Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Resurrection Witnesses?!? Where's the evidence? (Sean McDowell response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 апр 2023
- In conversations and debates about the resurrection, one claim that’s often made is that the apostles died for their faith. Perhaps the foremost expert on the subject, @SeanMcDowell has concluded that all the apostles were genuine, and that some of them even died as martyrs. Host @nahoalife954 offered some questions and objections: how can we trust the apostles who were NOT killed for their faith? What about the possibility that they lied in order gain power in the early church? Is it reasonable to suggest that they were willing to die for selfish incentives, as opposed to holy convictions?
And, as always, this former Christian now takes a look at the claims of these Christians.
The Sincerity of the Apostles: Discussion with Dr. Sean McDowell
• The Sincerity of the A...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada
Thanks for engaging with my content! I appreciate your compliments and responses.
You’re a very impressive young man Nahoa. Very well spoken and clearly intelligent.
If an old fart like me can offer a hint of life advice to a young man… you’ll get a lot of positive comments like mine telling you how impressive you are, and that feels wonderful. But it’s dangerous to chase that positive reinforcement. Use that intelligence of yours and keep asking questions and follow what makes sense to you, even if it doesn’t bring admiration from others.
I wish the best to you in whatever you do in life Nahoa!
Your parents HAVE to write a book on how to raise a terrific son like you !!
Hugs to the family !!!!
You have a bright future ahead of you.. that much is obvious.
Keep it up 💯
I genuinely wish you the best ❤
Keep up the good work bro
When you mentioned Joseph Smith, that made me think that your name really does sound like a name you’d read in the book of Mormon like if I saw your name in the Book of Mormon, I wouldn’t even flinch because it sounds like a name Joseph Smith would come up with especially since it sounds like a variation on the name Noah, and that was kind of what Joseph Smith would do when coming up with them is either take a biblical name like Benjamin or Nephi or he’ll take a Hebrew word, no matter how little it makes sense to name a Hebrew character After that word like Alma being named, Alma doesn’t make any sense because naming a son Alma is like naming a son bitch or I guess it could be taken as a compliment, saying that a guy has the beauty of a young woman but even then, I don’t think it would be taken as a compliment by most
Thank you for mentioning the "never lost a case" claim. Like, he's the detective, not the attorney! Detectives don't "win or lose", and the idea that they are personally attached to the outcome of the murder cases should be VERY troubling. Detectives bragging about their "record" are the detectives who are later found to be planting evidence and helping convict innocent people.
Not to mention that, somehow, we've all just agreed to conflate what J Warner Wallace thinks motivates murderers with what might have motivated a handful of people 2000 years ago to believe in Jesus. In what world are those things even REMOTELY analogous?!
amen
Seconded! Cops and detectives are ROUTINELY the least reliable sources of information, and are REGULARLY insulated against consequences for lying because of Qualified Immunity. The fact an apologist uses his cop background to lend his theology credence is..........laughable
@@Vishanti Cops lie on the stand so often *they* came up with a term for it: Testilying.
I've never seen Wallace say anything remotely compelling in the way of arguments, and find it disturbing that he was ever involved in LE.
@@pineapplepenumbra Everything I've heard him say has told me that he was a terrible investigator. His MO was clearly, 1. choose someone to be the guilty party. 2. Find or manufacture evidence to demonstrate that guilt.
If this young man keeps asking such good questions and applying critical thinking he will probably end up like the rest of us who honestly questioned and sought truth, former Christians. That is my hope not just because I want religion relegated to history but, the world needs people who are willing to be intellectually honest and accept the truth when they find it.
I hope you are correct.
@Baker Banking 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Baker Banking At best the pantheist concept of God makes the most sense. Yahweh isn't God, Zeus isn't God, Vishnu isn't God etc. The bible is nothing but myths there was no Adam, no Noah no Moses, No Jesus, No Peter, and no Paul.
@Baker Banking are you able to support your claim?
@@bakerbanking
Oh, you must have seen evidence that the others of us, who have studied for decades, haven’t seen. Or maybe you should consider that you have been convinced by things that we are also aware of, but we recognize that those things contain logical fallacies or unfounded premises.
This Nahoa guy is really well-spoken and thoughtful, and not just “for his age”.
While he’s accepting silly arguments, he’s not just _parroting_ them: he’s actually thinking about them as applying the closest thing to reason that his faith will allow.
Which means he’ll either learn too much and reason his way out, or he’ll go on to be an influential evangelist/“philosopher”, to surpass WLC/JWW/SMcD.
I know which one i’m hoping for.
He might just become a grifter if he's not one already. This world is full of grifters.
Future apologetic dreams. Most of these apologists just parrot bad arguments involving special pleading or biased reasoning as if that's what non believers do as well. Everything is 50/50 chance with the Bible tells me so and early church fathers/apologists writings tipping the scales in favor of the Christian flavor of theism😅
If he starts being intellectually honest, he may be a great asset to the RUclips atheist pseudo-community.
If the kid keeps doing this, give it under 5 years before he’s out
A good con artist has a plant in the audience, to ask "tough" questions other people might have so the con can answer them in a rehearsed fashion. Someone running a three card monte stand will have a plant play a few rounds and win, to encourage actual marks to try it for themselves when they see how easy it is.
The only thing this "guy" is doing is throwing softballs, like a "journalist" interviewing a friendly politician, using a tough-sounding tone of voice but letting the liar change the question and waffle on for as long as they like and then never actually give a damn whether the original question was addressed.
