Paulogia’s Closing vs. Dr Loke

Written Debate Between Dr. Andrew Loke and Paulogia

Previous Entries:

It was many months ago that Dr Andrew Loke and I embarked on this written debate, and now a few months since his closing statement. For the handful of you who have held on to the end, I apologize for this tardy final shoe whose drop became suspended due to real-world care and loss. For those who know and have supported… thank you.

Along this journey of bluster, gamesmanship, grudges, non-sequiturs, and general intellectual pugilism, we are left with the question that started it all.

Is there good evidence for group appearances of risen Jesus?

No. No, there is not.

There are the gospels… which are hearsay at best (fiction at worst), and ultimately fail to independently corroborate any group appearance reports. And there is a recitation of a believer-affirmation pledge of unspecified origin.

Ultimately that’s about it, give-or-take some affirmations of later converts.

In the mind of Dr Loke, there are also extenuating circumstances that should compel us to abandon the time-tested well-established best-practices of evidential evaluation and instead unnaturally stretch our credulity toward the ancient, anonymous narratives.

Let us, one last time, review the case put before us.

What is Good Evidence?

Ultimately, this entire debate has been interpretation of what makes evidence compelling, and what does not. What makes it “good”? And whether you decide that Dr Loke has made the better case, or I have made the better case, should come down solely to epistemology and standards of evidence.

Unfortunately, preconceived notions and emotional attachments to a worldview will bias a judge, a juror, or a debate reader. In the non-participant commentary surrounding this particular debate, I’ve seen such bias in both camps. The extent to which my arguments, or my opponent’s arguments, are compelling to you seems to be primarily correlated with your views on the topic established before the debate began. Not long ago, I too was a devout Jesus-follower and expect that my bias would have had me nodding at the way Dr Loke affirmed my existing beliefs.

So, what is a genuine truth-seeker to do? How can one allow evidence – and evidential interpretation – to overcome even our own (potentially unrecognized) internal bias to come to a conclusion that best corresponds to reality?

Well, fortunately there are fields like science, philosophy, history and law that have spent centuries coming up with general principles and best practices when it comes to evidential evaluation without prejudice. And rather than re-invent the wheel for this debate, we can simply utilize the best epistemological tools humanity has to offer.

Anticipating my opponent’s line of argumentation, in my opening statement I laid out what the legal profession has to say about the properties of good evidence (relevance, materiality, admissibility, probative value and weight), the properties of evidential inference, and equally importantly, some properties that reduce the value of evidence (hearsay, character evidence, and collusion).

While our debate question is not a matter of law, it is non-controversial that the legal system is simply a high-stakes sub-category of historical inquiry. An attempt to determine what happened in the past with the greatest precision possible because we attach real-world consequences to the findings. The most rigorous of history.

As Dr Loke assigns the ultimate consequence (eternal bliss or eternal torment) to findings relating to the resurrection of Jesus, you would think that he would willingly submit his evidence to the most rigorous standards known to humanity. Instead, again-and-again he pleaded that his case be adjudicated with lower scrutiny and under the least-stringent rules. Dr Loke thinks history’s most important miracle claim requires evidentiary training-wheels to cross the finish line.

In his first rebuttal, Dr Loke attempted to spin historical inquiry as having an advantage over legal inquiry due to the luxury of time. But ultimately, even the source he chose to bolster this notion condemned the malleability of historiography to suit present needs and affirmed my humble observation that the best tools in one are the best tools in the other, regardless of timeframe. “Historical truth stems from the same processes as legal truth, with the same weaknesses but also the same strengths.”[1]

Looking at the historical context doesn’t stop us from utilizing the best-practices for evidence evaluation. So, how does Dr Loke’s evidence stack up?

The “Evidence”

Is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed hearsay?

As with many resurrection debates, the short passage of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is at the heart of things because it likely represents one of the earliest extant expressions of Christian beliefs. But, of course, this pre-dating means the sentiment was not original to the apostle Paul.

In Dr Loke’s own words, “I have argued that Paul passed on a well-formulated and authoritative summary of the resurrection appearances including group appearances and that he also personally knew members of the group claimed that they saw the risen Jesus; thus it was not hearsay.

To review, what is hearsay

Per Oxford Languages, “the report of another person’s words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law”. Or, per Harper-Collins, “evidence based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what he or she has observed or experienced (not generally admissible as evidence).” Or, from Cornell Law, “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts.” You get the point.

Per Dr Loke, was 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 Paul’s own words? No, they were another person’s words.

Per Dr Loke, did Paul observe or experience any event described in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7? No. No, he did not.

Clearly this is hearsay by any definition. Paul is passing along the words of others describing something he didn’t experience. That Paul personally knew some of the people described has absolutely no bearing on what hearsay is. Repeating what you heard from your very-best-friend is still hearsay. No level of acquaintance intimacy gets around this.

Dr Loke raised the reasonable question… “we need to distinguish between,

1.         There were group(s) of people who claimed to have seen something which they thought was the resurrected Jesus 

2.         There were group(s) of people who truly saw the resurrected Jesus.”

This 1 Corinthians 15 passage is clearly hearsay with regard to the second case (as Paul never claimed to be part of such a group), but could it serve as non-hearsay evidence toward the first?

Non-trivially, there remains the insurmountable problem that these are not Paul’s words. To whatever hypothetical extent they agree with Paul’s personal experiences, they are not his expression. He is clear about this separation. “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance…” (1 Cor 15:3) Paul received this precise bundle of words, and passed it along. This is not the type of language you use to indicate that someone else’s expression stands in for your own. Reporting someone else’s words is automatically enough for this to be hearsay under either of Loke’s options.

But for the sake of argument, suppose we were to momentarily set that aside to explore Dr Loke’s speculative leap that “Paul is testifying that other apostles, including members of the group appearances, were claiming that they had seen the risen Jesus, and that this statement came from someone (Paul) who knew members of the group (e.g. Peter and other apostles), who had personally met them and talked to them (see Gal. 1–2).”

Can we actually establish that any members of group appearances conveyed this to Paul?

There are three group appearances in the creed in question… “the Twelve” (minus Judas, presumably), the 500 and “all the apostles”. Even though he says that some are alive, Paul doesn’t claim to have met or talked to any of the 500. “All the apostles” is simply too vague a depicter to draw any conclusions about specifically to whom this referring. And thus, we are left with Peter (whom Paul met as described in Galatians 1) and John (whom Paul met 14 years later as described in Galatians 2) who would be part of the Twelve.

There are many possible interpretations for Paul’s vague descriptions of what happened during these meetings. There seemed to be agreements on some matters and disagreements on others. Were group appearances discussed? That is not specified. If so, were group appearances something they agreed upon or disagreed upon? That is not specified.

Of course, Dr Loke speculates that it was. “To reject my conclusion, Paulogia would need to suppose that Paul had met with Peter and other apostles, knew them for many years, and be a fellow apostle without ever hearing them claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. This supposition is frankly absurd (to put it mildly).

In a debate about whether there is evidence for group appearances of resurrected Jesus, this is simply begging the question. Loke is assuming there is overlap between the nebulous “apostles” in the creed, and the specific “apostles” that Paul knew years later. Loke is assuming the conclusion not only that they talked about it, but also assuming what they said about it. He then calls these assumptions evidence. And calls absurd anyone recognizing that this assumption is an assumption.

(As a side note, I absolutely do suppose that Peter and John may well have never claimed to have been part of a group appearance. I suppose this because the evidence for the notion is incredibly weak. It’s the literal topic of this debate.)

Dr Loke simply cannot close the loop. Paul may have known two or more of the individuals in question, but Andrew cannot establish that these individuals claimed to Paul to be part of group appearances.

Dr Loke protests, “Paulogia seems to be demanding an explicit statement ‘Paul heard members of the Twelve saying they saw the risen Jesus.

In the context of this debate… yes. In order to qualify as non-hearsay testimony evidence, something close to that what it would take. Is that too much to ask? That we not simply assume what Paul heard without him telling us so? This is not some sort of hyper skeptical standard that I’m taking here. We’re just applying every day best-practices standard for what would count as good evidence and what wouldn’t.

If ambiguous inferential speculation sounds convincing to you, that’s fine. But it’s not actual good evidence by best-practice standards.

Do the gospel appearance reports corroborate?

Three of the four gospels contain stories of group appearances of risen Jesus. While these reports could have potential to corroborate each other, they do not clearly describe the same specific events. This would be analogous to three reports of three different robberies at three different banks on three different days. The reports might contain valid information, but they simply cannot corroborate each other in an evidential sense.

Dr Loke contests this, positing that Luke 24:33-43 and John 20:19-24 describe the same event. This is not implausible. Both events are said to take place “on the first day”, there were some disciples already together, Jesus says “Peace be with you” and shows hand wounds. On the rest of the details, they differ… Luke specifically numbers the disciples present at 11 while John specifically numbers them at 10. John has locked doors, a torso reveal, missing Thomas and the giving of the Holy Spirit. Luke starts the meeting with a report from Cleopas, Jesus shows feet, they have food, the Holy Spirit isn’t given until Pentecost and so on. As with every observed Bible contradiction, anyone dedicated to harmonizing can find ways to do so. But in calling these passages the same event, the differences limit any corroboration value, while the similarities seem to fall more into the category of common motif.

A motif is a distinctive feature, common convention, or repeating idea. For example, costumes and alter-egos are motifs in the super-powered hero genre. Dead or missing parents is a motif in Disney films. Levitation, lights, examination, and grey-skinned captors with large eyes are among the motifs in alien abduction stories. Invitation into a light, encountering loved ones, and being out-of-body are similar motifs in near death experience reports.

In his latest book, Dr Dale Allison identifies a number of motifs found in the Jesus appearance narratives, including non-recognition, doubt, consolation, and mission among others. Though Allison personally attributes this commonality to a core truth, he concedes that this is not the only reasonable conclusion. “Yet one must acknowledge that mission, consolation, and doubt are standard fare in Hebrew Bible call narratives, and because those narratives have influenced the stories of Jesus’ appearances, one could maintain that the motifs referred to were secondary additions. Convincingly coaxing historical details out of the stories of Jesus appearing to twelve is no easy task. What is more, we cannot even be sure where the event occurred. Mark and Matthew direct us to Galilee, Luke and John to Jerusalem.”[2]

Dr Loke complained that in this quote “Allison was referring to the motifs of doubt, consolation, and mission which are found in the Old Testament. He was not referring to the motif of group resurrection appearance which is not found in the Old Testament, but which is independently corroborated concerning the appearance to the Twelve” and Andrew thereby missed the point that only details within the stories are candidate touchpoints for corroboration and are what is at question. For him to broadly classify “group appearance” as a motif is merely to observe that the gospels contain multiple group appearance narratives. This is trivial and not at question. What is at question is their success at corroborating each other. Corroboration requires confirming details.

By Dr Loke’s logic, any time multiple witness accounts of a crime are recorded, it creates a crime motif. And further, this general crime motif would be enough for the accounts to automatically corroborate each other, regardless of the extent to which the testimony details vary.

Unlike intellectually honest Dr Allison, Dr Loke fails to recognize or acknowledge when multiple competing hypothesis are equally capable of explaining a set of data. When it comes to commonalities in alien abduction stories, Loke recognizes that we shouldn’t simply assume that details overlap because they are true. Rather, they “might be explained by social phenomenon of common imaginations concerning aliens.” But when I pointed out that in exactly the same way, social phenomenon and common imagination has explanatory power for resurrection appearance motifs, he balked, “This claim is false because the experiences of the Twelve are not imaginary but are corroborated independently, and I have already ruled out other alternatives (e.g. hallucination, misidentification) in my book.” Now, that’s a lot of question-begging all at once, so we’re going to need to break that down.

  • I have already ruled out other alternatives (e.g. hallucination, misidentification) in my book
    • I don’t doubt that Dr Loke has ruled them out in his own mind, but the shallow, surface consideration in his book in no way convinced me. But perhaps my ambivalence is due to my lack of advanced education in the topic. I turned to peer-reviewed publications to see if Loke’s book had convinced the experts. The lone scholarly citation offering commentary to his work was markedly indifferent to Loke’s ability to persuade. “Regardless of whether we think such apologetics is convincing, many of its proponents do indeed discuss rival miracle claims and other the major objections that exist in the literature.”[3] That’s a starkly sterile assessment of Loke’s resurrection case. I would have expected definitively “ruling out other alternatives” on Loke’s own say-so would rock academia. Perhaps in the future? Dr Loke’s book is free, so I invite you to evaluate his success on your own as homework for the reader.
    • Dr Loke is committing “Doyle’s Fallacy” (or Holmesian Fallacy) here in assuming that having eliminated some possibilities that he has therefore eliminated all possibilities. For any non-dichotomy, there is always the possibility of a cause not yet discovered or considered. As such, Dr Loke’s ruling out of some options would not alone justify a conclusion of veridical experiences. At best, he’s shown them to be “not impossible”.
    • Just to be clear, Loke definitely did not successfully rule out hallucination or misidentification.
  • the experiences of the Twelve
    • Loke hasn’t established that the Twelve had any experiences at all. That’s literally the topic of this debate. If he’d established it, he’d have already won and this line of reasoning would be unnecessary.
  • the experiences of the Twelve are not imaginary
    • Based on testimony alone, demonstrating that someone’s experience is not imagined is a near impossible task. The one testifying would use the same words to describe an imagined event and an actual event. The language of sincerely mistaken and veridical is indistinguishable to an outside observer.
  • are corroborated independently
    • That’s what we’re debating here, so this is potentially circular reasoning in our context.
  • This claim is false because
    • What is “this claim”? That “social phenomenon and common imagination fully accounts for resurrection appearance tales”.
    • Even if the rest of Loke’s sentence was correct, that would mean merely that his hypothesis accounts for resurrection appearance tales. It does not follow that other hypotheses are therefore incapable of explaining data. Often times we are faced with multiple options with equivalent explanatory power.

All of the above falls to the discussion of whether the gospel appearance accounts are even attempting to describe the same events, and whether commonalities in the reporting of entirely different events has any sort of evidential power toward the actualization of the events. I would hope you would agree that the answer to both is a resounding “no”.

While in the body of the debate I became distracted and focused disproportionately on the “corroboration” portion of the phrase “independent corroboration”, the more important qualifier here is the word “independent”. Here I’d like to reset and recall my opening statement’s discussion of evidential quality where I anticipated and pre-empted Loke’s line of reasoning here. I wrote, 

“Where Collusion is suspected of similar testimony from different sources, it destroys probative value and possibly renders it entirely inadmissible at the mere “air of reality” to the accusation. It is such a serious consideration that it is up to the Plaintiff to disprove the possibility of collusion. Collusion may be deliberate or inadvertent. For example, unintentional collusion may occur through a witness viewing media reports or merely hearing other people’s stories.[4]

Far from disproving the possibility of collusion, Dr Loke repeatedly went out of his way to demonstrate that collusion absolutely did occur. He affirms that “the early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15” was “written before 55 AD” and “had been in these circles for many years already before writing 1 Corinthians”. Indeed “the early Christian movement was a network of close communication” and “Paul was appealing to public knowledge in 1 Cor 15.” And, of course, what was public knowledge at the time Paul was writing would have remained public knowledge in the decades that followed before the gospels were codified.

According to Loke’s picture, this group appearance tradition would have been unavoidable to any Christian serious enough to write a gospel. Deliberately or inadvertently, any reports of group appearances made after this recitation became “public knowledge” (including the gospels) lack probative value.

To avoid this clear case of collusion, the burden of proof falls to Loke to prove that the commonalities of the gospel reports pre-date the public-knowledge creed. 

He did attempt to do so. “The likely diversity and number of such traditions precisely here (more so than at many other points in extant gospel tradition) suggest a variety of initial reports, not merely later divergences in an originally single tradition.’

But this is merely self-affirming conjecture. The number of potential explanations for diversity seems endless. It could equally reflect regional variations, differing theological priorities, a lack of coherent messaging from primary sources, or even a lack of primary sources entirely. (See the litany of any young-earth creation explanations for hundreds of variations in hundreds of ancient flood myths for more.) This is possibility, not evidence.

And, “its distance from the canonical accounts is often emphasized — there are no women in Paul’s account, for example, and the Gospels intimate nothing of an appearance to James’ (Allison 2005, p. 239).

Of course, Paul’s account would have no women if that was a later tradition… or if, as some apologists would put forth, the inclusion of women was too embarrassing for Paul. And a lack of narration of an appearance to James (including in the letters that Loke would attribute to James) is an argument from silence. We have no idea what elaborations were being made in the first centuries that simply didn’t survive to modern day. Indeed, a lack of embellishment about the size of one’s boat says nothing about their embellishment of the size of the fish.

Do the gospel appearance reports provide independent corroboration? No, the meaningful touchpoints fail to overlap in detail (when they aren’t directly contradicting). And where the gospels do share vague motif similarity is tainted by openly admitted collusion. This is inescapable.

Authorship of the Gospels

Disagreement over the authorship of the gospels has spanned centuries, so a full-on debate on this huge topic is beyond the context of this narrow event.

The relevant question at hand is, are the gospel accounts first-hand? If not, they are hearsay. Moreover, would any court in any land strongly affirm first-hand testimony from a witness where the witnesses’ identity is not first conclusively established? All it would take is reasonable doubt of the person’s alleged proximity to the event to discredit the testimony as being evidentiarily worthless.

Do we have reasonable doubt that Jesus’ disciple Matthew wrote our “first gospel”, and that Jesus’ disciple John wrote our “fourth gospel”? (Mark contains no group appearances. I’m aware of no serious scholar who posits that the author of Luke was a direct eye-witness to any of the events in gospels.)

One of Loke’s frequently-referenced sources to affirm traditional authorship admits that there is significant doubt in mainstream Christian scholarship. Unlike Loke, Richard Bauckham is intellectually honest enough to concede “that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”[5]

In a surprising turn of events, Loke objects to his own witness. “Bauckham does not cite any survey to substantiate his point.” While, unfortunately, no such formal meta-analysis exists to cite, it would be an odd strategy for Bauckham to unnecessarily undermine his own argument by lying about his personal assessment of the field in which he has operated his whole career.

Loke’s other star witness in defence of traditional authorship is Craig Keener. How does Keener describe the state of modern scholarship toward Matthew? “The minority of scholars who believe Matthew wrote this gospel have marshalled important arguments.”[6]

And to John? “The traditional consensus from early Christian centuries that the Apostle John wrote it has now given way to a majority scholarly skepticism toward that claim.”[7]

As a homework exercise for the reader, feel free to search the scholarly literature for a modern scholar who holds traditional scholarship as anything other than a minority view. The counter-examples are plentiful, but why waste our time when the point is conceded by Loke’s own favorite sources?

Indeed, establishing “majority” or “minority” here is unimportant. The point is that there is far beyond reasonable doubt of gospel authorship among Bible-believing, resurrection-affirming Christians who have made this their careers. I’m not looking for an argumentum ad populum here, just a demonstration that authorship skepticism need not be the product of anti-Bible bias.

Personally, my evaluation of the evidence is with the (apparently majority) view of scholars that it is unlikely that Matthew wrote Matthew or that John wrote John. To sum up unreasonably briefly… the authors do not claim to be eye-witnesses, the earliest manuscripts attributing Matthew or John are from the late second century, earlier church father quotations of the gospels do not attribute author names, John is specifically called out as being illiterate and the earliest source for Matthew authorship is unreliable Papias who describes what seems to be an entirely different work (wrong language, wrong genre). This just scratches the surface.

Loke doesn’t engage any of this, but punts to other writers. “These arguments against traditional authorship have already been refuted by NT scholars such as Bauckham, Keener.” If you change “refuted” to “responded”, then Loke is correct. But to refute implies disproving, which neither Keener nor Bauckham have done in the view of (the majority of) New Testament scholarship. Since Loke elaborates no further, I will leave the details as homework for the interested reader. I am unconvinced and scholarly Christians are unconvinced… enough for reasonable doubt.

In the face of all this, Loke appeals to a scholar named Hengel who “points out how improbable it is that a late conjectural attribution could have produced such unanimity and left no trace of alternative attributions.” Of course, this is merely an argument from silence. That dissenting views were not documented and copied by scribes for centuries into modern day is hardly surprising, particularly given that the orthodox position is similarly unpreserved. What Loke calls improbable is really an argument from incredulity.

