This Resurrection Argument Doesn't Add Up (Trent Horn response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2023
- In this episode, @TheCounselofTrent responds to critics like Paulogia and Candida Moss who critique the evidence for the Resurrection in the apostle's willingness to die for their faith in Christ.
Defending the "Martyrdom Argument" for the Resurrection
• Defending the "Martyrd...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada 
Наука
The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan is a memorial to the 2,466,532 persons who sacrificed their lives in military service, knowing that their emperors were divine. None of them are known to have recanted. That is far more martyrs than “church lore”. Time to start following the descendants of Amaterasu. :)
Definitely storing that bit of information away for future use. 👍
@@CharlesPayet thank you. Apologists often forget about those of other religions who also feel they are correct in their views.
Interesting point!
🫡
Sounds totally legit, I'll get right on it then
People died for many divine Roman Emperors too and not only that but eyewitnesses often saw them ascending to Heaven or walking around in physical form after death. Absolutely nothing about the Gospels resurrection narratives are unique or original. If anything they are hackneyed and cliched. Anybody who was anybody in the ancient world had a vanishing body, or an ascended or a transformed one. Not just rulers, but philosophers, prophets, athletes as well as the wives, mothers and daughters of various heroes. Jesus was a dime a dozen. Richard C. Miller's book "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity" I think ends the argument. The Gospels are completely explicable as garden variety translation fables of which there were hundreds, not only for mythological gods and heroes but for historical figures in imitatio of mythological figures (e,g. Alexander the Great). Taking the Gospels seriously as historiography is naive to the point of childishness. People don't know how ubiquitous theses stories are because New Testament scholars don't read Classical literature and Classical scholars don't study the Bible. There's this idea that they are separate majesties when they are really the same one. The New Testament is Greek Classical literature through and through. I've studied NT scholarship for close to 30 years, including studying Greek and Latin and it wasn't until I started finally really reading Classics again that the Gospels and especially Acts became understandable to me. It's obvious if you read a lot of both, but Bible scholars have always been reluctant to recognize it as such and want to believe the entire Bible developed completely freely and independently of any "pagan" influence and the New Testament is purely steeped in Judaism and hermetically sealed off from anything Greek.
The Gospels are not only fiction, they were intended to be understood as fiction. None of those translation fables were ever taken literally. It was a way to honor people after death, maybe something like making people saints or talking about them "looking down on us," when we don't really literally think that (at least most of us don't). Even thinking these stories are DEBATABLE as historiography shows an ignorance of the subject on Horn's part. The evidence for the ascension of Julius Caesar is better than than anything in Gospels about Jesus.
Paulogia has quickly become my favorite RUclipsr, with his respectful and fact-conscious commentary. Thank you, Paul! You are doing great work!
He's so thoroughly excellent that in the past few months I've exhausted all his scripted content going back years.
Maybe Paulogia is the resurrected Paul, here to right the wrongs with the current understanding of Christianity?
Yes, I’m joking.
My favorite are the "ham and aig" segments debunking the ark museums lies.
Totally agree, while he doesn’t seems to put extra effort in making himself sound more interesting with uplifting added emotion wich is the norm these days,,, that is precisely the reason he’s keeping my attention!
I like this ‘it isn’t about me being right but let’s be realistic for once ive we can, maybe?’ Approach!!!🎉
+1 to this!
A group of people believing something occured to the point of being willing to die for it only proves their belief, not that the event actually occurred
🎉Yes. This is exactly the point. 🎉
Sure. But in this particular case, I'd say the problem is mostly _which_ group of people believed it to that point. And would any of them have known otherwise? I haven't watched the video yet, but that's where the argument breaks down, doesn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright No. If my spouse "died" and then three days later "rose again" my expertise in recognizing these two states is just as important as my nearness to the situation. In fact, there are records of people having been buried when they were still alive. The people who worked directly with the body (or, indeed, sick person) were sincerely mistaken.
There must be positive evidence of death and later life or the argument does nothing more than strongly imply sincere belief. It does seem unlikely that anyone would risk death for something they know is a lie... though it does happen rarely. Sincere belief, however, demonstrates nothing about the truth of a claim.
