever people make claims like that take it with a galaxy sized grain of salt. I've seen way too much of this "one person was mean to me online" (and even that is questionable) so everyone who challenged me is attacking me about my disability. It's not exclusive to theofascists like Bertuzzi and McGrew unfortunately.
Can we rag on Cameron though cause he's a twizpipe.
@@sypherthe297th2 I didn't want to make assumptions, but when she referred to the commenters as "sceptics" it did remind me of the sort of terms a person suffering from christian persecution complex might say.
@@WorldCupWillie Oh that could certainly be a factor and likely is given who we're talking about. But I've seen bad actors of every stripe, creed, alignment, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, gas station, residence, warehouse, farm house, hen house, outhouse and dog house. . . Ok that point might have gotten away from me but the gist of it is everybody lies/exaggerates when it suits them and no group is special. It's just a nasty habit that people need to get away from.
re. Dr. McGrew
This woman sounds completely reasonable. *Is she a Real Christian??*
Later, she tries to prove the resurrection was literally true by assuming evidence. So, yeah, bona fide christian.
At the start I was also thinking: so why on earth does she believe? She has brought up a lot of good rational points that point to good epistemology and... Oh, she just forgets about those for this other claim
@John Dew It is absolutely insane to try and calculate the probability of the event, given that at BEST you need to take all of the other ressurections in the Bible as 100% real, which still doesn't go to show that Jesus resurrected because he was God
Now,....is she from Scotland?
Why is Cameron pretending not to know how to pronounce your nickname when it's quite obvious he watches your videos where you introduce yourself?
He wants to demonstrate the intellectual side of Christianity.
Because he is a dishonest, disingenuous turdgobbler.
I’ve always found Cameron to be dishonest.
With the "bait and switch" she came closest to the term misleading, while constantly dancing around it. I appreciate her honesty on that. After her rather sharp witted criticism of the minimal facts, it went down south quickly. Why isn't she scrutinizing her own case with the same quality?
The whole video is...so we can't defend the bare minimum of what the bible might say from a rational attempt...so we just take the additional legend on top and pretend it is better.
It is like: Oh I can't convince you there was a dragon in the dish washer of the previous tendant? Therefore the dragon was in his dishwasher and he had casual conversations with the previous tendant as perfectly full alternative!
In the Jesus case. Oh some texts say people saw a risen guy...no no they saw a risen guy but additionally they also ate and talked with him...just look at more tale text.
@@Angelmou She was actually uncovering how the minimal facts is constructed to mislead. I mean, she basically calls out her peers for lying. Where would one get a more persuasive dismantling of a movement, if not from within?
@@Angelmou I think there is some grounding to her approach. The minimal facts essentially guts the most essential source texts by conceding that most if not all of what is in the gospel narratives is later embellished myth, even though that itself has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be the case, only presupposed on an inference. I, like Dr. McGrew, find it plausible that a proto-Matthew in Aramaic/Hebrew did exist and was likely the so-called special M source that advocates of the three-source-hypothesis refer to. It was this standardized Greek Matthew we all know of that was rewritten and expanded in its final form, although its original contents would have come from the original disciple himself. Case in point being that we can only rule out the gospels as containing at least fragments of authentic testimonies to alleged post-resurrection appearances only by conclusively showing that none of it is plausibly from one of the original twelve disciples or their contemporaries who had met Jesus. I am not convinced this is the case.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 I think you confuse something. Witness accounts are per se regardless even in our lifetime the least reliable evidence and source for anything. That is why we have 100s of little grey alien accounts you can not only show records of the witness via videotapes where people swearing what they did see (obviously not of the aliens), you can drive to the homes and listen to the many witnesses stories first hand yourself.
The problem for the gospels is that we do not even have the hearsay of suppossed eye witnesses as the least reliable source whatsoever.
You basically claim she claims "well there was probably a protomatthew and it may be a thing of some witness - aka the least reliable source even if alive today!". This counts as the best foundation of christianity. My goodness. How low has the religion fallen by shedding a light on it.
Yeah the perhaps text of a hearsay version which was maybe a talk of a witness... Halleluja therefore Jesus resurrection and he had the shoesize 7 3/4 when he was crucified and people claiming he is the lord get a ticket to paradise with an opening meal consistent of 3 golden pineapples of 27.744 cm in size... I can also make up all more details of never existing stuff.
There is more honesty in the minimal facts approach but even this fails. Great video as always Paul.
