Or last rights

Not being picky… but the spelling is Pilate, not Pilot

Ynw melly and Bortlan, is that you?

​@@MrArdytubeI was thinking "you know he wasn't a licensed aviator," hahaha

​@@PhilusteenI can see apologists arguing this point if it suited them 😂

Hahahaha...I loved the "one chance in a million" by WLC on his becoming a believer

or zero chance in a million

there is 0 chance since jesus the son of god and the disciples are fictional characters in a story using allegory to explain why the romans were able to destroy the temple

Yep, #LowBarBill pretty much destroyed all of his credibility thanks to him admitting he believes Christianity 'cause he wants to & not due to any of his vaunted logical arguments...

Good ole low bar Bill😂

By the time you get to John, late 1st or early 2nd century, the whole of the trial-judgement-crucifixion story has become decidedly not annti-Roman anti-Jewish. Bart Ehrman asks you to read the gospel accounts in historical order: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. In Mark, the Roman quickly decides to execute the Jewish troublemaker. In John, acc. to Ehrman, the Greek text says that Pilate expostulates with the Jews, consults Herod who proclaims jesus’s innocence, and eventually hands him to “them”≠ the soldiers, but rather = the Jewish elders, to crucify. (Grammatically, Ehrman is relying on the principle that the closest antecedent is the correct one.)

More specifically, "anonymous ancient scroll in which I have a great deal of emotional investment because I decided to believe it was true before I'd ever read it."

It also becomes even more true if they don't actually have the scroll, but copies of copies of translations of copies which have been tinkered with and aren't consistent with each other.

@@shassett79 Even if there's just a one in a million chance that the scroll exists.

Or even worse than that, Apologist: "This one scroll is the corroboration for the claim." Sceptic: Which claim? A: "The claim in the scroll". S: Oh so the claim is it's own corroboration? - Queue jingle.

​@@dougt7580I wish I were making this up, but literally yesterday I was talking to a guy who thinks discrepancies between different translations/versions of the bible are actually proof of god's existence because _Satan himself_ is slowly introducing errors in the bible to turn people against Christianity.

It's basically Calvinball.

​@@shassett79😂😂😂

'He's making it up as he goes!'

I think the story would make more sense and would be more exciting, if some followers of Jesus had to do a heist to steal away the body of Christ from the cross. That chapter would be enjoyable and would make the post resurrection story worthy of a movie. It would explain why he had a burial and add a special saintly pantheon of the burying of Christ. It really feels like an obviously missing part of the story.

Peter's 11? The Jerusalem Job?@@GiordanoBruno42

My fave is "well the bible HAS to be wrong as to where Jesus was born, so it MUST be right about Jesus existing!!!!". No, we have proof the bible got something wrong.

@@markhackett2302the evidence is that they had to acknowledge where he was born (Galilee) and modify it to fit prophecy -the simplest way to construct the story would have been to have him be born in Galilee.

The criterion of embarassment is actually extremely not on the side of apologists because nothing is more embarrassing than ‘dying tragically as just some dude with semi delusional aspirations, not being risen from the grave as the son of god, being unable to perform miracles, etc’ It’s a way to bury the lead, to acknowledge obvious criteria which is used by secular critical scholars of religion in order to invalidate their accounts as a kind of card against their opponents

It's also impossible to determine what the Gospel writers in the 1st/2nd Centuries CE would have found "embarrassing." Writing almost a generation after the supposed death of Jesus (if he existed at all), these proto-Christians could very well already have seen his crucifixion not as a humiliation, but as a triumphant reversal -- exactly as modern Christians claim it was. Indeed, if Jesus didn't exist or wasn't actually crucified, it might not be embarrassing at all to argue he suffered a humiliating death, if the point was for him to transcend that death and prove himself above it.

​@@PasteurizedLettuceIt doesn't really matter, it's a nonsense criteria and no legitimate historian uses it.

Nah it’s something that’s specific to religious studies originally created for New Testament scholarship but now applied to Buddhism and I’ve seen it for Islam as well.

I’m an idiot. I read your comment as “and an extensive public record” so I was like “wait, is this guy drawing a parallel because he is a criminal like Jesus???” 😂😂😂

It's used, under a different name, in courts, as an exception to the rule excluding hearsay. If a witness says, "I heard John say that Mary did it", that is inadmissihle hearsay, but if the witness says, "I heard John say that he did it", then it is admissible as a statement against interest.

