5 Scholars Attempt my Resurrection "What If" Challenge

Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Mike Licona, Dr. Sean McDowell, and best-selling author Lee Strobel all make an attempt to answer my "What If" challenge for Christians.
If Peter and Paul were the only actual witnesses of resurrected Jesus, that would make the other appearances in the gospels and creeds legendary developments. Are there any other lines of evidence that would contradict such a scenario?
2 Top Historical Scholars PROVE that Jesus Rose (Gary Habermas and Mike Licona)
• 2 Top Historical Schol...
90-Minute Resurrection Q&A with Dr. Craig and Dr. Hemati
• 90-Minute Resurrection...
A Conversation with Lee Strobel: The Case for the Resurrection
• The Case for the Resur...
Thanks to Shannon Q. / @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
teespring.com/...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord

[@ProphetofZod]

Good thing you didn’t use the “for the Bible tells me so” clip for this one. This video would have been an almost uninterrupted 20 minutes of overlapping chimes.

[@davidhoffman6980]

But that's what we want.

[@turboguppy3748]

Yeah, my wife hates those chimes... lol

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

What about that is "a good thing, zod?"

[@kristianmurphy4833]

I like it though ding dinga ding.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

I'd disagree if the chimes were rock music. But they aren't so I agree that it's a good thing lol

[@sbushido5547]

I still get a chuckle about Craig pretending that the gospels are "independent attestations" or whatever nonsense he likes to call them.

[@melonusk6120]

bart ehrman says it can be regarded as such.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

⁠@@melonusk6120Except he along with most biblical scholars agrees that Matthew and Luke are literarily dependent on Mark and even copy certain parts word-for-word.

[@melonusk6120]

@@Lobsterwithinternet yes, that is technically correct.

[@TimDavis77]

Given that Dr. Craig is on record as saying no evidence would convince him due to the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit,” he will forgive me if I don’t judge him as an expert on what constitutes good evidence.

[@jacoblee5796]

Atheist: "So is there any independent evidence outside of the gospels?" Theist: "Well lets look at the gospels..." Atheist: "WTF! Are you serious right now? Did you not understand my question!?"

[@Paulogia]

pretty much

[@phileas007]

@@Paulogia The interesting question is whether they are incompetent or just despicable

[@karlrschneider]

@@phileas007 Not mutually exclusive...

[@lileveyc]

@@Paulogia Yeah I trust the clearly divinely inspired book

[@noneofyourbusiness153]

@@lileveyc That book you believe is "divinity inspired" because it says so in the book, which is true because it is "divinity inspired"? xD

[@counteringchristianity]

The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows: Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports). If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

it also records how the effort to "make the messiah prophecies of the OT true" increased throughout early Christianity... Matthew had to do a rewrite for Mark as Mark was so blatantly ignorant about jewish religious habits and rituals, that he brought masses of mistakes into his Jesus story... then the other two rewrites mostly increased the "leanings" from the OT, to "prove" through citations that these events had been "predicted". And it does nothing to explain the 20 or so other gospels and 5 or 6 other "acts" that reportedly existed and from which we still have a good number in form of preserved manuscripts... Jesus and his talking, walking cross from the gospel of ... ehh was it Thomas or Peter? comes to mind? or him murdering a child in the childhood gospel of which none of the four "official" gospels seems to have heard... It's also interesting how the use of citations does not necessarily stop with the canonical books, but does integrate a few of these (Enoch and Maccabees for example) that later on were not deemed worthy to be included. It would seem that a careful report would not need to cite inofficial accounts to improve it's own streetcreds ;-)

[@counteringchristianity]

@@Ugly_German_Truths You're right. Almost the entire passion narrative is built around the Psalms and Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. Jesus' entry in Jerusalem on a donkey (two donkeys in Matthew) comes from Zechariah 9. These authors were intent on "fulfilling" the Old Testament so it's pretty clear this hermeneutic was guiding the story rather than actual eyewitnessing or historical facts.

[@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279]

Well written sir. Thanks.

[@fred_derf]

+Countering Christianity, I've never had it explained, if it's the immaterial soul that goes to heaven (because heaven is outside of space-time), why did jesus bodily rise up into the "heavens"? If jesus did go to heaven shouldn't his body have simply slumped to the ground dead?

[@counteringchristianity]

@@fred_derf I think the earliest belief we can gather from Paul's letters is that when he said "raised from the dead" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form. The two step physical resurrection to the earth followed by a separate and distinct ascension doesn't develop until Luke/Acts which may be second century. What Paul says in Phil 2:8-9 - exaltation right after death, Rom. 8:34 - raised -> in heaven, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 seems to imply he went straight to heaven. Thus, _all_ the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood as spiritual visions/revelations from heaven. Later, after the story evolved is when we see the physical appearances develop. I don't know exactly what Paul meant by a "spiritual body" in 1 Cor 15:40-44 and scholars still debate the issue. There is evidence in Tertullian, however, in which he says some believed the "animate body" (natural body in our English translations) referred to the soul alone.

[@NYCFenrir]

I still think the most likely case is that Paul had a vision of Jesus and then went to share the vision with the apostles. He met and told Peter. Peter was embarrassed that Jesus would go to someone else and not the apostles and lied and said he also saw Jesus. Peter of course made sure to say that Jesus went to the apostles first. When Peter had to explain to the other apostles he told them that they also had met Jesus, but Jesus looked different and they just couldn't recognize Jesus. Peter would have been the only one that lied while all the other disciples thought they really saw Jesus. When the apostles told the story of how they met Jesus they embellished the story: it went from someone that they couldn't recognize to the person later telling them that the person was Jesus himself and that's how they truly knew.

