Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Dr. Jonathan McLatchie vs. Paulogia

[wordauras]

Jesus was said to have walked around with open wounds and deep lacerations in his flesh and did not bleed.
The author of Luke saw this problem and wrote...."flesh and bones"..note "NO BLOOD"... Luke 24 vs 39.

Come on, people
These are stories....

[deepgreenbear]

The religiouse rulling class of the time had a vested interest in making sure Jesus stayed in the ground and, they couldn't. Jesus lives!

[SupremeSquiggly]

Atleast McLatchie didn’t rage quit this time. 😂

[EddieSchultz]

Bottom line on this and any claim that a god exists is, there's no irrefutable or empirical evidence that any god's exist. A belief in a god is based on faith. If that's good enough for most of the people here, good for you. But don't speak of a god as it's factual that one exists.

[charlesbrown]

Wouldn't the relevant difference between the undesined coincidences Johnathan is talking about vs Paulogia's Star Wars example be the fact that we would expect to see, say in John's gospel, details that explain most of the small details we see in the preceeding gospels? Yet, we see instead details in the earlier gospels that explain the small questions that are unanswered in the later gospels?

[greyback]

hey could you explain what did you mean by "being substantially trustworthy" and here when

Paulogia said "well this document is just reliable across the board like that doesn't seem like a thing that a historian would say"

and then you confirmed by saying

"it doesn't matter to me what historians in fact do what matters to me is what they ought to do right and so in this in this case I'd say this is good historical practice"

How is then Paulogia misinterpreting what you said in his video? I watched this debate and understood you like Paul did. What did you really say here?

[HopeBloomMusic]

I know I've experienced God in ways that basically render my faith unnecessary, but listening to this leaves me baffled by the flimsiness of the non-ressurection position. What Jonathan is doing is what people who study witness testimony in a court of law do. It's straightforward. The oral tradition can't account for all of this, that makes no sense. These counter arguments baffle me. Thank you Jonathan and glory to Jesus, the Christ!

[perfectss]

Man alive Paul took this debate! John usually doesn't do well in these but the lack of even biblical knowledge is shocking. Well done Paul. Your patience is commendable.

[ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

Listening to Paul, I'm reminded of a coworker I had about twenty years ago. He sincerely believed that all of history before 1800 was written in the 1930's. It was a thought experiment that he was introduced to as a teenager, and the further he looked, the less data he found that could really disprove his position. I enjoyed talking to him. I enjoy these kinds of thought experiments, and finding someone that took it seriously was fascinating. He pointed out that we have no way to verify the ages of old books, so anything before the '30's could have been written in the '30's and just given an older date. Old manuscripts could be manufactured in the '30's. New archeological discoveries could be manufactured now. All we normal people ever see is the manuscript through glass or photos of it. To clarify, he thought that the history back to about 1500 was real, but that the ancient writers like Tacitus and Josephus and Plato and Euclid were made up in the '30's. He thought all American history was accurate, but that a few people read some vague references to Rome and Greece in Charlemagne's court writings, and then built a whole ancient history for the whole world on it. He didn't think that Rome or Greece or even Ancient China were real. His big justification was the speed with which technology progressed. He felt that if there had really been a Rome or Greece or China for hundreds of years, they would have had steam power and digital electronics much sooner.

Paul has to compare to modern novels to make his case. The fact that he can't name any ancient authors that employ his techniques is telling. Ancient authors and readers didn't think that way. When you read the ancient descriptions of myths and history, they'll write out different stories with these kinds of parallels side by side, but never make the kind of Jedi corrections that Paul is invoking. That's a modern way of thinking about the problem that the ancients wouldn't even have noticed.

[EatHoneyBeeHappy]

I wish Jesus loved me as much as he loves Jonathan and Barbara. They say fathers shouldn't have favorite children but I understand it's inevitable, even for a perfect entity.

[jonnyrondo]

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie?

Isn't he the guy that ran away from Matt?🤔

[rufusmcplaid]

Bottom line for Paulogia: I just cannot be convinced about ANY miracle, because it conflicts with my Worldview (that there is no miracle required for the Cosmos or for human life). Therefore ANY history, ANY explanation that purports that there is a resurrection CAN NOT be true. Therefore I will dream up excuses and reasons to disagree with Jonathon's points. Even if they are better than Licona's arguments.

[JorgeIvanAlonso-sihd]

I know its been months but I have to say this. Up until a few seconds ago, I didn’t care much about undesigned coincidences but I just changed my mind about the jigzaw puzzle.

Paulogia got me thinking that harmonization is a good rebuttal, thus explaining undesigned coincidences even if they came from different sources. I can see some
kind of embellishment happening that would fit a story as a whole by oral tradition. But can we really see that with the jigzaw? With one story passing a detail that would answer a question raised by another story? Of course not!

We normally think that a story wouldn’t leave a question unanswered, so the hypothesis would be that the story got modified to clear it up. But why would they do it without including the question? Aren’t stories meant to tell the whole story?

Btw, I think the title of the topic was unfortunate. Its kind of weird to ask what was the requirement for Christianity to exist. It does sound like you’re asking what is needed for its existence. But we all know thats not how inquiry works. So McLatchie went on to interpret it as seeking for the best explanation. Its so strange that Paulogia wouldn’t do that (history is not a mathematical discipline as far as I’m concerned). Maybe he’s confused about what needs to happen for Christianity to be true vs what needs to happen for Christianity to be a religion that exists (the resurrection is a central tenent as he said). The latter can be seen as an argument from history while the other one as a matter of fact (and I think we can do this. Just argue form prohecies. It also includes history).

[HopeBloomMusic]

"Sincerely mistaken belief in a ressurection..." Jesus was with groups of people, eating, teaching, and performing miracles for 40-days. People arguing against the ressurection get more absurd by the day. It takes more faith to believe this position than the truth that Jesus rose.

[lyingonthekitchenfloorasus]

i just saw your discussion with matt dillahunty and damn dude did you really just ragequit before it was over? just because he doesnt accept your little book as evidence, which it is not its just a bunch of claims and matt already told you that too but you just seem to not listen