@@Bill_GarthrightNot really. There are people nowadays who join cults and are willing to kill themselves because they believe the leader of the cult is divine. Just because they believed Jesus came back doesn't mean they had any kind of real evidence. When you want to believe in something even having a dream about it is enough. The problem is we don't know what evidence was enough to convince them, we only know what people said about them hundreds of years later. Not only that but we don't actually know that anyone was martyred. We only know that later church fathers claimed it. Actual records such as Tacitus describe Christians being killed for starting a fire in Rome, not believing in Jesus. So yeah the whole argument hinges on believing in ancient rumors.
@@martinmckee5333
I don't disagree with you. But "would any of them have known otherwise?" would probably include that scenario.
And when it comes to "dying for a lie," a person can be willing to die for a religious belief without being perfectly honest about the details. Someone can lie in order to persuade _other_ people of the religion they firmly believe. I see "lying for Jesus" all the time.
But this isn't about hypothetical speculation, is it? This is just in response to Christian claims. And it seems to me that we should focus on the most likely explanation, rather than the rather slim possibility that a crucifixion victim wasn't really dead and recovered enough to... disappear from history after that?
If we want to demonstrate the ease with which stories become warped and defective with oral retellings, all we need to do is listen to Trent mispronounce Paulogia's name over and over and over.
And misrepresent Paul's opinions, even though he's had first person experience of watching pauls videos. Mistakes happen, unless you believe in the sanctity of a book because that book says it's sanctified.
@@iseriver3982They DO buy into that though! It's much of the reason I no longer waste my time trying to nudge them to access their "God-gibbon" common sense as a means to listening to and analyzing my argument. If you drop dead BELIEVE a human-written politically motivated instruction manuel to keep the poor people from complaining too much or questioning authority, because the sacred book says in inside itself that its a sacred book... I mean, how can you lay out a reasonable argument for someone that was easily able to abandon the common sense of basic deduction that a 2nd grader could apply with ease?
It's like trying to explain combustion to a meerkat. Like, at some point I'm the fool for seeing a sign that "someone's home" in people who (upon more experience I figured this out) who I couldn't tell (but others easily saw) had absolutely NOBODY HOME!
@@MeganVictoriaKearns paul was a literal creationist, now he isn't.
Reminds me of the story of a shot that doesn’t prevent being infected by a virus nor of transmitting the virus to others never the less being called a vaccine by one and all. Humans are insane.
"We don't have to prove it..." That sets the tone of Trent's response and pretty much describes how he will handle his "arguments".
No no but you see he was sincere about it
@@the_disc32 Yes indeed. Apologists are either sincere, or sincere and angry.
Great for him.
That means I don't have to believe him.
@@the_disc32 He was sincerely dishonest.
I didn't understand that. I thought he was going to say that he doesn't have to prove it because he has faith, which would have made more sense, but instead he goes on to try and prove it
I was excited until he said, we don't have to prove it.
That is the best argument any spiritualist, theist, mystic, etc. have.
They confuse "I cant" with "I don't have to"
"My source is, I made it the fuck up."
@@hegyak If they were that blunt, it would cut into their profit margins at the collection plate. They have to pretend that this is serious and the church organ is wearing out again.
Well. Man is gods' greatest blunder 😁
As a Christian, I really appreciate your content, Paul.
You present your objections in a very concise, digestible manner that really hits at the weak points of Christian Applogetics - and I think this is a very, very good thing.
Christian Apologists do frequently overstate their case, and asking for the specifics and asking "What evidence do we have?" is always a wonderful thing to do.
You seem to present yourself as "Just a RUclipsr", but you are much more than that. I enjoy your humor, your content, and your level-headed consistent rationality. You do your homework.
Every video, I am very impressed by how educated you are on a wide breadth of topics. Keep up the good work. (:
Pursuing the Truth should be the highest goal.
Then, why are you still a Christian?
Thank you. That means much!
_"Pursuing the Truth should be the highest goal."_
What do you think about those who worship ritual human sacrifice based on a fictional character?
