It was On TV! Resurrection Evidence must be good! (Lee Strobel / Kirk Cameron Response)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ค. 2023
- Kirk Cameron was joined by best-selling author Lee Strobel to discuss the "compelling" evidence for Jesus and the resurrection.
Original video - www.tbn.org/programs/takeaway...
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
Achilles is portrayed sulking and refusing to fight at the start of the Iliad. Pretty embarrassing for Greece's greatest hero, I'd say. Conclusive evidence that the Iliad is accurate history and that the goddess of the sea helped her son Achilles. Thetis be praised!
And Heracles dressed up as a woman and did women’s labor, about as embarrassing as it gets so he must indeed be a demigod, all hail!
Plus I read in various mythology books that Achilles was invulnerable everywhere but in his heel, and that's exactly how he dies in the Iliad. So this is confirmation from multiple sources.
There's a myth circulating around apologetics circles that Simon Greenleaf, a founding figure in Harvard Law, was actually an atheist who converted to Christianity after examining the witness of the Bible and confirming it to be true.
Doesn't matter that there is zero evidence for this and that Greenleaf was apparently an ardent Episcopalian, the myth has spread far enough that the Chief Justice of my state's Supreme Court propounded it in an Easter sermon this year. Only 170 years, and Christians aren't above disparaging (accidentally or not) their own to achieve a rhetorical point.
Achilles also fulfilled the prophecy that he would die if he went to Ilium. Achilles’ divinity confirmed. Check-mate Christians!
Aries also once got his ass kicked by a kid named Percy Jackson in New York, which is a real place that was generally described accurately by Rick Riordan. Now why would he portray that extremely embarrassing event unless it actually happened? So yeah, the Greek gods are real, man. Get right with Zeus before it’s too late
Strobel is the ultimate sales man. It’s embarrassing listening to him.
Aha - the criterion of embarrassment. If you find him embarrassing, then he must exist but if you don't, it means he is imaginary in what he says and his existence, too. Perfectly logical. Which frankly I found one of the most embarrassing ideas that this proves anything.
Don't give him so much credit. He sounds like a telemarketer selling artisanal toilet seat covers for chemical camping toilets. He _thinks_ he sold one once and has been calling himself employee of the month ever since.
I think you might be forgetting the master of disaster frank turek. On par perhaps
Sales men make sales.
More like after sales support - someone else sells you the used car, Strobel tries to prevent you from returning it and giving the bucket shop a bad name.
My uncle had a mental breakdown and began believing he was hearing messages from God. Strangely enough, my christian family didnt take his revelations seriously, though they do take Paul's seriously
Mine did take it seriously and fucked our lives majorly
The phrase “bestselling author Lee Strobel” makes my heart weep for humanity
I would to like see him debate a historical nt scholar.
Since Trump era, "best seller" now means nothing
Best seller is a meaningless accolade like game of the year.
"Best-selling author"
(In _evangelical_ christian literature)
@@pureflix8086 And using their own charts. And counting mass buys by churches who want to use them as gifts for anyone who seems on the fence but not too critical a thinker.
Just imagine if Jordan Peterson decided to embrace a born-again Christian identity. He could find a whole new audience for 10 Rules, right next to Robert Schuller.
I literally laughed out loud when the host said that "nobody questions" the Iliad and the Odyssey as ancient sources.
I've never questioned the Illiad as a good source for the events in the Illiad. I've likewise never questioned whether the bible is a good source for the events in the bible. Now, historical events are an entirely different kettle of fish.
When I was a kid I saw a magician perform a trick, while telling embarrassing jokes about himself. I didn't know how it was possible, so I became a magic worshiper.
That is not the claim of the eyewitness. The claim is we seen and nothing can change what we seen. Do you really think Roman soldiers didn't know how to kill someone? Come now be honest and follow the evidence.
@@dentonhahn2907 What eyewitness are you talking about?
@JGM0JGM I'm talking about the gospels writers, John, Peter given by John mark, Luke who took down the account given him, less is known of Mathew but he is clearly writing to a Jewish people.
@@dentonhahn2907 Are you joking?
@@dentonhahn2907 hilarious.
Strobel pushes that "I was a journalist" line as if it's supposed to mean something. But it really doesn't. He is still capable of bias. Especially for something with emotional and cultural roots like religion. He professes he was religious before supposedly being an "atheist". He claims he took a hard look at the evidence in his "Case for Christ" shlock. Which basically took the usual, shabby apologetics as totes amazing, and scripture as already proven true. Yeah. Hard-hitting, objective reporting there [sarcasm].
I'm a nutritionist. I read the entire label one my One A Day.
It really says a lot about his readers. Such a low bar !
@Aubrey Leonae .....cool, I'm a commercial pilot.
I fly various commercial planes a couple times a week ...............on my computer with Microsoft Aviation as my co-pilot 😂
In The Case for Christ, some of those interviewed criticize the work of other scholars at length. Does Strobel interview these maligned scholars, to give them a chance to respond? Of course not. He's not a journalist; He's a propagandist.
who knows, he might intend it as his "criterion of embarassment" to admit he was already a bad hack writer before he stooped down to take up apologetics. ;)
George Washington's "Cherry Tree Myth" was first published in the fifth edition of Mason Locke Weems' biography of the first president in 1806, a mere seven years after his death.
"By the 1830s, the cherry tree myth was firmly entrenched in American culture, as the case of Joice Heth clearly shows. Heth was an elderly enslaved woman purchased by P.T. Barnum in 1835. He made her into a sideshow attraction, billing her as an enslaved woman who had raised George Washington. (If true, this would have made her 161 years old.) Heth had many physical characteristics of extreme old age. The stories she told about Washington--including the cherry tree myth--were right out of Weems. Heth was seen as credible because she was telling stories that people already knew. The cherry tree myth has endured for more than two hundred years probably because we like the story, which has become an important part of Americans' cultural heritage."
