Lawyer vs Detective: Is the Bible Testimony? (feat
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2024
- How does a former atheist, and a practicing cold case detective, assess the historical reliability of the Bible? How does that fit with how a lawyer would assess that same claim? @GodlessGranny joins us to investigate.
Videos Referenced
• A Homicide Detective I...
• Don't Trust Eyewitness...
• Investigating J Warner...
• Who REALLY Wrote the G...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
This is why we need more pastors and historians investigating murders. The skill sets are clearly interchangeable.
Check out Father Brown. He never fails. And Sister Bonniface. No one gets away from them, they hanged many a baddie. Saved their souls, though, which is something I suppose.
@@cliveadams7629 ..... hahahaha.... and do not forget Cadfael the medieval priestly sleuth.
HEY Cadfael and Brother William of Baskerville are kinda good...
What do you mean William is based on another William, from Ockham ? Irrelev... Oh wait.
😂😂😂😂😂
@@cliveadams7629 Oh crap, I thought that Father Brown had ended. Now I have a few new seasons to watch. Thanks for the reminder.
I was a UK police officer and then detective. We never recieved any training in assessing ancient texts, no lessons in Hebrew, Greek nothing.
Its a wonder we got any crime fighting done at all.
Well, you never did catch that ripper guy. Put JWW on the case.
The thing is JWW gets evidence wrong even in his examples of how detectives work. He actually once said that if on detective says the butler did it, another detective can't just say "ehm, we have no reason to even consider him a suspect yet, you can't just claim he did it", no they only get to say the butler shouldn't be the de facto prime suspect already considered guilty if they have a better alternative suspect.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Dang, what a witty retort to the OP's clever observation. You've greatly amused me, my friend.
the UK police dont exactly have a good reputation at the moment, whether it's actually solving crimes or their own behaviour whilst on the job. But perhaps that's after you left.
it's really no wonder at all though
When I saw the thumbnail I was thinking "No way Princess Leia is on Paulogia!"
lol 😂
same!
😂😂😂
Did not know G.G. was an attorney. She and Sergeant Skeptic need to team up and put J. Warner and Lee Strobel into rhetorical prison.
.
She has had Sgt. Skeptic on her show (in case you didn't know). Sorry for the rhyme.
@@utubepunk - Rhyming is a delightful treat for the eye and ear. No apologies needed, my dear.
I am a retired cop and a retired attorney. I am also an atheist and a former Christian.
Wallace and I did not work for the same police department. However, we both worked in the same state. Our law enforcement careers were at least roughly contemporaneous. We both attended training academies certified by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (aka “POST”). We were both subject to the same body of law and the same POST regulations that governed law enforcement officers in California. We were both required to attend twenty four hours of POST certified continuing professional training every two years. While working in law enforcement, I had an opportunity to review every POST certified course on law enforcement in the State of California. I can say with a considerable degree of certainty that neither Wallace nor I could be considered experts in religion or Christianity as a result of our law enforcement training and experience.
I have long believed that Wallace plays fast and loose with the rules of evidence. I think Godless Granny did an excellent job pointing this out.
Since you are former CA law enforcement, and were involved in POST standards, you might be interested in a very basic summary of the standards of legal processes in the ancient Kingdom of Israel.
The following is my best, but distant recollection:
The thing about about witnesses, is they need to be reliable, but then the community needs to have a definition of what that means.
Having said that, for anyone who has studied the Tanakh (aka: the Septuagint), the test for a reliable witness to testify in ancient Israelite society included the following requirements:
- Only males were allowed to be witnesses before the court
- The witnesses had to have a upstanding reputation in the community
- The witnesses had to see each other while witnessing the alleged criminal activity, i.e., a violation of Torah law.
- The trial had to occur within 40 days of the incident (if I remember correctly)
- The charges against the defendant, and defense rebuttal were before a panel of three judges; at a minimum, and that panel was always an odd number of judges to prevent a deadlocked (tied) decision.
And this is just a very basic summary, but is the context of what would be considered reliable testimony in Judaic culture back in the day.
