So what is the truth? Did Muhammad receive revelations in that cave? Did Joseph Smith receive revelations in the forest? They are easy to debunk (as atheists) because they had something personal to gain and benefit from.
@@ic.xc. Are you an atheist? I don't believe Paulogia was stupid enough as a 30 year old to be unaware of the problems with YEC, even though many people and churches say they believe it.
Love this discussion, and while I think Paul makes the better case, and the one I personally agree with…I really do like Sean’s approach the most out of all apologists. Well thought out, well read, respectful and sincere. I almost always stop to watch content where Sean makes an appearance, and he always makes me consider my position. Well done, both of you.
Sean just seems like a really good guy and intellectually honest even if I think he just. Doesn’t. Make. The connections that I feel like he’s capable of making sometimes or reaching the logical conclusions I think he should. But on a personal level, as an atheist I think he’s one of the best apologists out there on top of being smart. With Paulogia being one of the least snarky and most polite atheists out there and with Justin doing as good of a job as he did moderating the debate, I like coming back to this one a lot
Many Muslims have been so devoted to Allah and Mohammad that they were willing to die for him and others continued to follow him, does that mean Islam is true? Just because Jesus had followers that died for him didn't prove he was right. People died for whatever religion they follow all the time. If Jesus really came back then show me, he can prove himself to all other religions yet he doesn't. Guess he either doesn't care or he doesn't exist.
@@LisaAnn777 Many Muslims die because of a belief in Allah, but when they die they could have no guarantee that they're not dying for a lie other than through their faith. However, those martyrs who claimed to know that Jesus died and claimed to see him resurrected WOULD have a guarantee to know if they were lying about seeing Jesus resurrected. The muslims die on faith and a firm belief, while the apostles either knowingly died for a lie (or at least had good reason to know they will be persecuted for it) or they died for an observation that they all truly believed.
Hey, I think it was a great job by all involved! Can I ask though, around 36 minutes in, Paul expressed that the book of Acts doesn't make any reference to the other apostles other than Peter and John. But, Acts chapter 1 tells of how the Apostles are there for the last meeting with the risen Jesus, and then it says they return to Jerusalem and in verse 13 it says "Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mathew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." So it directly connects all 12 by name to a meeting with the resurrected Jesus. Then in Acts 4:33 it says "With great power the Apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus". In chapter 5 of Acts, it tells of the Apostles being arrested and put in jail and that an angel comes and lets them out and tells them to go out and preach the message. In verse 25 it has someone coming to tell the Sanhedrin (those who had arrested them and are now wondering where their prisoners have gotten to) that "The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." I suppose someone could try and say that the Apostles were teaching something other that the resurrection, but the context is really very clear. They sure weren't teaching basket weaving. Then in chapter 8, it tells the story of one of the Apostles, Philip and his experience. Verse 5 states that "Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there." All that to demonstrate that the book of Acts is not ambiguous at all about the question of whether these particular 11 men (who then added the 12th man of Matthias, who it expresses in Acts 1:22 was also a witness of the resurrection) were proclaiming what that they had seen the resurrected Jesus. Oh, and by the way, if you are going to say that Luke, the author of Acts, got his material from Josephus, then it means that we have right here extra-Biblical evidence that all 12 Apostles were attesting to the resurrection.
ANIMATED? ANIMATED !?!?!? a static drawing with minimal lip flaps ... animated ... i LOVE Paul but damn ..... ANIMATED !? If you ever saw "Breaking Away" and you remember Paul Dooley's "REFUND !!!?!?!?", say my ANIMATED the same way.
@@20july1944 Oh, sweet jesus. Strangling the economy to feed the rich. Telling us to do with less. While expecting us to still support the economy. Wanting to destroy the federal system so the states can act like its still 1950. Destroying the trade system that took a generation to set up. Wanting to return to political and economic isolation. Trump thought the office said he was king not just the president
honestly didn't understand 90 percent of what's going on but I watched the whole thing anyway bc its so refreshing to see such a respectful, productive debate
I never understood how Paul the Apostle was an eyewitness to the resurrection. He had a vision, 3 years later, after Jesus supposedly had ascended into heaven. If I have a vision of Jesus today, am I an eyewitness to the resurrection?
@Joshua McLaughlin if you met him in a vision though? People see lots of things in visions. Hindus see Ganesha and schizophrenics see people who don't exist all of the time. Not only is the vision of Jesus merely a claim, but even it did happen to Paul there are still many natural explanations that occur all of the time.
@@tieferforschen I would definitely agree that my having a vision today is much less substantive that Paul, who was around at the same time as the disciples. But what I'm thinking is that Peter (or James or whoever) would be substantially more compelling witnesses compared to Paul, assuming that the original disciples had 'experiences' shortly after Jesus' death. And I don't think we can call Paul a resurrection eyewitness, in the same sense the other guys would be.
"All the martyrs in the history of the world are not sufficient to establish the correctness of an opinion. Martyrdom, as a rule, establishes the sincerity of the martyr,-- never the correctness of his thought." -- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Great infidels (1881)
@Christian Slayer protip: if you're calling a renowned Ph.D. scholar stupid you have given away the pointlessness of talking to you Be respectful and you are likely both to genuinely learn more and also to have more friends and success.
@Christian Slayer I appreciate your attempt to troll, but you're really doing a poor job. A better troll would grant at least something; a real hook to capture the attention of the audience. Then, suddenly troll when least expected. You're doing the reverse; you sound the alarm and out yourself as a troll from the beginning! You're really minimizing your audience here.
@Christian Slayer In grade school I was taught not to start sentences with prepositions like "but." Now, in my doctoral program, I regret this deeply. I see you have slain me, oh Christian Slayer. Ev'r true to your name. Add me to your roster of damn'd. Before you go, would you mind explaining to me how to calculate the truth-value of the statement, "his intellect is shining?"
@Christian Slayer I think you missed when I said `would you mind explaining to me how to calculate the truth-value of the statement, "his intellect is shining?"` First, if you advance this video to the 33:57 mark, you will see that Sean's forehead is exhibiting a shiny quality. Now, contrast this with the atheist who has a shadow cast across his expression from a fluff of hair off to the left. However, we aren't really concerned with the absolute level of shininess....remember that my original post was comparing Sean's shine here to his shine elsewhere. Have you yet audited his other speaking engagements? I'm thinking perhaps a shiny level of either 42 or perhaps 7, depending on the scale we use. Await your feedback. Yours Truly, Dat Slain Boi
Sean talked quite about the fact that the disciples "really believed" different things. Just because someone believes a thing, does that mean the thing actually occurred?
He has no knowledge of what *CHARACTERS IN A STORY* believed. He assumes the stories are true because he's a brainwashed cult member, but he has no actual evidence that Jesus ever said or did a single thing recorded in the gospel fairy tales by biased, anonymous members of his cult.
True. People ‘really believe’ and even die for idiotic things all the time. Even Martyr themselves, and we don’t use that as reason to start believing what they did. It’s why I find this discussion interesting but haven’t ever seen it as a factor in whether to believe or not.
True. People ‘really believe’ and even die for idiotic things all the time. Even Martyr themselves, and we don’t use that as reason to start believing what they did. It’s why I find this discussion interesting but haven’t ever seen it as a factor in whether to believe or not.
Thanks to all 3 of you for giving me a dive into this part of history 😊 This is so great! If you were not doing this and keep doing this I would have no clue about all of that 🤦♂️😅😊 Cheers too @Paulogia 👍
If Jesus came down to Paulogia and he immediately questioned his own faculties.. that is NOT hyper-skepticism. Visions, day dreams, etc are always going to be FAR more likely that a magical god being coming down from outside of space and time to say Hi. YOU, Sean, are the one being hyper skeptical to think that the natural cause is less likely that the supernatural cause. Sean says he's a skeptic, yet gets skepticism entirely wrong...
@Gabe Norman What is more likely that "Jesus" appeared or that someone has had a mental breakdown? BTW how would you know it was indeed "Jesus" for even Satan can appear as an "angel of light" ?
@Gabe Norman Your comment just shows that Christians aren't gonna be convinced no matter how much evidence shows them to be in error. See how easy that is?
@Gabe Norman If a religious figure appears before you, do you think it is irrational to at least consider that you may be hallucinating? I won't assume what your beliefs are, but if a god of another religion not your own appeared to you, wouldn't you consider hallucination?
Reasons someone might die for a lie: 1) They believe the lie is for a greater good or purpose 2) to further a cause or movement 3) Embarrassment or shame 4) to protect a legacy
Which one of these is on the level of dying for something as significant as seeing a resurrected person, where the result is shame, exile, torture, and death?
Paulogia is conflating two different things. "How many apostles were martyred?" and "How many people in the first century believed they saw Jesus resurrected?" are two different questions. Sean answered the first and Paulogia took Sean's answer to settle the second question, which it doesn't. So Paulogia goes on to say "See I only have to explain why a handful of people believed they saw Jesus and don't need group hallucination" (although three seems like a group to me still), but he's wrong. The early creed from 1 Corinthians, the writings of John, and the gospels all provide evidence that many more than just three people genuinely believed that Jesus was resurrected. Evidence that some of them actually died for that belief just strengthens that evidence; being martyred isn't necessary though.
It's not possible to take a professional atheist seriously. They miss everything essential, because they can't kill "the goose that lays the golden egg." Paulogia has to keep the discussion active, to keep the money active. So, he can't point-out what many atheists in Comments can, that the martyrdom fallacy is a fallacy. The evidence you note of people having seen someone come back from the dead concerns the scale of probability. In this case, it's zero, of course. It would be far higher were there a question which only Jesus' R can explain. But, far from it. This issue, that there isn't a question, and that Team Resurrection therefore actually has no hypothesis, can't be mentioned by any professional atheists. So, again, it's rather a waste of time to take them seriously.
48:00 Corinth was about 800 miles from Jerusalem. It would take weeks or months to verify Paul's claim, assuming the appearance took place near Jerusalem. (Where else would Jesus have appeared?) 48:50 This comparison is based on modern communication and travel capabilities.
@Christian Slayer I highly doubt that the ecclesiastical powers that be were spending precious time and money chasing witnesses about the ancient near East. I find it more likely that Paul would have been accused at the outset, and been pre-emptively dismissed on spec.
@River Scott Really? Who did? What evidence do you have that Paul would be lying? How do you Know that Paul couldn't have had some of the witnesses with him? How do you know Paul didnt take the people with him? We are looking at a letter two thousands years ago. We do not know the surrounding event. Paul was just trying to say the resurrection was important.
Like Paul, I too was a Canadian prairie, Mennonite bred, and indoctrinated fundagelical. It takes decades to work your way out of that crap! There is hope for anyone!!!
The question is not who was a martyr. The question is did they die for something they knew to be false [personal witness of resurrection]. McDowell is wrong.
Christian Slayer explain. Seems your saying if the apostles referenced something wrong, a place in this case, somehow this is evidence they lied? Also seems your asserting both the dead cannot rise, and they are aware of this fact. So can you prove this assertion?
Christian Slayer it seems you have crafted a story of what happened that is grounded in imagination. I agree that Paul makes statements to reiterate that he is being truthful but how do you use that to say -therefore he is lying? And I agree that history tells us that Jews wanted a war to be free of Roman oppression, and that Jesus, being Messiah, didn’t fit their idea of a political messiah the Jews were waiting for. But how do you go from that to say - therefore they made up Christianity? It seems you have an idea that Christianity was a conspiracy started by the Jews and then make the historical evidence fit your conspiracy idea...maybe I’m missing it but I don’t see how your conclusions are grounded in the data. Side note-I would challenge the idea that Josephus wrote long before the gospels. I don’t see any reason not to date Mark around 50-60 given that Papius tells us Mark authored it and wrote down what Peter said.
I found this a rather interesting discussion. While I would often dismiss some of these points prior to this, understanding that there is agreeable historical context is rather surprising and merits some consideration and further research on my part. I may be adamantly atheist but I'm not inclined to dismiss convincing evidence that some of the accounts in scripture may be true.
Go down the rabbit hole of Isaiah 53 and give the Christian perspective as much consideration as any other perspective and it just might change your life.
Both sides acknowledge that the existence of early Christian martyrs is used as evidence that early Christians sincerely believed and, in the cases of supposed eyewitnesses to the resurrection, had the ability to know the truth of what they believed. It isn't a redefinition of the word or classification martyr to describe the historical evidence that would present the best case. Paulogia presented a description of a scenario that would offer about as strong as possible evidence of this kind. Unless I missed it, Sean agrees that none of the documented cases of early Christian martyrs comes close to meeting the criteria. This is not to say that their stories don't offer some evidence, it just doesn't meet the bar that Paulogia has set. Planting a flag in the historical classification of martyr being quite a bit weaker than Paulogia's scenario doesn't change that. And that, I think, is the interesting point to talk about, but that never got addressed: what kind of martyrdom scenario would offer what we would call decent evidence for the truth of Christianity? Is it closer to Paulogia's where the person must have been documented as having had the choice to recant and instead chose death? Or, is it closer to Sean's where anyone who practiced Christianity knowing that they may face persecution at some point (which probably applies to every early Christian) that qualifies as good evidence? Truthfully, even if I take the best case for martyrdom-as-evidence presented (Paulogia's criteria) I don't think I would count it as evidence at all. If I heard tomorrow that a group of people chose to die rather than recant their religious beliefs, I don't think it would affect my belief in their religion in the slightest. It wouldn't matter if these people were Christian, Hindu, or anything else. It also wouldn't matter if they claimed to have first hand knowledge of the truth of their religion (thus offering the added knowing-it-to-be-true element). This is not a conscious dismissal of this kind of evidence, but an acknowledgement that if I took this kind of evidence seriously then more than a few cults would have undeniably excellent evidence for their truth.
Andrew Zarrella I wish more Christians would think a little harder about this exact thing! Martyrs have always existed. The fact that they are willing to die for something in which they genuinely believe in NO way validates that belief as true. It just means they are either admirable if you happen to share that belief or asinine if you do not.
Agreed. Jim Jones convinced almost 900 people to commit suicide in the forest as their ticket into heaven. Mothers and fathers handed their children poisoned drinks knowing very well what they were doing. The human mind is far too gullible for conviction to be reliable evidence, let alone remotely conclusive of metaphysical truths.
Anden Ekadi so would I be correct to say that you believe that any martyrs for any cult or reason that does not fall within your own belief system are asinine? Not sure what you think we’re still missing, but that is exactly what I said. Maybe try to clarify for us again? Why do you think that some martyrs are different than others? And how does one determine who is staking their life on “first hand experience” and who is... I guess you might think they’re just gullible? Honestly curious.
@Anden Ekadi if Christianity was indeed a false belief, and if Jesus was still real, he would have been the charismatic leader you're looking for. The gospels you have read would have been purposely fabricated to further his agenda and they would be purposefully absent of any indicators that Jesus was a cult leader
@Anden Ekadi I think it is clear that I haven't missed the first hand experience aspect as I explicitly baked that into my hypothetical. I'll also note that by stressing the importance of the first hand knowledge you are demonstrating exactly the case study for Paulogia's challenge of for how many early Christians who were eye witnesses to Jesus's resurrection do we have good evidence for martyrdom. And the answer, as Sean agrees, is maybe 2-4 depending on what you mean by good evidence. Finally, the only actual distinction you made between early Christians and some other hypothetical martyrs is summarized by "they simply chose to tell the truth that they saw". Putting aside that you are begging the question that what they were telling is the truth rather than the fact that they are telling it is evidence for its truth, it is just absurd that you are content writing off every other martyr as not meeting this criteria.
Josephus didn't start writing his history until circa 71-75AD, so he was not a source for Luke/Acts. If so, the destruction of the Temple and Peter and Paul's execution would have been mentioned in Luke/Acts. Paulogia also forgets that the Apostles denied Jesus - they ran. How were they so quickly converted BACK to a belief so strong they were willing to live lives of torture, privation, poverty, and die heinous deaths? The Apostle Paul had been wealthy and set to be one of the heads of the Sanhedrin - why would he give all that up? Paulogia said that they were motivated by power and money. They got zero. They only received power from the Holy Spirit, and, they recognized they could do nothing without HIM. James was killed because he was one of the heads of the church in Jerusalem as Peter moved. James was also by Roman law ILLEGALLY killed as the new Prefect had not arrived. The Sanhedrin had no power in execution. Why would they themselves risk executing him and losing their own power in they had desired an effect to which they were truly incensed? All that said, this was a great discussion, and I hope Paulogia will reconsider his faith. He comported himself very well unlike a Dawkins or a Krauss. GOD Bless.
