The Mike Winger vs Paulogia Resurrection Debate 

Supernatural explanation is basically a non explanation. We don't have any examples of the supernatural to make it a valid explanation. (If we did, it would be naturalistic because it would be real.)

If we had UHD video of the event, I would bet on an ancient Uri Geller. Fake nails, blood and a team of hired Roman soldiers would make for a great con. Perhaps an ancient James Randi was ready to expose them, that's why they did the disappearing act in the end.

Any mundane explanation, no matter how unlikely, is infinitely better than a supernatural one. So Micheal is just, wrong.

How hard is it to say I have 500 witnesses, and walk away not showing any evidence of it? Way too easy, and therefore it can be dismissed without further consideration. All of the "After the fact" (What fact?), "accounts", are just as easily made up completely, and without more than just semi corroborating "evidence" that is also after the supposed fact, often referring to what others said and each other, so also not first hand and very suspicious of some of them being in cahoots with each other, makes it clear that Mike (apologists in general) are just grabbing at straws, and calling them steel reinforced concrete pillars, in order to make a pretend case they hope someone gullible enough will fall for. His opening statement points at it too, but I think he set his hopes up way too high! I would be surprised if a single Atheist that watched the debate from first air, watching now, as well as in the future will convert to christianity based on it, not even say: "Wow, that Mike Winger sure is building a strong case". Christianity, religions in general, following fascist leaders and war mongers, flat earth, Qanon, and other similar beliefs, ARE forms of mass hysteria! It's not as much about the belief or the claims... but the psychology behind what makes humans separate themselves into factions, beliefs, groups... and shore them up to give them validity, no matter how invalid.

Thousands have claimed to have seen Bigfoot. Thousands have claimed to have seen Elvis after his "death".

I'm using this shit for future references and I WILL cite you, John Nehrich from RU-vid

This is brilliant - I will probably use this also if I ever have a good opportunity to do so! Will try to remember to give credit where credit is due 👍

Fucking brilliant. Now I’ll reread it while listening to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon.

@@calvinwithun6512 I would rather you use it or rework it even if you can't remember where it came from, than hold back because you can't find my name.

That was delicious.

That and it's basically the very cornerstone of the Christian faith the vast majority of that consensus believes in. You can take away a lot of things from the Christian faith and still be a Christian. But without the resurrection, there is no Christianity.

@@Lobsterwithinternet no resurrection would have mean't no chance for mankind to be right with God. Chrisitianity is based on Christ now directing his people the church in its battle with an already defeated but persistent enemy - Satan

​@@MRFITTA So God was unable to come up with anything else? This somewhat convoluted scheme was his only option?

@@dasbus9834 .....the fact you a mere finite mortal, can even question God, says enough. Neither you or I can begin to imagine what Gods options are, difference is I accept his proposal based on this( his ways and thoughts are infinite, and he is always right), whilst you decide you know better. And thats what everyone is doing when they question God - from a viewpoint of thinking they know better. Im pretty sure if God wanted us to be robots he could have easily made us that way.

@@MRFITTA I see, "God's mysterious ways" again. Sorry not convinced. The Bible describes God mostly with very human character traits (jealousy, wrath, pride, you name it). Most of his appearances are rather straight forward, the occasional burning bush not withstanding. But with the Jesus affair it's suddenly all a complex and inconsistent setup that humans aren't meant to question. Or maybe that's simply what happens when a story with so many different authors, each with their own motivation and agenda, gets thrown together: it stops making sense.

Bringing old fraudulent and/or mistaken fossils irritates me beyond description. Yeah we know those were fraudulent, they were never accepted by the consensus, and were pretty quickly disproven. A handful of mistakes or deliberate frauds somehow make then many many tens of thousands of fossils that are extremely well documented and supported wrong? I don't think so. Then they attack science for changing. Are they saying that they have never, not ever, not even once changed their opinion or understanding of a topic after reviewing new information? The Bible being "never changing" isn't the big bombshell of truth that they think it is. It's "unchanging" nature is exactly why it is not valuable for scientific understanding. Two-freaking-thousand years of discovery and progress, and an immense wealth of new information, that has brought us to today overrides any so-called truth in a Bible and a 2000 year old primitive understanding of reality.

