A Psychologist Gives Powerful Evidence That Jesus Resurrected
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- 🙏 DONATE: inspiringphilo...
Nick Meader joins me to discuss his new book, "Resurrection: Extraordinary Evidence for an Extraordinary Claim." We will cover popular ideas like that Christians arose from cognitive dissonance or from hallucinations.
Link to his book: www.amazon.com...
Paulogia's video: • Does New Resurrection ...
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
🙏 DONATE: inspiringphilo...
PATREON: / inspiringphilosophy
UA-cam MEMBERSHIP: / @inspiringphilosophy
LOCALS: inspiringphilo...
MERCH: michaelinsprin...
Hey everyone, disregard my superchat on Sam, it seems I misunderstood him for talking about testify when he was talking about someone else in the live chat
Honorable, God bless
They’re friends
Ooh I see. Thanks for this. Yay
Samwise Gamgee is quite prolific.
the millerite situation was called "the great disappointment" ? I thought that was just what my parents called me
This should be pinned for the funnies! XD
This and The Wise Disciple are some of my most favourite Christian channels ❤
Look jesus trône 🚽💩👈
This guy's got a wonderful easy going manner, I could listen to him for ages.
After my dad died I had a few of these bereavement hallucinations. I thought I could hear him calling for me at times shortly after his death. Even as a child though I seemed to be able to tell that wasn't real pretty quickly. It was confusing for sure thought I was going crazy but at no point did I think oh he must be alive and here again. A ghost is as far as my mind ever took it.
Were those close to your dad having the same bereavement hallucinations as you described, just after his death?
Great job Mikey ❤
Calling experiences of recently deceased relatives "hallucinations" also presupposes naturalistic worldview. It can be a passing feeling of the person being present or feeling a touch or anything with which it is difficult to say if a mourning mind hallucinated it or if a soul can actually "say goodbye". But sometimes hallucinations don't really fit the picture so well. For example my grandfather lived as a child in an orphanage after his mothers death. One night his father came in when he was sleeping and told him he just wanted to say him hi/bye (that's the same word in my language) and that he would go to sleep now and then he sat on his bedside untill my grandfather fell asleep. In the morning he asked for his father if he is still there but he was told that he had not been there and later they got a message of his death that night. So it doesn't really seem a sorrowfull hallucination but that he was for some reason able to say goodbye to my grandfather after his death. How would they differentiate how many of death related hallucinations are actual hallucinations and how many are actual souls if they don't consider souls/spirits existing. Of cource all of that is something totally else as resurrection still, but just a thought. Many NDE'ers have had experiences where they go and see their close ones when out of body.
Yeah, I've had dreams of my parents, too - both before and after their deaths. (They died at different times, so some dreams included a parent who was dead and a parent who was alive.) But if you want me to think that dreams are _real,_ I'm going to need some good evidence of that!
Me when I take drugs and see God
@@Bill_Garthright Deathbed coincidences (which is what it sounds like OP's story conveys) are a relatively common, well-recorded phenomena.
A degree of critical thought is, of course, good but I think OP may be right when it comes to the point of presupposing naturalism. I don't believe naturalism, but if you do then such an experience, if the experience itself does not change you (not just a normal dream where a deceased relative hits a kickflip or something but what I referred to beforehand: a dream or vision of a relative that happens to coincide with roughly when that relative is passing away, just before or after their death), then you're just going to view it through your naturalistic lens thinking it a weird coincidence.
Like in OP's story, and there are other such deathbed coincidences, cases exist where the individual relaying the testimony didn't even know or expect that the person would die, such as cases of people dying in car accidents etc.
One of those things where there just IS really weird phenomena that occurs in this life. It seemingly can be accounted for under a supernaturalistic worldview, but not on a naturalistic one outside of just calling it a weird coincidence and brushing it aside. This applies to both, but to act like one's presupposed worldview doesn't colour how we interpret such phenomena is erroneous. Hell, even saying 'I need evidence X subjective experience was real' is a little bit out there. Valid for you to hold to that (i.e., not believing them), but it wouldn't suffice as an argument against the experiencer believing their experience was real if it felt like it was and has some bizarre coincidences/inexplicability around it for them.
@@rileymorgan2801
_"Deathbed coincidences... are a relatively common, well-recorded phenomena."_
Are they? That's interesting. I'd never heard the phrase before. Maybe you could point me to a scientific research paper, then? Or do you just mean common stories among the religious?
Off-hand, there are a few problems I have with the whole idea:
First, _everyone_ dies. That's not unusual. And _everyone_ dreams, too, though about half of the people in the world don't typically remember their dreams, apparently. On the other hand, most of us have multiple dreams every night. (I wake up to a dream 4-5 times a night, myself.) But let's be very conservative, and just average that to _one_ dream, on average, per person.
That's still *eight billion* dreams _every single night._ That's almost *3 trillion* dreams a year, if my calculations are correct. Over 20 years, say, that would be *60 trillion* dreams. What percentage of those dreams, then, would need to involve a coincidence in order for us to think the coincidence was unusual?
Do the math, please. I really want to know. You said "relatively common." Well, how many of those 60 trillion dreams would need to involve a coincidence in order for us to think that the coincidence was unusual, let alone miraculous? What percentage? And what percentage are you actually talking about here, then?
We should _expect_ coincidences when there are 60 trillion events (or more, since I limited it to only 20 years). Of course, most of the time, we ignore dreams. We don't even _remember_ our dreams past a few seconds or so. We might remember noteworthy dreams a bit longer, but this is very definitely a matter of "counting the hits, but not the misses," which is what Sir Francis Bacon described as the very "root of superstition."
It's inevitable that we'll hear about the coincidences, of course - and not just _Christian_ coincidences, either, although those are the ones that Christians will pass around to each other. Indeed, it's not even just _religious_ coincidences. I've had at least one person tell me that she was psychic because *one* of her dreams seemed to connect with something that happened, later (ignoring, of course, all of the dreams where that _didn't_ happen.
That's also assuming that every story you hear is actually _true._ And I'm not just talking about "lying for Jesus," although "lying for Jesus" seems to be very common - far, _far_ more common than "deathbed coincidences," certainly.
I'm also talking about the simple fact that our memories are malleable. And it seems to be _especially_ the case with dreams, since the details of dreams typically vanish from our memory pretty quickly.
