Green Grass Mows Down my Resurrection Arguments (Jonathan McLatchie / Michael L Brown response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 дек 2022
- @LFTV and @JonathanMcLatchie analyze the video response of Paulogia to Dr. Brown’s short video on evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus
.
Prof. Jonathan McLatchie Responds to Paulogia Regarding the Resurrection
• Prof. Jonathan McLatch...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada 
Наука
An apologist pronounces "Paulogia" correctly? It's a Christmas miracle!
🤣
@@Paulogia You would think that any Christian familiar with 1Peter 3:15 would know apologia and thus Paulogia.
Festivus for the rest of us
I always hear the channels name in hovind's voice in my head.
i think it just indicates a multiverse.
Almost fell off my chair when I heard a Christian apologist say 'Paulogia' correctly!
thank me for catching you
@@God-ld6ll Thank me for helping you brace for the catch.
But you didn't notice it when they mispronounced "Jesus."
It's a Christmas miracle!
@@kalords5967 isn’t it pronounced hey suess?
Can we all consider the fact that our bar is so low for the apologists that we are genuinely impress when they manage to pronounce your name correctly
"Low Bar" Bill strikes again. Seriously, I'm watching this after that first trilogy of WLC responses, and any amount of politeness is a breath of fresh air.
Brown was relaying to McLatchie an oral tradition of what you said. How can that possibly be in error?
😂
HIGHLY underrated comment
I see what you did. 😂
McLatchie weighed the evidence. Brown has spoken the truth about some things, like geographic locations, therefore he is speaking the truth about everything else too!
In my WLC voice: Not ONLY can we state that the source for the quote was EYEWITNESS testimony, as even Bart EHRMAN admits, we can verify its attestation in MULTIPLE sources, as the REPEATING of the statement should be considered an INDEPENDENT source due to the criterion of EMBARRASSMENT, which would apply to PAULOGIA, who presumably would not find it FLATTERING to have his words misstated, plus if we look at other statements we see that similar word choices and VOCABULARY are used by both HIM and other Canadian speakers, meaning we can accept it as PROBABLE.
You know, it's actually pretty great to see someone respond to your videos without a bunch of ad hominem attacks and actually try to respond. Hats off to them for that for a respectful response.
Yes, like starting and ending their video saying that Pauls videos are well made was quite refreshing.
Agree. William Lane Craig, for example, is always dripping with scorn and condescension, and I find it unbearable to listen to.
Paul, your consistency and precision are absolutely fantastic. Matched with your editing and production skills, it makes sense why apologists feel the need to respond to your work; their silence would be damning.
Much appreciated!
@emeraldstacy
If I was religious I would find it worrying that many well-known apologists have taken the time to offer personal responses.
I think Paulogia's videos are damning either way. :D
They're clear with well articulated reasoning. We get sources for claims and links to original videos when the content is a response. When it comes to subjects, Paul's great at getting into the weeds of just a few things, or even only one, at a time; much easier for a believer to watch through if there's not a barrage of challenges all at once.
OMG he pronounced your name right O_O
Its a Christmas miracle !
AHH! He said it! He said the thing!
The whole “no one would willingly be tortured for a lie” argument is one I always respond to with “Why aren’t you Baha’i? The followers of the Bab were tortured and executed for their beliefs. Did they die for a lie or were their beliefs true?”
Or those 19 guys who flew planes into the world trade towers and pentagon and thus proving the truth of Islam and the quran
@@johnfleming5470
Christians would say they don’t count because they weren’t “eyewitnesses”.
Don't most religions have martyrs ? People who died for their faith in a particular belief.
Not to mention every soldier who ever died for a lying general or lying politician.
Yeahs
its such obvious B.S.
or LDS. they were persecuted in this country not that long ago by people that most who use this argument would probably agree with theologically
It's also interesting that so many apologists emphasize how Christianity was a faith for the oppressed, for jews that were not well liked, for slaves and the poor, an accepting church for those at the outsides of society... yet then show amazement how the abused would "willingly take" abuse, which they were also exposed to BEFORE becoming christians... oh yes HOW would that have happened?
