The Death of the Apostles: Sean Responds to a Skeptic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2020
- In this video, I offer a point by point response to UA-camr Paulogia who critiqued my claim that the willingness of the apostles to die for their belief in the risen Jesus provides evidence for the resurrection.
VIDEO FROM PAULOGIA: • What Happened to the A...
READ: "Do the Deaths of the Apostles Prove Anything?" (bit.ly/2VnXyYe)
BOOK: Fate of the Apostles (amzn.to/2KjBbg8)
SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHANNEL:
/ seanmcdo. .
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell - Наука та технологія
Man, I love how you engage with people Sean! Great work... much love!
paulogia seems to forget that politics was religion in the first century.
Not only then, Pedro ...
@@filos1305the left has been influencing all of the current shifts in politics in the west. See how depraved society is becoming yet?
I so appreciate your insights Sean !!!
A valid counter from Paulogia and a great clarification from Sean. Waiting to read the book in the fall.
One of the big takeaways is that the apostles were willing to put themselves in situations that they knew could lead to their death. Their willingness to do this is resultant of their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. They had nothing to gain. Modern society tends to rally around ideas that are counter cultural. We have the liberty to express our view and the technology to promote it, gain traction and amass a following.
It's important to recognize the differences between the 1st century and the 21st century. The apostles didn't have an agenda. They had a conviction. And their conviction was that they had seen the risen Jesus. As Sean said, that alone does not prove Christianity to be true. But it is a significant piece of the puzzle worthy of consideration.
Neither peter or james died for saying jesus is lord.
They did die for preaching the gospel, it was the admonitions that got them killed.
For paul... well, literally for saying jesus is lord.
Also, if anyone says that paul didn't wrote for gentiles, well, he wrote for the emperor...
The critiques are reasonable (on the face) and deserve to be answered. Good and fair response, Sean.
However, as a woodworker, I'm fidgeting in my seat at those sagging shelves behind you. I just wanna drive down there and fix 'em! Hahaha.
HAHA, thanks. I actually just shifted my room around for better light moving forward. Feel free to come over and help when this pandemic ends ;)
The Philosoraptor haha solid wood on the left and mdf on the right.
Excellent video Dr. McDowell! Well said!
Sean, you are the man. About to start the certificate in christian apologetics at biola because of you.
I think you should do more of these, Sean. Thank you and God bless 😄
So thoughtful and so good!! Both of them actually!
Love the response videos man. It really helps clear up some issues not only atheists have, but less studied Christians as well.
I am not a bible believer, but I appreciate you responding to this. Excited to see what Paulogia comes back with.
I like how a decade is brief when it comes to Christian persecution but not the timeframes of the Gospel.
LOL I noticed that too. It's part of the atheist playbook: 1) move the goalposts to whatever you need them to be to make an argument or reject an argument, 2) create your own standards for what counts as sufficient evidence for a claim.
If you just watch out for both of those then you will be able to rip up pretty much any argument. There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than Alexander the Great lived on a textual and archaelogical level.
@@frankm6546 God bless brother keep telling them the truth.
1. Argument: Apostles wrote decades after Jesus’ life.
Counter 1: What history is acceptable to Paulogia? Within what time frame of recording history does it retain its credibility?. Writing a historical, biographical account only decades after the fact in light of all other world history is actually a pretty good standard of accounting. Biographies on JFK, Lincoln, Roosevelt’s and numerous other historical figures have been written many decades after the fact and in some cases centuries later. The ‘decades later’ argument isn’t really influential. Additionally, many times first reports are often not the clearest reports of that time. For example, greater clarity given to biblical text via the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-1900’s.
Counter 2: Secondly, the first priority of the Apostles was not to record the information. Christ instructed them to “be a witness to all the ends of the earth” not to write a book. The books are secondary works that provide a witness to the original, primary work of going out into the world. What would be the testimony of the Apostles if they all stayed home, recorded books immediately and didn’t go out to be a witness? That wouldn’t seem credible. It also doesn’t make practical sense that a person who just witness such miraculous events would make their first response to write a book instead of sharing it with everyone they know. Recording history was a much more arduous process than it is today. Orally passed information was much more common place.
2. Argument 2: Islam and Mormon revelation.
Counter: A properly basic belief requires two things; testimony and inner witness. We know not just through Biblical instruction but even more so through US Common Law, that a testimony is established by two or more witnesses. The testimonies of the early church was not established by two, it was established by hundreds. Hundreds quickly grew to thousands. In Muslim and Mormon tradition this revelation is almost always established by inner witness. Inner witness is good concerning faith, however, it does little to provide outside evidence. The Mormon will say well pray about it and see what God says, as if to suggestion the opportunity to gain inner witness.
The trouble with Islam and Moronism here is that it’s testimony is not established by two or more witnesses. It is established by two individuals that claim to get a revelation, in isolation from the rest of society. In the New Testament, Jesus the founder of Christian faith, isn’t even the one recording the events. It’s scores of other witnesses that record the events. Pulling faith out of the discussion, who in their right mind would take the isolated testimony of a single person verse the eye witness account of many?
The problem for Paulogia here and many other skeptics is not one of religion, faith, epistemology or any other notions he presents. The problem is rebellion. If the Apostles are right then Paulogia, just like myself and anyone else, must deal with both Jesus Christ and my own sinful nature. Paulogia is not a skeptic he’s a rebel. His skepticism gives little practical grounding in any other field of application. The reason he pushing a skeptical agenda is because the Gospel intuitively requires change and he is merely avoiding that change in heart.
In conclusion, the "skeptics" problem is not one of skepticism. They don't lack faith because we all exercise faith in many meaningless decisions everyday. The problem for the skeptic is a moral problem. If Jesus died on the cross, if He rose again, that requires a reality where I am a sinner and I need a Savior. If I can find a way to cast doubt upon that then I can at least kick the can down the road a little longer to avoid my own sinful nature. Once the onion is finally peeled, Paulogia is only dealing with his own heart and I hope that he will see that as Augustine said, "it will only find rest when it rests in Christ."
They're bunch of people extrapolating nonsensical things just to attack the theists position. They're not hard to read
Don't you think you're being disingenuous when you sum up why the sceptic ask questions? I'm a sceptic and I'm here listening to the video. Don't paint everyone under the same brush. Faith is needed. But for the creator of the universe things should be in order not flimsy so called evidence...
Joel Sacrafamilia as a Christian, I don’t think we should judge a persons reasoning as biased like the person above unless we are very familiar with someone so I agree with you there. On the other hand, I would say I am very familiar with the evidence and I think “flimsy” is very far from it. From what I’ve seen, the least I could ever say is that it is “‘okay’ evidence but not completely convincing”. If you could summarize your issue with the resurrection argument in a few sentences, what would it be?
@Dave Whatever According to atheist Bart Erhman there is a near 100 % chance that Jesus existed. Erhman just refuses to believe who Jesus is despite his own carefully researched evidence.
@Dave Whatever If there were first century coins of Jesus, they would be fake. The Romans controlled the coinage and the Romans didn't like Jesus.
Paulogia keep talking, your helping our world view big-time.