A better summary of the Judaic judicial system while a Sanhedrin still existed, is found in this brief article. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4100306/jewish/The-Sanhedrin-The-Jewish-Court-System.htm
@@What_If_We_Tried isnt it odd that women are portrayed as the first witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels. It's as if, even though the Jewish writers knew how women's testimony was viewed, they still had to relay what happened...
@@PC-vg8vn It's very ironic.
@@PC-vg8vn I believe that because of the lest will be first theme that pop up though out the gospel teachings. Though its possible that preparing the dead was woman work and so the woman had to be ones to go or everyone would be saying that nonsense so the rest is to.
@@PC-vg8vn No it isn't "odd".
It's a sign that when the gospels were written down christian communities had begun to distance themselves from the communities still observing torah law and wanted to make that difference obvious.
Paul's letters mention at least a couple of women having roles in founding and organizing "churches", making women the witnesses to the empty tomb fits right into with that style of community. These women make up a significant share of the named females in the bible, which should already show how rare it is that a woman gets such recognition.
JWW: I’m going to think like a detective to prove Jesus like a court case.
Also JWW: We have no proof that could be used in court and must think like a historian.
Thanks for the shout-out, Granny!
Damn, Dr. Kipp, really? Please don't fluster me by responding. Just accept the gushing adoration of this quasi-elderly fanboy. Besides finding you to be a highly informed scholar and enthusiastic communicator, you just seem so awesomely cool. I consume as much of your content as I'm able.
We can only hope JWW was more honest in his police work than in his apologetics work.
I'm highly doubtful of that, as I've seen no evidence. Given how deceitful and prone to cognitive bias police have been shown to be, I have no reason to give in to false hope. The man is a grifter.
@@Wulf169hard to say. His apologist "work" is highly motivated, he's personally vested in a way he wouldn't be in police work.
I hope someone looks into it though, certainly worth knowing
Hmm, "an honest police", sounds akin to "a righteously pious priest" or "a red green".
ACAB
I can tell you from 3rd party experience a great plurality of detectives are beat cops that happened to be great at licking boots to a mirror polish. The “good” detectives live for interrogations and field work, whereas collecting evidence leads to desk work. Especially when you get to pretend to be Elliot Stabler by manipulating perps and exercising your power within the blurry lines of the law, there’s nothing more boring than pencil pushing to these guys.
I can't be the only one who immediately thinks of Galaxy Quest whenever somebody says "the historical documents".
a real Gem of fim making.
the ending is BAD, though. No gems are perfect, I guess.
@@istvansipos9940 I think the ending is great. How would you have preferred for it to end?
You are absolutely not the only one. :)
@@RichBensen no definite alternatives I can think of.
My isssue with the actual ending: After all the gracefully combined danger AND fun, the movie ends in a dramatic event, which would have killed and ruined many many people, children included. Cries, pain, blood, death, lost limbs, fire, etc
and some major conflicts would have been fought to decide who gets what technology.
to sum up:
The ending could have been episode 0 / the prologue of some very dark, very serious sci-fi. And that atmosphere does not really mix well with the otherwise silly-joyful movie.
maybe a desert crash landing with only the fan kid around? Then some epic nano tech destroys all the hardware? Maybe.
still a well deserved 99 of 100 from me. The acting is superb, and no punch pulled to spare good old the sci-fi clichés
Spot on.😂
If the Bible was an account of actual events and told of true things, apologists would not have to spend their entire lives being as disingenuous as possible
They wouldn’t even need to defend it. It would be so apparent and so clear that it would be embedded in history. Nobody needs to defend Alexander the Great or Genghis khan. Nobody needs to defend whether the world wars happened or the fracturing wars of China. It’s just history. But when it comes to the Bible all of a sudden now we gotta take things on faith.
yep, i always ask, if you're harmonising, what exactly is it you're harmonising?
Now now, it's not God's fault he is terrible at basic communication skills. Sure, any modern Middle School student is better, but then God didn't have access to good public education.
In general the old testament can be held as an account of events. The list of kings, certain battles the rise of empires. This is how some apologists like to build their claims. A little truth at the base and than a huge myth built on top.
@@redtiger7268This is easily debated using Spiderman in New York and many other real life settings for fiction. Tell this to an apologist and then the topic usually changes lol.