You’re such a class act, Paul. Your diligence, politeness, empathy, humor and intelligence have made you a rare atheist that theists often praise openly and apparently sincerely. If there’s any hope for a bridge to be built between the two sides where we can carefully and patiently walk folks over to our side, I think you could be the architect.
No pressure though…
yay. pontifex named paul. there are precedents. One at least.
...but i think... a bridge with one end on solid ground and one in thin air is called jetty? not a native speaker. sorry. or a plank you have to walk, to keep it maritim.
Paulogia Axedifex maximus.
Paulogia is the best!
Mclatchie is so annoying to me. He's supposed to be some master apologist but he makes terribly fallacious points every time he opens his mouth. His debate with matt was utterly hilarious
I just rewatched his debate with Matt, hilarious, he is so bad at these discussions and yet is still one of the better apologists, which says alot about how bad at thought and logic apologists are, mclatchie is annoying to me too
+Brandon Higgins, writes _"He's supposed to be some master apologist but he makes terribly fallacious points every time he opens his mouth."_
That's what apologetics is, fallacious arguments designed to appease the "faithful" and give them a defense (no matter how illogical or irrational) against secular arguments -- as long as you don't look at them too closely.
For example; when you're troubled by Biological Evolution disproving the flood or creationism -- just blindly accept the apologetic of _micro- vs. macro-evolution_ and stop thinking about it.
@@fred_derf You deleted your comment from my thread because you got baited and embarrassed 🤣
@@edithboozy1000 I didn't delete any comment from your thread. An apologist lying is not surprising...
@@edithboozy1000 If Fred left one reply then they didn't delete it as I can see it.
Theres been a problem with RUclips comments for the last few months where i can see x number of comments but when i go to the replies either all or some of them arent there.
A gentleman's discussion.
Paul is a real diplomat.
Apologetics really is like an onion where you first believe that the gospels are all independent eyewitness testimony but the more layers you peel back the weaker the arguments get until you get to the center and there’s nothing there.
Nobody would be persuaded if they didn’t already believe first. It’s all about finding rationalizations for why they believe.
The majority view is that the Gospels contain traces of historical tradition but aren't Eyewitnesses. People who actually know what they're talking about realize they're actually just stories that have been plagiarized and reworked.
@@TheMahayanisti like paul’s spiderman analogy. yes, new york is a real place mentioned in the comics. doesn’t mean spiderman is real.
i take it even a few steps further. in 1000 years, historians will probably be able to look back and find a peter parker who worked as a freelance photographer in new york city. still doesn’t mean marvel comics should be taken as historical fact.
For a split second I thought "Woah they're in the same room that William Craig records his podcast in."
I was thinking. You’re own animations are pretty good, Mike. Then I remembered they were the standard ones Paulogia uses when he only has audio.
I find the criterion of embarrassment argument to be an odd way of thinking. Embarrassment is common in fiction. It makes the characters and story more believable, easier to empathize with.
The criterion of embarrassment seems to be a double standard. If embarrassment is most often a sign of fictional work, why is it then argued the opposite almost exclusively for the Bible stories?
Didn’t you know? Writers in the first century were incapable of making up creative fictions to make their narratives seem more realistic. At least that is what Christians tell me.
The other problem is that we do not know what the early Christians would have found embarrassing. You can leave embarrassing details out of narratives that are true as well as narratives that are fiction, so if a narrative contains a certain detail, is it better to conclude the detail is not embarrassing or to assume it is embarrassing and the narrative is true? I would say the former.
They ignore that because it's very inconvenient to their beliefs. No doubt or real critical examination can be possible so it's always irrationally justified in some dubious way.
Women anointing a body was typical at the time, now if those ladies caught the disciple jesus loved there with some spices ready to rub his body down, that would be embarrassing. Imagine the apologetics for that.
It's embarrassing.
The "criterion of embarrassment therefore makes it true" was made up by Abrahamists because the religion itself is embarrassing and ancient Kings/Pharaohs liked boasting... yet mythic "fictional" figures were embarrassed all the time... but Abrahamist acadeimcs ignored that.