Jerry W it’s actually shrinking quickly.
@Dave Whatever haha thanks that made me chuckle
@Christian Slayer That is not the Christian worldview at all, in fact the Bible says if you are good you will suffer in this world because the world rejects you, because you are no longer of this world. Doing good and thereby receiving good is contrary to the Gospel.
@Christian Slayer I'm talking about the New Testament here, Yes the Bible says that God will bless the good, but the old Testament Israelites misinterpreted what a blessing really is, they thought that a blessing would be purely of the physical world, what they New Testament goes on to confirm is that not all blessings are worldly or even happen in this life, it goes on to talk about the spiritual blessings. Take Moses and the Israelites, before they entered the Promise land the Lord told them that not a single one of their generation would enter the land. He then promised, "For I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and give you a life" But how could he bless them if they were not to enter the land? Was the Blessing to the next generation then? Or the one after that? No, in fact that blessing was not brought into play until Jesus arrived. You see, God promised His people they would prosper but then they were continually attacked and dominated by neighboring countries and Nations. Was God lying? No, because the Blessing had not even come yet. And when it finally did in the form of Jesus it did not come because of their good deeds and faithfulness but because they had failed time and time again. Of course there is absolutely physical blessings because of faithfulness but the true Blessing we await as Christians; Salvation through Jesus, is not a physical blessing nor does it happen because of our good deeds, it is a free gift to all. No matter who they be or what they have lived. That, is the true Gospel, Amen.
@Christian Slayer My friend, I was only citing to you what the Bible says the Gospel is, and frankly yes, the Bible is my only source. And really it comes down to faith, I believe the Word is Living and is of God, you do not. And it is not my job nor place to judge or call you names. I will not yell at you or other things of that matter because simply that's not why I commented on this post, I guess God just wanted a chance for you to hear the Gospel, and though unworthy I am, I was given the privledge (sorry my spelling sucks) to speak it to you in hopes that this be the day you change your mind. Thanks for taking time to write back in a way that wasn't so aggressive. I guess it comes down to the saying, "For one who has faith, no evidence is needed. For one without, no evidence will ever be enough." I hope you find the evidence your looking for friend, but until then, Thanks for listening.
Dr. McDowell, please link to Paulogia's video in the description so that your viewers can be encouraged to hear both sides of this excellent conversation.
That's a great idea, thanks!
Or just invite him to have a conversation. He speaks to Christians publicly all the time.
@@troyajohnson26 They appeared together on the Unbelievable podcast.
8:56 So you think the speeches in the book of Acts are transcriptions of the actual words?
What makes you think they aren't?
Dr Sean McDowell can you make a video on presuppositional apologetics
Please no. Sye Ten is a bellend.
That's not really my lane, but thank you for the suggestion.
@Splat the roadkill Cat Sye Ten Bruggencate. He's the bellend.
The first reference I can find to 1 Cor. 15 "creed" by a Church Father is by John Chrysostom writing in the 4th Century. Are there any earlier references?
Wouldn’t the first church father referencing it be Paul?
@@G14U Look up the definition of "Church Father".
Yeah I get that its categorized as ‘early church fathers’ being people beyond the apostles. But who cares? The earliest evidence we have of the creed is Paul.
@@G14U Who says he received everything by revelation!
T Grogan your point?
I recently watched a video of Paulogia and couldn't continue to watch when he claimed that only Apologists claim that 1 Corinthians 15 is an early tradition given to Paul by the first apostles. Yikes. He's clearly completely ignorant of any scholarship on the NT and early Christianity.
can you prove him wrong? if you can please show me he's wrong
@@robjackson4050 well If he claimed only apologist claim this then he’s wrong. Skeptic NT scholars also agree 1 corinthians 15 Is very very early. About 3 to 5 years after the crucifixion, also historians on both sides of the spectrum come to this agreement. So yes he’s indeed wrong.
Lol
@@justincole8039 Who are these ‘skeptical scholars’, and why can’t you give their reasons for believing so, if they do?
@@davethebrahman9870bart Ehman scholar of that line that's who he is talking about.
well said
Awesome 😎
Sean, i wrote the below comment after watching your conversation in Justin’s Unbelievable? video channel.
On this topic of people who witnessed an important event but not a single written source of information refers to such event, I know someone who was at a meeting with a world-famous person in the main theater of the University Lomonosov in Moscow in April 1977, but apparently no source of public information refers to that event, though the venue was full, ie many people were there and witnessed that encounter with such a famous personality. It’s very possible that the famous person wanted to keep the information about that encounter exclusively restricted to those who were there.
After watching your program I have decided to research this story and see how many witnesses I can locate and contact directly.
The resurrected Christ has more written records than the story I’m referring to, which indeed took place 43 years ago.
Great job Sean you did a very good job in this video. BTW I lean more on your side because I think you have better arguments than Paulogia.
Muslim “martyrs” today are 1400 years removed from the events that they believe to be true and therefore aren’t in a position to know whether what they’re dying for is a lie or not. Early Christian martyrs were either of the same generation as Jesus or only one or two generations removed - which is well within the window of knowledge of whether what they’re dying for is true or not. No one dies for what they know absolutely to be a lie, and that’s exactly what skeptics are trying to claim here: the logically impossible.
Good, Kenny. Not sure I would say the apostles knew absolutely, but you are on to something very important in the sense that they were eyewitnesses in a way that later "martyrs" are not.
@Trolltician
Unless of course there is progressive revelation ;-)
No one is saying they knowingly died for a lie. Rather, the data is consistent with just being sincerely mistaken.
@Dave Whatever that's quite an assumption
Three quick points. 1. Acts ends with Paul still alive. He talks about having run his race, but there is nothing that specifically about to be executed so we don't know. 2. We don't know why Herod beheaded James(if indeed it happened). It could well have been because James was, in Herod's eyes, engaging in sedition by proclaiming a different King than Herod. 3. This wasn't the Inquisition where people were offered a chance to recant heresy. Is there anything explicitly written in the Bible that says they were given a chance to recant, and, if they did recant, would it have been written about by people who had a point to prove? The bottom line is that this "evidence" raises more questions than it answers.
And also if Sean how do I know that I could trust the skills of Detective Wallace?
Paul was stoned to near death, whipped, flogged, yet he continued preaching the gospel.
Does Matthew 18:6 apply to apologia ?
About the text of 1 Cor. :"the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that ᴡᴇ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ɴᴏ ᴍᴀɴᴜsᴄʀɪᴘᴛs ᴅᴀᴛɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ᴇᴀʀʟɪᴇʀ ᴛʜᴀɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴛʜɪʀᴅ ᴄᴇɴᴛᴜʀʏ; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us ɴᴏᴛʜɪɴɢ about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century". William O. Walker, Jr., "The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters," NTS 33 (1987), 610-618:
0:14 done and done sir
At 11:03 I think Paulogia is displaying the whole issue with the bible. He says if we accept the author’s claim we would also have to accept the resurrection. And yes, if we treat the early christian writings as we do any other historical document..we would have to accept the resurrection. Umm yes. Thats whats odd about the bible. The historical method yields the results of the resurrection happening.
