Resurrection Evidence Grudge Match (Dr Mike Licona vs Paulogia)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2022
- They finally meet face-to-face! Resurrection scholar Dr Mike Licona and resurrection nay-sayer Paulogia are finally having an actual conversation with each other, after years of throwing barbs at each other in video responses... they can finally settle some scores like real men. Over video call.
From the so-called apostle martyrs willing to suffer, to historical sources for the death of Jesus' brother James, to my naturalistic resurrection hypothesis and legendary development, to mass graves. Disagreements from the past are opened and healed.
== SIGN UP NOW FOR ==
==== BART EHRMAN vs MIKE LICONA RESURRECTION DEBATE ====
tinyurl.com/BartDebate
Videos Covered -
• Guarantors of the Resu...
• 5 Scholars Attempt my ...
• Resurrection Scholar A...
Shout out to @MythVisionPodcast !
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Wait, you're a legend? Doesn't that take like 3 generations or something? :P
😂 😂 😂 😂
And they have never found Paulogia’s body in a tomb either.
@@johnbiggscr I mean, there was this one time, but everyone involved was more than a little tipsy. It was a mausoleum, though, and he wasn't so much dead as dead tired, so maybe somebody took him literally when he said that. 😉
@@johnnyrepine937 Don't forget that tipsy people are not good court witnesses, that surely is embarrasing.
Wow, the pile of evidence keeps growing.
That's clever 😆
I love how these apologists claim they can't remember what you said a year ago ON TAPE, yet they claim stuff that was written decades to a century later by people who weren't even present at an event are somehow accurate accounts!?!
👏👏👏👏👏👏
🤫
Excellent point
I find the Martyrdom argument to be extremely weak. We don't know exactly how the Apostles died, when they died, who died, why they were killed, or if they were given a chance to recant their beliefs prior to death. Additionally, it's still entirely possible that they weren't "lying" about their beliefs, but they could have just been mistaken about their beliefs, but still believed them sincerely.
Exactly. If you had a hallucination that you thought was real (a spaceship in the sky, for example) and were telling people about it, and got killed for saying it, it doesn't mean the spaceship was real, just that you thought it was.
Reminds me a lot of the ufo cults that started becoming popular back in the 50s.
My favorite example would be The Seekers, also known as The Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, which were started in East Lansing, Illinois back in 1953 by a staff member of Michigan State University by the name of George Laughead but its ‘prophetess’ was named Dorthey Martin.
It's an interesting story and shows a lot of parallels between it and early Christianity.
I'd recommend the classic book _When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World_ by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter.
I also know a UA-camr named Theramintrees, who is a clinical therapist in the UK, who has covered the subject in his Debunking Prophets part 1 video. It's much more digestible and succinct if you don't have the time.
And later church leaders calling them martyrs when historians said they were killed for political reasons fits right with legendary narratives as well. Ppl get called martyrs by believers all the time when the actual reason for their death had nothing to do with their faith. Martyrdom is a very nebulous concept and all one needs to do to be considered a martyr is to be believed to have been punished or executed for their ideology, regardless of whether or not that's actually what happened.
For example, ppl who shoot abortion doctors or burn down/bomb abortion clinics that are then arrested and sentenced to prison are considered martyrs for their faith. They were willing to face the legal consequences for their actions - and their actions were both motivated by their religious ideology and considered the "right thing to do" by those who agree with their religious ideology. BTW, that means that _all_ religious terrorists are martyrs - regardless of whether they're imprisoned, killed in the process, or executed. That's how martyrdom works.
The one thing that martyrdom does not mean is that they had an opportunity to recant and refused. Someone who bombs an abortion clinic, gets arrested and sentenced to 20+ yrs in prison can recant and repent all they like - they're still gonna face that sentence within the legal structure of the nation they reside in. Remorse can make a difference in sentencing sometimes, but not whether or not they're guilty. And remorse never means that you'll be free to go with zero consequences - which is what Christians who talk about martyrs refusing to recant like to pretend would have happened.
A good example of this is actually Joan D'Arc. She could have recanted and repented until she was blue in the face - the English would never have let her go free. She was a symbol to the French and they needed to make an example out of her. They wanted a religious confession, but they needed the political statement. Her fate was sealed the moment she was captured by the English.
Exactly, allow me to copy/paste what I wrote to someone else in this comment section:
The crux of the matter is "Did X really happen?"
Martyrdom doesn't prove anything about X, one way or another. Martyrdom proves something about people who have a position about X, not about X itself. That people gave their lives, allegedly, for an idea, doesn't mean the idea is true (see the Heaven Gate cult story...). It brings nothing to the table to affirm the truth validity of the claim.
Apologists always bring this up because they love straw men, they are easy to defeat. They claim mythicists, or non believers, argue that the alleged martyrs were dishonest in some way, no one claims that. It's just another straw man used as a diversionary tactic to avoid the main issue which is: there is absolutely no reliable evidence that Jesus resurrected. If you believe that, it is 100% faith-based.
The crux of the matter is: Any person being given a chance to deny their claim that they saw Jesus being both crucified _and_ resurrected, in exchange for their life.
Not one single person who supposedly saw Jesus both before the crucifixion and also afterwards is known to have been offered that chance to recant their claim.
And that's the only meaning of "Martyr" that would add weight to the supposed resurrection story.
“This isn’t widely known, but there have been several more remains of crucified victims discovered in ossuaries in Jerusalem.“
Citation most definitely needed.
I don't think Jesus was ever put in the tomb. Crucifiction victims' bodies were thrown into pits or just left to rot on the wooden structure.
Bart Erhman said that in a lecture.