@@twitherspoon8954 Those who are in error of the Truth should be corrected. I think we can both agree there, no?
In the given hypothetical, 'fictional' is meant to imply 'not true', right?
That is to say, they believe it is not fictional, even though it is? If that is the case, then it is good for them to be corrected.
The situation changes a bit if the event is fictional and the people worship, even knowing it is fictional. I'd probably think the action is a waste of time, or even detrimental depending on the practice. I'd likely encourage them to stop. But, then again, sometimes fictional stories have large emotional impacts on us that help us determine greater purpose - movies and books do this a lot. It's hard to say without specifics.
I'm not sure how to answer the question, "What do I think of them." I don't know them. All I know is a specific action they partake in. I can talk about what I know of the action - not the undescribed hypothetical person. Could you tell me what you think of them based on the description you have provided?
Given the answer I gave to your question, this is why I am praising Paul's videos. Apologists will assert that we have a lot more evidence than we have about certain topics regarding the Bible. Paul is pushing back, saying, "No, we don't have the evidence you say we do." He's correcting a fictitious claim.
I promise I'm not trying to avoid your question. But I really am genuinely confused how to answer your question appropriately.
Hey Narikku, really appreciate you taking the time to engage with the evidence and those you disagree with. If you'd be willing to answer a question I have, I'd like to know how a Christian concerned about supporting their beliefs evidentially would respond. I guess it would be two questions actually, as the first would be: Do you believe in eternal conscious torment, or annihilationism? And then if you believe in either of those, what would you say could actually be taken as evidence of those beliefs that would move them beyond just being claims about the afterlife made by the humans writing the Bible?
To me that seems like where things really start falling short in Christianity evidence wise, as I don't see any way essentially any of the theological claims of Christianity could be verified. The fact that they are compiled in the Bible, even if we assume for the sake of argument the Bible and history contain enough information to think people probably correctly reported that they saw someone rise from the dead, doesn't seem to at all be a verification of all the things the various authors wrote additionally about what they thought the theological and afterlife implications of this event were. And those theological claims, especially those that say people that believe the wrong thing deserve eternal suffering or destruction, are the ones that seem to have the most impact on how we actually live our lives and would therefore be the most important to be extremely certain about before acting on. If you have a moment to reply, thanks!
It's the Catholic church, so the jingle should be Gregorian-chant based.
That would be cool!
"For The Pope Tells Me So" should use an instrumental snippet from Tim Minchin's Pope Song.
FTMF...TMFP
Hahahaha
Trent's argument is so poor. He would never accept these arguments for any other claim.
Well, he's convinced me: Mormonism is the one true religion.
I kept thinking the same thing: Joseph Smith is the only person I know of that clearly lied (Egyptian scrolls anyone!) and yet died for his beliefs. He was persecuted for his preaching and was killed for that.
People fool themselves sometimes.
A really dangerous assumption in history (and economics) is to think that people are RATIONAL AGENTS that carefully consider risk and reward before they act!
Most people are (in emotional circumstances) highly irrational!
did you mean: Moronism; the -ism of morons? that's a bit what Trent is selling.
There is actually more 'witness' evidence for Joseph Smith than Jesus. There are two documents signed by eleven witnesses, none of whom ever recanted. Eight saw the golden plates, and three saw the plates and an angel...
@@roblovestar9159 And many of these evangelicals would also scoff at the 15 000 EYE-WITNESSES of the sun "bowing to" a statue of the virgin Mary (in Portugal).
I even think some of those eye-witnesses might be alive today.
Conclusion:
People believe what they want to believe
To his credit, I think Trent brought that objection up on his original video. But his response wasn’t too convincing though. Basically just stated he thinks Joseph Smith had more material things to gain from it. I would argue, however, that we just have more information on Joseph Smith than we do the apostles.
Amazing how a non believer can demonstrate and explain “believer” points better. Meaning, putting points out and explaining each in detail whereas they just skip to the next point without explanations. SMH!
That's because Paul's charitable and seeks to steelman opposing arguments.
They skip to the next point because they don’t want their audience to realize how weak their arguments are.
