The "No Resurrection" Explanation (Found Cause Response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The Found Cause podcast somehow missed the point of my How Christianity Began video. Not your usual apologetics team... let's look at Mike and Sebastian's examination of the Paulogia hypothesis.
REMEMBER - BE KIND. This is about ideas.
Response to Paulogia - Atheist Rejection of the Resurrection (Ep 88)
• Response to Paulogia -...
How Christianity (Probably) Began... No Resurrection Required
• How Christianity (Prob...
Paulogia vs Sean McDowell (Apostle Martyrs playlist)
• Paulogia vs Sean McDowell
Why We Know the Story of Jesus Isn't A Legend (Cold Case Christianity Response)
• Why We Know the Story ...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
ERRATA -
- 28:34 the reference should be Acts 26: 13-14 (not Acts 22)
The lack of Paulogia being struck down by this slight to the lord, indicates the lack of evidence of a god. QED.
Don't forget to pin this, Paul.
Aha! This means you were wrong, therefore you can be wrong, so you are always wrong, that proves God exists. Checkmate atheists.
@@danielmatarazzo3678 Not if god didn't "Act" on it. Moves King out of check.
Strange that these dudes threw the accusation you were not taking the claims of christians seriously when they refuse to take the claims of atheists seriously. Sure, christians say that the bible is true, but atheists say that the bible is just a work of mythology and fictional. They need to take the claim that the bible is a work of fiction seriously.
Watching Paul politely run circles around these two is my cardio for the day
These two talk so fast within their own little reality I can't understand what it is they are trying to say.
They certainly did not provide proof that somebody rose from the dead twenty centuries ago.
An ancient cult narrative written by unknown storytellers is proof they can build a good story.
You win the comments in my week.
Haha love it
@@JamesRichardWiley Yes, they could write a good story, but did they actually?
Talking snake, talking Donkey, a man who was born of a virgin both in the time of a king harod and also during the time of a census held by the second successor to Harod after his death, and the empty tomb was discovered by four different events that were similar but different enough to indicate at least one if not all might be factually impared. And I haven't mentioned the book of Revelations, which has been studied and is believed to have somewhere between three and twelve authors and reads like an acid trip conversation with a horrible cross between a puddle of sick after binge eating uncooked fish heads and the offspring of a chicken, a goat, a Tribble from ST:TOS and a potato.
I do not possess nor do I believe I could make the fortitude saving throw from the massive amount of illegal drugs I would need to consume in order to hallucinate that the Bible is a "good story".
I wonder if those two folks actually listened to Paul’s response points or if they defensively hand waved it away.
Be honest, Paul: You just responded because they called you hot 😛
Paul's clarity, logic, polite demeaner and empathetic background is the sunshine in the darkness of indoctrination. The sun is hot, the sun is a star, Paul is hot, Paul is a Star !
I like him for the Irish intro music. Which is to be expected, from somebody called Paul O'Gia.
lol
Be honest... Paul is HOT.
Do I detect a bit of hidden homosexuality? I obviously don't care, but don't they say their Bible forbids it?
Paul incredibly generous yet again to his less than charitable critics.
Absolutely. Sometimes I just want to go over to a channel like this and really let them have it...but I can't. That would be such a huge disservice to Paul and everything he works so hard for. I just hate so much someone like him get raked over the coals in such a disingenuous way by people who ignore their own book to keep the lie.
They have to be either uncharitable or ignorant or both because Paul does such thorough research.
@@hawt_fiya it's the assumption of malice (because they don't get it, so it must be intentionally misleading) that really irritates me.
@@elminster298 spot on! I really would love to see apologetics take on 'difficult' issues such as justification for god's homophobia, mass murder, genocide, rape and misogyny and put us all straight on why he commanded it in his storybooks!
@@greyinggoose5495 agreed! I enjoy having epistemological discussions right up to the point that someone starts assuming my motivations or even blatantly telling me “You think X because blah blah blah”. At that point my patience evaporates and I see red lol.
This was really tough to listen to. These gentlemen don’t seem to understand that you can’t use a single source to support such a wealth of claims.
Nor can you just "imply the obvious" about those claims, hoping the listeners will simply bobble head in agreement.
You certainly can't use the source of the claims to support the claims. If I can channel Bodie here for a moment, AAAAAAAUUGH THE STUPID IT BURNS but that's the "trying to prove the argument by using the argument as proof fallacy".
@Jose Shhhh, Bodie doesn't know what that means.
What bugged me is that they don't even know that source. When they talk about how and when the gospels were written...
Is the single source really the issue, though? If we had a dozen sources, would that be enough to convince you (1) there's this thing called god, (2) it cares about us, and (3) it ressurected a person 2,000 years ago? 🤔
Man hears a voice in his head:
Year 100: god spoke to him
Year 1600: satan spoke to him
Year 1900: man is insane
Year 2000: man has Raycons/Air pods.
Wow, they sure got you, Paul.
Paul: explains what he thinks happened
These guys: The bible disagrees
🤦♂️
For the Bible Tells me So !!
Checkmate
@Uncle Joe, welcome them? I think most of us use to be theists and we understand the seductive nature of that ideology. I personally have not forgotten.
