Why We Know the Story of Jesus Isn't A Legend (Cold Case Christianity Response)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ธ.ค. 2020
- How can we be sure that the story of Jesus wasn’t changed over time? How do we know that the virgin conception, the miracles and the Resurrection weren’t added to the story late? J. Warner Wallace talks about the nature of evidence tampering in this video, excerpted from his interview with Lee Strobel at a Sunday morning service at Woodlands Church in Woodlands, Texas.
Why We Know the Story of Jesus Isn't A Legend
• Why We Know the Story ...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Continues to amaze me Paul doesn't have a several hundred thousand subscriber base. He is so solid on his work!
@@concretesandals4501 agreed
Paul's standard of reasearch is peerless. He's like the gold standard on TH-cam for New Testament research.
Like I don't watch him as much but I'm subed, so why the fuck doesn't he have more subs!! THIS MUST CHANGE!!!!
Also his voice is amazing
He’s too nice.
Love Wallace's confident little grin after each assertion that says "See folks I've got the whole chain watertight, refute me if you can", knowing that most of his listeners are going to accept everything without question.
That's a tell called liars delight, Wallace is a sociopath.
Exactly. As if Wallace will discuss it with Paul as opposed to preaching to the choir.
I think a water tight chain is honestly a good analogy for this.
And the same holds true for the most strident of the atheist apologists on the flip side of the existential divide. No doubt about that...
@@Sinleqeunnini pot calling the silverware black
To use the guy's own analogy, it is actually as if he shows up in court, pulls a bullet casing from his pocket, and claims that he found it 20 years ago and he just 'forgot' to write it up at the time.
That he forged the bullet casing based on the descriptions of various people who may or may not have been present for the event.
And the bullet casing has magic properties.
How did the various writers of the Gospels not let on that its all a made up story at some point as a give away ~~ surely given the time line and time span there could be no conspiracy amongst living people ~~surely someone at some point would give the game away ~~~~ we all know the Greek writer Homer was writing fiction ??? HE HE and how come they were able to write such impressive things of a sort with consistancy and effect unto this day ???
@@Sportliveonline The writers were people that believed and Luke outright states at the beginning of his book that he is compiling a collection of events that were said to have been true, but that he was not present for. Everyone who is not of Christian or Islamic faith does not agree that these were events that actually transpired, but rather are stories that some people choose to believe. Much like, I expect, that you disagree with Hindus that their holy texts (copies of which are dated from 1200 BCE and 800 BCE) are of superhuman origins. If the current reach of Qanon has shown us anything it's that conspiracies can travel quickly and be treated as truth in circles of people who wish to believe. It's only been around 5 years since it was created, whereas the first new testament book wasn't written down for closer to 15-20 years. And as it didn't reach large volumes of people until later in the 1st-2nd centuries there was plenty of time for the oral traditions to take a firm root over written material.
As for Homer, you are coming at it from a privileged perspective based on a couple hundred years of archeological evidence that suggests that most of his writings were not of actual events in conjunction with the writing style.
@@Sportliveonline yes, and you're definitely a Mormon, right?
Notice how Wallace is attempting to address the claim that the story of Jesus developed and became more supernatural from Mark to John, and tries to answer it by illustrating a chain of information being passed down *starting* from John.
John had an entire other generation of conjecture to add to the tales they had to up the ante
ya the lie 1 skip 3 play the least credible...ok lets go with that one...satanism is to use anything other than truth to try to replace truth with...that is a deeep example of satanism in Wallace he KNOWS he is fabricating lies to suck in others...he knows 100% so we can call him liar and satanist...it is the only way to make them understand they are living lies and we are forced to have lies shoved on us like dogs humping legs....it has to end and truth has to put them out of history and save the victims
The best excuse that I've seen Christians use is that the census began when Herod was alive and ended when he was dead? Or something like that, I don't really listen to apologists anymore. I did so in the past to get a different perspective but they just kept lying, misrepresenting and being deliberately obtuse. I just skim through the comment section of apologist videos at this point.
For the record, there really was a Johnnie Appleseed (his real name was John Chapman, born September 26, 1774 in Leominster, MA). He was a missionary who also started apple nurseries (he didn't just randomly go around planting trees) in order to help with settler expansion further west in the early days of the US. The apples were more cider apples than eating apples, BTW.
In those days of poor transportation and scattered populations, turning a crop into hooch was a common way of preserving it. Hello, bourbon …
The case has been thrown out of court for manufacturing evidence.
More like perjury.
😂
It's amazing to realize how powerful the "want to believe" or the "want to be right" is. It really does make you very resistant to anything that conflicts with it. To the point that when you realize there is a conflict, your first instinct is not to look at it for any truth that it might contain but to find any thing you can use to reject it to justify your continued belief.
and considering how many actions it influences it explains a lot of ouer history....and current situation true.
To be honest, I do the same thing with claims from religious people. All I need is one single piece of the claim to be objectively wrong to disregard their claim, and I can usually find one.
...plus they are making a good living from propagating the "story".
Wallace's reasoning make me question all of his previous criminal investigations
He has a masters degree in the study of an invisible, unknowable, Hebrew, tribal god with three personalities.
You could not make this up.
@@JamesRichardWiley I blame white people
That's probably a sound judgment on your part.
Paulogia: *debunks*
Me: "can we take a moment to appreciate that the painter pictured Polycarp with an ass on his forehead?"
"Look at me I have gray hair and I used to be a cop!" therefore the Gospels are historically accurate? Did he get a PhD in History and the New Testament between those two statements?
...he is making money with this stuff, so why would he actually rock the boat.
@@AudiTTQuattro2003 I dont know, integrity, truth, his reputation, any combination of these, obviously he doesnt or have these qualities but other former detectives might
@Andreaz-64 he is trained to lie, to sell it, make you invested...
