Christian Cop Shoots Bible in the Foot (J Warner Wallace response)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ธ.ค. 2022
- When @ColdCaseChristianity 's J Warner Wallace pitched his pet Q-source theory to @MelissaDougherty , his apologetic and gimmick commitment to the gospels as eye-witness testimony caused him to demonstrate the ways the gospels are more-likely to NOT be testimony.
Don't Just "Feel" Your Faith: Understand and Defend it.
• Don't Just "Feel" Your...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ SyncVersion ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fm8oDwos2uc/mqdefault.jpg)
Paulogia did a video about one of my videos. I feel like this is a right of passage. 😅
I listen to you and Drew from time to time. I know we don't agree, obviously. But I always appreciate hearing another perspective.
It's not a right of passage until you've been given a flannel stick-figure. 😉 I'm actually just delving into your work, but if you'd ever be up for a friendly conversation on my channel, I'd love to arrange it.
@@Paulogia that would be.... interesting.
Wow ! Would not have expected Melissa Dougherty to be on here. I know she generally does anti-new-age stuff, but it’s crazy to see her commenting on Paulogia.
Hi Melissa, I’ve watched your show…you’ve done some funny stuff. I don’t watch anymore but I make comments and get involved in discussion that maybe aren’t fair. Christians who chose to watch Paulogia may be seeking to engage with atheists but your audience isn’t usually seeking that kind of discussion. Gracious comments and nice seeing you here. Merry Christmas!
@@azophi I'm always amused when she is anti-new age and her religion is nothing different that that silly stuff.
Everytime I see this guy I can't help but wonder how many innocent people he's put in jail.
The 'I ignore experts who's conclusions I don't agree with' line seems of particular interest
This is simultaneously hilarious and extremely relatable, thank you.
I wrote the same thing, almost identical! Jim's approach to law enforcement makes me wonder how many unfairly prosecuted people are in jail thanks to his incompetence. ROFL
Bet it totally depended on how christian they were, in Frank's eyes.
@@johnnehrich9601 Unfortunately I think you are totally correct.
Seems clumsy on God’s part to lose track of Q.
You're talking about the guy who had to ctrl+alt+delete the entire planet he made
@@jackfrosterton4135 In the immortal words of Destro, He just gave it a bath!
ROFLMAO, you guys are cracking me up.
@@jackfrosterton4135 😄
@@autobotstarscream765 😂
It’s always shocking how little the “great detective” understands about hearsay, speculation and testimonial evidence.
Hardcore cognitive dissonance.
“it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair.
And it might work well for getting other people (juries, protectors, judges, the general public) to believe that someone is guilty, but that says more about our judicial system than anything else. And not only is testimony unreliable immediately after the event in question, what about two thousand years of translation and transcription errors? The fact that this allegedly happened that long ago, and there have been no miracles performed since it's enough for me to seriously doubt that any of the supernatural aspects of it are true.
A Strobel wannabe
It's much more shocking to see how incredibly biased people are when addressing the work of people they don't agree with, and how readily they're willing to jump onto a collective bandwagon of "this person is obviously wrong and stupid" when it suits them. All without ever actually reading anything the person wrote, naturally.
All these apologists are so obviously more concerned with convincing people than they are with presenting facts.
Have you read Wallace's book?
Of course he hasn’t. These people would say they know how to weigh evidence Bette me than Sir Lionel Luckhoo Dr Simon Greenleaf John Warwick Montgomery and Dr Norman Geisler. 🤦🏼🤦🏼🤦🏼
Thus the well used phrase "That's not how I remembered it..." that fuels so many family gathering arguments.
exactly
Yeah i was legit thinking about how some family "legends" i remember hearing as a kid have totally changed through the years at family get-togethers depending on who is telling the story.
@@Paulogia Growing up in the church, I was always told that the oral tradition that predated the gospels was very reliable because, in first-century Judaic culture, there was a huge emphasis on accurate recollection. This was because children were required to memorize the Torah when they grew up and those who did well went on to memorize more. Is that something you could speak to?
@@sarahrogers-pastio7709 Bart Ehrman haș addressed this false narrative in a few of his books, but that's almost not important... there was no codified version of Christianity to accurately remember.
@@sarahrogers-pastio7709 Which requires a reliable source that the unreliable source can be compared to. Look at family names. It is pretty much the most important word you are supposed to remember correctly and yet you will find hundreds of variants of common family names and that they change a lot depending on the language of the region.