If a dream seems significant, it's very likely that our thinking about it changes our memory of the dream to make it seem more coherent and even more noteworthy. Again, we _know_ that our memories are unreliable.
_"One of those things where there just IS really weird phenomena that occurs in this life. It seemingly can be accounted for under a supernaturalistic worldview, but not on a naturalistic one outside of just calling it a weird coincidence"_
Well, magic is an explanation for anything and everything, if you really, really _want_ it to be. I'd say that magic doesn't actually _explain_ anything, but it's certainly a lot more fun than mundane explanations, huh?
On the other hand, we _know_ that things happen naturally. And, again, any rational person should _expect_ coincidences. There's nothing "weird" about it. Coincidences are _normal._ It would be weird if there _weren't_ coincidences.
Of course, theists really, really _want_ their god to be real and their religious beliefs to be true. I mean, we're not just talking about Bigfoot, or fairies, or magic leprechauns - although people really, really want _those_ things to be true, as well, which is why we get people believing in them. But in religion, we're talking about living forever in magic Disneyland. That's even above Bigfoot when it comes to wishful-thinking.
And boring old math just can't compete, huh? Sure, you can show people how trillions of events will _likely_ contain coincidences, how it would be miraculous if there _weren't_ any. Even if all the stories _are_ true, which we can't really expect, either.
But... that's just boring, alongside magic, huh? Some people _do_ win the lottery. But if you win the lottery, it must be because of your lucky rabbit's foot, right? (Or your prayers?)
I don't know. How could I? But I'd say that any rational person should _expect_ coincidences to happen - rarely, which is exactly what we see. Meanwhile, we seem to have _zero_ evidence that magic is actually real.
After all, I regularly ask theists for just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that their god is real, rather than just imaginary, and I have yet to have any theist respond with anything. Not even *one.* Very, very few will even _try_ to present anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking.
But they really, really _want_ their particular god to be real and their particular religion to be true. And the lack of evidence that it _is_ true (from what I've seen, so far, at least) doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest.
@@Bill_Garthright I don't owe you anything anyway so I'm not gonna give you anything. Go look for yourself
You're clearly not looking for a good faith discussion. Nice essay.
God bless.
His dog is named “Thor”! No wonder he wants to teach that Christmas is not pagan, he’s secretly practicing Viking religion!
Sarcastic joke! Interesting stream, thanks for the info.
My dog's name is Karma. Guess that makes me a covert Hindu.
I find that when it comes to the discussion of the Resurrection- I’m fine with intellectual people saying “hey, I really don’t think it’s super likely that this happened as reported, when xyz reason seems more likely/relatable.” I seriously don’t fault any atheists/agnostics for interpreting that particular data differently than believers, even though I disagree with them on the whole.
I DO fault the particular atheists/agnostics that love to sit around and laugh at believers, saying it’s completely unreasonable, unsupportable, utterly foolish, etc. The ones who refuse the probability of supernatural events so staunchly that they must make a point of how everyone who accepts the possibility, probability, and/or reality of a miracle NEEDS to be mocked and chased out of the public forum. THOSE are the ones I can’t respect.
Let’s all be decent people to each other and not throwing ego around (I say this not to anyone in particular related to this video, but in general to all believers, nonbelievers, and those on the fence.) Even if we think our opposition is utterly wrong, can we at least not default to ad hominems and ridicule? *sigh*
To this I say, sure, maybe it happened. But what passes for evidence, either in a conventional sense (allegedly holy scripture) or a rigorous, analytical sense (apologetics and other philosophical arguments) is simply not adequate to show it happened, or even that it is plausible at all. I maintain that any explanation that doesn't radically differ from what we know of reality, even a seemingly outlandish one, is still more believable than that a literal resurrection took place.
Also, and curiously, something I have yet to see others mention (though maybe it has somewhere?), how about other crazy things indistinguishable from what we agree is mythology? Greek stuff especially? Perhaps there is or was evidence galore for these things, but it is lost or destroyed. Once you open the door to stuff like the resurrection, it seems that you must also have to reevaluate all other stuff that is similar in terms of how thoroughly it differs from reality as we know it.
@ (EDIT: let it be said that the commenter who originally prompted this response had said that he would call out bad-faith skeptics if I called out bad-faith Christians. I won’t automatically assume that his deleting his comment was out of ill will, but all I can say is my response is still worth keeping up because truth is truth and I’m not ashamed to call out missteps, whoever is committing them. ✌️)
totally fair. There’s both tactful conversations and tactless dogma in every people group and every debate topic. Spades are spades and should be called as such, so I’d be glad to take you up on that deal.
A minor caveat before I do so: there is a certain point to which I do agree with the statement “just accept and believe”… hear me out, though. I don’t think it’s as simple as that for most people- more power to those for whom it is that simple- but even in my life there are moments when I have to tell myself that. However- super important!- I don’t tell myself that about believing in God’s existence, but rather in areas where either a) the Bible is silent on a topic or b) matters of future events not yet occurring need to be accepted on faith in God’s character. And I would never, ever, under any circumstances say that as some catch-all, cure-all to a skeptic or agnostic.
Now, to my fellow Christians- (I think it’s best I directly address my own subset of theists)- we’re best off following the Lord’s advice of being “wise as serpents, gentle as doves.” I’ve made my own mistakes in coming on too aggressively online; I’m sure I’ll make more along the way despite knowing better, when my emotions get the best of me. But I’ve seen that addressing unbelievers with “you just don’t believe because you love your sin too much” or similar statements is just really poor handling- especially on the internet! We can’t assume we know everyone or what drives them that intimately; only God sees the heart. If you come up to ANY person and immediately psychoanalyze them like this, it’s tactless and inconsiderate. Even if a particular sin IS driving someone away from God, which is possible, we are not in the position to call out strangers like this with no real ability to get to know them one on one or privately address their struggles. Let’s please turn away from this kind of retort.
Let’s also not throw “just accept! just believe!” at people, particularly when it’s clear that they’re genuinely asking for help in believing/being convinced and aren’t just mocking. (Mockers may need blunt statements from time to time; but rarely is “just believe” going to make them mock less!) Paul needed to be blinded and visited by the ascended Christ to repent. Naaman needed healing to come to faith in YHWH. The father in Mark’s gospel with the famous cry of “I believe, Lord; help my unbelief!” needed to see his son rescued, and Jesus didn’t just sit back and tell him to believe more to see it happen. We can do better than smacking people over the head with a billy club of mandatory belief. If they want to be “stubborn”- just leave them to the Lord and pray for their hearts. Persuasion doesn’t come by hard-headed pressure.
