DEBATE: Did Jesus rise bodily from the dead? (with Pinecreek)

[@pintswithaquinas]

Many online atheists, since the time of the “new atheists,” have become more nuanced and rigorous in their attacks on Christian doctrine. @PineCreek is not one of them, and it was a delightful experience to see @The Counsel of Trent absolutely decimate him in this debate.

[@treycastle9119]

Facts

[@FavianShields]

Truth. Pinecreek was way out of his league yet strutted around triumphantly

[@AnthonySeptic]

"If you disregard all but one piece of evidence, would you still believe in the resurrection?" is possibly the worst argument I've come across.

[@Sednoob]

@@AnthonySeptic You missed the point. Pinecreek is moving step by step the amount of evidence to show when Trent would start to believe. Until the end of the timer, at no point did Trent believe in the flying man, which is also Pinecreek position.

[@JaySeamus]

Didn't expect Matt to go hard on PC

[@simonsonsco.4982]

What a performance by Trent. Accurate, logical and rigorous yet gentle, polite and humble. A true server of Christ. May God always bless him.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@LM-jz9vh *fedora*

[@susand3668]

Dear@@LM-jz9vh, thank you for helping the algorithm, to promote this debate!

[@jeffreyjdesir]

@@mike-cc3dd what a useless comment. this guy seems to have been over backwards with reason and logic and you just turn away...how do you know you're not in a cult again?

[@Scheermama]

Trent is unflappable, speaks with immense confidence and with humility! How does he do this? Grace.

[@LM-jz9vh]

Trent is an apologist. Enough said. "When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@sapereaude6339]

@@LM-jz9vh Copy/paste

[@GorgeousRoddyChrome]

You're confusing "grace" with practice. Seriously.

[@freda7961]

@GorgeousRoddyChrome But isn’t grace supposed to be empowering? I don’t see the conflict.

[@GorgeousRoddyChrome]

@@freda7961 A whimsical story about help from otherworldly forces? OK. Sure. Lot's of people find inspiration in that, I guess.

[@chdwck493]

This fella might feel pretty confident debating some non-denominational Christian pastor types, but he clearly isn't up to the challenge of a Trent Horn!

[@rfallyson]

That "fella" does not actually do debates. Trent was the one who insisted on a debate format. Pinecreek wanted a normal civil conversation. It says a lot of about the personality (and maybe character) of Trent and his audience that it had to be a debate format for you all to fawn over Trent. SMH. At the same time, these toxic reactions show that he - Pinecreek - struck a nerve.

[@chdwck493]

@@rfallyson Well maybe that explains his poor performance then? Or maybe it was the weak arguments he put forward? Throwing out a bunch of analogies and hypotheticals just isn't very convincing to people who understand the subject matter.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Pinecreek just likes to blather on about things he sees on youtube without anyone calling him out for his nonsense. This was a great show of his narcissism at work.

[@rfallyson]

@@chdwck493 Well, it was actually very good for being a first timer at debate who is very well read on the bible and engages in Socratic reasoning. He does not care that much about first cause and other philosophical arguments, but that is a matter of preference and emphasis. When it come to believing in Jesus, the Bible and its veracity is way more important than the Kalam. His line of questioning is always about at which point does credibility kick in for each believer. That is the definition of epistemological and phenomenological reasoning. Anything else is just mental self-gratification for "BeINg SmERT anD KnoEING THiNG3." lol I tease, but I am also serious, as someone who knows a lot about these things, I have always found Doug's dry wit and knowledge a source of edification and entertainment.

[@jonathanfairchild]

@@rfallyson maybe you’re right that it was Trent who insisted on the debate format. I kind of am skeptical of that because Trent as done a lot of informal discussions with people. Even if that’s the case that Trent insisted on it, it was probably because he was worried he’d be interrupted or wouldn’t be allowed to get his point across. He’s said before that there are reasons he chooses the format he does. But at any rate he did alright for his first debate. I’m impressed he did come on to debate when most don’t.

[@FavianShields]

How Trent keeps his cool in the face of such a condescending cross examination is beyond me. Pinecreek is not arguing in good faith. He sounds like a bitter, sad man.

[@ntmn8444]

He’s suited for debates. He has a good disposition. I’m not good at debating, so I avoid it. Not because I don’t have knowledge, I do. But some people are just naturally gifted for it.

[@susand3668]

Yes, he needs prayer. InspiringPhilosophy had a debate with him, and he said the one thing that would persuade him of the Truth of Christianity would be if his sister rose from her bed (she has MS.) He kept thinking that the only reason for Christians to believe is to avoid Hell, but did not see that Hell is the disintegration of a person, the corruption of all that was once that individual.

[@Americanheld]

As are most Atheist influencers.

[@mg_claymore8611]

As a historian who loves religious debates, I think trent won this one.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@sapereaude6339]

@@LM-jz9vh No one is going to read your copied and pasted comment. You knew it would be so long but if you say as much as you can no one will reply. You do realize how cringe you sound saying, “google X and google Y” right? If all of your sources are just you googling things until you find biased sources you agree with they’re not sources. Like your first several sources are from atheologica. That’s like me quoting Catholic answers to you. What are your sources for the links you’ve used. You claimed one of the links was by a, “real Biblical scholar.” What are the parameters for a, “real biblical scholar” and what makes him one?

[@LM-jz9vh]

@Sapere Aude Do you know how cringe you sound using the word cringe? Maybe you should read the articles with references to the actual scholarship stated at the bottom of them. You can look up their credentials yourself. Watch the Pagan Origins of Judaism video and read the link in the description so you can see the scholarship the video is based on for a start, so you can learn the origins of the fictional Abrahamic god. Then you can watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Baby steps. Take your time and investigate further and read the critical scholarship. I know it's a shock finding out that the primitive goat carcass sniffing Hebrew war/storm god Yahweh, who delights in animal sacrifices and the smell of barbecued animal carcasses and who does battle with mythological creatures like other fictional gods from the Levant isn't real.

[@LM-jz9vh]

@Sapere Aude I've got even more for you. It's about time people woke up and dropped these primitive bronze and iron age myths. I'm not saying there's no god. Maybe there is a god who created the universe, but *if* there is one it isn't the primitive Hebrew god Yahweh. *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible: Primitive Nonsense"* Google *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* Google *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* Google *"Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies - Psychology Today"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible - Is it the Word of GOD?"* Google *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* Google *"Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association"* Google *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* Google *"Does the Ipuwer Papyrus Refer to the Biblical Exodus Account? - Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy"* Google *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* Google *"The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. - News24"* Google *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* Google *"40 Problems with Christianity - Hemant Mehta - Friendly Atheist - Patheos"* Google *"The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity"* Google *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell""* Google *"You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology"* Google *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* Google *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* Google *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"* Google *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* Google *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*

[@sneakysnake2330]

I watched this over on pine creeks channel a couple days ago. Trent definitely won. I think Pine’s issue is that he spent too long on hypotheticals, especially with his tactic of adding the different sources of the resurrection and asking Trent where he would jump on board. Where he and most atheist debaters of this subject really lose I think is the general failure to provide a proper epistemology for how to discern historical events as well as coming up with a suitable counter hypothesis for the resurrection that has explanatory power.

[@Sednoob]

As far as we're aware, every single paranormal explanation is as credible as the resurection. Jesus was cloned. Or Jesus transformed someone else into him. An alien impersonated Jesus. Or Jesus was an alien all along. His body decayed ultra fast. Or he turned invisible. A super-hallucination occured. Or Jesus had mind-control ability. Jesus resurrect. Or he froze time on himself. A combination of several of those explanation is possible.

[@ironymatt]

Agreed. When I first encountered Pinecreek it was via a link in the comments for a Bp Barron video, and the calumny and strawmanning were almost comically over the top (that's what passes for intellectual rigor all too often I guess). I gritted through it to see if he had any substantive critiques, and it soon became clear that the rigged hypothetical was his main party trick. Ahhh well, I've yet to watch this. I'll get to it after work - hope he's matured a bit.

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@Sednoob If using Occam’s razor, we find that the resurrection is the simplest belief. Given that his apostles preached a resurrected Lord, there’s no need to assume aliens or whatever you’re on about.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@Sednoob Why couldn't it be the case that God did what he did granted the contingent universe that is already required explained any of those natural realities whatsoever?

[@aerobins12994]

@@Sednoob yea but now you're speaking in hypotheticals instead of what was reported. I can make hypotheticals for anything. Even for the natural world, just because I can do it doesn't make it plausible

[@BrentKalar]

For those interested, here is a summary of Trent''s Argument, with the final disposition of Doug's response to it, point-by-point, following in parentheses. 1. Things are as they appear unless evidence suggests otherwise. (Doug replied that this is falsified by the physiology of human vision. Trent replies that most people still seem to get along fine believing what they see unless there is reason to think otherwise. Doug failed to respond to this rejoinder.) 2. Sometimes evidence for a specific event outweighs a general truth. (Didn't directly dispute. ) 3. There is no positive evidence (e.g., a recantation by a disciple) that shows Jesus did not rise from the dead. (Didn't directly dispute.) 4. There is no missing evidence that we would expect if Jesus did rise from the dead and appeared only to his disciples. (Didn't dispute.) 5. Jesus existed, was crucified, and his disciples sincerely claimed to believe to have seen him alive. (Implicitly conceded.) 6. The belief of the disciples that Jesus rose needs to be explained. (Implicitly conceded.) 7. There are seven serious problems with the Grief Hallucination/Social Contagion Hypothesis: (i) We should be skeptical the disciples were grief-stricken (vs. angry with Jesus). (Didn't directly dispute.) (ii) Doesn't account for non-disciples such as Paul and James. (Doug provided an alternative hypothesis, but when challenged by Trent that this was ad hoc and unsupported, Doug conceded he had no evidence for it.) (iii) Studies have shown that true hallucinations are not common, especially tactile experiences of non-family members. (Didn't provide evidence for the contrary when challenged to do so..) (iv) People who have grief hallucinations come to believe it was just a hallucination, and none believe their loved one was raised from the dead. (Didn't provide evidence to the contrary when challenged to do so.) (v) Given their background theology, the disciples would not have concluded from a grief hallucination that Jesus was resurrected. (Doug challenged this using Dale Allison, but Trent countered with Allison's published work that contradicted Doug's quotes, and Doug had no rejoinder.) (vi) The NT authors used words that indicate resurrection rather than dream or vision, and Luke believed in resurrection. (Didn't dispute.) (vii) Enemies could have checked Jesus' tomb. (Doug replied that the body may not have been recognizable. Trent rejoined that they could have checked for marks of crucification, and Doug conceded that.) 8. The case for Christianity is much stronger than the case for Mormonism. (Didn't dispute.) 9. There is a causal power that could have raised Jesus from the dead. (Didn't dispute.)