Paused at 5:00 just after J Warner said “it’s from people who have been saying it the same way for 20 years.” People can’t keep a story perfect for 20 years. Take two people from the same concert in 2002 and ask them what happened you’ll have 2 different stories it’s possible they may even tell you two different artists were playing. I’m shocked he doesn’t know this as a cop
Oh he knows. It's all part of the grift.
@@utubepunk that makes it even worse sadly. If he was just a moron you could roll your eyes and more or less ignore it. If he’s just lying (which you’re right is more likely) for the purpose of selling a book mind you, you have to ask yourself what he lied about while wearing a badge. He’s doing irreparable damage to Christians and cops
It's especially concerning given that we've known for at least 15 years _with research backing_ that even just a single person recalling an event over and over distorts the story, with our brains essentially playing 'the telephone game' with ourselves each time we retrieve a specific memory.
I've heard people say things like "would the disciples lie about something so important, or something they believed in so fervently?" But it ignores that often, such retellings don't need to be intentional _lies_ to be vastly distorted recollections, even *if* (and that's an outrageously charitable if) we take the gospels as their testimonial accounts.
Cops don't care they just want to narrative for whoever they're trying to convict
Doubt he's ever been a cop.
The observation that oral traditions evolve and change over time through natural selection like a comedy set was very well done.
That's gold, Jerry, gold!
I see what you did there.
As far as I'm concerned, Wallace shot himself in the foot as soon as he started emphasizing the need to separate eyewitnesses of an event... even though the disciples of Jesus were almost certainly not separated in this way after his death. The man honestly seems to lack some basic self-awareness.
Keep in mind these apologists don't have the goal that they say they do. Their goal is to keep people from leaving the cult - whether people are convinced to join in is really just a bonus. I mean, just think about that book title from this video - "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." Do you think that book title will convince you to pick it up? Of course not, it's not for you. It's titled that way to attract the average christian who wants to feel better about their faith. When you review apologist material with this understanding in mind, it all makes a lot more sense.
Another example: if a christian starts wondering about, say, why their bible seems to promote slavery, then they will look for answers from these christian speakers first. And then they may well stop wondering about it once they hear the answer you and I have heard a million times. Even though we know that answer is a misrepresentation and maybe even a lie, that doesn't matter - they've satisfied the surface level question as far as that christian is concerned and therefore, the apologist has accomplished his goal.
Yes! Put that statement next to his talking about he after being on tour with Frank their stories change so they now can tell the same story identically. If the gospels were eye witness accounts created in that way, wouldn't that make them even less reliable than what scholars currently think?
None of these stories has been produced by anyone close to Jesus. The followers are mostly nonexistent, have different names, and behave after the tenth miracle as if they haven't seen any other before. It is poor fan fiction that relies heavily on other stories like Dionysos to turn water into wine and many more.
@@RikardPeterson Apologists like to have it both ways, depending on the current argument they are facing at that moment. Their stories are similar because they both saw the same thing! They're different because it's two different accounts, thus making them more reliable! The mild differences are just because it's two different people's perspectives! The similarities are because they are describing the same event!
Obviously when you put the excuses next to each other none of it makes sense, which is why apologists typically only use one excuse at a time.
He became an 'apologist' that is a professional liar.
My very Christian dad once told me that the contradictions between the gospels make them more reliable, which apparently shows that they were written by independent sources about something that "really happened". He somehow neglected to mention that Matthew and Luke directly copy from Mark, which shows that they weren't independent at all and were arbitrarily changed.
This is something i find funny, the bible managed to put itself in a place where we know it has not independent sources (because the gospels literally copied word for word between each other) and we know it cannot be a reliable source (because it cannonised the multiple contradictions within the fable).
It is almost as if whoever put together the bible went out of their way to yell to everyone else the bible should not be considered history.
Yup. It’s just crazy that people think that an independent eyewitness would need to use 90% of another persons eye witness account. It’s nonsensical. If I witnessed an event I wouldn’t go find the paper of someone else who was there and literally copy them word for word for 9/10ths of my account
@LuthAMF nice ad hominem, would you care to explain why the gospels copy off each other yet still get things wrong between them?
@@LuthAMF And yet you have been unable to support your claims that the bible is more reliable than other book of fables.
No wonder you got reduced to these silly ad hominems instead of presenting some solution for your fable's failures.