Basically Paulogia is saying Resurrection is impossible so therefore the historical method does not apply to any christian writings in the first century.
You can't validate the bible with the bible. I don't care how stupid, cognitively derelict, dishonest, ignorant or intellectually bankrupt you are, you either need to put forward independent, 3rd party, _contemporary_ accounts that corroborate the specific details of the book, or admit that you _cannot_ validate any of the ridiculously absurd claims made by/in a book that's predicated largely on the incoherent superstitions of illiterate middle eastern goat herders.
Allowing the using a book to self validate its claims as facts would suddenly open up to us the wonderful opportunities to investigate the apparent genuine historicity of such literarily great people as Spiderman, Sauron and Professor Snipe! There's _literally_ no way around this that _isn't_ a Special Pleading Fallacy.
@@brtle you don't treat any other ancient texts with that level of criticism, therefore you are rejecting a historical document (new testament) outright.
@@frankm6546 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I grant ALL historical texts that same, _minimal_ level of credence: *ANYTHING* that only has _ITSElF_ as corroboration is intrinsically untrustworthy, all the _more_ so when making *_entirely_* absurd, baseless, and _superstitious_ claims like miracles and prophecies. Allowing a strictly self-referential book to be treated as historically accurate _necessarily_ then either introduces us to the now-presumed historicity of Gandalf, Peter Parker and Hermione, or mandates subscription to a massive Special Pleading fallacy.
@@brtle So then you don't believe Alexander the Great lived? There is only 1 biography written 100 or so years after his death. Or the volcanic eruption of Mt.Vesuvius? There is only 1 recorded written instance of it from Pliny the Younger (I think?) writing to a friend about losing an uncle in the volcano.
The truth is you don't treat all historical documents the same, if you did you would have to jettison much of what you think you know about ancient history. Since you don't, you don't treat them all the same and use different standards for judging historical documents.
You come in with presuppositions that someone could never have risen for the dead, and no amount of historical evidence (josephus, philo, new testament, tacitus), archaeological evidence (christian artifacts, etc.), or testimony (the fact that the church still exists while rome as an empire is long gone) will ever meet the level of evidence that you have set for it, while other things that have significantly less evidence you accept without even thinking about it.
@Frank M - are you just _playing_ stupid, or are you genuinely this entirely ignorant?
Do you even understand what "independent 3rd party corroboration" even _means?_
For example, there are _numerous_ 3rd party independent historical sources that attest to the existence of Alexander the Great. Your odd, apparent ignorance of that fact notwithstanding.
For example: talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Alexander_the_Great
www.quora.com/Did-Alexander-the-Great-exist-What-evidence-proves-this
As for the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 C.E., I'd suggest that the literary references from Pliny et al are pretty significantly authenticated by the numerous archeological efforts surrounding just Pompeii and Herculaneum over the past couple of centuries. In fact, it's eminently arguable that we actually know significantly _more_ about the eruption _because of the Geological and Archeological investigations_ than we gleaned from the literature!
Furthermore, there are endless accounts of volcanic eruptions throughout human history, as well as, for that matter, the exploits of innumerable human conquerors, a _fact_ that makes _neither_ of these stories particularly _exceptional!_
There is literally *_no_* comparative evidence for Jesus! Cripes, nobody can even _conclusively_ demonstrate that the character portrayed in the book _even existed!_ There are literally NO contemporary, independent, 3rd party references to him, or his _substantially_ exceptional claimed accomplishments.
I mean, you're talking about a man, walking about in a Roman society that is steeped in superstitious beliefs, ostensibly wantonly performing _significant_ acts of a miraculous nature in front, and for the consumption, _of the public,_ and yet, in a culture that is known for its propensity to keep extensive records of mundane everyday events, literally *_NOBODY_* thought to commit *any* of these inarguably miraculous actions to any medium *anywhere* until *_DECADES_* after he purportedly died!
Josephus' work has two significant problems in it for you. 1) it is pretty much universally considered to have been altered by unknown 3rd parties. 2) It doesn't attest to anything other than the _known beliefs_ of xtians. I am more than happy to concede that xtians believe xtian things, but that doesn't somehow mean that they're _factually *accurate*!!_
For example, Mormons believe Mormon things; so do _you_ think that that fact then necessarily mandates that _they_ are true? 🤔
It seems pretty evident that *_you_*_ are_ the one who's unevenly applying your own standards here...
It's also somewhat stunning that you actually had the temerity to include "The New Testament" in a list of purported "3rd party independent sources" _while_ trying to substantiate the act of using the bible to authenticate the bible.
As for testimony, we simply don't _have _*_any!!_*
There are _NO_ first-person testimonials for _any_ of the relevant events reported in the Bible (i.e. the performance of miracles, including the resurrection). We don't even know who most of the authors of the gospels even were! Furthermore, there is ample evidence that many of the gospels plagiarised each other and that the stories themselves become increasingly grandiose and mystical as they developed. All signs of fabrication, whether intentional or not.
Furthermore, even overlooking the obvious hearsay problem, even eyewitnesses themselves are _not_ particularly good sources for determining truth and the ones reported in the Bible are _anything_ but independent, unbiased outside observers!
www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html
_"the fact that the church still exists"_ -- this is nothing but a variant form of an Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy. Whether or not "the church" (whatever that means) "still exists" in no way whatsoever demonstrates that its tenets are genuinely factual. Furthermore, the Jewish religion is older, and holds that the core tenets of Christianity are fictional (just as the xtians hold the same about the Muslims, and Mormons, for that matter!). Also, since Hindi still exists, is older even than _any_ Abrahamic faith, _and_ subscribes to a mythological architecture that is wholly incompatible with that of any Jehovian tradition, the application of your logic mandates that Hindi must be even _more_ true than Christianity! 🤔🙄
_"You come in with presuppositions that someone could never have risen for the dead"_
Actually, my presupposition is that, subject to new information coming to light, based upon all of the evidence heretofore gathered, analysed and measured, the supernatural _simply does not exist._ This extant weight of evidence puts a substantial burden upon anyone claiming anything to the contrary. You may have heard the maxim that Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), well, if it applies to _anything_ it _has to_ apply to claims of the supernatural! So I don't believe that anyone came back from the dead because we have literally *_ZERO_* examples of it _actually_ happening and the best modern understanding of physics, chemistry and biology indicate that, even with the most up to date medical technologies, such a thing just isn't possible. So, being that you _cannot_ demonstrate that the supernatural _is an actual thing,_ and it's apparent that medical technology sufficient to effect such a result (that would be seen as being extremely futuristic even by _our_ standards!) obviously didn't exist _two millennia ago,_ it is simply entirely _unreasonable_ for any unbiased rational observer to put stock in such a claim based on the virtually non-existant evidence available!
Speaking of which, exactly _what_ archeological evidence exists to support the actual, genuine, existence _and divinity_ of Jesus of Nazareth? 🤔🤨
Even contemporary Jewish scholars generally now accept and acknowledge, based on the findings of numerous archeological endeavours, that the Exodus, as described by the bible, was never a thing, and that Moses was _probably_ a mythical figure, and I believe that there's even _less_ evidence to attest to the existence of biblical Jesus.