It's also one that makes absolutely no sense when one considers how Christian testimonies are structured. 1. I was a very bad/stupid/awful person (usually involves drugs/sex/profanity in some way). 2. Religious experience happened and got saved/born again 3. I'm now an extremely moral person who gave up all their vices and sins! The entire structure of the testimony is to emphasize what a horrible person they used to be and how Jesus/Holy Spirit completely changed their life around. So why would we expect it to be any different for the disciples/apostles? They were cowards and ignorant men obsessed with status and pride until the Holy Spirit came upon them on Pentacost and then they were transformed into bold, unashamed preachers that would risk their lives in order to spread the gospel. It's exactly what we would expect to see in a testimony and the fact that apologists don't seem to understand that is... just weird. I never understood how ppl thought that the criterion of embarrassment was a good argument even when I was a Christian - it was just so blatantly wrong and it completely destroys possibly the most powerful message of Acts, that being the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

@@PasteurizedLettuceyup, pretty sure I have heard Ehrman use it.

Well damn, who the hell would think to look _there?_ Did they even know japan existed?

Yep. Jesus, no dummy, got the heck out of town and sent his brother Isukiri to be crucified in his place. It’s all well documented and written down, so must be true.

@pureflix8086 In the first century CE, no, they wouldn't have known of the existence of Japan.

​@@grapeshot I mean, the Yamato certainly did, and the Ainu.

That would explain the empty tomb, obviously the Japanes stole it for their own tomb!

Yeah he was put in an ossuary, so that meant just his bones were put in a box, not that he was taken down and given an immediate proper burial, that’s a really silly example for apologists to use

They also use the example of someone taken down early and surviving. That doesn't help their case either. Of course, they quote Bible passages that are really a stretch as well, so that's kind of the whole thing.

@@goldenalt3166 Yeah, we don't even know if the guy actually expired on the cross. All we know is his bones eventually made their way to an ossuary.

love it

Great point! I hadn't thought of that, thank you.

Exactly!

they don't even care about what's possible. They just grunt out excuses for their ridiculous beliefs.

The problem is that they depend on a sequence of improbable events. The chance that they all occurred is minuscule.

Some claim that what the guard said was sarcasm.

@@johnnehrich9601 Of course, everything we "know" the guard totally said was written by people who wanted Jesus to be the headpiece of the new cult they were forming; unlike some outside sources we have for the "Jesus was around, kind of a troublemaker" stuff, we don't have a single thing for what one of the random guards supposedly said. (Short version- yeah, I'm really gonna trust the Bibblee for anything that the allegedly guards said.)

I can see him not so much getting special treatment, but the people in charge generally letting the condemned's family/friends dispose of a(ny) criminal's body, for two reasons. 1) If the group is large enough, while they might let Rome enforce their justice, desecrating their body might be that straw too heavy, so you toe the line between ensuring Roman Authority but not causing a riot. 2) Oh, you're gonna take care of this- coolio, less work for us. (Just gotta make sure the dude be dead first.)

@@Sephiroth144 Well, given that the romans crucified him as an example to his tiny band of followers, i doubt that they would have cared a fig less what they thought about it. plus they were in hiding, so again I doubt very much that they would just roll up and take the body down.

Here’s the truth: You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind, What should you do then? So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true, because right now you just learned the Bible is smarter than you, and you will be accountable for your life on judgment day before God! Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off if he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth! Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos says Isaiah 45:19, so you better do it now. In other words,You’ll be too worried about your own survival when chaos hits, than your eternal destiny! Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers! God authored the Bible! DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication? 1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion! One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled! Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“! Psalm 139 is about the human body!

I think that goes with claims of God's omnicience

But the New Testament is “church tradition “. Stuff only got into the canonical New Testament because of Church Synods approving the texts centuries after the events they purport to describe.

Looking at the whole I have to agree non scholar that I be.

I’ll go further than that. The Bible itself, on which many Protestants claim their faith is SOLELY based (excluding church tradition), was compiled and canonized under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. So how can they even accept the canonicity of Scripture when that canonicity was granted by an authority they reject? I’ve known Protestants who converted to Catholicism bc of this argument, though I tend to go in the opposite direction.

And also Pontius Pilate, whom Josephus claimed was such an ass he deliberately provoked the Jews numerous times, just stood there and took all of this wishy-washy nonsense and went along with it.