Well I expect there were friends or family of some of the crucified who had enough money/influence to get the remains and inter them in a more dignified fashion.
Still doesn't mean this happened to Jesus.
I would have thought, if Jesus was that popular/loved and someone organised his body to be moved to a tomb, his followers would have known about it and visited at some stage.
There’s an unbelievable number of people who have been willing to suffer and die for religious beliefs that are different than their brand of Christianity or Christianity in general. They can’t all be right so there are people who martyr themselves for a religion that’s not true. Martyrdom is not evidence.
Martyrdom is grasping at straws. It's another card in the house of cards that is apologetics.
That doesn't really adress their argument though, since the argument isn't about martyrdom per se, but about how martyrdom proves convinction (which is fair), and how conviction proves that the disciples didn't lie (which is also fair).
The issues are still numerous, but the reasoning itself is sound, the things that aren't fair at all are 1) it's more probable that dishonest people died for a lie than for a man to have risen from the dead, so although reasonable the logic is insufficient, 2) martyrdom hasn't been established, 3) even if the argument is granted and we suppose that a man rising from the dead is more probable than one or more people dying for what they knew to be a lie, it's still more probable that the martyrs were mistaken about the resurrection rather than a resurrection having actually taken place.
And of course more broadly the biggest issue is that even if you conceded that jesus rose, it wouldn't actually prove that christianity is true.
Heck, considering that the bible outright explicitly states both that god deceived people, and that people inspired by satan would do similar deeeds to jesus, you could probably even concede that jesus was risen by yawhe and you'd still not have proven christianity.
You’re absolutely right, but to be fair Licona wasn’t arguing that Christian martyrdom in general is evidence for a resurrection; he was arguing that Paul, James, and the eleven apostles, all of whom were supposedly eyewitnesses to such a resurrection, died or were willing to die for the belief that Jesus rose. That is significant because most religious martyrs haven’t been eyewitnesses to the purported events they died for. Licona’s problem is that the evidence is not good that most of these men actually died for refusing to recant a resurrection belief.
@@timothyhicks3643 That and the fact that it's much more credible that those eye witnesses were earnest but mistaken rather than earnest and actually right.
Plenty of earnest people reporting demonstrably false supernatural events, zero currently investigable people having witnessed a supernatural event were right about it, which doesn't exactly give great confidence to people from a much more superstition prone age where informations weren't easy to check and misinformation were just as easily spread around.
If martyrdom was evidence, it would be proof that Islam is the true religion.
It’s incredible how these scholars seem to treat centuries like we would treat years in terms of time and accuracy. Oh, it’s second century. That’s early. 🤔 A challenge : Please report a historical event from the 1920’s only from stories you have heard from people. Or from the 1820’s. I wonder how much reliability scholars would give to your reporting.
And, to add the religious bias to the equation, take the stories of Joseph Smith from the 1820’s. Bet you a Mormon and someone who is not a Mormon will have vastly different accounts.
84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Scholar and historian Colin Hemer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and/or archaeological research.
Here are 10 facts of the 84:
1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports [Acts 13:4-5]
2. the proper port [Perga] along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus [13:13]
3. the proper location of Lycaonia [14:6]
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra [14:6]
5. the correct language spoken in Lystra-Lycaonian [14:11]
6. two gods known to be so associated-Zeus and Hermes [14:12]
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use [14:25]
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates [16:1; cf. 15:41]
9. the proper form of the name Troas [16:8]
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace [12:14]
@@Justas399 So if someone claims that downtown El Paso is between Horizon City and the Franklin Mountains State Park then obviously Pecos Bill and Slew Foot Sue bounced to and landed on the moon.
Yeah it wouldn't sound great if they said 4 generations ago was a short time
@@Justas399 How many mistakes were also compiled and listed? I realise that just because New York as a city is a fact does not make Spiderman pop into existence. It would just be interesting to see how honest this Colin Herner person is.
@@Justas399 That was freaking lame.
I bet we can extract way more facts from "Gone with the Wind", which means, of course, that Scarlett O'hara was a real person.
I always love what happens when someone actually checks the sources of these Christian "scholars"... we always find them to be vastly exaggerating their sources when not simply lying about them outright. If a scholar in any field other than religion was as sloppy as these guys, they'd be laughed out of their grants.
Being sloppy, and using fallacies, is a requirement for apologists. It is the only way for an apologists to be successful.
@@andreasplosky8516 As well as signing away their souls to promise always to find in favour of their religion.
@@lil-al At a minimum they need to say goodbye to their integrity.
Apologists come in all stripes. There are tobacco apologists, fossil fuel apologists, and even apologists for war and rape.
Sloppy argumentation is virtually ubiquitous among all of them.
Licona: "you only mentioned josephus, you didn't mention these 2 later Christian historians"
Also Licona: "josephus's account is the best account and the two Christian historians accounts are often unreliable"
Haha. I guarantee you lacona would not accept his own apologetics if they were presented in favor of ANY religion that he was not indoctrinated into.
+K Hewett, writes _"I guarantee you lacona would not accept his own apologetics if they were presented in favor of ANY religion that he was not indoctrinated into."_
That's a very, very common trait among biblical historians. If the normal methods of determining historicity were used to consider the life of jesus no one would consider him a historical figure. If the same methods they use with jesus were applied to others, King Arthur and Robin Hood would be considered real people.
@@fred_derf it's the desire for their previously held beliefs to be confirmed. So much of all their source material is church traditions and letters of those wishing to strengthen their own church, that no one would ever consider them to be credible without external sources confirming it.
@@fred_derf Jesus would probably still be considered like many other figure mentioned in history that multiple people talk about and that are purported to have done magic : a real but normal guy who inspired legends about him.