_"no amount of historical evidence […] archaeological evidence […] or testimony […] will ever meet the level of evidence that you have set for it, while other things that have significantly less evidence you accept without even thinking about it."_
Kudos on your well executed False Equivalence Fallacy. As I've just demonstrated, I am _far_ from applying unreasonably disparate levels of scepticism here; it is _you_ who are asserting numerous fallacious arguments while desperately trying to justify / validate an intellectually bankrupt exercise in Special Pleading.
Romans 16:17-18 “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”
I sense the intentions of Paulogia are to contend, not to understand.
Go get em tiger!
From 15:49 ─ If "the evidence for the existence of the apostles is not weak", why give weak arguments in the book? Why not give the strong arguments? The argument that many scholars accept it as a fact is simply not good enough.
What would people expect the apostles to do when Jesus died if he didn't come back to life? Would they really say oh well we're back to being a regular Jewish fisherman. Not really a safe thing to be anyway.
Question regarding the part about the Christians being monotheistic and this putting them so at odds with Rome - can't the same be said about the Jews, who were also monotheists worshipping the same god, but weren't enemies of the state unless they actively rebelling against Rome (like the temple being destroyed because of a Jewish revolt)? Religion for Breakfast has a video about this (link below) that persecutions were about more than just not worshipping the Roman gods. There were other factors inspiring persecution and being a Christian wasn't simply signing up to be martyred.
ua-cam.com/video/sIjpx1ymRQ4/v-deo.html
Rom 10:9 speaks directly to Sean's point: Unless they were were willing to defy Rome and say the Jesus is Lord, (and Ceasar isn't), and died, and rose again, one cannot be saved.
@Christian Slayer Rome was in charge at the time. "Defying Rome" isn't the intended part of salvation. It's coincidence that salvation happens to defy Roman law to worship Caesar. If Rome had not ordered the worship of their king, salvation would not have required breaking Roman law.
@Christian Slayer Look at you laying traps for other people just to prove them wrong and puff up your ego. You were never curious when you asked that question in the first place. How pointless.
Of course no common person would have any idea of what obscure theory you're talking about. How is anyone to know why early Christians thought that Roma was Babylon? What proof do you even have that early Christians thought this way? How can you make all of these assumptions and demand answers? Is it so that when no one gives an answer, you can assume an empty victory for yourself?
@Christian Slayer You're not even a Christian, so you don't have any authority to inform Christians of their own religious history. You do not have the Holy Spirit. How can you possibly understand anything about God then?
@Christian Slayer As I have stated before, if you were a Christian looking to be helpful to other Christians or non-Christians, the you would have opened the discussion, being straightforward, a d presenting your points from the begining. The fact that you asked a question as bait, waiting for someone to come along that you could verbally put down and point out how foolish and ignorant they are, instead of being helpful, shows how far you are from God.
Christians in some countries could answer the question "Are they willing to suffer" for their beliefs.
The creed existing 3-5 years after Jesus’ death means nothing. Why wouldn’t Paul write it down then, instead of 20 years later???
The creed is an excellent piece of evidence that the very earliest Christians had at the very center of their faith, the belief that Jesus was crucified and that He rose from the dead. It shows that the resurrection wasn't simply made up years later, but goes back to the very start of the movement. Why didn't Paul write it down then? Simple. The message is so early that it predates Paul. The creed goes back before Paul even preached.
@@jerekpetrous6911 How was it before Paul if Paul supposedly met with the followers of Jesus within a few years after his death? Makes no sense why it took Paul so long to write. Paul's conversion supposedly took place 2-5 years after Jesus' death, no? So what, he waited 15 years to start preaching??? Don't forget, you are believing a man who never met Jesus....
@@DH-kl3ob When I say it predates Paul, I mean it predates Paul preaching. You have to understand that Paul didn't begin preaching immediately after he converted. This was a MAJOR life change for Paul, a radical transformation to say the least. He was well respected, wealthy, and highly educated and all of a sudden does a 180 and joins the movement that he was formerly persecuting. Also DH, he very likely did meet Jesus, on the road to Demascus. This seems to be the only valid explanation that can make sense out of his dramatic and life altering conversion.
Jerek Petrous so it took him 15 years to start preaching/writing??? Hard to believe. He did not meet Jesus. He had an experienced. A vision, or that’s the story we are told to believe... like I was telling Sean, if we can demonstrate that Paul was a liar, no reason to believe anything he says...
Wherein? Paul didn't write epistles just for the fun of it, and he didn't have you in mind. Paul's epistles were occasional letters, composed to address certain issues/scenarios at certain times as they sprung up.
I understand you must be very new to historical matters, but I'm rather astounded as to why you expect that to be the case. There probably was no need for it to be written down, who knows.
Acts wasnt written 20 years after the letters of Paul. Acts is abruptly ending, while paul is in home arrest. Thats an evidence, that acts was written while Paul was still alive.
Well, paulogia strawman went up in flames vigorously.
demigodzilla Not sure if it’d make any sense to answer you since you seem to lack reading comprehension.
demigodzilla I just meant to piss you off. Now what?
@demigodzilla are you mad that its illegal to kill Christians? Well that's to bad if you shoot up a church like that peckerwood freak in Georgia the cops you're gonna be remembered as such.
@Tom Cummings Get over it Sally you'll live
@Tom Cummings Really? Who says so? Because it is pretty well obvious that Christians were persecuted in the first century i mean you can go to Rome to see the grave of the Apostle Paul.
Cornelius Tacitus ( 56-120 AD )
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” (Annals)
The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea
Tacitus then describes the torture of Christians:
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
Also there are many christians persecuted today. Don't tell me its not true I grew up in Nigeria. Simply because you are angry at God should not mean you should deny the fact that Christians in the first century were fed to lions and burned alive and many are still persecuted,
It seems to me most unlikely that we have a ‘creed’ in 1st Corinthians. Most people, including scholars, simply take it on authority that there is a creed. It’s far to shaky and sybjective to use as a valid link in a chain of argument.
The 303 persecution was the tenth and lasted a decade. Thousands died. The historian “Pliny” implies those complied were spared those who did not were put to death. I also find it difficult to explain how Christianity a challenged, local movement, exploded across the known world, so quickly.without a vigorous evangelical army.
Twitter is the perfect environment for Atheism.
@demigodzilla -- or, really, pretty much _any place or time_ where reason actually holds sway over infantile fantasy, superstition and unchecked irrational emotion. Though I must say that I'm perplexed as to why the OP thinks that _Twitter,_ of all places, being that it's a forum that seems all but entirely overwhelmed by virtually every form of irrationality and ignorance, is itself somehow a "perfect environment" for _Atheism_ … 🤔🤨
But Sean how do we know for sure that they truly were eyewitnesses?
Stay tuned for Paul’s next video, to explain how you misrepresent and misunderstand......again
5:55 Did Paulogia really cite a movie???????????????????