[@namapalsu2364]

Great summary

[@TruePT]

Your a real one my guy!

[@LM-jz9vh]

You people need to investigate more critically. "When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@soulcutterx13]

@@LM-jz9vh The issue is that the standard meme **absolutely is** to list (for example) Osiris as the result of a virgin birth, which simply... Isn't true. Indeed, sons of Zeus are not believed to come without sexual union at all, but through sexual conquest by a god who can't down to earth. Surely you don't think that the grand old tale of Zeus changing shapes over and over again women end with him asking for her to agree to carry a baby, and no sexual act ensued! Because that's precisely how Christianity teaches, and Justin Martyr of course would have known this. The question is, if you believe that a god can impregnate a woman, why not believe that this stronger God can just do it by speaking it into being? He already made the whole universe, after all. Of course, you're an atheist. You don't believe either, and so the question of DISTINCTIONS is important for you, to prove that it's all a sham, but not the question of DIFFERENCES that would be key to removing intellectual stumbling blocks.

[@billyg898]

As a Catholic since June last year, it was the case for the resurrection that convinced me to become Christian, not some experience receiving the eucharist. Prior to this, the gradual process of seeing the failure of contemporary naturalist accounts to properly explain numerous aspects of the world and mind, seeing the superiority of a broadly Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy of nature, the success of the traditional arguments for God, the superiority of natural law ethics got me most of the way to a broadly traditional theistic worldview. But the one thing that made me Christian was the case for the resurrection. From there, many of the problems with religion that I had as an atheist still applied to protestant denominations (determining interpretation of scripture being one of them), so from purely philosophical considerations found the case for a legitimate authority structure to be persuasive and seeing the superiority of the Catholic church. I don't know if Doug realizes but you can't receive the eucharist prior to joining the church, so besides those who become Catholic as kids, one must be at least convinced of the resurrection (and more) before one joins the church. and only then can one receive the eucharist. So, the idea of only just becoming convinced of the resurrection due to some experience receiving the eucharist doesn't really make any sense to any serious believing Catholics.

[@taylorj.1628]

Great comment on the order of belief and receiving the eucharist.

[@malirk]

What lead you to believe the resurrection happened?

[@billyg898]

@@malirk The cumulative case (emphasis on the word *cumulative*) for it and the sheer and utter failure of any possible naturalistic explanation. The only way to avoid it is if you have some prior assumption against it like believing God doesn't exist or miracles can't happen. Also, seeing non-Christian schoalrs make some pretty wild blunders in their scholarship (when they are meant to be experts we can trust) gives me pause about putting my trust in their analysis. I emphasize *cumulative* because I find that many scrutinize the evidence for the resurrection, and miracle claims in general, in a way they would consider completely irrational in any other context. As Antony Flew notes, the quality and quantity of evidence for the resurrection dramatically surpasses any other miracle claim for any other religion (even other Christian miracle claims). And as Trent pointed out, Pinecreek had to appeal entirely to hypotheticals because there is literally no equivalent miracle claim he can point to that matches the resurrection. To explain, if, to account for one piece of evidence, you believe some ridiculously extreme alternative naturalist explanation that there is literally no other instance of happening ever, and then you explain another piece by doing the same again, compiling belief in ridiculous explanation upon ridiculous explanation, and you do this for every piece of evidence, you are just compounding ridiculousness upon ridiculousness, which exponentially lowers the probability of this cumulative case with every piece. This eventually gets so absurd, you might as well believe there is a reptilian alien secret society controlling the world and be doing the mental gymnastics flat-earthers do to hold their beliefs. It's damn near equivalent. It's okay if you want to do that, but you can't really claim to be more rational than a Christian, but its what you are going to have to do in order to account for the evidence there is. That is why most simply stick with "I don't know" because there really is no serious naturalistic explanation for the evidence. Pretty much every non-Christian scholar who proposes some alternative for some piece of evidence even admits how ridiculous their alternative is.

[@malirk]

Can you walk me through the cumulative case? What all is part of it?

[@robertcarlyle6102]

@Billy G "some ridiculously extreme alternative naturalist explanation that there is literally no other instance of happening ever" Let's apply that standard to the resurrection of Jesus: Would it be fair to call that supernatural explanation "ridiculously extreme", given there's literally no other evidence of someone rising from death and flying into the sky?

[@brendansheehan6180]

Pine says that having an experience of Jesus isn't evidence of Jesus, instead it's psychological. Moments later saying that if God existed he would reveal himself to people in a way they would recognize, (Lol), and because he doesn't, we should discount the notion, but, also, moments later, we should understand that the very idea, the very discussion itself, is boring and nobody cares. How can any Atheist watch this seemingly nihilistic (what with the total disregard for meaning or coherence) rhetoric and not be at least a little alarmed at this position?

[@ntmn8444]

But he didn’t even try to refute Trent’s claim. Trent refuted that point from the start. You’d think Dug would’ve thought about some points Trent would’ve argued and then try to counter those points. This was a really easy debate for Trent. Dug has no real case from an atheistic perspective.

[@NoChance18]

That's a strawman, Trent clearly understood Doug's position, as did the majority of viewers. Hallucinations happen. I personally get them about every 6-12 months since I was a kid. Sight, Sound, Feeling (no smell). People also experience Shinto spirits, Djinni, Big Foot, etc.. Doesn't make those things real. There exist ways in which we can differentiate imagination from reality. If a Christian God exists, then that God is obviously aware of this and (if they desired to be known) would reveal Himself in a way that compliments these methods. Otherwise, we'd have good reason to suspect that any experience of God is similar to other false experiences.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@NoChance18 No one will ever experience what you experience unless it is a real thing.

[@bearistotle2820]

@@NoChance18 The hallucinations can only be differentiated because we know of true and false instances of these experiences. There *could* be true experiences of all the things you listed. As a personal example, I've had "hype" which I misinterpreted as a spiritual experience, and actual spiritual experiences. I can differentiate between the two, but being able to do so meant I was mistaken for a while. Me being mistaken doesn't mean that *all* spiritual experiences are false, just that they *can* be.

[@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

The decorum with which Trent always handles himself is impressive.

[@pbjpodcast9983]

This. Every time he leads off a debate, I'm expecting a top-tier experience. Then - in cases like this - the opponent starts their argument, and I realize this is going to be 2 hours of listening to someone arguing like they're the edgy kid in World Religions 101.

[@BrentKalar]

It's all about the centering prayer.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible: Primitive Nonsense"* Google *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* Google *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* Google *"Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies - Psychology Today"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible - Is it the Word of GOD?"* Google *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* Google *"Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association"* Google *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* Google *"Does the Ipuwer Papyrus Refer to the Biblical Exodus Account? - Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy"* Google *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* Google *"The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. - News24"* Google *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* Google *"40 Problems with Christianity - Hemant Mehta - Friendly Atheist - Patheos"* Google *"The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity"* Google *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell""* Google *"You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology"* Google *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* Google *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* Google *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"* Google *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* Google *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*

[@jonathanfairchild]

@@LM-jz9vh I respect your zeal but nobody’s going to read that. I’m not trying to be rude just telling you, put it somewhere people will read it. This is a comment section.

[@whatsinaname691]

The biggest blunder was when PineCreek ceded his time in the rebuttal, and when he stated in that rebuttal that his first speech had been wasted on other peoples opinions that he doesn’t hold. Both of those just show a really poor game plan

[@tam_chris20]

I am not being rude but.. this debate exposed how incompetent pinecreek is.. great job Trent... am starting to become ur fan

[@ceceroxy2227]

well nobody thinks Pinecreek is some sort of intellectual. Atheist intellectuals are quite hard to find, especially online.

[@Sednoob]

What example of pinecreek incompetence do you think is the most relevent ?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@Sednoob that he isn't interested in the subject.

[@Sednoob]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj You're not interested in pinecreek position so it would mean you are incompetent by your own light.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@Sednoob What a clown, that doesn't even make sense.

[@malcolmhayes9201]

It’s rare as a Protestant I find myself rooting for my catholic brothers in Christ. But this honestly was a breath of fresh air to see! Glad to see Christian’s can be unified no matter their doctrines in order to prove Christianity to be true! 😇 great job Trent

[@arlkai9884]

Despite the belief by orthodox Christians and Catholics, God works in more than just the Protestant church. The Catholic and Orthodox bring people to Christ and it’s rather refreshing like you said

[@bandie9101]

Dug: I want to debate this differently than it's debated in the past also Dug: yea, they basically stole the body from the tomb… …the very first counter argument the high priest made 0 days after the resurrection :D

[@RyanOConnellcomedy]

LOL

[@taylorj.1628]

Great comment LOL

[@lukejamesadams31]

Yeah, I was expecting something interesting after he gave us the line of "2 million debates have happened on this subject, and I'm going to do it different", and then basically just told us the disciples made the story up. Brilliant! hey, but at least he used the occasion to let us know he is important enough to have an assistant!