They're called "religions". 😀

As usual

What’s funny is every theist says this about Paul. What a funny world we live in

@@Iamwrongbut well, one side is based in available facts while the other is based in faith and delusion.

@@DaveCM Yeah, both sides say that, too. We need a better method to show the difference. How about "one side places their ideas in a special category that science can't even in principal evaluate" and the other uses science the most reliable method of determining the truth whenever possible?

A debate relating to religion is an echo chamber regardless of who won. For example, most creationists who saw the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate think that Ken Ham destroyed Bill Nye. Even though Ham provided no evidence and just kept referring back to "God did it" and reinforcing that if any evidence contradicts his personal interpretation of the Bible, he will reject that evidence.

This was interesting, yes. But the problem for me is that Mike Winger was just all over the place, using a Gish Gallop of claims without ever focusing on something specific. I _know_ Christians have claims. But rattling off a whole bunch of stuff doesn't tell me whether it's complete nonsense or not. I'm no expert, so I couldn't tell about most of it. But some of it _did_ seem to be complete nonsense, as far as I could tell. So how can I take the rest of that seriously? If Christians - or Muslims - had *one piece of good evidence,* specific enough and in enough detail that I could judge it for myself, I could take their claims more seriously. But I guess they use the Gish Gallop for a reason, huh? Admittedly, in a debate like this, you're not going to be able to focus on anything specific, I suppose - just from the nature of the debate.

@@DaveCM Actually, I remember a Christian publication back then said how most Christians actually thought Bill Nye won (then again, I'm not sure what was exactly in that Christian sample such as the proportion of who were fundamentalists who took that poll). I remember hearing about this while watching one of the atheist channels back in the day.

TheDaggwood - A duscussion based on cult propaganda that was and is used to convert people to their cult is the something between Spiderman and Harry Potter Fan fiction.

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events of the ancient world.

@@Justas399 it really isn't.

@@heteroclitus Name an event in ancient history that has 5 eyewitness accounts to it like we have with the resurrection of Christ?

@@Justas399 who are the 5 eyewitnesses?

@@Justas399 What do you mean by ‘best attested’?

Paul may have hit his head when he fell off his horse.

At this point I'm not so sure we can even prove the people that supposedly witnessed the resurrection existed. Or Abraham , Moses, Isaac, Jacob, etc. These people need to accept their belief system is delusional and keep it to themselves.

Mike consistently uses "attestation" inappropriately or incorrectly at best.

Based on what you said, let’s throw away history books because who can really trust them. I mean who really wrote world history? And from what view point or agenda play into their recordings 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@nickex.3187 so, your argument is that ALL recorded history is sacred and should be taken not just at face value but accepted whole cloth on faith?

Indeed. Jesus might as well have lived and been crucified for argument's sake. If you don't grant them that, they'll never get off the ground, but it really doesn't matter how much leeway you give them, they'll crash and burn and declare victory anyway. Take Mike for instance, and put him in a jar and forget about him.

And its not really a crazy idea either. There's nothing wild about a living person who believed they were a savior/messiah, leading around a small group of followers, got on the wrong side of the law and pharisees because he was heretical.. and killed for it. Shit, we get those people in psych wards pretty often these days.

@@D3nchanter No, but it doesn't mean that he did either.

its called blind faith, you have blind faith in numerous things and you dont even realize it.

@@daMillenialTrucker like what? What do I have blind faith in?

I would rather have evidence than faith.

Perhaps ironically, the LDS church has an alternative history of J. Smith's life that excludes his multiple fraud convictions and the signed affidavits of early co-conspirators that they knew he was a fraud. The development and proliferation of the LDS chruch is a real-time history of exactly how stacking up demonstrable lies can become sacred doctrine to millions.

