Who Saw Risen Jesus? (Dr Andrew Loke vs Dr Dale Allison & Friends)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 січ 2025
- It's Christian scholar vs Christian scholar... is there sufficient evidence to support groups of people who saw a risen Jesus, and thereby create a problem for a naturalistic hypothesis like hallucination? Dr Andrew Loke puts forth some bold claims, and Dr Dale Allison knocks them down... but in a different interview, so Paulogia had to put them together for you.
Did the Disciples Hallucinate the Risen Jesus? (w/ Dr. Andrew Loke)
• Did the Disciples Hall...
• Dale Allison & Mike Li...
• Dale Allison & Mike Li...
• Dale Allison & Mike Li...
Dale Allison & Mike Licona Discuss the Resurrection of Jesus
• Dale Allison & Mike Li...
5 Scholars Attempt my Resurrection "What If" Challenge
• 5 Scholars Attempt my ...
Why We Know the Story of Jesus Isn't A Legend (Cold Case Christianity Response)
• Why We Know the Story ...
How reliable is your memory? | Elizabeth Loftus
• How reliable is your m...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
My theory about Jesus and Christianity can be summarized in a quote by Kermit the Frog:
"Somebody thought of it, and someone believed it".
ha!
Need that in the Kermit voice
"And look what it's done so far."
I heard it in a Jordan Peterson voice
@@brawnerbandwidthmusic2529 I'm so sorry for that.
Jesus hiding in the bushes to mess with his disciples is now my favorite Jesus
Is that why He's called the Lion of Judah? 🦁
@@autobotstarscream765 Jump-Scare Jesus.
Heh heh. That is a great comment. 🙏🏼😃
Reminds me of Andy Bernard hiding behind the plants in the office.
I can already see that one on the cross like. “I was joking about the king thing. Free me I promise to behave next time”
Oh my God that part where you put all the apologists using the same analogy at once is hilarious 😂
Wait, I thought that was three independent attestations to a dream about Hawaii! It must have actually occurred. 😂🤣😂
👏Bravo Paul!
What time? I might have missed it, I'm half way through the video.
@@BornOnThursday At about 28:15.
Herd mentality.
@@maynardmckillen9228thank you
Lots of people saw Jesus risen , nearly as many as saw Elvis alive in 2020.
Are we talking about the original Elvis, or the impersonator?
Is this humor or an actual fact?
@@TimTrOn3000 I was trying to be sarcastic.
less people saw Jesus rise than have seen aliens or been abducted especially when the Alien things was really popular. Even more claim star signs and psychics are proven and have seen the effects
A plus 4 funny
As an exmormon turned atheist (funny story that) I LOVE that the most honest apologists recognize the problem the rise of Mormonism, with it's extraordinary and supernatural claims, creates for many of their own arguments.
Can you possibly share your story? Though I was never Mormon but Christian, I love hearing conversation stories. They helped me understand the errors in my own beleifs originally and still like to hear them since everybody has had a different experience.
Mormons stories are even more fascinating in many ways since the book of Mormon I think has even less evidence that the Bible(Wich still is almost nothing) it's just even stranger to me that so many Mormons are so sure if their beleifs. Many of them seen even more convinced that most other Christians lol .
@@LisaAnn777
Not everyone wants to share their story (which is okay).
If you're interested in ex Mormon (specifically) conversions, then check out Jimmy Snow & Cults to Consciousness.
@@draxthemsklonstAlyssa Grenfell is an exmo too. She’s very popular on TikTok but she has UA-cam videos as well talking about her experience in the Mormon church. She’s amazing at giving thorough, detailed explanations.
I love how Paul is just moderating a discussion between christians about one of their core believes and not dismantling Dr Loke himself.
So, I love this style and would love to see more of this :D
Or as Matt likes to say: You apologists find a common explanation and I'll get to it when you made up your minds.
I like it too!
Same here.
I Second that
I love watching Paul dismantle their claims
Absolutely ✌
"After you've heard two eyewitness accounts of an accident, it makes you wonder about history." - - Dave Barry
Is he still a thing? I loved reading his newspaper column when I was a kid.
@@imjessietr29 Still alive, 73 years old.
@@imjessietr29 Amusingly, I also had the same thought when I saw that name.
I doubt any eyewitness reports of an accident could ever be so different as the accounts of the resurrection sightings and story of the women at the tomb in the gospels.
What is the original source of that quote/context?
Paul, i love this format of letting theologians do the debating!
It is dependent on at least one of the thaumaturgists being at least a bit competent at critical thinking. Which tends to filter out thaumaturgists especially believing thaumaturgists. Now there ARE non believing THEOLOGISTS but those are few and far between. Most theologists are thaumaturgists.
My spell check hates that word. Too bad.
The God that created all things including that He created debates. Satan debated Michael the Archangel and lost. Got kicked out. By default, satan is the atheist god, because of losing the arguement aspect of things.
So there is that.
But there is more...
Christ died and Rose by ressurection the third day,(which is a prophecy given in the Old Testament) at the end of Passover week in Israel, sometime between Friday, rising day after Sabbath day, in the morning, the first day of the week. It's documented accurately. And since Israel's scholars have all this information they are the factuallt based evidence holders. Not any a-Theist channel of poorly edited monologues that are left wanting.
Thaumaturgists can also be Occultists. And guess what they exist as well. Sorcerors that do witchcraft. Magicians can also believe in their own spiritual spirit given power, they simply are possessed. There are a few channels that expose these types of people. So that actually refutes a-Theism.
@@abashedsanctimony154
"The God that created all things including that He created debates. "
And which god is that?
"Satan debated Michael the Archangel and lost.
