Resurrection Scholar FAILS my Natural Hypothesis for Christianity! (Mike Licona response)

[@cubid0u]

What blows apologists' minds is that @Paulogia makes it clear that he's not claiming what he describes is the truth of what happened. It's only about providing a plausible sequence of events, and comparing it to the plausability of someone waking up from the dead. Because christians can't just say "it is somewhat plausible that Jesus rose from the dead, therefore you should believe". They have to claim it's true.

[@Caelinus]

Apologists were a huge part of why I deconstructed because of stuff like this. I would hear an argument, the argument would worry me because it made too much sense, and then I would go to apologists to find an answer. But when I listened to their answer they always deflected or seemed to fundamentally not understand what the argument even was. They just went into so tangentially related but generally unsupported concept and never addressed the issue at play. It is really hard to be convinced of something when all the people who are arguing in it's favor so clearly do not have valid arguments or even a basic understanding of what evidence is.

[@ericpierce3660]

@@Caelinus _"when I listened to their answer they always deflected or seemed to fundamentally not understand what the argument even was."_ It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair.

[@Caelinus]

@@ericpierce3660 Yeah, at the time I assumed (because I was taught from birth) that there were answers to all the questions I had. The quote is 100% correct. Not only salary though, but also power. They get a lot of adulation from uninformed religious people who are taught the same things I was, but lack the intellectual curiosity to look stuff up.

[@Caelinus]

@@ericpierce3660 Yeah, at the time I assumed (because I was taught from birth) that there were answers to all the questions I had. The quote is 100% correct. Not only salary though, but also power. They get a lot of adulation from uninformed religious people who are taught the same things I was, but lack the intellectual curiosity to look stuff up.

[@CharlesPayet]

@@CaelinusI suspect that’s exactly what is contributing to a large percentage of people who are deconverting in the USA these days. The growing number of anti-apologists like Paul, David (DeepDrinks), Derek (MythVision), Digital Hammurabi, MindShift, JezebelVibes, Dan McClellan, Jennifer Bird, and so many more are out there providing reasoned, calm, thoughtful, and substantiated critiques of Christianity. Because they are, apologists are forced to respond, but their answers are simply inadequate. And the more times they respond, the more people learn of the anti-apologists and their in-depth content. It’s an ever-growing circle of doubt, and apologists’ answers never get any better.

[@TheAntiburglar]

Hey! They're starting to get your name right! What a nice development! 😃

[@HarryNicNicholas]

only took, what, five years?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

and they claim in-errancy....

[@soyevquirsefron990]

They call themselves apologists and study apologia but then stumble all over Paulogia? I never understood why they think they’re making Paul look bad by dramatically mispronouncing his channel name

[@johnnehrich9601]

Got it right this time. Bet dollars to donuts it will be a "one-off" incident.

[@rembrandt972ify]

"They're starting to get your name right!" Miracles do happen!

[@jonathanramsey]

22:06 they hired secretaries to write down their stories in Greek. How much did provincial laborers pay to get such an educated person to do that through Fiverr back then? “Hey! Whatchoo lads working on there? Oh. Your friend died and you want to write it down, eh? I know a guy from work who went to uni in Athens, knows a lot of Greek. I could hook you up. Whatd’ya say? No. Don’t worry about pay. He owes me a favor and that fish was amazeballs. I’ll call in my favor to ‘im.”

[@MrDalisclock]

It's amazing the "Secretary" not only wrote down the testimony of these people but also neatly arraigned everything into a third person narrative referencing events nobody would be able to corroborate. I hope those secretaries got paid really well for such effort.

[@riluna3695]

Now I am dangerously curious what the Greek word for "amazeballs" would be. I need this in my life. I can do one, at least. In Japanese it'd probably be 凄玉 or "sugotama".

[@tripolarmdisorder7696]

Testicockailes.

[@ElusiveEel]

@@MrDalisclock Not only that, but he made 3 editions of the same text with substantial alterations and a different ending narrative. An amazing secretary.

[@Faint366]

Don’t forget that each gospel managed to find a translator that recorded stuff word for word to match the other gospels, just by coincidence. Because everyone knows that there’s only one way to translate a language, and every translator is always going to translate into the same words every time

[@montagdp]

When I was a deconstructing Christian, I watched some of the debates between Ehrman and Licona. I was flabbergasted at how weak Mike's bedrock facts were. If those are the only three things you can know happened with high confidence, why would you believe Jesus rose from the dead? They are all so mundane. I understand why other people like Habermas like to add more facts, but they fall apart under scrutiny.

[@sm8johnthreesixteen]

Biblical and secular sources attest that the Jews are an ancient people. About 4,000 years ago, God promised Abram that he would make a great nation of him to the end of blessing all the families of the earth (see Genesis 12:1-3). God dealt with the Jewish nation in a unique way among all the nations of the earth (see 2 Samuel 7:22-24); to them he gave promises, the holy scriptures, and a system of sacrifice which foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ of himself for mankind's sins (see Romans 3:2, 9:4-5). The Old Testament prophesied of Christ and the things he would suffer; it was complete and in place among the Jews long before Jesus' birth. In God' time, as foretold, his only begotten Son was born of a virgin; he was made like us in every way and tempted as we yet without sin (see Galatians 4:4, Luke 1:27, 34-35; Hebrews 2:17, 4:15). He suffered for our sins, died, was buried, and rose again from the dead the third day, all in accordance with the scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Through faith in Christ, we can receive the forgiveness of sins and God's gift of eternal life, without which men will perish (see Romans 6:23, John 3:16). When the Gentile nations were wholly given to idolatry, the prophet Malachi wrote of a day when God's name would be praised among them. How would the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob come to be known and praised among the heathen? It is through the preaching of the gospel of Christ and the remission of sins in Jesus' name that this word has been fulfilled: For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles (Malachi 1:11a).

[@montagdp]

​@@sm8johnthreesixteen I'm having a hard time understanding why you replied to my comment with a completely irrelevant sermon. I read the Bible through cover-to-cover dozens of times as a Christian. I know all the verses. If I still believed they were true, I would still be a Christian. Preaching them here is not going to do any good, especially when your message is historically inaccurate already by sentence two.