@@sandypidgeon4343 It is a story. A highly implausible story, since it involves supernatural events, and contradicts things we are pretty certain of. It is one of thousands of similar stories. SOME people believe that it's a true story, or a partially true story. But they have not produced any convincing evidence that it is a true story. The default position in such a case for any rational person is to say "as far as we know, this is just a story." Got it? Demonstrate that it's a true story, not just a fictional one, and we can proceed. Otherwise, there's nothing more to say. Non-believers are not under any obligation to prove it is just a story, just as you are not under any obligation to prove that similar stories in the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Greco-Roman, and Old Norse religions are just stories.
@@thompsonmackenzie8957 First, provide evidence that it is simply a story or myth. You do know that Sean's father wrote the most comprehensive book on ALL the evidence for the Bible - "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Second, where would you like to begin? Non-biblical evidence for the Bible? Cosmological arguments? Biological arguments? BTW, I AM under obligation to show that Christianity is the true religion and the rest are falsifiable. I await your answer. GOD Bless.
Well, two of the guys have PhDs and Paul has a cartoon avitar. He does very well. The arguments being made are all well covered and have been for years. Anyone can become an expert today through the internet. Paul is a good example of this.
@@Imrightyourewrong1 do you see how Christians get tortured in countries like North Korea, China, Soviet Union and all of the Muslim countries, and Paul is making a case for the disciples not being martyred. Is he out of his mind that isn't even realistic. What possible credential could he carry as he can't even get a small detail of history right. It sounds like Matt Dillahunty
Powell seems to be rather confused. If you relax the criteria for martyrdom as he wants to, then all his argument amounts to is the claim that early Christians were sincere. What's remarkable about people being sincere? The fact that people were sincere doesn't prove anything in particular. Heaven's Gate believers were totally sincere, and they were clearly willing to die for what they believed, since they committed suicide in order to join the alien flying saucers that they believed in. How much does this contribute to the truth of the Heaven's Gate religion? Does it prove that they must have had objective data proving the aliens and flying saucers exist? After all, would they die for a lie? You're darn tootin' they would. People die for lies all the time, motivated by imaginary experiences and "proofs" that they sincerely believe in but can't possibly be true. I urge Mr. Powell to make a thorough study of the Heaven's Gate cult, without his Christian glasses on, and apply all the criteria he applies to the martyrdoms of early Christians to this study. As for Paul being "hypersceptical".... hate to break it to you, Mr. Powell, but all real historians investigating history OTHER than Christian apologists would consider Paul's level of scepticism to be the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM level of scepticism necessary to be a legitimate historian.
Sincerity + being an eye witness is the combination thats used as evidence for the ressurection since a sinciere eyewitness rules out that they are liars.
@Charles Grube What kind of "risen Jesus" did they see? So if we found evidence that the heaven's gate folks claimed to have seen aliens and had lunch with them that would increase the odds that they weren't delusional nut jobs?
Wow, his Bulls analogy at 34:44 backfired rather badly and just prooves the point of many sceptics. He says that when an announcer would say, "Jordan and the Bulls were late" it doesn't mention Pippen, Kerr, Kucoc and Cartwright. Therefore we could only conclude Jordan was late. He put Cartwright in there even though, he wasn't on the 97/98 team. In the documentary they go back and forth between the early Bulls and the 97/98 Bulls, so he got the players mixed up. This happened even though he probably saw both teams in the 1990s and the documentary was broadcasted only a few weeks ago. It's just so easy to get things wrong and tell them to others even if you try to be as precise as possible like in this discussion.
People so regularly overstate the importance of eyewitness accounts. These are some of the most common causes of wrongfully convicted criminals which the innocence project (another great Netflix doco) is now working to set free with DNA evidence
@G Will "How 'bout accounts from NUMEROUS people who witnessed an event SIMULTANEOUSLY." Yep that is what the Bible says and everything it says MUST be TRUE!!
Yikes, these comments are terrible. Some people are so angry that their logic becomes sloppy and others completely don't understand Sean's core argument. Well, at least Paul did a good job understanding the book so the dialog could be fruitful.
As I always say these channels need to disable comments for these debates. Force people (both atheist and theists) to listen to both sides and think for themselves instead angry typing in the comments searching for an echo chamber.
Paulogia needs to hone in his debate skills, in my view. He is clearer in his videos than in this debate. He sounds as if he is not sure whether he should say what he is saying. Not blaming him as I would likely embarrass myself, but he doesn't come across as clear as Sean McDowell. And I'm on Paulogia's team too.
@@rosealexander9007 So Rose, are you saying a person of faith (of any kind) has never and will never do such a thing? Do you think the laws, norms and moral judgement of other people and larger society don't represent a "higher power" to the majority of people, regardless of their religious faith? Do you think there was never a sociopath or psychopath who believed in judgmental deities? If all that is restraining you from acting out your impulse to do evil is your fear of God's retribution, YOU might have a pathological personality.
@@yunoewig3095 yup had it done to me several times. I don’t care. I’m not debating with a atheist about morals because they have no foundation to stand on in that area. You can now reply to me with blah blah blah. I don’t care 🤷♀️
Except that one of them believes in a book that tells him to murder unbelievers: "And whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" (2 Chron. 15:13).
Dee Bunker To cherry-pick Old Testament passages is to miss the overall meaning and message of the Bible, especially from a Christian perspective. Jesus leaves us with a message of life, love, repentance, and forgiveness. I encourage you to read through the New Testament books (if you haven't already), and ask yourself with an open mind and open heart if this could actually be true - if these events could have actually taken place on this planet nearly 2,000 years ago. At the very least, it's an intriguing thought experiment. Cheers! 🙂
@@TrevorJamesMusic *FACT* - your book of absurd ancient fairy tales instructs believers to *MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS* - "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). Making lame excuses about "cherry picking" or making red herring fallacies doesn't excuse your Big Book of Baby-Killing. Is it moral to kill children for the sins of their parents or not? *NO* "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin" (Deut. 24:16). *YES* "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:2-3). *NO* "The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins" (Eze.18:20). *YES* "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Num. 31: 17-18). So is your God schizophrenic? Or is the bible filled with contradictions because it was written by a bunch of ancient religious fanatics who couldn't get their story straight?
@@TrevorJamesMusic Jesus was a proven liar, false prophet and hypocrite who beat merchants with a whip and vandalized their property for charging prices he didn't like (John 2:15), tricked believers into killing themselves by telling them they'd have magic poison-resistance (Mark 16: 17-18), set back medical science by 1500+ years by teaching that the cause of human illness was *DEMONS* and that medical issues should be treated using exorcism (Matt. 18:16, Mark 1:32, Matt. 9:32-33, Matt. 12:22, Matt. 17:14-18), discouraged hand-washing during a time when 50% of all children died of disease before age 5 (Mark 7, Matt. 15:1-11), advocated whipping as a punishment for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47), encouraged homophobia by propagating the myth that God hates gays and wants them dead (Matt.10:15), and threatened to torture people if they didn't obey him (Matt 23:33). Cheers! 🙂
@@mythbuster1483 That was about a covenant they were making that they must continue to follow God or die. It wasn't about murdering unbelievers. Not at all. It's actually a very honorable covenant though, because it means their belief in God was genuine enough that they were willing to put their lives on the line for it in case they were to ever look back or stop seeking God.
Even if my own mother called me today and said that she'd witnessed a guy raising from the dead and she was so convinced that she'd be willing to die for that belief I still wouldn't believe her.
I looking at the skeptical comments saying that we shouldn’t believe it just because they sincerely believed it and died for it. You have to realize the resurrection argument isn’t based only on this point, only a part of the whole; it’s a cumulative argument. A argument that best explains all the factors. I agree this argument alone is not enough in its own.
What would it take for me to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? The same amount of evidence that it would take for Sean to believe other resurrection accounts found outside of Christianity.
Interesting, because it seems like Luke is clearly saying James was martyred, but maybe I'm not understanding his point on that one. "It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword." (Acts 12:1-2) I guess we could say it dovetails nicely with James Zebedee being a resurrection witness: the Church was full of vigour at the time, drawing persecution; James was able to be found; he's guaranteed to be one of "the 12" Paul mentions, being so close to Jesus. Seems like a good inference to me.
To Paulogia’s comment that “it is only a handful” of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, it only takes one. If there is ONE person who claimed to be an eyewitness to an event and was willing to suffer up to and including dying for the belief, that still means they were absolutely truthful in their belief. Which means everything that person claimed to have witnessed was not a lie made up by that individual. Whether it is 12, 500, or 2, is irrelevant to the counter-argument that the disciples made up those claims for personal gain. Paulogia is taking a typical counter-apologetics tactic to ignore how this piece fits into a larger argument and simply assumes that countering this one piece the whole argument fails. It doesn’t. But even if it could have, Paulogia’s point still fails because as long as there is even just one person who met his criteria for martyrdom then that portion of the argument in defense of the Resurrection remains intact. And so this whole insistence on the number of those who meet his criteria is ultimately irrelevant to the bigger argument in favor of the historicity of the resurrection.
A *STORY* where there are eyewitnesses is different than actual eyewitnesses. Hercules performed miracles in front of many eyewitnesses... *IN THE STORY* . Spider-man defeated the Green Goblin in New York City in front of thousands of eyewitnesses... *IN THE STORY* . Prove that the stories actually happened, or that the *CHARACTERS IN THE STORY* actually existed. Go ahead!
Indeed. One eyewitness account from the likes of Paul, for whom no evidence has been presented that he suffered from profound insanity, is quite persuasive. If in current time frame, for example, a person claims that he encountered resurrected Jesus and then he goes to, say, North Korea to proclaim his eyewitness testimony of resurrected Jesus and His message -- then there are two possibilities: 1. The man is profoundly insane or 2. He had an encounter with resurrected Jesus.
The Japanese soldiers wanted to die for the emperor because they thought he was a God - a living God. Were they right or wrong? Does their martyrdom testify to the emperor's divinity?
Sure does! I'm currently practicing Islam due to 9/11, Japanese Emperor worship due to WWII, Judaism due to all those Biblical wars, Hinduism and Buddhism due to all the fighting in the Indian sub-continent and southeast Asia, voodoo due to a James Bond movie, and of course Christianity due to the anonymous writings of bronze-age human sacrifice worshippers. That all of these religions conflict with one another does not even enter my addled mind.
Hebrew National used to have a slogan that went: "We hold ourselves to a HIGHER authority". Apologists often level the charge that 'non- believers' hold the historical Jesus claims and narratives to a much higher standard. That shouldn't be considered a negative charge, it should be considered a COMPLIMENT! Or are you implying that we should hold material sourced to Almighty God to a 'LOWER' standard? 😮 Whether or not a man named William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays and literature ascribed to him, and whether or not a man named Aristotle existed, was taught by Plato (and ascribed with having developed a formal system of reasoning), is of zero consequence to me. In either example, we still find value in their WORK and METHODS. This is not the case with Christianity. Christian's tell us the inhabitants of earth are being asked to consider one (amongst thousands of different and conflicting supernatural suppositions) but with one 'minor' difference; should we not find the paucity of evidence (safely deposited some two thousands years in the rearview mirror) powerful enough to elicit a heartfelt profession of belief, we will be treated to an eternity of torture in conscious misery! I'd say that any claim or assertion of this barbaric and disgusting sort, that features a standard of evidence that would be laughed out of small claims court, is just as easily discarded as a worldview or outline to organize one's entire life around. Again, would you REALLY expect this disappointingly weak level of geographically and historically circumscribed evidence from an all powerful, all knowing Deity? OF COURSE NOT, but from man?... This is EXACTLY what we would expect. Of course you're free to believe whatever you'd like but has it ever occurred to you that the 'invisible' and the 'non-existent' look very much alike?! 🤔🧞♂️🔦............... 😯
"yada, yada, yada Christianity's the truth". G Will And THIS my friends, has essentially been the best evidentiary basis of Christian claims from the word go. 🤣
Simmer down there G Willie, of course it's a fact! - Just like it's a FACT that a penguin couple walked all the way from Antarctica to the Middle East to climb aboard a zoo boat built by a 500 year old man! 🐒🐅🐄🐫🐧🐧🐘🦏🐐🦄🦒🐻🦃🐈🐕 I think the nurse just called for your finger painting activity. 😳
It is a FACT that the Great and Powerful NooBoo is Lord of all the Universe and anyone denying this FACT exposes themselves an inferior intellect. And there it is,... PROOF POSITIVE that you're mistaken AND an inferior intellect. You gotta love the 'Gee Willie' Academy of Rational Argument and Evidence Based Claims! 🤣 🧞♂️🧜♂️🧚♂️🦸♀️
This is good for Paul. I noticed he was stumbling over his words in his discussion with Eric Hovind. More debate practice will make him more comfortable in live debates.
This was a great demonstration of how an Apologist is able to lower their standard of evidence when it fits their faith narrative. I strongly believe that if you had a 3 way or 4 way discussion with apologists from various religions,(and one atheist) on this same topic, that the religious apologists would all be in agreement with each other about the the evidence they have for their religion, while discounting the others in the debate for having weak evidence.
David Donohue the problem is that the criteria of historical scholarship is not consistently applied. It seems to me if we applied the same level of skepticism to other area of history we accept, then we’d have to discard a lot of what we believe accept as true about history. What do you think?
@@garyleemusic - I agree that the criteria is not consistently applied, and doesn't need to be. When a man claims to have rode a horse across the land in 4 days, and we know that it would take roughly 4 days for an experienced rider to cross that distance, the criteria of the evidence is negligible. When a man claims to have ridden a flying horse across a vast distance in a matter of minutes... the criteria for the evidence rises according to the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims (like religious supernatural claims) require extraordinary evidence. If Pythagoras didn't actually come up with the math theorem, but his wife, maid, barber, or someone else did... this changes almost nothing in our world. The theorem is still true, and attributing this to a specific person is almost meaningless. If any of the 6? deities who claim to be born of a virgin, and rise from the dead could provide reasonable evidence... it changes almost our entire world, and the criteria of the requirement of evidence is set accordingly.
@D.D. - Yes, he does, and it is wrong, when you consider the consequeces of those claims and evidence on our world. There is a relative scale to our skepticism of the world that we live in.
@D.D. - Well you can be as wrong as you like, that's your prerogative, but be mindful that on social media your posts will be subject to scrutiny. I'll give you one more example. A person makes a claim that kitten in front of you won't bite you. The consequences of the claim being true or false are extremely minimal and barely need to be noted, much less examined. The same person makes the claim that the blank mamba snake in front of you won't bite you. The consequences of the claim could result in your death, and should be given the most serious consideration before taking any action. If you don't understand the difference between these claims, then you may have difficulty reaching the age of retirement. And MOST religious analysts Do NOT believe that Moses was a real person. You should do some research on this. The historical Jesus is believed by Religious analysts to have been Jeshua Ben Joseph, a rabbi who was born in Nazareth, lived and unremarkable life, and died in the Jewish faith.
I've watched this a few times over the years, and I just enjoy it so much. My thought this time is that I think Sean might be going a little too far when he says that Paul is hyperskeptical, and that "that's not how scholarship operates". The search for truth is only valuable IF it is hyperskeptical. And I can't think of a topic more befitting of hyperskepticism than claims of someone being the literal lord. It comes through a little stronger every time I watch this that Sean's conclusions may be skeptical within Christian scholars, but they are inseparable from his faith. It seems as if his doubt is always made with one foot still in the door. The momentum of faith is very effective at helping one give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. There is no one strong piece of evidence, just two millenia of insignificant pieces that, collectively, appear convincing.
Fact: Belief can be true or False Fact: People can hold a belief without knowing if their belief is true or false. Fact: People can be mistaken about their beliefs. Fact: People can be correct about their beliefs Fact: People can die for their beliefs. Fact: People dying for their beliefs don't make their belief true or false. Therefore It's incorrect to say that people dying for their belief most mean their belief is true.
Leo Savage, I believe Sean is claiming that it adds to the other evidence that support the claim that Christianity is true. Be careful that you don’t change the parameters of the discussion.
point taken but christs crucifixion and resurresurrection was never competently put in question, the killing and torturing is just a failed counter to the truth.
@@anaarkadievna But is completely relate to Sean McDowell's point. The apostle martyred for their faith doesn't prove or disprove their claim. His argument is that the die because it was true, which is completely false, no one does know the condition they die in and if their faith was related to it.
At around 51 minutes. Sean McDowell accuses Paulogia of being "hyper skeptical" for not accepting testimony surrounding claims that a human rose from the dead. Well, I'd expect present day medics to examine the corpse, confirm brain death, no heart beat and the commencement of bodily decay. Without that level of confirmation that someone had died I would be unwilling to accept a claim of a resurrection.
George Moncayo Ah yes. The Christian who proclaims, “everything is religion therefore you’re just as wrong as I am.” Not everything is religion dude. Maybe next time deal with the issue instead.
