I enjoy my time here as always @Paulogia. Thanks for being such a great host, and for so effectively and convincingly countering most of the nonsense posited by Jeremiah J. Johnston in this video. I have to say, though, that this response may be the most "snarky" I have seen from you-not a criticism, I think it is totally appropriate, and it warms the cockles of my cold heart. I also want to point something else out to the audience, in the event that it was missed: Paulogia is explicit-right at the outset-that Johnston's credentials DO NOT MATTER. The ONLY reason this became an issue is because Johnston himself insists on making it one: he is the one who fixates on the quality of his own education, and the strength of his argument on the basis of his distinction within academia. Then, to make matters worse, he badly embellishes them. When Paulogia and I started prepping for this video I AM THE ONE who brought up Johnston's self-presentation and his insistence on ginning up his own qualifications. If you must know, I have personally attempted to make contact with Johntson himself privately, in an effort to clear all of this up, and to set the record straight about precisely who he is, where he was educated, and his (exceptionally underwhelming) record of scholarly publication. Johnston has chosen to ignore me.
The title of this video is deceptive and misleading which violates the rules of TH-cam. The title does not say that the video is meant to disprove the 7 best reasons for the resurrection. This is not allowed by TH-cam.
While apologetics appears to have the form of an argument, that is a presentation of evidence and reasoning in support of a hypothesis, it is actually a performance in the form of an argument. The goal is not to convince by means of argument, but to appear to offer convincing arguments to those who already believe, but might be having doubts. That is, to assure believers that all criticism has already been addressed and refuted, so that those criticisms need not be considered further. It is inherently dishonest.
My amazement lies in the unfounded confidence. I'm an r&d lab technician, and just today I had no confidence in what I personally did yesterday without looking at my (computerized) lab notebook. Sure enough, that valve failed to close, and I noticed it 2 hours into the test. Yet these people state with certainty that a guy resurrected from the dead. Even my notebook has uncertainty, I NOTICED it at 2 hours. It might have happened before that, heck, it might have been happening for multiple visual measurements that I just didn't notice the anomaly. I'm not even confident in my own eyes 15 minutes ago, and these people are confident about someone else's eyes told to someone else else told to someone else else else written down by someone else else else else, translated by someone else else else else else. I have zero confidence in what I do know, and these people have zero doubt in what they can't know.
@@phillyphakename1255 I think what a lot of people would attempt to convey in response to your point is that they have a personal relationship with the 'scripture' or 'Jesus' or the 'Bible', meaning that they have been in crisis at some point in their life, and flipped open the Bible or spoken with a pastor and found meaning/purpose/comfort. Indoctrination ensues that all of this theology is real. So for these folks it isn't about thinking critically or rationally about the claims of the Bible or those who subscribe to it, but rather about how they have literally and metaphorically been saved by Christianity and to acknowledge that the Bible isn't historically accurate, or the true word of God, or that Jesus wasn't resurrected would be world breaking for them. Many people have been known to replace evangelicalism for their addictions and/or suffering. So first you get the emotional attachment and then you do the mental gymnastics to try and defend all of the wacky stuff. If you ask a self described evangelical why they are Christian, most will say "because Jesus died for my/our sins." I always ask a follow up question when I'm told this - "What does that mean?" Unless they study theology or grew up evangelical and studied how to convert people they will almost certainly not have an answer for this question. I've had evangelicals straight up tell me "I'd have to ask my pastor". How interesting is that? You wrap up your whole identity into an ideology and you can't even explain the most basic of questions for why you subscribe to that ideology. Personally, I completely agree with what you wrote. I mean play a game of telephone with twenty adults in a closed room and you can see how distorted 'the truth' becomes. I mean so much of it is just silly projection with circular reasoning. And some of it is just so unbelievably basic. If you ask the average evangelical what does 'messiah' mean they will tell you the 'son of God'. Well, to Jews around Jesus' lifetime it means 'the literal king of the Jews from the Davidic line'. There is a pretty big gap between those definitions, and evangelicals are taking their definition and projecting it onto the text because that is how they were raised and indoctrinated. I think it is just really important to remember that all of these folks are suffering and they are just doing their best to cope with what feels like a very difficult existence. I think this is one of the reasons that Christianity has been so successful. I think there are archetypal stories that are relatable to a fragile mind. It is messy to be human regardless of socioeconomic status and we all suffer. I look at the two gents in the video and I don't see confident respectful men. I see two guys who are suffering a great deal and either consciously or subconsciously being deceitful and doing their best to cope with that suffering. To me it is just a useful reminder to be compassionate, kind and respectful to all regardless of how dysfunctional their ideology is and if they're coming with pitchforks then self-defense is justified.
Only half way through, but hearing that religious frauds have no motivation to make stuff up must be the best argument I've come across so far. We've got a real grandmaster of truthology here.
I have heard "Jesus taught his followers to tell the truth, so therefore people preaching his word must be telling the truth" a disturbing number of times.
@@chrisphinney8475 Indeed, it's a psychological tactic used to make the teller more relatable. You can't convince me that these apologists don't grasp how to lie.
“After all, Lazarus was raised-never said a word about it, the daughter of Jairus was raised-didn’t say a thing about what she had been through, and the gospels tell us that at the time of the crucifixion, all the graves in Jerusalem opened, and their occupants wondered around the streets to greet. So it seems the resurrection was something of a banality at the time.” -Christopher Hitchens
According to doctrine, at the time of Christ's death he went into Hades to bring the Saints up to heaven with him. There were two parts to Hades as illustrated in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. One area for the lost and one area for the Saints. The Saints were to be with Christ as he ascended back out of Hades. He was then resurrected on earth before ascending back up to heaven. The spirits of the Saints would have been with him. I believe this is what the people saw. The spirits of the Saints. People seeing them would have probably mistaken them as being bodily resurrected also. If they were bodily resurrected then where did they go?
10:40 Paulogia ‘You’re not going to be using your bible so there will be no need for my jingle today’. 13:00 Dr Johnston brings up Luke 24:21. An astounding two minutes and twenty seconds before Dr Johnston brings up the bible and that time includes Paulogia’s comments.
You do so many great things, @Paulogia, but these carefully crafted videos remain, in my view, your greatest contribution to the world. No "owning," no "destroying," no "humiliating," just measured, thoughtful deconstruction of faulty arguments. Really beautifully done, including the way you bring out the best in all your impressive guests.
His BA and MDV from Midwest Baptist College: a fundamentalist school. From Wiki: Midwestern Baptist College is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country. According to the US Department of Education, unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[4] Some of the school's courses are accepted for transfer credit at nearby Oakland Community College Most of his higher education is from unaccredited and fundamentalist. I say that because he makes it an issue. Acadia Divinity College is a Canadian Baptist college, evangelical. So academic honesty is not his strongest suite
Christian apologist are just so desperate to have anyone with a "Dr." next to their name support them. Lee Strobel got pissy about this same thing last year when he tried to promote a doctor proving some sort of Christian claim on science or physics or something by saying because he was a doctor, it made him more credible, but the doctorate was in philosophy. They hope you never look these things up.
He is, which is part of why I remain a huge fan. However, it amuses me how irritated @Paulogia comes across in this video. I think it is pretty funny, and it is also devastatingly effective.
Thanks so much, guys! I really appreciate the discussion of Johnstons self presentation up front. It’s hard to blame laypeople for their misunderstandings, since evangelicals aren’t typically exposed to academia to the same degree as say mainline Protestants. But the trained professionals should know better, and it’s hard to see Jeremiah’s self presentation as anything other than deliberately misleading.
What a shock!!. As science marches on the gaps narrow. It at the point when religion has lost the benefit of doubt. One of my problems with religion is the lack of foreshadowing of the changes in society. The end of slavery, the acceptance of women as equals, and the onset of thousands of denominations should have been in the new testament, and one of the commandments should have been about not owning slaves and Nottoway they should be treated.
@@axer3515 I… have no clue what that has to do with my comment, which was just about this dudes self presentation. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
I spoke of the difference between willfully ignorant people and the average person. You don't have to be a scientist to know that many of the incidents attributed to God are now easily explained by science. In the past many people used a God to explain them. The plague, droughts, earthquakes and flood were all God's wrath. Today it is only the willfully ignorant people who believe in silly crap like the young earth and Genesis creation, and world wide floods. So it is no longer laymen VS academics. the church has lost the benefit of the doubt. It once had. PAUL has often talked about his years of ignorance.
