Some years ago, I read the doctoral thesis belonging to a Christian friend of mine. I was surprised at how simplistic and conversational it was in its writing style, compared to Masters level science theses from a secular university. It was also extremely light on in actual evidence supporting its claims, and was completely devoid of any statistical analysis of the data it did collect. Based on my survey of one doctoral thesis from a Christian institution, I have tentatively concluded that it is easier to obtain a doctorate from a religious institution than it is to obtain a Masters degree from a mainstream university.
I used to work in a university library archive. I also got a Masters in Philosophy, I had to present and defend a Masters Thesis to graduate. Look up Jay Dyer, he claims to have a Masters in Philosophy, but he never wrote a Masters Thesis. This is actually quite common in religious based universities when dealing with anyone looking at the particular religion the university supports. It's way, way easier to get degrees in Theology than basically any other topic in the vast majority of universities. It's the one field where vague generalities are commonly allowed as arguments. It's because the entire field is basically nothing but unsupported gut feelings and cultural traditions on how things were. Theistic understanding of history is mostly propaganda, they choose to interpret nearly everything to favor their claims. Compare how Bart Ermine does research vs many of his theistic rivals in the field, it becomes painfully obvious when you really look at what theist researchers will accept as "evidence".
"light on in actual evidence supporting its claims" There was any "Evidence" ?? Are you sure? I still have seen nothing, unless you lower the Evidence Bar so low as to be irrelevant. 😁
@@CaptainKirkDiggler Some are very smart but that one part of the Brain has been infected with the god virus and is closed off to reason. I think deep down Sean want to be honest and recognized as telling the Truth, so I think and hope one day he will walk away and accept he has nothing.
@@renshiasworld Well, they still have their goatherders guide... and the absolute certainty that tha jeebus is coming back soon... very soon... any minute now... really... But crying persecution when they are the ones persecuting really is another level of dishonesty.
This video is an excellent example of the fact that someone without a PhD, but with a skeptical mind in need of solid evidence, can provide a much more convincing analysis than a PhD whose academic work is informed by faith. A college where everyone adheres to the same unquestionable dogma is not a college, it's a church.
@@the_polish_prince8966 That would be the one, the university whose entire campus consists of 4 rooms and a similar number of staff. A university which is not even recognised as such in Colorado let alone the rest of the nation. A place that issues degrees which are only recognised by the institution who issue them.
@@the_polish_prince8966 I'm gobsmacked that not a single debunker has ever challenged him on this. He knows that his degree came from a degree mill, he knows that he has no recognised qualifications yet continues to use the title Doctor to which he is not entitled, even appears in a lab coat sometimes, pretending to look down a microscope. He knows he's lying, we all know he's lying.
Hey, I died yesterday but the fsm (praise be his noodle) bought me back. Yet people don't believe me, and I even have eye witnesses! Who would've thunk
@@losttribe3001 Thats actually not true. Firstly all 5 men indicted were not mormon, and only person suspected (at least that i know of) in the case that was ever a mormon was William Law, who was excommunicated early that year. Secondly, no one was killed by Joseph Smith. The eyewitnesses of the event all stated that three or four men were injured, but only one states that 2 died and he had only heard that they died later. Besides for that uncertain remark there is no evidence that any of the men died of their wounds. Thirdly, the wording of your post makes it sound like Joseph's killing of the two men somehow provoked the attack, when Joseph only fired the gun after Hyrem was killed.
Good point in a way, but Smith died primarily for his crimes, but also for his position and organization. He knew his his golden plates, for example, were a scam.
Steggoraptor I did make a mistake. The mob had fired first. But Joseph WAS armed and shot back. So a mob already worked up of course would finish the job. Who knows, they maybe would have got just a tar and feathering if he wasn’t armed. Of course Hyrum was dead already. But I digress. But the events leading up Joe Smith:s death evolved the Nauvoo Expositor did it not? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor So everything leading up to his death involved the destruction of a printing press co-owned by Mormons who disagreed with Joe on things like polygamy. There were Mormons in the mob. . And as for “excommunication”, Joseph Smith was excommunicated himself by fellow Mormons....and he excommunicated others...and the others in return doubly excommunicated Joe...and then Joe triple dog dared excommunicated them...so my point is that they STILL believed in the Book of Mormon...thus, they were Mormons. Excommunication was thrown around quickly back then so I do not put any weight into who was excommunicated or not. If you believe in the Book of Mormon, then you are a Mormon...despite what Prez Nelson says. I guess my bigger point is that the Church history as portrayed by the Church is misleading at best. And a lie at worst. Many time Joseph Smith was beaten, tarred and feathered by fellow Mormons that he had wronged. Jealous husbands and business partners.
Isabella Horton Yes but I contend he is monumentally more than just an “atheist” youtuber, I believe he has a very broad appeal, thanks to his very honest, gentle, sincere humanistic approach to dismantling religious fundamentalism.
My problem with all of this is that every claim he makes is based upon the Bible. We know for certain that the Bible is 66 separate writings which were never intended to be brought together as one volume and there were well over 40 authors most of whom are anonymous. The people who wrote the gospels were certainly not four men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In any other area of life if somebody produced some sort of textbook written over 2,000 years ago with 40 different anonymous authors the book would be dismissed out of hand yet for some bizarre reason we are expected to take it seriously.
Scholarship entails formulating a question and conducting research to seek possible answers. Apologetics is the opposite. It starts with the answer and seeks evidence to support it. Or manufactures evidence. Or misrepresents it. etc.
If we really look at the history Christian persecution in the Roman Empire for the most part it was local and sporadic. And nobody has killed more Christians than other Christians. That crusade in southern France against the Cathars. In the thirteenth century comes to mind among other things. As well as the sacking of Constantinople during The Fourth Crusade.
to add to this, from what I've heard then the Roman Empire didn't have a dislike to them because they held monothestic beliefs but because they seperated themselves from the Roman society and the Roman religion had a requirement of "appeasing the heavens" by incorporating everyone into their system.
UnknownDane True, but considering it still boils down to a theological disagreement, leading to a rejection of the emperor as a link between gods and men, it’s easy enough to spin it to fit the typical Christian narrative, not without cause.
During the saint Bartholomew's day massacre christians over the course of one night killed more christians than all the roman pagans did during centuries of christian persecution.
The entire US Xtian population came from people who came here with the intent to persecute everyone else (especially other xtians). The US was founded by people who fled the CoE, but then came more zealots who tried to do the exact same thing here. And they still try to. Honestly, if it was allowed, I'm pretty sure that they'd still be burning innocent women as witches and slaughtering people like Marilyn Manson for just looking scary.
Thank you for your thorough research and careful analysis. I don’t have the time to read all of the original sources and apologetic publications, so I deeply appreciate your efforts.
The argument about the Apostles was honestly the single most influential argument that drove me AWAY from religion. The last church service I attended in any sincerity was this very topic. I was 15 or 16 at the time. I just remember the Pastor being very confident in saying there was no way all these guys could have or would have continued to lie. I was already skeptical, but in that moment I thought to myself, "Wait... so this whole thing is based on the idea that 12 guys couldn't have lied? That's B.S.!" That was it. I'm well into adulthood and I've been an atheist ever since.
That's what "lying for Jesus" is all about. Whereas lies are one of the things Christians say are a sin they themselves lie deliberately and say they will be forgiven for it if it gains them more converts.
So what makes the Christian martyrs different from Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu martyrs or martyrs from any other religion? What about non religious martyrs?
For the bible tells me so needs an entire episode breaking down every presupposition that is nothing but that claim. Just to hear that jingle like 666 times...
The Book of Acts is one of the books that gives us plenty of reason to question and doubt the legitimacy of Christianity. The works claimed to have done within the Book of Acts do not reflect modern times in which no Christian out of over 2 billion believers can perform and confirm anything close to the extraordinary claims made in Acts. I can't take away from a sincere belief but a huge flaw in Christianity is the absurd loops jumped through to show people how unbelievers will have no excuse on a day of judgement. Anyone who cannot understand why people have sincere questions and doubts concerning Christianity is not trying very hard to understand. I suspect one reason for this is due to the natural threat to an individual's belief stemming from discovery of why non-believers have doubts. Disbelief in all gods is not unreasonable and this contrasts with absurd claims made by religions that teach certain doom for apostates. If you are a Christian reading this comment, consider trying answering this question as a challenge: If you died as YOUR TRUE HONEST SELF only to discover Islam as the correct religion, what would you say to Allah in your defense? (I would think you would have no option but say hey, I thought Christianity was right. At this point, your side of humanity should come out with questions of fairness and perhaps anger that you were even born into this world. This is how people like myself view Christianity. An evil religion that has some good people and a few good teachings, but it's an organization of ideas, beliefs that are indoctrinated on children creating trauma, fear, low self-esteem, and a wall of identity superiority and indifference fo anyone who does not believe the same.