So, it took just 25 years for a made-up story about George Washington's childhood to become "firmly entrenched in American culture." I can't think of a better example of how quickly and easily mythology can become "historical fact" based on nothing more than the willingness of one person to lie and tell stories readers want to be true.
Or, as Paulogia greatly puts it, the person only has to sincerely be mistaken. Or just not really care about whether it is true or not, but tell the story as if it was true, and then it spreads from there.
Another perfect example of legend creation and story telling happening quickly are the false claims around the death of Cassy Bernall who was shot during the Columbine shooting.
within a matter of hours, a story was spread that one of the shooters asked her if she believed in god then told her to go meet her god and shot her. But this didn't happen at all. What did happen is the shooter banged on the desk she was hiding under, said "Peekaboo" to her then shot her.
But despite the cops and eye witnesses correcting the story, christians to this day exploit her death to manipulate and emotionally abuse children and teenagers by claiming she was a martyr for jesus and hold her up as an example to other children to throw away their lives for their christian gods.
The false martyr story didn't take generations to develop, it took merely a matter of hours.
Lee is a liar who lies for money. Then again, he has a gullible, easily manipulated audience of christians to grift. So why should he stop lying?
25 years? Just look at the 6th of January… plenty people believe obvious falsehoods about it and write books. Imagine they are a religious sect and that is their core belief …
@@Heroltz998 Agreed, but in this specific case, the evidence suggests that Weems added the story to the 5th edition of his biography in order to sell more books by giving people more of what they wanted to hear.
Thank you! I was hoping for an example it two from history of false, embarrassing stories that became believed.
In 1981, on a Friday, I was involved in a small car accident as passenger. The car was a total loss, having hit a street lamp pole on the driver's side, but fortunately not frontally, so we came out out of the car without any major injuries. It probably helped that the car was an old Chrysler Newport (late 1960s?), one of the most massive cars around. On the Monday, a woman whom I worked with reported a story told her by her young son that there had been an accident near their house which caused two deaths. The details she knew made it absolutely clear that this was the accident I was involved in just three days earlier. Cool - I was one of the "dead"!!
Sadly, it's only after having taught mythology for the last time that I realized this would have been a great story to use in the classroom, prompting students to tell their own stories...
Glad you survived! Or were resurrected with amnesia of your actual death, which apologists might say is an equally valid interpretation!😉
Also your story name me just realised that apologists won't be satisfied Jesus wasn't resurrected unless they hear it from him himself... Which he'd have to be alive and in existence to do. They can't lose.
The mental gymnastics of apologists is breathtaking
I find them personally insulting.
How would a journalist think he could disprove a resurrection of 2000 years ago in a weekend? Seems unlikely. It’s the sort of incredible claim one simply disbelieves without feeling one needs to disprove.
He believes because his wife told him to. And her belief is based on someone else's belief....and so on.
Better yet, how would a journalist prove any resurrection occurred? How can he prove anything he believes?
@@jasonsabbath6996 , there’re certainly issues there, but he doesn’t say he went into it to prove it occurred. His stated determination as a journalist to research only the “disprove” branch is part of what makes his “research” so odd. Instead of looking for corroborating evidence, he goes in looking only for evidence that DOESN’T corroborate a story? Weird.
@@JArcher-nu2xt, his wife’s conversion to Christianity does seem to have put pressure on Lee Strobel’s marriage.
@@alexanderweddle3948 While praying to find something...
This all really sounds like they're trying to convince themselves, and not anybody else.
*_A Glaring Double Standard_** ;*
If _"hearsay testimony"_ written down "decades after the fact" is sufficient enough to believe Biblical miracle claims,
why does the exact same quality & quantity of _"personal testimony"_ suddenly become insufficient to accept the miracle claims of other religions ?
Special pleading, anything supernatural from other religions is demons
Catholics have far better attested miracles than the resurrection, with actual eye witnesses. I wonder if he believes them.
If anything, a religion like islam has exactly MORE reason then to be believed than Christianity.
Hell, mormonism has witnesses to joseph smiths greatness, and we actually know their _real names_ !
@@pureflix8086 Not only that, some of the witnesses signed sworn affidavits as to what they claim to have seen? Admittedly, some of them recanted later on, but still, they got their claims NOTARIZED.
Historians can only ever say what "most likely" happened in the past.
A resurrection would be considered a miracle, miracles by definition are the "least likely" thing to happen, therefore can never be the most likely explanation.
Correct. By definition I can't believe in Miracles. By definition it's "God putting fossils in the ground to trick us."
Not my fault some dick of a god thinks it's funny to mess around like that. It's gaslighting on a cosmic scale.
Perfectly said.
That might be true but it is really quite irrelevant. No one needs to believe anything about it without reasonable evidence.
Thank you, Bart Ehrman…
@@TestMeatDollSteak I was going to say, "Thank you, David Hume." lol
The "women weren't considered reliable witnesses" argument makes no sense. In Luke and John, the first thing the women do is to go fetch the men, so the men can witness the scene for themselves. None of the gospels indicate anyone relied on their witness. The role of primary witnesses is played by the male disciples who Jesus appeared to afterward. The women's role as witnesses wouldn't be embarrassing, because that's not their role in the story in the first place.
That's a good point. Christianity didn't rely on their testimony. And indeed, ten of Jesus' disciples testified they had seen Jesus, and Thomas the eleventh disciples, didn't buy it.
Also, they disovered the empty tomb doing somethng considered women's work. Men discovering the tomb would have been less belivable.
Not to mention the female prophets, apostles, heroes, martyrs, and church leaders in the Old and New Testaments. While contemporary Jewish society certainly was mysogynistic (with Christianity MAYBE marginally better), it is an overstatement to say that no one would have invented female witnesses. Look at the apotheosis that Mary the mother of Christ went through herself in the mythology very early in church history.