@@nathanjora7627 Agree this.
@@nathanjora7627 Which would put him on the level of King Arthur or Robin Hood.
Mike dodged the question 😂😂 man just kept mentioning Peter and Paul… how about the other 10?
it’s really sad. paul specifically asked for evidence of people other than peter, paul, and james, and he immediately dives into “well i have about a dozen sources”. the person who already believes will hear this and go “he’s got a dozen sources about all 12 apostles!” and ignore the specifics of what he’s saying. virtually ALL of his dozen sources only mention the people paul *specifically asked him to exclude*.
Mike Licona and Sean McDowell are definitely among the most decent / honest in the current batch of apologists.
And that's not saying much.
That maybe so, but unfortunately, like all other apologists, and, in fact, most religious people, they are affected by two issues: confirmation bias AND cognitive dissonance. The first issue is so common that most people, including myself, are affected by it to some degree or another; but coupled with the second issue, it makes whatever they say very unreliable.
Yes, those two are definitely the gold and silver medalists of jumping over a very low bar. Completely agree.
UMM honest ? really ?
Yaaa paulogia is a legend! An almost to 100k!! Preemptive congrats my friend you deserve it
Thank you.
Wow I didn't even realize that. Great job Paul
Paul's channel is doing its best to make up to the world for Canada's unleashing the JBP bomb technology to the cosmos. I wish Jordan had just gotten his tenure. It would have simplified everything. Maybe he would be happy to be grading papers instead of exploring the Russian high-end medical system for quack cures!
@@widescreennavel
Perhaps come back after you have understood the J.p.B. facts in their entirety.
@@VaughanMcCueHe's a quack.
Apologists' best efforts leave me not just unconvinced, but amazed at thier desperation.
Mike has an incredible skill for ignoring the question and answering questions for which the answer was already established in the actual question posed, not even the first time I've heard him do this on the topic of martyrdom specifically.
Yeah, he's a bull artist.
That is the primary rhetorical device used by Christian apologists.
And Mike presumes the truth of too much of the text. He always speaks of the “group appearances” in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15, without addressing whether this early preliterary creed is factual and what methodology or sources he uses to corroborate this “group appearance” claim, since scholars agree Paul was merely reciting this creed he had heard from others. Also, Mike always speaks of Joseph of Arimathea as the person who buried Jesus, without addressing whether there are any reliable sources to corroborate whether Joseph of Arimathea was a real person.
I've been calling that a Politician's Lie for a couple decades now. Really glad they pointed out the trick in Zootopia, too. Hopefully people start noticing the cheap dodges more and more.
@@real.evidence In any case its just a list of people who claim to have seen Jesus post death assuming that everyone listed is real. We have people claim to have seen famous people who we know are really dead like Elvis and Hitler.
*_Mike looks like a defendant's lawyer summing up to the jury when everyone in the room knows the defendant is guilty as hell!_*
Joseph Smith lived about two centuries ago, there are writings about him from that time which means he is way better attested historically than Jesus, whose attestations are from up to centuries after he lived.
Did Joseph Smith exist? Sure.
Did he get gold plates from an angel? Why would anyone believe he did?
Hey, he got eleven people to sign a testimony saying they saw the plates. Which is totally a thing you do for an object that exists and is real. Trust me.
You handled it superbly Paul! You are exceptional, rational, thoughtful and intellectual up there with the best, when putting people on the 'spot' with poignent points of salient matter!.... love your channel mate!!
Thank you kindly
I like people that can disagree yet be civil, even friendly. We need more of this.
I don't think "playing at humoring the dumb atheist to pretend like we're open minded' is civil, but I guess some people can't get past façades no matter how transparent they are.
it's like mean girls in high school inviting the actually-smart but unpopular girl just so they can laugh at her in a controlled setting. Especially since the quote-mined lies and misrepresentations are going to be in their next video about Paul, either taking bits of what he said and dissembling a bullshit answer, or "paraphrasing" entirely made-up quotes and defeating those straw men handily to impress their brainless audience.
Personally I think that's a lot less fucking civil than calling someone a fucking asshole to their face.
I'd rather prefer the conversation is productive, rather than civil. A civil conversation that doesn't lead to anything is pointless and boring.
@@WhiteScorpio2 Funny you say that since the single most productive discussion I've ever had with a YEC began with us trading insults back and forth for the first several exchanges. Not _just_ insults, of course, but hardly civil.
Until we both realized we weren't wasting each other's time, the way shitstains like Licona and Turek do with their betters. I took the YEC's conspiracy nutjobbery (Mary Schweitzer's stuff misrepresented, funnily enough) seriously and explained why he had been misled and lied to, and he actually thought about my answers to the things he brought up and realized I actually had a point.
In particular, he made me listen to a radio host pastor call in to a radiometric dating lab to sett up a carbon dating test for a dinosaur bone, to "prove" scientists lied about the age of fossils. I listened to it, explained that the lab guy did a poor job telling the radio host to piss off (I'm paraphrasing), but that the radio host was specifically asking for _carbon dating_ for something _that couldn't be carbon dated._ The YEC actually saw my point there, about the pastor specifically asking for something that would give a bad result so he could lie about what it meant. We weren't insulting each other anymore at that point.
Actually, I find incivility quite useful. After trying to be civil to an insipid little prick who wasted my time until he could find _ANY_ excuse to bail out of the conversation and accuse me of being a meanie doodyhead when he was cornered, now I frontload the insults. Separates the wheat from the chaff, and shitstains like Licona are chaff. Anyone who's going to whine and run away does it at the first 'fuck', anyone interested in answers puts up with it and concentrates on the substance.
