Apologists Backtrack After Resurrected Jesus Failure

Dr Frank Turek and Dr Mike Licona discuss if Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in the resurrection of Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? No one doubts the works of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or the history written about them, so what makes the historicity of Jesus so special? And what do non-Christian scholars say about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (with Mike Licona)
crossexamined.org/examining-h...
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

[@joshboydtheactor]

It’s 2023 and people still think the shroud of Turin is not a hoax.

[@1970Phoenix]

"I don't know … therefore god" - Frank Turek "I don't know … therefore I don't know" - Paulogia (and all intellectually honest people)

[@drizztcat1]

It's always bothered me that apologists continue to insist on an actual resurrection based on the evidence of "some dude said" and "trust me bro." We know that a body dead for several days has already significantly decomposed and cannot come back to life. To believe in the resurrection story requires the suspension of common sense and a denial of our own shared reality.

[@UrMomsFavSnack]

Just like Hitchens said, “Is it more plausible that the laws of nature be suspended in your favor, or that a young Jewish girl lied about immaculate conception?”

[@rickmcdonald1557]

Well said and I'm in total agreement with what you say~!

[@mikolmisol6258]

​@yeetthemeet9341 It's fascinating that Christians don't have trouble accepting immaculate conception even though the concept is so absurd as to warrant the immediate rejection of the Bible as remotely trustworthy. I know that holy scripture insists that Jesus was born, not created, but really, how does that work? Did God literally conjure a sperm cell straight into her fallopian tube? If so, that's hardly immaculate. Did he directly conjure a zygote or an embryo? Then she's just his surrogate mother. Or maybe he also copied her chromosomes over. Then how is that not creation? I think there's also the opinion that he sent an agel who presumably did not have sex with her? Thankfully for Christianity, most people don't understand the basics of human reproduction (and many are working hard to ensure their children understand even less of it), so they don't find it that absurd.

[@Angelmou]

It frustrates me a lot that crossing a river in italy (like Ceasar did) - a mundane natural thing to do shall be somewhat "equal" to corpse rising and deities intervening when some very old texts mention them. Even when we have just 1 shady fragment of a person claiming his mother crossed a river from history it is more trustworthy than 1000 well written ancient papyri talking about a mother flying on angelwings over a house.

[@tbishop4961]

Resurrection is easier to accept when you get comfortable with the idea that 2000 years ago, "mostly dead" was probably considered "dead" .... and that recovery from botched executions, while rare, was possible

[@jenna2431]

My husband resurrected from the dead. He stood there and talked to me and everything. He was around for weeks and never opened the door to get in the room Oh ...wait. That was grief hallucinations. Nevermind.

[@ZzzBliss]

💜

[@TorianTammas]

​@@davievance8142 Jedis return from the dead and have been seen by millions. You do not understand that a storytelling mammal wrote s story about a dead preacher and a story is nor reality. Spiderman nor Harry Potter nor dead preacher walks through walls is more then a story. If you fail to see the difference between story and reality then a lot of people will sell you sbakr oil as you are an easy mark.

[@hiddenwoodsben]

i'm very sorry for your loss and congratulate you on making such a powerful point.

[@princegobi5992]

Sorry for your loss Jenna

[@grumblesa10]

IIRC grief/death hallucinations occur to about 1 in 8 people who experienced trauma/death in the family. So I do not discount that some may well HAVE seen him. In my own experience as a 9 year old Catholic, I could swear that statues of Mary and Joseph in our church looked at me, and smiled more than once. I am sure I would've passed a polygraph as well. Didn't mean it happened of course.

[@morlath4767]

You can actually see Dr Turek mentally going "but my beliefs are real and you have to say they are!" as Dr Licona is speaking. It's straight up fingers in ears during a good chunk of this.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

I mean... isn't that Tureks go to discussion tactic?

[@archapmangcmg]

@@Thoron_of_Neto That's why he's Frankly a Turkey.

[@uninspired3583]

Turek is as much a Dr as curious george

[@GSpotter63]

Taking what other people say out of context adding your own false narratives then proceeding to criticize them for the BS you just made up is logically incoherent....

[@GSpotter63]

The only true inaccurate meaning of anything anybody says is the one intended by the speaker not the twisted false narratives of those who hear it...

[@MetaphorUB]

This is literally what Bart Ehrman has been saying forever in debates where all of his opponents, including Mike Licona multiple times, have vehemently disagreed with him.

[@invisiblegorilla8631]

It's almost as if they don't want to hear what he has to say because it might challenge their previously held beliefs.

[@Byrvurra]

Apologists are disenguous by nature. Watch both of them forget everything they've said here when it becomes convenient to do so.

[@archapmangcmg]

As Paulogia reminded us, Licona and others are contractually required to lie. When you pay people to lie for you, they'll lie or find another job. ALL leading apologists are those people who never bothered finding honest work.

[@rcnfo1197]

​@Joe Andersen "... for his glory." Surely you can come up with a better god than a narcissist.

[@MetaphorUB]

@Joe Andersen Thats not how capitalization works.

[@Amazing_Mark]

Paulogia has the apologists on the ropes at this point. He's absolutely pummelling them. I've never seen a situation quite like this before!

[@johnprevette7344]

Thanks for all your research into this, Paul. And thank you ever so much for watching Frank Turkek's show so that I don't have to!

[@Paulogia]

My pleasure!

[@stevewebber707]

Ditto. Turek's rhetoric and tactics, seem a little too much like rage baiting, for me to like sitting through it, and adding to his view counts.

[@JarredTheWyrdWorker]

I love it when they compare the resurrection of Jesus to Caesar crossing the Rubicon because (1) to the best of my knowledge, it does not take belief in supernatural intervention to accept that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and (2) no one has ever told me that the state of my eternal soul hangs in the balance as to whether I accept or reject the idea that Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon.

[@Uryvichk]

Also, there is archaeological evidence for Roman battles matching some of the battles Caesar is supposed to have fought in (though not all of them, particularly the major battles of the post-Rubicon civil war). And Roman history literally could not have happened as it did unless someone who was effectively Caesar crossed the Rubicon; Christianity could still have come into existence from a mythological Jesus.

[@Julian0101]

Well, we dont know if 1a) Rivers exist, 2a) Cesar existed and 3a) people crossing rivers is possible unlike 1b)afterlife exists, 2b) jebus existed and 3b) people can come back from the day after a day and a a half. Those two claims are totally on the same playing field and they can be compared /s

[@Thornspyre81]

That's exactly what I've been saying for a long time! I want to put it on a shirt and send it to Licona.

[@TorianTammas]

Ceasars has been declared to be a god after his death and in his life he declared his family descended from the goddess Venus. Not to mention that Augustus his adopted son declared to be son of a god. This is what we should compare to the weird Jesus claims. As they are on the same level and no one accepts them as history either.