Loke deflects by asking for documentation of basic uncontroversial facts, as if he has counter-examples up his sleeves. “Paulogia claims that the bare fact is that extant author labels begin in the late second century, without substantiating this claim.” Fine, let’s humor Loke with the work of Cambridge New Testament scholar, Simon J Gathercole[8]. He reports that P66 is the earliest (second century or later[9]) manuscript with the title of John and P4 the earliest (second century[10]) with the title of Matthew. Good enough? If Loke happens to know of a first-century labeled manuscript, he should probably debut the revolutionary finding to the world rather than debate YouTubers.

And Loke complains I don’t show “how this claim rules out the earlier labelling.” Of course, it doesn’t rule outthat earlier manuscripts may once have existed. To claim otherwise, I’d be making the same argument from silence mistake that Loke repeatedly trots out. But the evidence we actually have simply cannot confirm titles being used earlier than the second century.

Loke’s argument-from-silence train continued rolling. “If the author of a New Testament writing were unknown to any early Christian community, the early Christians would have disputed the authorship.” Of course, it’s entirely possible it was hotly disputed but evidence of disagreement didn’t survive. There is no record of what first-century Christians believed about gospel authorship, one way or the other. Perhaps a guy named Felix wrote what we call Luke, and this was well known in his time, but was forgotten 100 years later. There is just as much evidence for Felix.

In fact, several of the books in the New Testament canon are either anonymous (Hebrews) or broadly agreed to be forgeries (e.g. Ephesians, pastoral epistles, John’s letters, James, and more). Even less controversially, numerous gospels, acts and letters were forged in the names of disciples and readily accepted by the early church to the extent they are referenced and quoted by venerated church fathers.

The authors of all these forgeries would also have been part of the early church in the same way Loke supposes the gospel authors were, and yet believers were broadly fooled into accepting incorrect attribution.

In his closing, Loke hints that perhaps his argument is really that if proposed authors were alive to refute their authorship, then we should have confidence. “The documents (Paulogia) cited were written not in the first century but in the second century, by which time Peter, Nicodemus would have already died rather than ‘being among them’.” While early Christianity demonstrably fails such a criteria, since we know that forgeries of Paul were circulating and actively fooling the church during the time of Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:22), it would also require that Loke provide evidence that historical Matthew and John were alive at the time the gospels attributed to them were written. The fates and dates of these apostles are unknown, save putting undue credence in tradition, legends and lore.[11]

Hungry to save his assertions, Loke notes “there is evidence that the early Christians debated about who wrote Hebrews” and therefore my citation of Hebrews “provides further evidence for premise 1 of my argument (Thanks, Paulogia!)

Loke’s goalposts might need one of those airplane-seat baggies to deal with such rapid and repeated motion. What was Loke’s problem with my counter-examples? They were from the second century. Who does Loke cite as debating Hebrews? Origen and Tertullian. And when did they live? Second century. 

Sorry, Andrew. If second-century forgeries (even though I provided evidence for affirmed first-century forgeries) aren’t relevant examples of incorrect church affirmation, then second-century dissent definitely isn’t evidence for first-century church infallibility.

Finally, Dr Loke pushed the goalpost right out of the stadium and into the parking lot. “Defending the traditional authorship of the Four Gospels is not necessary for my arguments in this debate.

Perhaps he can continue to attempt to defend corroboration without traditional authorship, but if Loke cannot establish conclusively beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the so-called witnesses and that we’re dealing with first-hand testimony…

… then we are left to conclude what I’ve been saying all along. By best-practice, the first question asked of every witness is their name, to establish identity. Without establishing identity and proximity to the events. Ironically, the gospel authors themselves never claim to be eye-witnesses… but Loke holds to it. Ultimately, the gospels hold no evidentiary value for group appearances because the gospels are hearsay.

Opportunity to commit a crime is not evidence that the crime was committed.

1 Clement and Ignatius

 “I shall be brief about 1 Clement and Ignatius since my case in this debate does not depend on them,” Andrew intends. I will try to follow suit.

Loke doesn’t dispute that 1 Clement is hearsay. He just reasserts his weak plea that historians are sometimes ok with hearsay (secondary sources).

Similarly, Loke attempts to avoid hearsay for Ignatius, by too broadly applying a quote from Dr Bart Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist? “There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Ignatius is basing his views on the books that later became part of the New Testament.[12] But here Ehrman is referring specifically to Ignatius’ views that Jesus was a historical figure, not extending in any way to the scope of group appearances. Indeed, in a later article, Dr Ehrman affirms my original contention. “The Gospels of the New Testament appear to be quoted in early second century authors such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.”[13]

(A side note, but while throughout this debate Dr Loke has repeatedly denigrated my lack of academic standing and implied that my methods would not be accepted in such learned circles, I recently had the honor of being approached by Dr Bart Ehrman’s office to collaborate. This notable scholar has since appeared in three of my videos, with more to come. This may be marketing, but Ehrman chose to include my Lee Strobel Christmas video response alongside “academic” resources as a follow-up for his students in his Christmas lecture series. Perhaps I’m doing something right?)

The Apologetic

Dr Loke’s Five Arguments

Throughout the debate I have defended the following five arguments which show that there are good evidences for group appearances of risen Jesus,” said Andrew in his conclusion, and I would encourage you to find them there if for some reason you haven’t already.

Enough digital ink has been spilled in my rebuttals in the name of academic sparring sport in refuting various aspects the numerous premises, so in this closing I will avoid further distraction and instead focus you on what is most germane to the debate at hand.

Four of the five so-called arguments are built upon the fallacious use of “character evidence” and thereby collapse without prejudice. Further elaboration follows in a dedicated section below.

In addition, these same four arguments all suffer from underdetermination in their failure to point to a single conclusion, either individually or even collectively in a cumulative case. “Good evidence” points to a single conclusion, or at least serves to eliminate candidate explanations. Again, further elaboration follows below.

The remaining argument is an unsupported inflation of the evidential value of motifs. (See discussion above.)

And that’s the five.

On Epistemological Principles

Throughout the debate, rather than demonstrate that the type of evidence he presents for group appearances are of the highest quality that survive the best-practices of evidential evaluation, Dr Loke has instead enumerated excuses begging the reader to permit him a watered-down notion of “good evidence”.

For example, Dr Loke never contests the general rule that primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources (also called hearsay) in any evidentiary evaluation discipline. But he seems bothered by my factual reminders that hearsay is inadmissible under legal best-practice. But “secondary sources are admitted by historians,” he protests. “‘Inadmissible’ is different from ‘less valuable’; in the former case it is not acceptable, whereas in the latter case it is acceptable (even if less valuable).” In a debate about establishing “good evidence”, Dr Loke concedes to categorizing much of his presentation as “less valuable” and sets having “some value” to be his most optimistic appraisal. In any case, none falls definitively into the best-practice category of primary sources.

Dr Loke rightfully noted that there are some legal exceptions to the hearsay rule. I asked him to identify which exceptions might be relevant to his case, and he pointed to “Statements in Ancient Documents”. I pointed out that this clause requires that “authenticity is established”, which has not been done for Loke’s hearsaysources. Apparently, in pointing out an important disqualifier, “Paulogia missed my point that the exceptions to hearsay are justified on the basis of various inferences.” Yes, of course. Relevant exceptions have justifications for being exceptions. Still waiting to hear which justified exception is applicable to Dr Loke’s case.

Cumulative Case

Dr Loke contends that by evaluating parts of his case individually, “Paulogia still does not understand the nature of a cumulative case.” He admits “one secondary source by itself is not good evidence for group appearances, but secondary sources PLUS other considerations can add up via cumulative case arguments to constitute good evidence for group appearances.

The word “can” is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. Sure, it can add up. The question put to the reader is, does it add up?

Loke illustrates, “Is coughing by itself good evidence for pneumonia? No, because coughing can also be caused by asthma, URTI, etc. However, if the patient has coughing PLUS fever PLUS crackles on auscultation, this would be good evidence that the patient has pneumonia; the doctor would be considered negligent if he/she does not makes this clinical diagnosis.

Here, the cough symptom represents underdetermination of evidence, “the simple idea that the evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.”[14]

A cumulative case becomes compelling when additional evidence reduces the underdetermination of the entire case. That is, when the additional data begins to eliminate possible alternative explanations for the individual observations. The ultimate cumulative case would have no underdetermination at all, but point conclusively to only a single answer.

I understand the nature of such cases. What I deny is that the case presented by Dr Loke qualifies. The sum of his arguments remain underdeterminate.

Unsurprisingly, Dr Loke’s own chosen example is underdeterminate. A cough, fever and bibasilar crackles could mean pneumonia, but that combo could also indicate bronchitis, or pulmonary edema, or pulmonary fibrosis, or even heart failure. Loke says “the doctor would be considered negligent” for not diagnosing pneumonia given the list. I think a patient suffering from heart failure but diagnosed with pneumonia would beg to differ.

It is here where I find the mere probabilistic underdetermination nature of Loke’s arguments (even if accepted at face value) to accumulate into a cumulative case that similarly suffers underdetermination. The components point to no single conclusion, and nor does the accumulation. For example, it fails to eliminate sincere mistakes or simple misattribution, among a host of other possibilities.

And ultimately, declaring construction of a “cumulative case” doesn’t spare one from rigorous evaluation of the individual elements. A failed premise is a failed premise and must be removed like a Jenga block, whether it knocks down the tower or not.

Character Evidence

In Dr Loke’s closing, he asserts that “Paulogia confounds ‘character trait’ with ‘psychological laws’. The two are different and needs to be distinguished.

In the field, there remains significant debate about whether “psychological law” is even a coherent notion, but even among advocates it is acknowledged that a psychological law is not like scientific laws that “capture necessary connections between universal properties” or “express comprehensive, strict, exceptionless connections governing the whole of nature.” [15]

“But psychological regularities are subject to more severe limitations. They are liable to exceptions within their intended domain of application. People sometimes do not think or do not act as they are supposed to according to the pertinent psychological theory. Using Jerry Fodor’s notion of a ceteris-paribus law[16], such exceptions can be accounted for as follows. Psychological laws are hedged by clauses to the effect that the expected consequent only turns up ‘all other things being equal’ or ‘if no disturbing factors are present’.”[17]

And when it comes to considering such psychological laws in a legal setting (our most-rigorous evidence evaluation system), the experts bear out that “the question is not what most reasonable persons would think but rather what the defendant in fact thought when allegedly committing the crime.”[18]

As such, Dr Loke’s plea “this is a scientific law, which is admissible evidence” is incorrect on both counts, as applicable to our debate. They are not necessary, immutable causal connections like the laws of motion or conservation laws of energy that one might bring to mind with the phrase “scientific law”. Instead, while so-called psychological laws are discovered through scientific methods, they are only as applicable as one can demonstrate a state of “all things being equal” and a lack of “disturbing factors.”

This is but one reason why what Loke calls “psychological laws” is not a meaningful distinction from “character trait” when it comes to evidence evaluation. A trend cannot be assumed to apply to a specific individual or action. As I’ve repeated since my opening, this practice is so fallacious that modern legal jurisdictions near-universally echo U.S. Federal Rule of Evidence 404 making character evidence inadmissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait[19] or, by extension, a so-called “psychological law”. Indeed, in law, “character is a pattern of any kind of behavior.”[20]

(Parenthetically, the kinds of psychological laws Dr Loke would appeal to are rarely applicable to all humans at all times, but are instead heavily caveated to personality type, cultural time and place, social circles, mental health, upbringing and the like. You know… a person’s character and traits. This further blurs and renders useless Dr Loke’s supposed distinction.)

Of course, Dr Loke cannot possibly demonstrate the internal 2000-year-ago psychology that all things were equal or lacking disturbing factors for the members of the first-century Corinthian church whom he imagines actually set out on and accomplished a rigorous examination of group appearances claims. Indeed, he cannot even name or find vague reference to such a person.

While such a burden would fall entirely to Dr Loke, even if one accepted his particular application of one psychological source (which I don’t) and further accepted his particular extrapolation of the psychological state of unspecified people from his particular interpretation of a 2000-year-old letter (which I don’t), it is trivially easy to imagine many plausible extenuating factors that simply cannot be ruled out.

Not the least of these is the factor raised by famous Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig…

The Holy Spirit

When asked about the role of evidence in convincing non-believers, Dr William Lane Craig replied, “I think that the fundamental way in which we know that Christianity is true is through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.”[21] If an inner-witness experience satisfies the evidential curiosity of every generation in history since, why would we rule it out as satisfactory for the first generation?

Dr Loke’s reply? “The difference is that the first generation of Corinthians were in a position to verify with the eyewitnesses and it would be a reasonable expectation to do this, indeed they were invited to check out the eyewitnesses.

In an investigation, we would call this motive and opportunity. This is good. Means, motive and opportunity are prerequisites for potentiality of action. However, motive and opportunity alone are insufficient to establish an action. We are still waiting for Dr Loke’s non-speculative evidential link between having opportunity and availing opportunity.

Did anyone in the Corinthian church take the opportunity to investigate group appearances? We don’t know.

If someone did investigate, did they find enough data to come to a conclusion? We don’t know.

If someone came to a rigorous conclusion, what was their verdict? We don’t know.

It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative, but suppose someone investigated and found insufficient evidence for group appearances, would they necessarily have reported these findings to the church rather than simply be silently unconvinced? If such a report had been made, would it have necessarily dissuaded the entire rest of the Corinthian church? Would said hostile report have been recorded and re-copied for generations for posterity?

Ask the simplest questions and we simply don’t know. All Dr Loke has to offer is wishful speculation seemingly tainted with the confirmation bias, and causal chains replete with missing links.

In his closing, Dr Loke went out of his way to highlight in yellow his underlying assumption that it is “unlikely that their initial belief would have persisted without these eyewitnesses.

I do not find this remotely unlikely. On the contrary, I find it incredibly likely. Dr Loke has not begun to demonstrate that persistent belief requires evidential justification.

I’m so pleased that this is the debate conclusion and that I can avoid further dances from Dr Loke that rival the contortions of Cirque du Soleil in his attempts to special-plead[22] away the numerous obvious counterfactuals of extraordinary beliefs that persist without the benefit of sufficient evidential backing. If somehow no examples of widely-accepted high-profile “fake news” spring to your mind, see my prior debate segments and evaluate for yourself Dr Loke’s distinction-without-difference defences.


And now, mercifully, we have come to the end. I want to thank Dr Loke for the invitation to interact despite our disparity in credentials, and for his patience in accommodating my schedule issues. Andrew is a highly intelligent individual and a man who is very obviously passionately convinced of his conclusions.

So, what have we learned? Is there good evidence for group appearances of risen Jesus?

No. No, there is not.

Everyone has bias of some sort. In order to not deceive ourselves and to minimize the effects of this bias arrive in drawing conclusions, we need to turn to independent best-practice standards of evidential evaluation refined in the fire of centuries of high stakes debate, historical evaluation and scientific discovery.

These best-practice standards are uncomplicated and non-controversial. First-hand reports are better than second-hand reports. General patterns of behavior cannot reliably predict individual behavior in a specific instance where all things may not be equal. When a report is influenced by a prior report, the second is no longer independent. Stories corroborate only to the extent that details match.

Every source and every argument of Dr Loke in this debate fails these rudimentary standards… from outright failure, to arguably eking out a D-minus by appealing to the lowest, most-forgiving, watered-down evaluation that someone, somewhere might allow to scrape by as “acceptable”.

Is this what one would expect from the God of the universe who wants everyone on earth across centuries to be convinced that His resurrected Son appeared to groups? Such a God would be able to far exceed even the most rigorous standard any mere human could conceive. Yet here we are, with Dr Loke scrambling to elevate scraps to the level of barely passing basic evidentiary evaluation.

It is worth noting that admitting that the evidence for group appearances is week is not the same as denying the resurrection itself. The components of a multi-pronged case necessarily fall on a spectrum of evidential strength. Other resurrection-affirming scholars recognize and admit that group appearances aren’t the pinnacle of independently-confirmed fact, and yet keep their faith. This isn’t a salvation issue. It is likely you are in the same camp as Dr William Lane Craig, for whom the inner witness of the Holy Spirit overcomes (and accommodates a more honest assessment of) evidential gaps through Biblical faith.

When one abandons the time-tested tools and practices to which we trust our property, lives and liberty for arrival at unbiased decisions, one is in danger of blindly embracing anything that confirms what they already believe.

Regardless of your religious convictions, I hope you’ve allowed yourself to soberly assess the group appearance assessments of both myself and Dr Loke through the lens of dispassionate rules of evidence.

Is there good evidence for group appearances of risen Jesus? Only if you’ve invented your own personal definition of what good evidence is.

[1] Martin, Jean-Clément. “La démarche historique face à la vérité judiciaire. Juges et historiens.” Droit et société 38.1 (1998): 13-20.

[2] Allison Jr, D. C. (2021). The resurrection of Jesus: apologetics, polemics, history. Bloomsbury Publishing. p62

[3] Rope Kojonen, E. V. (2021). Bias in the Science and Religion Dialogue? A Critique of “Nature of Evidence in Religion and Natural Science”. Theology and Science19(3), 188-202.

[4] O’Connell, Stuart. Similar Fact Evidence: Collusion. Oct 2017.

[5] Richard Bauckham. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd Edition).” Apple Books.

[6] Keener, C. S. (1997). Matthew (Vol. 1). InterVarsity Press. p31

[7] Keener, C. S. (2010). The Gospel of John: 2 Volumes. Baker Academic. p83

[8] Gathercole, S. J. (2013). The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche104(1), 33-76.

[9] Nongbri, B. (2014). The limits of palaeographic dating of literary papyri: some observations on the date and provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66). Museum Helveticum, 1-35.

[10] Comfort, P. W. (1995). Exploring the Common Identification of Three New Testament Manuscripts: P4, P64 and P67. Tyndale Bulletin46, 43-54.

[11] For historical assessments of the fates of Matthew or John, see McDowell, S. (2016). The Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus. Routledge.

[12] Ehrman, B. D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?. HarperCollins. Chapter 4

[13] Bart Ehrman, “When Did the Gospels Get Their Names?” Nov 17, 2014

[14] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Underdetermination of Scientific Theory

[15] Carrier, M. (1998). In defense of psychological laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science12(3), 217-232.

[16] The Latin phrase “ceteris paribus” or “caeteris paribus”—literally meaning “other things being equal”.

[17] Carrier, M. (1998). In defense of psychological laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science12(3), 217-232.

[18] Taslitz, A. E. (1993). Myself alone: Individualizing justice through psychological character evidence. Md. L. Rev.52, 1.

[19] U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence

[20] Indiana University, Maurer School of Law. Character Evidence

[21] Craig, Dr. William Lane. What Role Does the Holy Spirit Play In Apologetics?

[22] Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without sufficiently justifying the special exception.

Paulogia’s Second Rebuttal vs. Dr Loke

Written Debate Between Dr. Andrew Loke and Paulogia

Previous Entries:

Welcome to the sixth entry in the written series between myself and Dr Andrew Loke debating the topic, “Is there good evidence for group appearances of resurrected Jesus?” 

The Debate

Procedural Acknowledgement

Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge that this rebuttal is in violation of the debate rules initially agreed upon by Dr Loke and myself. Each new posting is to appear within a month of the prior posting, and this is over that allotted time. My July was overwhelmed with the logistics of a cross-country move, property purchase and sale, household merge and child-related life-event concerns. I scripted no new content for my YouTube channel in that time, and as this debate is a side-hobby to that hobby, family obligations obviously took priority. All that said, none of those excuses are material to the topic of the debate, nor of any import to Dr Loke or the reader. I acknowledge that this entry is outside the agreed parameters, and assuming Dr Loke is willing to continue… that is entirely because of generosity and forgiveness on his part.

The Paulogia-Hypothesis Distractions Continue

For the learned professor’s three entries thus far, we have watched as Dr Loke has valiantly attempted the unenviable task of trying to transform a few hearsay accounts into good evidence with nothing more than wishful conjecture misapplied. His efforts have been commendable in the same way one might commend the optimistic fortitude of a hungry man convinced he can open a tin can with a soggy napkin.