5:10 When Sean asserts that the earliest Christian teachings included the resurrection, I think he is saying that to argue against the high-Christology theory. If the resurrection teaching was there from the beginning, then it couldn't have devloped over time like a legend. I could be wrong, but i believe that's why he mentioned it. Much love, Paul!
The problem with your analogy about the smoker and the thief is that it presupposes that the apostles had something to gain. However, upon weighing the evidence, we see that they didn’t have anything to gain. They didn’t gain any sex: they could’ve had this as Jews and Peter already had a wife (Matthew 8:14), and they spoke out against prostitution (1st Corinthians 6:15-16). They didn’t gain any wealth: they could’ve done what the Judaizers did and preach a message that pleased people (Galatians 5:12-13) and gain more wealth and even more power from that too. Or they could’ve joined a completely different religion or philosophy system like Epicureanism and enjoyed their lives (1st Corinthians 15:32). I concede that they gained a little power as church leaders, but remember two things. Firstly, Paul was a Pharisee and already had plenty of power, but he willingly gave that up believing he’d be resurrected like Christ, and he never looked back (Philippians 3:5-3:11. Secondly, this section from the epistle to the Philippians applies to the apostles too, particularly in how Matthew gave up his tax collecting to be an apostle. And remember how they could’ve gained a lot more as Judaizers or Epicureans. They didn’t gain glory: as I said, Matthew was a tax collector, so he was already unpopular, and then he became even more unpopular as a Christian. One counter argument may be that they didn’t want to seem too suspicious and only wanted a little bit, but Paul could’ve stayed as a Pharisee and they could’ve made a religion that pleased people like the Judaizers or join the Epicureans. Finally, you may say that they couldn’t have recanted at the moment of their deaths. Let’s say you’re right…but why not recant long before that during all that persecution? They didn’t have any sex, money, power or glory to gain from it and they could’ve enjoyed their lives if it wasn’t true (1st Corinthians 15:32). Just think about all they could’ve done and they were well aware they could do these things but didn’t. It is therefore safe to conclude that they weren’t lying.
The problem with quoting your sources like you are is the very basis of the debate. These aren't reliable sources and are not scholarly accepted as history because they don't meet the criteria. Same with why we throw out all the accounts of the Greek/Roman/sumerian/native American etc. when they speak of gods. You say they have nothing to gain but are arguing from the standpoint that what the books of the new testament say are accurate history. It's proven not to be.
It should also be noted here that Seans doctorate could NOT have been obtained from any institution that was truly seeking best explanations to the facts at hand. His PhD could only have been granted by an institution that wants to CONFIRM their preheld beliefs. This was a nice refutation. I wish Paluogia would have been on the Thesis committee for Seans' PhD. Paul, by all rights, YOU should have a PhD behind your name. Your logic is impeccable.
I haven't read McDowell's book, but it sure sounds as though it does not come to a conclusion that an evangelical seminary would really like. That is, it does not confirm the "apostles died for their beliefs" idea.
"I'll leave you with the highlights..." is exactly what McDavid said when the season was suspended. Thank you for his cameo. And thank you for these well researched videos that offer perspective on these issues. I've heard "Why would the apostles die for a lie?" from many Christian friends. I appreciate your fair, G rated presentations that I can suggest to them.
According to the Bible all of Jesus' disciples abandoned him when he died. They had already seen other miracles including 2 resurrections (Lazarus and Jairus' daughter) and were not willing to suffer. Why should we believe they were after his resurrection? Maybe at first they'd be inspired but years down the track why would that miracle have any more staying power than all the ones which didn't convince them?
So... they are claiming to have concrete evidence, and knowledge of the fates of the direct followers of Jesus when they don't even have any contemporary sources for Jesus himself? um... I can't be the only one who thinks the claims about the followers are dubious when the claims about the leader can't even be properly supported.
I disagree. There does seem to be good evidence for the activity in what became the Christian church of a small number of apostles. James the "brother" of Jesus of course was not one of the original 12 but clearly became a leading light in the Christian group in Jerusalem. Most of the 12 disappeared without trace. This of course is no surprise as the significance of the number 12 was theological rather than historical. They represent the 12 tribes of Israel which were to be reconstituted to rule the world when the kingdom of god arrived. The one thing we can be reasonably sure of is the Jesus of Nazareth expected this to happen and made the coming of the Kingdom the central plank of his preaching. The kingdom did not come and the church quickly dropped this idea. That two or three of Jesus' followers remained faithful after his death is not surprising but we have very little secure knowledge of what they did or said; nor do we know what happened to them.
@@mikealcock4034 so you disagree with what I said... but didn't argue against any of it and seem to agree with the general idea based on what you wrote. Or rather the little you wrote that is on anything close to the same topic.
Hang on! No one actually wrote about Jesus until at least 30 years after his death (assuming he even existed). That means the Apostles didn't write about Jesus so the accounts of the Apostles are made up by people who never met them either.
Warren NZ Technically it only means that if the apostles wrote about Jesus, then they did it thirty years after his death. And their accounts could’ve started day 1 of the resurrection and only be written down by them or others thirty years after. Not saying it’s what happened, I’m merely pointing out that your logic is incorrect.
Or earlier written accounts were lost, or the original authors spoke with the apostles to get their accounts verbally. - Just another atheist pointing out that you're jumping to conclusions.
WolforNuva Agreed, but he said that nobody wrote about Jesus until at least 30 years after his death, which he could be right about. In this case, it’s more about him being factually right or wrong (or evidence being lacking either way) than his logic being incorrect :|
@@nathanjora7627 I realised that when I wrote it. Do you think it's possible that 12 people witnessed supernatural things that they believed were performed by God and none of them decided to write about it for 3 decades? Seems unlikely.
Warren NZ unlikely but I could buy it. I mean, it’s not more unbelievable than the being whose actions are being witnessed not taking a second of his own time to bring in existence a definitive and unalterable text that gives the complete and incorruptible message he want to convey XD
Paul the"apostle"was not an eyewitness-he saw the resurrected Jesus in a vision or,so he said-yet he supposedly wrote 2/3's of the new test. The 12 disciples walked and talked with Jesus,yet only Peter,John,and James "letters"ended up in the new test and,as I said before,Paul wrote 2/3's of the book.(N.T.).Kinda hard to believe the construction plan of the New Test was well thought out.
That is basically what you would expect if an illiterate religious extremist surrounds himself with illiterate followers from the lower levels of society of a small ethnic group. Paul was a Roman citizen and able to communicate with his Non-Hebrew followers in Greek (the dominant language in the Roman empire), hence he produced the most written material and became the most influential source after the destruction of the temple and the elimination of the Christian leadership.
People making saints of the early christians has lead to the vilifying of those people who had to interact with them when those early christians became unruly. Today we allow people to stand on a corner and shout pretty much anything they want (within reason) and despite however cringe the subject is we just have to ignore it and move on. Back then, and in that society, it was different.
Hi Paulogia! Thanks for your informative & entertaining videos. I also appreciate your careful phrasing when it comes to Nero's alleged arson of Rome: "If the persecution under Nero is to be believed, it was because Christians were an easy scapegoat to frame to cover his tracks in setting a fire ..." [7:18] & "who we're led to believe wanted to kill Christians as a cover for his own crime of arson ..." [14:45]. At least when it comes to the charge of arson, Nero might just be a victim of (political) slander: "Even Tacitus, the great accuser of Nero, writes that no one knows whether Rome burned from arson or by chance ... almost all the emperors had big fires during their reigns ... Nero was NOT in Rome when the Great Fire began, but instead in his birthplace of Antium ... he sped back to Rome ... Tacitus, who lived during the time of Nero, wrote that the emperor ordered the homeless to be sheltered ... and instituted & enforced fire safety codes ... AND rounded up, condemned, and crucified the then hated Christian." [Robert Draper, "Rethinking Nero", Sept. 2014, National Geographic] Thanks again for your infotainment! MfG*, Egooist *MfG ... short for "Mit freundlichen Grüßen", which is German for "With kind regards"
Can you give an example of evidence for the resurrection you would accept? One that would not only convince you but would be immune to skepticism by all?
