ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ค. 2021
- Some have said that liars make poor martyrs. The apostles were willing to suffer and die for their belief in Jesus' resurrection. This shows that they were at least sincere. Sure, there are martyrs in other faiths. What sets the apostolic martyrdom apart was they died for what they said they saw firsthand.
But have Christian apologists overstated their case? Skeptics like popular TH-camr Paulogia say they have. Big time. Here I make the case for the apostle's suffering and martyrdom and look at a few of Paulogia's objections.
Paulogia's original videos: Did Disciples Die Saying Jesus Rose? (with Mike Winger) • Did Disciples Die Sayi...
What Happened to the Apostles of Jesus? (Sean McDowell Response) • What Happened to the A...
Also, be sure to read chapters 2-7 of William Paley's A View of the Evidences of Christianity g.co/kgs/puZnuL
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive.creator-spring...
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Thanks to all my patrons for their support. www.patreon.com/isjesusalive
Sorry for the audio issues at the end.
In the book of Acts, the apostles weren’t ordered by the Sanhedrin to recant what they _believed._
The apostles were simply ordered to shut up (Acts 5:40).
Then they were flogged (ouch).
Then they went out rejoicing (Acts 5:41).
And they didn’t shut up (Acts 5:42).
When all you have to do to avoid persecution and death is simply _stop talking,_ what does that say about your belief in what you’re talking about?
Paulogia’s “no opportunity to recant” objection is, like most of his objections, contrived, evidence-free and ridiculous.
Great video bro! Way to take ‘em down😁👍!
@Testify
Epic stuff
Whenever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand! Jesus is returning to judge the living and the dead! Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand!.!.!!.!..
The church was under varying degrees of persecution for DECADES before Peter and Paul were killed. If I were in their shoes and we were just lying about the resurrection, I would have given up when Saul Of Tarsus started persecuting the church. I wouldn’t have waited until Nero. I would have been like “Wow! This preaching Jesus’ resurrection thing is pretty dangerous! And given that we’re not getting anything out of it; no power, no wealth, no maidens, I’m just going to quietly go back to fishing.”
Skeptics who try to undermine the evidential value of the apostles martyrdom are fighting a battle they cannot win.
I cannot bring myself to believe that these 12 men went decades and decades, knowing that preaching what they were preaching could very well get them killed at worst or imprisoned at best, all the while knowing that it was a lie, would continue to do it. Now, if there were some earthly rewards to gain, then that would be one thing. In the case of a smoker, a thief, a serial killer, they risk coming under bad consequences because they think that the risk to reward ratio is worth it. If somebody can get away with stealing $1 billion, well, then you’re $1 billion richer. Sure, you might get caught and go to prison for a long time, and that’s not good. But if you’re successful about not being caught, then you are a billionaire. Serial killers often get a sick thrill out of murdering their victims. That’s the reward they get for risking getting caught and going to the chair. But what earthly reward did the disciples get? They didn’t get power. Even if Peter was the first pope as the Catholics maintain, it’s not like he was living in the huge Vatican that exists today. That kingdom Vatican wouldn’t come until centuries later. The apostles got no positions of power. At best, the position they would’ve gotten for themselves would’ve been no more significant than that of a local pastor, like James in Jerusalem. It’s not like they were getting lots of women. And they weren’t getting rich off of it. These are the three motives that J Warner Wallace says under lies every crime that he has ever investigated; money, sex, and power. Which of these did the disciples get? None of them.
With no earthly reward insight, why would the disciples be willing to suffer? Why would they be willing to suffer at best and be willing to die at worst? For no money, sex, or power. Well, maybe the reward wasn’t an earthly reward. Maybe it was an eternal, spiritual reward, promised to them by the resurrected Jesus himself! Because they really believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And so, even if they didn’t gain anything in this life, they would gain everything in the next!
In order for Paulogia’s comparison to thieves and smokers to have force, he would have to show what the disciples gained on the assumption that they were lying about the resurrection. Only then, will it be an apples to apples comparison.
Moreover, I think that if the resurrection were a bald face lie, they would’ve recounted. Even if recanting wouldn’t have save them, they would’ve done it, just to attempt to save them selves! And if they had done that, that probably would’ve gotten now given how shocking it would be for Peter or Matthew or Paul, to just admit that they made the whole thing up! Yet not only does history tell us that they risked themselves for decades, knowing what the consequences COULD be, but we have no records of them recanting. True, we don’t have any records of them being given an opportunity to recant, but I think that if they had recanted ( even if the effort to save themselves were in vain and their persecutors killed them anyway), surely this would have gotten out. Christians who might’ve been nearby would’ve spread the word. And if nothing else, the enemies of Christianity, like Nero and Ananas probably would’ve weaponized their recounting to try to dissuade anyone else from becoming Christians.
Now, granted, this is an argument from silence. But we need to remember that not every argument from silence is logically fallacious. Sometimes the silence is deafening. If I were working at Dollar General, and one of my coworkers came in and told me that the planet was being invaded by aliens, I would respond “That’s nonsense. If that were true, it would be all over the news.” that’s an argument from silence, but it has some force. Surely, some thing of that magnitude would be reported on the news. That it’s not as pretty good evidence that we are not indeed, being invaded by aliens. If all, or even some of the apostles recanted at the guillotine, this would’ve been shocking. The Christian community would’ve had to do damage control and the anti-Christians would’ve used it as a weapon to try to just wait other people from becoming Christians. We would expect writers like Justin martyr to try to explain why Peter recanted it, even though the resurrection actually happened.
People believing in absurd claims doesn't make the claims any truer. The only thing that martyrdom proves is that people believed in something, and that's all.
Do you suddenly become a muslim when you see a radical jihadist willing to die for Allah? I doubt it. But you expect people to be convinced that the martyrdom of Christians is somehow different. Maybe because of your bias?
Very solid. Nobody has come to refute all this even a year after posting. Yet as a Christian, it makes sense when one compares Earthly rewards (temporary) with Heavenly rewards (Eternal, no chance of sabotage).
Well… for most of the disciples we know almost nothing about their deaths.
We don’t know how they died or why they were killed… if they were killed.
And of course we don’t know if they had a chance to recant or if they did recant.
It seems like the Romans didn’t even care if the disciples believed in the resurrection and that none of them were killed for the belief in the resurrection.
They were killed for breaking the peace, for refusing to worship the emperor or simply for being associated with the movement of the insurrectionist Jesus.
I'm rather skeptical of Paulogia's sincerity here. He points out Ananaias had an agenda against James but no comment as to the cause. Why would a high priest take issue with some random peasant if not for his refusal to recant on his preaching? We also do have evidence of Paul's martyrdom in the form of Eusebius. Yes it's not as good as an eyewitness account but it's still there and he just seemed to ignore it. Finally, no mention of how Polycarp could have recanted? Convenient. I can agree that Christians in general do have a habit of overstating our evidence but atheist youtubers, especially large ones, have reason to overstate their skepticism and so it seems to me he's more preaching to his choir than making an honest assessment of the evidence.
It is a very odd hill to die on, and he seems to have some definite double standards. Unless we have EXPLICIT confirmation one way or another, skepticism is justified. But allow me to say how Christianity started with my speculative psychoanalyzing of dead guys from 2000 years ago.
But he also understates the Nero persecution.
True Nero didn't PERSONALLY care about Christian belief, in fact it demonstrates that persecution was so wide spread on a basic social animus level (like jews in Germany) that they made an ideal scapegoat for his own political theater.
Most Roman persecution prior to Marcus Aurelius didn't care about Christian belief as much as they cared about their unwillingness to bow to the emperor in cult form in court rooms, which was a convenient way to legally get rid of Christians in society... again evidence of widespread social animus over their internal feud with Jews and their unwillingness to abide pagan rites, festivals, etc.
It was Jewish persecution that was ideological. Recanting would have been demanded at those. But similarly, Recanting the UNWILLINGNESS to bow to the effigy of the emperor as "god" would also count as a persecution for their beliefs, and that was incredibly common.
@@TestifyApologetics But isn't that just Paulogia's point? To make the case apologists want to make that the disciples backed their beliefs with a willingness to die, we need more evidence than we actually have. So for instance, we don't know why Ananus had James murdered, except for the vague pretext of "breaking the law". Now, I am personally of the opinion that this was likely to do with his Christian practices. So, on that point we agree---but let's not overstate the case. We are just making educated guesses here, and the truth is we really don't know why Ananus had it out for James.
