ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2021
- Did the Apostle Peter suffer a grief hallucination? Does that explain the origins of Christianity? As you saw in part one, Paulogia's video titled "How Christianity (Probably) Began” is a bit of a misnomer. If you haven't already watched the first video, I recommend you watch it first as it is the cornerstone of what we will discuss next.
Confusing sociology with epistemology was totally stolen from Lydia McGrew. Check out her channel, she is a million times smarter than me. / @lydiamcgrewchannel
Paulogia's Original Video: How Christianity (Probably) Began... No Resurrection Required - • How Christianity (Prob... z
Part One of my response: • How Christianity (Prob...
Paulogia on the burial of Jesus: • InspiringPhilosophy's ...
Inspiring Philosophy on the Burial of Jesus: • Burial of Jesus: Suppo...
and inspiringphilosophy.wordpress...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive.creator-spring...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Mic used: BLUE Snowball USB Microphone Gloss Black amzn.to/35qdvBc with InnoGear Adjustable Mic Stand for Blue Snowball and Blue Snowball iCE Suspension Boom Scissor Arm Stand with Microphone Windscreen and Dual Layered Mic Pop Filter, Max Load 1.5 KG amzn.to/3wAfWwZ
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it very odd that people who demand extraordinary evidence also believe in theories like mass hallucinations, conspiracies and legends developing over time without any evidence. These are pretty extraordinary claims that i have not seen any extraordinary evidence for.
Yep. Because according to them, "extraordinary claims" actually means "supernatural claims". Thus, drawn-out, evidenceless natural explanations don't need extraordinary evidence.
Atheist definitions:
"Extraordinary claims" = anything that's against materialism
"Extraordinary evidence" = whatever evidence you don't have
@@calebjore3295 Accurate, well, for Skeptics anyways
They have to come up with all these crazy theories because the abundance of evidence and the explanation that explains all details in the best way (Jesus actually resurrected) eliminates the more straightforward explanations.
Yeah they can be very unlikely, but supernatural claims are REALLY unlikely
Here's one for the algorithm.
Based
Based (come on, keep comments original bro)
Based
...are those who diss Pineapple of pizza
I'd put more emphasis on the expectation of resurrection. There's no reason why they should have believed in resurrection instead of assumption or Him being a ghost. And if they did conclude resurrection based on Jesus's predictions, why didn't they also say that Jesus had returned to earth and that the Second Coming had already occured , which Jesus also predicted? Why make one a future event and one a current reality when both in Judaism were future events?
I'd also recommend Jake O'Connell paper on collective hallucinations, where he points out that given Jewish expectation Jesus would have been seen as glorious and luminous by the disciples
I don't know why I hadn't thought of one future event before, very interesting.
@@TestifyApologetics yes I actually haven't seen that discussed a lot. I mention it in my book on the resurrection. The only one I can recall bringing it up is Dale Allison, but he just says that this is weird and doesn't explain why
@@calebjackson6277 amazing brother! I'm a budding 16 yo apologist (hobby?) and I find it really enlightening seeing and reading such stuff, I want to learn more and grow more and more in my faith, any tips or advice?
1.While it's true that jews during Jesus' day didn't expect Jesus to die, because nothing in the prophecies about the Messiah state he would, it's pretty weird to hear Christian apologists use this argument when they want us to believe that he fulfilled the prophecies...
With that said, we would also have to ignore several gospel passages in order to believe that Jesus's disciples specifically never expected him to rise from the grave. The gospels claim that Jesus firmly planted the idea in their heads that this would happen...
2. You ask "why didn't they also say that Jesus had returned to earth and that the second coming had already occurred"? That might be true if someone sat down and made up the resurrection story wholesale, but if the hypothesis is that Peter, or Mary Magdalene, or whoever (paulogia isn't committed to it being Peter) had a legit grief experience why would it be the case that they would assume the second coming had started? If all they had seen was a few "appearances" that confirmed he was alive then all sorts of rumors could have spread just from that and they could have started wondering what it meant theologically and later came to believe in the idea of an eventual second coming.
You also have to remember that Mark's original ending is pretty simple:
"But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a YOUNG MAN dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. HE (not the man) has risen! HE IS NOT HERE. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ Trembling and BEWILDERED, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said NOTHING to anyone, because they were afraid."
