St. Paul (Probably) Didn't Have Conversion Disorder | Paulogia Response Pt. 3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- Has Paulogia debunked the resurrection? Did the Apostle Paul suffer from conversion disorder? Counter apologist Paulogia believes that he has demonstrated how Christianity started without the resurrection. But has he really?
How Christianity (Probably Didn't) Begin | Paulogia Response Part 1 • How Christianity (Prob...
Peter (Probably) Didn't Have a Grief Hallucination | Paulogia Response Pt. 2 • St. Peter (Probably) D...
Paulogia's Original Video: How Christianity (Probably) Began... No Resurrection Required - • How Christianity (Prob... z
The Reliability of Acts: A Conversation with Dr. Tim McGrew • The Reliability of Act...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Help support me: Patreon / isjesusalive . You can also do a one-time donation at paypal.me/isjesusalive
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Get merch: is-jesus-alive...
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Mic used: BLUE Snowball USB Microphone Gloss Black amzn.to/35qdvBc with InnoGear Adjustable Mic Stand for Blue Snowball and Blue Snowball iCE Suspension Boom Scissor Arm Stand with Microphone Windscreen and Dual Layered Mic Pop Filter, Max Load 1.5 KG amzn.to/3wAfWwZ
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
Please respectful in the comments. We can disagree and be kind at the same time.
Unless those who disagree eat Pineapple Pizza 😳 *yokes* aside, you're right 👍
🍍🍕😛
@@TestifyApologetics *NOOOOOOOO*
@@dynamiteshadows1384 “That’s like putting gravy on Skittles” ~ Johntron
Thats like mixing oreos with sauce 😟
"Paul, feeling the moral guilt of his actions"
Lol, Paul was 100% convinced he was doing the right thing. He saw the Christians as new age pagans, and Israel suffered in the OT for paganism. He was determined to stop them as he didn't want God's wrath on Israel for what he perceived was paganism.
Clearly, Paulogia's ignorance of Jewish culture is apparent
Right ! Feel guilty !? For what !? Killing blasphemers ? What is there to feel guilty about. Lol
@@jovonbrowne3129 Jewish Law demanded it
it would be like arresting alleged murderers today.. lmao
At the time of his “psychotic break,” Saul was still breathing out threats and slaughter against the disciples (Acts 9:1).
Yeah, he was just _racked_ with guilt.🤔
Are you sure Paul didn't feel guilty? 1 Corinthians 15:9 says "For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" which seems to me to suggest that Paul felt very guilty about persecuting Christians.
“For the Bible tells me so” is such a stupid response. For one, he’ll use it for unextraordinary claims from people with no motivations to lie or deceive people when it comes to the Bible (it’s generally any claim from the Bible they’ll always count as automatically unreliable which is unfair. Except when it selectively fits with their off brand theories about Paul’s conversion). Second, it’s factually a terrible way to do history. We don’t go around to any other history document and make fun jingles about “For this document tells me so” when it comes to American history, British history, ancient history, and basically all of history. We have to look at the reliability of the document writers themselves. Finally, the Bible is a compilation of many ancient documents. So you using one ancient document that seems to be a reliable account of the mans life and written by someone very close to Paul, the jingle falls short on every level. The Bible isn’t one source that we quote and is automatically unreliable because it’s in a collection of books. It’s like automatically finding everything in a bookshelf unreliable simply because you don’t like the books on the bookshelf. It’s just such a hollow critique that is only meant to have an emotional punch verses an actual rational one. It’s simply rhetoric, and it’s foolishness
Excellent critique and spot on. What Paulogia and other skeptics (like Richard Dawkins) need to remember is that ridicule and mockery are not arguments.
Exactly. Invoking "for the Bible tells me so" to explain away evidence portrays a very shallow knowledge of how historiography works.
@@calebjore3295 Paulogia seems to like quoting Bible verses when they back up his point, and sneering at them when they don’t.
@@Mark-cd2wf Yeah, IP pointed that out in his blog response to Paulogia on Jesus' burial.
@@Mark-cd2wfThat's a Straw Man. Discrediting someone on his academic honesty is a great fallacy. The reliability of the Bible as an evidence itself is insufficient. The proof shouldn't only not be in written works, tablet, or scripture. You should know that. The chance of some part of the scripture is true. The claim itself will not stand even how much you interpret the literature. The lack of evidence is showing your intellectual dishonesty and desire to criticize specific individual.
