Why Paulogia Is Wrong About The Max Data Case

By: Than Christopoulos - May 23, 2025

Editors Note- This is a pop-level version of the more in depth response I wrote.
If you want more nuance and detail, please consider reading that version instead.

  

Summary

    Paulogia, yet again, misunderstands the Max Data case for the resurrection of Jesus. This is an article unpacking the logic, and the issues with the way he and many other skeptics engage with the argument   

Recently, Paulogia made a tweet dismissing arguments for Jesus’ resurrection. At first glance, it sounded clever. But when you stop and think about it, it falls apart. Why? Because it misrepresents how historical reasoning actually works—and it tries to make serious arguments look like blind faith.

screenshot taken from X

So let’s break it down. I’m going to explain the logic behind the case for the resurrection of Jesus in simple terms—and show why Paulogia’s critique misses the mark.

1. What Are the Gospels Trying to Do?

The first question isn’t “Did the resurrection happen?” It’s this:

What kind of documents are the Gospels?

This is where the Historical Reportage Model (HRM) comes in. The HRM is a hypothesis about the literary intent of the Gospel authors. It says:

The Gospel writers aimed to record real events about Jesus’ life and death, based on eyewitness testimony or early sources they trusted.

This model doesn’t assume:

• The Gospels are inspired

• The Gospels are error-free

• The resurrection happened
  
  

Instead, it treats the authors like ancient biographers—people trying to get the facts right based on what they heard or saw.

Think of it like a documentary vs. a myth. HRM says the Gospels are the ancient version of the former.

That’s important because how you classify a document shapes how you evaluate its claims. If the Gospels are sincere reportage, that changes how much weight we give their testimony.

2. Okay, So What Actually Happened?

Once we treat the Gospels as sincere historical sources (even if imperfect), the next question is:

What’s the best explanation for the claims they record?

That’s where the Maximal Data Case comes in.

This isn’t theology—it’s historical reasoning. It looks at multiple lines of evidence:

• Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

• His tomb was reported empty.

• His followers believed they saw Him alive after death—alone and in groups.

• Enemies like Paul and James became believers.

• A resurrection-centered movement spread rapidly, even under threat.
  
  

The question is: What best explains all of that?

That’s not a question of faith—it’s a question of inference. We weigh options:

• Hallucinations?

• Lies?

• Legend?

• Or maybe... He actually rose?
  
  

3. No, It’s Not “Just Believe with Extra Steps”

Paulogia, like many skeptics, tries to shortcut the whole discussion by saying it’s just a dressed-up version of “Because the Bible says so.”

But that’s false.

The reasoning doesn’t go:

“The Gospels say Jesus rose → therefore He did.”

It goes:

1. The Gospels were written as sincere historical accounts (HRM).

2. If that’s true, then we’re dealing with firsthand claims about what happened.

3. Now we ask: Given the context, what best explains those claims?
   
   

It’s exactly what detectives, scientists, and historians do all the time.

And here’s the catch: once you separate the HRM from the resurrection conclusion, the resurrection starts looking surprisingly reasonable.

That’s probably why critics conflate the two—it avoids having to engage with the evidence.

4. But Don’t Miracles Have a Low Probability?

One of the oldest objections is this: “Miracles just don’t happen. So no matter what the evidence says, it’s never enough.”

That’s a holdover from David Hume, the 18th-century philosopher who said miracles violate the laws of nature, and so no testimony could ever justify belief in one.

But this argument fails on two fronts.

First, it's circular.

If you assume miracles can't happen, then of course you’ll conclude they didn’t. But that’s not a fair evaluation—it’s rigging the game.

Second, it misuses probability.

Bayesian reasoning shows that even rare events can become believable when the evidence is strong enough.

For example: If someone tells you there’s a tiger in your backyard, you’d probably laugh.

But what if:

• Three trusted neighbors say they saw it?

• You see it on the news?

• Animal control confirms it?
  
  

Now you’re not laughing. You’re locking your door.

That’s how probability works: your belief updates as new data comes in.

So even if the resurrection starts with a low prior (say, 1 in a million), strong and consistent evidence can raise that dramatically. In fact, even a few key pieces of data—like the group appearances or the conversion of Paul—can shift the odds exponentially in favor of the resurrection.

5. The Resurrection Hypothesis Explains the Data Better

Let’s be honest: no one thinks hallucinations explain everything—group sightings, empty tomb, radical transformations, rapid spread in a hostile setting. And the "disciples lied" theory? That doesn't explain why they'd willingly suffer and die for something they knew was false.

In contrast, the resurrection hypothesis fits:

• It explains the appearances.

• It explains the conversions.

• It explains the rise of Christianity in Jerusalem.

• It even explains the timing and tone of the earliest messages.
  
  

It makes sense of the facts. That doesn’t mean it’s proven with 100% certainty. But historical events never are. What matters is: Does it explain the data better than anything else?

6. But What If You Still Think the Prior is Too Low?

Even if you grant that the resurrection explains the data, you might still say, “Yeah, but it’s just so unlikely to begin with.”

But is it?

If God exists, then miracles aren’t absurd. In fact, if God is good and wants to redeem the world, a miracle like the resurrection actually becomes expected.

• It’s a fitting climax to a redemption story.

• It vindicates Jesus’ moral and spiritual authority.

• It launches the movement that follows.
  

The more you consider the bigger picture—theism, incarnation, divine purpose—the less the resurrection looks like a lightning bolt out of nowhere, and the more it looks like the turning point of a meaningful story.

The Bottom Line

Paulogia’s tweet might feel clever—but it flattens a rigorous historical argument into a straw man. The case for the resurrection isn’t blind faith. It’s not “the Bible says so.”

It’s this:

Given what the Gospels are, and given the historical data they present, the resurrection of Jesus explains that data better than any rival theory.

If that’s true, then even starting from skepticism, the evidence leads somewhere surprising.

And ignoring that isn’t intellectual honesty.

It’s just avoiding the question.

Special Note- This is a pop-level version of the more in depth response I wrote. If you want more nuance and detail, please consider reading that version instead.