@LuthAMF you're now appealing to authority by saying that we can't have an opinion unless we do X thing, which is another logical fallacy. Can you not answer a simple question? It's pretty embarrassing for someone who's apparently so well read and well studied as yourself
4:09
Wallace is effectively admitting to forgoing evidence for narrative convenience. How many people did he see off to prison who were wrongful convicted?
As an ex-Catholic homeschooling mom, untrained in literary scholarship, I am reminded of my quest to provide canonical literature to my children.
A decade or so ago, I started out by looking for the original Cinderella story, the original Robin Hood, King Arthur, Norse Myths, and so on.
It took a while to realize that there are no standard stories in those traditions. There might be some that are more common these days than others, such as those from the Brothers Grimm, Charles Perrault, Thomas Malory, the Eddas, or Disney, but still the tradition is alive. It is right and good to reinterpret the tales and add to the body of stories. It is indeed a Darwinian evolutionary process, responsive to the environment of the place and time in which any tale is told.
I still feel a bit uneasy about it. I haven’t completely shaken the Catholic doctrine that “Truth” is “absolute,” whatever that means.
Check out Overly Sarcastic Productions! They cover history, literature and mythology from all over the world, and especially in the Greek & Norse myth videos show that there’s never really an “original”. It’s always variations that first proliferate and then are over centuries winnowed down to a sort of Greatest Hits version.
@@alisaurus4224 Oh definitely, OSP is great, the main reason my formerly protestant partner knows any kind of culture 😅
(I sing this as a liturgical chant…Lutheran cadence)
“Ye who pray on bended knees,
Lift your eyes unto the trees…
Ask what scripture’s sacred words,
Ring more inspired than the songs of birds?”
@@alisaurus4224- So many stories began as oral tales, told by bards and storytellers, with few (surviving) written versions. Depending on the stories, there may have been popular versions and 'official' (for lack of a better term) versions. Regional variations. Retellings and recastings, influenced by other cultures and religions. And some straight-up fanfiction.
@@julietfischer5056 💯
Turek: Where does EVIL come from?
Hitch: RELIGION.
Never gets old.
All of this is assuming that there is actually an oral tradition to base the gospels on, and that they weren't a literary invention for the purpose of converting people from the beginning.
Good point. If it is oral there is no timeline and must be dismissed as hearsay.
He's a cop. Of course he shot the thing he's supposed to protect.
J. Warner Wallace, the great evangelist who has done so much to convert so many...to supporting the defunding of the police.
Ironic how what happened to the story/stories of that carpenter pretty much run along lines that resemble evolution... -Keep what works, enhance what seems weak, and discard what doesn't work. Only difference is, with stories, you can just invent new stuff and throw it in.
Dont forget fix the plot holes.
Exactly. Just like folk music, the oral transmission of stories is organic. "It's the way I tell 'em!", as Frank Carson oft remarked. There is no "true" version, but as many variants evolve as there are musicians and storytellers.
This changes once a score writer or a scribe gets to work. Both the song and the story become fixed and fossilised ("set in stone", almost). Of course, the advantage of a fixed score/story belongs to the owner of the copyright. Things are sung / told the way THEY want it, either for profit, control, or both.
@@mattm8870 Heh, if only they bothered to do that :)
J warner Wallace has crushed my faith in the justice system.
Given his, at best, tenuous grasp of the concept of evidence, I’m surprised that all of the cases he “investigated” haven’t been reopened…
Yep. If I had worked on any cases that he was involved in I would be worried.
I suspect this is typical of the level of thought of most detectives. If you were a really sharp detective, you’d become a Hollywood writer instead.
As an example, on the origin of the idea for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...": "Adams claimed that the title came from a 1971 incident while he was hitchhiking around Europe as a young man with a copy of the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Europe book: while lying drunk in a field near Innsbruck with a copy of the book and looking up at the stars, he thought it would be a good idea for someone to write a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy as well. *However, he later claimed that he had forgotten the incident itself, and only knew of it because he'd told the story of it so many times."* Or as he once said "but I only have my own word for this now."
There is a reason most cops aren't lawyers.
I always loved that piece where Frank Turek gets mortally Hitchslaped.
Q: Where does evil come from.
Hitch: RELIGION.
I saw that vid years ago. Still one of my favorite comebacks.
I must admit that Wallace and his buddy Frankie boy have mastered the methods of achieving the primary goal of apologetics, a.k.a. lying, audience retention. Some of these methods are misrepresenting their opponents’ positions, seeming completely confident and avoiding certain uncomfortable questions.
