Who Remembers Where we Put Jesus? (William Lane Craig response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2023
- When it comes to the burial of Jesus, Dr. William Lane Craig argues it differed greatly from the normal Roman practice of disposing executed victims anonymously. In this response video, I carefully scrutinize Craig's points about alleged concessions to Jews, ancient texts, and scholarly consensus. I reveal flaws in reasoning and inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the apologist's confident claim that Jesus was buried in an identifiable tomb.
William Lane Craig RESPONDS to Bart Ehrman's Wild Comments on CosmicSkeptic
• William Lane Craig RES...
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 
Наука
If there's even ONE CHANCE IN A MILLION that the information WL Craig is using to support his point might be true...you can bet he'll present that information like it's a completely unquestioned fact.
Hahahaha...I loved the "one chance in a million" by WLC on his becoming a believer
or zero chance in a million
there is 0 chance since jesus the son of god and the disciples are fictional characters in a story using allegory to explain why the romans were able to destroy the temple
Yep, #LowBarBill pretty much destroyed all of his credibility thanks to him admitting he believes Christianity 'cause he wants to & not due to any of his vaunted logical arguments...
Good ole low bar Bill😂
Pontius Pilot giving a crucified enemy of the state a private burial is like a gangsta pulling a driveby then driving the victim to the hospital.
Or last rights
Not being picky… but the spelling is Pilate, not Pilot
Ynw melly and Bortlan, is that you?
@@MrArdytubeI was thinking "you know he wasn't a licensed aviator," hahaha
@@PhilusteenI can see apologists arguing this point if it suited them 😂
I mean the very fact that *within the text of the Bible* we see that Pilate wrote that "King of the Jews" inscription, the Jewish leaders asked him to take it down, and he refused (John 19:19-22), also indicates that no, he did NOT care about offending the sensibilities of Jewish leaders. So Craig's argument isn't even consistent within the text of the Bible.
By the time you get to John, late 1st or early 2nd century, the whole of the trial-judgement-crucifixion story has become decidedly not annti-Roman anti-Jewish. Bart Ehrman asks you to read the gospel accounts in historical order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. In Mark, the Roman quickly decides to execute the Jewish troublemaker. In John, acc. to Ehrman, the Greek text says that Pilate expostulates with the Jews, consults Herod who proclaims jesus’s innocence, and eventually hands him to “them”≠ the soldiers, but rather = the Jewish elders, to crucify. (Grammatically, Ehrman is relying on the principle that the closest antecedent is the correct one.)
It seems to me that for apologists, the best standard for truth is "anonymous ancient scroll claims it."
More specifically, "anonymous ancient scroll in which I have a great deal of emotional investment because I decided to believe it was true before I'd ever read it."
It also becomes even more true if they don't actually have the scroll, but copies of copies of translations of copies which have been tinkered with and aren't consistent with each other.
@@shassett79 Even if there's just a one in a million chance that the scroll exists.
Or even worse than that,
Apologist: "This one scroll is the corroboration for the claim."
Sceptic: Which claim?
A: "The claim in the scroll".
S: Oh so the claim is it's own corroboration? - Queue jingle.
@@dougt7580I wish I were making this up, but literally yesterday I was talking to a guy who thinks discrepancies between different translations/versions of the bible are actually proof of god's existence because _Satan himself_ is slowly introducing errors in the bible to turn people against Christianity.
i love the criterion of embarrassment. "it's so stupid, it MUST be true"
My fave is "well the bible HAS to be wrong as to where Jesus was born, so it MUST be right about Jesus existing!!!!".
No, we have proof the bible got something wrong.
@@markhackett2302the evidence is that they had to acknowledge where he was born (Galilee) and modify it to fit prophecy -the simplest way to construct the story would have been to have him be born in Galilee.
The criterion of embarassment is actually extremely not on the side of apologists because nothing is more embarrassing than ‘dying tragically as just some dude with semi delusional aspirations, not being risen from the grave as the son of god, being unable to perform miracles, etc’
It’s a way to bury the lead, to acknowledge obvious criteria which is used by secular critical scholars of religion in order to invalidate their accounts as a kind of card against their opponents
It's also impossible to determine what the Gospel writers in the 1st/2nd Centuries CE would have found "embarrassing." Writing almost a generation after the supposed death of Jesus (if he existed at all), these proto-Christians could very well already have seen his crucifixion not as a humiliation, but as a triumphant reversal -- exactly as modern Christians claim it was. Indeed, if Jesus didn't exist or wasn't actually crucified, it might not be embarrassing at all to argue he suffered a humiliating death, if the point was for him to transcend that death and prove himself above it.
@@PasteurizedLettuceIt doesn't really matter, it's a nonsense criteria and no legitimate historian uses it.