@@tryintoreason9738 Exactly. Imagine if in 100 years the LDS church took control over the government of the USA and declared alternate histories of their prophet heretical. That’s a somewhat analogous situation.

@@mrmaat I'd say that's a pretty fair analogy. The "church" practiced evangelism by message control and conquest as the default proselytizing tool for centuries.

@@mrmaat Exactly. And to ram home the analogy, the government will also burn all evidence of those heretical works and slaughter anyone who believed those heresies as the church did for centuries. then later believers in the created and accepted canon can do what apologists like Mike Winger does and say "where is the evidence for your claims of these alternate claims?"

​@@tryintoreason9738better them than wokeism

That's all he has to work with really. He can present no evidence other than old myths in a book so his whole game needs to be dodge and weave. Evidence against the resurrection is also lacking, however we have numerous holes in the myths in the book, as well as how the myth version goes against the normal day to day operations of the roman executioners and their body disposal process, which is rather well documented and we have physical evidence of this in the archaeology. So, like the roman census element (plot device) of Jesus's birth story, his demise makes about the same amount of sense. And they hate that.

@@avi8r66 The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events of the ancient world.

What's really funny is that near the end, he demonstrates that he doesn't know what ad hoc means 1:14:17

@@Justas399 Where, please? I think, if you have paid any attention to the recent data (that isn't from Christian apologists, I mean) you'll find that any evidence for said resurrection is pretty shaky.

@@Justas399 Claims of evidence are not evidence either.

Mike not using the Bible to prove the Bible is most likely if you already believe it.

The point was that bible verses of historical reference can be verified by non biblical sources which is why for example that middle eastern atheist scholars do not contest the fact that Jesus existed.

@@davidmccarroll8274 We have overwhelming evidence that Muhammad existed......so, that means the Quran must be true..... _right?_ 🤔

@@thedude0000 "Way out west there was this fella... fella I wanna tell ya about. Fella by the name of Jeff Lebowski. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for it himself. Mr. Lebowski, he called himself "The Dude". Now, "Dude" - that's a name no one would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Dude that didn't make a whole lot of sense."

@@monsterinhead214 👋

I can accept that as a shorthand for "we have evidence of a source called Q", but yes, it was a deceptive thing to say at best.

@@martinmckee5333 Well what we have is the “double tradition” material. Generally it is broken down into three alternatives. 1. Matthew and Luke each copied from Mark and Q independently. 2. Matthew copied from Mark with embellishments and Luke copied from Matthew, threw out some of Matthews embellishments, for instance the birth narrative and then wrote his own, and kept others. 3. The other way around, Matthew copying and modifying Luke. Or not normally mentioned. 4. Our version of Mark is incomplete compared to the version that Luke and Matthew were copying from. The double tradition or Q is just the stuff that is just missing from our 4th century copy of Mark.

@@oscargordon I would agree that a general "double tradition" is a better model of the extant texts than any specific formula. My primary point was to highlight the fact that Mike accepts some form of prior sources, which works against his "independent sources" argument. I claim no great brilliance in biblical scholarship, though I am better than most (not hard to achieve). It seems to me overly pedantic to attack Mike on his saying "we *have* Q" and not point out that the very fact that he accepts the hypothesis weakens his case.

@@martinmckee5333 Well, to me it isn't pedantic to point out a fallacious claim being used to create the illusion that an argument is based on something factual. Q is just a hypothesis, whether it weakens, or strengthen his case is, to my mind, not important. Mike made it look like we have something material in hand when in fact it is just a hypothesis that not all scholars accept. It speaks volumes about his approach and overall claims. And I wasn't wrong, he said nothing substantial, his whole "argument" is "many people think or believe X, so X must be true".

@@JGM0JGM No. Not wrong at all. That wasn't my point.

You believed an apologist? Rookie mistake.