Evidence of persecutions are not only found in the Bible but also in the letters of Pliny the younger, a roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) who wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. He writes that he interrogated Christians about their faith and he would ask them under threat of capital punishment. If they were Christian he would have had killed, if they were not they had to make an offer to the gods and curse Christ. At the end of the letter he explains that this new "superstition" has to be eradicated because is spreading both in city and in villages. And I'm sure that if I keep looking I'm going to find a lot of other proofs like these that come before the fire of Rome. Even immediately after resurrection those who preached this new creed were persecuted by Jews, like Saint Stephen. Saint Paul is also a witness of these because he was one of the persecutors before his conversion.
I don’t believe you necessarily need to show that the apostles refused to recant. Instead, I think you need to show that they had no possible reason to invent it and were still willing to endure all that persecution, fully understanding that they would be in Heaven after being martyred.
I can imagine that Paulogia is going to say that “the bible says so” just for the mentions of persecution on the new testament lol.
Well, that guy is just a big tongue, but no a big scholar.
@Dave Whatever
As an atheist I wish we would stop overselling our case like this. There is of course evidence for many things that are recorded in the Bible. Do they constitute good evidence for God and the central Christian claims...not in my opinion.
@Dave Whatever Do just a little research. There is a LOT of evidence for the historical facts in the Bible. There is much more evidence that Jesus existed than that Socrates did. The house of David and the names of some Old Testament kings are in the records of neighboring nations, carved in stone. The writings of historians like Josephus (Jewish patriot turned Roman pawn) and officials like Pliny the younger (complaining about his difficulties suppressing Christianity. The best reason for believe that the New Testament is historically accurate is the writing of atheist Bart Erhman. Enhman concludes after years of research that Jesus did exist and lived in Nazareth. That He preached in Galilee and Judea. That the leaders of the Jews persuaded the Romans to crucify Him. And that Jesus's followers truly believed that He was resurrected on the third day. Erhman considers these facts incontrovertible. He also concedes the empty tomb. Nevertheless Erhman refuses to believe because he can't accept that a God who created everything can do miracles.
@Dave Whatever Oh, I see, you are on these guys that doesn't take the new testament as a historical source.
@Dave Whatever If the New Testament is not literally true then everyone goes to Hell. If the New Testament is true and you don't believe it, then you go to Hell alone.
@@Kvothe3 are you saying there is good evidence of resurrection? Is the fact that apostles possibly died for their belief evidence that their belief is true.
Please specifically tell where the overstep is by Paul
Is McDowell making this video for ESL (English as a Second Language) students? Why. Does he. Emphasize every. Other word?
I think that's just his vibe
@@karmenfriesen2681 I haven't really listened to him much before. I'm not trying to make fun of him but having listened to people on ESL channels, the way he hyper-articulates everything and his rythm of speech reminds me of that.
That’s the apostles did not preach another God, but there was one in the same God the father, and Christ Jesus who rose from the dead.
Christian Slayer sitting at the right hand of god
Christian Slayer people rise from the dead all the time why do you think we use CPR, or a defibrillator when someone dies? And Venus is Greek. Nebuchadnezzar is Babylonian. That’s two completely different continents.
Christian Slayer what are you talking about?
The first Christians were monotheists, really? How do we know? By circa 200 they were still worshiping "pagan" gods, as is clear from Tertullian. If Christians had not been believing pagan gods and doing pagan things, he would not have needed to write his De Spectaculis and other books where he lectures them on such sins. This is the most common thing in the ancient world: religious syncretism, and the Christians were not immune.
@J. H. From the very start Tertullian addresses his De Spectaculis to Christians. His intention is to show them that going to the spectacles (theatre, circus, gladiators...) is incompatible with their Christian faith. The whole book is meant to be a demonstration of how the spectacles are vowed to Roman gods and actually the work of the Devil. In this introduction, too, it is clear that Tertullian has in mind those Christians who think it's OK to be Christian and still go to the games.
Christians, by the way, could not feign ignorance. There were processions of the statues of the gods and goddesses at the start of the games. The divinized Julius Caesar and then emperors (especially Augustus) were also represented in the processions in the form of statues.
@J. H. ─ In the modern context, may be not. But in the ancient world, where religion wasn't just compartmentalized from other aspects of life, definitely. Religious syncretism, widely studied by anthropologists, is too often neglected by historians and scholars of ancient religions, including Christianity.
Along the same lines, Augustine has a story of a young Christian going to the games... I believe it's in his City of God.
On the passage in Tacitus (Annals XV 43-44), one needs to read the articles by Brent Shaw in the Journal of Roman Studies and the replies by Christopher P Jones and others.
Tom Cummings - By whom?
Like all ancient writers, Tacitus has another understanding of the line between fact and fiction than we do in our scientific age. It can even be argued that all ancient history is closer to our modern genre of the historical novel than to history as an academic discipline.
For example, almost all ancient speeches are made up - in Thucydides, Tacitus, the New Testament, etc. This doesn’t mean that the ancient writer is trying to fool his readers. No. Everybody among the élite (including the gospel writers) knew the rules of history and biography writing. One of those rules was to make up speeches to increase vividness. When you make the characters of your story speak, it’s more lively and the story becomes more entertaining.
@Tom Cummings Let me say first that I am not a believer. While I am open to the very unlikely possibility that there is a god, I don't see how anyone could persuade me that that god is the Christian God. If there was good evidence for the resurrection and for the rest of the Christian dogma, there would be no need for apologetics.
Now, as for the gospels, it is true that probably very little in them is factual. Yet, in spite of many historical mistakes (e.g. who was Roman governor at what time), there are historical facts that are reported by the gospel writers (e.g. the facts that Quirinius and Pontius Pilate were governors). Still, it is clear that each of the four writers puts his own spin on the story, and they were allowed to do so with impunity for the reason I gave above that the line between fact and fiction was much blurred in the ancient world. So, Matthew's account is visibly derived from Mark, but he adds a lot of stuff not in Mark, for example Jesus' claim at Matt. 5: 17-19 that not a single stroke of any single letter of the Hebraic law (OT) will be changed.
To me, the fact that the raising of Lazarus is mentioned only in the latest canonical gospel, that of John, is excellent evidence that the story was elaborated over time. Imagine, Jesus raised someone from the dead and it was left unmentioned in Mark, Matthew, and Luke? And Paul has nothing to say about it or any of the miracles?? When humans rewrite a story, they embellish it, and it has always been like this. The Bible is very typical of ancient literature. The more time passed, the more miracles Jesus performed...
Well said Sean. Another one bites the dust.
I have to admit that this Paulogia guy gets me angry. I can't tell if he's deliberately lying or if he's just not interested in the truth and merely interested in UA-cam views. Either way, the things he says are way off base.
I don’t believe that he is lying. He comes across as a pretty good guy who’s willing to change his mind. I just don’t think he realizes how bad his arguments are.
You give Paulogia to much credit
@Christian Slayer There is nothing said about the Holy Spirit here, it is only me making an honest mistake, I'm human, Hallo
@Christian Slayer Or should I call you holy spirit for showing me,
See even you can work wonders in Yehovah's kingdom
Oscar Wilde" "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
Awana? As in, "Awana" try to convince people of something for which there is no valid evidence.