Moreover, as Paulogia is fond of pointing out, we also have zero in the way of credible evidence that James thought he saw a risen Jesus, or that he was given an opportunity to recant before being executed. We need all three ingredients for the apologetic argument to work: *(1)* martyrdom for Christian practice; *(2)* given chance to recant; *(3)* thought they saw a risen Jesus. If we agree that there is some very tenuous evidence for (1), we still have nothing for (2) and (3).
Paulogia strikes me as very genuine, and it saddens me to see people accuse him, however veiledly, of dishonesty, for apparently no other reason than they can't imagine how someone could sincerely disagree with their favorite Christian apologetics.
That mild scolding aside, you may wish to read my reply to Testify.
@@ben_w We don't need his standard to arrive high probability for willingness to suffer. Paul was stoned he never says he was given a chance to recant and yet he kept on preaching. He referred to the other apostles as we and us and said they were like those condemned to die in the arena. Paulogia's standard leads to a faulty epistemology that requires certainty. I'm saying the probability of sincerity to the point of willingness to suffer and die is high vs the lack of evidence that we have that would point in the other direction. Also his standard isn't original, I think it isn't much different than Candida Moss's. Paulogia and I get along over Twitter, I'm not accusing him of anything. I like the guy even though we have strong disagreements
If Christians were being killed for their beliefs, then someone has the ability to recant by denouncing Christianity before they are next. It doesn't need to be a renunciation on the guillotine.
exactly
Noo nooo! Don’t you get it? All the executions were all “gotchas” where the romans tapped on the shoulder of a new Christian one second after converting
@@tomasrocha6139 you’re asking the wrong question. WHY were they scapegoated for the fire? Because they were an easy target since they were persecuted for their beliefs AT LARGE throughout Rome and neighboring provinces/cities.
@@willdaugherty2842 Just look at the disciples. When Jesus died, they went into hiding. Peter went back to his fishing boat and took half the disciples with him.
Peter started out as a hasty loudmouth, and then became an abject coward.
But then when he saw Jesus risen, it all clicked for him. He became a fearless zealot you couldn't shut up. Something significant changed in him, and that something was meeting the risen Christ. They threatened to him but he kept preaching Jesus. He refused to shut up about Jesus.
Acts 4:13-21
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.
15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
Do we have evidence that the Romans killed any of the disciples for their belief in the resurrection? Nope.
And if they were killed by Jews then they wouldn’t get a chance to recant.
The laws say kill the idolater and not kill the idolater unless he says that he is really sorry.😂
As a skeptic this video was very helpful thank you sir
Update?
PAULOGIA: "Would you say that a thief is _willing_ to go to jail or that a cigarette smoker is _willing_ to get lung cancer?"
ME: Yes.
@@jacoblee5796 I didn't say "in hopes of", I said "willing to". A tobacco smoker smokes _knowing_ that tobacco and smoke inhalation are both causes of cancer, and knowingly accepts the consequences of feeding his addiction. Often he starts not even addicted to it yet, and takes his first hits either deluding himself into thinking it won't be addicting, or not caring it will be addictive if it makes him look cool to his peers.
@@jacoblee5796they have the possibility lying in their mind. And regardless, they continue to do so cause it’s addicting. Why and how would it be addicting to suffer and preach your lungs out daily?
@@jacoblee5796 A commenter named @Jimmy-iy9pi already typed this out refuting Paulogia's argument: Being willing to suffer to gain something is completely different than being willing to suffer to the point of death for your testimony to a historical event. Sincerity isn't a factor for a thief committing robbery. Sincerity does have something to do with delivering testimony though.
@@RoninCatholic « make looks cool to his peers. » It’s exactly what preaching Jesus DOESNT made, in a jew community.
Sounds like pretty good evidence that lots of people willingly put their health and lives at risk even for a very small perceived gain that other people wouldn’t consider to be worth doing it.
Lol, him saying that "we don't know why they were killed" is like saying "we don't know why MLK was assassinated."
It doesn’t matter if they actually died as martyrs. It is a fact that Christians were being persecuted for their beliefs, and the early Christians were well aware of this. The fact that they continued to preach it anyway is a good indicator.
@@jacoblee5796Also false. Book of acts tells otherwise.
@@jacoblee5796 the way joseph smith died is different than any other
@@coobest6416 Bible vs actual history with evidence lol
@@jacoblee5796 so you're saying the same jews who plotted to have Jesus executed on the basis of people believing in Him were chill about the people who went around claiming they saw Him alive after the crucifixion?
Then a huge fire was arbitrarily blamed on them 30 years later and that's when it got bad for them?
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
@@jacoblee5796 Apostle Paul persecuted Christians and got them death sentences according to his own admission. That was way before Nero.
Being willing to suffer to gain something is completely different than being willing to suffer to the point of death for your testimony to a historical event. Sincerity isn't a factor for a thief committing robbery. Sincerity does have something to do with delivering testimony though.
By his criteria, I can't be sure that the people I call martyrs and I'm proud of them really martyred to defend my homeland.
I mean, although they were killed willingly on the battlefield, I don't have the testimony of all of them that the reason for their death was to defend our homeland , I don't know if they would have betrayed my country if they had been captured and had a chance to be saved! So I'm not proud of them anymore. 😔
Think about how many of them must have regretted laying their lives down in their last moments. While Christian martyrs are known to have welcomed death steadfastly.
There have been man indisputable martyrs throughout history for many causes, Christian and non. Perhaps we're just missing clear terminology here. Paulogia specifically refers to his criteria for "martyrdom of resurrected Jesus," and it's easy to just hear "martyr" there.
The claim is that people wouldn't have "died for a lie." We can get into why that might or not be the case separately, but his criteria is used to separate out martyrs who weren't first-hand witnesses, were definitely martyrs, and definitely died for this reason. (5:18)
This is not to claim that people who died for what they believed in other circumstances were not martyrs, heroes, or otherwise great people. They just don't satisfy the criteria of "wouldn't die for a lie." That's a much heavier lift than martyrdom. Your homeland martyrs who died on the battlefield are not in the same category.
@@grumpylibrarian
I didn't say they are in the same category, I said I could apply his criterion for understanding the HONSETY of the martyrs of my country. By his standards, we don't know why the martyrs of my country really died on the battlefield, maybe they died for booty, are you proud of the death of such a person and call him a martyr?
It's the point that Paulogia is trying to prove that we don't know the true motives of Jesus' apostles.
@@mister.punknow6639 Which Christian martyrs are known to have welcomed death steadfastly?
That's not the point of what Paulogia is saying. His point is that you shouldn't use the martyrs' refusal to recant as a reason to believe yourself, because nobody knows whether they recanted, or would have if given the opportunity.
By all means still admire whatever you want about them, but believing in the resurrection because they went to their deaths proclaiming it and refusing to recant is fallacious, because we don't know what they said before they were killed. Their killings were political, not idealogical
Just found this channel. This is amazing apolgetics. Very persuasive, honest and all done in Good faith. Gonna binge all these videos now.
thanks for the sub
It is well known that criminals in the circus arena could recant by offering incense to the emperor. They refused. None would have done so if any disciples recanted
Can you provide a source please?
@@Nameless-pt6oj the phrase "just a pinch of incense" is well known. The story of Polycarp refers to this with some would be martyrs who offered an act of worship to the emperor.
"Quintus the Phrygian handed himself over for martyrdom with some others, the Proconsul persuaded them to take the oath and sacrifice. "
Worshipping Jesus was fine, it was the Christian belief that no other gods be worshipped that caused the Romans issues. Jews had special rights to not take the sacrifice which is why in Acts we get a lot of discussion over being circumcised. They could claim to be Jewish and get the exemption from Roman panetheon worship.
The roman pantheon and temple system was an effective tax collection system so it could bring down the state if refused.
There's also the Letter from Pliny to Trajan written in the early 2nd century in which Christians are directed to be killed after being given the opportunity to recant. Granted, this would have been several decades after the martyrdom of the Apostles, but it demonstrates that policies such as the one that Paulogia mentions were in place early on in Christian history. Earlier Jewish persecutions would have been more focused on getting Christians to recant because of their hatred of Jesus' claim to be divine.
Funny, I just yesterday listened to Sean McDowell and Paulogia discuss this very thing on Unbelievable, from May 8, 2020.
I recommend anyone who appreciated this video to listen to that podcast episode from Unbelievable.
(Edit: Sean does a good job, I think, arguing that #2 and #3 of Paulogia's criteria for a martyr aren't held either by academics nor by laypeople in general.)
I saw that debate about a month ago and I liked it. and BTW I agree with you I think Sean McDowell did better in that debate.
I disagree with you both. Paulogia argument was way more substantial. His video is a small part of why I don't believe in those fairytales again.
@@chrisjoseph4088 What about the belief that the apostles died martyrs is a fairy tale?