Trolltician The longform of the “no one dies for a lie” argument is; The resurrection is true because 1. people claimed to have seen it happen. 2. Those people were then martyred (killed) for repeating that belief. And 3. No one would allow that to happen in defense of something they knew to be false. Paulogia’s methodology is to find evidence in support of any person would qualify as #3. So he defines 3 criteria that must be met; 1. They would need to have seen the resurrection. 2. They would have been given a chance to recant. 3. They would have to have chosen to die rather than recant. That is the only way you could confirm that form of the “no one dies for a lie” argument. If you want to water down the argument or, like Sean did here, say that it’s not proof of the resurrection, then you could use different criteria.
Trolltician you didn’t present any reality. You pretended to care about what I wrote, and when I explained it in detail, you gave a gibberish response that you think showed your superiority. That is a typical troll move. Congrats. You have brought the conversation down to your level instead of engaging with the ideas. Cool.
@@olsbijack2998 Recording inside an empty box is the real Chad move. That way, you automatically ger +5% to the epistemic credence of every statement you make because of the criterion of embarrassment
I have a bookshelf right infront/behind my computer. I highly doubt it's to show off, but because you don't have two peices of furniture next to each other and computers are against walls which give good view of the room. I mean does cosmic skeptic try to show off a false sense of intellectual superiority?
One thing I know for sure is that Cartwright, Kukoc, Kerr, and Jordan did not play together on one team. Cartwright played with Jordan until '92 when Michael 'retired' the first time. It wasn't until the following year that Kerr and Kukoc joined the Bulls. By the time Jordan returned to the team and began playing with Kerr and Kukoc in '94-'95 Cartwright was already in Seattle for a single year before retiring permanently.
Why would a god who wanted to save humanity use the same blueprint that was used prior in the ancient world by dying and resurrection. Romulus for example. And being in a Greco exposed world these myths would be known but why wouldn’t a god do something completely unknown to prove his resurrection
I asked a similar question of my high school youth pastor. He replied that all of those stories were God forshadowing Jesus's resurection and should give us more confidence in the truth of it. In my experience thought provoking questions such as this rarely provoke much thought because an easy rationalization can pretty much always be found.
Someone asked, “Why would the disciples die for a lie?” And i realized i didn’t have a good answer. So i wrote my doctoral thesis and published a book on it, which i’m now going to defend by claiming that the disciples’ sincere beliefs and whether they died for them aren’t part of the question.
Since, at best, only one faith proposition can be true all believers believe that dying for a lie is something ALL subscriber to ALL faith traditions do when they die in service to the causes or beliefs that resonate with them personally. Stated more accurately, people routinely die for beliefs THEY BELIEVE to be true... - so what? It's been happening for time immemorial.
@@danielbarzay461 ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, a Sikh, a Christian, a Buddhist, etc. who was murdered on the basis of their metaphysical beliefs and ALL OF THEM would tell you they were CERTAIN that their supernatural assertions were true. Again, if they all die KNOWING they're dying over that which is true, are they ALL true? 🤔 Of course not. Do they all BELIEVE they are right? Yes, of course.
Sean keeps saying he’s a skeptic. No he’s not. He thinks that the truth is somehow gleaned from the fact that people will suffer to defend a belief. There’s too many examples of people suffer for conflicting beliefs that this cannot possibly be used as a standard.
It necessarily follows that if you can use the people that died for believing in Jesus, you must also consider the Jews (Jesus's father's chosen people who were promised a Messiah) disbelief as evidence there was no resurrection. The Jews are still waiting for a Messiah. Why would they reject their own Messiah God promised them?
Well many people DID convert. Also, this evidence has a different effect today than in 40AD. At that time, no one had died yet, and by the time there were beginning to be martyrs, Christianity was legally prohibited and actively suppressed through threat of punishment.
@@journeyfiveonesix All I am saying is if you use converts as evidence, then you must also use non-converts as evidence. You need to explain why many Jews did not convert to Christianity because the explanation proposed begs that question.
The fact that Sean said that being hyper sceptical is not the scholarly approach is very suspicious. When you do science you want to be as sceptical as you can to try and prove things wrong. Christian scholars do seem to be doing it the wrong way round. That’s why, as Sean mentioned, their definitions for what could be counted as evidence are not as rigorous. And let’s be honest, most biblical scholars are believers.
Paul may not mind but I find it insulting when people who respond to his videos don't know how to say the channel name, when he says it in EVERY video at least once, even explaining where the name came from in screen. Which makes me think they aren't even listening to the channel they are responding to.
Someone who was absolutely convinced that they encountered a supernatural being might certainly be willing to die for that belief. Paul's encounter with JC was in a vision. It is a FALSE DILEMMA to say that the early Christians who believed in JC and resurrection either knew that a dead guy actually came back to life or that the tale was a lie.
I love Paul's response to all of this. he never wants throws other Scholars claims that the all the scholars are on my side. throw people in the mosh pit with out their ability to explain themselves further. he simply just stating what he knows and how he came to his conclusion.whit out throwing people in who he never so much has had a conversation with. As if an appeal to Authority is not a logical fallacy.
Appeal to irrelevant authority is a fallacy. Appeal to a consensus of experts in the discussed subject is not a fallacy. Though Paul mentions that we can't forget that a large portion of the experts in this area are bound by an agreement to treat the bible as the inerrant word of God. That is something that can explain this particular consensus and so it should be taken with skepticism.
I dabble in quite a few comments sections -- not just religious, but all manner of pseudoscientific -- and the only engagement I've received has come from two of the most vitriolic people I have encountered in a while. Obviously there are quite a few variables there, perhaps I'm being especially overbearing or perhaps those are the only people willing to engage with me, but I've been disappointed. This may be the first time I've been called an idiot and an athetard (or something with a similar ring) in the same sentence. Who knows ¯\_༼ᴼل͜ᴼ༽_/¯
@@tompaine4044 I'll always engage with you, douchebag. I'm vitriolic because you bring nothing but your unsupported and therefore meaningless disagreement about the God hypothesis. I only reason from science and logic, and you don't contribute much on those levels.
@@20july1944 So your best argument is that you can use emotionally charged words because I don't share your unabashed credulity of one particular religion? If that's what you want us to think about your reasoning, then we will, but I worry you're doing yourself a disservice.
I know this is four years old now but I just have to comment. Parts of this are really frustrating. McDowell says multiple times that the people in question "died willingly for their belief." Common sense tells me to prove that you need to prove: - They were killed. We barely know this for a couple. - They were killed for their belief that Jesus resurrected. We can't prove that for any of them. McDowell's thinking seems to be that being Christian and being killed is enough, but it's not. A person could be killed for giving a sermon that says "Don't listen to the king, listen to Jesus. Jesus is higher than the king" or any number of things. The killer may have no problem with Christians, just a problem with one specific thing this particular Christian said or did. And that is ignoring the possibility, however remote, that the disciple did something else entirely to warrant death. Maybe slept with someone's wife, stole a sheep, had a dispute and punched the wrong guy, knocked off a liquor store. These are silly but we really do not know. - They died willingly. We can't prove that for any of them. They may have been dragged to their death kicking and screaming. They may have been killed by surprise. I sort of agreed with McDowell at the beginning when he criticized Paul's rule that they had to have a chance to recant. We know Christians often had the chance to recant because they weren't really being persecuted for their belief, they were often persecuted for their lack of belief in the customs around them, but surely not all had the chance and it's still a strict requirement But I don't know of any other way to prove they died for their belief than if their belief was put to the test in their last moment. Paul gives the example of people enjoying the power of the bake sale table, McDowell says those people would give up the bake sale table if you said you were going to kill them. Sure, they are being given a warning. But did any of the disciples get a warning that they decided to ignore? We don't know. Also, I am so sick of J Warner Wallace saying all crime is committed for only three reasons; sex, money and power. So this guy was a detective for decades and never heard of a crime committed out of anger? What about love? Peer pressure? Desperation? The guy who sits outside a courthouse and shoots the man who murdered his child, was he motivated by sex, money or power? The woman who kills her rapist? The Crip member who kills a Blood because his leader told him to? But the subject isn't even about crime. The subject is why someone 2000 years ago might take a job giving speeches they don't necessarily agree with instead of being a fisherman, and there's a million more possible reasons for that.
McDowell seems to want to water down the definition of 'Martyr' as much as possible so as to make it easier to find examples, but still wants to maintain that being a martyr proves that someone was sincere in their belief. You can't have it both ways.
@@richybambam1995 Paul's definition makes perfect sense for the argument that he is making. If an apologist claims that the apostles would 'not die for a lie', then it's important to establish that these apostles did indeed put themselves in such a position that they were likely to be killed. McDowell includes the example of the French priest who was murdered as a martyr, but it would be highly unlikely that he went to church that day with any expectation of what was going to happen.
@@rickelmonoggin doesn't there seem to be something wrong with the first sentence of your reply? Isn't it odd to have a definition that is only valid for arguing with someone you disagree with?
@@richybambam1995 No, its not. What matters here are the concepts, not the words. Words tend to have overloaded meanings anyway. "Martyr" is certainly one such word . Paul lays out very clearly the criteria by which he thinks someone has to meet in order for us accept them as someone who witnessed the resurrection and died for this belief. Whether you call this person a 'martyr' (a convenient shorthand) or not is irrelevant.
@@rickelmonoggin I'm not talking about definitions, I'm talking about standards and having a different standard of figuring out truth that is only valid for arguing with someone you disagree with seems wrong no matter what the topic is.
Especially if Christians can't even show the the supposed 12 apostles were martyred. The simply *CLAIM* that this happened with no credible evidence whatsoever.
@@thomasmyers9128 First, we don't have witnesses, we have claims of witnesses. Second, it's possible to believe something based on seeing something, that doesn't elevate it above a belief and doesn't prove whether what you saw is true or not. No one is saying that eyewitness aren't evidence, they're are just not great evidence. On the topic discussed in this video we don't have eyewitnesses, we have claims of eyewitnesses. Unless you grant for the sake of argument that there were eyewitnesses, this conversation doesn't exist.
I was talking in general.....Like your first statement.... a belief.... that belief... not true... etc... .......so a witness holds more weight than a believer...
@@thomasmyers9128 My response stands. It's been demonstrated that two witnesses of the same event can have two different interpretations of what they saw. Both of them can't be right. You must investigate further, hopefully with better evidence
@G Will Was he killed for reasons other than his religion? Sean was arguing that religious leaders are martyred regardless of whether there's a religious reason they are killed.
@G Will Paul was arrested several times. Do you think he wasn't accused of such things? Or Jesus? Luke records he was accused of being a con-artist. John records him being threatened by mobs. It is you who is special pleading. Show me Mormon controlled sources that prove any of that about Joseph Smith.
I've sometimes been frustrated by Justin's biased presentation and moderation, but I think he did an excellent job of fairly moderating this fine debate. Well done!
Biological Engine of Love as a Christian I agree. Sometimes when he presses the atheist more than the Christian I’m like “can you just shut up for once”
Biological Engine of Love seriously? I’ve never watched nor heard of this guy -and literally my first thought was “how annoying that this guy can’t be even remotely neutral for the sake of the debate.”
This is a perfect example of how a debate should be done. A very fair moderator with two very respectful gentlemen having a very honest discussion. I really appreciate that both men seemed motivated not by trying to “win”, but by getting to the truth.
@@thelivingcross3785 Don’t murder any babies today just because some member of a death cult claims that God said so. "This is what the Lord Almighty says...put to death men and women, children and infants." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). So you’d murder your neighbor’s entire family, including his infant, if some man claimed that Jesus appeared to him and said you should? If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased cult members, then it MUST be a reliable source, right?
@@mythbuster1483 The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, they desired to destroy Israel (v. 2), God’s chosen people, the channel of His redemptive plans for all humankind (Gen. 12:1-3). The act of their total destruction was necessitated by the gravity of their sin. Otherwise, some hard core remnant might rise to resume their hateful act toward God’s people and plan. As to the question about the innocent children, several observations are relevant. First, we are all born in sin (Ps. 51:5) and deserve death (Rom. 5:12). Everyone will eventually be taken by God in death-it is only a matter of when (Heb. 9:27). Second, God is sovereign over life and reserves the right to take it when He will (Deut. 32:39; Job 1:21). Third, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved (see comments on 2 Sam. 12:23). Hence, the act by which God took the children is far from merciless (see also comments on Josh. 6:21).
@@mythbuster1483 GOD has the absolute authority to bring justice upon depravity, no matter the circumstances. In addition, you cannot assume misinformation and subjective interpretations as the reasonable conclusion. You’re not only misunderstanding the context, but you’re obviously jumping into conclusions. That alone is a Strawman Fallacy. It could also mean the Genetic Fallacy.
It is quite arrogant to think that simple disbelief and human defined logic, can dismiss what is possible for GOD! The Bible stands regardless of what one does and does not accept! Evolution is accepted by some, on even less firm ground; So much so, that some evolutionists now look for "higher powers" from so-called alien worlds to explain the origins of life. (While not realizing that they too, would consider a "being" that they have not seen!), Even secular scientists, who don't accept GOD'S existence, let alone HIS ability to create the universe, have very sound and scientifically based issues with evolution theory. You can certainly speak of your own refusal to accept the Bible, which is fine and your absolute right, however, you certainly don't speak for us all. The Bible stands on its' claims and the experience of billions of believers over 2000 years, and your denial of it is irrelevant. Young Earth Creation for example, is acceptable, because it would take a GOD of great power to pull it off, and disbelief is based upon placing human limitations on a very powerful BEING!
@@caryt59 the arrogance is in people who think humans are so special that everything was made just for them. arrogance is a god who would murder every person on earth due to the behavior of some. We just aren't that all special .
@@robertlove8593 That's only your opinion based upon a very weak argument, and a woeful lack of helpful information, you no doubt ignore - but YOUR opinion, none-the-less. I am okay with your denial, (not that it matters to you, I'm sure.), It's your right! Thanks for posting your response. No! We aren't that special! THAT'S what makes GOD so AMAZING! "For GOD so loved ROBERT LOVE, that HE gave HIS only SON, that if ROBERT should believe in HIM, ROBERT will not perish, but will have ETERNAL LIFE! - John 3:16, made personal just for you! JESUS loves you anyway, dude!
@@caryt59 I guess you never heard of apologists who spend there time researching the history of religions. I mean there are thousands of schools with degrees programs all across the globe. If it were not for the thousands of contradictions and errors in the Bible we would not be posting on this site.
@@robertlove8593 Yes, I am sure there are apologists who only look into the Bible to fulfill their own presuppositions, because its' truth is difficult for them to bare and the alternative to repent and submit to HOLY GOD is unthinkable to them because they love their sin more than they love the truth of JESUS CHRIST! Every seemingly contradictory scripture and error that you claim to know, is only based upon YOUR presupposed ideas, and a lack of hermeneutic understanding, not to mention a possible sad experience, at one time in your life, in your failed attempts to "find GOD"! You are typical in your denial. Nothing new about your accusation. You are apart of a long line of those who actually choose to see the Bible as errant, such as the Jesus Seminar group! GOD'S Truth is THE TRUTH and your denial of that will NEVER change that fact! You are simply arguing into the wind, and my concern for you is that you will realize it after it's far too late! I leave you with the previous scripture for your salvation. Enough has been said, and I realize that you only care to present a feeble argument, which will never hold up in GOD'S court. Best to you, (prayerfully)!
Very informative discussion. I'm initially more on Paul side but the entire discuss point out how much wiggle room for interpretation and biases, which in my opinion shouldn't be the case if Josh world view is true.
Really, Cube? If Paulogia's worldview were true, I would think we would have a model of cosmology that is consistent with thermodynamics, but we don't.
20july1944 dont need one. I don’t jump to conclusions. I’m ok with something always exists, but don’t see any need for an agent or intelligent agent, not until it’s obvious.
Something that hardly ever gets mentioned on this subject The Apostles were all Jews who believed in God Had they been lying then they would have known that they were lying against a God they already believed existed So the argument that they were lying is the weakest argument If True they would have been lying for little reward, and facing the reality in their mind that they would stand before a real God and have to give account for subverting the Jewish Faith
@@Mr_A1-37 Yeah I see he mentions it for a moment. This should be expanded upon and given greater emphasis. Their whole worldview as Jews would have been very much God centered. Another thing is that they not only claimed to have seen the risen Jesus but to have had actual physical interaction with Him. Thomas touching the crucifixion wounds. Jesus eating fish they cooked and honeycomb. Doing this to prove he was real and not just a ghost or apparition The Apostles were actually skeptics themselves, and required the greatest evidence possible before they would accept He was in actual physical form
@Christian Slayer What is this nonsensical gibberish?? No one claimed He disappeared. The claim was that He ascended back into heaven and will return. Totally consistent with the old testament teaching about The Messiah The suffering servant and the one who will come to exact judgement on the world Your argument is the same circular reasoning that says miracles don't happen because the miraculous is impossible
If they had bothered to watch even one intro to one of Paul’s videos they’d know how to pronounce Paulogia. Sloppy and disrespectful on their part, while Paul was, as usual, polite, respectful and well prepared.