A better candidate for the criterion of embarrassment is the claim that Jesus made that "the Son of Man will com in the clouds with glory" within the generation of those listening. I tend to think it was probably something that Jesus Christ actually said that survived the redactions of the story because it is the most embarrassing prophecy in the whole Bible. It's also one that apologists don't bring up for some reason....
Not to mention that Matthew has an armed guard posted precisely to prevent the male followers of Jesus even approaching the body- and other Gospel accounts that they were hiding from fear of the Roman and Jewish authorities. Peter denies even knowing Jesus, and a day later he's running off to the tomb to confirm the good news?
@incredulouspasta3304 Indeed and we have greek-roman literature and they wrote somewhere far away from the backwater Galilae and make up the stories however they like.
This video is exactly why i think we need someone giving us a chance to give a alternative perspective to religion/bible studies, i really support your channel and think it needs to get out to the masses.
I also think things like the gospels being exposed is a big help for people who are struggling with religion.
thank you, mad beard
I would really rather people just admit they believe because they want to instead of trying to come up with evidence, facts or science to justify their beliefs. That would be much more honest. I honestly admit I stopped believing because it just didn’t seem logical to me. My daughter said the same thing. Mainly the mystical aspect bothered me, but studying different areas of science in college also planted many doubts. Later I learned the history of ancient religions, customs in the Greco Roman world at that time and then all the errors in the Bible which justified my disbelief. It was a process.
Exactly. I have no problem with faith as long as people remember that it IS faith
I have no respect for these apologists... They are snake oil salesman... liars at their core.
Cognitive dissonance. Deep down their brain knows it’s all bs that’s why they desperately cling to the idea that logic and evidence is on their side. Very few very naïve people would honestly think that faith alone is enough to sustain such a life impacting belief.
"I would really rather people just admit they believe because they want to instead of trying to come up with evidence, facts or science to justify their beliefs. That would be much more honest"
Exactly right. It is a case of their personal desires trumping facts and truth. For them personal desires win - they are doing exactly what Christians are not supposed to be doing. Bizarre.
"I would really rather people just admit they believe because they want to instead of trying to come up with evidence"
I heartily agree! That would show them as honest, self-aware people. I would be much more inclined to listen to what they have to say.
I sincerely sought God many years ago, and prayed with tears rolling down my cheeks asking him to reveal himself to me, but I received nothing.
As others have commented: What you do, Paul, is great. Keep on producing such quality vids. These are essential in this era of an intentional dumbing down of our educational system.
Prayer is a tool used to convince yourself that talking to yourself isn't crazy like the unfortunate homeless man on the street.
Prayer is also a tool for avoiding material responsibility.
So much easier to pray than to actually do something.
Thoughts and Prayers, anyone?
We have headsets for that nowadays.
His books also pushed me away from Christianity as well. I tried reading several of them, for instance I tried to read The Case for Christ, I got to the end of the first chapter and I still had questions, then he started chapter two saying now that we know for sure what was in chapter one is true then. Which made me go what about this, what about that, I was able to come up with many, many questions that still were unanswered from chapter one before being able to conclude what he claimed he concluded.
Every apologetics book I encountered was like this, it was obvious they wernt for the actually questioning and searching people, no they were for those who had doubts, but just needed reassurance, or for those who knew someone who was questioning to make them feel like the questioner was of course in the wrong.
Yes, The Case for Christ just provides more questions than answers, and leaves you thinking that if this is the best evidence we have, oh dear. Of course, arguments tend to be presented as evidence. Of course, if the title of the book had been "Is There a Case for Christ - I'm Not Really Sure", I doubt if he would have had a best seller and a subsequent career on the christian circuit.
Another great video, Paul. I just wish I didn't have The Life of Brian stuck in my head, at about 18:28 where Lee says, "If Jesus is not the messiah..." I automatically said, "he's a very naughty boy". Please, someone assure me that I'm not alone in this.
You are not alone! All hail Brian!
You're not alone out there. So rejoice and be happy, because you better always look at the bright side of life!
"Yes, we have to work it out for ourselves!"
@@njhoepner
its the g0urd
You could argue that we don't know for SURE it's not true but it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it isn't true because the Bible is wrong about literally every single testable claim it makes. So since everything else in that book is a fairy tale, what do we wanna bet the resurrection is too? The Bible disproves itself. We don't have to.
Yes, no mass enslavement of Jews in Egypt, no star wandering around the sky only visible to magi in the East, no slaughter of innocents, no "world-wide" taxation that forced everyone to return to their 14th distant ancestor, no supernatural darkness, no Jerusalem zombies, and on and on. (And if many of these were proved to be true, it still won't prove the magic part of the story, but if even these are made up, well . . .)
Except that the Bible doesn't even claim a bodily resurrection. If you read the post- resurrection accounts, Jesus becomes a phantom, unrecognizable, shape changer. Many people are recorded as not believing the resurrection in the Bible itself. Not to mention Matthew's group of guards lying despite risk of death (projection anyone?).
What are some testable claims it makes? I’d like to use these as examples in the future
I don't know how fruitful this tack is. The Bible is pretty accurate about levantine historical geography.
@@tvorryn Not so much. Maybe you should cite some sources?
I would like Lee to study the emergence of Qanon and apply his principles to that movement and see what he comes up with.
Unless he's already a member.
I have to thank you for (over MANY videos) allowing me to see the simple truth of this: some people (one or two) had visions of Jesus after he died and were strongly moved by them; they told others who were also moved, and then much later on, yet others (i.e., the author of Mark) put the story (as it was told to him) into writing. It's all so EASILY understandable -- while providing ZERO evidence (beyond the growing population of believers) that the (reported miracles) actually in fact occurred.
thank you, GMT. It's nice to be heard.
@@PaulogiaI started a tiny cult when I was a kid in Catholic school, and we all had “visions” and dreams we took to be meaningful.
