Historian Tries Again with "New Resurrection Evidence" (Gary Habermas response)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2022
- Like a comedian after a laughless set, intrepid scholar Dr. Gary Habermas is on the road trying out new Jesus resurrection material at a conference under the revised title, "Five Historical Facts that Occurred by 36 AD"
For some reason, a huge amount of Gary's supporting evidence relies on misrepresenting Dr Bart Ehrman, and we had Bart on this channel himself to refute him on every point. Gary has taken some of this to heart, but seems to be doubling-down with all-new mistakes.
Frank Turek gave 13 minutes of his podcast for Gary to make his best pitch. Sadly, it was a swing and a miss.
*************
SIGN UP for the Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona Resurrection Mega-Debate www.tinyurl.com/BartDebate
*************
The Best NEW Ideas from the Best Apologists
crossexamined.org/the-best-ne...
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
RE: the early dating of the creed. Here's Jonathan McLatchie, a Christian apologist who is being more objective.
"Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem” since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death.
Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19). Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.” Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10).
These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well.
*The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.* "
Call the police, some non-Christian has hacked Testify's account.
If the chronology of Paul as presented in Acts, being present at the stoning of Stephen shortly after Jesus’ death, and before that being a Pharisee, and being converted on the road to Damascus a few years later, then writing his letters in the 50’s, is true, then Paul must have been a contemporary of Jesus. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a leader of Jews. Studied at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He had been given authority to persecute the Christians. He could not have come out of nowhere (Tarsus) and then suddenly risen to the top. If Paul was who he said he was (and what Luke makes him out to be) he must have been around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, no matter how you figure it. As a young, ardent Pharisee he must have run into Jesus, maybe even had an argument, witnessed Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, been there at the cleansing of the temple, the trial, the crucifixion -been aware of the empty tomb, etc. He must have met people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, etc. Strange that he never refers to any of these encounters. Paul could have said something like this, “Yeah, I was around Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified.” And, “I remember the fuss when the Roman guards reported about the angel coming down and rolling away the stone.” It seems like Paul knows absolutely nothing biographical of Jesus. Doesn’t mention ever having met him. Also, his account of post resurrection witnesses differs from the gospels. And he never refers to Jesus’ teachings. Paul must have been around at the time of Jesus, but he knows nothing about him, other than what was revealed to him in his hallucination. Why would he have to receive this oral tradition if he was around Jerusalem all this time?? The statement that "Paul received this tradition" just goes to show that this tradition was based on a myth.
@@kamilgregor yeah but you know I think mfa sucks tho
@@TestifyApologetics But you'd like to pretend that the Gospels are reliable historical sources.
@@DeludedOne I claim that the Gospel resurrection stories at least represent what the original disciples claimed. And I’m saying that we can tell what these authors were like by other clues in their documents. And I try to give multiple, various lines of internal and external lines of evidence that indicate that their authors are close up to the facts, well-informed and habitually reliable rather than embellishing details. That's not exactly "pretending", but okey dokey then.
I feel Paulogia's thoughtful and well researched presentations are an excellent replacement for weekly sermons.
I'll take it.
I mean, what isn’t a better replacement gor a weekly sermon? I suppose a root cannal.
@Gods love Agape Did a pretty poor job of it, as usual. His attempts are only convincing to his own fans who want reassurance that what they believe is credible. But it's not. No historian or New Testament scholar cares much what WLC has to say, he's just another apologist who makes a good living by stre-e-e-tching and massaging the tiny scraps of (very poor) evidence that are available to make his case. Unconvincing to anyone other than those who want to continue believing despite the total lack of evidence.
@Gods love Agapecould you provide the link?
@Gods love Agape - I'm all atwitter. Do you have a link?
"He's another Christian apologist. Why don't you ask a historian."
I think he's got you there, Gary. 😂
@James Henry Smith It's an awful story.
@@Hhjhfu247 Atheists don't necessarily hate apologists. If anything, the fact that they exist at all is evidence of how untrue their position is.
What atheists do tend to hate is the self righteous sanctimonious dishonest assholes desperate to present us as bad, stupid, or just mad at a fictional god.
@James Henry Smith I'll bet every dollar you have ever earned or will ever earn that you cannot backup that absolutely stupid comment.
How exactly does the USA talking about UFOs prove a piece of shit from a story book?
“They have a naturalistic bias…”
Well, yea. I’ve literally never seen a verified account of a supernatural event.
And if you’re the one making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on you. The cognitive dissonance is palpable
I want to say.. "well no shit. it's the only way to look at the world that routinely produces demonstrable results."
I always love when apologists say that atheists have an "anti-supernatural bias". What a line.
Imagine if one of these guys had electrical problems in their house. They call an electrician who then goes to their home, pokes around for a couple hours and does nothing. Then he tells them that the issue is supernatural....there's nothing he can do. I'm pretty sure their own "anti-supernatural bias" would start showing the moment he gave them the bill for his services.
When there has never once in human history been an actual supernatural event, it is not a damn bias to call BS on supernatural claims.
I do not even know what the hell it means to have a naturalistic bias. Has an apologist ever been able to provide and explain a categorical distinction between the natural and the supernatural? No, they have not. So as far as I am concerned, the word "supernatural" is utterly meaningless. It would be more accurate to accuse us of us having a bias against unlikely events. Which... yes, that is true. And there is good reason for that.
Well naturalism has been a pretty good foundation for making accurate predictive models…
Not only that, but let’s imagine that tomorrow we develop a method to reliably detect ghosts. They would be redefined as part of our natural world. If something can be interacted with and studied, then it’s part of the natural world. Supernatural by definition means something we cannot interact with and have no evidence for. Because if we can interact with them, that means they’re part of our natural world. Supernatural as a term is just an excuse made by people who know they have no evidence for what they believe. You could effectively replace any usage of the word “supernatural” with the phrase “cannot be shown to exist” and it would retain the exact same meaning.
