Historian Tries Again with "New Resurrection Evidence" (Gary Habermas response) 

RE: the early dating of the creed. Here's Jonathan McLatchie, a Christian apologist who is being more objective. "Having given my assessment of the evidence for 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 representing a pre-Pauline credal tradition, let us inquire as to when this tradition may have been received by Paul. I would agree with Michael Licona and others that “There are good reasons for concluding that this tradition probably came from Jerusalem” since that is where the original church leaders were headquartered. As for when exactly Paul received this tradition, a few possibilities have been proposed. One option is that Paul received this tradition while in Damascus, perhaps from Ananias or other Christians who were present there, which would likely place it within one to three years of Jesus’ death. Another option is that Paul received the tradition in Jerusalem upon his visit three years following his conversion, where he stayed with Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). During this visit, Paul also saw James (Gal 1:19). Licona notes that “Of interest is the term Paul uses to describe what he did while with Peter: ἱστορῆσαι (‘visit’), from which derives our English term history. The term may mean ‘to get information from,’ ‘to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry.’ What was it to which Paul inquired? He could have been attempting to get to know Peter, the leading Jerusalem apostle at the time. But from his letters Paul does not appear to be the type of person who would want to take just over two weeks simply to develop a friendship with a colleague for the sake of having another friend.” Licona is correct that this word can mean “to inquire into” or “to visit and get information.” That Paul received this tradition on this visit to Jerusalem is plausible, though not certain. There are also two other journeys that Paul made to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-9; Gal 2:1-10). These are also both possibilities for when he received this tradition. There are still other possibilities. For example, Paul may have received some or all of the tradition from Barnabas or from James during his first visit to Jerusalem following his conversion (Acts 9:26-29; Gal 1:19). Paul also tells us of a visit by Peter to Antioch (Gal 2:11). He may even have received the tradition from Barnabas during the considerable time they spent together (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-15:40). Silas also accompanied Paul during his next missionary journey (Acts 15:40-17:14; 18:5-11). This would put Paul and Silas together between 49 and 51 A.D., shortly before he wrote 1 Corinthians. Paul thus may have received it from him during that time as well. *The reality is that any attempt to specify precisely when Paul received the oral tradition from the Jerusalem apostles is intelligent guesswork and conjecture. The bottom line is that we just cannot say with confidence when precisely Paul received the tradition.* "

I feel Paulogia's thoughtful and well researched presentations are an excellent replacement for weekly sermons.

"He's another Christian apologist. Why don't you ask a historian." I think he's got you there, Gary. 😂

If there is one invaluable trait I'm consistently impressed with from watching Paulogia's videos/presentation, it is his restraint to not use charged language or accusations when describing the errors of the apologists - even when they misrepresent himself. I seem to never find myself to be so charitable and aspire for someone to say the same of me someday.

Habermas: "source is TRUST ME, BRO"

I’m skeptical every time I here the words “new evidence” about the resurrection.

“They have a naturalistic bias…” Well, yea. I’ve literally never seen a verified account of a supernatural event. And if you’re the one making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on you. The cognitive dissonance is palpable

Who qualifies as a historian? ► Someone with PhD degree in History? Yes. You did get the top degree in the field and, presumably, wrote something original which is called a PhD dissertation, whether or not it is later published as a book or series of articles. ► Someone with no degree in History, but who contributes to current debates in History, including Early Christianity, with the methodologies appropriate to the field, a critical mind, and a degree of skepticism regarding contentious issues? Yes. And by "contributes" I mean, usually, publishes academic articles, but "outreach" via the modern social media is also very useful and can be done intelligently. Taking the most important of those points, an approach that is sound methodologically (and therefore by definition excludes apologetics) and critical mind, there is no doubt in my mind that Paulogia is a better historian than Dr. Habermas, who is out there to prove his faith, not to determine the truth of it.

Gary and Turrek, what a pairing of exquisite dishonesty.

When someone says they have "New Evidence from the Buy-Bull" I imagine a person taking the equivalent of four 500 piece puzzles mixed together with lots of pieces missing and smashing the various pieces together to make a picture that looks nothing like what one can suppose the actual puzzles looked like. Remarkably these puzzle assemblers can make a living playing with these pieces while the world needs problem solvers for war, famine, justice etc. How much effort goes into praying and evangelizing while we need to plant trees and clean up the messes being made ? Religion is a pacifier for infantile thinking.

