Resurrection Scholar FAILS my Natural Hypothesis for Christianity! (Mike Licona response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- @MikeLiconaOfficial joined @DeepDrinks to discuss his new book, when my Minimal Witnesses hypothesis for the origins of Christianity came up. Other scholars have given me an "A" for my efforts... what will Dr Licona say?
original video - • Can We Trust the Bible...
Minimal Witnesses Playlist - • Minimal Witnesses Hypo...
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
22:06 they hired secretaries to write down their stories in Greek. How much did provincial laborers pay to get such an educated person to do that through Fiverr back then? “Hey! Whatchoo lads working on there? Oh. Your friend died and you want to write it down, eh? I know a guy from work who went to uni in Athens, knows a lot of Greek. I could hook you up. Whatd’ya say? No. Don’t worry about pay. He owes me a favor and that fish was amazeballs. I’ll call in my favor to ‘im.”
It's amazing the "Secretary" not only wrote down the testimony of these people but also neatly arraigned everything into a third person narrative referencing events nobody would be able to corroborate.
I hope those secretaries got paid really well for such effort.
Now I am dangerously curious what the Greek word for "amazeballs" would be. I need this in my life.
I can do one, at least. In Japanese it'd probably be 凄玉 or "sugotama".
Testicockailes.
@@MrDalisclock Not only that, but he made 3 editions of the same text with substantial alterations and a different ending narrative. An amazing secretary.
Don’t forget that each gospel managed to find a translator that recorded stuff word for word to match the other gospels, just by coincidence. Because everyone knows that there’s only one way to translate a language, and every translator is always going to translate into the same words every time
Hey! They're starting to get your name right! What a nice development! 😃
only took, what, five years?
and they claim in-errancy....
They call themselves apologists and study apologia but then stumble all over Paulogia? I never understood why they think they’re making Paul look bad by dramatically mispronouncing his channel name
Got it right this time. Bet dollars to donuts it will be a "one-off" incident.
"They're starting to get your name right!"
Miracles do happen!
What blows apologists' minds is that @Paulogia makes it clear that he's not claiming what he describes is the truth of what happened. It's only about providing a plausible sequence of events, and comparing it to the plausability of someone waking up from the dead. Because christians can't just say "it is somewhat plausible that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore you should believe". They have to claim it's true.
Apologists were a huge part of why I deconstructed because of stuff like this. I would hear an argument, the argument would worry me because it made too much sense, and then I would go to apologists to find an answer. But when I listened to their answer they always deflected or seemed to fundamentally not understand what the argument even was. They just went into so tangentially related but generally unsupported concept and never addressed the issue at play.
It is really hard to be convinced of something when all the people who are arguing in it's favor so clearly do not have valid arguments or even a basic understanding of what evidence is.
@@Caelinus _"when I listened to their answer they always deflected or seemed to fundamentally not understand what the argument even was."_
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- Upton Sinclair.
@@ericpierce3660
Yeah, at the time I assumed (because I was taught from birth) that there were answers to all the questions I had. The quote is 100% correct.
Not only salary though, but also power. They get a lot of adulation from uninformed religious people who are taught the same things I was, but lack the intellectual curiosity to look stuff up.
@@ericpierce3660
Yeah, at the time I assumed (because I was taught from birth) that there were answers to all the questions I had. The quote is 100% correct.
Not only salary though, but also power. They get a lot of adulation from uninformed religious people who are taught the same things I was, but lack the intellectual curiosity to look stuff up.
@@CaelinusI suspect that’s exactly what is contributing to a large percentage of people who are deconverting in the USA these days. The growing number of anti-apologists like Paul, David (DeepDrinks), Derek (MythVision), Digital Hammurabi, MindShift, JezebelVibes, Dan McClellan, Jennifer Bird, and so many more are out there providing reasoned, calm, thoughtful, and substantiated critiques of Christianity. Because they are, apologists are forced to respond, but their answers are simply inadequate. And the more times they respond, the more people learn of the anti-apologists and their in-depth content.
It’s an ever-growing circle of doubt, and apologists’ answers never get any better.
In this video one participant is scholarly and one has a PhD.
Well done Paul!
One makes a living on RUclips and the other makes his living working for a Christian institution that requires him to sign a statement of faith AND act consequently.
The man was afraid to admit anything Paul said was accurate. I give him an unreasonability score of 100%
Thanks for starting my week off with some Paulogia.
Including the jingle. Love the jingle.
Let me sum the Licona position up: i don't like it cause it goes against my own work so it is false.