@Uncle Joe sure, we'll gladly welcome them as soon as they stop misrepresenting our position, straw manning, and appealing to ignorance and incredulity. I, for one, am not taking the welcome mat out of storage just yet.
@@mihaitha Add the annoying fast-talking, snickering, eye-rolling, and sneering while they think they have a "gotcha" but they actually miss the point from the very beginning of their "Xtian Blinders On" analysis. I can barely watch these Christians without puking. Hopefully, some fence-sitters will benefit from Paul's obviously more charitable, patient, and knowledgable demeanor. I could never be that charitable, after being taught that faith is more important than reason for the first 20 years of my life. I'm 67 years old now, still bitter about my Christian brainwashing, and still reacting to everyday conflict with the fear and guilt that my Catholic parents pounded into me.
“Blue Ox” may become a new catch phrase for baseless or legendary claims.
Or more limited: baseless or legendary claims that are irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
As in it's a Load of "Blue Ox"
Especially if they are invoked in defence of the very same legendary story thay came from. Its the circularity that makes it a blue ox.. I agree it could and should catch on.
Can we make it an official phrase?
Similarly to for example Chewbaca defence...
@@amurape5497 We can try. Also, "Chewbaca defence"??!! 🤔
13 minutes in: are all their objections "but the bible says..."?
I hope they do better than that.
Edit: It gets better! They assume ignorance and malicious intent of Paulogia.
I lost it, when they played the smug face card against a cartoon.
they can't
@Uncle Joe Yeah, hopefully as they go on, they'll start to think a tad more. I ain't holding my breath, but they will have numerous excellent opportunities to figure it out.
@@amurape5497 if only he could draw a slightly less smug face!!
Umm I think thats it ! Muh buk dun an say
I'm noticing a trend of apologists tending to accuse you of dishonesty when they appear to feel they've been backed into a corner. You carry it well
Which is hysterical coming from some of them, like when jehovists say that you're dishonest and weren't discussing with the intent to learn... Because you've contradicted them.
"Here's how I propose the early history of Christianity may have played out - accounting for the things that are most credibly attested, and with the understanding that not everything in the bible is entirely true or correct."
"But that's not what it says in the bible!"
best tldr version of their entire take...
The intro had me so optimistic, then they went and fell into the same old passive aggressive crap that all the rest do. Seemed they couldn't get over how offended they were at their core ideals being criticized. At least they're still young and I hope this is just lack of experience.
What disturbed me the most was Mike constantly referring to Paulogias sources as "some liberals" as if being liberal was making you less trustworthy. I think that say a lot ...
@@ancientfoglet9600Not to mention that a lot of the stuff they were chalking up to liberal scholars is consensus among a broader ideological swath of scholars than they might care to admit.
Yes, they started very well, but then they started to crap all over the place. It was very disappointing.
@@ancientfoglet9600 Similar to when they consider a legitimately apolitical source as "liberal" and their preferred objectively inaccurate and biased sources are the ones they call unbiased.
I love this! "The Bible tells me so"
Paulogia, thanks for such an enjoyable video! Your Paul Bunyan analogy works wonderfully.
Derek you just don't get it. The lack of evidence is the evidence.
@@nathanjasper512 The Bull was Blue Nathan!!! Prove me wrong 😉🤣
Just found ur channel...and really atheist RUclips, recently and just want to thank all of u so much. I was born in Cali and forced to move to the bible belt when I was 13. As an atheist here...I have always felt so alone except for my family(I'm 36 now). Dating has been a crazy endeavour, luckily I have found a like minded person now and have been with him for going on 6 years, but that's 1 person.
I've been here all my life and haven't found anyone like minded that I know of.
Teletail has a minecraft server I use to play on with other athiest.
@@coreywalker7928 that's cool. Might have to start playing Minecraft. Lol my kid plays it and loves showing me all the stuff they make on it, but I just have never had time to learn how to play it.
@@coreywalker7928 Search for atheist and Humanist groups in your state - I'm not in the US, but im pretty sure every state has at least 1.
Just remember, just because another person is also an atheist doesn't mean they will be 'like minded', and just because someone is a believer doesn't mean that's all they are.
Welcome! And thank you for the kind words. Glad you're finding a path.
@@jonovens7974 Oh yes. I am very aware that no two atheists are alike, that's why I specifically used the term like minded to describe my BF. We obviously don't agree on everything, but he respects me as a person, supports my goals and independence and we have parallel views on deal breaker issues. I have looked into humanist groups but I haven't found any close enough that I could participate.
Paul is leading the way in polite, clear, humble, open engagement approach. We would do well to honour Paul's wishes at the beginning and be kind if responding.
@Robloxfan 812 I don't really think that guy Sebastian was snide, just the other dude.
But you definitely raise a fair point. If you're antagonistic, you should expect people to be antagonistic back to you.
I wasn't personally offended by their approach as I'm similarly blunt myself, but I definitely don't think they deserve the kind of gentleness that Paulogia said they do...or at least Mike doesn't.
@@LinkFanatic I think you might be missing the point of Paul's polite approach.
He has said it before - His politeness is not necessarily for the other side of the discussion. It's for the audience. It's to show the audience that contrary to the stereotypical portrayal, atheists can be nice people, not just angry assholes.