I find it amazing that all these apologists compare the gospels and Paul's letters to other figures in history. It seems crazy when they go on to claim that Jesus was a god. This isn't about a human, this is supposed to be a story about a god. Wouldn't a god leave a little bit more evidence than what we find with mere humans? This makes no sense unless we are looking at this from a secular standpoint and are arguing only about if a regular human named Jesus actually existed, not whether a god existed on Earth. Apologists have convinced me that Jesus was just a regular guy and not a god. Watching this video from the future where we now see people believing things that they heard on Fox News even if those things are proven lies, it makes it obvious you need to have someone make an actual claim they saw something and even then we have learned you can't believe them without looking at their reasons. We have seen this cult of Trump and Fox News and every day these cult members come up with a new conspiracy that the inside group believes in and are willing to threaten people who don't agree. So we see a cult can form very quickly from lies that can be proven wrong. We have so many examples of people who are willing to die or suffer for beliefs that are just plain wrong and in this day it is very easy to verify and I can't imagine that it would be easier to verify a story 2,000 years ago
How do you explain the sudden explosion of Christianity in the first and second centuries... even to the possibility of a Christian losing everything, becoming an outlaw, and most likely face death and torture....even this did not stem the incredible growth of the church... Christianity is now the biggest faith in the 🌎... Believers are still martyred to this day...
@@thehelpdesk4051 Christians are martyred? Not any more than any other religion. Why do you think Christians lost everything and became outlaws in the first and second centuries? These ideas are from your own religion, not reality. You are making an argument based on fantasy. Instead of just believing the stories that your pastor and church members pass around to each other to make you feel special, go look up actual history. You will be amazed at how many beliefs and stories never happened. It isn't just religious people who believe their own facts, it happens with a lot of subjects in the general population. People make videos of 'things you thought were true' on RUclips all the time about many subjects. I personally suspect the church grew because it offered something that no other religion was offering at the time, community. I haven't done enough research into it but my guess gathering in small, supportive groups wasn't the norm in other religions. Also, the early church may have been more accepting of women which would have been a breakthrough at the time even though later the church treated women terribly.
@@thehelpdesk4051 So you are just going to claim you know shit without making any counter arguments or looking into your church traditions. I hope someday you decide to start using your mind and stop blindly following what others have told you.
@@jollyandwaylo facts: Christianity is the largest persecuted faith today... Last year 5600 Christian believers were murdered for thier faith 6000 plus were detained or imprisoned 4000 plus were kidnapped 5000 plus churches and other religious facilities destroyed... Judiasim is 2nd with far less numbers Than Hinduism rounds out the top three From day 1 Jesus followers have been hunted... Yet the Christian faith continues to grow... We are lucky here in the states but that is changing as tolerance for biblical beliefs grows smaller.... You can pretend Jesus was a myth You can say it was all fake But the majority of historians and scholars agree he existed... He changed all humanity He changed social structures Even time itself is divided by his life...
1:00:46 The problem is we only have Christian sources that tell us in detail about the disciples. There are plenty of abusive cults where if you only look at material published by the members, it will only say they treat everyone with charity and kindness. Accordingly, Jesus and the disciples _could_ have been involved in numerous scandals and we today probably wouldn't know about any of it. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they were.
Jesus was a proven liar, false prophet and hypocrite who beat merchants with a whip and vandalized their property for charging prices he didn't like (John 2:15), tricked believers into killing themselves by telling them they'd have magic poison-resistance (Mark 16: 17-18), set back medical science by 1500+ years by teaching that the cause of human illness was *DEMONS* and that medical issues should be treated using exorcism (Matt. 18:16, Mark 1:32, Matt. 9:32-33, Matt. 12:22, Matt. 17:14-18), discouraged hand-washing during a time when 50% of all children died of disease before age 5 (Mark 7, Matt. 15:1-11), advocated whipping as a punishment for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47), encouraged homophobia by propagating the myth that God hates gays and wants them dead (Matt.10:15), and threatened to torture people if they didn't obey him (Matt 23:33).
This is the second time I've seen intelligent Christians seem perplexed as to where Paulogia got his name from... isn't it obvious he merged 'Paul' with 'Apology' (as in apologetics)? It's not a big deal but I thought it was kind of obvious given the subject matter he makes videos about.
I agree. His name is intuitive... Paul + logia = Paul's thoughts/teaching. I think the apologists are trying to be sarcastic or cutesy by playing games with it.
0:10 - "Willing to suffer and die for something they knew to be false." (NOT THE ARGUMENT) There are three scenarios: _Scenario 1_ - *The apostles knew the claim was true and died for it.* In this scenario, it's clear that Christianity is true. There is a big problem with this scenario. This is good evidence for the apostles but not good evidence for anyone else. _Scenario 2_ - *The apostles knew the claim was false and died for it.* This is an unlikely scenario but still possible. It's unlikely because people are less willing to have strong convictions for false beliefs and be willing to die for them. It is still possible because people are could die for a belief they know is false. However due to multiple claims of disciples dying for their beliefs, this is (in my view) the most unlikely scenario. I find it interesting that this was put forth at the start. It's almost like this is the way the debate is trying to be framed... _Scenario 3_ - *The apostles did not know the truth value of the claim or were deceived in to thinking one way and died for it.* Now we get to what I believe is the most likely scenario. In this scenario the disciples held a strong belief (not knowledge) in the truth value of the claim. This is similar to many people today who would die for their religion. Simply ask yourself if you know someone who would die for their religion and you'll see how plausible this scenario is. People don't have the same absolutely certainty the apostles are claimed to have had yet still have the same strength in their convictions as the apostles did. Worse yet, we see this strength of conviction among multiple religions. Simply put.... *People dying for something they claim is true does not prove that claim is true (Especially when it comes to religion).*
For the 3rd scenario, the apostles were the originators of the claim... there was no one to deceive them. As to not knowing the truth value, if you're going off the (little) evidence we have , you have no basis for the assumption.. except you're conjuring up scenario (leaving the evidence). I'm from a culture more similar to ancient near east than it is western... the 3rd scenario is pure conjecture and flies in the face of what little evidence we have.
@@actingapostlesage Incorrect. Imagine growing up with a dad who claims to be a police officer. Your dad leaves your house every day in a police suit and comes home at night after a 12 hour shift. Turns out though, your dad was pretending to be a police officer the whole time to cover up working for the CIA! You would most likely tell everyone you know about your police officer dad. Meanwhile you were deceived in to believing this. The issue here is that you truly believe your dad is a police officer but that is not true. Likewise, the disciples could've been (Not saying they were) believing something was true that is not actually true. The fact that they may have died for this belief shows us that it was a strong belief. People are more willing to die for strong beliefs but can also hold strong beliefs that are false. How were they deceived (If they were)? I don't know. I am just giving this as a possibility we should consider. My evidence is that humans deceive other humans. This means it is POSSIBLE. I am not stating it happened. I am merely stating we should consider it as a possible. What conclusion do you draw regarding the disciples and why?
I understand that logic, but who will be the dad in this scenario? Who is the deceiver? There is my issue, in your short analogy, the dad is the originator of this deception - not me. That doesn't work here.
@@actingapostlesage It simply points out that people can believe something is true that is false. One of my friends in college told me: *"My buddy was one of the best runners in the nation and could run a mile in under three minutes."* I told him that it was not true and he started to get mad. He insisted that he saw his friend do this at a track meet. He told me that we could look it up and see his times. He said... "I know he did this." He said he knew it... but he was wrong. The world record for a mile is not even close to under 3 minutes. A high schooler (Which is friend was) would be known (Like Alan Webb) if they broke a 4 minute mile. Considering his friend wasn't Alan Webb, I knew his friend didn't even get below a 3 minute mile (Let alone 4) in a race. So once again we see that people can truly believe something that is false. Why would the disciples believe something is true when it is actually false? I don't know..... but we know this happens. ______________________________ Do you agree that the disciples could have believed Jesus rose from the dead when Jesus actually didn't rise from the dead? Is this POSSIBLE? I say YES.
Christians say, “The apostles wouldn’t have died for a lie!” • We don’t know the fate of most of them • We don’t know if they didn’t recant and were killed regardless • We don’t know if they knew it was a lie, they might have believed it truly but were mistaken • We don’t know if they were actively preaching and just hunted down like Saul used to do • We don’t know if they were preaching about Jesus or going off on their own sect of Christianity • We don’t know if any of the stories are true or simply made up (by the Romans for example) as straight fiction
@G Will What... what the fuck is wrong with you? Instead of proving me wrong, you scream "Nuh-UH!" and hurl ad hominem attacks. Gee whiz, what a great argument you have discovered!
Peter actually did go back to fishing first, before encountering the risen Jesus and THEN he left his boats and livelihood for the faith. But the point is still this: EVEN IF Peter liked the taste of power, when his life was on the line. BUT that doesn’t explain Paul who actually lost influence, lost a position of power, and lost possessions. And Paulogia even admitted he wouldn’t die for his RUclips channel fame which ends up undermining his own point.
I've concluded that some people are satisfied with tenuous, ambiguous, low probability statements, events and artifacts to confirm their faith in the god of the bible while other people require unambiguous, high probability evidence that would justify a belief in god and Jesus as its offspring. I know there are sincere people in this world (me included) that would accept a god if doing so wasn't dependent on blind faith. That god could easily remove all doubt of its existence. No need for martyrs. If it does exist it chooses to remain hidden. In all reality if the god of the bible existed it would have a lot to answer for.
@@trybunt That's right. The only reason why anyone would refuse to believe is the fact they want to "SIN" and don't want god to judge them. I've actually heard this accusation used in debates against atheist opponents. I've also seen where the Christian opens the debate by reciting some biblical text pronouncing god's judgment against the atheist opponent. I find it rude and out of place in a formal debate.
@@joseph-thewatcher I find it hilarious that people think they know the mind of others, but to be fair I've seen atheists do the same thing, explaining that theists just believe for this reason or that. Oh well, we could all be a little more reasonable to each other, I guess
Regarding the death of James in Acts 12. A main point that was overlooked is the statement, "And when Herod saw that (the execution of James) pleased the Jews." We need to ask ourselves, "What was James doing that brought so much enmity from the Jews?" Christ gives the answer, "If they hated me, they will hate you."
18:27 Sean, his (Pauls) definition SPECIFICALLY drives to the point of 'apostles wouldnt have died for something they KNEW was a lie' as an argument to suppport the Risen Christ. Ergo: those Martyrs MUST have firsthand knowledge of the ressurection... Otherwise it is just a BELIEF. I BELIEVE my BFF has seen the Pyramids at Giza.... But i dont KNOW it.
Wrong analogy, you may believe that your BFF went to Giza, but would you be ready to suffer and die for this truth? (or any other belief). What made the Apostles credible is -they personally knew Jesus -they ONLY believed in him AFTER he rose from death -and they sacrificed everything (money, prison, martyrdom etc.) for what they considered to be the Truth (resurrected Jesus) It still doesn't make what they believed in the objective truth, it just make of them a credible source (see the alternated explanation for the resurection- Swoon, Hallucination, Impersonation, Theft theory etc. )
Resurrection apologists who argue that no one would be martyred for a “lie” can only make this assertion when the Jesus movement is abstracted from the political/revolutionary formations and aspirations that made the movement a popular movement in the first place. The resurrection of Jesus wasn’t a true or false statement of historical fact. It was a call to arms in the final battle against the powers that be.
Thanks so much to Justin for having me on and being an amazing moderator. And to Sean for his background work and a great conversation. Cheers!
Much respect to you Paul!
So, Paul, were you really 30 years old when you figured out YEC isn't true?
I find that really hard to believe, and I'd like the truth.
So what is the truth?
Did Muhammad receive revelations in that cave? Did Joseph Smith receive revelations in the forest?
They are easy to debunk (as atheists) because they had something personal to gain and benefit from.
@@ic.xc. Are you an atheist?
I don't believe Paulogia was stupid enough as a 30 year old to be unaware of the problems with YEC, even though many people and churches say they believe it.
@@20july1944 My question wasn't exactly directed to you.
Just quickly; what does YEC stand for?
It's nice to see a respectful conversation from different viewpoints on any subject. Good job all!
Justin, you may be the best moderator I’ve seen in a debate like this. It was lovely listening and I appreciate and respect both Paul and Sean.
Love this discussion, and while I think Paul makes the better case, and the one I personally agree with…I really do like Sean’s approach the most out of all apologists. Well thought out, well read, respectful and sincere. I almost always stop to watch content where Sean makes an appearance, and he always makes me consider my position. Well done, both of you.
Sean just seems like a really good guy and intellectually honest even if I think he just. Doesn’t. Make. The connections that I feel like he’s capable of making sometimes or reaching the logical conclusions I think he should. But on a personal level, as an atheist I think he’s one of the best apologists out there on top of being smart.
With Paulogia being one of the least snarky and most polite atheists out there and with Justin doing as good of a job as he did moderating the debate, I like coming back to this one a lot
I commend Sean (and Paul for that matter) for the slow, clear and articulated explanations. It was very helpful to digest.
Many Muslims have been so devoted to Allah and Mohammad that they were willing to die for him and others continued to follow him, does that mean Islam is true?
Just because Jesus had followers that died for him didn't prove he was right.
People died for whatever religion they follow all the time.
If Jesus really came back then show me, he can prove himself to all other religions yet he doesn't. Guess he either doesn't care or he doesn't exist.
@@LisaAnn777 Many Muslims die because of a belief in Allah, but when they die they could have no guarantee that they're not dying for a lie other than through their faith. However, those martyrs who claimed to know that Jesus died and claimed to see him resurrected WOULD have a guarantee to know if they were lying about seeing Jesus resurrected. The muslims die on faith and a firm belief, while the apostles either knowingly died for a lie (or at least had good reason to know they will be persecuted for it) or they died for an observation that they all truly believed.
@@jeremydavidson7559 many of Mohammads followers claimed to have seen miracles from god. They even claim he ascended to heaven.
Hey, I think it was a great job by all involved! Can I ask though, around 36 minutes in, Paul expressed that the book of Acts doesn't make any reference to the other apostles other than Peter and John. But, Acts chapter 1 tells of how the Apostles are there for the last meeting with the risen Jesus, and then it says they return to Jerusalem and in verse 13 it says "Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mathew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." So it directly connects all 12 by name to a meeting with the resurrected Jesus.
Then in Acts 4:33 it says "With great power the Apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus". In chapter 5 of Acts, it tells of the Apostles being arrested and put in jail and that an angel comes and lets them out and tells them to go out and preach the message. In verse 25 it has someone coming to tell the Sanhedrin (those who had arrested them and are now wondering where their prisoners have gotten to) that "The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." I suppose someone could try and say that the Apostles were teaching something other that the resurrection, but the context is really very clear. They sure weren't teaching basket weaving.
Then in chapter 8, it tells the story of one of the Apostles, Philip and his experience. Verse 5 states that "Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there."
All that to demonstrate that the book of Acts is not ambiguous at all about the question of whether these particular 11 men (who then added the 12th man of Matthias, who it expresses in Acts 1:22 was also a witness of the resurrection) were proclaiming what that they had seen the resurrected Jesus.
Oh, and by the way, if you are going to say that Luke, the author of Acts, got his material from Josephus, then it means that we have right here extra-Biblical evidence that all 12 Apostles were attesting to the resurrection.
Great point! Thanks
Is Paulogia even Paulogia if he isn’t animated?
@G Will butthurt much😉
ANIMATED? ANIMATED !?!?!?
a static drawing with minimal lip flaps ... animated ...
i LOVE Paul but damn ..... ANIMATED !?
If you ever saw "Breaking Away" and you remember Paul Dooley's "REFUND !!!?!?!?", say my ANIMATED the same way.
Steve Smiff as RUclipsrs go, he’s pretty good at editing and animation.
@@metatronblack Cultists are always butthurt by people that call out their bullshit.
@@miskatonic_alumni Are you an atheist?
Thanks Justin, Sean and Paul for such a friendly conversation. Lots of stuff to take away and dig into.
The hell project ? Isn't that the trump economic policy ?
@@thomasridley8675 lol
@@TheHellProject ✌
@@thomasridley8675 What do you object to about Trump's economic policy?
@@20july1944
Oh, sweet jesus.
Strangling the economy to feed the rich. Telling us to do with less. While expecting us to still support the economy.
Wanting to destroy the federal system so the states can act like its still 1950.
Destroying the trade system that took a generation to set up. Wanting to return to political and economic isolation.
Trump thought the office said he was king not just the president
honestly didn't understand 90 percent of what's going on but I watched the whole thing anyway bc its so refreshing to see such a respectful, productive debate
I have to say that I am much more impressed with Sean than I ever was by his father. Sean has an auroa of honesty which I find refreshing.
His dad doesn't strike you as honest?