[@Uldihaa]

It's same the thing with them stating that there is more "proof" of Jesus than Alexander the Great. Even if Alexander didn't exist, a Greek army conquered Egypt, Persia, and advanced all the way to India. That force, not long after reaching India, collapsed and fragmented. Then several Greek rulers took control of various kingdoms that had been conquered by that Greek army. Greek culture suddenly spread across that entire region in a very short period of time. We have both archeological and written evidence of this fact. And don't get me started on the military tactics attributed to Alexander. None of this is supernatural and if someone where to present solid evidence that Alexander was a creation of Ptolemy all it would do was make Hellenic scholars, historians, and archeologists immensely excited to try to find out just who "aggressively spread" Greek culture throughout the region.

[@bradgaines]

As a child growing up in a ultra religious family I was baffled that anyone could be an athest. Now as an adult, I find it baffling that anyone couldn't be.

[@sulas548]

As a child growing up in a religion free family I was baffled that anyone could be a Theist. Now as an adult I find it baffling that there are still people that are Theists.🙂

[@_S0me__0ne]

Amen! Ditto!

[@timames2238]

A few years ago, I went on a first-date with a lady. It went well until she asked, "What church do you go to?" I replied, "I don't go to any church. I'm an atheist". She got a shocked look on her face and said, "I don't see how anyone can NOT believe in God". I replied, "I don't see how anyone CAN believe in god". That ended the conversation and I never heard from her again.

[@leparfumdugrosboss4216]

Congrats on growing out of it. I used to be baffled anyone can claim Luke Skywalker is stronger than Gandalf. We all have our personal journey.

[@exmormonroverpaula2319]

Brad Gaines, I know exactly what you are talking about. When I go to LDS church services now, they seem so ridiculous to me that I just can't understand how any adult could believe such things. I have trouble trying to keep myself from laughing. But it took me until age 28 to figure out that it was BS. Amazing.

[@SnakeWasRight]

It's so pathetic that grown adults are sitting around whining that people don't just presuppose their evil fairy tale is literal unquestionable reality.

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

"evil fairy tale"... I bet that you're just lovely to have at parties and BBQ's

[@johnfleming5470]

Putting Dr. In front of their names is criminal. It’s like give doctorates for palmistry

[@johnburn8031]

Agreed. The Gospels are evil fairy tales. As are the rest of the Bible.

[@jamierichardson7683]

​@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel I would appreciate someone who speaks so honestly myself

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@kevinjensen2071 More evidence? I figured it was obvious. You all look the same to me. ☕️🦞

[@Forest_Fifer]

Loved the distinction you drew between Turek as a pop apologist and Licona as an actual scholar.

[@dugganclhallrentals2089]

Turek is no more a doctor than I’m an astronaut

[@freetochoose6421]

It happens throughout history a lot where a strong personality and very good speaker can strongly tell followers of something and make them believe it, whether it is true or not.

[@rianmacdonald9454]

and people wonder why critical thinking is SO IMPORTANT TO TEACH CHILDREN AT THE YOUNGEST POSSIBLE TIME.

[@Naptosis]

Indeed; I accidentally started a cult in university, just because other students saw me as a confident authority figure and a way to meet other people socially (I created a 'sorority house' with liberal but strict rules I enforced). At some point I realised I had people quoting me, cooking and cleaning for me voluntarily, offering me gifts, and some of the younger men around even began dressing like me. And I'm nowhere near the orator, nor did I have the motive that many of these preachers have. My situation happened by accident.

[@wickedcabinboy]

@@Naptosis - You created a "sorority" house? And then had younger men begin dressing like you? I sense you're not telling us the entire truth.

[@kobe51]

Branch Davidians

[@patmoran5339]

@@rianmacdonald9454 it is already there. Critical thinking will stay on top if children are not indoctrinated into a “standard curriculum.” Children should be listened to. Teaching has never caught up to possible progress because it is blatantly religious or very much similar in content or method.

[@williamfaughnan6298]

The problem with ascribing historic events to "God" is that people still do this today for all kinds of events. It's entirely subjective and always has been. That's never going to change unless "God" finally decides to stop hiding, in a much more direct fashion.

[@goldenalt3166]

I never understand why the resurrection of Jesus is supposed to tell us that "everything he said is true" and yet Christians never investigate what these other miracle recipients said or did. Why shouldn't we assume that Jesus resurrection was just another random act of miraculous healing?

[@williamfaughnan6298]

@@goldenalt3166 let alone the fact that many times, to say the least, the things he supposedly said are being relayed via second, third.... or sixteenth-hand account.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@williamfaughnan6298 Minimal fact: we have the Bible. Explanation: it was written by men to explain their religious views. Simpler than the Christian explanation and doesn't require any harmonization (which necessarily makes the interpretation less probable).

[@pauligrossinoz]

"... for all kinds of events" _and all kinds of gods too!_ It isn't just Yahweh that gets credited for all kinds of events. The other various gods, such as those in the Hindu and Taoist pantheons, are still being credited with magic stuff today.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@pauligrossinoz And that brings up the question, “If we can prove that miracles are real and determine what is and isn't a miracle, how can we tell who did it?” So that would mean that when you walk out the door, does Anansi causes you to forget your house key inside while Loki causes you to slip on a patch of ice while some random animist spirit from Papua New Guinea prevented you from falling on your tailbone and some ancestor made you find that $20 at your feet?

[@Dragoderian]

It's a familiar pain, hearing Paul admit he'd love to return to the faith. I appreciate his honesty there, and I really understand. When I was losing my faith as a young man there were long periods of begging with the sky for any sign, no matter how small. Alas, here we are.

[@payton7000]

I remember reading from the bible more in order to try and keep faith. It only sped up the transition.

[@digbycrankshaft7572]

​@@payton7000 I've heard that studying the scriptures in depth is the number one cause of people leaving the religion

[@JCTheSniper15]

It is honestly shocking how horrific some of this stuff is when you actually learn the truth about it.

[@Jeremy-am]

what do you find horrific, specifically?

[@JCTheSniper15]

@Jeremy-am the fact that people worship a God that accepts human sacrifices in return for winning battles, requires his people to commit genocide, endorses slavery, and yet can't prevail over iron chariots.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@Jeremy-amDrowning children, drowning pregnant women and millions of others because one was to stupid to either accept people as they are or do it properly creating them the first time. Not to mention the the flood story is juat copied from sumerian sources, so a local tribal god bamed Jahweh got stories atached to him he was never involved in.

[@vinnyrac]

I know these production videos are time consuming to make but they are so, so good! They're a repository for concise counter-apologetic argument. Such apologetics repeatedly get thrown by such characters as these, and they're minions eat it all up without question or reservation. What I observe here is that their incredulity clearly does not stem from an inability to grasp the argument but rather arises from a doxastic closure caused by emotional stress. Great Job Paul, as always.

[@Paulogia]

thank you so much

[@BambamPam316]

I just wanna see one of these here southern Baptist faces when they find out that Muhammad or any non American is their one true God I'm gonna laugh my ass all the way to hell

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

Poulugia ! dang you must be scared , somebodies going to convert to creation . No matter , there’s going to be a lot of ppl leave your channel & become the real Christian’s that do not recant there Faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST. And they will spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ , true Bible believers .

