I just finished watching his debate with Mike Winger and his denial of the suffering of the apostles (other than Peter and Paul) was a big point in his skepticism, so this is the perfect video. I’m also likely going to read Sean McDowell’s book on the fate of the apostles.
Great book, expensive tho. The textual references alone within each chapter summary are very valuable, for example, [please forgive copy/pasta inbound]: The Martyrdom of Peter The traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero in AD 64-67 has been carefully analyzed. Additional later material that further confirms this tradition will not be analyzed in depth, for this analysis has focused on the period of living memory. This close examination of the evidence indicates that the following points can be regarded to have varying degrees of confidence from works written within the living memory of Peter (until c. AD 200): 1. The martyrdom of Peter-the highest possible probability (John 21:18-19; 1 Clement 5:4-5; Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1-2, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; the Acts of Peter; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15; lack of any competing narrative weighs favorably for the traditional view; the early and persistent tradition is that Peter was martyred for his faith. 2. The crucifixion of Peter-very probably true (John 21:18-19; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15). 3. Peter was in Rome-very probably true (1 Pet 5:13; 2 Pet 1:12-15; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; Acts of Peter; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15). 4. Martyrdom during the reign of Nero, AD 64-67-more probable than not (Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15). As seen, the individual components of the traditional view regarding the fate of Peter have varying degrees of historical probability. Yet when all the evidence is considered, the traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero stands on solid historical ground Thought I would tease a bit.🤫
It takes more faith to believe Paulogia’s ad hoc theories and evidence-free assertions than it does to simply take the evidence in the NT as a whole. Maybe we should come up with our own little jingle: 🎶 “For Paulogia tells me so!”🎶
🎶 "For Paulogia tells me so, The not-so-apologist who tells me no, I want to be like him, To run around and shout, Oh no! Christianity is nothing but a lie, It started so falsely, That it made the disciples cry!" 🎶
You're literally making fun of Paulogia for using "the Bible tells me so" jingle immediately after saying that the Bible is true... _because it says it is._
@@shassett79 Which is not what people argue, and not how the historical method works. For example, there was a witness who saw the murder of Thomas Becket and wrote it down. When a historian comes along to prove that Thomas Becket was in fact murdered, do you call the appeal to the testimony of the witness circular reasoning? Of course not. Likewise, you should use the New Testament itself in order to determine if it is reliability reporting history or not. Appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning. That's a half truth at best.
@@corundergroundreligion8190 Please don't pretend to know what's in my head. I didn't do that with you. The fact of the matter is, if there was a god as described in the bible who wanted everyone to know he existed, then he wouldn't rely on weak philosophical arguments or historical arguments to prove himself. Those were never needed in the Old or New Testament so why rely on it now?
I've been paying attention to Paulogia since about 2017. To him anything that counts for Christianity counts against it. He's the heckler who tosses literally anything he can think of might be possible to explain away Christianity. Nothing will ever convince him. Why he makes it his life's purpose to be a professional heckler, who knows.
You have to give someone like that credit in that at least they're paying attention, at least they've chosen something, even if it's darkness. C.S. Lewis said "Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true, or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal ‘sell’ on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?"
He has a scientific/mechanistic methodology applied to religion and history. Frankly, that's perfectly fair in my estimation. I find his overall argumentation against apologetics fair and considerate. I just disagree with the atheistic position.
Thanks for the breakdown of this. I looked up your source material and it is quite a long read. Over and over it takes pages to refute a silly claim, which is why these claims gain ground. It would be good to have these great apologetics rewritten in modern English or concise "for dummies" versions
While I may not necessarily agree that Jesus was actually raised from the dead, I certainly agree that the disciples were willing to die for what they believed they saw, given that the evidence points in that direction.
@@20july1944If Christianity is false, the following is probably the most likely explanation of what happened... Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb, then in the very early hours of the morning (not the night since everyone slept outside at that time of year in Jerusalem so someone would've seen), Joseph of Arimathea took the body after bribing the guards, and either destroyed it or threw it in a ditch. Joseph took the body while the guards were all asleep, and when the guards feared death due to their incompetence, Joseph accepted a bribe so that he would not tell the authorities, and the guards made up the story of the angel at the tomb to avoid being killed by their generals and to make it look like it was not their fault that the body they were guarding was gone. Then, the disciples and the women all experienced the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon but they all had different hallucinations of a figure that resembled a man, so due to their grief, they believed that the figure was in fact Jesus, but it wasn't. Then the belief spread and spread. Mentions of people touching Jesus wounds were later embellishments. Now... I'm not saying that I believed that theory to be true, nor am I saying that it is true, but if Christianity is indeed false, the above is probably how it all played out.
I find it better to live for what you love rather than living to destroy what goes against your love. The question is, are you arguing because you love someone or because you are offended? Your channel is great, such a good resource.