[@ramigilneas9274]

Of course the most likely explanation is that Jesus was never buried in a tomb. But the second most likely explanation is that someone removed the body from the tomb… maybe Pilate thought that it would be funny to feed the corpse to his dogs.

[@Greyz174]

the very first counter argument, as depicted in a source constantly polemicizing the Jewish leaders, depicting them as comically and absurdly evil on multiple occasions, written a few decades later*** wish we had the high priest's actual words from 0 days after the resurrection, that would help a whole lot

[@lior38]

Doug asks Trent these hypothetical questions the whole debate, but the first time someone asks him a hypothetical - he calls it "a stupid question"! As long as we're consistent 😂

[@lukejamesadams31]

Doug is just a Peter Boghossian disciple who tries to corner people with "clever" questions akin to, "Could God microwave a burrito so hot, that even he couldn't eat it?"

[@MeanBeanComedy]

@@lukejamesadams31 Yeah, Peter sucks as soon as he moves to religion.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@MeanBeanComedy Just like Peterson.

[@carstontoedter1333]

Doug is such a liar. Saying "To make christians cry" as his goal in counter apologetics, than weirdly giggle and say it was a joke without providing an actual answer to the question was a huge mistake. Primarily because people watch Doug's channel and he has openly admitted his goal really is to make believers feel dumb, silly or stupid by any means necessary. Doug is the embodiment of an atheist meme page, no actual worldview, epistemology or ethical code. He exists to make pithy remarks and question everything without providing actual counter evidence.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Yep. He's like a retired version of the fedora meme.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@sapereaude6339]

@@LM-jz9vh Copy/paste

[@skylinestudiosrc]

Yep,.. and from what I've seen on his channel is that it really looks like he's trying to get people to leave the faith.

[@jendoe9436]

Pine’s arguments seem to boil down to tossing the evidence out or picking apart one thing to discredit the whole package. Which is pretty much what Trent stated in his opening statement. Pine’s attempts that ‘modern’ feelings like Eucharistic belief is acceptable over the Resurrection misses the fact that Christianity, especially Catholicism, builds on top of everything. Denying the Resurrection while believing in the Eucharist makes no sense. The reason I believe in Jesus in the Eucharist is because of his Divine nature. His Resurrection is a part of that Devine nature and naturally builds with his ministry. Hypotheticals can be a good thought experiment, but they are only thought experiments. One needs to actually test and evaluate those experiments for them to have some practical use. And one also can’t dismiss something just because it doesn’t fit what they think should happen. Trent did well in explaining why the evidence we have is sufficient for anyone desiring the Truth. Pine constantly tosses ideas out there and hand waved away things he didn’t like. All in all, Trent provides the stronger, more coherent arguments while Pine can only build his straw-man and demand we think exactly like him.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@LM-jz9vh oh how cringe is your copypaste?

[@kevinkelly2162]

@@mike-cc3dd Not near as cringe as your lack of argument.

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

What it really boils down to is what level of evidence would you need to accept a miracle claim. Most atheists, including myself, would require more than what the resurrection narrative offers. Christians have different standards it seems, which is fine

[@Fuzzawakka]

Trent thank you for having the conversation with Doug. Hope you have more with him. Was very interesting!

[@IHopeUDance20]

"If all you had was the Gospel of John, would you believe Jesus rose from the dead?" Yeah, easily, that's the Gospel that really made me believe in the Eucharist.

[@PineCreekDoug]

I appreciate this comment. It really shows the differences between Christians (some would some wouldn't believe on 1 Gospel alone).

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@PineCreekDoug some....but that doesnt prove anything. What a weak argument Some atheists are afraid of the dark. Doesn't make ghosts real.

[@ntmn8444]

Me too! It’s my favorite!

[@Grandmaster_Dragonborn]

@@PineCreekDoug Given it's position in a book full of confirmed prophecy, archeology & historicity, one Gospel is far more than enough, and four is quite brilliant.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn thanks for your opinion. But I am not sure Trent would agree with you on this, as would many other Christians. One of the historical criteria is multiple attestation. If you have only 1 Gospel, then you don't have that.

[@Thomas-dw1nb]

Pinecreek swung for the fences with his "Flying Man" hypothetical but ended up breaking his bat on a foul ball that sent two kids and an elderly person to the hospital. I think Trent was being kind when he said this debate was fun, and he looks forward to other "conversations" with Pinecreek. The only reason Matt Fradd should pay Pinecreek to "debate" on Pints is to allow Pinecreek to bury himself in disingenuous arguments for a broader audience to see for themselves.

[@PineCreekDoug]

I do hope to talk to Trent again. I'm open to being "buried" on Matt Fradd's channel in a discussion format where he can moderate.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Its funny how trent already knew exactly what pinecreek was going to argue and knocked down his arguments before he started. And then. To watch him walk into those traps was just embarassing. Even the "i dont believe it...." instead of it didnt happen. Was in his first line of his arguments. Ouch

[@Thomas-dw1nb]

@PineCreek I'm just some dude on KZbin, but my advice to you is to be more respectful of the historical, philosophical, and rational arguments made by Trent or any other serious religious aplogist. Arguments presented by serious Christian apologists (like Trent) are grounded in centuries of Western philosophy, history, and epistemology. The low-brow, shallow, and reductionist "arguments" you made here seem more suited to playground bully tactics designed to make fun of your opponent rather than to take seriously the precedent their arguments hold. Your strategy seems to be designed more to pick off low-hanging fruit than to actually debate assertions based on their merits. It makes you look more interested in gaining numbers than in truth.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@Thomas-dw1nb sorry, but I don't take the historical, philosophical arguments seriously at all when it comes to the resurrection. What I do take seriously is something today, like a Christian raising the dead in Jesus' name. Is it really that surprising that non-Christians don't take the arguments for the resurrection seriously?

[@joeyparisi1371]

@@PineCreekDoug I think you should try opening up your thinking past the bubble of atheism. You come across very shallow with your thinking and it shoes through with atheism. How do you answer the argument of a fully actual being?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

The first requisite for a productive dialogue is that all parties approach each other in good faith. Pinecreek has no intention of doing this, he should be ostracized and chided for attempting to introduce himself in a conversation where his only goal is to be obstructive.

[@probaskinnyman4960]

I want to say I agree with your sentiment, but I also dont want to be too rash with my conclusions (as I only examine Doug's cross exam and closing). I find Doug's closing to be acting in "bad faith" when he mentioned that Trent couldn't provide reasons to not believe in The Acenstral Flying Man thought experiment. However, I feel that the only problem was that he had such limited time, therefore my conclusion that he is acting in "bad faith" has some holes. Just some of my thoughts.

[@christianpaleocon6580]

@@probaskinnyman4960 if you watch his video with Inspiring Philosophy, you can see that he really is bad faith

[@jamesm5462]

Funny thing is pinecreek tried to coarse trent into believing in his own theory by posing leading questions which trent rejected and later pinecreek said was just a joke. Yeah...

[@MeanBeanComedy]

"Without fossils, would you still believe in dinosaurs?"

[@ReadingFanGirl]

You completely dunked on PineCreek in that first rebuttal; nice work!

[@weily-why-lee]

The contrast between these two guys really shows Trent's humility.

[@taylorj.1628]

This was such a great debate. I actually watched a debate right before this and the person affirming my view was so bad I couldn't even get through his opener (Affirming side for "Did animals die before the fall?" on Gospel Truth). To get this bad taste out of my mouth I looked for a good resurrection debate and found this one. Absolutely fantastic debate in which Trent really did our Risen King justice. The only thing Doug had going for him was the rhetorical power of the flying man exercise. With that said, the intellectual power of the flying man is bankrupt. May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth (Ps. 72:8)!

[@cinnabun117]

I wasn't expecting such a demolition 😅. Good work

[@brendansheehan6180]

"If you had almost no evidence to support something would you believe it?" Uh, no. So?

[@mike-cc3dd]

And even more hilarious is that he believes that lots of people hallucinated and shared that hallucination through grief. Without any evidence that it ever happens. What a huge fail

[@kdublock]

Doug: if all the evidence of the resurrection were removed, would you still believe it? Trent: No…? Doug: I rest my case!

[@majesticrainmaker1460]

Hahaha

[@silverlining2677]

Do you not get the point of the thought experiment? It's to narrow down the REAL reason why someone believes which almost always isn't for historical reasons.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@silverlining2677 well if you throw out those historical reasons then...... the argument becomes moot. Which is why trent made those points. Its hilarious that you think its a good argument.

[@kdublock]

@@silverlining2677 which is absolutely what that “thought experiment” did not prove

[@silverlining2677]

@@kdublock That's what happens when they other person deflects as much as possible until the time runs out.

[@billyg898]

Questions for Doug: Was there a purpose alleged for your ancestor flying across the grand canyon and what was it? Miracles aren't random events God just decides to throw in for no reason. Jesus's death and resurrection had a point: To solve a fundamental problem in nature which someone doesn't necessarily need scripture to have a rough idea about. There is also a fundamental difference between making someone fly and raising someone from the dead. Even demons can cause someone to fly. They can't raise someone bodily from the dead though. Was your flying ancestor the greatest moral teacher in all of human history, sparking the beginnings of the development of the idea of equal human dignity, even loving your enemies? If we are relying on a bunch of illiterate fishermen to the claim of your ancestor flying, and they also somehow put the greatest moral teachings in all of human history in to the mouth of your ancestor, then that would definitely raise the bar further.

[@B.S._Lewis]

Lol. Jesus was not the greatest moral teacher in history. C.S. Lewis even admitted that he would be the Devil himself if he was not Lord.

[@billyg898]

@@B.S._Lewis Who can you name is better?