Fortunately for audience amusement, Dr Loke once again opened his continuing exercise in futility with a slightly-more-entertaining non-sequitur. Unfortunately, his rabid salivation pursuing a perceived “gotcha” once again demonstrated Dr Loke’s lack of understanding of both the specific points being made, and also the nature of the general proposition he is attempting to defend.

Throughout this debate, Dr Loke has avoided his task of making the positive case for the quality of the evidence of group appearances of resurrected Jesus by wasting time besmirching a specific observation that I have pointed out in video-form on my YouTube channel.

Successfully defeating this alternative appearance interpretation would do nothing to support the affirmative position in this debate, which perhaps Dr Loke understands since rather than attempt to do so, he instead repeatedly made the trivial observation that few scholars explicitly affirm this particular, incredibly specific interpretation. At least a dozen times in this debate, he has merely labelled my observation “fringe” as if this was all that need be said. In hindsight, this tactic appears to be less about idea refutation than an opportunity to poison the well against me personally… what we would call an ad hominem attack.

In my first rebuttal, I suggested that Dr Loke should borrow some tact, decorum and argumentation strategy from better-known resurrection scholar Dr Gary Habermas in dealing with my hypothesis. Specifically, when asked about me during a particular interview, Dr Habermas first acknowledged an academic tradition in my view, then took the time to directly address the relevant points, and finally respectfully compare it to his perception of modern scholarship.

My point was to compare and contrast the presentation styles of two men who both strongly disagree with me on this issue. Dr Habermas at least attempted to handle it academically (despite Gary’s equally-strong disdain for my presentations), and Dr Loke – in my opinion – has not.

But rather than take on board my critique that “you two disagree with me in different styles”, Dr Loke fixated only on “you two disagree with me”, as if this was news. As if this were a cover-up. As if Loke was part of the Scooby-Doo gang pulling the mask off of the mystery villain. Indeed, there would be little point in me comparing Gary and Andrew’s opposition tactics if both men weren’t already acknowledged to share specific opposition.

Dr Loke proceeded to complain about the editing of a video I did not make and had nothing to do with, before taking a premature victory lap. “Paulogia’s preference for Habermas turns out to be a Fatal Attraction.

On the surface it may seem so, for Habermas ends his critique of me by saying, “Only one of the guys is still alive – as far as I know – of the four guys I listed. The theory’s not popular any more. And the theory’s not popular any more because it’s been blown out of the water by critics.”[1] Ouch. Burn on me. (Not really. My most recent video addressed Dr Habermas’ misleading and factually-inaccurate critique of my work and the scholars’ work in detail.)

Earlier in the same presentation, Dr Habermas elaborated on leading critic Bart Ehrman’s attitude when it comes to endorsing a particular naturalistic alternative. “He says I’m no longer going to take naturalistic theories. I’m not going to pick one because, he said, I’ll tell you what’s going to happen. You’re going to get me in a corner and I’m not going to be able to explain my way out, but since I picked that theory I’m going to look stupid if I change my mind. So, I think I’ll just keep my mouth shut and say miracles don’t happen, a la David Hume.”[2]

Gary presents this as a paraphrase from Ehrman’s book, “How Jesus Became God”. While I could not find it there, it is broadly consistent with what I know of Ehrman’s attitude that literally any naturalistic explanation will do. “I suggest that he plug in other historical options —for example, the one that I’ve already laid out that he’s ignored, that possibly two of Jesus’ family members stole the body and that they were killed and thrown into a common tomb. It probably didn’t happen, but it’s more plausible than the explanation that God raised Jesus from the dead.”[3]

Or perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, Ehrman postulates. “That’s an alternative explanation. It’s highly unlikely. I don’t buy it for a second, but it’s more likely than the idea that God raised Jesus from the dead because it doesn’t appeal to the supernatural, which historians have no access to.”[4]

Why don’t modern-day scholarly critics of the resurrection endorse my hypothesis? Because of specific holes or deficiency? No. Because they consider it to be a waste of time to invest in or endorse any particular hypothesis at all – mine or any other. To Ehrman and his colleagues, the relevant discussion is supernatural vs natural, not supernatural vs one natural scenario.

Which finally leads us to the point of this tangent… Dr Loke’s misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the nature of our debate. “‘Which conclusion is more reasonable?’ can be one of the considerations for answering the question ‘Is the proposed conclusion justified?’” he pleads.

To the limited extent this is applicable (the phrase “one of the considerations” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, because being “more reasonable” alone cannot elevate an unjustified conclusion to a justified one), it would depend on a true dichotomy.

We are not here to discuss if “group appearances of resurrected Jesus” is more reasonable than “Paulogia’s appearance hypothesis”. We’re here to discuss if “group appearances of resurrected Jesus” is more reasonable than “no group appearances of resurrected Jesus”. That’s the dichotomy. It’s Dr Loke’s position versus every possible alternate explanation currently postulated or that might be postulated in the future. 

Every time Loke brings up a specific alternate hypothesis, he’s attempting to reframe the debate and water down his own burden of proof obligations. Don’t let him do this.

The Good, The Bad and the Evidence

As a reminder, the topic of the debate is “Is there Good Evidence for Group Appearances of Risen Jesus?” As such, the main consideration is the evaluation of good evidence vs bad evidence. Fortunately, modern courts around the world have spent hundreds of years refining best-practices for doing just that. Adaptations and vocabulary variations come into play in other fields, like history. But generally, there’s a universal cross-discipline spectrum on what’s better or worse. See my opening statement for examples.

Meanwhile, Dr Loke offered up a handful of ancient documents containing only hearsay claims (of a kind inadmissible in court), and some imaginative character evidence attempts (also inadmissible in court) based on speculative inferences leading to ambiguous, contradictory inconclusions.

Dr Loke expresses a curious concern. “Those who only read what he wrote would therefore form the (false) impression that Paulogia has rebutted my argument.” I would imagine that anyone reading (or listening to) only one side of any debate would think that person is doing well. How bad would a debater have to be to not win against an absent opponent? If for some reason you are engaged only with my side of this debate, Dr Loke wants you to know that I’m doing a poor job.

Now as I’m already past deadline before beginning, it’s fortunate for me that three rounds into the debate Dr Loke put forth very little new, so the broad strokes of my rebuttal are already in place. To save time, I think I will just go through Dr Loke’s entry top-to-bottom and pick up any stragglers to address Dr Loke’s comprehensiveness concerns.

I will still keep things thematically grouped and ignore Dr Loke’s condescending “error counter”, however. Dr Loke’s definition of error ranges from alleged mistake, to interpretational difference, to straight-forward disagreement, to refusal to acquiesce, to simply being unconvinced by whatever convinces Dr Loke. It’s a versatile word in his hands.

Evidence Evaluation

Self-Contradictory Self-Contradiction

Dr Loke boasts, “Paulogia claims that legal epistemological principles and best-practices apply to historical evaluation, but his statement that legal practice regards hearsay as inadmissible but historians regards them as admissible (even if less valuable) actually contradicts his claim (Fallacy of self-contradiction)

But one wonders if Dr Loke actually reads his sentences before he posts them.

The principle / best-practice being discussed here is that primary (direct) evidence is better than secondary (hearsay) evidence. This is true in the legal field… to the extent that hearsay is inadmissible. This is also true in the historical field, where primary evidence is simply preferred.

Because the principle of primary-is-better applies equally in both situations, I am making no contradiction. Hearsay evidence is considered to be of lower quality in all realms.

Luxury of Hindsight

Scrambling for any way to paint the watered-down epistemology of the historian as having some advantage over the more rigorous evidential evaluation of the law, Loke pitched the idea that “the judge who is required by the law to make a final irrevocable decision within a limited timeframe cannot afford to wait and see how the eyewitnesses spend the rest of their lives.

As support, Loke pulled a seemingly affirming quote from an obscure French-language essay by Martin. In my rebuttal, I brought to attention that Martin’s essay was in fact setting aside this notion and affirmed that “historical truth stems from the same processes as legal truth, with the same weaknesses but also the same strengths.”[5]

Undeterred by this new information, Loke pressed the strained point, citing E. P. Sanders (via Dale Allison). “‘I do not regard deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation’ of Easter faith, for some of those in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 and the canonical resurrection narratives ‘were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen Lord, and several of them would die for their cause.

As we are debating the evidence for group appearances of risen Jesus, and not whether early Christian proponents were deliberate frauds, for this to be a remotely relevant observation Dr Loke would need to demonstrate that members of the alleged groups were proclaiming the group appearances their whole lives, and that one or more of them died specifically for their proclamation of a group appearance.

Dr Loke and I have had considerable back-and-forth before the start of this written debate regarding the historical evidence for martyrs and the evidential usefulness of any conclusions from said evidence. Suffice to say we do not see eye-to-eye.

Here I will merely point out the undisputed fact that we do not have a single first-hand appearance account from any member of the alleged groups (even granting that Peter wrote I and II Peter, which I don’t), or even reliable, contemporary second-hand reports of how the alleged group-members spent their lives. (Save Peter, whom I grant, but whom is an individual, not a group.) When it comes to group-members, Dr Loke simply has no historical hindsight upon which to draw.

It is possible Dr Loke recognizes this situational irrelevance, as he stopped short of making any such fallacious assertions about the alleged group members. If this “luxury of hindsight” is a legitimate advantage of the historian, it is not one that comes into play for this debate.

Hearsay – Inadmissible or just Undesirable?

As all the documentary evidence Dr Loke puts forth is clearly and undeniably “hearsay” (second-hand, third-hand, nth-hand claims), it is not surprising that he objects to my continued reminder that hearsay evidence is so poor that the entire category is generally disallowed in modern courts.

The reason for inadmissibility might not necessarily be due to ‘poor’ quality of evidence but due to procedural reasons,” he quarrels, as if we’re talking about arbitrary filing dates or regional wardrobe requirements for court appearances. No, the procedures barring hearsay are in place precisely because of the poor quality of that category of argumentation, and their propensity to lead to wrong conclusions and inability to withstand scrutiny.

Ancient historians do admit and consider secondary source as evidence,” he protests. “This observation contradicts Paulogia’s point that legal standards provide us with the ‘best-practices that are advisable to follow in our evaluation of group appearances.’”

Sure. And some agencies will accept a faceless-nameless library card as identification when a government-issued photo id is really the best practice. The province I just moved away from is now allowing people who have recently tested positive for COVID to wander around without a mask at senior-citizen bingo night. That’s not best practice either, but someone is allowing it.

No detective would ignore second-hand testimony by saying that it is inadmissible,” Loke protests, as if another example will help him. It is specifically the job of an investigating officer to follow every lead. But all things being equal, which lead will the detective follow first, an eye-witness report or a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend rumor? No detective is going to make an arrest based on hearsay. They’re going to wait for direct evidence. The spectrum of evidential quality and all the legal best-practices still apply in all of Dr Loke’s appeals.

This debate is about whether there is “good” evidence, not if there is evidence of the lowest possible standard that someone, somewhere might accept. Loke even repeats my words without denial, “historians and lawyers agree ‘that there is a spectrum of evidential quality and that secondary sources (hearsay) are of lower quality.’” Historians may accept them in certain context, but it is uncontested that hearsay is never the best quality in any context.

Hearsay Exceptions

When Dr Loke observed that “there are numerous exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay” while failing to cite an exception that would be relevant to his case, I invited him to present one. To his credit, he made an attempt from the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence.

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

Excellent, now all Dr Loke has to do is what no scholar has ever been able to do… conclusively establish the authenticity the New Testament documents he puts forth. (See “Authorship of the Gospels” below.) Meanwhile, some of us will lick our wounds from the news that something from 1998 is legally considered to be ancient.

Misunderstanding Character Evidence

Anticipating the type of defences Dr Loke would try to mount, my opening statement pre-empted another legally-inadmissible category of evidence…

Evidence of a person’s character or character trait (Character Evidence) is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.[6]

“Rational people absolutely take character into consideration; didn’t Paulogia himself recognize this when he emphasized his intellectual honesty in response to accusation of dishonesty?” questioned Dr Loke, in failure to recognize the point.

No one is saying that character or honor isn’t important in how one lives one’s life or interacts in society, or a debate. Because I feel betrayed and misled by my religious mentors (with or without malice), I have a personal commitment to integrity and intellectual honesty. This also drives my willingness to make time, in the midst of an oppressive schedule, to write this rebuttal.

However, it would be obviously fallacious to say that “because Paulogia can be shown to be honorable in general, Paulogia must have acted honorably last Tuesday.” Or, since Dr Loke may not agree with the premise, “because Paulogia can be shown to be dishonorable in general, Paulogia must have acted dishonorably last Tuesday.”

People are inconsistent. People are capable of presenting a false image of themselves. Circumstances cause people to act against their nature all the time. Worse yet, people can be painted with a false impression by others.

Now extrapolate this principle back thousands of years. Dr Loke wants us to draw conclusions about the specific actions of individuals based on vague, biased inferences of possible, inconclusive, speculative character traits of groups of people who lived in a vastly different context.

With strong reason, courts don’t allow this argument in modern times even with the benefit of careful cross examination. Yet Dr Loke wants to argue for it in ancient times with nothing but ambiguous speculation.

Should we consider this good evidence? You decide.

Misunderstanding Collusion

If a sixth installment of a written debate isn’t the place for chasing an irrelevant tangent, where is? 

In passing, I observed that the heavy literary dependence of the synoptic gospels is obvious collusion. Loke objected, “‘collusion’ is a loaded word. It implies ‘secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.’ However, the fact that other Gospel writers used parts of Mark as a historical source does not imply that they were conspiring to deceive others… It is better to use the word ‘collaboration’.”

I pre-emptively addressed this challenge in my opening when citing the evidential standards for collusion. “Collusion may be deliberate or inadvertent. For example, unintentional collusion may occur through a witness viewing media reports or merely hearing other people’s stories.[7]” As this debate is about evidence evaluation, I’m using the correct word. Loke’s preferred euphemism would be deceptive.

In any case, the accusation of collusion doesn’t apply to the group appearances, therefore Paulogia’s assertion is irrelevant for this debate.” On this we can agree. I mentioned it only in context that despite obvious collusion, the gospel group appearances still couldn’t get their stories straight.

The Appeal to Cumulative Case

Dr Loke repeatedly complains about my “failure to fully grasp the nature of cumulative case arguments” and “how Paulogia misrepresented my argument by taking the reasons apart instead of considering them together.

I grasp the nature of the cumulative case. Perhaps Dr Loke fails to grasp that each piece needs to be evaluated on its own to determine its weight in accumulation.

The debate is “is there good evidence for group appearances?”, not “if you add up all the bad evidence for group appearances, does that eventually total to something good?” Or maybe that’s what Dr Loke thinks the debate is?

Don’t Drag Science into This

“Paulogia fails to note that even the strongest scientific evidential standards are also based on probabilistic argument, and possibly wrong.”

It is true that science does not operate on the level of “proofs” or “certainty”, and is always provisional… allowing for new data or new analysis to topple current paradigms. But science isn’t graded on “best inference”. We don’t send humans to space on probabilities.

To be useful, scientific claims must necessarily be falsifiable. If falsification criteria are met, the hypothesis is abandoned. This has nothing to do with probabilistic argumentation. The notion that groups saw risen Jesus has no falsifiability criteria, making it not remotely a science-like question.

Scientific hypotheses and models are judged solely on their ability to predict future data. Newton’s law of universal gravitation observes that objects with mass feel an attractive force that is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. There is nothing probabilistic about it. The model that best predicts data is the winner… until a better model comes along that is better at predicting data.

Let me know what the falsification criteria is for group appearances of risen Jesus and then we can talk science.

The Documents

Authorship of the Gospels

Even though the gospel authorship expert, Richard Bauckham, cited in Dr Loke’s own opening admits that “the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship,”[8] my interlocutor has chosen to argue against his own witness in that “Bauckham does not cite any survey to substantiate his point”. Nor does Loke point to a survey. Loke wants you to take Bauckham at his word on affirming traditional gospel authorship, but also doubt Bauckham’s self-awareness of his academic positioning. Quite selective.

Loke trots out the standard apologetic excuses for the undeniable utter lack of extant attribution to gospel authors (why they are anonymous) until the late second century. Speculation about title pages, arguments from silence, authorship consensus on unrelated works, and sheer credulity about affirming religious epistemology. No wonder the Bauckham-characterized vast majority (or mere majority, or large minority, precise numbers don’t matter) of New Testament scholars remain unconvinced. Make any excuses you want, the bare fact is that extant author labels begin in the late second century.

Loke speculates that early Christians “would have known who the authors were (even if we don’t)”.

(He also objects to me calling this entirely non-evidenced claim “wishful speculation”. “Paulogia once again fails to distinguish between speculation and inference.” Speculation is literally when you posit unevidenced details. Dr Loke’s personal intuition about the likelihood about unevidenced details cannot elevate them beyond speculation. No documents exist telling us that the identities of the gospel authors were widely known.)

Because people knew Loke’s grandfather, somehow we can conclude that “we can rightly infer that the Gospels were written by Christians who attended churches and were therefore known by Christian communities in the churches.

It should be evident to all that this does not logically follow, but the significant counter-examples should drive the error home further. An early church-attending individual wrote the canonical book of Hebrews, but even in the earliest church writings there is much debate about who wrote it. There were pseudepigraphal (forged) gospels, acts and letters of Peter, Nicodemus, James, Thomas, Pilate, Philip, Andrew and so many more that were readily accepted by the early church despite the true (false) authors being among them.

In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:2 warns the church “not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us.” Either there were convincing forgeries being circulated, or 2 Thessalonians itself was a forgery… or both.

In any case, the argument that “these communities would have known who the authors were” is untenable. Wishful thinking.

In a full debate about the authorship of the gospels, I’d bring up the first-century contempt for Papias, how Papias’ descriptions don’t match the books we have, the second-century non-attribution of gospel quotes, disconnects with historical Luke and many other topics demonstrating the late and inaccurate author attribution. But what we’ve presented here sufficiently counters Loke’s specific last-minute defence.

No, Gospel Appearance Reports Don’t Corroborate

If you’ve been following along for the full, you know the problem for Dr Loke’s position… the handful of group appearance stories in the gospels[9] simply do not corroborate each other. They take place in different locations, with entirely different events, different timing, different conversations, and variations in the attendees. Dr Loke’s response to the obvious failure for these tales to corroborate each other is two-fold. 

First, he says I fail “to consider and reply to the harmonization I defended in Chapter 2 of my book.” While I certainly did consider, it is true that I didn’t bother to reply as his book’s harmonization attempt in no way addresses arguments I’m making, and is therefore irrelevant to this debate. I assume he is referring to section 2.3.6, which puts forth what I would say is an entirely plausible scenario for how the details of the various gospel empty tomb narratives and appearances can be made to fit despite some seemingly contradictory claims. Dr Loke may be surprised to learn that I generally agree with him on this.

The trouble is that I’m not arguing that the group appearance pericopes fail to corroborate because they feature contradictions. I’m arguing that the group appearance pericopes fail to corroborate because the accounts don’t describe the same events. Dr Loke’s book’s harmonization seems to agree with this conclusion by arranging each in a particular non-overlapping sequence that could reduce points of narrative friction. If anything, his harmonization choices back me up on these as discrete, independent offerings.

Loke’s second defence is that overlapping narrative motifs can provide some level of corroboration. Loke’s opening quotes Dr Dale Allison’s 2005 book[10] to establish patterns of “sequential similarities…death, burial, resurrection on third day, appearance to individuals, appearance to 11 or 12 disciples.” This is yet another point of agreement, I agree that such superficial thematic similarities exist.

Where we disagree is Dr Loke’s unwarranted leap that because “there is repetition of the outline and the ‘appearance to group’ motif which is multiply independently attested” that the stories themselves have therefore inherited attestation of facts. I provided the example of alien abduction testimonies which feature significant motif overlap, but those tropes fail to create corroboration between a New Hampshire couple’s 1961 ordeal and that of a Mississippi fisherman ten years later.

