The Resurrection of Jesus Debate: Dennis MacDonald vs. Mike Licona (2021)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 окт 2021
- On October 4, 2021, Dr. @Mike Licona and Dr. Dennis MacDonald debated the question of how we should understand the resurrection of Jesus. The debate occurred at Washburn University and was sponsored by Christian Challenge, a Christian ministry on campus. Used with permission. Visit their channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCyBw....
The Resurrection of Jesus Debate: Dennis MacDonald vs. Mike Licona (2021)
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal. 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Recommeded books 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Email MythVision 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
Facebook page: 👉 / mythvision
Facebook group: 👉 / thewaterboyzradio
Twitter: 👉 @DerekPodcast
Instagram: 👉 @dereklambert_7
MythVision Discord: / discord
#MikeLicona #DennisMacDonald #MythVision
Licona is unbearable
His appeal to emotion precludes me from listening to this debate
I found them both unbearable. Can’t believe these two are considered scholars.
I am reading your comments as the debaters are being introduced. I can lower my expectations.
@@toddoman4636 what a dumb thing to say! Dr. MacDonald presented unprecedented arguments in a very limited time span, for a niche non scholarly audience. What are your punctual criticism and analyses of his short disertation?
@@AbeldeBetancourt Unprecedented? Lol? How so?
@@Gumbi1012 Name another world renown New Testament scholar doing mimetic criticism line by line in Greek, having the care to "debate" a mumbling asshole and the patience and will power to show how whole paragraphs have been copied for a dumb and indoctrinated general public.
within 5 seconds of mike’s opening, i braced myself for heavy cringe and sure enough, he immedietely makes embarrasing moral arguments from consequence and personal emotions more typical than my old pastor
And he's considered one of their best.
At least he didn't talk about Ouija boards and flying trashcan lids this time...
@@noamaster3898 ouija boards and flying trash cans?
i did get the distinct impression from some of his q&a that he seems to believe some demon possession/supernatural occurences are true
@@9tailjeza Yeah...it was in his debate with Dillahunty, near the beginning of his presentation. As evidence of the supernatural realm, he recounted a story from a trustworthy woman who told him that while playing with a Ouija board, a metal trashcan lid lifted, flew across the room, hit the wall, slowly slid down, and spun like a top.
:|
@@9tailjeza Here's Liacona's anecdotal evidence of the supernatural: ruclips.net/video/AzQgxwmwc-0/видео.htmlm
He also tells a "church legend" story I've personally heard a few times--but involving different people in different churches--where a ministry or church needs a specific amount of money, and a donation unexpectedly comes in, to the exact dollar amount needed. Wooooo.
He calls himself a historian! How dishonest, he’s a used car salesman selling a car that doesn’t exist.
Licona's best explanation of a poorly documented event is that it was a miracle.
I can't think of a polite way to characterize that.
How about “Wishful thinking”?
@@scienceexplains302 Not bad... I can't do better... But it's still not completely polite, and it's not a very complete characterization. 3/10.
@@bozo5632 Polite AND complete? Moving the goalpost! 🤣
It was the most polite I could think of.
He's doesn't have a brain
@@kingofdetroit358 Licona's the scarecrow without a brain? Lol
What a horrendous opening by Dr. Licona
I honesty cringe with the rape / kidnapping section. Goodness....
""...and no religion too" - How would that lead to us being friends with the taliban? They have a different religion than us!"
- Mike Licona, comedian
The song says no religion too which implies that no one would have a religion, thus people would get along.
@@wendellvillanueva668 Exactly
Opening with "life is not fair, don't you want fairness? God will balance the scales, after you're dead though.... Have faith"
Really convincing, let's all give up on making this world a better place, let's trust in divine justice.
To be fair you go to Hell if you dont try to make the world a better place so its not like Christianity gives you a _complete_ cop out
@@Greyz174 I wasn't talking about being an accomplice to a crime. Just being part of a broken system.
And Christians are probably perfect citizens.
Know your place in life, and reap the your rewards in heaven.
Mike Licona starting out his speech with appeal to emotion. That's not manipulation at all...
And he conveniently left out the genocide, sex slavery of the Bible.
Ok? It's a debate, the goal is to persuade the audience. I'm not a believer but for crying out loud.
Hitchens spent long periods of time in his debates making appeals to emotion and such in a very similar vein. It's a rhetorical tactic.
Think Mike Licona is very naive !! He always appeals to emotions and hocus pocus.
Yes its hard to think we are all going to die , but because reality is hard doesnt make his wishes for justice and an afterlife more real!!
Im sure he thinks that puppies are also running around in heaven , wich doesnt make him a credible historian !!!
I'm not even sure what's so hard about dying? It's all I've seen all my life, dying, dying, dying, it's one of the most concrete things we all know is a fact!! I'm going to die, that's a fact, but I don't waste my time worrying about, I've got better things to do right now. :) When I die, I won't worry about it then either, I'll be dead! WOOOO WHOOOO!!!!!
When I was nine, I stole candy (at a value of about $5 or so) from a local supermarket and my friend's parents found out and told my parents, but I fervently denied it. I later told my sister that I actually had stolen the candy, but begged her not to tell our parents. After this, she used this knowledge against me for YEARS. She had this little tune that she hummed that went "otherwise, you'll know what happens" (if I didn't do whatever she was asking of me, she'd tell my parents that I had stolen candy and lied about it that one time) and as soon as she'd start humming it, I'd get anxious and start panicking. I never stole anything again. So who am I accountable to? I'm accountable to myself. And to those around me. I don't need the threat of punishment or promise of an award after death to behave now. My conscience is quite enough to steer me.