There really is something remarkable about the evidence for the resurrection considering that the people claiming a dead man stayed dead are the ones performing mental gymnastics.
A Jewish scientist spent 25 years if the shroud or cloth that was wrapped around Jesus was real and it IS his whole body is radiated in the 3x10 cloth that is the truth read about it , no paint , blood and coins over his eyes nail holes in each hand and feet he had long hair and a beard .
If Paul had a conversion disorder, it would require a visual hallucination, an auditory hallucination, and a "messiah complex" (belief that one has a message from God) to all occur simultaneously. Just one or two probably wouldn't be enough to convince Paul he had seen an appearance of the risen Jesus. Paul doesn't fit the typical profile of someone who would be prone to any of these things. The "guilt" explanation for Paul's conversion is equally bad-if Paul felt bad about persecuting Christians, he would probably just cease persecuting, not join them. We also have no evidence that he felt any guilt-all evidence points in the opposite direction.
I really enjoyed this series and am thankful for your perspective on Paulogia's hypothesis. Looking forward to your series on the reliability of Acts.
Good points all around, especially your point about Paul's alleged guilt. You're right, he probably just would have backed off. That would be a more likely thing. I wish I included that in the video!
Paulagia talked about these simultaneous hallucinations and disorders in his response to the infographic show resurrection video. Could you please emphasize on it?
@@zoliozgamer7008 Essentially, it would be improbable to assume that Paul had a visual hallucination, an auditory hallucination, and a messiah complex all at once. These types of things happen to women more than men by a 5:1 ratio and are more common in adolescents. Assuming that it did happen stretches credibility and only accounts for the appearance to Paul.
Paul's conversion account in Acts says that his travel companions heard the sound as well, ruling out an auditory hallucination (one might counter that this is "for the Bible tells me so". However, this is the best account we have, so we have to work with it).
Thus, the most reasonable explanation is that Paul had a genuine appearance of the risen Jesus. Is there anything specific Paulogia said that would make the ad hoc conversion disorder hypothesis more probable?
@@calebjore3295 in a word, no.
@@calebjore3295 his companions did not hear the sound later in acts itself
Acts 22:9, KJV, “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."
Paulogia had better be careful, or he’s liable to suffer a psychotic break and convert (back) to Christianity.....
Imagine if that happened to every skeptic on UA-cam lol
@@petery6432 ‘Twould be nice...
@@Mark-cd2wf Amen
An interesting thing as well: even historical scholars and philosophers look back upon Paul's writings and say that he has, if I remember the quote correctly, a 'first-rate philosophical mind.'
But even if you were not kindly disposed or even merely neutral towards what Paul wrote, who would look at the writings of Paul and say "this looks like something that someone who suffered from a breakdown would write" - unless their worldview requires them to come to that conclusion?
---
Keep up the good work. :)
Let me also point out that Paulogia has to selectively presuppose that Acts 9:7 is made up, as it says that the men travelling with Paul also heard the voice that Paul heard. If this is true, the hallucination hypothesis regarding St. Paul is false.
Unless the creed was a later added forgery (feel free to correct me) , there would be no reason for Paul to lie about the 500 other men seeing Jesus. Unless Paul was simply mistaken for the other men seeing Jesus as well, but obviously that would be unlikely.
Let me point out that verse is contradicted later in acts itself.
Acts 22:9, “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me
@@nathanielalderson9111 He saw an opportunity for power. Jesus' followers were made up of lower class Jews and gentiles who tended to be illiterate, hence why none of the legitimate apostles could write their own testimonies down. Paul coud read and write, and knew enough about the Old testament so sound as knowledgeable as Jesus did about it, to quote from the same passages, to sound like Jesus.
Look into his actions while gaining power in the church. There's a video been released recently about the life of Paul, that shows his arrogance towards the original disciples, and displays his constant use of "if you don't agree with my teachings, you are not a true christian" tactics is very telling.
@@hermithefrog629não tem sentido, Paulo não era arrogante.
@@hermithefrog629 why would he seek a position of power when he already had one? He was a student of the top teacher of his time, gamaliel. He had power and approval coming. why would he risk it all, willingly walking towards death, in the name of 'power'. Seems like a very badly supported hypothesis, based on your own presumptions. God bless you though!