[@AenesidemusOZ]

@@Stevevick-ve6khBahahahahaha 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Stevevick-ve6kh]

@@AenesidemusOZ See you’ll be getting a BIG SURPRISE in the ,”after living on earth” period. From now to then take care of yore SIN. Or that very Hot place is your home place forever.

[@c0bra969]

Paul. That 911 memory study is really interesting that you should do more on. The participants in the end said it’s their hand writing but refused to believe they wrote it. It’s insane.

[@resurrectionnerd]

Fun fact - the Greek word used for "appeared" (ophthe) in 1 Cor 15 didn't necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person either. We see the same word being used in the Septuagint when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs but without seeing anything physical or describing a sensory experience. So unless you want to claim these people literally saw the physical body of God then you will have to concede the word can be used in the "feel the presence" sense and so our earliest source is vague in regards to the type of appearances. So when an apologist pulls out the "group appearances" card, it should not be persuasive in the slightest since the earliest source in which they are mentioned (1 Cor 15) does not describe them. On the other hand, if the group appearances _were_ described in 1 Cor 15 as actually seeing a physical person walking around, then in order to doubt that, a skeptic would have to use the hallucinatory explanation - which seems implausible and ad hoc. But since the group appearances *are not described* (all you have is the vague term "appear") then it's not clear that a physical encounter with a resurrected figure on the earth was implied. So instead of shifting the burden onto the skeptic to show these were hallucinations, the proponent of the Resurrection argument actually has the burden to show these encounters were originally understood to be physical interactions with the Resurrected body of Jesus on earth before he went to heaven. Since the term is equally likely to refer to a heavenly/visionary appearance, it doesn't matter how many people were said to experience it. None of the resurrection narratives in the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15 and they all grow more dramatic and fantastic in chronological order as if a legend was evolving. So appealing to the gospels as evidence doesn't help either I'm afraid. Moreover, all the gospels are written in third person. They never say "I saw this happen" and describe it from a firsthand perspective. Only Paul's account is firsthand but the appearance to him was a vision that he does not distinguish from the appearances to the others. This automatically makes the nature of all the other "appearances" ambiguous and so the data is insufficient to establish a Resurrection actually occurred.

[@martifingers]

Very helpful RN. Have you any further work available on this I could look at?

[@flowingafterglow629]

Consider, for example, that christians even today will say things like they have a "personal relationship" with God, and that God speaks to them. I've heard the claim that their relationship with God is as real as their relationship with their wife. Sex excepted, presumably. So clearly they don't always use words in the same way.

[@legron121]

Where in the LXX is the word used of God appearing without a physical form (I'm just curious; I agree the resurrection didn't happen)?

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@legron121 If you do a search for "ώφθη blueletterbible" you'll see all the instances where it's used in the first result. To be clear, the word can be used for a physical appearance but it's also used when God "appears" in a vision or a dream sometimes. In the New Testament, the word is almost exclusively used for visionary/supernatural appearances. If you pay attention to the context, it seems to be employed to convey the idea something that wasn't originally there, suddenly appears.

[@VolkerDittmar]

Yes, exactly what I said in my comment. I first read this in "Losing Faith in Faith" by Dan Barker, who makes the same point.

[@joshuagies4900]

I have respect for historians that are "staying in their lane" when speaking as historians, regardless of their personal beliefs. To me this shows a better standard of ethics.

[@michaelchampion936]

Except, neither of them are actual historians, they don't have history degree's let alone PhDs

[@thaddeusgenhelm8979]

@@michaelchampion936 I will say, I believe they're referring to the historians that say "using historical methods I can't authenticate the resurrection of Jesus" regardless of their religious beliefs. The sort Turek is complaining about with the "Well what about human methods?" line.

[@michaelchampion936]

@@thaddeusgenhelm8979 I'm sure they both refer to themselves as historians, neither of them are.

[@thaddeusgenhelm8979]

@@michaelchampion936 I mean, fair, though I was just meaning that the original poster was not referring to *them* in their comment.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@thaddeusgenhelm8979 As a historian you can say we have zero evidence for that. We have numerous stories that people are born as half Gods and ascent to the place were God's dwell. We have numerous people claimed to be a god. We have even the roman senate acknowledge several emperors to be Gods

[@gysbertdeklerk]

It seems that Paul is starting to make some progress in making apologists think long and hard about what they believe.

[@6thandHarrison]

Many great atheist KZbin channels out there, but Paulogia seems to be the one that makes them actually have to change their tired arguments!

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

Either that, or they're beginning to try to change their arguments for the first time in 500 years. It will definitely be interesting to see, because I suspect their questioning of a few beliefs they can't help but question, won't change much. I hope I am wrong though!

[@adrenochrome_slurper]

Mike Licona seems to be willing to honestly reconsider his beliefs to a degree, but we have to keep in mind that they are professionally bound to their beliefs and that they're personal relationships revolve around the faith. I guess any change away from literalism is a positive one though.

[@artemisia4718]

It's a testament to the power of having calm, level-headed, public conversations as opposed to debates.

[@karlrschneider]

It's a horrific and long slog, but someone needs to keep on keepin' on.

[@jasonsabbath6996]

This is all cognitive dissonance! They want to believe, so they do despite the utter lack of evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 🤦‍♂️

[@Dragoon803]

I am very appreciative of the time, effort and research you put into your videos Paulogia. Thank you for doing what you do.

[@Paulogia]

thank you so much

[@XDRONIN]

"the text wasn't embellished"? So, the part of the story of the resurrection where *the earth shook, the temple split open, the death came out of their tombs, walked around, and even met many people,* that really did happen?

[@micmac274]

In some versions of the Bible, they used the z word to describe those dead people. It has different connotations nowadays.

[@rianmacdonald9454]

yep and yet not one single other person wrote a single word about all these dead people coming back.

[@Matoyak]

An interesting example because Mike Licona lost a job due to admitting he thought that portion of Matthew wasn't literally historical.

[@artemisia4718]

The greatest miracle of all is that NOT ONE eyewitness thought to write home about an eclipse, a torn Temple curtain and a zombie apocalypse happening at the same time.

[@BambamPam316]

I like how they finally give woman some worth and a voice that they listened to. Any other account in the bible and they seldom get a name let alone a part unless it's virgin or harlet

[@alissaa2190]

Why would a god be assumed to be good, infallible, or any of the other characteristics they claim? They'd need to show those things are true as well as it's existence.

[@richardmooney383]

The writers of the Gospels may well have believed the stories they had heard about Jesus to be true. But their mission was to convince others of that truth. So why would they include evidence that did not support it. They wouldn't; and they didn't.

[@brentkrohn3786]

All religion is man made.

[@halojill4937]

Thank you for your public service, Paul! You are making the world a more honest and informed place. Best wishes to you!

[@artmoss6889]

The question of whether a small number of people could influence a large number of people to break away from long establushed religious practices is clearly demonstrated by the work of Martin Luther, who, while an ordained Catholic priest, initiated a rapid and broadly supported rejection of church practices and the establishment of Protestanism.