The most interesting and relevant thing is that a meaningful dream became common property to the group by being shared.
I remember picturing, in my mind, dreams that were recounted to me. When I think back, these images are the same as if I had dreamed them myself.
So this does happen and probably a lot more often than people think.
Excellent summary.
The only thing is that multiple people recorded that multiple people not only saw the resurrected Jesus but interacted with him. Paulogia hurls this stuff out there without any proof. If you believe him, you will believe anything. And you criticize Christians for believing anything - wow.
@@PaulogiaTerrible theory and no proof. You are guilty of the same thing you accuse christians of.
"No one questions The Iliad and The Odyssey"?! WTF?! Does Kirk REALLY think that everyone believes that the events described in both of those books really happened as described? It is clear that Kirk hasn't read either nor knows anything about them except for the fact that atheists will occasionally bring them up as a counter to the myths described in the Bible because many of the places described in them actually exist but that doesn't mean that everything detailed in those books are accurate. I knew Kirk was dumb but this is bad even for him.
It's a much worse look for Strobel, who could only muster "I completely agree" in response to that nonsense. He knows what a stupid example that was from Cameron, but since you can't be seen to correct your host on this type of show, he chose to lie about it instead.
Are you saying that you don’t believe that the Gods influenced the events of the Trojan war? That’s shocking!
“If Jesus had been an actual historical figure we have a thorny paradox. Either this Jesus was a remarkable individual who said and did a host of amazing, revolutionary things - but no one outside his fringe cult noticed for over a century. Or he didn’t - and yet shortly after his death, tiny communities of worshipers that cannot agree about the most basic facts of his life spring up, scattered all across the empire. The truth is inescapable: there simply could never have been a historical Jesus.”
― David Fitzgerald
That is nonsense. It assumes that an historical Jesus had to have done all the magical things the bible says he did. It's like saying that if George Washington didn't throw a dollar across the Potomac he didn't exist.
Mythicists are so embarrassing.
@@adamcosper3308 To themselves.
@@adamcosper3308 What would that make Americans who can't read Greek and do not know Homer, Vergil, Euripides, and Josephus see all the story elements from them in the Greek gospel stories? Oh right is wasnt written for nongreeks who do not know the basics of the greek culture of 1900 years ago.
It always makes me chuckle when I hear how acclaimed journalist, Lee Strobel, went on a quest to disprove Jesus' resurrection, yet whenever he talks about his investigative process he never mentions anything about interviewing skeptics or non-believing scholars. It's almost like deep down he wanted the resurrection to be true and so he limited the scope of his research to areas that would reinforce that conclusion. I'd like to be wrong, but it doesn't seem likely.
Read his book.
His wife was a Christian. If he came back from his investigation and said Jesus wasn't divine, his marriage might've been in big trouble. Strobel had such a personal investment in finding the divinity of Jesus that his investigation was flawed from the start. His everyday life, his marriage, his happiness, basically everything the defines Strobel's existence depended on his convincing himself to believe in Jesus and to share his wife's convictions. That doesn't make his conclusions wrong, but it is a red flag to his "tough skeptic" claim.
@Religionisevil not his version, his version is he wanted to divorce her, but was challenged to investigate the claims of Christ first, being he was an investigative journalist
@@dentonhahn2907 An investigative journalist who is really bad at investigating.
@Snoogans Lestat oh, you know him? Or you just don't like what the evidence points to?
I wonder what the claims about time-to-legendmaking have to say about the JFK assassination
I'm old enough to remember that day. The conspiracy theories started before JFK's body left Dallas.
But let's be honest was it all just a conspiracy? The facts do not add up like the resurrection does.
There were 9/11 conspiracies floating within hours of the first plane hitting the tower, if not sooner.
@@dentonhahn2907 the facts don't add up to the shit some people have come up with, like geosync power stations. We could go with Elvis Presley as an example if that works better for you?
@Ade really,? So as you are standing in the funeral line at Elvis funeral, you would believe it to be a myth the king is dead?
I love the way Lee Strobel is perfectly happy to insult the intelligence of their viewers. Cameron comes up with the worst possible examples of ancient texts -- The Iliad and The Odyssey, i.e. actual myths -- that people would reject if weak evidence like the "criterion of embarrassment" was not the acceptable standard, and Strobel simply nods his head and says "That's absolutely right."
Even Strobel must be cringing inside at such a boldfaced lie, but he plows on regardless, because on shows like this, correcting your fellow evangelical in public is a far worse sin than lying to your unquestioning audience. But, as always, these exercises are never about convincing non-believers, they are designed (a) to bolster the faith of their Christian audience, and (b) to sell lots of books and keep the speaking fees rolling in.
Not to mention Heracles, the Greek hero par excellence, went through extremely embarrassing episodes. Including dressing as a woman and doing women’s labor. Going by the criterion of embarrassment, the myth would never have selected these trials, therefore, Heracles is a demigod.
It's not just the supernatural claims that historians ignore rather than bother to discount in the Odyssey and Iliad; whether the Trojan War even happened, Homer's authorship, and even his existence are debated.
I noticed that too. Maybe the only two ancient texts, aside from the bible, that Cameron has ever heard of?
@@Nocturnalux Clearly the lesson is that people throughout all of human history have had deep, spiritual appreciation for a good Bugs Bunny. And for that to be the case, to say nothing of the many miraculous powers He possesses, we can easily conclude that Bugs Bunny is the one true God.
That's hilarious, this is what I literally just wrote in a comment-
He's so ridiculous that I find half his claims personally insulting, listening to him feels like he's telling me "you're so stupid and have so little critical thinking ability that I don't even need to make an effort to appear competent".
Paul gives these obvious liars endless good faith. Don't get me wrong I think everything about his approach is good for the atheist community, I just don't have that sort of Canadian temperament.
Well, if a person trained in journalism can't disprove it, I guess that settles it.