@@chrisjoseph4088Thanks u/aalewis for that compelling argument.
Actually, I don't think Paulogia gives good feedback here. And here's why. As pointed out, He completely dismisses the view that the sources themselves indicate that the motives for the persecutions were religious. Uh....the sources themselves indicate they were. Josephus says Ananus accused St. James and others of bring "breakers of the law."
I think some of his feedback is legit in that we don't want to say they all died for what they believed, therefore the resurrection probably happened. We have a good degree of confidence I think for four martyrdoms and the rest get into some apocryphal stuff. But it's clear that they were willing to suffer, and his idea that "that's not good enough" with his analogy of hoping to not get caught is, frankly absurd.
But I totally agree that his interpretations of Josephus' account of James or how he misreads Acts is pretty bad. I could've gotten into that more, that's good feedback. The video was already getting a bit long so I was trying to compress a bit.
Lol ananus
Watching this after watching the Star Wars show Andor is interesting. Would Paulogia say the rebels who diedj stealing imperial payroll weren't dying for the cause since they weren't given a chance to stop right before they died?
If you know your loyalties to this deity place you in mortal danger, you've seen friends suffer and die for the cause, and you refuse to turn back and then you're killed for being a member of that deity's religion....and you knew you would be safe if you just stopped worshipping said deity exclusively ....then why do you need a chance to recant just before you're killed.
Plogia can play word games all he wants but he cannot argue that the apostles died because they were Christians and would not have died if they were not. Even in the case of the Jewish temple leader having a grudge towards James and having him stoned makes perfect sense because of Jame's faith
...No. That doesn't make one bit of sense: "A Christian got killed, therefore he got killed for his faith," is a "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent."
Try again.
@@HegelsOwl It's not a Christian getting killed for their faith. They are actual eyewitness to the resurrection or as you believe the alleged resurrection. Many people will die for what they believe to be true, muslims included but how many people would be tortured and suffer a horrible death for a lie? None, especially if they could of stopped their death and suffering from just denying their faith.
@@John14-6...
"Why There Isn't a Question"
Prolegemenon
Paul's proof that he and the Apostles lied about the messianic resurrection (therefore Jesus' R) was validated, for the Corinthians were supposed to have seen this anomaly, to defeat the charge of lying (1Cor., 15.16ff), but in fact never saw it. Paul's proof is independently valid, for there's no anomaly which only Jesus' resurrection can explain.
I will demonstrate that the nonexistence of "divine justice" is why there isn't an anomaly with a question for Science, or human action, and which only biblical claims of deity can explain; simply, why there isn't any truth to these claims.
We suspect this is true, for the phenomenological reduction finds only consciousness of Being: Next is found consciousness of needs, and the need to know of the salvation of "divine justice" is not among them.
§1 of 2. "The Song of Drunkards"
A "Mr. Some Day," to make the forgiveness of sins possible, some day, is as unknown to Moses' laws as penguins. But, Yahweh lied about forgiveness, "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Heb., 10.4). So, a "Mr. Some Day" hope-heuristic became necessary.
'Faith' means, "Tomorrow, I'll be gratified, for I am a good person, worthy of good things." Tomorrow is forever the Messiah, Mr. Pedestrian Someday.
Mr. Someday also was a hope-heuristic to terminate what scholars call "the invasion problem"--the failure of Yahweh's proscription of foreign invasions (Deut., 32.26-30; 2Sam., 7.8-11). The palmist miserably blasts away at Yahweh for lying about this (89.34-42). The greatest English-speaking theologian of the 20th Century soberly affirms that Mr. Someday was the Jews' only hope against the hopelessness "to trace the hand of God in the successive disasters and oppressions which his people suffered" (C.H. Dodd, "History and the Gospel" (1938), p. 34).
The book of Job proclaims the hopelessness Dodd speaks of--the failure of "divine justice" to reward "good people," and punish "bad people," now called "the problem of evil." This failure was predicted by the fact that the universal belief in "divine justice" throughout the ancient world, a belief which persists to this day, is well known, courtesy of Sir James Frazer, to be a formula of SM (sympathetic magic), that like begets like. The "resurrection hypothesis" is predicated on SM, that Jesus was "a good person," worthy of "good things" (like a resurrection), and therefore defeats itself. All "divine justice" prophecies failed (i.e., have no scientific validation), which is why the messianic prophecies failed.
So, Mr. Someday was a final third hope-heuristic with the bandaid of "Judgement Day," that some day the threat and bribe of "divine justice" SM will be true--good things will happen to good people, bad to the bad.
Moses was ignorant about a Messiah's "divine justice" some day, because "divine justice" was busy every day (Ps., 7.11). That's why the psalmist says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no Yahweh'" (Ps., 14.1); for, "The Lord is known by his Justice; the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands" (9.12). Seeing bad things happen if you're bad is why, by golly, "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov., 9.10). You'll then become a genius by learning Moses' laws (Ps., 119.99ff); i.e., about which specific behaviours magically cause good or bad things. A Messiah with "divine justice" some day is the denial of it every day, and therefore the denial that Yahweh can be known at all. The Messiah says in his heart, "There is no Yahweh."
Not the stones, but the psalmist cries out, "My tears have been my food day and night, while men say to me, all day long, 'Where is your god?'" (42.3.), making him "the song of drunkards" (69.12). Why? "Divine justice" doesn't exist, so there isn't an anomaly which only biblical claims of deity can explain. The Messiah was right--there is no Yahweh.
All theological fundamentals are make-believe, for all are predicated on SM (sympathetic magic).
§2 of 2. "Hegel's Owl"
Hegel's Owl of Minerva delivers two phenomenological facts from the OT about the NT: 1). Mr. Someday was only a hope-heuristic for the nonexistence of "divine justice." 2). Paul's validated proof against Jesus' resurrection was predicated by Frazer's SM model, for the universal belief in "divine justice" is why resurrected gods were/are believed; e.g., good people are worthy of good things.
But, again, 'faith' just means, "Some day, I'll have everything, for I am a good person, worthy of good things," and the personal experience of nursing depravity in this belief, to fall into possession of everything, some day, is usually too clever to be tricked by facts.
So, were the NT authors just deluded, or were they scamming, to exploit universal belief in SM?
We need a proper question: Christianity's centuries-long suicide cult is possibly the only anomaly on this subject with a question of interest for Science. Then, was this anomaly an accident, or a scam against Romans; say, for Rome's repeated "911" injustices during Jesus' and Paul's day, famously chronicled by Emil Schurer?
On-and-off this subject for some forty years as an existentialist philosopher, I've never found a biblical scholar honest enough to mention that evangelism was used during Paul's day to scam Romans to pay for a Jewish army for their own destruction (Josephus, "Wars," 6.6.2).
In the NT, we find a member of the Jewish High Council, and on such matters as warfare, who sold "Christ's free gift" to Romans, and this money went only to Jerusalem. Not even the poorest Romans were helped by this professional, except out of their money and into the grave. For, with the Jews already enraged about Roman injustices, Paul's para-military mission of "spiritual warfare" persuaded Romans to practice capital offences against Jewish law (especially, to renounce circumcision); and, since Romans "owe the Jews" their money (Rom., 15.27), Romans effectively payed Jews to kill them for their capital offences. It was Paul's clever conspiracy "to make the Jews jealous," hiccup, "to save some of them" (Rom., 11.11, 14).
In spite of never mentioning "Wars," 6.6.2, biblical scholars still don't know why Paul's clever conspiracy to save the Jews failed, though fewer things are more natural than to become jealous of your enemy if he pays you to kill him.
The Apostles only cheated Roman Christians, until widows complained about this "transformative experience." Acts, 6.1 here, and scammers all through the NT, trash Team Resurrection's "persecution threat" against scamming (e.g., Rom., 16.18; 2Cor., 2.17; Philipp., 3.2; Eph., 4.14; Ti., 1.11; 2Pet., 2.1-3; 1Jn., 2.18; 4.16.) The good money obviously offset risks, and Christianity's Rasputins and Ravi Zachariases conquered the West with the threat-and-bribe SM of "Judgement Day."
How did Team Resurrection overlook the NT scammers, "Wars," 6.6.2, Frazer, even Paul's independently valid proof against the resurrection?
Frazer got overlooked? It's like Physics having forgotten Newton.
Well, Hegel's Owl brings good news: The Professional had a "miraculous conversion"--from killing fellow Jews to killing only Romans with the "spiritual warfare" of new religious ideas (e.g., Gal., 6.12). Paul's "transformative experience," of handing Romans the grave and Jacob their money, was no different from what a messiah (or the Sanhedrin) would have done. Joshua is the paradigm messiah: he killed the enemy and gave Jacob the money, giving History its first recorded genocide.