There's not a lot of wheat, and I have no time to waste on chaff. Works out nicely.
@@WhiteScorpio2 LOL, good luck with that.
The Faithful will never accept a rational argument, since faith is knowing without proof.
At this stage there can probably never be a "productive" debate between the two groups.
They will pretty much always state the same case, then retreat believing themselves to be right.
I've watched enough of these videos to see there is a stalemate, with some skirmishes around the edges, which I agree is pointless.
Paulogia is arguing to other Christians like he was, (people who want to know the actual truth), not the true believers who try to bolster their faith be grasping at straws.
@@EdwardHowton
This video was an apologist appearing to give airtime to sell ringside tickets to a fixed fight.
Jesus will not turn up, and it will be nothing but repetitions of the same old dribble.
I look forward to missing it when it comes out as an edited five-minute soundbite.
Paul is a very good exemple for the fact that you don't necessarily have to take an academic route to reach such a level with your knowledge on a particular subject that even specialists can't possibly ignore. All you need is passion, the ability to find that one thing you really like to do. I'm so happy for this channel's success!
You asked about the ten and Licona goes on and on about Peter, Paul ... he is very dishonest in his answer. He is just reassuring the faithful.
Dr. Baden & Dr Collins are my go to for Old Testament/Hebrew Bible content… Equally so Paul has been my go to for New Testament content.. and I say “equally so” because Paul has more than made up for his lack of Ph.D studies through his dedication to logic and facts-based critiques coupled with the time and effort he’s put into reading and understanding the Bible throughout his life.
9:25 "I'd have to look it up". Note even with the attempts towards honesty and clarity in this, this is kind of the reason I like your video responses over live chatting on the subject. I much rather have people be able to take some time, look things up, and come together with reasoned, well put together ideas. Too much off the cuff, or just simple and honest mistakes that they might not have made if they had a chance to write a second draft, or even just vibing with the room and drawn into a particular mindset. It's easy to screw up something, misspeak, or just get honestly confused over some hour long discussion going on without notes and proper prep.
Lol you asked for evidence outside of Peter/Paul/James and then he really just proceeded to list everything about those three and no one else.
If you count the four or so times he circles back to these, it adds up to 12. Or is that 3 raised to the fourth power?
"Early 2nd century is close to when Josephus reports about James"
Okay but when he reported it and when he witnessed it are like... 30 years apart. And also Josephus actually worked in the temple, unlike the writer of the 2nd century report
Paul, you’re my fave. Great job once again. Thank you for all the hard work you put into making your videos. You were the one I felt safest watching when I was still on the fence. I’m still a bit in the angry atheist stage, but gradually gaining peace. My fave videos are when you and Shannon collaborate. 😁❤️
Be warned. Atheism is a dead end.
I'm still in angry atheist stage. 😂
@@Paulogia Don't blame ya. Its a dead end.
@@Justas399Okay. Let's say for argument's sake, I decide to abandon atheism, and become a theist.
Uh.. which religion... should I follow?
If you say Christian... which one of the thousands out there should I join?
@@brunozeigerts6379 Mormonism! 😁
"He's become a legend in the world of atheists"
and yet Licona (and others) are STILL mispronouncing your name even though you pronounce it at the beginning of EVERY video.
It has to be intentional.
I know!! I cringe every time I hear a hard G in Paulogia… I want to shout its Paulojeeea!!!
It's rude and disrespectful
They could also just simply say Paul seeing as that's actually his name.
I think Paul has said that there is no "correct" pronunciation of his channel.
That said, I laughed so hard in that video where someone said it with a soft G - "Wait. You said my name... the way I say my name. Are you sure you're actual Christian apologists?"
It's because they don't care about arguments against their position. They have the facade that they are interested, but its nothing more than that.
So anyone who is actually presenting well thought arguments (against their Christian position) is also someone they don't care about.
Paul you raise the standard for objectivity and fairness. Great job! Keep up the great work!
Paul, you always come through with an impressive video!
You're the best. Honest. Fair. Genuinely curious. As a former fundamentalist, I love listening to these videos as ongoing therapy sessions. They help reveal my many deeply embedded misunderstandings about the Bible and Christianity still in place decades after leaving the church.
Oh my, day long debates. It has its pros and its cons. I think I'll wait for you to give us the best parts, because my brain can't hold that much of debate in such a short time.
The apologists will be making a lot of stuff up as the day progresses and occasionally running the same unconvincing scripts we have heard for the last 2000 years. If Jesus could show up, it would be a first.
The who show will pass as nothing more than a mass debate.
I noticed that when talking about "is there any evidence against the proposition that only Peter and Paul saw risen Jesus and the remaining accounts of sightings are legendary", that he constantly tried to answer the slightly different question "is some amount of legendary material in the Gospels" and then concludes without evidence that more than Peter and Paul saw.
It is refreshing to watch a debate that doesn't decay into a shouting match!
I refused to become a Christian when I was 10. I am 75 now. It's been s great life. I love your channel.
I do. not. care. if they died or not. I understand the need to still talk about this because Christians put a lot of weight into it, but its such a non-argument. Even if we KNOW all 12 died horrible gruesome deaths post Jesus it doesn't mean they actually saw him rise, just they were convinced their religion was true enough to die for it.
Cultures _all over the world_ have had and still do have people willing to sacrifice themselves for their religion. Its frustrating that Christians think their case examples are special.
It's very telling that this is the best evidence that they have.
Matthew 28:17 says some "doubted" when Jesus appeared to them. This explains why, for the majority of the apostles, we never hear anything about them in historical reliable sources. They probably just abandoned the movement altogether.