If there is one invaluable trait I'm consistently impressed with from watching Paulogia's videos/presentation, it is his restraint to not use charged language or accusations when describing the errors of the apologists - even when they misrepresent himself. I seem to never find myself to be so charitable and aspire for someone to say the same of me someday.
Yea no matter what the subject or how contentious it may be Paulogia is always calm, clear and thorough.
@@snooganslestat2030 He's the only such channel I watch anymore, because even though he calls people out on stuff, it's never with the smarmy, gratuitous "pwnage" that plays so well on UA-cam.
I’m long past being charitable with people who hate me.
Paulogia responds in a way that would most impress himself at an earlier age.
I think its because he's not only making these videos for athiests, he's also making them for religious people with questions. He knows what its like to believe these things and he knows that being respectful is a good way to convince people to at least listen. Not that there isn't a place for anger and harshness! Its totally reasonable to be mad
I’m skeptical every time I here the words “new evidence” about the resurrection.
by new, they mean bad arguments.
Why not, these are pReachers
The problem with EVIDENCE is that EVIDENCE is such a subjective term and of course, FAITH people don't need much to 'find' what they need to reinforce their 'beliefs'. Extremely LOW BAR.
Slight but important edit:
I’m skeptical every time I hear the word “evidence” about the resurrection.
Note that yes, the apologists have evidence, but it is incredibly bad evidence. They would not be so generous for any evidence that the Qur'an is the word of Allah, would they?
Amen. And I'm not religious (lol). They just keep repackaging the same old tired incoherent arguments, over and over again.
Here’s the biggest problem I have with all these arguments about high and low christology: if ANY of the story was true, wouldn’t god have made sure which story is factually true and known to everyone? Wouldn’t there be no need for the stories to be interpreted and evolve over time?
This is where you get apologists giving you a lecture on the importance of FAITH and all that garbage. I believe the Bible even reminds you around 300 times how important HAVING FAITH is. Reasonable people understand that Faith is no gateway to truth and that truth is very, very important. Also, if Faith is so important, then you can have FAITH to believe in literally anything. So many issues with the FAITH argument it is crazy.
This is an argument that helped push me over the edge towards atheism. Why are holy books always so flawed? Why didn't the disciples write things down if they truly believed? Illiteratacy isn't an excuse, they would find someone to write for them (or God would get literate disciples).
All good questions 👍🤷
All good questions 👍🤷
@@nicholase2868 Exactly... when you learn this place in the world was one of the most illiterate on earth at the time, and myths and legends were absolutely rampant, it makes ZERO sense that the almighty God would make THIS PLACE, the place he shows himself, and on top of it all, actual contemporary historians at those times in that place, never noticed to write any of it down. Yeah.. makes total sense... NOT
Habermas: "source is TRUST ME, BRO"
"People believe they saw Jesus so a resurrected Jesus is true" - Then is Elvis still alive? And bigfoot is real, aliens are real, and so on.
Tupac is still alive according to this line of logic.
And if only JFK Jr. had just showed up for Q followers……
And let's not forget the 12th Imam.. he's not staying down in that well forever you know.
I'm sure it will be good evidence for that in a couple thousand years
@James Henry Smith well I do agree some of you are being mocked
When someone says they have "New Evidence from the Buy-Bull" I imagine a person taking the equivalent of four 500 piece puzzles mixed together with lots of pieces missing and smashing the various pieces together to make a picture that looks nothing like what one can suppose the actual puzzles looked like.
Remarkably these puzzle assemblers can make a living playing with these pieces while the world needs problem solvers for war, famine, justice etc. How much effort goes into praying and evangelizing while we need to plant trees and clean up the messes being made ? Religion is a pacifier for infantile thinking.
All that time wasted. So agree that time could be better spent actually making Earth better, instead of causing CO2 pollution, sitting like stick in mud.
Plus these people are demonstrating more concern for laws like anti-abortion; but if the whole world does not get serious about climate change that will be immaterial. At best, our lives will be utterly transformed by climate change. This is real "fiddling while Rome burns" stuff.
I, instead, imagine that they get black-out drunk before turning to their single magical source again so they don't remember and it all seems shiny and new.
It's more like assembling the puzzle, then painting over it a completely different scene, then claiming it's a "truer representation of what the original puzzle was meant to be.
Thoughts & prayers. Or as I saw someone say tots & pears. 😂
Who qualifies as a historian?
► Someone with PhD degree in History? Yes. You did get the top degree in the field and, presumably, wrote something original which is called a PhD dissertation, whether or not it is later published as a book or series of articles.
► Someone with no degree in History, but who contributes to current debates in History, including Early Christianity, with the methodologies appropriate to the field, a critical mind, and a degree of skepticism regarding contentious issues? Yes. And by "contributes" I mean, usually, publishes academic articles, but "outreach" via the modern social media is also very useful and can be done intelligently.
Taking the most important of those points, an approach that is sound methodologically (and therefore by definition excludes apologetics) and critical mind, there is no doubt in my mind that Paulogia is a better historian than Dr. Habermas, who is out there to prove his faith, not to determine the truth of it.
@James Henry Smith
Save it (Annycrist) 'till after Xmas because I have a vacation booked.
@James Henry Smith
JC miracles- water to wine would be handy if you have had too much to drive but not enough to fall head over healings.
@Vaughan
He keeps posting those same two disjointed lines throughout this comment section.