The thing I’ve never been able to get is how people will go on about specifics of apostle martyrdoms and yet when you tell them all those source are Catholic tradition and from apocryphal accounts it doesn’t change their unwavering devotion to a literal reading.
This video may be too old for anyone to see this question, but it feels most relevant in this comment section: what non-gospel sources (neither biblical nor apocryphal; i.e. nothing made to convert or build upon theology), whether literary or archaeological, support the existence of any of Jesus' disciples? I've found plenty of sources for Peter, some for James, brother of Jesus, and obviously Paul is indisputable and why Christianity's still around (though I don't consider any postmortem followers as original disciples, especially if they never met in person), but anything about the rest devolves into apologetics and assumptions instead of physical evidence. On an unrelated note, I LOVE Forensic Files. The best episodes are the ones that seed out the information as each piece of evidence was chronologically discovered, including the order in which certain lab results returned. I don't recall too many episodes being narrated in that manner consistently from beginning to end, but the couple that did made it so engaging to try to solve myself before the conclusion.
i find it convenient that such an important event took place at a time in history when a claim that Jesus was god would have been in direct opposition to the Roman state. Human history goes back a very long time but the crucifixion just happened to have been at a time when Caesar claimed to be god. What are the odds?
12:50 don't you need some criteria that would exclude modern people claiming to have seen the resurrection? Like, they existed in a time and place where it's plausible they saw the resurrection.
Paulogia is incorrect here. He needs to start with: *The person must have met or, or at least seen Jesus up close, **_before_** he was crucified.* And the Apostle Paul never did, so Paul is not an eyewitness to the resurrection.
5:35 I think his point is that the resurrection story is an essential claim that all early Christians believe- so that when an apostle is persecuted/martyred for their belief in Christianity, that means they are being punished/killed for their belief that Jesus resurrected. So, he can say they are willing to die specifically for their belief that Jesus resurrected bodily (which he says is an essential belief to all early Christians). However Paulogia says that there isn’t good reason to believe any died for their belief with the ability to recant
I was literally just arguing historicity with people in a capturing Christianity post earlier this morning. I went back and told them all to watch this, but where were you 5 hours ago man. In my darkest time of need, paulogia was nowhere to be found
Okay, i have never understood why christians and skeptics alike all accept that GLuke and Acts have the same author. Acts basically says as much in its intro, and the Greek in Acts is of a high standard, like GLuke, but both of these would be features of a second century forgery as well. Also, please correct me if wrong (because i can't find the reference just now) but the earliest non-biblical mention of the Book of Acts is 172AD, i think, so it could have been written at any time up to that year. It is argued often that Acts does not mention huge historical events from after about the mid 60s AD, and that the jews are the oppressors in Acts rather than the victims (as they supposedly would have been portrayed if Acts had been written after the sack of Jerusalem in 70AD), but is this any stranger than the fact that the gospels all seem to depict Jesus wandering through pastoral and peaceful landscapes, when we know that early first century Judea was actually a war zone? Imho Acts fails to mention this stuff because the author knows that gentile audiences in the late second century don't care about this (perceived as) ancient and irrelevant jewish history and the author may even have feared that portraying the jews as victims undermined the literalist message that the jews were the persecutors of Jesus the saviour. My main argument, though, is that the theology of the two books is totally different. In Luke 10 for example we see Jesus sending 72 apostles out across the land in pairs, he tells them to preach, heal the sick, take the kindness of strangers without guilt and to shake the dust off their feet as they leave any town which rejects them (a line from GThomas, spun out a bit by the author of GLuke). Immediately thereafter we read about a man asking how he can live eternally. Jesus tells him the way to do this is to love your neighbour, and by example tells the parable of the good Samaritan, which by the way i don't think relies on the supposed idea that Samaritans were held in low regard, but i haven'tgot the Greek interlinear to hand to see what the word-for-word actually is. GLuke seems to me to always be scathing towards the "haves" and generous towards the "have nots". Every mention of "the Kingdom of Heaven" in GLuke can be viewed as a state of being, rather than a physical place or an afterlife. Try reading it like this and you'll see what i mean. GLuke (often said to be the most literalist gospel) is actually to my mind showing a very egalitarian, political and anti authoritarian Jesus, qithout, crucially, any strong literalist message. It's all about how you define certain terms (eg "Kingdom of Heaven", or "live forever"). Acts, on the other hand, is a shameless attempt to concoct a history of the origins of christianity out of whole cloth which supports and mandates the literalist approach. This is a book designed to justify book burnings and the murder of supposed heretics, which is the reason why we have to find these non-biblical texts in hidden jars in caves. They were all destroyed as heresy by literalist christians mad with their own insecurity. No wonder these second century literalists would write and circulate their own literalist forgeries claiming early authorship. And yet NOBODY seems to take this view. Why not, what have i missed? The reason i bring this up is that I'm about four minutes into this video and I'm hearing this go unchallenged again, and also hearing that the definition of apostles is slippery. That it is, but i notice that in GLuke, John the baptiser has apostles, and Jesus' twelve disciples are drawn from Jesus' apostles. In GLuke i see the NIV has all 72 men who go out in pairs being called apostles. I fully expect this will be covered in the fifth and sixth minutes, but to me it hinders understanding when you refuse to consider that the authors of GLuke and Acts may have had totally different ideas about what these terms mean. When you assume it is the same author, you also assume the terms mean the same thing, and i think that would be to miss a shedload of meaning.
Lol, I'm finding this slow motion booking quite distracting lol... especially around 6:00ish when one cuff is hanging loose, dragging on the table over & over lol
He also left out the part that when it came down to the last two candidates to replace Judas, the Apostles rolled the ummin and thummim (ancient dice) to choose the winner. Mattias was chosen by a roll of the dice.
He relies largely on the writings of Paul, both those known to be false and those generally attributed to him. Paul of course doesnt even meet his own definition of Apostle, since Paul neversaw the resurrected Jesus, he merely had a Vision.
Great video as usual. I find this stuff incredibly interesting and intriguing. I wonder what happened back then. It's mysterious to me. I mean that from a secular standpoint. ... When was "Acts" written? I keep hearing multiple dates for that book. 70 AD? I thought it came out after " Luke " in the 90s and possibly early second century.
I was reminded of the opening words of Catch-22's song Epilogue-about the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky who was ultimately assassinated by Stalin for exposing Stalin's betrayal of the revolution for personal gain- when it was brought up why people would be willing to die for something, be they martyrs or self described jihadists: "Why would a man who believed in no god Sacrifice all he had To kill or be killed in pursuit of a cause Was the fate that called to him And you can say he might be crazy And some can't understand That a life spent doing less than all you can would be a waste" I bring this up to point out that even committed atheists are willing to die for truly held beliefs.
Other than Acts and his supposed letters, where is there any mention of Paul in history? And other than some vague Josephus passages where are any of The Twelve Disciples mentioned outside the Bible?
Here's one for you. When was the first appearance of the letters of Paul? No mention of them until 144CE when they were produced by Marcion. Then others that were attributed to Paul started popping up. There has always been controversy over which of them are "authenticate" which really means we compare writing styles and find that some of them are written by different people. There is no way to authenticate that any of them were actually written by an apostle Paul.
Now that I think about it, it's like Sean set up a scenario to make his story more credible. We all know he wasn't really arrested and taken to a police station. Now, this is a crazy idea, but what if ─just what if─ the resurrection story was just that, a story to make the new cult sound more credible? Thanks, Sean, for pointing us in the right direction.
When I listen to Apologists I always think of destroyers rushing back and forth desperately laying a smokescreen when a much stronger force attacks their fleet .... except the Apologists use wordsalad to dull the brains of their listeners
Mark, the first gospel, has Jesus adopted by god at baptism. So not all apostles were saying Jesus was god. And Jews were already saying their god was the only god
It's pretty simple: there are no claims made by Christians that can be false and not completely destroy the doctrine of the believer. At least none I can think of straightaway.