My parents probably knew from day one that I had stolen the candy. And if they hadn't known but my sister had told them later, my shame would have probably been enough punishment. It's not like I was afraid of what they would do if my sister told them. I was just afraid of them knowing that I'd done that. The shame.
Anyways. My sister feels bad about using that against me and humming her little tune and stuff. 😆
The year is 2021 and two academics are debating if a human rose from the dead as if it was a thing to serously consider.
A human?
ok ....
@@torgenxblazterzoid No a fictional character created to engender a class of golem.
@@pinecone9045 Suit yourself. We'll find out soon enough.
@@torgenxblazterzoid You'll find out exactly nothing plus you're too dishonest to talk about it anyway.
@@pinecone9045 There are some circumstances when I'd be more than happy to talk about it . This isn't one of them.
It has absolutely nothing to do with honesty, I'm not even going to guess the strange thought process which led you to believe that it might be.
lol I'm weak, I tuned out when the opening argument was "God MUST exist because who will burn the sex traffickers for eternity otherwise"
God's existence isn't even the topic of discussion, and that's a terrible argument for it
And there's no guarantee they will. They could accept Jesus and live in heaven forever, and their victims could be in hell for all eternity.
The hideous thing about Christianity is that those sex traffickers and non-believers go to hell for exactly the same reason. Becuase they were not chosen for salvation before the creation of the world.
@@davidrodriguez4016 Or even worse, a sex trafficker represents and goes to heaven, and their victims who don't believe go to hell.
There's a chance Hitler is in heaven and many of the victims of his murders are tortured in hell. Not a good God there.
Imagine a person who gets sex trafficked loses their faith from the experience. Then the person who was the abductor and sex trafficker seeks repentance. The link between faith and the afterlife and morality has always been a head scratcher for me. Ugh, the reward of the afterlife is probably all about ritual purity anyway. 🤣🤪
Wow, the classic atheism is horrible, without a god there is no justice argument. Classic wishful thinking. Jesus is risen because otherwise my life is meaningless, strung along with the classic bad apologetics refuted by so many scholars. We need to grow up, life ends, get used to it, life is meaningful precisely because we and only we can do things about injustice, or do things that bring meaning to our lives. Sorry this is classic childishness, I wish that the resurrection is real, therefore it has to be real. Can they ever come up with new arguments, this is just tired same old apologetics, without evidence. Not impressed Mike.
Bronze age Canaan. The sun is reaching toward the end of the day when the rough door of the clay baked home is thrown open and a man screams, "they are coming". His wife stares back in horror as she moves the newly born son from one arm to the other and reaches for her seven year old daughter, pulling her close. A scream of "Yahweh" is heard and a sword protrudes from the front of the hard working father. The mother pointlessly retreats from the fanatic under the orders of his god. A sword pierces her belly and she slumps into the corner of the hovel. She has the strength for one final scream as the intruder, shouting "Yahweh" swings her baby by the feet toward the dirt floor. Her final image before darkness overcomes the mother is of her innocent daughter being dragged into the dying light, into a life of sexual slavery.
Imagine there was no Yahweh.
But the topic of this talk about resurrection. Physical, spiritual, or through vision. Yahweh is a distant spectator.
@@Darisiabgal7573 Yes, I too thought it was odd Mike opening off topic with a sermon.
@@davidfrisken1617 It's okay. Yahweh isn't real. 😊
Check out *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Atheologica.
The fictional Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
@@Darisiabgal7573 of course Yahweh stays away from the scene, he needs to. Otherwise he would interfere with the free will of the perpetrators of evil.
And that surely can't be!
(It seems to me the god of the bible just loves to see his creation suffer and then even expects to be praised for it.)
@@mittelwelle_531_khz That can’t be true, he put the Holy ding dong into the Holy womb and delivered the Holy Semen to the Virgin Mary. She had no free will in the matter.
Dennis MacDonald's books are fascinating, unfortunately they're mostly far too expensive.
I am with you. Best seller "How to love more your already egotistical self" costs a single penny because you don't need much effort to think bullshit and that's what everybody already consumes... Sadly, the best pleasures are as scarce as costly.
The best things in life are free !
That should say something about people making Merchandise out of YOU !
Like everything in life, you have to prioritized. I bet you spend things every month that aren't worth anything, and if you were to forgo such expenses, you will be able to buy a book of his.
Yeah it’s the same with Metzger his work is amazing but pretty expensive.
Licona's 9/11 argument is actually better than his resurrection argument. Not good, but better.
Godless society doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want to especially harm others. This is always the problem of religious person seeing godless person as immoral. Well, religious people can be viewed as immoral depending on what religion you followed because there are too much idea of god. Which god? Well it's create another injustice when you feel like you're the chosen one instead of others because you are the only one who worship the right god. It doesn't make sense. I bet the idea of God is actually created so that people doesn't harm each other but now it's all twisted that religion mostly only causes chaos and not so peaceful society.
One side was a scholarly opinion with some evidence for a hypothesis and the other side was just a sermon based on presuppositions and magic.
Notice how Dennis is detailed oriented and uses statement, explanation and example, whereas Mike seems to talk like a salesman (you will get justice, and a perfect resurrected body etc etc) where conclusions have already been reached and you are just being reminded.
It was a Christian audience which makes perfect sense.
Absolutely true! The openingspeech went on my nerves, no arguments only retorics and emotions. I was a JW for a decade and I know how bullshit sounds like
It seems more likely Jesus never existed, so anyone that is going to argue the resurrection actually happened is too far gone into fantasy land to take seriously
I would be very interested to hear Dennis's rebuttal to Mike's answer about the genre when Dennis said he had much more to say about that.