You, in this format, were one of my 1st counter-apologiticists. I've always liked watching and listening to your arguments presented this way. I prefer it over your newer Paulogia Live stuff, so I'm pretty happy to be giving a like here. Well done.
It’s not a high bar but it’s amazing that he isn’t immediately dismissive based on the animated format and recognized how much harder it is than the usual off the cuff videos
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoroughness in following up with these folks who misrepresent your views and analysis. You're a class act, buddy! Keep holding their feet to the fire.
38:30 Although I'm not a Christian I want to say that I really appreciate Dr. Brown's politeness and his sincere attempt to engage with the issues. I'm far more inclined to listen to him than those apologists who insist on strawmanning atheist positions or who are downright hateful.
Thank you Paul for holding them accountable for us!
OMG! He actually pronounced Paulogia correctly! I may have to begrudgingly admire Dr. Brown for this one very specific reason now.
The bit starting at 11:43 is just *chef's kiss.* Whether Jonathan is copying from Michael, or both copying from a common source, it nicely illustrates how insular the apologetics community is.
That’s a double edged sword. So many atheists use the same arguments, some almost verbatim. It’s possible IP worked with Jonathan or used similar sources to make the video.
@@damminers49 Sure, that's possible. I'm not committed to the idea that (certain segments of) atheism aren't insular--no doubt they are. We'd have to look at that case by case, though, to distinguish mere slogans (e.g., "sky daddy" language) from talking points (e.g., handy one-line responses like "it was women's duty to anoint dead bodies") from the kind of thing we see here, which is EXTENSIVE borrowing of MINUTE details without attribution (to be fair, I haven't watched the original video so it's possible he does attribute this to IP and I'm just unaware). I'm not going to predict that you'll never find examples of that among atheists--no doubt you might--but this example seemed pretty egregious.
@@mf_hume I still don’t think it means the apologetics community is insular. In traditional scholarship you see researchers or authors quote each other and borrow from one another. If you had made a worthy point, I could quote you verbatim if I agreed with it. We shouldn’t expect every argument to be made from scratch, most information is borrowed from one another. I couldn’t objectively say that I’ve ever invented a new idea, I’m not sure if any of us could. We’re frequently borrowing from common sources, and those sources continue the same dynamic all the way back.
@@damminers49 I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the interpretation. We could multiply analogies and disanalogies until we're both blue in the face--you say "real scholars do quote things all the time," I say "real scholars don't typically borrow their points wholesale from amateurs' RUclips videos" then we go back and forth until we expire. But I don't really have the patience to continue...
@@mf_hume I agree they wouldn’t borrow from RUclips, but even if one borrowed from a TV segment interview, etc, it wouldn’t prove much. Either way, happy holidays, all the best to you.
After watching Matthew Harke's video "How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity", it is not at all difficult to imagine how/why the NT writers may have reinterpreted OT prophecy. I find the hypothesis compelling that what preceded Christianity was an apocalyptic Jewish sect that anticipated the coming of a conquering, ruling messiah. Having witnessed their failed prophecy of an imminent savior, they were forced (unwittingly compelled via cog-dis) to update their understanding of the prophecy in order to preserve believe. It would also explain any perceived passion, vigor, devoutness, visions, and even martyrdom that many apologists cite as compelling evidence for historicity of the resurrection by way of the disciples' post resurrection conviction. As Matthew H. points out, you need only examine other failed apocalyptic cults to see this effect play out in similarly committed groups. It's not just a common result of failed prophecy, it's expected. See also Failed Trump Prophets.
Falied prophecy seems like a very content new career for MAGA prophets who know 100% that failed prophecy is believed regardless by the halfwit MAGA & Qanon crowd .
Lulz, "Im going to bring an expert"...brings McLatchie instead
Even if the gospels really were eye-witness testimony, that's generally recognized as one of the least reliable forms of evidence.
This was excellent!
Thank you for your work, Paulogia.
He heard what you said, still had access to what you said but still got it wrong. How accurate would that be decades later?