An approach that I personally think is very much the best way to have said audience actually engage with the ideas.
@@OzixiThrill Agreed.
But it's less to buck the angry atheist trope and more to do with letting the audience draw their own conclusions instead.
They started off fairly cordial with their approach, but as the vid came to an end, they got really snarky.
Sparky and low key disrespectful
At least they were honest enough to admit that they didn't succeed in addressing the pertinent issues with kindness. Though I notice they weren't exactly apologizing for that.
I'm not sure they tried to reign in the snark very much. Though it is possible their baseline for snark is off the charts, and this was them being more kind.
And I don't mind a little snarkyness, so long as the actual issues are addressed, instead of getting sidestepped or ignored.
@@stevewebber707 I don't mind a little snarkyness either, but it did feel like it was trying to be used instead of arguments. An argument from incredulity. Hopefully they realize this and can back up the snark with some arguments in the future.
It was evident, as Paul worked through their video, that they were in agreement with many of the posited statements Paul made. It was when they got to really thinking about their refutation of the statements, they seemed to realize that they had nothing, and the snark was almost a yelp of "whoa, that can't be right! That son-of-a-gun !"
If their livelihoods and social connections are not codependent on religion, they will likely have to deal with a deconstructionist moment in their lives.
Honestly, none of their comments felt clever enough to count as snarky.
"Smug? You do know my face is the same every frame, right?"
This line got a chuckle out of me, I thought those comments were pretty amusing too.
I haven't watched yet, but I love seeing this in the description: "REMEMBER - BE KIND. This is about ideas."
Kindness is terrific :)
Not so sure their ideas deserve much kindness, tho... :-s
@@Diamondraw4Real Only if it's returned in kind.
Otherwise, it's like a pacifist standing in front of a hungry wild tiger and expecting it not to kill and eat them.
It's nice for Mike that he doesn't think it was possible for Peter to be feeling lonely because he was with the other disciples. A group can be a far lonelier place to be than on your own when experiencing personal grief and feeling disconnected from the world
So much projection from these two. 🙄 I think that feeling can exist without grieving.
I use your How Christianity probably began video quite often. It's so approachable & makes more sense than MAGIC.
The History of God series on RUclips is pretty good.
But... Magic is more fun. :(
@@aralornwolf3140 In theory. In the bible it's a snoozefest. "Mozes, if he doesn't believe you, throw the stick on the ground and I'll change it to a snake. Also, here's a list of a couple hundred people who were born, write them down in order. We want this book to become a best seller!" ZzZzZzzzz....
@@stylis666 ,
Then we should complain to the publishers! >:(
@@aralornwolf3140 Too many problems in it so I think they should just write it off as a dud and make a remake.
What I see these young men do is reply from faith and not from what can be known. I recognize this behaviour, it isn't even always conscious. But I love how your message is spreading, @Paulogia. Think of the new audiences that will be exposed to it. And whether it is instant or over some time, people are bound to start asking questions.
These apologetics reply from a lack of competence and knowledge. The result is arrogance and ignorance.
Mike and Sebastian are both just addressing their own audience. They are not concerned with the arguements and ideas of Paulogia. These 2 seem no different from WLC, Frank Turek and all the other apols. They can not be reasonable because reason leads toward reality.
“New hot guy” and they actually say his name correctly...on purpose! Praise Jesus.
They got so excited hearing say his name in the intro ("oh, I thought it was Paul-log-ia!") that they failed to hear him explain what the video they were about to watch is all about. 🤦🏼♂️
Honestly, it seems that the entirety of Christian apologetics relies on accepting the Bible as 100% historically reliable and sometimes playing bait and switch as far as what constitutes evidence of reliability.
I think it's pretty clear that the reason they don't respect William Lane Craig is because he's not conservative or ignorant enough for them.
Me: "Wait, did they call him a 'character'?!?
3 seconds later: Paulogia adresses that very thing.
nice.
Listening to them makes me cringe because I used to think that way.
30:03 "Malicious ignorance"?!? That's a new one, to me. How exactly does that work ???
Just watch any Kent Hovind's vids....
I DON'T KNOW!
I've had long, often unpleasant conversations with my deceased father (cancer, 3 years ago.). I know they aren't real. I can completely understand why someone would find them compelling, though.
I've seen my dead father and dead mother many times in dreams. If my mind wasn't well enough to separate dreams from reality, I might think they had returned.
@@david2869 In my dreams I have seen deceased relatives and friends many times, almost never being aware of the fact that they are actually dead. But I have never had a post bereavement hallucination while I was awake. I assume, this experience has a very different quality to it.
@@jochannan7379 Yeah, I haven't had one either, but I could see how turn-of-the-first-century Christians or other Christ devotees could interpret dreams in a manner where they might think they were more real than dreams, without having a PBH.
@@david2869 Sure, I agree. But obviously, there are personality types who are more and others who are less likely to have such experiences, also, who are more or less likely to respond to hypnosis etc. Personally, I have been into meditation for more than a decade, but whenever techniques are suggested where you should imagine and visualize something, I totally suck at this, nothing happens, while others are capable of having far far more vivid experiences. Honestly, I envy them.