The gospels read more like a novel less like a newspaper clipping. Sub plots, narrators know what dreams characters are having and a very tight structure like a well trained playwriter would do. Characters pop in and out at the right moment to fill the story etc.
Mike Lacona
1. Paul believed he had a vision of Jesus. And yet he never met or heard Jesus in person.
2. Paul was the most ardent supporter of Christianity. Paul started what we know as Christianity in its earliest form
3. Yada, yada, fist bump. Everything was hunky dory. Mike, you are reading a diffferent epistle to the Falatiins than I’m reading. Lol.
4. “When we hear Paul on it we are likely hearing the opinion of the Jerusalem authors”. 🤣. Far from Jerusalem, some authors are saying Peter and Paul’s messages are the same. But wait the Jerusalem church did write on the topic, but wait where are those documents . . . .orthodoxy declared them heresy and conveniently quoted portions that they believed advanced their theology.
Concerning the genre of ancient biography argument:
The Homeric Epics would have been read and understood as biographies in ancient times by most people I suspect. Especially if you'd asked those who already believed in the Greek pantheon.
Exactly
Response to Mike Licona's "proof texts" for a physical resurrection:
_"When Paul says “Christ is the firstfruits” and that believers will be raised at his coming, he is saying we will be raised as Christ was raised. That our resurrection involves our corpse is what Paul teaches elsewhere (Rom. __8:11__, 23; Phil. __3:21__). Moreover, in 1 Thess. __4:13__-17, Paul informs us that when Christ returns he will bring the spirits of dead believers with him. The trumpet will then sound and the dead will be raised. If the dead are returning with Christ, what is being raised? It can be none other than the corpses of the dead believers. So, the spirits of dead believers who have been with Christ since their death return with him, are then reunited with their corpses, which are then raised to life and transformed into immortality. It’s a bodily resurrection. And since we will be raised as Christ was raised, this means Paul taught that Christ had been raised bodily, just as the Gospels do."_ - Mike Licona
But do these passages actually say this? Let's investigate!
1 Thess 4:14.
_"For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him."_
Licona seems to have a woodenly literal interpretation of this passage which, when understood correctly, collapses immediately.
_“Though a reader might expect Paul to write “God will raise” instead of “God will bring with Jesus,” he writes the latter because of an unexpressed connection between the two ideas. The verb axei (GK 72, “will bring”) does not refer specifically to resurrection. To be brought with Jesus presupposes believers’ rising from the dead as part of the process, as v.16 is about to indicate._
_Rising from the dead is what the apostle had taught the Thessalonians; yet their ultimate anticipation is not just being raised, but being “with Jesus” (cf. __4:17__; __5:10__). The dead will be “brought to the place of God, namely heaven” (Wanamaker, 170). Beyond resurrection, such is the consummating desire of Christians. But even more is in store for Christians. The words “God will bring” point to a continuing movement heavenward after the meeting in the air (v.17) until an arrival in the Father’s presence (__3:13__; cf. Jn 14:2-3). A more detailed analysis of the process follows (gar; NASB, “for,” v.15).”..._
_...Since God the Father is in heaven, the verb ἄξει (axei, “will bring,” GK 72) indicates that the destination of the movement of Jesus and those with him in this verse is upward, not downward. At this moment of Jesus’ return in the air, the company named will not move back to the earth but toward the Father’s presence in heaven (cf. Paul Ellingworth, “Which Way Are We Going?” BT 25 [1974]: 426-31; Joseph Plevnik, “The Faithful and the Resurrection [1 Thessalonians 4:13-18],” CBQ 46 [1984]: 278-83).”_ - Robert L. Thomas, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus.
_“That 1 Thes. __4:16__f. has an assumption in mind is also confirmed by the statement in v. 14 that "God will lead those who sleep in Jesus with him." Since they are to be taken up into the air to meet Jesus this can only refer to their being led to heaven with Jesus.”_ - Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistle to the Thessalonians
So the "bringing" is not of the spirits _down_ from heaven but of the _already_ resurrected dead being "brought/led" _up_ to God in the company of Jesus. Since the nature of the resurrected dead is not explained in this passage Licona cannot appeal to it for his corpse reanimation view.
Rom. 8:11
_"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you."_
This verse has been cherry picked and separated from its surrounding context. Let's put it back where it belongs shall we?
Rom. 8:9-13
_"You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you._
_Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation-but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live."_
This passage is not talking about resurrection at all. Licona again rushes to judgment here because his tunnel vision on the words "raised Christ from the dead" followed by the word "body" does not allow him to read the passage objectively. Now pay attention careful reader. In v. 10 Paul says your _"body is subject to death because of sin"_ by which he's obviously referring to a living body. Every time Paul uses the Greek word for "mortal" (thnetos) it refers to someone who is still alive. Thus, the passage is referring to the Spirit "giving life" (in a figurative sense) to bodies who are otherwise (figuratively dead) because of sin - v. 10. It is not talking about the resurrection of dead mortal corpses. This interpretation is confirmed by v. 13 where he says "if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rather than being about resurrection, this passage is about "living" according to the Spirit as opposed to the flesh i.e. rejecting a sinful life.
Rom. 8:23
_"Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies."_
Phil. 3:20-21
_"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."_
I've combined these last two verses to show that Paul has the same train of thought in both. He's "eagerly awaiting" the Parousia (return of Christ). According to 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:50-54 Paul seems to include himself among the "we" who will still be alive at the Parousia. He also makes a distinction between what happens to the "resurrected dead" vs what happens to those who will still be alive at Christ's return.