Conversation in ca. 50AD:
- So you're telling me Jesus was burried and rose from the dead?
- That's right
- But I thought crucified criminals weren't allowed burial?
- BUT Jesus was buried because there was this guy called umm... Joseph from... I dunno Arimathea and he buried him.
- Okay so maybe his disciples stole the body at night.
- Nuh-uh because the Romans totally had the tomb guarded by soldiers
-...
It's basically Calvinball.
@@shassett79😂😂😂
'He's making it up as he goes!'
I think the story would make more sense and would be more exciting, if some followers of Jesus had to do a heist to steal away the body of Christ from the cross.
That chapter would be enjoyable and would make the post resurrection story worthy of a movie.
It would explain why he had a burial and add a special saintly pantheon of the burying of Christ.
It really feels like an obviously missing part of the story.
Peter's 11? The Jerusalem Job?@@GiordanoBruno42
The proposition is that Jewish elites convinced Pilate the Jesus was as threat to the Roman Empire… and then, soon there after, came back to convince Pilate that Jesus should be allowed the respect of not being allowed to be further desecrated by leaving his body on the cross… but instead should be taken down and buried in an elaborate tomb where his adherents could memorialize him. Which goes against what typically happens to executed enemies of the state in Roman times
And also Pontius Pilate, whom Josephus claimed was such an ass he deliberately provoked the Jews numerous times, just stood there and took all of this wishy-washy nonsense and went along with it.
@@Uryvichk
You see, in the end, he was just a victim of fake news
And then either set guards or allowed guards to be set in case of something happens. The Pilate scenes read like bad farce. People keep rushing in Pilate’s throne rooms demand something, rush out then rush back in and demand almost the exact opposite. All the while Pilate is going “ok fine” even when it’s a full scale invasion by a mob. I’ll go out on a limb here and say if any of the conquered people actually tried anything like what was described in the Gospels their would be a dungeon full of the ruling class and a lot of dead peons in the streets, not in the throne room.
Thank for creating great content Paul. As an aside, I have a PhD in history and an extensive publication record. I had never heard of the so-called criterion of embarrassment until I started listening to your videos. I can say with confidence that this is a concept invented by Christian apologists
Nah it’s something that’s specific to religious studies originally created for New Testament scholarship but now applied to Buddhism and I’ve seen it for Islam as well.
I’m an idiot. I read your comment as “and an extensive public record” so I was like “wait, is this guy drawing a parallel because he is a criminal like Jesus???” 😂😂😂
It's used, under a different name, in courts, as an exception to the rule excluding hearsay. If a witness says, "I heard John say that Mary did it", that is inadmissihle hearsay, but if the witness says, "I heard John say that he did it", then it is admissible as a statement against interest.
It's also one that makes absolutely no sense when one considers how Christian testimonies are structured.
1. I was a very bad/stupid/awful person (usually involves drugs/sex/profanity in some way).
2. Religious experience happened and got saved/born again
3. I'm now an extremely moral person who gave up all their vices and sins!
The entire structure of the testimony is to emphasize what a horrible person they used to be and how Jesus/Holy Spirit completely changed their life around. So why would we expect it to be any different for the disciples/apostles?
They were cowards and ignorant men obsessed with status and pride until the Holy Spirit came upon them on Pentacost and then they were transformed into bold, unashamed preachers that would risk their lives in order to spread the gospel. It's exactly what we would expect to see in a testimony and the fact that apologists don't seem to understand that is... just weird. I never understood how ppl thought that the criterion of embarrassment was a good argument even when I was a Christian - it was just so blatantly wrong and it completely destroys possibly the most powerful message of Acts, that being the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.
@@PasteurizedLettuceyup, pretty sure I have heard Ehrman use it.
Apologists are almost never concerned with what is probable and instead tend to mainly focus on what is possible, giving them extraordinary cover and leeway when attempting to defend their beliefs.
Exactly!
they don't even care about what's possible. They just grunt out excuses for their ridiculous beliefs.
The problem is that they depend on a sequence of improbable events. The chance that they all occurred is minuscule.
It always bothered me that a criminal like Jesus got special treatment. He was crucified under guard, and that guard reported that he stuck him in the side with his spear and witnessed a miracle, and then just walked away and left him there for his followers to reclaim. The more I think about it, the more absurd it seems.
Some claim that what the guard said was sarcasm.
@@johnnehrich9601 Of course, everything we "know" the guard totally said was written by people who wanted Jesus to be the headpiece of the new cult they were forming; unlike some outside sources we have for the "Jesus was around, kind of a troublemaker" stuff, we don't have a single thing for what one of the random guards supposedly said.