I have a doctorate from a Catholic university. It's a JD from Fordham Law School. It doesn't qualify me for anything outside my field. When I do talk about religion (I'm an atheist), I don't reference my degree.
One of my all time favorite apologetics argument is: "look at this story... This is a wildly embarrassing story from our god inspired holy book. How could something be false if it's embarrassing?!" Yes.. we all agree that many stories from the bible are wildly embarrassing. But not for the disciples. They're embarrassing for modern Christians still trying to justify them.
Also just wanted to acknowledge a very similar argument often made in favor of the resurrection story.. "It was women who found the empty tomb. The gospel writers wouldn't have written that women found it unless that's actually what happened because women were untrustworthy and unable to provide accurate accounts in court." Don't let anyone tell you abrahamic religions aren't built on top of a mountain of misogyny.
Whenever someone does this, I remind them that Heracles, in his myth, died from putting on a poisoned cloak. No glorious last stand. No epic duel. Just a jealous wife tricked by a centaur. Embarrassing, if you ask me. Must be true!
@@williamdowling7718 “They weren’t motivated by sex because the bible is nothing but respectful to women!” Edit: actually the quote from Sean is that Jesus treated women with nothing but charity and kindness, but Jesus is also The Word, so the irony still stands.
Funny how greek heroes are clearly invented for the christians (unless christians believes that other gods exist), but they themselves are full of shameful stories (even Plato and others did not like that stories), but this dont make them more real right?
Great video, Paul! Very representative of all your videos - well researched, measured, and presented. This is just a token of my appreciation - I want you to do as many of these scripted responses as you can.
@@Paulogia Please use honest titles for your videos. This title is not honest. It is misleading and tricky, so that you can attract viewers. You are really arguing against what the title says. I am very annoyed and angry at your way of attracting viewers. I hope TH-cam will punish you for this.
Barely related but I continue to marvel at how J Warner Wallace can be such a great detective if he seems to constantly overlook important things like the existence of revenge (unless he wants to file the motivation of revenge under a broad definition of power, but at that point the definition is broad enough to also include sex and money). Also the argument only applies if you assume everyone is always rational, which is is comically untrue. Rationality is a spectrum, which we all move around on at least a little, as nobody is always perfectly rational.
He even forgot “fear”, a very common motif for all sorts of things, including crimes. My mother was a prosecutor for decades on end and she encountered plenty of people who killed because they were afraid they’d be harmed in some way. Lying because one is afraid is so common, that we have all encountered in our lives. Here’s a very common and mundane example: in my country, the consumption of weed and other substances was legalized but the selling or giving to others was not. Teens caught with weed would systematically swear it was not theirs, they were holding out “for a friend”, even when this was patently false. If the weed was theirs, there would be no repercussions. But if it’s not, an investigation would follow that could have consequences. Fear, coupled with ignorance, made them lie against their best interests.
The absence of the Xorpse of Xrist proves the resurrection ! I appreciate scholarship, being related to several PhDs, but autodidacts have a very special place in my heart. Thank you once again, Mr Ogia & Dr Davis.
What if Jesus was just a vampire and the whole resurrection thing was his cover for why he didn't die? He could walk in the sun because vampires hadn't evolved albinism yet
There does seem to be issues with truth and clarity over Jeremiah’s credentials, but thankfully those are two things Sean values above all else on his podcast, so I’m sure he’ll get to the bottom of it.
Whilst I was "at Cambridge" I learned that the railway station is a good way from the city centre, that the Fitzwilliam Museum has some lovely artwork and also that the Botanical Gardens are not as big as those at Kew. Okay fairly mundane stuff, but at least I'm not trying to make money arguing for the impossible !
I spent a day walking around Cambridge back in 2000, does that mean I get to claim the knowledge I gained by walking around as a source of for my authority?
I used to think that Sean Mcdowell, was one of the more honest & less biased apologists out there, but after watching his weak, soft handed, approach to questioning the _claims & assertions of supposed Dr. J.Johnston,_ I've concluded that I'll have to change that assumption.
I agree. He has gone the route of being a very friendly landing place for authors on the Christian book tour promoting themselves. Not pushing back on their ideas or holding them to account when they doge questions.
14:45 I think it's funny that the way he phrased his argument here makes it sound indistinguishable from a scam internet ad. "Transform your life with this one weird historical trick!"
I need to congratulate Jeremiah J Johnston on doing something no apologist has ever achieved with me: feeling second hand embarrassment for Sean McDowell. JJJ was a car crash in slow motion.
The “in Oxford” vs “at Oxford” thing is hilarious - seems like something from a comedy bit - but it’s so devious. My brain didn’t even realize he was saying “in Oxford” till I replayed it after it was pointed out.
Even Sean has a confused look half the time. As Paul has pointed out in the past, Sean is one of the more honest scholars and is definitely picking up on the overstated case.
If us, a general audience, picks up on such thing, he does. However, his bias as a Christian overpowers his ability to push back in any meaningful way.
Leon Festinger, _When Prophecy fails,_ seems very appropriate. Essentially, when prophecy fails (your messiah gets nailed to a cross), followers tend to get more committed and will try hard to convince more followers.
Just to add, there are many examples of modern cults that make failed predictions that immediately result in an explanation or justification for the failure. The "motivation" here isn't just about sex, money, or power (often it does to some degree), but mostly to the need to maintain the underlying faith. People HATE to be wrong especially about things they are passionate about. Now then, I still hold that Jesus probably never existed and whose legend started as visions by Peter and fellow apostles. But if we want to work with the idea he was a living rabbi who was crucified, there are more than enough examples of inventing miraculous reasons to explain prophesy failure without having to resort to simply lying.
I like how Sean tees up the skeptic argument then let's basically any argument including self-referential ones count. He tries sometimes but he just can't let himself be rigorous about the arguments.
I've said it before and it needs to be repeated. If Jesus' own brother didn't believe he was "special," then the entire birth narrative is false. There's no way James would have been unaware of the events in Matt and Luke.
It isn’t at all certain James is supposed to be a sibling. In plenty of religious communities people address each other as brother or sister, while not being related.
William Watson - The family of Harry Potter was not aware that he is a mage. Fictional stories produces 40 years later about a guy who spoke Aramaic which they use Greek is as valuable ss what stories about Robin Hood tells us about a real person. It is made up.
Well, James did at least become a believer after Jesus' death. He was a first leader of a church in Jerusalem. But what did he believe? I would say the historical evidence says James brother of Jesus thought Jesus was special, but didn't think of Jesus as God. Also why doesn't no one talk about how according to the Bible, Jesus had a brother named Judas. Would have sucked to be him lol.
I've had times when I was plastered off my ass on alcohol and drugs simultaneously😵💫 where I didn't make such absurd arguments as theist apologists make when gooped up on god! 😜
1. I like Sean McDowell. 2. I’ve never seen Paulogia destroy someone so bad as he did Jeremy, and to do it by largely using Christian scholars to make his point. Now I can understand why there are so many contradictions in the Bible. All these Christian Scholars want to make their soapbox speech while turning a blind eye to how silly they all will look as a whole if an outsider were to put all of their information together in one place.
"Brand new arguments" = Same shit, new coat of paint. If science didn't discover more shit every day to kick god out of gaps and with it expose more "new arguments" AKA gaps for them to shove him in, they wouldn't have anything to work with, because they have no other method than failed attempts at philostomofying god into existence!
Yeah I got, "... where he became a bishop..." Then the next sentence. It seems like the missing part is what church he (Lazarus) was supposedly made a bishop of in France, and that's it. Edit: Patreon video confirms that is indeed the case. For those interested, the Western tradition is that Lazarus fled to Provence, where he is said to have been the first bishop of Marseille.
I think what is always overlooked in these discussions, on both sides, is the power of religious thought. It stands as an explanation on its own. As an ex-evangelical/fundamentalist pastor for 25 years, I witnessed the power of this mindset in the churches in which I served. It became one of the key deconversion perspectives that helped me untie the ropes of indoctrination.
Well, there's nothing wrong with a qualification from Middlesex University: I have a Diploma from the place myself... although it was a Polytechnic back then. However, trying to disguise a PhD awarded by Middlesex University as one from Oxford University is not only insulting to my former place of study but also misrepresented the academic specialities of these institutions. Several Oxford colleges do indeed have a high degree of expertise and specialisation in Biblical Studies and Middle Eastern History, whereas Middlesex Poly/University does not - it merely has a joint programme with the London School of Theology, which is an institution not exactly known for rigorous adherence to evidence-based history.