Historians with PhD's are why the story still exists. The Vatican has a copy of the lost works of Tacitus, the one that clearly explains everything that happened during Jesus. One should ask, why won't they release the findings since they found it over 20 years ago?
Nothing more impressive than Chinese whispers between people who mAy never even have met!!! Hardly a legal foundation - just rumours!
I wrote this many times already but this is serious and will repeat myself: This guy must have brought innocents to jail or on the chair. All cases he "worked" on must be reopened.
He was probably a perfectly acceptable detective. It is likely that few to none of the cases he worked on required him to have a vested interest in the conclusion that he reached (such as being paid off by the mob or something). Now this is how he makes his living, speaking to Christians about the bible. He has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his conclusions, and as such will fudge things as needed.
I kind of want to look up a list of his cases, see how many of his convicted claim to be innocent. Maybe do an investigation into the detective process
I wonder if his pseudonym was "stitcher" as his methodology resembles a seamstress. Your comment was my first thought too.
Pumped for this one!!
And you are also our perennial First!, Shannon xD
It makes you wonder how many innocent people were sent to prison by this “detective”.
everyone he has ever accused
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w probably yeah. It's sad. Terrifying too
@@Poopfingers345 but that what happens when you’re brainwashed to believe in nonsense like the Bible.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w I agree..religion poisons everything. Christopher Hitchens was right. If he really was this bad when he was a cold case detective he certainly put away innocent people and if he didnt use the same methods then his insincere and purposefully disingenuous. Either way it's disgusting
@@Poopfingers345 yeap but it makes christians feel superior about their beliefs. A once foolish atheist doubted gods existence till he study and could no longer deny it because of all the so-called evidence.
Why does Wallace leave out the possibility that the shell casing chain was supernaturally created?
On point!
How about chain of possession of the gun...
Would you be interested in some editorial work?
Because there isn't anything supernatural. Nothing.
@@prophetsnake Prove it.
Thanks Paul, I was worried about not getting enough exercise over the festive period ... but with all that ‘stretching’ we were asked to do I feel I’ve had a good workout. A happy and prosperous New Year to you and all the family!
Right..."i was the biggest unbeliever critic of jesus, but now..."
I dont believe that nonsense frommr. Wally
Hey, he _only_ went to church _once a month!_ I'll give you a few hours to recover from the shock, but you see? He was a SUPER non-believer!
Seriously, who the fuck is he trying to fool? Himself?
@@EdwardHowton He's selling an image of himself, and those that already believe are unlikely to do the leg work to convince themselves that he is stretching that truth. The ex-detective angle gives him an uncommon angle to approach the bible claims from, making him more marketable - given he is reaching the conclusion that those paying him hope he does.
@@graham9454 Marketability is a perfect description of Christianity. What comforting lie can we sell to people who don’t want the inconvenient truth that we humans are not the sole reason for the existence of the universe. Also explains why so many fell for a thrice divorced Narcissistic conman.
Wallace's chain analogy falls apart when you realize he's referring to a gospel for which we don't have complete manuscripts until THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus was supposed to have lived. He claims that the chain goes the way back to Jesus's day but he's missing 300 years worth of links in his chain.
Took the words out of my mouth except Bart Ehrman says 800 years until completed gospels that we have today
And the town was founded in 600 bc.... lol?
@@CyberBeep_kenshi what town?
@@mrk4022 Nazareth, see this clip. It is quite telling. th-cam.com/video/wZZ65a9lmYQ/w-d-xo.html
@@CyberBeep_kenshi ok, Amazing Randi is amazing. I knew about the Nazareth hoax. Don't see how it's related but i guess it's me.
Very well done, Paul. I rapidly lose interest in apologists when they turn to their tradition to avoid the point.
When he went to John, rather than Mark, I’d have tuned him out.
I wonder if this is a big part of why so many Christians actually lose their faith while attending seminary.
Can confirm
The whole Bible wilts when critically examined. I went into theology wanting to prove the Bible but managed to do the opposite.
Great point!!
I started losing my faith in Bible college when a child I prayed for on a mission trip in a rural hospital died a few moments later. Then I had to drive the mother and her child back to her village and watched as all the ladies came and wept with her.
This wasn't 'IT' though, as a Christian, you'd find any reason to explain what happened and ultimately you feel as if you did something wrong, or your faith was too small, or maybe you sinned. Who knows.
Anyways, what really irked me was that I was forced to give a report back to the church after my mission trip, and because i was sponsored I felt like I had to sugar coat everything. Maybe it's the brainwashing but as I spoke I felt awful because I was lying about my experience and made it seem like god was so great.
Anyways, I began to slowly start to question things which eventually led me down a path of discovery. At one point I took a philosophy class and naturally a formal discussion around religion was one of the exercises, except the lecturer wanted us to try to switch sides and put forward good arguments for atheism of you really believe in a god.
Something clicked inside me and I realized that I'd really been pretending to be Christian all along, partially out of fear and mostly because of decades of brainwashing.
It's all still a blur to me and I wish I had that time back now.
@@Jadinandrews Thanks for sharing your story, Jadin. Interesting and enlightening. It is almost impossible to not feel guilty when leaving a religion. It is all part of indoctrination.
If Jesus existed he was nothing more than a first-century Galilean cult leader. One of many.
i wouldn't put it that way lol no he was just going around preaching the truth!
@@CoxysHobbiesJESUSLOVESYOU yeah but many people felt apollonius of tyana was doing the same thing. Going around preaching the truth.
We therefore need an explanation of why this leader took over the empire and the other ones didn't.
His followers could not accept the fact that he was dead.
"What shall we do they cried "as they huddled together.
Then they began having recollections, dreams, visions and hallucinations of their dead master
and writing down what they experienced
in their early gospels.
@@JamesRichardWiley Seems logical. And similar events have happened. People die for all sorts of things.
Trivial correction: There was an actual "Johnny Appleseed".