If others like him hadn't been claiming as much for nearly 2K years, it might not seem so ridiculous,
@@drlegendre
Thanks for letting me know.
Desperation does strange things to people when they are off their caffeine. If I don't get recafeinated, within a couple of hours and I start speaking algebra to my imaginary friend and it gets worse if there IS someone else in the room. 😂
When I was a child, after our Family Pet died, I swear that from time to time, I could still hear him. I swear I could still smell him. I even saw him running in the woods at the back of our home. He left Pawprints in the dirt. Sometimes his Dog Leash would rattle... I can provide you with a Highly Detailed First Hand Testimony, which Dates to within Days of the Death. Is anyone out there convinced that my old Pet Dog Resurrected? And if not, then why bother listening to Saul?
Your dog wasn’t a god.
Seriously, that’s the motivation Christians give when pushed against the ropes with examples like yours. Jesus resurrection is believable in spite of its dearth of evidence because he was god.
@@pansepot1490 maybe his dog was a god, because god = dog backwards. Makes you think, doesn't it?
Saul used to be called Jimmy McGill.
@@pansepot1490 I really appreciate your response. Thank you. I find no fault in your comment. I simply do not believe the Christian Claim. I find it unconvincing. Jesus was no more of a Deity than Jove, or Apollo, or Odin, or Zeus (Our Dog).
@@TheDizzleHawke Genius. I love it.
Irrefutable evidence for the resurrection: Jesus descending from heaven on a cloud doing bona fide miracles and apologising for being a couple of thousand years late.
god saying "hi" would at least be SOMETHING.
I mean that would be evidence for Jesus existing, not that he died and came back.
Traffic is horrible up there with all those souls going up to heaven and down to earth to be born. It’s enough to make anyone late.
Um, it seems to me that resurrection is not a big deal for a divine being. If Jesus came down to Earth, that would only prove his existence, not that ordinary humans have a chance of an afterlife.
The best evidence would be that an average human who was certifiably deceased came to visit us and tell about life in Heaven.
I mean you'd think a couple thousand years of silence through multiple genocides would be a clue.
I like that at the end there it turns into an almost unhinged rant by Habermas - he's so upset that non-believers dare question the historical accuracy of the bible..even though his career of reassuring believers depends on those same people. Wild
That simply demonstrates to all honest people how much of a partisan hack he is and how much people like him wish they could go back to the days where they could force their religion on everyone and punish those who resist.
I love it… his unhinged rant is destroying the last bit of his reputation that was still left.
He sounds more like a low tier youtube apologist who is only parroting silly creationist arguments that he barely understand and not like the great Habermas who is a top scholar.
But it’s also a little bit strange that Habermas, Craig and Price decided to destroy their legacy pretty much at the same time.
@James Henry Smith You doing okay man? Living in such constant paranoia of an end that isn't coming isn't healthy. You get one life, wasting so much of it in unfounded fear is a tragedy. Seek help, things can be better.
It's strange that Turek doesn't ask any difficult questions. It's almost as if he's only interested in hearing "new evidence" as long as it's not contrary to his current faith.
Every time someone he covers mentions Paul, "Paul said", "Paul did x", I just want Paulogia to respond as though they're talking about him haha. "I never said that".
Yes, I do have the humor of a 12 year old.
That would be hilarious.
Well, you are dealing with people with the mentality of 12-year-olds so it makes sense.
@@Lobsterwithinternet hmm
Gary and Turrek, what a pairing of exquisite dishonesty.
@James Henry Smith You ok?
I'll happily nail my colours to this naturalistic explanation of the resurrection claim:
*The disciples lied.*
And Gary is a following that disciples' tradition.
Or Paul and his followers lied since we don't have the words of the disciples.
@@Lobsterwithinternet - I'd say is likely that at least the disciple Peter and and James the brother of Jesus really existed in history, rather than being pure inventions in a story, because Paul wrote a letter saying he met them.
The other disciples ... they have no such evidence of their existence beyond the fantastic and unbelievable narratives in the four gospels.
This a fairly reasonable conclusion since Paul's letter to the Galatians is in first-person, and he goes out of his way to assure the reader that it isn't a forgery.
It seems unlikely that Paul would write about meeting people who knew Jesus personally if they only existed in the imaginations of the later gospel authors.
That said, we have no writing from either Peter or James themselves, so we can't know much about what they really thought or really did.
And I'd still happily defend the position that the disciple Peter was a stone-cold lying scumbag, just based on what evidence we have on him.
Lucian of Samosata says he himself once made up an eyewitness report of seeing a dying sage ascend to heaven as a deity and then he heard people repeat it back to him as true the same day. And the guy who repeated the lie Lucian made up claimed he himself was an eyewitness! And he also added a new report that he saw the sage walking around alive. On the same day! All hail Proteus, I guess...
"Whenever I noticed a man of taste, I would tell him the facts without embellishment, as I have to you, but for the benefit of the dullards, agog to listen, I would thicken the plot a bit on my own account, saying that when the pyre was kindled and Proteus flung himself bodily in, a great earthquake first took place, accompanied by a bellowing of the ground, and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off to Heaven,34 saying, in human speech, with a loud voice:
"I am through with the earth; to Olympus I fare."
They were wonder-struck and blessed themselves with a shudder, and asked me whether the vulture sped eastwards or westwards; I made them whatever reply occurred to me.
34. At the death of Plato and of Augustus it was an eagle; in the case of Polycarp, a dove.
40. On my return to the festival, I came upon a grey-haired man whose face, I assure you, inspired confidence in addition to his beard and his general air of consequence, telling all about Proteus, and how, since his cremation, he had beheld him in white raiment a little while ago, and had just now left him walking about cheerfully in the Portico of the Seven Voices,35 wearing a garland of wild olive. Then on top of it all, he put the vulture, swearing that he himself had seen it flying up out of the pyre, when I myself had just previously let it fly to ridicule fools and dullards."
that's amazing!