Hearing that jingle so often I have a massive craving for ice cream now. :P
One thing I cannot bear is the accusation of being disingenuous. They know nothing about you, yet take the toddler slide of dismissive accusations to their belief, rather than take the more honest, yet challenging route of conceiving of you complexly. They lack imagination and honor. I hope your kindness and patience is instructive to them on how to conduct themselves in the future.
It brings to my mind the old addage about playing chess with a pigeon.
Doubly frustrating because Paul genuinely puts so much effort and thought into his videos and stances and beliefs.
Then, when you disagree and put forth a solid argument, these asshats wave their hand and say "well you don't agree with us so you're being disingenuous."
Checking their transcript, shows that in 10 minutes they refer to Paul as being disingenuous five times, malicious three times, and demented twice.
Another great one by Paul ✌️
If anyone could help these guys out with the structure of their argument, it's you, Paul 😊
12:52 - Seeing that illustration of Joseph of Aramathea lugging Jesus' body around, I can't help but imagine this scene in the form of a Terry Gilliam animation, as though any moment Joseph might swing his arm up and send Jesus' body bouncing haphazardly into the tomb.
I'm going more with a "Weekend At Bernie's" mindset....
"I'm not quite dead yet! Ow!"
"Ninepence, there you go."
Good one!
Be Kind. -Paulogia
These gents really underestimate the ability for people to make up nonsense, sometimes very specific nonsense, over time. Furthermore, people have an amazing inclination towards beliefs. We see this with cults, religions, politics, minor beliefs about reality, etc.
Its very apparent they have not really studied any other religion. Many others contain just as much, if not more self sourced material as Christianity and somehow i could see them saying, "surely people make this nonsense up all the time." Its only when pointing at their religion does the invalid "dichotomy" of their fantastical stories are either true or some devious plot. This was ancient times when magic was a very real thing. Believing stories we would call nonsense today was common. Of course people would make stuff up to exploit that fact.
Paul, it’s nice to see you are humble enough to engage these clowns, but they aren’t worth your time.
Two snickering know it all's believe an ancient book has revealed to them secrets beyond human comprehension
instead of mind boggling contradictions on nearly every page of their source material.
These guys sound a lot like my professors from Moody Bible Institute. These are a lot of the talking points I was taught. It’s easy to disregard evidence when you can simply dismiss it as “liberal”.
I was really curious why they kept using the word liberal to dismiss every argument. What does that word mean in this context?
@@jasonsabbath6996
In this kind of religious context, "liberal" often means someone who is too willing to engage in "sin" or "easily tempted into sin" and therefore is morally a non-credible source when it comes to discussions surrounding religious doctrine or biblical interpretation. Specifically, it often means someone who is not to be trusted because they were "enticed by the lies of the devil" or in some way apparently being misled or manipulated by either Satan or their own "sin nature."
TLDR: In conservative Christian circles, "liberal" describes someone who is not properly following the teachings of the bible enough and doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to understanding the bible. This is because the "liberal" is supposedly so steeped in sin, their extra fallen state has clouded their "spiritual judgement" too much to be able to correctly interpret or understand the bible and teachings a 'proper'/'godly' (more conservative-leaning Christian) would consider to be true/proper doctrine.
@@johnwalker1058 gotcha. Thanks for the info.
@@johnwalker1058 Not “true” Christians then!
@@jasonsabbath6996 I disagree with John Walker's definition of "liberal" here. When I was a fundamentalist Christian, we used the term "liberal" to essentially mean not a bible literalist. So, it wasn't a denigration of their morality or ethics per se, but it was an assertion that they were deceived and so anything and everything they said could simply be dismissed without thought, and with no need to actually engage with the evidence or arguments.
your patience and focus to the arguments in this video really shines. You are normally very good about it but this instance is exceptional and you should be proud of how you conducted yourself. Thank you for your efforts and the quality content you share with us.
Careful Paul. You're going to wind up be central in one of these guy's deconversion story
Absolutely agree. You can see the enlightenment starting in one of them already.
And in 2000 years Paulogia will be worshiped as having ridden through RUclips on a blue ox while his subscribers chanted "for the bible tells me so!"
🎶Paulogia's ox was blue we know
For the Bible tells us so🎶
They seem somewhat genuine, but there are a lot of personal attacks and they could do some more research before they talk.
YUP! agree.
Oh come on they are christians they have muh buk its all they need
Responding to an hour-long response video? Truly impressed, and appreciate the gentleness and pointedness of this - we'll be chewing on the points you gave.
And still 95% behind calling you hot.
Not gonna argue with that last line.
I do hope to see a video from y'all that is just as respectful and responsive to the points made in the video.
Why do these people want Christianity to be true so badly? Isn't it a good thing if the whole of humanity won't have to go to hell just for not believing in Jesus?
There response is along the lines of caring about your soul and they want to see it (you) in heaven. The concept of hell exists because of Christianity, so Christianity not being true means there is no hell to go to. I think what you are saying is that if there was no Christianity then there would be no hell, the part of not believing that Jesus is to save your soul seems superfluous
@@agimasoschandir It doesn't even need to be no soul for Christianity to be superfluous. If the Genesis account isn't literally true, as seems to be the case from most/all of the existing scientific evidence, then there is no Original Sin for Jesus to sacrifice/moderately-inconvenience-himself-for-around-2-days himself to himself in an act of blood sacrifice with which to convince him to forgive us (instead of just sitting us directly.