[@sm8johnthreesixteen]

@@montagdp It is wholly relevant. Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel of grace to be preached in Jesus' name (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Without the eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly life and ministry including his death and resurrection, there is no one to preach such shortly after Jesus' ascension into heaven (see Acts 1:8, 21-22, 26). Without the widespread preaching of the gospel, there is no widespread praise of God's name among the Gentiles.

[@sypherthe297th2]

​@@montagdpBecause all they have is irrelevant preaching stretching anything valid beyond all possible credibility.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@sm8johnthreesixteen Yeah, another failure. See 2 Sam.7:10-13 "I will establish a place for my people Israel and settle them there; they will live there and not be disturbed anymore. Violent men will not oppress them again, as they did in the beginning and during the time when I appointed judges to lead my people Israel. Instead, I will give you relief from all your enemies. The Lord declares to you that he himself will build a dynastic house for you. When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent." Sorry but that promised kingdom was ended and they were disturbed and oppressed both by the Assyrians and Babylonians all the way up to the Romans and scattered. That kingdom was divided and it and the thrown ended. As usual all that gets renegotiated during the Babylonian captivity!

[@jamierichardson7683]

Thanks for starting my week off with some Paulogia.

[@johnnehrich9601]

Including the jingle. Love the jingle.

[@kevind8240]

The man was afraid to admit anything Paul said was accurate. I give him an unreasonability score of 100%

[@Reepecheep]

I'm glad your approach hasn't changed much in all these years. Well researched, well reasoned, calmly delivered facts. No insults, petty shit slinging, or arguments from hightened emotions. You are a breath of fresh air in the subculture of KZbin vocal atheists. I hope more take up this style. God bless and keep up the good work!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you for the kind words.

[@leebarnett2610]

In this video one participant is scholarly and one has a PhD. Well done Paul!

[@pansepot1490]

One makes a living on KZbin and the other makes his living working for a Christian institution that requires him to sign a statement of faith AND act consequently.

[@wilhelmschmidt7240]

4:48 Even if it were a factual event, testimony is still insufficient to establish that. What a nonsense analogy he uses too, it's completely irrelevant.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

Responding with "zero percent" really undermines Licona's credibility in my eyes.

[@boogiesnookie7111]

It's disqualifying.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Especially when he can’t name a single thing that Paul is demonstrably wrong about.

[@kennymartin5976]

Agreed, it was extremely uncharitable on mikes part. I thought better of him before today.

[@jonv22]

Absolutely. It just shows his increasing dishonesty and desperation.

[@pastorjustin419]

Came to say that.

[@cullenjohnson0]

Several years ago I went to a concert and saw the lead singer beheaded with a guillotine. His head was lifted by the hair, shown to the crowd, and thrown off stage. The singer came back on stage and continued singing, with not so much as a frog in his throat. A couple of years later I saw the same band in a different theater - and the same thing happened! What were the odds? I know that thousands of people saw this and you can ask most of them yourself, though some are asleep.

[@phileas007]

that's metal AF

[@CafeteriaCatholic]

"I love the dead" Alice Cooper is the new messiah.

[@andrewtsai777]

If there are that many testimonies, that must be true.

[@don_5283]

I do believe I may have seen the same man run through with a mic stand.

[@ARoll925]

Alice Cooper?

[@adamcosper3308]

The ease with which modern Christians are lead to believe they have a "relationship with Christ" makes me so much less impressed by the claimed experiences of the original disciples.

[@philm7758]

It's really sad to see a respected scholar speak so dishonestly about others' work in the same field, just to protect their feelings.

[@EclecticPerson]

Yes, but how can Christians acknowledge that their religious beliefs rest on very shaky ground (essentially non-existent ground)? They don't want to admit to themselves that their lives have been spent pursuing something that is false (with pretty much 100% certainty). They don't want to give up their faith! So, they are simply not going to admit to things that would shake their beliefs to the core. They just aren't going to do it. I find it interesting to observe the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable for a thinking Christian, when faced with the cogent arguments from someone like Paulogia. The apologists must deny reality (and deflect, dissemble, etc.). Sometimes they are compelled to say manifestly absurd things or take unconscionable/immoral positions---just to keep the faith. It is remarkable. Mike Licona seems like a good guy who seeks the truth. And yet, like any Christian, he's going to have to deflect and deny things, to keep his faith.

[@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku]

​@@EclecticPersonRemember, this is his livelihood and reputation on the line, so it's not entirely surprising to see this denial of compelling evidence against the biblical narrative.

[@terrencelockett4072]

It's also because there's really no room for an apologist to admit his beliefs of the supernatural are based on mundane natural (regular) human interactions, where the supernatural played no role. They'll claim questioning their religion is acceptable but they don't wholeheartedly believe that. They can't give credence to things and ideas that breakdown their entire belief system. Things they can't be just waved away by filling in the gaps with god.

[@Julian0101]

@@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku And to add to that, licona already has a history of suffering consequences for not sticking to the biblical narrative. So his response is even more telling.

[@LuisGonzalez-oy3ku]

@@Julian0101 Indeed, one of those extremely rare, transparent moments when the apologist is on the cusp of Cognitive Dissonance realization 😂.

[@tgrogan6049]

How about this miracle Mike? "In the twentieth century, the best-known Catholic levitator was Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina (1887-1968), who during the Second World War was credited with intercepting Allied bombers in midair and preventing them from pulverizing the town of San Giovanni Rotondo, where his monastery was located.4 When he was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2002, Padre Pio’s levitations-though somewhat controversial in some circles-were declared genuine, along with his many other miracles, including his bilocations." Eire, Carlos M. N.. They Flew (pp. 59-60). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

"If you believe in the supernatural, the plausibility for the evidence of group sightings of the Resurrection becomes very high." "So you believe in the plausibility of the miracle of Fatima, which was witnessed by thousands, is very high." "Oh no, those are Catholic. I only mean supernatural events that my denomination already believes in."

[@tgrogan6049]

@@michaelnewsham1412 That is the contradiction my friend. Mike of course has his "favorite miracles" with much poorer evidence than Catholic miracles. Hume even talked about this. Read Hume and find out how good he was and why they hate him so much.

[@helenaconstantine]

Augustine reports the story that widely circulated in his day that St. Peter sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for the triumph of Christianity. Porphyry said that the King of the Fallen Spirits (the Prince of the Powers of the Air) wished to be worshiped as the One God and used his magical powers to create and foster Christianity whose worship is directed to him. Wouldn't Christians, once they accept the supernatural, have to refute both of these stories before confidently accepting their own beliefs? How would they even go about that?