If you pay attention to the questions Rapper McWannabe is asking and Grift Jr.'s answers, you'll quickly realize your hope is in vain already. You're hoping the _plant_ will figure out the con.
I really hope this kid pursues truth and keeps pressing apologists like this. Even if he stays a Christian, I would absolutely prefer someone so unafraid to engage in harder questions even if the soft answers given aren’t satisfactory to the rest of us. I hope you’re able to talk with him some day, you both seem to approach things similarly but just from opposite sides of the aisle
Seems a bit to polished.
@@Cheepchipsable what’s that supposed to mean?
@@CharlesPayet Probably that he believes the kid was coached.
Sponsored by investors who expect a return on their investment, as media engagement and/or financially.
@@CharlesPayet
I don't believe the kid was coached; it is more likely his questions were predetermined by S.McD to run Dorothy Dixers. He is an impressive kid; if he is as bright as he seems, he will go a long way with his music. If he keeps up the façade of a Christian belief after discovering it is nonsense, it will be a double win for him as the god industry is a good money spinner.
I think the at some point "sincerity" can lead to "entrenchment," and we have numerous clear examples of this.
I have often told the story of Solomon Zeitlin-a prominent biblical scholar and editor of Jewish Quarterly Review-who came out very strongly of the opinion that the Dead Sea Scrolls were ell either modern forgeries or medieval. Several independent methods for dating the texts proved him to be-without a shadow of a doubt-wrong about this, and yet he continued for twenty years a campaign against their authenticity. He never recanted from this position in the face of resounding evidence, and against the grain of virtually the entire body of biblical scholarship.
I think at some point, for some people, for various reasons, their totally falsified beliefs about something become so deeply entrenched that there is no return for them. It is amazing how effective we are at lying to ourselves.
It's also worth remembering for those of us with family that are much less rigorous in their evidentiary research than Solomon Zeitlin would have been. It's unfortunate, but a lot of us are experiencing such bullheaded entrenched views at family gatherings these days. And it's no longer just the one uncle that spends all day watching Fox News either.
Alas Kipp and Bree, I too am surrounded by entrenched beLIEvers in false crap. And like the Chinese finger trap, the harder one tries to pull away from this lunacy, the more obstreperous the beLIEvers spout their oxymoronic "biblical Truth(tm)".
21:20 It's a pleasure to hear McDowell admit that he is not in a position to change his views unless he is prepared to lose his job. This is an admission we would not have heard 2-4 years ago. But we hear it now because people like Godless Engineer and Dr. Carrier have been pointing out the inherent conflict between real, objective scholarship and people who call themselves scholars but work for organizations such as Biola, which prohibit them from going where the evidence leads.
*21:02
It sounds like corporate manipulations. It's nothing new to bar people off from the truth, sadly.
If you listen to his comment carefully, he's saying that he has to be careful in his "research" to avoid considering anything that might make his doubt his belief. He's no different in this way then countless other apologists but it is refreshing to hear him admit it.
@@fred_derf
Did someone in your family live in Pal Indrome? I recall a brother and sister, Renner and Hannah. 😏 Their Dad was Bob and Mom was Lil. 😏
@@fred_derf Exactly. It's the admission I was remarking on. Being open about it is already a big step.
Damn! This kid is way more sharp at his age than I was. I'd never have caught half the stuff he did. He's good! He's definitely got a bright future ahead of him, regardless of whether he stays a Christian or not.
He's got pushy parents. Like the science fair kid with a Ph.D. mom and dad.
He’s sharper than I am now 😂 Very impressive!
I stumbled upon this kids channel awhile ago and was similarly impressed. Very cool of you to signal boost him, Paul. Maybe as he builds confidence in his knowledge he’ll begin interviewing some skeptical scholars as well. I did see he’s already had Dale Allison on to explain the skeptical positions.
The kid has sharp parents. Same as Bill Gates and Taylor Swift and lots of others. Its nice to get that kind of head start into the world.
Too bad most of us are just lucky enough to figure out how to write a useful resume.
I feel pretty old. Thanks for the awesome content paul
My solution is to compare my age to either the methusalah tree or the glass sponge therefore I and all humanity are all just toddlers at best
@@drewmarteny1495 😆
Damn Paul “who else feels Old right now?” I’m 21!!! I’m and I’m to Young to feel this Old. Love your video as always.
*Great video Paul!*
What would be great to include in these discussions is the *political* context during the life of Peter and Paul.
Of greatest import by far is the lead- up to the Jewish-Roman war that lead to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and the expulsion of all Jews from the Holy Land.
The main players in that most significant drama are the Romans, obviously - the victors, and the Jewish factions known as the Zealots and the Sicarii.
Both of those Jewish groups were documented by Josephus to be killing Jews that didn't join them in their vain fight against the Romans, meaning that all Jews in Judea and the surrounding areas were caught between the two warring sides whether they liked it or not.
The decision of any Jew to be a Christian, and implicitly side with the Romans, or to remain a Jew and implicitly side with the Zealots and Sicarii, was not a simple choice.
And as far as anyone knew, the decision may not have made any difference either way.
Once Rome called in the legions, the massive influx of Rome's military strength meant that a huge number of soldiers were in now the conflict without the slightest clue about the subtle differences between the small number of Christians, and every other Jewish sect in Judea.
Even the Jewish Essenes, who stayed out of all of the fighting, and lived in the countryside, were hunted down and killed or removed in the aftermath of the war.