Seeing how Wallace acts about the 'evidence' of the Bible terrifies knowing he could be responsible for some innocent people being in jail.
If I was someone convicted of a crime by J Warner Wallace’s testimony, I would be petitioning the court for a new trial because J Warner Wallace is a serial liar. Maybe even exoneration because of his perjury.
What a great guest, Paul. I've been a GG fan for a while now, but getting her legal perspective on Wallace was so interesting! Thank you both for this invaluable insight.
Thank you!
same
"You honour, the defendant is clearly guilty, this series of anonymous, plagiarized, contradictory, hearsay accounts given decades later without any contemporary corroboration from the accounts of the time that should concur all allege it to be the case!"
Touche! Awesome comment 😆
Ah, but someone claimed the person later used as the subject of those accounts stated that a whole category of prior literature was valuable and the latter accounts have since been classified as part of that same category by some groups.
To translate into christian-ese: Paul says all scripture is good, and gospels are scripture. Paul speaks for Jesus, so Jesus says the gospels are accurate... at least in denominations which class them as scripture.
Or, as a simple summation, ChristInanity is founded on FAITH, not physical evidence, which is pretty much the final refuge of all Christian ApoLOLogists cant.
Don't forget the defendant used supernatural powers to kill the victim
It's getting a bit shaky in excusagist town...concessions and cracks...keep up the good work you two
Hey now, you're getting mighty close to sounding as if you're suggesting that plate tectonics are real so then what's your solution for how god would be able to tell us that we're too accepting of gay and transgender folk?
*_Super natural Biblical claims Vs. Historical claims_** ;*
None of the claims of history require me to believe them, or risk missing out on eternal salvation, (at best) or worse, risk eternal torture.
Regarding the "salvation" thing, I'm thinking I might start referring to it as being "spared" to keep it more accurate. "Salvation" implies being saved from something external to the situation, whereas "spared" is more in line with the christian claim of their god being responsible for both options.
@@Isaac-hm6ih Christians disagree on all kinds of interpretations regarding the Bible.
But for my comment, I think "eternal paradise" would have been more applicable.
And yes, in a bigger sense you are being spared from either annihilation and loss of heaven/paradise, or at worst, from facing eternal torture. (hell)
As well, Christians don't agree on soteriology :
_the study of the requirements for salvation._
WOW.. she REALLY broke it DOWN!! I'm saving this vid to watch again and again.. there's so much information to vet and add to my developing new paradigm..
GREAT VID Paul!! 🎉
Thank you.
@@GodlessGranny oh wow.. you replied!! that's awesome!! thank you!! the way you structured your arguments was impressive.. I just subbed to your channel.. I look forward to checking out your content.. thanks again for your reply
3:20 "The Name of the Rose" claims to be a 14th century manuscript. "The Princess Bride" claims to be an abridged telling of a longer history of Florin. Claiming to be a thing doesn't make it a thing.
Are you suggesting that _The Lord of the Rings_ is not really a translation of the Red Book of Westmarch? Heretic! Heathen!
You mean I may not be all that clever and attractive? Agh! I'm having an existential crisis!
I mean, Dracula is testimony of four or five people frantically scribbling out letters and journal pages, and I, for one, believe every damn word of it!
in fact, claiming to be a thing is often rather suspicious.... such as when a kid starts telling the teacher he's innocent, before the teacher was even aware something happened...
@@jeremysmetana8583 Given the Anne Rice fandom, you may be on to something
The claim that "we'd have to throw out most of history" by tossing the gospels just demonstrates - yet again - that apologists have no idea how history is done.
"what training did you get as a police officer to identify ... eye witness testimony" alarm bells should be ringing already for Sean as he asks this question. Obviously police don't have to identify whether something is eye witness testimony. They have witnesses or they don't. And they aren't examining ancient manuscripts. It's completely disanalogous.
Godless Granny as Princess Leia? I love it!
So happy to see GG here. A fan from Kenya salutes you
There is still something magical for me in connecting over thousands of kilometers over shared values. I know, I know, for many people this is just the internet... but personally, it never ceases to amaze me. Cheers from Poland, friend!