@@sorenpx Josh McDowell lies for a living. Anyone who has reads one if his books ends up knowing less about the topic than they did before.
Great discussion; Justin you are an awesome moderator. Love this channel, dont get how it's not more popular.
I never understood how Paul the Apostle was an eyewitness to the resurrection. He had a vision, 3 years later, after Jesus supposedly had ascended into heaven. If I have a vision of Jesus today, am I an eyewitness to the resurrection?
Apparently, yes!
If it is convenient for apologetic purposes, then yes, you are.
He was still in a situation, where he could compare his account with other eye-witnesses. That is the difference to today.
@Joshua McLaughlin if you met him in a vision though? People see lots of things in visions. Hindus see Ganesha and schizophrenics see people who don't exist all of the time.
Not only is the vision of Jesus merely a claim, but even it did happen to Paul there are still many natural explanations that occur all of the time.
@@tieferforschen I would definitely agree that my having a vision today is much less substantive that Paul, who was around at the same time as the disciples. But what I'm thinking is that Peter (or James or whoever) would be substantially more compelling witnesses compared to Paul, assuming that the original disciples had 'experiences' shortly after Jesus' death. And I don't think we can call Paul a resurrection eyewitness, in the same sense the other guys would be.
I love this debate platform. Keep up this amazing work!
"All the martyrs in the history of the world are not sufficient to establish the correctness of an opinion. Martyrdom, as a rule, establishes the sincerity of the martyr,-- never the correctness of his thought."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Great infidels (1881)
good call. I hope you know that Sean wasn't saying that it did...
He would say it holds evidence to the sincerity of belief.
I must say that it's a breath of fresh air to see a Christian apologist and an atheist have such a civil and respectful discussion.
Loved the tone of this debate. Thanks Sean and Paul!
I've heard Sean speak before but wow, his intellect is shining here
@Christian Slayer protip: if you're calling a renowned Ph.D. scholar stupid you have given away the pointlessness of talking to you
Be respectful and you are likely both to genuinely learn more and also to have more friends and success.
@Christian Slayer I appreciate your attempt to troll, but you're really doing a poor job.
A better troll would grant at least something; a real hook to capture the attention of the audience. Then, suddenly troll when least expected.
You're doing the reverse; you sound the alarm and out yourself as a troll from the beginning! You're really minimizing your audience here.
@Christian Slayer "value, not audience, is my quarry"
You err in denying the value of an audience!
@Christian Slayer In grade school I was taught not to start sentences with prepositions like "but."
Now, in my doctoral program, I regret this deeply. I see you have slain me, oh Christian Slayer. Ev'r true to your name. Add me to your roster of damn'd.
Before you go, would you mind explaining to me how to calculate the truth-value of the statement, "his intellect is shining?"
@Christian Slayer I think you missed when I said `would you mind explaining to me how to calculate the truth-value of the statement, "his intellect is shining?"`
First, if you advance this video to the 33:57 mark, you will see that Sean's forehead is exhibiting a shiny quality.
Now, contrast this with the atheist who has a shadow cast across his expression from a fluff of hair off to the left.
However, we aren't really concerned with the absolute level of shininess....remember that my original post was comparing Sean's shine here to his shine elsewhere. Have you yet audited his other speaking engagements? I'm thinking perhaps a shiny level of either 42 or perhaps 7, depending on the scale we use.
Await your feedback.
Yours Truly,
Dat Slain Boi
Sean talked quite about the fact that the disciples "really believed" different things. Just because someone believes a thing, does that mean the thing actually occurred?
He has no knowledge of what *CHARACTERS IN A STORY* believed. He assumes the stories are true because he's a brainwashed cult member, but he has no actual evidence that Jesus ever said or did a single thing recorded in the gospel fairy tales by biased, anonymous members of his cult.
True. People ‘really believe’ and even die for idiotic things all the time. Even Martyr themselves, and we don’t use that as reason to start believing what they did.
It’s why I find this discussion interesting but haven’t ever seen it as a factor in whether to believe or not.
True. People ‘really believe’ and even die for idiotic things all the time. Even Martyr themselves, and we don’t use that as reason to start believing what they did.
It’s why I find this discussion interesting but haven’t ever seen it as a factor in whether to believe or not.
Well the point is that they were not lying about seeing Him
Thanks to all 3 of you for giving me a dive into this part of history 😊 This is so great! If you were not doing this and keep doing this I would have no clue about all of that 🤦♂️😅😊 Cheers too @Paulogia 👍
If Jesus came down to Paulogia and he immediately questioned his own faculties.. that is NOT hyper-skepticism. Visions, day dreams, etc are always going to be FAR more likely that a magical god being coming down from outside of space and time to say Hi. YOU, Sean, are the one being hyper skeptical to think that the natural cause is less likely that the supernatural cause. Sean says he's a skeptic, yet gets skepticism entirely wrong...
@Gabe Norman What is more likely that "Jesus" appeared or that someone has had a mental breakdown? BTW how would you know it was indeed "Jesus" for even Satan can appear as an "angel of light" ?
@Gabe Norman Your comment just shows that Christians aren't gonna be convinced no matter how much evidence shows them to be in error. See how easy that is?
@Gabe Norman If a religious figure appears before you, do you think it is irrational to at least consider that you may be hallucinating? I won't assume what your beliefs are, but if a god of another religion not your own appeared to you, wouldn't you consider hallucination?
@J w Pitiful comment, perfect example of an online Christian. See how easy that is. Comment with some substance next time.
If God appeared to everyone on earth it’s more likely it’s just my imagination!!! K bud.
A great example of a clashing of minds
Paul's dog at about 2minutes in can be seen in the background stealing something off the kitchen countertop🤣
haha
Love the dog in the back checking out the counter top at 2:01. LOL
JJ thanks for this . I love this kind of detail
So excited!!!
Is Paulogia your husband, Shannon?
@G Will hey brother back off be gracious
@G Will I can't condone an attitude like that. Doesn't matter who or what they think they are, you're in the wrong here
@G Will quit winking and citing verse. You're supposed to be like Christ, not David
G Will your attitude is terrible. Its embarrassing to the rest of us Christians.
Glad to see Sean carry on the great work of his father.
Reasons someone might die for a lie:
1) They believe the lie is for a greater good or purpose 2) to further a cause or movement 3) Embarrassment or shame 4) to protect a legacy
And which of these reasons applies to many people? (Let's say, for example, five or six)
@@Samu-xc2tc all of them
Which one of these is on the level of dying for something as significant as seeing a resurrected person, where the result is shame, exile, torture, and death?
And exactly who is claiming that’s what they saw?
Paulogia is conflating two different things. "How many apostles were martyred?" and "How many people in the first century believed they saw Jesus resurrected?" are two different questions. Sean answered the first and Paulogia took Sean's answer to settle the second question, which it doesn't. So Paulogia goes on to say "See I only have to explain why a handful of people believed they saw Jesus and don't need group hallucination" (although three seems like a group to me still), but he's wrong. The early creed from 1 Corinthians, the writings of John, and the gospels all provide evidence that many more than just three people genuinely believed that Jesus was resurrected. Evidence that some of them actually died for that belief just strengthens that evidence; being martyred isn't necessary though.
It's not possible to take a professional atheist seriously. They miss everything essential, because they can't kill "the goose that lays the golden egg." Paulogia has to keep the discussion active, to keep the money active. So, he can't point-out what many atheists in Comments can, that the martyrdom fallacy is a fallacy.
The evidence you note of people having seen someone come back from the dead concerns the scale of probability. In this case, it's zero, of course. It would be far higher were there a question which only Jesus' R can explain. But, far from it.
This issue, that there isn't a question, and that Team Resurrection therefore actually has no hypothesis, can't be mentioned by any professional atheists. So, again, it's rather a waste of time to take them seriously.
Wow I just saw an ad here for a debate between Bill Craig and Sir Roger Penrose. What an honor for Craig! I gotta watch that one next.
Do you think Penrose's CCC is coherent?
I'd like to discuss it with you if you do.
48:00 Corinth was about 800 miles from Jerusalem. It would take weeks or months to verify Paul's claim, assuming the appearance took place near Jerusalem. (Where else would Jesus have appeared?) 48:50 This comparison is based on modern communication and travel capabilities.
@Christian Slayer I highly doubt that the ecclesiastical powers that be were spending precious time and money chasing witnesses about the ancient near East. I find it more likely that Paul would have been accused at the outset, and been pre-emptively dismissed on spec.
@River Scott Really? Who did? What evidence do you have that Paul would be lying? How do you Know that Paul couldn't have had some of the witnesses with him? How do you know Paul didnt take the people with him? We are looking at a letter two thousands years ago. We do not know the surrounding event. Paul was just trying to say the resurrection was important.
@River Scott Which intellectual found Paul to belying? Provide youR EVIDENCE.
Great job by all parties! ...Enjoyable, informative and just enough combativeness to keep it exciting.
Like Paul, I too was a Canadian prairie, Mennonite bred, and indoctrinated fundagelical. It takes decades to work your way out of that crap! There is hope for anyone!!!
your comment made me laugh hard! thank you!
The question is not who was a martyr. The question is did they die for something they knew to be false [personal witness of resurrection]. McDowell is wrong.
How so?
Christian Slayer explain. Seems your saying if the apostles referenced something wrong, a place in this case, somehow this is evidence they lied?
Also seems your asserting both the dead cannot rise, and they are aware of this fact. So can you prove this assertion?
Christian Slayer it seems you have crafted a story of what happened that is grounded in imagination. I agree that Paul makes statements to reiterate that he is being truthful but how do you use that to say -therefore he is lying?
And I agree that history tells us that Jews wanted a war to be free of Roman oppression, and that Jesus, being Messiah, didn’t fit their idea of a political messiah the Jews were waiting for. But how do you go from that to say - therefore they made up Christianity?
It seems you have an idea that Christianity was a conspiracy started by the Jews and then make the historical evidence fit your conspiracy idea...maybe I’m missing it but I don’t see how your conclusions are grounded in the data.
Side note-I would challenge the idea that Josephus wrote long before the gospels. I don’t see any reason not to date Mark around 50-60 given that Papius tells us Mark authored it and wrote down what Peter said.
I found this a rather interesting discussion. While I would often dismiss some of these points prior to this, understanding that there is agreeable historical context is rather surprising and merits some consideration and further research on my part.
I may be adamantly atheist but I'm not inclined to dismiss convincing evidence that some of the accounts in scripture may be true.
Go down the rabbit hole of Isaiah 53 and give the Christian perspective as much consideration as any other perspective and it just might change your life.
Both sides acknowledge that the existence of early Christian martyrs is used as evidence that early Christians sincerely believed and, in the cases of supposed eyewitnesses to the resurrection, had the ability to know the truth of what they believed. It isn't a redefinition of the word or classification martyr to describe the historical evidence that would present the best case. Paulogia presented a description of a scenario that would offer about as strong as possible evidence of this kind. Unless I missed it, Sean agrees that none of the documented cases of early Christian martyrs comes close to meeting the criteria. This is not to say that their stories don't offer some evidence, it just doesn't meet the bar that Paulogia has set. Planting a flag in the historical classification of martyr being quite a bit weaker than Paulogia's scenario doesn't change that.
And that, I think, is the interesting point to talk about, but that never got addressed: what kind of martyrdom scenario would offer what we would call decent evidence for the truth of Christianity? Is it closer to Paulogia's where the person must have been documented as having had the choice to recant and instead chose death? Or, is it closer to Sean's where anyone who practiced Christianity knowing that they may face persecution at some point (which probably applies to every early Christian) that qualifies as good evidence? Truthfully, even if I take the best case for martyrdom-as-evidence presented (Paulogia's criteria) I don't think I would count it as evidence at all. If I heard tomorrow that a group of people chose to die rather than recant their religious beliefs, I don't think it would affect my belief in their religion in the slightest. It wouldn't matter if these people were Christian, Hindu, or anything else. It also wouldn't matter if they claimed to have first hand knowledge of the truth of their religion (thus offering the added knowing-it-to-be-true element). This is not a conscious dismissal of this kind of evidence, but an acknowledgement that if I took this kind of evidence seriously then more than a few cults would have undeniably excellent evidence for their truth.
Andrew Zarrella I wish more Christians would think a little harder about this exact thing! Martyrs have always existed. The fact that they are willing to die for something in which they genuinely believe in NO way validates that belief as true. It just means they are either admirable if you happen to share that belief or asinine if you do not.
Agreed.
Jim Jones convinced almost 900 people to commit suicide in the forest as their ticket into heaven. Mothers and fathers handed their children poisoned drinks knowing very well what they were doing.
The human mind is far too gullible for conviction to be reliable evidence, let alone remotely conclusive of metaphysical truths.
Anden Ekadi so would I be correct to say that you believe that any martyrs for any cult or reason that does not fall within your own belief system are asinine? Not sure what you think we’re still missing, but that is exactly what I said. Maybe try to clarify for us again?
Why do you think that some martyrs are different than others? And how does one determine who is staking their life on “first hand experience” and who is... I guess you might think they’re just gullible?
Honestly curious.
@Anden Ekadi if Christianity was indeed a false belief, and if Jesus was still real, he would have been the charismatic leader you're looking for. The gospels you have read would have been purposely fabricated to further his agenda and they would be purposefully absent of any indicators that Jesus was a cult leader
@Anden Ekadi I think it is clear that I haven't missed the first hand experience aspect as I explicitly baked that into my hypothetical.
I'll also note that by stressing the importance of the first hand knowledge you are demonstrating exactly the case study for Paulogia's challenge of for how many early Christians who were eye witnesses to Jesus's resurrection do we have good evidence for martyrdom. And the answer, as Sean agrees, is maybe 2-4 depending on what you mean by good evidence.
Finally, the only actual distinction you made between early Christians and some other hypothetical martyrs is summarized by "they simply chose to tell the truth that they saw". Putting aside that you are begging the question that what they were telling is the truth rather than the fact that they are telling it is evidence for its truth, it is just absurd that you are content writing off every other martyr as not meeting this criteria.
Josephus didn't start writing his history until circa 71-75AD, so he was not a source for Luke/Acts. If so, the destruction of the Temple and Peter and Paul's execution would have been mentioned in Luke/Acts. Paulogia also forgets that the Apostles denied Jesus - they ran. How were they so quickly converted BACK to a belief so strong they were willing to live lives of torture, privation, poverty, and die heinous deaths? The Apostle Paul had been wealthy and set to be one of the heads of the Sanhedrin - why would he give all that up? Paulogia said that they were motivated by power and money. They got zero. They only received power from the Holy Spirit, and, they recognized they could do nothing without HIM. James was killed because he was one of the heads of the church in Jerusalem as Peter moved. James was also by Roman law ILLEGALLY killed as the new Prefect had not arrived. The Sanhedrin had no power in execution. Why would they themselves risk executing him and losing their own power in they had desired an effect to which they were truly incensed? All that said, this was a great discussion, and I hope Paulogia will reconsider his faith. He comported himself very well unlike a Dawkins or a Krauss. GOD Bless.
It's called a story.
@@AsixA6 How little you know. Please prove it was "just a story." Good luck. GOD Bless.
@@sandypidgeon4343 It is a story. A highly implausible story, since it involves supernatural events, and contradicts things we are pretty certain of. It is one of thousands of similar stories. SOME people believe that it's a true story, or a partially true story. But they have not produced any convincing evidence that it is a true story. The default position in such a case for any rational person is to say "as far as we know, this is just a story." Got it? Demonstrate that it's a true story, not just a fictional one, and we can proceed. Otherwise, there's nothing more to say. Non-believers are not under any obligation to prove it is just a story, just as you are not under any obligation to prove that similar stories in the Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Greco-Roman, and Old Norse religions are just stories.
@@sandypidgeon4343 AHahahaha!!! It's "just a story" until you evidence it's not. Good luck, Bigfoot bless.
@@thompsonmackenzie8957 First, provide evidence that it is simply a story or myth. You do know that Sean's father wrote the most comprehensive book on ALL the evidence for the Bible - "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Second, where would you like to begin? Non-biblical evidence for the Bible? Cosmological arguments? Biological arguments? BTW, I AM under obligation to show that Christianity is the true religion and the rest are falsifiable. I await your answer. GOD Bless.
If Jesus and his apostles only would have complied, they would never have been killed. The empire did nothing wrong!
Paul has room to grow as a public speaker and yet this was a great conversation by both men.
Well, two of the guys have PhDs and Paul has a cartoon avitar. He does very well. The arguments being made are all well covered and have been for years. Anyone can become an expert today through the internet. Paul is a good example of this.
@@robertlove8593 "Anyone can become an expert today through the internet. Paul is a good example of this."
Cringe!
ana arkadievna Paul is a cringe
@@pwx13 why?