Arm-wrestling. So funny.
Even the phrase "These books are years after the fact." Since the Resurrection isn't a fact...
The timing of the books is worth considering, but even if they were written the day of Jesus's death, there is no credible evidence that they're claims of "magic" are true. A person could be interviewed today mere moments after, say, an accident or some event, and their perceptions would be suspect unless there was, say, video evidence. I'm astounded that people claim there's evidence for such an outlandish claim.
I think I'll choose to believe that Orpheus descended to Hades to retrieve Eurydice. It's just as likely as the Resurrection.
I think Sean makes an erroneous connection that the apostles belief in the resurrection resulted in their refusal to worship the Roman gods, which eventually led to their deaths hence they died for the belief in the resurrection. Remember that all the apostles and Jesus were Jews, who were granted an exemption in Pagan worship. They did not worship the Pagan Gods before the resurrection, so why would their belief in the resurrection result in their refusal in Pagan worship?
Yeah, but preaching it publicly was a no no. The Christians were the first ones who had the guts to go out and preach that Jesus was the only way to be saved, the Jews were allowed to practice Judaism, but only keep it to themselves, but the christians went out and preached Jesus was the king and he rose from the dead and all that. Which went against Rome themselves. There was a reason why Nero blamed the christians, because there are people who hated them for threatening their way of life with their message.
The bible makes it clear that none of the apostles were "martyrs". So why would it matter what later church fathers said?
It did?
@@djays3232 Yes. The fact that you have to ask the question means you probably haven't seen those bible verses.
@@gregbooker3535 could you give them to me
James was almost certainly executed for preaching the gospel...
Not so much for saying jesus is lord, more likely for saying theft is bad.
Apostles who were martyred (highest possible probability):
Peter - Likely crucified
Paul - Likely beheaded
James (son of Zebedee) - "Killed with the sword"
Apostle who was martyred (very probably true):
James (brother of Jesus) - Likely stoned to death
Apostle who was martyred (more probable than not):
Thomas - Likely speared to death
Apostle who was martyred (more plausible than not):
Andrew - Likely crucified, though NOT on an X-shaped cross
As for the rest of the apostles, it is as plausible as not that they were martyred. John son of Zebedee probably did NOT die from martyrdom.
So what do you conclude about the force of the martyrdom-argument for Jesus' resurrection? Is it powerful enough to render today's unbelievers unreasonable or not?
Words in a book (or books) are words in books ,they can never be (real) evidence for gods or any supernatural beings.
Why not?
@@soulcage6228 Because a god, if
one existed
would know humans can (and do)
write anything they want to,no restrictions,
so it's hard to see that an omniscient being would use that
method, esp for such an 'important'
message
also the fact that millions find it impossible
to believe itself shows it's not a
good method.
@@frankwhelan1715 Faith is a huge part of our relationship with God. There were many who denied that Jesus is the Son of God to His face, while he was raising people from the dead and performing miracles right in front of them. Men will believe what they want to believe, regardless of which method is used to declare God's truth and authority over us. Not everyone will be saved because men will always be in denial. God wanted a people who would choose to love Him, so there must be free choice involved: choice to accept or reject Him.
@@frankwhelan1715 So what would have been the best way to transmit such a message throughout history while simultaneously maintaining record of that communication? How would you have handled it?
@@frankwhelan1715 The answer is in the story of the Bible itself. In the first chapters of the Bible, the story is that God creates humanity to rule the Earth in partnership with him: God and Mankind together. Humanity chose to do it their own way apart from God, and the rest of the story is what God is doing to re-unite humanity and himself. Whenever you read in Scripture about the Spirit moving, it is ALWAYS with humans and their ability to create something amazing. The God of the Bible OF COURSE would use people to write his story with him, because that's what the story itself says he will do.
Sean,
you and Paulogia are two of calmest voices on these topics throughout the social media space, and you two seldom sneak in underhanded cuts to make or emotionally enhance a point. However, when you dumped on Paul’s use of the jingle, “So the Bible tells me so”, I believe that you being quite unfair. You claimed that he completely discounts the accuracy of the Bible, whereas I’m sure you know that he only uses that jingle when the Bible is the single source . I was surprised at your approach.
Paulogia is consistently quite careful in the statements he makes, particularly within his pre-recorded segments, and seldom has long convoluted arguments like many apologetics.
If you compare the "creed" of 1st Corinthians 15:3-4 with 11:23, you immediately find that Paul talks that way when he is talking about receiving from the LORD., not when he is talking about receiving historical facts from other people For some reason, Paul does not want to admit he received any bit of the gospel from other humans. And in Galatians 1:11-12 he explicitly denies that other humans had anything to do with how he received the gospel.
You cannot trifle that he is merely saying he got the "general" gospel solely by divine telepathy and he got the resurrection narrative details from other apostles, because Paul's "gospel" infamously stays away from the words of the historical Jesus, which is the polar opposite of what we find Matthew and John doing iin their respective gospels.
We are reasonable to conclude that Paul intended to convey that he got absolutely NOTHING from other apostles, he got the ENTIRE gospel from divine telepathy. As an atheist I readily agree that Paul got ALL of his gospel from the prior apostles, but for Christians, they are stuck with what Paul meant. If he meant to convey that no other humans were involved in how he received any of the gospel, then that is what the Christian is stuck with. They are not allowed to say Paul was lying.
Dr. McDowell’s response video to Paulogia has a much better tone/attitude than that of William Lane Craig. Several points went over Dr. McDowell’s head (or maybe to the side), mostly involving the concepts of historical claims vs. evidence and testability. Enjoyable video that explains the roots of modern religious martyrdom complex very well, if unintentionally.
Why don’t you just reach out to Paul and have a conversation? He seems more than willing to do so. This would avoid a lot of this back and forth over multiple videos thing you guys love to do.
Dave Whatever hmm I’m not sure it works that way. Just because you have more videos, doesn’t mean you make more money. At any rate, it would simply be a better viewing experience imo.
@Dave Whatever That's actually not how it works... UA-cam channels make money on how many people watch ads. I don't see any ads on this video.
@Dave Whatever Eh? You seem to have an anger issue there bud. I was merely pointing out the error in your comment. You can look it up.
@Dave Whatever Uhhh... they also make money through ads.
@Dave Whatever Lol, how can you not see it? This video doesn't have ads. No ads = no money. No money = video response is not for money.
Claiming there was some kind of monotheist and polytheist conflict makes no sense. Jews were for the most part allowed to worship freely around the time of Jesus with the exception of localized expulsions as you state. I agree the early Jewish sec that followed Jesus claimed he was the Anointed One, Messiah, or as the Romans took it the King of the Jews and this would have been seen as a political crime/opposition and that would have gotten one crucified or persecuted in Rome. I agree the evidence for the apostles are not weak. I agree with you that it is an an argument from silence and the Pauline letters were of a different intended purpose. Very valid claim to say he uses the bible when it validates his position but doesn't when it invalidates his position. This is a similar position when the theist claims science proves their god but deny it when it doesn't. You and Paulogia just have differing opinions or definitions on what martyrdom is so this won't be resolved those though response videos. You're pushing the monotheist claims too hard when Jews were monotheist. It was the political claim that Jesus was the Messiah that would have made the political difference. The claim someone died for their beliefs is not swaying. Roman soldiers fought and died for the glory of Rome and for Caesar this doesn't mean the Roman Gods were real either or that Caesar was a god either.