[@alflyle9955]

You have succinctly nailed it with this most probable explanation of where the legends started. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

[@mabatch3769]

You might be right but I think it’s more likely that the whole thing is simply an ancient fable.

[@cyberjism]

YAY, sitting here at the dealership waiting for them to finish with the brakes and Paul has an upload...excellent!!!

[@tonydarcy1606]

Is that the Christian second hand dealership ? Certainly these guys are full of spiel !

[@cyberjism]

@@tonydarcy1606 Nissan, and buy is my butthole sore after they finished 🤣

[@davem9176]

When you dont like the question, just dont answer it.

[@DaPradaGap]

keep up the hard work paul, i love seeing the different challenges that you offer and seeing how religious people try to answer them.

[@paulwignall2503]

I'm so happy you were able to make this happen! Holy cow I hope they do a response video to this. I'm sure Capturing Christianity will at least. It will be 3 hours long. LOL

[@Paulogia]

Longer means better, as we all know.

[@cindychristman8708]

They all bloviate...when it takes you 5000 pages to explain a phenomena you've lost already.

[@timothymulholland7905]

You took on the dream team and whooped it! Amazing!

[@Paulogia]

They'd beat me at basketball.

[@theturtlemoves3014]

18:35 I seem to recall that on this side of the pond it is considered that Paul was at odds with Peter and the disciples, and they certainly didn't exchange Christmas cards. Paul is also noted as correcting Peter, including (a one wag put it) reminding Peter about his dream meal and that bacon butties were on the menu.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

It pretty much says so in the bible, they had to make several attempts at meeting to discuss about this stuff and in the end while agreeing to a kind of theological ceasefire they did only split up the areas of proselyzation but did not come to a single, unified doctrine... and in the end Paul won, most modern belief is designed around his letters and the prescriptions therein, while the words of Jesus (like "sell your stuff and follow me") do mostly fall away silently... Christians should technically be called Paulians ;-) Even the catholics that pretend to get so much from Peter...

[@rbgg2010]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Imagine living with Jesus for years, leading the group after he died, and then a few years later some guy just shows up and starts telling people what Jesus was *really* like...that had to ruffle some feathers.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@rbgg2010 sure. But that makes only sense for a human Jesus that died and of whom they never heard again... IF there was a "holy spirit" in them, that connected them to God and directed their actions, they would already know what the new guy said... Inspired by the same "spirit". Allegedly!

[@rbgg2010]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Even if that was the case, it's still got to hurt a little knowing that the new guy basically took over after you've been there since the beginning.

[@norWindChannel]

Another brilliant installment, @Paulogia. Clear and to the point as always.

[@DBCisco]

Paul had only 3 years to persecute Christians ? As a historian I laugh at the whole Pauline Corpus

[@tomsavage8514]

paul didn't persecute christians. he created the christian religion.

[@evanskip1]

I had to stop ALL my work to follow this keenly. Not disappointments at all after 20 min!

[@scienceexplains302]

I added this to my Easter playlist

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

Good video. Thanks for sharing this with us. Your efforts are appreciated .

[@michaele.4702]

I been none stop busy with Covid last few months and haven't watched anything But saw this title and said O sht I have to watch.

[@ryanbland556]

Your arguments are so we'll researched. At no point did the apologists argue anything to the contrary of the original question. I am grateful for the work you are doing Paul.

[@shaunelliott8583]

Does anyone else feel like Lee Strobel constantly shaking his head as he speaks might be some kind of tell?

[@arthurmarsch6211]

@15:30 the Brian Williams getting shot down in Iraq story is a famous example of memories changing over time

[@jcgadfly6200]

A piece of the courtroom scene from "Inherit the Wind" comes to mind: Brady: I do not think about things...I do not think about. Drummond: Well, do you ever think about things you DO think about? Multiple, independent traditions written by Pauline converts?

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

The rift between Peter and Paul was real and so obvious in the text. It is even hinted at downplayed and reconciled, in Acts. The author (supposedly the companion of Paul - ok) tries to show how much more unified the early church was than what it really was given our insights by Paul in Gal.

[@GetMeThere1]

As a lifelong atheist I'm not REMOTELY interested in these details -- yet I watch these videos in the same binge-worthy manner that I watch those that keenly interest me. The only way I can explain that is that I find Paul's calm and "unloaded" logic and reasonableness soothing and compelling. And.....curiouser and curiouser...I suspect that's why WLC and his cohorts can't stay away either, LOLOL.

[@Paulogia]

That is kind, thank you.

[@pierrelindgren5727]

I'd try to get on one of these shows. Lay out the argument in a more full way and have a discussion about it. Not a debate, but a discussion as a way to gain feedback. ShannonQ recently interviewed a christian gospel historian, could maybe ask her to get two of you together on a show to poke at it.

[@LambentIchor]

Your format is very good for showing up their bluster and inability to actually engage with your hypothesis. Instead find some way to construe it as some old saw that they have pre-fabbed arguments against.

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

All these “ doctors “! where did they get their degree? in what ? I don’t need a degree to detect a used car salesman!😂😂😂

[@peterjames7073]

You have done that which , I only thought about . It's hard enough to get the ' Ground Roots' Christians to accept the Names ' Matthew Mark Luke and John ' are only traditional names added 150-200 years after the events took place . . . . . let alone accept the ' Gospels ' are anonymous !