Oh the imaginary god of the Bible. Imaginary beings do nothing.
" By default, satan is the atheist god,
Most them don't believe in any god. So they don't have one.
"But there is more..."
There's a song too, Oh Heaven Help The Working Elf.
"Christ died and Rose by ressurection the third da"
Fact free claim.
"which is a prophecy given in the Old Testament)'
No. There is no such prophecy.
"k. It's documented accurately."
Its in the Bible, except the prophecy part. It was written down by anonymous people long after the events. That is not documented. Its a collection of stories.
"y. And since Israel's scholars have all this information they are the factuallt based evidence holders.
They don't, you made that up.
"Thaumaturgists can also be Occultists. "
There is no real thaumaturgy.
"Sorcerors that do witchcraft."
No.
"Magicians can also believe in their own spiritual spirit given power,"
Wrong, magicians know they do tricks.
"There are a few channels that expose these types of people. So that actually refutes a-Theism."
And that is just nonsense, nothing has refuted a lack of belief in any god.
There MAY be a god but ALL testable gods fail testing. Including the god of the Bible. There was no Great Flood so we know that the Bible was written by ignorant men, living in a time of ignorance.
Get an education.
Join the few, the rational, the Agnostic
Ethelred Hardrede
@@counterpoint2034
I told you in your post in my thread not to go around spamming your garbage in every thread in the comments section not that long ago, yet here you are, and you've learnt nothing. I'm reporting you for spam and unwanted content..
Good bye.
@@abashedsanctimony154 *Satan debated Michael the Archangel and lost.*
He did not lose. The court cheated on him, at least if you accept the narration to be literally true.
*By default, Satan is the atheist god*
No, atheists do not believe in Satan.
*because of losing the argument aspect of things.*
What a childish logical fallacy.
*It's documented accurately.*
The gospels were written years later, so this is in way a valid form of documentation.
*So that actually refutes atheism.*
It does not. Even if the resurrection somehow happened, this does not prove that any gods exist whatsoever. There have been plenty of hypothesis offered that would explain the resurrection, had it happened, no gods required. Actually, the explanation is not even difficult. The easy explanation is: he did not die. Duh.
Dr Allison, an honest human, who has enough integrity to doubt his own belief system. Those of who once did but no longer believe understand the effort and the rewards. Best wishes sir!
And nobody would ever lie about seeing something so they could fit in and be held as special in the greater group
Tania head...
@@caninecurry5823He said Nobody!!
_"They could have fact-checked Paul's claim"_
It's worth pointing out how far away Corinth is from Judea.
The distance doesn’t matter. They could have easily used one of those fact-checking websites. ;)
Even if they did fact check the claim, when has that ever prevented a lie from spreading?
yep. you would of thought dozens of them would have jumped on their donkeys to make the 1600 km round trip.
Especially since they knew the names and addresses of the 500 people that Paul referred to ... wait ... oh ... ummm ...
_Who exactly were they going to ask for, and where exactly did they live?_
@@SuperSglenn To be fair, they could take a boat. It's still not a trivial journey though.
Amazing work Paul. This must have taken you forever and it's much appreciated.
I saw loke posted something in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
“Ifitalkreallyfastnoonewillnoticeeverythingimsayingisnonsense...”
Also known as the Ben Shapiro technique
To be fair it may be his accent.
Or the ben shapiro effect 😂
Thats what happens when ppl are more interested in being seen as intellectual rather than being intelligent.
To be fair people who speak fast languages like Japanese, Spanish, Mandarin etc often speak English either really fast or really slow. And valley girls from California speak at super sonic frequencies.
Lol...the prose version of the Gish-gallop
Reading the letters will tell you what the writer was trying to convince his readers, not necessarily what they actually believe.
and even if they believe it, not necessarily what is actually true.
High school history DBQs 101
So basically the same as a modern apologist.
I loved hearing all the apologists saying the same thing at the same time!
Your lack-of-common-sense scholarship is far superior to that of the apologists and PhDs you site. You deserve an honorary doctorate for your work.
Thank you
@@Paulogia Seriously Paul, maybe a book?
I agree fully.
@@Paulogia I would lime to challenge you to a respectful debate on the historicity of the crucifixion...Would you kindly accept??
So long as it's not on Theology
Dale Allison is so deeply, unwaveringly transparent and authentic, it's actually startling. He brings an intellectual honesty to the Christian philosophy forum that I believe is only matched by Paulogia.
"Did Jesus have intestines?" That guy was two seconds away from saying, "Did Jesus shit."
I live in Hong Kong. I’m going to go and have a word with this man.
tell him I said hi
I have a feeling he’ll watch this but it will be lost on him. I wouldn’t bother! Edit; unless you want to debate...then you do you!
@NewtonDynamics talking really fast helps with the stereotype because it keeps alot of people from realising your talking shit...by the time they realise what you said is bullshit you've moved on so it gets dropped an fades away...
Read his book first man:) I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
@@counterpoint2034 Reading the book is besides the point, when Loke himself is misrepresenting Sean and Paul, by appealing to an argument Sean made in his book that Paul never actually claimed contradicts Loke, because the quote from Sean that Paul presented was a different one, and Loke is even decontextualizing the quote that Sean wrote in his book anyway.
There is no point in reading a book when the author of said book builds their arguments purely on strawman and misrepresentations of others arguments.
When I was five, I got lost in a grocery store and was crying. But Paulogia took me to the manager, who was a nice old man in a red vest, and reunited me with my mother, Marilyn Monroe. I may have the details wrong, but I'm sure this happened.
I believe you 😊
My grandpa actually had a conversation with Marilyn Monroe and didn't even know who it was until much later.