Here’s the biggest problem I have with all these arguments about high and low christology: if ANY of the story was true, wouldn’t god have made sure which story is factually true and known to everyone? Wouldn’t there be no need for the stories to be interpreted and evolve over time?

"People believe they saw Jesus so a resurrected Jesus is true" - Then is Elvis still alive? And bigfoot is real, aliens are real, and so on.

Gary Habermas saying he has new evidence is like a screenwriter taking an old script, flipping it upside down, and then declaring it a new script.

Irrefutable evidence for the resurrection: Jesus descending from heaven on a cloud doing bona fide miracles and apologising for being a couple of thousand years late.

I like that at the end there it turns into an almost unhinged rant by Habermas - he's so upset that non-believers dare question the historical accuracy of the bible..even though his career of reassuring believers depends on those same people. Wild

When I was a child, after our Family Pet died, I swear that from time to time, I could still hear him. I swear I could still smell him. I even saw him running in the woods at the back of our home. He left Pawprints in the dirt. Sometimes his Dog Leash would rattle... I can provide you with a Highly Detailed First Hand Testimony, which Dates to within Days of the Death. Is anyone out there convinced that my old Pet Dog Resurrected? And if not, then why bother listening to Saul?

I'll happily nail my colours to this naturalistic explanation of the resurrection claim: *The disciples lied.*

It's strange that Turek doesn't ask any difficult questions. It's almost as if he's only interested in hearing "new evidence" as long as it's not contrary to his current faith.

Every time someone he covers mentions Paul, "Paul said", "Paul did x", I just want Paulogia to respond as though they're talking about him haha. "I never said that". Yes, I do have the humor of a 12 year old.

One thing has become abundantly clear: If Christian apologists approached their subject with the same academic rigor as does Dr. Ehrman, all of this shit would be over & done with tomorrow.

Lucian of Samosata says he himself once made up an eyewitness report of seeing a dying sage ascend to heaven as a deity and then he heard people repeat it back to him as true the same day. And the guy who repeated the lie Lucian made up claimed he himself was an eyewitness! And he also added a new report that he saw the sage walking around alive. On the same day! All hail Proteus, I guess... "Whenever I noticed a man of taste, I would tell him the facts without embellishment, as I have to you, but for the benefit of the dullards, agog to listen, I would thicken the plot a bit on my own account, saying that when the pyre was kindled and Proteus flung himself bodily in, a great earthquake first took place, accompanied by a bellowing of the ground, and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off to Heaven,34 saying, in human speech, with a loud voice: "I am through with the earth; to Olympus I fare." They were wonder-struck and blessed themselves with a shudder, and asked me whether the vulture sped eastwards or westwards; I made them whatever reply occurred to me. 34. At the death of Plato and of Augustus it was an eagle; in the case of Polycarp, a dove. 40. On my return to the festival, I came upon a grey-haired man whose face, I assure you, inspired confidence in addition to his beard and his general air of consequence, telling all about Proteus, and how, since his cremation, he had beheld him in white raiment a little while ago, and had just now left him walking about cheerfully in the Portico of the Seven Voices,35 wearing a garland of wild olive. Then on top of it all, he put the vulture, swearing that he himself had seen it flying up out of the pyre, when I myself had just previously let it fly to ridicule fools and dullards."

Anyone relying solely on stories as their evidence for something they want people to base their entire lives upon frustrate me to no end. You really need to give me something stronger than “the Bible says”.

I am shocked, SHOCKED that Turek didn't point out some of these issues to Gary at the time.

Thanks Paul, I appreciate your work.

Dr. Ehrman is a treasure

Just as my "Near NYC trip" does say much about the city of New York itself, Near Death Experience (NDE) does not say much about the "after life", if any. I am always amazed to hear people use NDE as a strong argument for the existence of an "after life" and infer a God from there

11:10 Bingo! Gary is just running into a bottleneck here. No matter how much evidence you pile and pile about what the disciples believed, no amount of "what the disciples believed" guarantees that they were rational in doing so. All that shows is that they believed it. You need a seperate argument about what the resurrection appearances were like to know that they were justified in thinking Jesus really rose from the dead. Guess what? You can't get that from 1 Corinthians 15, it's too vague and that's the passage that minimal facts apologists have limited themselves to.