(Short version- yeah, I'm really gonna trust the Bibblee for anything that the allegedly guards said.)
I can see him not so much getting special treatment, but the people in charge generally letting the condemned's family/friends dispose of a(ny) criminal's body, for two reasons. 1) If the group is large enough, while they might let Rome enforce their justice, desecrating their body might be that straw too heavy, so you toe the line between ensuring Roman Authority but not causing a riot. 2) Oh, you're gonna take care of this- coolio, less work for us. (Just gotta make sure the dude be dead first.)
@@Sephiroth144 Well, given that the romans crucified him as an example to his tiny band of followers, i doubt that they would have cared a fig less what they thought about it. plus they were in hiding, so again I doubt very much that they would just roll up and take the body down.
Here’s the truth: You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God!
Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth!
Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny!
Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers!
God authored the Bible!
DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication?
1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion!
One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled!
Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“!
Psalm 139 is about the human body!
Whenever someone brings up the burial of the crucifixion victim Jehohanan, ask the person how long he was left on the cross before being buried! You see, apologists are trying to use this single instance as evidence of a _same day_ burial (like in the case of Jesus) but we have no idea how long the person was actually on the cross!
Yeah he was put in an ossuary, so that meant just his bones were put in a box, not that he was taken down and given an immediate proper burial, that’s a really silly example for apologists to use
They also use the example of someone taken down early and surviving. That doesn't help their case either. Of course, they quote Bible passages that are really a stretch as well, so that's kind of the whole thing.
@@goldenalt3166 Yeah, we don't even know if the guy actually expired on the cross. All we know is his bones eventually made their way to an ossuary.
love it
Great point! I hadn't thought of that, thank you.
There's a jebus tomb in Japan. He seems to get around.
Well damn, who the hell would think to look _there?_
Did they even know japan existed?
Yep. Jesus, no dummy, got the heck out of town and sent his brother Isukiri to be crucified in his place. It’s all well documented and written down, so must be true.
@pureflix8086 In the first century CE, no, they wouldn't have known of the existence of Japan.
@@grapeshot I mean, the Yamato certainly did, and the Ainu.
That would explain the empty tomb, obviously the Japanes stole it for their own tomb!
To modern Christians, crucifixion is so horrific and cruel they can't imagine it happening to anyone but Jesus. So whatever the Bible says happened to Jesus must be the norm. Since the Bible says he was placed in a tomb, that tomb being empty is miraculous. When you point out how mind-bogglingly common crucifixion was by the Romans, they just zone out and pretend that's not important.
Christians hold the patent to cognitive dissonance.
The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God, which is the worst possible thing one could experience. Jesus took that eternal separation punishment on your behalf by being crucified like countless others. Wait, I'm not making sense am I?
@@emalee8366 only if you are being a poe. otherwise way to change the subject just like your basic christian.
@DAYBROK3 high likelihood of poe I think, because it's silly on its face that "the punishment most criminals see" is any reasonable sacrifice to save all humans (especially the criminals) from special super-torture forever and ever in a fiery pit
Then they point out it's silly and doesn't make sense
I think punctuation might've helped make their point more clear
@@emalee8366 Ah, but the "eternal separation" was only for... 2.5 days? Not very eternal, really.
I do remember being shocked when I first heard a Christian say that Jesus went to hell for those "3 days" he was dead. I was like "but Jesus never sinned, so he should have gone to heaven!" And then I paused and remembered that he was supposed to have taken the sins of humanity onto himself on the cross. And then the claim made sense.
Mom was furious at the idea that Jesus could/should have gone to hell for the time he was supposed to be dead tho. She couldn't wrap her head around it. It really is funny what different types of Christians will argue over.
I did grow up in a version of Christianity that preached "fire and brimstone" version of hell. But oddly they didn't actually talk about hell all that often. They were much much more focused on the Rapture which they insisted could happen at any moment! And so all my religious anxiety as a child was very much focused on the Rapture and the idea that if I didn't believe "hard enough" I would find myself abandoned here on Earth and absolutely everyone I knew would be gone - kinda like the Left Behind series/movies. That is very traumatizing for a little kid.
It's my sense that many of today's Christians have little idea just how much of their theology is non-biblical, but is instead based partially or wholly upon "church tradition".
This is a particularly sticky issue for the many protestant sects, as the "church" in this case is the Mother Church, aka the selfsame Roman Catholicism from which they divorced themselves at tremendous cost.
I think that goes with claims of God's omnicience
But the New Testament is “church tradition “. Stuff only got into the canonical New Testament because of Church Synods approving the texts centuries after the events they purport to describe.
Looking at the whole I have to agree non scholar that I be.