Re: adumbrate. Umbra comes from the Latin for shadow, as in umbrella (little shadow). The prefix ad- means to or at, so adumbrate is shadow to or at, which has a meaning very close to foreshadow (though to be exact I'd expect it to be "preumbrate").
I believe Dr. Jody Magnus is a well-known archaeologist. Last time I checked I think she was excavating in the Byzantine Period. Thanks for your time and hard work, I am continually learning new and exciting material from your channel.
I have noticed that Dr. Magnus was a contributing editor to the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine. The editors of that periodical have demonstrated a unrelenting bias against the hypothesis of authenticity for the Turin Shroud, and, perhaps, that is why we see no mention of that famous relic in this video.
Whenever I hear about Oxford I am reminded of the Beverly Hillbillies episode when Jethro reveals he graduated Oxford. Only 12 years to get through all 6 grades.
The skeptic can grant Paul _believed_ in a physical bodily resurrection. However, it doesn't follow this belief _also entailed_ the physically resurrected Jesus necessarily had an earthly sojourn where the disciples interacted physically with his body like it says in Luke and John. Apologists just assume the former necessarily entails the latter but that is simply not the case. Paul seemingly equates his visionary experience (Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19) with all the other "appearances" in the list - 1 Cor 15:5-8. So despite apologetic protestations, an equally likely reading is that Paul understood *all* of the appearances occurring from heaven like his did. That would mean the later accounts in the gospels where Jesus' physically revived corpse remains on the earth and is touched before ascending are all legendary embellishments.
The “empty tomb” is such a ridiculous argument. Nobody has ever presented a tomb that can be proven to have previously held the body. It’s just a story in a book.
Another wonderful video loved it. A question though, at 23:48 you say where he became the biship then silence, your mouth moves for half a second. Was this intentional, a editing thing or what, just curious.
@@harveywabbit9541 Hello again Harvey. Are you still using your book written in the 1800s as the entire bases for your assertions or have you been looking into more modern scholarly on the Bible?
I learned something important from this about Jewish history, namely that there once lived a high priest of Judaism named Anus. Very important piece of history there. Many thanks to Dr Kip Davis for this.
@@harveywabbit9541 Good point thanks! Nit to mention that mud man and rib woman, walking over water or dead people leaving graves in droves might have been a hint for the reader.
@@TorianTammas The rib aka arc is the seven months of crop production and harvest. The arc of Noah (Earth) is the five months of hunger, cold, wet, darkness, death aka the horrible winter season where many died from their poverty. The terrible scorpion (Scorpio constellation) is the leader of all kinds of trouble-makers. See Rev 9.5.
Now I’m trying to figure out why “of Marseille” was muted. Did TH-cam think it sounded like something naughty, or too controversial, or did Paul pronounce it “Mars-seal” or some such, and mute it himself?
Why does every "new argument" for the resurrection turn out to be just a rehash of the minimal facts argument with the same tired points uncritically presented. Minimal facts is getting to be the Pascal's wager for history: Always presented as some fresh insight, that ignores detailed responses.
Bc when most of your audience isn’t aware of critical scholarship on the book your religion is based on it’s much easier to repackage the same crap and resell it as new to said audience.
I still think Christian’s would be more credible if they skipped the apologetics (inconsistent historic, scientific reasons) and say, the Bible says it and I believe it. People believe because they want to - not because there is “proof” it is true. It isn’t a rational decision, it’s emotional! Like falling in love. No one asks why - it’s emotional!
In truth, long, long before I ever abandoned Christianity I was already convinced that apologetics was utterly bankrupt. Apologists who also happened to teach in the Philosophy Dept. at the University I was last affiliated, or faculty from the attached Seminary were a constant source of aggravation to those of us in the Religious Studies Dept.-ALL of us. And this was at an Evangelical University. I talk more at length about this in a show I did with @Captain Dadpool on his channel last night (29 January).
@@richmondaddai-duah Yes, it would and to me it definitely does but, atheism is NOT a belief. It is the ABSENCE of belief. Believers of any faith just can’t seem to understand that.
No precisely anyone who thinks deep on this can realise why ,when athiest say that atheism is a negative claim it's word play or sophism , See why: atheism is the absence of beliefs in the existence of deities ,you say ,but that claim implies a positive claim: that atheism is the belief that no god exists . because when you say there is a absence of any gods ,you believe in what you say or believe that statement to be true.and that claim is a metaphysical one because it is making claims about a non physical being (God or in this sense the Christian God) .this is simple to understand.
The resurrection of plant life symbolically takes place at the pass over from winter (death) to spring (life). Jesus is simply the winter sun and his "death" at the spring equinox is nothing more than the end of the winter season of non crop production.
41:16. The only problem with the family reburial idea is that Jesus’ family was from Nazareth. Unless, of course, that is incorrect. The only way this works out is if the family lived in Jerusalem. This is also the problem with the Talpiot tomb. Please clarify.
Nazareth is an alternate spelling of the Mazaroth (Zodiac) Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus of the zodiac and is the same as Jesus of Galilee (circle/gilgal). THE RESURRECTION. , The Savior was now (winter) deposited in his tomb. As the Sabbath (winter) was nearing its end, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre, bringing sweet spices (the spring flowers) with them. They found the stone rolled away, i.e., it was spring. Mary ran to Peter (Aries) and told him the Savior's body wasn't in the tomb (winter). Peter, of course, was badly scared, and ran off with another disciple (Pisces) but got outrun, the last passing the Sun first. However, both found the “linen clothes” = the Earth. All then went home, i.e., the two sets of constellations (winter and summer) came into position at the spring equinox. Meanwhile “the vail of the temple (intereaspansum templi = the plane of the solstices) was rent (scissum est = was divided) from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake (mota est = was moved, i.e., over the equinoctial line); and the rocks were rent” by the dissolving frosts. The graves were opened, i.e., the winter was past, and “many saints” (summer constellations) which slept (in the dark hemisphere) arose, and appeared to many, i.e., to such as understood the riddle. Mary stood without, at the sepulchre,” weeping (the latter rain); and as she wept, she stooped down (went below the equator), and, looking, saw two angels in white (the light of spring), sitting, one (Aries) at the head, and the other (Pisces) at the feet (see your almanac), where the body of Jesus had lain. “Why weepest thou?” said the angels. Because, said Mary, I cannot find my Lord. Being a night constellation, she couldn't see the Sun. Turning back just then (Lot's wife looked back), she saw Jesus standing, but didn't know him. He addressed her, when, turning again, she knew him (but didn't see him), and exclaimed Rabboni (My great one). Jesus said, “touch me not;” for I am not ascended to my Father (the Holy Ghost). The Sun and Virgo don’t come in conjunction until the end of the summer. Hence in the spring Jesus said to her: “touch me not;” “but go and tell my brethren that I ascend unto my father, and your Father; and to my God and your God” (Sun entered Aries). * Why did Mary stand without the sepulchre? Because, being a summer constellation, she was obliged to share the lot of God, or Aries, her leader. Night or day, winter or Summer, she is always with the Lord, though she is not always able to see him. Hence the mutual love each bore the other. Of all this Mary duly informed the disciples. On the evening of the first day (month) of the week (the seven summer months), Jesus stood in the midst, i.e., at the spring equinox, and said: - “Peace be unto you,” i.e., let summer come. The disciples were glad to see their Lord (the summer Sun). So, Jesus repeated: - “Peace be unto you.” He then breathed on them, and said: - “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” = the summer wind. Milton Woolley, Career of Jesus Christ.
The stuff, apostles didn't understand, but he predicted everything and the OT is predicting it too is just so contradictory. I mean, it is hard not o see it. I listened to the original video and had to turn it off coz I couldn't take his BS, and finished it later after a break. I think a conversation with a person like him could be enjoyable, I would like to see him (or SeanMcDowell ) try to engage with your or Kamils Gregor or other Resurrection "hypothesis". Shame they didn't yet as far as I know. Good video thanks!
When talking about the first gospel (a.k.a. Matthew) he didn't mention the zombie apocalypse when Jesus died either. Which is perhaps the single most _absurd_ story in the whole New Testament. Or even the whole Bible.