[@B.S._Lewis]

@@billyg898 Aesop

[@OrthoLou]

@@B.S._Lewis lol, way to completely misrepresent what Lewis was saying. He meant that if Jesus had lied about all of His claims, THAT would make Him the devil; it wasn't a critique of His moral teachings.

[@B.S._Lewis]

@@OrthoLou Read Mere Christianity son. Substitutionary atonement is a disgustingly unjust action in his opinion; that if not decreed by the ruler of the universe would qualify Jesus to be Satan on that premise alone. He leads up to his famous Liar, Lunatic or Lord trilemma with a whole preamble on how people saying Jesus was a "moral teacher" annoyed him and that he found the notion ludicrous. Please don't attempt to correct me when you obviously haven't read the book.

[@RyanOConnellcomedy]

Pinecreek Doug's whole argument seems to be in bad faith. He starts early by asserting Trent - and every Christian - does not believe in the resurrection because of any supposed evidence, but simply because they've had personal and emotional experiences of faith that override rationality. That's why he doesn't engage the arguments on their own level. He circumvents them by playing armchair psychologist and thinks that's the whole game. To say it's smug is an understatement. It's the equivalent of a high schooler shouting "Flying Spaghetti Monster" over and over in place of an argument. The Patton Oswalt School of Trite Christian Mockery might give him a thumbs up. Serious intellectuals can do nothing but facepalm.

[@JW-ki8md]

Doug definitely doesn’t stoop low like patton Oswalt. After watching Pinecreek for several years he is a good faith interlocutor. To be honest, as a former Christian I understand Doug’s argument. Emotionally I want the New Testament miracles and stories to be true, but rationally I know I have never seen a miracle, and just because miracles were recorded and compiled eventually into what would be the NT does not mean they happened. So part of me does think most Christians believe for emotional reasons first, and something like the evidence Trent shows us in the debate is secondary.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@JW-ki8md see how you didnt even address the original comment with any sort of evidence. You just assumed Doug's intention. Such faith you have!

[@JW-ki8md]

@@mike-cc3dd My taking up for doug and what I think about him doesn’t need a bunch of evidence that I cite. He has a KZbin channel anyone can go watch. I’m not going to do homework for other people. This isn’t apologetics.

[@theeasternjourney]

If I was agnostic and I've watched nothing but this video I would vote that Trent has won. The flying man hypothesis lacks so much depth that the case for the resurrection has.

[@PineCreekDoug]

The flying man can be changed to include ANYTHING the Christian desires. The point is, to go chronologically, one by one, to see where the belief switch turns on.

[@duedilligence5463]

@@PineCreekDoug several thousand years of biblical texts providing a narrative throughout history, entire church communities being set up all over the Roman Empire, people who traveled with and personally knowing Jesus during his ministry being thrown in jail and killed so they can preach his message, the huge boom of the religion in such a short time are all factors completely ignored in the flying man argument. Removing most of the evidence makes it a pretty lazy comparison

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@duedilligence5463 I understand. So what I would do in this case, is start with my ancestor flying, then add in "thousand years of texts" and ask "Do you believe it now". Then add "communities being set up all over based on the flying man" then ask "do you believe it now?" And so on. The point is to see where the belief switch is turned on.

[@rosiegirl2485]

@@duedilligence5463 Totally agree with you. Clearly something very big happened for all of this to happen, and to have withstood the test of time!

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@rosiegirl2485 I agree. Rome made Christianity the official religion, that may have had something to do with it. Keep in mind your statement can also be said of Islam (a religion we both deem as false).

[@Dostoevskys_Quill]

Bravo Trent, to remain so charitable whilst having such poorly framed and condescending questions directed towards you, is a true testament to your humility…God bless you always ✝️

[@klutziekat7709]

I don't think I've ever heard so many hypotheticals used in a single debate. Pinecreek did nothing but raise an army of strawmen without actually addressing any of Trent's points. Painfully bad at moments.

[@Numenorean921]

to be fair, the guy said on twitter he knew trent would demolish him in a debate because he doesn't debate. Pretty brave of him to do this honestly.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@Numenorean921 thanks! I do hope to have a regular conversation in the future with Trent. I honestly don't care about winning or losing.

[@Numenorean921]

@@PineCreekDoug No problem! I enjoyed the discussion that was had although clearly the format doesn't suit your style.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@Numenorean921 well I don't care for the 15 min opening parts, but when we actually get to interact with each other, I think that suits my style.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Actually instead of addressing them. He just repeated exactly what trent said he would say.. as if trent didnt already disprove those weak arguments.

[@Thomasfboyle]

1:22:00 The guy presumes Christianity was founded as a sola-scriptura religion and not a community of anointed people with a tradition of education, formation and practiced ritual as the primary movements of the life of the believers

[@JaySeamus]

Trent, *you and I are very much the same* .....in that, we breathe oxygen and eat food.

[@justsomevids4541]

Dillahunty: im not convinced

[@utopiabuster]

Dillahunty, "I don't know".

[@Sednoob]

Actually Pinecreek was talking to a computer and computers don't breathe oxygen and eat food. Things are as they appear unless there are some reasons to think otherwise, so the burden is to prove that Trent does beathe and eat.

[@donnam1257]

Every time Pinecreek said that it gave me the feeling he was trying to knock Trent down and equate him with an atheist.

[@jendoe9436]

Pine’s constant use of that line just had me rolling my eyes. It’s like he’s trying to bring Trent down to him instead of attempting to reach up to Trent. It was quite annoying, especially during the Flying Man rebuttal part.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Did he seriously just compare the evidence for the resurrection to the evidence that my spouse or loved one killed someone 100 years ago?

[@brendansheehan6180]

"There are no first hand accounts....except for Paul.....and you're basing your view on things written in a way they wouldn't write it today " Incredible stuff. Faith destroyed.

[@timetravlin4450]

Faith is not destroyed. Lol

[@stormchaser9738]

I think Brendan was being sarcastic lol. I was stunned when Doug got to the end and told Christians they have to give Christianity up like it was obvious from his arguments that believing in it was silly. Like did he really expect a single Christian would be shaken by what he said today?

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@stormchaser9738 He is literally a confidence man. The monorail is really more of a Shelbyville idea...

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@timetravlin4450 mine neither.

[@amandajones3964]

@@stormchaser9738 agree! - I'd say to him, what Peter said to Jesus, 'to whom shall we go'

[@Regular_Pigeon]

YES! FINALLY! Haven't even watched it yet, but as a fan of both of their channels, I'm very excited to watch this with my afternoon coffee.

[@RKcousins625]

It’s guys like PineCreek that reassure my faith in Christianity.

[@pokerman9108]

people like Trent reassure my atheism.... funny how that works.

[@azrael516]

​@@pokerman9108Good for his prejudice against the Christian faith, he actually affirms his atheism 😂😂😂

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Pinecreek, I think, is disingenuous about his claim 'there are no people who looked at the evidence for the resurrection and converted'. I guarantee there are plenty, since I'm one of them. Although to be fair, my eventual intellectual assent to Christianity didn't mean a thing until I gave my life over to God, and experienced his transformative grace and love first hand.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

"Although to be fair, my eventual intellectual assent to Christianity didn't mean a thing until I gave my life over to God, and experienced his transformative grace and love first hand." Which is why every Christian is a Christian. Me included.

[@gleon1602]

I'm already halfway through the debate and I have to admit I'm really disappointed in @PineCreek. Debates are nothing new for Trent Horn but Pinecreek really had no good case at all for rejecting the resurrection. His insistence on hypothetical situations automatically puts him on shaky ground. Trent won this one hands down (I'm Protestant btw)

[@toddgruber5729]

I’m still waiting for an atheist to say “here are the reasons that JC didn’t rise from the dead”…1), 2), etc…they just continually say “it just didn’t happen” or “the reasons you say He did, just aren’t good enough”…OK then what actually happened? Just give reasons/thoughts for why the disciples thought they saw Jesus after He was killed…reasons on why the tomb was empty…reasons why several/all the apostles were killed…just give reasons. Even 1…I’m just disappointed because there doesn’t seem to be a decent, actual argument on the atheist side.

[@PineCreekDoug]

Todd, I believe I did by quoting a guy named Dale Allison (a Christian NT historian). It is all laid out in that quote.

[@toddgruber5729]

@@PineCreekDoug I really appreciate your response. Do you remember where that’s at? Initial statement, or at about what time? I’d like to listen and respond. I just don’t recall hearing solid reasons…another thought, how did Christianity even get off the ground based on “stories” that were made up? It would’ve been so easy to just be like, “you dudes are bonkers” and no one follows along. But that didn’t happen. From what I’ve read it was somewhat of an explosion…

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@PineCreekDoug you could have quoted a homeless man on the corner. Doesn't really matter. His arguments werent sound and neither were yours. Its sad you didnt do your homework

[@pokerman9108]

it's funny, depending on where you watch these debates, the comments always sway toward the channel hosting it. lol

[@whelperw]

"I like agreeing with people, who believe what I believe, and disagree with people, who don't believe what I believe."

[@unbornfoetus8166]

Yeah that’s an extremely predictable pattern

[@johnhoelzeman6683]

"If all you had was the Gospel of John/Pauline Epistles, would you believe it?" No, because it wasn't meant to be an introduction, but rather a supplemental to the faith you should've already received.

[@joelfrombethlehem]

Yes, Jesus rose from the dead both in Body and Soul.

[@pokerman9108]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣

[@azrael516]

​@@pokerman9108What's the fun?? Are you going to ridiculous atheist??