Hi Eric! I love your work and it has helped me a ton. I am a little bit confused though, at 32:54 you mention how Barnabas took Paul to the Jerusalem apostles, likely the 12, and that Galatians even mentions Peter and James the brother. But the book of Galatians also says that Paul only saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:19). I would certainly agree with you if Galatians didn’t say Paul only saw those two, and I don’t think it contradicts the book of Acts, as he was brought before Jerusalem apostles, but I guess I’m just confused on how we can conclude he most likely saw the twelve. Thanks for all that you do!
Good show. I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think we do have a fair amount of evidence that there was danger even in the earliest days of preaching the gospel. It looks like Peter and Paul at least probably were martyred. At least, that's what our sources hint at, and we have no outstanding reason to think they're wrong. So, it's perfectly legitimate if we want to trust them on that point. That being said, it's worth noting that Peter's and Paul's martyrdoms may have come, at least in some sense, at the hands of _other Christians._ This was the view of Cullmann, _Peter, Disciple--Apostle--Martyr,_ p99f. It's based on the comments of 1 Clement that Peter and Paul were persecuted over "jealousy and envy", that Peter in particular endured suffering on account of "unrighteous jealousy", and that Paul was martyered over "jealousy and strife" (1 Clem 5.1-5). Paul himself also complains about other Christians preaching Christ "from envy and rivalry" (Php 1.15), which makes Cullmann's view more plausible. It's also worth noting that, if Cullmann is correct, then (as he himself observes) this might explain why Luke ends the book of Acts where he does. If Luke knew that Paul was martyred by as a result of infighting among Christians, this would be a very tempting reason for him to omit it. The same goes for the death of Peter.
Interesting questions are raised, but it does sound unlikely. Especially early on the Christian community would be tight knit due to external persecution. That doesn't mean free from internal conflict, but if you are already being killed by outsiders (like we see with Stephen) it is unlikely that anyone would feel at liberty to contribute to the bloodshed. Persecution tends to unify. Murdering out of envy is a very extreme expression of envy. It sounds like we would need a very contradictory set of personal circumstances for that to work, which is not impossible, but sounds implausible prima facie. We would need someone who was (1) convinced of the truth of the message of Christianity (a dying and rising saviour who preached love, forgiveness, and equality) (2) who preaches this message (3) but is also envious of the success of those with a direct connection to Jesus (4) to the point where he is willing to risk his standing in and membership of the community by which he wants to be admired (5) for the sake of murdering a successful preacher of Christianity (peter/paul) who goes out of his way to emphasize Christ and de-emphasize himself (6) in a context where Christianity is already being persecuted and the survival of this fledgling religion is anything but certain and largely dependent on the witness of the close associates of Jesus. This would have been the biggest scandal. Church leadership would have made an example out of this person the moment it was found out. Such a threat to the movement would have been dealt with decisively and publicly, since issues of relatively less importance were dealt with so decisively. And if it is claimed that the envious murderer would have gotten away with it by doing it in secret and blaming it on pagan persecution, then this hypothesis is functionally identical to the pagan persecution hypothesis, because either way the context of pagan persecution has to be true for someone to get away with the murder undetected. Also, why didn't the christian church develop a reputation for homicidal infighting if even the most prominent leaders could not escape such a fate? There were plenty of people who would have seized upon any rumors to criticize the Christian community. I feel like we would have to make a lot of extra assumptions to make this hypothesis work, but it's worth exploring.
@@truthmatters7573 I don't think there's much reason to suppose the early Christians were "tight knit," as you have suggested. There may very well have been some kind of mob action against Paul, such as we see with Stephen in Acts. We need not imagine that a single person had his passions sufficiently inflamed to stab Paul in private! And mob action need not be the only other kind of internal threat. D. L. Eastman, for instance, suggests a less direct cause, that "internal dispute caused by jealously and envy provoked Roman attention and led to Paul’s death" (Handbook to the Historical Paul, p257). Or perhaps his fellow Christians deliberately complained about him to the authorities, causing them to arrest him. Indeed there are various possibilities. Sadly, the details are not given to us by Clement, so speculation is all we have at this point. But it is clear that Paul faced some kind of threat internally; he himself tells us that he faced "danger from my own people" and "danger from false brethren" (2 Co 11.26). And Clement tells us in particular that he was martyred by way of strife.