Kirk Cameron feels like
Joe Rogan V1.0
Tony Danza level intellect.
Watching religious shows like this as an atheist, is a surreal experience.
It’s tele-evangelism from the 80’s &90’s all over again, with a Fox N Frendz twist. 😂
You can apply whatever "investigative techniques" available, it won't serve you nothing when you're investigating sources that have been made available by the very people who want you to believe their claim. It's not about techniques, it's about sorting sources and making a choice based on what you find. Not based on what you wish to believe, but based on the evidence you've uncovered.
Luke Skywalker was shot several times by a training droid and looked like a fool. So...Star Wars is real?
The “criterion of embarrassment” has always baffled me as an argument. One of the first things I learned about lying was that throwing something embarrassing in makes people think it’s more believable
A GREAT example for using embarrassment for a positive gain: where I live if you get into a car accident (If someone hits you) and you pee your pants, you are allowed to sue for embarrassment (I don't remember the exact term that is used) I know quite a few people that will tell you if you get in an accident, pee your pants. You do something embarrassing, and you get money. Perfect simple example of how you can include embarrassing details on purpose for less than positive reasons.
If I heat the embarrassment of women one more time. So tiresome.
According to strict Jewish law at the time, they would have been committing a capital offense disturbing a corpse, even if only a few days old. They, like the equally improbably Joseph of Bestdiscipleville are just plot devices.
Well, the disciples were supposedly too dumb to realize what Jesus said he was going to do. The authors needed someone to discover the empty tomb.
Even if we take as true that Clement and Polycarp knew Peter and John, we already know Peter and possibly John and James thought that Jesus resurrected. This doesn't prove they could not have been mistaken.
I was once offered a chance to swap book choice with a believer to read. He offered me to read Lee Strobels "A Case for Christ", I told him to read his Bible from front to back without missing a single word. I get the sense he never did, but I most assuredly read his offered book. All it did was reinforce my atheism and knowledge that Christianity, and we'll all organized religion is man-made idiocy to round up the masses towards gullibility
I enjoyed the out of context bonus segment, it was quite fun.
A few decades ago, as my faith was waning, I read the Case for Christ, and I found the "willing to die for their faith" compelling enough to set me back. But at the time, there was no internet. Today if I was just reading that for the first time, I'd hop on Google and check out the pros and cons of the argument. And realize not only was it not true, but this was just part of the con these guys pull.
People willing to die for what they believe in does not prove that they believe correctly.
The Old Testament, completed hundreds of years before Jesus' birth, was in place among the Jews when Jesus was born. It foretold of Jesus' life and ministry, including the sacrifice of himself for our sins, his burial, and resurrection according to the scriptures (see Luke 24:25-27). Daniel 9:25 dated the coming of the Messiah and his presentation to the Jews, anchored to other events in history (see Nehemiah 2). He chose eyewitnesses of his ministry to preach the gospel in Jerusalem and then beyond (see Luke 24:46-49).
Scripture shows how the apostles demonstrated a lack of understanding, fear, and doubt (see Luke 18:31-34, John 20:19, Matthew 28:17) around Jesus' predicted sufferings and resurrection and acted to protect themselves by scattering when he was arrested and stayed behind closed doors for fear of the Jews after his crucifixion (see Mark 14:46, 50; John 20:19).
What changed that these fearful men in hiding soon after were boldly preaching the gospel in the same city where Jesus had been crucified, where the same 'power structure' was still intact that saw Jesus put to death only weeks earlier? Why did they face and endure threats, arrest, imprisonment, and beatings for their message (see Acts 4:1-3, 17-18; Acts 5:17-18, 26, 40)? Why did they continue when Stephen and James were put to death for their testimony of the Lord (see Acts 7, Acts 12:2)? Saul wrecked havoc of the early church (see Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2), yet the preaching of the gospel continued. The gospel has spread around the world resulting in the praise of the true God as a result as predicted in Malachi 1:11.
One need not see Jesus Christ to believe on him. The holy scriptures; the coming of the Messiah as foretold in them; the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ--fixed events in history; the preaching of the gospel by eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and ministry; the fulfillment of other prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Jews and the land of Israel; men's consciences which tell them that they are sinners just like the Bible says; creation; and so much more testify of God and his word and their trustworthiness.
Scripture tells us why the frightened apostles had such a change in their demeanor--Jesus had opened their understanding of the scriptures and the promised Holy Spirit empowered them to be his witnesses, beginning in Jerusalem (see Luke 24:45, 49; Acts 2). Without the resurrection of Christ, there would have been no gospel of forgiveness to preach in Jesus' name as it is predicated on his death, burial, and resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
Listening to those who doubt or mock or wrest the scriptures does not benefit (see Psalm 1, 2 Peter 3:16-17).
@@sm8johnthreesixteen Nonsense, unless you are completely gullible. Wish I had Paulogia's jingle to play for all the points you think you are making.
The scripture would define the rejection of the manifold witnesses to God and his word as 'willful ignorance'--ignorance one chooses for himself, not ignorance based upon a lack of information or evidence.
It reminds me of what the Bible says about Jesus coming into his own country where they were offended in him--And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief (see Matthew 13:54, 57-58).
Having access to the internet is what pushed me to nonbelief as well. Once you see so many rational people reject things that you believe in, it forces you to confront those beliefs. Obviously this can go the wrong way as well (I cite the careers of apologists that are funded by desperate believers as proof), but the mere presence of people who don't believe as you do can often be enough. It was for me, although my faith wasn't all that strong at the time anyway.
That "Out of Context" skit, brilliant. Please do more of those.
Strobel strikes me as a Fox News kind of journalist…
"everything we know about the ancient world comes from just two sources"
What the fuck? Citation needed on that one chief
It might work if he meant two KINDS of sources: archaeology and written
@@jockyoung4491 Yeah but then he juxtaposes it with "look at how many more sources there are for Jesus" so yeeeeah no dice. I really wonder what his 'two sources' are? Herodotus and someone else?