Yes, John Chapman. He was a real horticulturalist who introduced apple trees to the northwest. During his lifetime, he became the source of various myths and legends, but the truth was Chapman was just a dude who like growing apples.
"To prove their homesteads to be permanent, settlers were required to plant 50 apple trees and 20 peach trees in three years, since an average apple tree took roughly ten years to bear fruit."
www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/real-johnny-appleseed-brought-applesand-booze-american-frontier-180953263/
Correct. But he didn't plant apple trees to use for food - as any farmer can tell you, eating apples don't grow from seeds. All of the tasty apples we're familiar with are clones - genetically identical fruits grown from rooted cuttings or grafts. If you try planting seeds from a Minnesota Honeycrisp, you won't get anything like a Honeycrisp.. you'll be lucky if it's even edible.
But you can make alcoholic cider from them.. or distill it to make brandy. Cheap, plentiful cider became such a huge problem in the colonial days that the gov had to crack down on apple growers..
Things never change.
@Meiere Christi
I know a family with an orchard in southern Illinois that grow some of the most delicious peaches ever! They grow lots of other produce too. Lipe Orchard.
j.appleseed was about drinking and it's components..hard ciden made the world go round back the.n
This is a great example of a Christian passing on made up lies to his audience, who then claim it to be fact, and they may pass it on with extra lies to their audience who pass it on as fact. Just like the oral history of Yeshua.
It never occurs to Wallace that Yahweh,
the impeccable creator of the Cosmos and the father of Yeshua
created an imperfect world full of sin
had to destroy it and start over - again full of sin.
Next he decided to become a dying and rising god
to prove to his creations that he existed
and flush out the sins at the same time.
Give me a break.
@@JamesRichardWiley Looks like someone here doesn't know how to read ancient texts.....
@Sam Bacon it’s interesting that you use that particular argument,
M: That James doesn't know how to approach ancient texts and culture? Man, have you looked at how profoundly ignorant the comment trolls on channels like this often are?
since the oldest surviving copy of any New Testament text is a business card sized scrap of papyrus from the Gospel of John that MIGHT date to the middle of the 2nd Century CE, and along with the Nag Hamadi Library of gnostic gospels which also date to the same approximate time period, are the oldest texts that directly relate to the events of the time alleged to be of Jesus of Nazareth.
M: This is completely off topic, by the way. In any event, the manuscripts, of course. But the received texts are another thing. What is the point?
The next oldest surviving texts all date from the beginning of the 3rd Century CE at the earliest. BTW, the only reason why I said that the scrap of John MIGHT be from the middle of the 2nd Century is because that’s within the margin of error for the radiometric dating technique used on that artifact, and since it’s such a physically small artifact combined with the fact that radiometric dating is a destructive technique retesting is simply too risky for the survival of the artifact itself.
M: This really seems to be a tangent you do not want to go down....
Furthermore, in the expanded context with the gnostic gospels, which was always what was intended for Christian scholars to be able to do,
M: I don't think the sentence you just uttered is coherent or grammatical.
adds far more esoteric information to the narrative than the canonical gospels have ever been capable of doing.
M: But genius, you have to 'date' those texts, and realize they were written by a different community of people. What are we trying to do here? I hope not just glom together all the texts we find and pick out what we think the abstract 'essence' of a heterogeneous collection of text communities and traditions is, right? If it is trying to find out what the 'earliest' followers of Jesus believed, well, that's where the dating, manuscript or conceptual dependencies come in, and I'm afraid a fair amount (but certainly not all!) of the non-canonical texts, including the so-called Gnostic ones, will not get you what you want. In fact, your understanding of Israelite religion and Hellenistic Judaism is probably so poor you don't even know 'what' you're looking for.
In fact, adding some of those back into the biblical scholarship actually begins to make Revelation far less confusing and hallucination-like.
M: Certainly. But that's not the point. It was the idiotic and reductive attitudes so many in the peanut gallery here take to the Bible.
@Jim Merrilees Oh, but Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, you cannot really leave yourself three very convenient escape clauses here, now can you? To say 'of note' simply lets you arbitrarily dismiss anything you like, and 'true' effectively lets you worm your way out of anything beyond the most prosaic statements of everyday life. What about the 'abstract' statements, the 'philosophical' ones? Since you are also the sole hostile and impartial judge of whether to even admit you yourself are wrong, you can really just refuse to acknowledge anything as soon as you see it leading somewhere you don't like. Moreover, since you likely can neither even 'give' a philosophically defensible account of truth or have the competence in history and human society, you won't even be able to serve as judge in the first place. This is really about you staking out some little prearranged mole hill for you declare yourself king of and pretend it means much intellectually or emotionally.
@Jim Merrilees I say something of note or significance meaning other than a place name or some other factual name.
M: What’s a 'factual name' anyway? I don’t think you actually know enough English to have this conversation.
So give me evidence that Jesus existed
M: Apart from the fact that hundreds of Biblical scholars of all manner of backgrounds have considered this very question and concluded he has existed? That scholars have actually written whole books on this subject, including most recently Bart Ehrman? No, Jaime, why should anyone indulge your self-serving request? You will simply deny whatever argument is brought before you as unconvincing. You will always do that because in the end others are trying to get you to admit something that you have no interest in acknowledging. If there were a panel of impartial judges and we were making competing claims, that is one thing, but you are both judge and jury in your own case. That would be foolish. But since you clearly are a rube in this domain, what you should do is give 'me' some reasons not to believe Jesus existed. 'That' will show whether you actually have any competence to be making any claims at all about the historical Jesus and why anyone should care what you think.
or that any significant story
M: There you go, arbitrarily goal-post shifting again….
from the NT or OT actually HAPPENED.
M: You could try 2 Maccabees, or 1 Kings 16:21-28. And remember: narratives are stories, and stories are narratives.
Would you believe that some Christian cretin
M: You don’t know actually know where the word 'cretin' comes from, do you?
actually said look Jerusalem exists and we know for a fact Herod was a real person mentioned in the bible therefore the bible is true because it mentions them.