@@pauligrossinoz Oh, I don't know. That's a pretty high standard to meet, what with gods, virgins giving birth and still being virgins, rising from the dead, and so on. The whole thing is absurd.
@55:00 does it say Jesus or Yeshua? If so wasn't Yeshua's name changed to Jesus in the 12th century and then widely used around 400 years ago? And the word Christ I thought it meant stained one, then switched to the anointed one.
1. The bible says so. 2. The bible says so. 3. The bible says so. 4. The bible says so. 5. The bible says so. 6. The bible says so. 7. The bible says so. Does counting the same reason still count?
I'm not sure what Swan McDowell thinks of the matter, but a "doctor" talking about the gospel accounts as though they were written by eyewitnesses is a huge red flag.
*Joseh of Aramathea: **_Spit_** Personality?* In Mark, J of A was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, which, with all members present, unanimously persecuted Jesus in Mark 14:53-65, *but* in 15:43, “was himself waiting for the kingdom of God...”. He sought evidence against Jesus in order to condemn and spit on him, but he is waiting for the KoG, so he honors Jesus’ corpse. Mark has described a contradictory situation regarding Joseph of Arimathea. OK, it was the soldiers, not the Sanhedrin, that spit on Jesus in Mark 15:16-20
I just had a thought. According to tradition, Joseph was much older than Mary, with grown children, when Jesus was born. If James was put to the sword around the year 62, wouldn’t he have been 80 or older, in a time when the average life expectancy less than 40?
Bunch of possible answers, first of which is that life expectancy of under 40 is because a TON of people died as kids, dragging down the average. Life expectancy once you reached 25 was something like 60. And a lot of that was murder and war and plagues, not general diseases as much. Oh, and farm accidents/west and tear from hard labor, which wouldn’t apply to James. Tradition is pretty worthless as a source, but if he was much older than Mary with *some* grown children, that doesn’t say that James specifically would have been more than 2-3 years older than Jesus. And it’s unclear when Jesus was born, seems to be something like 4ad, not 1ad. So late 60’s seems like a reasonable guess. Also, tradition is bs, we have no idea if James was even the familial brother of Jesus, or just another brother in Christ who was known as that. Heck, if we rely on tradition, we could equally say that Jesus’ younger brother took his place on the cross, then afterwards Jesus said goodbye to the apostles and then fled to Japan and retired as an onion farmer, which is the tradition of a small fishing village in Japan.
@@dansmith7009 If you’re Protestant, then Jesus may have had younger siblings. If you’re Catholic, Joseph had grown children when he was betrothed to a 14 year old Mary. She remained a virgin. As for the birth of Jesus, there’s also two conflicting stories. In Matthew Jesus is born around 6BCE, when they flee to Egypt. they don’t return until the death of Herod in 4BCE. In Luke Jesus couldn’t have been born before 6CE, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (6CE-12CE)
One would think that obtaining a PHD in a subject would give one the ability to present a unique and convincing argument for something that you think so obviously occurred. Really shows how vacuous some Christian “scholarship” is. His degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.
I enjoy my time here as always @Paulogia. Thanks for being such a great host, and for so effectively and convincingly countering most of the nonsense posited by Jeremiah J. Johnston in this video. I have to say, though, that this response may be the most "snarky" I have seen from you-not a criticism, I think it is totally appropriate, and it warms the cockles of my cold heart.
I also want to point something else out to the audience, in the event that it was missed: Paulogia is explicit-right at the outset-that Johnston's credentials DO NOT MATTER. The ONLY reason this became an issue is because Johnston himself insists on making it one: he is the one who fixates on the quality of his own education, and the strength of his argument on the basis of his distinction within academia. Then, to make matters worse, he badly embellishes them.
When Paulogia and I started prepping for this video I AM THE ONE who brought up Johnston's self-presentation and his insistence on ginning up his own qualifications.
If you must know, I have personally attempted to make contact with Johntson himself privately, in an effort to clear all of this up, and to set the record straight about precisely who he is, where he was educated, and his (exceptionally underwhelming) record of scholarly publication. Johnston has chosen to ignore me.
George Santos of apologetics it sounds like
@kippdavis2368 please, ask Paul to pin your comment. Being so relevant to the video it’s important that people can see it easily.
Thanks dr Kipp.
Thank you for your contributions on the video!
The title of this video is deceptive and misleading which violates the rules of TH-cam. The title does not say that the video is meant to disprove the 7 best reasons for the resurrection. This is not allowed by TH-cam.
@@kennethgreifer5123 Lol, nobody is making a mistake about what's going on in this video.
My PhD in Spider-Manology, which I got from an ox at a Ford dealership, lets me confirm that this dude is super correct.
Lmao
Super...
Lol! 😂😜
I peed a little. Kudos.
I was there when the ox gave it to him, and it was super embarrasing.
As someone with a scientific education, I find it amazing what passes as standards of evidence, or worse, proof, for these folks.
While apologetics appears to have the form of an argument, that is a presentation of evidence and reasoning in support of a hypothesis, it is actually a performance in the form of an argument.
The goal is not to convince by means of argument, but to appear to offer convincing arguments to those who already believe, but might be having doubts.
That is, to assure believers that all criticism has already been addressed and refuted, so that those criticisms need not be considered further.
It is inherently dishonest.
@@antondovydaitis2261 Well said. Completely true
My amazement lies in the unfounded confidence. I'm an r&d lab technician, and just today I had no confidence in what I personally did yesterday without looking at my (computerized) lab notebook. Sure enough, that valve failed to close, and I noticed it 2 hours into the test.
Yet these people state with certainty that a guy resurrected from the dead.
Even my notebook has uncertainty, I NOTICED it at 2 hours. It might have happened before that, heck, it might have been happening for multiple visual measurements that I just didn't notice the anomaly. I'm not even confident in my own eyes 15 minutes ago, and these people are confident about someone else's eyes told to someone else else told to someone else else else written down by someone else else else else, translated by someone else else else else else.
I have zero confidence in what I do know, and these people have zero doubt in what they can't know.
@@phillyphakename1255 I think what a lot of people would attempt to convey in response to your point is that they have a personal relationship with the 'scripture' or 'Jesus' or the 'Bible', meaning that they have been in crisis at some point in their life, and flipped open the Bible or spoken with a pastor and found meaning/purpose/comfort. Indoctrination ensues that all of this theology is real. So for these folks it isn't about thinking critically or rationally about the claims of the Bible or those who subscribe to it, but rather about how they have literally and metaphorically been saved by Christianity and to acknowledge that the Bible isn't historically accurate, or the true word of God, or that Jesus wasn't resurrected would be world breaking for them. Many people have been known to replace evangelicalism for their addictions and/or suffering. So first you get the emotional attachment and then you do the mental gymnastics to try and defend all of the wacky stuff.
If you ask a self described evangelical why they are Christian, most will say "because Jesus died for my/our sins." I always ask a follow up question when I'm told this - "What does that mean?" Unless they study theology or grew up evangelical and studied how to convert people they will almost certainly not have an answer for this question. I've had evangelicals straight up tell me "I'd have to ask my pastor". How interesting is that? You wrap up your whole identity into an ideology and you can't even explain the most basic of questions for why you subscribe to that ideology.
Personally, I completely agree with what you wrote. I mean play a game of telephone with twenty adults in a closed room and you can see how distorted 'the truth' becomes. I mean so much of it is just silly projection with circular reasoning. And some of it is just so unbelievably basic. If you ask the average evangelical what does 'messiah' mean they will tell you the 'son of God'. Well, to Jews around Jesus' lifetime it means 'the literal king of the Jews from the Davidic line'. There is a pretty big gap between those definitions, and evangelicals are taking their definition and projecting it onto the text because that is how they were raised and indoctrinated.
I think it is just really important to remember that all of these folks are suffering and they are just doing their best to cope with what feels like a very difficult existence. I think this is one of the reasons that Christianity has been so successful. I think there are archetypal stories that are relatable to a fragile mind. It is messy to be human regardless of socioeconomic status and we all suffer. I look at the two gents in the video and I don't see confident respectful men. I see two guys who are suffering a great deal and either consciously or subconsciously being deceitful and doing their best to cope with that suffering. To me it is just a useful reminder to be compassionate, kind and respectful to all regardless of how dysfunctional their ideology is and if they're coming with pitchforks then self-defense is justified.