It's exhausting how intellectually dishonest these apologists are. I want to see Turek debate an apologist from a different religion so I can laugh at the hypocrisy. I want to see him reject the historicity of Hinduism or Islam without contradicting himself.

Your Paulogia segments are the most thoughtful, most informative, and most watchable videos on this topic on the internet. Kudos and thanks!

Even if Jebus did exist he had no superpowers and when he died, he was just like all of us when we die, he stayed dead.

Thank you Paul. I’ve seen many videos over the years but finally subbed a few months ago. Now you’re quickly becoming one of my favorites to watch. I smile when I see a new Paulogia video in my sub feed. Would love to see you in more debates/discussions with apologists. Keep it up buddy!!!

is it just me or does Habermas seem to be going off the rails as the years goes by? He has reduced the number of "irrefutable" facts, he keeps delaying his new book that will finally prove the existence of his god...and now he has delved into the realm of pedestrian internet apologetics like god of the gaps and misquoting evolutionists and cosmologists.

If the res was factual, they wouldn’t need apologists

As soon as apologists resort to near death experiences, you know they're grasping at straws

It's fascinating how incredibly weak these rationalizations are for these peoples' supposed "iron clad proofs." But then, as many atheist content providers have been saying lately, these videos have forsaken any attempt at converting non-believers, shifting instead to retention of their understandably dwindling group of believers. Thanks as always for this excellent video, Paulogia. When the day comes I hit the lottery, I'll become a patron. Right now it's a struggle just to pay the rent. I know...whine, whine, whine. Who am I? Dolt 45???

"How many times do we have to teach you this old man" -blue shark guy from spongebob

"The cannon is the resurrection". Did anyone else picture Jesus being rocketed out of the empty tomb like the human cannonball guy at the circus, waving to the crowd as he passes, landing on the ground, doing a somersault and then jumping up, hands in the air, while Peter shouts through a megaphone "Don't worry folks - it's all part of the show! Make sure to get one of our world famous elephant ears on your way home!" Just me?

I am interested in the details. How does resurrection work? How don't ALL the other resurrection work? Because they don't. Right? Once this is answered, I am all ears (eyes) for the really technical details. How many mana points does it take to resurrect a 71 kg Middle Eastern male at tomb temperature?

What's my evidence for naturalism? Look at the trees!

“The liberals”? When did “the liberals” get drawn into the historicity of the resurrection? Who next? ”The vegans”?

22:20 They missed the point of the "it's easy to smell a rotten egg" thing. They think it means that if you are incapable of laying eggs, then you can't be trusted to sniff out rotten ones. That's silly. Ask me what's the 99th prime number, I'll say I don't know. Tell me the 99th prime number is 42, and I can immediately tell you that your answer stinks. If your worldview includes contradictory stories about supernatural beings who revealed themselves in the past yet mysteriously refuse to reveal themselves in the present, I should be free to say that your world view is a rotten egg. I don't need to give you a better answer before I tell you that your answer stinks.

I love that you're contributing to this field, independently of having a degree in it. Scholarship should be about ideas and understanding, not pieces of paper from universities.

Isnt it amazing how much you can learn once you start truly studying and looking into it? I applaud you for the long journey. It's awe-inspiring to see the contrast between when you started, the direction you thought you would take, and where you are now. I celebrate your endeavor and long journey!

When someone claims they have new arguments for any religion or the lack of, they are playing you or they were born yesterday

I always have to laugh when Paul says "challenge accepted." This is gonna be a good one.

It's a miracle. The video had just finished at exactly the same time as my train pulled into the station and then some random guy jumps up and starts testifying. This is the first time in my life that I've encountered someone doing the preaching to a captive audience thing and to be honest it was a bit scary. Things like that don't normally happen in the UK and everybody's reaction was the same 'how can I get away from the nutter?'.

Still have no idea why Gary is held in high regard. He constantly says things that are just plain false.

The "great" Gary Habermass?! 😲 Anyone who refers to Habermass in such a way should immediately be called out for their disingenuosity 😱 🤯 🤣

Both the apologist and Paul both state that Paul claimed to have seen the risen Jesus but this is not true. According to Paul he fell blind and heard a voice that no one around him heard.