[@stevegirard-voiceaudiopodcasts]

Ha! I never realized before that Craig kinda looks like David Lee Roth (former Van Halen singer)... especially when he raises his eyebrows, like right at the start of this video.

[@curiousnerdkitteh]

Great video!

[@TheeGrumpy]

21:11 😲 Strobel and Licona imagine the same scenario to demonstrate how two men couldn't independently imagine the same scenario. 🤯

[@jeffnarum1373]

Church is just a weekly book review. (Just skim over the first half)

[@terryfuldsgaming7995]

And 90% of the rest.

[@tardigrade8019]

The first half is the most fun tho. I love dark fantasy.

[@spectreskeptic3493]

Excellent Paulogia! These kinds of questions do a great job of exposing apologists obfuscation tactics. Apparently, you need PHD in bullshit to connect the dots. A question I've been wanting to ask apologists is if everyday believers understand the problems with using faith (and most don't), but they're not sophisticated enough (due to complacency or lack of resources) to rescue it with apologetics, does that mean they're believing for bad reasons? If so, why would an all-loving god have such a high bar for justifiable belief? Anyway, keep up the great work!

[@goldenalt3166]

So they are saying that when two apologists meet and talk, they fact check each other and immediately go back and report any discrepancies in their accounts? And moreover they can't possibly come away incorrectly thinking there was agreement? That's not even done today and we know better!

[@ApocryphalDude]

Is WLC wearing makeup?

[@paperbacktripper66]

It's the Stan Laurel look

[@nates9029]

Ah, I was about to say, "Lee Strobel is a scholar?!" but I hear you change it to I think you said, "leading resurrection apologists". That makes sense. Strobel is DEFINITELY NOT a scholar. I find him to be a pretty bad Christian apologist too but that is just me. Anyway, great video! Each of these apologists completely botched answering your hypothetical. It was painful listening to them fumble over themselves and spout utter nonsense.

[@Paulogia]

It's hard to be nuanced on a thumbnail.

[@nates9029]

@@Paulogia - Very true. Still a great video. I'm a big fan of your channel. Keep up the great work!

[@masongalioth4110]

😔Why couldn’t they just answer your question? ...Why do they have to dodge?

[@LogicAndReason2025]

Apologists have to dodge. Honesty is fatal to the whole con.

[@RustyWalker]

6:00 "..All including Judas.." Hold up. Does he mean, "Judas who killed himself in contradictory ways before the appearances happened" Judas, or "second-best not good enough to be one of the twelve til one of them kicked it in mysterious circumstances" Judas? Since I'm only 6 mins in, do any of them ask what your basis is for suggesting that only Peter and Paul *might* have had post-Resurrection appearances? Future Me might forget to edit this later if this is answered in the rest of the video.

[@kiabvaj5656]

Remember that Judas was one of the 12 which Jesus promised: "You will be sitting on the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel." So when Paul referenced the "12", he included Judas too.

[@badtad]

Thank you Paul, awesome vid!

[@bobwhelan5636]

The mistake you made was asking a straight question and expecting a straight answer.

[@DemmyDemon]

This is very interresting. Thank you.

[@NotCapitalist]

For the Bible told me so!

[@GalapagosPete]

Ya know, sometimes it’s almost as if this stuff was just made up centuries ago and for some reason these people are going along with it, and are going through some incredible mental gymnastics and self-deception in order to be able to do that.

[@joseph-thewatcher]

After a year of watching debates where these people debate other Christians, Abrahamic religions and atheists I'm convinced that they believe the Bible because they want to believe the Bible no matter what and they attempt to convince others that there's no other reason to do so. No matter how scholastic, academic, degreed up or dedicated they are they present nothing new or convincing that would change my mind. I don't think they're interested in convincing me as much as they're trying to preach to the choir.

[@bacicinvatteneaca]

The letters by Paul are surprisingly modern in structure compared to the Gospel, almost as if people talking to each other sounded more normal than people writing prophecies.

[@JayMaverick]

They speak of Sauron in multiple books. Therefore he exists. Can I make money as an apologist now?

[@mabatch3769]

If you start the church or Sauron and amass followers then yes you can.

[@benwil6048]

There was actually a group (more than 100’s) hallucination regarding the sun not too long ago, I’m afraid I don’t recall the rest of the details though

[@Griexxt]

If it's the one I think, they spent a day watching the sun. They weren't hallucinating, they fried their eyes.

[@benwil6048]

Griexxt rip

[@thomasdoubting]

On the creation of false memories: "i DID propose marriage to the soda machine, and so did my wife!"

[@darthsombra2102]

If Jesus can walk on water. Can he swim on land?

[@paulwettstein7071]

Christians really hate it when the 500 witness claim is challenged.

[@SupremeSkeptic]

Is the challenge to reconcile the resurrection accounts of Paul and Peter? If you can definitively show that the gospels and creeds are unreliable, then you can disregard them. But if you can't, then why disregard them? What's the point of that?

[@Tanner404]

You disregard historical sources with no evidence by default. The burden of proof falls upon the accounts. If you apply that same logic to other historical sources, then my crazy uncle's UFO sighting is true, unless you can somehow debunk it.

[@RichardRoy2]

For these people to have taken up the challenge must mean they've been experiencing feedback from their constituents, enough such that they found they couldn't be silent about it. Silence is probably a preferred approach. I found it funny that so called scholars would preface their attempts to address the issues with ad hominems on the proposer, as Dr Craig did in another video with Paulogia. Here, I get the impression the address is not directed at Paulogia, or his subscribers, but to their constituents, simply to make it seem that they'd addressed the issue. I'm presuming that the followers of these apologists are gradually weeding down to the less critical thinking types more easily lead by their approach. They're probably losing the more critical thinkers.