In one memorable section, Josephus describes the crucifixion of 300 Jews per day during the siege of Jerusalem.
The bottom line is this: Any discussion of someone's motivation to remain Jewish or to convert to Christianity has to be looked at in the context of the decades-long build-up to the war and the war itself.
And the decision is never as simple as it was made to look by apologists.
Let's be real: Being a Christian and remaining apart from the rebel Zealots and Sicarii actually looked like a good move until the Roman legions came in and killed most of the Jews, and likely most of the Christians as well.
I absolutely love hearing the jingle now, after watching the video explaining your thoughtful consideration in using it. 👏
I thought the same but never considered commenting. Thanks for your interest and contribution.
@@VaughanMcCue Love the courtesy shown by people who don't have to worry about a hell, just to be nice. It is like feeling the sun on a cool day, or a fresh breeze on a hot one.
Hugs through the internet !
@@onedaya_martian1238
Thanks I feel your kindness my favourite Martini
It is nice to see that a young mind at work. Critical, sceptic, not just believe things at face value. The future looks bright. Keep it up Nahoa.
I believe he is singing like a canary for SmcD.
Is he sincerely seeking truth?
I hope so.
But it doesn't take much due diligence to see the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is mythology.
Hey... I suffered for my faith! I had to attend church every Sunday... twice! 9 years at a Christian school and Tuesday evenings at Catechism class! If that isn't suffering, I don't know what is.
So glad I left.
If ever there was a case for sainthood, you deserve it. Martyrdom, and at such a young age.
LOL. A high five for the excellent point !!!
Nahoa is well spoken. He needs a session with Paulogia to round off the corners of his inquiries. Paul, I await.
And some Christian counselling from Dr Doug-of-PineCreek.
Watching the very beginning of this I think all of us whether atheist or Christian over the age of 30 had a shared moment where we all felt old LOL
YES YES YES - the return of the jingle.
New jingle: 🎶Because my feelings tell me so🎵
Sean will keep encouraging the kid to "seek truth" until it conflicts with his own theology, then he'll start tensing up and questioning everything Nahoa discovers.
You're a prophetess.
@@Paulogia as my late father used to say, "I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday!"
Sounds like both you and Nahoa have great parents. If only more folks were that lucky, what a more wonderful world this would be.
This kid’s parents must be proud, regardless of their faith. He is so smart, articulate and knowledgeable. And yes, I feel old after seeing him, and older than you Paul.
Another *great video Paul.*
This young guy does seem to be on the verge of *thinking critically* .. and not just lazily accepting everything he's told because it feels and sounds good.
Dude is gonna end up being an atheist asking those questions consistently
Nah, his parents know how to keep the money coming in, and they're doing it better than Britney's dad, that's for sure. The Williams sister's dad did well in tennis, you have to admit.
For some reason when the conversation revolves around the conjecture on the motivations of the disciples, I keep hearing about how they "knowingly faced death rather than recant." Even if you grant the multiple assumptions necessary to make that a broad claim, I have the impression that the threat analysis in the moment would never have assumed that likelihood to be high. In the way someone who engages in petty theft, say stealing valuables from personal vehicles at shopping centers, would know that they could be put in jail, perhaps for a fair length of time, they also weigh the likelihood of that probability, and they often miscalculate their odds because of personal biases & misconceptions about their own capacity to evade detection or investigation.
I believe that such assessments become even more reduced in estimation when we're talking about a period in history when they had no cameras, no formal investigative procedure or research to tell investigating parties the best practices to obtain useful results, no photo ID, only the most basic of citizen records, and so on. This was not the most sophisticated era of criminal procedure.
Yes, that can also mean that institutions will act with impunity and not have to follow rigid rules of justice processing, and so they can skip over things like presumption of innocence or gathering of evidence, but the tools by which one would be able to find, determine identity of, and prosecute crimes that aren't even depriving the citizenry of property or rights? Seems weak.
So when they cry "oh, they faced death and did not recant!" (specious claims as they may be), one answer might include "eh, maybe, but was that really true? *Did* they face death? Or did they guestimate the risk to reward ratio and figure that the immediate gratifications of status & group affiliation were great enough to afford themselves the small risk of violating one of the multitude of abstract prohibitions from a distantly removed ruler, enforced by the occasional soldier who would have to find and identify you by one of several names, relating to cerebral things like 'teaching about this idea'?"
I mean, the January 6th insurrection was thousands of people blatantly violating all manner of legal constraints they fully knew about, in the face of actual officers, in the presence of hundreds of active cameras, and even still the majority of those individuals have never been charged, despite the active efforts made in identifying & locating them within the surveillance states of America. Just sayin'.
Excellent points. I only disagree with comparing a religious sect with criminal activity. We know (I think the main source is Josephus) that the Jews of the time were not a religious monolith. There were at least 2 or 3 main factions plus movements like the John the Baptist’s popped up all the time. Furthermore the Romans, as longer as the imperial authority wasn’t questioned, were extremely tolerant of religious diversity. This idea that preaching was as risky as breaking the law imo has no basis in history.
I read that the Romans crucified thousands and thousands of Jews around the time of Jesus: all of them lawbreakers and/or rebels. Not one because of their religious beliefs. Seems safe to assume that the apostles knew that, as long as they abided the law and stayed out of politics, they were reasonably safe.
@@pansepot1490 Well, since the premise this kind of argument tends to be founded upon was that their sect had been outlawed & was legally sanctioned, the comparison seems apt enough, but it works for non-criminal behavior as well, if that behavior could warrant negative reprisal. The argument that their claims are lent credibility to some degree because they were being oppressed & threatened w/ persecution & death is predicated on the "criminal" nature of their actions, ergo it's a perfectly valid analogy.