@@jackricky5453 My dad had a conversation with Harry Caray at a local VFW and didn't know who it was until much later.
I was at that Zappa concert. I clearly recall the 25 min dance remix of Stinkfoot. Pretty sure I saw you there Paul.
My friend who doesn't speak English was there, and he heard Frank singing, as if it was in his own native language! It was truly a divine event.
@@galacticbob1 there’s a “Shroud of Turin is a Sears poncho” joke in here somewhere but just can’t get there.
You're back in form here Paul. I love this style of video from you. This one especially made me laugh out loud when you did the comparison of the US voters who believe the election was totally fraudulent vs those who think it was wholly accurate and fair contrasted with the idea that in ancient Palestine they could easily verify information, so obviously what they believed must be real. That little comparison right there I think is the best case you can make for how easy it is to convince large groups of people to believe something untrue. Whether you believe it was fraud or not, you can not deny that it means a large portion of people believe something completely utterly untrue that they can verify themselves.
As a Canadian, I hope people don't take it politically... just as an observation about ability to affirm beliefs, as you said.
Agreed. So funny.
What I have read elsewhere: You can ask people who were physically on the rooftop with the Beatles in 1969, and you'd get different answers to what songs they remember were actually played.
I saw Led Zepplin in their "Stairway to Heaven"tour and it's hard to remember the details of the concert.Of course,I was doing acid at the time.
@@psychedelicfluff5627
username checks out
Also, more than 12 million people were at Woodstock in ‘68.
People claiming to hear/see the most important event in history would remember every detail and not have out of 4 of them omit at least 3 angel sightings from their account
@@superfly2449 a bit of an exaggeration
If I, living in Canada, were to be told "500 people in Perth Australia saw the risen Elvis" it would be easier for me to journey half way around the world to look for those witnesses, even with COVID travel restrictions, than it would have been for a 1st century Corinthian to travel to Palestine.
Just take any story given in a preacher's sermon and see how many people do even the simplest thing to check on the accuracy. Are they claiming that first century Christians were more skeptical than modern ones?
Everyone in Perth was so busy either protesting Invasion Day or sinking as many Emu Export tinnes as humanly possible in the shortest time available on their public holiday. Not one of us here actually saw the risen Elvis today.
@@Simon.the.Likeable of cause not, he's still working the nightshift at the Frankston 7/11. 😁
@@briankrakau8371 You're lost mate. It's a bloody long drive to Frankston from here. Better take a few Mrs. Macs along to tide you over on the road trip.
People traveled back then, and the distance isn’t really that far.
The irony of a theologist talking about people lacking common sense... right after saying that the writers probably believed what they wrote, as if that is somehow evidence that it's true...
I don't think it's weird for theologists to bring up common sense. Nobody with a solid epistemology would bring it up, since common sense is so ill-defined and unreliable. Common sense is just habits and gut feelings but with a nice-sounding name. Of course apologists would claim having a lot of it.
@@LynnWinx well, you've got a point there.
@@LynnWinx Is that why common sense is dying out in the Age of Reason?
@Meiere Christi Guilt by association?
Isn't that like saying everyone in the world who happened to be a Muslim before September 2001 has the blood of 9/11 on all of their millions of hands?
@@autobotstarscream765 > I don't know what you mean. What's dying out? The phrase "common sense", or the vague notion of logic/knowledge it tries to convey? My point is: when you have a good reason, you don't need to appeal to common sense. It's a dumb notion like faith.
I don’t remember hearing “common sense” as a criterion in an academic discussion. “Common sense” just means “what seems obvious to me” as far as I can determine. It has nothing to do with science or historical accuracy.
When people use the "common sense" "argument" with me, I like to point to flatearters using the same one.
Paul great video, not that I expect anything less from you. But shout out to the Paulogia community. You all have helped me learn and are always kind. You all have extreme tolerance for crazy or rude commenters. An absolute reflection of Paul and his way of argument
I saw loke posted something in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
Wow, that Mormon analogy is spot on! What ELSE could explain facts about Joseph Smith except that he was a true prophet of God? Brilliant.
It's amazing that Andrew Loke managed to become a doctor. Or rather, it says a lot about christian education and the value of theological degrees that someone with such weak reasoning skills could get such a diploma...
Not really. I guess almost 100% of people who choose that career are believers and they aren’t certainly encouraged to question their beliefs in theology school.
It would appear that weak reasoning skills and a mastery and total acceptance of logical fallacies is a requirement for the degree.
Kent Hovind?
@@boghopper5463 well I gave Locke the benefit of the doubt that he actually DID the fake education, where Hovind got it by mail.
Education in general is a joke. There are many people with doctorates in every field of study that are idiots. If you can pass exams and completely homeworks and projects, then you have a decent chance in getting a PhD in whatever you want to, regardless of how intelligent you are. My days in interacting with plenty of people with similar or supposedly higher education to mine has demonstrated this. This is further worsened by the fact that, in general, courses in primary education are taught poorly, especially mathematics and the sciences, and also languages.
With that being said, education in theology is even more a joke than other fields. Too many institutions require you a priori to even profess a believe in God before you are allowed to study theology. Most of what this field of study amounts to in practice is "preaching to the choir."
I have a very clear memory of talking to a school friend while in my year 11 high school maths class - talking about the death of Lady Diana, the ex. wife of Prince Charles. In my mind can clearly see my friend sitting at the desk in front of me and to my left, turning around to chat about lady Di's death.
The problem is that my high school year 11 was in 1987, *but lady Diana died in 1997* ... 10 years later, long, long after we had both graduated from university!