Good to see you here!
Everything going well?
I could write a biography of my grandfather that says that my grandfather had a pet dragon that breathed fire and carried him on rides in the sky, and that thousands of people saw it. I could even create names for the people that saw it. In two hundred years time would any of this be considered respectable evidence that my grandfather had a pet dragon? Of course not.
Why do critics of Christianity even indulge apologists in these silly parsings of their scriptures? There is not one syllable in the New Testament that should be considered evidence for anything, no matter how prosaic or mundane, without corroborating evidence from independent sources who have no religious motive. This is why even the existence of Jesus as an ordinary mortal cannot have any substantial basis. There may have been such a person, but without one sound item of corroboration, the case for his existence is moot and undeterminable.
Imagine that someone put forward a case in a court of law claiming a portion of a fortune, and that this suit depended on proving that a certain person existed and was the claimant's ancestor. The case for the existence of Jesus would never survive this test. In civil law, the establishment of a claim requires a preponderance of evidence. If someone had come into the court with a claiming document that they might have written themselves, and no independent corroboration for anything in the document, their case would be thrown out as having no substantial evidence, prima facie.
This is as far as any argument dealing with anything about Jesus needs to go. Whether or not any person cognate to the literary character ever existed, no substantial item of evidence for his existence has EVER been put forward. Whether one detail in the life of the scriptural Jesus was ever a real item of the life of some real person named Jesus, or two details of the life of Jesus belonged to some real person, or three details did, is moot. There is no warrant for believing that the life of the literary Jesus overlapped with the biography of a real person in any meaningful way, or any way at all, and this is independent of whatever was the case in unknowable reality. There is no warrant for the conclusion, despite the fact that there may be no warrant for the opposite conclusion. THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR THE CONCLUSION. Case closed.
The whole discussion of "Did Jesus exist?" revolves around a mis-assignment of the burden of proof. This is of course antecedent to the issue of whether he resurrected from the dead. The story of the biblical Jesus is presented on its first face as the mythical tale of a guy who went around performing magical deeds. Having dismissed the magical components of the story, it might seem reasonable to ask the question of whether the story was based on the life of a real ordinary person-- until one realizes that there is no corroboration for the prosaic details either. At that point any basis for considering whether Jesus was real in any sense vanishes, particularly when almost every specific detail in the prosaic "biography" comes with its own reasons for doubt. In the end, there is no there there to be the biography of anyone.
@@donnievance1942 Case closed !! Period.
@@donnievance1942 You have 7 people writing about Jesus and saying the same things. One was an enemy of Christianity who was converted. One was Jesus half brother who was a skeptic until the resurrection. You have no evidence that these men were lying. Your analogy of the pet dragon is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Typical for an ex-pretend christian.
@@jamiehudson3661 So? We have hundreds of writers writing about Superman and saying similar things.
So Jesus lived, Jesus died and Jesus was buried. Is my dad God too? I saw him after he died after all. I swear. He even said to me "I'm baaaack". I swear to Dad he said that...
Great, now we have to make Christianity Quadritarian.
501 witnesses
So your dad’s Benito Mussolini?!?
@@GodlessGubment Prove it
@@cwfutureboy You believe the "500 witness" crap - 501 is just one more.
Minimalist approach: There lived an apocalyptic preacher called a very common name and when such preachers were a dime a dozen who was executed in an extremely common way.
- You got nothing.
Maximalist approach: The bible is real and completely historical.
- You got nothing.
Also: The "maximal" approach is _intellectually dishonest._
*We have no good reason to believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.*
At least the 'minimal facts' approach acknowledges that the gospels are anonymous. That's an honest starting point.
@@pauligrossinoz yes, that's why if apologists take that approach they still have nothing.
@@pauligrossinoz Though the honest minimal fact is that Jesus IS a myth, not based on a "real Jesus" any more than, say, Merlin or Don Quixote, definitely not any evidence for any real Jesus behind the myth, just we would not EXPECT any evidence for such a mundane and commonplace a person as "a real Jesus", and although "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in this case because we don't EXPECT evidence even if "not absent", it still is NO EVIDENCE for a "real Jesus". We don't claim a Real Merlin behind the Arthurian Legend merely because "A Sage is a common thing in the Dark Ages" and "Kings usually had a sage or three", nor do we claim a Real Don Quixote merely because knights existed and so do Windmills.