The universal belief in SM was exploited by Paul's "good news" formula, that to share "in Christ's glory," one must share in his sufferings (Rom., 8.17), guaranteed with "spiritual warfare" capital offenses. Being killed by "the enemy" is "God's sign" that you're a good person, worthy of good things (e.g., 2Thess., 1.5ff). It's what happened to Jesus, and like begets like. Eusebius boasts that "massive numbers" of Christians (Romans) senselessly got themselves killed (8.8). Duped Romans even lied about crimes to get killed (e.g., Gibbon, Ch., 16, n. 94). Nevertheless, Rome's most enormous and enduring suicide cult mysteriously failed to make the Jews jealous.
But, look again: Jesus does mean Joshua. Mystery solved.
* * *
Conclusion
Team Resurrection doesn't have a question which only Jesus' literal resurrection can explain, to defeat Frazer's elegant model. Were there, say, a miracle-worker today, certified to be about 2,000 years old, TR would have an anomaly to explain. But, TR's "argument," explaining no anomaly at all, is "as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," in MacBeth's bleak world.
There isn't an anomaly for Science on this subject, because "divine justice" never existed, and the biblical proposition of threat-and-bribe "Judgement Day" SM has no value for human action; except, perhaps, for stimulating the imagination, to ward-off Schopenhauer's monster of boredom.
"There is no riddle."
--Wittgenstein
@@John14-6... So, which is more likely: Only a violation of the laws of nature can explain the Apostles' belief, or Frazer's model of sympathetic more elegantly explains not only their belief, but the centuries-long suicide?
@@HegelsOwl For one don't you think that God being the creator and supreme being who made the miracle of creating the universe could then perform the miracle of the resurrection? But no that's not the problem you have because everyone in life sees life thru their own lenses. You have chose the lenses of a life that doesnt include God in it so no matter how much evidence is presented( intelligent design of universe, DNA being digital coding, historicity of the gospels, etc) it won't matter to you because you have made your mind up. You have your own presuppositions and probably only study the evidence that support them so it's a waste of time because anything I say you would have an excuse. You don't want God to be true for your own personal reasons not because where the evidence leads. Most people are not on a truth search they search the facts and evidences that support their paradigm
Thanks for this thought-provoking response.
Lol I read you’re blog about the disciples voluntary sufferings not to long ago.
Your screen name makes no sense
Yeah, that was the short-short version.
@@OldSlyEyes I think that was the point. It kind of reminds me of when someone told me that the world is absolutely relative and he didn't get why I was laughing.
@@OldSlyEyes
That’s the point.
Thanks for taking Paulogia to task again.
That's what I call content; Good Job Eric
Thanks for this!
Something else that occurred to me regarding the willingness to suffer argument: In all the other cases Paulogia gave (thief, smoker, etc.), the element of _risk_ is clearly for some perceived benefit...pleasure, financial gain, etc. What, exactly did the apostles have to gain? What did _any_ of the early Christians have to gain?
Persecution, a negative amount of respect, money, popularity, sex.
Let's not also forget what they could have lost from their perspective.
Jews probably knew their scripture and KNEW what happened the last time when they turned away from God (just read, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). If they were wrong, they would invoke the wrath of God and would again suffer because of it and they would probably think God would give up on them.
The romans were polytheists. From their perspective, one of the reasons everything was going well in the empire was because they paid tribute to all of their gods. Now this Jesus guy comes around and says he's God. Okay. But he says he's the ONLY God and that there is no other God who'd you bow down to. Now that seems like a BIG risk from their POV. Unless he actually has proof or something why would you risk it? ESPECIALLY if it could mean their gods would throw a fit and kill them or something(just look at their mythology; their gods are almost like cats with their need for attention).
Either way, they have dealt with a lotta other false gods and stuff like that, so that Jesus guy oughtta have something unique some REALLY good point on why they should risk it THAT much when they know the consequences of if they were wrong.
I take some issue with Paul's interpretation, but the ones that piss me off the most are the fact that he glosses over vital points when dismissing something the text says.
For example: He claims the phrase "being taken where you don't want to go" sounds more like a nursing home.
1)The writers definitely had no idea what a bloody nursing home is so thinking THAT WHAT John meant was a nursing home is just ignoring the context.
2)If John wanted to refer to Peter's death as mere living to old age and getting taken around by helpers, he wouldn't state that Peter's death "glorified God".
At best, he'd say something like "die full of years" or "died fruitful".
A better interpretation of the text is that Peter would eventually get betrayed by someone he depends on, and be led to an execution he can't escape.
It is strange wording, given that John was written at least two decades after Peter's death, and the author of John would very likely know at least the legendary details of his death, if not the literal ones. I think it's fair to interpret the passage as Peter's crucifixion, but it is indeed a very strange way to describe it. Having someone else put on his clothes seems the most petty of details, and not even necessary for a crucifixion. I don't know if history even claims that happened, and if it does, it would only be because of this reference, and not because that was to the slightest degree an important detail.
@@grumpylibrarian It may not necessarily have been a resurrection, so we don't have to interpret the passage as such. I think John was simply linking Jesus' words to future events, having the power of hindsight
@@samuelhunter4631 I think you meant something other than "resurrection" there as I hadn't mentioned one. I can forgive brain farts, but I don't know what you actually meant.
@@grumpylibrarian Sorry, I meant Crucifixion.
Literally have no idea how that got mixed up
"And surely early critics of Christianity like Celsus would have pounced on [the apostles confessing they made up the resurrection] if they had any record of it." On the contrary, in Against Celsus 2:45, Origen records Celsus criticizing Christianity for the opposite, -that although they abandoned Jesus at his crucifixion, now they die for him:
“In the next place, those who were his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples, whereas now ye die along with him.”
And of Paulogia's claim that there is no record of the Apostles not being given a chance to recant their faith, this is really desperate cherry-picking of standards and requirements. First, let's acknowledge the fact that Jesus was publically killed under capitol punishment. Who thinks that preaching this publically executed criminal risen from the dead is going to merit them any less treatment than execution themselves? Secondly, Nero's persecution was clearly directed at the Christians for being Christian. These two together show that at the very least, Christians of the first century knew that professing Jesus as risen was a death sentence for themselves, and yet were willing to risk it in openly and publically confessing Jesus. But even if that wasn't enough, Pliney's letter to Trajan does explicitately say that he gave Christians not just one opportunity to recant their faith, but three. Here Paulogia could argue, "Well, there is no indication that Pliney's method was the standard, nor is there any reason to believe that Pliney (or somebody with a similar method to him) was responsible for killing the Apostles themselves." -Although this is true, it is intentionally reading around the evidence to get the conclusion you want.
We have evidence that some of the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were killed, we have evidence that many first century Christians were killed for their faith, and we have some evidence that some Christians were given as many as three opportunities to recant their faith. It is a desperate claim that because we don't have one specifcally person who explicitely fits all three descriptions (witness, killed, and given opportunity to recant), although we have examples of all such things happening, therefore we can't assume that the Apostles were willing to die for their faith. All of these stretches are even still used to make an argument that aren't even relevant or needed for Paulogia's position, because the "Liars make bad martyrs" argument is in defense against the Conspiracy Theory that the Apostles stole the body of Jesus and made it up, but Paulogia holds to the Hallucination Hypothesis, -that the Apostles hallucinated a postmortem Jesus and believed he had risen.
It seems weird to me that Paulogia thinks that having a chance to recant after capture is a prerequisite to martyrdom. As if the consistent targeted persecution wasn't enough to tell them they may be killed for their beliefs? And by this logic even Jesus isn't a martyr, because he was simply interrogated... Not told to recant.
Apostle Paul was persecuting Christians and getting Christians killed before he became a Christians. He knew the risks and he did it anyway.
Paulogia is trying to pass off unreasonable scepticism as normal rationalism.
I'm almost becoming Christian but without Testify I wouldn't have seen the data from a different perspective. Paulogia does bring up good points but so does Testify so I'm more sold to Christianity being true then not.
@Nosoup899 yes, though ironically I don't really wanna be Christian cause I'm gonna be mocked badly and harassed but it's true so there's nothing I can do. I'll just be a closet christian.
@Christian Aponte thank you, God bless you^^
@Nosoup899 Thank you very much^-^
Im in the same boat as DSW but im new to testify
Good points. The best point by far, imo, being 2:42
Good stuff man.
I just became a Patreon :)
God bless you
Awesome, thank you! God bless you!