It isn't until the gospels called Matthew and Luke that we even get an official story of Jesus being seen by anyone after the resurrection. ALL we get is a supposedly empty tomb (unguarded btw) with a random dude saying Jesus isn't here. It's rather odd that the first gospel written doesn't ever mention a SINGLE resurrection appearance, even though that seems like the most important detail - that someone actually saw him alive. It's weird that this part doesn't appear in a gospel until about a decade later...So who knows what happened.
It's quite possible that a few people (or a single one) had some pretty minor "grief" hallucinations that kickstarted this whole thing.
@@Travisharger literally hallucination in the gaps. Jesus reappeared to more than 1 of the disciples afterwards. So, they couldn't have all had a hallucination of the same man. This "random dude" was actually supposed to be a guardian angel, but it seem that this one is a later edition. In the original ending of the gospel of Mark, the women just found the empty tomb and they ran away afterwards.
You’re so charitable to Paulogia - his theory is nigh baloney XD
It's sad how many people think it's actually probable.
Commenting for the algorithm. Very good video, Erik. God bless you.
His theory of John and James is terrible, I mean he is very confident that he says such a thing in public.
Before the resurrection you see the disciples behaving rather childlishly, they constantly didn't get what Jesus was saying, but after the resurrection you see completely new people! During and after the crucifixion they ran from the scene of their crucified Lord. They were probably scared, disappointed and probably hopeless. My question for the sceptics is what changed them? What brought them to such a remarkable transformation? Their lives literally changed to a 180. Just compare the apostle Peter before and after the resurrection.
Your patience and temperance in dealing with these objections is honestly remarkable. Paulogia's objections are simply ridiculously unlikely and could only be accepted by someone who has a priori ruled out miracles as a whole. Pointing that out would have sufficed but you've gone well above and beyond.
also the very letter that Paul wroth to the Corinthians sent has a VERY EARLY (simple) Creed in it, and that Corinthians is thought to have been written about five years after Jesus's death and resurrection. The Creed includes the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus.
Yeah, I'm gonna flat out dismiss Paulogia altogether on one simple note:
"If Peter (or anyone) based their resurrection account on a hallucination, all anyone has to do is produce Jesus' dead body to quash the rumours"
Sure, he might say "well, Jesus was buried in an unmarked grave"
To which I would point out that:
1)Unmarked graves were reserved for the worst political offenders.
Jesus wasn't a political Messiah by any count, and he never opposed Rome. If he did, his followers would include it in their doctrine.
2) Even if Jesus' body was eaten by dogs or something, nothing stops the Jews from producing ANY OTHER crucified body as Jesus's. Who's gonna tell the difference?
If this sounds speculative, keep in mind that most of what Paulogia says is already speculative anyways. If we're going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories, I say we go all the way.
paul also knew peter
That's what I like about Testify's response to Paulogia compared to others like Habermas or Licona. Rather than trying to say "There were multiple people that saw the risen Jesus", he just responds with more speculation that would make Paul's set-up implausible. Paulogia can't claim "That's just speculation" because his entire theory is speculation, and Eric's counter speculation is arguably more plausible than Paul's because of the fact that many other Messianic movements died off after their leader died.
Modern religion itself is speculative. This entire debate is based on alleged accounts from men who lived & died without knowing what germs are.
@@lh2170
1)You actually need to prove that the Gospels are unreliable, not just alleging that they are.
I can also make the same accusation to any other Historical document, like Herodotus or Plutarch.
2)I don't see what knowing bacteria has to do with historical accuracy.
Stop applying modern standards to ancient times.
Might as well throw away all history up to the point when bacteria was discovered.
@@samuelhunter4631 I don’t support throwing away the gospels but that doesn’t mean I believe a single theological aspect is true. You absolutely could & should bring any ancient document into question, there is more evidence for Jesus’s existence than Alexander the Great’s. The gospels need not be disproven. They must be proven. I am not making a claim of belief, in this case I am questioning yours. It is physically impossible to physically prove either view without time travel. Everything observable to us points to the Torah being absolutely unreliable, with the rest of the Hebrew Bible & New Testament’s supernatural elements being unprovable. As for the second point, the source for one’s belief is an important aspect. The sources in this example were men who lived & died in the desert with no grasp of science or how the physical world worked. Lived & died with the history & theology of the race they were born being the only logical explanation to the world around them. So do I believe them when they say they saw a flood or a self-proclaimed prophet named Jesus? Of course. Is there any evidence the flood they experience occurred outside of their geographic area? No. Is there evidence other than the written testimonies of men who lived years after Jesus’s death for a resurrection? No. Paulogia’s assertions are no more fallacious than that of Abrahamic religion.