Argh! Need time stamps or a summary on this one! So interesting but so long!
Love the foundation from which Meader operates. I have long believed that our worldviews shape our reality. Atheistic and theistic worldviews are light-years apart. Each is predicated upon presuppositions that the other simply does not acknowledge. Thus, even when atheists and theists are next-door neighbors, living in the same general culture, they are not on the same page when it comes to their beliefs on what is real and how you can know that it is. Sounds like Meader's book provides a bridge between the two.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Really? How about extraordinary claims require reliable evidence? The resurrection has eye-witness testimony among other evidences. Of course many skeptics apparently believe, in spite of that, "there's no evidence..."
What evidence other than eye witnesses?
Well, no. In order to prove that Mark and John were written by eyewitnesses, you’d need to rely on much weaker evidence than what you’re trying to establish. And yes, I’ve seen a ton of videos on this that completely overstate the strength of their case.
The “other evidences” I’m assuming refer to a number of historical details they got correct. So did any number of other ancient biographies, all with supernatural events (especially ascent to the pantheon).
_"The resurrection has eye-witness testimony among other evidences."_
Really? Name one, please. Pick *one* and *make your case,* please.
I'm aware of no one but Paul, and he doesn't really say much about it, does he? In Acts, there are contradictory accounts of his experience (from someone who doesn't even _claim_ to be an eyewitness), and neither account seems to be anything much even if it's _true_ (which, again, we don't know).
Otherwise, all we've got are old stories from anonymous authors writing in a different language than what Jesus would have spoken - authors who don't even _claim_ to have witnessed anything themselves, right? Am I missing something?
If you've _got_ something, I'd be very interested to hear it. How about just *one* specific example of "reliable evidence"?
@@seanpierce9386
_"The “other evidences” I’m assuming refer to a number of historical details they got correct. So did any number of other ancient biographies, all with supernatural events (especially ascent to the pantheon)."_
And "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" gets lots of things right about the life and times of the former president. I guess that proves that vampires are real, huh? :)
@Bill_Garthright
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What a sheer display of plebian idiocy. And I thought religious fools were annoying.
Sam never called Erik a son of the devil, why do people send super chats making things up? He was literally shouting out Testify in his stream today praising him, so it's the complete opposite. Weird.
He did in his recent livestream
@@AnsweringLDS I just watched his recent stream from hours ago, he said Testify is a great brother and sent people to his videos. What are you talking about?
@ hold up
@@AnsweringLDS I'll even timestamp it for you. 28:15 of the Zeitoun stream today
@ my apologies I was being hasty I just realized he was talking about someone in the chat
Great stream!
Thoughts on Paulogia with reducing the witnesses to just mostly Paul and Peter in his minimal witnesses hypothesis?
Cameron Bertuzzi and Jimmy Akin responded to Paul’s article/video on this. I highly recommend it! :)
Pauls hypothesis is a joke, obviously James claimed to see him its specifically in the early creed he was skeptic so it fails to account for any data. I belive historically you need to have at least 4 James, Peter, Paul, John at least. I think more is really strong for a argument just as skeptic u need at least the 4 otherwise your dishonest
Think about it this way.
If the apostle Paul knew James and the rest of the apostles (as in he literally met them),and says they saw Jesus. He would have to be the biggest bumbling idiot, or liar, in the entire world to somehow get that wrong. Even the most skeptic scholars know that Paul met the apostles.
It doesn’t make sense that Paul would spend a bunch of time in Jerusalem with Peter and James, report James as another eyewitness, if James was not also claiming to have seen the risen Jesus. (And same goes for the Twelve.)
Not to mention that, according to Justin Martyr, the appearance to James is recorded in the Hebrew/Aramaic proto-Matthew, a copy of which Justin read at the library at Caesarea.
@@FuddlyDudand Paulogia responded to that, it was possibly the worst response video I've ever seen
Naturalism requires miracles to work.
Great vid IP!!
Paul said on twitter he is now reading this book. Let’s hope it’s what he needs
Paulogia?
@ yeah
@BenWiggins-k7s Paul will continue to torture logic until the end.
@@Sapientiaalet’s pray for him and his followers.
@BenWiggins-k7s Okay
An extraordinary claim is a claim about something outside of the ordinary, where people don't rise from the dead. So that the resurrection is an extraordinary event is not an ad hoc, arbitrary, subjective claim as you say. This is from what you say at 03:00.
How is this measured? What’s the criterion that must be met and what separates the merely uncommon from the extraordinary? :)
@@FuddlyDud I think I said.
@@Whatsisface4
You only set when it’s out of the ordinary and that people don’t rise from the dead. That’s not a criterion I can apply to other events. :/
@@FuddlyDud The clue is in the word, extra ordinary.
@@Whatsisface4
My family went out and had an extra-ordinary meal over Christmas.
What then qualifies as ‘extra-ordinary’ evidence to prove that this happened? :)
Crazy how much evidence there is for the resurrection
Really? So, if I ask you for *one* specific example, you'll actually have something you could demonstrate is real? Let's see.
How about *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that the resurrection actually happened? Just *one,* please, but be specific.
Did you literally not watch anything in the video. Lots of very value and interesting points were made. Tell me you have dismissal bias without literally telling me you have dismissal bias. Man you people are just dense af sometimes
@@jesserochon3103okay so the answer is no
@@colekuhlers3003 Well I judged the evidence and concluded that it happened. Boom. mic drop.
The argument is not based on one piece of evidence. It is a cumulative case. There are many books on this topic. Start informing yourself.
Also what would you say to atheists saying that Jesus wasnt really around for 40 days as described in the book of Acts because it parallels the old testament account of the Israelites being the in desert for 40 years?
40 years was a placeholder for a long amount of time
Jesus intentionally imitates the old testament a lot.
I would say perfection is symmetrical.
@@paradisecityX0, yet a historian correctly placed the events of the exodus to a point in history. Yes, even to tha pharaoh of the exodus, even the 40 years of moses's abswnce from egypt was taken into account.
@@paradisecityX0 even crazier. The person whom the Jewish priestly establishment and the Roman authorities sentenced to death and killed is now back and preaching for ‘a long period of time?’ And they did nothing?