If I'm walking through a cemetery and I see an open grave. I do not come to the conclusion that that person rose from the dead and is now walking around. Everybody that I've known that has died is still certifiably dead.
Many apologists claim that the women being the ones to find the empty tomb would be embarrassing and therefore, the story is more likely to be true. The reply I have heard to that is that women were the ones who traditionally anointed and placed spices on the dead bodies in order to stop them from smelling since there was no embalming in those days. If Jesus's body was placed in a tomb and properly buried by Joseph of Arimathea 3 days earlier, why would the women be worried about anyone smelling it?!?
I've never understood why martyrdom claims are seen as so compelling. People make poor choices all of the time. Frankly, I'm more convinced by people who suffer their whole lives for their beliefs and still don't recant. Not convinced enough for it to qualify as evidence, but more convinced that they believe and aren't just suicidal. (A surprisingly common problem in early Chrustianity, which led to its declaration as a mortal sin by the early church in the 5th century. Can't be losing followers that way. Too hard to replace in the early days.)
Yes,it seems that are quite a few case where soldiers died holding a position knowing that they would be overwhelmed by their enemy. Many apologists that virtually no one other than the disciples died for something the didn’t believe.
Here is my issue….
Icona knows he is wrong and being blatantly dishonest, my only question to him would be is, “why are you ok with lying?”
Most of these professional apologist are too educated to not know that the "truth" they are trying to sell is a fiction (or lie). On one hand the fiction (or lie) provides them with a hefty income and lofty status within their community, on the other, the truth means more than likely having to sacrifice all that and start over. So they will continue to sell the fiction (or lie) and the truth be damned, and they are ok with that.
Three hours of uninterrupted:
"Papius believed in the resurrection of Jesus and so do the racoon living in my trash can..."
Oh boy, Ican't wait...🤮
I appreciate Mike Licona's honesty when it comes to the history of the disciples and the gospels in this video. I don't have issue with people believing Christianity I have issue with Christians who spread misinformation that make the claims of Christianity look much bigger than they actually are. If you want to have faith that's fine. What's not fine is ignoring facts because they don't fit your worldview or beliefs.
I must applaud you Paul, and even Mike to a lesser extent, for engaging in this conversation. I do not have the patience to pit up with people who believe so much in a fairy tale book. It would be like arguing with a LotR fan, or a Harry Potter fan, who lives their lives, and expects others to as well, by rules and stories set out on a work of fiction. 👍
Paul's driven to help other Christians like him who he feels have been mislead. He is trying to convince them of this, not just it's a bunch of made up stories - don't forget he believed this himself.
@@Cheepchipsable
Sometimes, we believe stuff because alternative information is blocked or camouflaged with erroneous or deceptive stories.
This is a really great conversation and I tip my hat to both of you for doing it in public.
Amazing how the intense light of reason, logic and skepticism shrinks the claims of Christians like spit on a hot griddle. Well done Paul!
Great conversation!
Cartoon Paul is clearly right. He has more books in his background.
amen
The problem with the "not enough time for a legend to REPLACE the core truth" is that we don't know what the core truth was. There were so many early competing ideas and early claims of "heretic" it's just as likely that one of them is the core as any other!
Great conversation. Can't wait for the debate.
You're a Legend in your own time! Congratulations, Paul!
Even if it could be agreed on that the people of that time all 100% agreed that someone came back from the dead, I'd still see no reason to believe them. Take _two seconds_ to look at what the people of that era thought they knew about medical science to come to that conclusion.
We're talking about an era before even the ridiculous idea of the four humors had come about, an era where they thought you could breed specific kinds of sheep based on the sticks you placed around them, where sickness and mental illness were evil spirits possessing people.
If I'm being asked to chose between "literal magic occurred' or 'The people of _that_ time period got something _wrong_ because they were ignorant about medical science" it's not even a contest, I'm going for the latter.
"people of that time..."
I think you could even just say "look at all of the ridiculous things people believe today", and ask how could people back then have been any less mistaken in their beliefs.
@@timbrubaker1787 Absolutely so, only trouble is I've had to deal with people who unironically think that the people from 2,000 years ago were somehow _more_ intelligent, critical, skeptical and less gullible than people of today. Seriously.
LOL @ Licona's podcast intro. Well played.
I think Paulogia should start calling Christian apologists, "apologists" with a hard "G". I mean if they're going to call you "Paulogia" with a hard "G" like they don't get the name game, then they should be "Apologists" with a hard "G" in return.
Seems fair to me. Paul?
😂 love it
And also consistent with the original pronunciation, which is always nice. It’s good to remember where words came from.
@@Florkl All words come from God Himself don't you know? Perhaps God could come down and settle the argument. Would solve a lot of problems...
This was a great opportunity and you used the time well 👍
Mike is an honest and worthy debater compared to many - I appreciate his openess
Now this how these discussions should go
A legend truly! Even though they've never learned to pronounce your name!!
More like they're being passive-aggressive by pronouncing it.
Eh, Apologia was pronounced with a hard G in the original Greek, but at some point during its import into the English language it became a soft G. I think it’s understandable for Licona, who is trained in ancient Greek, to instinctively pronounce Paulogia in the same way he’d correctly pronounce Apologia in an academic setting.
I find none of the "Jesus rose from the dead" "evidence" compelling or meeting the definition of evidence. Almost 100 years later when people didn't conceptualize time and space in the modern sense, is not close enough to the supposed event to warrant belief in that event.
It technically is "evidence", but I agree it isn't strong. The weakest part of Christian apologetics is when they claim that the most probable explanation for the evidence we do have is that Jesus rose from the dead. It wouldn't even be the most probable explanation if we had hundreds of contemporary sworn statements testifying to the events surrounding Jesus's crucifixion, burial and resurrection! The sources we have are way to sparse to use as proof of a supernatural occurrence.