[@pokerman9108]

@@azrael516 do you also believe dead people rise? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@azrael516]

@@pokerman9108 With clear evidence, yes it is more reasonable

[@pokerman9108]

​@@azrael516 You're an adult who believes in a zombie... 🤣🤣🤣 You've been persuaded that a man was born of a virgin and miraculously came back to life after death. It makes me ponder, what else could you be persuaded to believe? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@areallycoolhat5427]

25:40 This was a weird point to make. Most people in the audience may not know who Rabbi Tovias Singer is, so how do we know his quote is sound or trustworthy? Pinecreek also didn't explain how Paul misquoted the OT.

[@davidgamboa9567]

For the opening statements, I have to give the edge to Brent Horn

[@andytheawesome7592]

Oh come on, at least get his name right!

[@kellanstec]

@@andytheawesome7592 It's a joke. "Dug" was misspelled too. Nathan does this sometimes, I think to see if anyone notices.

[@andytheawesome7592]

@@kellanstec Ah

[@gwan_git]

Lol

[@defeatingdefeaters]

Trent Horn is a gift to the Church! 🙏🏽

[@oflunrazeuqram]

If a guy has to debate whether the creator of everything was ressereructed, then the the Almighty has a problem with his delivery of information

[@sly8926]

We don’t have to debate it. It’s true.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@sly8926 I am sure you have evidence for that. Any day now. ;-)

[@ntmn8444]

Yeah, this guy lost this debate. He tried to appeal to emotion. “This all sounds crazy”. How so? What’s your evidence? Trent actually came in with actual facts and cited studies. He actually came up with possible arguments Dug might’ve come with and cited studies and statistics. Then, there was this dumb question Dug asked in the beginning. Dug: would you believe the gospel of John if that’s all you have? Me: why yes, that’s actually my favorite book in the NT.

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

I respect Pinecreek as a human being endowed with rational faculties to discursively reason and draw conclusions. But what I don’t respect is his rhetoric when watching his channel. Here, however, I think Dug behaved very well and for that I will give applause. With all that being said, I think pine creek needs to take a step back and come to grips intellectually with what preceded Christianity. The Scriptures are chalked full of detailed prophetic speech that lines up with Christ with unprecedented precision. Dug would do well to ask himself why little bitty Israel, of all nations, succeeded with the universal acceptance of their God over all the pagan gods of the dominating nations. Where are the Assyrian gods? Where are the Babylonian gods? Where did the Roman Empire gods fly away to? Is it possible that what Jeremiah said was true? “I will destroy from beneath the heavens all the gods that did not create the heaven and the earth.” Who paved the way for Reason? Jesus. Who destroyed extreme superstition? Jesus. Who cleared the path for scientific investigation? Before Christ men around the world bent their knee to the moon, bowed before trees, and sacrificed to the stars. Christ is the way that caused man to no longer bow to creation as if “gods” and instead place creation under the domain of their reason. It’s because of Christ that man analyze a tree under a microscope instead of offering incense to it. “There was the true Light that enlightens all men coming into the world.” The light of reason is the light which makes science science. Before Christ, man was in darkness. “The Light of your face is signed upon us.” Darkness put the moon above man as something to be worshipped. Christ put man on the moon as something to be over. Reason is the “aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

[@LM-jz9vh]

Not really no. "When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

@@LM-jz9vh I respect your response. But I am way past all those objections. Been there, done that. Jesus is the Messiah, and has done exactly what He foreordained would be done. Every thing you’ve asked to “google” I have already passed that hurdle. “Remove the stumbling blocks and let My people come to Me.”

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@LM-jz9vh copypaste cringe incoming.

[@Greyz174]

"Before Christ men around the world bent their knee to the moon, bowed before trees, and sacrificed to the stars." "the cracker is his literal flesh, btw. now please eat it, it's part of the sanctification ritual"

[@chase6579]

"what we believe is crazy" On the face of it yeah I guess that's true, but the paradox is that when you dig below the surface, it is the only sane thing to believe.

[@Coins1985]

Many people don't seem to understand Doug's "Flying Man" analogy. I think it's brilliant!

[@President-George-Bush]

It's not...

[@introvertedchristian5219]

Doug said things in his closing that he should've said in his opening. The part where he said he agrees with the minimal facts but that there are naturalistic explanations that are better than the resurrection explanation is something he should've said from the beginning. Then he could offer a natural explanation of the information, and the debate could've continued by going back and forth over which explanation is better. That would've been a much better debate, I think.

[@Americanheld]

He said it in the end because he doesnt actually have any natural explanations that would hold under scrutiny.

[@azrael516]

What naturalistic explanations are better than the resurrection? As far as I know, they are explanations without proof with ad hoc speculations, right?

[@cactoidjim1477]

1:27:15 Pine saying it would be great if we had a first-person account from someone who was martyred...after they were martyred. 🤦‍♂️

[@thethreefriends3002]

I didn't even catch that 😂

[@utopiabuster]

I'm sure Doug has likely convinced himself that all his thoughts are brilliant. Doesn't mean they even come close. If Doug were to ask me if I believe he had an ancestor who flew, I'd tell him sure! I mean, seriously, what benefit is there to accepting or rejecting his claim? Whether one believes or disbelieves Doug, both have the very same consequence, nothing. A big fat zero. More than likely Doug will add caveat upon caveat until his flying ancestor is virtually indistinguishable from Jesus. Replete with the ability to forgive sin and healing powers. Doug's "Flying Man" is not a thought experiment, but a rose by another name. Doug should stick to "skydaddy" which, while not brilliant, at least doesn't even try to pretend to be intelligent. Peace

[@BrentKalar]

You don't have to guess: 1:22:40

[@peetee32]

Lol you clearly don't understand the thought experiment.

[@utopiabuster]

@@peetee32 , More than happy to have you explain it to me, "LOL". Let me start off by believing you have a flying ancestor. Now what? Thanks for playing.

[@peetee32]

@@utopiabuster you believe my ancestor flew based only on me claiming he did? Why? What if I told you I had a dragon in my house. Would you believe that too? What about if I said if you give me $100,000 i can bring your loves ones back from the dead. Is there any limit to what you'll believe based on what I say? This thought exercise may be too intellectual for you to grasp, so I'm not going to push you any further. All you need to know is believing a thing just because someone says it's true is bad. Withholding belief until sufficient evidence is available is better. Good luck with all your future decisions

[@kdublock]

I really did not understand this “thought experiment”

[@ryanseay1321]

I must say... Pinecreek is wildly effective at knocking down straw man arguments

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515 pinecreek set up his own strawman arguments to knock down. It was embarassing

[@ryanseay1321]

@@deVeresd.Kfz.1515 Not gonna do that as I don't have time for that. However, to name a couple quoting Pastor Griffith instead of a reputable biblical scholar. Any statement that starts with "you christians need to..." demonstrates that he is not clashing with Trent's arguments for the reliability of the resurrection. Trent brought peer reviewed medical literature and Pinecreek brought significantly weaker evidence.

[@bobsmith3735]

@@ryanseay1321 LOL, man you have no idea what a strawman fallacy even is.

[@LM-jz9vh]

Reliability of the resurrection? That's a good one. "When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@ryanseay1321]

“an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.” Pine creek quoted Pastor Griffith, a clear misrepresentation of Christianity as cogently demonstrated by Trent, to easily defeat Catholicism and Christianity without addressing the real issue at hand. I’m curious to know where you think I’m going wrong with this?

[@kevbotech238]

I'm open to all kinds of arguments, and love to see a perspective from a different view. But to me it really doesn't make much sense to use the strategy of only using certain evidence and leaving out the whole and asking if you would still believe in the resurrection. As a former jury member for 3 months this tactic would have made no sense at all. We are to make decisions on the whole of the evidence is presented. This would be what the evidence suggests. Really without the perpetrator actually coming forward and admitting, yes I did this. Really in any case that's all you have is the evidence that's left over and what it implies, and supports. The story of Jesus, is much in the same way. We are presented with this amazing story with reasonable evidence, and from there it is up to you to take a chance on a spiritual journey to find out who or what Jesus is.

[@bmstellar]

It feels weird saying Trent “won”. It almost feels like watching someone pick on someone with a disability. PCs inability to recognize he is not doing well in a debate/discussion is staggering. I do not know if he is just being dishonest or he lives in such a bubble he can not recognize his theories do not hold much water, outside of the cheerleaders on his channel. I appreciate Trent’s time and I always learn from him but looking forward to a debate with a better suited guest.

[@BrentKalar]

I feel you. The answer to your "I do not know" question is "neither, exactly." Some of the harsh commentary here saddens me a bit, even while I recognize the utilitarian need for it. Then, I review Dr. Todd Grande videos such as "Is Narcissism Evil" and feel bad.

[@azrael516]

​@@BrentKalar question are you Christian??

[@Jtotheroc69]

41:30 This was a very, very weak argument. "If it's true, why don't more historians become Christians?" Can someone explain why he used this?

[@eddd2932]

It shows that the evidence isn't compelling to to someone who doesn't presuppose that the Bible is special

[@leonardu6094]

@@eddd2932 //It shows that the evidence isn't compelling to to someone who doesn't presuppose that the Bible is special// I'm afraid your logic here is faulty. It can't explain why any skeptic ever becomes a christian. Seeing as they never presupposed the bible is special.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Because he's not very bright.

[@topper009]

so the rebuttal basically is that the resurrection seems really unlikely....yes we know that is kind of the point of it

[@bouncycastle955]

Yes, which means that any other extremely unlikely, but more likely than resurrections hypothesis should be preferred... If I find my cup on the other side of the room from where I left it, it's pretty unlikely that my neighbor snuck in and moved it, but it's even less likely that Michael Jordan snuck in and moved it. Of course there are even more likely explanations, but the point is that MJ is a bad one...