Imma just come right out and say it. You’re now my second favorite Apologist UA-camr right behind Inspiring Philosophy. 😁
Inspiring philisophy is a genius. I bet he reads 10+ books a day
Excellent rebuttal, again!!! I can't tell you how much I appreciate these videos.
So when you defend using the bible, you get accused of “for the bible tells me so”, yet what does Paulogia base his story on? Why does he even accept that Paul was on the road to Damascus? Why does he accept Paul even existed? Isn’t that too based on “for the bible tells me so”? Why go through the trouble of making up this story and not just say it is all fabricated? To me it looks like he’s using a double standard here.
Good question! I have no idea. :)
Paulogia seems to like using Bible verses when they support his theories and sneering at them when they don’t.
Well, even honest skeptics know that textual analysis proves the Pauline letters are of such similar influence that they are the work of one individual. Paul also wasn't one of the Twelve so it seems silly to make up his existence.
I’m excited for you’re series on the historical reliability of the book of Acts. I always hear mythicists tell me that Acts is historical fiction.
this really gets down to whether you believe in the supernatural, I don't, until someone can prove otherwise .
@@gordonlynn8300 Supernatural is defined as any event or manifestation that is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. I don't know your personal belief in how our universe came to be but I will assume it falls broadly into one of the following categories. Our universe is eternal, it had a beginning with an uncaused cause or it had a beginning with a caused cause. In each case you are looking at something supernatural. An eternal universe defies the laws of nature without an infinite source of power, which itself defies the laws of nature. The beginning of the universe with and uncaused cause, defies the laws of nature. A beginning with a caused cause again defies the laws of nature. We cannot extend the laws of nature to fit our hypothesis as we cannot repeat the events which we are trying to study and therefore cannot meet the criteria of a law.
Even the most mainstream accepted explanation requires us to posit supernatural things. There had to be something which kick started the Big Bang. We may be able to do wonderful things with maths to posit what the first microseconds of the Big Bang may have looked like. But we cannot go back to the point of the Big Bang, even with our mathematics, as we have no observational evidence or current experience on which to base any hypothesis.
So all would fit into the definition of supernatural.
So rather than proving the supernatural, it surely becomes more of a case of which supernatural act is the most plausible.
Jesus mythicists would know about historical fiction 😅
Well put and thought out yet again brother. May the lord have mercy on Paul.
Skepticism has value to prevent chasing foolish ideas. Sometimes, however, skepticism itself turns to folly.
That be the case if we hammer down everything to the dust instead of sculpting something with a chisel.
Many of these “skeptics” haven’t learned the most important rule: to be skeptical of their own skepticism.
It’s perfectly fine to be skeptical of the Bible, and to look for alternative narratives to explain the evidence. But you should *also be skeptical of those narratives!*
Paulogia puts forth incredibly implausible theories for the origin of Christianity, and then stands by those theories while ridiculing Christians. Why can’t he be skeptical of his own theories? Put as much effort into poking holes in them as he puts into poking holes in Christianity?
There is no evidence that what Paul thought he was doing on his way to Damascus was wrong, nor was he having internal conflict. In fact, Jesus tells him it's hard to stop my Church from growing.
Also, is there any evidence in the documentation of these individuals who have suffered the alleged hallucination/experience that Paul went through to do something as radical as Paul did? Or would he and Peter or John be the only 3 exceptions out of all examples? 😏
"There is no evidence that what Paul thought he was doing on his way to Damascus was wrong" He was traveling around and murdering people, unless he's an absolute sociopath, he would feel some guild, or at least PTSD like Paulogeia suggests
@@CryAlpha123 oh you poor summer child.
tell me please, about all those nazi soldiers who threw down their badges and said "this is wrong!" before converting to Judaism.
tell me about all the slave owners in the American south who beat, killed and raped their "property" realuzing their wrongs and becoming hard core abolitionists? about all the Japanese imperial soldiers who had ptsd breaks while mutilating the civilians of nanjing?
or all the west African tribes who made empires out of selling their captives to arab slave merchants?
no human needs a mental or social disorder to murder, rape or steal. they only need a reason to believe it is acceptable. some of us need more elaborate reasons, for others, a simple "well, they shouldn't have let me do it" is enough.
the mafia is not made entirely of psychopaths. basically all gangsters are perfectly neurotypical people, who will put on a brave face and tear you apart if you cross them, and feel 100% justified in doing it.