1 Thess 4:16-17
_"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever."_
The dead will "rise first" then "we who are still alive" will be caught up in the clouds. Paul expands this idea in 1 Cor 15:50-54.
_I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”_
The "we will not all sleep" is a clear reference to those who will still be alive when Christ returns. People who are still alive won't be resurrected (because they're not dead obviously) but will literally have their bodies transformed (we will all be changed). This distinction carries on in verse 52 - the dead will be "raised imperishable" and we (those still alive) will be changed, verses 53-54 - perishable (dead) -> imperishable and the mortal (those alive) -> immortality.
Based on an analysis of the Greek, Harris concludes:
_"Thus the 'we shall be changed' of v. 52 would indicate that the 'we shall all be changed' of v. 51 refers to the universal transformation of Christians alive at the parousia, rather than to the transformation of all Christians, survivors and deceased, at the parousia."_ - pg. - Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, pg. 179
So Paul is not saying the dead will "be changed." Instead, the dead will be "raised or clothed with the imperishable," whatever that means, while those still alive are the ones who will be changed/transformed.
Now applying this distinction back to Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, Paul is referring to what will happen to the bodies of believers who are still alive at Christ's return. He's not talking about resurrection of dead corpses in those passages either.
@Resurrection Expert. “Clothed with the imperishable” means people get new bodies that do not age or decay.
@@toddmcdaniels1567 Sure but you realize that's ambiguous if it involves the corpse or not.
@@resurrectionnerd I don't see the ambiguity. A corpse decays and comes from a body that is subject to disease and aging. "Clothed with the imperishable" means an immortal body, which is necessarily a new one. It is the same concept as the "garments of life" in the Book of Enoch: "And the just and the chosen will have risen from the earth, and will have ceased to cast down their faces, and will be clothed with the garments of life. And these will be the garments of life before the Lord of the spirits; and your garments will not become old, and your glory will not decrease before the Lord of the spirits." (Enoch Chap 62:15/16). This is the original concept.
@@toddmcdaniels1567 So it's a new body that has nothing to do with the former one that died? If so, I agree with that. Sorry, I thought you were saying something else.
I wonder if you have any scholarly citations to support that reading of Romans 8. Not disagreeing, just wondering. Thanks
Great job 👏🏾 I would like to see Dennis MacDonald in more of these types of debates. Just like Darwin the detailed parallel he has on the Homeric Epics with the gospels must be readily available to a much wider audience to be appreciated.
It's sad how much more charismatic Lacona is. Someone compared him in the comments to car salesman, which I find accurate. McDonald is a bit boring, though that cooking joke was nice, but is solid, logical and seems honest. Not all in this debate seem honest.
In the end, it fascinates me how upside down this setting is? How did these religions triumph so empiricism has to take defensive stance?
Debate starts at 3:45
It amazes me that in the 21st century there are public debates about whether a first century Jewish cult leader rose from the dead - evidenced entirely by the testimony of his fanatical followers.
True, it is beyond banana bonkers that this is seriously discussed despite the rediculously weak evidence for the proposition. It's actually laughable.
"He failed Greek as well" lol what a burn.
8:00 Licona appeals to Mother Teresa as a role model for altruism. Licona must not know that Ma Teresa was a crook and a sadist.
Licona uses sex slavery to shock his audience into swallowing the appeal to consequences fallacy, while keeping silent about the sex slavery condoned by Yahweh in the OT.
8:30-10 More appeal to consequences fallacy, although he does then, in one sentence, acknowledge this fallacy and appeal to the evidence.
16:45 Based on 1 Corinthians 15 Licona asserts that Paul and the Jerusalem church were in accord on the Resurrection. However, this is contradicted in Galatians 1, another authentic Pauline epistle “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
22:00 Licona must be aware of the limited scope of supporting evidence for ideological martyrdom of the disciples. The historical evidence is only good for 4-6 of the original 12, but Licona elides the difficulty with this minority by saying “at least some” died as martyrs.
22:28
“100% of the disciples claimed they saw him.” No, the sources claiming to speak for the disciples claim that they saw Jesus. We don’t have firsthand accounts from any of Jesus’ disciples.
22:51 Jesus disciples didn’t write anything that still survives. The later writers of the Jesus tradition are unknown and there’s clear evidence of theological jockeying concerning the risen Jesus’ nature, which would have been unnecessary if there was no contemporary debate about Docetism and other forms of Christianity.
23:30 Licona again appeals to consequences while claiming to be using an evidential approach. Why go back to that well a third time if the evidence is so good?
Guess he never read Hitch's exposee on that sadistic saint...
As Ayn Rand pointed out in fact she is the PRRFECT example of altruism because that is exactly what altruism is, sscrificing any sense of being an individual to anything other than yourself. Altruism is the true poison that christianity has inculcated , it is even the major defect in neo atheists “morality” they to are altruist. Marxist are altruist. Conservatives are altruists. Libertarians altruist. Plato, neitzche, Kant , hegel, ALTRUIST
well said,spot on.👍
Mr Ma’at
Indeed, Licona’s sex slave scenario is fine, biblically, as long as the kidnapper pays her father 50 shekels.
@@Mr.Witness Are you 12? Because if you're not over Ayn Rand by the time you've graduated high school, you have actual problems for which you must immediately seek help.
I just found out this existed. Maybe I will find out that Jesus existed too. Exciting stuff as always.
Nope…you’re gonna find out that Jesus is just a mythological fictional fantasy and the whole Bible is nothing more than mythology.
WAKE UP Christians and find the TRUTH about your DELUSIONAL religion.