[@topper009]

@@bouncycastle955 it is not a question of likely. Literally every real explanation for every real event is “unlikely” given that it is only one of all the possible explanations. It is a question of fitting the evidence. It is well attested historical event in oral and written form that dates to eye witnesses and at least doesn’t contradict any known fact. So you need to examine all the evidence and determine if it the beat explanation. You are acting like we are just randomly throwing darts to find some explanation and happened to hit resurrection and then are just going with it. Yes we know lies are more common than resurrections, that is not the point.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@topper009 that is exactly the point. Sure, any individual occurrence is unlikely, but what's less likely, that I just put a pizza in the oven or I just put the Mona Lisa in the oven? You'd be lying if you said there wasn't a clear answer to that question. So we have a data set, namely a list of claims found in a book, what is the best explanation? I assume you would agree that the best explanation for why a claim is in a book is not, by default, that it actually happened.

[@topper009]

@@bouncycastle955 again, likelihood is irrelevant. I don't know, if the Mona Lisa was in your house and you enjoy cooking painting and took a picture of yourself putting in the oven and we checked the louvre and it is missing then that circumstantial evidence changes things. The data set is more than the BIble, it is the continuous traditional passed down from generation to generation, the fulfilment of prophecies not to mention we have a literal photograph of the resurrection happening in real time, the shroud of Turin. So every history book you read you have the default assumption that it is all made up? Default opinion is meaningless, likelihood is meaningless. An explanation correlating with all of the evidence only matters. The explanation that the whole thing was a giant coordinated conspiracy does NOT fit the evidence that the people making it all up gained nothing expect poverty, self-denial, torture and death.

[@bouncycastle955]

@@topper009 How is likelihood irrelevant? If I claim that I have the Mona Lisa in my oven as we speak, you don't think you have any reason whatsoever to think one way or the other that I am telling the truth or not? Really? I didn't say you assume it was made up, I said you don't assume it was all true, those are two very different statements. If you don't take it at face value (just like you don't take any other ancient text at face value), you have to actually think about it and decide whether the account is likly to be accurate. I didn't say it was a giant coordinated conspiracy... One explanation, that I'm not proposing, but that absolutely does explain all of the evidence, is that there was a conspiracy of a few people who were executed shortly after spreading their message around. Why didn't they recant? They did, but a portion of the people that they had proselytized to didn't find out. The story was spread halfway around the world aftercall. There are plenty of other explanations that don't require a conspiracy and are also more likely that a series of miracles though. Like a handful of guys were taken in by a charlatan named Jesus and they were so convinced that he was a magic man that they kept preaching his message after he was executed and the story was exagerated over time. These things happen all of the time. There are many others and they are all more likely and they all explain all of the available evidence. Accepting the least likely explanation for a data set is just willing ignorance.

[@Thomasfboyle]

41:00 “Things are never as they appear” says the allegedly more rational guy in the room.

[@slow9573]

I don’t know any Catholic who rests his of her faith on a Eucharistic experience. Also, Pinecreek pleads with Catholics to really consider the case for atheism. Why? What does atheism really offer? If atheism is true, then determinism is true, and I don’t have any way of following the truth anyway because I’m simply determined in all my thoughts and actions and can’t trust random firings of brain anyway. I like debates and intend to follow truth where it leads, but I find it odd someone pleading with the audience

[@PineCreekDoug]

I said the exact opposite. I said that Catholics should remain theists, but give up Christianity. Please listen to my closing argument.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@PineCreekDoug oh the cringe. It continues. People who win debates dont debate the comment section

[@newglof9558]

​@PineCreek why? How does me believing in the Resurrection affect you? It must affect you deeply as you have a career based on others believing it. How does it, though?

[@tomasrocha6139]

Under determinism brain firings aren't random

[@lukejamesadams31]

Haven't made it any further than the opening arguments so far, and while I thought Trent was getting a little tangential in his argument, Doug's argument was one of the least convincing I've heard in a while. He said he was going to bring a different approach to the table, but basically fell right back into the old narrative that the Disciples fabricated their accounts - which brings up a whole host of others problems (Disciples's motivations, martyrdom, acceptance and spread of the church from contemporaries who would have been in the know, etc. etc.). Also as part of this argument, Doug asserts that the writers colluded, yet as most atheists do - would likely put forth different arguments in other situations based on the accounts not lining up perfectly or seemingly having contradictions. Just flip the script when it's convenient, right? Lastly, I have no idea what his point was that we might not accept the resurrection as true if we only had John, or only had Paul. It's a cumulative case Doug. That's how people make judgements. Same as a jury might convict someone based on 10 pieces of separate evidence, but certainly wouldn't convict them on one piece alone. Lastly, Doug asserts that the Christian worldview is crazy without even mentioning his belief that the earth just "poof!", popped out of thin . . . well, nothingness one day. That sounds a little crazy Doug, doesn't it?

[@bmstellar]

The best line from the debate is toward the end of the QA when Trent says, “a stupid hypothetical?” After Pinecreek states a question regarding a hypothetical is stupid. Lol

[@vaderetro264]

49:40 I was a hardcore atheist till the age of about 40 and believe me, most atheists would never want to see a miracle. They are desperate not to believe there's a God.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

While I appreciate the admission (welcome to the faith, brother!), I think we all already knew this! 😆😆😝

[@tomasrocha6139]

Desperate? It's not hard not to believe in a God that deliberately hides himself.

[@azrael516]

​@@MeanBeanComedyI hated how much Pine interrupted Trent all the time, wouldn't even let him finish his speech. Trent tried to answer his questions but Pine kept interrupting me all the time, which made me stressful.

[@daybreakwatchman9594]

Doug made a comment at one point that the type of evidence supporting the Resurrection would not hold up in a court of law. Could we address that his first argument, "Would you believe the Resurrection if we only had Paul's writings?" is the equivalent of "The jury wouldn't find the murderer guilty if they only had a fraction of the evidence presented here!"

[@PineCreekDoug]

What you're saying is that Paul's writings are insufficient. Let that sink in. We have a claim of Jesus appearing to 500 according to a creed Paul cites. This is not sufficient. Right?

[@daybreakwatchman9594]

@@PineCreekDoug What I'm saying is that it's a weak argument to focus on one piece of evidence and ask if that is sufficient in itself. Perhaps for some people, a New Testament only consisting of Paul's writings is perfectly sufficient. For others, it may not be. For some, the Bible as a whole-- accounts of Christ's ministry and the writings of the Apostles and the history of the Jewish people leading up to that point-- is insufficient without the historical record and writings of the Church Fathers. But whatever one individual considers "sufficient" is irrelevant. In a conversation such as this, all evidence needs to be considered and evaluated. This is primarily the area I believe you fell short in. Trent's arguments were focused on the fact that we have this evidence and a reasonable alternative needs to be offered in order to take an honest position in the negative. Speculation can cast doubt on a position, but it doesn't suffice as a rebuttal to that position.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@daybreakwatchman9594 if I was making an argument, is that I, and many many Christians are the SAME on this idea of what is sufficient. Trent and I are the SAME when it came to many of the claims that I asked (including the epileptic). Now, the most interesting part is where we are DIFFERENT. And then we can dive deep into the evidence to see WHY we're different. What you'll find with many people, is that they like to throw all the evidence in at once, mix it around like a stew and then say VOILA, it's sufficient. But then it really makes it difficult to discuss. Make sense?

[@daybreakwatchman9594]

@@PineCreekDoug I agree that some debaters can pile up evidence haphazardly and make a "stew". I'm thinking here of the Gish Gallop. The remedy to this is not to pick out a carrot and ask, "is this the main course?" At any rate, this isn't what Trent did. His arguments were concise and laid out well, and in my opinion, not really dealt with. To answer your question, yes, your line of reasoning makes complete sense. I think finding the difference in reasoning among opposing viewpoints is a worthwhile and interesting discussion. I just don't find it compelling in a debate if it doesn't refute the opposing view in the process. If you end up debating Trent again and have specific refutations of the points he brought up today, I think it would be more fruitful.

[@PineCreekDoug]

@@daybreakwatchman9594 I made it pretty clear in the beginning, that I would do this debate differently (for better or worse). Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman (both NT historians) are debating for a full day. If we want to hear professional debate point for point, we can always listen to them. In the meantime, let's experiment!

[@inhocsigno1728]

i'm at half an hour, substantially in the firts speak Trent anticipates everything Pinecreek has to say in his first speak, making him look as a fool who didn't even listened to his opponent

[@brendansheehan6180]

"The illiterate fisherman had to get the literate disciples to write stuff down" therefore....uh, you shouldn't believe what they said?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

See, the actual intent is that the Christian gets angered because the atheist calls St Peter illiterate. And it really is an insult, since that's pinecreek's intent with the comment and it serves no dialectic purpose or explains any historical context about the gospel of Mark. It's merely an opportunity to mention St Peter's condition knowing we live in a society that reveres education.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj I think it just explains why things happened the way they happened. Jesus CHOSE many illiterate disciples. Those who were literate were likely the top 1% of the population. Jesus came for everybody. Why wouldn't he lift up those who were lowest, given that is what he talked about doing?

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj literally matthew a tax collector under the roman empire... They revered education in those days as well... We have advanced in terms of science but still thats a very bold statement to make that never revered education...

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj so basically "not an argument" Yeah that's kind of the atheist way to debate

[@lukejamesadams31]

The moment I realized this debate was probably not worth watching - When Pinecreek triumphantly announced that he was going to bring something different to the table than the previous 2,000,000 debates had . . . and followed this with the argument that the Disciples made the story up. Yep.

[@downenout8705]

What "disciples" as far as I am aware we don't have a single word written by any "disciples". Strangely convenient that all the other god stories are "made up", but the one that you believe in isn't. Trent starts with the presupposition that the gospels are reliable and trustworthy but presents no empirical evidence to support this position.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Not just that--they they stole the body, too! The oldest and lamest of claims!

[@azrael516]

​@@downenout8705stupid statement, has no argument

[@tomasrocha6139]

​@@MeanBeanComedy No he argued sorcerers stole the body for a ritual, not the disciples.

