Paul(ogia) uses the “For the Bible tells me so” jingle (which I heard all the time when I was a child) as a device to point out that the only historical account of the case in point being discussed is the Bible, which isn’t exactly a reliable historical document. Historians generally give far more credence to accounts that were written contemporaneously instead of decades after the events mentioned. They also prefer sources that aren’t trying to sell something.
6:01 We cannot assume Paul knew Jesus was born of Mary, as he never mentioned it. To us, it seems obvious because nearly 2,000 years of tradition have ingrained the association of Mary with the story of Jesus. However, for Paul, who likely did not know the Gospels-or at least, it is not clear that he did-Mary’s significance might not have been obvious. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume Paul knew of Mary.
Its just myths like for all other religions. Why cling to faith? Can you not show empathy and be a good person without faith? Can you love your life without a given meaning from a religion? Is the fear of god preventing you from giving into gambling or sexual deviations ? There is nothing supernatural that exists like angels demons nor deity.
Apologetics is the defense of a religion. No, we don't have to defend skepticism as that is a normal human state of being and frame of mind and is healthy. No, we don't have to explain that to you and your world salad to suggest otherwise will not make being skeptical apologetics. No, we don't need your permission to not believe your claims or your story. No, we don't have to argue or prove you wrong, we simply don't have to believe your stories or your favorite fairy tales. No, atheism isn't a religion and never will be. Somebody sold you a bill of goods on your religion and you bought into it. We didn't. We aren't required to. Yesterday, today, tomorrow...or ten years in the future, you still won't have a single supernatural thing you can show...actually show and bring to any video or debate stage. What you do have is your arguments which sound good to you. You've made up your mind, and somehow presume you can make up other people's minds with affirmations. So, no, you don't have proofs. You don't have evidence. You don't have much beyond words or hot air. Now, if that is enough for you, then good for you. But let's not play-pretend that you have more to present than claims.
The fact that Paul doesn't mention that Jesus was the son of Mary doesn't indicate that he didn't know this, that's true. But it also doesn't show that he did know. It's possible the Mary thing was just made up after Paul was writing his letters. Nobody knows
Tangential to the issue you’re talking about here, but the issue with the Synoptic Problem and “reliability” is that it completely torpedoes the idea of the Gospels as histories or records of events that actually happened. The Synoptics are less separate texts than “rewrites” (or textual variants) of one another. The kind of word-for-word copying we see in the Synoptic Gospels is extremely rare in ancient historical writing, but common in fictitious literature and technical writing, in cases where an author is altering or rewriting an exiting text. Point is, the authors of Matthew and Luke aren’t simply writing their own accounts with Mark as a source to cite, but doing outright rewrites of it. 90% of Mark is present in Matthew! Since you are interested in Paulogia’s stuff, I would recommend watching the last 9 minutes of the video he did with Kamil Gregor entitled “Why Gospel Authorship CANNOT Be Correct”. Kamil does a great job explaining the challenge that the Synoptic Problem poses to Christian understandings of the Gospels. On the actual issue of the empty tomb, I do think there is reason to think it may be a historical event. Dale Allison makes a pretty strong case for it in his book on the subject. The Joseph of Arimathea story, however, is almost certainly mythical and apologetic in origin. It’s just way too convenient at serving the purpose it does to be a real event, and is only present in these texts which (as I’ve already been over) belong to the realm of mythical, cultic literature, not history. For a further introduction to why the Gospels are certainly not histories, I recommend Richard C. Miller's work, he's done some good outreach on some skeptical channels on here in addition to his scholarly writing.
Paul(ogia) uses the “For the Bible tells me so” jingle (which I heard all the time when I was a child) as a device to point out that the only historical account of the case in point being discussed is the Bible, which isn’t exactly a reliable historical document. Historians generally give far more credence to accounts that were written contemporaneously instead of decades after the events mentioned. They also prefer sources that aren’t trying to sell something.
6:01 We cannot assume Paul knew Jesus was born of Mary, as he never mentioned it. To us, it seems obvious because nearly 2,000 years of tradition have ingrained the association of Mary with the story of Jesus. However, for Paul, who likely did not know the Gospels-or at least, it is not clear that he did-Mary’s significance might not have been obvious. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume Paul knew of Mary.