[@Wix_Mitwirth]

I need to know how Paul stays so calm when presented with such dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[@jefft5152]

Watch David Pakman C-Span interview that was just released... Unbelievable dishonesty on the Reich Wing hosts' views.

[@PaulEmsley]

It is indeed remarkable. He behaves in a way that would have been most compelling to him when he was a believer. I imaging that his behaviour is compelling to many Christians today.

[@tex824]

@@PaulEmsley Paul Emsley's making a good word about Paul Ens

[@paulsmart4672]

Most of this stuff isn't livestreamed so he's got time to cool off if anything *really* egregious comes up

[@Wix_Mitwirth]

@@paulsmart4672 I would not be able to write or deliver this script if it were me. I'd get reangry every time. He's also a rock on the call-in shows.

[@Cellidor]

It's the part his response of saying that Paulogia's hypothesis has a "0% chance of being true" that really drives home how... completely dogmatic and unreasonable Mike's position is. We're talking about _historical_ events from 2000 years ago, you don't use absolutes like that to determine whether a hypothesized series of events did or didn't happen, _most certainly_ not when said hypothesis is built specifically as a mundane one based on "this is the closest information we have about how things were done at the time and what we know about human behavior". It's definitely striking me as a case of Mike's personal beliefs clouding his ability to be objective when looking into historical events related to his religion.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Ironically Licona is usually pretty reasonable when compared to fanatics like Habermas.

[@sypherthe297th2]

​@@ramigilneas9274Both are fanatics. They're all engaged in a con game where they try to portray themselves as academics when their positions are irrevocably set. Now they're just trying to line their pockets for the minimum amount of effort necessary. For example, if anyone believes Habermas works 70 hours a week then I've got a winning lottery ticket for the next drawing I'll sell you for half the jackpot. His "magnum opus" is an absolute joke that looks like it was covered together by ChatGPT with some human editing.

[@Cellidor]

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 "It would actually be realistic to say that resurrections have 0 % chance to be true." This is pretty apt point actually. It's a miracle, by it's very nature it's supposed to be something that cannot happen without some supernatural intervention, so it would by-default be 0%.

[@Cellidor]

@@ramigilneas9274 "Ironically Licona is usually pretty reasonable" That's the general idea I've seen others bring up too. I'd be willing to allow some wiggle-room to say his response was more from being put on the spot, but even so it's concerning to see someone using absolutes for basic premises like one's Paulogia brought up.

[@cemreomerayna463]

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 This. I really don't understand why the majority of the non-religious KZbinrs hesitate to assert the actual facts on the ground that clearly reject the Chrisitan claims and instead play into the apologists' hands by sticking to probabilities.

[@Kvothe3]

Thanks for another great video Paul. I appreciate you!

[@soyevquirsefron990]

Mike writes all these books to explain and clarify the Bible, one might say improve upon the Bible. But he thinks that ten years after Jesus’s death when nothing was written down, the preachers remembered and spoke eyewitness’s testimony word for word? None of those early preachers ever said “this is confusing my audience, I’ll rephrase it this way” like Mike himself does in his books? None of these oral preachers ever compromised on one tenet of the religion in order to convince the audience of the important bedrock of the message? Like dropping the circumcision requirement to get Gentiles to convert?

[@Llortnerof]

With how unreliable memory and spoken testimonies are known to be, i guarantee you that wasn't even the case 10 *days* after his death. Never mind 10 years. That claim is as ridiculous as the whole resurrection thing.

[@terrencelockett4072]

​@@Llortnerof They'll also claim that people would tell them they're wrong if these Bible authors wrote false things or people spreading the ideas of this supposed Christ were wrong. And this comes from a lot of people who claim they're being "cancelled" by the "woke mob" when people tell them they're wrong about something, to the point where they keep spreading misinformation or blatant lies as facts. It's claims they'll make about original Christians that their human behavior debunks.

[@johngleeman8347]

Even the host of the show was shocked that his guest would not give Paul's hypothesis even a one percent chance of being correct. How spineless.

[@EclecticPerson]

True true true. And yet, you can see that apologists (even "Christian scholars" who purport to seek the truth) simply can't admit that the bedrock of their faith is even POSSIBLY just a myth. They just can't admit that inescapable fact. It is essentially just a fact that Christianity is a myth. But a Christian simply can't admit that truth. I still find it remarkable when I see someone like Mike Licona respond to Paulogia's cogent case. Mike just won't see basic reality.

[@fieldrequired283]

A more honest answer might have been something like "I don't care what the chances of it being true are, because I've decided it isn't. ".

[@EclecticPerson]

Another great video from Paul! Paul, you are so cogent, compelling, and reasonable. I think you're doing a great service. I think some university should award you a Master's Degree in "History of Religion" (specifically relating to Christianity). At this point, you've undoubtedly done more work on the subject, and read more (and watched more hours of scholarly debate) on the subject, than many (or most) Master's degree graduates. Thanks for all that you do!

[@Paulogia]

I appreciate the support and the kind words. Thank you

[@brianelza9807]

This is called answering the question you wanted, rather than the question you got.

[@smokert5555]

I'm wondering how you can be a scholar of something you can't demonstrate actually happened. Doesn't that make him a mythologist?

[@kimkingsun7315]

Someone should start a Star Trek university. Imagine the number of scholars in that there would be. 😂

[@smokert5555]

@@kimkingsun7315 Star Trek the shows, movies, books, comics, etc. all demonstrably happened. It's easy to be a scholar of Star Trek. To be an apologist, your newest material is 2000 years old and unconfirmed.

[@joe5959]

Well, seeing how someone could perpetually shrug their shoulders (atheists), and can forever be a skeptic at the cost of their rotting intellect.

[@smokert5555]

@@joe5959 Would you care to explain that? I didn't get your point.

[@joe5959]

​@@smokert5555everyone has an epistimic criteria of what is "demonstrable". People can be fallacious and perpetually shrug their shoulders. I.e. paul here.

[@goldenalt3166]

So they are saying that We take liberties with the Jesus stories to make a good story and assume details to fill in the gaps, but the early christians would never do that. Except Matthew he wrote a bunch of stuff that probably didn't happen.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

and the guy who wrote that story about moses and the aspirin.