The Hittites and the Huns also loved appropriating gods from the territories they conquered. It is a good political move, as it pacifies the conquered population. The Brits didn't do it in India, although the European colonials really loved diving into the cultures and languages they had encountered through colonization. It's possible there was more genuine interest in multiculturalism in the colonial era than there is now.
Paul doesnt even use the same test on himself. He said every killer on "forensic files' thought he wouldn't get caught. Wrong. They hoped they wouldnt get caught and many probably thought they would.
Humm, it does appear that it is quite the leap to say that they died for their beliefs. It always seems that apologists use this type of logic where they connect the dots on two separate pieces of paper and then tape them together and draw a line across the tape to connect the two separate dotted lines.
Jesus wasn't crucified..because its impossible to prove..its just hearsay from unknown authors, which are infact propaganda from the church, so hardly independent. It's all bull as we know. So where are Apollo, Zeus, Thor, ISIS, Neptune, Allah and thousands more???? Because these were so called gods.
I dunno, I think the independent writings (Tacitus) are reasonable validation showing that a person named Jesus was crucified. ( _"Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."_ ) I mean we're just asking if someone _died_ here -- no supernatural involved -- and so the bar for evidence is quite a lot lower than proving someone resurrected (which would require _very_ strong evidence, and it turns out we only have the weakest type of evidence: heresay and legend.)
So Sean's takeaway is that the apostles were *willing* to die for their beliefs? That's pretty weak, meaning we can pull up not just Mormonism, but also Islam. Mohammed clearly was willing to die for his beliefs, just look at his exile in Medina when Meccans were trying to kill him and his family
Why did the apostles have to replace Judas? Would christianity have failed if there were an odd number of apostles? Did there have to be exactly 12? Is that why they let Judas be one in the first place? They figured that having a bad apostle was preferable to not having 12?
Love your videos, but have a minor terminology correction. The term syllogism refers specifically to arguments with two premises, so what is discussed in this video is just an argument, specifically a logically valid argument (at least for the initial presentation) having its soundness addressed.
@daniel letterman I usually use the three dots to mark conclusions, but afaik that is more for symbolic logic. Either way conclusion marking can be adjusted for the audience, and for a lay audience a line is probably best.
The Lost Gospel tells us what happened to them!... Baby, if you've ever wondered Wondered whatever became of me I'm living on the air in Cincinnati, Cincinnati, WKRP Got kind of tired packing and unpacking Town to town and up and down the dial Maybe you and me were never meant to be But baby think of me once in awhile Heading up that highway Leaving you behind Hardest thing I've ever had to do Broke my heart in two But Baby, pay no mind The price for finding me was losing you Memories help me hide my lonesome feelin' Far away from you and feelin' low It's gettin' late my friend, I miss you so Take good care of you, I've gotta go Baby, if you've ever wondered Wondered whatever became of me I'm living on the air in Cincinnati, Cincinnati, WKRP Got kind of tired packing and unpacking Town to town and up and down the dial Maybe you and me were never meant to be But baby think of me once in awhile I'm at WKRP in Cincinnati
Sean should definitely convert to Mormonism. Joseph Smith probably could have calmed that angry mob by yelling that he would admit to his followers that he made up the golden bibles. But he was killed. What else he could do to convince Sean he was sincere?
The bit I really want to know is how do we know that none of the apostles were just playing along with the others, pretending to have seen the risen Jesus before they withdrew from the church entirely. I mean that is something that happens in cults in modern days, after the leader dies some new guy takes over and some people just try to placate them before leaving altogether. If nothing else, it isn't out of the realm of possibility, and that it isn't often brought up as a consideration by christians annoys me.
Just because people die for a set of beliefs doesn't make those beliefs true! I hate this argument, and actually just uploaded a video called "Rome's First Christian Emperor" that talks about it a little. On another note, Romans actually believed that Christians were atheists.
@@Paulogia Look at it from the Romans' point of view: they were scared the gods would be angry with them. I haven't gotten to this point yet, but I think the Jews came to some sort of understanding with the Romans that exempted them.
Hey Paul, didn't you already show that the bible doesn't say that the apostles died early deaths or that they could save their lives by denouncing Jesus? Never mind, you mentioned that video in this video.
{Nezumi} Heck, never mind the Roman religion, even Judaism doesn't *necessarily* hold that HaShem is the only god (though this is one interpretation), merely that he is the foremost (or more commonly interpreted, *only*) god that those considered virtuous under his covenant can pay tribute to.
There is some doubt on the specifics of the Great Fire of Rome, owing in part to the lack of surviving primary sources, and the noted bias of Roman historians against Nero that can sometimes make determining his actual crimes difficult. (Like, the Fate/Nasuverse interpretation of Nero as being, for most of her reign, a good and just ruler who was beloved of the people and hated by the upper classes for doing too much for the lower classes and failing to give them the respect and advantages they expected is based on one *actual* interpretation of the surviving evidence -- though not the part where he was a skinny blonde girl.)
They could also have died for the organization and their friends, still knowing that there was no evidence for a bodily resurrection. (To he clear, I am not convinced that any supernatural events are possible, nor that Jesus existed)
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the apostles (assuming they even existed as described) believed what they were saying. However the firmness of a belief is totally independent of if that beliefs is true. At one time People firmly believed that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat. It is possible to believe and be mistaken.
Some years ago, I read the doctoral thesis belonging to a Christian friend of mine. I was surprised at how simplistic and conversational it was in its writing style, compared to Masters level science theses from a secular university. It was also extremely light on in actual evidence supporting its claims, and was completely devoid of any statistical analysis of the data it did collect. Based on my survey of one doctoral thesis from a Christian institution, I have tentatively concluded that it is easier to obtain a doctorate from a religious institution than it is to obtain a Masters degree from a mainstream university.
Let's face it... if they were actually smart, they'd be doing something else.
I used to work in a university library archive. I also got a Masters in Philosophy, I had to present and defend a Masters Thesis to graduate.
Look up Jay Dyer, he claims to have a Masters in Philosophy, but he never wrote a Masters Thesis. This is actually quite common in religious based universities when dealing with anyone looking at the particular religion the university supports.
It's way, way easier to get degrees in Theology than basically any other topic in the vast majority of universities. It's the one field where vague generalities are commonly allowed as arguments.
It's because the entire field is basically nothing but unsupported gut feelings and cultural traditions on how things were. Theistic understanding of history is mostly propaganda, they choose to interpret nearly everything to favor their claims. Compare how Bart Ermine does research vs many of his theistic rivals in the field, it becomes painfully obvious when you really look at what theist researchers will accept as "evidence".
"light on in actual evidence supporting its claims" There was any "Evidence" ?? Are you sure? I still have seen nothing, unless you lower the Evidence Bar so low as to be irrelevant. 😁
@@CaptainKirkDiggler Some are very smart but that one part of the Brain has been infected with the god virus and is closed off to reason.
I think deep down Sean want to be honest and recognized as telling the Truth, so I think and hope one day he will walk away and accept he has nothing.
A doctorate from a Christian university belongs on a toilet paper roll. Science is religion's mortal enemy!
If there was one thing I wish some “Christians” would stop; it’s the persecution complex. And all this is part of their narrative.
LOL not going to happen, they will cry persecution as they are persecuting others. I seen them do it.
But what else do they have?
@@renshiasworld Well, they still have their goatherders guide... and the absolute certainty that tha jeebus is coming back soon... very soon... any minute now... really...
But crying persecution when they are the ones persecuting really is another level of dishonesty.
The NT says they will be persecuted for their beliefs, so they feel they have to see persecution (even when they are he persecutors)
@@darrylelam256 I've*
This video is an excellent example of the fact that someone without a PhD, but with a skeptical mind in need of solid evidence, can provide a much more convincing analysis than a PhD whose academic work is informed by faith.
A college where everyone adheres to the same unquestionable dogma is not a college, it's a church.
A bit like the Patriot Bible University of Colorado, the place that DOCTOR Kent Hovind graduated from.
@@andystokes8702 You mean that rusty shack where they print fake degrees?
@@the_polish_prince8966 That would be the one, the university whose entire campus consists of 4 rooms and a similar number of staff. A university which is not even recognised as such in Colorado let alone the rest of the nation. A place that issues degrees which are only recognised by the institution who issue them.
@@andystokes8702 Yeah, I thought I recognized the name.