You are most welcome! We had a speaker from Nairobi at the American Atheists Conference talk about the need for normalizing atheism in Africa. Glad to know I can help a little.
this thread warms my heart
Glad to see my fellow Kenyan free thinker here..... unfortunately we're miles away from normalizing atheism in Africa, everything here starts and ends with god which is funny seeing how rampant corruption is..
The very first story in the New Testament is about a guy who dreams about an angel telling him his girlfriend is pregnant by God and then astrologers follow a star until it stops over a house in Bethlehem. How on earth could you possibly "investigate" that?
Maybe Matthew was there? Well, that would make him slightly old when he wrote his gospel, but still.
All I ever wanted from religion was some kind of evidence that I could hold on to and say 'Yes. This is it. This is unassailable' It didn't matter which religion, but none of them ever managed to do it. All I ever got were fantastical tales, or hearsay. Now that I'm a lawyer, I get the same, although it must be said that some of the people I have worked with have a much better imagination than the gospel writers.
You have to sit down and ask yourself WHY did I try so hard to become religious? I never get it.
@@vtbn53 Some of us grew up immersed in religious environments, essentially being brainwashed as children, surrounded by people who seemed so certain that they knew what the objective purpose of human life was. It's a very seductive thing, and wrestling with an open universe that's been stripped of teleology requires work, especially if the various flavors of nihilism don't appeal to you.
@@CeramicShot Yes, when confronted by the success of Christianity (as a means of justifying it) I always push back with the question, how many of those Christians were indoctrinated into Christianity as children?
Having said that, it appears to me that the vast majority of indoctrinations, at least in the English speaking world, occur in the US.
There doesn't appear to be a "bible belt" concept in the rest of the English speaking world, and they tend to have a higher percentage of "nones" than the US. You can say that I was born into a Christian family but it was never pushed down my throat, nor were any of my family practicing theists, as a result I never had to "deconstruct" and have been an life long atheist for all of my 70 years.
@tussk. Read sanatan dharm (ie Hindu religion ). Read unbiased sources or read original ones. All of them are available in English.
For what it's worth, not all religions ask adherents to take mythology on blind faith.
J Warner Wallace really makes me concerned on how detectives actually operate when investigating actual cases. I've often found myself hoping that Warner is more of a character and that's not who he was throughout his career.
this
I think he was a police officer who “investigated” a cold case on his own time. Not a detective. Could be wrong, but I remember Paulogia providing more detail and JWW overstates his job title.
@drzaius844 it's also possible he was watching Unsolved Mysteries. I'm not prepared to rule that out as an explanation.
@@drzaius844 I believe that he actually did become an official cold case detective, later in his career. However, since he was caught lying that he was an official cold case detective PRIOR to his conversion, he reverse engineered a story that he had started "looking into" some cold case on his own much earlier in order to try to convince himself and his sycophantic fans that he hasn't been just outright lying. His entire impious grifting for god empire is built on the lie of this pretentious cache.
@@quinn0517 Cold Case Files and a couple of Coors tall boys.
I like their part about how the author of Peter Pan never claimed it was history, so we can dismiss it.
That may be true, but now consider the Wizard of Oz.
L. Frank Baum is literally described as the Royal Historian of Oz. According to the Oz wiki
"The Royal Historian of Oz is a collective title given to the writers of the books of official Oz history."
In the books, Baum claims that he is relaying the information provided to him by Dorothy and Ozma, who usually send the information by wireless. You can show that wireless communication was available during the time that Baum was writing the books.
So, yeah, the Wizard of Oz claims to be history.
A lot of what is described in the Wizard of Oz can be confirmed. In Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, Dorothy travels to San Francisco, which exists today. Her traveling party fell into the earth in an earthquake (it is generally presumed to be the 1906 SF earthquake, but I read a Baum Bugle article a few years back that argued it wasn't, and it was likely another, smaller earthquake). Of course, the historical Dorothy is known to have existed, she lived in Kansas and had an Aunt "M" (although the movie claims her name is Emily, that is not in the books, she is merely Aunt Em, and it likely refers to her Aunt "M" - Maude Gage).
I have also heard a case for Sherlock Holmes. Try to tell the Baker Street Irregulars that Holmes isn't history....