1:34:40 - If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, then how can we do any history at all?
BINGO!
@@brenthardaway3704 history doesnt work by reading someone's testimony and just believing it, you have to infer what actually happened behind what people say, people dont just read Josephus and think he is giving an unbiased and accurate account of Jewish history or the war he was involved in. Resurrection apologetics requires you to just take people's testimony and believe all of the details as something that need to be explained
@Greyz174 No, if's the skeptic who is asking us to disbelieve it because it is eyewitness testimony.
@@brenthardaway3704
Eyewitness testimony isn't entirely unreliable. Nobody ever said that. But it can be unreliable. Couple that with people making up stuff/outright lying, being expected to believe wild claims that differ with everything we know of reality... do the math.
@@brenthardaway3704
I am living proof. I was struck by a van once, and a witness thought she saw me going against traffic, which was untrue. I was at a light on the left side of the street with a walk signal, and a man wanted to turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic. He did, not seeing me in the crosswalk.
We can trust Nick because he plays Catan.
They Wes-Huffed Paulogia in this video lol
Did they? All that happened was a vague assertion that Paulogia used the wrong numbers. I say that because the numbers referred to are related to a population of people in the current day and age who are ordinary when really the current numbers would come from a population a) that would be sympathetic to supernatural claims b) true believers / suffering from cognitive dissonance. It's unfortunate that they ordered the video the way they did because the claim for cognitive dissonance is not that they cause hallucinations but rather that they provide the psychological environment that makes hallucinations easier. Then there is the fact we have precisely zero examples of verified resurrections so even if we grant a lower set of numbers it still doesn't make the case for a resurrection.
@@francisa4636 "verified." Lmao. Christ's resurrection was verified. Just not by you.
@axderka so the Bible tells you so, using the Bible to prove the Bible. Very convincing lol
3:15 good point!
These guys are basically bringing up humes argument against miracles but forget hume destroyed himself with the problem of induction 😢
1:38:34 I was moving. It was a very long and tiresome day.
32:05 ish: so you know, somewhere between frequent and rather uncommon
edit: fixed time
I wonder what he has to say about the witnesses of Joseph smith?
Well hopefully he'd call that fraud.
Well yeah but mass hysteria does not explain Joseph smiths witness too or the Muslims that “saw” Mohammad’s split moon.
@@sikeajax
To be fair to both of those, the specifics are much less impressive.
EX: Many of Joseph’s witnesses recanted, the ones who didn’t profess to more general things, like to merely seeing said golden plates which are now lost. A solid proxy is the alleged Scroll of Abraham that did get preserved and, unfortunately, was nothing related to what Joseph claimed it was.
Hope this helps! :)
@@FuddlyDud yes, what do you think about those who saw Mohammad split the moon or do other things 😂
@@sikeajax
As far as I’m aware, that Muhammad miracle is an inferred miracle since the Quran speaks of no signs from Muhammad and the Quran as the only sign in Islam’s favor.
Thoughts? :)
49:19
6:30
27:07 looks like Sam never repented
Cognitive disconence may not cause hallucinations but grief may. Paulogia theory
And the people who have grief hallucinations always realize they were hallucinations after the fact. Doesn't explain anything about the length of time the Apostles spent with Jesus, that they all had identical hallucinations, or how Christianity gets off the ground early on at all.
46:50
Unmute me from chat. I'll be good 😭
What 😭🙏
@Jlabber I blame the Atheists 😭
LMAO what did you doooo
I don’t understand. You should not have been muted.
@HailMaryyyy I'm not sure, but I'm afraid if I say my interpretations of anything, he really won't unmute me 😆😭🫣
Trump actually won 2020, but let's move on. Biden 81,000,000 votes? Yeah, right. Love your program. Cheers.
A couple of things get overlooked or are taken for granted in these discussions.
1. If Jesus and his followers were apocalypticists and believed they were living in the last days, then they _also_ expected the resurrection to happen at that time (because the resurrection was necessarily an end time event. So the belief didn't just come out of nowhere if they were expecting it to happen and their leader died suddenly.
2. People assume belief in a physical resurrection is the same thing as really seeing the physically resurrected Jesus. This doesn't follow though as Paul's experience was visionary and took place _after_ Jesus was in heaven. If you read closely the earliest source (1 Cor 15) or any of Paul's letters, he never actually says Jesus "appeared" to anyone _before_ going to heaven. Christians are reading that idea in from the later gospel narratives.
1. Refer to IP's videos on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.
2. This is an argument from silence. It's also just straight up false since Paul talks about the Ascension in Ephesians.
1 cor 15: 3 onward.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
looks pretty clear to me that he is claiming appearance.
there is also john 20:14-16, luke 24:13-31, john 20:19, john 20:26-29, john 21:1-14, matthew 28:16-20, Acts 9:3-5.
@@josephjohnson8403 1. There are too many end times references in the New Testament for Jesus and his followers to not believe they were living in the end times - 1 Cor 10:11, Mt. 24:3, Lk. 19:11. He literally talks about the Son of Man coming with angels and judging everyone which is an explicit end times reference. John the Baptist preaches imminence too. To deny this is not a reasonable position.
2. Eph. 1:20 indicates the resurrection and ascension were connected or immediately occurring consecutively without any earthly sojourn. Sorry but the sequence resurrection->appearances->then a separate and distinct ascension doesn't exist in Paul's letters.
@@josephjohnson8403 1. Why would the disciples ask Jesus when the "end times" were going to happen (Matthew 24:3) if they didn't believe it would happen within their lifetimes?
2. Ephesians doesn't say Jesus appeared to anyone before ascending either so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
Why is paulogia comparing veterans PTSD to the disciples . The dicaiples werent under mortar artilarry fire . Of course the nature of war is gonna cause psychological problems . .
The disciples werent
Soldiers tho
Not too many trolls for this livestream. Oh well, there will be a next time…lol
here's a breakdown of how the this video fails to address the strongest version of cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) in relation to Christian origins, along with specific timestamps:
1. Oversimplification and Misrepresentation of CDT:
* 8:04-8:10: The host defines cognitive dissonance in a very basic way. While the definition is not entirely incorrect ("we like to feel there's Harmony between...our beliefs our attitudes and our behaviors"), it lacks the nuance required for a serious discussion, notably, the psychological discomfort that drives the desire for resolution.