I'm fine with "any REAL jesus, if such existed, is so mundane as a real historical person that we would not expect any evidence anyway" as a caveat to "there is no EVIDENCE there was a real Jesus", but I'm not OK with lying about evidence being there "because the claim is so mundane we shouldn't GET evidence!".
@@markhackett2302 - the evidence we have for the real Jesus, as I see it, is Paul's letter stating that he visited and spoke to Peter and James, and Paul said that Peter knew Jesus as a real person before he was killed, and Paul says at that same meeting that he also met with and spoke to James, and Paul says that James was the brother of that same Jesus.
So as far as levels of confidence go, I'd be very confident that Paul was a real person, who visited and spoke to the real people Peter and James, about a dead person called Jesus who really existed and was the bother of James.
I don't regard it as likely that Paul just invented that meeting, and thus there is a strong case that Jesus, in that mundane sense only, existed as a real person - the dead bother of the James that Paul visited.
_Of course_ I'm rejecting all the supernatural claims, especially the claim that a god resurrected Jesus, the dead brother of James.
@@markhackett2302 - oddly, RUclips has decided to hide your comment from me ...
This is happening a lot at the moment. _RUclips is weird!_ 😡
Bertuzzi always looks like he has a stylist telling him “Here- do this to look kewl and be accepted by the youth group….”
Paulogia is so credible and trustworthy. I appreciate all the background research, and envy his abilities at locating so many apt TV and film references to lighten his posts.
Hello, fellow kids!
Anytime I see someone wearing a hat backwards, it annoys me.😂
It's quite easy to refute the resurrection just by looking at the earliest source and Paul's experience.
1 Cor 15:5-8 reads:
"and that he appeared (ώφθη) to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared (ώφθη) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared (ώφθη) to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared (ώφθη) to me also, as to one untimely born."
At least for Paul (who is our only verified firsthand source), his experience was a "revelation" of Jesus (Gal. 1:16). It was not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. Acts 26:19 even calls the experience a "vision from heaven." Okay, now just look at 1 Cor 15 again and notice how he uses the same verb ώφθη for every "appearance" in the list. So the inference is that these "appearances" weren't physical encounters with a revived corpse like we find in the gospels of Luke and John. Rather, they were spiritual experiences of Jesus from heaven like Paul had and so the skeptic is justified in rejecting the experiences as non-veridical (since claims of visions are not worth taking seriously even if Acts, which is a later narrative dramatization of the encounter, describes extra-mental phenomenona occurring).
Well that's a nice theological hand grenade I see you have there...
@@JosephKano "Bring out the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch"...to perfect a comment not to insert a Monty Python reference there.
I do wonder, and I have zero evidence to support this, if “appeared” may reflect their acceptance that he more than just a religious leader or prophet to these people, and not an indication of an actual vision or physical experience.
@@robertt9342 The same word was used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) for when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs in non-physical ways. So I think the emphasis is on the idea that they "experienced his presence" from heaven in some sense. 1 Cor 15, therefore, should be understood in the theophanic revelation sense like we see in the Septuagint.
The word "disciples " never appeared in Paul's writings. Paul used the word " apostles " instead. This shows that Jesus was not living among those witnesses. Christians today claimed to have seen Jesus also(even though they have never met Jesus in real life).
As someone raised Mennonite in Ontario, and later found my way out, I feel like I relate to your story to some degree. However, I don't know if I would have had the strength of conviction you did to follow your path.
In any event, I've watched all of your videos at least once and many of them multiple times. I think you set a great example of treating people on the internet with respect, and it makes any video you put out an immediate watch for me.
Also raised Mennonite in Ontario lol
@@pongskills1 How many Mennonites are in Ontario, anyway?
There were at least two. Not sure how many are left.
I,m of the opinion THERE IS NO BOOK OF TOTAL TRUTH of this time, translated from real life . It served a purpose .
He doesn't repect apologists. He constantly uses video clips and sarcasm to insult them. He heavily edits his videos to scew them to his side.
Paulogia is a legend in my own time! Do RUclips appearances lend credence to the minimal facts of his existence?
So, do you think the repeated mispronunciations of his name, make a good allegory for the shifting of information within legends?
I heard that in Canada you could be murdered in the streets for talking about Paulogia as if He were real. Therefor the fact that you are commenting on a video that features a drawn representation of Him absolutely proves His existence.
It's unlikely, almost impossible, that a legend could arise in \*checks video\* less than 1 day. Therefore, we can surely conclude that paulogia (pronounced: pa-Uh-lock-iih-ah) being real is the most rational conclusion.