People so sincerely believed Bernie Madoff that they gave him their retirement savings. Sincere belief is lunacy.
The idea that "Who would die for a lie?" is a good argument is simply laughable.
Part of it is that we obviously don't know that people had the dramatic "recant or die" choice until considerably later. We certainly don't know if it was a choice offered to any of the leaders of this movement, very different from rank and file members 50 years after the Neronian persecution.
Part of it is that we don't know the circumstances or mental states of these people. Someone could tell a lie, have it all blow up and get caught up in a movement much bigger than them, and have no choice when they actually get killed. This literally happened in the case of Joseph Smith, so it's hardly impossible that this happened in antiquity. Or someone could be mentally unwell, persist in their delusion, convince others of its truth, and get a lot of them killed. Again, this happened in the case of David Koresh and is hardly impossible in antiquity.
I don't think that lying is the most likely circumstance. In historical terms, thinking that you can get a clue to the mental state of some person in antiquity is simply a bad methodology. Unless you have concrete evidence either way. All we can really say as reliable history is that people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. The idea that this was "sincere" or not is not a good historical question because we don't have access to these people or their personal thoughts.
Also people die for a lie every day.
Just look at what happened at the US Capitol on January 6 2021.
Yes. Just look at the Islamic suicide bombers. They think they’re gonna get virgins, when they die. There might be a bloody good reason, why they are still virgins. LOL 😂
We know that people die for lies, people even die for lies that they themselves know aren't true. As proof, I offer life insurance fraud.
Ultimately, all of this is really just decoration on a poop-cake. The issue always boils down to this: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a dozen dudes dying for what they said they believed is the best someone can offer as evidence that there is a god who cares who I mate with, that's just pathetic. It's sad that they accept this as evidence at all, let alone adequate evidence.
A true all-powerful god would do better.
Ashley Babbitt died for a lie. People die for bad reasons all the time. ie Titan Submersible.
I sometimes think it's likely that the reasons for their deaths may not be for a sincere belief, but a possible other outcome. If Jesus was a person that stirred the status quo under Roman rule, it might actually be beneficial to act on certain aspects of Jesus, whether real or made up, if it could help to challenge the status quo after Jesus' death.
Once you realize that "beliefs" are like drugs, you realize why so many believers are reluctant to let them go.
I have never seen an honest apologist.
If you make a "for the Pope tells me so" jingle please have it sung by a eunuch choir.
I wonder if Ghost would do one?
I love Paulogia's calm and collected way of debunking apologists' claims.
1:24 "we dont have to prove it" - YES YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >_
Another bravura video, Paul. Your use of graphics really helps clarify your points and makes comprehension easier. I certainly hope you are able to continue producing such quality work.
I'm very glad that it helps. Thank you for the support.
He's upset by a jingle. Lol
@Paulogia You should use this treatment for more apologists.
To be clear, I mean the re-phrasing of his arguments. Brilliantly done.
I don't understand this argument. If i accept everything that the apologist offers it only gets me to "people sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead." That in no way demonstrates it actually happened. People can be (and often are) sincerely wrong.
Exactly. Should we really make that huge leap for the extraordinary claims of some Middle Eastern cult members?
You do understand it because it’s just that weak. There is no “historical rational” basis for these beliefs. Honest Christians like Dale Allison and Laura Robinson have no problem saying that. Trent’s job is to be dishonest in the name of his faith.
The same thing I think every time I hear this argument or something similar. It's really almost just the person projecting themselves into the "apostles". They believe they wouldn't die and suffer for a lie, so why would people they believe were correct die or suffer for something they don't believe is a lie today.
@@Jd-808 Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that I don't understand how anyone can make the argument and honestly think it should be convincing. But yes... I recognize it's a weak argument even in the case you accept most of the claims for sake of argument.