@@lnsflare1 You made sense out of that comment? I sometimes wonder what I was thinking or doing at times.
If I were to answer today, which I will, humans in general do not want to die - unless, there is something better waiting for them. I think what I was originally trying to convey was that Christians are drummed that they should "inoculate" others around them so they will not go to hell. Perhaps for them having friends and family around, or even friendly familiar strangers, will lesson the fear of being in heaven, which is still an unknown place for them.
Usually I try to fit my answers within the framework of the stories, which I consider Middle Eastern folklore
So yeah, your comment works
It's kind of sad that they couldn't even hit the For The Bible Told Me So "standard" each time. I think Paulogia may need to create a For Later Church Tradition Told Me So jingle.
Herod was dead long before a supposed Jesus would've even been born. Why do christians just ignore this?
And didn't Herrod have to answer to Rome? He wasn't even truly in charge. And do we have any other sources for the things Herrod did other than the Bible? Their whole argument is just ridiculous.
The Bible says Herold was alive when Jesus was born, thus his order to kill children 2 years and younger. Extemporaneous scholars put Herold's death to within five years of when Jesus would have been born, or possibly the year Jesus was born
There was more than one Herod
@@joykeebler2890 Yeah there's like probably a few dozens of thousands of Jesus's alive today too. Good point.
Geez, I hope they get better with more experience because they currently come across as petulant and borderline insufferable at this time, and their breathlessness is making my asthmatic lungs switch to manual breathing mode.
Sheesh, be kind please
@@RobotProctor Hey, I'm not leaving that comment on their video, which is about as much kindness as this mild trainwreck has earned.
@@lnsflare1 I don't think kindness is something that has to be earned. It can only be given.
@@RobotProctor 'Be kind' doesn't mean 'don't criticize'.
@@RobotProctor Nah, if you're being a disingenuous jerk, you've lost the right to expect kindness from others.
I love when small channels call the big atheist channels I watch rising stars lol.
I feel like it was just this past month that I created an entire Paul Bunyan analogy to the resurrection accounts, as part of a discussion with a "blue ox supporter".
How could we both stumble into this same analogy? My grandfather used to say, "great minds think alike," and since we thought alike, I hereby declare Paulogia and I to be great minds! 🤯
Unfortunately, stupid minds think alike, too. But the analogy is still great! Good on both of you.
@@idahogie I was inspired to use Bunyan because he is an entirely fictional character, and that particular discussion centered around how the resurrection stories would arise, if Jesus was not an actual person.
Personally, I lean towards a more "John Henry" style Jesus (or perhaps Molly Pitcher), where there was originally a real person involved who became a local legend, but the only accounts we have recorded today are the embellished legendary ones.
I personally like Spider-man. Many different authors all agree that Peter Parker gained superpowers being bitten by a radioactive spider. Now, some sources say it was a genetically engineered spider, but these discrepancies only serve to make us more certain of the common truth that he was bitten by some sort of spider and gained superpowers. We have known named eyewitnesses of his aunt May Parker, his wife Mary Jane Watson, and assorted notable figures throughout recent history. In fact, we have documented evidence of even Barack Obama meeting Spider-man face to, well, mask, on the day of his inauguration when a villain tried to impersonate Obama.
So that's multiple "independent" authors all agreeing on the important facts, documented interaction with known historical figures like Herod and Pilate to show it's not all made up, etc.
@@galacticbob1 I have a feeling you were raised in the North and are familiar with the Paul Bunyan stories. I am more familiar with the Jack Tales from two different cultures (English and Southern)
15 Minutes longer and this would have been officially Paulogia's Schooling Hour show, class is in session.
Let's give a hearty sympathy clap for Dunning and Kreuger over here. You're doing amazing, honey!
I’ve never heard the Paul Bunyan analogy before. It’s perfect. And it was very nice of you to ask us not to call these two out.
As far as Paul Bunyan's blue ox, it may be similar to blue doberman pinschers, they are still black in color but have very thin fur and a blue-black hue to their skin. So there is a natural explanation for calling the ox blue. Just wanted to offer that.
Great video, I enjoy your work.
One triumph of right-wing Christianity (and Republicanism) is their making "liberal" into a pejorative term. However, the term they really speak of with total disdain and contempt is "Secular Humanist".
The folk lore says P. Bunyan found the little ox during the time of the Blue Snow which stained its hair
Much love from Texas 👍 Thank you Paul.
Hell ya. I’m from Texas and Paul has to be one of the most influential free thinkers on RUclips!
Last time I was this early, Jesus was still inside the tomb!
LOL !!
Yes, I am a witness for that matter. This morning I went to his tomb to deliver his coke [the drinking variety idiots] and pizza. he did not answer the door as he was 'busy' with Ms Mary Magdalene but asked me to leave it at the door, so I obliged. When I was returning back to my base I noticed coke and pizza has been resurrected to heaven.
Shodingers jesus
*In a ditch.
I think my favorite part of this video is hearing how offended they were at how you didn't treat their fairy tale as absolute fact. They're simply terrible apologists who clearly didn't understand you and are sorely lacking in necessary context and information to be able to attempt to address anything. They're way over their heads and wholly too confident in what they think they know.