@@the_polish_prince8966 I'm gobsmacked that not a single debunker has ever challenged him on this. He knows that his degree came from a degree mill, he knows that he has no recognised qualifications yet continues to use the title Doctor to which he is not entitled, even appears in a lab coat sometimes, pretending to look down a microscope. He knows he's lying, we all know he's lying.
Joseph Smith died for his faith and was also an "eye witness". So is Sean a Mormon?
Exactly. But what’s funny about Joe Smith, it was other Mormons that showed up and killed him...only after he KILLED 2 other men.
Hey, I died yesterday but the fsm (praise be his noodle) bought me back. Yet people don't believe me, and I even have eye witnesses! Who would've thunk
@@losttribe3001 Thats actually not true. Firstly all 5 men indicted were not mormon, and only person suspected (at least that i know of) in the case that was ever a mormon was William Law, who was excommunicated early that year.
Secondly, no one was killed by Joseph Smith. The eyewitnesses of the event all stated that three or four men were injured, but only one states that 2 died and he had only heard that they died later. Besides for that uncertain remark there is no evidence that any of the men died of their wounds.
Thirdly, the wording of your post makes it sound like Joseph's killing of the two men somehow provoked the attack, when Joseph only fired the gun after Hyrem was killed.
Good point in a way, but Smith died primarily for his crimes, but also for his position and organization. He knew his his golden plates, for example, were a scam.
Steggoraptor I did make a mistake. The mob had fired first. But Joseph WAS armed and shot back. So a mob already worked up of course would finish the job. Who knows, they maybe would have got just a tar and feathering if he wasn’t armed. Of course Hyrum was dead already. But I digress.
But the events leading up Joe Smith:s death evolved the Nauvoo Expositor did it not?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Expositor
So everything leading up to his death involved the destruction of a printing press co-owned by Mormons who disagreed with Joe on things like polygamy. There were Mormons in the mob.
.
And as for “excommunication”, Joseph Smith was excommunicated himself by fellow Mormons....and he excommunicated others...and the others in return doubly excommunicated Joe...and then Joe triple dog dared excommunicated them...so my point is that they STILL believed in the Book of Mormon...thus, they were Mormons. Excommunication was thrown around quickly back then so I do not put any weight into who was excommunicated or not. If you believe in the Book of Mormon, then you are a Mormon...despite what Prez Nelson says.
I guess my bigger point is that the Church history as portrayed by the Church is misleading at best. And a lie at worst. Many time Joseph Smith was beaten, tarred and feathered by fellow Mormons that he had wronged. Jealous husbands and business partners.
I was going to link this video in the comments to Sean's video, but strangely the comments are turned off.
What a surprise
*[shocked Pikachu]*
@@timeshark8727 I fell off my chair.
"Of course. No need for comments when you have the absolute truth spoken out" every fundie ever
(and I got a headache from emulating these guys)
Did you really think he was going to take ANY comments....lairs hate the truth.
Paul, you are sooooooo chronically underrated buddy.
Ikr Paul is definitely my favorite Athiest TH-camr!
Isabella Horton
Yes but I contend he is monumentally more than just an “atheist” youtuber, I believe he has a very broad appeal, thanks to his very honest, gentle, sincere humanistic approach to dismantling religious fundamentalism.
Yeah, his vids are some of the best. Never disappointed with his work.
Sean is still trying to find the evidence that his dad's verdict is missing.
My problem with all of this is that every claim he makes is based upon the Bible. We know for certain that the Bible is 66 separate writings which were never intended to be brought together as one volume and there were well over 40 authors most of whom are anonymous. The people who wrote the gospels were certainly not four men named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In any other area of life if somebody produced some sort of textbook written over 2,000 years ago with 40 different anonymous authors the book would be dismissed out of hand yet for some bizarre reason we are expected to take it seriously.
Scholarship entails formulating a question and conducting research to seek possible answers. Apologetics is the opposite. It starts with the answer and seeks evidence to support it. Or manufactures evidence. Or misrepresents it. etc.
If we really look at the history Christian persecution in the Roman Empire for the most part it was local and sporadic. And nobody has killed more Christians than other Christians. That crusade in southern France against the Cathars. In the thirteenth century comes to mind among other things. As well as the sacking of Constantinople during The Fourth Crusade.
to add to this, from what I've heard then the Roman Empire didn't have a dislike to them because they held monothestic beliefs but because they seperated themselves from the Roman society and the Roman religion had a requirement of "appeasing the heavens" by incorporating everyone into their system.
UnknownDane True, but considering it still boils down to a theological disagreement, leading to a rejection of the emperor as a link between gods and men, it’s easy enough to spin it to fit the typical Christian narrative, not without cause.
During the saint Bartholomew's day massacre christians over the course of one night killed more christians than all the roman pagans did during centuries of christian persecution.
The entire US Xtian population came from people who came here with the intent to persecute everyone else (especially other xtians). The US was founded by people who fled the CoE, but then came more zealots who tried to do the exact same thing here. And they still try to. Honestly, if it was allowed, I'm pretty sure that they'd still be burning innocent women as witches and slaughtering people like Marilyn Manson for just looking scary.
@@emeraldkat2167 Not the Quakers or German pietists -- a good point but overstated.
Thank you for your thorough research and careful analysis. I don’t have the time to read all of the original sources and apologetic publications, so I deeply appreciate your efforts.
The argument about the Apostles was honestly the single most influential argument that drove me AWAY from religion. The last church service I attended in any sincerity was this very topic. I was 15 or 16 at the time. I just remember the Pastor being very confident in saying there was no way all these guys could have or would have continued to lie. I was already skeptical, but in that moment I thought to myself, "Wait... so this whole thing is based on the idea that 12 guys couldn't have lied? That's B.S.!" That was it. I'm well into adulthood and I've been an atheist ever since.
its almost like the apologist is willing to lie /water down reality or there own book to keep believers believing...hmmmmmm!
Deconverted Man yes their 15 minutes were up and they hated it
@David Parry Well, I guess that means the whole bible is out then :D
That's what "lying for Jesus" is all about. Whereas lies are one of the things Christians say are a sin they themselves lie deliberately and say they will be forgiven for it if it gains them more converts.
I call them Liars for Jesus. Ravi Zaccharias leaps to mind.
Mr. McDowell doesn't like to be corrected on the things he tells. He has disabled the comment section.
He's preaching, he doesn't want a discussion particularly with somebody who might query his claims.
@The Great Owl You mean first century fairy tales dreamed up by retards
@@biotorex8999 how about we don't go around using the word retards that way?
Apostles were willing to 'suffer and die' while McDowell runs from mean, disaparaging and disagreeing comments.
What a piece of shit.
So what makes the Christian martyrs different from Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu martyrs or martyrs from any other religion? What about non religious martyrs?
For the bible tells me so needs an entire episode breaking down every presupposition that is nothing but that claim. Just to hear that jingle like 666 times...
The Book of Acts is one of the books that gives us plenty of reason to question and doubt the legitimacy of Christianity. The works claimed to have done within the Book of Acts do not reflect modern times in which no Christian out of over 2 billion believers can perform and confirm anything close to the extraordinary claims made in Acts. I can't take away from a sincere belief but a huge flaw in Christianity is the absurd loops jumped through to show people how unbelievers will have no excuse on a day of judgement.
Anyone who cannot understand why people have sincere questions and doubts concerning Christianity is not trying very hard to understand. I suspect one reason for this is due to the natural threat to an individual's belief stemming from discovery of why non-believers have doubts. Disbelief in all gods is not unreasonable and this contrasts with absurd claims made by religions that teach certain doom for apostates.
If you are a Christian reading this comment, consider trying answering this question as a challenge: If you died as YOUR TRUE HONEST SELF only to discover Islam as the correct religion, what would you say to Allah in your defense? (I would think you would have no option but say hey, I thought Christianity was right. At this point, your side of humanity should come out with questions of fairness and perhaps anger that you were even born into this world.
This is how people like myself view Christianity. An evil religion that has some good people and a few good teachings, but it's an organization of ideas, beliefs that are indoctrinated on children creating trauma, fear, low self-esteem, and a wall of identity superiority and indifference fo anyone who does not believe the same.
5:10
When Sean asserts that the earliest Christian teachings included the resurrection, I think he is saying that to argue against the high-Christology theory. If the resurrection teaching was there from the beginning, then it couldn't have devloped over time like a legend.
I could be wrong, but i believe that's why he mentioned it.