[@timtheskeptic1147]

You missed a huge part where the bible says that the dead rose and caused a disturbance in town. So, literally nobody else in Jerusalem noticed this happen or thought it noteworthy?

[@skepticsinister]

I absolutely want those 5 ‘scholars’ to watch this and understand that I, and many more, are far more convinced of the rational hypothesis presented by #Paulogia for the (bs) resurrection, than anything these five apologists have to show for their irrational beliefs. Excellent work Paulogia!! Thank you 🙏!

[@hithere7080]

I love it when people say what other people believe, it just destroys credibility

[@yashaouchan]

Please use CE not AD

[@thomasridley8675]

With the history of religion. You would think we would be less gullible and demand more evidence when a new god is proposed. But here we are.

[@jugglinglessons]

This is delicious! Twenty bucks well spent!

[@wishusknight3009]

Is that scott stapp at 19:47? lololol

[@questionasker8791]

No, Creed Bratton from the Office.

[@wishusknight3009]

@@questionasker8791 OOOHHH! lololololol

[@questionasker8791]

@@wishusknight3009 Yours would have been great too though hahaha

[@LucianCorrvinus]

How can something be "pre cannon" if it IS cannon, or have I made a biblical scholar here?

[@ryrez4478]

does their overlapping attestation argument sound like one large argument from ignorance to anyone else? basically "none of these stories in the gospel directly falsify jesus' resurrection so jesus did indeed rise from the dead" ? maybe im just being too uncharitable or maybe im confused

[@michaelmeszaros6982]

"Koo, look look look, .. look, look, loo, loo, ... koo, look, look, look., loo, loo, loo, loo. Hey, you hosers. Welcome to Canadian Corner, AKA, the Great White North." Paul, thanks for guarding our northern borders. RockOn. (I LOVED when Canadian Corner used to appear on SCTV, and their movie STRANGE BREW.)

[@kristianmurphy4833]

So was James an eyewitness?

[@gertjanvandermeij4265]

Btw ....... Shouldn't you EMPTY that trash can ? it is stuffed full !

[@markvonwisco7369]

Does it make me a bad person that I cannot stand Lee Strobel's accent? I'm conscious of the fact that Wisconsinites have ambivalent feelings towards Chicago area tourists (google FIB for further context). His bad arguments plus the accent make it hard for me to take him seriously.

[@brianbucher1313]

I do so very much hope the attempt to respond to this video 😂

[@jarrod752]

_...Speak No evil..._

[@briancolella6045]

18:01 17:13 19:06

[@coletrickle1775]

""All of the evidence contradicts that"" Provides no evidence.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Has GOT no evidence. Only "evidences", the pseudo science equivalent to real supporting documentation.

[@bdf2718]

But he did provide evidence. He did. He did, he did, he did. He quoted Galaxians. And Space Invaders. And Pacman.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

bdf2718 Hey don't diss on my boy Pac Man now. I main him in Smash Ultimate.

[@austinlincoln3414]

Angel Mendez are you 2000 IQ

[@MicheleGardini]

What they claim as evidences is just a long list of wishful thinking. On this basis, I'm allowed to claim Life of Brian as a proper documentary.

[@irone7049]

What is more likely: That the laws of physics might be temporarily suspended so that god can have a human sacrifice to appease himself, or that William Lane Craig might be intellectually disingenuous?

[@cennethadameveson3715]

Ooh,ooh. Please sir, I know this one!

[@terryfuldsgaming7995]

@Gabe Norman i subscribe to channels i don't agree with. I was subscribed to fox for a while... until I realized it just pissed me off.

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

Neither big bang cosmology or abiogenesis violate any scientific laws or require a belief that laws were temporarily suspended. PS cosmic and chemical evolution are just common names for things that already had definitions. The only reason to refer to them as cosmic and chemical evolution is if you're trying to conflate them with evolution itself in order to deliberately muddy the waters. Neither big bang cosmology or abiogenesis have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

[@irone7049]

@Gabe Norman “despite him beint just as disingenuous” is an assertion of fact that would be better stated with supporting evidence. I do not find Stephen Crowder to be deliberately disingenuous. I think he tries to be genuine and only fails when talking about religion. But he does this because he is convinced that his reasons are true. I think he is trying to be genuine. WLC uses the same statements and tactics even though I have seen them being disproven many times. He has seen the evidence that shows that he is wrong and he ignores it. Because his agenda is to sell himself as a scholar and to sell books. The two cannot be fairly compared. Also, my listening to another person (even if they were deliberately disingenuous) does not negate my argument. On a final note: I find Stephen Crowder to be highly entertaining and WLC is not. WLC is a tap dripping all through the night that won’t let you get to sleep. Expect this annoying drip will justify the murder of children as a ‘good thing’ because it meant they would receive special dispensation from god to still go to heaven even though they were from tribes that were doomed to hell. If you aren’t currently subscribed to Steven Crowder I encourage you to check it out. Especially his Crowder Bits channel which is hilarious.

[@irone7049]

@S Gloobal “Apply what you just said to cosmic and chemical evolution” OK What is more likely: That the laws of cosmic evolution might be temporarily suspended so that god can have a human sacrifice to appease himself, or that chemical evolution might be intellectually disingenuous? I don’t get it. What was I supposed to glean from this exercise?