Gary's list of 'undeniable facts' for the resurrection keeps getting shorter and shorter.

For the record. I do have an anti supernatural bias. And I don’t care who has an issue with that.

Is he seriously citing _Near Death Experiences_ as evidence for jesus's resurrection? Wow, how the mighty have fallen…

I can't find anything containing Peter's testimony to having witnessed the risen Jesus that can't be dismissed as fiction. Obviously the same is true of Mary.

Interesting that this apologetics conference that Frank and Gary were involved at had so many anti-woke, anti-social justice sessions. That's relevant here, too. This is about a political vision.

It's very telling that these apologists believe that Jesus is alive, well, relevant, and standing over our shoulder. And yet to provide evidence for him they try to look at something that happened 2,000 years ago. The whole story of Jesus involved him desperately trying to prove his divinity by providing magic tricks and yet he needs to rely on humans to make his case for him now? Right.

"we know there's an afterlife" -Gary......... uh, facts not in evidence your honor.

“Minimal facts”, as far as I am aware, are not used anywhere else. Not in history, not in science. That might hint at the nature of these claims.

Publish that book! Even if you took Kent Hovind's alleged approach of using a transcription of his videos / radio show for his doctoral dissertation, it would still be more eloquent and compelling than this book that has been seven years in the making.

"Hallucinations"... "Visions"... what about good old fashioned dreams? What about projecting an interpretation on things we take as symbolic? What about good old Elvis-sighting-style confirmation bias? Speaking as a mental health professional, I'd say we pretty dramatically underestimate the number of things that could produce belief. As pointed out, we're talking about people living under oppressive Roman law who were so willing to believe, they got themselves to claim -- out loud, to rational adults -- that there were multiple divine beings in their beliefs yet remained monotheistic. That's a whole lot of logic-stretching going on. I think it would take even less of a spark that presented to get the religion going. After all, it happened in every single other religion that has supernatural elements.

Coming from a JEHOVAH's Witness background this whole resurrection thing is really weird

*Confirmation bias;* They say that _"love is blind",_ but this "love for Jesus" can cause believers to be deaf & dumb as well.

"We know there's an afterlife"?!? How do we know this? Please cite facts and evidence.

The main reason I reject the "resurrection evidence"is it doesn't meet my estimation of what evidence actually is. The body of "facts" in question being so unsettled, even by apologetics means it not in actuality a body of facts.

To beleave that a dead person can come back to life is a complete insult to the task of living and being responsible. It insults everyone that takes life seriously through actual action to make life better. The act of living isn't a parlors trick.

5 facts…..probably. That’s no way to begin your argument

This stuff is frustrating. Even if it explicitly states in the Bible, written by "whoever". It's still just a claim in a book with NO evidence. Would Gary accept the claims from other holy books?

Paul, I have breaking news for you. The "Top 5 Atheist" he's referring to is......... my cat. She recently lost her 1st life and now believes this is the afterlife.

Habermas needs to get that book of his published so we can destroy it's claims (assuming they are nonsense which is highly likely).

what I really hate is how he says, "If I understand him right..." or something similar. So when he's called out on it he can just shrug and say he misunderstood. But he won't issue an apology and he's already invoked Bart's name so his followers are just accepting it.

Does anybody else wonder if the magnum opus Gary is writing is real? It seems convenient that it is never finished so ...

Love the taped up car photo. Made me spit out my coffee. Ha ha.

While listening to your video, you and I both said "challenge accepted!" at the same time lol.

You just destroyed Gary. Absolutely glorious. Thank you.

And so continues the tradition of dishonest apologists trying to say that "If a guy named Jesus existed, and we can't say there wasn't, therefor magic jesus" I've seen Ehrman allude to this kind of bs too. Like if he outright said "This argument is not for the magic jesus and in no way can be used to corroborate magic jesus" that'd be a step up from this waste hole of an argument. It's the last thread of a hair of a hope these people have to keep christianity being dead on arrival and it shows.

27:23 This statement is likely the biggest takeaway for the apologetics we’re getting now. Frank said we have “documented evidence for veritical NDE’s”. Now, what we really have is documented evidence that a person SAID they had a NDE. There is ZERO evidence that what is said about the NDE actually happened. But the apologist is totally willing to let them be one in the same. It’s dishonest, and sadly, it’s the best they have.