[@nonbinarypickle]

Good to know my namesake was a liar. . . 😂

[@danielbond9755]

Someone wrote something that later had the name Matthew attached to it.

[@nonbinarypickle]

@@danielbond9755 I'm sure most of us on here are aware of that. I meant it as a joke. 🙂 My dad is a corny evangelical and gave me a middle name that is a dad joke. My dad wanted me to be so on fire for Christ that I could literally say that "Christian is my middle name". 😂 So, yeah only jokes too about my first name 😅

[@goldenalt3166]

@@danielbond9755 That doesn't have anything to do with whether it contains stuff that probably didn't happen. And is a far more controversial claim.

[@AnonymousZyx]

“That would be veridical if the story is true.” Oh man.

[@widescreennavel]

Why can't they act like human beings once in a while and make friends? I think Mike is aware enough to know that his god is the only thing stopping him from having a good buddy in Paul. Or maybe I am projecting my own outlook on Mike and the others. I think it's sad to see them conflicted on simple acts of humanity with us.

[@davisantos3431]

In other words "it would be true if it wasn't false"

[@rationalmuscle]

@@davisantos3431 Actually, it's literally, "That would be true if the story is true." So... yeah, he tautologies for a hobby I suppose.

[@TaeyxBlack]

i caught that too. “the story would be true if the story were true” no shxt, sherlock. that’s why we’re even having this discussion. to determine if it’s true.

[@riseofdarkleela]

“If” is the heavy lifting champion of the universe in apologetics.

[@falsebeliever8079]

Again I see clear demonstration that Licona is not a historian he is an apologist. To him, history is just a tool for apologetics. The same way Will L. Craig uses philosophy.

[@danieldelanoche2015]

Good point.

[@joe5959]

Neither is paul blart here. But yet here you are defending him.

[@falsebeliever8079]

​@@joe5959Paul never claimed to be a historian.

[@falsebeliever8079]

​@@joe5959Also, both Paul and his fans could be the biggest hypocrites in the world and it would do nothing to absolve Licona. That would be the Tu Quouqe fallacy

[@joe5959]

​@@falsebeliever8079Licona is actually in the right here. Blart is handwaving data points and appealing to an incredulity/ad populum fallacy.

[@christiantesarik7052]

Let me sum the Licona position up: i don't like it cause it goes against my own work so it is false. And this is how science is done, folks! 🤦🤦🤦

[@JezuesChavez]

How would you know you’re having a vision of Jesus if you never saw the living Jesus?

[@MrDalisclock]

Paul is never wrong and if an angel should appear to you and tell you something different, well that angel is wrong. /S

[@JezuesChavez]

@@MrDalisclock 😂… imagine that. Paul rejected the “church of God”, so according to his own preaching, he was already perishing. Since he didn’t believe. But now that Paul’s peddling a message, lucky for us, we now get to do what he never did. Believe.

[@Uryvichk]

That's the thing though. Paul saw Christ. Is his "Christ Jesus" really the same being as the supposedly living Jesus that is spoken of in later traditions? The biographical details Paul supplies for Jesus are so sketchy that it almost makes him seem like a Greek-style demigod who came in secret, not an itinerant preacher or apocalyptic reformer. Is Paul even talking about the same guy the Gospels are talking about?

[@jonc4403]

@@Uryvichk Assumes facts not in evidence. There's no evidence outside the christian bible that 'jesus' wasn't entirely a fictional character in fictional stories knowingly written by grifters. We don't have the L Ron Hubbard smoking gun of admitting "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." for christianity, but religion has always been profitable, and starting a new one gets you a cut. The non-christian sources frequently quoted are either commentary on the already existing religion or outright forgeries, and in any case written at least decades after the supposed 'jesus' death with all extant manuscripts dating to hundreds of years later and in the control of the early christian church.

[@vandy3427]

Hi , for the algorithm

[@HarryNicNicholas]

for the algorithm and beyond!

[@duediligence8888]

To the algorithm and beyond!

[@ericedwards9893]

In space, noone can hear you algorithm

[@norWindChannel]

@Paulogia, you are by far my favourite content creator. Keep up the good work, for behold, it is good!

[@Paulogia]

those are kind words, thank you

[@ND_NB]

Hume was an historian the same way that medical doctors are anthropologists.

[@brock2k1]

I don't understand how anyone living in the era of Trump can say that false stories wouldn't be believed.

[@thinkingaboutreligion2645]

Fun fact: this applies whether you believe the democrats or the MAGAs.

[@germanvisitor2]

@@thinkingaboutreligion2645 That's comparing a raisin cookie with a pack of raisins.

[@thinkingaboutreligion2645]

@@germanvisitor2 I don't compare the narratives. I believe the election was fair, and that the small amount of fraud was done 90℅ by MAGAs. But the conclusion is the same: false narratives had emerged since 2020.

[@brock2k1]

@@thinkingaboutreligion2645 Exactly. No matter which side you're on, you think half the US is some combination of evil and/or stupid. And this is with all the facts they need a couple of mouse clicks away. Imagine how easy it would be to gaslight people in the first century, especially if you're in Greece or Rome, and you're talking about events in the Middle East.

[@Faint366]

@@thinkingaboutreligion2645 Paul has actually used this point before. In another video he brought up that 1/3 of the US thinks the election was stolen, 1/3 thinks there was no substantial fraud, and 1/3 doesn’t know. So no matter which group you side with, there’s at least 100 million Americans that are currently falling for a lie

[@drachireidnoc6659]

An all knowing being couldn’t have come up with a better book

[@HarryNicNicholas]

nothing original anyway.

[@johnnehrich9601]

YES, for the heavenly version of the story. I think this is a problem for the entire bible no matter how plausible some details seem to be.

[@johnnehrich9601]

EXACTLY - I find that colors every perception I have of the entire bible.

[@HealingWarrior-ic6os]

😂😂😂

[@TheBarelyBearableAtheist]

An all-knowing being would understand that _any_ book is going to suck at providing unambiguous, authoritative guidance, and would realize that he/she/it/they would have to show up in person, frequently if not continuously, in order to provide adequate leadership.