[@DjVortex-w]

I have always loved the argument that pretty much amounts to: "How do we know that the scriptures are true and reliable? Because of the thousands of eyewitnesses. And how do we know that there were thousands of eyewitnesses? Because the scriptures say that there were. And as already established, the scriptures are true and reliable, so we can trust them when they say there were thousands of eyewitnesses."

[@soriac2357]

Apologetics ultimately comes down to "for the bible tells me so!", no matter how much they claim to have external reference or even evidence, it's *always* "for the bible tells me so" in the end.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

So now Roswell, the Book of Mormon, Elvis faking his death and the Miracle at Fatima are ALL true, cause they have direct testimony to their veracity, despite the mountains of evidnece against them? Seems a pisspoor epistemology that only confirms a preconceived notion but does ZERO to actually determine veracity. (of course it would be poor as it's a circular argument... but writing it the other way round is more fun :D)

[@spideykris1]

I get dizzy from how many circles they run

[@fred_derf]

Or in other words "For the bible tells me so".

[@ThirteenAmp]

Yeah it always boils down to the bible is true because the bible says it's true I like to start with the bible is the claim not the evidence and drop reminders when it starts to go that direction

[@whatwecalllife7034]

"I dOnT kNoW hOw To PrOnOuNcE hIs NaMe" Paul- says his name on literally every episode including the one they critique

[@voodoodummie]

these people are paid for not having their views challenged and especially to tell other people their views are not really challenged.

[@CharlesPayet]

I confess - I occasionally mispronounce his name, because I keep hearing the apologists mispronounce it so often. Drives me nuts!

[@spaceman081447]

Apologists are being deliberately snarky in childishly mispronouncing Paulogia.

[@HangrySaturn]

@@spaceman081447 Surely it's not so!

[@huffpappy]

The truth is that Christianity is an empty basket that the apologists fill with suppositions.

[@MartTLS]

* Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat. * Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there. * Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat while using a flashlight. * Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"

[@MisterRorschach90]

Mart TL1000S and flat earthers are like looking for a black cat in a dark room, claiming it’s actually a Bigfoot, and claiming the room is actually a piece of paper while also saying “I found it!”

[@tshirtjay]

Fundamental Christianity: The belief that there is a magic skydaddy that exists outside our time while simultaneously having an effect inside our time, that was always here, created everything, set everything in motion, then turned himself into a ghost, raped a young girl, then gave birth to himself. Moderate Christianity: The same as above except gay people are cool now. Presuppositional Christianity: The belief that god exists, made everyone and everything, atheists don't exist because everyone knows this god exists, and if anyone disagrees they are a big poopy head.

[@bdf2718]

Or shit-stained used suppositories.

[@robertbetz8461]

Actually, the basket is filled with suppositories.

[@anthonynorman7545]

To mispronounce your channel name at this point has to be intentional. It's pronounced in every video.

[@henghistbluetooth7882]

Anthony Norman He’s done it 3 times now in videos where he makes reference to Paulogia. It’s such a grade school sideways insult. Maybe he thinks it makes him look as if Paulogia is below his notice. What it actually makes him look like he is about 7 years old.

[@jaydubaic21]

It’s a weak power move that is so pathetic

[@UriahChristensen]

This is exactly why I say, "There comes a time when apologists have to either stop being an apologist, or be dishonest." If these apologists didn't understand the question, then they demonstrate such a low comprehension that they should quit being apologists If the apologists did understand the question, then they are willfully dishonest in defending their faith. So many scholars... So many people that give Christianity a bad name

[@ravenvalentine4919]

give Christianity a bad name ? its simple either Christianity is wrong and broken or Christianity is wrong and broken according to what you just said and it is the case for Islam and every so called divine sent religion so far so this Christianity being given a ban name thing is only the result of it not getting one until now , but does not change the fact that its bad

[@martifingers]

@@ravenvalentine4919 "This is exactly why I say, "There comes a time when apologists have to either stop being an apologist, or be dishonest." This would seem a harsh thing to say but there does seem to be a pattern with apologists. All engaged in the debate would be better served if they listened and checked out thier understanding first with their interlocutor.

[@terryfuldsgaming7995]

@@martifingers personally i don't think factual statements qualify as harsh. I think some people just were not properly raised to be able to deal with reality. When i see a comfy lie, or a painful truth, i choose truth every time. They chose the lie, even tho they know it's a lie. That why they are so defensive and keep themselves so isolated from anyone not in their cult. When reality doesn't make them happy, they retreat into fantasy.

[@UriahChristensen]

@@ravenvalentine4919 all of that is irrelevant to my comment. I thought it was clear that I was talking about people, and any claims to it being true is not relevant. Nor is the institution itself, and its doctrinal traditions being harmful . These are just irrelevant when talking about the current perception of Christianity as seen by the majority in the US. You are conflating people's subjective beliefs about Christianity with the assertions Christianity makes about reality. To put it another way: you are using a truth value as a counter to a reputation. One can have a good reputation and still do bad things. For example, one can have a reputation for being a law abiding person, and actually be a kleptomaniac.

[@ufutz]

@S Gloobal Go outside, wander around, chat with somebody about the weather etc. That's reality.

[@PWN4G3FTW]

Paulogia, you are awesome. Those guys should be ashamed of themselves.

[@sfamerken12]

They will never be tho. Too much money being shoveled their way by gullible masses.

[@gowdsake7103]

Not a chance

[@MartTLS]

S Gloobal Because everyone of them has failed to answer the question being asked they’ve simply made up their own and answered that one.