I’ll go further than that. The Bible itself, on which many Protestants claim their faith is SOLELY based (excluding church tradition), was compiled and canonized under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
So how can they even accept the canonicity of Scripture when that canonicity was granted by an authority they reject?
I’ve known Protestants who converted to Catholicism bc of this argument, though I tend to go in the opposite direction.
Leave it to a believer to look at an empty room, claim something miraculous happened within that entry room, and say it’s up to the non-believer to “prove” them wrong. Personally, I’m of the mindset that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If a room has zero evidence of a crime having taken place, then I’m justified in thinking no crime has taken place in that room. Yes, a crime could have taken place with no evidence left behind. However, I’m not justified in taking that position because of the lack of evidence in support of it.
Hitchens razor strikes again blessed be Chris.
Just be careful with that mindset. See, for example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
They don't even have the empty room to examine, we do not know which tomb in that area was supposed to be the one. It all comes from copies of copies of a story (Mark's gospel) - in which the tomb was occupied.
"The empty tomb is the biggest prove of Jesus resurrection"
Me: uh... ok. That is not evidence... but I will bite. What empty tomb? where is it?
*silence*
I’d say the main issue with “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” in history is that we know that we don’t have much of the data and never will. So it’s like walking into a room that you can only ever see half of and saying no crime was committed. Could be anything in the other half of that room, we can’t be sure. You could infer from the undisturbed state of the half you can see, but ultimately it’s extrapolation. If we could actually see half the room, perhaps that would be reasonable, but obviously saying we have half of the historical data is wildly overstating it for the purpose of analogy.
Basically, Craig's sleight-of-hand here is in turning "it's possible" into "it's probable" based on absolutely nothing but the word of the Gospel writers. It would be like trusting someone who said they have a friend who bench presses 600lbs. and you should believe them merely because we know such a thing is possible.
No totally unlikely as it takes up to 72 hours to die on the cross, part of the punishment was to deny burial and the bones to rot and end up in a public dumpster. Not to mention you just wait a few days after the religious festival and all went home and then crucify the criminal.
kinda like the SOH he pulls with the kalam: Point A is true (by mere assertion), therefore (completely unrelated) Point B must be true.
@@TorianTammas Well, to be fair, it only took 72 hours when the victim was healthy and didn't have their legs broken (as was common practice). Then it would take 72 hours because it would take that long to die of thirst and exposure. Most crucifixion victims died of suffocation when they lost the strength to keep their lungs from collapsing, and that could be relatively quick in comparison. Even if we assume Jesus' legs weren't broken, someone who was scourged and also bleeding from multiple minor head wounds (the thorns) would not have lasted anywhere near 72 hours.
No matter where they put his corpse at when he died he stayed dead just like everybody else will when they die.
That is a positive claim sir.
We have eyewitness testimony that over 500 people saw bodily risen Jesus.
Who would die for a lie?
It fulfills prophecy from Jonah!
They were both dead for three days then rose again.
And remember if you go to reply to this, I'm made of rubber you are made of glue
I think you're being charitable that there was a person to begin with.
@@Kruppes_Mule well of course, you have to give them that or else there is no conversation
" He's dead Jim".
@@chriswest8389 Maybe he was just "mostly dead", ya know, like Westley in Princess Bride.
If WLC was ever a good apologist (I would say he wasn't) I think he's clearly reaching "OK grandpa, turn off the camera and sit down, you're.... not helping things" status. Reminds me a bit of Dawkins's decent from Four Horseman to.... where he is now. WLC seems to make less and less arguments and more and more just makes assertions and claims victory.
Yeah i thought the same thing when we saw the younger WLC, he seems very mentally diminished.
Low Bar's been phoning it in for years, that's why he's gotten careless and give such great soundbites.
😂😂😂💀
Absolutely excellent video Paul! ❤
Thank you, brother.
That flow chart explains the unlikely nature of a proper tomb beautifully.
"The Romans generally left the bodies of crucified people on the cross when they died, to be food for dogs and vultures. This is reflected in a Jewish context in tractate Great Mourning (Ēbhel Rabbāthī, known euphemistically as Semāḥōth, Rejoicings). This says that the family of someone executed by the state (mlkūth), so the Romans, not Jewish authorities, should begin to count the days of mourning ‘from when they give up hope of asking’ successfully for the body of the executed person (b. Sem II, 9). More specifically, the wife, husband or child of a crucified person is instructed not to carry on living in the same city ‘until the flesh has gone and the figure is not recognizable in the bones’ (b. Sem. II, 11). This gives a graphic picture of families being unable to obtain the bodies of crucified people when they died, and the bodies being left on crosses until they were unrecognizable." - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446
This source is important because it specifically says the bodies _were not able to be obtained_ despite requesting them.
Not wanting to break a lance for apologists here - but I believe this rules were subject to corruption... So unlikely, but not impossible.