M: No one cares about this stupid anecdote of yours. Someone random says something. So what? You can find people of all sorts and stripes associated with a broad cultural phenomenon or tradition saying all sorts of dumb things. I can actually take what you have said in this conversation and show it to other friends of mine and they 'could' think (let us just dub you an atheist) that atheists are the stupidest fucks in the world, and we should never anything under their name. But that would be foolish. So what is in this for you, Jaime? Why does this keep you up at night, and why should I care?
So Mathewcong give it your best shot
M: My lousiest show will be quite enough, because to go to a higher caliber, you will have upgrade the sophistication of your thinking….
...evidence supporting ANY bible story of your choice. I will wait.
M: Yes, you will wait. Because without others pushing you along the path of truth you will just sit there and believe yourself a know-it-all.
Lets face it if any of it was ACTUALLY true
M: J, please tell the following:
What does the world 'true' mean, in a broad sense?
Are the following sentences 'true'? 'France is hexagonal'. 'America is a good country.' Could the following ever be true?: 'My heart burns white with anger' or ''This valley is pregnant with the fear of death.' Or tell me, is Plato’s Republic 'true'?
M: Of course, Jaime, one really 'does' need to ask why you so self-servingly fixate on these 'stories' (and you haven’t even defined what you mean by 'story'). It’s as if you don’t actually 'know' how to read ancient texts. It’s as if you’re a clunky logical positivist that reads things like a robot, except that you’re 'not' a robot. You’ve got your psychological hangups, your fears, your desire to protect your ego. You only 'think' that acting like a robot will get you what you want.
it should be easy for you to prove at least one story true. Why would any god be so inept as to not provide any clear evidence for any of his stories?
M: But J, you know that so much of the Bible isn’t dramatic narrative, yes? What about those parts? Also, what it does it mean to say the stories 'are God’s stories'? Since you don’t actually 'know' any of the stories in the Bible, what does it matter if they didn’t 'exactly' happen? What if a story 'almost’ all happened except one part about it clearly didn’t happen? What happens to the value and meaning of that story? In fact, how do you connect the 'value’ of ancient texts to their historicity? You can go back to my question above: Is Plato’s Republic 'true'? Is Shakespeare?
Yay a new video! I binge watched the entire channel and since I ran out videos, it’s tough to wait! 😂
He leans heavily on the gospel supposedly written by John. Curious how stories where John is present, which are contained in the other 3 gospels, like The Transfiguration, aren’t even included in the gospel supposed to have been written by John. 🤔
Fascinating! Did not know that.
J Warner Wallace, one of the few detectives in the free world that believes in guilty until proven innocent.
He only believes what his cult tells him. His arrogance of atheist is proof he was never an atheist but the I use to be an atheist helps sell his books.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9wpeople can be atheists for all sorts of nonsensical reasons.
Just like one can look both ways before crossing the street because they believe giant hostile roadrunners make it their habitat - and they end up dodging cars anyway. Beep beep.
@@tempestive1 sorry we are all born atheist. As we are all born nonbelievers. But not all nonbelievers call themselves atheist. And many atheist if not most atheist were former believers.
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w I think Tempestive was just saying that some people are atheists, but not skeptics. These people are the easiest to sway. Said another way, you can come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Like concluding 2+2=4 because it takes four pen motions to write two '2's. Still the right answer, but faulty reasoning.
Accounts I've heard from these people converting to Christianity usually fall into one of two categories:
(1) Repeat every bad apologist 101 argument that clearly show they haven't actually studied for themselves "Did you know there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection?"
(2) Emotions. "It felt right" "I had a feeling" "It just clicked for me"
Edit: J Warner Wallace, if he ever was actually an atheist, would certainly fit the bill for faulty reasoning.
I've commented before that I feel sorry for anyone who was jailed by that asshat and that every single case he's ever worked on should be re-examined by someone with their head screwed on properly. Although, as I've also said, the jurisdictions he was involved with had better have a huge goddamn budget to settle false imprisonment lawsuits.
As a firearm enthusiast it made me really cringe when he kept saying "extractor pin mark" at 3:25, I understand he is on the spot but he's supposed to be a professional. It's either an extractor, ejector, or firing pin, and they can actually vary wildly depending on how much spring pressure the magazine was putting on them at the time (how loaded it might have been) high high quality the ammo was (which makes a reliable pressure curve), how hard the primers are, etc.
Yeah,...I was thinking the same thing. It makes me wonder about the veracity of his detective skills.
@@DRayL_ Well, aren't these things usually the purview of specific experts? A normal detective might not know how much these things can vary, though since he should have received firearms training and that probably includes maintenance, he should know the difference between an extractor, an ejector and a firing pin. Anyway, maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, I don't believe for a second he's ever not believed in god, so it's probably fair to scrutinise his past.
@@Tairneanach When it comes to this, a detective needs to know the difference. If they don't, they aren't fulfilling their job as they should because it is a very important aspect. But who knows. You could be right. I've not known any actual detectives.
But yeah, I also question his "atheism". :-)
@@DRayL_ It is hilarious that he seems to be incompetent in his own area of expertise though. This is some shoulder-thing-that-goes-up tier commentary. He said it THREE times...
@@sqeeye3102 I think he is expecting his audience to merely believe what he's saying without providing evidence. It's what theists/apologists do best.
Using police reports (especially from US police departments) as an example of impeccable records that don’t get embellished, is at best naive and at worst deliberately dishonest, pandering to a section of the public that never acknowledge the obvious and documented failings of many police departments.
It is worse than that. Police get paid a salary and in theory they could be fired or prosecuted if they lie. No such incentive exists for religious figures: they only benefit if they attract followers. The potential followers are not nearly as well organized as the police internal affairs people.