And this is how science is done, folks! 🤦🤦🤦
Even the host of the show was shocked that his guest would not give Paul's hypothesis even a one percent chance of being correct. How spineless.
True true true. And yet, you can see that apologists (even "Christian scholars" who purport to seek the truth) simply can't admit that the bedrock of their faith is even POSSIBLY just a myth. They just can't admit that inescapable fact. It is essentially just a fact that Christianity is a myth. But a Christian simply can't admit that truth. I still find it remarkable when I see someone like Mike Licona respond to Paulogia's cogent case. Mike just won't see basic reality.
A more honest answer might have been something like "I don't care what the chances of it being true are, because I've decided it isn't. ".
Responding with "zero percent" really undermines Licona's credibility in my eyes.
It's disqualifying.
Especially when he can’t name a single thing that Paul is demonstrably wrong about.
Agreed, it was extremely uncharitable on mikes part. I thought better of him before today.
Absolutely. It just shows his increasing dishonesty and desperation.
Came to say that.
The ease with which modern Christians are lead to believe they have a "relationship with Christ" makes me so much less impressed by the claimed experiences of the original disciples.
“That would be veridical if the story is true.” Oh man.
Why can't they act like human beings once in a while and make friends? I think Mike is aware enough to know that his god is the only thing stopping him from having a good buddy in Paul. Or maybe I am projecting my own outlook on Mike and the others. I think it's sad to see them conflicted on simple acts of humanity with us.
In other words "it would be true if it wasn't false"
@@davisantos3431 Actually, it's literally, "That would be true if the story is true." So... yeah, he tautologies for a hobby I suppose.
i caught that too. “the story would be true if the story were true”
no shxt, sherlock. that’s why we’re even having this discussion. to determine if it’s true.
“If” is the heavy lifting champion of the universe in apologetics.
I need to know how Paul stays so calm when presented with such dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Watch David Pakman C-Span interview that was just released... Unbelievable dishonesty on the Reich Wing hosts' views.
It is indeed remarkable. He behaves in a way that would have been most compelling to him when he was a believer. I imaging that his behaviour is compelling to many Christians today.
@@PaulEmsley Paul Emsley's making a good word about Paul Ens
Most of this stuff isn't livestreamed so he's got time to cool off if anything *really* egregious comes up
@@paulsmart4672 I would not be able to write or deliver this script if it were me. I'd get reangry every time. He's also a rock on the call-in shows.
When I was a deconstructing Christian, I watched some of the debates between Ehrman and Licona. I was flabbergasted at how weak Mike's bedrock facts were. If those are the only three things you can know happened with high confidence, why would you believe Jesus rose from the dead? They are all so mundane. I understand why other people like Habermas like to add more facts, but they fall apart under scrutiny.
Biblical and secular sources attest that the Jews are an ancient people. About 4,000 years ago, God promised Abram that he would make a great nation of him to the end of blessing all the families of the earth (see Genesis 12:1-3). God dealt with the Jewish nation in a unique way among all the nations of the earth (see 2 Samuel 7:22-24); to them he gave promises, the holy scriptures, and a system of sacrifice which foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ of himself for mankind's sins (see Romans 3:2, 9:4-5). The Old Testament prophesied of Christ and the things he would suffer; it was complete and in place among the Jews long before Jesus' birth.
In God' time, as foretold, his only begotten Son was born of a virgin; he was made like us in every way and tempted as we yet without sin (see Galatians 4:4, Luke 1:27, 34-35; Hebrews 2:17, 4:15). He suffered for our sins, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, all in accordance with the scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Through faith in Christ, we can receive the forgiveness of sins and God's gift of eternal life, without which men will perish (see Romans 6:23, John 3:16).
When the Gentile nations were wholly given to idolatry, the prophet Malachi wrote of a day when God's name would be praised among them. How would the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob come to be known and praised among the heathen? It is through the preaching of the gospel of Christ and the remission of sins in Jesus' name that this word has been fulfilled: For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles (Malachi 1:11a).
@@sm8johnthreesixteen I'm having a hard time understanding why you replied to my comment with a completely irrelevant sermon. I read the Bible through cover-to-cover dozens of times as a Christian. I know all the verses. If I still believed they were true, I would still be a Christian. Preaching them here is not going to do any good, especially when your message is historically inaccurate already by sentence two.
@@montagdp It is wholly relevant. Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel of grace to be preached in Jesus' name (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Without the eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly life and ministry including his death and resurrection, there is no one to preach such shortly after Jesus' ascension into heaven (see Acts 1:8, 21-22, 26). Without the widespread preaching of the gospel, there is no widespread praise of God's name among the Gentiles.