[@MartTLS]

S Gloobal Of what ?

[@MartTLS]

S Gloobal Watch the video

[@chrisose]

For the apologist, all questions lead back to the Bible. It's the only place where their mythology makes any sense.

[@soriac2357]

It doesn't even have to make sense to anyone, it's plain argument from authority, for the bible says so, and that's that. Because making sense obviously is, like logic, of satan!!!

[@simongiles9749]

@S Gloobal Based on what? Since the Biblical God has shown to be limited by internal factors in other apologetics arguments (see below), then on what basis would we assume that God could, and would, bring somebody (Himself) back to life? Example of apparent limitations of God - the Crucifixion had to occur in order to redeem humanity from sin, rather than God simply forgiving them, because as an all-just entity, God was somehow forced into obeying (His own?) system of metaphysical law and could *only* satisfy the redemption of original sin by dying Himself. Or so I'm told. But, ergo, Biblical God has limitations. Edit: Sorry, everyone, for feeding the troll. I'm not really interested in whatever non-sequitor the idiot posts in response, just that he can't even look at a keyboard without falling into a ludicrous fallacy, and I do so enjoy pointing them out.

[@JohnSmith-xf1zu]

@S Gloobal Please prove a god exists before you start claiming their responsible for other unproven phenomena. Still waiting on that, troll.

[@JohnSmith-xf1zu]

@S Gloobal "you already know there is a God because you already know there is a God" 🤣🤣🤣 Oh Goober. You don't disappoint! Still intellectually dishonest as always.

[@JohnSmith-xf1zu]

@S Gloobal Still making the same questions you've been given answers to a thousand times, yet refuse to accept the most intellectually honest position of "we don't know". Keep asking yourself "Explain why there's lightening if there's no Thor" and other completely unhelpful questions.

[@BruceCarroll]

I worked as a performing magician and illusionist for 20 years. False memories are surprisingly easy to implant, and happen unintentionally all the time.Try this experiment: The next time a major news event catches your attention, write down everything you recall about it and your immediate reaction to it. Seal it in an envelope and put it in a safe deposit box for a year. (Be sure to date the envelope, so you'll know when to open it.) A year to the day after the event, before opening the envelope, recall the details of the event and your immediate reaction to it. Then open the envelope and compare your own immediate analysis of the event with your memory of it. You may be surprised.

[@davidoverholt4775]

Paul, it appears your really gaining traction here. Your continued calm, polite and open method of presenting a concientious disagreement allows appologists and others a comfortable way to engage. Keep it up, your really making a difference.

[@losttribe3001]

I have a friend who, because of “deep meditation”, was able to see his past lives. This is his claim and I believe him...in so much that that’s what happened in his mind. He’s an eyewitness to a belief system that contradicts ALL of Christianity and it’s teachings. That we are in an endless cycle of death and rebirth in different bodies. Sure, we can write him off (I’m skeptical of his claim and think he’s a creative guy who’s made up a fantasy), but I can see him, question him, argue with him, and clarify things. We can NOT do this with Paul, nor Peter. So I have an even harder time believing in the writers of the Bible (New and Old Testaments). Also, anytime some brings up the 500..I am reminded of John Cleese in Life of Brian saying ‘what were their names?” when Brian was trying to blend in with the “prophets” to hide from the Romans. That and, “he’s making it up as he goes along”. 🤣😂

[@cygnustsp]

My crazy soon to be ex wife has similar sentiments, but she's also catholic, but she's also a practicing witch, but she thinks the devil is actually the good guy, but also thinks god has cursed her and she's going to hell when she dies.

[@terryfuldsgaming7995]

Na Its totally logical. I mean, 500 trillion people saw my dick, and said it was good. They all exclaimed in one voice that it was the penis of a God. So there you have it. Im God. 500 trillion people agree with me so it must be true.

[@krazer9515]

Question. Were all the past lives famous, special or important people? Cause for some reason it seems that famous people are reborn into hundreds if not thousands of individuals at the same time.

[@CteCrassus]

@@krazer9515 Kinda like how Otherkin seem to always believe their spirit animal is a majestic eagle, a proud lion, a rugged wolf or, for the really ambitious, a dragon. No one claims to be a cow or a chinchilla trapped in the body of a man.

[@sbunny8]

One small correction. Your friend didn't tell you what happened in his mind. He told you what he *remembered* about what happened in his mind. There's a big difference between me showing you a letter I got from my girlfriend forty years ago, versus me telling you what I remember about the letter, which I no longer have, because I threw it away when she broke up with me thirty-nine years ago. There's a similar problem with "near death" experiences. They aren't telling us what they experienced during the event. They are telling us what they *remember* about it. And that memory could very well be the result of their brain desperately trying to stitch together some nonsensical images to make a narrative. Same thing with alien abduction stories. BTW, there's a theory that a large fraction of alien abduction stories are actually people who were struck by lightning, wandered around in the woods for several hours, and then their brain invented a story to fill in the gap in their memory.

[@desseldrayce5248]

Lee Strobel a scholar? Yellow journalist, more like.

[@jakethewolfie119]

So a piss-poor apologist?

[@jtheist32]

Watching this is like a group of guys getting together to talk about a book of fairy tales reminds me of some of my friends who get together to talk about their favorite anime, and they can just cite every little bit of the lore and story.