"Post bereavement vision" - I wonder if my experience after the death of my 10 year old son would come under this. Some 6 months after the accident I had a sleeping dream in which Riley (my son) came back into the house and we were all really excited and happy to see him. The fact of his death was still true, he was just "back". I also recall saying something along the lines of "Well, we've got some explaining to do". For all that it was only a dream, I like recalling it.
Anyway, would this be a PBV?
Imo that sounds more like a dream as you seem to have been aware that he wasnt really alive. I'm not an expert but I have experienced this more than once. I hope you're ok & as long as the experience is comforting I don't tend to analyse it anymore.
Wow, these guys have no idea about the historicity of the NT
I would like to think that they genuinely misunderstood your main point - Christian Blinkers can be a heck of a thing, after all!
Just like Joseph Smith doesn't actually NEED to be a prophet of God to explain the origins of Mormonism, Jesus does not actually NEED to be the resurrected Son of God to explain the origins of Christianity. That a belief system has adherents that subscribe to supernatural claims is not unusual. One does not need to explain the alleged supernatural occurrences; one need only explain why adherents hold to the view that alleged supernatural occurrences happened.
Paulogia and Viced Rhino just posted. Who to watch first?
Save the best for last?
Which cartoon avatar do you find hotter?
@Eastern fence Lizard Be sure to harmonize them afterwards.
Coin flip?
Split screen.
8:16 He's right that religions appear not to be designed. They more closely match evolutionary processes where random mutation happens to be advantageous.
I don't think evolutionary mutations are all that random. They seem to be somewhat logical/to be expected to me. Small as they are and often brought forth by environmental necessity. With all the climate change going on even animals turning white makes sense.
I hate that my memory is like a sieve with extra large holes lately. But I've heard someone explain that the story of Jesus was designed for the jewish people to legitimately move away from the temple practice of animal sacrifice after the destruction of the second temple in 68/70 CE. And that totally makes sense too: no temple, no sacrifice but an ongoing need for atonement. Might have been Dr Josh Bowen who said it but I can't be sure.
@@DutchJoan The mutations are random. It is the selection among mutations that make the process non-random. Snow doesn't lead to white mutations. It just makes white animals more likely to survive.
Same for religion. Christianity survived because fit with times.
@@goldenalt3166
I get what you're saying and I agree.
Just one addition: I wasn't talking about animals turning white due to winter. I was talking about doves, tigers, lions that are born white and seem to thrive anyway, although that is not what we should expect.
@@DutchJoan Why wouldn't you expect that? Many birds are not camouflaged. White tigers are predominantly found with snow. Not every disadvantage is necessarily fatal.
@@goldenalt3166 Unrelated to DutchJoan's comments, I'd argue that a lot of religious changes are non-random. When they're written by people, those people can skip to making changes with an advantage other other religions. For example, the bit where Jesus heals the lepers is copied from a similar legend about the Roman emperor. It was an intentionally designed response to a criticism by hellenists.
I think they thought they was punching down in their video. I’m not sure how many videos they saw of yours but these guys would barely qualify as mid level apologist. Sad thing is their viewers are going to research you now and that’ll be detrimental to these guys point.
Man, I absolutely love how polite and kind you are, but also the kindness expressed by the guys in the video. As someone going through doubt and deconversion myself right now, the polite exchange in the beginning of the video made me tear up actually.
I hate snarky ad hominems, easy one-liner attacks on the position of the other party and fighting. This shouldn't be about winning an argument. We're already dealing with such heavy and emotional (for me at least, my life is upside down) topics, can't we figure out truth in a more peaceful way? I guess we can!
I’m going to try and use the word ‘pericope’ more often.
Decades ago I read a book "The Passover Plot" that explains the "resurrection" as not a miracle but an act. The book is available on Ebay.
I just wanted to pass on that I really enjoy Paulogia's videos. I'm a 70 year old Hobbit waiting to sail with Gandolf, Elfen King, et al. with better days behind us. We are all children of the Universe, no less than the trees & the stars; we have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to us, no doubt the Universe is unfolding as it should. (Para from Desiderata) Peace to all sentient beings. :-)
But did you evaluate whether or not there of is sufficient extra-biblical evidence to determine whether or not Jesus was a naughty, naughty boy?
Yes he was a very very naughty boy, ask Ms Mary Magdalene, she was a witness to all this
Appropro of nothing, there's a blonde woman with overgrown bangs in the throng outside of the window of Brian's room. Love her, absolutely love her. 💕💞😽
Why did they speed up your video, Paul? They took an hour to respond to your presentation because....??? They wanted to keep up with their excitable cadence? It appears that they did not understand your video they based their critique on at all. Unfortunate. 😔 This completely undercuts their efforts.
They run out of steam at the end. I think they sort of realize "huh...this sounded way better in my head."
The old "Jesus of Nazareth, we know Nazareth is a real place" line, as convincing of Christ's historicity as "Steve Rogers from Brooklyn, we know Brooklyn is a real place" is convincing of Captain America's historicity. If someone tells me a man called Steve Rogers from Brooklyn actually joined the US army during World War 2 I'd accept that, but I wouldn't start believing in Captain America. A man called Jesus possibly did live in Nazareth and end up crucified, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God.