"Everything we, Kirk and I, know about the ancient world comes from just two sources... our highschool history textbook, and the Bible"
Fixed it.
the fastest talkers have the least credibility
I feel like people tend to talk fast when they get excited about something they care about. Like if I'm talking about a book or game I like I might start talking faster because I like talking about said thing
Is it me, or does Kirk look more and more like Jerry Falwell Jr. each day?
Hate ages you.
That Out of Context bit at the end was utterly fantastic! Thanks for all your work to help spread the truth!
0:17 Didn’t they have “safety coffins” back in the 1800’s because there were people accidentally buried alive? But with advances in medicine, plus embalming practices have eliminated this problem.
4:33 My mother received a book to write down her life memories. She was showing me one of her entries, and I found many mistakes. I told my cousin and she had other memories of the event. Between the three of us we still have no consensus of the events of that day.
I got confused for a moment because I could have sworn Strobel was against the Criterion of Embarassment. Then I realized I just mixed him up with J Warner Wallace in my head for the 10,000 time.
EDIT: haha okay just got to you bringing up Wallace too
To be fair, trying to find a difference between them is like telling if that meme dress was white and gold or blue and black
So, does that criteria extend to giving their argument more weight if the things they assert would embarrass most thinking adults?
I really wish I would have read The Case For Christ when it first came out in the 90s. I would have left christianity MUCH sooner.
One of the funniest realizations about Christians after dropping the religion and leaving it behind was how much Christians lie to prove that jesus is the truth and the truth will set you free 😅
"Is that too much time?"
Well... this maybe sounds silly to compare to. But... I've been in fist fights when I was in public school. And heard people tell me massively exaggerated version of the story... 1 hour later. Like on the level of "Two punches were thrown" factually to "I drop kicked them down the stairs and shattered both of their legs" level exaggeration.
So yes. I think a couple of decades might be enough time for people to blow things out of proportion.
Than you for what you do Paulogia. When I was a Christian I would eat up the info Lee and apologists like him would dish out. I bought it hook line and sinker. I read all Lee's books and knew the arguments in them by heart. It wasn't until I finally put my bias aside and genuinely listened to the critiques of non Christians that I began seeing the problems these arguments have. Particularly when it came to the historical facts of Christianity. Thank you for helping to bring me out of the flawed thinking that religion induces with it's indoctrination. I'm still working on it and some days it's harder than others, but slowly I am beginning to see what proper critical thinking and analytics of facts and claims looks like. Please continue to do what you do. It really does help.
God's work of redemption for mankind was tied to the Jews, the land of Israel, and many prophecies concerning them. Manuscript evidence, geography, archaeological finds, and independent writings corroborate things recorded in the holy scriptures. The Jews, though largely in unbelief (many identify as agnostic or atheist), testify of God and the scriptures. They have lived as a scattered, persecuted people among the nations (as foretold in Deuteronomy 28:63-64) for thousands of years, yet have remained a people before God (see Jeremiah 31:35-37). God foretold that he would regather Jews into the land of their forefathers (see Isaiah 11:11-12); for 75 years, Jews by the millions have come to the land of Israel.
God warns against listening to mockers and scorners of his word as well as those who wrest the scriptures (see Psalm 1:1, 2 Peter 3:16-17). You listened to them and were led astray, as the Bible forewarns (again, 2 Peter 3:16-17).
Apologetics is giving an answer for the hope that is within you (1 Peter 3:15). It is not giving answers to questions to the satisfaction of the unbelieving mocker. God has given us the knowledge that we need to be reconciled to him in his word and to live a godly life, which are our great needs. Men who despise God's word and his warnings and promises in it do so to their own detriment.
@@sm8johnthreesixteen I am sorry that you too have been indoctrinated. I sincerely hope you will one day be able to think critically for yourself instead of letting the Bible and apologists do your thinking for you.
@shirleymajor8862 Do you know that you mix up green and Hebrew texts and that you can't read either? These texts are for Jews and greeks about 2000 years ago and not some Americans in the 21st century.
If Stobel thinks that a few years is too short to become legend, then he’s definitely a Mormon, right? Literally the same day of the occurrence, numerous independent people wrote that Brigham Young spoke with the voice of Joseph Smith and the spirit spoke to them that he was to be Joseph’s successor.
Lee has a "tell". When you see it you can know that he's lying.
It's when he's shaking his head while he talks, which he does almost constantly. It's his subconscious mind shouting "no, this is not true!", and it makes his head shake.
I hope to meet Strobel in person, one day. His investigative mind that pierces through dishonesty deserves a reward and I would sell him the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower or Niagara Falls at a friendship discount.
I'll offer him a discount if he pays for all three .... 🤣
Made me feel really good at the end when Paulogia admitted he still prays that prayer sometimes. I can relate. At least for me, the belief was a lot easier to let go than the paranoia is. But that’s the nature of religious trauma…
Evade, Embarrass, Evidence(?), Exasperate
It's like watching children explain the tooth fairy.
D0M
its true,
I actuaIIy get embarrassed Iistening t0 them
I IiteraIIy cringe and feeI physicaIIy unc0rmf0rtabIe f0r them
they have either n0 sense 0f shame,
which I beIieve is the case as m0st 0f them are in it f0r the m0ney and the sex,
0r they are autistic and cant see h0w stupid they s0und
I p0int this 0ut inscessantIy they are "gr0wn ups" with an imaginary friend
Lee's book was literally the very last straw that led to my deconstructing my religion. It was the book that convinced me that it probably isn't real.
Strobel is just one of those guys you shake your head at any time he tries to argue for something. Can't believe how popular some of his books have become over the years. Blows my mind.
5:45 The Iliad and Odyssey were the original "based on a true story" take them with a massive heaping of salt
Are you suggesting that Aphrodite did _not_ snatch Paris from the battlefield and put him in his bedroom with Helen? HERESY!