To Paulogia, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
He isn't asserting anything, he's putting forth an alternative theory that he thinks more simply explains the evidence we already have.
He’s making an assertion, saying that Paul had a guilt hallucination and saying this is a better explanation but he hasn’t provided any evidence that Paul was feeling guilty for persecuting the Christians.
yes grief hallucination for 40 days......
Paul doesn't think those accounts are true.
Plus there are cases registered that go for month even a year. When asked about it, these people said they looked forward to meeting them again.
So wait, is his argument "We don't know if most of the disciples existed because we only have *extensive* historical records about the life of Peter, so let's assume Peter was the only disciple so we only need to say he hollucinated and that's alot more reasonable than abunch of people seeing it so Christianity is false"? Is he seriously arguing against the existence of most of the 12 to make the psychological argument easier?
No, he’s only using Peter since of the 12, there were 3 main disciples who were the closest, John, John’s brother James, and Simon Peter. He uses Peter because of the denial prior to crucifixion and closeness to make the argument that he was so emotionally attached to Jesus that he hallucinated and believed the hallucination and started preaching it. I don’t see how power of suggestion would cause the others to hallucinate the exact same thing or anything remotely similar since all the disciples seem to cast doubt on Jesus and fully reject the idea of resurrection (see Luke 24). But when they doubt Jesus, they also seem to put him in a good light. So hallucination seems to be ad hoc, but I can’t really say for delusion.
I gotta commend Paul for his art skills though, I do enjoy the style
Imagine trying to psychoanalyze people from 2000 years ago who lived in a completely separate culture from your own. Peak atheist reason right there.
Great video. Looking forward to part 3.
When Testify sees Paulogias new video
*Finally a worthy opponent! Our battle will be legendary!*
LOL we'll see. If he responds I think I'm just gonna ask if he'd like to go live on some channel and have a convo.
Don't u have to make good points to be considered a "worthy opponent"?
He does make good points, they both do
@@austinlincoln3414 i dont think paulogia makes good points i think he streechs stuff hoping you cant fully debunk him, because if you leave 1% chance of him being right he will dive and die on that chance
The interesting thing about Jehohanan is that the only reason that archaeologists were able to make the discovery is because the nail was caught in the wood & bone in such a way that it could not be drawn out.
Thus, the common practice *was* to draw out the nails before burial - a fact specifically mentioned in the Gospels concerning Jesus’s burial.
Great video, man. Your responses are very helpful in defending our faith. Hopefully your channel will continue to grow. 🙏.
Why would you give this guy any air time whatsoever? He could see it with his own eyes and deny it happened.
Because Paul has brainwashed his viewers into thinking that it's actually plausible given how many times he has tried to respond to other people dealing with it like Licona and Craig.
Thank you Erik for the videos you put out. I have been inspired to look at the Bible in a analytical perspective and it has given me new insights. God bless
Yes... Everyone believed Peter when he went around saying that on multiple occasions lots of people saw Jesus raised from the dead because they couldn't possibly have just asked those people who also would be required by Paulogia's account to have seen nothing and remain silent. Uh...huh. sure bub.
@@lynxsss5403 MA is saying that Paulogia's idea that no one would have checked out Peter's claim that lots of people saw the risen Christ is absurd. Like, seriously? People wouldn't want to check out the truth of the statement that lots of people saw a miracle? If someone told you that something miraculous happened that a large crowd of people saw, wouldn't you want to find someone that saw it. Apologetics Squared shows this in his analysis of Paulogia's convo with Andrew Loke.
You are a gem to Christianity. Keep up the good work.
I'm not sure the quote from "Ian Blakelock" is correctly attributed. I've been looking for that quote online, and I've only been able to find it attributed to NT wright. Are you sure that is the correct reference?