@@tim57243 Police have qualified immunity, there is NO penalty for them lying, or committing far worse matters of malfeasance.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 Qualified immunity is immunity from some civil lawsuits. This shouldn't affect being prosecuted criminally or being fired. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
A larger problem is that in practice they often have working relationships with the prosecutors who would be prosecuting them criminally, so the prosecutor doesn't prosecute.
But still, all this is different from a religious leader who only gets paid if they get people to make donations to them for providing imaginary services. Police do practically useful things, sometimes, and they get paid for that.
If Papias was really the student of the author of John, it's strange that he mentions the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but not the gospel written by his mentor.
(a) Irenaeus and the majority of other fragments about Papias affirm that Papias knew John the apostle (Shanks, 288-291). Irenaeus’ testimony is particularly weighty given that he is even earlier than Eusebius and plainly states that Papias was a “hearer of John” (Haer. 5.33.4).
(b) Despite Eusebius’ confident declaration that Papias didn’t know John the apostle (Hist. eccl. 3.39), in his earlier work the Chronicle he actually affirms that Papias knew John (Shanks, 111-113). Obviously, Eusebius’ view had changed between his publication of the Chronicle and his publication of Ecclesiastical History (something that was not unusual for Eusebius).
(c) Papias states plainly that he “learned from the elders” (Hist eccl. 3.39.3). A few sentences later, Papias describes the “words of the elders” as “What Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.4). In other words, it seems that Papias uses the word “elders” to refer to the Apostles.
Your fake scholars are lying to you. On many occasions.
@@abashedsanctimony154 And yet he still didn't mention the Gospel of John. Which is strange if it was indeed written by John. Whether or not Papias was a "hearer of John" is a bit beside the point.
---
I think you misread Papias, though. When he mentions "Andrew, Thomas, James, John, etc...", he is talking about second hand accounts _about_ those people: "If, then, any one came, who had been a *follower of the elders,* I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders - what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say."
It's a bit reckless to read that entire list into the previous quote by Eusebius, especially when Eusebius explicitly says that Papias _didn't_ claim to be a "hearer" of the "holy apostles". He claims that Papias got his information primarily from Aristion and John the Presbyter, who he distinguishes from the first John in the list.
And remember, Wallace was claiming that he was a "student" of John, not just a "hearer" of John.
@@incredulouspasta3304 To hear John, one would have to have heard the Gospel John preached yes?
It's a impish attack on singular individuals. Easy to do yet childish waste of life . Bart herman is a prime example.
@@incredulouspasta3304 Ok then if John the Presbyter is a different man from the Apostle John. Eusebius is called into question for accuracy and truth telling.
How does this refute that what they would have heard was from Apostle John's and other's Gospel. Actually Jesus preached for three years, and this message was spread far. It had reached Syria and Tyre. The king of Tyre wanted nothing to do with Israel. They were pagans, Arabs most likely Baal worshippers that adopted Rome's new gods from the Pantheon.
The Gospel was consistent, in that the Original Apostles stayed in Jeru'Salem. Peter was arrested and forcefully take to Rome. Not what the catholic church claims.
Only Paul was sent to Rome with Luke. Yet Luke also wasn't with the original Apostles. He was a physician and historian. The others were of varying degrees of education, maybe they forgot some things and parts of their writings were corrupted. Paul and Luke were Jews, in my belief.
@@abashedsanctimony154 _"To hear John, one would have to have heard the Gospel John preached yes?"_
No, that isn't implied at all. That's extremely presumptuous.
_"It's a impish attack on singular individuals. Easy to do yet childish waste of life . Bart herman is a prime example."_
What on earth???
There *_was_* a Paul Bunyan -- The big guy was based on an 18th century Quebecois lumberjack named Joseph "Jos" Montferrand, who was the inspiration for the legendary Ottawa Valley figure Big Joe Mufferaw. Big Joe's stories grew and grew and were Americanised and exaggerated over time a the big blue ox Babe was eventually added out of whole cloth. A 6'4" logger became a giant.
fun fact - johnny appleseed was a real person, named john chapman who really did go around the american midwest planting and selling apple trees for pennies to help farmers establish farms. you can actually visit his grave in fort wayne indiana
I posted your video on his site and it was erased very quickly.
That wasn't censorship. It was "response to demonic attack (we're so persecuted yay us)".
I am very disappointed on you.....where is the “for the bible tells me so” jingle?? :))
I'm still waiting for the horror movie music version of the song.
NO! GOD NO. NOOOOOOOOOO.
@@tach5884 Yeah, as if the book isn't bad enough...wait, there was that History Channel "Special". 😝
AWESOME! Who would have thought a cold-case christian detective would be lying for Jesus! No, wait- they do it all the time. LOL.
Ha ha ha ho he ha ya so funny that you have fallen under the enemy hand
@@Toviyah you are bat shit crazy
@@Toviyah Ummm havent you figured it out yet ? No sky pixie, no scary monsters under your beddy buyes
@@gowdsake7103 did you know that the science revolution started because of christians and also if you please tell me the prove you have to disprove God existence and also I have figured that there are no pixie under my bed I guess you haven’t figured out that soon like you believe “we are animals” so we should eat each other that what Richard Dawkins is planning
@@Toviyah Bzzzt, wrong kiddo, science revolution started despite christianity, if it were by christians we would still believe the sun orbits the earth.
And we know the god of adam and eve dont exist because adam and eve never existed, any sky pixie that relies on that fairy tale simply doesnt exist.
If you meant another god then present evidence of its existence, otherwise the default position is simply that it does not exist.
Paul it was so good seeing you live taking calls! I hope you have more opportunities to jump in there again, It was great seeing you actively work through things.
I keep repeating myself but I really wonder if he was that sloppy as a police detective, too.
Well all these faux apologists are pretty sanctimonious, so im sure a few innocent ppl paid the price for this guys ego.
Maybe Jesus was just in the wrong place at the right time. 😂😂😂
@@nunyabusiness979 most sensible comment on this topic, ever! Mind, blown.