* 11:11-11:14: The host says, after the psychologist gives a more complete definition, "surely they could have just invented that."
* 11:35-11:37: The host says, dismissively, "Cognitive dissonance 101, rubbish!"
* 3:50-4:18: The host and the psychologist agree that naturalistic explanations (cognitive dissonance and hallucination) are "insufficient" and "simply don't work". The host, in particular, makes it a matter of "inventing" a story [10:34-10:38], implying a deliberate fabrication, without any exploration of the psychological mechanisms that could lead to sincere, but mistaken, beliefs.
How it fails: The video presents CDT as a simplistic, almost cartoonish explanation, where people consciously "invent" beliefs to avoid discomfort. This misses the crucial point that dissonance reduction often operates unconsciously. People don't typically decide to believe something false; rather, their minds subtly shift perceptions, interpretations, and memories to reduce the tension between conflicting cognitions. The strongest version of the cognitive dissonance argument for Christian origins doesn't claim the disciples deliberately lied. It suggests that their profound distress and pre-existing beliefs unconsciously shaped their perceptions and interpretations of events, leading them to genuinely believe in the resurrection.
2. Ignoring the Jewish Context and Pre-Existing Beliefs:
* 12:14-12:28: The host brings up the Millerites as a supposed parallel, but then dismisses it as an irrelevant comparison from a much later culture. However, the host consistently fails to address the relevant Jewish context.
* 15:18-16:06: The psychologist mentions Richard Horsley's work on first-century Messianic movements, noting that when the leader died, the movements typically disbanded. This undermines the cognitive dissonance argument as presented in the video, but neither the host nor the psychologist explores why Christianity might have been different within its specific Jewish milieu.
* 17:27-18:09: The host doubles down on dismissing other Jewish messianic movements, claiming that those groups would have "no reason" to think the Messiah was exalted to heaven.
* 18:41-18:53 The psychologist agrees that the predictive power of the cognitive dissonance model is "rubbish", as well as claiming cognitive dissonance theory in general is one of many "weak theories" in psychology.
How it fails: The most robust versions of the cognitive dissonance argument (as presented by academics such as Hugh Jackson, Joel Marcus, Fernando Bermejo-Rubio and Kris Komarnitsky) are deeply rooted in the Jewish context of the first century. They consider:
* Pre-existing Jewish beliefs about resurrection and divine exaltation: The idea of a suffering and then exalted Messiah wasn't entirely foreign to Jewish thought, as evidenced in texts like Isaiah 53 and traditions about figures like Enoch and Elijah. These pre-existing beliefs provided a framework within which the disciples could reinterpret the crucifixion.
* The nature of Jewish apocalypticism: The disciples' expectation of an imminent Kingdom of God created a highly charged emotional environment. The crucifixion was not just a personal loss, but a catastrophic blow to their entire worldview. This intense dissonance, within a framework of already expecting a divine reversal, is crucial.
* The "already/not yet" tension in early Christian thought: The belief that Jesus was already exalted, even though the Kingdom hadn't fully arrived, allowed them to maintain their faith in the face of continued suffering and the delay of the parousia. The video completely bypasses these crucial factors, creating a straw man of CDT that is easily dismissed.
3. Misunderstanding the Relationship Between Cognitive Dissonance and Hallucinations:
* 3:50-4:10: The host frames the skeptical argument as, "they hallucinated...boom that explains the resurrection."
* 23:20-23:29: The psychologist and host agree that the idea that cognitive dissonance causes hallucinations is unsupported by psychological literature.
* 23:59-24:15, 24:41-24:48: The psychologist explicitly rules out the possibility of cognitive dissonance causing hallucinations.
* 25:41-25:47: The host doubles down, claiming it is "philosophically" problematic to multiply explanations such as cognitive dissonance and hallucination.
* 4:38-5:44: The psychologist downplays Bart Ehrman's, and the consensus of New Testament scholars, position, claiming that Ehrman has "lowered the bar" of explanation.
* 11:43-11:52: The psychologist and host describe CDT as "respectable", yet the host also describes it as "rubbish". The psychologist claims it has various uses, but also criticizes it's predictive power.
How it fails: The strongest cognitive dissonance arguments don't claim that dissonance directly causes hallucinations. Instead, they suggest that:
* Dissonance creates a psychological environment conducive to interpreting experiences as divine encounters.People under intense emotional stress, longing for confirmation of their beliefs, are more likely to interpret ambiguous sensory experiences (e.g., vivid dreams, fleeting visions) as actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
* Dissonance fuels the spread and elaboration of reports of appearances. Even if the initial experiences were relatively minor or ambiguous, the intense desire to reduce dissonance would lead to those experiences being recounted, reinterpreted, and amplified within the group. This is a social, as well as psychological, process.
* The psychologist misinterprets, misunderstands, and misrepresents the psychological literature provided to him.
The video frames the debate as a simplistic choice between "deliberate lies" and "hallucinations caused by dissonance," missing the more nuanced and plausible interaction between psychological states, pre-existing beliefs, social dynamics, and the interpretation of ambiguous experiences.
4. Failure to address collective, multisenory hallucinations:
* 39:39-40:04: The host makes the claim that "hallucinations you know not much different from what you know seeing someone physically there".
* 40:41-40:48: The psychologist agrees with this position.
* 27:24-47:30: The host emphasizes multiple times that hallucinations have to be collective, at multiple times, to multiple people, and multi-sensory.
* 28:28-28:54: The psychologist seems to downplay the relevance of this, noting that hallucinations by definition are individual experiences. He mentions "group apparitions" in parapsychological literature but doesn't explore the concept of shared, albeit mistaken, interpretations of ambiguous experiences within a group setting.
* 41:04-41:15: The psychologist admits that it is uncertain and "tricky" to discuss multiple-modality hallucination, due to the data's "quality", admitting "We don't really have a clue".
* 23:34-23:36: The psychologist claims that, in cases of hallucinations, it's "just not there", regarding any evidence that it is caused by cognitive dissonance.
* 43:53-43:55: The psychologist equates hallucinations with having "a common cold", saying that "it's not that common".
* 45:04-45:12: The psychologist and host claims that it's "naturalistic" to explain events with a hallucination, and therefore, such an explanation requires more evidence than a "supernatural" one, making it more "ad hoc".