@@HatsoffHistory // don't think there's much reason to suppose the early Christians were "tight knit," // We have early evidence of this in passages such as Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-35 // There may very well have been some kind of mob action against Paul, such as we see with Stephen in Acts // The mob action against Stephen came from unbelieving Jews. This is not analogous to the type of activity that you speculate was directed at Paul, because this concerned external persecution. // We need not imagine that a single person had his passions sufficiently inflamed to stab Paul in private! // The more people were involved the less plausible the hypothesis becomes. After all, the more people were involved the more evidence would be left behind, but we don't find any evidence of such a movement within the Christian Church that was at odds with Paul to the point of killing him. Also envy is not a very plausible motivation for mob action. Envy is intensely personal and selfish. It is hard to imagine people working together out of shared envy. That strikes me as a contradiction in terms. // [perhaps] envy provoked Roman attention (...) perhaps his fellow Christians deliberately complained about him to the authorities // This is the kind of hypothesis that I think would be functionally identical to pagan persecution. For the authorities to go after a Christian preacher they would have to consider Christian preaching a threat worth persecuting, but if they did then the fact that in one specific case internal strife also played a role is no longer a reason to doubt that pagan persecution existed in the first century. The Romans would not have bothered an innocent person because of a personal feud between private citizens and aside from preaching Christ, Paul was squeaky clean. // himself tells us that he faced "danger from my own people" and "danger from false brethren" (2 Co 11.26). // In the same verse he mentions the Jews (my own people) and gentiles as posing a danger to him, so again, this verse proves the external persecution of Christians in the first century. Yes false believers were also a problem, but their activities are discussed and condemned in the NT and writings of the church fathers. There would be no reason not to add the death of Paul to the reasons for their condemnation if they had been the cause. Rebuking fellow Christians for sin or for false doctrine was not frowned upon, rather it was the norm. // Sadly, the details are not given to us by Clement, so speculation is all we have at this point // Yeah, I agree that it's an interesting tidbit of information that does raise questions. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to answer these in a satisfactory way. Either way, I think that the case for external persecution is not weakened by this information. Thank you for bringing these sources to everyone's attention, because it does contribute to a fuller picture of what happened.
@@truthmatters7573 To be clear, I'm not saying there weren't tight-knit groups of Christians. Of course there were! But that doesn't mean _all_ Christians were tight-knit---idealized portraits like Ac 2.43-7 notwithstanding. From the very beginning, there was rivalry and dissention within Christian communities, and we see this in our earliest sources, e.g. 1 Co 3.3 ("there is jealousy and strife among you"), 1 Co 11.18 ("there are divisions among you"), 2 Pe 2.1 ("there will be false teachers among you"), etc. Also to be clear, I'm not denying that there was external persecution. Obviously there was! But that's not to the exclusion of internal disputes which might also have led to martyrdoms, and in the case of 1 Clement that seems to be what he's hinting at. And 1 Clement is really what it's all about, IMO. He's one of our earliest sources for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul---perhaps the _very_ earliest. Are we going to believe what he says about them or not? Because he seems to be saying that jealousy and strife provoked their martyrdoms. He might be wrong, of course. But if he's wrong about that, perhaps he's wrong about them being martyred at all.
Erik, I think the trilemma is that either the disciples were lying, they were honestly mistaken, or the resurrection really happened. Perhaps you misspoke, but if the third part of the trilemma was that the disciples were telling the truth, that wouldn't be a seperate category from the disciplss being honestly mistaken. Thanks for the work you do!!
He didn't misspeak. Telling the truth is saying something that corresponds to reality. Being honest is saying something that you believe corresponds to reality. Being honestly mistaken means you were honest but wrong. Telling the truth means being honest and right.
@@truthmatters7573 So if the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and claimed that He did when he didn't, would they be telling the truth or lying? I can see what your saying, but I still think avoiding using the disciples were telling the truth in favor of the resurrection really happened avoids confusion. Perhaps this is why Lydia uses the trilemma I gave above in her presentation for Saft apologetics. I guess I'm thinking of truth on terms of what the disciples believed, rather than truth corresponding to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. But you are making a distinction between honesty and truth, which I hadn't though about. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
@@matthewwinter7660I think that this formulation is wise, we should strive to prevent any confusion in a space where many are relying on their own confusion to justify skepticism
@@matthewwinter7660 there are more options besides telling the truth or lying. Someone can say something that is false without lying. Lying requires intent. Regarding your point about clarity in language, I think the language itself was clear (especially because in context honestly mistaken was already a category distinguished from telling the truth), but I agree that placing more emphasis on the event is a way of avoiding confusion.
Exploring Reality and Braxton Hunter might be interested in doing a collaboration on Trinity Radio possibly also with Sean McDowell to respond to DarkMatter2525's relatively recent non-animated video on this from six-seven months ago. I noted it would be interesting to see a collaboration with Than and Braxton in the comments of the second RR video response and Than was open to ideas and then he asked for an email of the video once given. Would you be interested in considering collaborating with Than & Braxton (w/o McDowell), if it actually gets scheduled given what you've already argued here?
To clarify, it wouldn't be by maybe early 2025 given that I've asked McDowell on Twitter/X and he implied he would only engage in work like that if his updated work was out.
I think it’s interesting that God judged Ananias and Sapphira because they lied. And they lied about something which was, by todays standards, fairly benign. But it’s as if God knew how integral truth-telling was to the gospels being spread. That probably influenced the early writers to not lie about their accounts, something way more important than the money kept back from selling property.