In that case the paper where the law was written on, is as patient as all of the written accounts of Jesus doing wonders and comes back from the dead...
@@robertnett9793 I didn't intend for this source to indicate what always was the case. It just shows that there were instances where the bodies were not able to be obtained under Roman rule. So, in the least, we have conflicting sources on the matter.
@@resurrectionnerd, and it seems it was frequent enough that there was a rule for what to do about it.
@@robertnett9793 We speak here about 6 hours and it takes up to 72 hours to die. The body "disappeared" as it rotted on the cross and ended in a public dumpster.
In the case of Jesus, a popular leader and cult figure at the time, isn't it possible that his followers could have stolen his body from the cross, bribed the guards or otherwise created an exception to the rule?
Just got out of a debate with Christians about the resurrection. All they would say in a 500 comment thread when asked to prove the resurrection was " The Disciples would not have died for something they knew was a lie."
Which is one the dumbest assertions from Christians because people are willing to die for lies all the time for any number of reasons.
Point out to them that 50 people killed themselves because they thought they were going to fly to heaven on the back of a comet.
It's amazing what people will die for.
You should have stated that people sometimes write stories about other people that are not accurate portrayals of the people and events depicted.
Paulogia has done some videos on the veracity of the "die for a lie" claim from theists.
That's probably true if phrased "knew was a lie", however, we can't know what the disciples knew, but people die for what they believe all the time, which doesn't make their belief true. So that's a very bad argument.
It would be embarrassing for William Lane Craig to be knowingly bearing false witness whereby he is turning "Even if it's incredibly unlikely, It's not outside of the realm of possibility for it to have happened this way" into "it MUST have happened that way". Therefor by the criteria of embarrassment, we have absolute proof that William Lane Craig is knowingly bearing false witness.
Sadly he doesnt give a rats ass for lying
All his examples are "absurd" to use his philosophical jargon.
it's kinda his job
Cameron admits right up front that searching for a reason to believe is the apologetic default. They usually don't say the quiet part out loud like that.
Exactly.
motivated reasoning from WLC, what a shock
Cheers 🥃, to you, Paulogia, for your Brilliant rebuttal & scrutinising WLCs, in every way, 'THE ONE IN A MILLION, stated Christian Apologist.
There's a handy rule of thumb that can be used here: "If WLC is saying something he's either lying or wrong".
"Credible is what you serve to an audience desperately clinging to a conclusion, not to convince a skeptic." - Very well said, sir.
My vote is this topic deserves a chapter in a book. I'll buy a copy when you announce publication.
Paul, this was tremendously scholarly, You go against these PhDs and have them scrambling to defend themselves, albeit poorly. We want your books on these subjects. McGill or the University of Toronto should grant you a honorary PhD at least.
Love long Paul vids. Makes my work day go by better
As soon as Low Bar Bill shows where Arimathea is on a map, the tomb story will inch closer to being believable.
When he's done with locating Arimethea, he can get to work on finding a 1st century C E. town called "Nazareth".
Didn't Bill learn in Sunday school that lies make baby jesus cry?
Probably, but in seminary he learned that lying for Jesus is super duper A--OK with cherries on top. That's basically what a theology "degree" is. Especially if it's from some bible college. By Liars, For Liars(tm)(r).
Lyin' Billy don't care.
Yay! Paul is finally writing his long awaited book. I hope it comes out in audio right away! I love a good baritone voice
Your constructed content is amazing. I could listen for hours.
Great work as always!
I would absolutely love a Paulogia book!
The flow chart was great. So helpful for visual learners like myself! :) Thanks!
if empty tombs are so rare and such great evidence, which empty tomb was Jesus not in?
strangely, the Catholics think they know.
Super thanks for this very well researched video, and thanks for tackling this topic yet again. Good luck with the push back!
Appreciated, David.
Excellent.
Strong ‘yes’ vote on your providing more on this, whether in form of book, episode, or revelatory vision.
I could really taste your well-justified exasperation in this one, Paul.
Thank you for the sober, well-researched, thorough, and perfectly digestible rebuttal to WLC's specious motivated reasoning. You really lay things out in a clear and concise way without relying on zingers, personal attacks, or appeals to authority.
is this an AI Generated comment by chance?
@@Jeremy-am
...No? Frankly kind of a weird question.
Absolutely outstanding research and presentation as usual. I really enjoyed this. You always present a level of casual competence that I have always admired.
Wow, thank you!
@@Paulogia Your arguments against these nonsensical and dishonest claims are a breath of fresh air.
I find your explanation very consistent and I'll love to have more on this topic.
Thank you so much for this one. Very illuminating, indeed.