Same thing happened to me. Once I told a story that was supposed to be a short lived joke and by evening someone repeated it to me as something that had truly happened. Since it was nothing supernatural I almost believed it myself, lol.
Turns out that “fools and dullards” are very effective in spreading the stories that catch their imagination. One has only to look around to see ample evidence of it.
Easy to believe a purely Divine being was worshiped early on, for the same reason people in all cultures worship purely Divine beings. The Earthly Jesus as a real man was added on later, to compete with rival cults.
Which is why I think Atwill and his theory that Christianity was started by Rome in order to try and pacify the Hebrews with a more government favoring Judaism has some merit. He says the Emperor and his family spread it, but I think he misses the point of Saul. A half Hebrew Roman soldier loyal to the Empire would be an excellent person to push as a prophet. Problem was it backfired an converted gentiles. It is not hard to introduce an idea and see it spread quickly in a mutated form as you present.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 "early on" - early after what?
Gary Habermas saying he has new evidence is like a screenwriter taking an old script, flipping it upside down, and then declaring it a new script.
One thing has become abundantly clear: If Christian apologists approached their subject with the same academic rigor as does Dr. Ehrman, all of this shit would be over & done with tomorrow.
Could not agree more.
I also like the fact that Dr. Ehrman is definitely not the sad angry atheist that most believers
assume we (non believers) are.
I don't recall ever having seen Bart get genuinely angry. Now I have seen him pretty excited, like when some YEC clown misquotes / misuses his work - but this is only to be expected.
The same Ehrman who is laughed at by other scholars? The same Ehrman who dishonestly posits Jesus as similar to Apollonius in his NC lectures, when they have nearly nothing in common, just to prey on ignorant students? LMAO
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 How many accredited universities have you taught at?
(laughing scholars?, citation required)
_Trash talk is cheap._
@@moodyrick8503 Really? Ad hominem attacks? Lmao TRY AGAIN WHAT A MISS! Your boy Bart contradicts himself constantly, he's desperate to justify his own unbelief (which is rooted in "If God real why bad thing happen" i.e. the dumbest reason you could have. But please continue to mouth off!
Bart is seen as more of an entertainer than anything else. The tale of the two Barts, the somewhat sincere Bart and the "I don't give a shit this needs to support my argument" Bart, AKA the Bart in his books.
11:10 Bingo! Gary is just running into a bottleneck here. No matter how much evidence you pile and pile about what the disciples believed, no amount of "what the disciples believed" guarantees that they were rational in doing so. All that shows is that they believed it. You need a seperate argument about what the resurrection appearances were like to know that they were justified in thinking Jesus really rose from the dead. Guess what? You can't get that from 1 Corinthians 15, it's too vague and that's the passage that minimal facts apologists have limited themselves to.
But Paul's account is the earliest and only firsthand source while the authorship of the gospels is disputed as well as their historical reliability. As you said, 1 Cor 15 is "too vague" and the only evidence based inference supported is that these were spiritual experiences since Paul equates his "revelation" of Jesus (Gal. 1:16) with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 since no distinction is made. Moreover, the Greek word for "appeared" (ophthe) was the same word used in the Septuagint for when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs in a non-physical inner revealing sense.
Some of the Corinthians doubted the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12 onwards and so if the empty tomb or the physical appearance stories were true, we would expect Paul to cite this evidence in order to bolster his argument. This is an inference that these details did not exist yet. If they did then Paul would have certainly known about them because he claims to have met with Peter and James.
Moreover, the gospels of Luke and John's resurrection stories have clear apologetic motivation. In the case of Luke, it's clear he was arguing _against_ a more "spiritual view" of the Resurrected Jesus and so he depicts a "flesh and bone" Jesus that is definitely "not a spirit." And so, this data can be explained as pure invention. After all, there is no independent corroboration of these amazing details in Paul or elsewhere. As for John, the apologetic motive for the Doubting Thomas story is clear as well - just "believe without seeing" and you will be blessed.
So the point is we can explain the physical appearances in the gospels without any of the details being historical.
I appreciate that you can see the obvious flaws in the minimal facts argument… but I honestly believe that a maximal facts approach has just as many if not more problems.
Habermas chooses the minimal facts approach specifically because of the problems that a maximal facts approach has… you can’t establish the historical reliability of the gospels to such a degree that you can make arguments that are based on the unverifiable details of the story.
That’s why Habermas bases his entire argument on the letters of Paul.
Just believe without seeing - religion in a nutshell.
Are you implying that it's more likely some people were telling tall tales than magical storybook characters like Jesus and The Easter Bunny actually exist? Surely not!
@@harrycooper5231 I don't know if Jesus rose from the dead, but that Crucifixion story has multiple holes. (At least according to Thomas).
Multiple eyewitnesses testified they saw anywhere from one to three soldiers on the grassy knoll at Golgotha, and some state that the final spear thrust came from that direction.
Many witnesses insist that they heard five nails being hammered, but only four were recovered from the cross itself. One nail, often termed the "Magic Nail" by Crucifixion skeptics, was found in amazingly pristine condition outside the tomb.
Descriptions of the three " mystery soldiers" present suspiciously match descriptions of Josephus, Philo Judaeus and Saul of Tarsus.
Many people don't realize that Judas Iscariot had defected to Ethiopia 10 years prior to the Crucifixion and was a known radical, once posing for a portrait with a copy of the Book of Enoch in one hand and a bronze sword in the other.