You forgot the primary goal of apologetics which is to convince the faithful that the apologist can convert bunches and bunches of heathen scum to the true faith if only the faithful will give just a little more. Both little Frankie and Jimmy are experts at this. The actual converting of the heathen, not so much.
I guess bearing false witness isn't so bad after all eh? I wonder which other commandments are optional!
At 5:31 cracks me up since "Telephone" is a game that is often played in church youth groups.
The Mandella effect. "Luke I am your father".
As I understand it, memories are not even memories of past MEMORIES, rather they are reconstructions.
Wow…this may be one of the best illustrations I’ve seen showing how oral tradition is naturally primed not for historical accuracy, but for effective stories. Wallace or no Wallace, the clips you use and your argument on this front is so clear, I kinda hope you do another video distilling these points and title it based on those points rather than on Wallace. Nice!
Yeah, well done, Paulogia. It’s so clear in my mind now, I almost feel as though I came up with it myself 😉
I wonder if wallace has the manhood, decency, and honesty, to watch this video and reflect on how he's conducted himself through his career.
At my old high school there was a school "legend" of a senior prank in which a student drove a dirt bike through the school, ran out of gas half way through the school, and then had to push it out while being chased by teachers. The story usually has him doing donuts in the hallway or something too.
Flash forward years later i had to call a taxi one night and when talking to the guy driving it turns out he not only went to the same high school as me, but was from _that_ class that pulled the prank. When i asked him if all the stories were true, about the running out of gas, and the donuts and burnouts and so on he frankly told me "no". Turns out they never even drove it THROUGH the school, just around the outside. But 30 years of high schooler's passing the story down grade to grade drastically changed it. Its probably still being passed around in that school today, and maybe its even crazier.
Then what's likely to happen, is that some years later, someone hears the story and decides to imitate it, and really does ride a dirt bike thru the school, acting on a story that never really happened originally.
Okay, but school kids have no commitment to the truth of the story, quite the opposite in fact... Many of the early Christians became martyrs, defending the truth of their convictions.
@@stephenkeen6044 You think no one has ever lied or exaggerated a claim to benefit their religion?
Bro.
Really?
How tall was Goliath? lol.
And martyrdom doesn't matter, its not an indicator of truth, just belief. I could make a claim to you today and you die for that claim tommorow because you believed it, it doesn't mean my original claim was true. Just that you really, really believed it to be true.
I loved that video you made about J. Warner where he claimed that the Big Bang was a supernatural event. And eventually you said, “Please try again,” in just the perfect tone.
😉
I guess I always thought it was unlikely that the synoptic commonalities were from oral traditions because of the amount of word for word matching made copying from written material more probable.
Agree. Wallace's position is the worst of all worlds.
Here's a guy who claims to be an expert at law and the courts suggesting that 40 years of hearsay is accurate. He even wears a badge when giving his religious speeches. 🤣🤣
I worry that people were convicted by Wallace's dodgy logic when he worked for a living.
He sure as heck bends and twists to get where he wants to go.
Great video Paulogia. Cannot stand Wallace or 'Frank the bully'.
Ahhh yes....eye witness testimony, the least reliable evidence you can possibly bring to a prosecutor 😳
It's even better when you have an indeterminate number of unnamed eye witnesses
Theists: there is no source. If everyone writes similar things, it's because it's true.
English teachers (mockingly): there is no sparknotes. Every student just happens to all have the same thoughts on a book that's been taught for a long time.
For decades I used to tell the story of how I saw a monstrous face looking at me over a fence by the road - I squawked and the cat, whose markings had resolved themselves into a face in my juvenile brain, turned round. Recently I went along that road for the first time in 40 years - and the road is not at all how my memory shows it. The road has not changed - my memory changed with each recollection and retelling.
"Virtually verbatim repetition" is an enormous red flag in such situations, because our brains play Telephone with our own memories each time we retrieve them (Marsh, Retelling is not the same as recalling, 2007).
I'd actually interpret this the other direction: if multiple 'witnesses' are repeating practically identical descriptions (especially 'virtually verbatim'), that wouldn't suggest reliability but rather witness collusion.
I absolutely agree.
The witnesses should still get the big events similar to each other and in the right order though.
Paul! 2 things I want:
-A response to Jon McCray’s video “Who Created God?”