But even if we grant that they weren't undertaking criminal activity, just violating the norms/mores of an opposing quasi-political faction of their source religious group, this only strengthens my overall point that modern Xians are making dubious claim about the threat the disciples would have faced. It's not truly them facing death if they don't recant, but "facing maybe some mild displeasure with the Romans bc their competitor religious group is covetous of their power & will stir up Roman authority to mess with them for getting the Jews angry." Their claims get even weaker if the preaching isn't actually a crime.
Maybe another way to consider it would be associating Roman rule w/ the US federal code and Jewish law with state's rights. The feds stay out of it, unless there's a big enough stink at the state level and they're asked to step in, or have an interest in maintaining state compliance with federal mandates. So it's a local law that concealed firearms aren't allowed; feds don't care. But the state says "there's an armed group of dudes saying seditious things about our state officials and attempting to incite locals to join them in violating state laws, including concealed carry prohibitions. Please send the National Guard." (Note that the US National Guard is jointly managed by both state and federal offices, so it's a cooperative effort, perhaps the same way a Roman centurion answers to the empire, but may be from the local population.)
Also not a perfect analogy, but roughly what I'm thinking. The concealed carry group (Jesus' devotees) may conclude that they can keep getting away with violating local (Jewish) laws because they rejected the state's (Jewish) authority, and aren't technically violating any federal (Roman) mandates. The may assess the risk of running afoul of the romans/feds as low, so they persist, not actually believing that they're "risking death" to carry the message (and perhaps that Jesus was about to come back and whoop everyone's ass anyway). Thus the presumption of martyrdom because they were "willing to die for their beliefs" is even less believable that the analysis given usually cites.
EDIT TO ADD: To be clear, I'm not really disagreeing with you exactly, just kind of continuing on with my original thought line on the fly, and I think you make great points.
Or maybe they were just mistaken, maybe the whole thing is just a story
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 I believe that position is among the various issues they addressed in the full discussion, but I was only meaning to speak to the commonly cited claim to credibility regarding the whole "they likely wouldn't make up something that would lead to their martyrdom!" thing. Which is what they spoke about in the video segment I responded to.
Ultimately I say yes, they were making the whole thing up, all this Apostle Adventure Time story stuff comes off as very embellished & exaggerated.
@@crazyprayingmantis5596
Story
As a teen, from my experience, other teens have asked me lots of questions about Christianity. I believe when Gen Z, gets older, there’s going to be lots and lots research and knowledge for religion and philosophy!!
There is more written about the bible and Shakespeare than there is in the content of either collection of stories. It will be up to people to collectively decide to advance the understanding our physical word or just chatter about fiction and worship abstractions then fight over being right about that crap.
Until humanity works together with its environment, we are just like the bugs and bacteria on this planet gobbling up as much as we can for "pleasure" and survival.
That statement about the only three reasons that people lie is extremely short-sighted. I can immediately off that top of my head think of shame or embarrassment, and the sparing of someone's feelings as two other reasons people might lie. And it took me 4 seconds to think of those so I'm certain there are more
18:54
How does a “cold case detective” lose a case?
When a court refuses to sentence the detective's suspect?
He did put in the fridge and forgot to plug the fridge in and the case melted.
Seeing the quality of his apologetic arguments, I'm more surprised that he ever managed to successfully get someone convicted and would hope that someone is looking into his cases to see how many innocent people he got put away.
@@lnsflare1 I think we all know the methodology he applies to his religion isn’t the same methodology he applies elsewhere in life. If he ever tried to bring a case to trial with an equivalent amount of evidence that there is for the disciples all being killed for their beliefs then he’d be laughed at and told to not to come back until he has some actual evidence.
@@Zheeraffa1
Another case of the ineffective and defective detective who should be more selective.
It's sad to me that these apologists lack the basic philosophic honesty to apply their arguments and approaches to other religions (or even situations). Christians (whatever the number) are not the only ones ready to suffer and die for what they believe in. If you are using that to confirm your belief in the 'truth' of Christianity, then you must surely accept the same argument for all the other religions, cults and sects that have irreputable evidence of people suffering and dying for their beliefs.
20:20 The PineCreek theorem in full action... LETS GO
"Were there REALLY Public Eyewitnesses of Risen Jesus?"
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooope.
😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
lost attention on the long answer, I'll need to rely on the short.
@@inyobill Same... who has time for those verbose explanations? 😁
the short answer is no, but I will take a firm bit of your time to wiggle around it.
This comment deserves more likes
This young man is impressive. Viva la youth!
Paulogia’s point of view so objective and evidence based , unbiased and concise is the very good reason I follow this channel, podcast and social media. Thanks Paul. Great job!
When I was a kid I saw some cartoon about Saul's trip to Damascus. It was meant to teach the bible. And the cartoon did not depict jesus as being a physical being on the ground. In my head, like the cartoon, jesus appeared to saul in the sky.
Yeah I've always thought this affection for Saul/Paul by evangelicals to be counter to what I always grew up being taught. Some of it is giving me a new perspective, which is good but like you, I was always under the impression that Paul was important but way less so than Peter and the other actual apostles. Kind of like he was another John the Baptist on the other end of the Jesus story.
@@TheClearwall if John the Baptist had been responsible for bringing in more than 50% of “easy religion” converts than maybe.