Jesus apparently expected the other Temple attendees to rise up when he cleared the Temple resulting in the overthrowing of both the Roman occupiers and the Temple priesthood. He blamed Peter for getting him bad intel and was planning to disband the disciples. Due to him cursing the fig tree just after, this was known as the "Bay of Figs".
Anyone relying solely on stories as their evidence for something they want people to base their entire lives upon frustrate me to no end. You really need to give me something stronger than “the Bible says”.
is it just me or does Habermas seem to be going off the rails as the years goes by? He has reduced the number of "irrefutable" facts, he keeps delaying his new book that will finally prove the existence of his god...and now he has delved into the realm of pedestrian internet apologetics like god of the gaps and misquoting evolutionists and cosmologists.
Like WLC, I feel he dips farther and farther into argument from condescension when confronting criticism as he ages
The blasphemous suspicion is raising its ugly head, that Gary took his work serious, until he had reduced his 20 irreducable claims to nothing and then the panic set in...
He’s reached the epitome of his apologetics, so that’s probably why he’s dragging his feet to prolong the release of his book. We are witnessing his philosophical death throes.
"evolutionists"
I have a problem with that word.
@James Henry Smith sounds like song lyrics
Even if Jebus did exist he had no superpowers and when he died, he was just like all of us when we die, he stayed dead.
But paul saw a "vision" in some clouds!
22:20 They missed the point of the "it's easy to smell a rotten egg" thing. They think it means that if you are incapable of laying eggs, then you can't be trusted to sniff out rotten ones. That's silly. Ask me what's the 99th prime number, I'll say I don't know. Tell me the 99th prime number is 42, and I can immediately tell you that your answer stinks. If your worldview includes contradictory stories about supernatural beings who revealed themselves in the past yet mysteriously refuse to reveal themselves in the present, I should be free to say that your world view is a rotten egg. I don't need to give you a better answer before I tell you that your answer stinks.
Agree but your prime number has problems because, unless you know how prime numbers work and how they scale, you wouldn't be able to tell if the 99th prime number is 42 or not.
@@Lobsterwithinternet (sbunny could know the prime numbers up to 42 and know there are not 98 at that point….)
what, you mean to say you don't know by heart that the 99th prime is 523?
@@Lobsterwithinternet That makes the analogy even more apt for religion. Large groups of people would miss the fact that 42 is a terrible answer, especially if they never stop to question it, and/or they get a warm fuzzy feeling from thinking about 42. Throw in the threat of being shunned if you dare to question the great Douglas Adams, and you've got yourself a religion. The fact that rotten eggs stink doesn't mean everyone can smell it, especially those who have been taught to ignore their sense of smell.
@James Henry Smith you mean... Jesus sends the Antichrist's aliens out into the world, and so the bogus unconvincing sightings of UFOs and aliens and Bigfoot and stuff that happen every week are proof of Jesus, even though they are of Satan and the Antichrist?
It's exhausting how intellectually dishonest these apologists are. I want to see Turek debate an apologist from a different religion so I can laugh at the hypocrisy. I want to see him reject the historicity of Hinduism or Islam without contradicting himself.
If you made millions from it makes that burden lighter.
I am shocked, SHOCKED that Turek didn't point out some of these issues to Gary at the time.
No you aren’t. Turek just said “this makes sense” and then moved on.
Turek is chasing the bag you know.
Why would Turek point out mistakes? *He is an apologist.*
I am interested in the details. How does resurrection work? How don't ALL the other resurrection work? Because they don't. Right? Once this is answered, I am all ears (eyes) for the really technical details. How many mana points does it take to resurrect a 71 kg Middle Eastern male at tomb temperature?
7th level spell slot. And your going to need a rather expensive diamond.
@James Henry Smith satan cannot even exist, if a good AND almighty god is in charge. The UFO topic is irrelevant in the god topic. Especially if you keep in mind what the "U" stands for.
What are you on?
Dr. Ehrman is a treasure
@James Henry Smith I imagine that sentence makes perfect sense to you but I can't tell you how any of that tracks.
Just as my "Near NYC trip" does say much about the city of New York itself, Near Death Experience (NDE) does not say much about the "after life", if any. I am always amazed to hear people use NDE as a strong argument for the existence of an "after life" and infer a God from there
NDEs are an interesting phenomena but anyone who uses NDEs for evidence of anything beyond, "we don't really understand how the brain or consciousness work" is a moron who should be summarily dismissed. Any afterlife, by definition, will always be in the realm of speculation for us until we die ourselves.
@James Henry Smith What is?
@James Henry Smith No, it's really not a strong argument at all. At best, it's suggests there might be something more to investigate. However, most of the investigations into NDEs have resulted in pretty much nothing. Sure, you can find a few outlier cases that keep open the possibility - but that is nowhere close to a strong argument.
"The cannon is the resurrection".
Did anyone else picture Jesus being rocketed out of the empty tomb like the human cannonball guy at the circus, waving to the crowd as he passes, landing on the ground, doing a somersault and then jumping up, hands in the air, while Peter shouts through a megaphone "Don't worry folks - it's all part of the show! Make sure to get one of our world famous elephant ears on your way home!"
Just me?
Definitely not just you.
What I has seen I cannot unsee……well now flying jebus is in my head! Whee! Try the corn dogs and fried bread, buy a balloon! It’s a carnival! 🥳🤡
Basically, yes... except I saw the cannon fire him directly up into heaven. I like yours better.
"How many times do we have to teach you this old man"
-blue shark guy from spongebob
If the res was factual, they wouldn’t need apologists
They'd need a touring company and ticket vendors. Oh wait, we're supposed to also believe in the truth of the ascension and free will defense and authority of the Catholic Church. :)
Profound.