(That’s an analogy, so of course Dr Loke swept in with a flimsy special pleading appeal. “The similar details concerns the [imaginary] environment, appearance, and behavior of aliens, which might be explained by social phenomenon of common imaginations of aliens,” which is particularly delicious because my precise point is that social phenomenon and common imagination fully accounts for resurrection appearance tales. Dr Loke imagines a disanalogy because resurrection accounts “concern (1) specific group of real people (i.e. the Twelve) who were well-known to the earliest Christian communities.” Apparently, Dr Loke is unaware that the alien abduction stories are first-hand accounts of real people (e.g. Betty and Barney Hill, Calvin Parker, Travis Walton, Thomas Reed, Whitley Strieber, Antônio Villas Boas and many others, many of whom are still alive… though some have fallen asleep) who were repeatedly photographed, interviewed, recorded, appeared on television and were part of communities. Their tales include group abduction claims involving other named members of the community. So where is the dissimilarity? At this point, crying “false analogy” for insufficient reason is a Dr Loke motif that is multiply attested.)

Since Dr Loke cited Dr Allison to establish the observation (that there are literary patterns), I thought it pertinent to note that Christian scholar Dr Allison does not share Dr Loke’s optimistic self-affirmation. “I don’t know what to do with what you call multiple attestation of a motif here,”[11] Allison repented in a January 2021 interview.

Allison’s newest book on the resurrection was released just a few weeks ago, and he opines further on the inconclusive nature of motifs. “Because those narratives have influenced the stories of Jesus’ appearances, one could maintain that the motifs referred to were secondary additions. Convincingly coaxing historical details out of the stories of Jesus appearing to twelve is no easy task.”[12]

It is possible I was unclear on my point when I suggested that the historical data is more consistent with a family of competing (or complimenting) group appearance legends that arose to flesh out the 1 Corinthians creed. Dr Loke quoted the opinions of Allison and Keener[13] that the first resurrection traditions could be earlier and not necessarily “merely later divergences in an originally single tradition”. I was not meaning to assert that the 1 Corinthians creed was necessarily created whole cloth, rather than deriving from even earlier appearance beliefs. While ultimately this is conjecture all around, and a bit of a nuanced difference to begin with, I feel like all these scholar opinions actually serve to further validate my point here… that the group appearances in the gospels are independent, and thereby non-corroborative.

Again, Yes, the 1 Corinthians 15 Creed is Hearsay

“The fact that Paul “received and passed” the creedal summary in 1 Cor 15 and telling us what other people told him is consistent with Paul telling us what the groups told him.”

It is also consistent with Paul reporting third-hand, fourth-hand, or twentieth-hand. You’ll have to do better than that. 

When asked about this creed dating early or coming directly to Paul from the eyewitnesses, Dr Bart Ehrman replies, “Among scholars I personally know, except for evangelicals, I don’t know anyone who thinks this at all. And for a good reason: Paul never says he got this creed from Peter and James three years after his conversion. Doesn’t even suggest it. People just make this stuff up!”[14]

So Dr Loke presses the lesser claim that Paul and some of the Corinthians may have known some of the people in the creed. “Paulogia replies ‘That makes no difference at all. If I tell you that Sally told me that my mother said that she saw a leopard… does that somehow stop becoming hearsay just because I know my mother? No. No it does not.”

Good point, Paulogia.

“Well, if Sally gave you a summary of what your mother said which you passed to others because you thought it was a well-formulated, convenient and authoritative summary, and you had also personally heard your mother claimed that she saw a leopard, then it is no longer hearsay; you are firsthand witness that your mother claimed to have seen the leopard, and what you passed on is what you know as a firsthand witness.”

This might be relevant if we had evidence that any of the alleged group-appearance members said anything to Paul about it. We do not. We have Dr Loke’s speculation about what may or may not have gone on. 

If this was a debate about whether Dr Loke could speculate about group appearances, he would definitely have won. But the debate is about good evidence, which this is not.

Quick-Drying Clement

In his letter, church father Clement asserts that people were “being fully assured because of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Anointed-One.”

Of course, this is hearsay. Dr Loke prefers other euphemisms, but that’s still undeniably what it is. Hearsay. If this debate had more rounds, I’m sure he would futilely repeat this again.

Likely with a dash of renewed credulity. “How could this be unless the apostles who (whether anonymous or not) were by definition the first generation Christians had seen the resurrected Jesus?” Yes, how could anyone possibly believe something false? This would be the first and last time in history that anyone, anywhere was assured by something false.

“Paulogia replies ‘They were mistaken,’ but failed to reply to my arguments against them being mistaken.” Can someone help me out? Where does Dr Loke argue that the anonymous people Clement vaguely refers to cannot be mistaken? “See my reply to Paulogia’s citation of Loftus in my Opening Statement, Section V; see also chapters 3 to 7 of my book.” I saw them. Re-read them. That’s not helping me. I see in Loke’s words no defence as to why unnamed people from a hearsay report categorically cannot be mistaken.

Then again, I could be mistaken. If anyone finds it, let me know.


In my opening, I said “Ignatius is clearly quoting Luke 24:39.”

Dr Loke aptly quotes Dr Bart Ehrman’s observation that “there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Ignatius is basing his views on the books that later became part of the New Testament.[15] Where “conclusive” is the operative word.

The debate on Ignatius seems to be whether he uses written sources with liberal paraphrasing, or if he is instead simply repeating things he’s heard to the best of his recollection. As such, yes… it’s difficult to be definitive about whether he’s using the books we have, or perhaps instead might be privy to the earlier sources that our books used. Despite the universe of speculative possibilities, Dr Robert M Grant wrote, “it seems just as likely that he was using Luke in the way in which, as we have seen, he used other written sources.”[16]

“It is clear to me that Ignatius is quoting Luke 24:39” would have been more precise, but in hindsight I think I would change my opening to say “Smyrneans 3:2 bears uncanny similarity to Luke 24:39” and let the rest stand.

The Inference

Humpty Dumpty and False Analogies

Whenever Dr Loke uses the phrase “false analogy”, you can be almost certain that it will be followed by some form of special pleading.

Paulogia’s analogy of his recitation of Humpty Dumpty[17] is a False Analogy, for there is no indication that he knew the king’s horses nor any indication that those listening to his recitation knew them too. Moreover, there is no context of persecution in this analogy.

To be analogous is to be “comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of the things compared.”[18] While even the best analogies will invariably diverge in tangential details when pressed, they are useful when the relevant points are shared. Are Loke’s objections consequential or inconsequential disanalogies?

When it comes to the hearsay status of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, is it relevant that Paul knew some people named in the creed? No. Is it relevant to the hearsay status that the creed was believed to the point of risking harm? No. All that is relevant to the hearsay status is whether the report is first-hand or not.

What if I could demonstrate that I regularly socialize with the king’s horses and men? And what if the endorsement of Humpty Dumpty became the latest cancel culture target? Would my recitation of the rhyme suddenly become first-hand instead of second-hand hearsay? Of course not. No circumstance can elevate it.

Loke’s special pleading excuses are irrelevant, which was the point of the analogy. (He similarly misses the point with my bagged witness and alien abduction analogies. It’s a pattern.)

When Can Inference be Evidence?

One need only have experienced an honest misunderstanding, or have watched an episode of practically any sitcom, to understand how an inference from ambiguous data can lead to incorrect conclusions. (Often hilariously so, in the later context.) In all these cases, someone thought they were justified, but were not. They made at least one too many avoidable assumptions.

In my opening, I noted that truth and justification are separate concepts. For some reason, Dr Loke took this to mean that it is acceptable to knowingly make fallacious leaps. “Why is he now complaining in Section IV about the use of argument (concerning Jennifer Lawrence) with true premises that can produce false conclusion?”

My complaint is that throughout the entire debate, Dr Loke has been under the mistaken impression that ambiguous inference qualifies as good evidence. It does not, as explicitly sourced in the paragraphs preceding my opening’s Jennifer Lawrence example. To review…

Inference is “a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is ‘proved’ by presenting other ‘facts’ which lead to only one reasonable conclusion – that if A and B are true, then C is.”[19]

To be plain, when an inference supports multiple, contradictory conclusions, such an inference has not been raised to evidence in any rigorous epistemological sense. Ambiguous inference remains mere inference.

Loke’s Character “Arguments”

“Paulogia has tried but failed to rebut even one of these arguments. Thus all the five arguments stand.”

I don’t see how, as four of the five are constructed from subjective, ambiguous inference… an evidence non-starter.

  • First argument (skeptical people are careful about important, costly, reputation-affecting topics)
  • Second argument (Paul wouldn’t be mistaken about people that he and his audience knew)
  • Third argument (early Christians would check out the claims)
  • Fifth argument (belief in bodily resurrection requires a resurrected body)

I’ve hashed out the gaping holes and counter-examples to these already, so return to my opening and first rebuttal if you’d like a refresher on the details. I’m sure you can think some off the top of your head.

Dress them up however he will, these four arguments are meager attempts at using legally inadmissiblecharacter evidence (see “Misunderstanding Character Evidence” above) about ancient people, combined with inconclusive ambiguous inference which again fails to meet the basic evidential standard of definitive conclusions.

“All of my 5 arguments lead to a singular conclusion: it is probable (i.e. there is good evidence) that there were group appearances of the risen Jesus,” Loke asserts.

For a fleeting moment, Dr Loke almost understands, Character evidence is inadmissible when it is used in court to argue that a person acted in conformity with their character.” But proceeds in the same paragraph to do exactly that. “My argument is not saying Paul had an honest character therefore he acted in conformity with his honest character in this incident. Rather, my argument is based on the circumstances surrounding this incident… all of which (taken together) implyit is probable that Paul was careful in stating the group appearances.”

But “circumstantially careful” is a character trait. Dr Loke is arguing that Paul acted in conformity with that character trait. He is clearly arguing “that a person acted in conformity with their character”, which is epistemologically poor and Loke admits is “inadmissible when it is used in court”. Simple as that.

Beyond the categorical unsoundness of his entire epistemology which makes it a non-starter for consideration, a fair reader of the debate thus far should recognize the massively subjective nature of one’s perspective on the probability of Loke’s speculations. Perhaps I am biased by my constant observations of humanity’s trend toward failure to research, lack of reasoning skill, laziness in opinion making, acceptance of authority, falling prey to confirmation bias and bowing to pressures of social compliance to put confidence in the undemonstrated epistemological soundness of the unknown religious citizens of a first-century port town. If this lack of faith in humanity means I am being un-evidential in my thinking, as Dr Loke contends, that only strengthens my point about the prevalence of poor epistemology.

Dr Loke’s seemingly limitless credulity on such matters would be baffling to me, were I not previously similarly ideologically committed. Christian me of a few years ago would have nodded along in agreement.

(Lest anyone think I’m ignoring one of Dr Loke’s arguments, his fourth is “motif” affirmation, covered in “Gospel Appearance Reports” above.)

Rumor Psychology is Character Evidence

As an exercise to demonstrate how character evidence fails as a category, I took the same psychology book Dr Loke relies upon[20] and the same epistles Dr Loke uses to somehow psychoanalyze the early church of Corinth, and showed how one can use Loke’s flawed epistemology to arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion… that the church was likely inaccurate in their information transmission.

As I expected, Dr Loke missed the broader point and instead spent paragraphs attempting to quibble with the nuances of argumentation that I already put forth as not sound. I mean, it’s parallel argumentation, which is similar to an analogy, so we should be expecting a display of special pleading in response from the professor.

“In each case he either misrepresented the authors, misrepresented the historical evidence, or made unsubstantiated claims,” said Loke.

For the record, in each case where Dr Loke cites an example of me allegedly misrepresenting the authors, he’s actually just objecting to my interpretation of the Bible and questioning whether there is a parallel to the research. This is also what he means by misrepresenting historical evidence. 

While I stand by the soundness of my scriptural application, I won’t be counter-quibbling here. It’s generally my policy, as a non-believer, to stay out of scripture interpretation debates. Two-thousand years of denominational splits tells me that agreement is unlikely. It can be fun, but it is ultimately no more fruitful than debating whether comic-accurate Superman is stronger than comic-accurate Hulk.

The point is that with reasonable scripture interpretations (a subjective qualification that I will leave to the reader to judge) and a willingness to apply psychoanalysis where it is categorically ineffective and evidentiarily unsound, one arrives at the same kind of conclusions that Dr Loke does. The best hermeneutics in the world doesn’t magically save the flawed underlying methodology.

Meanwhile, this response is already late, so I don’t have time to enumerate the unsubstantiated claims of Dr Loke. But here’s a big one, “if there were no group appearances, there would not have been widespread and persistent agreement (i.e. consensus) among the earliest Christians that Jesus resurrected.” Loke has categorically declared Christianity immune from error. Convenient.

The Holy Spirit Isn’t Good Enough, says Loke

It is trivially true that virtually every Christian in history came to this faith without having seen physical, risen Jesus. We’re talking billions of Christians compared to less than a thousand-or-so?

And yet, Dr Loke continues to assert that “in order to generate widespread and persistent belief in BODILY resurrection among Jesus’ followers in the context of persecution, it is probable that “solid” evidence involving group(s) of people would have been required.

Generously, 99.9999% of Christians (even if we limit it to those in the context of persecution) don’t need this “solid” evidence, but 0.0001% needed it? Why?

Among the homework reading assigned to me by Gary Habermas, Dr Willi Marxsen notes that “anyone who maintains that Jesus had to appear to the other disciples before they were able to believe must be consistent. He must then be prepared to agree that nobody can find faith, even at the present day, unless he has experienced an appearance of Jesus. But this is a proposition which hardly anyone would maintain.”[21]

“In reply, the difference is that the first generation of Corinthians were in a position to verify with the eyewitnesses and it would be a reasonable expectation to do this, indeed they were invited to check out the eyewitnesses.”

Being in a position to check somehow makes what’s convincing for 99.9999% of Christians somehow not be compelling enough? The Holy Spirit isn’t strong enough to overcome opportunity?

And what of all the Biblical counter-examples of converts in the book of Acts? The Ethiopian Eunuch came to faith because of a Bible study with a missionary. As this was decades closer to the resurrection and he was already proximate between Jerusalem and Gaza, this Eunuch had far more opportunity and position to verify with witnesses than the Corinthians had. And yet it seems he had no need. By Dr Loke’s logic, no such converts were possible in that time and place.

This “if they could check, they probably checked” line of thinking is conjecture and assertion. It isn’t evidence. It certainly isn’t GOOD evidence. It doesn’t even ring true. It’s baseless speculation and undermines the integrity of every Christian in history and the power of the witness of the Holy Spirit.


James G Crossley – Sloppy Scholarship about a Scholar

When Dr Loke asserted that “almost all historians (whether Christians or non-Christians) accept this conclusion”, I asked if he knew of any non-Christian scholars who specifically affirm good evidence for group appearances of the risen Jesus.

I appreciate that Dr Loke took the time to locate someone to put forth: James G Crossley. Unfortunately, it was somewhat difficult to verify the claim, since rather than quoting Crossley directly (as his footnotes lead me to believe), Loke instead quoted the book “Debating Christian Theism” (and borrowed the footnotes) where Gary Habermas is summarizing his interpretation of Crossley. Even more confusing, Crossley himself contributed an essay to that book. However, if there’s one thing this debate has taught us is that Dr Loke really likes secondary hearsay reports, to the extent he will eschew readily available primary reports in his own work.

Here’s the Habermas quote Loke used (this time with accurate attribution)…

Even more striking are some of Crossley’s individual comments. Jesus probably expected and predicted his own death. He states often that the early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 is crucial since it is actually a report of the “eyewitnesses” who thought they saw appearances of the risen Jesus, and thus “must be taken very seriously.”[22]

Habermas’ footnote (uncritically copy-and-pasted by Dr Loke) is “9. Crossley, ‘Against the Historical Plausibility,’ 171, 174, 176, 178, 186.”[23] Naturally, being a source methodology guy, I went to read the actual original article by Crossley.

Habermas plucked the single word “eyewitnesses” from this sentence by Crossley: “The list of eyewitnesses in 1 Cor. 15.5-8 gives no evidence pointing in the direction of the bodily resurrection as an historical event, except in the sense of a visionary experience.”[24]

And Habermas cherry-picked the phrase “must be taken very seriously” from Crossley’s paragraph critiquing someone else’s work, not putting forth his own values.

“Wright again makes some important points. The appearances recorded in 1 Cor. 15.5-8 must be taken very seriously. Wright may well be correct in arguing that the appearances were thought to be of the bodily transformed Christ. This may indeed be the way Paul understood his vision and the other experiences. But does it actually correspond to the acceptability of the bodily resurrection in the sense of something more than a ‘hallucination’?”[25]

Looking at the parts cobbled together for Habermas’ Frankenstein representation, does this sound like the work of a secular scholar who specifically affirms good evidence for group appearances of the risen Jesus? No. (Perhaps other non-referenced Crossley scholarship elucidates? Homework for another day.)

This is particularly damning methodology for a Ph.D.-holding interlocutor who throws around accusations like “Paulogia has repeatedly misrepresented my defence and replied to them with erroneous reasonings” and “his original cut-and-paste clip has misrepresented Christian experts.”

Now, I don’t blame Dr Loke for trusting and regurgitating the sketchy scholarship of Dr Habermas, but this should serve as an excellent example of why hearsay evidence is terrible… and legally inadmissible.

Why this is a Written Debate

Thank you to Dr Loke for sharing the email-exchange messages I requested which vindicate my prior complaints. As a result, I’m dropping the matter other than to provide a link to my half of the exchange, in the spirit of fairness.


Dr Loke is a fan of saying that I “insist on a particular epistemological standard as the only acceptable standard.” He even included it in his conclusion. When challenged to demonstrate where I ever insisted upon any such thing, he tossed out some red herring excuses about legal standards being too high for him… but he never did show where I drew this alleged line in the sand for all to adhere to.

The reason is, of course, that he can’t. At no time in this debate have I told anyone what standard to hold. That would be pointless as the debate isn’t about whether someone should or shouldn’t be convinced.

The debate is about good evidence. What is good evidence? And do we have any?

As far as I can tell, Dr Loke hasn’t even challenged the established hierarchy about what makes one piece of evidence superior or inferior to another. Instead, he tacitly concedes the hierarchy and retreats to pleading to you — the reader — to accept undeniably inferior types of evidence as if they were good. It is Dr Loke who is trying to tell you what your standard should be, not I.

If you are convinced by hearsay, by ambiguous and contradictory inferences, and appeals to character… that’s fine with me. I’ve not told you to think otherwise. Be convinced, but be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn’t anywhere close to the best evidence the Christian God could have provided. It’s not good.

[1] Gary Habermas Answers Questions on Near-Death Experiences, Resurrection Appearances, & MORE! 1:17:30

[2] Ibid 32:09

[3] Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection Debate 

[4] Ibid

[5] Martin, Jean-Clément. “La démarche historique face à la vérité judiciaire. Juges et historiens.” Droit et société 38.1 (1998): 13-20.

[6] U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence

[7] O’Connell, Stuart. Similar Fact Evidence: Collusion. Oct 2017.

[8] Richard Bauckham. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd Edition).” Apple Books.

[9] Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 20 and John 21

[10] Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: The earliest Christian tradition and its interpreters. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2005.

[11] Dale Allison & Mike Licona Discuss the Resurrection of Jesus Part 4 18:40

[12] Allison Jr, Dale C. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. p62

[13] Keener, Craig S. “The Gospel of John. 2 vols.” Peabody: Hendrickson (2003).

[14] In the comment section for “Why Are Their Differences in the Gospels? Does it Affect Their Inspiration? Guest Post by Mike Licona

[15] Bart D. Ehrman. “Did Jesus Exist? – The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.” Apple Books.

[16] Grant, Robert M. “Scripture and Tradition in St. Ignatius of Antioch.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1963): 322-335.

[17] Per my opening statement, “At face value, Paul’s quotation is no more attestation to the veracity of the information in this creed than my recitation of Humpty Dumpty is attestation of the egg-repair skills of the king’s horses.”