@@Imrightyourewrong1 do you see how Christians get tortured in countries like North Korea, China, Soviet Union and all of the Muslim countries, and Paul is making a case for the disciples not being martyred. Is he out of his mind that isn't even realistic. What possible credential could he carry as he can't even get a small detail of history right. It sounds like Matt Dillahunty
Powell seems to be rather confused. If you relax the criteria for martyrdom as he wants to, then all his argument amounts to is the claim that early Christians were sincere. What's remarkable about people being sincere? The fact that people were sincere doesn't prove anything in particular. Heaven's Gate believers were totally sincere, and they were clearly willing to die for what they believed, since they committed suicide in order to join the alien flying saucers that they believed in. How much does this contribute to the truth of the Heaven's Gate religion? Does it prove that they must have had objective data proving the aliens and flying saucers exist? After all, would they die for a lie? You're darn tootin' they would. People die for lies all the time, motivated by imaginary experiences and "proofs" that they sincerely believe in but can't possibly be true. I urge Mr. Powell to make a thorough study of the Heaven's Gate cult, without his Christian glasses on, and apply all the criteria he applies to the martyrdoms of early Christians to this study. As for Paul being "hypersceptical".... hate to break it to you, Mr. Powell, but all real historians investigating history OTHER than Christian apologists would consider Paul's level of scepticism to be the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM level of scepticism necessary to be a legitimate historian.
Remember "McDowell" is a skeptic!!!!
well said.
Sincerity + being an eye witness is the combination thats used as evidence for the ressurection since a sinciere eyewitness rules out that they are liars.
@Charles Grube What kind of "risen Jesus" did they see? So if we found evidence that the heaven's gate folks claimed to have seen aliens and had lunch with them that would increase the odds that they weren't delusional nut jobs?
@krelfurnace thanks for that, I learnt something new !
Excellent discussion
Wow, his Bulls analogy at 34:44 backfired rather badly and just prooves the point of many sceptics. He says that when an announcer would say, "Jordan and the Bulls were late" it doesn't mention Pippen, Kerr, Kucoc and Cartwright. Therefore we could only conclude Jordan was late. He put Cartwright in there even though, he wasn't on the 97/98 team. In the documentary they go back and forth between the early Bulls and the 97/98 Bulls, so he got the players mixed up. This happened even though he probably saw both teams in the 1990s and the documentary was broadcasted only a few weeks ago. It's just so easy to get things wrong and tell them to others even if you try to be as precise as possible like in this discussion.
People so regularly overstate the importance of eyewitness accounts. These are some of the most common causes of wrongfully convicted criminals which the innocence project (another great Netflix doco) is now working to set free with DNA evidence
@G Will "How 'bout accounts from NUMEROUS people who witnessed an event SIMULTANEOUSLY." Yep that is what the Bible says and everything it says MUST be TRUE!!
Yikes, these comments are terrible. Some people are so angry that their logic becomes sloppy and others completely don't understand Sean's core argument.
Well, at least Paul did a good job understanding the book so the dialog could be fruitful.
As I always say these channels need to disable comments for these debates. Force people (both atheist and theists) to listen to both sides and think for themselves instead angry typing in the comments searching for an echo chamber.
Solid conversation all. Nicely done.
Paulogia needs to hone in his debate skills, in my view. He is clearer in his videos than in this debate. He sounds as if he is not sure whether he should say what he is saying. Not blaming him as I would likely embarrass myself, but he doesn't come across as clear as Sean McDowell. And I'm on Paulogia's team too.
Lol
Dang! I didn't know Paul could get so assertive and even aggressive, down to saying only 1 "I'm sorry" for actually interrupting his opponent! 🤩👍
That’s what happens when you no longer believe in a higher power. You have no moral guidelines to follow.
@@rosealexander9007 So Rose, are you saying a person of faith (of any kind) has never and will never do such a thing? Do you think the laws, norms and moral judgement of other people and larger society don't represent a "higher power" to the majority of people, regardless of their religious faith? Do you think there was never a sociopath or psychopath who believed in judgmental deities? If all that is restraining you from acting out your impulse to do evil is your fear of God's retribution, YOU might have a pathological personality.
@@mishaangelo926 blah blah blah🙄🙄🙄🙄
@@rosealexander9007 you do realize that anything can be replied with "blah blah blah", including your own statement.
@@yunoewig3095 yup had it done to me several times. I don’t care. I’m not debating with a atheist about morals because they have no foundation to stand on in that area. You can now reply to me with blah blah blah. I don’t care 🤷♀️
Very civil dialogue between two people who disagree. Props 👏 I enjoyed this.
Except that one of them believes in a book that tells him to murder unbelievers: "And whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" (2 Chron. 15:13).
Dee Bunker To cherry-pick Old Testament passages is to miss the overall meaning and message of the Bible, especially from a Christian perspective. Jesus leaves us with a message of life, love, repentance, and forgiveness.
I encourage you to read through the New Testament books (if you haven't already), and ask yourself with an open mind and open heart if this could actually be true - if these events could have actually taken place on this planet nearly 2,000 years ago. At the very least, it's an intriguing thought experiment. Cheers! 🙂
@@TrevorJamesMusic *FACT* - your book of absurd ancient fairy tales instructs believers to *MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS* - "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). Making lame excuses about "cherry picking" or making red herring fallacies doesn't excuse your Big Book of Baby-Killing. Is it moral to kill children for the sins of their parents or not? *NO* "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin" (Deut. 24:16). *YES* "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:2-3). *NO* "The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins" (Eze.18:20). *YES* "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Num. 31: 17-18).
So is your God schizophrenic? Or is the bible filled with contradictions because it was written by a bunch of ancient religious fanatics who couldn't get their story straight?
@@TrevorJamesMusic Jesus was a proven liar, false prophet and hypocrite who beat merchants with a whip and vandalized their property for charging prices he didn't like (John 2:15), tricked believers into killing themselves by telling them they'd have magic poison-resistance (Mark 16: 17-18), set back medical science by 1500+ years by teaching that the cause of human illness was *DEMONS* and that medical issues should be treated using exorcism (Matt. 18:16, Mark 1:32, Matt. 9:32-33, Matt. 12:22, Matt. 17:14-18), discouraged hand-washing during a time when 50% of all children died of disease before age 5 (Mark 7, Matt. 15:1-11), advocated whipping as a punishment for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47), encouraged homophobia by propagating the myth that God hates gays and wants them dead (Matt.10:15), and threatened to torture people if they didn't obey him (Matt 23:33). Cheers! 🙂
@@mythbuster1483 That was about a covenant they were making that they must continue to follow God or die. It wasn't about murdering unbelievers. Not at all. It's actually a very honorable covenant though, because it means their belief in God was genuine enough that they were willing to put their lives on the line for it in case they were to ever look back or stop seeking God.
Even if my own mother called me today and said that she'd witnessed a guy raising from the dead and she was so convinced that she'd be willing to die for that belief I still wouldn't believe her.
That's why your nickname is träskalle.. ;)
@@mrjohansson4503 du har rätt. En träskalle med på tok för hög bevisstandard.
Would you say she is lying though?
@@jessethomas3979 no I clearly said she was so convinced that she'd be willing to die for it. So clearly I'm not saying she's lying.
@@Imrightyourewrong1 well, that's all we arguing for... At least with the point about the martyrdom of the apostles...
I looking at the skeptical comments saying that we shouldn’t believe it just because they sincerely believed it and died for it. You have to realize the resurrection argument isn’t based only on this point, only a part of the whole; it’s a cumulative argument. A argument that best explains all the factors. I agree this argument alone is not enough in its own.
The debates on this channel seem to of a different class. 👏
What would it take for me to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? The same amount of evidence that it would take for Sean to believe other resurrection accounts found outside of Christianity.
Interesting, because it seems like Luke is clearly saying James was martyred, but maybe I'm not understanding his point on that one.
"It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword." (Acts 12:1-2)
I guess we could say it dovetails nicely with James Zebedee being a resurrection witness: the Church was full of vigour at the time, drawing persecution; James was able to be found; he's guaranteed to be one of "the 12" Paul mentions, being so close to Jesus. Seems like a good inference to me.
To Paulogia’s comment that “it is only a handful” of people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, it only takes one. If there is ONE person who claimed to be an eyewitness to an event and was willing to suffer up to and including dying for the belief, that still means they were absolutely truthful in their belief. Which means everything that person claimed to have witnessed was not a lie made up by that individual. Whether it is 12, 500, or 2, is irrelevant to the counter-argument that the disciples made up those claims for personal gain. Paulogia is taking a typical counter-apologetics tactic to ignore how this piece fits into a larger argument and simply assumes that countering this one piece the whole argument fails. It doesn’t. But even if it could have, Paulogia’s point still fails because as long as there is even just one person who met his criteria for martyrdom then that portion of the argument in defense of the Resurrection remains intact. And so this whole insistence on the number of those who meet his criteria is ultimately irrelevant to the bigger argument in favor of the historicity of the resurrection.
A *STORY* where there are eyewitnesses is different than actual eyewitnesses. Hercules performed miracles in front of many eyewitnesses... *IN THE STORY* . Spider-man defeated the Green Goblin in New York City in front of thousands of eyewitnesses... *IN THE STORY* . Prove that the stories actually happened, or that the *CHARACTERS IN THE STORY* actually existed. Go ahead!
Indeed. One eyewitness account from the likes of Paul, for whom no evidence has been presented that he suffered from profound insanity, is quite persuasive. If in current time frame, for example, a person claims that he encountered resurrected Jesus and then he goes to, say, North Korea to proclaim his eyewitness testimony of resurrected Jesus and His message -- then there are two possibilities: 1. The man is profoundly insane or 2. He had an encounter with resurrected Jesus.
The Japanese soldiers wanted to die for the emperor because they thought he was a God - a living God. Were they right or wrong? Does their martyrdom testify to the emperor's divinity?
Sure does! I'm currently practicing Islam due to 9/11, Japanese Emperor worship due to WWII, Judaism due to all those Biblical wars, Hinduism and Buddhism due to all the fighting in the Indian sub-continent and southeast Asia, voodoo due to a James Bond movie, and of course Christianity due to the anonymous writings of bronze-age human sacrifice worshippers. That all of these religions conflict with one another does not even enter my addled mind.
@G Will in the same way that for Christians of that time, dying for faith was a noble thing?
@G Will If only we knew if the stories were true or fairy tales?
Did the Japanese soldiers see a resurrection? Sorta of a big difference than just thinking someone’s a God with nothing divine about him.
Hebrew National used to have a slogan that went: "We hold ourselves to a HIGHER authority". Apologists often level the charge that 'non- believers' hold the historical Jesus claims and narratives to a much higher standard. That shouldn't be considered a negative charge, it should be considered a COMPLIMENT! Or are you implying that we should hold material sourced to Almighty God to a 'LOWER' standard? 😮
Whether or not a man named William Shakespeare actually wrote the plays and literature ascribed to him, and whether or not a man named Aristotle existed, was taught by Plato (and ascribed with having developed a formal system of reasoning), is of zero consequence to me.
In either example, we still find value in their WORK and METHODS. This is not the case with Christianity.
Christian's tell us the inhabitants of earth are being asked to consider one (amongst thousands of different and conflicting supernatural suppositions) but with one 'minor' difference; should we not find the paucity of evidence (safely deposited some two thousands years in the rearview mirror) powerful enough to elicit a heartfelt profession of belief, we will be treated to an eternity of torture in conscious misery! I'd say that any claim or assertion of this barbaric and disgusting sort, that features a standard of evidence that would be laughed out of small claims court, is just as easily discarded as a worldview or outline to organize one's entire life around.
Again, would you REALLY expect this disappointingly weak level of geographically and historically circumscribed evidence from an all powerful, all knowing Deity? OF COURSE NOT, but from man?... This is EXACTLY what we would expect.
Of course you're free to believe whatever you'd like but has it ever occurred to you that the 'invisible' and the 'non-existent' look very much alike?! 🤔🧞♂️🔦............... 😯
"yada, yada, yada Christianity's the truth".
G Will
And THIS my friends, has essentially been the best evidentiary basis of Christian claims from the word go. 🤣
Simmer down there G Willie, of course it's a fact! - Just like it's a FACT that a penguin couple walked all the way from Antarctica to the Middle East to climb aboard a zoo boat built by a 500 year old man! 🐒🐅🐄🐫🐧🐧🐘🦏🐐🦄🦒🐻🦃🐈🐕
I think the nurse just called for your finger painting activity. 😳
It is a FACT that the Great and Powerful NooBoo is Lord of all the Universe and anyone denying this FACT exposes themselves an inferior intellect.
And there it is,... PROOF POSITIVE that you're mistaken AND an inferior intellect.
You gotta love the 'Gee Willie' Academy of Rational Argument and Evidence Based Claims! 🤣 🧞♂️🧜♂️🧚♂️🦸♀️
Gee Willie. Why respond when your irrationality and non-arguments is on full display doing my work for me. 🤣
Man, didn´t know Jeff Loomis could speak this well and was so involved in this kind of discussions! Well done! :-)
Fellow metalhead appreciated this
This is good for Paul. I noticed he was stumbling over his words in his discussion with Eric Hovind. More debate practice will make him more comfortable in live debates.
@G Will He could do worse. I mean, he could be like you.
This was a great demonstration of how an Apologist is able to lower their standard of evidence when it fits their faith narrative. I strongly believe that if you had a 3 way or 4 way discussion with apologists from various religions,(and one atheist) on this same topic, that the religious apologists would all be in agreement with each other about the the evidence they have for their religion, while discounting the others in the debate for having weak evidence.
David Donohue the problem is that the criteria of historical scholarship is not consistently applied. It seems to me if we applied the same level of skepticism to other area of history we accept, then we’d have to discard a lot of what we believe accept as true about history. What do you think?
@@garyleemusic - I agree that the criteria is not consistently applied, and doesn't need to be. When a man claims to have rode a horse across the land in 4 days, and we know that it would take roughly 4 days for an experienced rider to cross that distance, the criteria of the evidence is negligible.
When a man claims to have ridden a flying horse across a vast distance in a matter of minutes... the criteria for the evidence rises according to the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims (like religious supernatural claims) require extraordinary evidence.
If Pythagoras didn't actually come up with the math theorem, but his wife, maid, barber, or someone else did... this changes almost nothing in our world. The theorem is still true, and attributing this to a specific person is almost meaningless.
If any of the 6? deities who claim to be born of a virgin, and rise from the dead could provide reasonable evidence... it changes almost our entire world, and the criteria of the requirement of evidence is set accordingly.
@@djdonohue Exactly.
@D.D. - Yes, he does, and it is wrong, when you consider the consequeces of those claims and evidence on our world.
There is a relative scale to our skepticism of the world that we live in.
@D.D. - Well you can be as wrong as you like, that's your prerogative, but be mindful that on social media your posts will be subject to scrutiny.
I'll give you one more example. A person makes a claim that kitten in front of you won't bite you. The consequences of the claim being true or false are extremely minimal and barely need to be noted, much less examined.
The same person makes the claim that the blank mamba snake in front of you won't bite you. The consequences of the claim could result in your death, and should be given the most serious consideration before taking any action.
If you don't understand the difference between these claims, then you may have difficulty reaching the age of retirement.
And MOST religious analysts Do NOT believe that Moses was a real person. You should do some research on this.
The historical Jesus is believed by Religious analysts to have been Jeshua Ben Joseph, a rabbi who was born in Nazareth, lived and unremarkable life, and died in the Jewish faith.
I've watched this a few times over the years, and I just enjoy it so much.
My thought this time is that I think Sean might be going a little too far when he says that Paul is hyperskeptical, and that "that's not how scholarship operates".
The search for truth is only valuable IF it is hyperskeptical. And I can't think of a topic more befitting of hyperskepticism than claims of someone being the literal lord.
It comes through a little stronger every time I watch this that Sean's conclusions may be skeptical within Christian scholars, but they are inseparable from his faith. It seems as if his doubt is always made with one foot still in the door.
The momentum of faith is very effective at helping one give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. There is no one strong piece of evidence, just two millenia of insignificant pieces that, collectively, appear convincing.
Fact: Belief can be true or False
Fact: People can hold a belief without knowing if their belief is true or false.
Fact: People can be mistaken about their beliefs.
Fact: People can be correct about their beliefs
Fact: People can die for their beliefs.
Fact: People dying for their beliefs don't make their belief true or false.
Therefore It's incorrect to say that people dying for their belief most mean their belief is true.
Leo Savage, I believe Sean is claiming that it adds to the other evidence that support the claim that Christianity is true. Be careful that you don’t change the parameters of the discussion.
A lot of mental gymnastics! That's not the subject of this debate....
point taken but christs crucifixion and resurresurrection was never competently put in question, the killing and torturing is just a failed counter to the truth.
@@DrVarner I'm not changing anything about the topic, I'm presenting Fact that everyone would accept as true.