I don't think that would be an issue with Erik's side of things. If you watch it after the fact, then the only internet connection that could affect the buffering is your connection to the servers of UA-cam. I have a fast and reliable internet connection and never have problems watching the archived stream. Have yet to watch this one though, so if I watch it and this time I do have an issue I will report it here.
@@TestifyApologeticspray to God for better internet … I’ve heard some weird claims from family members about God miraculously causing the internet to become better so that they could hear their relatives last words on video call
@@TheWorstApologisthey you're right. Yeh. Maybe i was a bit early to it and the audio hadnt quite "settled." No idea. Ive seen instagram do the same with translated text where it takes a while to be available for people.
So in regards to apostle not changing the meaning. My understanding is it means those whom Christ appeared to and not just the 12 disciples. Since in Romans 16:7 Paul is calling other people apostles as well. So correct me if I’m wrong but you would say that Jesus appeared to Junia. And even though she is delivering the Gospel that isn’t what makes her an apostle and the meaning never had an evolution take place or at least till way later.
The meaning of the word apostles does not evolve. There is simply a technical usage of the word and a general usage of the word. We have the same today with words like "president". The technical usage of the word refers exclusively to the leader of the country, but the general usage of the word refers to anyone who presides over a meeting or organization. It is obvious that not every president has the same authority or status. Applying this principle to apostles: the technical sense of the word apostle is those who have been sent / commissioned by Jesus personally. The general sense of the word apostle means anyone who has been sent / commissioned. It is obvious that not every apostle has the same authority or status. Both usages of the word apostles existed at the same time. Context will help you understand what meaning is being used.
@@truthmatters7573 So just fyi I believe that languages evolve overtime. An example is how the word epic meant novel in the 90s and has changed to what we made it now. This happens all the time. But if you are right that apostle means messenger than it goes back to being anyone and not just Paul and the 12 disciples.
@@omnikevlar2338 apostle is not a neologism. From wikipedia: The term apostle is derived from Classical Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent off", from στέλλειν ("stellein"), "to send" + από (apó), "off, away from". The literal meaning in English is therefore an "emissary". There is no change in meaning to the word apostle anywhere in the Bible. The only difference is between who does the commissioning. Those who had been originally commissioned by the resurrected Jesus Himself carried a unique official authority. Those who had later been sent as envoys by the elders of a church carried much less authority. It's like comparing the president of the school to the president of the debate club, the definition of the word doesn't change, but there is still a huge difference between the roles that each individual fulfills even though both are called president and both function in the context of the same school. And you wouldn't get them mixed up either. When you speak about "the president" in the context of a school then you would normally be referring to the president of the entire school, whereas if you wanted to refer to a less significant president inside the school system (like the debate club president), you would disambiguate that president by including additional information in the context of your statement. The same goes for apostles: everyone knows who THE apostles are, but if lesser apostles are intended, then that will be disambiguated in the context. So there is no reason to suggest that when the apostles are mentioned that anyone other than those who had been personally commissioned by the resurrected Jesus is intended. If anyone else is intended, then the context of the statement will make that clear.
@@shassett79 Paul Loo sir's positions aren't substantive enough to warrant answers that are any more substantive than the ones that T. gives; kinda like how the lives of anti-theists/New-Atheists aren't important enough to be protected/preserved if, say, there's a cat-stuck-up-a-tree for the emergency-responders to take-care-of. 😏
@@shassett79 Have no love for loudmouthed, blaspheming god-haters who think that they're way "bigger" than they actually are, and, who could use a nice, smooth river-rock buried right between their eyes. 😉
@@shassett79one guy says a thing and now we're all haters? That's so... nuanced of you. Clearly we're all the same, according to you. By your own metric I can take your judgment here, use it on you and say: there's no bigotry like the tolerance of atheists. Or you could attempt a little charity and intellectual honesty.
I just finished watching his debate with Mike Winger and his denial of the suffering of the apostles (other than Peter and Paul) was a big point in his skepticism, so this is the perfect video. I’m also likely going to read Sean McDowell’s book on the fate of the apostles.
Great book, expensive tho. The textual references alone within each chapter summary are very valuable, for example, [please forgive copy/pasta inbound]:
The Martyrdom of Peter
The traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero in AD 64-67 has been carefully analyzed. Additional later material that further confirms this tradition will not be analyzed in depth, for this analysis has focused on the period of living memory.
This close examination of the evidence indicates that the following points can be regarded to have varying degrees of confidence from works written within the living memory of Peter (until c. AD 200):
1. The martyrdom of Peter-the highest possible probability (John 21:18-19; 1 Clement 5:4-5; Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 3.1-2, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; the Acts of Peter; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15; lack of any competing narrative weighs favorably for the traditional view; the early and persistent tradition is that Peter was martyred for his faith.