Much love, Paul!
The problem with your analogy about the smoker and the thief is that it presupposes that the apostles had something to gain. However, upon weighing the evidence, we see that they didn’t have anything to gain. They didn’t gain any sex: they could’ve had this as Jews and Peter already had a wife (Matthew 8:14), and they spoke out against prostitution (1st Corinthians 6:15-16). They didn’t gain any wealth: they could’ve done what the Judaizers did and preach a message that pleased people (Galatians 5:12-13) and gain more wealth and even more power from that too. Or they could’ve joined a completely different religion or philosophy system like Epicureanism and enjoyed their lives (1st Corinthians 15:32). I concede that they gained a little power as church leaders, but remember two things. Firstly, Paul was a Pharisee and already had plenty of power, but he willingly gave that up believing he’d be resurrected like Christ, and he never looked back (Philippians 3:5-3:11. Secondly, this section from the epistle to the Philippians applies to the apostles too, particularly in how Matthew gave up his tax collecting to be an apostle. And remember how they could’ve gained a lot more as Judaizers or Epicureans. They didn’t gain glory: as I said, Matthew was a tax collector, so he was already unpopular, and then he became even more unpopular as a Christian.
One counter argument may be that they didn’t want to seem too suspicious and only wanted a little bit, but Paul could’ve stayed as a Pharisee and they could’ve made a religion that pleased people like the Judaizers or join the Epicureans.
Finally, you may say that they couldn’t have recanted at the moment of their deaths. Let’s say you’re right…but why not recant long before that during all that persecution? They didn’t have any sex, money, power or glory to gain from it and they could’ve enjoyed their lives if it wasn’t true (1st Corinthians 15:32). Just think about all they could’ve done and they were well aware they could do these things but didn’t. It is therefore safe to conclude that they weren’t lying.
The problem with quoting your sources like you are is the very basis of the debate. These aren't reliable sources and are not scholarly accepted as history because they don't meet the criteria. Same with why we throw out all the accounts of the Greek/Roman/sumerian/native American etc. when they speak of gods. You say they have nothing to gain but are arguing from the standpoint that what the books of the new testament say are accurate history. It's proven not to be.
It should also be noted here that Seans doctorate could NOT have been obtained from any institution that was truly seeking best explanations to the facts at hand. His PhD could only have been granted by an institution that wants to CONFIRM their preheld beliefs. This was a nice refutation. I wish Paluogia would have been on the Thesis committee for Seans' PhD.
Paul, by all rights, YOU should have a PhD behind your name. Your logic is impeccable.
I haven't read McDowell's book, but it sure sounds as though it does not come to a conclusion that an evangelical seminary would really like. That is, it does not confirm the "apostles died for their beliefs" idea.
Great video Paulogia!
you are so good at what you do. thanks for the great videos!
"I'll leave you with the highlights..." is exactly what McDavid said when the season was suspended. Thank you for his cameo. And thank you for these well researched videos that offer perspective on these issues. I've heard "Why would the apostles die for a lie?" from many Christian friends. I appreciate your fair, G rated presentations that I can suggest to them.
According to the Bible all of Jesus' disciples abandoned him when he died. They had already seen other miracles including 2 resurrections (Lazarus and Jairus' daughter) and were not willing to suffer. Why should we believe they were after his resurrection? Maybe at first they'd be inspired but years down the track why would that miracle have any more staying power than all the ones which didn't convince them?
This issue is perhaps the _most_ absurd problem from the huge pile of absurdities called the Bible.
Great video as usual!
9:02 Wow, I didn't know Paul could make those musical sounds through his vocal cords
Sean hanging a lampshade on the fact that he's committing special pleading at the beginning? call that "no TRUE martyr..."
So... they are claiming to have concrete evidence, and knowledge of the fates of the direct followers of Jesus when they don't even have any contemporary sources for Jesus himself? um... I can't be the only one who thinks the claims about the followers are dubious when the claims about the leader can't even be properly supported.
I disagree. There does seem to be good evidence for the activity in what became the Christian church of a small number of apostles. James the "brother" of Jesus of course was not one of the original 12 but clearly became a leading light in the Christian group in Jerusalem. Most of the 12 disappeared without trace. This of course is no surprise as the significance of the number 12 was theological rather than historical. They represent the 12 tribes of Israel which were to be reconstituted to rule the world when the kingdom of god arrived. The one thing we can be reasonably sure of is the Jesus of Nazareth expected this to happen and made the coming of the Kingdom the central plank of his preaching. The kingdom did not come and the church quickly dropped this idea.
That two or three of Jesus' followers remained faithful after his death is not surprising but we have very little secure knowledge of what they did or said; nor do we know what happened to them.
@@mikealcock4034 so you disagree with what I said... but didn't argue against any of it and seem to agree with the general idea based on what you wrote. Or rather the little you wrote that is on anything close to the same topic.
Hang on! No one actually wrote about Jesus until at least 30 years after his death (assuming he even existed). That means the Apostles didn't write about Jesus so the accounts of the Apostles are made up by people who never met them either.
Warren NZ Technically it only means that if the apostles wrote about Jesus, then they did it thirty years after his death.
And their accounts could’ve started day 1 of the resurrection and only be written down by them or others thirty years after.
Not saying it’s what happened, I’m merely pointing out that your logic is incorrect.
Or earlier written accounts were lost, or the original authors spoke with the apostles to get their accounts verbally.
- Just another atheist pointing out that you're jumping to conclusions.
WolforNuva Agreed, but he said that nobody wrote about Jesus until at least 30 years after his death, which he could be right about.
In this case, it’s more about him being factually right or wrong (or evidence being lacking either way) than his logic being incorrect :|
@@nathanjora7627 I realised that when I wrote it. Do you think it's possible that 12 people witnessed supernatural things that they believed were performed by God and none of them decided to write about it for 3 decades?
Seems unlikely.
Warren NZ unlikely but I could buy it.
I mean, it’s not more unbelievable than the being whose actions are being witnessed not taking a second of his own time to bring in existence a definitive and unalterable text that gives the complete and incorruptible message he want to convey XD
Paul the"apostle"was not an eyewitness-he saw the resurrected Jesus in a vision or,so he said-yet he supposedly wrote 2/3's of the new test. The 12 disciples walked and talked with Jesus,yet only Peter,John,and James "letters"ended up in the new test and,as I said before,Paul wrote 2/3's of the book.(N.T.).Kinda hard to believe the construction plan of the New Test was well thought out.
That is basically what you would expect if an illiterate religious extremist surrounds himself with illiterate followers from the lower levels of society of a small ethnic group. Paul was a Roman citizen and able to communicate with his Non-Hebrew followers in Greek (the dominant language in the Roman empire), hence he produced the most written material and became the most influential source after the destruction of the temple and the elimination of the Christian leadership.
If you give Ananas a 'b', then he is 'Bananas', and I think that is telling... XD
Unless you are French when ananas means pineapple.
Good video. Thanks for sharing it with us. I appreciate your efforts.
People making saints of the early christians has lead to the vilifying of those people who had to interact with them when those early christians became unruly. Today we allow people to stand on a corner and shout pretty much anything they want (within reason) and despite however cringe the subject is we just have to ignore it and move on. Back then, and in that society, it was different.
I shouldnt have drank soda after clicking the vid it went through my nose bc i laughed so hard with ur reaction to the start of the vid
Some silky mitts on that Connor McDavid. Thanks for that.
My old Minister used to say, in contrast to Mr. McDowell - "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth"
Hi Paulogia!
Thanks for your informative & entertaining videos.
I also appreciate your careful phrasing when it comes to Nero's alleged arson of Rome: "If the persecution under Nero is to be believed, it was because Christians were an easy scapegoat to frame to cover his tracks in setting a fire ..." [7:18] & "who we're led to believe wanted to kill Christians as a cover for his own crime of arson ..." [14:45].
At least when it comes to the charge of arson, Nero might just be a victim of (political) slander:
"Even Tacitus, the great accuser of Nero, writes that no one knows whether Rome burned from arson or by chance ... almost all the emperors had big fires during their reigns ... Nero was NOT in Rome when the Great Fire began, but instead in his birthplace of Antium ... he sped back to Rome ... Tacitus, who lived during the time of Nero, wrote that the emperor ordered the homeless to be sheltered ... and instituted & enforced fire safety codes ... AND rounded up, condemned, and crucified the then hated Christian." [Robert Draper, "Rethinking Nero", Sept. 2014, National Geographic]
Thanks again for your infotainment!