But don’t you see? In ancient times people had a much more robust oral tradition. We can prove this, because we know precisely what happened in ancient times and it matches oral tradition. We know the oral tradition because they write it down eventually. And we know what happened based on written records.
@@derinderruheliegt Excellent!
Paul, your work keeps getting better and better! Well done, my friend! Well done. Cheers, happy holidays, merry christmas, happy saturnalia, and all the rest.🍻
This is the first I’ve heard of Michael Brown but he seems like a breath of fresh air when it comes to apologists. I still disagree with him entirely but I like that he’s willing to admit when he’s wrong at times and seems more charitable towards your views than most apologists.
Dr. Brown's large Christian audience must be highly impressed with his admission of and apology for making errors about what Paul said, that to them it probably makes everything else Brown says seem more credible. It's a useful tactic!
@@deewesthill1213 The man did good to admit he was wrong. And to be congenial in tone and approach. Your cynical take may very well have truth in it, but can’t you just let someone acknowledge good behavior from the other side without immediately jumping to this?
@@dingdongism I did not contradict that it was a good thing for Dr. Brown to acknowledge his error. I agreed, and just added that it is a useful tactic to impress his large audience. Do you think he would have admitted the error if doing so would have upset a lot of people in his audience?
Fantastic effort, Paul, as usual. Very interesting and enjoyable.
After that mangling of your name by "Capturing Christmas" it was such a relief to hear your name finally pronounced correctly! 😁
Anybody who mangles the pronunciation of "Paulogia" is just revealing their own ignorance. Anyone involved in these discussions enough to make a video should well know the word "apologia" and its pronunciation.
As someone who actually went to Dr Brown's ministry school for a year, I am still partial to Dr Brown and have a soft spot in my heart towards him.
Even still, with my change in perspective (I now consider myself an agnostic athiest), I admire his attitude towards discourse by and large. I really believe that his heart is in the right place even though I disagree with a lot of the things that he says.
Thank you, Paul, for taking the time to have this back and forth. 🙌
Your videos are always great but this one hit extra hard, felt like all the punches were landing
From someone who is now an Atheist who used to watch all of Dr. Browns content as a Christian, it’s amazing all the hoops He/Christians have to jump through to avoid putting their faith on the chopping block of reasoning and reality.
I like how polite and friendly Dr Michael Brown is.
29:44 I love this clip of the MUC actors playing the telephone game to represent hearsay evidence😂 I enjoy it every time you use it 😂😂😂😂
We need to take a moment and appreciate custom 3d models of apologists in recent thumbnails. Those look great.
we animators are the backbone of the internet.
Paulogia in knowledge beast mode. Appreciate your work and attention to detail.
i love chrisstians ABSOLUTE intellectual dishonesty of look at 100 specialists in the field that all agree with an idea, an them point at 1 specialist from unrelated field that agrees with their idea and says "see, the specialists are split in half, science has no definitive answer"
makes total sense
There actually is a problem with the argument of philip being from Bethsaida when jesus fad the 5000. According to the earliest account of this story which is mark, as well as matthew, the story happened not in Bethsaida but at a solitary place. When luke records the story, he changes this minor detail to say that it happened in Bethsaida. However, this minor change has huge significance because luke records the disciples telling jesus “Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding villages and countryside and find food and lodging, because we are in a remote place here.” Why are the disciples telling jesus that this is a remote place if they were in the town of Bethsaida? It is because that's what was written in mark's account which luke copied from, but luke forgot to take into account that he changed the story to it happening in Bethsaida when he copied mark sayin that they were in a remote place. This is called editorial fatigue and there are several examples of it in the gospels.
It is just one of many example that they had no clue about the geography and changed story elements without care.
@@TorianTammas It doesn't necessarily prove that they didn't know where Bethsaida is. They may well have known where Bethsaida is but just luke forgot to change the part where the disciples said this is a remote place. Btw, do you have evidence that they did not know about the geography?
So because rain means more food, and people sit and eat in celebration, green grass is proof of something?
My brain isn't smooth enough to understand this.
What I find ironic about apologists is they prove the Bible is not the word of God, because if the Bible was the word of God we wouldn't need apologists.