Even knowing that this high-school memory was certainly false hasn't changed it's clarity. It's weird that my memory still hangs on to a very vivid recollection that cannot possibly be true. There is simply no way that we were both discussing Lady Diana's death in a high school maths classroom 10 years before she died, even though my memory still insists that we did exactly that.
_Memories are weird._ I don't trust my own memories, let alone other people's memories.
I remembered reading Sagan's Demon Haunted World when I was about 13 yrs old, but it wasn't published until I was 18. Although, Lady Di's death happened the night of my best friend's wedding.
Yeah, we're both old and memory gets trickier with time. 😖
It probably originated as a dream and while awake your brain forgot the part about it not being real, so the memory stuck.
@@Porkey_Minch I've had a few different dreamemories take hold over the years. So do some of my friends evidently... oddly enough from my church youth group. Several friends swear that I went on a trip with the youth group to Myrtle Beach one summer. Despite plenty of photographs from the trip (all lacking me) they insist I was there, and recall specific accounts of me being there. Alas, I was home that summer, working and going to summer school.
Its not even a "historical fact" because we have a writing that someone thinks someone said that they beloved. Its so far removed from the person that its laughable.
Above: beloved = believed
Really solid video! Thanks for putting in so many great sources. I appreciate you championing reason.
I saw loke posted something in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
I love how theists talk about “common sense” before arresting magic is a more reasonable explanation. Lol
Common sense is a red flag. It immediately telegraphs an all too simplistic view and understanding of the matter.
Tell me what is magic.
@@aidan-ator7844 Unreality, you know, like theism and SciFi.
@@aidan-ator7844 anything that breaks the laws of nature. Supernatural is just another word for magic but people prefer supernatural because it doesn't sound as stupid.
@@aidan-ator7844
magic
/ˈmadʒɪk/
noun
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Happy now
"They could have fact-checked Paul's claim"
say people who often turn off youtube comments
Also, they could have fact-checked Paul's claim IF HE'D GIVEN NAMES.
Then don’t believe, we don’t care.
Finally, they don't care, we can take out all the gods nonsense from our laws without any resistance.
@Jose Very much the “people say” of Drumpf.
@Jose think about it... you might figure it out, people are saying.
Another great video! Dr. Allison seems so much more intellectually honest than the other apologists and theologians you cover.
That's why I don't have to cover him... he doesn't evangelize, and we agree on a lot of things.
17:30 Paulogia says that the information about the 500 is not coming from Paul but from an unknown author of the creed. I don't think that's right. One of the reasons why scholars think the passage is a creed in the first place is because it has a poetic structure (probably to aid memory). But the line about the 500 actually breaks that structure. So it seems this is something Paul himself added to the creed and it wasn't originally in it. It's kind of obvious the line doesn't fit if we map the poetic structure:
ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη,
καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ
κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ,
εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα.
*Ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν.
*
Ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ,
εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν.
that Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he was seen by Cephas,
then by the twelve.
*Then he was seen by more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
*
Then he was seen by James,
then by all the apostles.
There is a problem with the creed though it says Jesus was seen by the 12 then by by James but James is a member of the 12. I expect the last 2 maybe 3 line were added at a later date.
@@mattm8870 Which James is the creed talking about and how do you know?
31:12 Yes, reject the totally ridiculous idea that someone hallucinated and adopt the adult, rational view that god did it with magic
you only say that because you do not believe in magic ;) once you believe in magic then you can accept magic! :D :D ... -_-;;;
@@DeconvertedMan anything can happen before your eyes! except when your expect'n, expect a surprise!
@@caucasoidape8838 It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake
If the way is hazy
You gotta do the cooking by the book
You know you can't be lazy!
Amen 🤲... I can't wait to go to heaven and learn to fly from christopher Reed, with gods magic powers. Kat Kerr really opened my eyes to what I might miss out on if I don't pray hard enough. Praise the Lord.
Zappa not only did a show in 1993, he performed "This Town Is A Stale Tuna Sandwich" with the 500 providing the chorus.
I would sooner follow a Zappa faith than Christianity but Zappa would probably hate this statement XD
@@jaebird3077 God probably hates a lot of stuff _His_ followers say and do, doesn't stop _them..._
@@autobotstarscream765 haha this would be true if you believe God is real. As I have never heard her I don't know what she would like. Zappa however I have heard speak on topics XD
@@FelixBat Now we're getting into the real Holy Wars! 🔥🔥🔥
Beautifully and meticulously constructed, as always.
I saw loke posted something in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
I thought I saw Jesus once. Turned out it was my brother that hit me in the head with a frying pan...
Thank you for the reference to the book ”Witness for the Defense” by Elizabeth Loftus that deals with the vagaries of memory. I have now downloaded it and have started reading it.
I, personally, have a false memory, a memory that has been proven to be false. I have a distinct memory of my mother coming upstairs to my bedroom with a bowl of soup for me when I was sick. I recently re-visited the house of my memory and was shown, by its current owner, that the house does not, and never has had, an upstairs. And yet that memory still resides inside me, equally true, yet impossible.
Yeah it is almost scary when you find out things like that. You were i am guessing positive about that upstairs until you saw there never was one. I would hate to find out some of my fondest memories never happened!😩😪
@@Omerta_1964 Lol. I have a whole slew of favourite memories, about my kids, that when I retell them around the Christmas table or other gathering, my kids say, ”No. Dad, that’s not how it happened at all.” And those are some of my best stories.
@@MrBcuzbcuz One good thing is if you have a long time friend that can confirm some of the memories that they were involved in. at least those are real! I hope? lol
That's actually a great question from Dr Allison. I had never considered where Jesus was between his appearances. Looking back to when I was a Christian, I think I thought of the post-resurrection Jesus as more of a ghost that was able to make himself solid for periods of time. I would never have described it that way when I was a Christian ofc, but that was kind of how I understood it.