[@Uryvichk]

Also, there were secular reasons to become a Protestant. Politics motivated the choice, and for some (particularly those with power already) it was a way to gain power using Luther's reform push as justification. Thus, other factors unrelated to the truth of religious claims can influence the adoption of a religion even in the absence of forced conversion. While one can argue "becoming a Christian in the Roman Empire didn't confer such advantages," there are at least three good reasons to think that's not true: 1) Christianity in its earliest form DID offer social benefits, such as a sense of community, communal property and support, sharing of meals, and other things that might be appealing to the poor and downtrodden that the faith originally appealed to. It also offered middle and upper-class women -- who were quite prominent in early Church leadership -- an opportunity to do something meaningfully outward-facing which they were otherwise excluded from doing in Roman civil society. 2) Christianity was a very minor religion until it gained political power through Constantine, at which point church offices would have become quite appealing to the already wealthy and powerful, who would be expected to seek to corner and monopolize them once they became socially valuable. And that is, in fact, what actually happened. 3) Christian persecution is largely a fabrication. Most martyr stories are pure fiction, and most real martyrs were either not killed for their faith or deliberately sought death (often by committing crimes to force the state to execute them). Roman polytheism was extremely permissive and it wasn't that difficult for cults to arise, foreign gods to enter worship practice, etc.; people "breaking away" from mainstream Roman religion to become Christians would have been as easy and unspectacular as people breaking away to join mystery cults, which they did all the time back then. Heck, some Greeks and Romans expressed interest in converting to Judaism, and that was okay too! There were periods of persecution, but it's unclear how much actual persecution happened and all evidence suggests that it was not strongly enforced.

[@aralornwolf3140]

Joseph Smith would be a better example, lol.

[@davidofoakland2363]

Bravo, Paul! I'm gonna re-watch this video multiple times. Keep up the great work and I look forward to your next release.

[@Paulogia]

I appreciate. Thank you, David.

[@stephenbrain3620]

This one is so interesting! These apologists get together and they are comfortable enough to be reasonable and recognize obvious problems. When they interact with doubters or the general public, they don't dare show that face.

[@paulcleary8088]

I don't have much exposure to Dr. Mike Licona, but from this video alone, he seems like a very reasonable Christian. Productive discourse.

[@ronaldbender7226]

I am still just confused by the entire concept of Christian apologists. I mean, if you have faith in your religion then accept that you don't NEED to try to explain it or validate your faith through 'scientific' thinking or logic. Admit that it is 'magic' and let it go!

[@misterdeity]

Thanks for the "Low Bar Bill" credit. I'm proud of that one, and really hope it sticks! This video is terrific too! Your ability to be thorough puts me to shame.

[@Paulogia]

We’re trying to make fetch happen!

[@misterdeity]

@@Paulogia I don't know what that means. But I loved the movie "Fletch" when I was younger.

[@Paulogia]

@@misterdeity Fletch and Fletch Lives are all time classics. I'd ask you to Google (KZbin) "make fetch happen", but you'll think less of me.

[@misterdeity]

@@Paulogia Not at all. I'm always up for a "Mean Girls" reference!

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

I actually saw the clouds of the Challenger explosion outside as a student. Our science class went outside to see it. We were in St Petersburg which is the complete opposite of Titusville/Cape Canaveral. I thought it was weird we could see that from so far away. I remember looking at the tv and then looking outside before we went out and seeing the cloud. These are the strongest fragments of memory.

[@atticusrex2691]

It's amazing how quickly apologists push switch from ideas like the Kalam or moral argument to thorough scientific inquiry when it comes to disproving their own beliefs.

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

You are right that they can wave away any argument against their theology by saying god does miracles. But they expect the opposition to by backed by 100% valid scientific evidence, and even that is often dismissed by the retort “were you there?” Also, it’s pretty hard to prove a negative, that something did not happen or that something did not exist. But it is possible to get closer to the truth by looking at the persistent lack of supporting evidence where it would be expected to show up. Like the complete absence of historical and archaeological data to support Noah’s flood or the exodus of millions from Egypt. Despite all the research and investigations that have specifically looked for such evidence. Which can also be dismissed by “the devil hid the evidence to create doubt.” Unfalsifiability is a powerful tool.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Not really. Saying they have "switched to thorough scientific inquiry" is very inaccurate. To put it bluntly: none of them even know what the scientific method is comprised of. Source: I am a physicist.

[@SilverMKI]

Last time I was this early, Jesus was still alive for the first time (in the story anyway!) 😀

[@Graeme_Lastname]

I find it *_very_* disturbing that people who actually believe these insane fairy tales are allowed to walk around unattended.

[@kamilgregor]

If you think you can "debunk" postmodernism by saying "'there is no truth' is a truth claim" you don't know what postmodernism is. Also, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that Turek's description of the dinner at which Ehrman subscribed to postmodernism is a legedary embelishment and that if we asked Ehrman, he'd tell a very different story.

[@bobsmith-hd2zr]

imagine Turek's grandchildren retelling the story 40 years later.

[@kamilgregor]

@@bobsmith-hd2zr Imagine you had to spend a fortune and risk your life to sail from Corinth across half of the known world and hunt down Ehrman somewhere in Palestine to fact-check Turek.

[@rembrandt972ify]

@@kamilgregor "hunt down Ehrman somewhere in Palestine to fact-check Turek." No sweat, I did that last Thursday.

[@bobsmith-hd2zr]

@@kamilgregor lol, imagine Ehrman's grandchildren being hunted down by Turek's grandchildren. "Did my grandfather ever make your grandfather look like a fool at a dinner party"?

[@derinderruheliegt]

@Kamil Gregor To my surprise, Ehrman has in fact admitted to being a postmodernist. I’ll try to dig up the video link. That said, it’s a form of postmodernism I’m not really familiar with... he still describes part of his job as being a historian who analyzes evidence to try and determine what happened in the past. That sounds like an acceptance of objective reality and not very postmodernist. I’m not an expert on the subject so maybe I’m missing something.

[@markcaesar4443]

I love that your sound for "For The Bible Tells Me So" instantly triggers me to think that and you just don't have to say it.

[@c0bra969]

I like the longer videos!! Keep up the good work.

[@kennymartin5976]

I remember 9/11: I was in class, the teachers called us into the classroom next door, so we could watch the news. I didn't even know what the twin towers were, asorbed little of the broad cast, and i cant even remember a word my teacher said. I can brearly remember who they even were. Looking back on that day is like looking at a filthy snow globe. It actually impacted me very little. I don't even observe 9/11 anymore, it just blows by as an ordinary day unless the news says something, and even then my reaction is more like "oh yeah..." then I go on with my day. Hell, I can't even remember words from some of my most impactful memories. To think that the gospel writers can give the words of Jesus, and expect perfect recollection, it's just inane.

[@sbushido5547]

One of my memories from 9/11 is of a girl in band class wearing a "New York" shirt featuring the twin towers in sequins/rhinestones...and I have no idea if that *_actually_* happened, or is something my mind just made up.