MfG*, Egooist
*MfG ... short for "Mit freundlichen Grüßen", which is German for "With kind regards"
Can you give an example of evidence for the resurrection you would accept? One that would not only convince you but would be immune to skepticism by all?
The thing I’ve never been able to get is how people will go on about specifics of apostle martyrdoms and yet when you tell them all those source are Catholic tradition and from apocryphal accounts it doesn’t change their unwavering devotion to a literal reading.
This video may be too old for anyone to see this question, but it feels most relevant in this comment section: what non-gospel sources (neither biblical nor apocryphal; i.e. nothing made to convert or build upon theology), whether literary or archaeological, support the existence of any of Jesus' disciples? I've found plenty of sources for Peter, some for James, brother of Jesus, and obviously Paul is indisputable and why Christianity's still around (though I don't consider any postmortem followers as original disciples, especially if they never met in person), but anything about the rest devolves into apologetics and assumptions instead of physical evidence.
On an unrelated note, I LOVE Forensic Files. The best episodes are the ones that seed out the information as each piece of evidence was chronologically discovered, including the order in which certain lab results returned. I don't recall too many episodes being narrated in that manner consistently from beginning to end, but the couple that did made it so engaging to try to solve myself before the conclusion.
The Tacitus
quote, 50+ years later , is the only evidence that Nero blamed the fires on the Christians
i find it convenient that such an important event took place at a time in history when a claim that Jesus was god would have been in direct opposition to the Roman state. Human history goes back a very long time but the crucifixion just happened to have been at a time when Caesar claimed to be god. What are the odds?
Well done.
There are some people who are willing to suffer. Some even enjoy that suffering, we call them masochists.
Or just conservative Christians.
12:50 don't you need some criteria that would exclude modern people claiming to have seen the resurrection?
Like, they existed in a time and place where it's plausible they saw the resurrection.
Paulogia is incorrect here. He needs to start with:
*The person must have met or, or at least seen Jesus up close, **_before_** he was crucified.*
And the Apostle Paul never did, so Paul is not an eyewitness to the resurrection.
@@pauligrossinoz Hey I'm a Gross too! Are your recent ancestors also from Hungary, changing it from Grosz upon migrating out to the English world?
5:35 I think his point is that the resurrection story is an essential claim that all early Christians believe- so that when an apostle is persecuted/martyred for their belief in Christianity, that means they are being punished/killed for their belief that Jesus resurrected. So, he can say they are willing to die specifically for their belief that Jesus resurrected bodily (which he says is an essential belief to all early Christians).
However Paulogia says that there isn’t good reason to believe any died for their belief with the ability to recant
The apostles, like Jesus, loved dying for their beliefs so much that they frequently ran from angry mobs or busted out of jail to avoid death.
I was literally just arguing historicity with people in a capturing Christianity post earlier this morning. I went back and told them all to watch this, but where were you 5 hours ago man. In my darkest time of need, paulogia was nowhere to be found
@daniel letterman haha always gotta keep my guns loaded with Paul!
Dude, where's my apostle? Love it😀
I thought for sure he was going to say he became an atheist and therefore had the urge to go out and commit crimes.
Interesting that you bring up the Didache. Just finished reading that and the Apostolic Fathers.
A word in the Bible which is "fuzzy." Who'd have thought?
Vague and obfuscating is integral to the business model.
Okay, i have never understood why christians and skeptics alike all accept that GLuke and Acts have the same author. Acts basically says as much in its intro, and the Greek in Acts is of a high standard, like GLuke, but both of these would be features of a second century forgery as well.
Also, please correct me if wrong (because i can't find the reference just now) but the earliest non-biblical mention of the Book of Acts is 172AD, i think, so it could have been written at any time up to that year. It is argued often that Acts does not mention huge historical events from after about the mid 60s AD, and that the jews are the oppressors in Acts rather than the victims (as they supposedly would have been portrayed if Acts had been written after the sack of Jerusalem in 70AD), but is this any stranger than the fact that the gospels all seem to depict Jesus wandering through pastoral and peaceful landscapes, when we know that early first century Judea was actually a war zone? Imho Acts fails to mention this stuff because the author knows that gentile audiences in the late second century don't care about this (perceived as) ancient and irrelevant jewish history and the author may even have feared that portraying the jews as victims undermined the literalist message that the jews were the persecutors of Jesus the saviour.
My main argument, though, is that the theology of the two books is totally different. In Luke 10 for example we see Jesus sending 72 apostles out across the land in pairs, he tells them to preach, heal the sick, take the kindness of strangers without guilt and to shake the dust off their feet as they leave any town which rejects them (a line from GThomas, spun out a bit by the author of GLuke). Immediately thereafter we read about a man asking how he can live eternally. Jesus tells him the way to do this is to love your neighbour, and by example tells the parable of the good Samaritan, which by the way i don't think relies on the supposed idea that Samaritans were held in low regard, but i haven'tgot the Greek interlinear to hand to see what the word-for-word actually is.
GLuke seems to me to always be scathing towards the "haves" and generous towards the "have nots". Every mention of "the Kingdom of Heaven" in GLuke can be viewed as a state of being, rather than a physical place or an afterlife. Try reading it like this and you'll see what i mean. GLuke (often said to be the most literalist gospel) is actually to my mind showing a very egalitarian, political and anti authoritarian Jesus, qithout, crucially, any strong literalist message. It's all about how you define certain terms (eg "Kingdom of Heaven", or "live forever").
Acts, on the other hand, is a shameless attempt to concoct a history of the origins of christianity out of whole cloth which supports and mandates the literalist approach. This is a book designed to justify book burnings and the murder of supposed heretics, which is the reason why we have to find these non-biblical texts in hidden jars in caves. They were all destroyed as heresy by literalist christians mad with their own insecurity. No wonder these second century literalists would write and circulate their own literalist forgeries claiming early authorship.
And yet NOBODY seems to take this view. Why not, what have i missed?
The reason i bring this up is that I'm about four minutes into this video and I'm hearing this go unchallenged again, and also hearing that the definition of apostles is slippery. That it is, but i notice that in GLuke, John the baptiser has apostles, and Jesus' twelve disciples are drawn from Jesus' apostles. In GLuke i see the NIV has all 72 men who go out in pairs being called apostles. I fully expect this will be covered in the fifth and sixth minutes, but to me it hinders understanding when you refuse to consider that the authors of GLuke and Acts may have had totally different ideas about what these terms mean. When you assume it is the same author, you also assume the terms mean the same thing, and i think that would be to miss a shedload of meaning.
9:02 Your mouth moves during the 'For the Bible tells me so' chime. Thought you might want to know.
💚 *quality content* 💚
I just got flagged for spam on Facebook sharing this in a religious discussion group.
Lol, I'm finding this slow motion booking quite distracting lol... especially around 6:00ish when one cuff is hanging loose, dragging on the table over & over lol
The only 'martyrs' mentioned in the NT Are Stephen (with Paul presiding over the stoning) and James (Possibly at Paul's orders)
He also left out the part that when it came down to the last two candidates to replace Judas, the Apostles rolled the ummin and thummim (ancient dice) to choose the winner. Mattias was chosen by a roll of the dice.
If Paulogia is an ex-Christian what did he do before he was a Christian that caused his status to change from non-Christian to Christian?
Since we have zero writings of any of the apostles, how can he make this claim.
"Bhut muh holly buuk sez so, and twas written by them aposples. I only need the baibble, cuz its gaaawds word!!!"
He relies largely on the writings of Paul, both those known to be false and those generally attributed to him. Paul of course doesnt even meet his own definition of Apostle, since Paul neversaw the resurrected Jesus, he merely had a Vision.
Great video as usual. I find this stuff incredibly interesting and intriguing. I wonder what happened back then. It's mysterious to me. I mean that from a secular standpoint.
... When was "Acts" written? I keep hearing multiple dates for that book. 70 AD? I thought it came out after " Luke " in the 90s and possibly early second century.