Paul, your analogy of the 2020 election is spot on.
If there were an "Academy Award" for best Moderated Christian Apologetic Discussion, there would be a huge golden statue next to your monitor right now. Well done !
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
we all know and love 1995 Risen Zappa, you just don't know and love him due to your hardened heart.
"For they shalk smoke their little smokes, and drink their little drinks, whilst I dance the night away. I'm a dancin' fool." The immortal words of our Lord Zappa; Sheik Yerbouti, 14:3. 🙏
@@galacticbob1 "I will have a thrill when he comes again". oh the glory owed to 1995 risen Zappa
I'd love to see Dr Dale Allison being interviewed by PineCreek.
"One unerring mark of the love of truth," wrote John Locke in 1690, "is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the
proofs it is built upon will warrant."
-as quoted by Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark
Dr Allison is so intellectually honest it's hard to imagine him being a Christian for much longer.
I see what you mean but the critical thing seemed to be his experience of "seeing the future". Things like that can be huge convincers regardless of their "reality".
He agrees with other mainstream scholars that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet but he's still a Christian. It's weird.
It’s cognitive dissonance. It’s like a long extended breakup. Takes longer for some people.
@Paulogia: After reading Ehrman's book, "Jesus before the gospels", I get the feeling you may have read it. If so, what do you think about it? Seems like some of your videos draw on it for the "memory" aspect of Christianity.
...enjoyed the Zappa reference, I think his guitar killed my mother.
This video is brilliant, well done Paul.
thanks, Jay
@@Paulogia I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
I love this format! ❤
I cal it "The Sidney Sheldon Switcheroo".
In one of her novels* the heroine tricks two chess champions to play each other, both thinking that they are playing her.
Nicely played, Paulogia!👍
*if tomorrow comes
*heroine
Wonderful to see scholars-who-happen-to-be-Christians be so intellectually honest about issues of doubt and of changing one's mind. Refreshing. I wish Christian scholars would do the same.
So during the resurrection of Jesus zombie saints rose from death and roamed the streets of Jerusalem. Who were these zombie saints and what happened to them ? The dead coming back to life would have been the biggest event in history and documented in secular writings, not just biblical scripture.
One of your best videos with regard to content - but especially editing
Wait a minute, Paulogia is the only eye witness... Or was I not listening closely enough.
That would certainly turn the eyewitness discussion weird in an instant.
That would mean that the only eye witness attested that the whole thing was a hallucination. To be clear, this is me totally loving this idea
There are no eyewitnesses to something that can't happen like say .. ressurrection.
@@pcuimac now now now....drink enough whiskey, or do enough LSD...and you might attest to seeing ANYTHING
@@pcuimac Eh, we don't know for a fact that resurrections can't happen. We simply have never observed a reliable instance of resurrection happen. That being said, EVEN IF you could somehow prove that Jesus resurrected, it in no way proves God exists or that Christianity is true, since there are many ways, scientific or not, that you could explain such a resurrection. You could also simply argued Jesus never died to begin with, which would not be difficult, since back then, establishing whether a person was dead or not was very difficult and unreliable, and people were frequently buried alive. It's very likely Jesus was buried alive, and managed to escape to the tomb afterwards. This alone could explain everything. As for how he would have survived in the first place, it's rather simple: his body was cleaned and deinfected, which would have lead to a stop of blood loss. And he probably wasn't as physically tortured as the Bible claimed he was. So he regained consciousness after resting at the tomb, because his body had been tended to prior to burial
I want to know who saw all the other “zombies” walking around at the same time. Why don’t xtians talk about that very much.
Perhaps the 500 who saw JC were the zombies.
Lacona says that passage is allegorical
@@Dialogos1989
Well if Mike says it, it must be true, after all a Liberty University indoctrinated christian apologist would never lie, would he?
Ps. I assume you mean Licoma as opposed to Lacona
@@MasterCedar yes sorry *Licona
@@Dialogos1989 I bet all the people whose brains they ate didn't think it was "allegorical". Sheesh.
34:15 - 35:00
This portion absolutely killed my brain cells. This is simply one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard.
From the Ben Shapiro school of "Let's just say..."
it hurts brain it does.
Maths at home lol
at 31:30 Sensory Deprivation is extreme as well as some chemical interactions with human brain. Experience is often iffy, we fill in the blanks when necessary to understand external stimulus.
Thank you Paulogia for an excellent, well crafted and informative video.
Seems Dr. Allison is on the verge, on the cusp, teetering on the singularity.
I wonder what a discussion between Dr Andrew Loke and Ben Shapiro would sound like - probably like an attempt to enter the Guinness Book of Records for the most words spoken within a certain time limit.
The most words spoken and the least amount of sense.
i would say most bullshit spoken in a certain time
If the intro ever changes I'll be so heartbroken haha! Thank you for the video!!!
the best answer to the Doyal fallacy is “Sherlock Holmes observed that once you have eliminated the impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.” “There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.” ― Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Paul is my favourite former Christian turned atheist as he is considered, intelligent, polite and makes well reasoned and supported arguments. Keep up the great work Paul.