Dr. Gary Habermas says something akin to this, 'whether Jesus body was buried in a tomb or cast into a dump is unimportant in one sense because it does not do away with the resurrection.'
So moving the body to the dump simply means that the location of the where the resurrection took place moved. It is the resurrection that is important and the tomb is of lesser consequence.
The body not having a proper burial is so that Paulogia can claim that it makes sense that no one pulled up the body to prove the Disciples wrong. So it is pretty important to Paulogia.
Keep up the great work!
Thanks, will do!
The definition he cites for PBHE, which he offers as an alternative explanation for Peter's experiences, doesn't even preclude the possibility that Peter's experience was genuine. For if Peter did see Christ after His death, this certainly would constitute an "abnormal sensory experience" by the very nature of the case.
I've noticed materialists doing this a lot: they will cite a study or some "known phenomenon" as a refutation of theistic claims, but the study or observed phenomenon in question will simply assume materialism is true; or alternatively, the materialist will erroneously conclude that the existence of said phenomenon proves that supernatural events (which are by definition extraordinary) can't happen.
Clearly, the former is a form a question-begging, one in which many modern people seem to fall for, especially if they don't have any philosophical training or inclination towards critical thought. And the latter is simply a non sequitur. You would hope that people who are engaged in public discourse (like Paulogia) would be able to recognize these sorts of fallacies, but it appears the allure of academic citation and internet clicks is simply too strong even for those who publicly style themselves as "rationalists" and "public intellectuals."
Lot of people named John yeah like Islamic countries many named Muhammad same with Jews.
John Yôḥānān is old testament name meaning God has been gracious Matthew Matityahu which means Gift of God. Someone actually did a name study because of these objections.
Take into account names like Matt, Mark, Luke and John, are only common because of the Bible and Christianity meaning not a coincidence that there would be many Johns or Pauls or Davids around now in the western world. Then take a moment and realise this tiny little place Israel and a handful of people Jesus 12 changed/shaped the world this guy must have done something pretty dramatic to influence an entire roman empire rather quickly without fighting. Impressive and should not be scoffed at no matter what and it also lends credibility to the Jesus claims like Sunday practice and dramatic conversion, spread and people change.
Paulogia is whack when it comes to historical Jesus or the early church tbh. Great video brother Testify
These objections from Paulogia are almost as bad as Pineapple on Pizza 👁👄👁
Exodus 20:27 "Thou shall not diss pineapple on pizza". Are you really trying to go up against God with this comment?
@@petery6432 You are taking it out of context bro, God only says that to the Israelites, not all people. As Romans 3:4 says, "Let God be true, and every man who likes Pineapple on Pizza a liar" 🔥🔥🔥
@@dynamiteshadows1384 Oh, so now you're pulling the "It only applied in the OT card", are you?
@@petery6432 Yeah, cause that's the Old Pineapple Law, we are only called to follow the New Pineapple Law as commanded by Pizzus
@@dynamiteshadows1384 The New pineapple law only came from the Gospel of Crustus, which is a well-known Gnostic gospel.
So not only is PBHE uncommon (30-60%). A gap so large probably because we don’t really know much about it. Paulogia also needs to explain how a group of 12 followers (minimum) all experienced such a rare phenomenon that they were willing to die for that claim. Not only that the disciple thomas wouldn’t believe until he physically touched the wounds in Jesus hands and side from the nails and spear. But yeah lets go with mass hallucination
The Apostles that we know died are Paul, Peter, James, brother of Jesus and James, son of Zebedee.
And they didn't die for their faith, they were killed for political reasons since Nero needed to blame someone for the Great Fire of Rome.
Also, all 12 didn't have to have seen Jesus they could've genuinely trusted Peter and some others.
Demonstrate that they all died for their beliefs in Jesus
@@trepinne6840 I never claimed all died of martyrdom.
Although to cover up for political reasons Nero put Paul to death and blamed Christians for the fires there is no other explanation for that besides the fact that he hated Christians. It is because of their faith they died.
@@pmccotter5569 did you claimed all of them where silling to die for their belief? They died for their faith in Jesus? What source?
So let me get this straight, you make a claim that all of the 12 would've died for their faith, bht when questioned about it, you say you never did. Unsuprising.