@@anaarkadievna But is completely relate to Sean McDowell's point. The apostle martyred for their faith doesn't prove or disprove their claim. His argument is that the die because it was true, which is completely false, no one does know the condition they die in and if their faith was related to it.
Good debate. you don't have to agree with me but I think Sean McDowell did better than Paul in this debate.
At around 51 minutes. Sean McDowell accuses Paulogia of being "hyper skeptical" for not accepting testimony surrounding claims that a human rose from the dead. Well, I'd expect present day medics to examine the corpse, confirm brain death, no heart beat and the commencement of bodily decay. Without that level of confirmation that someone had died I would be unwilling to accept a claim of a resurrection.
In order to support the evangelical argument that “no one would die for a lie”, you would have to use Paul’s methodology to confirm it.
George Moncayo
Ah yes. The Christian who proclaims, “everything is religion therefore you’re just as wrong as I am.” Not everything is religion dude. Maybe next time deal with the issue instead.
Trolltician The longform of the “no one dies for a lie” argument is; The resurrection is true because 1. people claimed to have seen it happen. 2. Those people were then martyred (killed) for repeating that belief. And 3. No one would allow that to happen in defense of something they knew to be false. Paulogia’s methodology is to find evidence in support of any person would qualify as #3. So he defines 3 criteria that must be met; 1. They would need to have seen the resurrection. 2. They would have been given a chance to recant. 3. They would have to have chosen to die rather than recant. That is the only way you could confirm that form of the “no one dies for a lie” argument. If you want to water down the argument or, like Sean did here, say that it’s not proof of the resurrection, then you could use different criteria.
Trolltician way to live up to your screen name and waste everyone’s time. Good luck to you troll.
Trolltician you didn’t present any reality. You pretended to care about what I wrote, and when I explained it in detail, you gave a gibberish response that you think showed your superiority. That is a typical troll move. Congrats. You have brought the conversation down to your level instead of engaging with the ideas. Cool.
Trolltician wow you are insistent on demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Nice to see Paulogia doesn't need bookshelves in the background to project a false sence of intellectual superiority :D
Almost every apologist does this and it makes me laugh every single time.
@@olsbijack2998 Recording inside an empty box is the real Chad move. That way, you automatically ger +5% to the epistemic credence of every statement you make because of the criterion of embarrassment
I have a bookshelf right infront/behind my computer.
I highly doubt it's to show off, but because you don't have two peices of furniture next to each other and computers are against walls which give good view of the room.
I mean does cosmic skeptic try to show off a false sense of intellectual superiority?
How dare people put books where they might be using a computer. Such arrogance.
Books are usually read once, then they're clutter until they get thrown out. These dinosaurs need to modernize and get an e-reader.
One thing I know for sure is that Cartwright, Kukoc, Kerr, and Jordan did not play together on one team. Cartwright played with Jordan until '92 when Michael 'retired' the first time. It wasn't until the following year that Kerr and Kukoc joined the Bulls. By the time Jordan returned to the team and began playing with Kerr and Kukoc in '94-'95 Cartwright was already in Seattle for a single year before retiring permanently.
Why would a god who wanted to save humanity use the same blueprint that was used prior in the ancient world by dying and resurrection. Romulus for example. And being in a Greco exposed world these myths would be known but why wouldn’t a god do something completely unknown to prove his resurrection
I asked a similar question of my high school youth pastor. He replied that all of those stories were God forshadowing Jesus's resurection and should give us more confidence in the truth of it. In my experience thought provoking questions such as this rarely provoke much thought because an easy rationalization can pretty much always be found.
Someone asked, “Why would the disciples die for a lie?”
And i realized i didn’t have a good answer.
So i wrote my doctoral thesis and published a book on it, which i’m now going to defend by claiming that the disciples’ sincere beliefs and whether they died for them aren’t part of the question.
Since, at best, only one faith proposition can be true all
believers believe that dying for a lie is something ALL subscriber to ALL faith traditions do when they die in service to the causes or beliefs that resonate with them personally. Stated more accurately, people routinely die for beliefs THEY BELIEVE to be true... - so what? It's been happening for time immemorial.
@@davidlenett8808 do you really cant see the difference in dying for what you believe and what you know or this is just trolling? :)
@@danielbarzay461 ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jew, a Mormon, a Sikh, a Christian, a Buddhist, etc. who was murdered on the basis of their metaphysical beliefs and ALL OF THEM would tell you they were CERTAIN that their supernatural assertions were true.
Again, if they all die KNOWING they're dying over that which is true, are they ALL true? 🤔
Of course not. Do they all BELIEVE they are right? Yes, of course.
@@danielbarzay461 People form incorrect but sincere beliefs all the time without "inventing" them.
@@danielbarzay461 but they did not know. There are only two eyewitnesses to the ressurection and the Paul one is sketchy at best.
Sean keeps saying he’s a skeptic. No he’s not. He thinks that the truth is somehow gleaned from the fact that people will suffer to defend a belief. There’s too many examples of people suffer for conflicting beliefs that this cannot possibly be used as a standard.
It necessarily follows that if you can use the people that died for believing in Jesus, you must also consider the Jews (Jesus's father's chosen people who were promised a Messiah) disbelief as evidence there was no resurrection. The Jews are still waiting for a Messiah. Why would they reject their own Messiah God promised them?
Well many people DID convert. Also, this evidence has a different effect today than in 40AD. At that time, no one had died yet, and by the time there were beginning to be martyrs, Christianity was legally prohibited and actively suppressed through threat of punishment.
@@journeyfiveonesix All I am saying is if you use converts as evidence, then you must also use non-converts as evidence.
You need to explain why many Jews did not convert to Christianity because the explanation proposed begs that question.
@@tammygibson1556 there is so much on that in the bible and it predates the resurrection. Atheists really don’t do any homework.
@@freegraceau How about you share those Biblical scriptures instead of insulting me?
10 points for spotting the Bongo drums. :)
I love him saying, "This is how we figure things out."
I'm a nonbeliever, but that's a great attitude.
The fact that Sean said that being hyper sceptical is not the scholarly approach is very suspicious. When you do science you want to be as sceptical as you can to try and prove things wrong. Christian scholars do seem to be doing it the wrong way round. That’s why, as Sean mentioned, their definitions for what could be counted as evidence are not as rigorous. And let’s be honest, most biblical scholars are believers.
Paul may not mind but I find it insulting when people who respond to his videos don't know how to say the channel name, when he says it in EVERY video at least once, even explaining where the name came from in screen. Which makes me think they aren't even listening to the channel they are responding to.
Yes, apparently the presenter of this show doesn't know what a play on words is.
Yeah ,you would think it was really comlicated,instead of having just two syllables.
Someone who was absolutely convinced that they encountered a supernatural being might certainly be willing to die for that belief. Paul's encounter with JC was in a vision. It is a FALSE DILEMMA to say that the early Christians who believed in JC and resurrection either knew that a dead guy actually came back to life or that the tale was a lie.
I love Paul's response to all of this. he never wants throws other Scholars claims that the all the scholars are on my side. throw people in the mosh pit with out their ability to explain themselves further. he simply just stating what he knows and how he came to his conclusion.whit out throwing people in who he never so much has had a conversation with. As if an appeal to Authority is not a logical fallacy.
Appeal to irrelevant authority is a fallacy. Appeal to a consensus of experts in the discussed subject is not a fallacy. Though Paul mentions that we can't forget that a large portion of the experts in this area are bound by an agreement to treat the bible as the inerrant word of God. That is something that can explain this particular consensus and so it should be taken with skepticism.
It seemed that a lot of Sean's argument was an appeal to authority
I love how this comment section isn’t toxic as Modern Day Debate
I dabble in quite a few comments sections -- not just religious, but all manner of pseudoscientific -- and the only engagement I've received has come from two of the most vitriolic people I have encountered in a while. Obviously there are quite a few variables there, perhaps I'm being especially overbearing or perhaps those are the only people willing to engage with me, but I've been disappointed. This may be the first time I've been called an idiot and an athetard (or something with a similar ring) in the same sentence. Who knows ¯\_༼ᴼل͜ᴼ༽_/¯
Tom Paine take it as a compliment of your thoughts. When people resort to that kind of stuff, it an indication they can’t argue your point.
@@G14U Exactly right!
@@tompaine4044 I'll always engage with you, douchebag.
I'm vitriolic because you bring nothing but your unsupported and therefore meaningless disagreement about the God hypothesis.
I only reason from science and logic, and you don't contribute much on those levels.
@@20july1944 So your best argument is that you can use emotionally charged words because I don't share your unabashed credulity of one particular religion? If that's what you want us to think about your reasoning, then we will, but I worry you're doing yourself a disservice.
I know this is four years old now but I just have to comment. Parts of this are really frustrating. McDowell says multiple times that the people in question "died willingly for their belief." Common sense tells me to prove that you need to prove:
- They were killed. We barely know this for a couple.
- They were killed for their belief that Jesus resurrected. We can't prove that for any of them. McDowell's thinking seems to be that being Christian and being killed is enough, but it's not. A person could be killed for giving a sermon that says "Don't listen to the king, listen to Jesus. Jesus is higher than the king" or any number of things. The killer may have no problem with Christians, just a problem with one specific thing this particular Christian said or did. And that is ignoring the possibility, however remote, that the disciple did something else entirely to warrant death. Maybe slept with someone's wife, stole a sheep, had a dispute and punched the wrong guy, knocked off a liquor store. These are silly but we really do not know.
- They died willingly. We can't prove that for any of them. They may have been dragged to their death kicking and screaming. They may have been killed by surprise. I sort of agreed with McDowell at the beginning when he criticized Paul's rule that they had to have a chance to recant. We know Christians often had the chance to recant because they weren't really being persecuted for their belief, they were often persecuted for their lack of belief in the customs around them, but surely not all had the chance and it's still a strict requirement
But I don't know of any other way to prove they died for their belief than if their belief was put to the test in their last moment.
Paul gives the example of people enjoying the power of the bake sale table, McDowell says those people would give up the bake sale table if you said you were going to kill them. Sure, they are being given a warning. But did any of the disciples get a warning that they decided to ignore? We don't know.
Also, I am so sick of J Warner Wallace saying all crime is committed for only three reasons; sex, money and power. So this guy was a detective for decades and never heard of a crime committed out of anger? What about love? Peer pressure? Desperation?
The guy who sits outside a courthouse and shoots the man who murdered his child, was he motivated by sex, money or power? The woman who kills her rapist? The Crip member who kills a Blood because his leader told him to?
But the subject isn't even about crime. The subject is why someone 2000 years ago might take a job giving speeches they don't necessarily agree with instead of being a fisherman, and there's a million more possible reasons for that.
McDowell seems to want to water down the definition of 'Martyr' as much as possible so as to make it easier to find examples, but still wants to maintain that being a martyr proves that someone was sincere in their belief. You can't have it both ways.
I don't think he is watering it down it seems like Paul's definition was too rigid to make sense
@@richybambam1995 Paul's definition makes perfect sense for the argument that he is making. If an apologist claims that the apostles would 'not die for a lie', then it's important to establish that these apostles did indeed put themselves in such a position that they were likely to be killed. McDowell includes the example of the French priest who was murdered as a martyr, but it would be highly unlikely that he went to church that day with any expectation of what was going to happen.
@@rickelmonoggin doesn't there seem to be something wrong with the first sentence of your reply? Isn't it odd to have a definition that is only valid for arguing with someone you disagree with?
@@richybambam1995 No, its not. What matters here are the concepts, not the words. Words tend to have overloaded meanings anyway. "Martyr" is certainly one such word . Paul lays out very clearly the criteria by which he thinks someone has to meet in order for us accept them as someone who witnessed the resurrection and died for this belief. Whether you call this person a 'martyr' (a convenient shorthand) or not is irrelevant.
@@rickelmonoggin I'm not talking about definitions, I'm talking about standards and having a different standard of figuring out truth that is only valid for arguing with someone you disagree with seems wrong no matter what the topic is.
Someone dying for a belief has no bearing on the truth of that belief
Especially if Christians can't even show the the supposed 12 apostles were martyred. The simply *CLAIM* that this happened with no credible evidence whatsoever.
That’s true for a belief.... but if you witness something .... it’s not a belief...
@@thomasmyers9128 First, we don't have witnesses, we have claims of witnesses.
Second, it's possible to believe something based on seeing something, that doesn't elevate it above a belief and doesn't prove whether what you saw is true or not.
No one is saying that eyewitness aren't evidence, they're are just not great evidence. On the topic discussed in this video we don't have eyewitnesses, we have claims of eyewitnesses. Unless you grant for the sake of argument that there were eyewitnesses, this conversation doesn't exist.
I was talking in general.....Like your first statement.... a belief.... that belief... not true... etc...
.......so a witness holds more weight than a believer...
@@thomasmyers9128 My response stands. It's been demonstrated that two witnesses of the same event can have two different interpretations of what they saw. Both of them can't be right. You must investigate further, hopefully with better evidence
Great discussion. Never seen non animated Paulogia before.
Joseph Smith died for his religious faith. Does that make Mormonism as true update to Christianity?
@G Will Was he killed for reasons other than his religion? Sean was arguing that religious leaders are martyred regardless of whether there's a religious reason they are killed.
@G Will Paul was arrested several times. Do you think he wasn't accused of such things? Or Jesus? Luke records he was accused of being a con-artist. John records him being threatened by mobs. It is you who is special pleading. Show me Mormon controlled sources that prove any of that about Joseph Smith.
I've sometimes been frustrated by Justin's biased presentation and moderation, but I think he did an excellent job of fairly moderating this fine debate. Well done!
Biological Engine of Love as a Christian I agree. Sometimes when he presses the atheist more than the Christian I’m like “can you just shut up for once”
Biological Engine of Love seriously? I’ve never watched nor heard of this guy -and literally my first thought was “how annoying that this guy can’t be even remotely neutral for the sake of the debate.”
@@Sharetheroad3333 haha, wow! That just goes to show how biased he typically is, you'd be even more annoyed by his other "moderations."
@@DavidTextle I'm glad I'm not the only one, at least we can agree on that!
Biological Engine of Love haha. If almost makes me want to go watch now. 😆
For a person who abandoned religion only 5 years ago and now debating with a religious scholar and having a YT channel is admirable. Love you Paul.
This is a perfect example of how a debate should be done. A very fair moderator with two very respectful gentlemen having a very honest discussion. I really appreciate that both men seemed motivated not by trying to “win”, but by getting to the truth.
And the 'truth' is...what? Absurd supernatural stories = facts?
@@mythbuster1483 Seems like a generalization.
@@thelivingcross3785 Don’t murder any babies today just because some member of a death cult claims that God said so. "This is what the Lord Almighty says...put to death men and women, children and infants." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). So you’d murder your neighbor’s entire family, including his infant, if some man claimed that Jesus appeared to him and said you should? If it says so in a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, virgin birth and zombies, written by anonymous, biased cult members, then it MUST be a reliable source, right?
@@mythbuster1483 The Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, they desired to destroy Israel (v. 2), God’s chosen people, the channel of His redemptive plans for all humankind (Gen. 12:1-3). The act of their total destruction was necessitated by the gravity of their sin. Otherwise, some hard core remnant might rise to resume their hateful act toward God’s people and plan.
As to the question about the innocent children, several observations are relevant. First, we are all born in sin (Ps. 51:5) and deserve death (Rom. 5:12). Everyone will eventually be taken by God in death-it is only a matter of when (Heb. 9:27). Second, God is sovereign over life and reserves the right to take it when He will (Deut. 32:39; Job 1:21). Third, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved (see comments on 2 Sam. 12:23). Hence, the act by which God took the children is far from merciless (see also comments on Josh. 6:21).
@@mythbuster1483 GOD has the absolute authority to bring justice upon depravity, no matter the circumstances. In addition, you cannot assume misinformation and subjective interpretations as the reasonable conclusion.
You’re not only misunderstanding the context, but you’re obviously jumping into conclusions. That alone is a Strawman Fallacy. It could also mean the Genetic Fallacy.
This issue is just one of the ten thousand cuts the Bible dies from.
It is quite arrogant to think that simple disbelief and human defined logic, can dismiss what is possible for GOD! The Bible stands regardless of what one does and does not accept! Evolution is accepted by some, on even less firm ground; So much so, that some evolutionists now look for "higher powers" from so-called alien worlds to explain the origins of life. (While not realizing that they too, would consider a "being" that they have not seen!), Even secular scientists, who don't accept GOD'S existence, let alone HIS ability to create the universe, have very sound and scientifically based issues with evolution theory. You can certainly speak of your own refusal to accept the Bible, which is fine and your absolute right, however, you certainly don't speak for us all. The Bible stands on its' claims and the experience of billions of believers over 2000 years, and your denial of it is irrelevant. Young Earth Creation for example, is acceptable, because it would take a GOD of great power to pull it off, and disbelief is based upon placing human limitations on a very powerful BEING!