Like atheists?
there were lots of martyrs who certainly didn't witness the resurrection, so clearly witnessing the resurrection wasn't a requirement for being willing to risk being a martyr
I also love how he started this video out so well and clearly worded but then devolved into special pleading and that things people do where they try to take social control by making your doubts about their claims seem silly or stupid, by trying give blanket statements and not engaging with specifics or nuances
It's so weird to me how for any event in history we don't need ARGUMENTS to prove something happened or likely happened, but EVIDENCE to support it might have or definitely has happened, but for the MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN MANKIND AND PROBABLY THE UNIVERSE, believers seem to think "arguments" are enough.
Exactly, I say this about most apologia in general. They constantly only really have arguments and/or philosophical ideas, to make claims about objective facts. Then the idea of trying to use loose historical data to live your entire life based on, just doesn't make as much sense either.
@@terrencelockett4072 yeah, I at least can understand people like some of my friends who are fine with him not being resurrected, but believe in god and that jesus had some nice words to say that you could take for inspiration.
I fail to see the importance of a fraudster from 2000 some odd years ago. From where i sit christianity is so far from reality it's down right sad anyone buys into such nonsense.
@@joshgreen2164 it's important if what the bible claims about him is correct. And Billions of people quite literally gamble their lives on that importance.
Really, how does he know any of this?There's no evidence that the disciples even existed.
He's getting his information from non-canonical extra-biblical writings between the 2nd and 14th centuries.
Some of them were written over a thousand years after the fact.
And that's what he's going to use for evidence? Pathetic. He fell on his face before he even exited the door.
this is Trent all over. There's not an assertion he can make that he isn't willing to fail to produce evidence for.
7:32 I find hillarious apologists classify _minimal corroboration_ as "highest possible evidence" and _not even one corroboration_ as "second highest possible evidence"
But only for THEIR religion's texts and stories. They set the bar so high for all other religion's that they generally don't even concern themselves with learning about them, much less considering whether they could be true.
@@dougt7580
Then the other crazy thing is they do this about almost anything that comes into conflict with their beliefs.
@@dougt7580 No kidding. I was raised mainline Protestant, as an adult converted to Evangelical, spent 26 years that way...until (finally!) I stepped outside the bubble and examined Christian claims the same way I'd examined others...and realized, to my surprise, that it held up no better.
I think if all Christians applied the same critical thinking to their own religion that they automatically apply to all others, Christianity would disappear...and if the believers in all other religions did the same, religion would become a cultural relic worldwide.
Man, they *_*really*_* hate that jingle. But I do have to smile every time they whine that the bible isn't placed on a pedestal with respect to historical accounts. One day they might figure out how stupid it is to point out that we don't treat the words of Philo or Alexander as gospel...in defense of what they *_do_* consider the literal gospel. But I'm not holding my breath.
Ultimately, all apologists have is a *story* about a resurrection and a desperate need for that story to be true. The story is implausible on its face and would require far more than text & tradition to even be considered possible, much less probable, still less necessary for one's salvation, even granting the immoral incoherence of inherited culpability & substitutionary atonement.
Even granting every non-magic minimal fact, at some point the apologetics break down into assertions that cannot be supported by anything beyond more assertions. That's usually where faith, personal revelation or wishful thinking come in, sit down, and chat among themselves.
What's worse is that Trent is a Catholic apologist - the version of Christianity that practically invented fan-fiction with its almighty Church Tradition™️.
Apologetics remains a house of cards, built on a "foundation" built on copium & hype.
This video felt like a true return to form, Paul. Although it may be no different in format to a refutation of a Frank Turek Q&A video, this one felt more like a conversation. A civil conversation at that. Thank you. Really feeling like the Atheist RUclips content is regaining its personality.
@garyallen8824 Oh, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean to imply that Paul was ever belligerent (at least when it didn't warrant it). No, I guess I was just enjoying the solo video where Paul didn't have to compete with some 70 year old man who surrendered his last GAF 20 years ago and is now at a point where he's been praised for his extensive Old/New Testament knowledge so many times that he has an ego with none of the charisma required to balance that out... not that I'm referring to anyone in particular, mind.
900 people died for their belief in and following of Jim Jones, most of them voluntarily, and many of them *very* happily. We have audio and photographic evidence of this. Does this then mean that their belief in his divinity is more reasonable to believe, and in turn follow, than the beliefs of the apostles? 🤔
This apologist is so manic, you'd think his income depended on defending the RCC's views !