Another thing, the Thomas Claim, is like it a claim. We have no ideea of Thomas even had a hallucination or was there anymore, we are only told by the bible, which is made up by anonymous writters.
As someone who has seen this happen with my own loved ones, grief hallucinations are ABSOLUTELY a thing and can also “spread” via a social contagion type affect. For example, one person “sees” their loved one in a dream and tells their family. Then, lo and behold, a few days later someone else “sees” something similar in their own dreams. This is absolutely plausible and all it takes is Peter and maybe 1-2 others apostles having similar dreams or experiences and the legend is off and running. Far different than the apologist claim of “500 people all hallucinating the same thing at once” which is clearly nonsensical.
Additionally, there were clear motives in place for the apostles to interpret these grief hallucinations/dreams as religious phenomenon as they had (1) invested several years of their lives into this cause and would likely have been open to any reason to believe that this was not a waste of time (2) likely already thought that Jesus was the Messiah and therefore a divine figure of some sort, and (3) lived in an era before basic scientific literacy existed where belief in supernatural miracles was commonplace and understandings of psychological phenomenon were non-existent.
The hallucination theory absolutely makes sense of everything. It is the exact recipe needed to turn "just another Messianic prophet who lived and died" into "the real Messiah" and beginnings of a new religion. To hand-wave away this very plausible theory in favor of the laws of the universe being suspended for a bodily resurrection is just complete irrationality.
Paulogia: The written accounts in the Bible by people who are claimed to have been eyewitnesses to events is not evidence.
Also Paulogia: Proceeds to completely invent a just-so story without a shred of historical evidence and holds that in higher regard than actual written historical documents.
Exactly this. Atheists using texts they don't believe are reliable in the first place to make up fancy theories about Paul's state of mind, etc. These people only think the texts are unreliable if Christians try to use them to back up our claims. When the texts work in their favour (or so they think) they're suddenly perfectly reliable.
I just dont know why so many atheists just speak against christianity
They’re agents of Satan
Because it influnces my life? Tf I am I supposed to do? Follow your way of life?
What would we do without Sigmund Paulogia Freud.....
That is the perfect analogy. Sigmund had wacky theories without any proper evidence, and so does Paulogia 😂
@@dynamiteshadows1384 wasn’t he an atheist too?
@@Mark-cd2wf Yeah, he was. He said that Religion was for people who lacked a Father figure in their lives (I.e. Since God is seen as the Father figure that can fulfill their lives).
@@dynamiteshadows1384 yes, and like Karl Marx before him, his theories have been totally discredited (remind you of anyone?)🧐
What do you think of these channels:
-Armored Skeptic
-Logicked
-The Atheist voice
-DarkMatter2525.
F tier Atheist Channels no joke
Dark matter literally parodies stories of the OT with the least charitable representations I have ever seen. I have not seen any content from atheists in general that has not done similar strawman summaries. I used to be an agnostic leaning toward atheism and this is one of the things I always critiqued while I was one.
Um...well...how can I put this politely?
I don't think about those channels.
@@TestifyApologetics savage yet polite.
@@TestifyApologetics Oof, that's dank.
Man, you hit that one out of the parK! Brilliant refutation of a frankly silly argument.
It does seem to me (I haven't done much research) that a lot of cult members double down on their beliefs when their leaders are exposed. You made the assertion that they often just return to their earlier life, do you have any sources for this?
Many do double down, take the Great Disappointment for one example. But those groups also saw a good deal of attrition after the fact. And think of even more recently the Trump prophecies and how a lot of people have long given up on that kind of fanaticism despite there still being a handful of holdouts. Or think also of Harold Camping.
It would be a fascinating study, no tbh I don't have stats, just my general observation. Here is the thing though, most of the groups and individuals that double down have little to lose, much to gain and are not under direct threat of being stoned or crucified. Also again think of what happened when messianic pretenders failed in the 1st century.
everyone talks about the disciples and skeptics like paul and tiago forget about thomas
Wait, isn't the Joseph of arimathea story written decades after Jesus' death?
Do you sometimes make a video about the so-called theory, suggesting the possibility of words possibly put into the mouth of Christ ?: Mk 4:13, 8:34 (here he is actually talking about his sacrifice and the cross), and many others ... There are many of those sentences , I'm sure you've heard of it, too. Surely you know some basics.