Oh come on be fair all they have to do is say its true and they think everyone should believe them

Spoilers... No, there isn't

Well in Tacitus works, he mentions that Christianity started soon after Jesus’ death. Also Josephus says that the disciple reported that the disciple saw Jesus alive after 3 days. Phlegon and Thallus mention the three hours of darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion. All secular mentions of Jesus’ life or events confirm the New Testament account. Nothing contradicts the NT account.

He just makes these baseless assertions and ad-hoc extensions. He’ll elaborate on stories which basically just his own fan fiction - he has zero historical context to support these suppositions. Especially when referring to authors’ motives.

This is exactly what I was thinking the entire time.... No one mentioned the fact that they recognized him as their Messiah; someone more than just a leader, a teacher, or a brother..... He was literally GOD to them💀

Yep. It's difficult for a modern audience to imagine how people saw the world and believed about it. Even people in the medieval ages would have an alien mindset compared to today since they had almost no modern understanding of how things worked.

Jesus would have had to (1) have existed and (2) had followers in his lifetime for that explanation to be possible - and we don't have evidence of _either_ of those things.

Everyone is overthinking this and giving the stories that were written down years after the event too much credit. If (some kind of) Jesus existed then people who knew him knew he was human and that he would at some point die. This wasn't some shocking event that would cause mass hysteria or hallucinations. I'm not buying it. If they believed he was divine then they were probably focussed on the afterlife aspect. Just like religious people these days.

@@tangerinetangerine4400 Hi TT. I think what I am struggling with is to fully appreciate what Jesus would have meant to someone of that time. As others have noted, people would have had an utterly different attitude to the natural world, morality, magic... basically all that is means to be human. The point about the Messiah is that, in Jewish teaching, he is not divine. However he serves an essential role in Jewish eschatology. It seems credible to me that the supernatural elements could have been (probably unconsciously) drawn from other pre-existing mythologies in the region in order to somehow maintain their beliefs. You point about religious people today is interesting. On the one hand the comparison would seem to underestimate the extent to which the followers of Jesus perceived him as the saviour from existential threats (remember the Temple would indeed disastrously fall not too many years after). On the other hand, the comparison seems quite apt : e.g. the reaction of the religious Right in America has the hallmarks of a people who feel their existence is indeed at risk (or at least their power which they might believe is the same thing). I should add that I have no particular expertise in this area but am simply trying to bring all that I do have and combine it with the best insights that Paulogia and others have generously shared.

Hey, you're practically quoting the Bible here! It's a lot like Ecclesiastes 9: "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun-all your meaningless days, for this is your lot in life."

Foppish Dilletaunt , and a Merry everything to you and yours, too. And, 'To Life!'also! Love and Peace! 🥰

So many obvious assumptions, so little time. Never ceases to amaze me how limber these contortionists become to stay on script. I'm just tired of those living in fantasy. Good job Pauly, keep it up.

To life! 🍻

totally agreed. i have other theories about him that i won't share. least of which is he's pretending to be chrsitian.

He's not as bad as some apologists, but the smug, self-righteous way he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of intellectual dishonesty, while HE pulls the most intellectually dishonest mental gymnastics possible, is annoying. He mostly makes me feel sorry for him- His insecurities about his own beliefs are his main personality trait.

@@HarryNicNicholas - I first became aware of Mike maybe 9 or 10 years ago. He posted a video response (back when RU-vid still did threaded video responses) to Bill Nye’s viral “Big Think” video criticizing the teaching of creationism to children. I had a number of frustrating exchanges with him in the comments section of that video, and sadly it appears he hasn’t learned anything or even budged his position on issues such as evolution, the age of the earth, etc in the intervening years. It’s almost like he’s committed to deliberately not understanding what’s been explained to him.

Don't underestimate the addictive power of the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* via Placebo Faith. 😇🧠👻=🧠👉🙏👉🧠👉🤪

@@TestMeatDollSteak Hahahaha He’s a genius compared to ray comfort, Hamm, or Hovind though.