😅
Loved the video ... although the dragon in my garage was more sceptical 😀👍
😁
Paulogia's work is fantastic. Always excited when he had a new video up
"I'll tell you what you want to hear, and since you give me money, you'll feel compelled to believe it."
EXCELLENT! I can't imagine the work that went in to this above and beyond the graphics and editing, like searching Acts, checking historical sources and carefully deciphering Trent's argument. The points about Jesus coming back a third time and Pliny having 50 years of precedence on the "get out of jail free" card really resonated. And the cherry on top? The Frankie Five Angels clip! Trent: "Look, the Apologist guys promised me a deal. So I made a lot stuff up about the martyrs cause that's what they wanted. They kept saying Luke said this and Luke said that. So I said, yeah sure, why not?"
Oh, wow, his analysis of Acts was quick, flippant, and totally inaccurate.
@@jamiehudson3661wrong, study thyself and you’ll see you aren’t approved in the least. Love God instead of your religion.
And Your Welcome in advance 😎👍
@@epiphanydrums5427 Your welcome in advance..... what?
I think they're obsession with your "for the bible tells me so" thing is that they know that, in one sentence, it describes what is wrong with their entire chain of reasoning and reminds them that there is no other evidence of their God outside of the Bible all in 6 words.
I wholey dispise how the apologists call the STORY evidence. -_-
I love love, love, love the "because the bible tells me so", to the point that every time ANY YT uses that line, I hear the tune in my head 😂
Even his critics like it.
@@isaakleillhikar8311 True
Who cares if people sincerely believed anything? Who cares if people died for their beliefs? It happens fairly regularly with fringe cults. That has almost no bearing on the truth claims of that cult.
Forget fringe cults, it happens with relatively normal people frequently - people suffer and die believing in faith healers, anti-vax conspiracies, homeopathy, grifters peddling miracle cures, and for all sorts of sincerely held, but ultimately incorrect beliefs.
When modern day governmental policy and moral standards are dictated by Roman history, Homer or any other ancient history/text that is not the Bible, I'll start caring about how many sources and the quality of those sourcees we have for them. Maybe we should hold Bible scholars to the same standard as other ancient history scholars and see how that works for those Bible scholars. I'm guessing it will not go well for the Bible scholars.
No martyrs. No Proof. No anything.
It’s interesting how a single source in book form from centuries ago gets credited as “true” and “factual”, but when compared to actual people dying in more modern times they are treated by theists as “untrue”, “false”, and only a “belief.” Fascinating
They see what they want to see. It’s so simple and so obvious, yet the vast vast majority of believers are blind to this aspect of humans
What I don't get is that, even assuming they believed it to be true, what about their *belief* means Jesus actually came back from the dead?
Hope you 2 have a discussion!! :)
When will apologists understand that even if we could demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that the apostles were indeed tortured and killed for their beliefs which they held in 100% sincerity, it says absolutely NOTHING about the veracity of said beliefs. Such intellectual dishonesty is so lazy and annoying.
Great analysis, Paul! I truly appreciate your respectful approach, but I also enjoyed hearing your voice inflect incredulity at Horn's assertions for which he failed to provide evidence. I hope Horn responds to this one. Of course, I've also been wishing that J. Warner Wallace would respond to you, too.
I literally laughed out loud at the "For the Pope Tells Me So" jingle! 😂
🎶For the Pontiff Tells Me So🎶
Just gotta add. Man, catholics really do just utterly debase themselves don't they?
Letting church tradition override your own basic reasoning capabilities? Willfully?
It's one thing to be indoctrinated into poor reasoning from infancy. It's quite another to exist in the world, see evidence for and use reasoning in a particular way and then, when it comes time to do the same thing with something church tradition disagrees with, just completely subdue your own mind for the sake of some old dead kiddie diddlers.
I am so glad my family stopped being catholic before I was born. Now I understand why so many ex-catholics seem so embarrassed about it.
It's just crazy that they don't get the difference of history being considered through minimal sources and living your entire life based on "history" through very minimal sources.