@@stevewebber707 I have a hypothesis about this tendency of theists to get all the details as wrong as possible like that. If you assume (correctly) that people who are trapped in cults are crippled in such a way as for it to be difficult for them to escape, then the only way to keep those not yet fully mentally disabled is to control the information they have access to. Assume a cultist has some few last remaining shreds of intellectual curiosity not yet beaten out of them by their cult, and they want to google something to see it for themselves. It's a lot harder to find information on biology if you've been trained to call it 'evolutionism'. That term will always lead back to the cult-approved propaganda. Naming critics incorrectly does the same thing. _Who's Pologgia? Huh. Nothing comes up when I google it. Who's Logiced? Lonestar77 told Kent Hovind about that guy making videos about him, but I only see a.. Logicked, that's not how he spelled it. Must be a different guy copying him. Oh well._
This happens *ALL. THE. TIME.* I've come to think it's completely intentional. Make it impossible for victims to escape by crippling their ability to learn for themselves.
There might also be an element of apologists being disingenuous assholes who like to dismiss their betters with childish insults like getting the names wrong. All apologists act in bad faith, always. But I think that's just how they're trained to behave because the misinformation thing is such a good defense mechanism that it's become pervasive. "Good preachers get their opponents' names wrong" sort of thing.
Mark, that... hurt my nails. I have to be that guy. It's "A legend in his own time" because usually people don't become legends while they're still alive. It's not 'a legend in someone else's time', because that's how it usually goes. Nails on a chalkboard, man. I felt in sympathetically. Ow.
Would it be uncharitable to think she's only willing to acknowledge the weakness of the minimal facts arguments because she wants her pet theory to look like the stronger argument?
I doubt she even believes her own theory. "Biblical scholarship" is a joke. We don't know what happened and we never will.
@@scambammer6102 Maybe, maybe not.
Can't discount the possibility of some new evidence surfacing that might overturn our previous ideas.
@@Lobsterwithinternet That would have to be evidence of supernatural events. There has never been credible evidence of such a thing ever. If it actually existed, Christianity would be a single denomination instead of thousands of variants.
@@con.troller4183 Didn't say there was.
Just saying we should remain open to new discoveries so we don't become complacent like how Physics was before Einstein's Regular and Special Theories of Relativity.
@@Lobsterwithinternet We should not expect to ever find evidence of things that are logically impossible.
Exhibit A of exposing the falsification of the resurrection and too indoctrinated to see what they are doing. Amazing!!
Let's see, "If we use the minimal facts approach then many other claims can be seen as embellishments..........but hear this......wait for it....IF we accept all the probable embellishments as facts.........our argument is stronger. Thanks for the vid.
I absolutely love listening to apologists critique each other.
That's what is great about Christianity - freedom to disagree and seek the truth. Atheists don't have the freedom to critique each other.
@@jamiehudson3661
Christians are free? To an extent. But you can only go so far before you're no longer recognizably Christian in any historical sense.
Sure atheists have the freedom to disagree. The only thing atheists agree on is that there's no good reason to think any God exists. For example: I think Paulogia is in many ways, deep down, still Christian. He still believes in Evil.
@@11kravitzn The Biblical authors have written the history of Jesus life - you just don't want to believe it.
@@jamiehudson3661 How do you know that? I think you are taking that on faith. That is, you want it to be true. But what if it isn't true? Would you want to know?
@@11kravitzn When you have 7 or 8 people saying the same things about an event then I think that is reason enough to believe it.
As opposed to the "minimal facts" argument that Jesus resurrected after crucifiction, perhaps we should just accept the "no facts" argument as being closer to historical reality ?
As someone with chronic back pain, who occasionally has to spend a few days laying down, I have huge respect for Dr Lydia McGrew. Keep at it, keep learning, keep talking, and whatever you do, keep thinking carefully about ideas.
Comment for the RUclips algorithm god , all hail!!!
Wait, is this lady arguing for a more extreme view that is less popular with scholars as a better way to demonstrate the truth of the resurrection claim?
No.
She's just frustrated that nobody takes her favorite storybooks as seriously as she does.