@@montagdpBecause all they have is irrelevant preaching stretching anything valid beyond all possible credibility.
@@sm8johnthreesixteen Yeah, another failure. See 2 Sam.7:10-13
"I will establish a place for my people Israel and settle them there; they will live there and not be disturbed anymore. Violent men will not oppress them again, as they did in the beginning and during the time when I appointed judges to lead my people Israel. Instead, I will give you relief from all your enemies. The Lord declares to you that he himself will build a dynastic house for you. When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent."
Sorry but that promised kingdom was ended and they were disturbed and oppressed both by the Assyrians and Babylonians all the way up to the Romans and scattered. That kingdom was divided and it and the thrown ended. As usual all that gets renegotiated during the Babylonian captivity!
Augustine reports the story that widely circulated in his day that St. Peter sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for the triumph of Christianity. Porphyry said that the King of the Fallen Spirits (the Prince of the Powers of the Air) wished to be worshiped as the One God and used his magical powers to create and foster Christianity whose worship is directed to him. Wouldn't Christians, once they accept the supernatural, have to refute both of these stories before confidently accepting their own beliefs? How would they even go about that?
Several years ago I went to a concert and saw the lead singer beheaded with a guillotine. His head was lifted by the hair, shown to the crowd, and thrown off stage. The singer came back on stage and continued singing, with not so much as a frog in his throat.
A couple of years later I saw the same band in a different theater - and the same thing happened! What were the odds?
I know that thousands of people saw this and you can ask most of them yourself, though some are asleep.
that's metal AF
"I love the dead" Alice Cooper is the new messiah.
If there are that many testimonies, that must be true.
I do believe I may have seen the same man run through with a mic stand.
Alice Cooper?
I'm glad your approach hasn't changed much in all these years. Well researched, well reasoned, calmly delivered facts. No insults, petty shit slinging, or arguments from hightened emotions. You are a breath of fresh air in the subculture of RUclips vocal atheists. I hope more take up this style. God bless and keep up the good work!
Thank you for the kind words.
How about this miracle Mike?
"In the twentieth century, the best-known Catholic levitator was Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968), who during the Second World War was credited with intercepting Allied bombers in midair and preventing them from pulverizing the town of San Giovanni Rotondo, where his monastery was located.4 When he was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2002, Padre Pio’s levitations-though somewhat controversial in some circles-were declared genuine, along with his many other miracles, including his bilocations."
Eire, Carlos M. N.. They Flew (pp. 59-60). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
"If you believe in the supernatural, the plausibility for the evidence of group sightings of the Resurrection becomes very high."
"So you believe in the plausibility of the miracle of Fatima, which was witnessed by thousands, is very high."
"Oh no, those are Catholic. I only mean supernatural events that my denomination already believes in."
@@michaelnewsham1412 That is the contradiction my friend. Mike of course has his "favorite miracles" with much poorer evidence than Catholic miracles. Hume even talked about this. Read Hume and find out how good he was and why they hate him so much.
It's really sad to see a respected scholar speak so dishonestly about others' work in the same field, just to protect their feelings.
Yes, but how can Christians acknowledge that their religious beliefs rest on very shaky ground (essentially non-existent ground)? They don't want to admit to themselves that their lives have been spent pursuing something that is false (with pretty much 100% certainty). They don't want to give up their faith! So, they are simply not going to admit to things that would shake their beliefs to the core. They just aren't going to do it.
I find it interesting to observe the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable for a thinking Christian, when faced with the cogent arguments from someone like Paulogia.
The apologists must deny reality (and deflect, dissemble, etc.). Sometimes they are compelled to say manifestly absurd things or take unconscionable/immoral positions---just to keep the faith. It is remarkable. Mike Licona seems like a good guy who seeks the truth. And yet, like any Christian, he's going to have to deflect and deny things, to keep his faith.
@@EclecticPersonRemember, this is his livelihood and reputation on the line, so it's not entirely surprising to see this denial of compelling evidence against the biblical narrative.
It's also because there's really no room for an apologist to admit his beliefs of the supernatural are based on mundane natural (regular) human interactions, where the supernatural played no role. They'll claim questioning their religion is acceptable but they don't wholeheartedly believe that. They can't give credence to things and ideas that breakdown their entire belief system. Things they can't be just waved away by filling in the gaps with god.
@@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku And to add to that, licona already has a history of suffering consequences for not sticking to the biblical narrative. So his response is even more telling.
@@Julian0101 Indeed, one of those extremely rare, transparent moments when the apologist is on the cusp of Cognitive Dissonance realization 😂.