2. The crucifixion of Peter-very probably true (John 21:18-19; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
3. Peter was in Rome-very probably true (1 Pet 5:13; 2 Pet 1:12-15; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 4.3; Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1; Acts of Peter; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
4. Martyrdom during the reign of Nero, AD 64-67-more probable than not (Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3; Apocalypse of Peter 14.4; Tertullian, Scorpiace 15).
As seen, the individual components of the traditional view regarding the fate of Peter have varying degrees of historical probability. Yet when all the evidence is considered, the traditional view that Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero stands on solid historical ground
Thought I would tease a bit.🤫
@@LessThanZero-j6e they also found Peter’s body
It takes more faith to believe Paulogia’s ad hoc theories and evidence-free assertions than it does to simply take the evidence in the NT as a whole.
Maybe we should come up with our own little jingle:
🎶 “For Paulogia tells me so!”🎶
🎶 "For Paulogia tells me so,
The not-so-apologist who tells me no,
I want to be like him,
To run around and shout,
Oh no!
Christianity is nothing but a lie,
It started so falsely,
That it made the disciples cry!" 🎶
@@darkwolf7740 Haha! Brilliant!😁👍
Y'all are just another side of the same comment section coin.
You're literally making fun of Paulogia for using "the Bible tells me so" jingle immediately after saying that the Bible is true... _because it says it is._
@@shassett79
Which is not what people argue, and not how the historical method works.
For example, there was a witness who saw the murder of Thomas Becket and wrote it down. When a historian comes along to prove that Thomas Becket was in fact murdered, do you call the appeal to the testimony of the witness circular reasoning? Of course not.
Likewise, you should use the New Testament itself in order to determine if it is reliability reporting history or not.
Appealing to the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning. That's a half truth at best.
I find it such a strange fatalistic way of thinking to try and find anything no matter how wrong it is to support your not believing in God.
it’s an interesting hill to die on
@@ihatetuesdays8438Reminds me of Judas, but that was a field... eh, half right.
What's fatalistic about it?
@@Ejaezy you desire there to be no God. That is fatalistic.
@@corundergroundreligion8190 Please don't pretend to know what's in my head. I didn't do that with you.
The fact of the matter is, if there was a god as described in the bible who wanted everyone to know he existed, then he wouldn't rely on weak philosophical arguments or historical arguments to prove himself. Those were never needed in the Old or New Testament so why rely on it now?
I've been paying attention to Paulogia since about 2017. To him anything that counts for Christianity counts against it. He's the heckler who tosses literally anything he can think of might be possible to explain away Christianity. Nothing will ever convince him. Why he makes it his life's purpose to be a professional heckler, who knows.
I'd say it's personal incredulity... but even then, people can't really be that biased, you know 🤷♂️
What is a heckler to you?
You have to give someone like that credit in that at least they're paying attention, at least they've chosen something, even if it's darkness.
C.S. Lewis said "Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true, or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal ‘sell’ on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?"
Paulogia does come across as a bit hyper-skeptical.
He has influenced me tho.
He taught me to be hyper-skeptical towards his hyper-skepticism.🥴
He has a scientific/mechanistic methodology applied to religion and history. Frankly, that's perfectly fair in my estimation. I find his overall argumentation against apologetics fair and considerate. I just disagree with the atheistic position.
Thanks for the breakdown of this. I looked up your source material and it is quite a long read. Over and over it takes pages to refute a silly claim, which is why these claims gain ground. It would be good to have these great apologetics rewritten in modern English or concise "for dummies" versions
YES! A huge part of an effective argument is clarity and conciseness.
“Paulogia confuses possibility with what is likely” you just summed up his entire channel
While I may not necessarily agree that Jesus was actually raised from the dead, I certainly agree that the disciples were willing to die for what they believed they saw, given that the evidence points in that direction.
You and erik should yave a discussion it would be interesting to watch.
@@tannerthepanman9202We agree on a lot of things. It's an interesting prospect, for sure.
@@darkwolf7740 What is your alternative to Jesus rising to begin Christianity?
@@20july1944If Christianity is false, the following is probably the most likely explanation of what happened...
Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb, then in the very early hours of the morning (not the night since everyone slept outside at that time of year in Jerusalem so someone would've seen), Joseph of Arimathea took the body after bribing the guards, and either destroyed it or threw it in a ditch. Joseph took the body while the guards were all asleep, and when the guards feared death due to their incompetence, Joseph accepted a bribe so that he would not tell the authorities, and the guards made up the story of the angel at the tomb to avoid being killed by their generals and to make it look like it was not their fault that the body they were guarding was gone. Then, the disciples and the women all experienced the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon but they all had different hallucinations of a figure that resembled a man, so due to their grief, they believed that the figure was in fact Jesus, but it wasn't. Then the belief spread and spread. Mentions of people touching Jesus wounds were later embellishments.
Now... I'm not saying that I believed that theory to be true, nor am I saying that it is true, but if Christianity is indeed false, the above is probably how it all played out.
"The evidence points in that direction" says the person who never cites any sources of this ethereal evidence.
Love watching your videos. I always learn a lot. Thanks!