Wonder if Winger doing the usual cherry picking of a statements which apologists always do

This is part of the "history is determined by manuscript count" apologetic. It seems clear that the originators know they are deliberately misleading because they carefully craft statements to sound good without being technically false. The secondary users are often just wrong.

@@andybrace9225 Good point. The Wikipedia page quotes Crossan as writing in _The Power of Parable_ “I conclude that Jesus really existed, that we can know the significant sequence of his life... but that he comes to us trailing clouds of fiction, parables by him and about him, particular incidents as miniparables and whole gospels as megaparables." It doesn’t sound like someone who would claim Jesus’ historicity is better evidenced than anyone else in ancient history.

Jesus is the best attested historical figure of the ancient world.

@@Justas399 There are hundreds of people who attested to themselves by writing things. Paul, for example. There are coins for rulers. There are monuments to kings. Nothing like that for Jesus. Which author says he or she met Jesus during his supposed ministry?

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events of the ancient world.

@@Justas399 it really isn't.

@@Justas399 what makes it so well attested?

@@Justas399 Did you actually listen to the debate?

@@Justas399 but it’s not, and basic research on your part would show you.

I think he viewed these debates as a chance to proselytize. When he realized it wasn't working, he stopped.

@@heteroclitus Pretty much why any apologists ever debate in the first place. Either to proselytize to the laity or to teach apologetics to the faithful.

Hitting the nail on the head here. If humans still feel a need for some sort of religion/spirituality there are better options than the Abrahamic genre.

Exactly. Religious people need to look into the origins of the Abrahamic god. *Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.* *It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant. *Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon* The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:* When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text). The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.* Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest. *As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722). Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* ("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.") Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* (Read about Canaanite religion and El the chief or most high god of the Canaanite pantheon and the relationship of Canaanite religion to Israelite religion) Google *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"* ("Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites *were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.") Google *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"* ("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)". *Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)* Google *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"* ("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.") Google *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V - theyellowdart"* ("Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the archaeological, cultural, and literary data pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group *were originally Canaanite.")* Google *"El - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that the Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites)* Google *"His Name is Allah, History of Truth"* (The fictional Abrahamic god El that the Israelite patriarchs worshipped is the same fictional god of the Muslims) Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* Google *"The Phoenician God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* Google *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction **#294**, **#295**, **#296**. Which god liberated Israel from Egypt: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"* Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."* Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III - theyellowdart"* Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* Google *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were not writing history? - Dr. Steven DiMattei"*

@@Hhjhfu247 Credible evidence would convince me. However, no such evidence has ever been presented nor after decades of investigation and research, have I ever come across such. What I have found is just how improbable such thing could exist. So my only rational option is to disbelieve the vacuous assertion of christian theists.

And since Spiderman is only in theaters during Omicron... I'll watch this instead.

I'd pay to watch the Paulogia movie 🍿

Research 'likelihood of anything supernatural happening'. Should make it easier to decide.

Lol, great question. It definitely drives home the point…for those that can see it.

It's a question I have heard Matt Dillhunty ask often

@@andybrace9225 I believe it. But, let’s just remember, “Those we’re Old Testament times”, lol.

Pretty much.

I am also pretty sure that all of the gospels were written after the temple was destroyed as a direct response to the event.

Resurrection is FAR more common than hallucinations, everyone knows that.

@@Xgya2000 Resurrections of sons of gods are extremely common.

Quite. Especially when compared to a magical event that has never been shown to happen.

Yep. Magic - aka the “supernatural” or “miraculous” - is not an explanation at all. It’s worse than nothing.

Not exactly better. Probability of supernatural is unknown. Probability of literally anything else >0. Supernatural explanations have to be considered not true until proven true and be dismissed until then and literally anything else is plausible. 1 point for reality. 0 points for all gods and other superstitions combined. If you said:" Maybe a dude tripped and fell and made up a story to cover for his embarrassment and it turned into a story about miracles and the end of inherited debt", that would be more powerful of an explanation than all gods and other superstitions combined are. You could fart and give people the finger and you'd still beat all gods because you can just ignore all supernatural claims until they're shown to be at least actually possible. Mike's best argument still hinges on: "If resurrection is possible..." Yeah, Mike, and if I shit pure fairy dust I'd be rich. If he can't show it to be possible there is nothing worth listening to from Mike's side and he didn't.