[18] Oxford Languages, analogous (adjective)

[19] “Inference.” The People’s Law Dictionary. 1981-2005. Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill 23

[20] DiFonzo, Nicholas, and Prashant Bordia. Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. American Psychological Association, 2007. p 165 – 175

[21] Marxsen, Willi, and Margaret Kohl. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. SCM Press, 1970. p89

[22] Moreland, J. P., Sweis, K. A., & Meister, C. V. (Eds.). (2013). Debating Christian Theism. Oxford University Press. p471 Chapter 35 “Jesus Did Rise from the Dead” by Gary H Habermas

[23] Ibid p480

[24] Crossley, J. (2005). Against the historical plausibility of the empty tomb story and the bodily resurrection of Jesus: A response to NT Wright. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus3(2), p186.

[25] Ibid p174

Paulogia’s First Rebuttal vs. Dr Loke

Written Debate Between Dr. Andrew Loke and Paulogia

Previous Entries:

Despite the fact that — at my interlocutor’s sole behest – Dr Loke and I are engaged in a debate in written format, he confusingly chose to open his first rebuttal with an embedded video. While I haven’t been working with any content creators to try to popularize my arguments on alternate platforms and insert here to bypass format restrictions, I did stumble across this video that you might enjoy.

Back to writing now? OK, cool.

The topic for this debate is “Is there Good Evidence for Group Appearances of Risen Jesus?” and I’m eager to explore Dr Loke’s novel strategy of watering-down what “good evidence” means rather than demonstrating that his evidence is of high quality.

But before we get to that, Dr Loke’s opening statement and first rebuttal pursued a few side-topic distractions that are best addressed up-front before we delve into the substantive discussion.

Preamble and Procedures

Debate Format

Suppose you are strapped into your seat on a long flight, and a flight attendant asks you if you would like something to drink. You would very much enjoy a Coke. “We don’t have Coke. Is Pepsi ok?”, the attendant replies. Your head slumps in disappointment, but you pragmatically agree to the Pepsi knowing that no Coke will be offered.

It is in this same sense that I agreed to a written-format debate rather than what I would have preferred – a one-time live discussion. You see, Dr Loke has a completely arbitrary, self-imposed personal policy that he will not have live debates or conversations with anyone without a Ph D. Dr Loke would simply never, ever offer my preference.

Sure, Dr Loke came up with what he thought might be some enticements for me to agree, but none of those mattered or resonated with me. Despite putting myself at a potential disadvantage, I want to maximally impact as many people as possible, and a written debate will simply not be read by as many people would watch a video of us. Orders of magnitude fewer.

Dr Loke’s opening seems to affirm his desire to reach the most people. “The engagement with Paulogia does not reflect the academic significance of his view (which remains a fringe theory). Rather, it is warranted by the significant number of people who have been misled by his view.

So why not reach the most people? In our private email exchange, I reiterated my preference to merely have a conversation. I wrote, 

Of course, we could limit the impact to our lives to just a few hours by having a live conversation. I know that’s not your preference, but I’m putting it out there as an option.

His reply? A SINGLE reason. His commitment to his personal policy.

Why not just quote Dr Loke’s reply directly or show the screenshot to prove this? Well, since it was a private conversation, I would want to have permission from Dr Loke first. So I asked him,

Do I have your permission to include screenshots of this email conversation in my rebuttal? The attached screenshot is the portion of the conversation I want to quote, though I’m open to posting the entire conversation if there remain disputes about the path to arrival at the current format. Is this OK with you?

His reply? No. He would not give permission.

So now we’re in an awkward Paul-said-Andrew-said situation over Dr Loke’s stubbornness to simply admit that his personal policy against talking to non-PhD-holders prevents us from having a live conversation, regardless of whatever additional justification he may put forth. My non-credentials are the final barrier.

If Dr Loke is willing to exclude this matter from his future debate entries, I too will leave it here. However, if he presses further, I may be forced to reconsider my courtesies.

Debate Etiquette and Logistics

In most formal debates, the structure includes an opening statement (constructive) by the person taking the affirmative, followed by an opening statement by the person taking the negative. This is the section designated for the debaters to “construct” their cases by presenting initial positions and arguments. After this is complete, the next round invites the affirmative and negative to directly address the opponent’s opening constructive.

Now despite reminding Dr Loke of this in our private email exchange, and also using a portion of my constructive to remind him of this structure, Dr Loke was so eager for my rebuttal that he somehow became confused and expected it during my opening.[1]

Paulogia didn’t challenge my definition in his opening statement.” “Paulogia commits a non-sequitur and missed the point I made in my opening statement.” “Which fail to rebut the specific reasons I gave in my Opening Statement.” And so on and so on.

But fortunately, the appropriate time for my rebuttal has arrived, so Dr Loke need not worry about adhering to elementary debate rules or expectations until his conclusion.

Whataboutism – A Hypothesis Not in Question

If you happen to be familiar with my YouTube channel, you might be aware that I sometimes present a simple observation that the verifiable evidence we have for the start of Christianity is entirely consistent with as few as two people claiming to have seen resurrected Jesus.

As interesting as that thought experiment is, it is not the topic of this debate. We are not arguing the relative merits of two competing ideas. We’re debating if there’s sufficient justification for the positive claim of group appearances of resurrected Jesus.

Nowhere in my opening did I mention my tangentially related notion, and I had no intention of discussing it in this exchange. It’s irrelevant to the core topic. And yet, Dr Loke seems quite distracted and takes every opportunity to repeatedly denigrate this observation as “fringe” with “the false impression that his view has scholarly credibility” and “no historian accepts it”.

He frequently uses this flagrant whataboutism to deflect from criticism of his position: “Let me remind the reader that it is nowhere as minority a position as Paulogia’s own fringe theory.” Classic “I’m-rubber-and-you’re-glue” playground antics.

Of course, if you watched the video embedded above, you heard world-renowned resurrection scholar (and one of Dr Loke’s sources) Dr Gary Habermas asked what he thinks about Paulogia’s theory. He replied, “That’s not new. That view has been held by Don Cupitt, the early Skillebekk Danish philosophers, it’s held by Billy Markson the Bultmann-ian New Testament scholar, that’s held by John Shelby Spong.”[2]

Now, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Dr Habermas’ comparisons… but it sure sounds like Dr Loke’s more-respected, more-credentialed source doesn’t dismiss my thoughts as fringe or non-scholarly. Instead, Habermas affirms the scholarly history of this thinking and then proceeds to reflect upon the ideological merits in good faith. This is the way of commendable argumentation among adults.

Of course, the easiest way to completely falsify my hypothesis would be to demonstrate that there were group appearances of risen Jesus. Coincidentally, that’s the topic of the debate we’re here to discuss. Perhaps if Dr Loke would spend more of his focus and word-count on affirming the actual debate topic, then he could destroy my hypothesis once-and-for-all on the merits and not just hurl shallow, childish insults.


Under false pretenses, Dr Loke would like to lure me into dozens of side debates on topics that are not in question here and have been addressed already in a series of YouTube videos from each party.

Now I understand that not everyone will want to look at our previous interactions,” Loke acknowledges.

Please count me among the disinterested in rehashing previous interactions. Dr Loke’s appendix presents no new information, just renewed already-addressed objections. See my videos for my responses to these petulant complaints. If they are unsatisfying to you, then I guess they are unsatisfying to you. This isn’t the time or place.

Once again, I observe that none of these grievances would be relevant if Dr Loke could simply, adequately defend the proposition at hand. He should focus on this.

Failure to Convince

Over and over in Dr Loke’s opening and reply (I grew weary of counting after several dozen), he says that I “fail to note”, “fail to understand”, “fail to consider”, “fail to take into account”, “fail to grasp”, “fail to recognize” or “fail to distinguish”.

What Dr Loke fails to understand is that simply disagreeing with his conclusions is in no way a failure to note, understand, consider, take into account, grasp, recognize or distinguish. I might just as equally posit that Dr Loke has failed to communicate, failed to persuade, failed to influence, failed to look beyond his own bias, and failed to convince. Does saying so make it so? No.

Instead, I will simply present my arguments directly and allow you – the reader – to decide who has failed and who has succeeded.

When you read “Paulogia has failed”, the truth is actually that “Paulogia is unconvinced” (with a dash of bewilderment as to how Dr Loke could be).

What were we here for again? Oh yeah…

The Debate

Legal vs Historical – Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

The proposition we are here to debate is “Is there good evidence for group appearances of resurrected Jesus?” and most of the word-count of my opening statement was dedicated to the discussion of what makes evidence of high-quality or value vs low-quality or value.

The legal system is the highest-stake evidence-evaluation machine that exists in humanity. No process or profession has dedicated more money, more time, or more brain-power to refining the principles by which we determine the quality of evidence. And where the field of science has notable differences to history, criminal justice is perfectly analogous to historical evaluation… because criminal justice IS LITERALLY HISTORICAL EVALUATION. Just over a shorter term.

I demonstrated that while lawyers and historians sometimes use different vocabulary to describe the same concepts, they agree about where the ordering on the quality spectrum that the type of evidence lies. For example, both fields agree that primary sources (i.e. eye-witnesses) are better than secondary sources (i.e. hearsay).

The fact that ancient historians will sometimes lend modest consideration to a secondary source (a fact I first brought to the debate’s attention, not Dr Loke) while the legal profession generally considers them so poor as to be inadmissible does nothing to change the complete agreement that there is a spectrum of evidential quality and that secondary sources (hearsay) are of lower quality.

The point to take away is that historians and lawyers absolutely agree on what lies where in the evidential quality spectrum – what makes evidence more or less useful — even when they use different labels and vary on how broad a range to consider.

But Dr Loke was so ravenous to enumerate so-called errors in my opening, he embarrassingly mistook the openly-acknowledged difference in evidential-handling (“‘inadmissible’ is different from ‘less valuable’”) as a “fallacy of self-contradiction” (so-called error #1) for a point I wasn’t making, while simultaneously affirming (“in the latter case it is acceptable, even if less valuable”) the point I was making… the legal evidential spectrum and historical evidential spectrum use the same relative weighting.

Lest that was unclear, let’s simply affirm what lawyers, historians, Dr Loke and myself all agree upon here: secondary sources (hearsay) are LESS VALUABLE than primary sources (eye-witness testimony) in all situations.

And Dr Loke’s sources are secondary… at best. I’m not sure in what universe someone would argue that occasionally “acceptable” qualifies as “good”, but here we are.

Legal vs Historical – Difference in Purpose, Not in Evidential Standard

In an attempt to demonstrate “important differences between legal practices and historical evaluation”, Dr Loke provided this quotation…

‘In terms of social timeliness, there is no time limit for historical study, but the administration of justice has to solve urgent issues. Historians are surprised to find that judges only consider a small amount of “facts” in their convictions so that the trial can be continued. Lagarde believed that judicial evidence is formed in the procedure provided by law and leads to irrevocable conclusions. These are two reasons why they are different from historical evidence.’

Of course, the first rule of evaluating “expert” quotations served up in debates (verbal, written, or even YouTube videos) is to go the source to see if context affirms the point it is being offered up to make. In this case, it was a bit of a trick because the originating 1998 paper called “The Historical Approach versus the Judicial Truth: Judges and Historians” was written in French and this Canadian must sheepishly admit that his French is rusty. Ultimately, my tenacity prevailed.

It was unsurprising to me that the paper quoted by Dr Loke is more about the different societal roles of judges and historians than about evidential standards. Just before the quote, the author takes a shot at the nebulous role of the latter. “If the function of judge is certain, the qualification of the historian remains uncertain.”[3]

The paper does not praise this long-time consideration available to a historian as a “luxury of the hindsight” as Dr Loke advocates. “Everyone knows that history continues, that it is first and foremost a ‘daughter of its time’, continuously changing into ‘historiography’, estimable at best, always revisable.”[4]

In the end, Loke’s source doesn’t suggest that historical and legal methodology are importantly different. Instead, it affirms exactly what my opening statement proffered – that when history is more accurate, it shares best-practices with the law.

“Historical truth stems from the same processes as legal truth, with the same weaknesses but also the same strengths, especially if we are willing to abandon recourse to a cosmic vision of history to make it a science of the social, strong in its research and transmission techniques, effective in understanding the configurations that have shaped us and that we must control.”[5]

Hearsay Exceptions

In my opening, I correctly identified that hearsay is “generally not admissible” in court. Dr Loke must think that “generally” means “always” because he chastises that “Paulogia fails to note that—even within a legal context—there are various exceptions.” Of course, the word “generally” implies exceptions. Now, I researched these handful of legal exceptions prior to my opening, found none of them to be relevant to Dr Loke’s case, and so didn’t waste the reader’s time on a non-sequitur.

Now Dr Loke has not only forced this rabbit trail upon us all, but he didn’t even do us the courtesy of noting what these exceptions are and how they relate in any way to the various hearsay accounts he proffers. His sole connection is “these exceptions are justified on the basis of various inferences”… a sentence more vague than someone explaining human reproduction to a toddler.

Since Dr Loke considered this so important as to make it my so-called error #2, perhaps he will enlighten us all as to which legal exception would somehow elevate his hearsay from inadmissible irrelevance into admissible evidence?

Confusing Standard of Proof and Standard of Evidence

It appears to me that Dr Loke has confused “evidential standards” with “standard of proof”.

The standard of proof is the level to which the overall presentation must convince a judge or jury in a particular scenario. And not all cases are the same. For example, in Canada civil cases have the weakest standard, a “balance of probabilities.” Whereas a criminal trial must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.

But this debate is not about “how certain should you be that there were group appearances of risen Jesus?” Nowhere in this debate have I attempted to insist upon a standard of proof for anyone.

But Dr Loke repeatedly accuses me of this. “Paulogia is—once again—guilty of falsely insisting on a particular epistemological standard as the only acceptable standard” and “to insist on it by claiming that it is the only acceptable standard would be silly.” I would be curious as to where I insisted any such thing, rather than merely point out the uncontroversial measures about what kind of evidence is best, and what kind is not.

At the same time, Dr Loke appears to be pushing for a particular standard of proof himself. The lowest possible “balance of probabilities” standard. If Dr Loke thinks that the most important question in life need be held to no higher standard than what is used on Judge Judy, that’s his business.

No. This debate is supposed to be about “good evidence for group appearances of resurrected Jesus”, and so has nothing to say about burden of proof and everything to say about evidential standards. This is why I took time in my opening to lay out the universal standards of weighing evidence… is it materialAdmissible? Have probative value? Is it hearsay? Does it rely on character? Is there collusion? And so on, and so on.

What makes some evidence of better quality than other evidence is non-controversial. As far as I can tell, Dr Loke hasn’t even denied this. I would prefer to see Dr Loke use his remaining time to demonstrate that his evidence is in the best-class category, rather than make excuses for why you should instead ignore these universal comparison standards when Jesus is concerned.

After all, if this matter is of infinite importance, we should be looking for best-of-the-best, not scrounging together a few “acceptable” scraps.

Character Evidence

I noted that, as far as evidence goes, a “person’s character or character trait (Character Evidence) is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”[6]

Rational people absolutely take character into consideration,” says Dr Loke.

Meanwhile, the Genetic Fallacy is judging something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.

The legal system recognizes appeal to character as so poor that it is inadmissible. Formalized logic calls it a fallacy. But Dr Loke thinks it’s good evidence. Who is right?

Special Pleading

Dr Loke accuses me (and people who are reading this) of falsely accusing him of special pleading. (My so-called error #15.) “Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception without justifying the special exception. I justified my position by giving various reasons.”

But perhaps Dr Loke should research beyond the Wikipedia summary to discover that “various reasons” isn’t enough… one needs adequate reasons.[7] When we say that you’re special pleading, we are saying your argument for an exception in your case are inadequate. As with many of Dr Loke’s complaints, he could solve them by simply being more convincing.

Alright, let’s finally get to the heart of the matter…

The Documents

Yes, the 1 Corinthians Creed is Hearsay

The fact that this section is known as a creed should be sufficient to affirm that the author, Paul, is merely repeating the claims of others. He lays it out plainly, “What I received I passed along to you as of first importance.”[8] Paul received this information from other people. He’s telling us what other people told him. That’s literally and unequivocally hearsay.

Dr Loke tried to do a definitional dance of distraction by drawing a distinction between “group(s) of people who truly saw the resurrected Jesus” and “group(s) of people who claimed to have seen something which they thought was the resurrected Jesus”. Sure, Paul would be providing hearsay in regard to what they saw, but can’t he be a first-hand witness of what they claimed?

Theoretically, maybe. If Paul was claiming to have personally heard the claims. But he’s not. As discussed, Paul is passing along the claims of others. He’s reciting a creed. Taken at face value, this is at best a third-hand retelling, and more likely far further removed. The group claims are second-hand (at best) to Paul, keeping this passage firmly in the realm of hearsay under any definition.

Sometimes apologists want to object because Paul had met Peter and John, who would have been a part of one of those groups. So? That makes no difference at all. If I tell you that Sally told me that my mother said that she saw a leopard… does that somehow stop becoming hearsay just because I know my mother? No. No it does not.

Yes, the Gospels are Hearsay 

It is no secret that critical scholarship affirms that we do not know who wrote the gospels, even though there are hold-outs who continue supporting traditional authorship claims. Merely for emphasis, I allowed Dr Loke’s source (Bauckham) to set the scale. “That the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship.”[9]

What is Dr Loke’s response? (Other than some obligatory whataboutisms.) To provide a list of five dissenters (Of course, there are dissenters. That’s why Bauckham said “almost all” instead of “all”. Bauckham himself is a dissenter.) and complain that this might be an overstatement in numbers. This wishy-washy appeal to maybes is my so-called error #3.

But the point here is not an argumentum ad populum (an appeal to popularity), but rather the simple acknowledgement that massive swaths of people who study this for a living – including resurrected-Jesus-affirming Christians – consider the authors to be unknown, non-witnesses.

If significant numbers of expert, scholar, Christian believers (be it 90%, 50%, 49% or even 20%) are unconvinced the gospel writers were eye-witnesses, how good can the evidence be? You haven’t even convinced your own camp.

Did Dr Loke choose to defend the case for traditional authorship with any evidence? No, he chose to quibble with the quantitative acknowledgement of his own source. This follows Dr Loke’s pattern of asking you to lower your standards and simply be more credulous to accept his view.

My fourth so-called error? To not accept Dr Loke’s unfounded assertion. “These communities would have known who the authors were (even if we don’t).” What evidence do we have for this beyond wishful speculation? As far as I know… none at all. I look forward to Dr Loke providing some, preferably not relying on the word “could”.

My fifth so-called error? Dr Loke says that I claimed that “the POST-resurrection group appearances in Matthew, Luke-Acts and John” were “dependent on Mark”. I look forward to Dr Loke providing evidence for this, as I said no such thing and went out of my way to point out that the post-resurrection appearances are not from the shared Mark tradition.

My sixth so-called error? I correctly identified that the gospels contain obvious collusion. Dr Loke doesn’t attempt to deny the collusion, but instead points out that some parts MIGHT NOT be collusion. This is like a student caught cheating on an exam, but wanting credit for a few questions where their answers are unique. Collusion is a poisonous tree that yields poison evidentiary fruit, yet these are the documents Dr Loke thinks you should accept as corroboration even though no court would.

Yes, 1 Clement is Hearsay

Defending his citation of 1 Clement, Dr Loke writes, “Paulogia labels this as hearsay, but as argued above in historical evaluation it is more appropriate to call this secondary source.

As established in my opening, “secondary source” is merely the euphemism that historians give to “hearsay”. Don’t let Dr Loke fool you… they mean exactly the same thing. It’s like saying “vertically challenged” instead of “short”, or “passed away” instead of “died”.

He also threw in some question begging mixed with incredulity. “How could this be unless the apostles… had seen the resurrected Jesus?” Easy. They were mistaken. Mistaken has the same explanatory power as an actual appearance.

Inference of Inference

“Don’t leave inferences to be drawn when evidence can be presented.” – Richard Wright

Setting the Bar Low (on the Ground)

In my opening, I demonstrated that for inference to rise to the level of legal evidence, it must “lead to only one reasonable conclusion – that if A and B are true, then C is.”[10]

I naively assumed that Dr Loke would want to demonstrate that his inferences would qualify as evidence in this strong sense, but I guess I over-estimated his ambition or ability. In his rebuttal, Dr Loke admits that what he calls inferences fall into a less-conclusive category that “even if not deductively valid are still inductively strong.” He’s satisfied with lines of thinking that are “probably correct (even if it is possibly wrong)”. He calls this “probabilistic reasoning” as used in the lowest-levels of civil cases with the weakest evidential standards. 