Here are my thoughts as an "atheist":
Meeting Paul's criteria for martyrdom is necessary for determining whether or not they died for their religious beliefs. There are plenty of other incentives to cultivate false religious beliefs in any society. First and foremost, new religions create cultural shifts in authority. Religions can generate a lot of money, power, and even military support, which is especially true in judaism and Christianity. So, as the reward for proceletizing increases, so to does the amount of risk people would be willing to take for spreading their religion.
Let's use a "different" religion as an example. Even if you don't believe Muhammad was an actual prophet, you must necessarily acknowledge that he too put himself and his followers in harm's way for their beliefs. Does that not equally support Islam as a true religion? Extremist suicide bombers blow themselves up all of the time. Death is certain, but they view the reward as greater than their suffering in life and are easily manipulated into dying for their religion.
One thing is certain here. The extent of belief that members of religions have is not a reasonable indicator of their truth because this would mean that all religions that have experienced risk factors in their early stages of development would have the same claim.
Sean's book The Fate of the Apostles is making the claim that the lives and deaths of the first church leaders achieved no financial or status-gaining rewards. You could make a case for church leaders today, but not for the first church leaders in Israel or Rome. Paul even wrote often about his own poverty, the poverty of the church is Jersalem, and the poverty of Jesus as proofs they are not doing any of this for financial gain but because that saw Jesus after he died.
At minute 34, Sean seems to answer a lot of this confusion you seem to have.
@@carymack thought experiment: if the religion is false and the founder(s) of the religion were aware of this, would it not still be in their best interest to portray themselves as ideologically consistent with their teachings since their agenda most likely required their followers to be reasonably convinced?
I'm not a behavioral analysis and we don't have a living Jesus or a living Paul to study, but if Christianity is false and has a naturalistic explanation, that model would still account for why the authors wrote what they did.
This goes back to why you can't just accept biblical narratives alone (for the Bible tells me so) as sufficient evidence and also why the standards set by Paulogia for martyrdom are so important. There has to be a method to distinguish honesty from corruption and dismissing Paulogia's standards in favor of Dr. Sean's own set of standards for martyrdom allows him to make his argument without meeting the criteria that is sufficient enough to make that distinction.
Humans are the most creative and imaginative beings that are physically establsihed on this planet. They can craft beautiful stories with immensely deep subtextual meanings, but their agendas can be vastly different. Some people want to make money, some want to justify war, others want to justify having many wives, and some genuinely want to cultivate better societies. If we live in a world where practically every civilization invents a religion, we must have a set of epistemologically consistent standards that we must apply in order to distinguish between honesty and corruption, let alone truth.
Given the philosophical consistency of Christianity, I do think Paul was genuine. Whether he was actually convinced of god from his vision, or he saw a means to revise a broken society and was compelled to act, it doesn't really matter to me. What does matter is whether or not we can presently make the distinction and I just don't think we can.
@@carymack I think there's a few spots where I confused Paul for Paulogia, I'll go back and edit
@@justinthillens2853 I like your thought experiment. Good question. My response that I would encourage you to think about is: If the disciples knowingly knew their faith to be a fraud, what would possibly motivate them to continue this act? Why care about being ideologically consistent? They had nothing whatsoever to gain.
The resurrection narratives grow in the telling which may indicate a legend that grew over time. Pay attention to how "experiencing" the Risen Jesus evolves in chronological order. Scholarly consensus dating places the documents as follows:
Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. Predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable.
Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, has some women grab Jesus' feet, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the disciples. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Acts adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.
John 90-110 CE - Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we can see the clear linear development that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and evolved to the ever-changing physical encounters in the gospels (which are not firsthand reports).
If apologists want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then they need to provide other examples about the same event from history that grow in fantastic detail like the gospels do, yet are still regarded to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that grow like the gospels do will be legends. www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/6hj39c/the_resurrection_is_a_legend_that_grew_over_time/
@@TheCaroluss No he actually doesn't. That video has a narrow focus on the "number" of miracles or "extraordinary events" whereas my argument has to do with how the Resurrected Jesus is experienced in each account.
Moreover, it's not necessarily the number or extraordinary events that show progression but in John, the last gospel to be written, the fact that there are amazing stories unique to his gospel which are not found in the synoptics. For instance, the water to wine miracle, the raising of Lazarus, the high Christological statements, Jesus walking through walls, the Doubting Thomas story, and the miraculous catch of 153 fish. So all that PLUS the two passages below is enough to show that John, being the last written, is still consistent with being the most developed overall. This video does not actually address this evidence.
These two verses from John support the development theory:
John 20:30
_"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."_
John 21:25
_"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."_
@Qwerty That's false. www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml
@Qwerty The first gospel, Mark, was composed around the year 70 according to most scholars so that's 40 years after Jesus' death. So the belief that Jesus was resurrected started in the 30's but was based on having "visions" of him from heaven as we find in Paul's letters from the 50s. Then Mark - empty tomb, then Matthew - first appearance report, then Luke - physical appearances followed by Ascension, then John - Doubting Thomas story.
You can prove yourself that legends can start quite early just from a couple of examples. The story about George Washington chipping down the cherry tree was circulating about a year after his death. The leaders of North Korea had legends spread about them while they're still alive. So it's simply false than legends take hundreds of years.
@Qwerty That doesn't change anything I said. The date given for Mark at the earliest is 65 which is after Paul's letters that date to the 50s. Again, you can look at the data for yourself. How come all the physical corpse touching and ascension stories are only found in the last two gospels to be written. This is exactly what we would expect from a legend being embellished over time. It is not what we'd expect from reliable eyewitness testimony because the inconsistencies are very extreme in nature.
@Qwerty North Korea stories don't qualify as legends? How come? That's moving the goalposts and special pleading. If I find one single instance of stories being spread and believed while the person is still alive then that shoots a torpedo through your "legends take hundreds of years" to accrue.
Just face it. You're dead wrong. Read the link if you want a more full refutation.
Missing here is the Proto-Paschalian Account of resurrection belief. Basically, they didn’t believe, they wagered. It is fully consistent with the behavior of the disciples that they did not really believe that the resurrection had happened. Let’s say, for instance, that they thought there was only a 20% chance that Jesus had risen. They knew that if they acted upon that, even onto martyrdom, the payoff would be eternal. They also knew that if they did not act upon it and it turned out to be true, they could face eternal condemnation. (Jesus has warned the as such.)
They also didn’t have much choice. Their lives were in tatters, they could’ve been the next target for the Romans. So they did the sensible game theory thing: they decided to live as though the resurrection had happened.
This is a very straightforward theory that is consistent with our knowledge of decision making under stress. It is unfortunate that apologetics does not wrap with this point.
Peasant Scrublord Ah, doesn’t take long for the insults to start. Did I strike a nerve? 👍🏻Maybe ponder a little bit and get back to me with something thoughtful? Or not.