There are conservative Christians who believe in the Resurrection but also acknowledge that there is nothing in the historical record that could be reasonably described as proof that Jesus's resurrection happened. I have much more respect for Christians like that. Nothing against Licona, but I just can't respect his position at all.
I agree
@@hammerotongo4677 The other problem is the evidence is basically there are these guys called christians who say a guy called Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, Thats just a claim not evidence
@@gowdsake7103 Eye witness testimony is evidence. Although we technically only have hearsay which usually isn't admissible in US courts but it's still a type of evidence .
@@hammerotongo4677 It shouldn't be. It is the least reliable of all evidence. See the gorilla walking through casual basketball game videos.
Yo! Paul, are you gonna do something with Dillahunty again sometime soon?
When his health and schedule allows...
Incredible!
Hey Paul saw you chatting with The Creaky Blinder. Excellent job.
Hey, thanks!
Damn I love respectful discussions 👍
I had already purchased my subscription to watch this debate, before even seeing this video. :) Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite people, so I can't wait for this event! :D
You're awesome. Thank you for the video
Not far from 100k subs!
Keep up the excellent work friend.
Well every president has been of African decent if you go back long enough, despite what YEC says.
I was waiting for someone to say that. 😊
Excellent presentation!
7:00 Licona mentions Papius as a source for martyrdom claims. But what Papius says actually contradicts other sources. Namely, he says that both James and John were killed by Jews, while John is otherwise claimed to live to very old age and die a natural death.
Natural death is an inference from the traditional age he's said to live. IIRC, there are other apocryphal sources that he was martyred in old age. May be neither here nor there, as I don't think there's an agreement that Papias actually said this but rather was a misreading by the author who said so (I forget his name at the moment).
@@Bioroid No, it's not, there are sources which explicitely say he died a peaceful death, e.g. Acts of John.
@@kamilgregor And where did Acts of John get the idea? Likely inference from the tradition of John's old age. I said OTHER apocryphal sources state he was martyred. I can't find it now, but I could've sworn I had read at least one work that had him being martyred as an old man. I could be mandela'ing it though.
@@Bioroid we know people take two completely different stories and squeeze them together in ways that don't really work take Judas death accounts, the nativity and genesis creation accounts.
Given this its likely someone took the died in old age and martyr accounts and combined them into martyred in old age.
I'm not denying that either. My point is we can't dismiss either old age or being martyred because there's no inherent contradiction (unlike the Judas story).
It doesn't matter if you are a believer or a sceptic the fact is that we don't know much more than the names of the other 10 disciples, Christian Writings say 'Tradition Says ' which is their way of saying they don't know.
They don't have the same names in the four Gospels. I think the number 12 was decided on after the fact. Twelve tribes of Israel. Twelve signs in the Zodiac. Twelve was a special number.
@@davidwimp701 it's pretty depressing trying to find any absolutely certain fact from the first centuries of the Christian religion
Great question. Disappointing to hear that this debate's primary feature is that it's longer. Didn't his publicist give him something positive to say?
Thanks for the video :)
At 16:42. Why does he call Paul a “Skeptic”? That’s seems like loaded language. In what way is he using the term “Skeptic”? Was Paul a “Skeptic”? What evidence is there that Paul adhered to the methodology of Skepticism? I find it distasteful when apologists do this sort of thing, and they do it a lot.
Thank you.
You're welcome!
This was masterful by Paul… now we have on record a respected Evangelical scholar calmly and rationally undermining the historical case for the resurrection
Such a fan of your content. On tiktok (where I follow you as well) Dan MacLellan is making big waves talking about the creation of the bible and the original meaning of many of the passages of the bible. He's LDS (mormon), but is VERY thorough and well researched in his scholarship. This atheist (me :) ) loves his stuff. I would love to see him on your channel.
21:20 I have to agree with Paul here on Mike's intro song to his podcast, it certainly tickled me.:)
If there was no historical Goldilocks...how do explain the missing porridge and rumpled bed clothes?
I think you handled the later sources well. If you haven't already done a video on why those two sources are suspect, you should do one.
As a Christian, I do believe you presented good counter arguments and did a great job with this discussion with Mike and while I agree with you on him having a cooler intro, you have the second coolest intro music
The more telling question is who do you think was the most honest and correct
@@gowdsake7103 he was definitely honest as for correct, I’m hesitant to say anyone is correct after all his answer to if Jesus was buried in a tomb is “Possible but unlikely” and while I trust Jesus was buried in a tomb, I agree with him that if we disregard the Bible as myth then possibly but unlikely is the best answer. as Dale Martin notes, nothing is New Testament scholarship is never set in stone and the scholarly senses is prone to changing. 50 years from now it may be possible that the answer can change to Jesus defiantly was buried in a tomb, or was definitely thrown into a mass grave.
This channel is far more educational and informative than the standard atheist versus theist arguments or rebuttals we see on other channels. Every video of yours I watch sends me to the bookcase (or library in most cases) to look up things that are being discussed.
high praise. thank you.
Is difficult to debate all the time with people that are not honest to begin with, they will not change their minds, hence the constant moving of the goalposts.
Money is the bottom line for many of them, not all of them, I do believe that there's sincerity in their intentions but is very difficult if not impossible for them to concede.
As a recovering catholic I can attest that the scars eventually heal but take a long time to do so.
Counterapologetics is like an MIT PhD student challenging a kintergarden student to an algebra contest.
Not really at all, especially when talking about actually intelligent and actually knowledgeable people like licona.