Watching liars, formerly known as apologists, throw a temper tantrum after Paul takes down one of their flawed arguments, is one of my favorite pastimes.
Whats your take on the archeology of Jericho? Do you have any previous video on the subject, and if do which ones, thank you in advance
And if those early people marched around claiming the Resurrection and Ascension, so what? Claims are not evidence, even back then.
THAT they were killed, which we don't have any real evidence for that (Gospels rag and Acts are not evidence, but rather claims) is nothing to brag about.
CLAIMS, not evidence.
Plot twist: the dragon in the garage turns out of be a bearded dragon, and now Paulogia has to apologizing for doubting the claim
People who refuse to pronounce names properly irk me.
Paulogia you knocked Trent out of the ballpark. But rest assured he will come back again and again defending the cool aid. Sooner or later truth will subdue him for good. Or maybe not 😂
19:42 No, not everyone at that time was religious. The Book of Psalms says "The fool says in his heart 'There is no god.'" That suggests that even as far back as the Book of Psalms was written, there were people who did not believe in a deity.
I think we're human beings and fundamentally we do not change; therefore the aholes who are here now, have been here before😅 Human Nature🤷
that verse is actually about theists who live as if there is no god by sinnning constantly.
you given them an inch “jesus could have existed” they take a mile “jesus rose from the dead”
Edifying, as always !
I hope this discussion happens too!!! 😀
With his cartoon charachter during the debate.
Thorough as always, but yes, a debate would be even better.
16:18 OMG, new jingle!!!
Thanks!
you're welcome.
Look, these Resurrection apologists can't even demonstrate that such a thing CAN happen in the physical world. And, if there is a spiritual trigger for reanimation, they can't show how that would happen, where the toxins would go, how the respiration process, now destroyed in all but a few cells, likely, can be biochemically reversed.
This kind of apology has no basis.
And those who claim that clinically dead people (declared dead, but...) can rise from their beds are not arguing on the same reality issues.
Garrrrrr, it's so stupid that apologists do this....
Although logiclly we ought not simply dismiss supposed evidence based on the fact that other false evideneces are presented with it. However once one has spotted the false claims one would usually not believe any other claim from that source without corroborating evidence from a seperate source.
Considering your first point, I agree, but this is the Bible we’re talking about. It’s the supposed Word of God, which is proclaimed by literal millions to be the inerrant word of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. The adjective of “inerrant” means that if there is even one error then it’s by definition not inerrant.
So it’s not even a matter of finding a sufficient amount of errors to call it bogus, it’s the finding of even one error that invalidates its inerrantness.
There is a huge difference between 1) Let's honestly look and determine what the evidence suggests is reasonable to believe is true with its appropriate level of confidence toward or against the claim (keeping in mind the writer's theological motivations), and 2) We have dedicated our life to this being true so what evidence can we find, interpret, twist, assume, invent, give the benefit of the doubt to that support claims we are already convinced must be true, and ignore, minimize, reinterpret, twist, conceal any evidence against our view, and in some 'expert' cases add: have signed and agreed to Statements of Faith - so regardless of any evidence against - our public conclusions will never waver.
I appreciate your calm and fair approach and your attention to facts.
Great video. Thanks again.
Love your videos, Paul. Tell Shannon I said HI. Love her videos too. Love you both.
For a moment I thought I was listening to William "lower the bar so believing makes sense" Lane Craig...
According to Bart D. Ehrman, the "we" passages are written by someone falsely claiming to have been a travelling companion of Paul, in order to present the untrue idea that the author had firsthand knowledge of Paul's views and activities. Prof.Ehrman holds that The Acts of the Apostles is thereby shown to be a forgery.
Thanks for the video :)
"... I'm not even sure about the pizza, or the garage." 😂 10:01
Thing that frustrates me about this argument is that there is better evidence for Mormonism. If you buy this evidence for the resurrection, then you should also buy the golden plates.
He's completely wrong about the jingle. It's VERY useful. He just doesn't like it pointed out that only the bible is a source for a claim, because it shows how empty the claims are.