I find it better to live for what you love rather than living to destroy what goes against your love. The question is, are you arguing because you love someone or because you are offended? Your channel is great, such a good resource.
Hi Eric! I love your work and it has helped me a ton. I am a little bit confused though, at 32:54 you mention how Barnabas took Paul to the Jerusalem apostles, likely the 12, and that Galatians even mentions Peter and James the brother. But the book of Galatians also says that Paul only saw Peter and James (Galatians 1:19). I would certainly agree with you if Galatians didn’t say Paul only saw those two, and I don’t think it contradicts the book of Acts, as he was brought before Jerusalem apostles, but I guess I’m just confused on how we can conclude he most likely saw the twelve.
Thanks for all that you do!
Good show. I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think we do have a fair amount of evidence that there was danger even in the earliest days of preaching the gospel. It looks like Peter and Paul at least probably were martyred. At least, that's what our sources hint at, and we have no outstanding reason to think they're wrong. So, it's perfectly legitimate if we want to trust them on that point.
That being said, it's worth noting that Peter's and Paul's martyrdoms may have come, at least in some sense, at the hands of _other Christians._ This was the view of Cullmann, _Peter, Disciple--Apostle--Martyr,_ p99f. It's based on the comments of 1 Clement that Peter and Paul were persecuted over "jealousy and envy", that Peter in particular endured suffering on account of "unrighteous jealousy", and that Paul was martyered over "jealousy and strife" (1 Clem 5.1-5). Paul himself also complains about other Christians preaching Christ "from envy and rivalry" (Php 1.15), which makes Cullmann's view more plausible.
It's also worth noting that, if Cullmann is correct, then (as he himself observes) this might explain why Luke ends the book of Acts where he does. If Luke knew that Paul was martyred by as a result of infighting among Christians, this would be a very tempting reason for him to omit it. The same goes for the death of Peter.
That's interesting, although it seems a bit speculative. But you've at least piqued my curiosity to read up on Cullman.
Interesting questions are raised, but it does sound unlikely. Especially early on the Christian community would be tight knit due to external persecution. That doesn't mean free from internal conflict, but if you are already being killed by outsiders (like we see with Stephen) it is unlikely that anyone would feel at liberty to contribute to the bloodshed. Persecution tends to unify.
Murdering out of envy is a very extreme expression of envy. It sounds like we would need a very contradictory set of personal circumstances for that to work, which is not impossible, but sounds implausible prima facie. We would need someone who was (1) convinced of the truth of the message of Christianity (a dying and rising saviour who preached love, forgiveness, and equality) (2) who preaches this message (3) but is also envious of the success of those with a direct connection to Jesus (4) to the point where he is willing to risk his standing in and membership of the community by which he wants to be admired (5) for the sake of murdering a successful preacher of Christianity (peter/paul) who goes out of his way to emphasize Christ and de-emphasize himself (6) in a context where Christianity is already being persecuted and the survival of this fledgling religion is anything but certain and largely dependent on the witness of the close associates of Jesus.
This would have been the biggest scandal. Church leadership would have made an example out of this person the moment it was found out. Such a threat to the movement would have been dealt with decisively and publicly, since issues of relatively less importance were dealt with so decisively. And if it is claimed that the envious murderer would have gotten away with it by doing it in secret and blaming it on pagan persecution, then this hypothesis is functionally identical to the pagan persecution hypothesis, because either way the context of pagan persecution has to be true for someone to get away with the murder undetected.
Also, why didn't the christian church develop a reputation for homicidal infighting if even the most prominent leaders could not escape such a fate? There were plenty of people who would have seized upon any rumors to criticize the Christian community.
I feel like we would have to make a lot of extra assumptions to make this hypothesis work, but it's worth exploring.
@@truthmatters7573 I don't think there's much reason to suppose the early Christians were "tight knit," as you have suggested. There may very well have been some kind of mob action against Paul, such as we see with Stephen in Acts. We need not imagine that a single person had his passions sufficiently inflamed to stab Paul in private!
And mob action need not be the only other kind of internal threat. D. L. Eastman, for instance, suggests a less direct cause, that "internal dispute caused by jealously and envy provoked Roman attention and led to Paul’s death" (Handbook to the Historical Paul, p257). Or perhaps his fellow Christians deliberately complained about him to the authorities, causing them to arrest him. Indeed there are various possibilities.
Sadly, the details are not given to us by Clement, so speculation is all we have at this point. But it is clear that Paul faced some kind of threat internally; he himself tells us that he faced "danger from my own people" and "danger from false brethren" (2 Co 11.26). And Clement tells us in particular that he was martyred by way of strife.
@@HatsoffHistory // don't think there's much reason to suppose the early Christians were "tight knit," //
We have early evidence of this in passages such as Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 4:32-35
// There may very well have been some kind of mob action against Paul, such as we see with Stephen in Acts //
The mob action against Stephen came from unbelieving Jews. This is not analogous to the type of activity that you speculate was directed at Paul, because this concerned external persecution.