They may be professionnal mental gymnasts, but they are still professionals and know their stuff.
Actually arguing against intelligent people entrenched in a false position is the hardest as they have the time and intellect to create rationalisations that dumber and/or more ignorant people wouldn't be able to put together.
Someone left on a cross to rot, and be eaten by scavengers would still leave a skeleton to put into an ossuary later.
Whenever you show your actual image alongside your cartoon image, I find it interesting that cartoon Paulogia appears to be a physically more imposing intellectual superhero representation of yourself, complete with a prominent chisled chin. In contrast your actual appearance seems to be of a physically softer, mild mannered, and even tempered producer of UA-cam content, a regular Clark Kent type. This is not meant to be a criticism of your audio visual choices, but rather as an observation of how those choices appear to me. As a reader and fan of the superhero comics of the 1960s I guess that I am a little envious of someone who can produce and project such a convincing and popular animated comic image of himself.
Mike Licona looked very uncomfortable with this questioning. The amount of times he did a nervous scratch and the large amount of swallowing, is a very telling note. If this is his confidence against Paul, I hate so see what he's like against Bart, it's going to be a slaughter.
Matt Dillahunty would rip him asunder Paulogia is really far too nice
This is just Licona's usual manner when doing interviews or debates. I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of confidence in his position or else why would he keep doing debates with Ehrman and others.
@@zhugh9556 Because he knows he can be ripped to shreds
@@gowdsake7103 Your reply makes no sense.
@@zhugh9556 Is English a little tricky for you ? He is nervous because he KNOWS all he has is faith in a bronze age book with mostly unknown authors
It's a pity that there are no contemporary writings on JC, it's all after he died.
Since Hegesippus gives an entirely different, incompatible, account of the death of James from that given by Josephus, I think you have to pick one of them, not claim two sources for a martyrdom.
Licona misrepresents the data in regards to the word used for Jesus' "appearances" (ὤφθη) in 1 Cor 15. Take a look.
_"Let us now inquire into the meaning of ὤφθη (appeared). ὤφθη is the aorist passive indicative third person singular of ὁράω. There are 29 occurrences of ὁράω in its various forms in Paul, 16 of which clearly refer to physical sight, while only one refers to a heavenly-type vision. For the other 12 occurrences, the term means “behold” (Rom 11:22; Gal 5:2), “understand” (Rom 15:21; Gal 2:7, 14), “make efforts” (1 Thess __5:15__) and others that for the present cannot be assigned a firm category (1 Cor 9:1; 15:5, 6, 7, 8; 1 Tim __3:16__). In Luke-Acts, there are 147 occurrences. Of these, 107 clearly refer to physical sight, while 10 refer to a resurrection appearance, 11 to a vision, five to experience, eight to perceive/understand and six to various other meanings."_ - Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 330
At first, he correctly mentions that ὤφθη (the word used for "appeared" in 1 Cor 15:5-8) is the aorist passive form of ὁράω. But then notice how he lumps _all uses_ of various forms of ὁράω together instead of investigating how the particular form of the verb employed in 1 Cor 15 (ὤφθη) is used elsewhere. The reason this is misleading is because it gives the false impression the verb was more commonly used for normal ocular seeing and not seeing in a "visionary/spiritual/heavenly" sense. Things are quite different, however, when you actually look at how the particular form ὤφθη was used. Take a look at the New Testament usage.
1. Matthew 17:3 and behold appeared (ὤφθη) to them Moses - Called a "vision" (horama) in Mt. 17:9.
2. Mark 9:4 And appeared (ὤφθη) to them Elijah - Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew
3. Luke 1:11 appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel appeared" - called a "vision" in Lk. 1:22.
4. Luke 22:43 appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel from heaven appeared"
5. Luke 24:34 Lord and appeared (ὤφθη) to Simon - taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5 but the appearance is not described. Notice how in the clearly physical appearances to the other disciples the word ὤφθη is not used.
6. Acts 7:2 "The God of glory appeared (ὤφθη) to our father Abraham"
7. Acts 7:26 day he (Moses) appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting together
8. Acts 7:30 years forty appeared (ὤφθη) to him in - "an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush"
9. Acts 13:31 who appeared (ὤφθη) for days - notice how the appearances are not described and compare this to Acts 10:40-41 "but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen-by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." If they were physical appearances then why wasn't he seen by everyone? Why does the author go out of his way to restrict the appearances to a choice few? Saying God "caused him to be seen" is an odd way of saying they were physical appearances. It sounds more like he was flipping a switch on and off. I take it that Luke was very well aware of the spiritual interpretation of appearances and that explains the polemic against them in Lk. 24.
10. Acts 16:9 to Paul appeared (ὤφθη) a man of Macedonia - (in a vision)
11. Acts 26:16 I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you - in a "vision from heaven" - Acts 26:19
12. 1 Corinthians 15:5 and that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.
13. 1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.
14. 1 Corinthians 15:7 Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.
15. 1 Corinthians 15:8 the untimely birth he appeared (ὤφθη) also to me - which was a vision/revelation - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19
16. 1 Timothy 3:16 in \[the\] Spirit was seen (ὤφθη) by angels was proclaimed
17. Revelation 11:19 heaven and was seen (ὤφθη) the ark - takes place in heaven
18. Revelation 12:1 a sign great was seen (ὤφθη) - in heaven
19. Revelation 12:3 And was seen (ὤφθη) another sign - in heaven
The only occurrence where the word can plausibly be argued to clearly mean a physical appearance indicating normal seeing is in Acts 7:26. All the other instances are in reference to visionary seeing, angels appearing, or things being "seen" in heaven. I have a feeling Licona knows that this data does not favor his hypothesis which is why he decided to lump all the various forms of the verb together in order to obfuscate the data. NT Wright does something similar in his book on the Resurrection and he should know better as well.