[@qjsharing2408]

It is easier to deceive a bunch of people into thinking that somebody rose from the dead than it is to transmogrify walking sticks into snakes. We don't see much greater power than the gods of Egypt on display

[@bengreen171]

I'm going to bet money the disputed word is 'the'. A better word would be 'some'.

[@libertine5606]

I think it's them. Just finished it and you were correct. Although we were on the same page as to why. 👍

[@bengreen171]

@@libertine5606 I've just got to the end. I'll be waiting here, smugly. ;)

[@jamiegallier2106]

Well done! Thorough and professional, as always. ❤❤❤

[@FreeThinker2613]

Hi from a fellow Canadian 😊

[@flyerfan8]

I will never understand how apologists can in one breath state that early Christian’s would never have made up a story about Jesus’s death and resurrection because there was no precedent in Jewish culture and then immediately argue that the Old Testament unambiguously predicts Jesus’s coming, death, and resurrection.

[@Ikonicre_Moonshield]

Licona. I used to think he was at least honest. Then I thought he at least tries to be. Ive since observed I have insuffficient evidence to come to those conclusions.

[@don_5283]

Classic example of a guy's comfortable livelihood depending upon failing to understand certain straightforward things.

[@cemreomerayna463]

People confuse honesty with genuineness. Licona may not have a financial incentive (at least primarily), but he has a psychological one. He doesn't suffer from hypocrisy but from cognitive dissonance. He is genuinely dishonest; he believes his own lies.

[@Uryvichk]

@@cemreomerayna463 He may also have a financial incentive. He's lost jobs before because he dared to step outside the lines a tiny bit; go look up his forced resignation in 2011 for an interpretation of Matthew 27. It's sort of understandable that he'd be defensive and cagey about the probability of Paul's theory given how badly he was treated before.

[@cemreomerayna463]

@@Uryvichk Yeah, I did not know he had lost his job. It makes more sense now that he is like that.

[@DM-zq8qy]

Thanks! We need more honest research and discussion of the TRUTH (or lack thereof) of the “faiths.”

[@Paulogia]

agree, and thank you

[@OscarSommerbo]

Both Habermaas and Licona's attempts to anchor the resurrection as historical fact are laughably weak. They are all too aware that without the resurrection being true the entire church is a tall tale, but unfortunately their "facts" are more sand thrown in the eyes of believers to keep them believing, and it is very unconvincing to anyone not already believing. The podcast really did Mike dirty by speed running the arguments and then expecting thoughtful answers from Licona. Licona predictably retreated to a scriptural standpoint because he had no time to figure out a plausible counter to Paul's arguments.

[@susancorbett8155]

When you take the gospels as "gospel truth" you can't see outside your blinkers.

[@coreyc490]

Another well done and well thought out video. Love your work!

[@kawaida21]

It's refreshing that the last few rebuttals have been mostly semantics and nitpicking not actually showing Paulogia being wrong. Huzzah, progress :)

[@adamruuth5562]

This is so reasonable. It must really give Christians a headache to disagree with you. I do not envy them.

[@Venaloid]

So in summary, when Paulogia's explanation accounts for the minimal facts, Mike plays the what-about game and introduces additional non-facts which Paulogia wasn't trying to explain in the first place.

[@joe5959]

In summary, paul dismisses strong contrary evidence and plays the incredulity card/consensus card when he gets pressed. Find a better team mate. Yours is late to the conversation.

[@timothyharmon9472]

Very well done

[@michaelstanet7453]

It is striking that apologists will often claim the historical argument for the resurrection is so strong, when it is nigh unanimously rejected by historians (the people most able to weigh the historical evidence.) Mind you I only say nigh unanimously rejected, out of an abidunce of caution. I am not aware of one living historian (person with a relevant background and degree) that holds the position that "the historical evidence indicates that the resurrection most likely occurred in history. If anyone has a name, let me know.

[@emmapinn5216]

John Dickson is one. He creates the undeceptions podcast. Brilliant evangelist, stupid historian.

[@Qlmmb2086]

One interesting note I have on Licona's assertion that the followers spread the story based on what they felt was more historically accurate vs what they felt would more effectively convince their current audience: Even if we presuppose that the followers spread their message with full intention of being 100% physically accurate, we are now talking about person-to-person retelling and therefore are in the realm of memetic systems, and memetic systems (tautologically) demand that the version of the story that proliferates is the version that is most effective at proliferating. Even totally honest mistakes and ambiguities are judged not by their accuracy to the real events but rather on whether or not the average listener is willing to accept that version of events. Personally, I would have omitted the "Focus on recruiting" stipulation of your "minimal facts theory" (or else replaced it with the aforementioned brief on memetics) if it were me writing it, because the intentions of accuracy or lack thereof are entirely irrelevant to whether or not the story actually *was* relayed accurately.

[@jacoblee5796]

What they feel is true doesn't mean that what they feel is true is actually true. That's the big problem with what Mike said.

[@Qlmmb2086]

@@jacoblee5796 Yes, that is another (big) problem it has.

[@johnnehrich9601]

Amazing how all apologists are willing to overlook that quite obvious possibility that followers spread their stories based on how much $ it brought in. Even if some risked death (although a mostly baseless claim), that just heightens the haul for everyone left. How much $ do these authors of christian books rake in? Or even just the ones - like Licona at one point - risk losing their cushy jobs? ("The love of money is the root of all religiosity?")

[@MrCyclist]

I love how Paul lays out the facts and gives no fluff. But Licona has a lot riding on his belief so he has pretend it is all true no matter how daft it sounds.

[@Venaloid]

We need to remind people like Mike that our goal is to plausibly explain the existence of Christianity. As such, the only "buffet" going on here is choosing which stories are most plausibly explained as being embellishments, fabrications, or real history. Rejecting some of the stories while accepting others is not picking and choosing, it's trying to find the most plausible combination of history and legend which explains why we have these stories.

[@PiRobot314]

First hand testimony *could* be enough to prove a miracle. I'm not sure exactly how many independent sources I would need for a miracle, but it could happen. How many first-hand sources did we have for Jesus, again? Oh right: the few verses by Paul that make it unclear whether it was a vision of Jesus. (Galatians 1:11-17) Really inspiring there😂

[@franciswalsh8416]

The "Shifting Goalposts" seem to be his "Bedrock". And I am always greatly amused when "for the Bible tells me so" happens. For that alone I would watch your videos!! Great takedown.