// We need not imagine that a single person had his passions sufficiently inflamed to stab Paul in private! //
The more people were involved the less plausible the hypothesis becomes. After all, the more people were involved the more evidence would be left behind, but we don't find any evidence of such a movement within the Christian Church that was at odds with Paul to the point of killing him.
Also envy is not a very plausible motivation for mob action. Envy is intensely personal and selfish. It is hard to imagine people working together out of shared envy. That strikes me as a contradiction in terms.
// [perhaps] envy provoked Roman attention (...) perhaps his fellow Christians deliberately complained about him to the authorities //
This is the kind of hypothesis that I think would be functionally identical to pagan persecution. For the authorities to go after a Christian preacher they would have to consider Christian preaching a threat worth persecuting, but if they did then the fact that in one specific case internal strife also played a role is no longer a reason to doubt that pagan persecution existed in the first century. The Romans would not have bothered an innocent person because of a personal feud between private citizens and aside from preaching Christ, Paul was squeaky clean.
// himself tells us that he faced "danger from my own people" and "danger from false brethren" (2 Co 11.26). //
In the same verse he mentions the Jews (my own people) and gentiles as posing a danger to him, so again, this verse proves the external persecution of Christians in the first century. Yes false believers were also a problem, but their activities are discussed and condemned in the NT and writings of the church fathers. There would be no reason not to add the death of Paul to the reasons for their condemnation if they had been the cause. Rebuking fellow Christians for sin or for false doctrine was not frowned upon, rather it was the norm.
// Sadly, the details are not given to us by Clement, so speculation is all we have at this point //
Yeah, I agree that it's an interesting tidbit of information that does raise questions. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to answer these in a satisfactory way. Either way, I think that the case for external persecution is not weakened by this information.
Thank you for bringing these sources to everyone's attention, because it does contribute to a fuller picture of what happened.
@@truthmatters7573 To be clear, I'm not saying there weren't tight-knit groups of Christians. Of course there were! But that doesn't mean _all_ Christians were tight-knit---idealized portraits like Ac 2.43-7 notwithstanding. From the very beginning, there was rivalry and dissention within Christian communities, and we see this in our earliest sources, e.g. 1 Co 3.3 ("there is jealousy and strife among you"), 1 Co 11.18 ("there are divisions among you"), 2 Pe 2.1 ("there will be false teachers among you"), etc.
Also to be clear, I'm not denying that there was external persecution. Obviously there was! But that's not to the exclusion of internal disputes which might also have led to martyrdoms, and in the case of 1 Clement that seems to be what he's hinting at.
And 1 Clement is really what it's all about, IMO. He's one of our earliest sources for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul---perhaps the _very_ earliest. Are we going to believe what he says about them or not? Because he seems to be saying that jealousy and strife provoked their martyrdoms. He might be wrong, of course. But if he's wrong about that, perhaps he's wrong about them being martyred at all.
Erik, I think the trilemma is that either the disciples were lying, they were honestly mistaken, or the resurrection really happened. Perhaps you misspoke, but if the third part of the trilemma was that the disciples were telling the truth, that wouldn't be a seperate category from the disciplss being honestly mistaken. Thanks for the work you do!!
He didn't misspeak. Telling the truth is saying something that corresponds to reality. Being honest is saying something that you believe corresponds to reality. Being honestly mistaken means you were honest but wrong. Telling the truth means being honest and right.
@@truthmatters7573 So if the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and claimed that He did when he didn't, would they be telling the truth or lying?
I can see what your saying, but I still think avoiding using the disciples were telling the truth in favor of the resurrection really happened avoids confusion. Perhaps this is why Lydia uses the trilemma I gave above in her presentation for Saft apologetics. I guess I'm thinking of truth on terms of what the disciples believed, rather than truth corresponding to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. But you are making a distinction between honesty and truth, which I hadn't though about. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
@@matthewwinter7660I think that this formulation is wise, we should strive to prevent any confusion in a space where many are relying on their own confusion to justify skepticism
@@matthewwinter7660 there are more options besides telling the truth or lying. Someone can say something that is false without lying. Lying requires intent.
Regarding your point about clarity in language, I think the language itself was clear (especially because in context honestly mistaken was already a category distinguished from telling the truth), but I agree that placing more emphasis on the event is a way of avoiding confusion.
Exploring Reality and Braxton Hunter might be interested in doing a collaboration on Trinity Radio possibly also with Sean McDowell to respond to DarkMatter2525's relatively recent non-animated video on this from six-seven months ago.
I noted it would be interesting to see a collaboration with Than and Braxton in the comments of the second RR video response and Than was open to ideas and then he asked for an email of the video once given.
Would you be interested in considering collaborating with Than & Braxton (w/o McDowell), if it actually gets scheduled given what you've already argued here?