I trust you will agree, in the end, that Dr Loke does not succeed at even this modest task. But we’ll return to this in a moment.

Steel Man Needs an Oil Can

There was method to my madness when, in my opening, I reformulated Dr Loke’s lines of argumentation into a possible syllogism that could actually hold up to the ideal inferential evidential standard of pointing to a single, reliable conclusion. My purpose was to demonstrate a few of the many ways his wishful speculations fall short.

In order to turn Loke’s ideas into a valid argument (one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false), I had to add several lines (marked in red in my opening).

In order for the argument to be valid AND sound, the new premises would have to be true. Fortunately for me, Dr Loke spent some of his rebuttal helping me out and demonstrating on his own that the necessary premises are false.

For example…

  • People accept life-or-death matters only for personally-verified, actually-true good reasons. Dr Loke: “I did not claim that; what I argue for is the weaker thesis.
  • People who can check out a life-or-death matter, do check out the matter. Dr Loke: “I did not claim that.
  • The Corinthian church actually spoke to groups of eyewitnesses. Dr Loke: “What I argue was ‘the Corinthians knew at least some of the members of the groups of eyewitnesses and are familiar with their teachings.’
  • The eyewitnesses were not mistaken. Dr Loke: “I did not use the word ‘impossible’, which Paulogia falsely attributed to me.

What was the point of this exercise? To demonstrate clearly that Dr Loke’s notions do not lead to a singular conclusion, as they would if they met the basic requirements for inferential evidence

What I didn’t anticipate is that Dr. Loke would immediately cede this ground and openly retreat to probabilistic speculation that can support multiple contradicting conclusions. Had I known of his easy surrender, I could have saved us the time and not needed my incredibly apt “Jennifer Lawrence twitter account” illustration. (My over-estimation of Loke’s objective was my so-called error #12.)

I did, however, anticipate that “Dr. Loke will not be shy in pointing out where this logic path fails and misrepresents his argument”, and the professor did not disappoint. “This is a misrepresentation; Paulogia has not communicated my argument properly” (my so-called error #14). I’m sorry, but for full transparency I literally color-coded which parts were yours and which parts were my own insertions. If you suffer from monochromacy (color blindness), please let me know privately and I will employ varying font usage in future exchanges.

Loke’s Psychology Arguments

From his book to his videos to this debate, one of the pillars of Dr Loke’s defence of group appearances is this…

Psychological studies have indicated that it is probable that people are careful to form conclusions when 1.1. there is presence of scepticism, 1.2 the topic is important, 1.3. the costs of false confirmation are high, and 1.4. when people are held personally responsible for what they say and care about their reputation among sustained relationships with known audiences (DiFonzo and Bordia 2007, pp. 166, 173–174; cited on p.47 of my book).

By now, you should recognize this as an attempt by Dr Loke to push inconclusive, ineffective and inadmissible character evidence, and we’ll come back to that. But as someone who prides themselves on source methodology, I naturally went on a search for the book referenced to see if it actually says in context what Dr Loke says that it says.

The portion of “Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches” cited by Dr Loke is in a section covering the “Motivational Mechanisms”, “Situational Features”, “Group Mechanisms” and “Network Mechanisms” that affect the accuracy of the information disseminated by a rumor-spreader.[11]

To Dr Loke’s credit, the book does indeed contend that topical importance, personal accountability, high confirmation costs and skepticism can increase accuracy motivation. Note that this is a desire by the information-spreader to be accurate, not a predictor that the information is actually accurate. People in such circumstances will tend to be more confident, but said confidence need not be justified by solid epistemology. Any confidence will do.

But in this same section, the authors point out numerous scenarios where information accuracy will be hindered, including…

  • Building and maintaining relationships “fosters inaccurate content by promoting the survival of only socially acceptable rumors that enhance relationships with one’s ingroup.”[12]
    • Paul reenforces the in-group / out-group dynamic. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” – 1 Cor 1:18
  • “Despite implicit communication rules to transmit accurate and truthful messages, accurate transmissions may conflict with the goal of sharing a coherent message, that is, one that is understandable, plausible, and acceptable to the hearer.”[13]
    • Paul exhorted the Corinthians to be effective in message communication. (1 Cor 1:18, 1 Cor 2:4-6, 2 Cor 5:19)
  • “Rumor content may change to advance the process of rationalizing and justifying existing beliefs.”[14]
    • 1 Corinthians was written to an existing church of believers.
  • “Situations in which many or all individuals in a situation are anxious—may intensify such effects by increasing suggestibility (distortion of perception) and diminishing critical ability.” [15]
    • This sounds anxious… “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair;persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.” – 2 Cor 4:8-9
  • “Less stringent norm development is enhanced in close groups rather than in situations that promote communication.” [16]
    • Dr Loke himself argues that “the early Christian movement was a network of close communication”.
  • “False eyewitness perceptions that are unduly trusted” is a situation where veracity checking “may be greatly encumbered.” [17]
    • This creed was obviously well-trusted (perhaps even unduly trusted) by the community.
  • “Once consensus is formed, conformity is demanded… To the extent that such formulations are incorrect, inaccuracy is perpetuated.” [18]
    • In order for the 1 Corinthians creed to have been formalized into a creed, consensus would have been formed, and creeds are recited to enforce conformity through repetition.
    • “I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” – 1 Cor 1:10

Now perhaps you’re thinking, “But Paul, you can’t just take some Bible verses describing an ancient group and link that to psychological factors that increase inaccuracy and have that be good evidence that the Corinthians were inaccurate.”

And you would be right. Yet that’s most of Dr Loke’s argument in favor of accuracy. If you accept his, you should accept mine. We’re using the same psychology book and the same ancient letters… yet coming to opposite conclusions.

Is that a characteristic of good evidence? No. No it is not.

Would it help if I lump a number of them together and call it a “cumulative case”? No. No it would not.

Motif isn’t Corroboration

Imagine appearing before a jury an arguing that while individual alien abduction stories can’t be corroborated, that we should put stock in them because there are similar details… a light pulling, a bright room, grey creatures with big black eyes, and indelicate probing. This is Dr Loke’s argument from resurrection motif.

None of the group resurrection appearance stories found in the gospels attempt to describe the same event, so they obviously do not corroborate any given group appearance event. Dr Loke quotes Dr Mike Licona rationalizing that “appearance to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is clearly narrated by Luke and John” as if the gospels weren’t merely attempting to put narrative-flesh on decades-old creedal-bones in a manner that cannot be harmonized into one event.

Aware of this lack of corroboration, Dr Loke appeals to Dr Dale Allison’s observation of “sequential similarities…death, burial, resurrection on third day, appearance to individuals, appearance to 11 or 12 disciples” to assert an “‘appearance to group’ motif”. Note these repeating details are the very details found in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed that the communities would have been dramatizing for decades.

What does Dr Allison himself think we can conclude from this appeal to motif? In discussing this very argument with Dr Licona recently, Dr Allison said, “I don’t know what to do with what you call multiple attestation of a motif here. I do work with that method sometimes, but in the present case I am no longer sure that John hasn’t heard the gospel of Luke, so I recently published an article explaining my repentance.”[19]

If Dr Loke hasn’t convinced the very source of his data that this motif argument is compelling, should you consider it compelling? Just like the alien abduction stories, the converging similarities are better explained by social phenomenon than actual events.

Like, Solid, Man

Finally, Loke posits that “in order to generate widespread and persistent belief in BODILY resurrection among Jesus’ followers in the context of persecution, it is probable that ‘“solid” evidence involving group(s) of people would have been required.

What evidence backs this premise? Why, Dr Loke’s personal experience. “I have had bereavement experience myself of my deceased father, but I (and the rest of my family) do not therefore believe that my father’s solid physical body resurrected and came to me.” While that’s an interesting story to be sure, it’s quite irrelevant as evidence for what happened in the first century.

To succeed here, Dr Loke would need to demonstrate, among other options…

  • How individual resurrection appearances are insufficient to explain the widespread belief in bodily resurrection
  • How convincing legends about resurrection appearances are insufficient
  • How being merely mistaken about resurrection appearances is insufficient
  • How spiritual experiences are good enough to convince every other generation of humanity of resurrected Jesus (per Dr William Lane Craig[20]), but were somehow insufficient to convince that first generation of Corinthians. (Not being convinced merely by Loke’s intuition here was my so-called error #16.)

False things become widely believed all the time. Is this one of those instances of special pleading?


Do they though?

Dr Loke claims that “almost all historians (whether Christians or non-Christians) accept this conclusion” that “there is good evidence for group appearance(s) of the risen Jesus”.

I have looked for non-Christian historians who specifically affirm good evidence for group appearances of the risen Jesus. But I have not been able to find any. I would love to be able to add such scholars to my research if Dr Loke can identify some for me.

Humpty Dumpty

If you’ve read this far, I think you should be rewarded with re-living this sentence from Dr. Loke.

Paulogia’s analogy of his recitation of Humpty Dumpty is a False Analogy, for there is no indication that he knew the king’s horses nor any indication that those listening to his recitation knew them too.


Dr Loke takes the ramifications of this debate very seriously, a matter of “eternal fate of other souls in the universe”. He fears my words will “mislead people into eternal perdition (‘Woe to the person through whom the stumbling block comes!’ Matthew 18:7)

While I’m not telling you what standard you should use to ultimately evaluate the evidence, Dr Loke’s import once again reminds me of the Briginshaw Standard: that “more convincing evidence is necessary to meet the standard of proof where an allegation is particularly serious, or unlikely to have occurred.”[21]

This is a matter of eternal importance, but what kind of evidence does Dr Loke bring?

  • hearsay documents
  • speculative character traits that lead to multiple, ambiguous, conflicting conclusions

Probabilistic arguments with multiple possible conclusions can quantify tendencies across a population of events, but they do not and cannot point conclusively to an individual action. Second-third-fourth-fifth-hand information isn’t reliable. These entire categories of argumentation are fundamentally flawed.

This kind of evidence is inadmissible in court. This kind of evidence is unusable to science. This kind of evidence is considered by historians only in the absence of better information, and is treated with lower confidence to draw modest conclusions. 

And yet, in a debate about the quality of evidence, Dr Loke brings only the least-convincing argumentation and calls it good. He puts the burden on you to lower yourself to accept mediocrity on behalf of an all-powerful God who could surely do much, much better if it were actually important.

[1] Paraphrasing Matt Dillahunty here.

[2] Gary Habermas Answers Questions on Near-Death Experiences, Resurrection Appearances, & MORE! 1:13:43

[3] Martin, Jean-Clément. “La démarche historique face à la vérité judiciaire. Juges et historiens.” Droit et société 38.1 (1998): 13-20.

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence

[7] See Fallacy in Logic or Logically Fallacious or anywhere, really.  

[8] 1 Corinthians 15:3

[9] Richard Bauckham. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd Edition).” Apple Books.

[10] “Inference.” The People’s Law Dictionary. 1981-2005. Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill 23

[11] DiFonzo, Nicholas, and Prashant Bordia. Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches. American Psychological Association, 2007. p 165 – 175

[12] Ibid, p 167

[13] Ibid, p 167

[14] Ibid, p 168

[15] Ibid, p 170

[16] Ibid, p 170

[17] Ibid, p 171

[18] Ibid, p 173

[19] Dale Allison & Mike Licona Discuss the Resurrection of Jesus Part 4 18:40

[20] Craig, Dr. William Lane. What Role Does the Holy Spirit Play In Apologetics?

[21] Lacey, Andrew. “Still Unsure about Briginshaw?” November 2019.

Is there Good Evidence for Group Appearances of Risen Jesus? (Paulogia Opening Statement)

Written Debate between Dr. Andrew Loke and Paulogia

Previous Entries:
Dr. Andrew Loke’s Opening Statement

I. Introduction

First, allow me to apologize to everyone reading that I’m not educated enough to merely have a face-to-face conversation about this with Dr. Loke. If I had not squandered my life in decades of youth ministry and music ministry, believing in the truth of Christianity for what Dr. Loke considers to be bad reasons, but instead had the simple foresight to know that I would one day reject the claims of Christianity and subsequently act upon that provision by enrolling in a Ph D program for which I could not sign the statement of faith and then earn a doctorate… we could end this debate in a few-hour live stream. But because of my personal failures – and not because of an arbitrary, violable, personal policy – this discussion will be a multi-month, sporadic missive in a format that appeals to the narrowest possible audience. I’m sorry.

Next, a reminder that it is tradition in a formal debate for each party to present an opening statement as their personal case for or against the proposition, and subsequent rounds are used to directly address the opponent’s opening. As such, while I will reference Dr. Loke’s opening for illustrative purpose of his previously established arguments, my work in refuting it directly will begin in the next round. Nor will I be spending any time re-adjudicating prior disagreements – related or unrelated – with my debate opponent.

Instead, allow me to use this time as intended: to elucidate why there is not good evidence for group appearances of risen Jesus. (Henceforth, “group appearances”[1].)

II. Justification

At its core, this is an epistemological debate about justification.

Is there good evidence for group appearances of a resurrected Jesus?

When one asks if there is good evidence to support a claim, they are asking if the claim is well supported, well corroborated. All other hypotheses or considerations aside, with the information available is the warranted conclusion that “the claim is true” over “the claim is false” or “we don’t have sufficient information to make a determination”?

An “inference to the best explanation” may or may not be well-supported with evidence. Before the first clue about a murder is discovered, the best explanation is that it was perpetrated by someone the victim has had sex with. Would this statistical trend justify immediately charging, arresting and sentencing the husband? Obviously not. There is insufficient evidence to convict this suspect, even if he is the primary suspect. “Best idea” is not the same as “well supported”.

Justification for a claim is also separate from the truth of a claim.

I could be fully justified in believing that my car is still where I parked it, even if it has in fact been stolen without my knowledge. Someone in the 5th century would have been fully evidentially justified in thinking the sun moved while the earth stayed stationary, despite geocentricism being factually incorrect.

At the same time, I could be correct in guessing that there is an even number of jelly-beans in a jar, but my claim is not justified with evidence. Or from the example above, if the husband did actually commit the murder… that doesn’t mean the police are currently justified in pressing charges.

Intuitions aside, greater ramifications aside, alternate explanations aside… are group appearances of resurrected Jesus well-supported? Well-corroborated? Is there good evidence?

II.2 What is Good Evidence?

Evidence is one of those concepts that most presume to understand innately, but few can clearly articulate their instinctive conceptualization. Despite having built their entire disciplines upon the notion of evidence, few modern science journals, history societies or law reviews even bother to formally define the term beyond a sentence fragment in the proximity of “the concrete facts used to support a claim”[2].

The Harvard Law Review of the 19th century elucidated with greater satisfaction. “When one offers ‘evidence,’ in the sense of the word which is now under consideration, he offers to prove, otherwise than by mere reasoning from what is already known, a matter of fact to be used as a basis of inference to another matter of fact.”[3]

Fortunately, these professions have spent centuries refining the nuance of best evidential practices, and we can leverage those lifetimes of experience today.

From the legal profession, we learn that evidence must have relevance, materiality, admissibility, probative value and weight.[4]

  • Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more-or-less probable than it would be without the evidence.[5] If evidence is equally likely to establish two opposing inferences, it is irrelevant.[6]
  • Evidence is material if it contributes to proving a fact that is of consequence. That is, there must be a relationship between the evidence and the matter in dispute.[7]
  • Evidence is admissible when it is of such a character that the court is bound to accept it to be evaluated by the judge or jury.[8]
  • The probative value of evidence is the degree to which it proves a fact or facts.[9]
  • The weight is the extent to which evidence is credible, persuasive and significant in convincing the adjudicator(s) of a dispute to accept or reject a claim.[10]

And when dealing with evidence in the pursuit of truth, the field of law also operates with a number of best-practices that are advisable to follow in our evaluation of group appearances.

  • Hearsay testimony is when a witness testifies about something that another person told the witness.[11](In legal jargon, “any out-of-court statement offered for the truth of its contents.”[12]) Because the “other person” cannot be cross-examined, may have been misunderstood, or may have been deliberately relaying false information for a myriad of possible reasons, most modern court systems — including U.S. Federal Courts[13] — decree hearsay to be generally not admissible. It is not considered good evidence for the material claim.
  • Evidence of a person’s character or character trait (Character Evidence) is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.[14]
  • Where Collusion is suspected of similar testimony from different sources, it destroys probative value and possibly renders it entirely inadmissible at the mere “air of reality” to the accusation. It is such a serious consideration that it is up to the Plaintiff to disprove the possibility of collusion. Collusion may be deliberate or inadvertent. For example, unintentional collusion may occur through a witness viewing media reports or merely hearing other people’s stories.[15]

II.3 Historical Evidence vs Legal Evidence

Some may object to leaning so heavily on legal terminology and standards for a historical question, but the epistemological principles and best-practices for evaluation still apply.

Rather than witnesses, historians have primary sources (original documents or artifacts). When a document is interpretation of another document or tradition, historians call it a secondary source instead of hearsay. Rather than say that hearsay is inadmissible, a historian would say that a secondary source is less valuable than a primary source.

Just like legal claims, historical claims are held in degrees of confidence proportional to the evidence supporting them. That ancient claims have less available evidence simply means that we lower our confidence in them, it does not and should not mean that we lower our standards to accommodate.

III. The Exhibits – Ancient Documents

In Dr. Loke’s book, he lists the ancient Christian sources he would put forth as documentary evidence to support his claim. “Aside from Paul’s letters, other documents in the first and early second century—such as the Four Gospels, Acts, 1 Clement, Letters of Ignatius, etc.—also claimed that various people witnessed the resurrected Jesus.”[16]

As Dr. Loke spends most of his words on Paul’s letters, let’s consider the others first.

III.2 The Four Gospels and Acts

The author of Mark records no post-resurrection appearance stories at all, so it is not relevant to this discussion. By my count, the author of Matthew records two post-resurrection group appearances[17], the author of Luke-Acts records three[18], and another three recorded by the author of John[19].

A glaring problem with offering the gospels as evidence is that there is significant doubt as to who the authors are. While church tradition upholds Matthew, Luke and John as the writers, this would represent a minority view among modern New Testament scholars, with broad dissent even among resurrection-affirming evangelical Christian scholars.

For example, in a work referenced many times by Dr. Loke in his book, scholar Richard Bauckham admitted, “That the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus — runs counter to almost all recent New Testament scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.”[20]

To avoid confusion and accusation, allow me to be clear that Bauckham holds firmly to traditional authorship, as does Dr. Loke. It is within the realm of the possible that they are correct, but the point here is that even this staunch defender acknowledges his minority position. Rightly or wrongly, leading scholars who have studied the issue professionally do not believe that we know the identity of the people providing this so-called testimony.

Imagine you are in a jury, and someone with a bag over their head takes the stand and starts telling stories. This person doesn’t give their name, never claims to be a witness to the stories, and the court officials are generally uncertain of the identity of the person. How much evidentiary weight are you going to give his tales? I would hope it would be very little. Indeed, no modern court would allow such an event to occur. These are not the markers of good evidence.

It is beyond the scope of this opening statement to demonstrate the significant weaknesses in the case for eye-witness authors. What is material here is acknowledgement of the authorship controversy. Since the identity cannot be established with any level of certainty, it is impossible to have confidence that we have direct testimony rather than inadmissible hearsay. Without such confidence, they simply cannot be put into the category of good evidence.

Of course, the problems with the group appearance reports in Matthew, Luke and John do not end with their hearsay status. A fact thus-far uncontested by Dr. Loke is that all three of these documents use the book of Mark as a primary source… to the extent where around 90% of Mark appears in Matthew and Luke almost word-for-word in the original Greek. This is evidential collusion beyond any reasonable doubt, rendering these sources useless and inadmissible as independent corroboration of each other where they overlap.

Despite this obvious general collusion, the eight group-appearance pericopes in the gospels still somehow completely fail to corroborate each other in any way. These are eight different stories each with different locations, times, characters and events. It’s almost as if the gospel writers were working with a common tradition of a general notion that Jesus appeared to people, but no common tradition about the details of these encounters to draw from.