Correct, without lies religion dies. Help protect children from religious groomers
Only half way through, but hearing that religious frauds have no motivation to make stuff up must be the best argument I've come across so far. We've got a real grandmaster of truthology here.
I have heard "Jesus taught his followers to tell the truth, so therefore people preaching his word must be telling the truth" a disturbing number of times.
@@Commanderziff Also known as the “I stick my fingers in my ears because I can’t even entertain the possibility Christianity isn’t true” argument.
Adding embarrassing things in a story is a great tactic while lying. It makes the story sound more believable.
Source, listening to pathological liers
@@chrisphinney8475 Indeed, it's a psychological tactic used to make the teller more relatable.
You can't convince me that these apologists don't grasp how to lie.
@archapmangcmg no no no!! lieing for jesus is OK and good ok!
“After all, Lazarus was raised-never said a word about it, the daughter of Jairus was raised-didn’t say a thing about what she had been through, and the gospels tell us that at the time of the crucifixion, all the graves in Jerusalem opened, and their occupants wondered around the streets to greet. So it seems the resurrection was something of a banality at the time.”
-Christopher Hitchens
Indeed. Where are the records of the Great Judean Zombie Apocalypse of the first century?
According to doctrine, at the time of Christ's death he went into Hades to bring the Saints up to heaven with him. There were two parts to Hades as illustrated in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. One area for the lost and one area for the Saints.
The Saints were to be with Christ as he ascended back out of Hades. He was then resurrected on earth before ascending back up to heaven. The spirits of the Saints would have been with him.
I believe this is what the people saw. The spirits of the Saints. People seeing them would have probably mistaken them as being bodily resurrected also.
If they were bodily resurrected then where did they go?
Lazarus's resurrection is so much more believable than Jesus's because Lazarus was dead for 4 days while Jesus was only dead for 1 and a half days.
@@ericpreston8877 It was not an apocalypse... it was a party.
@@bungalobill7941 It explocitly says that the dead walked in Jerusalem, though.
I also studied at Oxford. The library at Oxford, Mississippi was a good place to do research back in the early eighties.
Nice 😂
I did research at Yale….library for my undergrad at a public school in Virginia
I walked Oxford (St.) everyday during my high school career. I soaked up all that Oxford culture.
Kipp is excellent, great guest!
definitely
10:40 Paulogia ‘You’re not going to be using your bible so there will be no need for my jingle today’.
13:00 Dr Johnston brings up Luke 24:21.
An astounding two minutes and twenty seconds before Dr Johnston brings up the bible and that time includes Paulogia’s comments.
I don't need bible to show you the light.
For the scripture says..
(I didn't get there yet, just guessing how 'not using baable' works)
@@thinboxdictator6720I don't need the Bible to show you the light! *points at lightbulb* There it is. Right there.
Haha, you think he didn't edit the video that way? It was obvious (to use a theme of this video) foreshadowing.
You do so many great things, @Paulogia, but these carefully crafted videos remain, in my view, your greatest contribution to the world. No "owning," no "destroying," no "humiliating," just measured, thoughtful deconstruction of faulty arguments. Really beautifully done, including the way you bring out the best in all your impressive guests.
Well said, and I couldn’t agree more!
His BA and MDV from Midwest Baptist College: a fundamentalist school.
From Wiki:
Midwestern Baptist College is not accredited by any accreditation body recognized by its country. According to the US Department of Education, unaccredited degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[4] Some of the school's courses are accepted for transfer credit at nearby Oakland Community College
Most of his higher education is from unaccredited and fundamentalist.
I say that because he makes it an issue.
Acadia Divinity College is a Canadian Baptist college, evangelical.
So academic honesty is not his strongest suite
Thanks for saving me the googling. I was about to dig into his educational history.
And his PhD is in New Testament studies. Middlesex College (UK) isn't a bad university, but basically, all Jeremiah has studied is the Bible.
Isn't Hovind the President?
Hey at least he’s close to an accredited Associates in Liberal Arts at OCC. Go Raiders!!!!!
Christian apologist are just so desperate to have anyone with a "Dr." next to their name support them. Lee Strobel got pissy about this same thing last year when he tried to promote a doctor proving some sort of Christian claim on science or physics or something by saying because he was a doctor, it made him more credible, but the doctorate was in philosophy. They hope you never look these things up.
Paul is always mild, humble, and reasonable.
Happy to be a supporter.
Unlike his biblical counterpart.
Always very thorough in explaining his thoughts & always corrects himself or clarifies if needed.
He is, which is part of why I remain a huge fan. However, it amuses me how irritated @Paulogia comes across in this video. I think it is pretty funny, and it is also devastatingly effective.
Intellectual honesty is the new charisma....I know. It's definitely not.
🤣🤣🤣 I guess you see what you want to.
I went into this with low expectations. Little did I know I was actually being generous.
Of course!
Agreed. This is some of the worst christo-babble claptrap I’ve heard in awhile.
yeh, my expectations were rock bottom. who knew I had to dig out a basement to lower it further
Yes this was a total flop from Paul. Well said!
Thanks so much, guys! I really appreciate the discussion of Johnstons self presentation up front. It’s hard to blame laypeople for their misunderstandings, since evangelicals aren’t typically exposed to academia to the same degree as say mainline Protestants. But the trained professionals should know better, and it’s hard to see Jeremiah’s self presentation as anything other than deliberately misleading.
What a shock!!. As science marches on the gaps narrow. It at the point when religion has lost the benefit of doubt. One of my problems with religion is the lack of foreshadowing of the changes in society. The end of slavery, the acceptance of women as equals, and the onset of thousands of denominations should have been in the new testament, and one of the commandments should have been about not owning slaves and Nottoway they should be treated.
@@axer3515 I… have no clue what that has to do with my comment, which was just about this dudes self presentation. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
I spoke of the difference between willfully ignorant people and the average person. You don't have to be a scientist to know that many of the incidents attributed to God are now easily explained by science. In the past many people used a God to explain them. The plague, droughts, earthquakes and flood were all God's wrath. Today it is only the willfully ignorant people who believe in silly crap like the young earth and Genesis creation, and world wide floods. So it is no longer laymen VS academics. the church has lost the benefit of the doubt. It once had. PAUL has often talked about his years of ignorance.
@@axer3515
Nice!
Another GREAT JOB PAUL.
Apologists keep forgetting that "BEST" reason...DOESN'T actually mean that it's a GOOD reason.
good point
@Paulogia Best point really
@@derinderruheliegti chuckled
I have a doctorate from a Catholic university. It's a JD from Fordham Law School. It doesn't qualify me for anything outside my field. When I do talk about religion (I'm an atheist), I don't reference my degree.
One of my all time favorite apologetics argument is: "look at this story... This is a wildly embarrassing story from our god inspired holy book. How could something be false if it's embarrassing?!"
Yes.. we all agree that many stories from the bible are wildly embarrassing. But not for the disciples. They're embarrassing for modern Christians still trying to justify them.
Also just wanted to acknowledge a very similar argument often made in favor of the resurrection story..
"It was women who found the empty tomb. The gospel writers wouldn't have written that women found it unless that's actually what happened because women were untrustworthy and unable to provide accurate accounts in court."
Don't let anyone tell you abrahamic religions aren't built on top of a mountain of misogyny.
Whenever someone does this, I remind them that Heracles, in his myth, died from putting on a poisoned cloak. No glorious last stand. No epic duel. Just a jealous wife tricked by a centaur. Embarrassing, if you ask me. Must be true!
@@williamdowling7718 “They weren’t motivated by sex because the bible is nothing but respectful to women!”
Edit: actually the quote from Sean is that Jesus treated women with nothing but charity and kindness, but Jesus is also The Word, so the irony still stands.
Funny how greek heroes are clearly invented for the christians (unless christians believes that other gods exist), but they themselves are full of shameful stories (even Plato and others did not like that stories), but this dont make them more real right?
@@Florkl or Theseus who fall of a cliff. It must be true because who would invent a history with embarasing things?
Methinks Johnston's arguments and assertions just met the wood-chipper of clarity and reason here. Well done Paul!
"I guess there'll be no need for my jingle today."
Morgan Freeman voice- But there was need. There was great need.
Great video, Paul! Very representative of all your videos - well researched, measured, and presented. This is just a token of my appreciation - I want you to do as many of these scripted responses as you can.
Your support and kind words mean much. thank you, David.