Great debate. My only compensation (and this is not just for this debate), I wish they allowed the host to read debate questions written from the audience. It is very hard to hear what they are saying. The host and two debates are always mic up correctly. Taking questions from the audience is always great, but their mic is usually not that great.
1:02:39 *Two in a row* Just brilliant!
If pizza is not the most nutritious food, then I can’t eat it whenever I want to, and I don’t want to believe that. But I believe it, because that is where the evidence (and my experience) points.
I want to believe that pop tarts cures cancer
Put "the" dog down....I don't know, but I use all kinds of phrases for my little boy, but never "the" dog. Or "the" cat... It's a small thing, but it struck me so bad.
I also took issue. This Licona sociopath clearly wanted to appear relatable while being completely foreign to actual human sentiments.
One of my grandmothers (the bad one), catholic, was seen 22 years after she "passed away".
Lacona sounds like a comic book villain in his opening, jeez
Most professional apologists are charismatic and good at formal debating. Doesn’t mean their arguments are good though.
Feelings vs facts. Wishes vs knowledge. What if vs what is.
Exposing thinking Christian’s to Professor MacDonalds work is a big mistake IMO. Gets them thinking outside the box! 😮
Well the microphone/sound setup was pretty hopeless . . . . you'd think they could have done better than that (if they wanted to keep the debate for future use).
Their credentials alone give a huge advantage to Dr. MacDonald. Dr. Licore is whining a bit.
Mike is full of himself
This was an embarrassment for the atheist simply because his opening attack relied heavily on the nonexistent 'q' document.
Licona's opening is such a pathetic appeal to emotions. Raped girls and dead dogs?! I mean really, that's the best he's got to open with?
So many things wrong with Licona's opening. We are responsible for how we live: to ourselves, to others, to the planet. Our future depends on humans understanding this harsh reality instead of worrying about the next life.
Good luck with that ...
Not working out too well is it?
If we want to understand Paul's conversion, we should start by being a lot more skeptical of the Bible's claims about Paul's religious history. Tarsus, his home town, was a city dominated by greco-roman civilization not by Jewish orthodoxy. Why would a Pharisee be working for the High Priest, a Sadducee? Why would any of them be persecuting Christians in the first century, didn't the Jews have bigger issues to worry about, like Rome? How would the High Priest in Jerusalem have authority to "persecute" anyone in Damascus? Would a student of Gamliel play so fast and loose with Jewish scripture? Doesn't Acts 5 say Gamliel refused to persecute Peter? Does it make sense that an orthodox first century Jew would so easily be convinced that God was a man, and that you should drink his blood to be saved?
Does Paul ever explain how he received his teachings from God/Jesus? He never says, “Then Jesus told me.....”.
I'm agnostic and I like to study the Bible and Biblical history objectively. So, please don't infer that I am a Christian apologist based on the following.
Paul never believed that Jesus was God; Paul believed that Jesus was a created being who was exalted by God but was still subordinate to God.
*_2nd Corinthians 1:3. (Paul)_*_ Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort._
Paul refers to God as separate and superior to Jesus. He does this consistently in his letters.
*_1 Corinthians 8:6. (Paul)_*_ Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live._
*1st Corinthians 15:24-28.* _Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” _*_NOW WHEN IT SAYS THAT "EVERYTHING" HAS BEEN PUT UNDER HIM, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF, WHO PUT EVERYTHING UNDER CHRIST._*_ When he has done this, _*_THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL BE MADE SUBJECT TO HIM WHO PUT EVERYTHING UNDER HIM, SO THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL._*
*_Ephesians 4:4-6. (Paul)_*_ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; _*_ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL,_*_ who is over all and through all and in all._
*_1 Timothy 6:13-16. (Paul)_*_ In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, _*_and_*_ of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time -God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen._
There is one single passage in Mark where Jesus enters into a conversation with sadducees, and he makes Jesus answer like a sadducee. Or rather Mark makes Jesus look like a complete moron.
The sadducees have since become the least bashed faction.
But Paul is declared a pharisee, a believer in a general ressurection. The only difference is, that christianity made Jesus the firstborn of the dead, thus, no ressurection unless you bend your knee.
So we can guess, what made the christians bash the pharisees so much.
It all started with christianity beeing eschatlogical insisting on the messiah as bringer of the kingdom.
So the question is, what made Paul act as if he in fact believed in a near day of the lord and thus accepted messianity?
As with the author of Mark, who was an unbeliever by the time of writing, you will not get a single convincing argument, but maybe a pile of motives which add up.
@Adrian. Good points. I think you are perfectly correct. Paul probably DIDN'T believe Jesus was God. We could debate how high of a christology he had, eg Son of God, "from whom all things came", etc, but none of that gets us to full christian orthodoxy, or anywhere near jewish orthodoxy. My point was that Paul probably comes from a very greco-roman religious worldview, not a Jewish orthodox one. Probably right from the start a lot more "pagan" like Philo, than orthodox like Gamliel.
@@morte2195 Paul's Christology was very Jewish.
There's plenty of room for Christian theology in the Tanakh.
A Christian can argue that God was speaking to Jesus in Genesis 1:26.
*Genesis 1:26.* _And God said, "Let _*_US_*_ make man in _*_OUR_*_ image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."_
A Christian can argue that it's acceptable to worship the Messiah alongside Yahweh.
*1st Chronicles **29:20**.* _And David said to the entire assembly, "Now bless Yahweh your God," and the assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and _*_THEY KNEELED AND PROSTRATED THEMSELVES BEFORE YAHWEH AND BEFORE THE KING._*
A Christian can argue that Yahweh himself would exult a mere man to a status near his own.