Therefore Harry Potter.

@@stevenf927 Dumbledore 🎶

Yep. Mormonism is the greatest challenge to Christianity in my opinion because of arguments like these.

@@Iamwrongbut Agreed. Though the same factors are seen in most faiths. The Bab (the gate) in the Baha'i faith was executed for his faith. The Baha'u'allah (the glory of God) was imprisoned, poisoned multiple times, and hated (though died of old age). This happened at roughly the same time as the emergence of Mormonism, but in the middle east. Both groups were persecuted and killed, both still exist. And both are composed of ardent believers.

@@martinmckee5333 That's not to mention more modern beliefs like Scientology, Happy Science, the Unification Church, and many others that are not even 100 years old.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” Matthew 7:13 😅

Well Paul has other 'assets' that are 4x as big as Mike's 😉 His integrity and honesty.

What else can explain his amazing growth? It must be because it’s true 😜

@@Apanblod inputs Shannon?

@@Lobsterwithinternet kind of hilarious that... in this case, that would describe religion and christianity.

"2) 12 of his most devout followers... went on to tell..." Not quite, 1 committed suicide (Mathew 27,5: he hanged himself) or he fell and his body burst open (Acts 1:18) before he could spread the good news.

It does seem that simple to me.

There isn’t really any evidence that there is a creed in 1Corinthinans contains a creed. It’s all just bluster from the likes of Habermas.

@@davethebrahman9870 That's not true. 1 Paul says he recv'd it. 2 it's stylistically different than the rest of the wiring and 3 It reads like s creed with Paul inserting commentary. Having said that apologists do tend to make a lot of assumptions about the creed that are unjustified. Like an early dating and implying a unity of belief.

Yep, that was a terrible one. He looked so foolish.

Didn't he debate Pine Creek and almost started crying in the end?

He wasn’t prepared to debate dillahunty in fairness though Matt dillahuntys strategy is to concede the debate upfront so he can snipe from the shadows.

@@Joshcaldwell24 thanks for your comment it let me to see this debate and your strawman of Matt. You claim that he concedes at the beginning of debates when he was clearly mocking Mike's dumb ass opining.

@@Joshcaldwell24 Haha what? Matt didn’t concede that debate up front at all. He destroyed Mike in every avenue of that debate. It was embarrassing.

Yes, exactly. In regards to the second coming. The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away before all these things take place’.*** Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on RU-vid

This is indeed a good idea, but even here they come only up with excuses like it already happened but we did not notice as it is spiritual or that god gives us more time or that it is imminent but not Today. Moving the goal post is there business model

@@TorianTammas Well said. The whole post-trib, partial preterist way of thinking is such a dodge.

Matthew 16:28, KJV: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" Within the context of the Bible he was talking directly to his followers in his own time. Yet he didn't return. He's not coming back, Christianity is false. That concludes that, so everyone should move on now.

I am totally with you and the second coming should be discussed alot more, it is a prediction that every Christian can not escape from. It is coming soon apparently, we are in the last days apparently. Debates can go on and on about the resurrection, Christians can not allow that jesus is coming soon for any longer. Period! I asked a Christian if she thought he would return in her lifetime, she said 'yes of course' I said if she got to a very old age, a few months to live and he had not returned will she have finally realised its bullshit? Her reply.....'he wasn't ready' I mean how can you take these people that are so indenial, religion has absolutely destroyed all rational, critical thinking skills and skepticism. It's so sad!