I think the argument is more that the prophecy Matthew is quoting claims the Messiah should come from Bethlehem. So if you were just inventing a character entirely, you would just have them born there. The fact that they needed to come up with a justification for Jesus being actually born in Bethlehem tends to suggest that they are talking about an actual person, and he was probably known as Jesus of Nazareth. They needed to invent this extra explanation to cover the inconsistency. As you say, this is merely an argument for there being *some sort* of historical Jesus, not an argument for a specific son-of-God Jesus.
Argument demonstrating that the resurrection appearances of Jesus didn't "necessarily" have anything to do with reality. By, "necessarily," I mean the experiences are just as likely to not be veridical as they are to have been real.
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him - 1 Cor 15:8.
2. The appearance to Paul was a personal "vision" or "revelation" from heaven - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19.
3. Paul uses his vision/revelation from heaven as a "resurrection appearance" - 1 Cor 15:5-8.
4. Therefore, visions/revelations from heaven were accepted as "resurrection appearances."
If Paul can use a personal/subjective "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as a "resurrection appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 then it necessarily follows that early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "revelations" from heaven (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as evidence of the Resurrected Christ "appearing" to them. In other words, not actually seeing Jesus counted as "seeing" Jesus. Even though Jesus wasn't physically present, one could still claim that Jesus had "appeared" to them. Think about that for a moment.
We can then proceed with the following argument:
1. Early Christians accepted personal/subjective claims of "visions/revelations" as "resurrection appearances."
2. Personal/subjective claims of visions/revelations are just as likely to be false/mistaken as they are to be real.
3. Therefore, early Christians accepted experiences that are just as likely to be false as real as "resurrection appearances."
Obviously, you can see the problem now which calls into question the whole basis of the Christian faith.
Since the resurrection claim relies on these people really seeing Jesus, then their argument doesn't meet the burden of proof and, thus, fails. If the earliest evidence can equally be referring to experiences that didn't have anything to do with reality then the entire basis for believing Christianity is undermined.
As an aside, apologists like to appeal to the later gospel stories to prove the appearances were real world encounters but these accounts are not firsthand sources and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Paul is the earliest and only undisputed firsthand source by someone who claimed to have "seen" Jesus when the appearance to him was a vision, not a physical encounter with a revived corpse. He makes no distinction between the "appearances" in the earliest eyewitness list which means apologists have no reason to think they were different than what Paul experienced. All the gospel resurrection narratives grow in the telling which is a sign of legendary embellishment. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
Also, and quite strangely given the amount of internal copying, none of the gospel post, resurrection stories actually match each other.
@@goldenalt3166 Yes, you are correct. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations. So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends.
@@resurrectionnerd Why do think that Matthew and Luke don't agree here? It seems that one had access to the other. Could the endings also be added like we know happened in Mark?
@@goldenalt3166 I'm not convinced Matthew and Luke knew each other but that is a possibility. They both certainly knew Mark because they copied his Gospel nearly verbatim. Starting with Matthew, he includes the embarrassing detail that "some doubted" the appearance. Luke has Jesus show "he's not a spirit" which tells me he was combating other Christians who had a more spiritual view of Jesus - probably based on Paul's theology in 1 Cor 15:40-50. The fact that in Acts 1:3 he says that Jesus provided "many convincing proofs" he was alive shows the motivation behind the stories. It's also interesting to note that Luke writes out the appearance in Galilee and only has Jesus appear in or around Jerusalem. That's another reason why we can't trust the Lukan depiction.
@@resurrectionnerd Did he "write out" the apearence (based on Matthew) or merely add different ones (based on Mark alone) based on his own tradition? Textually does it appear that these are written in Luke's/Matthew's style?
I love the Karl Pilkington 'Idiot Abroad' stills - delighted that his natural comedy genius has crossed the pond!
I really hope these guys do a follow up. The fact they misunderstood the premise of the exercise in the first place makes a lot of their arguments superfluous. So I'd love to see what arguments they'd put forth once they know what is actually being said.
Another fantastic vid. Ty for your hard work!
speaking as a compete ignoramus on history, I really enjoyed Paulogia's video on how Christianity probably began. It's nice to see a video more elaborating on the evidence his explanation is accounting for. I was indeed wondering why he needed to give not one, but two people post bereavement hallucinations.
3 minutes in and these guys actually seem reputable, so far. I hope their genuineness carries through the whole video and maybe inspires some other apologists to follow suit.
EDIT: I just finished the video and I can't say that I still hold this view. Maybe they are but they just don't understand what someone is doing when they critique an idea. I left some tips on their channel because they seem to take a presuppositionalist view of the bible and it seems like they assume a critic would also presuppose the bible is describing actual events, accurately recorded, rather than suggesting the events didn't happen and giving an alternative explanation for how the writings could be explained.
Sadly, in my opinion, they couldn't hold this through the entire video.
@@joebarnard4708 yeah, I just finished the video and I have to agree.