This is where people need to understand the context that all of the gospels were written outside Judaea by Greek speakers after Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish people were dispersed in a war that was started because the Romans didn’t respect the Jewish culture. And even if some of the gospels were written by original disciples (which I don’t believe), they were from the hinterland, not from Jerusalem, so they might well not understand the cultural practices that happened in a city most of them had likely never visited.
Those writers did seem to have some difficulty with the local geography.
As far as the burial of Jesus is concerned, if the Romans intention was to make the end result as degrading as possible, by leaving the body to rot and be scavenged, why would that not be the case for Jesus. By the Bible’s own stories, Jesus was singled out for extra torment: the crown of thorns, the mocking sign on the cross, and the beatings by the soldiers. The s it more plausible that they extended a courtesy by letting him be buried afterwards, they can’t have it both ways .
I watched this video. The first clip you played was my biggest gripe. When I finished screaming at my phone, I commented as such. Thanks, Paul.
I really love the idea of first century jews creating a flow chart to decide how they would explain the burial of Jesus.
Look, there was this man,
and he had two servants.
- What were they called?
- What were their names?
I don't know.
And he gave them some talents.
- You don't know?
- Well, it doesn't matter.
He doesn't know
what they were called!
- They were called Simon and Adrian.
- You said you didn't know!
It really doesn't matter. The point is,
there were these two servants.
- He's making it up as he goes along.
- No, I'm not!
Dr. William Lane Craig, purveyor of special pleading and "He's making it up as he goes along."
Good ol' Low Bar Bill. Always a solid comedy. Then a cameo by the Wicked Witch's flying monkeys - gold.
But we didn't get the jingle. Did get the saying but not the music. Oh, well.
Great video, wonderfully presented, and logical beyond reproach
Yes, Paul, FILL A CHAPTER OF A BOOK. I love getting the info in any format, but listening to your voice is one of my favorites.
I am so conflicted. In the first place, I applaud your restraint in not playing the "low bar Bill" clip in the beginning to establish what sort of epistemic standard we should expect here but I do still get a chuckle every time I hear it and it would have prepped us for the default assumption that the "evidence" would be either weaker than presented or inapplicable but presented as supportive.
What I find amazing is that they will fight _SO_ hard to argue for something that would speak to their religion's main doctrine being extremely unethical and immoral to begin with.
When I was a Christian, I believed God was the monster that Jesus saved us from. Makes a lot more sense of the Bible than claiming Jesus is the monster.
@@goldenalt3166 Yeah, Yahweh certainly seems to be a monster. Jesus seems better...
until he starts into all that hellfire stuff
@@scambammer6102 Yeah,....that certainly is problematic. Ultimately, the entire system is malevolence masquerading as "a religion of love".
@@DRayL_ primitive humans were the worst (looks around)
Great video Paul!
I absolutely _love_ the thumbnail! 💜
It is wild how bafflement at many benign writing techniques is the basis of so many apologetics. Like, do they not understand how writing a compelling story works???
That would mean admitting it’s a story, and not perfectly-recorded testimony
Hey, it wasn't my day to watch him so don't blame me if he's gone missing. I have Wednesdays according to the posted schedule.
Paul, PLEASE do a part 2. And 3 and 4! 👍👍👍
Great video Paul
Craig has found an explanation that is possible and suits his preferences, and left it at that. He refuses to consider alternative possibilities because he is in love with his own hypothesis, as usual.
42:34 I'd totally read a book about this by Paul. If it were an audio book also read by Paul, I'd be first in line to buy it!
Very good video you allowed Dr. Craig to state his position thoroughly and you showed extensive research as to why it’s not that simple.
You should totally put this as a chapter in your book... also, you could make this into a multi-part video. I'd be cool with that, and I'm sure many of your other subscribers would too.
One other point bears mentioning here (maybe include this one in your extended version if you make one): Death by crucifixion took a LONG time-that was kind of the point. As of sunset on the day of crucifixion, most victims of the torture would still be very much alive. Hence, for Dr. Craig's assertion that it was common for the Romans to allow Jews to bury crucifixion victims day-of before nightfall to be true, then either (1) Roman guards regularly allowed Jews to take living people down off the cross to "bury" them; or (2) Roman guards had to break the legs of most Jewish crucifixion victims an hour or two before sunset to ensure a swifter death, nullifying one of the purposes of the torture. The latter is extraordinarily unlikely; the former is borderline laughable.
Good point, I missed this one.
Even if Craig is correct, what does that even prove? Elvis Presley has a known tomb and there are still thousands of people today who believe he's still alive.
I have seen the Tomb of Romulus , it’s right there in the Roman Forum and Romulus was in at least one story, so it must be true by WLC logic , raised into heaven.