Apologists say by their actions,that God cannot express himself well enough to be understood and he needs apologists to explain what he tries to express.
How arrogant to think they are better at expressing what God means better than God himself.
Perspective is such a crazy thing. Growing up in small-town Texas, I would have thought these guys were so smart when it comes to the bible. But as a grown man in the PNW, I almost feel bad how much connecting they have to do to make it probable. And how they don't get how easily you swat away their logic. Crazy.
Crazy indeed !! I have, for the longest time, waited for anyone to say "You know, religion is just like 'Santa' for adults... we just do it socially as part of our local culture."
Alas, no one seems to have told most of the inculcated folks, who seem steadfast in NOT accepting they've been brainwashed all along. It would seem, by the time their critical thinking should really kick in, their skepticism and curiosity has been kicked out of them.
In fourth grade, the Exodus story made me an atheist. As a first born child with a first born puppy, and surrounded by immigrant families, the idea of 'god' killing all the first born children plus animals was absolutely repugnant, especially since we had been taught earlier we weren't in the garden of eden because we knew right from wrong. And that was just wrong. Especially when god could have just killed the generals of the army instead, so that the soldiers wouldn't be drowned later when god hardened Phaeroh's heart. When I asked teacher about god's unfair and stupid strategizing, at least she just blew off my question, saying I would understand later... I expected to find out in fifth grade.
I'm many decades older, beyond grades that I thought would provide an answer. And now I hear these "Ph. D.'s" bullshitting answers and getting paid for it. At my age, I just see grown children, with very poor analytical skills, thinking they are wise as they fumble around with crap stories from finding gold plates, to thatens inside us, to praying to Mecca, to thinking human sacrifice gets them "off the hook" for being a bad person. Ick. Maybe this 3 rock from an inconsequential part of the galaxy is no different than an ant hill in my back yard. Somewhere, out there, is likely actual intelligence we can't possibly comprehend while folks kill for land and worry about gender. We don't tell our dogs about what we do for a job and the aliens don't try to explain polycrystalinedimensionality to us.
23:30 There is an interesting modern example of this. Northern California (the area where I grew up) was also the stomping ground of the American writer John Steinbeck. So much so that the area is sometimes called Steinbeck Country.
Many of his stories take place in this part of California and he described the landscape in great detail.
In one of his stories, which takes place in the summer time, Steinbeck described the grass as being golden brown. His editor, who lived on the East Coast through this was a mistake, because the grass in that part of the world turned brown in the winter because of the cold, and was green in the summer because that was the rainy season.
But in Steinbeck country it rarely is freezing cold. Winters are typically wet and rainy. Cool, but not freezing cold. Summers tend to be hot and very very dry. The air has a quite low humidity and it almost never rains between May and October.
In the time I lived there (about 35 years) I think I saw it rain twice between May and October. Both times it was thunder storms that formed due to extremely rare weather events.
So in one of Steinbeck's stories he describes the grass as being green in the summer time. But it turns out that it isn't Steinbeck, it is his ignorant editor who made an assumption that was wrong.
Reading this you might think that Steinbeck had never lived in Northern California. But the error was not Steinbeck's.
I don't think we can really trust this description of Green grass. It's possible that the grass really was green, but it's also possible that this was changed by someone who didn't understand the local climate and made a stupid assumption, just as Steinbeck's editor had done.
Fantastic comment.
Now imagine dozens of editions of that book by Steinbeck being edited by dozens of different editors and each one speaking a different language as their first language. And then imagine in some cases entire chapters being ripped out and removed because a group of editors got together hundreds of years after the first edition to decide which chapters were probably not even written by Steinbeck and shouldn't be included in the book.
@@flipadavis We do not have a Steinbeck in the new testament but a bunch of unknown authors who wrote about hearsay and made up their own stories or just copied an existing fan fiction and modified it to their theological needs. So facts are irrelevant to them.
Merry Christmas family
I have to point this out, the phrase "undesigned coincidence" is a tautology; coincidences by their nature are random (read: chance) events, if planned it would be merely an expected outcome.