@@CryAlpha123
You’re assuming that a 1st Century Jewish Sectarian had the same morals as a 21st Century Westerner. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God punished Israel for allowing paganism to persist; Paul thought he was destroying a sect of blasphemous pagans who would bring the wrath of God upon Israel. Additionally, there is no evidence that Paul himself murdered Christians, only that he had them brought to be executed.
@@CryAlpha123 He was murdering cult leaders and heretics that were literally rumored to be cannibals from his POV though
👍
I think the best position a skeptic can hold is to say we don't have enough data and refrain from making any judgements
Take a look at my comment!
Jeez you clapped him in this one, and i like Paulogia
this is just another myth from the bible as the narrator goes on and on about conversations and events
that he has no evidence for , only that it's in a old book .
bro. do you know how much true history is in “old books”? You cant just call everything a myth because its in old records. I understand if you’re skeptical of the resurrection; it’s an incredibly unlikely, outstanding claim. But there is evidence and arguments to be made for it nonetheless.
@@gordonlynn8300 Well I better throw away all my history books and burn down the library. I mean it's just a bunch of "old books"
Lmao exactly just because they’re old books it doesnt make them unreliable
My theory about Paul: The day before he went to Damascus, Paul quarreled with some Pharisees about his favorite food and became enemies with them, and Paul's favorite food was Sushi, so he decided to become a Christian and close to Perer, without the resurrection. 😎
Sounds about right
Yeah soooo logical....
At least he didn't eat the Pineapple Pizza, phew
I don't see why sushi has any to do with this tho lol
@@notsogoodduck5580
Because all the disciples of Jesus were fishermen 🎣🍣
Could you do a response video to the one Paulogia made about responding to infographics video on the resurrection
This has overlap, and in future videos I will touch on some of Paulogia's objections in that video.
I'm also super tempted to do a Paulogia like response/parody video to the Infographics Show's video on Napoleon and play the role of Napoleon skeptic.
@@TestifyApologetics lol, and keep up the good work I love the videos 🙏🏻✝️
This shows a failure of understanding about Jewish views, beliefs, history or understanding on Pualos behalf. Saul would not feel bad he would be like the modern David in his eyes or one of the prophets who stood boldly against false idols, which to him would be like saving his entire country from Gods wrath which was a real concern so completely justifiable.
If he did feel bad all he had to do was not be so eager this isn't like someone ordered him to take action he volunteers and asks for special permissions if it was weighing on him he could of simply returned to his studies and duties and do what the majority of the Sanhedrin and those in study did say words but not really take action just like they would be seen praying openly then fail to keep basic laws, so careful about what they eat because that is being watched but happy to scheme murder. So his actions reveal he was not under strain/stress or that he wanted a way out since he got what he asked for when he didn't need to ask or do anything to him he was being a man of God and nothing is more important than that.
But if you ignore all that and hate faith then yeah only explanation is some dude somewhere had a mental breakdown and now the crazy guy believes in Jesus so all Jesus followers are crazy by extension which only reveals Paulos bias and distain like a modern day Saul his rocks are words his pursuit is online videos should we then consider Paulo is under great mental strain for persecuting followers of Jesus or does he feel completely justified and might even feel his doing everyone a favour by attacking Christians and their beliefs keeping his people safe from false idols and maybe even saving Christians from this crazy idea, by his actions it would suggest the latter just like Saul in his day.
So why would it be different then as to now how it is done may have changed but the core remains the same a beating is a thumbs down in Sauls day a stoning is an unsub or a beating is a fine and stoning the death penalty either way general consensus is/was is that response is perfectly ok just like BLM thinks it is ok to riot i mean protest today and they have support so feel safe and justified not sad and stressed.
Overall faulty conclusion by Paulo here i get his method but don't approve of the tactic or rationale.
And as soon as one of the gospels, the letter to Timothy, 2 peter or acts is reliable his theory falls apart
I have several videos in my mind that I'd like to do on the reliability of Acts.
We don't even need them to be true.
Honestly, Paulogia's jingle reeks of hypocrisy. His own postulationa on the origins of Christianity NEED the Bible to work. After all, if the Gospels aren't true, there's no reason to believe that Peter, Paul, John or others existed, much less had visions.