How it fails: The New Testament accounts describe collective appearances of Jesus, involving multiple senses (seeing, hearing, touching). Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that individual grief hallucinations are relatively common, explaining shared, multi-sensory hallucinations that lead to a consistent, transformative belief is far more challenging. The strongest cognitive dissonance arguments don't ignore this; they attempt to address it by:
* Emphasizing the power of suggestion and social influence: Within a highly cohesive, emotionally charged group, the suggestion that one person has seen the risen Jesus could create a powerful expectation in others, making them more susceptible to interpreting ambiguous experiences in the same way.
* Highlighting the role of "leading figures": The reported appearances to Peter and other prominent disciples could have played a crucial role in shaping the group's collective interpretation of events.
The video, however, largely sidesteps the issue of collective experience, focusing instead on individual psychology.
5. Selective Use of Evidence and Ignoring Counterarguments:
* 31:38-31:42: The host criticizes Paulogia for being "a little bit selective in how he presents the data."
* 32:20-33:51: The psychologist criticizes Paulogia for misrepresenting the data on grief hallucinations, focusing on a subset (widows) with higher rates and ignoring the lower rates in mixed samples. While this is a valid critique, the psychologist and host also engage in selective presentation. They emphasize the limitations of psychological models and the lack of evidence for dissonance-induced hallucinations, but they don't seriously engage with the arguments that do connect dissonance, social influence, and the interpretation of ambiguous experiences.
* 4:38-5:44: The host and psychologist dismiss skeptical scholarship (specifically Bart Ehrman) as having "lowered the bar".
How it fails: A strong engagement with the cognitive dissonance argument would require acknowledging the complexities and limitations of all proposed explanations, including the resurrection hypothesis. It would involve weighing the relative plausibility of different scenarios, taking into account all the available evidence (historical, psychological, and sociological), not just cherry-picking data that supports a pre-determined conclusion. In summary, the UA-cam video’s discussion of cognitive dissonance theory in relation to Christian origins is weak and unconvincing because it:
1. Oversimplifies and misrepresents CDT.
2. Ignores the crucial Jewish context and pre-existing beliefs.
3. Misunderstands the relationship between dissonance and hallucinations.
4. Fails to adequately address the problem of collective, multi-sensory experiences.
5. Engages in selective use of evidence and dismisses counterarguments.
The video presents a straw man version of the cognitive dissonance argument, making it easy to dismiss. It fails to engage with the more sophisticated and nuanced versions of the theory that have been presented by scholars who have seriously considered the historical, psychological, and social factors involved in the emergence of early Christianity.
Very interesting post, thanks
This feels like a comment written by ChatGPT
@@futfan9092 and your comment feels like cope 🤷
@@scholarlyquotes8390
_"Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that individual grief hallucinations are relatively common, explaining shared, multi-sensory hallucinations that lead to a consistent, transformative belief is far more challenging."_
But do we _have_ any "shared, multi-sensory hallucinations"? As far as I can tell, all we have are old, anonymous _stories_ of shared, multi-sensory hallucinations. And stories aren't always true.
I didn't make it all the way through the video, because he seemed to be so extraordinarily vague that I had nothing I could even judge for myself. It was all about "they" or "his disciples," without ever specifying who, exactly, said what, exactly (and how he knew that).
I'm certainly no expert. I'm just an ordinary guy. But I don't _care_ what it says about vampires in "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" - not even when the author gets many things right about the life and times of the former president. That's just not good evidence that vampires are real. Again, stories aren't always true.
Wait… IP is a liberal 🤣
No
@ whew 😅
I can accuse him of alot of things but even classical liberal isn't one for the most part.
He’s too analytical to be a liberal.
17:42 you mean Barhobo?
Peace be upon him
Mark-16:1 disprove mark gospel
Q1-why would the women be anointing Jesus after his death?
Q2-Can a Jewish woman in Jesus day touch a dead man's body ?
Q3-Why would they do this to a body that's already been buried for days ?
There is absolutely no reason to do this except to set the scene for an empty tomb..
The women anointed Jesus' body right after He died. That's customary in ancient Jewish culture, you clearly don't know that.
Why did marry go to Jesus tomb
A-to prepare the body with spices and oil
Q-why would they do this to a body that's already been buried for days..
There is absolutely no reason to do this except to set the scene for an empty tomb..
@@akashkarkara9802They couldn't do it immediately because it was almost the Sabbath, so they were running out of time.
Learn some history. Anointing the dead was WOMEN'S work. And they waited until Sunday because of the Sabbath, when such work was forbidden.
I want to ask. My questions... 1. The reality that we can see right now is that in this universe there are trillions of trillions of planets and galaxies. If there are countless trillions of trillions of planets... maybe not only planet Earth has living creatures inhabiting it...? For example, if there are a trillion other planets that have living creatures like Earth and its inhabitants are various types of non-human creatures, would Jesus also be God on those one trillion inhabited planets...? 2. The real facts that we can know right now... the earth is approximately 10 million km, the sun is 1.3 million times as big as the earth, and there is a star called U Scuty that is tens of billions of times as big as the sun . If the celestial bodies were super massive in size like that, the number in the trillions would be uncountable. How big do you think God the Creator is, bro...? Maybe God is only as big as the man Jesus...? 3. According to scientists, the universe is more than 13 billion years old, whereas according to historians, Adam and Eve only existed about 7 thousand years ago. Based on this science... maybe the universe has been empty without any living creatures inhabiting it for more than 13 billion years...? So what was Jesus doing for 13 billion years before there were humans, Adam and Eve...? Please answer me!!!!?!!!
It's all a bunch of nonsense, man. Monstrous nonsense, actually.
A psychologist, huh? With evidence of a supposed historical event? Why not a historian? And is this the worldwide consensus of psychologists? Or just you?
But OK, great. Let's hear your evidence...
_"The early disciples had cognitive dissonance. That's why they invented the resurrection."_
Who is "they?" Already, you're being extraordinarily vague. Who is this "they" you're talking about? The disciples? If so, then show me what they each said. And how do you know that? *Be specific,* please. As far as I can tell, we have nothing from anyone who'd ever _met_ Jesus. All we have are stories written later by anonymous authors. So what are you even _talking_ about?
_"Maybe Peter had a hallucination, then he caused mass hysteria among the apostles"_
"Mass hysteria"? Where are you _getting_ this stuff??? Yes, grief hallucinations are _common._ It is very, very possible that one or more of Jesus' disciples might have had a grief hallucination after such a traumatic event. As a psychologist, you should _know_ how common grief hallucinations are.