Great job. You break down his logic very well
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Luke 6:45
Can you respond to his video about "4 steps to stop being a Christian" because many of the claims in video looks very dishonest like saying that Eye witnesses never claimed to see Jesus.
I have thought about it, that would be a good one to respond to. Kerusso started off doing it but stopped, so maybe I'll fill in. I have an entire playlist on gospel authorship that indirectly answers him.
@@TestifyApologetics do you know why Kerusso disappeared off the map?
@@ea-tr1jh He said he was going to focus on personal growth and education
@@TestifyApologetics That's good to know. I was worried. Tell him I am praying for him, if you can.
@@TestifyApologetics I love how Paulogia brings up contradictions as evidence that God doesn't exist because God wouldn't let contradictions in his word, despite the fact that A. He doesn't know how God works, and B. If there were no contradictions, he would probably just say that the fact that all "Eyewitness accounts" were exactly the same is highly unlikely because of modern studies that show that Eyewitnesses rarely see the exact same thing, so the gospels were probably copied and pasted.
The first time I started looking for counter arguments for Christian apologetics I remember seeing one of “Paul’s” videos and I could not get through it for the life of me! My blood pressure kept raising and it upset me about how petty and arrogant this man made in the image of God sounded to me and that I just couldn’t stand to hear him like I was still a kid hating myself for having to listen to mathematics lectures. So I left the obviously highly sophisticated video and started to pray and work on my own personal self control and patience, thank God for that! Since hat was some time ago and yet listening to your video with him featuring in it while still frustrating I at least have come to realize two things
1. I really wish we could start a petition for renaming this guy!! 🤣🤣 reverse name him from Paul to Saul! Because I get the feeling he and Saul might have been great pen pals! 🤦🏿♂️😆 SO with Roberts rules of order in effect do I have anyone to second the motion? Anyone? ….. All right well we can table the motion for next time.
😆
But seriously
2. I think there is this group of people who think that just because they can talk in a slow measured voice with bonus points if you have a European accent and bonus bonus points if that accent is British (not “Paul” I know) TRIPLE BONUS if the tone is “deep” but if you meet all of those criteria somehow you are a “scholar and an intellectual“ not because what you’re saying is highly academic or intelligent or true to the spirit of debating where you are open to counterpoints but just because you’re saying it in this stereotypically “elite” cadence and tone. And to me it’s not clever it’s very obvious and surprisingly immature that people don’t see through it and call these people out more. Thankfully this video is not one of them who allows the plaintiff off scotch free. That’s why I like it here dignity mixed with criticism both the TH-camr and the comments section, I see y’all 🫡. I’ll go now.
Your anger towards Paulogia is perhaps caused by your cognitive dissonance. It's very common when we are faced with contradictory arguments which oppose our current beliefs, instead of charitable listening to the arguments we double down on our established beliefs. This is a survival mechanism. Instead of getting mad, why not genuinely listen to and weigh the argument based on the merit of the argument and not the person giving the argument. Yeah, you still might not change your mind, however you'll have a more rational basis on why you haven't changed your mind.
@@JayBandersnatch my friend I am a student of psychology I’ll be a counselor and I know that what I said was because it was just annoying. There’s a time and place for the sciences. TH-cam? Ugh you don’t have to bring it into TH-cam. God loves you and if you are running from His love I would suggest you stop before you run into his justice, I have learned that lesson the hard way and so did a brother of mine named Jonah and we BOTH suggest you respond to Yahweh and his love with acceptance and repentance. You want to bring psychology into the mix? I’m the wrong one because with me I’m a being who has, is, and hopefully will bring everything under the will and obedience of the ONE TRUE GOD YAHWEH OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH. Good day.
@@jman518192 Jonah... you mean that guy who was supposedly swallowed by an animal who doesn't have the throat diameter to ingest an adult human who supposedly spent 72 hours inside the caustic digestive juices of the same animal who has a 15-17 hour digestive period... that Jonah?
@@JayBandersnatch Dude. What part of Christian is difficult to understand. You can’t even explain to me where consciousness comes from and you want to marvel about a man in a whale? Please. Good day.
@@jman518192 so how exactly does not having an explanation for something further the explanation of "god did it"? That's called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
This is really good
Wait, why does martyrdom require the opportunity to recant? So Steven in the book of Acts was not a martyr? Here is one of three definitions for "martyr": a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle. So, to begin with, Paulogia's definition for martyrdom is flawed.
Paul was stoned and left for dead and he wasn't given a chance either. He took his licking and kept on ticking. He kept preaching.
Paulogia is basically saying let me set the bar higher than what is necessary and complain when it doesn't meet my criteria.
@@TestifyApologetics Absolutely, and then he was later martyred for the faith. Maybe we could say that he was a multiple martyr victim.
Sort of undercuts his whole case, doesn’t it?
I’ve noticed he’s hyperskeptical about everything except his own hyperskepticism.
I’ve also noticed he demands massive , multiple-sourced, irrefutable proof for all the claims of Christianity, but when it comes to his alternative explanations, he spins wild fringe theories out of whole cloth and air-castles that no serious NT scholar believes.
He reminds me of a skit by Groucho Marx, who, when he was caught red-handed cheating with a guy’s wife, denied it and said to the guy, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
I think the point is that we don't have the details. So Joseph Smith also died a martyr, but it's not too compelling.
@@leslieviljoen Joseph Smith was shot by a mob while in jail and tried to flee and defend himself, all the while running for President of the United States. It seems clear the man was interested much more in earthly power compared to Paul or Peter.
11:12 his “analogy” fails because smoking and stealing both provide worldly gain. Both of those things are done for pleasure and thievery is done for money and power. The early Christians never received any worldly gains like women, money or power for their faith in Christ. If anything, they gave up these commonly sought-after gains and abstained from them because of their faith in Christ while accepting the risk that they would be persecuted and even put to death
you’re literally out here doing God’s work. Thank you for helping me on my journey; specifically, helping me give myself permission to believe in Christ.
Well done.
But after watching this I looked up and noticed my son was going to make a delicious snack!!!!
Hopefully it was delicious.
I am casually preparing a video on Peter´s Martyrdom. The video is in Spanish but I could make an english version if you are interested
Do it and post the link please.
Edit:I've subscribed so now you've gotta do it:-)
Sounds good!
I recently argued that the persecution and martyrdom of the apostles is some of the best evidence for the churches claims by material standards, and it's crazy how I found this video and it hits every single point I made, from the known hostility of the authorities in the communities they were traveling to, to the complete absence of any earthly reward for the life mission they ALL pursued after the crucifixion.
I can't pretend to know what their thoughts were in those days leading up to the resurrection, I don't know if they lost any hope, but I know if you wanted to crush the faith of these closest followers and friends of Jesus, whom they believe to be the Christ, whom they believe to be THE ONE who came to save them, then publicly executing Him and laying Him in a tomb would be the best way to do it.
If at that point, after witnessing the crucifixion, they had gotten together and decided to agree upon a lie that they would all go out to be persecuted and most of them die for, I just don't see what the motivation would have been. If I were in those circumstances, where I knew there was no resurrection, I would have just given up on the whole thing, not risk my entire life to fool people for laughs.
5:37
um why should we except his list instead of the actual definition ? it seems he changes the def of martyr to fit his argument
10:54 “What does ‘willing to suffer’ even mean in this context?” Idk Paulogia, why don’t you tell us? You were the one who said and put it there, and surely you of all of us should know what it means. You replaced a certain term “dying” with the less certain “willing to suffer”, and then you’re surprised the argument made less sense? How do you know you didn’t change the argument with that replacement, the meaning of which you weren’t sure of?
I’m sorry, but that really made me laugh. Is he serious?
Well, Gary Habermas uses the phrase "willing to suffer for their beliefs“ instead of "dying for their beliefs“ in his minimal facts argument for the resurrection… because there is barely any evidence for the martyrdom of most of the disciples.
The willingness to suffer for their beliefs is pretty certain while the martyrdom stories only exist in contradicting legends from centuries later.
@@ramigilneas9274 Except Gary Habermas is wrong here. Jesus Christ was already crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the Messiah. Apart from Jesus Christ, there were already two pseudo-messiahs before Jesus Christ became popular who were already killed by the Romans for claiming to be the messiah: Simon of Perea and Anthronges, and many of their followers also were killed indirectly. So it was well-known what would happen to Jesus Christ's followers if they proclaimed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They were willing to die for their beliefs.