This is called answering the question you wanted, rather than the question you got.
Hume was an historian the same way that medical doctors are anthropologists.
I'm wondering how you can be a scholar of something you can't demonstrate actually happened. Doesn't that make him a mythologist?
Someone should start a Star Trek university. Imagine the number of scholars in that there would be. 😂
@@kimkingsun7315 Star Trek the shows, movies, books, comics, etc. all demonstrably happened. It's easy to be a scholar of Star Trek. To be an apologist, your newest material is 2000 years old and unconfirmed.
Well, seeing how someone could perpetually shrug their shoulders (atheists), and can forever be a skeptic at the cost of their rotting intellect.
@@joe5959 Would you care to explain that? I didn't get your point.
@@smokert5555everyone has an epistimic criteria of what is "demonstrable". People can be fallacious and perpetually shrug their shoulders. I.e. paul here.
I'm going to bet money the disputed word is 'the'. A better word would be 'some'.
I think it's them. Just finished it and you were correct. Although we were on the same page as to why. 👍
@@libertine5606
I've just got to the end.
I'll be waiting here, smugly. ;)
Thanks for another great video Paul. I appreciate you!
Again I see clear demonstration that Licona is not a historian he is an apologist. To him, history is just a tool for apologetics.
The same way Will L. Craig uses philosophy.
Good point.
Neither is paul blart here. But yet here you are defending him.
@@joe5959Paul never claimed to be a historian.
@@joe5959Also, both Paul and his fans could be the biggest hypocrites in the world and it would do nothing to absolve Licona. That would be the Tu Quouqe fallacy
@@falsebeliever8079Licona is actually in the right here. Blart is handwaving data points and appealing to an incredulity/ad populum fallacy.
When you take the gospels as "gospel truth" you can't see outside your blinkers.
It is easier to deceive a bunch of people into thinking that somebody rose from the dead than it is to transmogrify walking sticks into snakes.
We don't see much greater power than the gods of Egypt on display
I don't understand how anyone living in the era of Trump can say that false stories wouldn't be believed.
Fun fact: this applies whether you believe the democrats or the MAGAs.
@@thinkingaboutreligion2645
That's comparing a raisin cookie with a pack of raisins.
@@germanvisitor2 I don't compare the narratives. I believe the election was fair, and that the small amount of fraud was done 90℅ by MAGAs. But the conclusion is the same: false narratives had emerged since 2020.
@@thinkingaboutreligion2645 Exactly. No matter which side you're on, you think half the US is some combination of evil and/or stupid. And this is with all the facts they need a couple of mouse clicks away. Imagine how easy it would be to gaslight people in the first century, especially if you're in Greece or Rome, and you're talking about events in the Middle East.
@@thinkingaboutreligion2645 Paul has actually used this point before. In another video he brought up that 1/3 of the US thinks the election was stolen, 1/3 thinks there was no substantial fraud, and 1/3 doesn’t know. So no matter which group you side with, there’s at least 100 million Americans that are currently falling for a lie
4:48 Even if it were a factual event, testimony is still insufficient to establish that. What a nonsense analogy he uses too, it's completely irrelevant.
It's the part his response of saying that Paulogia's hypothesis has a "0% chance of being true" that really drives home how... completely dogmatic and unreasonable Mike's position is. We're talking about _historical_ events from 2000 years ago, you don't use absolutes like that to determine whether a hypothesized series of events did or didn't happen, _most certainly_ not when said hypothesis is built specifically as a mundane one based on "this is the closest information we have about how things were done at the time and what we know about human behavior".
It's definitely striking me as a case of Mike's personal beliefs clouding his ability to be objective when looking into historical events related to his religion.
Ironically Licona is usually pretty reasonable when compared to fanatics like Habermas.
@@ramigilneas9274Both are fanatics. They're all engaged in a con game where they try to portray themselves as academics when their positions are irrevocably set.
Now they're just trying to line their pockets for the minimum amount of effort necessary. For example, if anyone believes Habermas works 70 hours a week then I've got a winning lottery ticket for the next drawing I'll sell you for half the jackpot. His "magnum opus" is an absolute joke that looks like it was covered together by ChatGPT with some human editing.
It would actually be realistic to say that resurrections have 0 % chance to be true.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 "It would actually be realistic to say that resurrections have 0 % chance to be true."
This is pretty apt point actually. It's a miracle, by it's very nature it's supposed to be something that cannot happen without some supernatural intervention, so it would by-default be 0%.