Keep trying you'll create a OCD that your belief is true. And then you'll actually regret believing a-Theism.
It's a religion.
@@abashedsanctimony154 except it isn't. And it's funny when theists say that like the term religion is a bad thing. It's so laughably self defeating. You keep enjoying that good placebo effect though.
Yes! Thank you, Paul. This is and has been a topic that I have been waiting to see tackled a bit as a student of law and justice. Wallace's gimmick is so transparently bad it should honestly be carted out every time he tries to use it. The chain of custody jargon he uses is probably the best and easiest to understand example of this.
You can't establish a chain of custody if the chain was never attached to begin with.
I’m confused. People writing things down immediately after they happened is an apt metaphor for people writing things down decades after they happened? Must be the new math all the kids are talking about.
Newwww math, nohoohoo math
“I wonder if it will have something to do with a crime scene”
Made me chuckle.
So according to the church, if I read a book by Steven Hawking, I get to claim I was a direct student of Hawking and knew him personally...cool! I mean he has passed away and never mentioned me in any texts, but hey...those are minor details.
Thank you, Paulogia, for being so forensic in all of these posts. What you are doing is academically important and you should continue. For my own part, all I can say ( as I have been from the age of 10 when I was sent off to Sunday school so my parents could get some downtime), is that it’s all a load of bollocks. Religion is a good industry.
Thanks, Chis
My question has always been "Why didn't Jesus himself write anything? And if an all knowing God could foresee problems with documentation why didn't he document everything to the hilt?"🗺
So glad I found this channel from GMSkeptic. Love the dry, patient manner in which logic is employed to dismantle weak claims. Subscribed! Going to binge.
There's really two days I look forward to with respect to youtube. Monday for Paul on the historicity of Jesus and Saturday for Techmoan (which is somehow like reading the Sunday paper for me).
It is incredibly easy for something to get wildly inaccurate even a couple of decades after it's established. I like to pull out the fictional size of the Super Star Destroyer Executor - also known as Darth Vader's Star Destroyer - from Star Wars as a well-documented example of this phenomenon. When it was constructed for filming The Empire Strikes Back in 1979, the studio model had a conning tower built into it that was supposed to connect it with the Imperial Star Destroyer, first seen in the original Star Wars film in 1977. It was supposed to be the same component on both ships, thus establishing the scale of the model and the size of the starship to be about eleven miles long, or eleven times the length of the Imperial Star Destroyer, which was conceived as being approximately 1 mile or 1.6 kilometers long.
After the film was released in May of 1980, The Empire Strikes Back Official Poster Monthly of 1980 was published, which had a quote under the picture of Vader's flagship which read in part, "Larger and stronger than five ordinary Star Destroyers..." Note that this does not quantify the length of the ship, merely establish that the Executor was bigger and more powerful than the five Star Destroyers that were also in the picture.
This poster was then misquoted in A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, published in 1984, as reading, "approximately five times larger and more destructive than any Star Destroyer", clearly adding a quantifiable length where there was none originally.
Then the Imperial Sourcebook, a roleplaying game supplement from 1989, compounds the error by saying the following about the Executor: "Five times the length of an Star Destroyer... over 1000 turbolaser batteries, ion cannons, and tractor beam emplacements dot the eight kilometre length...", solidifying the five mile length of the ship. This is especially egregious because the RPG supplements were frequently consulted as sources for facts about the movie universe by those who wrote novels and other secondary materials for Lucasfilm, thus making this the go-to source for the Executor's size.
Then in 1993, Starlog Magazine, which was a well-regarded sci-fi publication, said of the Executor, "More than four times the length of a standard Star Destroyer, the colossal was the largest vessel in space...", which compounded the problem even further. Even after the book From Star Wars to Indiana Jones was published, which detailed the props and miniatures from Industrial Light and Magic, wrote that the ship was conceived as being eleven miles long, the roleplaying game supplements, computer games such as X-wing vs TIE Fighter, and other sources repeated the 8km/5mile length for the ship.
It wasn't until 2004 that official Lucasfilm sources firmly established a length of 17.6 kilometers. 1984 to 2004... that's only 24 years, and in that time the official length of this fictional spacecraft changed multiple times, despite there being access to the original studio model and ILM employees who could verify the length for the supplementary books.
How much more could the Jesus story have changed in the 80+ years between his life and the writing of Mark? Probably a lot more. Certainly enough to cast doubt on the veracity of the scriptures without firsthand accounts of what happened in them.
Johnny Appleseed was definitely a real person, although I’m pretty sure the details of the common story are fairly distorted from IRL.
great video to close the year with, so proud to support your channel.
Phone goes off… Paulogia just uploaded a new video… what am I doing tonight… ? Watching Paulogia… Awesome work, Paul - thank you!
On the last part where Luke says: "Everything you just said...is wrong".
That because the writers ultimately decide where the story goes.
It's not always the case The the "Good guys " in any given scenario win. In fact the Emperor could conceivably win under the right conditions.
The same cannot be said for Evidence supporting the bible or accounts of a risen Jesus.
And again I rush to hear Paulogia's video -
The problem with looking at something/anything from different angles, is that if you refuse to open your eyes you'll only ever see what you make believe.
I'm sure somebody else has pointed this out already, but Johnny Appleseed, or more appropriately John Chapman, was a real person that existed and planted Apple trees all through Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and the Ohio Valley.
Part missionary, part businessman, part conservationist, part futurist, part man that just loved apples, so he was trying to show their possible importance.
The early church is full of legends & forgeries, but the gospel is true. Source: Trust me, bro!
It would appear that our detective here rather exaggerated his “evidence” I hope he was more professional in his day job.
The secret to attracting followers is to pretend to know
what you don't know.
And do it with absolute confidence.
@@JamesRichardWiley
Absolutely. Religious and cult leaders have been demonstrating its effectiveness for centuries.