Its just myths like for all other religions. Why cling to faith? Can you not show empathy and be a good person without faith? Can you love your life without a given meaning from a religion? Is the fear of god preventing you from giving into gambling or sexual deviations ? There is nothing supernatural that exists like angels demons nor deity.
it seems that you are intentionally changing the meaning of the word "apologetic".
If it has a supernatural component, it's not true.
Apologetics is the defense of a religion. No, we don't have to defend skepticism as that is a normal human state of being and frame of mind and is healthy. No, we don't have to explain that to you and your world salad to suggest otherwise will not make being skeptical apologetics. No, we don't need your permission to not believe your claims or your story. No, we don't have to argue or prove you wrong, we simply don't have to believe your stories or your favorite fairy tales. No, atheism isn't a religion and never will be. Somebody sold you a bill of goods on your religion and you bought into it. We didn't. We aren't required to. Yesterday, today, tomorrow...or ten years in the future, you still won't have a single supernatural thing you can show...actually show and bring to any video or debate stage. What you do have is your arguments which sound good to you. You've made up your mind, and somehow presume you can make up other people's minds with affirmations. So, no, you don't have proofs. You don't have evidence. You don't have much beyond words or hot air. Now, if that is enough for you, then good for you. But let's not play-pretend that you have more to present than claims.
Is a resurrection natural?
It’s when the ridiculous supernatural seemingly impossible claims are put forward that it becomes totally unbelievable.
The fact that Paul doesn't mention that Jesus was the son of Mary doesn't indicate that he didn't know this, that's true.
But it also doesn't show that he did know. It's possible the Mary thing was just made up after Paul was writing his letters. Nobody knows
Tangential to the issue you’re talking about here, but the issue with the Synoptic Problem and “reliability” is that it completely torpedoes the idea of the Gospels as histories or records of events that actually happened. The Synoptics are less separate texts than “rewrites” (or textual variants) of one another. The kind of word-for-word copying we see in the Synoptic Gospels is extremely rare in ancient historical writing, but common in fictitious literature and technical writing, in cases where an author is altering or rewriting an exiting text. Point is, the authors of Matthew and Luke aren’t simply writing their own accounts with Mark as a source to cite, but doing outright rewrites of it. 90% of Mark is present in Matthew! Since you are interested in Paulogia’s stuff, I would recommend watching the last 9 minutes of the video he did with Kamil Gregor entitled “Why Gospel Authorship CANNOT Be Correct”. Kamil does a great job explaining the challenge that the Synoptic Problem poses to Christian understandings of the Gospels.
On the actual issue of the empty tomb, I do think there is reason to think it may be a historical event. Dale Allison makes a pretty strong case for it in his book on the subject. The Joseph of Arimathea story, however, is almost certainly mythical and apologetic in origin. It’s just way too convenient at serving the purpose it does to be a real event, and is only present in these texts which (as I’ve already been over) belong to the realm of mythical, cultic literature, not history.
For a further introduction to why the Gospels are certainly not histories, I recommend Richard C. Miller's work, he's done some good outreach on some skeptical channels on here in addition to his scholarly writing.
Can you prove that a person can survive for 3 days inside a fish?
Paul never mentioned the empty tomb. Jesus was buried in a mass grave and his body lost to history.
Dont forget not even habermas adds the tomb as an historical fact.
@@Julian0101 True. You are right. He has basically accepted the fact that Jesus was thrown in a mass grave and his body lost to history.
You’ve proven nothing in this video., except that you present yourself as gullible.
Do historians generally accept supernatural explanations?
Sounds like a fear of death to me.
Not even gary habermas agrees the tomb is an hitorical fact. Im sorry dude but i trust more historians than your opinion.
Did the Romans put crucifixion victims in tombs? Didn’t they leave them to rot on their crosses?
So if these people believed things were possible does it mean they are or were possible?
The question always remains, are these claims possible?
Isn’t a resurrection by definition linked to supernatural mythology?
Why would they make an exception for some random Jesus person?
With such sketchy evidence why would you believe these extraordinary claims?