@@ramigilneas9274 "Ironically Licona is usually pretty reasonable"
That's the general idea I've seen others bring up too. I'd be willing to allow some wiggle-room to say his response was more from being put on the spot, but even so it's concerning to see someone using absolutes for basic premises like one's Paulogia brought up.
Hi , for the algorithm
for the algorithm and beyond!
To the algorithm and beyond!
In space, noone can hear you algorithm
Another great video from Paul!
Paul, you are so cogent, compelling, and reasonable. I think you're doing a great service. I think some university should award you a Master's Degree in "History of Religion" (specifically relating to Christianity). At this point, you've undoubtedly done more work on the subject, and read more (and watched more hours of scholarly debate) on the subject, than many (or most) Master's degree graduates. Thanks for all that you do!
I appreciate the support and the kind words. Thank you
Hi from a fellow Canadian 😊
An all knowing being couldn’t have come up with a better book
nothing original anyway.
YES, for the heavenly version of the story. I think this is a problem for the entire bible no matter how plausible some details seem to be.
EXACTLY - I find that colors every perception I have of the entire bible.
😂😂😂
An all-knowing being would understand that _any_ book is going to suck at providing unambiguous, authoritative guidance, and would realize that he/she/it/they would have to show up in person, frequently if not continuously, in order to provide adequate leadership.
Mike writes all these books to explain and clarify the Bible, one might say improve upon the Bible. But he thinks that ten years after Jesus’s death when nothing was written down, the preachers remembered and spoke eyewitness’s testimony word for word?
None of those early preachers ever said “this is confusing my audience, I’ll rephrase it this way” like Mike himself does in his books?
None of these oral preachers ever compromised on one tenet of the religion in order to convince the audience of the important bedrock of the message? Like dropping the circumcision requirement to get Gentiles to convert?
With how unreliable memory and spoken testimonies are known to be, i guarantee you that wasn't even the case 10 *days* after his death. Never mind 10 years. That claim is as ridiculous as the whole resurrection thing.
@@Llortnerof
They'll also claim that people would tell them they're wrong if these Bible authors wrote false things or people spreading the ideas of this supposed Christ were wrong. And this comes from a lot of people who claim they're being "cancelled" by the "woke mob" when people tell them they're wrong about something, to the point where they keep spreading misinformation or blatant lies as facts. It's claims they'll make about original Christians that their human behavior debunks.
How would you know you’re having a vision of Jesus if you never saw the living Jesus?
Paul is never wrong and if an angel should appear to you and tell you something different, well that angel is wrong. /S
@@MrDalisclock 😂… imagine that. Paul rejected the “church of God”, so according to his own preaching, he was already perishing. Since he didn’t believe. But now that Paul’s peddling a message, lucky for us, we now get to do what he never did. Believe.
That's the thing though. Paul saw Christ. Is his "Christ Jesus" really the same being as the supposedly living Jesus that is spoken of in later traditions? The biographical details Paul supplies for Jesus are so sketchy that it almost makes him seem like a Greek-style demigod who came in secret, not an itinerant preacher or apocalyptic reformer. Is Paul even talking about the same guy the Gospels are talking about?
@@Uryvichk Assumes facts not in evidence. There's no evidence outside the christian bible that 'jesus' wasn't entirely a fictional character in fictional stories knowingly written by grifters. We don't have the L Ron Hubbard smoking gun of admitting "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." for christianity, but religion has always been profitable, and starting a new one gets you a cut. The non-christian sources frequently quoted are either commentary on the already existing religion or outright forgeries, and in any case written at least decades after the supposed 'jesus' death with all extant manuscripts dating to hundreds of years later and in the control of the early christian church.
So they are saying that We take liberties with the Jesus stories to make a good story and assume details to fill in the gaps, but the early christians would never do that. Except Matthew he wrote a bunch of stuff that probably didn't happen.
and the guy who wrote that story about moses and the aspirin.
Good to know my namesake was a liar. . . 😂
Someone wrote something that later had the name Matthew attached to it.
@@danielbond9755 I'm sure most of us on here are aware of that. I meant it as a joke. 🙂 My dad is a corny evangelical and gave me a middle name that is a dad joke. My dad wanted me to be so on fire for Christ that I could literally say that "Christian is my middle name". 😂 So, yeah only jokes too about my first name 😅
@@danielbond9755 That doesn't have anything to do with whether it contains stuff that probably didn't happen. And is a far more controversial claim.
As usual with apologists, Licona's "evidence" is straight up "For the Bible tells me so."
Well, yes, but it does increase the chances of us hearing THE jingle again.
As per usual. Atheist objections are weak.