[@melanieahrens6739]

Love that opening sequence, Paul!

[@DocReasonable]

Apologist on truth serum: 'The Bible is true and I have a pack of lies to prove it!'

[@Martial-Mat]

People say that people say... Taking anecdotal evidence to new lows.

[@danielkirienko1701]

If it works for the Enquirer and Tucker Carlson...

[@Martial-Mat]

@@danielkirienko1701 And Tucker is where now?

[@rationalmuscle]

Paul, kudos to you man - I saw your MWNH vid and thought it was excellent. While I'm not the scholar Ehrman nor Allison is, I was a pastor, and your work here was, in my opinion, quite sound. Mike cannot mount a defense of this hypothesis without doing what I'm sure he will (I'm writing this prior to the video) - special plead, appeal to authority, and/or outright lie. We'll see how many of the three I get right ; )

[@Paulogia]

Thanks for the kind words. How'd you do? ;)

[@skywise001]

I made the mistake of saying to a christian neighbor that I thought the mutilation of babies was wrong. If they want to get that done they should choose and boy did i get a bunch of yelling and vague 'but they said'. Apparently she had never ever heard to referred to that way and she acted like I was accusing her of personally doing it.

[@johnkerpan7735]

re: 24:00 People definitely did just get in trouble for being identified as Christians, at least at the time of Pliny's letter to Trajan around 110 CE (Epistles, 10.96&97). Pliny the Younger asks Trajan four questions about how to handle the allegations that some people were Christians, and the fourth question was: "Nec mediocriter haesitavi ... nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur." -- I was hesitating not slightly whether the name itself, (even) if it should be lacking from the crimes, or whether the crimes clinging to the name should be punished;" i.e. should you be punished for being a Christian, or for committing the crimes (refusing to engage in civic worship ceremonies and temple donations) that follow from being a Christian. Pliny's own solution was to ask accused people if they were Christians, and if they said yes, he would ask again, warning them that punishment would follow. Those who persisted in saying they were Christians were put to death (or sent back to Rome for trial, depending on their citizenship status). In response to Pliny's letter. Trajan replied "Actum quem debuisti ... secutus es" -- You have carried out the situation as you ought. TL;DR: Trajan approved of putting people who were self-confessed Christians to death regardless of what other crimes they may or may not have committed.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

110 CE is way after the "early Christians" and their traditions prior to any NT writings. Also, the fact that this is even an issue (how to deal with them and what to do) show that prior to this there was no systematic and widespread persecution by Rome.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

"Trajan approved of putting people who were self-confessed Christians to death regardless of what other crimes they may or may not have committed." A. N. Sherwin-White states that “When the practice of a sect was banned, indictment of the nomen (“name”), i.e. of membership of a cult group, sufficed to secure conviction. This looked uncommonly like religious persecution to the victims themselves, but the underlying ground remained the flagitia ("shameful acts") supposed to be inseparable from the practice of the cult.” If part of the cult was having participate in 'shameful acts' then they would be punished regardless of the nomen!

[@johnkerpan7735]

Right; the name itself merits punishment, so during this period (early second century) you would get punished simply for being a Christian. While gruesome tales of persecution became a fictional genre, the fact of persecution should not really be up for debate.

[@johnkerpan7735]

@@VeridicusMaximus 1) Neither the claim, nor the sources referred to, are exclusively about pre-Pliny Christianity. "Early Christianity" usually encompasses the time up until the conversion of Constantine. 2) Agreed, Pliny was not practicing law in Rome during the persecutions perpetrated by Nero. In the opening of his letters he specifies that he has these questions because he was not involved in the earlier trials. There is no evidence of persecution from the time of Nero until the letter of Pliny (about 40-50 years).

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@johnkerpan7735 It's not up for debate - that's the point you completely botched that Paul made about early Christian persecution - no earlier accounts and certainly not widespread or official that had anything to do with the disciples and their message about the rez. Also, Trajan told Pliny not to seek out Christians nor pay attention to anonymous claims - these accusers were not Rome itself but private accusations about them not conforming to state laws. Pliny said that he tortured two woman and simply found that they had nothing but superstitions which implies that if they were keeping the laws it did not matter what their superstition was but only their relgio practices related to the Roman law. Later Christians embellished this dialogue!

[@michaelsbeverly]

To be fair to Mike, this was sprung on him without warning, and he could hardly be expected to answer on the spot with David just reading off the list. That said, his response of zero chance doesn't line up with the 15% posterior he has that Christianity isn't even true in the first place. So he should axiomatically be +1% on your theory. I have hope for Mike, I think the continuing cognative dissonance is going to get to him.

[@johndemeritt3460]

@michaelsbeverly, please forgive me, but my brain works in strange ways, so I just have to go with the flow . . . reading your response, I came across the phrase, " . . . cogn[i]tive dissonance is going to get to him," and my mind instantly went to John Lennon's "Instant Karma." Now . . . how can we make that fit better? Is there a shorter phrase we can substitute in for "cognitive dissonance"? I'll have to watch the whole video when my wife gets off work.

[@Greyz174]

I mean, there's no reason to positively encourage Mike from leaving Christianity, is there? He's not a particularly unhinged type of Christian so i dont see why we should care about whether he stays in or not, hope we can get him out, etc

[@nagranoth_]

@@johndemeritt3460 you want people to use a phrase shorter than 2 words, because the normal 2 word name that is not only common usage, but explains quite literally what the name means with the name itself, is something you have a weird association with? Because you want to fit your weird association, that is in no way related, better? Seriously?

[@someonesomeone25]

​@Greyz174 Sensible religionists give credence to the more dangerous ones. By making religion look respectable and intellectually acceptable it increases the number of people who will become religious and increases the amount of political power they wield.

[@Greyz174]

@@someonesomeone25 its better to focus on the actual problem than stuff that could possibly give room for the problem to arise from a few degrees of separation away

[@trevorlunn8442]

@Paulogia Have you considered adding a Natural Hypothesis of the Necessity for the Ascension? Which I could summarize as: a convenient explanation why, shortly after a supposed bodily Resurrection and within a timeframe wherein many would not even have heard about a crucifixion, Jesus isn't around to do a 'known-world' tour to prove he did not stay dead.