When I was in 6th grade my teacher showed us how things become 'warped' in the retelling of something. There were 30 students in the class. She whispered a few sentences to a student in a front desk and that student whispered the sentences to the student behind her and that student behind them and on and on until student 30. Our teacher then asked student 30 to tell her what the sentences were. NOTHING was original to what she whispered to the first student. :)
the whispering theory does not work with the gospels for a number of reasons. One is that they are written documents.
@@Justas399 Who wrote them and who can verify that they wrote them?
@@Justas399 it took at least 30 years for them to get written down
@@Justas399You have verbal tradition before the writing that degraded the information. Also, you have repeated manual transcription after that because parchment and paper rot, which also degraded the information.
@@tim57243 and apart from parchment rot there is also the issue of someone copying changing a few words here and there because it improves the flow of the sentence, do that enough times and things can already change radically. Perhaps the person copying couldn't read a part because of the handwriting (printing press was only invented in the 15th century after all) The issue of translations and perhaps not choosing or the language you're translating to not having the perfect words.
If you do the class experiments with a single written word chances are, it will survive that round. But make it a sentence and those chances go down. Make it multiple sentences, even more chance of things changing.
If he turned up in court with this BS he'd be laughed out of town
I'd love to see a lawyer's take on this chain of custody evidence
Here is what a lawyer discovered after he examined the gospel accounts on the resurrection:
"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. "
@@Justas399 link please
@@Justas399 - I'd like an actual reference so that I can check your story for myself.
Many thanks in anticipation.
@@Justas399 You may wish to look again at where you got this from. Even this opening statement is diametrically opposite
"set out to disprove the biblical testimony"
"a careful examination . . . . . . would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity"
one of those things is not like the other
-------------------------------------------------------
Plus Greenleaf was a devout evangelical Episcopalian, and no evidence exists that he ever doubted the truth of the Gospels. At no point did he assume that the gospels were innocent until proven guilty
Also, check out Howard Richard Packham's devastating analysis
@@hannahalice1000 Greenleaf was one of the founding lawyers of Harvard Law school. He set out to disprove the resurrection and came back convinced that it did indeed happen.
He fails to mention how the writers seemed to know about everything, including conversations where they weren't even there,or the lord's prayer,when they were all asleep?
“Expanding in detail and scope” - an easy way to say: the shit gets deeper and deeper...
1:00 I love it how you put a sign in Greek in the little drawing.... "The end is near".... Kudos!
Looks like these apologists will never learn from the likes of Paulogia that when smart & studious Christians who value the truth learn what the apologists did to them, these Christians will become former Christians and never look back.
Well there was a Johnny Appleseed he was named John Chapman. If you go down to Hocking Hills State Park in Ohio they're supposedly an apple orchard that he planted well at least it's the type and the variety of apples they said he planted.
Extremely thorough work. Would you consider providing the citations in the video notes? Or a link to a doc with citations? You’ve done a ton of research; it would be helpful for particularly motivated users to be able to verify. Trust but verify, as the mantra goes. Also, I’d like to benefit from the vast work you’ve done should I need to provide support beyond your video.
Paul ... _you are a treasure._ You keep raising your already high standard even higher! *Brilliant work!*
What also seems to be missed is that in around AD 70 - 40 years after the death of Christ and well before Mark was written, there was a little spat called the Jewish Rebellion in circa AD 70. That had a major effect on all of this, and would have probably amplified myth-making through this difficult period. And getting into the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the shard in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford that has the essential Christ story dating from a couple of thousand years BC, would probably be rude.
Please keep attacking this fraud. As a retired detective I've developed a contempt for JWW as a person.
13:21 _"You're going to think that I'm a broken record, here, ..."_
no, Paul. I'm going to think that J. Warner Wallace is a dissembler.
Forensic investigation 101. Mr ‘cold case’ has missed the class again. It seems he missed them all. Brilliant work again, Paul.
Will we get more of Ray Comfort mega-seminar?
Please tell me that doesn't actually exist
@@tastethejace It features Ray, Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Genesis Apologetics and a bunch of others.
I'm always so thrown off whenever I hear that name. "Comfort" is something I continually pursue yet when I hear that dude's name I get all twisted inside. You cpuld say..
Uncomfortable.
@@hermeticxhaote4723 I still find his atheist's worst nightmare-skit funny. That moustache, shirt, voice, his surname (Comfort) and the phallic shape of the banana all come of like a parody of a 70's adult film. More ironic when he goes around berating people how they commit a thought-crime by just thinking lustfully of a woman which is equal to adultery.
Here's a link to the playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLpdBEstCHhmXyxdYz8eS_uZEF1G16AupD.html
Since Paul said he would do more, I have a reasonable level of confidence he will (until new evidence comes in 😉 ). But since he (has said he) _really_ likes resurrection claims, and seems pretty good at doing the research, I appreciate him sharing these videos with us.
The two biggest scam artists in apologetics together- Wallace and Strobel.
They say "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link". This chain is nothing BUT weak links!
This is not related in the slightest to the content of the video but… while I was watching this video, we discovered our beagle hates the chain sound used and howls every single time 👀😂
Great video, as usual!
Really good - one of your best, and that is saying quite a lot.
Okay, what would it cost me to have my character done in your art style?
Wonderful work, Paul! Many thanks.
I watched the ads before your video, just because they were religious. Gives you a coin or two in your coffer and also gives me perspective and a laugh. Thank you sir!
Funny ,, how when you go to the video,, there are only comments that agree that jesus was real.
No dissenting argument. I wonder why? Could the christians be dishonest?
Jesus was real but he wasn't able to end global suffering.
And neither was his dad.
I mean, there's a fair bit of evidence for "there was a guy who founded Christianity named Jeshua ben Joseph." Not overwhelming, but about as much evidence as we have for lots of folks who founded religions in that time period. The much bigger question is how much the historical figure has in common with the guy described in the gospels...