I don't think it was all made up. Decades passed of these stories floating around and being retold over and over, changing a bit each time. Then, after they were written down, they were copied in ways that numerous errors, additions, and omissions ended up in the text from well-meaning scribes. What survived was what resonated the most with believers, not what was accurate, but none of them are at individual fault. The transmission method was simply poor

Why yes, if there is another realm with magical creatures in it that can do ANYTHING, then yes, that would be an explanation of what you are claiming are facts, it just wouldn't be a GOOD explanation.

If it’s possible that aliens are visiting earth then that would be a good explanation for all of those alien abduction stories. If it’s possible that a giant dinosaur still lives in Loch Ness then that would be a good explanation for the Loch Ness Monster sightings.😂

@@ramigilneas9274 yes; possible is a weak presupposition.

Right on...turn the page.

@Desperadox I don't understand either. I find it fascinating to see otherwise intelligent people speaking illogically. Mike seems so sincere.

I mean...from my perspective humans really have a need for purpose in their lives and existential questions answered. When someone wraps their identity to these beliefs you are asking some one to give up alot to forsake these beliefs just because you can prove it doesn't logically make sense. At the end of the day debates are really only good for other people to listen to and glean more info from. Mike will never change his mind unless it becomes emotionally more important for him to really follow logic and evidence to it's true conclusions.

@@spf234 They should look into one of the varieties of buddhism then. Less crazy, has some psychological benefits, and they don't require people to be bigots.

@@gregorywilliams5105 People are strange.

Not to mention the elephant in the room that you'd have to prove resurrections are even possible before they can be a plausible explanation. Kind of like claiming that a magician phased through solid objects is the best explanation for how they escaped.

​@@Lobsterwithinternet nice example. Mike Winger should look into why Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed Houdini escaped the milk can by dematerializing and ask himself if he's making the same mistake.

Not too surprising. People would rather have comfort and confirmation of their existing beliefs than to actively challenge them.

@@Lobsterwithinternet Yes. I know. It's just unfortunate.

Yeah, to me "the resurrection of Jesus" is proof against Christianity. If I asked for proof of the United States, you wouldn't show me a text book that talks about the declaration of independence. The fact you'd point to historical evidence is an admission that no good evidence exists from today.

I kept waiting for Paul to bring up that and the various appearances of Mary attested by the Catholics which Mike is going to balk at.

Exactly. Most NT "scholars" assume the conclusion is true, and go from there in a circle. And fool people as dumb as Mike, who thinks he is smart by quoting them.

Pretty much. Whatever reason you believe something is all well and good. But when you're trying to convince someone else, your personal reason isn't going to cut it with most folks.

My grandma said something similar and she was one of the most honest people I've ever known. I know it sounds wired that I still consider myself atheist even though I really do believe she saw what she saw. But what she saw doesn't prove in a creator, Buddhists don't believe in an all powerful god yet believe in a "soul" or some type of afterlife like being a spirit for a time then reincarnated. I don't know what to believe and don't know what exactly she saw. But I have NO doubt in my mind she saw it. She was 27 at the time and had three sons age 2,7 and 12. They have been married for years and he died in a car crash. It devastated her and she moved to where the rest of her family was a few states over. Years later she was in her garage about to leave and she didn't even start driving untill after he died and so honestly wasn't a good driver lol She saw her husband standing there and even talked to her, she said she really didn't know what to think but it was as real as anything. All he said is that he was sorry and before she knew it he was gone. Maybe it was a hallucination from grief but she has never had that again and never did before. She only told a few family members close to her. Like I said if you knew her she wasn't one to accept bs and was so honest it was to a fault lol. And we believe her completely it really upset her telling us, never seen her like that before. She has since passed and I hope she is at peace with him, only two of her sons are alive, my father and uncle, i lost my other uncle around the same, time he was the youngest. I hope there's a God because I miss them soo much. But I don't think this proves any specific deity, I hope they are out there but at this time I am still and atheist. Anyways there's my pointless story without any point lol 😂 I sti won't accept a religion untill I can prove that god is the "true" god. Also both of my grandma and grandpa were more Agnostic than anything, never put much thought into religion.

Agreed.