With that being said, coincidences don't provide any evidence of things being true (just watch the video 😉)
same as an "undesigned accident"
Nope. “Coincident” just means that more than one thing is at the same coordinates (usually space-time coordinates.) There is no necessary element of randomness or accident. For example, I can plan and design my return of a book to a friend to be coincident with her birthday party. There is absolutely nothing random or accidental about that coincidence.
@@markhamstra1083 Agreed, the term can mean ANY co - incident, or corresponding incident. However it's generally/commonly used to describe happenings or circumstances without causal connection. Chance Accidental Unplanned
@@markhamstra1083 Why are you using the definition of a different, albeit related, word to make your point? In my eyes that completely invalidates your reasoning because, as stated above, that is not how we use the word 'coincidence' in a primary meaning.
@@MoreEriksson I am doing nothing of the sort. I am simply using the definition of “coincidence” that is also used in “undesigned coincidence”. This completely valid and frequently used meaning of the word also completely invalidates your incorrect assertions that “coincidence” implies randomness and that “undesigned coincidence” is tautological. It is not my fault or my error that you refuse to recognize the precise, literal meaning of “coincidence”, and only understand the common shorthand usage of “coincidence” to mean something like “only a coincidence”.
Well done. Esp. in this response, I kept seeing you as
Pauly MasEns, but as the prosecutor, exposing the holes
in the evidentiary timeline of the defense.
Meticulous work. Thanks.
One thing, even if you showed the case of martyrdom, people do occasionally die for lies. I’m thinking of the Victorian fasting girls, namely Sarah Jacob who died due to her lie.
Excellent example. Although clearly a fraud, the girl chose to die slowly and horribly instead of admitting she didn’t actually have the powers. Or she actually deluded herself into believing and dying for those beliefs. Either way 🤷♂️
The problem is that we have no evidence that anyone cared for a weird belief that people made a dead preacher into a god.
I almost feel bad for these guys, but then I see McLatchie spinning yarns about prophesy and I don't feel so bad anymore.
This video is wonderful in that is demonstrates how in an era, without video tapes or even stuff written down, people had to remember what so and so said about what so and so said.
I know this has nothing to do with anything but .. dude, my guy!
I love that clip choice near the beginning.
Patrick: WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY!
Thank you for this.
Thanks for your dedication to, exposing the Fraudulent exploitive claims of these charlatans. You make Earth a Better place.
My perception of the word _charlatan_ is an intentional deception about having special or supernatural knowledge. For the apologists in this video, I’m not convinced charlatan applies (for comparison, I’m 99.9% sure someone like Benny Hinn is a charlatan). Where I disagree with their claims, they seem genuine in their beliefs and I applaud Paulogia for his approach.
Thanks for the video :)
It really shouldn't surprise me to the point of commenting that everyone involved was very polite, took each other seriously, tried not to be dismissive, and even had nice things to say about each other. It's a very easy trap to talk trash just because the other person isn't in the room to respond. That kind of tribal content can be fun, but in terms of adding value to the discourse what Paul, Jonathan, and Dr Brown have done here is frankly more valuable. Thank you to all involved
Great video Paul. As ever
Great video!!
I find it interesting that the criterion of embarrassment only seems to raise its head in relation to ancient history - at a time when what might be considered embarrassing was significantly different to our own.
Embarrassment due to issues of privacy, nudity or bodily function were most definitely different and those concerning social mores also - just because we might find something embarrassing doesn't mean people back then did: "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there," as L P Hartley said.
Even presuming any of it is more than a story.
Regarding the green grass thing, if we accept Jesus as having been a real person, it's entirely possible he had a famous sermon or something around Passover, that became the basis of legend later.
This is like arguing Zeus is real because they found evidence there was a war against Troy at some point, about where the Iliad said it was.
Whoever does these 3d artworks for the thumbnails is absolutely fantastic! Incredibly well done!
I like it when both sides can be friendly even when they don't agree
Amazing job Paul.
Why would you ask the local guy where to buy bread if you were planning on miraculously creating it?