I think most scholars reject the martyrdom sources not just because they're a few centuries later, but also because they're... y'know, batshit insane and obviously legendary.
This includes the Catholic Church btw, none of these books are canon!
There is no reason at all to think the disciples/first apostles existed at all. And their "willingness to suffer and die" carries no more weight than the "fact" that only 30 brave rebel pilots attacked the Death Star knowing they would almost certainly fail and be killed. Nor is it anymore compelling than Harry Potter willingly walking into the forbidden forest as a martyr knowing Voldemort would kill him. The actions of fictional characters is irrelevant. They were just recruitment tales of fictional men the apologist is just asserting were real. There is not a shred of credible evidence they ever existed.
You're very dishonest, wow. Even many atheist scholars admitted the disciples/first apostles were REAL people.
Belief is not evidence of an event, or of an object. I could state I have a strong belief that my Irish Leprechaun came to me and granted me my 3 wishes. There is no evidence that my 3 wishes were granted or that the Leprechaun appeared to me.
Great video
Ah yes, once again, another clear and patient response from Paul Ogia.
@Paulogia @10:19 you volume drops very low, but great stuff!
Jim Jones told his followers that the government would torture their children. You could argue that his willingness to die indicates sincerity.
But was he actually sincere? The evidence strongly indicates that there was no secret government plan to torture children, and that his claims were manipulations rather than sincere beliefs. Yet he blasted his own brains out over it.
People are obviously willing to lie and manipulate even when it leads to their own suffering and death. The apostles might have been sincere but it's a dead end as far as convincing apologetics goes. It's just a story that Christians enjoy because they worship persecution.
12 disciples? I thought there were 28. And a kangaroo...
If you can't prove they even existed you can't prove martyrdom
Nice analysis Paul! Never came to me that "apostles" in the Acts did not automatically apply to the other "witnesses". And besides, Acts used the term "the Twelve" to collectively refer to them. Luke could've simply left a one liner indicating that "the Twelve then preached around the world as Jesus commanded", even how incredulous it may appear but it would've been a nice little flair there to tell what happened to the others, but Luke did not write about that.
@garyallen8824 I am referring "Luke" here as a convenient way of referring to the writer of the Acts. That doesn't imply that I support such authorship. People would be quick to correct me if I even used a wrong person here from a "traditional" POV.
I'm so glad you're taking on catholic apologists now too.
*The Resurrection Argument ;*
Faith in the _alleged hearsay testimony of men,_ written down decades after the events, of which no originals exist.
Yet the men that testify for the _miracles of other religions,_ that they witnessed "first hand", get dismissed as myth.
*Faith In Jesus = **_Faith in the stories, that men tell_** .*
Many members of Heavens Gate endured suffering (they castrated themselves) and died for their beliefs. Is that evidence they were right?
Good point! I like that😊
Ouch!😢😬
I was always taught as a kid that there were the 12 disciples who traveled with Jesus and then there were apostles that were sent out by the church later to spread the message.
Great video.
as an excatholic, thank you for this
Fellow ex-Catholic, what were the big reasons behind your journey?
@@TheGreatAgnostic um, research about the historicity of the gospels
I had to turn on Closed Captioning.
It sounded like he said that all of the Apostles were murderers.
*Ohhhh....Martyrs!!*
As I said on Twitter I watch all your videos.
Paulogia, you may need to make hundreds of NEW jingles for all the Christian denominations.
The only Jesus I would CONSIDER giving credence to would be one who was walking around and talking to people on the street, and such a resurrected Jesus would have been a HUGE deal -- with the entire city left ABUZZ about it. Such an event would be talked AND written about WIDELY -- and would have garnered secular writings WIDELY. It wouldn't have been something circulated only among a small group of believers, and only be recorded by a second group thirty or more years later.
Another great video
Trent versus Paul let’s go babyyyyyyyy
We paint dirt green here in communist Australia, too. Pretty sure its just grass seed and fertiliser or something, but im sure someone will think its all part of some conspiracy.
0:44 the mear mention of your name sent this robot into a critcal error well done you breaking the christian matrix!