@@Paulogia Please use honest titles for your videos. This title is not honest. It is misleading and tricky, so that you can attract viewers. You are really arguing against what the title says. I am very annoyed and angry at your way of attracting viewers. I hope TH-cam will punish you for this.
@@kennethgreifer5123 there would be nothing to punish here though
@@kennethgreifer5123 At worst it would be click bait, which youtube doesnt punish.
@@kennethgreifer5123 pathetic.
What an awesome video, really appreciate the effort to detail. Dr. Kipp Davis’s expertise is always a treat.
Barely related but I continue to marvel at how J Warner Wallace can be such a great detective if he seems to constantly overlook important things like the existence of revenge (unless he wants to file the motivation of revenge under a broad definition of power, but at that point the definition is broad enough to also include sex and money). Also the argument only applies if you assume everyone is always rational, which is is comically untrue. Rationality is a spectrum, which we all move around on at least a little, as nobody is always perfectly rational.
and Wallace himself admits meeting suspects who told lies full of embarrassing details because it was more important they be believed.
JWW is such a con man, he is so bad at his arguments but I think he actually has managed to convince himself of his own bullshit
He even forgot “fear”, a very common motif for all sorts of things, including crimes.
My mother was a prosecutor for decades on end and she encountered plenty of people who killed because they were afraid they’d be harmed in some way.
Lying because one is afraid is so common, that we have all encountered in our lives.
Here’s a very common and mundane example: in my country, the consumption of weed and other substances was legalized but the selling or giving to others was not. Teens caught with weed would systematically swear it was not theirs, they were holding out “for a friend”, even when this was patently false. If the weed was theirs, there would be no repercussions. But if it’s not, an investigation would follow that could have consequences.
Fear, coupled with ignorance, made them lie against their best interests.
@@Nocturnalux and cops get away with murdering black men all the time by claiming they feared for their life, maybe that's why JWW left it out
Imagine all the people that were executed or are rotting in jail despite being innocent, all because of his sloppy detective work.
Thanks Paul. I love this nerdy stuff. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it. Appreciate.
The absence of the Xorpse of Xrist proves the resurrection !
I appreciate scholarship, being related to several PhDs, but autodidacts have a very special place in my heart.
Thank you once again, Mr Ogia & Dr Davis.
What if Jesus was just a vampire and the whole resurrection thing was his cover for why he didn't die? He could walk in the sun because vampires hadn't evolved albinism yet
@@BleydXVI Christ wasn't a vampire he was a Lich. Nazi even destroyed his phylactery in 1943 while trying to provoke a 2nd coming.
The absemce of a ton of gold in my fault proves that I am a billionaire.
@@kamion53
presumabIy its a bank fauIt ?
@@ob2249 where else? Building a fault at a second floor apartment does make much sense.
Scholarly speaking, you scholared the credentials out of this academic something learnedly fierce! [citation needed]
There does seem to be issues with truth and clarity over Jeremiah’s credentials, but thankfully those are two things Sean values above all else on his podcast, so I’m sure he’ll get to the bottom of it.
Apologetics as a whole has issues with honesty & integrity.
I think you broke my sarcasm-meter.
I appreciate all the work you must've put into making this video,Paul.Thanks again for a great job.
Thank you, Joseph
Carrot tho
Excellent video. Bonus points for the clips of apologists contradicting each other.
Whilst I was "at Cambridge" I learned that the railway station is a good way from the city centre, that the Fitzwilliam Museum has some lovely artwork and also that the Botanical Gardens are not as big as those at Kew. Okay fairly mundane stuff, but at least I'm not trying to make money arguing for the impossible !
Did you get to see the fossil collections there? One big regret is never going to Cambridge.
I spent a day walking around Cambridge back in 2000, does that mean I get to claim the knowledge I gained by walking around as a source of for my authority?
If your first name George?
I went to Oxford once and Cambridge twice during the seventies.
Harvard walker here. 😅
I used to think that Sean Mcdowell, was one of the more honest & less biased apologists out there, but after watching his weak, soft handed, approach to questioning the _claims & assertions of supposed Dr. J.Johnston,_ I've concluded that I'll have to change that assumption.
I agree. He has gone the route of being a very friendly landing place for authors on the Christian book tour promoting themselves. Not pushing back on their ideas or holding them to account when they doge questions.
The idea that his paper was recieved by scholars AND sceptics already sounds like a 'poisoning the well' excuse.
Dr. JJ is George Santos brother back in Brazil. They were both with Paul on the road to Damascus.
14:45
I think it's funny that the way he phrased his argument here makes it sound indistinguishable from a scam internet ad. "Transform your life with this one weird historical trick!"
Holy cow, and hour vid I'm ready!
I need to congratulate Jeremiah J Johnston on doing something no apologist has ever achieved with me: feeling second hand embarrassment for Sean McDowell. JJJ was a car crash in slow motion.
I was watching a genetically modified skeptic vid when this just popped up. I am here, now. Lol
good choice! 🤣
@@Paulogia don't need to convince the convinced. 😁
The “in Oxford” vs “at Oxford” thing is hilarious - seems like something from a comedy bit - but it’s so devious. My brain didn’t even realize he was saying “in Oxford” till I replayed it after it was pointed out.
Great video. Informative, easy to understand, and fun. Thank you.
Remember, when writing a story to influence others, make sure you include information that is impossible to verify so that you can gain followers.
I appreciate your work Paul.
Even Sean has a confused look half the time. As Paul has pointed out in the past, Sean is one of the more honest scholars and is definitely picking up on the overstated case.
He steelmanned and elaborated on my question about gospel embellishments really well, I appreciated that
If us, a general audience, picks up on such thing, he does. However, his bias as a Christian overpowers his ability to push back in any meaningful way.
Leon Festinger, _When Prophecy fails,_ seems very appropriate. Essentially, when prophecy fails (your messiah gets nailed to a cross), followers tend to get more committed and will try hard to convince more followers.
The more I learn about the history the more I have no confidence in any of their claims.
Dr. Kipp is a lot of fun to watch and he really kicks ass.
Just to add, there are many examples of modern cults that make failed predictions that immediately result in an explanation or justification for the failure. The "motivation" here isn't just about sex, money, or power (often it does to some degree), but mostly to the need to maintain the underlying faith. People HATE to be wrong especially about things they are passionate about. Now then, I still hold that Jesus probably never existed and whose legend started as visions by Peter and fellow apostles. But if we want to work with the idea he was a living rabbi who was crucified, there are more than enough examples of inventing miraculous reasons to explain prophesy failure without having to resort to simply lying.
I like how Sean tees up the skeptic argument then let's basically any argument including self-referential ones count. He tries sometimes but he just can't let himself be rigorous about the arguments.
31:00 Some version of "It's so obvious; how did miss this?" is nearly ubiquitous in detective mysteries.
I love that I always come away from one of your videos with so much to read! AS awlays an excellent response.
I've said it before and it needs to be repeated. If Jesus' own brother didn't believe he was "special," then the entire birth narrative is false. There's no way James would have been unaware of the events in Matt and Luke.
Being like "yeah, sure, you're the Messiah, nerd" is such a brother thing
@@LoisoPondohva I quite sure my older brother would deny I am the Messiah but he is just jealous.😂
It isn’t at all certain James is supposed to be a sibling. In plenty of religious communities people address each other as brother or sister, while not being related.
William Watson - The family of Harry Potter was not aware that he is a mage. Fictional stories produces 40 years later about a guy who spoke Aramaic which they use Greek is as valuable ss what stories about Robin Hood tells us about a real person. It is made up.
Well, James did at least become a believer after Jesus' death. He was a first leader of a church in Jerusalem. But what did he believe? I would say the historical evidence says James brother of Jesus thought Jesus was special, but didn't think of Jesus as God.
Also why doesn't no one talk about how according to the Bible, Jesus had a brother named Judas. Would have sucked to be him lol.
Paulogia, great work! I laughed, a lot. Sean seems pretty nice. Jeremiah, um. .?👍💙💖🥰✌
I've had times when I was plastered off my ass on alcohol and drugs simultaneously😵💫 where I didn't make such absurd arguments as theist apologists make when gooped up on god! 😜
1. I like Sean McDowell.
2. I’ve never seen Paulogia destroy someone so bad as he did Jeremy, and to do it by largely using Christian scholars to make his point. Now I can understand why there are so many contradictions in the Bible. All these Christian Scholars want to make their soapbox speech while turning a blind eye to how silly they all will look as a whole if an outsider were to put all of their information together in one place.