@@caryt59 the arrogance is in people who think humans are so special that everything was made just for them. arrogance is a god who would murder every person on earth due to the behavior of some. We just aren't that all special .
@@robertlove8593 That's only your opinion based upon a very weak argument, and a woeful lack of helpful information, you no doubt ignore - but YOUR opinion, none-the-less. I am okay with your denial, (not that it matters to you, I'm sure.), It's your right! Thanks for posting your response. No! We aren't that special! THAT'S what makes GOD so AMAZING!
"For GOD so loved ROBERT LOVE, that HE gave HIS only SON, that if ROBERT should believe in HIM, ROBERT will not perish, but will have ETERNAL LIFE! - John 3:16, made personal just for you! JESUS loves you anyway, dude!
@@caryt59 I guess you never heard of apologists who spend there time researching the history of religions. I mean there are thousands of schools with degrees programs all across the globe. If it were not for the thousands of contradictions and errors in the Bible we would not be posting on this site.
@@robertlove8593 Yes, I am sure there are apologists who only look into the Bible to fulfill their own presuppositions, because its' truth is difficult for them to bare and the alternative to repent and submit to HOLY GOD is unthinkable to them because they love their sin more than they love the truth of JESUS CHRIST! Every seemingly contradictory scripture and error that you claim to know, is only based upon YOUR presupposed ideas, and a lack of hermeneutic understanding, not to mention a possible sad experience, at one time in your life, in your failed attempts to "find GOD"! You are typical in your denial. Nothing new about your accusation. You are apart of a long line of those who actually choose to see the Bible as errant, such as the Jesus Seminar group! GOD'S Truth is THE TRUTH and your denial of that will NEVER change that fact! You are simply arguing into the wind, and my concern for you is that you will realize it after it's far too late! I leave you with the previous scripture for your salvation. Enough has been said, and I realize that you only care to present a feeble argument, which will never hold up in GOD'S court. Best to you, (prayerfully)!
Paulogia: Polite to a fault, fair-minded, even-handed. He's the Atheist Saint!
Very informative discussion. I'm initially more on Paul side but the entire discuss point out how much wiggle room for interpretation and biases, which in my opinion shouldn't be the case if Josh world view is true.
Cube Earth Seems to me that the perfect God would do better than this.
Really, Cube?
If Paulogia's worldview were true, I would think we would have a model of cosmology that is consistent with thermodynamics, but we don't.
@@JerryPenna What's your explanation of our universe, Jer?
20july1944 dont need one. I don’t jump to conclusions. I’m ok with something always exists, but don’t see any need for an agent or intelligent agent, not until it’s obvious.
@@JerryPenna Sure you do, Jer!
Our universe hasn't always existed, so we need a cause for it.
Something that hardly ever gets mentioned on this subject
The Apostles were all Jews who believed in God
Had they been lying then they would have known that they were lying against a God they already believed existed
So the argument that they were lying is the weakest argument
If True they would have been lying for little reward, and facing the reality in their mind that they would stand before a real God and have to give account for subverting the Jewish Faith
Exactly! These faithful Jews would become blasphemous idolators against YHWH if they made up this idea.
Sean does touch on this. Start at the 45:49 minute mark.
@@Mr_A1-37 Yeah I see he mentions it for a moment. This should be expanded upon and given greater emphasis. Their whole worldview as Jews would have been very much God centered.
Another thing is that they not only claimed to have seen the risen Jesus but to have had actual physical interaction with Him. Thomas touching the crucifixion wounds. Jesus eating fish they cooked and honeycomb. Doing this to prove he was real and not just a ghost or apparition
The Apostles were actually skeptics themselves, and required the greatest evidence possible before they would accept He was in actual physical form
@Christian Slayer Discuss cosmology or eat shit.
@Christian Slayer What is this nonsensical gibberish?? No one claimed He disappeared. The claim was that He ascended back into heaven and will return.
Totally consistent with the old testament teaching about The Messiah
The suffering servant and the one who will come to exact judgement on the world
Your argument is the same circular reasoning that says miracles don't happen because the miraculous is impossible
Sean is very prepared and fulfills the two crucial components of Truth: correspondence and coherence.
@Christian Slayer Solid - what are those "major facts" Sean has hidden under the rug?
If they had bothered to watch even one intro to one of Paul’s videos they’d know how to pronounce Paulogia. Sloppy and disrespectful on their part, while Paul was, as usual, polite, respectful and well prepared.
I find it amazing that all these apologists compare the gospels and Paul's letters to other figures in history. It seems crazy when they go on to claim that Jesus was a god. This isn't about a human, this is supposed to be a story about a god. Wouldn't a god leave a little bit more evidence than what we find with mere humans? This makes no sense unless we are looking at this from a secular standpoint and are arguing only about if a regular human named Jesus actually existed, not whether a god existed on Earth.
Apologists have convinced me that Jesus was just a regular guy and not a god.
Watching this video from the future where we now see people believing things that they heard on Fox News even if those things are proven lies, it makes it obvious you need to have someone make an actual claim they saw something and even then we have learned you can't believe them without looking at their reasons. We have seen this cult of Trump and Fox News and every day these cult members come up with a new conspiracy that the inside group believes in and are willing to threaten people who don't agree. So we see a cult can form very quickly from lies that can be proven wrong. We have so many examples of people who are willing to die or suffer for beliefs that are just plain wrong and in this day it is very easy to verify and I can't imagine that it would be easier to verify a story 2,000 years ago
How do you explain the sudden explosion of Christianity in the first and second centuries... even to the possibility of a Christian losing everything, becoming an outlaw, and most likely face death and torture....even this did not stem the incredible growth of the church...
Christianity is now the biggest faith in the 🌎...
Believers are still martyred to this day...
@@thehelpdesk4051 Christians are martyred? Not any more than any other religion. Why do you think Christians lost everything and became outlaws in the first and second centuries? These ideas are from your own religion, not reality. You are making an argument based on fantasy. Instead of just believing the stories that your pastor and church members pass around to each other to make you feel special, go look up actual history. You will be amazed at how many beliefs and stories never happened. It isn't just religious people who believe their own facts, it happens with a lot of subjects in the general population. People make videos of 'things you thought were true' on RUclips all the time about many subjects.
I personally suspect the church grew because it offered something that no other religion was offering at the time, community. I haven't done enough research into it but my guess gathering in small, supportive groups wasn't the norm in other religions. Also, the early church may have been more accepting of women which would have been a breakthrough at the time even though later the church treated women terribly.
@@jollyandwaylo lol..
I state facts not fantasy...
3 plus 3 is not 4
Wake up....you have 1 life to get it right
@@thehelpdesk4051 So you are just going to claim you know shit without making any counter arguments or looking into your church traditions. I hope someday you decide to start using your mind and stop blindly following what others have told you.
@@jollyandwaylo facts:
Christianity is the largest persecuted faith today...
Last year 5600 Christian believers were murdered for thier faith
6000 plus were detained or imprisoned
4000 plus were kidnapped
5000 plus churches and other religious facilities destroyed...
Judiasim is 2nd with far less numbers
Than Hinduism rounds out the top three
From day 1 Jesus followers have been hunted...
Yet the Christian faith continues to grow...
We are lucky here in the states but that is changing as tolerance for biblical beliefs grows smaller....
You can pretend Jesus was a myth
You can say it was all fake
But the majority of historians and scholars agree he existed...
He changed all humanity
He changed social structures
Even time itself is divided by his life...
1:00:46 The problem is we only have Christian sources that tell us in detail about the disciples. There are plenty of abusive cults where if you only look at material published by the members, it will only say they treat everyone with charity and kindness. Accordingly, Jesus and the disciples _could_ have been involved in numerous scandals and we today probably wouldn't know about any of it. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they were.
Jesus was a proven liar, false prophet and hypocrite who beat merchants with a whip and vandalized their property for charging prices he didn't like (John 2:15), tricked believers into killing themselves by telling them they'd have magic poison-resistance (Mark 16: 17-18), set back medical science by 1500+ years by teaching that the cause of human illness was *DEMONS* and that medical issues should be treated using exorcism (Matt. 18:16, Mark 1:32, Matt. 9:32-33, Matt. 12:22, Matt. 17:14-18), discouraged hand-washing during a time when 50% of all children died of disease before age 5 (Mark 7, Matt. 15:1-11), advocated whipping as a punishment for disobedient slaves (Luke 12:47), encouraged homophobia by propagating the myth that God hates gays and wants them dead (Matt.10:15), and threatened to torture people if they didn't obey him (Matt 23:33).
Wow Sean is so good!!
You and I have a much different definition of "good".
@@AsixA6 Probably because you are a biased, toxic youtube atheist
@@manne8575 Probably not, you biased, toxic RUclips theist.
@@AsixA6 Says the one who is denying facts.
@@manne8575 What supposed ‘fact’ am I supposedly denying?
This is the second time I've seen intelligent Christians seem perplexed as to where Paulogia got his name from... isn't it obvious he merged 'Paul' with 'Apology' (as in apologetics)? It's not a big deal but I thought it was kind of obvious given the subject matter he makes videos about.
I watch Paul's videos and for some reason those who critique him can mever pronounce his moniker properly it's odd
I agree. His name is intuitive... Paul + logia = Paul's thoughts/teaching. I think the apologists are trying to be sarcastic or cutesy by playing games with it.
0:10 - "Willing to suffer and die for something they knew to be false." (NOT THE ARGUMENT)
There are three scenarios:
_Scenario 1_ - *The apostles knew the claim was true and died for it.* In this scenario, it's clear that Christianity is true. There is a big problem with this scenario. This is good evidence for the apostles but not good evidence for anyone else.
_Scenario 2_ - *The apostles knew the claim was false and died for it.* This is an unlikely scenario but still possible. It's unlikely because people are less willing to have strong convictions for false beliefs and be willing to die for them. It is still possible because people are could die for a belief they know is false. However due to multiple claims of disciples dying for their beliefs, this is (in my view) the most unlikely scenario. I find it interesting that this was put forth at the start. It's almost like this is the way the debate is trying to be framed...
_Scenario 3_ - *The apostles did not know the truth value of the claim or were deceived in to thinking one way and died for it.* Now we get to what I believe is the most likely scenario. In this scenario the disciples held a strong belief (not knowledge) in the truth value of the claim. This is similar to many people today who would die for their religion. Simply ask yourself if you know someone who would die for their religion and you'll see how plausible this scenario is. People don't have the same absolutely certainty the apostles are claimed to have had yet still have the same strength in their convictions as the apostles did. Worse yet, we see this strength of conviction among multiple religions. Simply put....
*People dying for something they claim is true does not prove that claim is true (Especially when it comes to religion).*
For the 3rd scenario, the apostles were the originators of the claim... there was no one to deceive them.
As to not knowing the truth value, if you're going off the (little) evidence we have , you have no basis for the assumption.. except you're conjuring up scenario (leaving the evidence).
I'm from a culture more similar to ancient near east than it is western... the 3rd scenario is pure conjecture and flies in the face of what little evidence we have.
@@actingapostlesage Incorrect.
Imagine growing up with a dad who claims to be a police officer. Your dad leaves your house every day in a police suit and comes home at night after a 12 hour shift. Turns out though, your dad was pretending to be a police officer the whole time to cover up working for the CIA! You would most likely tell everyone you know about your police officer dad. Meanwhile you were deceived in to believing this. The issue here is that you truly believe your dad is a police officer but that is not true.
Likewise, the disciples could've been (Not saying they were) believing something was true that is not actually true. The fact that they may have died for this belief shows us that it was a strong belief. People are more willing to die for strong beliefs but can also hold strong beliefs that are false. How were they deceived (If they were)? I don't know. I am just giving this as a possibility we should consider.
My evidence is that humans deceive other humans. This means it is POSSIBLE. I am not stating it happened. I am merely stating we should consider it as a possible.
What conclusion do you draw regarding the disciples and why?
I understand that logic, but who will be the dad in this scenario? Who is the deceiver?
There is my issue, in your short analogy, the dad is the originator of this deception - not me.
That doesn't work here.
@@actingapostlesage It simply points out that people can believe something is true that is false. One of my friends in college told me:
*"My buddy was one of the best runners in the nation and could run a mile in under three minutes."*
I told him that it was not true and he started to get mad. He insisted that he saw his friend do this at a track meet. He told me that we could look it up and see his times. He said... "I know he did this."
He said he knew it... but he was wrong. The world record for a mile is not even close to under 3 minutes. A high schooler (Which is friend was) would be known (Like Alan Webb) if they broke a 4 minute mile. Considering his friend wasn't Alan Webb, I knew his friend didn't even get below a 3 minute mile (Let alone 4) in a race.
So once again we see that people can truly believe something that is false. Why would the disciples believe something is true when it is actually false? I don't know..... but we know this happens.
______________________________
Do you agree that the disciples could have believed Jesus rose from the dead when Jesus actually didn't rise from the dead?
Is this POSSIBLE?
I say YES.
@@malirk Is your atheism based on science?
Christians say, “The apostles wouldn’t have died for a lie!”
• We don’t know the fate of most of them
• We don’t know if they didn’t recant and were killed regardless
• We don’t know if they knew it was a lie, they might have believed it truly but were mistaken
• We don’t know if they were actively preaching and just hunted down like Saul used to do
• We don’t know if they were preaching about Jesus or going off on their own sect of Christianity
• We don’t know if any of the stories are true or simply made up (by the Romans for example) as straight fiction
@G Will what about the jews and muslims? And, you could have everything settled in your favor if god just showed up.
@G Will What... what the fuck is wrong with you? Instead of proving me wrong, you scream "Nuh-UH!" and hurl ad hominem attacks. Gee whiz, what a great argument you have discovered!
Peter actually did go back to fishing first, before encountering the risen Jesus and THEN he left his boats and livelihood for the faith. But the point is still this: EVEN IF Peter liked the taste of power, when his life was on the line. BUT that doesn’t explain Paul who actually lost influence, lost a position of power, and lost possessions. And Paulogia even admitted he wouldn’t die for his RUclips channel fame which ends up undermining his own point.
I've concluded that some people are satisfied with tenuous, ambiguous, low probability statements, events and artifacts to confirm their faith in the god of the bible while other people require unambiguous, high probability evidence that would justify a belief in god and Jesus as its offspring.
I know there are sincere people in this world (me included) that would accept a god if doing so wasn't dependent on blind faith. That god could easily remove all doubt of its existence. No need for martyrs. If it does exist it chooses to remain hidden.
In all reality if the god of the bible existed it would have a lot to answer for.
No, all us reasonable skeptics are lying to ourselves and denying the obvious existence of God by choice, and deserve our eternal damnation.. 😉
@@trybunt That's right. The only reason why anyone would refuse to believe is the fact they want to "SIN" and don't want god to judge them.
I've actually heard this accusation used in debates against atheist opponents.
I've also seen where the Christian opens the debate by reciting some biblical text pronouncing god's judgment against the atheist opponent.
I find it rude and out of place in a formal debate.
@@joseph-thewatcher I find it hilarious that people think they know the mind of others, but to be fair I've seen atheists do the same thing, explaining that theists just believe for this reason or that. Oh well, we could all be a little more reasonable to each other, I guess
@G Will What's the purpose of your comment? Is it just to troll me? I don't care what you think either. Move on.
@G Will Yeah, the fact is you're a troll.
If you’re killed for being one of the “others” it doesn’t mean you are a martyr .. if you know you will be killed then it might tho
Regarding the death of James in Acts 12. A main point that was overlooked is the statement, "And when Herod saw that (the execution of James) pleased the Jews." We need to ask ourselves, "What was James doing that brought so much enmity from the Jews?" Christ gives the answer, "If they hated me, they will hate you."
18:27
Sean, his (Pauls) definition SPECIFICALLY drives to the point of 'apostles wouldnt have died for something they KNEW was a lie' as an argument to suppport the Risen Christ.
Ergo: those Martyrs MUST have firsthand knowledge of the ressurection... Otherwise it is just a BELIEF.
I BELIEVE my BFF has seen the Pyramids at Giza.... But i dont KNOW it.
Wrong analogy, you may believe that your BFF went to Giza, but would you be ready to suffer and die for this truth? (or any other belief).
What made the Apostles credible is -they personally knew Jesus -they ONLY believed in him AFTER he rose from death -and they sacrificed everything (money, prison, martyrdom etc.) for what they considered to be the Truth (resurrected Jesus)
It still doesn't make what they believed in the objective truth, it just make of them a credible source (see the alternated explanation for the resurection- Swoon, Hallucination, Impersonation, Theft theory etc. )
Resurrection apologists who argue that no one would be martyred for a “lie” can only make this assertion when the Jesus movement is abstracted from the political/revolutionary formations and aspirations that made the movement a popular movement in the first place. The resurrection of Jesus wasn’t a true or false statement of historical fact. It was a call to arms in the final battle against the powers that be.
That’s a cool story bro.