[@Angelmou]

And explain away illogical issues like how some of the characters are all of a sudden way stronger as the lore allows or why they acted stupid with apologies. ;-) Reminds me of: Why do almost all aliens in Enterprise look humans with some glue in the faces? Budget restrains because of lack of money? Of course not! There must be an in-show reason for it. Not just restricted budget in real life. :-D

[@williamho2940]

You forgot the private gossip that pressured the creator to go a certain arc, such as those from the editor, publisher and fan pressure.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

One difference though, Jeremy... almost all of these friends and others like them will KNOW that their favorite book is fictional and won't start letting it dictate their actual life through commandments and doctrinal precepts on behavior... They might even be able to admit that it isn't all that good when you look at it more neutrally than as an avid fan :D Nothing of that is allowed for the bible believing christian...

[@Angelmou]

@anti-anti-intellectual x I know that episode - while it is a wacky directed evolution just like Intelligent Design - even when people may not always agree with steve here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmKnhqV_lMSCkLM He explained with a Dawkins acting included, why the authors of the show did not really understand Evolution.

[@archapmangcmg]

"A hypothesis that has virtually nothing to commend it" WLC describes the claimed miracles perfectly.

[@sundayschoolflunkie3979]

Along with the whole of Christianity.

[@EscepticoHumanistaUU]

In other words, "sholars" (in quotes), that is, apologists who only do the sort of "research" that substantiate their huge confirmation bias.

[@borttorbbq2556]

What substantiation

[@tshirtjay]

Yes that is correct.

[@dragan176]

Often under an agreement not to question the Bible

[@tshirtjay]

Anyone ever notice when every apologists talk about what happened in the bible, they talk in a way as if they were actually there lol? Great video they set em you knock em down.

[@rbgg2010]

Yes! That sense of certainty about things they can not be certain about grates on me big time!

[@bigskypioneer1898]

I can only conclude that *A)* Paulogia is an incredibly patient person, because no way I could have sat through "biblical scholars of renown" totally missing the point of the exercise. *B)* Their reading comprehension skills are a little subpar - which could explain their total acceptance of the Bible *C)* At least one, or all of them, were being _willfully_ ignorant of the question because they knew (on some level) that to answer it honestly would help them to understand why people become skeptics of their faith. In conclusion, watching these men huff and puff was actually painful.

[@germanvisitor2]

"Paolo-Gia... Paulogia... I never know how to pronounce his name." Has he ever been on a Prager U video? his research skills indicate it.

[@XanKreigor]

Apologist is just a synonym for liar.

[@lileveyc]

Literally looks at the facts of a proven historical record but ok

[@bradweir6993]

@JevvoBruv creep

[@Hariester]

@JevvoBruv but I like it hot!

[@pauligrossinoz]

From my perspective, the most significant problem with the resurrection claim is that all four gospels are actually _anonymous._ Even that professional _liar_ William Lane Craig agrees that the gospels are anonymous. But he just can't admit that their anonymity obviously undermines their status as reasonable evidence.

[@SeekingVirtueA]

Thomas Paine talks about that in the Age of Reason. Not 100% sure I agree, but definitely relevant if they were not eyewitnesses.

[@pauligrossinoz]

@@SeekingVirtueA - well, I'm more than willing to revisit the evidence presented regarding the actual authorship of the gospels. And I'll happily assess any new evidence too. But according to the best research I've seen - and that includes from Christian sources - the first time in recorded history that the names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were associated with those four gospel narratives was circa 180 CE, when Bishop Irenaeus made the claim. Prior to that claim, not a single Christian source associated any gospel with any specific name, even though prolific Christian writers such as *Justin Martyr* extensively quoted the gospels. Justin Martyr _always_ referred to the gospels as a group: "the memoirs of the Apostles", but not once did he claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote them. Any belief in those actual people as the authors comes from the claim by Bishop Irenaeus, and when looked at from an honest and neutral perspective, that's not even close to being a good reason to believe that the claim is actually true. Bottom line: *There is no reasonable basis to believe that those four gospels were written by eyewitnesses.*

[@daviydviljoen9318]

Basically it's "for the bible tells me so!" I read a nice version of the hallucination hypothesis in James Fodor's book "Unreasonable Faith."

[@Fanny-Fanny]

The Bibble should be capitalised, to demonstrate reverence and respect for it, as after all, it is the word of god. Well, it is the *words* of god - bloody loads of them. Maybe it are the words of god is more accurate? Anyway you get my point...?

[@JohnSmith-xf1zu]

@S Gloobal Lol. Welcome back Goober. Here to troll more people and refuse to admit when you are repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong?

[@JohnSmith-xf1zu]

@S Gloobal Yea, but it is when I and many others have in comments sections have shown you to be wrong. Comment history is a thing you know. I could reference several comments and show it, but I think enough of us know you at this point.

[@unknowndane4754]

@S Gloobal Well are you still calling Abiogenesis "Chemical Evolution" ?

[@unknowndane4754]

@S Gloobal Simple, I've seen you mention it numerous times despite it being an incorrect label and demanding that abiogenesis has to be connected with Evolution.

[@ShannonQ]

FIRST **Update** Second :(

[@jeffnarum1373]

First in my book. 😉

[@hospitory]

Did you consider lag creating a false time stamp memory in the youtube servers?

[@soriac2357]

But you are first (with just a small error margin of 1), so everything's fine ;-)

[@pierrelindgren5727]

Could you check if Laura Robinson would be willing to take a look at Paul's argument and offer feedback?

[@toadstar1004]

Perhaps if you have enough faith, then you can be first even though the evidence contradicts that claim.