@@Uryvichk You see, in the end, he was just a victim of fake news

And then either set guards or allowed guards to be set in case of something happens. The Pilate scenes read like bad farce. People keep rushing in Pilate’s throne rooms demand something, rush out then rush back in and demand almost the exact opposite. All the while Pilate is going “ok fine” even when it’s a full scale invasion by a mob. I’ll go out on a limb here and say if any of the conquered people actually tried anything like what was described in the Gospels their would be a dungeon full of the ruling class and a lot of dead peons in the streets, not in the throne room.

The whole situation is utterly laughable. To suggest Pilate would violate Roman Law, stating the specific crime of Jesus was accused of committing, which within Roman Law stated burial was forbidden, would then turn around and bend to Jewish custom, which he historically had no regard for, is frankly is as about as believable as it is far fetched.

@@drrickmarshall1191 …. Yes, laughable how credulous i/we were

Hitchens razor strikes again blessed be Chris.

Just be careful with that mindset. See, for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

They don't even have the empty room to examine, we do not know which tomb in that area was supposed to be the one. It all comes from copies of copies of a story (Mark's gospel) - in which the tomb was occupied.

"The empty tomb is the biggest prove of Jesus resurrection" Me: uh... ok. That is not evidence... but I will bite. What empty tomb? where is it? *silence*

I’d say the main issue with “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” in history is that we know that we don’t have much of the data and never will. So it’s like walking into a room that you can only ever see half of and saying no crime was committed. Could be anything in the other half of that room, we can’t be sure. You could infer from the undisturbed state of the half you can see, but ultimately it’s extrapolation. If we could actually see half the room, perhaps that would be reasonable, but obviously saying we have half of the historical data is wildly overstating it for the purpose of analogy.

No totally unlikely as it takes up to 72 hours to die on the cross, part of the punishment was to deny burial and the bones to rot and end up in a public dumpster. Not to mention you just wait a few days after the religious festival and all went home and then crucify the criminal.

kinda like the SOH he pulls with the kalam: Point A is true (by mere assertion), therefore (completely unrelated) Point B must be true.

@@TorianTammas Well, to be fair, it only took 72 hours when the victim was healthy and didn't have their legs broken (as was common practice). Then it would take 72 hours because it would take that long to die of thirst and exposure. Most crucifixion victims died of suffocation when they lost the strength to keep their lungs from collapsing, and that could be relatively quick in comparison. Even if we assume Jesus' legs weren't broken, someone who was scourged and also bleeding from multiple minor head wounds (the thorns) would not have lasted anywhere near 72 hours.

Christians hold the patent to cognitive dissonance.

The punishment for sin is eternal separation from God, which is the worst possible thing one could experience. Jesus took that eternal separation punishment on your behalf by being crucified like countless others. Wait, I'm not making sense am I?

@@emalee8366 only if you are being a poe. otherwise way to change the subject just like your basic christian.

​@DAYBROK3 high likelihood of poe I think, because it's silly on its face that "the punishment most criminals see" is any reasonable sacrifice to save all humans (especially the criminals) from special super-torture forever and ever in a fiery pit Then they point out it's silly and doesn't make sense I think punctuation might've helped make their point more clear

@@emalee8366 Ah, but the "eternal separation" was only for... 2.5 days? Not very eternal, really. I do remember being shocked when I first heard a Christian say that Jesus went to hell for those "3 days" he was dead. I was like "but Jesus never sinned, so he should have gone to heaven!" And then I paused and remembered that he was supposed to have taken the sins of humanity onto himself on the cross. And then the claim made sense. Mom was furious at the idea that Jesus could/should have gone to hell for the time he was supposed to be dead tho. She couldn't wrap her head around it. It really is funny what different types of Christians will argue over. I did grow up in a version of Christianity that preached "fire and brimstone" version of hell. But oddly they didn't actually talk about hell all that often. They were much much more focused on the Rapture which they insisted could happen at any moment! And so all my religious anxiety as a child was very much focused on the Rapture and the idea that if I didn't believe "hard enough" I would find myself abandoned here on Earth and absolutely everyone I knew would be gone - kinda like the Left Behind series/movies. That is very traumatizing for a little kid.

Yeah i thought the same thing when we saw the younger WLC, he seems very mentally diminished.

Low Bar's been phoning it in for years, that's why he's gotten careless and give such great soundbites.

😂😂😂💀

Thank you, brother.

That is a positive claim sir. We have eyewitness testimony that over 500 people saw bodily risen Jesus. Who would die for a lie? It fulfills prophecy from Jonah! They were both dead for three days then rose again. And remember if you go to reply to this, I'm made of rubber you are made of glue

I think you're being charitable that there was a person to begin with.