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
Hi all! I'm coming from Loke's analysis of this video in Capturing Christianity. Paulogia's editing of MacDowell is even WEIRDER and MORE SERIOUS than Loke pointed out in that video. Paulogia mixes (in 12:58) two clips from completely different times of MacDowell's interview with Frank Turek (see here: ua-cam.com/video/Bh4GmLyGb7A/v-deo.html ). I've checked the full interview and he's mixing a moment from the beginning (around minute 5) with a moment of the end (around minute 35 or so). This is what MacDowell says in both segments, in context and with the timestamps so you can all check by yourselves. Also, I'll highlight IN ALL CAPS what made it into Paulogia's edited clip:
(1) "OF THE 12, THERE'S ONLY 2 THAT WE HAVE VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, AND THAT'S PETER AND JAMES THE BROTHER OF JOHN, JAMES THE ZEBEDY. And I would say outside of the 12, James the brother of Jesus and Paul we also have high confidence. And then there's 2 I would put in that middle range that are arguably more probable than not but the sources are less and are a little late: and that would be Thomas and Andrew. And the rest of the 12, what's left of them, I think that's 8, I don't think we know where History ends and legend begins" (5:07-5:56).
(2) The second moment is from a longer segment at the end where Turek has asked MacDowell to share the sources for the "4 or 5" that we know with some certainty were martyred. After Sean goes through the evidence for Peter, James the brother of John, Paul, James the brother of Jesus, Andrew and Thomas, he starts comparing this with the lack of evidence for Bartholomeus' martyrdom. And THEN he says, look at this: "That's where I say with Andrew and Thomas maybe there's an interesting case there, THE OTHERS I'M NOT EVEN SURE WE KNOW AT ALL WHAT HISTORY IS OR WHERE LEGEND BEGINS" (38:05-38:19).
And THAT'S what Paulogia spliced together. This has had me thinking. WHY ON EARTH would Paulogia merge a clip from minute 5 with another one from minute 38 of the same interview, without letting his audience know he was doing that? They are 30 minutes apart from each other! But notice WHAT did he merge. First, he edited out the second part of the first clip, where Sean says "of the rest of the 12, what's left of them, I think that's 8…". If you subtract 8 from 12, you've got 4, and not 2, as Paulogia was trying to imply with the "Peter and James" part of the quote. AND THEN, of the second clip, he keeps the second part that begins with "the others…", but leaving out what Sean says immediately before about Andrew and Thomas, which also hurts his case!!! He plays only the part where Sean talks about Peter and James, and then he adds another part that begins with "the others", but omitting all the context that shows that this "the others" does not mean "all except Peter and James". Think what you want about Paulogia's motivations, I'm sure there's no ill-intent behind this, but it's sloppy and misleading at best. Also, if Cameron or any apologist had done anything remotely similar to this, I'm sure Paulogia and his fans would be (rightly) outraged.
PS. All of this, leaving aside Loke was arguing that the early christians and disciples were "willing to die", not that they had actually died martyrs.
This is old but, I assume you have already watched Paul´s response
Good points though
Dr Allison is so good! I am currently reading the book featured in this video and I am loving it. I have taken so many notes from this book. He is a christian but he is so honest and not trying to push a case the way apologists would.
Wondering if any professional Apologist is going to take on Licona's interview with Allison.
This is definitely one of your best Paul. Very well done
"Total Loser" is not something a mature adult would say about others.
Except when trump called Kellyanne Conway's husband just that
@@medomannos1503 No
@@medomannos1503 We were talking about "mature" adults however.
I have no qualms with religious folks. I have qualms with people who won't engage in honest discussions. Love the video P. Very patient
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
Call it schadenfreude, but there's nothing better than the look on an apologist's face when a biblical scholar is telling him what they really have.
Dr. Licona says that for him it's not that important to focus on the naturalistic explanations that doubters might come up with... Yet that is exactly what Christian apologist have wanted us to do for decades - "How do you explain all this if Jesus did not rise from the dead." Moving the goal posts!
As to the 500 - it's not only thin and no answers can be found if asked - it is odd that not one of the Gospels mentions it given that this is a massive group of people to see Jesus at one time. It it clear that Paul most likely got this from Peter - the only other guy highlighted as the first to see Jesus - when he visited Jerusalem.
As to the type of resurrection body that is an interesting motif because there were all kinds of arguments and ideas floating around that time. Paul seeks to try and answer this in his letter -what type of body does the resurrection come with?
As to the mention that skeptics have things in their column that have parallels and the believe do not I quote the Devil's Dictionary on the definition of FAITH: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
@11:10 Paulogia: "Quantaties of zero don't accumulate no matter how many you add."
This is of course true, but start with a presupposition and presto... zeros quickly accumulate.
Thanks,Paul.You were very thorough and the format you used helped make it interesting.
Yes a long Paul vid. I was getting pissed thinking a vid was dropping and it was just a 20 second tease lol
Really enjoyed this Paul. Dr. Allison was a refreshing example of thoughtful and honest Christianity.
Wouldn't those 500 people that saw the Jesus tell their friends and family about their experience? Shouldn't their be tons of others writing and telling the story of what their friend/family member saw in the Risen Jesus?
What would they have written on that could survive 2000 years?
Do you know who your ancestors were that lived 600 years ago and what they said and did?
@@Justas399 1-Did the original Bible manuscripts survive? 2- If my Uncle died for three days then crawled out of his tomb to party with the rest of his family, playing "poke my spike holes" maybe I would. The point is that 500 people relaying a story they truly believed that a man physically arose from being dead would have spread like wildfire. Especially when backed up as it being God. Actually He was not God until later but you get my meaning I think.
@@ubersheizer5398 There are no original manuscripts from any ancient work that has survived. All we have are copies of copies.
No doubt some of the 500 would have shared this with others that they knew. There are major problems for personal stories from people surviving just a few years let alone centuries.
For example, can you share any stories from your ancestors that lived 800 years ago?