[@TorianTammas]

I ask for a simple test. Watch Today three 10 minute segments of any KZbin talk. Use only your memory fot the further test. Write down word for word what you heard after a day for the first, the second after a week and the third after a month. This settles any question hoe many words resemble an original after years or even 30 to 40 years.

[@trishamason1855]

Reminds me of the JFK assassination. I was around 8 yrs old, and almost all I remember is that the continuous news interfered with after-school tv for what seemed like a week. I remember seeing film and photos from the day long after it was over, but virtually nothing of the day itself. I don't remember the teacher saying anything, the sitter, or my parents, and I'm sure all of them must have said something. It was a turning point in world history and all I remember is missing tv shows.

[@iwillquietlyresist6922]

"Dooonnn't make me get Bart in here. Because I WILL!!" 😂😂😂

[@Paulogia]

🤣 I will though...

[@rainbowkrampus]

Bart is like rolled up news paper now. "Bad apologists! No kibble for you!"

[@kevind8240]

It was great to hear the jingle 🎉

[@kendokaaa]

They're sometimes so close to getting it, but then twist themselves into pretzels to try to argue why god is a reasonable supposition

[@GuyNamedSean]

I wouldn't exactly say I *like* Mike Licona. I disagree with him on a lot. I do admire that he's comfortable admitting where he falls short and saying he just doesn't know. He's even willing to actually chew on those thoughts and discuss them. It's a stark contrast to people like Frank Turek, Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind, who absolutely must be correct about everything and will only say they don't know something as a way to push subjects away.

[@orionred2489]

I absolutely hate it when someone says "self defeating." It's almost never true. It's an easy way to dismiss an idea though.

[@Terrestrial_Biological_Entity]

unless we're talkig about religious "arguments" 💀💀💀

[@Uryvichk]

If an argument is, in fact, logically contradictory, it is "self-defeating" by definition. Otherwise it's kind of a judgment call. Even if the consequence of a non-contradictory argument is basically useless, one could at least debate whether or not it actually is actually useless. Bad faith debaters will often conflate the two, claiming that they don't like the consequences of an argument or would find the consequence of accepting the argument unpleasant, so they call it "self-defeating" in the meaningful sense of "If this were true, I would not like it to be true" but hoping people will think they mean "This cannot possibly be true."

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

We also know Caesar crossed the Rubicon because he needed to cross it in order to get to Rome and become the first Roman emperor. Sure, he might have bypassed it by ship or something, but the real point of the "crossing the Rubicon" meme is that it was forbidden for Roman generals to bring their troops past the Rubicon because that be would almost certainly mean a coup or civil war. So the important thing wasn't that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, it was that he crossed it at the head of his legion and essentially declared he was overthrowing the Roman Republic.

[@deewesthill1213]

Julius Caesar was not the first Roman emperor. That was his successor, Caesar Augustus.

[@IorizMaximusCaesarAugustus]

Caesar's crossing of Rubicon is highly plausible regardless of the sources being written by non eye witnesses or later after the event, because we know rome plunge into political turmoil that can be proven wether by archeology because we have an hard evidence for it, but when it came to Jesus resurrection which is decades later before being written are unlikely to being happened at all, no other corroborating evidence we can utilize to prove that event likely happens since it was a supernatural phenomena, highly unplausible.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@deewesthill1213 Augustus avoided the title emperor or king not to end like his Ceasar.

[@deewesthill1213]

@@TorianTammas Nonetheless, he is called the first Roman Emperor.

[@DeludedOne]

The group appearance thing really gets me. Not only is it something only found in the Bible, and not only that, found in just 1 source outside the Gospels, which is Acts, it also requires that the Gospels/Bible passages can be taken to be credible in order to even believe the statements. the Gospels accounts are one thing, but the 500 witnesses of Acts that keep getting trotted out by apologists is really disingenuous. Paul was likely repeating already held Christian beliefs regarding Jesus' resurrection including that there were many witnesses. In any case the claim itself cannot be confirmed since none of the witnesses were ever named and so no one can corroborate their story, nor did they leave any statements or documentation we know of. Here apologists will begin appealing to "common sense" saying things like "oh Paul wouldn't have made up the story (or the story itself, whatever the source, couldn't have been made up) because it was so easily fact checked and people would have done so, so it HAS to be true!" Well first off, fact checking the claim wasn't as easy as it sounds since none of the supposed witnesses are named, where do you even start looking for 500 anonymous people. Moreover, the place where Paul repeated this claim was not Jerusalem where the resurrection took place, given how difficult travel was between various cities at the time, it would have been very difficult for anyone from out of town to factcheck a claim that occurred in a place where they were not currently residing in, especially if the claim is as vague as mentioned. Of course an even more obvious point is that even if the claim could be easily factchecked, would it have been? Would the people being preached to, faithful followers of Jesus Christ, have tried to factcheck the claim in the hopes of finding out the truth and potentially rebutting their own faith? If these people are like the avid Fox News viewers of today, especially if they are those who still believe that Trump had the 2020 elections stolen from him, then it's very likely that they would not even bother to factcheck such a claim since it's already saying what they want to hear and that's all they care about. For context, the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News has revealed damning evidence behind the scenes of Fox News that show clearly that the people who kept parroting the stolen election claim did not themselves believe the claim was true from the start. They expressed personal disbelief at it and outright stated that it was pure nonsense in some cases. Yet these same people who very clearly did not believe these claims about a stolen election, then went on air and spoke about such claims with the seriousness that one would expect of any factual report. They went and broadcast a claim they all believed was false, but did so with the impression that it could have been true. And they are still doing this even now, Fox's Tucker Carlson being a prime example of this. And the reason why they do this, something that inherently goes against, at least ethically, a reputable news organization's practices, is because this is what their audience wants to hear. They don't care about what's actually true, they simply want their sincerely held beliefs to be propped up as true because that matters much more to them.

[@danielkirienko1701]

This video does a good job of showing why the non-believing community has more respect for Mike Licona than Frank Turek.

[@archapmangcmg]

Frank is a freaking turkey who said the best way to preserve the originals is NOT to preserve them at all. And his audience clapped.

[@yoshiyoshikira7326]

Mike Licona is cool

[@TheIkaruskid]

Love the clarity and the use of the word "kerfuffle"

[@publiusii4246]

I don't know how someone can honestly look at the high christology of John and then the ridiculously high christology of apocryphal gospels and honestly say "It appears to be a text that we can rely on that wasn't embellished" it seems like there's a direct correlation with time and fantastical elements almost like the story has been embellished over decades.

[@Venaloid]

I think you very excellently explained how Mike's moon analogy does not apply here. There is a critical difference between direct observation and testimony. For the most part, historians only have testimony, so unless multiple isolated cultures all testified that a magical Jesus man came to them and taught them this religion, then the simpler explanation is that Jesus did not historically rise from the dead, and the testimony we have is simply mistaken.