[@martinelzen5127]

Hiya Paul, glad to see you're still doing the rebut-the-apologists thing.

[@GrimeAndFunishment]

30:13 "...some of these experiences happened with groups. Which rules out group hallucinations." Isn't that the very thing that makes it a candidate explanation?? Am I just misunderstanding what he's trying to say here?

[@andreasplosky8516]

Wow, Licona really dropped the ball here. His responses are so weak, they need immediate resuscitation to prevent them from dying on the spot.

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@flyerfan8]

5:08 how would a person that experienced a miracle be able to prove it to a person that did not personally experience the miracle.

[@RobGai72]

Paulogia is the best!!

[@jonv22]

Increasingly, apologists are becoming more dishonest out of their desperation at being cornered into an indefensible theory. Licona is no longer one of the exceptions.

[@EclecticPerson]

Yeah, once you accept that there's a perfectly plausible, mundane, non-supernatural explanation for the origin of Christianity (i.e., the resurrection), then it's harder to build your life around the much more implausible supernatural story/legend (which has pretty much zero evidentiary foundation).

[@joe5959]

Youre talking about paul right?

[@nightshade7240]

And this is why, again and again, we see that where a scholar is also an apologist then everything they say and every criticism they level must be considered false due to ulterior motives. The fact he completely dismisses the validity of any of Paul's points is demonstrable that he is not an honest interlocutor and thus his own works and his claims and his research must also be suspect.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Thumbs up just for the intro and Pirates of the Caribbean reference. Ok, now I can watch the rest of the video.

[@milowadlin]

At age 72, I have told stories about my life over and over. Just ask my kids! I am pretty sure they have changed over time, and my own memories are suspect. I remember the stories better than the actual events. Too bad I didn't write them down so I could compare. I certainly have observed that my sister's memories of shared events at times bear little resemblance to mine. Personally, I am satisfied to let the wisdom of Jesus stand on its own. At times, his message is very wise. I appreciate him for that. Seems like a good deal.

[@boogiesnookie7111]

I'm seventy-four. My ex-wife and I casually disagree on many things that happened to us in our early years of marriage.

[@lower_case_t]

I'm so proud of myself. When I read the title my first thought was: Mike will start by dismissing the idea that an explanation that can be reconciled with reality is superior to one that cannot. 4 min, in, Bingo!

[@andrewfrennier3494]

Another great Paulogia video

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

Um fishing people had secretaries? OR this is just Paul?

[@wheat3226]

Nope. Licona is saying the gospel authors hired them.

[@beorntwit711]

Esoterica has a rather interesting 'Paul's conversion' video (in which he discusses one Jewish tradition of mystical visions). Would love to hear what Paulogia has to say about this.

[@MrDalisclock]

That video is fascinating and made me wonder just what Paul was doing prior to his conversion.

[@alexistoran2181]

It's telling that every negative critique of this hypothesis plays out with the critic stopping at every point that differs from the Bible narrative and just saying "well I disagree" with either no justification or citing only the Bible.

[@AlexanderDunn-cj5me]

Hi I'm reaching out as I've never seen a argument why God lets believers do evil things and get away with it despite destroying others belief in him.This would seem the strongest argument against God's existence

[@Nai61a]

Alexander etc: "God" believers will find an excuse. It will be a lame excuse, but they will think it passes. If a theist does respond to you, I predict some variation on "those are not 'true' Christians" and "'God' works in mysterious ways". We all have to turn to "Jesus" and accept him as our lord; we all have to "repent", then everything will be well. Except when it isn't. Except when, for example, we are talking about Herr H of 1940s Germany. The "get out of gaol free" card only works for those the particular theist considers worthy. They want THEIR super-powered superhero to agree with THEM about everything that matters.

[@stevewebber707]

I think Mike did such a poor job analyzing the hypothesis, that it actually hurts his credibility in the relevant skill set needed to evaluate biblical claims. It certainly seemed a superficial look at the hypothesis, So I could understand Mike not catching some details and nuance. But that would lead to Mike making a confident judgement of the hypothesis, with inadequate work to support a judgement of that confidence. I am sad that instead of a careful and thorough analysis, this is what they did.

[@andrewfrennier3494]

The most amazing thing about Christianity is that the apostles who are said to have traveled with Jesus 1-3 years are completely overruled by a guy who said that he only said saw him in a vision. Paul’s writings dominate both the New Testament and the religion. Marcion mostly won in the end.

[@broski365]

The thing is that if any of these Apologists "give in" and agree with paul on anything, they are considered, like peter, people who rejected and "disowned jesus 3 times". Apologists are biased by definition and shouldn't be trusted as mediators or "unbiased sources of information". Them not having any real counter-argument and them simply saying "nuhah" is proof that they are biased

[@boogiesnookie7111]

Not only that but also Licona has already been taken through the conservative cancel culture once for stating that the zombie invasion of Jerusalem wasn't historical. His family finances and cultural security are on the line.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

I don't know why apologists keep getting I Cor.15 wrong. Paul is not saying he received the tradition in a creed form - died, buried, rose, and appeared... but the gospel itself. And Paul is clear that this reception was not by any human but by a revelation/s of Jesus. Putting that in a creed form when writing in 50 CE does nothing in telling us when it was formed during the prior 20 years nor that he got it from the Jerusalem followers. Thinking that Paul received the "creed" from them at his conversion 3 years later is nonsense!

[@johnnehrich9601]

They NEED to get it wrong. I can't believe that if Paul really met the biological brother of Jesus, he wouldn't want to hear all about his early life, his upbringing at least and that such "human" stories would add to their appeal. Apparently at the time, personal testimony, being so hard to fact-check, was deemed too useless. (And in the gospels, imagine how powerful the stories would be if say they said "and then as Peter remembers, . . .)

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@johnnehrich9601 Yeah, you would think when meeting him he would be like whoa, forget you Peter I want to talk to this dude right here. Another interesting fact is that James the brother was not even a disciple or chosen by Jesus yet when Paul goes to Jerusalem he is a big wig somehow and Paul still ignores him!

[@johnnehrich9601]

@@VeridicusMaximus Add to that why didn't Jesus scout out Paul to be his disciple and he wouldn't have needed some of these bozos he actually picked.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@johnnehrich9601 The Lord works in mysterious ways - Pastor Pathos. IOW - irrational and illogical.