[@raymk]

40:50 "I think I could say things are never the way they appear" Finally, Doug doubts his own reality and beliefs. I wonder why people want to listen to someone who can't even grasp reality.

[@bandie9101]

yes, and he very conveniently ignores the "unless evidence shows otherwise" clause.

[@mike-cc3dd]

I'll bet he runs genetic tests on his kids every time he sees them

[@fr3d42]

We are terrible at seeing things the way they appear: ghosts, fairies, mirages and other hallucinations. What if your best friends tells you that his neighbour was decapitated and put his own head back, would you believe him?

[@nicksibly526]

Exactly 15 minute introduction Trent Horn. Not a wasted second.

[@joachimwest3217]

It's been fascinating to read the comments on here. As is always the case in my many years of listening to Christians debate, the Christians always think the Christian won but when I read what you guys think about what Pinecreek was saying it seems like the Christians here generally don't understand what pinecreek was getting at all as if you turned off your brains whenever he started speaking. If Trent and Pinecreek were to come across a person having a seizure both Trent and Pinecreek would think it was a seizure. Why? Because we see naturalism every day all day so we should have a bias towards it. Now take the supposed miracle of the resurrection, something that supposedly happened 2000 years ago in a time and place where we didn't have video cameras or the internet or the ability to travel easily and look at the evidence that we do have little by little instead of all at once and even if we did have a resurrection on video today wouldn't many of you doubt it? I would. When you look at it piece by piece you start to realize that it's really not very impressive. It's a bunch of things that people said and people say lots of things. The media gets things wrong even today even though you can fact check them easily. Sometimes they straight out lie. It's not a good bet to say that all of sudden that Jesus rose from the dead just because some people said so or because some people believed it or because people died because of it even. People are often wrong about things, people lie and we aren't talking about some mundane thing, we are talking about something magical happening. It's just not a good bet really to bet on Jesus resurrecting from the dead 2000 years ago because a miracle is really the least probable explanation of any fact. It's far more probable the Christianity is built on a big bed of lies, half-truths, mistakes, hucksterism and foolishness just like most of you probably believe that most other religions are built on the same things. I mean, you all think that every other religion is false don't you? Do you think that Mohammad split the moon or that Joseph Smith met the Angel Moroni who gave him the golden plates? People lie every day, people are wrong about things all the time, people make mistakes all the time and it's far more likely that whatever "miracle" you are thinking of is something natural like that than it is a miracle because a miracle is very unlikely but people making mistakes and people lying or even people lying to themselves and thinking that they saw something they didn't see even is something that happens every day.

[@swoosh1mil]

2000 years of evidence explains why we believe today. But that doesn't explain those first Christians who changed their lives and martyred themselves for the testimonies of twelve men. Those first Christians didn't have the two thousand years of evidence we have today. It's not like they met their deaths saying to themselves, "We're gonna fool millions of people thousands of years from now into believing a lie. THE JOKE'S ON THEM!!! HA...HA...HA!" It's actually more plausible to believe today.

[@joachimwest3217]

@@swoosh1mil do you have any proof that they could have chosen to recant and not die? I dont believe these things so easily. Even if they could have recanted and they died anyways I dont see why that's proof of a miracle either. Maybe their conception of what happened and who jesus was and what their message was is different than what you think it is. There are so many factors at play and so many possible explanations that dont require that a miracle be true and for me a miracle explanation is the least likely explanation. Have you listened to apologia and Sean McDowell talk about the the apostles that died as martyrs? It's not a good reason to think that a miracle happened.

[@swoosh1mil]

@@joachimwest3217 The Resurrection is not a magical occurrence, but rather an anomaly within Natural Order. There are plenty of anomalies that occur in nature but we don't go around making the claim that every anomaly is magical. You left Reason and Logic when you assert some kind of magical occurrence at this point. Sounds like you're trying to 'shush it away' because there's no proof that it didn't occur. Where is the proof that this anomaly did not occur as people testify to it's occurrence. And to add to this, this anomaly was prophecy...foretold ahead of time. It's one thing to say anomalies will happen; it's different when someone gives some details as to what, when and how this anomaly will occur. It stands to logic and reason, the best way to stop a Movement is to discredit it's followers, not to just straight-up kill them. Torture and threat of death would have been the first steps taken to put down this Movement. But when they didn't stop professing...then the one's making the threats have to follow through, least they discredit themselves. Recanting was most likely offered before death. I agree with you when you state people lie to themselves everyday. But the question is why lie to yourself? It has to benefit you in someway to believe in a lie over the truth. It was no benefIt to those first Christians to profess this truth.

[@joachimwest3217]

@@swoosh1mil I'm very glad that you seem to think that you know how the resurrection happened. Maybe you can explain it to the medical profession so that we could have a lot more 3rd day resurrections. I don't understand the reasoning to conclude that they were offered the choice to recant. Even if it were more likely that they were asked to recant doesn't mean that they were. You are just making stuff up. Here, we even have a martyredom recorded in Acts and while I don't believe that this is a true story it's an example that goes against your point. Stephen isn't given the option to recant. They simply ask him if the charges against him are true and he gives a speech indicating that the charges are true and they go crazy and stone him to death. No one says, "look, you've been misled, please change your mind and take it back and promise to stop professing or we are going to have to stone you", just they just go ahead and stone him. But look, even if they were all given the option to recant it still doesn't mean that they weren't wrong. People die for lies. People die for things that they think are true that aren't true. People die for all sorts of stupid reasons. Everybody dies and everybody lies at least once in their life and sometimes authors who write about the martyrdom of other people say things that aren't true as well. Lies and mistakes happen more than miracles. The reason that early Christians lied and lied to themselves and were sometimes misled about things are the same reason that Christians today lie to themselves are misled and lie. You don't think that your favorite sect of Christianity was the only sect of Christianity that existed in the early church do you? But those other Christians had sincere beliefs and wrote books that you think were full of lies and things that weren't true. Those other Christians likely suffered from persecution as well. Those other Christians likely had the same issues that some Christians even today suffer in some parts of the world.

[@swoosh1mil]

@@joachimwest3217 Medical professionals see things they can not explain from time to time. Ex. A person having a tumor on Imaging one day and then on a following day - no tumor. The medical professional can't explain it...it's an anomaly of nature. You've proven nothing by asking me to explain to a scientific community. When a scientific community cannot explain many things either. You simple assert. The account of the stoning doesn't have to list all the details of what led to the stoning; it cuts to the chase. Ink and parchment were not so easy to come by and were expensive back in the day. It stands to logic and reasoning that you cut to the chase when writing an account. Again...all you're doing is asserting with no evidence and from here-to-there you abandon logic and reason with Assertions.

[@macroman52]

And Trent just admitted that the guard story does not preclude the body being stolen, since the guards were not placed there until Saturday morning. But I suppose he might think that no sabbath observant body snatcher would steal a body on Friday night, since that would be a violation of the sabbath.

[@kateguilfoyle5155]

The argument about translation and that the Gospels were written decades later shows the inherent distortion created by divorcing Christianity from tradition. The person putting this argument (Mike Laconis?) does not understand the indices of discipleship - they were students who lived with, and committed themselves totally to their rabbi, Christ, and the practice with divinely inspired narratives was for the story to be repeated without any variation and in complete and faithful adherence to the original. The three Gospels differ from St. John, but, if they are looked at without a modern artificial construct one can see that they are facets of the same testimony - just different elements because the testimony is obtained from different witnesses - as a lawyer, I can say that these accounts absolutely conform with experience in taking witness statements. Many ancient cultures besides Christianity had an oral tradition where the tale was told in absolute conformity to the original, without a single word added or subtracted. These included the Celts with the Druid stories and the ancient Jewish biblical narratives. The Celts believed that if a word was changed the person who did so would be cursed. This would be very much the case with devout early Christians, who were entrusted with the task of passing on the central tenet of the Christian faith. They were so truthful and honest that they had already told us that all of them except St John had been cowards. They were quite aware that the accounts differed in certain (peripheral) respects - John’s account was after the synoptic Gospels. The problem with modern Protestant interpretation is that it is divorced from the continuum and so they look at some events without the context of either the ancient Jewish Temple or the interpretations of the early Church fathers.

[@michaeldarwin6695]

The moment (in my opinion) Pinecreek Doug lost all credibility: He issued a challenge that theists should provide some sort of list of people who went and got their Ph.D in history *before* becoming a Christian and *then* converted because of the historical evidence. After this, when speaking about Paul and James, two men who converted when they were originally hostile to the faith, Doug hand-waves that away by saying "well, you can still believe something even if it is wrong." That undercut his whole challenge! If we were to provide Doug with a list of Christians who converted after their doctorate, how would we know Doug wouldn't just use the same excuse he made for Paul and James? (SPOILER ALERT: he probably would.) Also, 1:42:02 was hilarious Trent, we all felt that haha

[@colindowson6371]

There is no corroborative evidence God,Jesus or any Resurrection occurred,Horn is using very poor historical methods and Apologetics. He was recently destroyed by Ancient Historians...so is lying here..sorry

[@colindowson6371]

Actually most of the Bible is forged Fiction not History ok

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Wonderfully-said. I totally missed that! 🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️ He chopped his legs off! 😬😆

[@MeanBeanComedy]

@@colindowson6371 Go back to rëddït.

[@fakename3208]

That flying man really crashed and burned…this guys talks like every atheist on Reddit. Just kind of snarky and mean.

[@grubblewubbles]

Where do you think they get it from lol

[@Thomasfboyle]

42:30 David Patrick Harry, he fits your bill. He would be happy to chat, he’s a scholar of world religions, PhD and Christian convert.

[@1001011011010]

I'd love for you two to get together and talk more about the Faith and stuff like how in Catholicism the Beatific Vision would fulfill all our desires since in some sense all our desires are (though oftentimes distorted) longings for the good and in the Beatific Vision we have access to the ultimate good in God.