It seems to me he's just editing out parts of the Bible that don't fit his worldview, leaving a mangled, convoluted, Frankenstein's monster of speculation as his best explanation for Christianity.
Ah yes. A psychotic break..... that other people witnessed as a bright light.
how do you know any of this ?
@@gordonlynn8300 Yeah. paulega is just pushing his beliefs on the text.
@@gordonlynn8300 "for the bible tells me so"
That's a claim of Paul, there's actually no evidence for those other people. There's no evidence even for Jesus for fuck sake. Noone even mentioned him in the first century. Josephus was a forgery and Tacitus was first brought up in the times of Eusebius who openly said that he would lie for his faith. the oldest copy of Annals is from the 11th century, and not a single person indicates knowledge of Annals 15.44 before it was first referenced in the 14th century, there is justification to suspect Christians tinkered with it just like with Josephus.
@@yournightmare9562 I’m assuming you’re talking about the Christianised passage in Josephus? Well they found the original, and it says basically the same thing - so I’d look it up. There are four separate accounts of Jesus from the first century, not counting Paul. And Paul met and had his writings confirmed by the actual apostles, which was well known within the early and tight-knit church. Paul would not have had much luck inventing witnesses in such a place - where everyone was asking questions because being wrong about Jesus might mean dying for nothing. I don’t know if your line about Tactus is correct, but I don't see how it relates to that ‘lying’ guy. I can’t say I know why you think they’re connected but there are scores of other mentions of Jesus going all the way back to his time. More than most other historical figures about whom there is no doubt. There’s more evidence Jesus was real than Hannibal crossed the alps. And you won’t find many atheist historians who don’t think that he really existed, taught, was executed by the romans, and all the rest - bar the miracles, of course. But if you accept the other established historical facts, those are very hard to explain away. I believe several famous atheist historians have pretty much given up trying.
Paul does appear to be making ad hoc and contrived responses to the Christian interpretation of the NT scriptures. This is looking more and more like he made up everything he is saying with zero supporting evidence to back his claims. I had a guy tell me this morning that Jesus never existed. The Jesus mythicism narrative is becoming more pervasive due to content like Paul's and that of Richard Carrier. I hope that God opens the eyes of these individuals by His grace and mercy in Jesus name amen!
... as long as it sounds, "telling" right?
thank you. commeting for algorithm.
Same
Based
I do thank you for these videos. I did happen to watch some of Paul's videos, and while I inherently disagreed with them, I did find myself stumbling a bit, and start to believe them. But thankfully I knew there were answers to what he had to say, and that I now found those answers.
Great work, Erik!
Great video!!
I really enjoy Paulogia’s videos. My only gripe with him and others like him. Is that it seems they all start with the premise that either Jesus didn’t actual exists or was just a mortal man. Yes arguments have been made to make a mortal Jesus the most naturally acceptable. That would back up Paul having a grief induced hallucination. That helps remove the supernatural from the discussion. I can’t say if Jesus is the son of god or is god. But as you have shown in other videos. To discount the supernatural is to completely ignore the evidence of changed lives and the suffering some, like Paul, went through for their beliefs.
Suppose there are 19 different leaks in a wall with small amounts of water seeping through each crack. Someone comes to inspect your wall and says there is a water source behind the wall applying pressure to it and slowly eroding the wall thus the sporadic breakage of the wall at various different points.
Then a second person comes and postulates 19 different reasons for the 19 different cracks.
Which one is more plausible? I have often found this to my the case in my conversations with people about this topic. Every source both internal and external seem to flow in harmony with an Empty Tomb narrative. However when explaining all the various sources skeptics often attack them independently but fail to realize that 'something' happened and the explanations need to be able to coherently flow in one stream.
I have yet to encounter that argument even watching and reading the most liberal scholars on this topic.
@@tennicksalvarez9079 What makes it bad is that it is not friendly to the skeptic's point of view in terms of explanatory scope and power. That example however is not merely exclusive to events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth's empty tomb but every major even in ancient history. Is there a singular explanation that explain all the data we have, then chances are that explanation is most likely. Note an empty tomb does not verifiably prove a resurrection but it does further legitimize the claim. I will offer you the same challenge, provide an alternative singular explanation and support it with some contemporary sources outside your own imagination.
You have essentially re-worded the common criticism of the anti-resurrections views. Multiplying even probable events an indefinite number of times is far less likely than a single unlikely event occurring.