@@TheClearwall yes! Exactly. I always saw it as Paul wasn't a real apostle because he wasn't around when Jesus was alive.
It really confused me when I started paying attention to speakers outside the Catholic church and they started talking about the apostle Paul's writings. Like, come on, he's no Peter.
Love your work, Paul!
The testimony loses a lot of its force if the "eyewitnessing" took place during an experience that had nothing to do with reality. Paul does not distinguish his vision from the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 which automatically makes their nature ambiguous. All the gospel stories look like legends evolving. Just read Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20-21 in that order to see the differences.
Just look at the Pericope Adulterae passage that was added in 400AD by people like Origen son of Leonides. Suddenly, you have Augustine the rich sinner of Hippo saying that it must have been that “bad Christians” like rich Theophilus and his paid scribes must have TAKEN OUT the Pericope Adulterae in 300sAD and before due to fear their wives would cheat on them if they had the “excuse from punishment” found in the very tempting/conversion-enticing Pericope Adulterae passage.
i just read those 4 scriptures in sequence. The discrepancies, contradictions and embellishments are astounding. But don't forget 2 Timothy 3;16, which states that ALL scripture is inspired of God...All scripture... I guess he had a bad connection on the days he 'inspired' fallible men to put pen to parchment
There's also a good article by Tim which shows how the resurrection legend grew.
*Answer*
"What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1" - Quora
@@epicofatrahasis3775 Yeah that should be required reading.
@@resurrectionnerd Definitely.
This kid rocks. He’s obviously very smart and is actually thinking about these things.
Nahoa definitely seems like a good indicator of something better if not a uptick or a new trend but something different than normal.
A markedly good start.
I can't wait for your next video in this series. 1) Resurrection and 2) Martyrs are the conversations I'm following most on your channel. I also like hearing about the problem of evil, and the character of god in the bible.
great vid and commentary
Really impressed by this kid's intelligence, poise, and genuine desire to learn. He's capable of accomplishing so much. I hope he keeps questioning.
though he may know its made the likes of sean mcdowell very rich and he doesn't fancy working for a living
Sean McDowell is special pleading nearly throughout this interview.
As far as motivations, there is a much longer possible list than money, sex, or power. There's belonging to a special group, there's being admired, there's the desire to be in the inner circle and "in the know," there's enthusiasm for something new, there's revenge, among other things. And of course there is also the reality that over time, whatever the original motivation, people can become increasingly committed to an idea or belief set simply because they become identified with it, and it is a normal human desire to be seen as consistent. It is also true that people who gain fame and recognition for something can come to believe their own hype and rewrite their own memories.
None of it stands up to scrutiny.
You made excellent points, and I didn't even bother contemplating the alternatives. Australia and New Zealand use April 25 as a commemoration of the war dead. All those people died because they believed something. Some believed they would go to jail if they did not accept conscription.
Well said ! Good comment.
There’s no way they wanted to be admired as their message was very controversial (Galatians 1:10, 5:11). Paul belonged to a special group known as the Pharisees and the Twelve could’ve stayed as Jews as they were already seen as a special group, and they were part of an inner circle you could say of God’s chosen people.
You need to provide evidence that they rewrote their memories because that is just an ad hoc fallacy, just like how Paulogia proposed that Paul felt guilty and had a psychotic break. Speculation is not a good argument.
Read George Lyttelton and Gilbert West’s books on Paul and the resurrection.
@@Nameless-pt6oj If everyone around you is also part of "God's chosen people," then you are not special...and you are taking Paul's word for the idea that it was particularly controversial...in any case, people take up controversial views and do controversial things all the time just for the sake of notoriety, not to mention the other motives I listed above...normal human behavior. Being an ordinary member of "God's chosen people," just like everyone else one knows, is not remotely the same as being part of a new special group chosen by "the Messiah" and of course if one gets to be the leader of that small group, that's WAY more special than being an ordinary Jew like everyone else.
As for evidence...no, I don't really. I was just pointing out other motivations people could easily have besides the simplistic false dichotomy Sean McDowell and other apologists try to propose. The truth is that all of the "apostles" except Peter disappear from the account after Acts 1...Peter disappears after Acts 9...we have no evidence what happened to any of Jesus' disciples beyond that, neither within the bible nor without, until legendary accounts from the 4th century. We also have no idea who actually wrote the gospels, all we know is they come decades later (at the very earliest)...so the real need for evidence is from anyone who claims to know who wrote those accounts and what happened to the disciples.
All we have is words. Man made words.
This kid is good! We can expect a lot from him in the future (unless he gets rich from an apologetics book/movie.)
He could be the next Kirk Cameron!
I like the kid! He seeks truth, and truth is good! 😄👍
Oh man, I felt that intro. The first thing I thought when I saw him was “Jeez, am I that old already?”
@ 7:33 Nero scapecoating the Chrestians is a Tacitus story written about 100 years after Nero.
It is most likely that Nero used an obscure group as scapegoat, but Tacitus is referring to the Chrestians he knew living in a complete different situation then 100 year before.
And the martyrdom and repent case is even from a much later source nl Eusebius who wrote his stories even after the reign of Constantine.
Apologists love the idea fix that Christians did not change idea and attitude over a 1000 years
Only Sex, Power or Money drive people to lie? Uh, how about a guilty conscience or fear of punishment. The last ones do NOT seem to fit into any of the first three. RockOn, Paulogia.