The out of context clip at the end was great! Keep up the good work.
ha! thank you, David
Thank science it’s Friday! So many new YT videos to watch
(Trying to decide if my time is well spent listening to Strobel)
That can make a neat future segment for Paulogia: "Strobel or stroll past?"
That entirely depends on your goals.
Do you want to learn about sketchy apologist claims? Then he's your man.
I find it ironic, that his behavior illustrates how early Christians could have been converted through similar questionable means.
I imagine that Lee intends on having his testimonies taken more seriously than I do, but if so, he should have done better testimonies.
Im sorry, its not. Just play pauls parts, skipping banana boy and dogman.
its a n0
the best thing is turn the s0und 0ff an read the c0mments
The "journalist" couldn't prove the resurrection didn't happen; therefore, it DID happen. Logical fallacies like the argument from ignorance don't exist in journalism.
If god created the universe then the universe has a better claim at being the word of god than anything man ever wrote.
Counterpoint: the universe isn’t made up of words.
@@tompatterson1548 You mean it's not made of man's words. God has never been known to follow human conventions.
And when we look at the universe we...don't get to conclusion that the Christian God exists , and we're not necessarily going to even get to the conclusion that ANY God exists.
Some people like to think of GHod as a metaphor for the universe itself, but it seems like we already have a perfectly good word for that.
@@DeludedOne That would be the obvious conclusion to replacing the Bible as the "Word of God".
Using Herodotus as an example of reliably telling historical truths is fucking HILARIOUS. It's no coincidence that Herodotus is both revered as the father of Historians, and also fairly criticised of simply retelling whatever he was told from people he talked to, and thus possibly the less reliable of ancient historians.
One thing that drives me crazy about using Clement at all is the fact that if apologists direct their audience to read it - they would have to accept the existence of a literal phoenix as evidence of the resurrection…. I have a feeling they don’t wanna do that
Also, 1 Clement was at one point considered scripture, but was eventually left out of the New Testament. So why are we now running to the guy for confirmation? Apparently his stuff wasn't credible enough to be divinely inspired, doesn't that make it lesser in credibility somehow?
Religious trauma including implanting the fear of a magical place called hell can explain all this other magical thinking and mental gymnastics.
If I hear "criterion of embarrassment" one more time I'm going to throw up
❤️🤮
Good news - I've established that your comment resonates as true, because an untrue comment surely would not have contained the embarrassing detail of your propensity to vomit.
Thanks for the video :)
Gary Habermas is NOT a historian. He makes money and career by prompting his religious beliefs. I consider his opinion on the validity of anything in the bible not worth much. Wouldn't reject it outright but certainly would not be impressed.
(7:36) (8:15) Ooops
Gary Habermas is not a historian. But he is a theologian, a doctor of philosophy and a professor of apologetics ;-)
They claim that women aren't reliable witnesses, but at the same time happy to accept Mary's claim of a virgin birth.
Excellent work, Paul
Where are your" Born again Atheist" shirts
oohhh... good idea
You just took that whole video down Paul. It just looks so desperate watching them from this side of the fence.
That was a great little plug to your shirts at the start there. Very clever 😉👏
The last 3 minutes of this video, was the most truthful words I've ever heard religious people say.
The book of judges must be true because it talks about Deborah, a girl prophet, and girls are icky
And now I'm hearing the song Deborah " by Beck in my head... 😄
The book of judges must be true because it talks about Deborah, a girl prophet, and I have hundreds of secular sources that claim that Deborah is a girl's name!
Watching these guys mutually master-baiting is ludicrous. And kinda gross.
And the logic behind "This was so long ago it can't possibly be a legend"....dear oh dear
great work
the real miracle is how did these stories get traction in a modern society...and how do they generate such stupendous wealth..amen
I have to be honest, it's hard listening to Cameron and Strobel spouting their trash. I will continue on.
if it's any consolation, the whole episode is 60 minutes long, so you're just getting parts of it.
@@Paulogia Thx for the reply. I’ll mush on. Your work is totally awesome. The skeptic community is fortunate to have you!
@@Paulogia I appreciate you taking a hit for the team.
I wonder if those who claim that 2 generations isn't enough time for legend to grow think about His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, King of Kings and Elect of God being Jah Rastafari. This occurred during his lifetime even though he took no part in creating the myth. Does this mean that Rastafarianism is true?
Demonstrably contrary to what Strobel asserts, we know such legends CAN AND DO develop with a generation. The cargo cults of the South Pacific are just such legends that did and have persisted despite all efforts to correct them. In addition, it is quite possible that the legend of Jesus grew over a greater period of time and was later assigned a chronology by its believers and the church. This could even explain the irreconcilable chronology that we find in the gospels.
For the "not enough time to grow a legend" my dad told to me and my brother stories about his school days. To not go into the nitty gritty details, my teacher in middle school was the same teacher he had when he was attending middle school (the teacher was just out of the teachers seminar back then and retired a year before I graduated middle school).
I got to witness my 10-ish year old brother re-tell these stories to his friends within two weeks. All the characters and places were... "correct" in the sense that they existed, but the timeframes and places had switched up. An already retired teacher was still currently teaching, at a different school, for example.
All it takes for legends to grow is, like Paulogia puts it, a sincerely mistaken person (who may or may not have ADHD, not tested for at least, but let's just say that a lot of behaviour would be explained) and a passion to tell stories, but not really the capability to fact check the story they are telling. And just like that you can start to cultivate legends of real life events just a couple of weeks after a person hearing a story.
Also, all of this still doesn't take into consideration that e.g. January 6th happened like two(?) years ago and within the first year massive legends about it were already being spread as fact. At the age of Internet, when all of it can be and could be checked before spreading the myths. And yet...