Love your voice Paul. Enjoyed the video, too.
Thank you kindly
It's very nice to listen to like a podcast during work
So awesome to witness the “resurrection” of Kipp over the last couple weeks.
Hopefully, there will be no need for another one this time around.
Summary: "We can't get into the disciples head!" ... proceeds to speculate endlessly what must have been in the gospels writers head.
"Brand new arguments" and "criterion of embarrassment"
You gotta pick one, Jeremiah. These are about as "new" as the stuff Habermas trots out
"Brand new arguments" = Same shit, new coat of paint. If science didn't discover more shit every day to kick god out of gaps and with it expose more "new arguments" AKA gaps for them to shove him in, they wouldn't have anything to work with, because they have no other method than failed attempts at philostomofying god into existence!
Your frustration, justified as it is, shows through a bit here. I'm impressed by your level tone.
Excellent as always, Paul (& Dr Kipp). This is weak stuff from Johnston but it can still provide entertainment in the right hands.
A doctorate from Oxford is a D.Phil. Those of us who went to less august establishments end up with PhDs.
23:48 Audio cut out at this moment.
Seemed like 23:49-23:50, but yeah, some info clipped
Yeah I got, "... where he became a bishop..." Then the next sentence.
It seems like the missing part is what church he (Lazarus) was supposedly made a bishop of in France, and that's it.
Edit: Patreon video confirms that is indeed the case. For those interested, the Western tradition is that Lazarus fled to Provence, where he is said to have been the first bishop of Marseille.
Thank you for this. Their arguments are wholly unconvincing. I would like to see JJ defend his theses against an unfriendly interrogator.
Am I the only one who couldn't get the image of Malthazar from "Galaxy Quest* out of his head every time they said, "Historical documents"?!
Those poor people.
They were great. Great movie, too
I think what is always overlooked in these discussions, on both sides, is the power of religious thought. It stands as an explanation on its own.
As an ex-evangelical/fundamentalist pastor for 25 years, I witnessed the power of this mindset in the churches in which I served.
It became one of the key deconversion perspectives that helped me untie the ropes of indoctrination.
Well, there's nothing wrong with a qualification from Middlesex University: I have a Diploma from the place myself... although it was a Polytechnic back then. However, trying to disguise a PhD awarded by Middlesex University as one from Oxford University is not only insulting to my former place of study but also misrepresented the academic specialities of these institutions. Several Oxford colleges do indeed have a high degree of expertise and specialisation in Biblical Studies and Middle Eastern History, whereas Middlesex Poly/University does not - it merely has a joint programme with the London School of Theology, which is an institution not exactly known for rigorous adherence to evidence-based history.
Re: adumbrate. Umbra comes from the Latin for shadow, as in umbrella (little shadow). The prefix ad- means to or at, so adumbrate is shadow to or at, which has a meaning very close to foreshadow (though to be exact I'd expect it to be "preumbrate").
He had to dig into his post graduate word bag to try and impress the audience.
At first I was like "yeah, yeah, they'll mention his education a lot" but dang did they really lay it on thick.
I believe Dr. Jody Magnus is a well-known archaeologist. Last time I checked I think she was excavating in the Byzantine Period.
Thanks for your time and hard work, I am continually learning new and exciting material from your channel.
I have noticed that Dr. Magnus was a contributing editor to the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine. The editors of that periodical have demonstrated a unrelenting bias against the hypothesis of authenticity for the Turin Shroud, and, perhaps, that is why we see no mention of that famous relic in this video.
Paulogia rules!
O'Doulle rules!
Paulogia’s arguments-well read layman that he is-are more compelling than the apologist‘s. t/s 31:50
Whenever I hear about Oxford I am reminded of the Beverly Hillbillies episode when Jethro reveals he graduated Oxford. Only 12 years to get through all 6 grades.
The skeptic can grant Paul _believed_ in a physical bodily resurrection. However, it doesn't follow this belief _also entailed_ the physically resurrected Jesus necessarily had an earthly sojourn where the disciples interacted physically with his body like it says in Luke and John. Apologists just assume the former necessarily entails the latter but that is simply not the case.
Paul seemingly equates his visionary experience (Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19) with all the other "appearances" in the list - 1 Cor 15:5-8. So despite apologetic protestations, an equally likely reading is that Paul understood *all* of the appearances occurring from heaven like his did. That would mean the later accounts in the gospels where Jesus' physically revived corpse remains on the earth and is touched before ascending are all legendary embellishments.
The “empty tomb” is such a ridiculous argument. Nobody has ever presented a tomb that can be proven to have previously held the body. It’s just a story in a book.
Another wonderful video loved it. A question though, at 23:48 you say where he became the biship then silence, your mouth moves for half a second. Was this intentional, a editing thing or what, just curious.
It’s a real pity that nobody bothered to interview Lazarus about his experience.
Non disclosure agreements were very popular back then. /s
I would describe Sean Mcdowell's look when Dr. J is speaking as "concerned".
I now have Michael Palin’s voice in my head saying, “NO ONE EXPECTS THE JESUS RESURRECTION” after just the first point.
We cannot survive without oou Jesus (the winter sun) and Christ (the summer sun).
Galatians 4.21-31, describes the entire bible as Allegory.
@@harveywabbit9541 Hello again Harvey. Are you still using your book written in the 1800s as the entire bases for your assertions or have you been looking into more modern scholarly on the Bible?
@@thelostone6981
Scholars who talk about the destruction of the temple , in 70 A.D. are full of shit.
I learned something important from this about Jewish history, namely that there once lived a high priest of Judaism named Anus. Very important piece of history there. Many thanks to Dr Kip Davis for this.
Where in the anals of history did you uncover this fact?
Hey, man. I had an exhausting week.
@@DrKippDavis Seriously I did not know that before, and am glad I do now. :)
Onias, actually 🙏
@DeludedOne I’d say he’s pretty good with history, on the whole.
A Doctorate in fairy magic and middle Eastern fantasy is quite impressive when you gave an invisible dragon in your garage.
There is zero or near zero history in the bible.
Galatians 4.21-31, describes the entire bible as Allegory.
@@harveywabbit9541 Good point thanks! Nit to mention that mud man and rib woman, walking over water or dead people leaving graves in droves might have been a hint for the reader.
@@TorianTammas
The rib aka arc is the seven months of crop production and harvest.
The arc of Noah (Earth) is the five months of hunger, cold, wet, darkness, death aka the horrible winter season where many died from their poverty. The terrible scorpion (Scorpio constellation) is the leader of all kinds of trouble-makers. See Rev 9.5.
Now I’m trying to figure out why “of Marseille” was muted. Did TH-cam think it sounded like something naughty, or too controversial, or did Paul pronounce it “Mars-seal” or some such, and mute it himself?
Why does every "new argument" for the resurrection turn out to be just a rehash of the minimal facts argument with the same tired points uncritically presented. Minimal facts is getting to be the Pascal's wager for history: Always presented as some fresh insight, that ignores detailed responses.
Bc when most of your audience isn’t aware of critical scholarship on the book your religion is based on it’s much easier to repackage the same crap and resell it as new to said audience.
11:34 Is that "Hecklefish"?
I still think Christian’s would be more credible if they skipped the apologetics (inconsistent historic, scientific reasons) and say, the Bible says it and I believe it. People believe because they want to - not because there is “proof” it is true. It isn’t a rational decision, it’s emotional! Like falling in love. No one asks why - it’s emotional!
This would apply to all metaphysical beliefs(including atheism)
In truth, long, long before I ever abandoned Christianity I was already convinced that apologetics was utterly bankrupt. Apologists who also happened to teach in the Philosophy Dept. at the University I was last affiliated, or faculty from the attached Seminary were a constant source of aggravation to those of us in the Religious Studies Dept.-ALL of us. And this was at an Evangelical University. I talk more at length about this in a show I did with @Captain Dadpool on his channel last night (29 January).
@@richmondaddai-duah Yes, it would and to me it definitely does but, atheism is NOT a belief. It is the ABSENCE of belief. Believers of any faith just can’t seem to understand that.
@@richmondaddai-duah and since atheism is a lack of belief, you’re incorrect.