Jesus predicts his resurrection in 4-5 places just in Mark. I'm aware. Paulogia doesn't seem to grant those statements as genuine, as he seems to imply in his last video replying to the Infographics show.
@@TestifyApologetics John 21:18, I mean quotes like these because I know no reference to this prophecy from before Peter's death.
@@lukyncz3778 oh, sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking. The series I'm doing on the reliability of the Gospels indirectly answers that but yes perhaps someday I will do so more directly
If christ had been telling Peter that he would rise again, it seems like it would easily allow Peter to dismiss any cognitive dissonance normal PBHE experiencers would have about their experience (normal PBHE is of a person who is known to be dead, while Peter might well have expected Jesus to be alive).
Are there any studies done on PBHE experiences of cult leaders who said they would come back? ... maybe that would tell us what to expect in the case of Christ
Paulogia is a master speculator and usually doesn't have any evidence.
None of this hallucination nonsense would explain Paul's conversion.
How do you reconcile many parts of the old testament, for instance isreal was supposed to be conquered by the israelites from the canaanites but theres very little archaeological evidence except for one burned city. Also based on archaeology, it seems that the worship of the abhramic faith came out of the worship of a canaanite god, and the israelites were a part of the canaanites rather rhan a seperate community
For your questions:
1- I recommend InpiringPhilosophy's series on the Exodus, wandering period and the Conquest.
2- The Bible extensively speaks of widespread idolatry among the Israelites. Such archaeological findings are to be expected.
Bro i once saw a video for 2 minutes from paulogia and i was like bro, this guy is on drugs, got angry and left the video, because it was disonest, its like he dances with words and it boils down to i dont think so because i can make this up, this guy might aswell be a flat earther with all the evidence he denies
Wow Paulogia really needs to see his mental health checked
Couldn't you just call out his presuppositions of (a) an epistemological common ground and (b) God not existing, which is the real reason why he has to go for the hallucination hypothesis?
Honestly, it's time to stop granting a "common ground" of knowledge and go back and forth on how to best interpret this, that and the other. If you're an unbeliever it's not "rational" to go for "muh hallucination(s)", it's the only move you have.
Presuppositional apologetics is fundamentally flawed. No, that's not a route I see taking as helpful. Sorry
@@TestifyApologetics I'm not sure I agree on presuppositional apolegetics but I didn't mean to go that far. The fact is that your starting point(s), here God does/doesn't exist, will open or close some doors for you, will cause you to make this or that or the other step, and it seems to me not only helpful but a powerful move to call out the fact that every skeptic/atheist/whatever proclaims rationality, open mind and other words but then can't follow through cause (s)he is closed from God from the start.
His entire theory false apart if only one of the gospels/acts/2 Peter (and also Timothy because it mentions Luke) is written by the writer the Christians claim. I think that the evidence that the gospels are written by them is overwhelming.
Also he claims that the creed of the appearances that was handed down to Paul was exaggerated. But from who did he get that creed? From Peter right? Well if Peter was sincere yet the others didn't believe the resurrection he would have known that was false. But then you would say that Peter was willingly lying, but liars make poor marters.
And Paul would be completely insane for claiming with a stone face that he did miracles to the people who supposedly say him do them.
Lastly the 12 weren't the only one that talked with Jesus on a weekly basis. He was a really popular so he had a lot of following. In acts 6 it refers to "the crowd of disciples". This was already before Paul converted so this was at max 2 years after Jesus death. My best guess is that this crowd is largely the same people that Jesus appeared to when he did to the 500.
So his case is pretty weak
Paulogia’s theory is far more less likely than what actually happened, he’s grasping for straws and his video on this topic is a testament to that. He’d rather believe this theory more than what was actually written down during the time of the eyewitnesses.
Based
Based
@@mentalwarfare2038 Based (keep the pattern going guys!)
@Disciple of Yahushua Hamasiach. Based is a slang term for people addicted to cocaine so @M is being dumb and saying @Testify is on cocaine 😂
Edit: I may have been wrong. He might've been referring to Paulogia as based not Testify, oops
@Disciple of Yahushua Hamasiach. Based
@@dynamiteshadows1384 bro?