4:58 Seriously? Kirk Cameron thinks the Iliad and the Odyssey are non-fiction? Well this IS Kirk Cameron we're talking about so maybe?
9:45 Here's an interesting analogy I considered after looking at one of transphobic Trent Horn's youtube clips. Christians LOVE to cite how Paul or the apostles could not possibly have been lying, that they were sincere about their beliefs and therefore those beliefs are somehow true, and they cite how it makes no sense for them to try to spread those beliefs and declare themselves as Jesus worshipers because their actions simply got them persecuted and even killed at the time.
At the same time, quite a few of these Christians, especially the more fundamentalists ones, would go so far as to say that being gay or trans isn't even a thing, it's just "an ideology" it's all only in their head or that gay/trans people are even outright being dishonest about who they claim to be, with the best evidence for that being how these fundamentalists have tried to (and sometimes succeeded) in implementing legislation that determines which bathroom they have to go to, forbidding trans people from going to the bathroom of their choice basically.
The underlying reasoning for such legislation being that trans people are predatory, they only say they are trans so that they can go to the bathrooms of the "correct opposite gender" to be voyeurs or sexual predators or all do all kinds of weird kinky shit (yes that's the sort of character assassination of trans people that the right wing Christians have) and so they need those laws to "protect" their women (yes, only the women).
If that sounds like persecution and persecution from government authority at that, that's because it is. And now I say to anyone who wants to listen that using the SAME methodology and reasoning that Christians used regarding Paul and the apostles and how they were sincere and their beliefs are true, gays and trans people are actually who they claim to be, transgenderism especially is not "just an ideology" as trans denying fundamentalists like Trent Horn would like to claim, because trans and gay people, of their own free will, come out as trans or gay DESPITE THE FACT THAT DOING SO RESULTS IN THEM SUFFERING PERSECUTION! That's just like what the apostles and Paul experienced right?
So if Christians want to say that Paul and the apostles had sincere true beliefs because they were not afraid to suffer persecution for being open about their beliefs, they should similarly accept that gay and trans people are sincere about being gay and trans, that it's not "just an ideology" and that they are the gender they are or have the sexual orientation they claim to have and that their position is a true one. And if they think that the early Christians were unfairly persecuted in being open about their beliefs, then they should also believe that persecution of gays and trans people is similarly also unjust and they should stop their persecution of them.
16:54 The attempt to shorten the time gap as much as possible between the death of Jesus and when the first available documentation about him and the faith that originated around him, is a favorite tactic of apologists who favor the minimal facts approach. The mainstream understanding of this timeline puts the first documentations of Jesus, the letters of Paul, at around 30 - 40 years after Jesus' death. Any statement about it being earlier usually comes with quite a bit of wishful thinking.
17:23 Nobody fulfilled the ancient prophecies, or rather you can have anyone fulfil the ancient prophecies if you like through selective interpretation because most are so vague. Yet even then, there are prophecies that clearly do NOT refer to Jesus at all except through exceptionally biased and selective interpretation, and prophecies that were claimed to be fulfilled by Jesus but which he clearly did not, an example being that Jesus' side was pierced to fulfil the prophecy that none of his bones would be broke, except that the bones in his hand and feet were already broken by having nails shoved right through them.
20:27 And it appears ONLY in Matthew, the Gospel which gave us Jesus the Rodeo Clown because he wanted to fulfil a prophecy by Zechariah which basically placed Jesus on 2 horses at the same time when entering Jerusalem. It also gave us the Jerusalem Zombies incident where many dead people rose from their graves and appeared to many other people. This account happens absolutely nowhere else, not even in the other Gospels.
And then of course is the guards at the tomb and the soldiers guarding it who were willing to irreversibly stain their reputations and also incur capital punishment for negligence and incompetence, which could even have included execution, all for telling a lie that the apostles stole the body (see? There ARE people willing to die or risk harm for a lie!). This account also occurs only in Matthew and makes absolutely no logical sense when considered carefully. Our Boy Matthew clearly has quite the track record in his writings.
_"Well this IS Kirk Cameron we're talking about so maybe?"_
What's Strobel's excuse...?
@@EnglishMike He doesn't want to embarress Kirk?
Theist 1: "..Why should someone embarass themself with their Stories!.." same Theist: "..I once was an atheist and sceptic!.."
Theist 2: "..Your sceptisism lead to the creation of this great Book!.."
How many of these theist Apologists who sell Books had not a Story where they claim that they once where some sort of unbeliever that just wanted to be an afwul Person!?
*facepalm*
So how can he sit there and saying with a straight face that it couldnt have happened in the ancient times as well that some People comming up with the same Nonsense?
@Color-Painter-Blue Believe me I was once the harshest critic as pineapple farm in Antarctica but then the big pineapple appeared, talked to me, and set me straight. Now i am a sales representative of Pineapple Antarctica and CEO.
Eating coffee cake while watching this is probably the best way to watch @paulogia videos. I read that somewhere...in a book
j0shua Fite
au c0ntraire m0n ami
cup 0f tea and a bac0n butty
Excellent
He was never an atheist.
It's sad how deep KC has fallen into myth and storytime- Reality isn't real enough for these people.😑
It's a little scary how good you were at making those out of context clips sound natural. I'm goad you're a force for good
Thanks!
Welcome!
I doubt Kirk was an atheist.
I think he equates having been an actor with being an atheist...
Well he did ask god why he needed a starship....
I'll show myself out.
" Gary Habermas is a historian" This is so ridiculous as to be astoundingly SILLY and STUPID!
It is like saying a dead arameic speaking preacher is god.
The tale of King Midas turning his daughter to gold is so embarrassing it must be true.
From literally the opening sentence it's clear how clueless Kirk and Lee are. You don't need to disprove unproven supernatural claims.
They are saying the same things that have been said 10000000000 times over by Christian apologist. It's literally the first page of Christian apologetics.
The usual Apologist suspects spewing the usual BS.