*Psalm 2:4.* _He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; Yahweh mocks them. _*_5._*_ Then He speaks to them in His wrath; and He frightens them with His sore displeasure. _*_6._*_ _*_"BUT I HAVE ENTHRONED MY KING ON ZION, MY HOLY MOUNT."_*_ 7. _*_I WILL TELL OF THE DECREE; YAHWEH SAID TO ME, "YOU ARE MY SON; THIS DAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU._*_ 8. _*_REQUEST OF ME, AND I WILL MAKE NATIONS YOUR INHERITANCE, AND THE ENDS OF THE EARTH YOUR POSSESSION._*
*Daniel 7:13.* _I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, _*_ONE LIKE A MAN WAS COMING, AND HE CAME UP TO THE ANCIENT OF DAYS AND WAS BROUGHT BEFORE HIM._*
*14.* *_AND HE GAVE HIM DOMINION AND GLORY AND A KINGDOM, AND ALL PEOPLES, NATIONS, AND TONGUES SHALL SERVE HIM; HIS DOMINION IS AN ETERNAL DOMINION, WHICH WILL NOT BE THE, AND HIS KINGDOM IS ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE DESTROYED._*
His body was placed in a tomb.
But three days later, the tomb was empty ?!
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds
(so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of his god the father almighty, never to be seen again....?? wow!
hahaha
What if Joseph of Arimathea was an allegoric representation of Josephus and the "tomb" actually represented Josephus' accounts that were "empty" of any mention of Christ?
@@warrensmith8161 What about homosexuality
@@AbeldeBetancourt That is very simple if you are willing to accept the notion that this ancient allegoric code has been passed down from generation to generation into modern times. The Matrix movie makes it very clear that "red" is associated with reality and since the name "Adam" means "to be red", "males" represent reality. "Females" represent the "cover" employed to conceal the truth hidden underneath, so when Cypher looked at the Matrix code on his monitors, he only saw "blond, brunette, redhead". Males are "married" to females to create allegory, which is then branded as "truth". However, if a male joins himself to another male then you have true truth which is the greatest "sin" one can commit. Obviously, this means that "lesbianism" is much less of a threat, but the pure falsehoods that it represents is also opposed to the metaphoric "truth" so it must also be treated as a sin. (All allegoric "children" are made up of masculine and feminine elements so a character's actual gender is generally based on how much literal truth the allegory actually contains. For example, "history" is usually male, while stories with "magic" tend to be female.)
The people behind this allegory follow the general rule of "as above, so below" which means that they attempt to make the allegorical "world" they created to "mirror" the real world as much as possible. (The "world" was originally created on the "flat earth" of a written page so this idea has been preserved despite the fact it cannot be defended in reality.) This makes it difficult to recognize when someone is talking literally or allegorically and this then allows these people an incredible amount of freedom to discuss their secrets within hearing of the uninitiated. I would even go so far as to suggest that the protection and tolerance of pedophile priests by the Church is based on the desire to maintain the metaphoric value of their crimes. In other words, when certain Church leaders who have been initiated into the "mysteries" engage in the real world acts of honest allegoric interpretations, they can be metaphorically associated with the real world pedophiles. For example, suppose a priest befriends a local and starts to tell that person about his allegoric interpretations. This priest could be transferred to another location on the literal premise that he was engaged in pedophilia but in reality he was only guilty of its hidden meaning. (It is also worth noting that the Church needs people that can keep secrets and pedophiles are very good at that.)
Listening to Mike's opening was like playing Logical Fallacy Bingo 🙄
LOL.. Seriously. For every point he attempted to make, he instantly continued on and refuted it, within the next few sentences he spoke!
Debating over something that cannot be proven, or isn’t falsifiable… so pointless and stupid!
The mention of Paul in the resurrection of Jesus Christ already lost the debate altogether. This guy better go back to school to get his logic clarified.
Couldn't listen to that Licona guy. Lennon was right.
48:05 sounds like Jesus coming back as an AI holigram
16:50 Paul saying “i delivered what i received”- (from the apostles according to Dr Licona, but that is false according to Paul. Paul swears he only received in revelations, from God, not from humans.
I predict i will die and won't be raised by God. This means I'm the son of God and in a triune relationship with myself.
Me. Myself. and I ???
Very hostile environment, the premise seems to be Jesus was resurrected and the bible is true. Very hard to argue against cherry picked parts of the bible. They seem to think the gospels were written by the disciples??? They are late and they are contradictory.
I would have to give this debate to Licona but I didn't hear anything that would sway me either way. Peace
I don't see why the Resurrection was necessary.
God need only appear in His Infinite Shining Glory, and all non believers will fall on their knees.
Now is a good time.
Honestly rough showing by Dennis. I don’t agree with Licona at all, but Dennis seemed to just state things with little to no support for his positions. Especially the arguments about Paul thinking Jesus didn’t rise physically. Seemed to ignore everything Bart Ehrman has written on the subject.
You seem completely lost on the subject. Ehrman himself said MacDonald is much more intelligent than he is and that he knows more the language and the surrounding culture than Ehrman himself. What makes you think, MacDonald's statements aren't just going above your head?
Some people arent great at debating. Its kinda a bad way to get lots of info through tbh
MacDonald is not a riveting speaker, but if you listen harder you'll maybe see that your other objections are unfounded.
@@AbeldeBetancourt Bart Ehrman has blog posts on his site that directly refute Dennis’ claim that Paul taught a spiritual-only resurrection of Jesus. You can find it with a quick google
@@Iamwrongbut He actually does not refute MacDonald. It's called a "scholarly view" for a reason.