I’d suggest that fear of consequences just pushes back the motivation to a different crime. Eg. Someone might rape, then kill the person so they don’t go to the police. Fear of consequences is the motivation for the murder, but not the rape. So in this case I’d say whatever the motivation was for the rape is the underlying motivation for the murder as well.
I agree there are other motivators though. I’d say that love is a far, far stronger motivator than sex.
And let’s not forget JWW said every case he saw had one of the three listed motivations.
- Not a single case where someone murdered for revenge?
- Not a single case where someone murdered to protect a loved one?
- Not a single case where a man killed his wife or girlfriend after being emotionally manipulated? (Angry ex-husbands with no access to the kids etc)
- No cases where someone killed another person in order to be with the person they were in love/infatuated with?
- [Edit: Not a single case where mental instability or a break was the cause?]
Ok then, Jay! You’ve had the most amazing career if you never came across any of these motivations. Unbelievably so. As in - utterly not believable.
Which leaves me in the position of having to believe something absolutely unbelievable and without any evidence other than JWW’s claim, or otherwise he’s either drastically embellishing the truth or outright lying in order to promote his religion. All while he’s making the argument that early religious leaders would never lie nor drastically embellish to promote their religion. Them lying/embellishing is so implausible that we can dismiss it and instead must believe their unbelievable claim. Ok, Jay… sure thing. The thing that humans do all the time can’t possibly have happened and instead a literal miracle must have happened.
*Taking notes* during your video as usual Paul. Great job.
Thanks!5
thank you!
I would love to see a video on the gospel of John. My father had me read some of it, and I just found it to be disjointed and disinteresting. I am curious to know more about the history of it.
Loved the gentle humour at the start of this video, Paul. 😄 Please carry on
Kids these days 😅
Nahoa was certainly impressive. I'm less concerned with
the production values than the logic and clarity of the
arguments and continue to find yours more valuable. If
Nahoa persists and is sufficiently skeptically reflective,
I expect him to agree with you eventually.
Thanks, Paul.
Splendid stuff
Wallace is NOT a "foremost expert on the law". The vast majority of cops aren't experts on law, in any way. They know what rules they're supposed to follow, but the vast majority are just above a layman when it comes to the law, and frequently lower when it comes to civil rights. Even lawyers can and do get the law wrong, especially when outside of their practiced specialty; as most will cheerfully admit. A 1st Amendment specialist, for example, will not be an expert on criminal law in a state they aren't licensed to practice in.
Cops also lie. They lie under oath, too. So I wonder where in Wallace's precious list lying cops fall. Don't believe me? Every single DA has what is called a Brady list. This is a list of cops with a known history of lying, falsifying reports, and other clear credibility issues. It's a list of cops that no DA ever wants to call on for testimony in court.
Wallace has also never won a single case. Lawyers win or lose cases, not cops. So unless he is being cited as an expert on investigating the cold cases that he was involved in and went to trial and were won, he is not a reliable expert.
Solid historical grounds = thin ice.
More like quicksand.
Love you Paulogia, you are a serious force for the progress of humanity, thank you from socal! And yes, the young lad is sharp and smart (feeling a little ancient here:) and I wouldn’t be surprised if he became agnostic as he continues on his journey to truth and comes to better understand what evidence & science are as related to religion.
Nope.
Nahoa does a better job at this than many much more established people I've seen, honestly mad props to him! Looking forward to seeing where his channel goes - and of course lowkey hoping these critical thinking skills ultimately lead him away from Christianity
What the hell 😂 they start apologetics in Kindergarten? God I feel old 😢
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think Heaven's Gate is one of the best counter-arguments against "the disciples would only go through this pain if Jesus had actually resurrected" claim; the members of Heaven's Gate had never met or seen the aliens they thought were coming to pick them up, yet they still willingly died for this belief.
I go back and forth on McDowell. Today I appreciate him acknowledging the conflict of interest inherent to working under a statement of faith.
I have had a number of occasions, prior to my deconversion, where I have sat in church or in Sunday school or in a small prayer group or Bible study, and heard sincere believers testify that God was speaking to them and telling them some important message, when no audible voice was heard. I've heard preachers proudly declaring from the pulpit that God was truly present in the congregation when there was no such tangible manifestation. I've spoken with a lady who earnestly shares with any who will listen that she knew God was real because he miraculously healed her from cancer, and when I asked for the details (which she was quite reluctant to share) it turned out that she'd had a small melanoma, detected very early, which a dermatologist removed and assured her that her odds of long-term survival were in the high 90-percents. Yes, decades later, the gospel writers went out of their way to portray the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus as physical resurrection, but all it would have taken _initially_ to plant the story of a risen savior would be for at least some of the early believers to be the same as the believers we see today. So I find Sean's arguments about resurrection witnesses unconvincing.
And yes, that is one VERY impressive kid!
New sub paul...Love your videos man I have a couple of Christians at work and you have very very good arguments ive fact checked you in a couple different circumstances and you seem to know what your talking about. I hope you see this comment. I'd like to see something from you on how to disprove chirstianity in a conversation and how to ask effective questions toward an end. I'd also like to see you edit in your sources maybe with a screen shot to make things easier to follow. If you can't thats fine I appreciate time you took to read this. And thank you for the time you took to make this video! Keep at it!
Look up street epistemology. Specifically Anthony Magnabosco on RUclips. I believe asking deep, Socratic, but kind questions is the best way to get people to change their minds.
And don’t expect to change any minds in just one conversation.
I’d suggest don’t have the goal of disproving Christianity. Have the goal of educating and understanding.