@@Kruppes_Mule well of course, you have to give them that or else there is no conversation

" He's dead Jim".

@@chriswest8389 Maybe he was just "mostly dead", ya know, like Westley in Princess Bride.

Exactly.

Sadly he doesnt give a rats ass for lying

All his examples are "absurd" to use his philosophical jargon.

it's kinda his job

Not wanting to break a lance for apologists here - but I believe this rules were subject to corruption... So unlikely, but not impossible. In that case the paper where the law was written on, is as patient as all of the written accounts of Jesus doing wonders and comes back from the dead...

@@robertnett9793 I didn't intend for this source to indicate what always was the case. It just shows that there were instances where the bodies were not able to be obtained under Roman rule. So, in the least, we have conflicting sources on the matter.

​@@resurrectionnerd, and it seems it was frequent enough that there was a rule for what to do about it.

@@robertnett9793 We speak here about 6 hours and it takes up to 72 hours to die. The body "disappeared" as it rotted on the cross and ended in a public dumpster.

In the case of Jesus, a popular leader and cult figure at the time, isn't it possible that his followers could have stolen his body from the cross, bribed the guards or otherwise created an exception to the rule?

Which is one the dumbest assertions from Christians because people are willing to die for lies all the time for any number of reasons.

Point out to them that 50 people killed themselves because they thought they were going to fly to heaven on the back of a comet. It's amazing what people will die for.

You should have stated that people sometimes write stories about other people that are not accurate portrayals of the people and events depicted.

Paulogia has done some videos on the veracity of the "die for a lie" claim from theists.

That's probably true if phrased "knew was a lie", however, we can't know what the disciples knew, but people die for what they believe all the time, which doesn't make their belief true. So that's a very bad argument.

When he's done with locating Arimethea, he can get to work on finding a 1st century C E. town called "Nazareth".

Probably, but in seminary he learned that lying for Jesus is super duper A--OK with cherries on top. That's basically what a theology "degree" is. Especially if it's from some bible college. By Liars, For Liars(tm)(r).

Lyin' Billy don't care.

But we didn't get the jingle. Did get the saying but not the music. Oh, well.

is this an AI Generated comment by chance?

@@Jeremy-am ...No? Frankly kind of a weird question.

Wow, thank you!

@@Paulogia Your arguments against these nonsensical and dishonest claims are a breath of fresh air.

Appreciated, David.

That would mean admitting it’s a story, and not perfectly-recorded testimony

strangely, the Catholics think they know.

Those writers did seem to have some difficulty with the local geography.

When I was a Christian, I believed God was the monster that Jesus saved us from. Makes a lot more sense of the Bible than claiming Jesus is the monster.

@@goldenalt3166 Yeah, Yahweh certainly seems to be a monster. Jesus seems better...

until he starts into all that hellfire stuff

@@scambammer6102 Yeah,....that certainly is problematic. Ultimately, the entire system is malevolence masquerading as "a religion of love".

@@DRayL_ primitive humans were the worst (looks around)

Can’t say about Alex but I don’t think Bart is.

Bart's defense of historicity makes him sound like he has already.

@@noracola5285 No. His main reason for rejecting Christianity is the problem of evil, as he has explained many times and in depth in his books. Just because he believes Jesus existed does not mean anything other than that.

@@noracola5285 The historicity of Jesus is pretty much universally accepted in scholarly circles, with the purely mythical view being considered extremely fringe. Mind you, there are pretty much only two facts about his life are nearly universally agreed upon: he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. Whether or not he said anything attributed to him, behaved in the manner spoken of in the Gospels, or was originally a carpenter from Galilee, all of that is free game for discussion and debate. Honestly, those are not outlandish claims. The mythicist position seems rooted in a total distrust of the gospels in general, and incredulity that a high Christology could form quickly after his death. But, culturally, nothing about the Jesus myths are new or particularly unique. Messianic figures weren't uncommon in Judea at the time, nor were preachers forming their own movements. I think it's more parsimonious to assume there was some historical individual at the root of the stories, with those basic characteristics, than that he was fabricated from whole-cloth.

Good point, I missed this one.

And the synoptic Gospels are anonymous. The names we call them by now were assigned decades after they were written. As unknown anonymous sources, the authors couldn’t even be called into court to defend their hearsay writings.

I have seen the Tomb of Romulus , it’s right there in the Roman Forum and Romulus was in at least one story, so it must be true by WLC logic , raised into heaven.

The Gospels are novels.