The lord of the rings was written by an eye witness telling history
Excellent point, and Bram Stroker is relying dairy and newspaper accounts for the events of Dracula
The tragedy 'Romeo and Juliet' was set in Verona, Italy.
Verona, Italy, is a real city.
Therefore, 'Romeo and Juliet' is true crime.
@@johnbaustian5180 Hey, I've been Verona and have even seen the balcony!
@@johnbaustian5180 and you can visit their house.
Wallace was never an atheist. He's like a guy claiming he used to be a car mechanic who doesn't even know what a spark plug is.
This channel gives me life!! As a Christian who's deconstructing my faith I wanna say thank you for all your hard work. You've inspired me to do what I can to help break down the harmful structures surrounding the religion. Much Love 🙏♥
Best of luck on your journey!
Im sorry to hear that.
"You don't approach this as an academic!" lol
I've been watching clips, editing, and working on a video essay about J. Warner Wallace. It's stranger than ficiton...well, maybe not, but it's creative.
As a paralegal, legal training didn't specifically help me deconstruct and become an atheist. However, it helped me discern the nuances of what evidence I'd and what it is not. I subconsciously separated myself from the idiotic claims, slowly and steadily, until nothing was left.
Im not sure what you mean by 'idiotic claims', but I assume you would include claims of miracles within that category given you are an atheist. But then that is only because of the naturalistic world view which automatically rejects the miraculous.
@PC-vg8vn I reject anything not backed up by evidence.
Sun stopping in the sky to help a war?
Talking donkey.
Worldwide Flood that left no worldwide clues it ever happened.
Angels, demons, souls, visions, etc.
And that's JUST the Old Testament...
If anyone said the same things but with any other god, Christians would (and do) disbelieve them. So do I. I don't reject "miraculous," whatever that means to you. I reject inevident and/or disproven.
It is not about naturalistic explanations, although if it can be explained, it becomes part of the natural world.
@@PC-vg8vnI wouldn't say rejected the supernatural so much as does not assume the supernatural.
So we have Wallace trying to revise his own canon in response to Zods video, in an age of Google, UA-cam and his own book.
And they ask why we don't trust the authenticity of the Bible.
2.5 minutes in, and @GodlessGranny is already on fire. Damn!
I hadn't noticed before, but Wallace talks about presenting cases in court.
When did he become an assistant district attorney?
In his own mind, or in Reality?
GG as Princess Leiah.🙂
Yes! I was about to say the same.
The thing is. We are not even prosecuting wether Jesus excisted, died on the cross, was resurrected. We are presecuting wether people who wrote generations later wanted people to believe all these things.
pretty much the only things we know about jesus beyond a reasonable doubt is that he existed and that he then died. Everything else is fluff
@@vladu__e "pretty much the only things we know about jesus beyond a reasonable doubt is that he existed and that he then died."
Uh, nah. We can't show even just that without reasonable doubt. Historians accept his existence because it's a banal claim. But "He was a made up messiah figure" is just as banal. We have literally no contemporary sources on his life, only hearsay which was written down after a decades long game of telephone.
I myself go with the "A few people woven into one story" theory, while other people think he's completely made up (which is harder to justify imo).
@@vladu__e Do we KNOW that? To me it's more likely that there was more than one if there were any. If there were any of course they all died. I wouldnt say it's beyond the reasonable doubd that the the jesus or jesuses described in the new testamen either excisted or seized to excist outside the realm of myth/ spirituality. Same goes for any other none historical character. (Pilate, Tiberius, The Herods are historical characers) But even those may not be very accurate historically.
Propaganda is Propaganda, is Propaganda, is Propaganda ..., and that's what the 'Gospels' are.
Evangelical Propaganda.
One step down from a Tesla or Bitcoin Dealer.
@@rbaxter286Gospels arent propaganda. Theyre remarkably reliable historical documents that can be 100% trusted.
I think the consensus is that the pyramids were not built by slaves to a significant degree. The Nile flooded for a couple of months every year, leaving farmers unemployed, and thus available for other work, which they got payed for in food and drink from the royal food stores. No slaves needed.
Other than that, this was a great episode. Also, nice how GG got turned into Princess Leia.