Later, Licona says this about the word.
_"Segal argues that the aorist passive ὤφθη is frequently employed in the sense of “visionary seeing” or “seeing a divine being.” Thus Paul’s use of the aorist passive ὤφθη in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 indicates that he viewed the appearances as more visionary in nature. However, while the aorist passive ὤφθη is commonly used for an appearance of the divine, there are numerous exceptions. Moreover, in many instances the appearance of the divine was not a heavenly vision but took place in space- time. Thus Paul’s use of the aorist passive ὤφθη does not warrant the conclusion that Paul regarded his conversion experience of the risen Jesus to be a vision with no external reality in the material world, such as may have been the case with the later appearances of Jesus to him and others."_ - ibid, pg. 396.
This is simply shifting the burden of proof. The word is, at best, ambiguous, and so the last sentence should read _Thus, Paul's use of the aorist passive ὤφθη does not warrant the conclusion that anyone really saw a resurrected figure in physical reality._
Using the bible to prove the claims in the bible is utterly pointless anyway
@@gowdsake7103 Just to be clear, this, so far, is simply an attempt to figure out what the Bible actually says.
@@OzixiThrill The bible is factual in what way ?
@@gowdsake7103 How does that question follow in any way from what I've stated?
@@OzixiThrill It follows perfectly ! you say you want to know what the bible says, My point being there is no point as its a story
Paul, did you draw your own icon? I mean... the muscles are cool.
Licona: "We just don't know." Exactly!
you know my report of what happened at the founding of the US and Canada prove that there was a guy in a middle sized city who was a street preacher. 200 years is a freaking LONG time to be close to.
Yes, and this happened in the era of the printing press. Plus people like to forget the utter destruction of the temple AND basically all of Jerusalem, with the slaughter, enslavement and otherwise wholesale dispersal of the population circa 70 CE.
Dear Paul,
I'm not sure how long I've been following your channel. Maybe a year and something? Anyway, I've watched a ton of videos on your channel. My guess is maybe two thirds. Sorry, even though I've been following you for so long, I've never ever commented. I used to be a lurker you see.
I really like your channel. The way you debate your opponents while always staying fair and keeping your calm, never lashing out against even the stupidest of ideas is admirable. I mean, sometimes it's fun to see someone getting all worked up, but I usually favor your approach. Rationality rules. :)
I've been fighting against depression for years now and during that time I've pretty much isolated myself from friends, family and society. I fled into a fantasy world to just forget about myself, forget about my existence. The internet became my only reality, but it was an anonymous one and I still was pretty much isolated since I didn't interact with anyone or anything. I just consumed.
It's only been a few months I've tried to get help and overall it's getting better now, though I have my lows here and there. These days I often turn on one of your videos to be able to fall asleep. You may not know me, but you helped me a lot by just being there, on the internet. Your videos helped me to forget reality during that time.
Now that I'm back in life so to speak, dipping my toes back into reality, I finally have the strength to thank you and by extension, acknowledging you and everyone else on this platform as actual people. It's time for me to put this fantasy world behind me and bring this one-sidedness to an end.
This has become very personal and I hope you were able to bear with me. All of this must be very weird coming from a stranger. In some way this comment served as a stand-in for my relationship with all of UA-cam. I hope that's fine. From now on I'll try to participate in this community more actively. Thank you so much!
A girl from Austria
I'm so glad to have been some small part of it. All my best, girl from Austria. Take care of yourself.
@@Paulogia Danke Paul. Looking forward to your next vids!
Garbage can lids everywhere in anticipation are performing great mid-air feats of whirling dervish antics.
Very interesting
I'd love to see the day when a Christian apologist manages to overcome the very difficult challenge of pronouncing the name Paulogia 😂
Hey Paul, what do you know about "The 500"? Is that 500 people or a group called the 500
Paulogia AND Viced Rhino on the same day?
Now we just need an AronRa video ....
Man that was frustrating.. he knows fine well you were not taking about Peter and Paul
Mass burial would seem to be the rule not the exception especially during times of war and civil unrest.
Occam scores Paul the winner on this point.
And thus the legend grows.
/Hopefully to 100K soon!
People 100+ years after the event dont make a witness. They are just repeating what someone told them about martyrs.
There are many people who witnessed the JFK murder and can tell you where they were and what they were doing when they became aware of it. If you saw Jesus raise a man from the dead, you would never forget it.
@@Justas399 so where is the other writings from the prople who saw it. No traveler went back to there area and told any of the story. If it's only in one book then its probably a fiction story. If peopme around the area also wrote about it, most likely it happened.
@@Justas399 can you really belive that when jesus died that dead saints got out of their graves and went into the city like the book of Matthew claim? If so then jesus resurrection was just another day in the office if dead people who has been buried for years just climb out their graves.
@@defenestratefalsehoods Yes. What it shows is the impact that the resurrection of Christ had on the world. His resurrection was proof that death had been conquered and God used the resurrection of others to proclaim it immediately to others.
@@defenestratefalsehoods We don't have the writings of others who saw Him. Perhaps they wrote to friends and family members but it has not survived for 2000 years.
Take your ancestors of 500 years ago. Do you have any of their personal writings?
Another quality video by Paulogia !
A 7 hour debate! I would love a 10 second NON-debate. Just a short newsflash where any religious fan presents any mechanism to explain any magic (What they do not call magic, by the way)
A debate about the actual evidence for the resurrection would be much shorter than 10 seconds, seeing how there is none whatsoever.
For something they think it true they certainly try hard enough to prove it.