Personally I don’t want a world with no theists. I want a world where people think about their beliefs and where the strength of their beliefs is in proportion to the evidence. That’s the big issue I see - people have a lot of confidence in what they’re told about God because it’s obvious… everyone around them knows it’s true. Trouble is, what everyone around them “knows” isn’t based on solid grounding.
I’d suggest far more people leave the faith (or stop being fundamentalist… a far more concerning trait) by having a single thing they believed adamantly being shown to be baseless. From there, if they’re honest they’ll go looking to see if their other beliefs are equally baseless. I think this is far more fruitful than being the atheist proving to them their religion is totally false.
Am I mistaken in thinking that Sean is starting to talk more like William Lane Craig? Specifically his cadence.
19:30 - Since when do detectives - police officers - "win" or "lose" cases? Officers interview suspects & witnesses, collect evidence and so on. But they do not try cases in court - that's the job of the DA or other state's attorney.
Well, it's easy to claim that you won a case when you fabricated evidence or filed misleading reports. Given how often it comes out that police blatantly lie about the circumstances of crimes (when they're forced to show bodycam footage), I give Wallace no benefit of the doubt in his boasting either.
Cops love to take credit for the convictions the lawyers obtain. And lawyers love to take credit for the boneheaded stuff defendants do to get themselves convicted. It's a team effort.
We need more counter apologetic conversations about all the *absolutely absurd* things that the first generation of church fathers (who we can be fairly confident knew some apostles [Clement, Polycarp, etc.]) say they were told by the eyewitness about the lives, careers, and teachings of Jesus and the apostles. There is no such thing as reliable church history or tradition, everyone seems to have been making things up from day one.
19:25 I'm very impressed that you have a clip of the 90s British comedy The Detectives with Jasper Carrott and Robert Powell. I didn't think you would have heard of it.
The issue I have with J Warner Wallace saying crimes are committed for money, power and/or sex motivations is that making up stories about God is not a crime. It wasn't a crime to make up stories about Thor either but happened. What was the motivation for that?
I don't know why we're discounting the possibility that they were both knowingly lying about the resurrection and still not admitting it under torture or death. It is absolutely possible to believe that a particular message is important enough or strong enough or will have a massive impact on the world that despite it not being based on a true event you would still Proclaim it even to death.
Instead of suggesting the disciples lied, a simpler explanation is that the four gospel writers lied - or to put it nicely, were writing theological fiction. (It really isn't lying if you believe your audience knows you intend it as fiction, even if later generations miss that vital point.)
We don't know who these authors were, and therefore don't know how they died, and if they died for their beliefs. And even if say Mark did get killed for this, he could recant all he wants, but his writings were still out there.
This leaves Paul, who relates a great group of people "saw" the resurrected Jesus. However, he puts himself in that category. What he seems to claim is something that could be explained as an hallucination - even just hearing voices and seeing a bright light. (Since he never suggests he saw Jesus in real life, we don't even know how any visual details he "saw" even match what the historical Jesus - if any - was supposed to look like.)
So a skeptic can easily pass off Paul's list of "witnesses" as people just hallucinating. They don't have to agree on what they saw. And no more believable than the vast crowds who claim to have seen Mary in more recent times.
A believer can argue this but very weak tea to anyone else, both those who don't believe there is ANY god and also for those who still believe in a supernatural cosmic entity but adhere to a different faith.
This is a good point and you can take it even further by saying "Maybe the disciples AND the gospel writers ( who would have been disciples themselves) didn't lie, but the people responsible for translating and compiling the books of the gospel wanted to shape a specific message in a specific way and manipulated the writings themselves to serve that purpose."
We have no indication the gospels were written to be read as fiction. “Theological propaganda”, sure, but there isn’t much reason to think there’s no historical kernel to what they write. Personally I think, and mainstream scholars agree, that the authors believed much of what they wrote was historical as well, which isn’t to say it actually was.
@@Jd-808 so did the temple at Delphi actually defended from attack by the gods throwing lighting, as there is nothing in the story to say it was fiction.
@@michaelchampion936 I’m saying it was not INTENDED to be fiction. That’s not the same as saying it can just be accepted as historical.
@@Jd-808 There wasn't such a strict delineation between history and fiction in the past as there is today. From that perspective likely the gospels were a mixture of rumors and inventions to spice them up for their readers. And the authors would have felt no compunction for writing in this style, which is surely the main literary genre in the bible anyway. It is only very recently that history has become a more scientific endeavour, but still many authors will select based on their own biases.
This channel should have more subs.😊
So nobody kills for love❓️
To apologists, love = sex ???
I’m proud that I heard “LUT” and I knew what that was. They’re wonderful btw, for anyone who does video editing.
21:09
Knowing someone's *livelihood* depends on them *professing their faith* and preaching that the *Bible is true* just makes me feel a certain way; Kind of like the way I feel about *televangelists :-/*
Everyone needs to make money..
but it just makes me even more *critical of the unwavering claims.*
When the talk is about "money, sex, and power," I look at 1 Corinthians 9. There Paul talks about how he has the same authority as other apostles, and how they have believing wives, and how they do not have to work for a living. It sounds to me like Paul is saying that the other apostles hit the trifecta and complaining because he wants in on that as well. If you need to find a motivation to lie, well, it seems like these apologists who are mostly wealthy, married, influential white men have some interesting role models.
I hope this kid keep pushing. He'll eventually see how weak the arguments really are, and that modern Chritianity requires a willful suspension of disbelief.