As a non believer, no holy roller can impress. If he could, why should I choose this religion among all the other ones. They're all confident they have the answer, so either I believe them all or I believe none of them.
Everybody seems to love Jesus, ethical teachings, I find them to be quite deficient if not insane!😢
You can see Licona's apprehension whnever Dennis brings Homer to the q n a, Licona gets very defensive as if afraid that the layman would realize the gospel connections to earlier literature like Homer's Iliad.
Licona is just not so creative enough. If he really wants to solve these issues he has opened up from the beginning then he does not need to stick to his limited narrative, because
rebirth can fix it. You will compensate for all your madness in this existence.
''Claims''
Its true cos it says that it is,is the level of the people in the QandA
The term that needs to come into this discussion is 'genetic predispositions' -- the essence of someone's psychological makeup prior to any interaction with the natural world. We normally don't like to think of ourselves in this way, because our personal identities are so wrapped up in our memories and life-changing events of our lives. Let's suppose I have a 6 sided die and I toss it. It comes up 6. Where did that 6 come from? Was it in the die? In some sense it was. It couldn't have rolled a 7, because there are only 6 sides. Was it in my wrist when I tossed it? In some sense it was. Had I tossed it differently, a different result may well have occurred. Was it a confluence of the natural laws? In some sense it was. If I had tossed the die in exactly the same way, but on Mars, the difference in gravity could have caused a different result. Now take that simple example of a 6-sided die, and replace it with the much larger, yet finite, combinatorial possibilities either of psychological traits, or outright DNA replication. Ever since Aristotle, these people had the philosophical ability to see individuals as an accumulation of psychological vices/virtues. Aristotle came up with the system of virtues sitting between two vices which represent an excess and a lack of the corresponding virtue. For example, the virtue of Courage/Bravery sits between two vices -- heedlessness, and cowardice. Heedlessness is too much courage and no sense, charging into confrontations without regard to likelihood of success. Cowardice is obviously a lack of courage/bravery. The ideal is that center-point, but that center-point was also understood to represent the "Razor's Edge" between the two vices. Most understood they'd fall on one side or the other of that idyllic mark.
Did Licona just start with a monstrous case plead with double tuck and flip?? Gave up that this is any sort of rational debate
mind blowing stuff ~~~~ another reefer for the learned initiated
its all ambiguous when it comes down to it ~~~~ where is Carrier to wind this up
Christians' salvation is on shaky ground they still not sure about Resurrection
If you're a sex slave and God exists, you've got to ask yourself what the hell his major problem is.
You don't have to imagine a godless universe--it would look exactly like the one we're in.
I like Dennis MacDonnald not so much for his homeric enthusiasm, but for who he is.
I credit him for and agree that there really is an allusion to Od. 10.1 concerning the stilling of the wind in Mark, thus introducing in a different way the mysterious geography in Mark in his bifurcated story ( Mk 4:35ff First branch of bifurcated story, Mk 6:45ff Second branch of bifurcated story, Mk 8:27ff Reunited text, to Jericho).
But those who indulge in mimesis and midrash in Mark will not decode Mark on his own terms. For instance the gerasene demoniac has barely anything to do with polyphem or circe (no matter how gerasa sounds in your ear) but with a criticism of the jerusalem church (jairus alma) against the gentile church concerning their scapegoat. The answer to this by the gentile church is, that they declare all food clean.
Get him Dennis!
I cannot believe Licona said 'Truth matters'! Also 'g.d loves you' but only if you do and think exactly as you are told. Where do they get their ideas about love from? Xtianity is not about justice in any way as you get to sit at the top table anyway so long as you believe on your death bed regardless of how many millions you have murdered/destroyed. I try not to listen to apologists as it's all so manipulative,childish,and disrespectful of any standards of truth. Triggered. It ended up a good debate after the initial Licona sermon. I thought Dennis explained his position well and was quite convincing.
Better debates, in my humble opinion, would discuss more practical issues.
Resurrection is so obviously not true. To debate the obvious seems a waste of time. It's like debating the rapture.
⚘
Resurrection is true by default for apologists. So, unfortunately, most debates have to lose time on it. Or waste time, more precisely.
@@stormlord1984 No, don't use the apologist as an excuse.
If a three year old tells you.0 + 0 equals 1, you're probably not going to debate him.
These apologists are the 3 year olds. Let them babble on their own.
I hate to say this… but honestly I don't think that Denis MacDonald did a good job on this one.
The apologist has no argument no facts just preaching nonsense.
Wow! Starts a academic debate by quoting a pop star.
Love this line -> If Jesus raised from the dead then that means Christianity is probably true... In what world does a resurrecting body prove a supernatural realm?
Do you know anyone that can resurrect in the Natural Realm?
'god is real because I'm terrified if he's not'
'these awful deeds (that god permits/does!) would otherwise go unpunished'?? I can't even listen.
I had high hopes, but, wow, that's just so terrible and they seem lien 'arguments' from decades ago.
How to bring these two ideas together. Think not about God. Think of Godliness. A challenge for mankind. Godliness is in you not somewhere outside of you. If you must become, become that...
That doesn't bring the two ideas together, it ignores them both and introduced a third, unrelated idea.
Most people getting out of religion and fanaticism thinks like that before arriving at Atheism. It's called mysticism: it is not new and there's no need to find a formula.
I should mention that I think it's not necessarily a BAD idea, if you take "godliness" poetically.
Humans should strive to be virtuous and to not do harm (IMHO). It is always a challenge to everyone to be more good and less bad.
It shouldn't depend on godliness, or gods, or spirits, or souls or any confusing, invisible, new categories of reality; or even on beliefs, or disbeliefs.