[@intedominesperavi6036]

The reason why I will stay Christian for the rest of my life.

[@williamavitt8264]

Pinecreek's chief argument seemed to keep coming down to this: After the conviction of a murderer, asking a juror "If we didn't have the murder weapon, would you have still voted to convict?" "Now let's say we didn't the murder weapon, and then we took away the eye witnesses. Would you still have voted to convict?" "OK, so we don't have the murder weapon, we don't have the eye witnesses, now we take away the credit card receipts that proved the defendant was in the vicinity of the murder buying the murder weapon one hour before the murder. Would you have still voted to convict?" "Now let's say if all the evidence we have was that this man was arrested for murder and we have no other evidence, would you vote to convict?" It's such a nonsense argument to start taking away evidence piece by piece and ask if you would believe if we didn't have this evidence. We do have that evidence, and you have to discredit the evidence not just pretend like it isn't there and then somehow act like you're making a point.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Perfectly-stated, horrifically underrated. Should be top comment.

[@williamavitt8264]

@@MeanBeanComedy thank you

[@azrael516]

​@@williamavitt8264And people on his channel think he won. Dude, his subscribers are the purest act of ignorance, they call and insult Trent in the worst possible ways, and the worst thing is they accuse us of speculation and they mostly use speculation against the resurrection.

[@azrael516]

​@@MeanBeanComedyThey actually ridicule the resurrection arguments thinking it's Harry Potter, man, I'm outraged by these mockeries.

[@grond21]

1:39:54 Trent: Provides evidence and debunks arguments. Doug: Here's a bunch of hypotheticals. No counter evidence presented. Trent: "Doug hasn't provided counter evidence" Doug: "That's crazy! You only believe because there is no counter evidence!!"

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

Why would there be counter evidence to the claim of a person 2000 years ago resurrecting?

[@grond21]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Because that's how evidentiary claims work

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

@@grond21 we have no evidence that the vast majority of the people that lived in the ancient world didn’t resurrect. There were no records kept of death or burial. I don’t think we should believe because there is no evidence to counter that claim. The reason not to believe the resurrection is not due to abundance of counter evidence, it’s due to all that we know about Jesus coming from hearsay. We don’t have a single eyewitness account of his life or the time after his alleged resurrection. The closest thing we have is Paul, and that was after Jesus had already ascended to heaven

[@grond21]

@@user-gv8xf9ul5j If we are examining a historical claim, we cannot set different standards than we would when we are examining other historical events. Otherwise it's disingenuous from the beginning. So in this case, we have closer witness testimony, more documentary fragments, more external sources, more internal consistency, more cultural consistency, and more archaeological evidence than for virtually any other event of it's time. Therefore, by the normal historical standards it has such a preponderance of evidence that to claim otherwise means one is being deceitful, or is just wholly ignorant of the evidence.

[@user-gv8xf9ul5j]

@@grond21 I would say we don’t have any witness testimony, and no archaeological evidence of Jesus life. We have a lot of manuscripts, but number of manuscripts give us no basis to determine whether the claims they make are true or false. Many of the claims within the gospels couldn’t have had an eyewitness, Jesus speaking with Pilate for instance. As for other historical claims, I tend to believe them if they have a high prior probability of happening and disbelieve if the prior is low. For instance, I don’t believe Romulus and Remus were raised by a wolf, but I would accept that a man named Romulus may have played a role in founding Rome

[@von_nobody]

Pinecreek miss one important thing, Bible in it self is not only foundation for Catholics, we have Tradition, aka all that was pass down by Apostles. Without this it will be hard to believe or understand Gospel.

[@spmcg_]

Pinecreek is a legitimately pathetic person. Praying for him

[@colindowson6371]

There is no corroborative evidence God,Jesus or any Resurrection occurred,Horn is using very poor historical methods and Apologetics. He was recently destroyed by Ancient Historians...so is lying here..sorry

[@joselongo1601]

I saw the dance of the son in a Virgin shrink in Argentina but I never knew if that is real miracle, and I was very skeptical in that moment so that wasn't an hallucination.

[@tomdallis4105]

Great job Trent. Dug really had no argument. Thank you for defending the faith and the reality of the resurrection.

[@mikeryan3701]

"I am talking like a madman-I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked." (2 Cor 11) And for all this, Paul purposely invented the resurrection? If somebody came up to you and suggested that somebody made up some 'crazy' story and was willing to go through umpteen torments to maintain this 'crazy' story, would you be inclined to think he had made it up? I also note that Dug likes to quote people he calls Christian. But we need to be very careful to note what kind of 'Christians' these people are. Licona, for example, does not appear to believe in a bodily resurrection. Alison also is not entirely orthodox in his beliefs about the resurrection. So quote these people by all means, but quoting them as some sort of Christians is somewhat pointless.

[@YardenJZ]

Putting the technical issues to one side, I must say Doug was very hard to listen to. His language, and sometimes even tone of voice, was just oozing with disrespect. He may not feel contempt towards Christians, but I did not think his disposition was one that creates a sense of a respectful, eye-level discussion. I am ceaselessly impressed with Trent's ability to stay focused and cool in these debates. And his flying relative example, goodness. Thinly veiled is fine, he didn't seem to be interested in it being sophisticated. But he presents some elements which resemble Christianity ("I have a text") while dropping very important context ("I have a few texts by different people who witnessed the same event"). It's a straw man of the Christian narrative.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Yeah, he's not really great at this sort of thing.

[@samiral-hayed1656]

Dug relied far, far too much on 'if' statements, hypotheticals, whataboutism, strawman, and argument from authority. I find it baffling how he quotes Christians on how unlikely the story is, but then fails to go further and answer the question "Why do they still believe, even with how weird it is?"

[@kenhilker2507]

If I recall, most of those that Doug quoted point to spiritual experiences as their primary reason to believe. For example, William Lane Craig has often said he's a believer because of spiritual experiences. But he can't reproduce that for others so he uses the Kalam as his preferred debate argument.

[@DenisBrayon]

Good job, Trent.

[@Thomasfboyle]

43:00 So a trend of falling in love and then converting to a religion is supposed to be evidence against the goodness of that religion’s claims?

[@williambillycraig1057]

Pinecreek came across as a used car salesman trying to sell a used, worn-out, and broken-down car. I was expecting more from Pinecreek: I had hoped he would have had better arguments. I just wasted 2 hours of my life watching this debate.

[@mike-cc3dd]

That's where you dropped the ball. You hoped he would have better arguments. 5 minutes on his channel and you would have realized it would be a bloodbath and he would make a fool of himself

[@bandie9101]

- time remaining from the opening statement: 0:40 sec - Trent starts explaining God's existence…

[@mike-cc3dd]

Like a fucking boss

[@treytaylor1511]

Pinecreek just doesn't know how to debate, at all. Not saying that validates the central claim Trent was defending, but anybody with a working brain could see that Pinecreek was completely outmatched.

[@stevita12]

It was truly brave for @pinecreek dug to accept the challenge with someone like Trent Horn, so kudos. That said, If I was on trial for murder, I'd have to choose Trent for my lawyer. Rather have evidence be proven or unproven. Hypotheticals don't work here.

[@raymk]

1:09:55 Doug: "I want to know why we're different. So, here's a chart and a hypothetical scenario..., would you believe this scenario?" Trent: "No, because-" Doug: "Stahp. Just say no, I don't want to listen to the explanation." Trent: (I thought you want to know why we're different...)"

[@PineCreekDoug]

No, I wanted to show that we are the SAME. And if we are different WHERE are we different. The why part is the last step.

[@bandie9101]

yea, but my problem is not exactly that he expects yes/no answers, but that he assumes his methodology is useful to detect the differences.

[@raymk]

@@PineCreekDoug Both of you could answer "Yes" (or "No") based on different reasons. Instead of only limiting the other party with "Yes/No" answer, try listening to why they answer "Yes" or "No" in each question. By this way, you can determine where both of you part ways.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@PineCreekDoug cringe.

[@azrael516]

​@@PineCreekDougTrent would explain to you why, he would go deeper but you interrupted him like many times

[@bandie9101]

16:34 - i did not know it's over 2 MILLION years Jesus resurrection is debated :)

[@mike-cc3dd]

Hahhahaah. Good catch

[@thethreefriends3002]

How have I miss this?

[@Gerschwin]

Not sure if anyone else is noticing this but Pinecreek seems to me to bashing "Bible only" christianity. He assumes all we have is some written texts but we actually have the church first which then gives rise to the scriptures (new testament). There would be an enduring church not so? Which would stand in need of explanation.

[@bernardokrolo2275]

Thanks God..i thing untill your comment that im only one notice this..further more i m little "angry" on Trent because he didnt clearfy this position...

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Most of these people are bitter ex protestants, when they do go after Catholicism they usually use protestant arguments for it, or the sheer incredulity in doctrines like transubstantiation and so on.

[@PineCreekDoug]

I understand this is a key difference between P and C's. But I did mention that I respect people who believe more based on something today (living Church) rather than 2000 years ago.

[@bernardokrolo2275]

@@PineCreekDoug actualy i m beliver (catolich)and i agree whit many point in your intro

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@PineCreekDoug but you come to this debate as if youre speaking to Ps and trying to debate their belief system. Might as well talk about the koran while youre at it. Sorry dude. You faceplanted this debate

[@jeffreyjdesir]

lol (these are "my" real-time comments). but at 1:13:00 Doug shows his mastery in Socratic discussion. He's genuinely trying to expose the Truth to Trent by walking him through each others mind. Very impressed

[@mistermkultra3114]

Trent , Do you think that Nathan Ormond, James Fodor or Kamil Gregor (the other integrants of Digital Gnosis) have interesting objections to the Jesus rise from the dead ?