[@kingofthebingogame]

Along with Paulogia, your content inspires us to be better critical thinkers by fostering curiosity and challenging widely-held assumptions. Encouraging us to question our assumptions and consider alternate views has helped create a more thoughtful intellectual community. And in the case of the resurrection of Jesus the available testimonies should not be taken at face value without thorough investigation. As you mentioned, the simpler explanation may be that Jesus did not historically rise from the dead and that the testimonies we have are mistaken or even deliberately fabricated. Therefore, historians should aim to approach this question with a critical and analytical eye to evaluate the available evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion.

[@NDHFilms]

Habermas and George R.R. Martin should start a support group.

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

9/11 I remember where I was I was at home my mom called me and asked me if I was watching the news. When the Plane hit the second tower I was stunned. I remember turning on the radio to listen to the continuing coverage when my daughter had to go to PM Kindergarten. It reminds me very much of the scene in The handmaid's tale where they take over instantly and the panic of not knowing what will happen. I thought it was the end of days because I was a fundamentalist Christian.

[@JRRTokeKing]

Man this is a great video. Good job Paulogia.

[@BigDongWong]

Bart Ehrman seems to be the new boogeyman of the apologist.

[@ajmeyers5661]

These apologists really seem to fear Bart Ehrman for some reason. They all have videos where they talk about him non-stop. On the other hand, the Ehrman videos I've seen show him addressing a topic or the arguments of a live debate opponent. It really seems that Ehrman is living rent free in the head of every Christian apologist.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

I think honestly, it is because he has actual documentation to back up his backstory. So many apologists rely on telling the story of "atheist to christian" apologists who are now conveniently u able to show the time they were atheist. Ehrman, is a well known scholar who is telling the opposite story, with actual evidence of his journey. I think they're trying to reassure their followers his is an aberrant journey, in an effort to keep them from questioning their own story about their conversion.

[@helenaconstantine]

I don't think Papias was referring to a different, Aramaic Matthew, just that he was hopelessly ignorant. Everything he says about early church history is wrong.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

My thoughts as well though I'm more inclined towards him affirming a personal anecdote. But you shouldn't dismiss the possibility that there might be some different, earlier version of Matthew out there that we might not have found yet either.

[@goldenalt3166]

Certainly a of possibility that shouldn't be ignored.

[@rationalhuman2149]

Every analogy Licona makes actually hurts his case because they are things that have never happened, just like the argument he made with Dillahunty about someone losing his head and having it miraculously reattached in front of you. If they had real examples to offer, we could deal with them, but instead they just make up ridiculous events to say “you still wouldn’t believe even if this happened “. It’s an elaborate straw man handwave, because they hang NOTHING but stories from an old book.

[@bigblue2216]

The more I watch this stuff the further from sanity it feels.

[@philpaine3068]

All you have to do to pop the balloon of Turek and Licona's historical methodology is apply it in exactly the same way to the eyewitness accounts of miracles performed by Shoko Asahara in Japan --- including first-hand eyewitness accounts of his levitating and flying. His undoubtedly sincere and convinced followers included numerous graduates from Japan's elite universities. Some were so sincere in their beliefs that they were willing to carry out his instructions to make five co-ordinated poison gas attacks on innocent passengers in the Tokyo subway, killing thirteen of them. If Licona and Turek wish to apply their own standards of evidence, then they must acknowledge that Shoko Asahara not only levitated and flew, but that he had the power to save people's souls from damnation by taking their sins upon himself.

[@archapmangcmg]

"How would we explain people converting to a new religion despite the persecution?" I'd point at the Cathar Heresy that got a literal Crusade declared against them. By Frank's method, they're the True Christians and he's just a fake.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

This guy should read up on how cults work.

[@goldenalt3166]

Many sects of Christianity revel in the persecution. They deliberately recruit people who are desperate. To say that no-one would risk pain and death for a purpose denies the existence of soldiers, fire fighters, etc. If they want to claim this is only true of those who "know it's a lie", we still have Joseph Smith.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@goldenalt3166 Not to mention people who take the blame for someone they care for like a sibling or a parent.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Lobsterwithinternet interesting point. Maybe Peter claimed to see Jesus because the "women's testimony wouldn't be accepted". He beloved them so he told their story but didn't necessarily get it right which is why there are so many different versions in the gospels. Feeling the pressure of skeptical questions he invented other details as the retellings continued.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@goldenalt3166 I’d be more inclined to say it was more likely that the discrepancies were from other people telling his story later on and either messing up details on repeat tellings or adding new details to tailor it to new audiences. It might be why we have the two towns of Bethlehem and Nazareth as they could have been two competing hometowns that were harmonized in Matthew and Luke to ‘split the difference’.

[@jmaniak1]

“If” Jesus was divine, “if” Jesus rose from the dead, “if” Jesus said all these things then it’s all true. I’m convinced!

[@GlorifiedTruth]

Okay, on a serious note, where does Jesus specifically say his death atones for sin?

[@Rurike]

Its always really annoying when appologists try to compare evidence of the miraculous claims of the bible with mundane accepted historical events such as "this army crossed a river once" as if they are even in the same league of events. Feels kinda like going to a court room and expecting a motive, confession and murder weapon to prove someone astral projected to kill a man in a different country.

[@BobHutton]

Paul, we seem to have similar deconversion stories. I lost my faith as a result of noticing inconsistencies within the Bible (and within Christian beliefs, which were not necessarily the same thing) as well as the misalignment between those ideas and scientific (and historical) observation. For me, there was no crisis or trauma, and it was gradual, taking about 5 years to go from conservative Christianity to having no belief in anything supernatural. The one difference I do notice, and this may be just because I'm older, is that I have no desire to return. Even if someone gave me indisputable evidence that God existed or the Bible was reliable, I would not return to Christianity. There is too much there that I find morally abhorrent to consider returning. (I would concede, though, there is a possibility that I might return, in those circumstances, purely out of fear, but I hope not).

[@bettyvanvelsen3280]

@o3depleter It's so sad to read you stance on God. Even if the God of the bible was true, you wouldn't go back to Christianity. I respect you choice in this, but it reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve. Even if you don't believe the literal story of creation, that story is so incredible powerful. God made sure that with the stories in the bible we would be able to know him, but also give us an insight in our own psyche. The story of Adam and Eve in it's simplest form is this: Eve was seduced by the devil to take of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good en evil. Why? Because Eve thought she could be like God and that she didn't need God. Adam on the other hand, he chose on purpose to take the fruit. He didn't want to loose Eve, it says in the bible. So when God sought for Adam and Eve, they hid from God. Because of shame. Adam replied to God, when He asked Adam, why he took the fruit: That woman YOU gave me, she made me eat. With this, Adam made GOD responsible for his action. There are only two reasons why people don't believe or hate God. Usually both go together: 1. I don't need God, I am my own God. My Morals and Ethics surpass GODS. (Eve) 2. God is to blame for everything that happens in my life, my family and the whole world. I am not responsible for things that happen. I blame God for everything. (Adam) Eve being femine, which stands for Chaos (read: Creative, Fantasy, Freedom, Boundless) and Adam being masculine, which stands for Order (read: Logic, Bounderies, Laws, Reasoning). (Adam and Eve stand for left and right sides of the brain, in other words the psyche. It is my believe that when someone doesn't want or need the God of the Bible there is something that the person wants or thinks he needs, that doesn't fit or goes against Gods will for that person life. That person would rather hide from God and deny His existance, then face the fact that he is naked (pride and/or shame). I love people, I want people to be informed about God and who he is. There is a choice to make, an important one. It is NOT about the fancy arguments, it is all about the Heart, about LOVE. I would rather be with my creator (origen of love), then be far removed from Him or even worse without Hm (love). It's all about relationship with God and his creation. And remember this : Proverbs 14:27 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, That one may avoid the snares of death. I hope it helps. Time is short. Regards

[@BobHutton]

@@bettyvanvelsen3280 Thank-you for your concern. It gives me no joy when my views saddens others. I do not blame God for anything. I no more blame God than I blame Zeus for any deficiencies I see around me (or in me). Neither exist, so blaming either would be pointless. Similarly with needing God. I may believe I really need a genie in a bottle, but, because no such thing exists, I'm just going to have to cope without it.