@@chengarqordath Josephus the author of "Antiquity of the Jews" was the earliest mention of Jesus and he wasn't born for years after the supposed death of Jesus. Even Christian apologists admit there are no sources given and that the passages mention are a fraud.
Early church fathers wrote letters to each other discussing Josephus in the 3rd century and they never mention this paragraph. If there was any mention of Jesus in Antiquities you can be certain they would have discussed it thoroughly.
This paragraph didn't show up until centuries later.
Any other source for Jesus is well after the events and are only acknowledging the legend of Jesus as told by Christian which disqualifies it's Independence.
Many are just proven frauds as is most of the bible.
Jesus was just a myth.
There is no point for Christians on believing something they don't consider true though.
Yes, Wallace's channel only allows approved comments to appear. This is a sure sign that his "analysis" can't stand up to scrutiny. Wallace is one of the biggest grifters in an industry full of grifters.
Way to take this clown apart so effectively Paul. outstanding! The next apologist I encounter who isn’t a bald faced liar will be the first.
Every case Wallace ever worked on needs to be reviewed if this is an example of his detective skills.
"Other great tips to create a flourishing religion", this line swept me off my feet! I'm going to start using it! 😂😂😂
Thank God (sarcasm) that this guy is no longer a detective.
I’ll take historical figures with contemporaneous evidence for their existence for $500.
Really well done and thank you for sharing
10:40 The quote "the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp" comes from Against Heresies 5.33.4
Hi Paul, I believe in Johnny Appleseed, he was real (John Chapman 1774 - 1845). Praise the apple cider.
That’s what I thought!
Ooooo busting out "Against Heresies"....
Not good for you, Mr. Wallace.
*_Thank you, for all you do_** ;*
We need people like you Paul, to push back with facts against the flawed fallacious deception of Christians like Warner.
_Keep on fighting the "good fight"._
Learned alot on this. Keep up!
I think anyone who was convicted due to JWW’s investigation needs to show these ridiculous videos during the appeals process. Any judge worth his salt will recognize Wallace’s complete and utter incompetence.
Gotta love the "wow, im full of shit" physical tics he displays when he listens to how full of shit he is, recognizing it subconsciously (probably consciously too).
I would like to be able to see these. Can you point to specific times in the video and say what I should look for?
@@tim57243 He unknowingly exhibits a small smile when he says especially obvious false claims. His hand gestures also get more frenetic at the same time. It is his repressed rational brain trying to communicate his fundamental concepts of normalcy and decency. The gun analogy is a good example. He also sometimes accompanies the half smile with a quick giggle when he attempts intentionally extra dishonest claims. You should be able to see it now if you are not a theist. Grin
@@the-trustees I rewatched and saw examples of what you are talking about, maybe, at 14:05 and 16:30 and 16:32. But I don't know how often people do that when they are being honest, so I am unconvinced.
@@tim57243 I freely admit that my conclusion is based on my own experience with people who have been dishonest over the last 25 years. :)
Knocked it out of the park as usual, Paul.
It’s always good to hear from both sides before reaching a conclusion. The problem is that chistians only have ears for one side, their side. This is why they will always be right.
Never heard an atheist refute Christianity with any facts. Never seen an atheist prove atheism is true with any facts either.
@@Justas399 good joke🤣🤣
"I didn't kill my wife. I have an alibi."
"I know you didn't kill your wife because you have an alibi."
"Don't you want to know what my alibi is?"
"You say you have an alibi. That's good enough for me," said J.Warner Wallace.
I mean, this guy _knows_ he's lying. And he's doing it so blatantly. He literally _just_ said that John was the last book. And he acknowledges that the gospels weren't even written during Jesus lifetime. And suddenly John is the first officer.
The gospels were written by eyewitnesses and one interviewed the eyewitnesses. Nothing like this for anyone in the ancient world.
@@Justas399 The gospels weren't written by eyewitness. They weren't even claimed to have been written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John until the 4th century CE, and some passages weren't added until the 5th century. Even if you don't care that church leaders have admitted this for a very long time, consider how many of the listed characters would have been able to write in scholarly Greek or how portions of Mark were copied into Mathew and Luke verbatim.
I gotta say, the sound of those chains is KILLING MY EARS while wearing headphones!
17:14 Green sweater guy, challenging you to a fight: "If you say another word, I'm going to introduce you to my fists, Mark and Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias"
Why we know the Jesus Story IS a Legend: All the myths and magic in it.
Jesus know exactly what it would take to bring about a global conversion to Christianity.
Instead we get Paula White, Donald Trump, and J. Warner Wallace as a punishment.
Thanks Jesus.
@@JamesRichardWiley he gave us free choice you idiots so that why Christianity hasn’t spread
How did the various writers of the Gospels not let on that its all a made up story at some point as a give away ~~ surely given the time line and time span there could be no conspiracy amongst living people ~~surely someone at some point would give the game away ~~~~ we all know the Greek writer Homer was writing fiction ??? HE HE and how come they were able to write such impressive things of a sort with consistancy and effect unto this day ???
@@Sportliveonline preach brother
@@Toviyah Let me ask you a fairly simple question:
If someone you love from your family became a drug addict and deteriorates to the point where they are likely to overdose and you witness them pulling out that needle, with a potentially fatal dose in it and get ready to inject themselves, what do you do?
Respect their right to self-determination and watch as they kill themselves? Or do you grab the drug straight out of their hand, potentially saving their lives?
The first time i truly realized how unreliable people are when orally relaying information, was when a society/club i'm in announced that we were going to renovate our house. Within a year this piece of information had turned into our house being under risk of collapsing and that we want to sell it. Within a single year basically none of the original information was remaining, so i cannot even imagine what 30 years can do.
He Paul, did you ever do the video on Ireneaus you mentioned in this one? Maybe I missed it but I've been looking forward to it. If you did it, can you please point me to where? It's really confusing...
This is an excellent video! Very damning, takedown information of a detective, which I love. ;)