Licona. I used to think he was at least honest. Then I thought he at least tries to be. Ive since observed I have insuffficient evidence to come to those conclusions.
Classic example of a guy's comfortable livelihood depending upon failing to understand certain straightforward things.
People confuse honesty with genuineness. Licona may not have a financial incentive (at least primarily), but he has a psychological one. He doesn't suffer from hypocrisy but from cognitive dissonance. He is genuinely dishonest; he believes his own lies.
@@cemreomerayna463 He may also have a financial incentive. He's lost jobs before because he dared to step outside the lines a tiny bit; go look up his forced resignation in 2011 for an interpretation of Matthew 27. It's sort of understandable that he'd be defensive and cagey about the probability of Paul's theory given how badly he was treated before.
@@Uryvichk Yeah, I did not know he had lost his job. It makes more sense now that he is like that.
I love how Paul lays out the facts and gives no fluff. But Licona has a lot riding on his belief so he has pretend it is all true no matter how daft it sounds.
Very well done
They are so insecure.
I will never understand how apologists can in one breath state that early Christian’s would never have made up a story about Jesus’s death and resurrection because there was no precedent in Jewish culture and then immediately argue that the Old Testament unambiguously predicts Jesus’s coming, death, and resurrection.
Well done! Thorough and professional, as always. ❤❤❤
Apologist on truth serum:
'The Bible is true and I have a pack of lies to prove it!'
People say that people say... Taking anecdotal evidence to new lows.
If it works for the Enquirer and Tucker Carlson...
@@danielkirienko1701 And Tucker is where now?
@Paulogia, you are by far my favourite content creator. Keep up the good work, for behold, it is good!
those are kind words, thank you
So in summary, when Paulogia's explanation accounts for the minimal facts, Mike plays the what-about game and introduces additional non-facts which Paulogia wasn't trying to explain in the first place.
In summary, paul dismisses strong contrary evidence and plays the incredulity card/consensus card when he gets pressed.
Find a better team mate. Yours is late to the conversation.
Both Habermaas and Licona's attempts to anchor the resurrection as historical fact are laughably weak. They are all too aware that without the resurrection being true the entire church is a tall tale, but unfortunately their "facts" are more sand thrown in the eyes of believers to keep them believing, and it is very unconvincing to anyone not already believing.
The podcast really did Mike dirty by speed running the arguments and then expecting thoughtful answers from Licona. Licona predictably retreated to a scriptural standpoint because he had no time to figure out a plausible counter to Paul's arguments.
Increasingly, apologists are becoming more dishonest out of their desperation at being cornered into an indefensible theory. Licona is no longer one of the exceptions.
Yeah, once you accept that there's a perfectly plausible, mundane, non-supernatural explanation for the origin of Christianity (i.e., the resurrection), then it's harder to build your life around the much more implausible supernatural story/legend (which has pretty much zero evidentiary foundation).
Youre talking about paul right?
Another well done and well thought out video. Love your work!
So many resurrection books. I think Christians compensate for lack of actual resurrection by writing books about it.
And they make money. Never forget the money. Gullible people will buy book after book on something they want to be true. Odd the bible isn't enough.
@@wheat3226
Yea, odd the word of god needs all these extra books to tell us what the word of god really is.
The "Shifting Goalposts" seem to be his "Bedrock". And I am always greatly amused when "for the Bible tells me so" happens. For that alone I would watch your videos!! Great takedown.
Love that opening sequence, Paul!
Wow, Licona really dropped the ball here. His responses are so weak, they need immediate resuscitation to prevent them from dying on the spot.
This is so reasonable.
It must really give Christians a headache to disagree with you. I do not envy them.
Thank you.
Thanks! We need more honest research and discussion of the TRUTH (or lack thereof) of the “faiths.”
"When you want to believe that you are right soo much, that you no longer care if you are."
Thumbs up just for the intro and Pirates of the Caribbean reference. Ok, now I can watch the rest of the video.
This just repeatedly shows that apologists have absolutely no interest in honest discourse in the slightest.
Paulogia is the best!!
Another great Paulogia video
Hiya Paul, glad to see you're still doing the rebut-the-apologists thing.
The opening cut scene was perfection.
One interesting note I have on Licona's assertion that the followers spread the story based on what they felt was more historically accurate vs what they felt would more effectively convince their current audience:
Even if we presuppose that the followers spread their message with full intention of being 100% physically accurate, we are now talking about person-to-person retelling and therefore are in the realm of memetic systems, and memetic systems (tautologically) demand that the version of the story that proliferates is the version that is most effective at proliferating. Even totally honest mistakes and ambiguities are judged not by their accuracy to the real events but rather on whether or not the average listener is willing to accept that version of events.