But where do you get that "mass hysteria" stuff? What are you even _talking_ about. Again, you need to stop being so vague here.
_"If there's any naturalistic explanation, it's going to be better than that Jesus was raised from the dead"_
Well, not "better" in the sense of what Christians really, really _want_ to be true, of course. But if we know that some things do happen naturally, then why would *magic* be a "better" explanation than just that... those things happened another time as well? After all, we know that those things happen. But we've _never_ known magic to be real.
Again, magic would only be "better" when it comes to wishful-thinking about what you _want_ to be true, wouldn't it? But again, you need to be specific here. You continue to be extraordinarily vague. So far, you haven't provided any evidence or been specific enough that I can even tell what you're talking about, exactly.
_"Let's look at the evidence together"_
Then please go ahead. I'm still waiting for you to get to that.
_"We know Jesus was crucified, and then shortly after that, his disciples started claiming that he had risen from the dead"_
We do? *EVIDENCE?* Again, you're being overly vague here. _Which_ "disciples" started claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead? Who said that, specifically? What did they say, specifically? And how do you know that, specifically?
At some point, Peter seems to have believed that, I suppose, although we have nothing from Peter himself. And Peter is just one guy, not "his disciples."
Now, it might be that more than one of the disciples _did_ come to believe that, either because they had a grief hallucination (again, they're common) or because they believed someone else who had a grief hallucination. Religious people _today_ are certainly eager to believe what they really, really want to be true. Wishful-thinking seems to be a powerful motivator among the faith-based.
But you don't know that, right? You have nothing backing that up but wishful-thinking? You're presenting no evidence _here,_ at least.
_"So they invented this elaborate story"_
Again, who is this "they"? You continue to be extraordinarily vague. That's what makes me think you've got nothing here - nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking, at least. If you actually _had_ some good evidence, you wouldn't be this vague.
And yeah, new religions arise and older religions change, sometimes. We see new offshoots of older religions - Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are just three examples among many. Sometimes they don't survive, but often they do. Do _all_ of those religions have to be true, then? I mean, who would "invent an elaborate story," right? Islam would never have spread unless it was _true,_ right?
_"There's some selection bias going on"_
So what? I'm still waiting for that *evidence* you claimed to have. Was that just a lie, then?
_"Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be a particularly strong factor here"_
As far as I can tell, _you_ are the only one suggesting "cognitive dissonance." And all I'm hearing from you so far is wishful-thinking. You _claimed_ to have evidence, but you're certainly not getting to any. And what you _are_ saying is so vague as to be completely useless.
Well, this comment is long enough, already. But for anyone who _did_ make it all the way through the video, did he ever present *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking to back up his religious beliefs?
How about *one* specific example? How about *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? Either one piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary, or one piece of good evidence that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened? Your choice.
Because as far as I made it, he never even _tried_ to present any evidence.
Blah blah pretentious pseudo intellectualism you are not him my man read the book
@@peroktakic did you even attempt to read
@@BrghtScorpio I have absolutely read everything and I am quite frankly sick of the appeals to "consensus" (as if there is supposed to be a consensus of psychologists on the topic of resurrection?), once again claiming that there are no writings left by the apostles (just presuppose that the gospels aren't eyewitness testimony like it's some axiom of reality and ignore all argumentation to the contrary) and I could go on and on. it's just classic atheist talking points being repeated ad nauseam with little to no substance.
@@peroktakic Hey, I totally get why you're tired of arguments from consensus and the idea that gospel authors were eyewitnesses. But it's worth noting that historians and scholars use consensus to establish the most plausible explanation for a historical event, based on the available evidence. Christian and non-Christian scholars have contributed to this consensus through their research. The gospel authors' claims of being eyewitnesses or relying on eyewitness testimony are based on the texts themselves. Scholars have analyzed the language, style, and content to determine historical reliability. The cognitive dissonance theory is a well-established psychological concept that can help explain human behavior using naturalistic methods. Plus the field is very limited when trying to prove a supernatural event like the resurrection.
@@peroktakicikr bruh this was pretentious fest im on a higher horse than you i stopped reading was getting on my nerves fr lmao
Bro, skeptics don't think anyone actually hallucinated Jesus eating a piece or fish or touched his body. Skeptics think those are just made up stories.
Just because you've argued the gospels are reliable doesn't automatically mean skeptics have to think your case is valid or convincing. Get off your high horse.
This is why we stipulated we first argued the gospels are reliable. If they are reliable it becomes harder to dismiss reports about what the disciples claimed to have experienced.
If the gospels are in fact eyewitness accounts and the stories aren’t hallucinated, then the problem for the atheist to explain is that if these stories are fabricated by the eyewitnesses then you have people traveling all over the Roman Empire facing persecution and death for no discernible gain on the basis of a claim that they know to be a lie. This is very difficult to explain.
@@winstonsavage6338 yea sure, explain to me why the Fundamentalist Muslims aren't right considering they fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up in the middle of schools and places of worship. That's pretty devout man, it's almost so devout that it's hard to explain how they could possibly be wrong or misguided in their religious beliefs. Guess I should pray to Allah now no?
So then what are you doing commenting here? You should go to the video he mentions and deal with that first. If you have, then great, but just because not all skeptics agree with his case on the reliability of the gospels does not mean this whole discussion about hallucinations is pointless or unwarranted. Perhaps some skeptics do accept the reliability of the gospels and result to the hallucination hypothesis. This stream would be just what they need in that case.
Oh, absolutely! The stories about Jesus are so reliable that they start with visions of Jesus in the earliest account and end with the Gospel of Peter’s talking cross and sky-high Jesus-because nothing says “historical consistency” like a crucifix doing stand-up comedy. But sure, let’s pretend Matthew’s zombie saints (27:52-53) and John’s teleporting Jesus (20:19) are just “different perspectives” of the same event. Next you’ll tell me Harry Potter and The Bible are equally historical because they both mention “miracles.”
Let’s break down the glorious evolution of the resurrection story, because apparently "reliable" means "wildly inconsistent":
1. Paul: Spiritual Visions™
- No Tomb, No Body, No Problem!Paul’s Jesus is a celestial light show (1 Cor 15:8) using words like ophthe-the same term the Greek Old Testament uses for Moses’ burning bush hallucination (Ex. 3:2). But sure, this is totally code for “seeing a physically resurrected person.”