This is when Paulogia is at his best. Slowly and patiently, taking every piece of Christian propaganda and hammering away at its fallacies and inconsistencies

It takes not only 6 hours but up to 72 hours to die on the cross. The Romans most likely waited until after the festival most visitors went home and then execute not only the head rebel but all his followers as well.

Right, and if they are politically powerful enough to coerce the Roman government to grant their desires...why didn't they simply wait a few days until Passover was over to have Jesus executed? The "rush job" suggested in the narratives does not sound like the actions of a political group powerful enough to strong-arm Pilate into suspending regular practice.

I think Alex is setting himself up as a middle-man interviewer so he goes easy on excusagists. He should be holding their feet to the fire, and exposing their deceit. He did the same with his Philosophy mentor, Richard Swinburne. Had I been the interlocutor I wouldn't have let Swinburne get away with his ridiculous assumptions and extrapolations.

Hes always in the last place you look.

empty your pockets.

@@HarryNicNicholas Maybe I should try to remember the last place I saw him?

​@@pureflix8086I last saw Jesus in a Paulogia video.

I believe the idea is that there was a specific talmudic prohibition against displaying impaled/hung bodies. Imo, this is weak because the authorities didn't care very much about Jewish ritual law.

Presupposes that there WAS a Jesus, as per bible, making the authorities look bad with his frankly terrible statements that the authorities didn't "go away angry" at.

If I tried really really hard I can find a reason. But it’s not implicit in the text. So here it goes. The ruling body in Israel was the Sanhedrin. They as a whole handed over Jesus to Pilot. We don’t know if the decision was a majority vote or everyone was in full agreement or there some other way of making the decision . So the possibility is open that on of the members disagreed with the decision and wanted to in some way atone or compensate for the decision that killed a man that they disagree with. I don’t think this is likely, because in the cut throat world of Israelite politics, that action would paint a target of your back. But still members of organisations are not the organisation.

Ayyooo

Religious pride is founded on misunderstandings.

You left out that the typical audience of apologists have also been indoctrinated since birth to submit to authority. So all someone like WLC needs to do is claim authority. And putting that “Dr.” in front of his name on videos helps. Unlike a lot of apologists at least WLC earned his doctorate in philosophy at an accredited university. But that doctorate was on the Kalam cosmological argument, not Biblical historiography.

Thank you!

Play it again, O'ghia! Although kudos to Cameron who pronounced Paul's name correctly.

WLC does a lot of assuming and making unsubstantiated claims to support his case. He deploys a lot of special pleading and begging the question and thinks we should just accept everything he says because his source is the bible . Such things as the 500 witnesses to the resurrection which is simply a nice round number plucked out of thin air in an attempt to give the story some degree of credibility. Craig does this in many of his debates and it’s just not convincing and he must know this .

@@MartTLS You can say that no one outisde his cult cared about this guy Jesus, so no wonder there are no reports. But 500 zombies (in various states of decomposiiton?) roaming a city, speaking with people, with their families - that would NEVER have gone unnoticed.

@@MartTLS But I grant WLC one thing, that he is honest why he believes. That he goes full blast for Pascal's Wager and Dr. Feelgood. He admits that these fancy story makes him FEEL so good, that he is willing to go for it, no matter how small the probability. No one would have a problem when people openly admit it makes me feel good, it gives me a feeling of hope, it is my way to become a nice person. But sadly the christians that use their believ (delusion) for POSITIVE purposes are tolerating all those that use the same God for purely selfish purposes, as excuse to declare themselves superior, to judge others relentlessly, to hate, to manipulate people, to enrich themselves without anyone complaining.

@@feedingravens Presumably he believes he’ll get some reward after his death and he’s a very successful apologist, debater , writer etc... He’s held in high esteem by the majority of his fellow believers so I wouldn’t exactly say he does it all for entirely altruistic reasons. He’s not as bad as many of the fundamental apologistists or presuppositionalists but he does have a bad habit of adopting science when it suits and misinterpreting the conclusions for his own ends , cherrypicking those parts he thinks back up his arguments , like the Big Bang for example when most cosmologists disagree with his conclusions. But I suppose that’s only to be expected. And Pascal’s Wager is such a lousy argument on so many levels that I’m not sure why he would even bother to argue in favour of it .

Bro that’s David Lee Roth

Please, no. To be honest, he would only come out at night, having to go back in before sunrise each day. And don't be eating any garlic around him. Not only that, but then we'd also have an empty closet and never hear the end of that, too.

You *wish* that was the only thing he was keeping closeted!

i think it's more likely dementia.