This is one of the best Resurrection counter-apologetics video I've ever seen! The best thing is that it's a mutual self-destruction from the two main resurrection apologetics factions (minimal and maximal approaches). The McApologists (maximalists) may have a sound bayesian epistemology, but use 'facts' that most scholars believe to be false, and fail to consider legendary development and literary dependencies as a valid alternative, so their conclusion is invalid. While the minimalists use more robust data, but don't have a sound methodology (eg. the bait-and-switch fallacy Lydia mentioned), and also fail to seriously consider alternatives. And they both criticize each other in their fatal flaws, while ignoring their own. As a skeptic, I agree with both: they both are fatally flawed, and when you combine proper epistemology with robust data, the Resurrection turns out to be the most improbable hypothesis.
The resurrection is only the most improbable hypothesis only after dismissing the rest of the narrative that precedes it and the momentum it builds up, and one can only do that by dismissing everything before it, etc. As far as historical approaches go, it is absolutely valid to say that miracle claims cannot possibly be adequately demonstrated to have occurred via historical documentation, artifacts, etc. Miracles and supernature have always been the proper domain of philosophy, not history. That being said, it is imposible to state that, because miracles cannot be demonstrated through historical method, they are not either possible or probable, given certain other non-historical considerations. The case for or against Christianity, then, must ultimately bring in other domains of study, such as philosophy and theology, not simply the redundantly inadequate nature of historical inquiry to evince that a real miracle occurred.
From my understanding the gospels are simultaneously literature (classical novella) and history (memoir), as is the case with many classical works that weren’t strictly history-chronicles. That said, the gospels needs must be analyzed and critiqued from additional literary and theological lenses as well. The essential truth or non-truth of the narratives depend on this too. We can go on ad infinitum with claims being made, saying they don’t suffice to convince us (or that by their very nature they can’t adequately be studied through the available methods we possess) and to be saddled with an impossible burden of proof to make a negative case.
Notwithstanding the expected high quality of the video's intended subject content, you managed to make your sponsor ad clever enough for me to actually watch it.
It's a shame that there was anyone who was being nasty about Lydia laying down, but I also feel that the majority of sceptics didn't think it was worth commenting on. It's a shame we can't know for sure how many people noticed it, assumed that she was doing it for medical reasons like I did, and saw no reason to comment.
Little people and people who have no argument themselves are the only ones who bring it up in that way.
In any case, I hope she feels better. 👍
When you write anonymously, you can say things most wouldn't dare say in public. This rarely makes it more true.
and this comment was needed why?
@@scambammer6102 Because, even if it's not true, it's better to at least demonstrate humility and charity to the opposition.
Honestly, given my experiences on the internet, I find it totally believable. Not the majority, but when people go out of their way to be nasty to you then the silent majority fades into the background.
During my upbringing in a fundamentalist southern baptist church from the 70s to the 90s, I don't recall there ever being a need to try to prove anything. The bible was accepted to be true as a matter of dogma. When we would knock on doors on Saturday mornings (sorry about that my fellow humans) to witness to people, we would just share the good news and leave it to the holy spirit to work in people's hearts. And then we'd go somewhere to eat. No apologist arguments needed.
It's amazing to me that anyone believes a single word uttered or written by anyone from the Mid-East from 2000 years ago. Amazing!
I love the "For the bible tells me so" jingle, perfectly placed Paulogia!
Gotta love the proof through how they say your moniker that they haven't watched even a few seconds of any video of yours, considering you practically always start off with "Welcome to Paulogia..." with the proper pronunciation.
why would anyone need to disparage Dr. McGrew for reclining when she says things like "Hebrew Matthew" that actually deserve to be disparaged? that one broke me when I heard it.
If I could afford to donate to you, I would.
Over the years, you have been fundamental in my journey out of a Christian cult and into critical thinking. The amount that you have benefited my life is far above and beyond what I could ever repay. However if/when I can afford to support a content creator, you on the top of my list.
Thank you so much!
Thank YOU so much for being on the journey with me.
100+ k subscribers
Wow
I've been waiting for it
Congratulations senior
❤️❣️💕💯
Congratulations for the 100k! I’m privileged to be one of them. You deserve this kind of following, which will snowball from here on!
I've always liked that jingle, so the Bible told me so.
So do I.
These are serious times, why not have a fun little jingle?
I hear that music box tune in my head every time I read a claim based on the Bible 😂 Paul you put your stamp on the internet for good
I downloaded the jingle, when he made it available
Oh shit... congratz at reaching 100K, Paul!
Great to hear some counter arguments from the theist side, good job mixing it up Paul! 👍
If Cameron watched your show, even once, he’d know how to pronounce your name. I’m surprised he doesn’t pronounce the name Jesus as ‘hey-sues’.