Doing some quick (read: sloppy) referencing to refresh my memory, Egypt used corvée labor throughout history, which would not be considered forced labor but which would likely be unpaid as it was in so many cases throughout nations (that I could find). There does seem to be evidence that workers were paid, perhaps in food or beer, but this source was using a few examples to cover the whole as well as being associated with the Egyptian govt.
So, while not using chattel slaves like cotton plantations, Egypt seems to have used a smattering of different kinds of employed or forced labor to meet its infrastructure and construction labor needs. A complicated subject and one that bears being accurate about when repeating, but probably something GG hasn’t thought about since middle school, like so many of us.
GG is awesome 👏 so glad to see you two collaborating!
Thank you!
I was expecting something else to be the most, um . . . interesting . . . legal discussion I'd be following today. This was much more pleasant!
It bugs me how many people even some lawyers say you have a right to confront your accuser, when the sixth amendment says “witness”. A witness called against you is not necessarily an accuser, and the actual accuser, the prosecutor is usually not a witness.
While one must argue that there are differences in type, it seems to me that both "a witness against you" and the prosecutor can be deemed "accusers" even if the term, as applied to the witness, may be more colloquial than strictly legal, technically. If the facts to which the witness is testifying are inculpatory of a crime on the part of the defendant, it can be said that they are accusing the defendant of participating in or contributing in some way to those inculpatory facts. One would rightly frame their testimony as being accusatory.
It's possible that someone may be able to cite or hypothesize an instance where the blurring of the distinction, by which you may be technically correctly bugged, can be used to relevantly effect an outcome in court. I'm just not clever enough to conceive one.
In the end, I kind of have to agree with you in that I feel I would have greater confidence being represented by a lawyer who strived for utmost accuracy, being careful and thoughtful with their choice and usage of words.
Thumbs up for this video an BIG thumbs up for @godlessgranny, who I was not familiar with . Paul, I hope we see more of here here.
Wallace doesn't approach an academic question as an academic.
Roll credits.
Wallace has repeatedly said that he "presents" evidence. He says he knows how to package and present evidence to juries. It would make me so ticked off, I would complain that presenting evidence of what the lawyer does and he's not a lawyer.
Thank you for pointing that out.
38:57 The author of Acts backs up the author of Luke!?! You don't say! I wonder if they knew each other!
So funny
Ayyyyy godless granny! Love her channel, she's great
JWW does NOT want to meet GG in a dark back alley rhetorical smackdown!
I adore Godless Granny in the Leia outfit, that's just so perfect. The algorithm gave her channel to me and I subscribed immediately out of delight with finding another woman in these spaces, there's a lot of them with wonderful point and perspectives but they don't get responded to by the apologists hardly ever so it took a lot longer to find them.
I am fairly certain this "detective" would struggle accurately detecting if it was raining outside or not.
It's really difficult for me to believe that he did not detect that he was bald-faced lying to the public about his being an official cold case detective prior to his conversion. His entire impious grift for god empire was built on this foundational lie. ("You sit on a throne of lies!")
Sergeant Skeptic has done a few videos on examining Wallace, you should get him on Paul, he's a fairly new channel.
Of course you've discussed this issue before. But it hasn't really hit me until now that it's reasonable to draw a clear distinction between reports "published" contemporaneously vs those published as, well, frankly, religion. ALL evidence points to the interpretation that jesus' experience did NOT make any sort of "big public splash" which should be spread for all to hear. Instead, the evidence is the sort which suggests that the gospels were written for believers, as a way to build their faith.
Right? And kind of corollary to that end are the increasingly exaggerated claims to elevate their deity, as a means of aggrandizing themselves and their culture as superior to the surrounding peoples/cultures, and all of the gods being claimed by those other cultures up to that time. It's directly analogous to, "I'm better than you because my dad can beat up your dad."
We need to have more and more folks cringing at the idea that Wallace has ever provided "evidence" to, or testified in a court of law concerning anybody's guilt, until we get to the point where people in positions of power are reviewing everything he ever touched.
I didn't know GG was a lawyer. I've been on a courtroom legal analysis kick lately and following a lot of lawyers on UA-cam. It'd be pretty cool to merge my interests in atheism and law if GG decides to do more of this.