Though the early church gathered also on Sunday, they did not forsake loving God through perfect compliance of His laws (which instruct us how to love Him Matt 22:40) until 3 centuries later when the synod of Laodecia decided that they were a better authority than God (Who would not change even the smallest letter of the law nor let any of it disappear until Heaven and Earth passed away Matthew 5:18). Having decided they were a better authority than God, they rewrote the law (either into perfection to fix what our allegedly perfect god made, or into imperfection from the perfect law our perfect God made) to say that those who obey the perfect law of God perfectly in the way that God says shows Him love- are (paradoxically) separated from the God they love and obey, while those who reject loving Him by the laws He set in stone in order to adhere to the traditions of men are saved (contrary to Jesus' stance or Corban Mark 7:11-13)
11:13 Would a bank robber who wasn't sincere in the belief that there was money in the bank or a smoker who wasn't sincere in believing in the pleasures of nicotine willingly undergo the risk or trouble of robbing the bank or smoking, respectively? Paulogia's analogies are inappropriate and do nothing to undercut the idea that the apostles were sincere in their belief.
We know what happened to the Apostles and Martyrs because we have the Tradition passed down through Church history. 2000 years. Unbroken. But because it wasn't spelled out specifically in writings, that's not good enough? Why? Why does it need to be written at all? Logically, what is the reasoning here? A lot of presuppositions are assumed here.
Wow. This is just … misguided? Pitiful? I don’t even know.
Take that standard and apply it to Islam. Or other sects of Christianity. Or really any belief.
Pretend someone else is making that argument to you about their chosen belief. Do you really think that holds up?
@@colejames423 You didn't engage the argument. Great job.
@@bradleyperry1735You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all why do you assume the church aren't liars? Second of all traditions and history get heavily distorted after only 200 years, let alone 2000 years. In my culture we have epic poems that were transmitted from generation to generation that got heavily distorted after only 200 years. We have epic poems that talk about historical events that took place only 200 years after they were written down and those epic poems drastically differ from written history, they have many fantastical elements in them and there would often even have many versions of the same story, all different from each other.
In order to think that church tradition is evidence of anything you need to be a dumb, guillible idiot with the intelligence level of a 5 year old child who believes everything the person in authority tells you without any evidence whatsoever. If your pastor told you the Earth is flat you would have believed him. Also, you need to know nothing about how passing tradition from generation to generation heavily distorts the original story after only a couple of generations, let alone 2000 years.
Here, we are adults and we are talking about serious evidence, we aren't guillible children who believe anything the church can easily make up, neither the tradition that's completely unreliable after a couple of hundreds of years, even if you assume that the church is honest and that it has always been, let alone after 2000 years.
Back here after Trent Horn’s dialogue with Paulogia.
I’d say that was the an illuminating chat that got Paul to plead to naturalism a few times, saying that such a point can’t overturn his entire worldview. This would imply that the points on willingness to die/suffer are actually plausible, but his conclusion is established so he can’t accept their weight for Christians who argue it. :/
All love towards Paul. :)
Yes
(Army Salute)
Are there any early Christian writings of the life and martyr of the three Apostles James the son of Alpheaus, Simon the Zeolot and Jude/Thaddeus?
The point about suffering is an incredibly bad argument. The smoker or thief takes on their risky actions because they believe that the reward outweighs the risk. What did the apostles stand to gain if the resurrection was false and what they preached was a lie? By all accounts the Apostles of the early church were very poor, persecuted, attacked, and killed. Even if we discount Peter’s and Paul’s Martyrdom, James, Steven, and others we have the fact that Jesus himself was crucified for proclaiming he was the messiah. It’s not a leap in logic to conclude that continuing to preach Jesus’s message could and likely would lead to the same fate if they didn’t recant.
If you think about this line of attack for even a second it falls flat and I find it hard to believe Paul didn’t realize how weak it was.
I think a follow up video to this wouid be even better if it included the apostolic fathers or as they can also be called the students of the apostles and how they died .
People like Ignatius of Antioch and polycarp of Smyrna
Great channel! New sub!
Thanks for the sub!
See that's the whole point between a thief and martyr: One is willing to face death, the other, cowers.
That thumbnail says it all
If paulogia's character is buff, testify's is Goku
That's the first thing that set me off about Paulogia. He does not like like his drawn depiction. Granted, neither do others in their depictions, but they never make themselves look like like gigachads when they look FAR more different. In reality he isn't buff or anything, so he's just making himself look good on his videos. It seems like it's narcissism.
Also: you can claim that we don’t have any record of the apostles having the opportunity to recant, which is true; but what we also don’t have is any record of the apostles looking around, seeing the persecution, and quietly exiting the movement to avoid their own persecution. At the very least, you’d expect a couple people to recant voluntarily to avoid the difficult lifestyle of being a 1st century Christian if their beliefs were not genuine. But the fact that they all held on during the rest of their lifetimes is evidence that their belief was sincere.
Hey @Testify, when you said that the disciples of Jesus rejected the Temple and the sacrifices did you mean that thats what they acutally did or that thats what the Jews thought? Because as I am aware Disciples used to hang around the Temple a lot, and we dont have any evidence that they didnt continue to bring sacrifices there (we actually have evidence and clues that they did, like when Paul came to Jerusalem there were already people that wanted to purify themselves who were totally independent in their vows from Paul, and Paul himself agreed to sacrifice there, we also have teachings from Jesus in Matthew where he taught his Disciples how to offer sacrifices etc.)
I'm specifically alluding to Stephen. Paul likely believed this accusation and persecuted believers over it. Here's the passage.
They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.”
- Acts 6:13-14
They also accused Paul of the same thing.
And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
- Acts 21:18-22
Paul later refers to Gentile converts as the Temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 3 and 6. That would be hugely offensive.
Of course the skeptic places unreasonable standards on the definition of martyr.
You do not need to have the opportunity to recant your beliefs in order to be a martyr.
If you are killed for being a Christian, regardless of whether you have the opportunity to recant, you are a martyr
How do you respond to the objection that the apostles can't "repent" from their testemony? Like: as they were stoned, they can't "repent" and say "Hey, I repent from everything that I've said". I mean, even if the apostles recant from preach the resurrection, their persecutors won't stop their executions.
I find a claim like that to be more of the same undue skepticism. We have no record of that, so to say because we don't therefore we're justified in being skeptical seems a bit silly. We don't see that with Stephen even if he wasn't a direct witness like the apostles. I think we have to take the multiple pieces of evidence that we do have and let them tip the scale.
Paul shoots himself in the foot. He says it is only once the bad decisions catches up to someone that they change their tune. If the preaching of the gospel was bad decision making, they would have recanted when it caught up to them.
This is the thing he is trying to argue against and he proves the point and doesn't even realise it.
I’ve been presented with this question about the apostles yesterday. And I’ve found that there is overwhelming evidence that Yeshua is the Messiah! Im asking God to open my eyes that I might believe fully in the truth whatever it might be!
The record shows that Peter and Paul were murdered at Rome, and Ignatius followed shortly after.
Many others died also.
What makes the Apostles special is they could have NOT suffered and died for bullshit.
Instead they chose to suffer and die for (in the athiests words) bullshit.
Issue is nobody lies to get into trouble.
The rebuttal, "People do things" doesn't cut it and is a serious skewing of psychology.
I don't think you properly addressed Paul's point on James, brother of John, and James, brother of Jesus. How would you respond to his claim that their deaths weren't ideological?
If he thinks that there is a separation between ideology and politics in the first century, he’s mistaken.
My Brother is a missionary in a Middle Eastern country. He is forced to move his family often to stay ahead of those who are looking for him, to stop his active evangelization. If they find him they will try to stop him, and they have physically attacked him in the past. The reason he continues is simply because He had a transformative encounter with Jesus Christ many years ago...he really believes in Jesus. He doesn't have to live this way, he could move back to the West and have a good life any time he chose to do so.
This is very much the same environment in which the eyewitnesses of Jesus lived. And their reaction was the same, they kept pushing Jesus and His resurrection. They also could have quit any time they wanted to...but they didnt. The best cause for such commitment is what they claimed, that they saw Jesus resurrected, they touched Hin, listened to Him speak, they checked the tomb, it was empty, there was no mistake, it was the same Jesus they had been with for three years....
1:00 The Bible doesn't say, that they changed the Sabbath to Sunday. We know, that at least some early churches kept Sunday instead of Saturday, but that's not a Biblical change.
The way I understand it, getting killed doesn't make you a martyr. You become a martyr first and then they kill you (or try).
In the Book of Daniel we see two separate martyrdom events. In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey the king even when they knew the punishment was death. He tried to kill them in the fiery furnace but Jesus saved them. Then in Daniel 6, Daniels political enemies tricked the king into signing a law to kill Daniel, even though he was the king's friend. He knew worshiping God meant death but he did it anyway. They threw him in the lion's den but God shut their mouths and he didn't die.