-A vid featuring TMM
Ples
This is one of your best videos. And I don't just say that as a prosecutor with over 100 jury trials. You always do a great job of pointing out the flaws in Wallace's approach. But I am often impressed on how well you understand evidence. Usually better than Wallace does. And he presents himself as though he is responsible for putting on the case before a jury. He never was. Please collect the evidence, it is the prosecutor who else to convince the jury with the evidence. Maybe someday he'll own up to that reality.
That is high praise. Thank you.
I have seen an interaction, then 5 minutes seen a person in that interaction retell the incident and change details. That is a trivial thing 5 minutes after it happened, Jim wants us to believe people retold a story for decades perfectly. Absurd.
6:24 - "You all remember Frank Turek, right?"
Yeah, Frank Turek, Dinosaur Hunter. Of course!
🤣
Now I'm really hoping that someone out there found a clip of him melting down and entitled it "Turek, Rage Wars"
Wait, if Jesus was resurrected with a supernatural body that could pass through solid walls, why did the stone have to rolled away from the door of the thumb?
To advance the plot, ya nut!
@@rembrandt972ify
😂🤣😆
Nobody ever said Jesus could walk through walls.
@@fluffysheap C.S. Lewis did. I mean, he was an idiot but he was somebody.
So Jesus, after his resurrection was not less physical, but more physical. This is why they sometimes could not recognize him-because he was now in the resurrection body which was of another dimension which their eyes could not easily perceive.
He could appear and disappear in and through this physical world as if he were stepping through a curtain or a bank of fog. He could come through doors and walls because they were no more substantial to him than a veil of water vapor.
@@rembrandt972ify So basically, He's not a Ghost, we're the ghosts...are the Peoplebusters gonna call Beetlejuice the Bio-Exterminator on us!? 🤯
Thank you for pointing out these sorts of issues with strong investigated support.
thank you for the support
Somehow, I'm reminded of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. 'When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.'
I just noticed Wallce wears a badge during his talks. Extra points for attention to detail of his costume.
At least it's less tacky than the "I'm wearing a lab coat, you can trust me, I'm a scientist (... Automotive repair technician, midhusband, and...)" stuff, I guess?
Wallace is one of my favorite (in a bad way) apologists. He's basically a guy who was like, "I'm a Christian and I WAS a cop...how can I combine those into making money?"
A former police detective should know how unreliable "eyewitness testimony" is.
So He puts a story together and THEN looks for "facts" to fit the story!!?? someone needs to check every case he was on.
These apologists can't quote atheists and other theists who wrote books correctly. How do they expect oral stories to be transmitted correctly?
Easter has been cancelled for next year -- they found the body.
Once Paulogia has 1 million subs, I will know there is justice in this world!
The really interesting thing is that this man was an investigator who should know how inaccurate eye witness accounts can be... and then word of mouth? Oh well. Next.
Question , is Wallace still a cop, because I see him wear his badge in very conspicuous places , like his belt when he gives talks? Almost like he has an insecurity complex and needs people to know what he was once previously.
No, he retired years ago. It's a prop, part of his costume, a humblebrag designed to "subtly" lend himself authority and convince his audience he knows what he's talking about.
I bet apologetics today sounds exactly like apologetics from 1982.
You know? I guess I'd lost some perspective on this. We are perhaps making some progress in this uphill battle. I hadn't made a point to truly consider that question in a long time, and now that I have? It was worse, I'm pretty sure. That is, if my experience was remotely typical and my memory as accurate as can be hoped for. Seems to me the most extreme "Kill it with fire! Purify the unclean!" positions of The Church Universal are more fringe beliefs these days. Still definitely out there, still dangerous, and not exactly rare.
Still, feels like I'd be far less likely to attend a random rust belt revival/fellowship weekend today and openly hear a panel along the lines of, "Our next speaker, a former devil worshiper, is here to share some stories about his time as a werewolf so you can better identify Satan's magicks in your life and tell if your weird neighbor is some sort of secret demon it would be good to harm, actually."
I bet it sounds exactly like apologetics from 1882.
It's worth mentioning that the existence of the Q-source, while a majority position, is not unanimous among scholars. There have been a few different models proposed here and there, and I believe the simplest one is that the writers of Luke (whose writing was likely finished after Matthew's) had access to Matthew and incorporated it as one of the sources it mentioned in the opening. But what do I know. I'm not a cold case detective.
Yes, the existence of Q is entirely predicated on groupthink. There's no evidence for it at all.