I bet he thinks Matthew was written first cuz it's the first gospel in his NIV. That seems to be the amount of thought he put into it
This video is so good and that Paul Bunyon analogy is excellent, I've been flabbergasted so many times of Christians willfully being ignorant of what others are trying to say, their whole arguments revolve around special pleading, every argument they put forward as bulletproof is the same argument they dismiss without any thought when it comes from Muslims or Hindus. Please keep the blue ox behind for the bible tells me so at least for awhile, at least if you see this.
That part where you pointed out that you are also one of those “former skeptics that changed sides” is like a reality check for me and i sincerely thank you for it
These guys are altogether too flippant, considering the only argument they have is “for the Bible tells me so”. You handle them a lot more gracefully than I could, Paul! Very difficult to watch without shouting “that’s not what he said!”
In Judaic traditions the Messiah never involved a resurrection. Why do Christians ignore that?
With great power comes great responsibility. Thanks for recognizing the power of influencers and the harm their followers could potentially cause.
Very nice debating, good education on the early history of the church, and excellent distinctions between claims and the logic of historical explanations. You are on top form Paulogeia!
Caesar's garlic wars? Couldn't he get any for his salad? 😋
24:09 "you do realise my face is the same in every frame?" 😂😂😂
These guys [as usual] missed out one important detail, that of demonstrating that Jeezuss actually existed, rather than just being a story book character.
There's a good debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price on this topic. Well worth a watch. I think it's pretty clear that Jesus and Paul and others were real historical characters, just that the legends that grew up around them aren't.
I grew up in the Mormon religious tradition. In highschool I had a less religious friend whose brother died in an accident. Shortly after my friend confided to me that his brother has visited him as a spirit and told him to serve as s Mormon missionary. My friend suddenly became much more religious than he had ever been. Visual and auditory post bereavement experience of a deceased loved one reinforcing the expected experience of someone involved in a particular faith. I've seen it first hand-ish
@ 4141
Didn't Moses (the person you claim that wore the old testament) write about his own death?
He supposedly wrote the Torah, or Pentateuch or first 5 books of the OT. In it Moses's death in Moab and burial on a mountain is described in the third person past tense. Quite weird if he actually wrote those books himself.
If Moses can do it, is it really too much to ask that a few of Jesus' own diciples do it too?
Maybe it's time for me to take a break from these discussions. I kept getting unreasonably upset with their constant conflation of disagreement with dishonesty or ignorance.
Nevertheless, respectful and balanced as always. Great work.
30:17 I do find it funny how the Christians are still making these legendary developments to claim that the origins couldn't have been legendary developments.
As always Paul, your well-reasoned and well-supported arguments are a clear contrast to confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking displayed by your critics. Well done.
When referencing the seven “authentic” documents of Paul, we should remember that what the scholars mean is that they believe those seven were written by the same person in the same style and vocabulary. The first appearance of the Pauline epistles in history is the mid-2nd century when Marcion of Sinope published the first collection of New Testament books. The “authentic” seven were included in the following order.
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
Along with two documents where scholars are evenly divided on the "authenticity"
Colossians,
2 Thessalonians
And a lost document Laodiceans referenced in Colossians.
The question them becomes why were none of these documents attributed to Paul ever referenced anywhere else before the mid-2nd century? The Paul of Acts is completely different than the Paul of the Epistles. If some guy named Paul was mailing letters all around the Mediterranean, how did Marcion get copies of those letters? Could it be that Marcion himself wrote all ten under Paul’s name in order to influence early Christian beliefs and practices?
Shhhhh! You're going to spoil it for them!
🤫🦞
"Mark was shortened to save paper". 😂😂😂😂🤣
If Jesus existed he was nothing more than a first-century Galilean cult leader. And there were many running around that area at the time.
Interesting. What can you tell me about these cults?
Not only that, but there are plenty of Jesus' around today. Jesus Alou, Jesus Aguilar to name a couple.
@@ZealousWins The People's Front of Judea would be one. Then there's the splitters, The Judean People's Front.
@@harrycooper5231 do you find something funny about my name.... Biggus Dickus?!
@Eastern fence Lizard And con man.
Now I understand why you tweeted the poll to guess how many times the ‘For the Bible tells me so” appears in the next video 😀
Thx Paul, great and thorough work as always. As touched on in this video I’d be interested to learn a bit more about the role of Greek in capturing the bible stories and the process of selection which gives us the book as it is today. Taking a look at what got weeded might cast some light on how the church wanted to craft the view of history. (Just my unstudied speculation)
12:41 - Of course! Joseph of Aramathea!
Paul, this was again a brilliant video response. Your style is remarkable as we get to the nitty gritty and not be bogged down with verbal stone throwing and tangents. You teach and I learn. You are the David against the PhDs Philistines.
Very nice Paul, if you were any gentler this would have been ASMR. 😉
That jingle is just brilliant!! Never ceases to make me smile and sometimes LOL!
8:10 Wait a minute! Jesus' resurrection was prophesied, but not expected?
"Less paper"? Paper was unknown at the time, except in China, where the the process of making it was kept secret. Its first occurrence outside China was in the 8th century, when it was adopted in the Muslim world, the technique thought to have been acquired from captives taken in the Battle of Talas. Without going into the technologies of the writing materials available in the 1st century CE (mostly either papyrus or velum) the essential point is that Christianity grew in an almost entirely oral culture. Very few people were literate.