- Silence Speaks Volumes: Paul meets Peter and James (Gal 1:18-19) but never hears about the empty tomb or fish-eating Jesus. Either Peter had amnesia, or those stories hadn’t been invented yet.
2. Mark: The Empty Tomb (But No Jesus!)
- Women Flee in Terror (Mk 16:8) and tell no one. Such a rock-solid foundation for resurrection faith! Later scribes clearly agreed, which is why they added snakes and poison-drinking (Mk 16:18)-totally not legendary growth.
3. Matthew: Earthquake, Zombies, and Doubt
- New Features! Matthew adds an earthquake, resurrected saints roaming Jerusalem (27:52-53), and disciples doubting after seeing Jesus (28:17). Because nothing says “reliable testimony” like “some of us don't believe it.”
- Uncorroborated: Women grabbing Jesus’ feet (28:9)? Not even Luke or John thought that was worth stealing.
4. Luke: Anti-Ghost Propaganda
- “I’m Not a Ghost-See My Abs!” (Lk 24:39). Luke’s Jesus is a fish-eating, wound-flashing, cloud-floatin’ Messiah-conspicuously missing from earlier accounts. But sure, this isn’t anti-spiritual polemic. It’s just… *character development*.
- Geographic Amnesia: Luke erases Galilee appearances (contra Mark/Matthew) to center Jerusalem. Historical reliability? More like theological fan fiction.
5. John: Teleportation and WWE Resurrections
- Jesus: Now with Teleportation! (Jn 20:19). John’s Jesus invites Thomas to finger his wounds (20:27)-a scene so awkward even The Walking Dead wouldn’t air it.
- Ascension? Now he’s just casually mentioning it (Jn 20:17) like it’s a Netflix post-credits scene.
6. Gospel of Peter (2nd Century): Let’s Add Giants!
- Talking Crosses and Sky Giants (Gos. Pet. 35-42). Because why stop at zombies when you can have a crucifix doing press tours?
Legends: The resurrection narratives escalate like a bad Marvel sequel:
- Paul: Visions.
- Mark: Empty tomb (no Jesus).
- Matthew: Zombies.
- Luke: Anti-ghost manifesto.
- John: Teleportation.
- Gospel of Peter: Avengers: Endgame crossover.
If the Gospels are “reliable,” then The Da Vinci Code is a documentary. The resurrection’s evolution from Paul’s mystical vibes to Peter’s talking cross isn’t “development”-it’s mythmaking. Denying this is like arguing Star Wars didn’t evolve because both Luke and Rey use the Force. Spoiler: One has lightsabers; the other has space horses. That’s called growth, baby.
Until apologists produce a 1st-century text where Peter says, “I poked Jesus’ ribs and he ate my fish,” the resurrection stays in the “legend” pile-right next to *Bigfoot* and *Bielefeld*.
Did we prove a miracle, or that person never make up stories and repeat them?
Why does the resurrection mean there is a god? If Jesus is God isn't that an [ ] versus a Thing/Being? Like Lorax and Nature, same guy being experienced on 2 planes, where you are and who you are seeing.
It also seems to carry with it an set of rules or presumable rules and religious activity if Jesus did raise, which also seems false.
Jesus can rise and you not need to become religious or start following the Torah and Moses like a Nazi carrying out orders or observing with strict legalism.
You can think it's cool and not adopt Judaism, as gentiles this is to our gain, not to boast, just like those who benefited when Joseph was feeding the nations in Genesis.
Extraordinary isnt ad hoc, this is pure to say so. When people say extraordinary we mean a claim that significantly contradicts established knowledge. Raising someone from the dead is obviously in this category.
Also the moon landing analogy is like terrible. Like how is films on Moon Landings analogous to resurrection. Seriously bad.
People need a good dose of cynicism - the gospels writers MADE IT UP.
I don’t know how many times this tired objection has been brutally debunked. Yet people keep going back to it like it’s this edgy compelling thing. No it’s not. Please stop. You’re like a dog returning to its vomit.
The first confirmed instance of literature written in what’s called the verisimilitude style was Robinson Crewso published in the 17th century. Incase you don’t know what style this is, it’s a style of fictional or mythical literature but written as though it is real history (example: Now William born the third son of Abraham Lincoln and he did such and such on this date) As you can see, it’s written like it’s real but we know Abraham Lincoln never had a son named William. This style where myth is written as if it’s real history is called verisimilitude. Robinson Crewso is the first known example of this style of literature in history.
Now if you examine the mythical and fantasy stories in first century Judea contemporary to the gospels, they are all written as you’d expect: like fantastical myths (Harry Potter or starwar etc) They are not written in a way as to appear real. Again this style wasn’t invented until Robinson Crewso as far as we know.
The gospels in the New Testament read /exactly/ like people recording what they believed to be real events. So either they were clever enough to invent verisimilitude 17 hundred years before the first known example of this literary style… or the writers of the gospels were simply writing down things they believed to be true. You tell me what’s more likely. Hint: they were simply writing down things they believed to be true. This isn’t to say the things they wrote down Were true. But they certainly believed them to be true. Again we have no known examples of verisimilitudes of literature in the 17th century. This outlandish idea that the gospel writers totally fabricated everything and wrote it in a literary style that perfectly matches the style of real history is complete bunk. Please stop with these cringy and defeated arguments.
PROVE IT.
@@mysotiras21they’re just trolling
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid , yes.
When you have to go to a psychologist to show evidence of a magic man who left nothing you really are desperate.
Wow, personally attacking a philosopher who brought on a Christian psychologist to discuss the psychological naturalist attempts to explain the Resurrection, very brave and logical and whatnot.
Yeah! So weak! We as Christians have proof from so many backgrounds, from historians, philosophers, psychologists, and more!
@EmilyAlton-q8m he's a mythicist aka the flat earther of history. We shouldn't take him seriously. Also judging by his name he might be angry that his god mithras isn't answering his prayers
Right. Sounds like you are just butthurt.
@@mysotiras21aren’t they always, atheists I mean?
Be careful Michael, Mythvision might see this and start manif*sting 🫣. God bless you IP for your hard work 🙏🏾
IP is a scam artist, that’s why he allies with other scam artists like the biggest con man David Wood
😂