Comicbook fans discussing the "truth" of their favorite comics. Nothing more.
A massive leap of logic🤦🏾♂️
Hey hey, this is like any religion … comic fans have more critical humility and less quiet desperation than this…. sometimes.
@@letsomethingshine Really...🤔
20:00 Actually, Jesus is said to have called a woman a dog (Matthew 15, Mark 7), so not quite a "perfect" track record for his treatment of the ladies. Though Jesus doesn't seem to be calling her a dog for being a woman, but for being a Greek woman, thus Jesus is moreso guilty of racism than sexism. Either way, not a loving or respectful way to address anyone. In Matthew 15, Jesus also is quoted to say he came only to the house of Israel, so he had no intention of being a messiah for the Greeks.
I gotta admit, I really like Nohoa here. Even if I disagree with him in the end, the guy seems quite a bit more honest than your average apologist, and his production quality, like you said, it top notch.
These are the same disciples who denied Jesus three times each?
*_The Vocabulary Of The Apologist_** ;*
Maybe, hopefully, if this then that, might be, should be, could be, we suspect, we hope, we believe, assuming this or that.
I can't stop myself from thinking of the jingle when I hear someone use the bible as proof for something
Remeber...it's true because it says its true. For some, that's all they need to know !! Sad.
This kid gives me hope for the next Gen. These are very well thought out questions, great research to carry discussion, and very polite. Keep thay brain well-fed little brother. Intelligence is needed.
If that kid is pulling on that string already he'll have the sweater unraveled in short order.
17:27 "sex money and power" That explains the motivation of almost every present-day televangelist.
"Meteorology is the science and study of meteors."
---Albert Einstein
I was curious to know whether it was for butchers and non-vegans. My head must have been in the clouds.
Since apologist don't seem to consider the "sincerely mistaken" option, I'm starting to think that to them "I truly believe" or "they truly believed" is the same as "It is objectively true". To them there is only "they are/were lying" or "it must be/have been factual". Once anything is truly believed, it is in fact, true. No more room for 'mistaken'. The problem is there are many facts most of us agree on and religion is not one of them. The main thing science tries to overcome is confirmation bias. Understanding this is a key to what makes many top scientists atheists.
None of this whole sincerity thing matters even a little to me.
I feel sooooo old
One thing about someone who is dishonest, they are rarely consistent when telling you their story as they are just making it up.
It’s pretty ironic that Christian apologists will claim that the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie or false belief, and yet acknowledge plenty of examples, including Joseph Smith, where people have. That, in and of itself, discredits the martyrdom of the apostles as good evidence for the truth of Christianity.
Just recently, the Good News International “cult” in Kenya all have killed themselves through “religious fasting”/starvation.
*most cult members
Yep! I like the fact that modern day apologists lie and misrepresent and embellish constantly for their religion. Yet they claim early Christians couldn’t possibly have lied and misrepresented and embellished for their religion! Nope, these things that humans do constantly could not be a possibility and we therefore have to take their word for it that a literal miracle happened 😂😂
How can anyone take this nonsense seriously?
Let's remember that SINCERITY doesn't mean that any of the disciples/apostles actually saw a risen JC in the flesh. ALL of JC's appearances may have been - probably were! - the same as Paul's, which is to say, visions. Heck, people TODAY claim to have visions of the risen JC, as well of Mary and other supernatural beings. And someone can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN and SINCERE about what they experienced in a vision and what it meant to them. Even James "the brother of Jesus" may have gained that reputation from being told by JC, in a vision, that "you're my long-lost brother!" We simply don't have enough details from the NT as to what this "brother of Jesus" business meant. Some say that "James the brother of Jesus' was a son of Joseph by a previous wife.
Richard Carrier just posted a long form blog about why Acts can't be used as history.
I'm little, but I'm coming for the crown
- Lorde, who makes me feel old - and who probably feels old herself if she looks at Nahoa.
I think you handled this really well considering how young nahoa is.
As our host pointed out, literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have started or tried to start religious movements because they were convinced that their worldview was so correct that it trumped all others. This is obviously a form of power and often brings money as well (and I suppose more than once, sex as well). In our modern world just look at all the denominations of Christianity that are named for their founder.
If Jay Warner Wallace is such an expert on the law, why doesn’t he understand what hearsay is, cross examination is and basic fundamentals of law. Let me know when we can cross examine the New Testament authors. Judge Judy knows better than Jay Warner Wallace.
#0 Reason requires beliefs. The mind must have beliefs to reason (aka axiomatic method).
#1 It's most natural to conclude that what we're experiencing here has a creator & it's most obvious to conclude there is something very meaningful going on here. (leads to creator, meaning, valve, purpose, axioms)
#2 From #1 we're only left with an awareness of something existing and therefore need revealed truths to gain certainty (limit to #1's axioms)
#3 From #1 & #2, I believe choosing to accept and live the revealed truths of Jesus is the true path. (Kingdom of God axiom)
😳😳😳
Nahoa, keep up with the good job!
(Yes, you too Paulogia, but... well... you know!😉)
Even if we grant that _all_ of J Warner Wallace's murder cases were motivated by sex, power, or money, that's just *his* sample data, which doesn't cover all of the possibilities.
But we're not talking about a murder case; we're talking about a possible fraud case. And the evidence we have is based on second or third hand accounts of misheard/misremembered sales pitches (sermons).
So not his department, nor specialty.
And more closely congruent with paraphrasing infomercials.