*HEY MAN... THIS MAKES SENSE!*
- I shudder at the thought of JWW being in charge of a case I'm involved in. Then my empathy kicks in and I'm terrified about all the cases he has handled.
Wallace is so keen on letting everyone know that his memory is so great that he could recite someone else's apologetics word for word, he demonstrates how unreliable the human memory is by forgetting how the conversation started mere moments ago.
So evidence presented to jury will be tainted.
A cop, a detective, does not build a case for a jury. She transmits evidence to a prosecutor, who builds the case. Is Wallace lying or exaggerating?
For those who wonder:
The german word for "source" is "Quelle".
They pronounced it pretty wrong, it's basically
"qu" (from quantum) + "ell" (from sell) and the "e" like you pronounce it in sell.
Or it comes pretty close that way.
Had to rewatch it twice to figure out which "German" word she meant whith "kella". Why are the pronunciations made up? As if there wasn't Google or something, to read it to you?
So, it would be pronounced kyu-ell, or kwu-ell, or would it be pronounced like quell is? As in "quelling a rebellion"
@@mwagner1444 I wonder that all the time. I guess they don't want to put that effort into it. I would do it for any kind of foreign word I'd use in content creation.
@@hermithefrog629 probably like in quelling, but since I never used that word, i am not 100% sure. But important is the "e" at the end. You don't say just "quell". The e in german isn't pronounced like in english l, so it's hard to try to explain what it sounds like. But again, take the way the "e" is pronounced in "sell" and put it on "quell" or "kwu-ell".
And then pronounce it in one sweep without stop between the sillables. So not "kwu-ell-e" but "kwuelle"
A really interesting comparison Paul. And well done too. I love the Turek clips. He's no Seinfeld, but definitely an inadvertent comedian for sure. Oh, and occasionally a "bender of truth", but I suppose that's not funny...Please bring back your "Lying for Jesus" awards. Please?
Hitch was sooo funny in this clip at 6:30
Another great morning with a great Paul vid
Warner clearly doesn't check his sources!
An apologist changing the subject so they don't have to answer the original question? Well I never!
Stand-up comedy is an oral tradition that originated in its present form primarily in the U.S., but it seems to have evolved here from much older Jewish oral tradition. So Jerry Seinfeld and the Quelle probably have common conceptual ancestors.
The Hitchens answer of “religion”, while wrong, is so great.
How does a cop not know about statute of limitations?
He got the joke wrong. It's "The best thing Hitler did was kill Hitler."
If the gospels were written by eye witnesses. why would they need oral tradition?
I don't understand.
"Q" being an oral tradition doesn't make sense for the word for word matching. More likely, "Q" is what Luke copied from Matthew.
It's like these apologists can't imagine people just making stuff up. And being able to do it in a credible way, or at least credible enough for the most credulous.
@@johnnehrich9601 Funily, they are making up things to explain why the Bible writers couldn't be making things up.
Brilliantly crafted and well written. Thank you Paul
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that some scholars saw similarities between Gospel stories and tales from the East, such as those in India about Hindu gods and other characters.
Literally the Ramayana.
I've just remembered, he blocked me on TH-cam. Don't think I ever commented directly to anything so maybe a comment to somebody else's comment.
They love their echo chambers 🙄
It always hits me in a special way to hear (what in this case I can only assume to be) an English native speaker pronounce foreign words. The word she said isn't Quelle (eng: source). It's Keller which means basement or cellar. It wouldn't take long to just ask a German native speaker. On the one hand it doesn't really matter but on the other hand if it doesn't matter, why was it even said in the first place?
Anyone who has an angler in the family should know how stories told by 'one person' can evolve with time. Like stories my brother told us about big fish he almost caught on his sea fishing trip. A year later that story evolved into an epic fight with a shark, that involved use of harpoons and shark biting a hole in the boat.
Paul, I absolutely love that you used that you used that clip of Officer Olson interviewing that witness in "Fargo." That is one of the best of so many great moments in the movie.
I don't know about the rules and regulations for Canadian law enforcement, but there is something very fitting about a trained liar, as all American law enforcement officers are trained to be, retiring and exchanging legally lying to lying about religion. It is like watching a snake eat its own tail.
Only recently have I recognized that J Warner Wallace is a separate person from Lee Strobel, since their material is the same.