[@bettyvanvelsen3280]

@@BobHutton Thanks for your response. Just one question: What would that genie be like? If it existed? And what does it need to do to help you, if it existed? I'm just curious. Regards

[@BobHutton]

@@bettyvanvelsen3280 No problem. The genie was just a hypothetical I used to (try and) explain my point. I was thinking of the sort of genie that grants wishes, like in the Aladdin stories.

[@bettyvanvelsen3280]

@@BobHutton Ah yes, Sure. I loved that series with Larry Hackman in I dream of Jeanny. (I am not that old though, but have seen re-runs of it). In a world of being a skeptic, I think it would be difficult to imagine even a Genie being a `good` entity. Am I wrong about this? I hope you will find you Genie. He or she might be closer then you think. Wink, wink. Have a blessed day and life. Stay safe. (When or If my English is off, that's because I'm am Dutch). Regards.

[@OhNoNotFrank]

Why would you want to prove the existence of a God who's main desire is that you have *faith* in Him/Her...

[@woutermortier2771]

Wow, this was a great vid. Keep up the good work 👌

[@billkeon880]

They’ve got the burden of proof backwards….

[@Pit.Gutzmann]

I always wonder, why theologians on one hand say: God is 100% honest and his teachings are 100% true. Which would limit God's possibilities and powers tremendously. But on the other hand they say: God's ways are mysterious and unknowable. Which limits the knowledge we - and they - can have about God tremendously. They want to have the cake AND eat it.

[@dougt7580]

They do the same thing with the Fine Tuning argument. It's all "look that the precision of all these universal constants and the regularity of everything, that's evidence of a designer/creator deity". Then they'll turn right around and argue that "miracles", which require the violation and/or suspension of many of these universal "constants", are ALSO evidence for their favorite invisible sky wizard.

[@d.o.m.494]

Arguing that zombies exist is so childish and they take it so seriously.

[@rockpadstudios]

New Testament Scholar - what a waste of an entire career.

[@TorianTammas]

This is why they have a hard time to accept that they studay fairy magic or Harry Potter theology.

[@Thundawich]

One thing to remember with the rubicon crossing, its not just that he crossed the rubicon. To get from where he was to where he ended up, he had to either cross 1 of 2 rivers, or go by boat. Regardless of whether he crossed the rubicon specifically, we know that to set up the pieces for the next part of history to play out as it did, he took some sort of army over/through some body of water somewhere. Given that the romans didn't really like boats much, its about a 50/50 that he crossed the rubicon if we ignore the small context of the cities where he said he went through.

[@GodlessFiend]

Great video, Paul. Great reaction to.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

What!!! Caesar didn’t _really_ cross the Rubicon. Oh, no! Now I have completely rethink my entire life, question my purpose in this world, and re-evaluate how I treat other people! My life is in _shambles!_

[@kenharness7430]

I am so sick and tired of these Christian apologists saying "No one would go to their death for a lie". So that means that every religion that ever existed is true. Hmmm.

[@stephenbastasch7893]

In addition, there is no NT or early historical evidence that ANY Christian ever died for believing in Jesus's resurrection. Simply put, there was nothing "dangerous" about believing that Jesus - or any god-hero - rose from the dead. It was non-controversial in those times, and NO Christian in the NT ever died for resurrection-belief. A couple disciples die because of their opposition to the priesthood - one of the major factors in the NT presentation of Jesus's own execution - but believing in Jesus's resurrection would have been regarded as an oddball superstition - not a danger to the Jewish or the Roman state ... and therefore not prosecutable or deserving of the death penalty.

[@MrMarcusIndia]

I agree. "No one would go their death for a lie." Tell that to all those people who fought and died in the wars that were started under false pretences.

[@GapWim]

So they need god to explain the ressurrction, but they use the ressurection to prove god. I'm sure there was a word for that.

[@aralornwolf3140]

Apologetics?

[@rianmacdonald9454]

see i was thinking - moron. But there again been told I am too blunt with my words.

[@VolkerDittmar]

I would call that a vicious logical circle.

[@GapWim]

@@VolkerDittmar **channeling Sye Ten Bruggencate** No, no, no, that is a _virtuous_ logical circle. … because “for reasons” I guess. 🤷‍♂️

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@VolkerDittmar Using the adjective "vicious" is redundant. All circular reasoning is necessarily vicious, by definition.

[@carolsh1983]

❤️ For the algorithm. Great video as always.

[@LS-kl6bj]

Military leaders all throughout history have crossed rivers. There still needs to be historical evidence that such occurred but, this is not an implausible event. On the other hand, a person rising from the dead is such an incredible claim that the bar of evidence has to be much higher. And the problem is, the evidence is just not close to being persuasive.

[@johndemeritt3460]

OK, Paul . . . now I'm upset. You showed a clip from a Monty Python's Flying Circus episode that I can't recall ever seeing. It involved arresting Alexander the Great, but I can't find it on line. Would you KINDLY provide a link -- or at least give us a title of the sketch?

[@Paulogia]

Season 1 Episode 13

[@johndemeritt3460]

@@Paulogia, thank yoou very much -- for both the information and the prompt reply!

[@Gaming_Vegan_Ape]

Cosmic space zombies might work in something like D&D, but not in reality. 🤣

[@rickmcdonald1557]

I love what you say and I will use your "Cosmic Space Zombies" to some Creationists I come in contact with.

[@mikehoran6467]

How can you trust someone who needs to lie and be dishonest about his argument in service of this "truth"?

[@What_If_We_Tried]

Just found out about your channel today due to a comment in Dan McClellan's YT channel. Your content is fantastic! *subscribed*

[@Paulogia]

Awesome, thank you!

[@What_If_We_Tried]

@@Paulogia you're welcome, and thank-you.

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

I used to buy into Pascal's Wager, the idea that believing Christianity was a good idea in case it is true. The thing is, I just couldn't decide to believe something. I tried reading apologetics with the idea that they might convince me it is true, but they just didn't succeed.