The Bible says He was testing them. If you read through John, you’ll see the disciples were at times off somewhere buying food. So Jesus’s question made them face the impossibility of doing what they seemed to do quite often. Their own resources were not sufficient.
@@Psalm1968 it’s really cool that you know what God was thinking.
@@adamfleder2175 Hi Adam. It is what is written.
Mr. Moustache and Mr. Unrelated PHD are not very convincing now are they
Thanks ❤😊
Im not buying at all that these Christian apologist dont know even simple things like the dating of early Christian manuscripts. And that it takes an "atheist youtuber" for them to finally palm their forehead and go "oh yeah, guess that isnt right my bad". No they knew it was wrong and hoped they did not get called out on it. That is why they have also _still_ kept up their original video with the incorrect information _and_ haven't even bothered to say, pin a comment pointing out the errors in that original video.
He didn't mispeak. He said that the new testament was only a couple years old from Jesus' death. Now, he admits since he was called out on it that it was CENTURIES later were the manuscripts were written. There was literally NOBODY that knew a Jesus in either the Old or New testament/ This is common knowledge, but christians are use to lying all the time
Not sure when you are getting "centuries" from. The writings of Paul/Saul are about 20-30 years after Jesus supposed death and the Gospels are about 50-70/80 years after. That's the standard scholarly dating. Over 90% of our copies are from the 8th century or later but that doesn't change when scholars date the originals to.
That still doesn't mean any of the writers actually knew Jesus tho, if he even existed.
Green grass is an ur-observation: grass is green during the rainy months when people then plant.
Love this content sir.
3:15- my children and I had some horrible play car wrecks on that map!
Paul, did your name use to be Saul? ‘Cos you’re killin’ me!
3:55 IMHO "debates" are an over-rated way of expanding knowledge. They tend to favor people who happen to have loads of factoids at their fingertips or who are especially witty, amusing, etc.
Oftentimes the answers to difficult questions warrant time and additional research before being put forward.
Then there are people (like me) who may be very knowledgeable and intelligent, but who aren't fast on their feet. They may be the sources for the best quality information and arguments. But because they aren't fast and witty they don't appear well in debates.
"Conversations" on the other hand, can be very helpful in getting a lot of information out to where lots of people can benefit from it. But they only work when both parties agree to avoid being confrontational or trying to use debate tactics to make the other person appear at a disadvantage.
They do "debates" by submission, that is, two people essentially exchanging essays. They just won't get the clicks a streamed live debate will get, as you'd probably expect. I guess you could do something like have two people exchange essay responses, then read them in a live setting. Wouldn't be as quippy, I suppose, but it might work.
@@Uryvichk pay some voice actors to do a dramatic reading afterwards, could be fun.
Good video. Well priduced.
Only an apologist would claim that 300 years is a generation.
Well given the supposed ages of some of the characters....
The question is can scripture and other writings from antiquity historically confirm the resurrection of Jesus.
Given that dead things can't come back to life I would say " the resurrection of Jesus has not and can't be confirmed".
But by all means let's continue to debate the "issue" for another 2,000 years.
Excellent
Apologetics are holding on straws now. They tried to capture PHILOSOPHY but is also not very helping to the personal deity either.
northern californian here. i prolly wouldn't assume a season from a reference to green grass. i'd prolly just assume you were at a park or that "green grass" made for better imagery or alliteration than "brown grass" lol
Didn't That Guy debate Alex AKA cosmic skeptic?
Yep, and it was tedious as fuck. Mclatchie is just one unsubstantiated assertion after another.
I can appreciate apologists that want to be corrected if they are saying something wrong.
At least they seem to recognize that if they want to make good arguments, they need to start from facts that can be supported.
But perhaps I'm a bit biased in favor of someone that took the care to pronounce Paulogia correctly.
I saw Dr. Brown's video response to Paulogia a week or two ago and I knew that Paul would do a response video; am I a profit? Really well done, Paulogia! Now to my second viewing,......
I don't know if anyone made any money of you :--D But you're definitely not a prophet.