Conversion backstories are such a central pillar of apologetics that it makes sense to build them up in their absence. I don't even think it's a deliberate and conscious choice. If you've sat through enough sermons or evangelical talks you'll notice the ubiquity of "I once doubted" or "I once strayed" and the inevitable dynamic return to the "straight and narrow." It makes for a great story, just like the gospels.
I find that likely. It's also possible that they are consciously choosing to share a less than true conversion story, rationalizing it as a "good lie" bc they believe it will make them more effective.
@@quinn0517 Agreed - In my experience the embellishments grow the most in the follow-up "Q & A" section, especially in youth ministry with doubting youths. For whatever reason that's where the most outlandish and, well, cringey anecdotes take flight. I shudder at my recollections on both sides of these.
“I was a non-Christian when I read it.” I call BS.
Omg as an attorney I LOVE this. These are the things I’m yelling at my phone when watching Paulogia’s others responses to J Warner Wallace. He acts like detectives build and present cases in trials. They don’t do that.
7:50 Regarding the "excited utterance" exception to hearsay… that assumes that the person actually *was* excited by something they just witnessed. People *can* pretend to be excited while lying. Thus while it is unlikely that somebody excited is lying, that doesn't mean that every *apparent* excited utterance is likely to be true.
More importantly, the *stories* of the bible are not excited utterances. They are stories, with some excited utterances in them. But authors quite often write fictional excited utterances, so this tells us *nothing* about the truth of the stories.
11:45 Based on the evidence, many cops & prosecutors *don't* adhere to this bit of philosophy. Their motivation is convictions.
Are you saying that when I excitedly utter to my wife, "Yeah, Baby take my full nine inches.", that I may not be able to rely on the court to support the veracity of my implied claim? Dang, I even nearly had myself convinced.
obviously there should be steps taken to determine whether it was a genuine excited utterance. But most people aren't that good at pretending to be excited. It's exactly why Europeans tend to get annoyed with American "positive attitude"; it's so clearly faked.
Imagine reading a story claiming to know what happened to another character when they were all alone in the desert talking to the devil and thinking: sounds like an eyewitness to me
you mean Jesus couldnt have told them?
Wait a minute, are you saying that Gollem's introspections alone in his dark cave were not . . .
Even worse than the breadth of knowledge that they don't have about law, is how much they overestimate what they think they know
J Warner Wallace investigating the gospels with the tools of a homicide detective. I can't really think of any set of tools or experience less suitable for this endeavour. How does being a homicide detective give you an edge over anybody else?
Yarn on a board?
The detective genre has been very popular for a long time now, so leaning on that can be profitable for book sales. Oh wait - did you mean for getting to truth? (In this case, I would be very interested in reviews of any cases where JWW was a lead detective…)
It doesn't. What you really need is a legal reporter from a Chicago newspaper. That would do it!
"How does being a homicide detective give you an edge over anybody else?"
Well, obviously you use your knowledge of how to detect, assess, process, and interpret evidence to kill "anybody else" who threatens your edge over them without leaving clues behind.
I love granny, thanks for giving her some exposure!
Listening to Wallace speaks about the gospels,I always wonder how many innocent people are in jail due to Wallace's investigating prowess, and how many guilty people are set free. 😂
Apologists must yearn for the old days where they could say just about anything in front of a congregation without any fear of being fact-checked.
Love when apologists bring up the hearsay argument and try to say that no history could be trusted if we used that rule, Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon isn’t claimed by historians to be divine or that it required a supernatural act.
Yeah considering it's not just four gospels there's something like 50 gospels, they're not historical or biographical at least not in the modern sense.
Sargent skeptic is 3 things, a critic of Mr Wallace, a retired detective and someone that would fit right at home here.
Edit minor typo
Leave it to a lawyer! Thank you Godless Granny!!
I love how apologists demand evidence to prove the existence of someone like Caesar, a human being, with the evidence necessary to prove God casting magical spells, should be equal.
I will add to the plethora of godless granny praise. This was so interesting for me because I have never heard the rules and exceptions to heresay. Well spoken and full of fun facts and information on the legal aspect of evidence in the bible. Thank you Paulogia!!
To be a detective means that you passed a civil service test. Nothing more. If you think that being a "detective" makes you a Sherlock Holmes just watch all the cop interaction videos and how much true "investigations" goes on.