Very nice analysis. Thank you.
I would buy your book. Especially with chapters and references of all this material you cover. It would have a prominent place on my book shelf.
Ultimately, he’s just arguing that, rather than Jesus being an exception, _all of Judea_ was an exception. And specifically under a governor known to intentionally antagonize the Jews.
The Gospels, in front of a court, would be considered 'hearsay' (the autors weren't eyewitnesses) and would therefore be completely inadmissible as evidence.
And the synoptic Gospels are anonymous. The names we call them by now were assigned decades after they were written. As unknown anonymous sources, the authors couldn’t even be called into court to defend their hearsay writings.
You hit this out of the park, Paul!
Great content as usual.
Regarding Jesus' tomb it really is worth the effort to quote
Marcus 16:8 "... neither said they [the two Marias] anything to any man."
and Mattheus 28:8 "And they [the two Marias] ... did run to bring His disciples word."
Quite a problem, so WLC conveniently neglects it.
The Gospels are novels.
I find it weird that the gospel offers the fact that it was not lawful for the Judeans to put their own criminals to death as the reason they delivered Jesus to the Romans, whereas William Lane Craig argues that Jesus would have been removed on the day of his crucifixion because that's what the Judeans wanted. It's like he forgot that they were subjects of Rome and legally speaking didn't get what they wanted, despite it being a foundational plot point in the gospel.
It takes not only 6 hours but up to 72 hours to die on the cross. The Romans most likely waited until after the festival most visitors went home and then execute not only the head rebel but all his followers as well.
Right, and if they are politically powerful enough to coerce the Roman government to grant their desires...why didn't they simply wait a few days until Passover was over to have Jesus executed? The "rush job" suggested in the narratives does not sound like the actions of a political group powerful enough to strong-arm Pilate into suspending regular practice.
Thanks for the video :)
One thing I like about Craig is his consistent use of the proper jargon for everything he talks about. Not sarcasm.
As always, you are very careful and precise. Congratulations. If Mark is the only source, then the disciples didn’t learn of the empty tomb nor were they present at the burial, except maybe John. I would be glad to hear your appraisal of the Joseph of Arimathea character. These apologists are disgusting. Their turnips all bleed away.
This is when Paulogia is at his best. Slowly and patiently, taking every piece of Christian propaganda and hammering away at its fallacies and inconsistencies
That series of events struck me the same way, and it has bothered me since. I began to wonder if both Alex and Bart were considering returning to religion.
Can’t say about Alex but I don’t think Bart is.
Bart's defense of historicity makes him sound like he has already.
@@noracola5285 No. His main reason for rejecting Christianity is the problem of evil, as he has explained many times and in depth in his books.
Just because he believes Jesus existed does not mean anything other than that.
@@noracola5285 The historicity of Jesus is pretty much universally accepted in scholarly circles, with the purely mythical view being considered extremely fringe. Mind you, there are pretty much only two facts about his life are nearly universally agreed upon: he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. Whether or not he said anything attributed to him, behaved in the manner spoken of in the Gospels, or was originally a carpenter from Galilee, all of that is free game for discussion and debate.
Honestly, those are not outlandish claims. The mythicist position seems rooted in a total distrust of the gospels in general, and incredulity that a high Christology could form quickly after his death. But, culturally, nothing about the Jesus myths are new or particularly unique. Messianic figures weren't uncommon in Judea at the time, nor were preachers forming their own movements. I think it's more parsimonious to assume there was some historical individual at the root of the stories, with those basic characteristics, than that he was fabricated from whole-cloth.
Burial on the day of crucifiction most certainly was not the usual treatment simply because it often took longer than a day to die. The victims did not bleed to death. It was their own body weiight that SLOWLY crushed their lungs.
Yes Paul, would definitely be interested to read more about this in a book ... was originally thinking you might produce the antidote to VegeTales but I’m sure the market is big enough for both 😀👍
Are you going to start a GoFundMe to help get it written?
And the video is done in under 30 seconds, then again...
one of best yet thx
just listening to this video I felt so much appreciation for what you do.
yes please, fill a chapter in a book
Question: The Jewish authorities did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and he was a known troublemaker (and convicted criminal). So why would Jewish authorities have been interested in following some kind of tradition where they removed the bodies of crucified criminals by nightfall? To me, that makes it seem even less likely that the Jewish leadership would have followed their tradition (if such tradition existed) and taken Jesus' body down. Or am I looking at things incorrectly? Keep up the good work, Paulogia!!
I believe the idea is that there was a specific talmudic prohibition against displaying impaled/hung bodies. Imo, this is weak because the authorities didn't care very much about Jewish ritual law.
Presupposes that there WAS a Jesus, as per bible, making the authorities look bad with his frankly terrible statements that the authorities didn't "go away angry" at.