Dr. Loke tacitly acknowledges this problem in his opening[21] when he speaks of “corroboration of the motif of ‘group appearance’” rather than actual corroboration of details.

III.3 Other Ancient Documents

Dr. Loke frequently lists 1 Clement and Letters of Ignatius among the ancient documents that he feels corroborate resurrection appearances.

Unfortunately, Dr. Loke fails to specify a reference to the passage in 1 Clement that he is thinking of. Other apologists point to 1 Clement 42:3, so perhaps this is what he means?

Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.

The passage is speaking about unnamed apostles (see 1 Clement 42:2) – not the first-hand knowledge of Clement – making this hearsay, even if the passage were relevant. Which it is not. 

The passage acknowledges merely that these anonymous people were assured of something, not that they saw something. Even worse, Clement blatantly calls out the “word of God” and “assurance of the Holy Ghost” as the reasons for this assurance. An actual experience claim is nowhere to be found here.

Dr. Loke does, however, specifically reference Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans 3 in his book, a passage which is translated as follows…

When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

At this point, I have no reason to doubt the scholarly consensus that this letter is among those actually written by Ignatius. Ignatius did later fall victim to the church’s propensity for writing forged (pseudepigraphical) books in dead men’s names, just like Peter, Paul, James, Jude, Judas, Pilate and so many more.

While this passage clearly references group appearances of resurrected Jesus, the trouble with treating this passage as additional corroboration for the alleged group appearances is that Ignatius is clearly quoting Luke 24:39 and referencing the events found in that chapter. Ignatius also quotes the gospel of Matthew in Smyr 6.1 and other works. (As a side note, Ignatius quotes Matthew and Luke but doesn’t mention the authors’ names… exactly as one would expect if the authors were anonymous until later tradition.)

In this context, Ignatius isn’t an external corroborative source any more than Dr. Loke’s book serves as external corroboration for the passage in Luke. Both are non-witnesses merely repeating what someone else wrote before them.

Neither Clement nor Ignatius serves as good evidence for group appearances of resurrected Jesus.

III.4 The 1 Corinthians 15 Creed

If past interactions with Dr. Loke are any indication, most of the substance of this debate will be around the veracity and circumstance of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, so it’s probably worth presenting here for the record.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

From similar usage elsewhere of the Greek phrase translated “for what I received”, New Testament scholars believe that portions of this passage (roughly, those highlighted in purple) are Paul quoting a creed – a formal statement of beliefs that would be memorized and recited repeatedly – that would have been well-known among Christians prior to Paul’s conversion. I am willing to grant this interpretation. It’s the first-century equivalent of a Facebook meme.

For reasons beyond the scope of this opening, I similarly grant that the Apostle Paul is the genuine author of 1 Corinthians. It is one of the so-called “undisputed” letters of Paul[22]. Further, I grant for sake of this discussion that Paul sincerely believed what he was writing in this letter.

It’s worth noting that Paul himself does not claim to have been part of a group appearance, so this passage is not put forward as first-hand testimony toward the debate topic at hand.

As someone who has read this far, you’ve likely already identified the primary evidential problem here… at very best, Paul is telling us what someone else told him. At very best, this is hearsay.

But this situation is so much worse than hearsay, because Dr. Loke and other apologists are advocating that Paul is passing along a recitation that was already firmly established in the greater Christian community at large. 

Christian scholars love to propose that perhaps Paul received it directly from someone mentioned in the list, but that’s based on nothing more than speculation and the affirmation it would give to their preferred conclusion. On the contrary, I find this conjecture to be highly improbable. Why would a witness to resurrected Jesus pass along a third-person memorized secondary-language creed about themselves that anyone could recite, rather than regale Paul with the detailed story in their own words?

Literally anyone in the Christian community could have taught Paul the creed. While we’re just imagining scenarios, it’s equally plausible that Paul first overheard this creed during his time hunting and persecuting the church, from some unsuspecting believer he later stoned to death.

Reciting this creed doesn’t even live up to the usual kind of hearsay that is tossed out as inadmissible. It’s not even hearsay. At face value, Paul’s quotation is no more attestation to the veracity of the information in this creed than my recitation of Humpty Dumpty is attestation of the egg-repair skills of the king’s horses.

Of course, Dr. Loke wants to plead his case beyond the face value. That the documents themselves – hearsay all – are merely the tip of the evidential iceberg.

IV. Inferences

In tacit acknowledgement that the direct documentary evidence is insufficient to justify acceptance of group appearances, Dr. Loke dedicates huge portions of his resurrection word-count to arguments from inference, a form of circumstantial evidence.

Inference is “a rule of logic applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is ‘proved’ by presenting other ‘facts’ which lead to only one reasonable conclusion – that if A and B are true, then C is.”[23]

For reasons known only to my interlocutor, Dr. Loke’s go-to example of sound inference[24] is as follows…

  1. All humans pee and poo.
  2. The disciples were human.
  3. Therefore, the disciples peed and pooed.

If we are flexible enough with premise one to include all possible forms of solid and liquid waste removal, then these premises are factually true and the conclusion is the one and only reasonable conclusion. The argument is both valid and sound.

If Dr. Loke’s purpose is to demonstrate that “good” inferences from fact are possible, then he is preaching to the choir with his trivial example. But not all attempts at inferring are created equal. As Loke himself acknowledges, reliability of an inference “depends on the validity and the quality of the evidence of supporting the inference”. This is certainly true, and an area where Dr. Loke’s arguments persistently fall short, as we’ll discuss. 

Legal inferences “may not be based only on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture or guesswork”[25] and “cannot flow from the nonexistence of a fact”[26].

But in addition to requiring facts, these facts must lead to only one reasonable conclusion to create an evidential inference. Unfortunately, I find many of Dr. Loke’s so-called inferences to be of this form…

  1. Many celebrities have public Twitter accounts.
  2. Jennifer Lawrence is a celebrity.
  3. Therefore, Jennifer Lawrence has a Twitter account.

As of the time of writing, despite the factual nature of the two premises, Jennifer Lawrence has no public Twitter account. In logic, any argument that can produce a false conclusion with true premises is called an invalid argument.

We will be exploring which of Dr. Loke’s so-called inferences fail to be backed with facts, fail to be valid, or fail on both accounts.

IV.2 Loke’s Inferences

Outlined in his book, his video presentations on the topic and his opening statement for this debate, Dr. Loke puts forth that these eight inferences raise the hearsay of the ancient documents to the level of “good evidence” for group appearances. They are, as follows in his own words…

  1. Many ancient people were highly skeptical of bodily resurrection in general.
  2. The resurrection of Jesus was foundational to the Christian faith.
  3. The early Christians were willing to die for it.
  4. People could check out if there were indeed ‘groups of eyewitnesses.’
  5. Paul assumed responsibility and cared about his reputation with his known audiences in Corinth, and the costs of false confirmation would have been high.
  6. The Corinthians knew at least some (if not all) of the ‘eyewitnesses’; Paul was appealing to public knowledge.
  7. Other early documents also claimed Jesus’ resurrection and group appearances, and there is independent corroboration of the motif of ‘group appearance’.
  8. “Solid” evidence involving group(s) would have been required to generate widespread belief of BODILY resurrection among Jesus’ followers in the first place.

Now, when it comes to indirect evidence (such as inference), in order to be relevant it must directly contribute to an evidential chain where the conclusion is the proposition being evaluated.

Unfortunately, Dr. Loke’s proposed inferences are not in this form, drawing direct connection from premise to conclusion. So, in this section I will do my best to steelman Dr. Loke’s points (the best that this mere non-PhD-holder can comprehend them) into the most charitable formations toward supporting the debate’s proposition.

IV.3 Corinthian Verification

As I understand it, Dr. Loke’s first four alleged inferences are to work together in concert to create a cumulative case for group appearances.

  1. Many ancient people were highly skeptical of bodily resurrection in general.
  2. The resurrection of Jesus was foundational to the Christian faith.
  3. The early Christians were willing to die for it.
  4. People could check out if there were indeed ‘groups of eyewitnesses.’
  5. Therefore, groups of people saw resurrected Jesus.

But this conclusion obviously doesn’t follow. Here is one possible formulation that creates an approximate evidence chain (not a full syllogism) from Loke’s premises to Loke’s conclusion.

  1. The members of the Corinthian church were Christians.
  2. The resurrection of Jesus was foundational to the Christian faith.
    1. To have Christian faith meant believing in the resurrection.
    2. Therefore, members of the Corinthian church believed in the resurrection.
  3. Many ancient people were highly skeptical of bodily resurrection in general.
    1. Members of the Corinthian church were ancient people.
    2. Therefore, members of the Corinthian church were skeptical of bodily resurrection in general.
  4. The early Christians were willing to die for the Christian faith.
    1. Therefore, members of the Corinthian church were willing to die for the Christian faith. (from 1 and 4)
    2. Therefore, members of the Corinthian church were willing to die for the resurrection. (from 2 and 4a)
    3. Therefore, the resurrection is a life-or-death matter to the Corinthian church.
  5. Because members of the Corinthian church were skeptical of resurrection (3b), but also believed in the resurrection (2b), they had to become convinced of the resurrection for some reason.
  6. People accept life-or-death matters only for personally-verified, actually-true good reasons.
    1. Therefore, the Corinthian church accepted resurrection only for personally verified good reasons. (6, 4c)
    2. The only good reason to accept resurrection is group appearances.
    3. Therefore, the Corinthian church accepted resurrection because of personally-verified, actually-true group appearances. (6a, 6b)
    4. Therefore, personally-verified, actually-true group appearances are a life-or-death matter. (6c, 4c)
  7. People could check out if there were indeed ‘groups of eyewitnesses.’
    1. People who can check out a life-or-death matter, do check out the matter.
    2. Therefore, the Corinthian church checked out groups of eyewitnesses. (6d)
  8. To be personally-verified, people must actually speak to eyewitnesses.
    1. The Corinthian church actually spoke to groups of eyewitnesses.
    2. Therefore, group appearances are personally-verified.
  9. To be actually-true, the eyewitness cannot be lying or mistaken.
    1. The eyewitnesses were not lying.
    2. The eyewitnesses were not mistaken.
    3. Therefore, group appearances are actually-true.
  10. Therefore, groups of people saw resurrected Jesus.

I’m sure Dr. Loke will not be shy in pointing out where this logic path fails and misrepresents his argument, but for the time being it’s the best we have. The handful of lines in grey are Dr. Loke’s premises. The purple lines are show-the-work connections. And the lines in red are problematic inferences or freshly inserted inferences that would be needed to arrive to the conclusion.

Even accepting all of Dr. Loke’s speculative inferences as valid (which I do not, a topic for future rounds), in order to elevate them to good evidence, he will need to justify, demonstrate and corroborate that…

  • general skepticism in the world somehow translates to specific skepticism of the Corinthian church
  • people are convinced of life-and-death matters exclusively and only through personally-verified, actually-true reasons (despite many examples of people accepting life-or-death matters for dubious or false reasons)
  • group appearances were the specific reason the Corinthians believed in resurrection (despite many examples of resurrection-believers for other reasons)
  • every life-or-death matter is automatically investigated to the fullest extent possible (despite many examples of uninvestigated-but-possibly-investigated life-or-death matters)
  • members of the Corinthian church found and spoke to eyewitnesses
  • it was impossible for said found eyewitnesses to be lying
  • it was impossible for said found eyewitnesses were not mistaken

Or perhaps Dr. Loke will connect the dots from premises to conclusion through some alternate route. Either way, I look forward to his response.

IV.4 The Pauline Guarantee

Dr. Loke paired his next two points (high costs of being wrong, and Corinthian familiarity) together to argue why Paul’s hearsay (which alone strikes it from good evidence admissibility) claim of group appearances somehow ascends to the level of near Cartesian certainty. Indeed, in his opening, Loke boasts, “It is implausible that Paul thought he was correct yet made a mistake on this issue.”[27]

I find it plausible that on any given matter that I could make a mistake. That you could make a mistake. That the smartest-human-on-earth could make a mistake. Or at least possess only partial information and would revise the position in light of new evidence. The brightest minds in history have had areas where they were mistaken or incomplete. But not Dr. Loke in assessing the epistemology of 1st century Paul the Apostle. For him, a mistake is “implausible”.

I will save a cataloging of Dr. Loke’s speculative interpretations, evidential flaws and overly charitable assessments for future rounds as applicable. For today, all that needs to be pointed out is that while one can reasonably assess what someone believes or values based on their actions, you cannot determine whether that belief is true based solely on their actions. The actions prompted by a belief are the same, whether the belief is true or false.

For example, a photo of a life-valuing person stepping into the street can tell us they believed it was safe to do so. But the photo alone cannot tell us if it was actually safe. Even if the person appears to be looking one direction or the other.

I anticipate Dr. Loke will line up his special-pleading qualifiers… “Paul was evidently not an imbecile” (as if intelligence prevents wrong views), “the early Christian movement was a network of close communication” (as if close networks automatically promote accurate information), “he cared about his reputation”[28] (as if no prideful person has lied or been misled), and so on.

If he does, keep in mind that he will be attempting to use inadmissible character evidence (that a person acted in accordance with a character or trait on a particular occasion) to prop-up already-inadmissible hearsay evidence. While this isn’t a court of law, what is rejected as bad evidence in a sophisticated arena (court) doesn’t somehow become good evidence in a written debate on a blog.

IV.5 Other Documents and Motifs

I’ve already explored the lack of independent documents corroborating group appearances. In future responses I shall press upon Dr. Loke’s epistemologically-timid, desperate appeal to mere motifs… perhaps with a Star Wars-related illustration.

IV.6 “Solid Evidence” was Required

When asked about the role of apologetics (arguments and evidence) in convincing non-believers, famous Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig’s responds, “I think that the fundamental way in which we know that Christianity is true is through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.”[29]

Dr. Loke has yet to demonstrate how this would have been different for early Christians, but merely asserts that “some ‘solid’ evidence such as the disciples eating and drinking with Jesus together as a group would likely have been necessary to start the widespread agreement among them that a resurrected corpse was what they witnessed.”[30]

The phrases “such as” and “likely have been necessary” tacitly acknowledge that group appearances are merely one possible evidential line that could produce this belief. To be evidentially relevant, an inference must lead to a single conclusion… not merely be consistent with multiple competing conclusions. (Not to mention, not merely speculation, supposition, conjecture or guesswork.)

This debate is about whether we can be justified in accepting that group appearances happened. Maybe 1stcentury Corinthians were evidentially justified in that belief, maybe they were not. We have no insight. That they were convinced is of no evidential value.

V. Conclusion

If you will allow me to dip one last time into the pool of evidence-evaluation wisdom found in the courts of the world, the nature of this debate reminds me of the Briginshaw Standard: that “more convincing evidence is necessary to meet the standard of proof where an allegation is particularly serious, or unlikely to have occurred.”[31]

Just a few verses down from the much-discussed 1 Corinthians 15 creed, Paul writes about the importance of resurrected Jesus’…

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

As resurrection appearances are meant to support Jesus’ resurrection, and Jesus’ resurrection is the most important linchpin for Christianity, and the truth of Christianity determines the forever fate of our eternal souls, it would seem the topic of this debate is safely in the category of “particularly serious”.

At the same time, with such a resurrection unheard of in a naturalistic worldview, and only once-in-history under a Christian worldview, it’s safe to call group appearances “unlikely to have occurred” under any belief system.

If ever there was a case that calls for the “particularly serious” and “unlikely to have occurred” Briginshaw Standard asking for “more convincing evidence”, it’s this one. 

But what kind of evidence is put forth for group appearances? 

HearsayCharacter evidenceCollusionSpeculationConjecture. Quality of evidence so poor that it isn’t even admissible in the lowest of courts in the smallest of small-claims cases.

If the eternal fate of every soul in the universe hinged on justifying group appearances, we should expect an omniscient, omnipotent benefactor to do better.


[1] I’m aware that my footnote attribution style is all over the map and that this will likely cause great consternation in my academically-minded OCD readers out there. Apologies.

[2] Oldham, Davis: “Evidence” (English 101 & 102) Shoreline Community College

[3] Thayer, James B. “Presumptions and the Law of Evidence.” Harvard Law Review (1889): 143.

[4] “The Legal Concept of Evidence” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[5] United States “Federal Rules of Evidence”, House of Representatives. 2004 Edition. p 3.

[6] Sankoff, Peter, LLM. “Probative Value”, 2020

[7] Supreme Court of Canada. R v Gill1987 CanLII 6779 (MB CA), (1987) 39 CCC (3d) 506 (MBCA) 

[8] admissible. (n.d.) West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). 

[9] Jaksa, William, “Probative vs Prejudicial”, 2021

[10] “Weight of the evidence” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.

[11] Bala, Nicholas and Anand, Sanjeev. Youth Criminal Justice Law, 3/e

[12] Stewart, Hamish, et al, Evidence: A Canadian Casebook, 3d ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2012) p129

[13] U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence: 801-03, 901 

[14] U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence

[15] O’Connell, Stuart. Similar Fact Evidence: Collusion. Oct 2017.

[16] Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) (p. 8). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

[17] Matthew 28:6, 28:17

[18] Luke 24:15, 24:36 and 24:50. Acts 1 repeats the Luke 24:50 story, but as this is the same author writing in a sequel work, this would not count as external corroboration.

[19] John 20:19, 20:26 and John 21

[20] Richard Bauckham. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd Edition).” Apple Books.

[21] Loke, Andrew. Dr. Andrew Loke’s Opening Statement vs. Paulogia March 2021.

[22] “Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.” Bart D. Ehrman. “Forged.” Apple Books. Chapter 3

[23] “Inference.” The People’s Law Dictionary. 1981-2005. Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill 23

[24] “The inference that the apostles must have peed and pooed is warranted given that it is based on elementary biological consideration.” Loke, Andrew. Dr. Andrew Loke’s Opening Statement vs. Paulogia March 2021.

[25] Cothran v. Town Council of Los Gatos (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 647.

[26] Eramdjian v. Interstate Bakery Corp. (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 590.

[27] Loke, Andrew. Dr. Andrew Loke’s Opening Statement vs. Paulogia March 2021.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Craig, Dr. William Lane. What Role Does the Holy Spirit Play In Apologetics?

[30] Loke, Andrew. Dr. Andrew Loke’s Opening Statement vs. Paulogia March 2021.

[31] Lacey, Andrew. “Still Unsure about Briginshaw?” November 2019.

Become a Paulogia Cartoon

If you’re a Master of Paulogia-level supporter and you’d like to appear as a cartoon in the credits of Paulogia video, please email me the following details to with a subject that mentions “Paulogia Patreon Cartoon”…

1. The name with which you’d like to be credited on video.

2. At least one photo of yourself (or the representation you would choose for your cartoon self*). Attaching more than one might help me get the likeness better.

3. Photos or links or descriptions of your preferred above-the-waist wardrobe.

4. Any other related requests for your cartoon.

As noted, cartoon you needn’t be “real life you”. It can be you, but “idealized” upon request. (I’m not quite at the fitness level of cartoon me.) It needn’t even be human… it could be a cat, a unicorn, your favorite avatar or a spaghetti monster.  I’ll do my best to accommodate everything, and hopefully you’ll be happy with the results.

You rock! Thanks.

Closed-Mind is in the Eye of the Presupposer

Reasons to Believe is a creation advocate organization that generally earns my respect, if not my agreement. But a few recent articles caught my eye as uncharacteristically disingenuous.

In Pseudoenzymes Illustrate Science’s Philosophical Commitments, author Dr. Fazale Rana attempts to demonstrate what he feels is a “blind spot” in methodological naturalism (we’ll define this next, hold on) using an example of a recent discovery about the role of previously-underestimated pseudoenzymes.

Philosophical naturalism, as a point of comparison, is an overarching philosophy that the cosmos is driven exclusively by natural laws and forces, and that there is no spiritual or supernatural realm that interacts with our physical one.