[@marekkedzierski8237]

So many resurrection books. I think Christians compensate for lack of actual resurrection by writing books about it.

[@wheat3226]

And they make money. Never forget the money. Gullible people will buy book after book on something they want to be true. Odd the bible isn't enough.

[@terrencelockett4072]

​@@wheat3226 Yea, odd the word of god needs all these extra books to tell us what the word of god really is.

[@enoynaert]

The accounts of the "Road to Damascus" and Paul's own accounts of Paul's accounts of his experience were my own breaking point. The problems here forced me to admit that Acts is mostly a book of mythology rather than history. Continued study convinced me the same was true of Luke and the other gospels. If Acts refers to the "Road to Damascus" experience, I think Paul's account should be called "Dream in Damascus"

[@chrisose]

As usual with apologists, Licona's "evidence" is straight up "For the Bible tells me so."

[@johnnehrich9601]

Well, yes, but it does increase the chances of us hearing THE jingle again.

[@joe5959]

As per usual. Atheist objections are weak.

[@RobGai72]

Mike sounds like an amateur compared to Paul’s clear and direct speech.

[@aGORILLA-g7l]

In Mike's defense, that video was live and this video is scripted, so it's not a fair comparison. Maybe Paul, in his live appearances, is more concise but I couldn't say.

[@NoStringsAttachedPrd]

"0% chance, it was _so_ bad! I mean I don't remember what the points were, I'd need to reread them..." Come on Mike, you're one of the diminishingly few apologists i like to point to as someone still worthy of respect despite the disagreement! And to be clear I still kinda do, but the tendency towards supreme confidence with as usual nothing to show for it is a really bad look in general for apologists.

[@johnnehrich9601]

If he increases his standing in the skeptical community, he loses, BIG time, in the apologetics one. "Oops, maybe that bit in the scripture is a little too hard to swallow?" Bingo, bounced out of his job.

[@hiroprotagonist7360]

I wish one of the guys in your genre would tackle the mathematical proofs for the bible, because I find it pretty freaking compelling tbh. Channel 'Truth is Christ', book "Sealed By the King', etc

[@BernardBerserker]

Yeah sure, the writers of the gospels used storytelling devices, added stories they couldn't know about and later scribes added things like the endings of mark and the woman caught in adultery. But somehow we can be 100% sure that the first christians would never tell something not factually true. The concept of lying for Jesus apparently was a later invention, according to apologists.

[@damejanea.macdonald2371]

It’s a shame time constraints meant Mike had to give only off-the-cuff responses. I suspect that the very human reaction to more strongly reject new information that goes against one’s firmly held beliefs than is warranted contributed strongly to that 0% grade that might be more nuanced if given time and space to go into it. I hope he does take the time to examine it more closely! I suspect I will disagree with at least some of the evidence he brings to the table even with the time to go through his objections more thoroughly, but it would be interesting. Thanks for the fun and careful video!

[@boogiesnookie7111]

Under pressure that was his go-to. Quite telling actually.

[@nightshade7240]

he's supposed to be an expert who can talk "off the cuff." He's spent his life dedicated to his pursuit of study and has spent decades thinking about and reasoning about these things and teaching about them. If the accuracy and potential of something goes against your beliefs, as an expert and a scholar, if you were honest, you would assess why that position is problematic. If you cannot even entertain the fact that your study and your understanding might be wrong in light of new concepts, then you are not a scholar, you are a zealot. How can he be trusted in a teaching role if he can't accept the possibility that someone might bring information that changes his position? Are all his students just drone clones churning out the same answers that fit his already held bias?

[@arataya8706]

I think Mr. Licona was on the spot, couldn’t think of any rebuttal, and so went straight to 0% right because if he thought about it any more, he’d have to admit that his scholar’s instinct said Paul’s explanation is 100% plausible, and Mike knows he can’t say that. Good job, Paul!

[@Uryvichk]

He also had to resign in 2011 from a teaching position because he dared to speculate on a slightly different interpretation of Matthew 27, so he might just be sensitive to the possibility he'll be pilloried if he says something that could be taken out of context. Given that, it's understandable to just shut down any possibility to avoid being quotemined later.

[@Nymaz]

Regarding Mike's confidence on the original 12's post-Jesus activities and gospel authorship, I think you need to add a new jingle to your repertoire, "For centuries later church tradition tells me so" (granted not as catchy as the "For the Bible tells me so")

[@boogiesnookie7111]

Use the "Tradition, Tradition!" from Fiddler on the Roof.

[@Uryvichk]

I'm unconvinced there even was an "original 12." Paul's theory can work without that (he honestly just needs one or two), but theirs kinda can't, so that seems like a point further in Paul's favor.

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

@18:57 Was Paul preaching to the circumcised or uncircumcised?

[@quetzelmichaels1637]

Where can I get a text book on the crucifixion as imagery and prophecy? There are two appearances, within the same generation - the sacrifice and the resurrection. Has no one realized this?

[@sirgeremiah]

The opening cut scene was perfection.

[@bodan1196]

"When you want to believe that you are right soo much, that you no longer care if you are."

[@modernatheism]

Great video! Do you have any suggested book or reading list for skeptics on the new testament?

[@dancinswords]

17:11 He's the chef who prepared your meal, and then when you start critiquing the two slices of toast on your plate, he accuses you of going to the buffet, and wonders why you're not mentioning the perfectly-cooked soufflé

[@kimkingsun7315]

And doesn't Mike work for one of the "universities" that make all teachers sign up to say the bible is inerrant?

[@michaelnewsham1412]

He got fired for saying the appearances of the dead in Jerusalem in Matthew might have been embellishments to the story. Guess he got rehired by a more 'liberal' seminary.

[@kongrufus1]

This comment has never been failed by a scholar

[@ladyaj7784]

😂

[@EarnestApostate]

How I wish I were a scholar, just so I could fail your comment. 😂

[@kongrufus1]

@@EarnestApostate 😂😂😂 Ah, well no such luck sadly 😝 One will turn up soon enough though I suspect. And with my luck it will probably be the classical schoolmaster type who will fail my entire semester 💀

[@bongomcgurk7363]

Like all apologists, Licona's arguments are examples of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias - the starting point is the conclusion and then excuses are manufactured trying to justify a conclusion that had already been accepted from the outset.