Resurrections are real and occur all the time thanks to science.
You know this logic doesn’t work.
If the moon landing was real, it wouldn’t need defenders… you can use that for any historical event people doubt or have conspiracies about.
@@Iamwrongbut UA-cam is doing something weird where your comment is visible to me only in the notifications, not under the list of comments.
Good point btw.
Thanks Paul, I appreciate your work.
Thank you Paul. I’ve seen many videos over the years but finally subbed a few months ago. Now you’re quickly becoming one of my favorites to watch. I smile when I see a new Paulogia video in my sub feed. Would love to see you in more debates/discussions with apologists. Keep it up buddy!!!
I love that you're contributing to this field, independently of having a degree in it. Scholarship should be about ideas and understanding, not pieces of paper from universities.
Well... University is traditionally a place for doing just that. Too bad it's not free in every country.
Published papers provide credibility. You can contribute to any field but you won’t be given the same credibility. If everyone’s opinion was equal credibility, we would have stagnation in fields of study.
These videos are not contributions to the field. This is a distillation of the arguments of scholars done by a non-specialist for a popular audience. It isn't scholarship. That's not a criticism of Paulogia, he's not claiming to be making contributions to the field.
@@zhugh9556 That’s just your opinion dude
@James Henry Smith ALL HAIL SPAMHOLIO
When someone claims they have new arguments for any religion or the lack of, they are playing you or they were born yesterday
They look too old to have been born yesterday. Therefore, by process of elimination...
I always have to laugh when Paul says "challenge accepted." This is gonna be a good one.
@James Henry Smith - You think so? And you base this on what evidence?
@James Henry Smith - wow, that's quite a story. The Antichrist has chosen Asia as a base? How do you know this to be true?
@James Henry Smith - Your standard of proof is likely to improve as you increase your doses of antipsychotics.
Your Paulogia segments are the most thoughtful, most informative, and most watchable videos on this topic on the internet. Kudos and thanks!
Wow, thank you!
As soon as apologists resort to near death experiences, you know they're grasping at straws
Ain't that the truth.
"Boy who came back from heaven" my ass!
It's fascinating how incredibly weak these rationalizations are for these peoples' supposed "iron clad proofs." But then, as many atheist content providers have been saying lately, these videos have forsaken any attempt at converting non-believers, shifting instead to retention of their understandably dwindling group of believers. Thanks as always for this excellent video, Paulogia. When the day comes I hit the lottery, I'll become a patron. Right now it's a struggle just to pay the rent. I know...whine, whine, whine. Who am I? Dolt 45???
It's a miracle. The video had just finished at exactly the same time as my train pulled into the station and then some random guy jumps up and starts testifying.
This is the first time in my life that I've encountered someone doing the preaching to a captive audience thing and to be honest it was a bit scary. Things like that don't normally happen in the UK and everybody's reaction was the same 'how can I get away from the nutter?'.
It's really some of the rudest behavior imaginable. If the only way you can get an audience is by having them stuck in a train car, this should tell you something.
Why dont I ever get that lucky. What aspect did he start with?
I love countering them as they try to sell an invisible product.
I'm not nearly as technical as these guys, but Im vicious AF!
Both the apologist and Paul both state that Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus but this is not true. According to Paul he fell blind and heard a voice that no one around him heard.
You're thinking of the book of Acts, which Paul did not write
Isnt it amazing how much you can learn once you start truly studying and looking into it? I applaud you for the long journey. It's awe-inspiring to see the contrast between when you started, the direction you thought you would take, and where you are now. I celebrate your endeavor and long journey!
The "great" Gary Habermass?! 😲
Anyone who refers to Habermass in such a way should immediately be called out for their disingenuosity 😱 🤯 🤣
Maybe it refers to a physical quality, such as age, or weight.
@James Henry Smith Feeding the almighty algorithm?
“The liberals”? When did “the liberals” get drawn into the historicity of the resurrection? Who next? ”The vegans”?
shhh nobody tell them the character of jesus was a hardcore liberal.
And the Apostles were literally *communists.* Their commune system is described in Acts.
Left-right cross beliefs.
Still have no idea why Gary is held in high regard. He constantly says things that are just plain false.
It's because he says what they want to hear and gives a pseudo-educated veneer of respectability and sophistication to a belief in Jesus Christ.
I can't find anything containing Peter's testimony to having witnessed the risen Jesus that can't be dismissed as fiction. Obviously the same is true of Mary.
What's my evidence for naturalism? Look at the trees!
It's very telling that these apologists believe that Jesus is alive, well, relevant, and standing over our shoulder. And yet to provide evidence for him they try to look at something that happened 2,000 years ago.
The whole story of Jesus involved him desperately trying to prove his divinity by providing magic tricks and yet he needs to rely on humans to make his case for him now? Right.
Great point. Christians often claim "Jesus lives", but then have to wrap themselves in knots trying to prove it. If he lives, we wouldn't be having this discussion; we could just check it out for ourselves.
You have zero understanding of anything he said or the Gospels then. And by the way, he appears to people all the time. Atheists, agnostics, Christians, muslims, hindus, maybe actually do some unbiased research for once.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 The Gospels are irrelevant; we don't even know who wrote them. As for people encountering Jesus, well, we have no way of verifying that.
@@rossgalbraith3878 My grandfather and uncle also saw Jesus twice. My grandmother saw him once (when she was younger, funny enough she saw him walk into her church and straight out without looking at anybody, then she tells the pastor, he wasn't happy lmao).