"Five facts of the resurrection.." Couldn't contain myself, I instantaneously laughed out loud at that part.

Excellent as usual.

All God/Jesus needs to do is visit several hospitals and cure some little kids of tumors, leukemia and oh, how about some amputees.Cure the blind ,make the quadriplegics complete and Then head to the third world countries and do the same. Make your miracles available to everyone even non-christians. Proof god/jesus not word salad and night soil. Simply put, deeds, not just words.

Do apologists just assume that *everything* written in a First-Person Narrative is true… until “proven” otherwise? Like, do they assume that *Interview With the Vampire* is a historical document? (“Why would the vampire lie about vampires?”) And, yes, that’s a totally absurd idea… and yet apologists apply that very same “argument” [?] to the loose collection of ancient fables, laws, and superstitions that they so *desperately* cling to.

One of two things is required before somebody attempts the illogical verbal sophistry required to challenge the burden of proof: Religion or a ton of cannabis.

Hell yeah, been a minute

When I read the " road to Damascus " story, I don't see anywhere that Paul " saw " Jesus. It says he heard a voice and saw a light from above. Never does the original story say Jesus appeared to him. Perhaps no one considers this significant, but I would think we should at least be accurate when discussing these old stories.

OUCH "...I think Mary is superfluous, here..." Yeah, so did my soon-to-be ex-husband, who decided I was superfluous after 38½ years of marriage, with no warning, no counseling, and no second chances to save forty years of love. He filed for divorce the day after our 39th wedding anniversary. My life has been destroyed, for no apparent reason, and I keep accidentally finding stuff (like what I quoted above) that just hits me square in the gut.

One of the reasons I deconverted was because I couldn't help noticing how apologists continually exaggerated the significance of weak arguments and inadequate or distorted evidence. That they had so little to work with, and tried so hard to stretch it so far, told me that the evidence they _needed_ wasn't there. And if the gospel were true, there should have been an embarrassing surplus of good evidence, to the point that the entire field of apologetics would be unnecessary. It took a long time for that realization to sink in, but eventually there came a time when I could no longer deny it.

Ah yes, because we all know that close to an event no one can have untrue beliefs about it. Conspiracy theories take centuries to form! /s

According to the book of Acts, Jesus only managed to convince 120 people while he was alive, and now we're supposed to believe based on 2000 year old hearsay?

Your quality is astounding my friend.

The only problem with Paul writing a book refuting the resurrection is that he can't insert his "For the Bible tells me so" jingle into it.

Gary has been backing off his earlier claims his entire career it seems like. EDIT: Watch out so Bart and Licona don't ask you to take this down, as they did with PineCreek.

So glad I have Gary's permission to not believe. Though his implication that I have to have some all encompassing explanations for all the important questions of life, before it's fair to not believe in his faith, is something I flatly reject. I don't believe his faith does a good job with any of that to begin with. If Gary can't sleep at night without having specific precise knowledge of how the Universe began, he'd best get used to sleep deprivation. It sounds very much like they said we can't reject their faith, unless we have a different faith to replace it with. No, thank you.

"... we know there's an afterlife..." Citation needed Press X to doubt

Oh we're down to just FIVE minimum facts now, that's trending in the right direction

If Paulogia writes a book about this stuff, I'm definitely buying it. Good video

22:26 and here we have turek admitting that they have no evidence of their supernatural god. a rotten egg is still a rotten egg, regardless if we can make a better egg. we throw away those rotten eggs

"A time when there was nothing" is not a coherent statement if we are using "nothing" in the philosophical sense that most apologists prefer. Under this definition, time is something, and so if there is time, we do not have nothing. To say that there was a time when there was nothing is as meaningful as saying that there was a married bachelor.

Perfect timing for my drive to work

Turek and Habermas: a powerful convergence in the misrepresentation of history 😀

I would buy a Paulogia book, by the way. I don't see why a book by an academic scholar must necessarily be better than a book by a dedicated and committed amateur. If you have spent as much time and effort on your subject as a scholar in the same field, then you may well be as qualified to write a book.

Paulogia's rigor and circumspection are consistently impressive- outstanding content.

Great job!