Profit 😂 I think you meant *prophet before autocorrect took matters into its own hands. 😅
Wendigoon did a video on books on the bible and also said some incorrect things about the gospels being written by eyewitnesses, would love to see you do a correction video.
The intro is amazing
I always thought the insistence that Jesus died was really an argument against the belief that he was not really human (just appeared human). If he was really God, then dying is an important point, which was a major theological fight in the first century.
More like fake a death, since immortal, eternal, all powerful beings cant actually die.
I don't see how that's the case. We don't have anything from the first couple centuries of Christianity.
Very generous of you to grant him Paul as an eyewitness of Jesus! Very generous
Is the fact that they are so convinced by the embarrassing moments because the criteria of embarrassment an argument against the criteria of embarrassment ?
Oh no, not McClatchy... Please say it ain't so. I'm not sure I can even listen to this now, Paul!
Jonathan pretty much drew his PhD in crayon in order to join the discovery institute
As with so much apologetics start with conclusion and find small passages that when linked together might support their conclusion
Both reading and learning how the bible was put together....I immediately became an Atheist. Christianity is definately untrue, let alone the other religions
These people have to be embarrassed.
Throwing a like for the Dapper Dans clip 👍🏻💈
The feeding of the multitudes miracles really deserve more attention from skeptics. They are way more implausible than most Jesus miracles. Christians just like to talk about the resurrection because it's theologically important to them.
When speaking of manuscripts the extent of the manuscript is important. As a layperson when I hear manuscript my brain wants to out the word 'complete' before, but often manuscript actually means a tiny scrap of paper. When these people say manuscript without specifics it feels like lying. They rarely, if ever, say things in a way that under-represents what exists to support what they are selling.
In the strangest twist of irony........ Dr Brown was one the founder's of the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry (BRSM)
I lived in Oregon and had heard from our church youth leaders about BRSM. I was fresh out of high school and had nothing going on, so I applied for BRSM. Got accepted, and in 1998, i moved to Pensacola, Florida. With Dr Brown being a leader and I being a student, I met with him frequently and talked to him a lot....... and now I sit here at 43, consuming every last morsel of content from Paulogia, Dr Bart Ehrman, Thinking Atheist, and many others, trying to undo the years and years of bad teachings, bad logic and overall false garbage that's been pounded in my head for so long............. Thanks Paulogia. Your work reaches farther and helps more people than you may ever realize
Hey there Calvin. With a name like that, there’s no way it didn’t influence your theological foundation when you were a believer. Am I right? Come on, admit it, you were a Millernist weren’t you!
@derinderruheliegt hahaha ha! A Millerist.
Oddly enough, (seems my life is ripe with irony) Calvinism was the last theology I believed in before shitcanning religion all together
@Calvin Miller Awesome! I was a dispensationalist before I gave it all up. Of course, it didn’t happen all at once, I got there in increments.
Didn't expect to see Rabbi Michael Skobac here, but it's a pleasant surprise
Did I say generation? I of course meant century!
McLatchie had a great response to The Flying Man, I think PineCreek put up a clip of it. Something along the lines of 'you're just mimicking the evidence we have for Christianity!" Lol
Wow! Paul you never disappoint us with the detail and follow up. There is only one truth but many lies. Poor Dr Brown is left scrambling for back-up and is then educated by his fellow apologists. Sadly, Dr Brown so desperately wants the Jesus story to be true that he trips over himself. A common situation with believers. This is worth a second listening.
Amazed he got your name right even the one time.
I wish Jesus would return today, I want to hear his reaction to how we celebrate his birthday. Christmas trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, commercial exploitation, a pagan rituals. What would he say? “It’s mashugana”!
He would have flipped seeing himself, 30 feet high on an instrument of torture, bleeding, on the front of “his” buildings.
I thought I recognized Jonathan McLatchie, he’s the one that rage quit during the debate with Matt Dillahunty.
indeed
Where can I find that debate?
@@marcusniaz3110 ruclips.net/video/a-wIaCRIdOA/видео.html
The "rage quit" was not the end of the debate. In the middle, McLatchie became frustrated and was off camera for 10 minutes or so, then he returned and apologized and the debate continued.