@@Justas399 also, you'd have to believe that many of those 500 possibly couldn't read and/or write, but some word of mouth stories should have happened at some point, right? The entire 500 story is simply ridiculous on the face of it.
@@jasonsabbath6996 I think the majority of the 500 were illiterate, but they would surely tell lots of people what they saw. And those people would have told people. Word would have gotten out exponentially and it would have been investigated and reported. At least that makes sense to me. Justas is just Cherry picking parts of my comment and trying to poke holes, no pun intended, in them while not addressing the gist of the point. This is evidenced by his second comment.
@Paulogia or anyone.. what does Carrol say at 12:04 'read the ......?" Thanks
Church Fathers!
The other day I went to some video Logicked had debunked and I saw a comment there in which a woman said, "I was so happy when I saw my dead parents." After a few lines it appears that she saw them in a dream, but to her it didn't make any difference: she saw them and talked to them. This is a modern person writing on a computer. How do you think a first century peasant would interpret such an experience?
Paulogia, at 14:20 when you start with the Dr. Allison clip, what point where you trying to suggest that he was making against Dr. Loke?
These guys remind me of little boys in a sandbox arguing about the tooth fairy. It's magic and magical thinking all the way. The fact that the known universe is 13.8 billion years old is enough awe and amazement for me.
"Hyper-trust" I like that word...I have been accused of being too skeptical so it will be nice to play that card next time i hear it. Thanks Sean.
Really enjoyed talking to you about this subject on the atheist experience thank you again Paul
Fantastic video and totally worth watching it, despite the length. Thanks.
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
Nice editing.
I thought I'd subscribed long ago and just realized I hadn't. So sorry! It's been remedied. Your content is amazing and so, so educational for me.
Thanks for subbing!
The word used in 1 Cor 15:5-8 for "appeared" is ὤφθη which is the aorist passive form of horao. Note how this word doesn't _necessarily_ mean "to see with the eyes."
ὁράω
1. to see with the eyes
2. *to see with the mind, to perceive, know*
3. to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
"horáō - properly, see, *often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)."*
Here is how Paul describes his conversion experience.
Gal. 1:16 _"God revealed His Son in me."_
1 Cor 15:8 _"Last of all, he appeared (ὤφθη) to me"_
Now, without appealing to the gospels or Acts, and given the fact that the word ὤφθη didn't necessarily indicate a physical appearance, how exactly are the descriptions Paul gives evidence that he really saw Jesus?
The point of this question demonstrates that one must beg the question and assume the appearances were veridical when what Paul actually says, provides no evidence for this (due to the equal likelihood that these were imaginary/mistaken experiences that had nothing to do with reality). Paul uses the same verb ὤφθη for every "appearance" in the list and makes no distinction in regards to their nature. In order to assume the appearances were veridical/physical then one must appeal to the later gospels and Acts but that is supposed to be excluded due to the historical method giving priority to the earliest firsthand testimony. The earliest and only verified firsthand testimony is Paul. Therefore, appealing to sources which are secondhand or worse, cannot be used to trump verified firsthand testimony. Moreover, if you find my narrative analysis below, the data in the gospel resurrection narratives looks like a legend evolving which is more probable than a supernatural resurrection actually occurring.
The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which seem to indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke omits any appearance to the women. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
@@resurrectionnerd excellent recap. It’s just my conjecture but the story of the doubting Thomas, with its explicit admonishment to believe even without evidence, seems to be inserted to silence the doubters. I take it as a sign that amongst early Christians not everyone believed in a (literal) resurrection.
@@pansepot1490 Yes, notice how in Luke 24 the author goes out of his way to say Jesus "was not a spirit." Why mention this unless some people actually _did_ think Jesus _was_ a spirit? And also in Acts 1, the Risen Jesus provided "many proofs" he was alive! These are obvious apologetic insertions and we should not believe the narratives historically happened.
its really hard not to address the way he talks
i'll be waiting for your rebuttals's rebuttal, as he is live with pomade boy now
The kids in the Jesus Camp movie is my go-too example of manufactured experience 😓
Or the Stepford Wives.
Another great video, love the longform content
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
@@counterpoint2034 tl;dr
Good job Paul, this was an excellent video that exemplifies the very embodiment of showing how a mind on religion acts and reacts when the evidence found by actual scientific method research refutes all the things in the cults mythology.
And it's a cult no matter how big it is, no matter what is claimed.
If it was facts they were discussing then they'd be able to reproduce the evidence to support their own claims instead of believing and having faith.
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.'
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
@@counterpoint2034
Thanks for the comment, as long wonder as it was.
I guess you're an apologist if sort, if so, what is the reason for the need to apologize for things you're not responsible for?
And about when and where you say paulogia misrepresented you, are you sure? Sincerely I say I've seen alot from both sides.
If truth is what the facts are, are you sure you haven't misrepresented things?
Brilliant edition and parallels between the scholars. Thank you Paul for your work!
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
Sounds like Dale is just a few steps away from enlightenment, if only he has the courage to face it.
My thoughts exactly. He seems to be a good candidate to follow Bart Ehrman's path to disbelief. I like to paraphrase a quote from Nietzsche that when one stares into the abyss, sometimes the abyss stares back.
I fear it would be a doomed hope, that apologetics will ever improve their arguments, or, just acknowledge that the ones they keep trotting out were taken apart years ago. I think there are very few, who can acknowledge the, reality that to believe these stories are true, or at least, have truth at their core, is an act of faith, to acknowledge how very little they can honestly be certain of, and retain their faith. If apologetics ever changed that way... well, the literal folk would need to completely abandon ark for a start.