Personally, I would have omitted the "Focus on recruiting" stipulation of your "minimal facts theory" (or else replaced it with the aforementioned brief on memetics) if it were me writing it, because the intentions of accuracy or lack thereof are entirely irrelevant to whether or not the story actually *was* relayed accurately.
What they feel is true doesn't mean that what they feel is true is actually true. That's the big problem with what Mike said.
@@jacoblee5796 Yes, that is another (big) problem it has.
Amazing how all apologists are willing to overlook that quite obvious possibility that followers spread their stories based on how much $ it brought in. Even if some risked death (although a mostly baseless claim), that just heightens the haul for everyone left.
How much $ do these authors of christian books rake in? Or even just the ones - like Licona at one point - risk losing their cushy jobs? ("The love of money is the root of all religiosity?")
Um fishing people had secretaries? OR this is just Paul?
Nope. Licona is saying the gospel authors hired them.
And this is why, again and again, we see that where a scholar is also an apologist then everything they say and every criticism they level must be considered false due to ulterior motives. The fact he completely dismisses the validity of any of Paul's points is demonstrable that he is not an honest interlocutor and thus his own works and his claims and his research must also be suspect.
You would expect something as important as the tomb's location would be known or recorded somewhere, if the disciples knew where it was.
The thing is that if any of these Apologists "give in" and agree with paul on anything, they are considered, like peter, people who rejected and "disowned jesus 3 times". Apologists are biased by definition and shouldn't be trusted as mediators or "unbiased sources of information".
Them not having any real counter-argument and them simply saying "nuhah" is proof that they are biased
Not only that but also Licona has already been taken through the conservative cancel culture once for stating that the zombie invasion of Jerusalem wasn't historical. His family finances and cultural security are on the line.
good job Paul
I'm so proud of myself. When I read the title my first thought was: Mike will start by dismissing the idea that an explanation that can be reconciled with reality is superior to one that cannot. 4 min, in, Bingo!
Regarding Mike's confidence on the original 12's post-Jesus activities and gospel authorship, I think you need to add a new jingle to your repertoire, "For centuries later church tradition tells me so" (granted not as catchy as the "For the Bible tells me so")
Use the "Tradition, Tradition!" from Fiddler on the Roof.
I'm unconvinced there even was an "original 12." Paul's theory can work without that (he honestly just needs one or two), but theirs kinda can't, so that seems like a point further in Paul's favor.
Mike sounds like an amateur compared to Paul’s clear and direct speech.
In Mike's defense, that video was live and this video is scripted, so it's not a fair comparison. Maybe Paul, in his live appearances, is more concise but I couldn't say.
It's refreshing that the last few rebuttals have been mostly semantics and nitpicking not actually showing Paulogia being wrong. Huzzah, progress :)
I believe everything that the Iliad and Odyssey tell me.
I have a video coming out soon concerning this Paulogia 2person hypothesis. It takes 1 unknown behind the curtain Oz… in so many words.
paulogia is a mythological character, hiding behind a cartoon. :)
@@HarryNicNicholas touché
Damn it, bested by HarryNN again!
That's the problem with coming from a faith based epistemology.
I can accept a conclusion, and still see the evidence given to me by someone else that shares my conclusion to be insufficient to hold that conclusion.
The most amazing thing about Christianity is that the apostles who are said to have traveled with Jesus 1-3 years are completely overruled by a guy who said that he only said saw him in a vision. Paul’s writings dominate both the New Testament and the religion. Marcion mostly won in the end.
We need to remind people like Mike that our goal is to plausibly explain the existence of Christianity. As such, the only "buffet" going on here is choosing which stories are most plausibly explained as being embellishments, fabrications, or real history. Rejecting some of the stories while accepting others is not picking and choosing, it's trying to find the most plausible combination of history and legend which explains why we have these stories.
It's telling that every negative critique of this hypothesis plays out with the critic stopping at every point that differs from the Bible narrative and just saying "well I disagree" with either no justification or citing only the Bible.
First hand testimony *could* be enough to prove a miracle. I'm not sure exactly how many independent sources I would need for a miracle, but it could happen.
How many first-hand sources did we have for Jesus, again? Oh right: the few verses by Paul that make it unclear whether it was a vision of Jesus. (Galatians 1:11-17)
Really inspiring there😂
And doesn't Mike work for one of the "universities" that make all teachers sign up to say the bible is inerrant?