No precisely anyone who thinks deep on this can realise why ,when athiest say that atheism is a negative claim it's word play or sophism , See why: atheism is the absence of beliefs in the existence of deities ,you say ,but that claim implies a positive claim: that atheism is the belief that no god exists . because when you say there is a absence of any gods ,you believe in what you say or believe that statement to be true.and that claim is a metaphysical one because it is making claims about a non physical being (God or in this sense the Christian God) .this is simple to understand.
That's kind of like when I was at Harvard. Oh, you went to Harvard University? In Cambridge Mass? Oh no, it was a community college in Harvard, Texas.
Actually lots of people have been citing Paulogia... even William Lane Craig cites Paulogia on frequent occasions!
I just Shazamed the intro tune. I like the music but I cant abide the lyrics.
What song is that?
The resurrection of plant life symbolically takes place at the pass over from winter (death) to spring (life). Jesus is simply the winter sun and his "death" at the spring equinox is nothing more than the end of the winter season of non crop production.
They made a dead preacher look like that. In reality it was one more failed prophet which the Romans saw as dangerous and executed him.
41:16. The only problem with the family reburial idea is that Jesus’ family was from Nazareth. Unless, of course, that is incorrect. The only way this works out is if the family lived in Jerusalem. This is also the problem with the Talpiot tomb. Please clarify.
Nazareth is an alternate spelling of the Mazaroth (Zodiac) Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus of the zodiac and is the same as Jesus of Galilee (circle/gilgal).
THE RESURRECTION. ,
The Savior was now (winter) deposited in his tomb. As the Sabbath (winter) was nearing its end, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulchre, bringing sweet spices (the spring flowers) with them. They found the stone rolled away, i.e., it was spring. Mary ran to Peter (Aries) and told him the Savior's body wasn't in the tomb (winter). Peter, of course, was badly scared, and ran off with another disciple (Pisces) but got outrun, the last passing the Sun first. However, both found the “linen clothes” = the Earth. All then went home, i.e., the two sets of constellations (winter and summer) came into position at the spring equinox. Meanwhile “the vail of the temple (intereaspansum templi = the plane of the solstices) was rent (scissum est = was divided) from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake (mota est = was moved, i.e., over the equinoctial line); and the rocks were rent” by the dissolving frosts. The graves were opened, i.e., the winter was past, and “many saints” (summer constellations) which slept (in the dark hemisphere) arose, and appeared to many, i.e., to such as understood the riddle.
Mary stood without, at the sepulchre,” weeping (the latter rain); and as she wept, she stooped down (went below the equator), and, looking, saw two angels in white (the light of spring), sitting, one (Aries) at the head, and the other (Pisces) at the feet (see your almanac), where the body of Jesus had lain. “Why weepest thou?” said the angels. Because, said Mary, I cannot find my Lord. Being a night constellation, she couldn't see the Sun. Turning back just then (Lot's wife looked back), she saw Jesus standing, but didn't know him. He addressed her, when, turning again, she knew him (but didn't see him), and exclaimed Rabboni (My great one). Jesus said, “touch me not;” for I am not ascended to my Father (the Holy Ghost). The Sun and Virgo don’t come in conjunction until the end of the summer. Hence in the spring Jesus said to her: “touch me not;” “but go and tell my brethren that I ascend unto my father, and your Father; and to my God and your God” (Sun entered Aries).
* Why did Mary stand without the sepulchre? Because, being a summer constellation, she was obliged to share the lot of God, or Aries, her leader. Night or day, winter or Summer, she is always with the Lord, though she is not always able to see him. Hence the mutual love each bore the other.
Of all this Mary duly informed the disciples. On the evening of the first day (month) of the week (the seven summer months), Jesus stood in the midst, i.e., at the spring equinox, and said: - “Peace be unto you,” i.e., let summer come. The disciples were glad to see their Lord (the summer Sun). So, Jesus repeated: - “Peace be unto you.” He then breathed on them, and said: - “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” = the summer wind.
Milton Woolley, Career of Jesus Christ.
23:49 audio cut out?
The stuff, apostles didn't understand, but he predicted everything and the OT is predicting it too is just so contradictory. I mean, it is hard not o see it. I listened to the original video and had to turn it off coz I couldn't take his BS, and finished it later after a break. I think a conversation with a person like him could be enjoyable, I would like to see him (or SeanMcDowell ) try to engage with your or Kamils Gregor or other Resurrection "hypothesis". Shame they didn't yet as far as I know. Good video thanks!
Funny that, when talking about the gospel of Peter, Johnston didn't mention the walking, talking cross.
When talking about the first gospel (a.k.a. Matthew) he didn't mention the zombie apocalypse when Jesus died either. Which is perhaps the single most _absurd_ story in the whole New Testament. Or even the whole Bible.
@@pauligrossinoz Oh, I don't know. That's a pretty high standard to meet, what with gods, virgins giving birth and still being virgins, rising from the dead, and so on. The whole thing is absurd.
@55:00 does it say Jesus or Yeshua? If so wasn't Yeshua's name changed to Jesus in the 12th century and then widely used around 400 years ago? And the word Christ I thought it meant stained one, then switched to the anointed one.
Transliterated, not changed. Jesus’s name is still Yeshua.
1. The bible says so. 2. The bible says so. 3. The bible says so. 4. The bible says so. 5. The bible says so. 6. The bible says so. 7. The bible says so. Does counting the same reason still count?
"So I shouldn't need the jingle"
Nice Chekhov's gun ya got there, be a shame if someone had to fire it before even the first point finished up
Guy says he has new arguments & he *starts with Luke 23
Derp
"Insufferable verbosity" rocks. Important point by point critical analysis. I will be back for more.
I'm not sure what Swan McDowell thinks of the matter, but a "doctor" talking about the gospel accounts as though they were written by eyewitnesses is a huge red flag.
*Joseh of Aramathea: **_Spit_** Personality?*
In Mark, J of A was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, which, with all members present, unanimously persecuted Jesus in Mark 14:53-65, *but* in 15:43, “was himself waiting for the kingdom of God...”. He sought evidence against Jesus in order to condemn and spit on him, but he is waiting for the KoG, so he honors Jesus’ corpse. Mark has described a contradictory situation regarding Joseph of Arimathea.
OK, it was the soldiers, not the Sanhedrin, that spit on Jesus in Mark 15:16-20
The Kingdom of God, like the Temple of God, is within you.
So I had heard of Ananias/Annas the High Priest before, but Anus the High Priest is definitely the superior spelling.
That may be my error. In truth I am a terrible speller.
I just had a thought. According to tradition, Joseph was much older than Mary, with grown children, when Jesus was born. If James was put to the sword around the year 62, wouldn’t he have been 80 or older, in a time when the average life expectancy less than 40?
Bunch of possible answers, first of which is that life expectancy of under 40 is because a TON of people died as kids, dragging down the average. Life expectancy once you reached 25 was something like 60. And a lot of that was murder and war and plagues, not general diseases as much. Oh, and farm accidents/west and tear from hard labor, which wouldn’t apply to James.
Tradition is pretty worthless as a source, but if he was much older than Mary with *some* grown children, that doesn’t say that James specifically would have been more than 2-3 years older than Jesus.
And it’s unclear when Jesus was born, seems to be something like 4ad, not 1ad.
So late 60’s seems like a reasonable guess.
Also, tradition is bs, we have no idea if James was even the familial brother of Jesus, or just another brother in Christ who was known as that.
Heck, if we rely on tradition, we could equally say that Jesus’ younger brother took his place on the cross, then afterwards Jesus said goodbye to the apostles and then fled to Japan and retired as an onion farmer, which is the tradition of a small fishing village in Japan.
@@dansmith7009 If you’re Protestant, then Jesus may have had younger siblings. If you’re Catholic, Joseph had grown children when he was betrothed to a 14 year old Mary. She remained a virgin.
As for the birth of Jesus, there’s also two conflicting stories. In Matthew Jesus is born around 6BCE, when they flee to Egypt. they don’t return until the death of Herod in 4BCE.
In Luke Jesus couldn’t have been born before 6CE, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (6CE-12CE)
One would think that obtaining a PHD in a subject would give one the ability to present a unique and convincing argument for something that you think so obviously occurred. Really shows how vacuous some Christian “scholarship” is. His degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Not disagreeing, just curious, at 32:56 you say Jesus allegedly shape-shifted. Is this from the canonical bible, or from non-cannon documents?