It is astonishing and refreshing to see an apologist acknowledge that some of the material supporting their position has been quote mined.
Hey! We got a new pronunciation of Paulogia to add to the montage!
I saw that lady laying on the couch and I was thinking she has the right idea! Shit, you're filming from home, you may as well be comfortable! I was actually wondering why more people don't do that. It also crossed my mind that she might have some sort of physical thing going on. I can't believe people were making fun of her for it though. I don't know what's wrong with some people.
The only physical thing going on, that's wrong with her....are the loose wires inside her head
Yeah and people still are, because a lot of anti-theorists unfortunately I’m more interested in trolling, answering to humiliate and get emotionally charged reactions out of Christians, and destroy their faith rather than actually having a serious conversation.
Love the content as always, thanks Pawlohgeeuh
In this day and age I'm really surprised that people still don't understand how to pronounce "Paulogia". A simple Google search would tell them.
I saw Lydia reclining and immediately worried that she was ill. I am sad that it is so and hope she fully recovers.
Yeah, but God planned it, so it MUST be for a greater good!
Thanks again Paul for this upload! Much greetings from France :)
That's very brave of Dr Mcgrew do still do videos while dealing with what I can only imagine is a very painful condition. Thanks for the awesome videos as usual Paulogia. I will never tire of your content.
My only statement about Dr. McGrew's back pain would be that I genuinely hope her pain completely subsides soon. I did wonder about it prior to her statement in the video, but I would never (and I hope no else would ever) wish someone ill or make bad comments about such. Be better than that.
I don't care how she sits. Hell, she can sit like that without a reason other than "I'm comfortable" for all it matters to the content of her ideas.
But I just can't get over how ironic it is that she's living an appreciable amount of her life in constant pain and then still trying to morally justify a system that condemns the majority of people to the same fate (but for eternity).
Thanks for the video :)
I'm glad to see you devote yourself full time here. You've really helped settle some ongoing conflict and debate I've had within myself for years. Thank you.
Thank you, Matt
I’m glad there are channels like this. You are doing a great job. Deprogramming brainwashed people is not easy.
thank you, jack
Love you Paul! Keep up the great work
So she's saying Bart Ehrman's argument is wrong but her version is...the same fecking argument!
So much of this stuff apologists and academics put out is SO INTERESTING! And often so BAD. I always wanted to dig in and refute it myself, but never made the time for it. Thank you @Paulogia for the carefully crafted and considerate content. You really make a strong case against these claims. :)
Happy to wake up to this! Can't donate, but I can comment for the boost!!
appreciate!
I got an ad in the middle of the sponsor message 🤣
Thank you.
Same argument holds for Joseph Smith he could have recanted.
I would find it interesting to see you go through her whole 30 min presentation
Love the "for the Bible tells me so" and its music interlude. Very funny ...
I have just noticed how often the animation blinks and I can't stop now.
Her argument is it’s more likely that a god man raises from then dead, then that the disciples were mistaken. That’s not an intellectually honest position.
Excited to see you pass the 100K subs! More rational thought! More intellectual honesty! Hopefully more Christians taking your lead.
👍💕
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks Paulogia
Thanks for this education.
Thanks Lydia.
Thanks all.
A special member section, fancy !
James Fodor has a pretty interesting video response to that video. In regards to her claim that "no one would suffer or die for a lie", he pointed out that it's actually the opposite. When you lie, that will always increase your risk of suffering. So it's the exact opposite of what apologists claim. Take Joseph Smith. Many apologists will say that Joseph Smith was an outright liar and conman, because if they accept that he actually believed his claims, that would make their Christian claims more similar. However, if he really was lying, this would prove that people would be willing to suffer and even die for a lie, since that is exactly what Joseph Smith went through.
I would add that being mistaken isn't out of the picture either, since false memories of detailed things that didn't happen are a documented phenomenon. Of course, we are getting into weird territory here, but at this point, it's just about which weird explanation is most likely. This is of course even granting all the "maximal data" stuff, which I definitely don't.
"make believe" also exists. Repeat a lie often enough and you believe your own lies. See the Orange-u-tan. Didn't believe his lies, repeated his lies, heard lots of others repeat his lies, now really believes his lies are real.
Thanks!
Welcome!