[@williamholmes9807]

You may not believe the Word of God, but in Luke 8:12 it reads, those by the wayside are the ones who hear, then the devil comes and takes away the Word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. Some people, simply will not be saved. Do your best to make sure you don't fall in that category.

[@MrMarcusIndia]

@@williamholmes9807 Saved from what?

[@williamholmes9807]

@@MrMarcusIndia I'm not sure whether you truly don't know, don't understand, just trolling for a fight, or have other intentions, but in either case I'll explain what you are to be saved from as briefly as possible. You are to be saved from eternal damnation. You are to be saved from the lake of fire, which is the second death. Here's one you'll appreciate, you are to be saved from yourself. As a slave to sin, you are in bondage, and may not even care, nonetheless you are in bondage, in the which you keep seeking to satisfy yourself (the flesh), yet never to be made free from that quest.

[@MrMarcusIndia]

@@williamholmes9807 Btw, "sin" is utterly meaningless. You lot can't even define it properly. Most of what you consider sins aren't illegal, they aren't even immoral! "Sin" is man-made concept manufactured by your cult to invent a problem to which they pretend to sell a solution, and which they use to control their gullible and terrified sheeplike members.

[@MrMarcusIndia]

@@williamholmes9807 I'm trolling for a fight?! Ha! You're the one who came on here preaching vindictive nonsense! 😂

[@bianca_boop]

I remember watching news footage of the Space Shuttle Columbia landing after its wing was damaged, in a success story similar to the Apollo 13 mission. Even after going to Space Center Houston just a couple weeks ago and seeing exhibits about the tragedy, I can still vividly picture my version of events where the crew survived.

[@ante3807]

Another great and thorough vid. You da man Pauly

[@jerometaperman7102]

Anytime anyone I have ever talked to says they have evidence of the resurrection, they quote the new testament. "It says right here that 500 people saw him walking around three days after he was crucified." They can't seem to grasp the concept of autocorrelation.

[@stiimuli]

An excellent point-by-point examination

[@ziploc2000]

I feel Mike and Frank made progress today. They accept that a historical Jesus can't be proven, even if he DID exist as a real person or persons, and that "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer. You don't have to stuff a god into our knowledge gap in order to have an answer. However after that they did backslide into gaslighting themselves over a "post-resurrection" spiritual body vs a physical body. Marks off there. However, baby steps. Maybe in another decade they'll have joined us in reality.

[@chrisworthman3191]

I am so tired of "for the bible tells me so" being used as evidence.

[@bernardfinucane2061]

What strikes me about the miracles attempting to prove the divinity of Jesus is that they are pretty weak for the creator of the universe.

[@RustyWalker]

Actually, this misunderstanding is due to early Christians being hard of hearing. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. He rose from the bed, with a monster hangover.

[@somedutchguy7582]

Too much mulled wine during that last supper, probably.

[@martifingers]

This is very revealing I think. It is hard to imagine this shift in perspective would have happened without the sustained efforts of Paulogia and other very well informed and diligent people. (BTW let's not forget these efforts were met with derision at least in the early stages...) As Paulogia says let's see if it lasts. The need for certainty seems obviously based on an emotional need so it is instructive to compare Frank Turek's attitude here with his aggressive and domineering attitude eg during Q and A during debates. It's almost as if he needs to neutralise objections so as to avoid his own anxieties. One final point. What next for apologetics if this revisionary stance is still faced with a steady decline in the numbers of people having faith?

[@zxys001]

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever it has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

[@goddom]

Thank you, I think this is your best video yet.

[@Algorhythmic]

We could just as easily assume the five hundred saw an impostor. At a time when photographic evidence didn't exist it's not outside the realm of possibility that someone could claim to be Jesus and be taken as authentic. We saw instances of this with Elvis and the claims he was still alive (WITH photographic evidence). People see hallucinations of others all the time, we call them doppelgangers. How is this harder to believe than the resurrection?

[@michaelhenry1763]

Also, even reading Paul. The five hundred sounds made up.

[@cogforreal5952]

To be honest, I never heard of a mass hallucination. Around 500 people saw Jesus go into the clouds. So no it was no mere man.

[@alexanderweddle3948]

Lee Strobel writes “the gospels are rooted in direct or indirect eyewitness testimony” in THE CASE FOR CHRIST. The term “indirect eyewitness testimony” has no recognized meaning. I don’t know how some apologists use the term “eyewitness.”

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

You know, I've never actually stopped to really digest those words... It baffles me, because it seems like such a small infraction when held against the rest of the book, but "indirect eyewitness" sounds to me like a way to say "not eyewitness" but use wording that doesn't immediately enforce the negative, and thus allow people to gloss over it. Good catch on that one!

[@alexanderweddle3948]

@@Thoron_of_Neto, I don’t think one’s willingness to use terms to create an impression that there is better evidence than there is is minor. The willingness to use such terms also goes to the author’s credibility and makes me more cautious of any other of his statements.

[@Thoron_of_Neto]

​@Alex Oh yes, I only meant minor in relation to the rest of the claims in the book. He basically fabricated an entire narrative that he was slowly convinced after being given story after story that the most basic of examination provides one with refutation. In comparison to that, the trick of wordplay seemed minor, as evidenced by the fact that I hadn't ever even stopped to consider it, because of the vastness of his fabricated back story lol.

[@alexanderweddle3948]

@@Thoron_of_Neto, I thought you might mean that. I simply wanted to clarify. Lee Strobel’s writing is pretty irritating.

[@michaelh3470]

great work as always.

[@zacharyhiland300]

It seems like a plausible explanation, assuming all the claims about the physical events are true, would be that there was a mixup about where Jesus was or was supposed to be buried, so that when people came to check on his body in the morning, they went to the wrong place, and unsurprisingly it was empty, because his body was never placed there.

[@Uryvichk]

GARDENER: "You won't find him in there." MARY MAGDALENE: "You mean because he is risen and you are an angel of the Lord sent to inform us?" GARDENER: "What? No! Lady, you're at the wrong address!"

[@derreckwalls7508]

I think you've solved to entire dilemma! Joseph of A thought twice about his offer, or plans went awry when the Romans hauled the body off to a mass grave.

[@michellebennett4015]

Has anyone ever wondered why -if Jesus was really the son of/god - he didn’t have the ability and foresight to actually write his own message himself? Not exactly a miracle, but an impressive skill for his time and place, at least.

[@dougt7580]

The diety described in the Bible is an incompetent moron whose constant failures and subsequent (and ineffective) silly schemes trying to fix its perpetually broken creation demonstrates it lacks foresight and even basic intelligence. Any god with proper planning skills wouldn't need the whole Jesus saga. And it certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to try to communicate through the enormously subjective medium of written human language (which changes over time, and its understanding is entirely based upon each individual's education, intellect, and personal experiences). But the Christian god even doubles down on its idiocy by outsourcing the dissemination of its messages to human beings like priests, pastors, apologists, and theologians. The 10s of thousands of Christian denominations with opposing theologies and constant changing and even flip-flopping of teachings throughout time are testament to their gods ineptitude and ineffective communication strategies.