I was reminded of the opening words of Catch-22's song Epilogue-about the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky who was ultimately assassinated by Stalin for exposing Stalin's betrayal of the revolution for personal gain- when it was brought up why people would be willing to die for something, be they martyrs or self described jihadists:
"Why would a man who believed in no god
Sacrifice all he had
To kill or be killed in pursuit of a cause
Was the fate that called to him
And you can say he might be crazy
And some can't understand
That a life spent doing less than all you can would be a waste"
I bring this up to point out that even committed atheists are willing to die for truly held beliefs.
Other than Acts and his supposed letters, where is there any mention of Paul in history? And other than some vague Josephus passages where are any of The Twelve Disciples mentioned outside the Bible?
Here's one for you. When was the first appearance of the letters of Paul? No mention of them until 144CE when they were produced by Marcion. Then others that were attributed to Paul started popping up. There has always been controversy over which of them are "authenticate" which really means we compare writing styles and find that some of them are written by different people. There is no way to authenticate that any of them were actually written by an apostle Paul.
I love the intro though, i mean i disagree with him but bruh Paulogia you got us with that last sentence.
If you read the text Paulogia *didn't* highlight you can see his statements are directly contradicted. So why should I trust the rest of what he says?
Imagine your entire doctoral thesis destroyed in one TH-cam video
Now that I think about it, it's like Sean set up a scenario to make his story more credible. We all know he wasn't really arrested and taken to a police station.
Now, this is a crazy idea, but what if ─just what if─ the resurrection story was just that, a story to make the new cult sound more credible?
Thanks, Sean, for pointing us in the right direction.
When I listen to Apologists I always think of destroyers rushing back and forth desperately laying a smokescreen when a much stronger force attacks their fleet .... except the Apologists use wordsalad to dull the brains of their listeners
Mark, the first gospel, has Jesus adopted by god at baptism. So not all apostles were saying Jesus was god. And Jews were already saying their god was the only god
So are current christians willing to die for their beliefs without seeing the resurrection?
Does Paul's mouth always move along with the "For the Bible Tells Me So" music? Never noticed that before.
It's pretty simple: there are no claims made by Christians that can be false and not completely destroy the doctrine of the believer. At least none I can think of straightaway.
The Hittites and the Huns also loved appropriating gods from the territories they conquered. It is a good political move, as it pacifies the conquered population. The Brits didn't do it in India, although the European colonials really loved diving into the cultures and languages they had encountered through colonization. It's possible there was more genuine interest in multiculturalism in the colonial era than there is now.
The opening sequence cracks me up every time I watch this 😂
Paul doesnt even use the same test on himself. He said every killer on "forensic files' thought he wouldn't get caught. Wrong. They hoped they wouldnt get caught and many probably thought they would.
Humm, it does appear that it is quite the leap to say that they died for their beliefs. It always seems that apologists use this type of logic where they connect the dots on two separate pieces of paper and then tape them together and draw a line across the tape to connect the two separate dotted lines.
Jesus wasn't crucified..because its impossible to prove..its just hearsay from unknown authors, which are infact propaganda from the church, so hardly independent. It's all bull as we know. So where are Apollo, Zeus, Thor, ISIS, Neptune, Allah and thousands more???? Because these were so called gods.
I dunno, I think the independent writings (Tacitus) are reasonable validation showing that a person named Jesus was crucified. ( _"Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."_ ) I mean we're just asking if someone _died_ here -- no supernatural involved -- and so the bar for evidence is quite a lot lower than proving someone resurrected (which would require _very_ strong evidence, and it turns out we only have the weakest type of evidence: heresay and legend.)
So Sean's takeaway is that the apostles were *willing* to die for their beliefs? That's pretty weak, meaning we can pull up not just Mormonism, but also Islam. Mohammed clearly was willing to die for his beliefs, just look at his exile in Medina when Meccans were trying to kill him and his family
Why did the apostles have to replace Judas? Would christianity have failed if there were an odd number of apostles? Did there have to be exactly 12? Is that why they let Judas be one in the first place? They figured that having a bad apostle was preferable to not having 12?
Do these apologists have any NEW arguments?
Love your videos, but have a minor terminology correction. The term syllogism refers specifically to arguments with two premises, so what is discussed in this video is just an argument, specifically a logically valid argument (at least for the initial presentation) having its soundness addressed.
@daniel letterman I usually use the three dots to mark conclusions, but afaik that is more for symbolic logic. Either way conclusion marking can be adjusted for the audience, and for a lay audience a line is probably best.
The Lost Gospel tells us what happened to them!...
Baby, if you've ever wondered
Wondered whatever became of me
I'm living on the air in Cincinnati, Cincinnati, WKRP
Got kind of tired packing and unpacking
Town to town and up and down the dial
Maybe you and me were never meant to be
But baby think of me once in awhile
Heading up that highway
Leaving you behind
Hardest thing I've ever had to do
Broke my heart in two
But Baby, pay no mind
The price for finding me was losing you
Memories help me hide my lonesome feelin'
Far away from you and feelin' low
It's gettin' late my friend, I miss you so
Take good care of you, I've gotta go
Baby, if you've ever wondered
Wondered whatever became of me
I'm living on the air in Cincinnati, Cincinnati, WKRP
Got kind of tired packing and unpacking
Town to town and up and down the dial
Maybe you and me were never meant to be
But baby think of me once in awhile
I'm at WKRP in Cincinnati
The fact that someone dies as a martyr does not prove what they died for is true.
Like on 9/11.
Or a good cause.
Sean should definitely convert to Mormonism. Joseph Smith probably could have calmed that angry mob by yelling that he would admit to his followers that he made up the golden bibles. But he was killed. What else he could do to convince Sean he was sincere?
Cook County?? 🤔
Well.. I'm assuming not Chicago -- inmate # is wrong (they follow a certain "sequence").. 😂😂
12:30: We don't know that they died? So they might still be alive today?
They may have never lived.
12:31, I think we can be fairly certain they’ve died by now, assuming they were real
"Acts" is a fictional adventure story written circa 180 AD
Mcdowell responded to this!
It says online that one apostle died here and another died there I wish you would make a video about that
The bit I really want to know is how do we know that none of the apostles were just playing along with the others, pretending to have seen the risen Jesus before they withdrew from the church entirely. I mean that is something that happens in cults in modern days, after the leader dies some new guy takes over and some people just try to placate them before leaving altogether.
If nothing else, it isn't out of the realm of possibility, and that it isn't often brought up as a consideration by christians annoys me.
Just because people die for a set of beliefs doesn't make those beliefs true! I hate this argument, and actually just uploaded a video called "Rome's First Christian Emperor" that talks about it a little. On another note, Romans actually believed that Christians were atheists.
I learned that. Crazy right?
@@Paulogia Look at it from the Romans' point of view: they were scared the gods would be angry with them. I haven't gotten to this point yet, but I think the Jews came to some sort of understanding with the Romans that exempted them.
Hey Paul, didn't you already show that the bible doesn't say that the apostles died early deaths or that they could save their lives by denouncing Jesus?
Never mind, you mentioned that video in this video.
{Nezumi} Heck, never mind the Roman religion, even Judaism doesn't *necessarily* hold that HaShem is the only god (though this is one interpretation), merely that he is the foremost (or more commonly interpreted, *only*) god that those considered virtuous under his covenant can pay tribute to.
There is some doubt on the specifics of the Great Fire of Rome, owing in part to the lack of surviving primary sources, and the noted bias of Roman historians against Nero that can sometimes make determining his actual crimes difficult. (Like, the Fate/Nasuverse interpretation of Nero as being, for most of her reign, a good and just ruler who was beloved of the people and hated by the upper classes for doing too much for the lower classes and failing to give them the respect and advantages they expected is based on one *actual* interpretation of the surviving evidence -- though not the part where he was a skinny blonde girl.)
They could also have died for the organization and their friends, still knowing that there was no evidence for a bodily resurrection. (To he clear, I am not convinced that any supernatural events are possible, nor that Jesus existed)
How are the martyrdom stories reconciled with the saved from violence by faith stories?
I just now noticed that your cartoon avatar is absolutely yoked.
Has it always been like that, or has it been making gains?
Always been swole
Got nothing on Shannon Q's avatar though. 💪
I'm perfectly willing to accept that the apostles (assuming they even existed as described) believed what they were saying. However the
firmness of a belief is totally independent of if that beliefs is true. At one time People firmly believed that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was flat. It is possible to believe and be mistaken.
What always gets me about the theory that the apostles died for their beliefs willingly is that I doubt the Romans gave them much of a choice