Early church fathers knew who wrote them. In fact, in AD 100, Papias said Matthew wrote in Hebrew and everyone else translated. I think if that hypothetical, zero-evidence lost source of Q existed, it's probably some version of Matthew. Scholars will admit that 2 of the Gospels were probably eyewitness. They have nothing to contradict it because there's no good evidence against that notion. Just that there's "no evidence" and unfortunately, western arrogance turns that into fact.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 Verification that your relatives actually saw Jesus?
Gary's list of 'undeniable facts' for the resurrection keeps getting shorter and shorter.
This stuff is frustrating. Even if it explicitly states in the Bible, written by "whoever". It's still just a claim in a book with NO evidence. Would Gary accept the claims from other holy books?
Is he seriously citing _Near Death Experiences_ as evidence for jesus's resurrection? Wow, how the mighty have fallen…
Publish that book!
Even if you took Kent Hovind's alleged approach of using a transcription of his videos / radio show for his doctoral dissertation, it would still be more eloquent and compelling than this book that has been seven years in the making.
To be honest, I think he's never going to publish it and when he dies, someone else is going to pick it up and it will become the equivalent of Joseph Smith’s golden plates: Asserted and quoted whenever they're needed but can never be checked.
Interesting that this apologetics conference that Frank and Gary were involved at had so many anti-woke, anti-social justice sessions. That's relevant here, too. This is about a political vision.
🦞😱You don't say!
That was obvious when Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority back in the 70s.
Coming from a JEHOVAH's Witness background this whole resurrection thing is really weird
"we know there's an afterlife" -Gary......... uh, facts not in evidence your honor.
Yeah, by far the wildest unsubstantiated claim. Even his BS claims about Near Death Experiences tell us absolutely nothing about life after death. Even in the most accepting view of the tales, all an NDE does is describe actions of a damaged and dying human brain. Even taken as fact they can be just as valid with or without an afterlife.
"Hallucinations"... "Visions"... what about good old fashioned dreams? What about projecting an interpretation on things we take as symbolic? What about good old Elvis-sighting-style confirmation bias? Speaking as a mental health professional, I'd say we pretty dramatically underestimate the number of things that could produce belief. As pointed out, we're talking about people living under oppressive Roman law who were so willing to believe, they got themselves to claim -- out loud, to rational adults -- that there were multiple divine beings in their beliefs yet remained monotheistic. That's a whole lot of logic-stretching going on. I think it would take even less of a spark that presented to get the religion going. After all, it happened in every single other religion that has supernatural elements.
My father died in 2015 and I still have dreams where he is alive.
@@kmarklandes8630 Sorry for your loss.
*Confirmation bias;*
They say that _"love is blind",_ but this "love for Jesus" can cause believers to be deaf & dumb as well.
"We know there's an afterlife"?!? How do we know this? Please cite facts and evidence.
NDE , Noetic science , Consciousness Fundamental and Emergence , Fundamental Energy in Thermodynamics , Limits of Reason , Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.....ICU Medical Professional Testimony .... There's actually quite many if you ignore no evidence and investigate every claim .
Habermas needs to get that book of his published so we can destroy it's claims (assuming they are nonsense which is highly likely).
Or if there's a book at all and its not just a device he uses to spout unsupported claims without being corrected.
The main reason I reject the "resurrection evidence"is it doesn't meet my estimation of what evidence actually is. The body of "facts" in question being so unsettled, even by apologetics means it not in actuality a body of facts.
While listening to your video, you and I both said "challenge accepted!" at the same time lol.
🙌
“Minimal facts”, as far as I am aware, are not used anywhere else. Not in history, not in science. That might hint at the nature of these claims.
They sorta are I mean..
Or at least we distinguish between things we *know* due to archaeological evidence and speculation based on historical accounts (which are often extremely biased)
Does anybody else wonder if the magnum opus Gary is writing is real? It seems convenient that it is never finished so ...
Who finishes first? Habermas or GRR Martin?
Reminds me of Mike “Pillow”’s evidence for a rigged 2020 election! Incredible ( as in unbelievable) and never seen.
@@danielkirienko1701 Neither. Both die of massive heart attacks before the work is done.
Let's face it, the second coming is more likely to appear at this point.
It's being ghost-written by Mrs Columbo.
5 facts…..probably. That’s no way to begin your argument
all the best lawyers do it
@@Paulogia Also, all the worst ones.
Your quality is astounding my friend.
thank you!
what I really hate is how he says, "If I understand him right..." or something similar. So when he's called out on it he can just shrug and say he misunderstood. But he won't issue an apology and he's already invoked Bart's name so his followers are just accepting it.
And so continues the tradition of dishonest apologists trying to say that "If a guy named Jesus existed, and we can't say there wasn't, therefor magic jesus" I've seen Ehrman allude to this kind of bs too. Like if he outright said "This argument is not for the magic jesus and in no way can be used to corroborate magic jesus" that'd be a step up from this waste hole of an argument.
It's the last thread of a hair of a hope these people have to keep christianity being dead on arrival and it shows.
@James Henry Smith Anikin Skywalker was conceived by the Force, and later fathered the chosen one that was foretold to bring balance to the Force.
Clearly you are deceived by the dark side.
Paul, I have breaking news for you. The "Top 5 Atheist" he's referring to is......... my cat. She recently lost her 1st life and now believes this is the afterlife.
27:23 This statement is likely the biggest takeaway for the apologetics we’re getting now. Frank said we have “documented evidence for veritical NDE’s”. Now, what we really have is documented evidence that a person SAID they had a NDE. There is ZERO evidence that what is said about the NDE actually happened. But the apologist is totally willing to let them be one in the same. It’s dishonest, and sadly, it’s the best they have.