[@happyraver1958]

It must be exhausting to work so hard to ignore the evidence and keep defending a baseless bias. I'm sure it is very profitable as far as money goes, but how do they sleep at night?

[@happyraver1958]

@David Parry only sociopaths can stomach such dishonesty.

[@SeymoreTanzarian]

Congratulations Paul! You have really had an impact on the apologists community and me as well!

[@MrJBlich]

WLC is a very good debater, as long as he’s debating the question he wishes you had asked.

[@maninalift]

Dr Craig's incredulous flapping and puffing protestations about an overstated or simply nonexistent consensus grates after a while.

[@jeffreykweder8337]

Grates is the perfect description. Think of the time lost and the misspent money wasted on the apologist quilt, only to have it be so threadbare and poorly sewn. It provides no warmth and in fact itches and irritates rather than comforting, it unwinds at the smallest string. It grates. Well said Casper Clemence.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

It's by now all they have. Any attempt to pretend good science agrees with them has bit by bit been dismantled, so now it's just "nobody in history or theology doubts these basic facts of the bible"... ignoring that most historians would not make a professional estimate about the bible as their specialty is not in that time or region and they would overwhelmingly not speak the necessary languages to do source studies... well and also ignoring that there are a couple of mythicists that have shown multiple paths to reasonable doubt about these documents... it doesn't prove anything (yet), but it nicely pulls away this figleave of "nobody doubts it in academia"... now they have to qualify as "nobody that is respected" or "nobody in traditional academia"... It's the "Historicity of the gaps". And in 50 years it will have even less unexplored ground to stand on and pretend their potemkian village of presupposition is actually a full blown metropolis of evidence.

[@1970Phoenix]

I find it both funny and frustrating that apologists assert with such confidence various hypotheses and conjectures which are based on the most flimsy of evidence. I am not a mythicist, but even the existence of Jesus himself is far from certain.

[@jann5s___]

@Paulogia, I just want to thank you for all your work. I think the real power of your work is your "kindness" towards apologists. You go out of your way to take their responses as kindly as possible (steelmanning). This both creates a nice civilized discussion, and allows them to make a fool of themselves all on their own. Please never change this attitude and keep up the good work.

[@Paulogia]

Appreciate that, Jan.

[@Cat_Woods]

"What evidence other than the gospels and creed..." Answer: this gospel, this gospel, this creed, and that gospel. Oh, and traditions of the Roman church invented over a century after the fact. These apologists have no integrity.or intellectual honesty. If I hadn't seen through this stuff a long time ago, just their responses to your question would persuade me that the Christian creed is based on lies.

[@EdwardHowton]

You can't be honest, intellectually honest, or have any sort of integrity if you're going to be an apologist. It goes against the job description. Apologetics REQUIRES dishonesty. You have to lie about what scripture says, about what it means, about the science that proves you wrong, twist science to make it say you're right, lie about science in general and philosophy and logic and Reason and even the definition of common words. "God loves you unconditionally" now here's a list of over 600 rules and conditions, many of which contradict each other, which you must ALL follow for God to forgive you for existing in the broken state he made you in just so he could have you tortured for all eternity because he hates you. Y'know, _unconditional love._

[@Nocturnalux]

I think they are so committed and used to viewing their religious scripture as the obvious 'truth' that it is almost impossible for them to even consider that it might be otherwise. I am sure dishonesty plays a role in plenty of them- Lee Strobel, for example, comes across as remarkably slippery in this reasoning, almost deliberately so- but there is a profound lack of imagination on their part. We should keep in mind that for many apologists and religious people of their ilk to pose a hypothetical in which God is not a factor, to genuinely consider such a possibility, is already sinful or at the very least close to it. Most atheists can consider the question- what if God did exist- without feeling shaken to their core and terrified. That, unfortunately, does not go both ways.

[@1970Phoenix]

@@Nocturnalux I agree. Some are clearly just frauds who knowing lie for the sake of maintaining their income (Kent Hovind and Banana man come to mind). But for most of these guys, they are willingly deluded, and they will defend the indefensible because ... the alternative is terrifying to them.

[@Nocturnalux]

@@1970Phoenix Very much so. Even the most 'sophisticated' of them take the text at face value. Craig does this all the time, the way he will announce that 'Jesus appeared to the 500' as if that were a fact as opposed to 'the text claims that Jesus appeared to the 500', which is a very different- and accurate- thing. On the subject of Craig, there is one debate in which he admits that after his father's death, he considered his own mortality and found the idea of not living forever so horrifying that he dug in deeper into his faith. I wish I knew which debate this one was, Craig repeats himself in virtually all of them but this particular bit was, as far as I can tell, only uttered in this particular one.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@1970Phoenix I'd believe that Bananaman really is that stupid. I mean, he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his being able to tie his bootlaces. Whereas the Hovinds, and Ham, make a fine impression of used car salesmen.

[@q.e.d.9748]

WLC always seems shocked and appalled (to quote Bart Simpson) at anything that goes against his view. It’s hilarious

[@loganleatherman7647]

It’s all part of his schtick. It gives him the appearance of being more credible than he actually is

[@CaptFoster5]

I read Lee Strobles book "The Case for Christ" and all it ended up doing was reinforced my lifelong disbelief in some all knowing all powerful being ... I consider myself one of the lucky ones in that no church or doctrines got pounded into my head when I was young and vulnerable to its clear and present bullshit

[@jcgadfly6200]

Strobel claims to be objective while lobbing softball questions at those he sides with. It would be like me getting you to pay me to write and unbiased biography while only speaking to people who love you.