To clarify, it wouldn't be by maybe early 2025 given that I've asked McDowell on Twitter/X and he implied he would only engage in work like that if his updated work was out.
I think it’s interesting that God judged Ananias and Sapphira because they lied. And they lied about something which was, by todays standards, fairly benign. But it’s as if God knew how integral truth-telling was to the gospels being spread.
That probably influenced the early writers to not lie about their accounts, something way more important than the money kept back from selling property.
A technical aside: for some reason, your streams suffer from frrquent buffering problems when watched after the fact.
Sadly my internet is bad and my choices in my area are rather limited.
I don't think that would be an issue with Erik's side of things. If you watch it after the fact, then the only internet connection that could affect the buffering is your connection to the servers of UA-cam. I have a fast and reliable internet connection and never have problems watching the archived stream. Have yet to watch this one though, so if I watch it and this time I do have an issue I will report it here.
@@TestifyApologeticspray to God for better internet
… I’ve heard some weird claims from family members about God miraculously causing the internet to become better so that they could hear their relatives last words on video call
Might just be me but there's no audio
Probably is just you. I can hear it fine
I have the same problem frequently, I exit the video and click back into it. The video is working fine
I have the same problem frequently, I exit the video and click back into it. The video is working fine
@@TheWorstApologisthey you're right. Yeh. Maybe i was a bit early to it and the audio hadnt quite "settled." No idea. Ive seen instagram do the same with translated text where it takes a while to be available for people.
*I lack a belief that there is no audio*
So in regards to apostle not changing the meaning. My understanding is it means those whom Christ appeared to and not just the 12 disciples. Since in Romans 16:7 Paul is calling other people apostles as well.
So correct me if I’m wrong but you would say that Jesus appeared to Junia. And even though she is delivering the Gospel that isn’t what makes her an apostle and the meaning never had an evolution take place or at least till way later.
The meaning of the word apostles does not evolve. There is simply a technical usage of the word and a general usage of the word. We have the same today with words like "president". The technical usage of the word refers exclusively to the leader of the country, but the general usage of the word refers to anyone who presides over a meeting or organization. It is obvious that not every president has the same authority or status.
Applying this principle to apostles: the technical sense of the word apostle is those who have been sent / commissioned by Jesus personally. The general sense of the word apostle means anyone who has been sent / commissioned. It is obvious that not every apostle has the same authority or status. Both usages of the word apostles existed at the same time. Context will help you understand what meaning is being used.
@@truthmatters7573 So just fyi I believe that languages evolve overtime. An example is how the word epic meant novel in the 90s and has changed to what we made it now. This happens all the time. But if you are right that apostle means messenger than it goes back to
being anyone and not just Paul and the 12 disciples.
@@omnikevlar2338 apostle is not a neologism. From wikipedia:
The term apostle is derived from Classical Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos), meaning "one who is sent off", from στέλλειν ("stellein"), "to send" + από (apó), "off, away from". The literal meaning in English is therefore an "emissary".
There is no change in meaning to the word apostle anywhere in the Bible. The only difference is between who does the commissioning. Those who had been originally commissioned by the resurrected Jesus Himself carried a unique official authority. Those who had later been sent as envoys by the elders of a church carried much less authority. It's like comparing the president of the school to the president of the debate club, the definition of the word doesn't change, but there is still a huge difference between the roles that each individual fulfills even though both are called president and both function in the context of the same school. And you wouldn't get them mixed up either. When you speak about "the president" in the context of a school then you would normally be referring to the president of the entire school, whereas if you wanted to refer to a less significant president inside the school system (like the debate club president), you would disambiguate that president by including additional information in the context of your statement. The same goes for apostles: everyone knows who THE apostles are, but if lesser apostles are intended, then that will be disambiguated in the context.
So there is no reason to suggest that when the apostles are mentioned that anyone other than those who had been personally commissioned by the resurrected Jesus is intended. If anyone else is intended, then the context of the statement will make that clear.
👍
terry such a sad person
Why doesn’t this guy give up. I guess the following
Agreed. He seems unable to answer any of Paulogia's positions in a substantive manner. Not sure what he's trying to achieve.
@@shassett79 Paul Loo sir's positions aren't substantive enough to warrant answers that are any more substantive than the ones that T. gives; kinda like how the lives of anti-theists/New-Atheists aren't important enough to be protected/preserved if, say, there's a cat-stuck-up-a-tree for the emergency-responders to take-care-of. 😏
@johnharrison6745 No hate like Christian love!
@@shassett79 Have no love for loudmouthed, blaspheming god-haters who think that they're way "bigger" than they actually are, and, who could use a nice, smooth river-rock buried right between their eyes. 😉
@@shassett79one guy says a thing and now we're all haters?
That's so... nuanced of you. Clearly we're all the same, according to you. By your own metric I can take your judgment here, use it on you and say: there's no bigotry like the tolerance of atheists.
Or you could attempt a little charity and intellectual honesty.