Well, remember what Frank and Gary count as top tier evidence. Stories about stuff someone said and did , written by people that we can't really identify.
You just destroyed Gary. Absolutely glorious.
Thank you.
Ah yes, because we all know that close to an event no one can have untrue beliefs about it. Conspiracy theories take centuries to form! /s
OUCH
"...I think Mary is superfluous, here..."
Yeah, so did my soon-to-be ex-husband, who decided I was superfluous after 38½ years of marriage, with no warning, no counseling, and no second chances to save forty years of love. He filed for divorce the day after our 39th wedding anniversary. My life has been destroyed, for no apparent reason, and I keep accidentally finding stuff (like what I quoted above) that just hits me square in the gut.
Perfect timing for my drive to work
Gary has been backing off his earlier claims his entire career it seems like.
EDIT: Watch out so Bart and Licona don't ask you to take this down, as they did with PineCreek.
I think they allowed Doug to use 5 minutes of the debate… so I guess those few snippets will be fine.
When I read the " road to Damascus " story, I don't see anywhere that Paul " saw " Jesus. It says he heard a voice and saw a light from above. Never does the original story say Jesus appeared to him. Perhaps no one considers this significant, but I would think we should at least be accurate when discussing these old stories.
What should be more significant is the fact that the next two retellings change and only in ways that make it more amazing for the audience and makes Paul look better.
"... we know there's an afterlife..."
Citation needed
Press X to doubt
To beleave that a dead person can come back to life is a complete insult to the task of living and being responsible. It insults everyone that takes life seriously through actual action to make life better. The act of living isn't a parlors trick.
So glad I have Gary's permission to not believe.
Though his implication that I have to have some all encompassing explanations for all the important questions of life, before it's fair to not believe in his faith, is something I flatly reject.
I don't believe his faith does a good job with any of that to begin with.
If Gary can't sleep at night without having specific precise knowledge of how the Universe began, he'd best get used to sleep deprivation.
It sounds very much like they said we can't reject their faith, unless we have a different faith to replace it with. No, thank you.
That sounds exactly like what he said. Apparently he needs to have an authority figure in his life telling him everything is ok.
Hell yeah, been a minute
Omnipresent Cuzinz 📖🔥🧙♂️👍
Love the taped up car photo. Made me spit out my coffee. Ha ha.
"Five facts of the resurrection.."
Couldn't contain myself, I instantaneously laughed out loud at that part.
Excellent as usual.
If Paulogia writes a book about this stuff, I'm definitely buying it. Good video
If Paul writes a book about anything, I'll buy it. As long as he promises to read it to me.
Do apologists just assume that *everything* written in a First-Person Narrative is true… until “proven” otherwise?
Like, do they assume that *Interview With the Vampire* is a historical document? (“Why would the vampire lie about vampires?”)
And, yes, that’s a totally absurd idea… and yet apologists apply that very same “argument” [?] to the loose collection of ancient fables, laws, and superstitions that they so *desperately* cling to.
Paulogia's rigor and circumspection are consistently impressive- outstanding content.
thank you
I would buy a Paulogia book, by the way. I don't see why a book by an academic scholar must necessarily be better than a book by a dedicated and committed amateur. If you have spent as much time and effort on your subject as a scholar in the same field, then you may well be as qualified to write a book.
May well be, indeed. The pros and cons of an academic background in the subject 1. You avoid the obvious pitfalls 2. You are 'indoctrinated' into the accepted theory .. a 'good' scientist is not of course and questions everything as do 'good' historians
@James Henry Smith fake Jesus christ...
All God/Jesus needs to do is visit several hospitals and cure some little kids of tumors, leukemia and oh, how about some amputees.Cure the blind ,make the quadriplegics complete and Then head to the third world countries and do the same. Make your miracles available to everyone even non-christians. Proof god/jesus not word salad and night soil. Simply put, deeds, not just words.
That wouldn't cause people to believe in him lmfao. You guys somehow manage to exert all your mental aptitude and still fail in understanding the Gospel or the Christian life.
One of two things is required before somebody attempts the illogical verbal sophistry required to challenge the burden of proof: Religion or a ton of cannabis.
Or an unhealthy amount of alcohol.
Hey Paul! What's the audio-bible you use for your scripture sound bites?
22:26 and here we have turek admitting that they have no evidence of their supernatural god. a rotten egg is still a rotten egg, regardless if we can make a better egg. we throw away those rotten eggs
According to the book of Acts, Jesus only managed to convince 120 people while he was alive, and now we're supposed to believe based on 2000 year old hearsay?
Hey Paul!
I just want to have your thoughts on Galatians 1:17 and how that fits into Paul’s timeline.
One of the reasons I deconverted was because I couldn't help noticing how apologists continually exaggerated the significance of weak arguments and inadequate or distorted evidence. That they had so little to work with, and tried so hard to stretch it so far, told me that the evidence they _needed_ wasn't there. And if the gospel were true, there should have been an embarrassing surplus of good evidence, to the point that the entire field of apologetics would be unnecessary. It took a long time for that realization to sink in, but eventually there came a time when I could no longer deny it.
For the record. I do have an anti supernatural bias. And I don’t care who has an issue with that.
Turek and Habermas: a powerful convergence in the misrepresentation of history 😀
When said, "A long way to go." I thought you were going to break into song. 🎶We've a long way to go and a short time to get there.🎶
"A time when there was nothing" is not a coherent statement if we are using "nothing" in the philosophical sense that most apologists prefer. Under this definition, time is something, and so if there is time, we do not have nothing. To say that there was a time when there was nothing is as meaningful as saying that there was a married bachelor.