😂
It's almost like Wallace has never heard of a "big fish tale" before. As an example, there were some pretty good studies looking into how well people remembered 9/11, and how, within just a couple of years, most people remembered it rather inaccurately.
In 1992, my classmate Chris shot himself in the leg & foot. He thensforth wore his blood soaked jean shorts to class.
How to explain why cops only solve about 2% of crimes while talking about something else completely different...
The only problem I have with Q being just oral tradition is the fact that the quotes are verbatim, which doesn't seem to happen anywhere else where oral tradition is involved.
isn't it more likely that Luke just lifted passages directly from Mathew?
Dont forget that the oral tradition would have had to have been translated as even translation into greek would result in more diversity if done by two different people.
Matthew and Luke copied like 90% of their material from Mark. It seem like they spent a lot of their time trying to correct the mistakes of Mark at least in their minds.
Its also possible that Luke was trying to correct Matthew account after all a learned man will know there's some silly errors in that account.
I would have figured that "Q" referred to the godlike character in Star Trek...
Now HE would have been a credible source... if he really existed. 🤣
I shouldn't laugh at JWW but he makes it so easy!
Yeah, but then you must factor in how many lives he's destroyed just as a cop...ain't all that funny.
How can you shoot the Bible in the foot when it doesn't have a leg to stand on?
Even if we accept that the gospel authors were eyewitnesses, how do we determine that THEY didn't change the story throughout the years? There is literally a well known stereotype about old fishermen exaggerating prior events more and more over time. I see no reason why the eyewitnesses to Jesus couldn't have done a similar thing...
I mean they weren't eyewitnesses, but if they were that doesn't make them immune to error.
Not to throw water on the whole police thing, but the nationwide "clearance rate" for violent crime is only around 40%. But, clearance rate is a misleading term. The clearance rate and conviction rate are not the same and the conviction rate is something like only 4%. So, great job detective(s).
Uhh... dont they all?
I dunno if christians realize this, also, other religious groups, but the more they try to defend their fairy tale, the more they push believers away.
Shooting themselves in the foot is an everyday occurance to defenders of the faith.
Defending the indefensible has a way of doing that. For example, every apologist that tries excusing their god character advocating slavery, which just draws attention to how vile the character is.
@@KianaWolf well, its their fault, the church...
Couldnt they pick a much better god from all the other gods?
At the very least if we chose zeus, we could have at least blame him if he fucks up.
But the bible god?
Every screw up in the bible is 10000% yahweh's fault. But the fucker never gets blamed. A very poorly written book.
Why doesn't he give the proceeds of his videos and book sales to real needy children? Obviously not following Christian virtues ....
I do not understand how people can simply turn off large portions of their brains to allow access to absolute nonsense.
Being a detective working with existing evidence that can be examined by all experts is not the same as doing detective work on some 2000 yrs old “ stories told by people with no evidence “
😮
He's a cop. He should know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.
He should, but quotas for butts in jails can do a number on due process.
Just an aside:
Hearing JWW say "gosh" reminded me of a catechism class long ago. We were discussing whether or not "gosh," "golly," or " gee whiz" were forms of taking the Lord's name in vain.
I think we concluded that it was not a good thing to do.
The gospels SCREAM man made. And these apologetic arguments only scream the same thing... MAN MADE. Why isn't this obvious to believers?
Because they have no problem believing they were man made and also god made.
Like they have no problem believing that Jesus was 100% man and 100% god. Or that there is only one God who is three. Or that Jesus was killed in the cross but God (who is Jesus and also the father or Jesus) was alive, so it's not clear who died or even if someone died. Or that Judas returned the 30 silver coins and also kept them, before dying by hanging himself but also by tripping.
@@juanausensi499 Yah.. They just believe what they believe because they want to believe it. All emotion. No reason, no logic, no critical thinking, no questioning, no skepticism, no intellectual honesty. Just filter everything through their dearly held make believe.
eye witness testimony is unreliable, it should at best be taken as a possibility of the events occurring and be thoroughly investigated.
no to mention the notion of "they said this happened and they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend so it must be true" is purely insane and i hope it won't be accepted in any court room.
Great points Paul.
I am taking notes as usual.
I generally enjoy the thumbnails here but the thumb of JWW shooting himself in the foot got an audible chuckle out of me.
^__^
The breezy, quick Hitchslap at 6:29 was an effing gut buster.
Based on what I’ve seen of Wallace in videos like this, I wouldn’t call on him to track down a missing pet.