@@AbeldeBetancourt Righ,t no formula just people treating each other with compassion and trying to be good people. Thats not mysticism
@@bozo5632 I only mean't that if there is no religion that we could just be good humans to each other since we share this planet. This is best of both.
Except you have a problem Acts and the gospels are fictional. Wait man your qouting 2ndPeter? that is a church forgery!
It IS odd that Paul had the vision he did and also very unlikely. I wonder if there are historical parallels? But Paul’s gospel is highly suspicious to me. I’ve never heard anyone mention the fact that Paul never tells us specifically how he received his gospel. His epistles makeup 90% of Christian theology and yet Paul never quotes Jesus or says something to the effect of, “So then Jesus told me what’s going to happen when he returns...”. Instead it seems obvious he’s just making it all up and his teachings are so different from Jesus.
Well he claims to have been taught by the ressurected Jesus and to not have been taught by the apostles.
@@stevenv6463 Is that what he claims? When does he say, “....then Jesus said...” or “...Jesus told me....”. He never explains how he was taught by Jesus. He never quotes Jesus. Somehow he usurps the disciples who lived with Jesus for 3 years. Somehow he pulls rank on James and Peter. Doesn’t make sense. I’m saying this as someone who thinks Paul’s writings are very enlightened and beautiful for the most part. It just doesn’t make sense to me though.
@@jonnyw82 Galatians 1:12
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ"
@@stevenv6463 That leaves much to be desired. If a guy who was not chosen by Jesus claims to have his own gospel (Paul literally says “my gospel”) that is different from Jesus then I think we need a lot more info on how the information was received.
@@jonnyw82 Oh no, I completely agree with you. It is quite clear to me that Paul is arguing against Jesus' actual disciples and family members because he claims direct revelation from Jesus and that this is completely crazy. I think he was leading people away from Jesus' true message.
24:59
Licona's opening :), people don't go to hell for doing bad things. If Christianity is true, then heaven is likely full of rapists and horrible people like Mother Teresa who aided in and praised people's suffering. And hell is likely full of great people that simply don't believe. How is this justice?
I keep saying do one on the most evil and destructive of all religions , that of Freemasonry. I double dare you!
There's a Freemason group in the city near where I live. They don't do anything particularly strange. They just have a weekly meeting, and plan good deeds. They are actually too reserved for my tastes. More reserved than Christians if you can believe that. Though technically they can also be Christians. Their only requirement for joining is that a new member must believe in some sort of higher power which presumably can also be Yahweh. They don't care what it is as long as you believe in something that's a creator deity like thing.
In christianity justice is NOT served. The worst sinners will be saved if the accept Jesus in their hearts. The most loving and charitable person will suffer for eternity just for the terrible sin of not believing in fairytales.
“They added nothing to my message,”
So Jesus’ life, including the crucifixion and resurrection, was worthless according to Galatians 2:6. All Paul needed was the revelation. A god could have done that without creating Jesus. A god could have given the revelation to everyone and be done with it.
Licona wouldn’t need to repeat fallacious arguments in debates
Christianity existed before Paul
@@johnc.8158 Agreed. How does that relate to my post?
@@scienceexplains302 A Revelation wasn't given to earlier disciples and apostles. They had Physical contact with a real Human. -. JESUS !
@@scienceexplains302 A Revelation by itself would not have included the shedding of blood of the Incarnate Christ which was needed for the Redemption of Mankind !
@@johnc.8158 No, the crucifixion wasn’t needed if god was omnipotent. S/he can forgive or apply amnesty as he wishes.
The revelation was sufficient for Paul’s gospel and he said no other gospel was valid. So no human Jesus was necessary for the “correct” gospel, according to Paul.
Mr. Licona does not seem sincere. He looks as though he has realized that he has been wrong for all these years and now he just says his stuff because he wants the money.
He knows better. He know this is not a dress rehearsal. He knows this life is all there is.
Thanks Mike.
HI....
Terrible debate. Although I agree with what Dennis says, he’s not a good debater. If I was basing my beliefs of either his or Mike’s deliveries, and not the substance of their material, I’d end up thinking that Mike was correct. Dennis was hard to follow unless you’ve already heard him speak about these things previously.
Soma pneumaticon. Greek written to English. Spiritual body.
Q is a sayings gospel. When Yeshua died Peter took the roll as leader, then James took the role. Epic mystery leader not needed.
Paul changes his mind a number of times between 1 and 2 Corinthians
Maybe Paul got a hold of some of Dennis’s cooking😂
Paul was grieving because he got kicked out of the gamialal school and was now ‘dog’ the bounty hunter.
One single outside source for this bs religious story of Jebus coming back to life, and this debate would be over.
But Mike, according to the bible what is wrong with a woman being kidnapped and used as a sex slave, it was a thing that OK for the Hebrews to do, with the OK from God.
Felt like Dennis put his slide together at the last moment.
I'd like to as lacona.. if there is a God then why ARE there children and women in the sex slavery ??
Why is there a hospital for sick kids
:(?...
Because _ultimately_ he'll do something about it, he just prefers the suffering for now.
MacDonald whipped Licona
It’s a myth, get over it.
Wow. What a terrible intro from the first guy.... Why would I care if a God hears me crying as I am being raped and sold for sex my whole life & he doesn't do anything? That the people who did that to me don't get any punishment except in someone else's imagination maybe 60 years or more later. Maybe I wouldn't even live that long. Sick.
Wow.. Mike looks so aged.
The fear tactics used by Licona just shows how desperate he is to cling to his fantasy. He can't bear the prospect of the facts getting in the way.