He got fired for saying the appearances of the dead in Jerusalem in Matthew might have been embellishments to the story. Guess he got rehired by a more 'liberal' seminary.
Hey, Paul.
Where can I get a text book on the crucifixion as imagery and prophecy? There are two appearances, within the same generation - the sacrifice and the resurrection. Has no one realized this?
Continues to dab on the intro and outro music.
Esoterica has a rather interesting 'Paul's conversion' video (in which he discusses one Jewish tradition of mystical visions). Would love to hear what Paulogia has to say about this.
That video is fascinating and made me wonder just what Paul was doing prior to his conversion.
Why is it that someone can be taken seriously when it's revealed that they are a "Resurrection Scholar," when the same thing can't be said for a "Harry Potter Scholar?"
I wish one of the guys in your genre would tackle the mathematical proofs for the bible, because I find it pretty freaking compelling tbh. Channel 'Truth is Christ', book "Sealed By the King', etc
At age 72, I have told stories about my life over and over. Just ask my kids! I am pretty sure they have changed over time, and my own memories are suspect. I remember the stories better than the actual events. Too bad I didn't write them down so I could compare. I certainly have observed that my sister's memories of shared events at times bear little resemblance to mine. Personally, I am satisfied to let the wisdom of Jesus stand on its own. At times, his message is very wise. I appreciate him for that. Seems like a good deal.
I'm seventy-four. My ex-wife and I casually disagree on many things that happened to us in our early years of marriage.
To be fair to Mike, this was sprung on him without warning, and he could hardly be expected to answer on the spot with David just reading off the list.
That said, his response of zero chance doesn't line up with the 15% posterior he has that Christianity isn't even true in the first place.
So he should axiomatically be +1% on your theory.
I have hope for Mike, I think the continuing cognative dissonance is going to get to him.
@michaelsbeverly, please forgive me, but my brain works in strange ways, so I just have to go with the flow . . . reading your response, I came across the phrase, " . . . cogn[i]tive dissonance is going to get to him," and my mind instantly went to John Lennon's "Instant Karma." Now . . . how can we make that fit better? Is there a shorter phrase we can substitute in for "cognitive dissonance"?
I'll have to watch the whole video when my wife gets off work.
I mean, there's no reason to positively encourage Mike from leaving Christianity, is there? He's not a particularly unhinged type of Christian so i dont see why we should care about whether he stays in or not, hope we can get him out, etc
@@johndemeritt3460 you want people to use a phrase shorter than 2 words, because the normal 2 word name that is not only common usage, but explains quite literally what the name means with the name itself, is something you have a weird association with? Because you want to fit your weird association, that is in no way related, better? Seriously?
@Greyz174 Sensible religionists give credence to the more dangerous ones. By making religion look respectable and intellectually acceptable it increases the number of people who will become religious and increases the amount of political power they wield.
@@someonesomeone25 its better to focus on the actual problem than stuff that could possibly give room for the problem to arise from a few degrees of separation away
It is striking that apologists will often claim the historical argument for the resurrection is so strong, when it is nigh unanimously rejected by historians (the people most able to weigh the historical evidence.) Mind you I only say nigh unanimously rejected, out of an abidunce of caution. I am not aware of one living historian (person with a relevant background and degree) that holds the position that "the historical evidence indicates that the resurrection most likely occurred in history. If anyone has a name, let me know.
John Dickson is one. He creates the undeceptions podcast. Brilliant evangelist, stupid historian.
I made the mistake of saying to a christian neighbor that I thought the mutilation of babies was wrong. If they want to get that done they should choose and boy did i get a bunch of yelling and vague 'but they said'. Apparently she had never ever heard to referred to that way and she acted like I was accusing her of personally doing it.
Great video! Do you have any suggested book or reading list for skeptics on the new testament?
Hey Paul how about “1 or maybe 2” disciples instead of 1 or more?
The way they're SO unwilling to come to the table with humility and honesty says SO much about the validity of their claims. If they had truth, they'd bring that.
The accounts of the "Road to Damascus" and Paul's own accounts of Paul's accounts of his experience were my own breaking point. The problems here forced me to admit that Acts is mostly a book of mythology rather than history. Continued study convinced me the same was true of Luke and the other gospels. If Acts refers to the "Road to Damascus" experience, I think Paul's account should be called "Dream in Damascus"
I swear, ML is one foot out the door 😹
Mike and his hypotheticals, never quite hitting the mark
Awesome work Paul. Can you tell how long you have been subbed to someone’s channel? Anyone? I been here since the Eg and Ham days. Loved the jingle. 😂
😊