Since it appears the primary focus of most apologists I've seen, is to try and stem the tide of those who, are not willing to accept something as true without, or even against the evidence by, in effect pretending all manner of inaccuracies, committing every fallacy in the book... I imagine they'll go out like the band on the titanic
"Ask for evidence & logic from a Christian and you will win the debate every time" - Chris Hitchens.
How many times did Dr. Loke dig up Elvis's body when someone claimed he was still alive after he had died?!?
It never fails to astound me how little actual support these biblical "scholars" have for their claims. Its almost always things like "someone said ____ " or "people believed _____ " or "its common sense" etc. Solid, verifiable, evidence is either never presented at all, said to demonstrate far more than it actually applies to, or completely pointless to the actual arguments.
Just look at the way people "addressed" Paulogia's earlier videos on the topic... the most common "counter argument" was to either laugh then change topics, or attack his credibility. They have nothing of substance, and on some level they must know it.
It never fails to impress me how much Christian apologists are willing to believe Peter and Paul. Like... you only care about what they have to say because you already believe what they said. Two random people at any other point in history saying they saw God wouldn't matter to you, be believable, or be in any way relevant. The entire logical case for Christianity just sits neatly balanced atop two toothpicks, while apologists tell you how strong those toothpicks are, and how there are actually many more toothpicks.
It's so hard to take them seriously.
One extra little point, Paulogia...Of the 2 affirmed 'sightings', only Peter's was of the resurrected Christ; Paul's vision was (surely) after the ascension so doesn't count as proof of resurrection.
He's made that point in previous videos. Probably did not feel it necessary to bring up here.
@@TheAsaoirc Not one I've heard him make but fair enough
@@andycook3143I couldn't point you to the video directly unfortunately but he's brought up Paul's own confusion about whether it was in the body or out of the body. Sorry I can't be more helpful. I remember it being an aside and not the main thrust of the video.
Paul never knew Jesus before the crucifixion, so *Paul cannot be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus.*
If you aren't able to actually recognise a person, your testimony can't be used to verify they are alive.
Paul, your work is so important and so appreciated.
I saw loke posted something here in response to this video : discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/paulogia-responds-to-andrew-loke-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus/13093/18 [copy & paste] :
'I watched Paulogia’s video and am amazed at the number of bad arguments in the video, and am even more amazed at the number of people (e.g. youtube commentators, and perhaps some people here?) who seem to agree with him and who ‘liked’ that video (that video already has >2000 likes).
I will be giving a fuller response to him at a later date (busy now finishing up my book on the Teleological and Kalam arguments). At this point I just want to clarify that there is no contradiction between what I said and what Sean McDowell wrote:
I said in 11:35: the early Christians were prepared to give up their lives for their faith…12:27: people would not be willing to sacrifice for what they knew is false…’
This is consistent with what Sean McDowell wrote (The Fate of the Apostles, p. 259):
‘The critical point is not that we might establish the martyrdom of all the apostles; rather, their willingness to suffer and die for their firsthand witness of the risen Jesus-this is of foremost importance.
p.260: ‘While people are willing to die for what they believe is true, it is a stretch to think all the apostles were willing to suffer and die for a claim they knew was false.
p.2: In fact, we do have reliable historical evidence to trust the ancient and uniform testimony that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom.
Paulogia did not listen carefully to what I said. He also did not read carefully what I wrote in Chapter 3 of my book where I cited Sean and made arguments that are similar to Sean’s. It is therefore a misrepresentation to pit me vs Sean.
Paulogia also misrepresented me when he claimed (33:50) that I ‘flagrantly disregarded false memory.’ On the contrary, I discussed the false memory objection in Chapter 7 of my book which Paulogia disregarded!
There are other bad arguments in Paulogia’s video which I will respond to at a later date. At this point I just want to encourage people to read my book carefully (it is open access!) rather than merely listening to Paulogia’s (mis)representation of it. Most of his objections are already answered in my book.
loke's book is available for free download here so people can check out paulogia's misrepresentations of loke for themselves: www.academia.edu/42985421/Investigating_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ
@@counterpoint2034 I’m looking forward to his response.
Ever since I can remember, I have had the same dream where I am able to fly, now this pre dates Chris Angel but I fly like he did. Hands out to my sides, and feet together. I have dreamt this so many times that I started having a hard time separating it from reality and had to convince myself that it wasn't real! I have ADHD and remember stuff quickly and most often easily, however, it takes slowing down to fact check those memories and even then sometimes my thoughts are presented as a real memory despite the evidence to the contrary.
Definitely your brain is wired in an unusual way.
it's *super important* to realise that paul is not saying what you _think_ paul is saying when you read the gospel story back into paul. it's perfectly possible that the gospels imagine back stories to fill in the desperately thin pauline descriptions of early christianity. if you want to approach this honestly, you need to consider how many things paul MIGHT have been saying when he says jesus appeared to the 500. consider this: if you approached an excited bunch of teenagers after a benny hinn event and asked "did jesus appear tonight?", or "was jesus present tonight?" ... do you think they might squee yesss!? this seems like a very live possibility in the spirit filled experiences of paul's religious world. paul's writing certainly gives zero indication that his church obsessed over the details of jesus's life and ministry like modern text-oriented christians. [don't believe me? go through all of paul's letters and list everything he wrote about the pre-crucifixion jesus.] the stark truth is that paul is not saying very much, EVEN IF you treat him as a reliable journalist. and my information was that he was a religious fanatic, if you've ever met religious fanatics
as paulogia suggests ... if you find yourself caught up explaining how mass hallucination can happen (as apparently serious skeptics sometimes do) then you're playing a mug's game, and making your job unnecessarily complicated