Methodological naturalism, the type criticized by Rana, is a strategy that says when studying the natural world only natural causes will be considered. Basically, when scientists attempt to learn, they agree to limit their hypotheses to natural causes and effects. This says nothing about the supernatural convictions of any given scientist, nor is it a statement about a supernatural realm. It is merely a short-cut admission that there is no currently-known scientific method to know the supernatural. Maybe the supernatural exists, but our science cannot deal with it.

The cited research postulated that previous work in the field mistakenly considered pseudoenzymes to be dead, rather than active participants in cell signaling networks. “In other words,” Fazale rephrased, “the biases created by viewing pseudoenzymes as the byproduct of evolutionary processes hindered biochemists from identifying and characterizing the functional importance of pseudoenzymes.”

Fazale concludes,

In short, in fulfilling their vital role as regulators of cell signaling pathways, pseudoenzymes display elegance, sophistication, and ingenuity. As a creationist, this is the reason I view these systems as a Creator’s handiwork. Because the field of pseudoenzyme biochemistry is so young, I anticipate the evidence for design to dramatically expand as we learn more about these surprising biomolecules.

Yet, despite everything we have learned about pseudoenzymes, adherents to the evolutionary paradigm simply can’t see these biomolecules as anything other than the product of an evolutionary history.

Because of the blind spot created by their philosophical commitments, the design of these systems is occluded from their view—and that causes them to miss the mark.

From reading this, one might justifiably assume that researchers Eyers and Murphy were strong naturalism-rejecting intelligent-design proponents, who were prompted to overcome the oppressive shackles of their short-sighted peers after a robust prayer meeting.

However, the paper Rana sighted is called The Evolving World of Pseudoenzymes. The abstract for the paper includes a section titled, “How did pseudoenzymes evolve?” Eyers and Murphy, whatever their supernatural views, are clearly methodological naturalists who made this discovery within those parameters. It was obviously not a blind spot.

Meanwhile, creationists insist that belief in a god and the authority of the bible are presuppositions. That is, they are not proven with evidence, but are simply be accepted as true before looking at the evidence.

Imagine a scenario where Yahweh god decided to completely and instantaneously heal an entire cancer ward, restoring each patient to peak physical fitness. Now imagine two scientists sent in to investigate. Scientist A’s mind is open to the supernatural, and so proclaims the event a miracle, documents it as such and goes home to sing praise songs. Now imagine Scientist B, also a Jesus-follower, but adhering to her on-the-job methodological naturalism she rigorously studies everything about the ward to find out what happened. She looks at the air, the food, the water, the cleaning chemicals, common batches of medicine, the procedures of the staff and anything else she can think of. Not content with “god did it” and calling it a day, she perseveres to find out HOW it was done, and maybe she finds it and can use the knowledge to help others. Which type of science should we encourage?

It takes little thought at all to think about scientific discoveries that were hindered by a theological world-view… the Earth orbiting the sun (Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, all punished by the church), Newtonian physics, ancient earth geology, and biological evolution… to name just a few. Modern religious opposition to science includes stem cell research and climate change science (for reasons I do not understand).

Rana points out that a commonly held view about pseudoenzymes was wrong… but it was SCIENCE that discovered this. The role of pseudoenzymes was never a presupposition, just observation to that point. Science changes when there is new evidence. It is holy books that assume a conclusion and never change.

You may also have seen this week’s National Geographic article about a feathered dinosaur tail discovered in 99-million-year-old amber. This is a particularly exciting find for those who study the evolutionary connection between theropods and birds.

Again, Dr. Rana took to the Reasons blog to respond to this discovery. He relatively fairly summarizes that “for many in the scientific community this discovery further affirms the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs, with feathered dinosaurs viewed as transitional intermediates.”

But Rana is skeptical.

Paleontologists interpret feathered dinosaurs from the fossil record as transitional intermediates between theropods and birds—including the feathered dinosaur tail found in amber. Yet, each occurrence of feathered dinosaurs in the fossil record appear after the first true bird, Archaeopteryx

It is hard to imagine how the “primitive” feathers associated with the dinosaur tail (again, dated at 99 million years in age) could be transitional if they appear over 50 million years after Archaeopteryx and co-occur with feathers from a bird belonging to enantiornithes.

This was so ridiculous, I had to ask Rana himself about it.

I went to the original research article itself to see if Rana was right, but the only reference to transition is this one…

The integration of developmental studies [5, 7 and 33] and paleontology yields enriched models of morphological character evolution that help explain major evolutionary transitions in key clades such as theropods, including birds.

So, Rana wasn’t really referring to the study’s authors, but most likely the imprecise reporting by numerous outlets. But to set expectations of these derivative articles, there seems to be more words dedicated to the plausibility of Jurassic Park in real life than evolutionary ramifications.

So I call “baloney”, Dr. Rana. The researchers are not saying that this particular individual dinosaur that got its tail caught in amber is personally the ancestor of modern birds. They merely hold this up as consistent evidence that birds and theropods had a common ancestor in the past. The fact that there are individual theropods that lived after archaeopteryx is no more surprising than two cousins being alive at the same time.

(Actually, he took me aback by referring to archaeopteryx as a true bird, because it has so many reptilian traits, but I won’t chase that rabbit today.)

By Rana’s logic, the Android operating system wasn’t inspired by Apple’s iOS if there is a Samsung Galaxy 2 that predates the iPhone 7.

I know he understands the science and theory. He’s better than this. Be better than this.

social-aviYou may have noticed that it’s been a while since I updated the blog. “I’m sorry” or “you’re welcome”, depending on your perspective. 2016 has been a difficult year, and between the relentless waves of life’s arrows, I allowed myself to be distracted by some trivial pursuits including talking about comics and movies with my friend David on his YouTube channel.

As much as I enjoy writing, that experience has rekindled my love of the medium of video, and I’ve decided to take some of my thoughts and passions to YouTube in my own channel that I’m calling Paulogia. The first three videos will go public this week, and I’m a combination of proud and embarrassed, but it’s time to give birth. My intended audience is believing Christians, so perhaps you’ll join me and let me know what you think?

If you’re interested in what I might do there, I’d consider it a great favor if you would subscribe to the channel here. (YouTube shows favoritism to those with more subscribers, so a kick-start would help me out.) Alternately, you can follow Paulogia on Facebook or Twitter. (Don’t make me invite you.)

Short Story – The Beach Baby

Long ago, about the place that would one day be New York, a journey began. The travelers did not know where they were going, but each day took a step in a direction that made them more content and more likely to continue the journey.

This journey continued, winding to and fro, for nearly 4500 km (2800 miles). None who began the journey remained, and many who joined for a time left to find their own paths better suited for them. But some particular travelers, over time uncharted, had arrived at the place that would one day be Santa Monica Beach, California.

Our travelers were weary from the difficult journey, having given everything they had to keep moving. In their final act of life, the travelers painfully extended outstretched arms 15 cm (six inches) through some bushes to gently place the last remaining members of their party into the soft sand. A newborn baby, and a puppy to watch her.

The baby awoke, her blinking eyes attempting to adjust to the sun overhead for the first time. She giggled at the tickle of the puppy’s lapping tongue on her tiny toes. The baby sat up and marveled at all she saw… the ocean extending forever before her, the warm golden sand on which she sat, and the trees that swayed overhead.

“I was made for this beach,” smiled the baby, “and this beach for me. We are new and wonderful and unlike anything that could ever be or have been.”

“Pardon me,” said the puppy, “but we are here as part of a long, long journey taken by many before us.”

The baby laughed at the foolish puppy. “Don’t be silly,” the baby said. “The beach began when I opened my eyes. There are no other places, for if there were I would certainly see them.”

The puppy tilted his head in adorable bewilderment, and shifted his gaze past the baby to the nearby edge of the beach. “Do you not see the bodies of your parents, their arms outstretched and decomposing in the sun? They brought you here.” Acknowledging the smell made the puppy’s nose wrinkle.

“Those are not my parents!” said the baby. “You have made up the idea of parents because this beach was made for me and not for you. No one has seen a birth. It is not common sense that I might come out of a dead creature. Those giants obviously appeared at the same time I did, but didn’t make it.”

Sniffing at the sand, the puppy urged the baby to turn her gaze from the ocean. “What of all these tracks in the sand?” the puppy asked. “They extend to the edge of the beach. If you look past the bush, the tracks extend as far east as my eyes can see or nose can smell.”

Crawling two steps toward the puppy, the baby scoffed. “Journeys are impossible. No one has seen a journey. The whole idea makes me laugh.”

The puppy nodded his snout toward the markings in the sand under the baby’s knees. “Just now, you shuffled forward two steps. A journey is simply that motion repeated over and over, covering incredible distances one shuffle at a time.”

The baby scowled at the obvious gibberish of the puppy. “Obviously I can crawl from one side of the beach to the other,” the baby chided. “We see crawling all the time. No one denies crawling. But there are limits. Crawling does not become a journey. Show me a journey, puppy! Show me one crawl that became a journey! I want to see it happen.”

“Journeys cover incredible distances,” pleaded the puppy. “You have existed only long enough to crawl a few strides along this beach. How do you suppose you might personally witness thousands of kilometers when you are physically limited to centimeters? We see only our portion, baby — not the beginning or the end — that is simply the nature of the journey.”

“The entirety of the universe was revealed to me when I opened my eyes,” sneered the baby. “I did not suddenly appear on this beach by accident.”

“But the diaper you wear,” said the puppy. “It is made of a cotton grown far from here. The image on your shirt depicts a cactus, a plant not found on a beach. The flower in your hair, it cannot grow near salt water. They are souvenirs your parents and grandparents left you, evidence of their journey now possessed by you.”

“These things I have do not show a journey, silly puppy,” said the baby, letting the sound of the waves down out his fanciful ideas. “Cotton and flowers and cactus may exist elsewhere, I don’t know. But they have always been here with me, just as your collar has always been on you.”

“But…”, the puppy began to object.

“Hush now, puppy,” the baby cooed, scratching her companion’s long ears. “I will hear no more of it. Let us simply enjoy this beach that was made for me.”

U2 and Me – One Life, but we’re not the same.

The piles of clothes, fast-food wrappers and lidless boxes left little room for me in the back seat of Sheldon’s two-door car. I did not know driving-age Sheldon, but he was a friend of Cory. I didn’t know Cory that well either, but he was my first connection at the new school and neighborhood to which I had moved in the summer and somehow that landed me in this slightly smelly situation. Sheldon asked for “Red Rocks” and Cory fingered through the jammed-full case of cassettes, pulling out a well-worn plastic shell of orange hue, and popping the tape into the car stereo.

“Do you like U2?” Sheldon asked me, his first direct address since the “Hey” of our introduction.

“Of course,” I replied, probably unconvincingly. I had heard of U2, but I didn’t know anything about them. I was about to learn.

The Joshua Tree came out the next year. In the time between, my album collection had added a few cassette tapes (purchased, not just my own bootleg recordings of the radio) and my exclusively contemporary Christian library (Amy Grant, David Meece, Michael W. Smith, Lisa Whelchel, Petra and the like) had been breached by Michael Jackson’s Bad.

I was fully taken with Joshua Tree, though I can’t claim that I understood all its subtleties. I got both the cassette and vinyl versions for maximum quality at home and use in my new Walkman when away. I remember my delight when it won the Grammies for best album and best group performance. I remember feeling justified in siding with long-time fans who resented all the new adherents. I remember the bands’ new penchant for dark clothing influencing my own already monochromatic trend.

It was the release of concert album and concert movie, Rattle and Hum, in 1988 that pushed me from fan to huge fan. I was suddenly into whatever U2 information and lore that one can acquire seven years before the world’s first web page. I got a fedora and a harmonica.

Part of my justification — to myself, my Christian youth leaders, and to my parents — for my fascination with this Irish band was that they were (with the exception of evil bass player, Adam) Christians. They were not worldly and corrupting like the pop-music videos banned in our household.

I could rattle off the evidence. The lyrics for their song “40” were adapted directly from Psalm 40. “Where the Streets Have No Name” is about heaven. “One man betrayed with a kiss” (Pride), “And if the mountains should crumble or disappear into the sea…” (The Unforgettable Fire, Psalm 46:2), “We eat and drink while tomorrow they die” (Sunday Bloody Sunday, 1 Cor 15:32), “I have spoken with the tongue of angels” (I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For, 1 Cor 13:1), and on and on with examples of scriptural Easter eggs.

My parents were skeptical, but allowed the indulgence. Truth be told, I didn’t ever really buy in to my own argument. As a fundamentalist Christian, I always considered Bono’s brand of liberal, social-justice Christianity to be a false or lesser faith. My simplistic view on spiritual matters saw the bands’ nuance as the the kind of lukewarm faith that Revelation says will be spit out. U2 weren’t proclaiming their spiritual answers, as commanded. It was not mine to judge, but I kind of judged.

Despite that philosophical difference, I loved everything about their music –sticking with them through experimental phases of Zooropa, Pop and beyond. I went to their concerts whenever opportunity arose, more often creating the opportunities in cities like Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, San Jose, Las Vegas across decades and tours. Collecting obscure, rare and unreleased tracks and bootlegs (in a pre-file-sharing age) brought me joy as a deeper-than-average fan. Sometimes it was the message of the songs that spoke to me, sometimes just the rhythmic riffs and lilting vocals.

In the wake of my deconversion from Christianity to atheism, I find myself aligning more closely with the social worldview of lead singer Bono than I did when we shared a faith label. AIDS prevention, third-world debt relief, truth equality of the Abrahamic religions (“Jesus, Jew, Mohammed… it’s true“), same-sex marriage and gay rights, and other “left” causes… things that turned me off in a former life.

To be sure, Bono is a theist. In Michka Assayas’ book, Bono, the singer lays out his loose theology which incorporates karma, fatherhood, and friendship with more traditional Christianity tenets.

“When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s— and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.”

When posed with C.S. Lewis’ “liar, lunatic or lord” trilemma, I tend to go with “(d) legend”, but that is a subject for another time. Orthodox or not, still haven’t found what he’s looking for or not, you know Bono believes it.

Like an immigrant living in a new land, I can be delighted to hear the tongue of my youth, no matter the sentiment expressed. With so much of my life invested in studying the Bible, I remain part of the inner circle who understand the pervasive scriptural in-jokes of U2’s lyrics — getting all the references, but not offended by any creative twists or heretic reworkings. It is connective tissue.

With the turmoil of the past few years of my life, the music of U2 remained part of the small unchanging core. A fixed point. Certainly, some songs have slipped from prayer to nostalgia. Others that were once merely poems are now profound reflections or surgical daggers. There are phrases in U2’s discography that grip me and tear me, and to identify examples would betray too much.

Assuming that U2’s next album will not once again be thrust unsuspectingly on my iPhone, I will continue to seek them out and hand them my money. Even if their repertoire sours in the future, U2 will always remain my answer to the “what is your favorite band?” security question.

In “All Along the Watchtower”, Bono lists his assets as “three chords and the truth”. He and I have never quite agreed on that last part, but in the first we find common ground where we can search for the middle.

This entry is in response to a reader request. If there is any topic you’d like to see me cover in the future, please let me know.

To Those Who Escaped the Maze

I don’t know if I could express my own emotions and feelings about my life on this side of atheism any better than this podcast host could in describing his listeners.

If you’d like to know the current me a little better, listen to the end. I guess attempt to find comfort that my story is so common.

“I know he’s given up a lot of himself to get there. I know he had to come face-to-face with a lot of demons, a lot of lies he’d been told by the people that love him and a lot of lies that he told to the people he loved. He had to simultaneously come to grips with both his culpability and his victimhood. He had to kick away pillars that had dammed back his doubts for decades and face that oncoming flood with no reward on the other side of it but knowledge.”

My Irrational Response to Irrational Science Denial

Despite my protestation that most theological beliefs are held with inadequate reasons, I fully support anyone who holds them. It took years of intense information pursuit to detangle myself from the indoctrination of my youth. While I wish I could provide an escape shortcut for some believers, ultimately I’m finding that I have a real peace toward those who hold to some form of theism or another. They are genuinely sincere and I remember thinking as they do.

What I find myself increasingly impatient and intolerant of, however, is science denialism.  Science denialists? People who just straight up deny science. People who are not scientists who proudly declare a contrary position.

Specifically, they selectively deny science. The fiber-optic cables, orbiting satellites, microscopic illuminated pixels and etched silicon that allows them to read this blog or tap like on an affirming sentiment overlaying the image of a sunset… whatever, could be faster. The specialized tubing threaded up to coronary arteries carrying a balloon to be inflated and implant a stent to prevent future heart attacks without invasive surgery… it’s a miracle. DNA sequencing that identifies parentage or puts an accused man in prison… undeniable.

However, when identical methods produce results that appear to be in conflict with economic benefit, lifestyle choice, or worst of all… the interpreted meaning of ancient holy books, the scientific method is suddenly in the reliability category of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey played by devious hucksters.

I can’t put my finger on it, but my emotions rise when this happens. I have visceral anger and physical response when an armchair observer thinks they have the secret data that undermines entire fields. As if, somehow, these gotchas have never reached the people spending their lifetimes dedicated to the fields in question. Or, more importantly, never reached competing scientists who could earn a Nobel prize and funding for life by calling out the Emperor’s new clothes.

Obviously, all scientific claims take on the burden of proof. If the evidence is not compelling to you, that is your right, privilege and duty as a skeptic to not accept. Everyone should be skeptical. However, if you do not take the time or effort to actually understand the claims and the evidence, then your conclusions cannot and should not be respected. Worse yet, if you had your conclusions before examining the data… your opinion deserves to be ignored.

(The potential irony of my feelings about science denial compared to my own deity denial is not lost on me. It is why I attempt to be relentless in seeking every argument for a god, every evidence for the Bible. A theist may assert that I’m just not seeing the evidence, as I might say to them about science. But I do all that I can to look myself in the mirror with intellectual honesty and know that I’m genuinely open to my position being challenged and shown incorrect. How sure is a position that refuses evaluation?)

Some deniers appeal to common sense. As if common sense has ever had anything to do with any scientific discovery. Frankly, it is the counter-intuitive nature of the universe that necessitates science in the first place. It is not common sense that the heavy objects and light objects fall at the same rate. It is not common sense that invisible microscopic organisms cause disease. It is not common sense that apparently solid objects are composed of atoms that are themselves largely made up of empty space. Intuition is not a way of knowing. Incredulity is not a counterpoint. Common sense loses to evidence and explanatory power.

Some deniers point to the changing nature of science, as if that fluidity makes its conclusions tentative or unreliable. Science improves. Science corrects. Science welcomes new data. At no time has science ever abandoned a natural explanation for a supernatural one.

Some deniers point to frauds (intentional and ignorant) of the past, well-known methodological limitations or unsettled details as if they might in any way taint other observations or conclusions. To add to the insult, all of the cited frauds, limitations and disagreements were discovered by other scientists… not science deniers. It is what scientists do… attempt to invalidate. Whatever the denier thinks, science isn’t ignoring these points, as science discovered them.

In the midst of this sea of intellectual irritation, I have found soothing solace in the sincerity and mission of ministries like Reasons to Believe and BioLogos. These are organizations comprised of scientists who are Christians who write to an audience of Christians who are not scientists. They believe that their god has revealed himself in two separate but equal revelations — scriptures and nature.

Because these groups “affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God”, I prefer to refer to their resources on topics like

It removes the fallacy of differing worldview distraction from the equation. Deniers may not know it, but millions of Christians embrace the revelation of creation without threat to their faith.

If you are into science, that’s great. Please take the time to honestly understand and evaluate the claims being made by the communities that dedicate their entire lives to the advancement of knowledge.

If you’re not into science — if you don’t know or care about the magnetic, gravitational and gyroscopic factors taken into consideration to maintain the geosynchronous orbit that brings data to your cell phone — please be humble enough to acknowledge that while neither consensus nor authority is adequate to establish truth, it takes rare insight, aptitude and tenacity to justify breaking with them. There’s a reason why we remember names like Einstein, Newton, Galileo and Pasteur.

(If you think you have some gotcha tidbit in favor of a young earth, anti-evolution, pro-flood thinking, please check it against the Talk Origins index of creationist claims. At least know the counterpoint — whether you agree or not — before bringing it up. On the other hand, if you have something new, I’d genuinely love to hear it.)

If your god needs protection from science, then he isn’t much of one.