In their hearts they made the conscious decision to die for God. You can especially hear that when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego talk to King Nebuchadnezzar.
They had no fear at all of the king and were ready to die. They practically dared him to kill them.
The king became furious and certainly tried to kill them.
Daniel 3:16-20
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.
20 And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace.
With Daniel and the lion's den, there was no recant. He broke the law and the penalty was death. Period.
But he knew this going in. He was the chief advisor to the king and knew every law. He violated the law on purpose, whether he died or not.
And he was probably the 2nd or 3rd wisest ruler in the Bible so I'm sure he knew his political enemies were trying to kill him. He would have known which specific people were behind it.
Daniel was a martyr. The fact that he lived and the fact that he had no opportunity to recant doesn't change the fact that he willingly chose death.
2:55 makes me hesitant; they edited the claims of their lord but then who wrote the additional information unto these scriptures is anathema in revelation? Followers who reliably share the faith or are they merely transferred tradition ?(this making them hypocritical, 👍? right
There seems to be a bit of a pattern in the most vocal critics of truth claims in Christianity. They often come from branches of the faith that overstated the case and claimed that everything was true and proves down to the last detail. When this breaks against the reality of ancient history it produces the opposite reaction. They are still looking for that certainty, but now from the other side, using it like a weapon.
Almost nothing is ever that certain, and at almost 2000 years removed from the events we will never have it.
Did I misunderstand Paulogia? Did he say he was responding to Mike Winger?
Ya see it's not just that they died "Martyred" for their faith, they endured pain/suffering/imprisonment for their cause/belief/message of Christ died and rose from dead thereby defeating death/sin once and for all so that anyone who repents and believes in Him shall have eternal life "short version". They also would be far more worried not just about what would happen to them in the earthly realm, but most of the spiritual realm. If anyone knew that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, it would be the disciples. The disciples preached about how liars/hypocrites will not see the Kingdom of God. So above all else, they themselves would be the greatest of deceivers and would be going to the deepest darkest hell on judgment day when they would eventually face God. Again, the disciples would know full well that Jesus didn't rise from the dead thereby when Paul preaches, "If Christ has not been raised from the dead, are faith is in vain, and we "Christians" are to be MOST pitied. Why because if its not true "that Jesus rose from the dead" they would be preaching a lie for which they themselves would not only be committing spiritual suicide, but also committing spiritual homicide by spreading this message for what they knew to be a lie. Knowing this, we can be sure, that the disciples would never have preached such a message of salvation in the first place, knowing that they would face danger and horrific suffering/death, but then have to face God on judgement day for which they knew they would be sent to hell for such a false message for what the disciples would've known to be lie. They didn't get rich or women or mansions or pleasure of any sorts. Also, if there goal was to get the message out and spread out to all people's, and this was a made up message, they would have never placed the highest of authorities on both sides, "the Jewish High Priests and the High ranking Romans" as people who either condemned the Savior of the world to death "the Jewish High Priests" and the one's whipped and beaten mercilessly and eventually crucified/killed the Savior of the world "the Romans" thus making them look like the bad guys and not to mention, the Jewish High Priests called for an illegal court/trial to condemn Jesus making them look like they rule unjustly which isn't something anyone would make up in order to get there message out there "for which they knew to be a lie anyways." So yeah, I don't think Paulogia is thinking about all the many reasons why the disciples would never had made up such a message.
Debating their martydom is stupidity.
*Steven enters the chat*
What characteristic did Nero use to target Christians? The fact they were Christians. The opportunity to recant to me is a false paradigm. Many have been killed for religious beliefs without the option of recanting.
The Christians were arrested after pleading guilty of being Christians according to Tacitus, and they were executed more so for so-called hatred against mankind rather than burning down Rome.
0:59 Didn't the Messianic Jews keep Sabbath the same, as well as everything else? (minus the sacrifical system of course.) It was only when in Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD, the Biblical Sabbath day was outlawed:
“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be cursed from Christ.” (Canon 29)
@Questa Semplice Animazione 1- Messianic Jews are more real than some Christians today. Small in number, yes. But they're been growing and are vital to the spiritual restoration of Israel, and the return of the Messiah. Chosen People Ministries, One for Israel, Dr. Michael Brown, Messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, Mottel Baleston, and many others are spreading the Gospel to unreachable areas in the Jewish communities.
2 - Nowhere in the book of Acts, does it show any change in the Sabbath day. The Sabbath is mentioned, always on the Seventh day (Saturday).
3 - Early Christians are Jews. This is a Jewish faith and it always will be. They weren't called "Christians" until later on (Twice in Acts, and once in 1st Peter) and even that is just a Greek translation for the word Messianic. Nazarene is used by Rabbinic Jews.
@Questa Semplice Animazione 1 That's a very incorrect statement. The distinction between Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians is in honor of Paul's epistles (Ephesians 2 and Romans 11) along with Acts. Jews and Gentiles are one in Messiah, but still separate peoples until the Messianic age.
2- For Acts 20:7 PLEASE acknowledge that these days are part of the JEWISH calendar. These days are lunar. Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening. So what is happening here is on a Saturday night after Sabbath, Paul was gathering with the others eating and taking about the Lord until midnight. So literally, it was just a couple of hours on Saturday night.
3- As I said earlier, the term Christian before was for the Messianic Jews. Not todays modern-day Christians. Our Messiah didn't come to start a new religion. But to complete the Torah, the prophecies, and to establish a new covenant for all. Peter was the rock that will show the way to God through Jesus. Unlike the other Jewish sects that were around during the first century, which will create the Rabbinic path approx. 90AD.
@Questa Semplice Animazione 1 - We're in the grace period of Messiah. (Romans 11) Jesus isn't sitting on the throne of David. Nor is He physically here on Earth. He will return when Israel (The Jewish leaders and the nation) repents and receives Him (Matthew 23:39)(Zechariah 12:10).
So we're not there yet.
3 - I've shown you proof that Messianic Jews exist. They even have organizations such as MJAA, IFCJ, Chosen People Ministries, and IJFI.
To compare these communities with Leftist Transgender abominations, reached a level of autism I never thought possible.
2 - The facts are there. Sunday worship didn't exist, regardless if Luke and Paul were Roman citizens. Their identity and faith is far more important. More proof that the disciples kept Jewish customs are in Acts 21: 1-40, Acts 10: 14, 1st Corinthians 5:8.
2a. Eucharistic, Communion, Passover bread, all the same. Check out passover Seders and see if you can spot the Holy Trinity. The 3rd cup of redemption is the cup Jesus used for the new covenant and the forgiveness of sins.
My last comment got removed! Ugh!
Changing of the Sabbath? Acts 20:7-12
From OurAncientPaths website solidifies this discussion.
@@questasempliceanimazione7156 No because I have NO idea what the heck you just said. 🤣
The apostles dying for a false belief is like me ramming a plane into a building for Islam. It just doesn’t make sense that anyone with a thread of sanity would die for a false belief after forcing themselves to live their whole life for a false belief
Lie better. Jihadists of today did not see Muhammed. Early Christians knew Jesus and they claimed they saw the risen Jesus. People may die for what they believe is true, but not for what they know is false.
When is the belief/faith in the natural origin of life going to die?
Would I be oposing psychology as a discipline if I didn’t think it was true that it wasn’t correct and was actually bad ? It’s not a safe thing to do.
They have one clause that says, if you’re saying something is bad, it’s not to be taken seriously as talking about anything bad as such to be listened to, and it’s because this bad thing has just happened to you, that’s all. So never mind how bad it is.
They have a clause that vasivly says that if you’re against psychology you are seriously bogged down as mentally ill. And if they think your mental illness is too severe, you can end up in a room locked up, lot able to get out, for some time and getting drugged that make you slouched on a bed staring out into space. I do it as a pseudonym.
not sure what's most annoying -- Paulogia's voice or the fatuity of his arguments?
The Gospels were written while the Apostles were dying. How many times does Jesus say in the Gospels that they might have to die for him? The whole point of Gospels and the Acdts was to explain the faith of the first century church. It's not a mystery what John was referring to at the end of his Gospel; there are ample predicates. To suggest that neither Jesus nor the Gospel writers were talking about actual martyrdom is willfully misleading
I like his Canadian accent. His arguments do grate on me at times though.