Peasant Scrublord Perhaps you could reread my comment and address my central point? Thanks.
FriendlyBanjoAtheist the obvious response is that the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars believe that the disciples saw the risen Jesus after he died. That doesn’t even include the 500 sightings that Paul mentions of which he would be able to go and talk to and there would be people to say it didn’t happen as well which we get none of. Maybe your theory might make sense for some people down the line but no where in the Bible do we get any evidence that they thought there might be a “small chance”
Beets By Schrute 1. I think your claim about the “overwhelming majority“ is false. 2. Still, I’m not asking for an appeal to authority, although I respect those. 3. The 500? Why assume it happened? 4. Most important, I’m dealing with a specific theory that is consistent with the psychology of decision making under stress. It is consistent with Pascal’s Wager. It is consistent with what we know about the behavior of people in intense religious groups. Distraught followers of a leader, confused, make a risky decision and go for it, even unto death.
I appreciate your respect fully engaging the theory, and I would be interested in hearing more specific responses from you, and thoughtful others. Thanks.
@@friendlybanjoatheist5464 If I understand you correctly you're applying Pascal's wager to state that the apostles were hedging, even at a mere 20% chance, that because Jesus taught them of an eternal security for following them that they were inclined to hedge in that direction. If I've misstated your initial post please correct me. I'll answer on that assumption that it neglects the first century Jewish context. Paul is the best example here. He was a well trained Pharisee, well educated in Judaism and a zealous persecutor of the first church. His decision, if he were wrong, would have been made with full knowledge of the ramifications in this life and the next. In this life he gave up any promise of cultural status and prominence as a Pharisee, and he documented the suffering he went through up to the point of his death. But did he wager? He wasn't there for the in person lessons from Jesus. He met Jesus after the resurrection and more than the average Jew, would have known full well that getting it wrong by believing Jesus was the risen savior would have meant eternal damnation on a Jewish belief. So, while Pascals wager holds some merit for those weighing the risk of believing evidence, it doesn't work for those that would have known first hand whether they witnessed Jesus resurrected. All the best.
@32:50 how absolutely RICH of Paulogia to say “that’s what was convincing to me” when he has NEVER been convinced of the apostles martyrdom or testimony.
_"when he has NEVER been convinced of the apostles martyrdom or testimony"_
Uhh, you know that he was a hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool, enthusiastic YEC for the majority of his life right?
That he only ended up becoming an atheist after an intensive period of study, reflection and analysis that _inevitably_ lead him to conclude that the whole Christian house of cards was basically full of shit? (those last are my words, not his)
Against the backdrop of his _actual_ background, your astonishingly odd claim that he was never convinced of biblical teachings seems more than a tad naïve, ignorant and/or arrogant.. 🤔🙄
@@brtle Yeah, i saw his profession later. But he definitely wasn't born again by God. He was a false convert.
w w w HeHasAnsweres d-t c0m
@@HotelCharliHill said, _"he definitely wasn't born again by God. He was a false convert."_
Oh ffs! _Please_ go and get a basic education BEFORE trying to assert insipid, idiotic AND _FALLACIOUS_ arguments that only serve to illustrate YOUR significant intellectual failings... 🤔🙄😝
To wit: No True Scotsman Fallacy:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
@@brtle oof, I've just been sufficiently thrashed by an intellectual powerhouse. I feel so honoured. Toodles.
@@HotelCharliHill - LMAO! It's so cute how you've just come right out and admitted your intellectual bankruptcy like that! 😂👍
Nice of you to capitulate and run away, more or less straight off though! Let me know if you ever manage to actually finish enough high school to know how to formulate cogent, non-fallacious arguments! 😉🤣
It almost feels like Pualogia just doesn't want to accept the evidence no matter what. But I pray that someday he will be open to it.
Why would you pray for him to be open to the evidence? You cannot show that rejection of Christianity is the least bit dangerous, so what's the point?
It is easy being popatheist. All you have to do is read your bible and deny every verse There was no beginning. God did not create the heaven, God did not create the earth. There was no first day. God did not create....There was no John the baptist, Jesus did not exist, the apostles made it all up, the apostles did not write the gospels, their associates did not write the other gospels, we do not know who they were, but we know it was not them, christianity and canon were sponsored by Constantine the first. The inquisition killed more people than the black plague. My critical thinking at 13 years old made me leave the church.
The martyrs died of old age.
Unfortunately it is also possible to make a career answering this no effort sallad, without asking the pop-atheists why they are not blushing.
Sean responded to paulogia but was paulogia even worth a response?
Christian Slayer “leave us alone” aren’t you the one bothering us by commenting in an apologetics channel? well if that isn’t calling the kettle black then it’s no wonder atheists have no common sense
Christian Slayer and once again your stupidity is astounding
Lol, not even close. You can even tell with the tone of the videos, Paulogia has a seething undercurrent of mockery and distain, whereas Sean McDowell is generous and inviting. Smells like basement dwelling new atheism to me.
"Sean responded to paulogia but was paulogia even worth a response?"
---------------If Paulogia wasn't worthy of a response, did Sean McDowell commit a sin by using the Lord's time to refute an unworthy objector?
This guy even reject the existence of the apostles? Oh my God... 😬
@Tom Cummings ok
@Tom Cummings Don't be foolish their graves are still around
But why Sean, do you trust Paul??? If we can demonstrate that Paul was a liar, then will you drop your trust in Paul???
Of course.
@@SeanMcDowell It's easy to see when Paul lies when you investigate his use of verses from the Hebrew Bible. Often times, like many NT authors, he takes verses out of context, changes verses, or omits parts of a verse. See this link for an in depth study of Paul's misuse of the Jewish Bible (lesson 19):
outreachjudaism.org/lets-get-biblical-audio-series/
Suicidal Dice why do you believe he was so against Christianity? Just because he says so? That’s all it takes? The audio I provided is a critical examination of Christianity from a Jewish perspective. How many countless hours did Sean spend in his studies? The audio I provided was one of many lectures, just over an hour long. That’s too much time? I have read NT Wright and he blindly trusts Paul as do you and Sean.
Suicidal Dice exactly. You are not familiar with Jewish criticism of Paul which I am arguing is the MOST IMPORTANT argument to know when one has to decide whether Christianity is true or not. It boggles my mind Christians don’t see this. I distrust him because I can see the lies he tells. The audio link I provided shows this demonstrably. But I guess it’s too long for a Christian to listen too.
@Suicidal Dice Ok, thank you for that...
Is this Paulogia guy dumb looking or what? Why does he use a cartoon? It makes his comments appear silly and not thoughtful. I appreciate that he does this and also does the 'the Bible tells me so' and talks in one of the most annoying voices ever. It really down plays his arguments.
If you properly do some in depth research, you will found out how bad Paulogia is. 90% of his videos are biased and based off his own conjectures. He's another Internet Atheist who is too lazy to do some research
I'm not seeing the point: you aren't going to show that anything in the NT "applies to us today", so there exist smack-down rebuttals to Christianity that moot whatever faults you find in internet-based counter-apologists.