If I tried really really hard I can find a reason. But it’s not implicit in the text. So here it goes.
The ruling body in Israel was the Sanhedrin. They as a whole handed over Jesus to Pilot. We don’t know if the decision was a majority vote or everyone was in full agreement or there some other way of making the decision . So the possibility is open that on of the members disagreed with the decision and wanted to in some way atone or compensate for the decision that killed a man that they disagree with.
I don’t think this is likely, because in the cut throat world of Israelite politics, that action would paint a target of your back. But still members of organisations are not the organisation.
Jesus? I knew he was buried around here somewhere?
Hes always in the last place you look.
empty your pockets.
@@HarryNicNicholas Maybe I should try to remember the last place I saw him?
@@pureflix8086I last saw Jesus in a Paulogia video.
The cartoon graphic that headlines this video perfectly symbolizes the quicksand upon which Craig's notions rest.
I would love to see you write a book, a great resource to recommend from someone I trust.
Alex is so muddled. Well as he gets older he might get less muddled.
I think Alex is setting himself up as a middle-man interviewer so he goes easy on excusagists. He should be holding their feet to the fire, and exposing their deceit.
He did the same with his Philosophy mentor, Richard Swinburne. Had I been the interlocutor I wouldn't have let Swinburne get away with his ridiculous assumptions and extrapolations.
What does a God need with a Starship... What does a God need with an expensive Tomb?
Well reasoned refutation.
Thank you.
Q: Why did it take Jesus 3 days to rise from the grave?
A: He had to wait for his nails to dry.
Thanks Paul! Low Bar Bill never fails to disappoint! He should be embarrassed to be so dishonest, but we all know he isnt.
You could always do a series on this subject.
That is a book that I would certainly buy. I have WLC's books, so really appreciate your ability to get into the weeds, with respect to these discussions. 🙂
*Joseph of Plot Armorathea*
Ayyooo
Religious apologists will stop at nothing to mislead and deceive, they don’t mind that they are liars, they don’t mind that they are boring, they don’t mind that they are obviously ignorant and wrong. Because most of the people they are fooling are either children or naive, gullible people.
Religious pride is founded on misunderstandings.
You left out that the typical audience of apologists have also been indoctrinated since birth to submit to authority. So all someone like WLC needs to do is claim authority. And putting that “Dr.” in front of his name on videos helps. Unlike a lot of apologists at least WLC earned his doctorate in philosophy at an accredited university. But that doctorate was on the Kalam cosmological argument, not Biblical historiography.
Good job! Total victory.
27:10 The random dog lol
WLC: If there's just one chance in a million that burial after crucifixion was the norm, then it we can say it was the norm.
Paul: You're gonna make me do this again? Ok...
Play it again, O'ghia! Although kudos to Cameron who pronounced Paul's name correctly.
WLC does a lot of assuming and making unsubstantiated claims to support his case. He deploys a lot of special pleading and begging the question and thinks we should just accept everything he says because his source is the bible . Such things as the 500 witnesses to the resurrection which is simply a nice round number plucked out of thin air in an attempt to give the story some degree of credibility. Craig does this in many of his debates and it’s just not convincing and he must know this .
@@MartTLS You can say that no one outisde his cult cared about this guy Jesus, so no wonder there are no reports.
But 500 zombies (in various states of decomposiiton?) roaming a city, speaking with people, with their families - that would NEVER have gone unnoticed.
@@MartTLS But I grant WLC one thing, that he is honest why he believes. That he goes full blast for Pascal's Wager and Dr. Feelgood.
He admits that these fancy story makes him FEEL so good, that he is willing to go for it, no matter how small the probability.
No one would have a problem when people openly admit it makes me feel good, it gives me a feeling of hope, it is my way to become a nice person.
But sadly the christians that use their believ (delusion) for POSITIVE purposes are tolerating all those that use the same God for purely selfish purposes, as excuse to declare themselves superior, to judge others relentlessly, to hate, to manipulate people, to enrich themselves without anyone complaining.
@@feedingravens
Presumably he believes he’ll get some reward after his death and he’s a very successful apologist, debater , writer etc... He’s held in high esteem by the majority of his fellow believers so I wouldn’t exactly say he does it all for entirely altruistic reasons. He’s not as bad as many of the fundamental apologistists or presuppositionalists but he does have a bad habit of adopting science when it suits and misinterpreting the conclusions for his own ends , cherrypicking those parts he thinks back up his arguments , like the Big Bang for example when most cosmologists disagree with his conclusions. But I suppose that’s only to be expected.
And Pascal’s Wager is such a lousy argument on so many levels that I’m not sure why he would even bother to argue in favour of it .