@@TestifyApologetics glad to see you like he was like this, hope you can make more especially his resurrection arguments 👍👍
The issue is pretty much based on interpretation of data. It can honestly go one way or another. I dont speak for Paulogia but i watch his videos very frequently and im sure he is well aware of the nuance of this discussion. His objection is based on how do you define martyr. He laid out his criteria and placed all the martyrdom accounts under his criteria. But someone else could define martyrdom under a different set of criterias and come to a different answer. Paulogia doesnt outright dismiss the new testament claims but if theres no outside source to corroborate details and events then one would have to thread lightly on what parts are historically accurate, what parts contain embellishments and what parts are outright sincerely made up (in the case of spreading rumors that cannot be fact checked)
You could argue that Paul and Peter had the chance to recant from Paulogia's point of view.
Nero- Kill the Christians
Paul/Peter- No I'm not a Christian
Also, Paul was under house arrest for 2 years because of his political activism for the Christian faith. If he stopped being a Christian, if he stopped arguing for the legalization of Christianity, the empire couldn't punish him for spreading superstition (superstition is any religion not sanctioned by Rome). Paul had 2 YEARS to recant, he did not.
Paulogia wants early writers to spell it the way he wants.
Apostle Paul clearly says that Christians were put to death for being Christians. Among other places he says it in Galatians 4:29 and all New Testament scholars accelt Galatians as authentic Paul's writtings.
The definition of martyrdom is being closed off here to suit the available evidence that we do have, by stating that they "must have had an opportunity to recant". But I argue that that is the improper scope we should look at the martyrs. Let's not forget the original martyr, that being Jesus himself standing before Pilate and the High priest. This should be very telling of the example that Jesus wanted to inspire in his own followers. And when they heard of his terrible punishment, arguably worse than any martyr after him, they must surely have been made terrified of following him, knowing that they could potentially suffer a similar fate. That original martyr sets the precedent for the ability to recant the very moment he serves his punishment. The disciples would then see Jesus' punishment and run away, because they can't possibly risk their own lives in such a way. But instead, the early church's existence in itself is _proof_ that they were willing to be martyrs, and that definition should not be foolishly limited to whether they had 5 minutes before their death to recant of their statements, I think this is actually a very shortsighted view of martyrdom in early Christianity.
They didn't reject the Temple. They even went to all of the festivals after Jesus rose.
They did reject 2nd Temple. They advocated for repentance and trusting in the sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of sins instead of animal sacrifice, however they did go to temples.
@@aleclyons7766 they still participated in temple sacrifices. Read Acts carefully.
@@rebelresource point it out to me please
@@aleclyons7766 I am a pastor and christian. Trust me, siding with Second Temple Judaism widely increases the probability of xitianity being true: Acts 21:26
@@rebelresource Are you advocating for animal sacrifice?
👍
I don't see how people who never knew Jesus, or weren't even alive during his life, being martyred is any proof of the resurrection
We are talking about people who knew Jesus personally and who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. Lie better.
The passage on James clearly says James was accused of being breakers of a law or the Jewish law. And we see in Acts Christians were being accused as law breakers. So I think James was killed for preaching the good news.
Yeah, breakers of the law he takes as political but with the chief priest, it's probably going to be more of a religious squabble.
@@TestifyApologetics
Yeah I just got that information from Mike Licona’s response to Paulogia saying James didn’t die for his beliefs.
Can you be a martyr when you know you are right? You or I could be a martyr if we stick to our faith and suffer or die for it. The apostles? They actually saw, spoke to, and even touched the risen Christ. There is no faith needed there, they knew it was real.
Paulogia's definition of martyrdom is bogus.
I'm a Christian, but as a devil's advocate, please explain why it's bogus?
@@johnnybrave7443 I make your words mine.
I thought it was reasonable
@@johnnybrave7443 If someone is openly Christian and is killed for their beliefs without being asked to recant they are still a martyr. Paulogia's point three is not valid. Paulogia claims that to be a martyr requires being a witness of the Resurrection. That would mean that no one killed for refusing to worship Ceasar during the reign of terror of Nero was a martyr. That is ridiculous.
A martyr is someone who is killed for their beliefs. Period.
@@ultimatekunochi6577 If you go to Pakistan and give someone a Bible and are killed for doing so without being allowed to speak, are you a martyr?
By Paulogia's definition no
If you are willing to Die for what you believe is true l think you would be considered a martyr. The truth never lies but will die for what is true.! AMEN.
Early Christians didn't reject the temple lol. Multiple times it was mentioned that they went into the temple and synagogues for prayer. Read Acts again. Also the Eucharist is the new eternal sacrifice in Christ.
Paulogia saying “here’s MY criteria for a ressurrection” as if he were there and can determine what happened 2000 years later lmfao
The apostles/Early Christians did not reject the temple or it's sacrifices. Paul encouraged and sponsored christians taking the nazarite vow at the temple, with includes (and this is the sponsorship part) a sacrifice. The Christians went to the temple for "the prayers". "just another sect of judaism" vs "dangerous heresy" is not a real distinction. That's why there were different factions at that time. They viewed the other sects as having incorrect and often times dangerous theology. If everybody is jamming with their different beliefs, they aren't sectarian.
“If these were words put into his mouth it would be because they were things that actually happened. If he said them and it didn’t happen chances are the gospel authors would omit ‘em.”
When you say “chances are” do you mean it’s the most probable.
I’m curious how would you weigh something like the following.
If the authors were writing words into Jesus’ mouth, why not think they wrote in events as well? For example say some author wants to portray Jesus as the messiah. He looks through the scriptures. Find something juicy and relevant. Include a saying about it. Include an event. Circulate story. It comes to dominate because it’s a stronger story and more easily spreadable than an earlier version. (Jesus may or may not be the messiah for reals, such embellishment could happen regardless)
I don’t know any strong evidence for such a thing happening other than it being consistent which is a low bar. But we don’t have very strong evidence about how the gospels were written in the first place. Isn’t then statements about what would be the most likely events mostly conjecture? That’s my impression at least.
I’d love to here your thoughts. 😊
An interesting question, this would essentially be an argument that Jesus was completely mythologised, not just his teachings but actions as well? There are a number of resources out there that address this, Mike Winger has some good stuff if you have a spare few hours!
I think my answer would be the consistency of the New Testament accounts (gospels) and letters, in what they say about Jesus and each other. Again there are many videos out there on this, but my starting position is that the New Testament was written when and where it says it was- the first century from various different parts of the Roman Empire. That's because it was already being quoted and discussed by 95 AD in various non-biblical writings.
If the above is the case, then the "Jesus legend" as you describe it would have to have been concocted very early indeed- as the apostles and others were travelling far and wide teaching the messiah-ship of Christ from the beginning. Seeing as we're talking about men who were not rabbis or otherwise experts in the scriptures (at least until Saul/Paul came along), it would be an unbelievable achievement to be consistently inserting teachings and events into an otherwise normal lay-preacher's life that are fulfilment of the Old Testament.
@@jevans80 It’s not much of an argument 😅 maybe a vague set of hypotheses.
Yes, on such hypotheses you could say some parts are legendary. Not “myth” in the sense of saying Jesus didn’t exist though, to be clear.
About legends having to be concocted early, there may have been some basic things there from early on and other things added on later. There are examples in ancient history where legends about events develop in hours or days. So that’s a possibility. I don’t think all in the gospels need to go back to within a few years though, it’s probably decades out.
Thanks for the Mike Winger tip! I’m aware of him.
"They changed the normal days of the sabbath to the day they claimed Jesus rose" - have i missed something? The first christians had a problem to let go of the jewish habits, even if they were'nt neccessary anymore. They were Jews by birth and they lived among Jews. The only new day they had to observe was the annual supper in remembrance of Jesus' death.
Well, a criminal (or even a smoker) seeks something as an instant benefit for him. He doesn't cry out for getting punished. The christians instead cried out (more or less loud) in order to help others, not for getting something for themselves. At least not immediately. That was done by priests of the church later.
Yes they did
I think Paulogia's argument is kinda silly. It only works if all of the negative consequences of each person being openly Christian happened in their respective vacuums.
The precedent had been set from the very beginning that being martyred was a reasonable expectation, since Jesus was crucified. Only an idiot would miss that, especially if it had only happened a few decades before, with some eyewitnesses still alive. The socio-political moment wouldn't have differed very much between the time of Jesus' crucifixion and the times of the apostles' ministries, so pretty much everyone would be aware of the risks going in.
And the criminal's delusion of "I'll get away with it" completely ignores the high ethical teachings of Christianity. While there may have been some reckless thrill seekers who got off on skirting the laws and norms of their time, this is not a feature of Christianity and would certainly not have been a feature of its leaders
This guy's definition of martyr seems narrow and requires proof that might not be given explicitly, but through inference or implication. People aren't necessarily going to write "we killed him because he believed in Jesus." It doesn't take much imagination to have a reasonable supposition for people's motives.
About of the bible tells me so here
Actually, martyrs make poor liars.