You are great. Thanks
Hi Paulogia, just wondering why Dr. Lydia Mcgrew changes outfit throughout the video, it seems like it's cut together from separate videos to build coherent argument?
Cameron's internet died during the interview so they continued it the next day.
I knew there must be a legitimate reason for the differences, thanks.
@@goldenalt3166 and it didn't even take 3 days to be resurrected! A miracle!
@@SilverMKI Too bad that even a miracle couldn't resurrect her arguments.
Its all so wierd, isn't it? They spend thier lives trying to build arguments to convince themselves and others of this one particular ancient event.
But there are so many other ancient events one could be obsessed with.
What's so great about this one? It's stupid.
Simple: Those weren't taught to them as truth their entire lives and were reinforced by a community of fellow believers.
This is the one that tells you not to be so scared of dying, and lets you insist that you have the objective authority to make everyone else stop doing things that squick you out.
Thanks! Keep up the good work
thank you, Robert!
Really interesting. The seemingly coincidental arguments, by you and her, were fun. The greater moments came when you allowed her to show how her argument was more pointed.
A special thanks for your compassion in the into.
I appreciate all your content!
Why are all Christian apologists so dishonest? All I require is a proof of a god first. Once they do that, then we can start figuring out which god we are dealing with. But that there’s no proof for resurrection of Jesus, it isn’t looking good for the Christians.
Because if they were honest, they would either not be Christians anymore or they would admit that their beliefs are based on faith and cannot be substantiated.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Exactly!
@@Lobsterwithinternet In which case that theology degree would be worthless
Claiming a dead preacher turns into an undead zombie ( or reanimated corpse) Is a gigantic claim without evidence.
Congrats on 100k subscribers!
Maybe you should include a pronunciation guide in the description box
The Dr.’s dismissal of “mistake” is INCREDIBLY weak. An assertion that “the content of my single uncorroborated source of claims doesn’t sound like the kind of thing one could be mistaken about,” isn’t a refutation of “mistake.” You could equally make the argument for detailed accounts of other supernatural, “spiritual,” or outlandish events (like the intervention of other gods, alien abductions, or ghost encounters). It’s little more than a hand-waving dismissal… and almost assuredly a methodology that she applies inconsistently with regard to other similar claims.
People only make mistakes about things they are likely to make mistakes about. This is known.
Which is what disappointed me of the latter half of the interview
@@Fernando-ek8jp
What’s to be disappointed about… her argument is invalid so it is summarily dismissed.
@@Fernando-ek8jp
I misread your comment… mistaking “disappointed with the second half of the INTERVIEW” for “second half of the video.” My apologies.
@@briley2177 I'm disappointed in her. She made some really valid points based on sound epistemology to categorize the minimal facts argument as weak, yet wasn't able to see similar flaws in her maximal facts one.
It's amazing that none of these people can take 3 minutes to watch a video and learn how to pronounce your name. They spend so much time dedicated to trying to prove you wrong and failing, but can't be bothered to watch 10 seconds of the intro of one of your videos.
The problem all Christians run up against, which can't be avoided, is the problem of the lack of reliability and historicity of the Bible, new and old. It's extraordinary claims are simply not backed up by anything even remotely compelling. It's "for the Bible tells me so".
I used to eat up stuff on Catholic Answers. And long before I started watching any skeptical videos, I already had my questions and problems with the answers provided by apologetics. In the end, even I could see that the "answers" boiled down to "cuz the bible or Church dogma or Church theologians say so".
As for a more thorough rebuttal to what Dr. McGrew proposes...frankly, I think most of what she says has already been dealt with in so many of your other videos.
Lastly, Paul, the cartoon me is AWESOME!!! Thank you!
Mispronouncing Paul's moniker is obviously intended to denigrate him. It annoys to the point of distraction and makes it obvious none of their arguments are even intended to convince skeptics.
eh. I think they are just having fun with his moniker. If it is intended as an insult it is a very weak one. So what?
@@scambammer6102 It shows whoever doesn't take them seriously.
It's an elementary insult at best.
I was waiting for this video…
As much as fundamentalist people like Lydia complain how Licona damages the case for the resurrection by relying on the academic consensus of the scholars… her attack on the minimal facts approach has the same effect.
Yeah, she is correct in criticizing the weakness of minimal facts, the problem is that it's still the strongest argument that can reasonably be made.
I hope Lydia's pain condition improves.
Quality content as usual.
@James Henry Smith hipitus hopitus deum, Peter rabbit is actually the pope!