He is just a retired civil servant, collecting a pension, who has found a lucrative second career. How he is a "investigator" but acts like he's a attorney shows his delusions of grandeur. He's no Jack Webb "just the facts" investigator for sure. If he was all his books would be reduced to the size of the report that he would give to a actual District Attorney and no one would pay for that.
Yes! Godless Granny! I love her so much, my algorithm is finally in tune when i saw her in my feed (along with the many xtian ads ofc)
The more I hear Wallace speak the more I think every case he ever worked on should be re-examined.
It's great that you have Godless Granny on your show!!
Fantastic video!
Best grandma bedtime story I've heard in 45yrs.
As a former lawyer, I love this stuff
Oh my god, Godless Granny?! I didnt expect to see you here! I love your content, its so well thought out and even handed. I wish you had more subscribers, you definitely deserve them! Im happy to see you here!!
Great job guys. The only thing not mentioned (but Paul has mentioned before) is that eye witness accounts are the poorest evidence one can present.
Jim got a taste of show business appearing on TV shows as a police officer. Now he appears on stage before applauding thousands at megachurches. The adulation, fan mail and money must be addictive. His show business career will also extend far beyond his police force retirement age.
Of COURSE Josh is a liar for Jesus. They ALL are.
Great to see an appearance of Godless Granny here, her channel is definitely one of my faves.
Nice to see two of my favorite UA-cam creators working together!
Someone should go reinvestigate J. Warner Wallce's old cases...
Seems to me that if I knew I was dying, that would also be a heightened state of emotion and the hearsay rule would apply
J Warner Wallace is a demonstrated liar. Why does anyone give him oxygen.
The “Prove Jesus in Court” and “Did Aliens Raise Jesus?” thumbnail graphics with the text should both be on T-shirts. Awesome imagery!
Thank you both, Paul and GG, so much for this.
Two of my fav creators! Great video!! ❤
Fantastic episode! Keep exposing these charlatans!
I love how obviously absurd Wallace always is. If a criminal said "I'm innocent, I have 500 witness to my alabi...but you can't talk to them or even know who they are" would be say "welp, good enough for me, you're obviously innocent."
Ossifer Wallace starts with his bottom up.
Just the fact that Wallace thinks courtroom standards of evidence are relevant to the work of a historian tells me he is not particularly qualified to be making a call on this issue.
He totally hand-waves the part where he has to justify that the Bible is even second-hand testimony in the first place.
Wow. This is the most informative thing I’ve seen in a while.
That was superb
The problem is if an innocent person is convicted the legal system would rather bury it than admit a mistake.
'So it looks like...' puts on sunglasses, 'This isn't the gospel truth.'
I really enjoyed this collab with Godless Granny ! KUDOS!
Can you imagine a case now in the 2020s that would require the taking of the declaration of independence into evidence. I feel I could dream up a hypothetical scenario, but I don't know how realistic it would be in how our judicial system works.
Fact: there is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found anywhere in any historical record from any historian from that era outside of the Christian bibles.
Josephus and Tactius were born long After Jesus died.
Pliny the elder makes no mention of Jesus or miracles.
One of the main Roman historians from that era .
One must pause.
That depends on what you mean by long after. Josephus was born in AD37. Tacitus a couple of decades later.
I honestly don't think Josephus even wrote anything at all about Jesus.
Josephus didn't write about Jesus, he wrote about what this new-age group calling themselves Christians believed. That makes your fact even funnier.
@@rembrandt972ify so they are children.. second third hand witness.
Josephus is a known later insertions by church anyway.
@@rembrandt972ifyWell the mention of Christ is what apologists hang on. They tend to overlook the fact that that is probably a forgery added later.
@@Eric-cj8sb I think the proper term is interpolation, but yeah, forgery is close enough.
Love this
Great video 👍
Can not understand why Granny, and Paul, don’t have more followers! Their videos always provide a wealth of knowledge and facts, with words carefully chosen, and are well presented. They both always get me thinking!
Thank you
I seem to keep seeing cops turned pastors of late. Law enforcers backing a belief system that basically boils down to "Do as you are told or you will go to a bad place." Gosh.