In a game of Blackjack where I'm the dealer I have above a 50% chance to win, yet it is more likely that I draw a natural Blackjack. Despite the relatively high odds of me winning a hand, if you do the math (assume a 55% chance of me winning due to being dealer) I have a higher chance of a natural Blackjack compared to winning even just 8 hands in a row.
I think the issue is, for these people it comes down to rejecting the possibility of the resurrection account entirely, which is what you see many of them state. Ehrman for instance outright presupposes that a miracle is the most unlikely explanation therefore any explanation no matter how unlikely is by default preferred.
i have never in my life seen a psychological evaluation of a 2000 year old man...until now
Will you respond to Paulogia’s recent video on the resurrection?
There is lots of overlap here and I will in time cover other objections he made in the video. But as of now I'm not *directly* replying to that video. But I'm open to it. I thought of doing a parody style video and replying to the Infographics Show on the existence of Napoleon.
@@TestifyApologetics hey can you also respond to Paul’s vid on the info graphics show video on the resurrection?
@@zahydierodriguez1529 That would make for one long video. Do you have a section of his video in mind? (these three I thought had some definite overlap) Also, I wouldn't take the same approach the Infographics Show would take (minimal facts)
@@TestifyApologetics I guess we could respond from 1:00 to 2:00 since he’s criticizing habermas there
@@TestifyApologetics And I also think section 4:00 to 6:00 but of course if you want to respond to it
"For the bible tells me so"
Caesar fought against gauls for "the Gallic wars tell me so"🎶
Dismissing something just because it’s in the Bible is very shallow and short-sighted.
Ateu militante.
Nice!
I was surprised you didn't mention that Paul/Saul didn't change his name.
Yes. Paulogia messed that up somehow. Paul was just another name for him. Paulogia just projected stuff that he learned from Sunday School into his video lol.
P.S Erik did mention it in the Livestream with Adherent Apologetics.
Avoidance of Pau is common among Mormons Jehovah Witnesses and Swedenborg in particular. He is an enigma to those who resist his teachings on grace.
Rip paulogia.
Hey testify I have a question for you I hope you respond.
Shoot
@@TestifyApologetics yay thank you so much for responding I already wrote a reply but I guess something happened so I'll rewrite it. First I wanted to say I love your videos!! Second I can't wait for your video on the reliability of acts!! And now the question is in scriptures like 2 chronicles 6 37 it says that if isreal is repentant in a foreigners land they can be forgiven without sacrifice so this made me wonder why Jesus would come if God could just give us like he did isreal?
@@j.gstudios4576 I don't think belief in penal substitution is required to be a Christian, surely the Orthodox do not. I don't have a real firm stance on the issue, although I think WLC has done a good job defending penal substitution. I'd recommend searching for what he has said on the issue while also investigating the Eastern Orthodox view and weigh them out. Just realize that it isn't a make or break issue in that Christians can hold different views on the topic.
@@TestifyApologetics can you explain to me what penal substitution is?
I'd give this a watch ua-cam.com/video/yNtZfaDUzIg/v-deo.html
As a fan of Paulogia, I have learned a lot about skepticism and critical analysis when it comes to the claims of Christians. That said, I simply do not agree with Paulogia when it comes to what Paul and Peter are said to have claimed that they saw and heard. I don’t buy that there were hallucinations. I don’t buy that there were persecutions. I don’t believe that Peter and Paul were anything other than opportunists buttering their own bread. One need look no further back than Donald Trump to see how quickly a narrative can be created and built upon to sow belief or disbelief in anything. Who says that Paul was persecuted after his supposed conversion? Who says that he was ever even a Pharisee? Listening to Christians go on today about being persecuted, and how it was just like Paul said it would be, I would suggest that Christians inform themselves about the makeup of their population and their government. You’re doing fine. Now perhaps you could maybe crawl back into your church pew and be quiet. If you weren’t so intent on trying to control my life and what I do, what I believe and who am as a person, I wouldn’t (and quite frankly I don’t) care less about what you believe. That’s the true definition of Freedom of Religion.
Please correct me if I'm totally misunderstanding you...
But did you just make the argument that Christians weren't persecuted in Israel then because they're not persecuted in America now?
Christians face death for their beliefs in several Middle Eastern countries even today.
I’ll give this paulogia, he isn’t saying that his theories are absolute truth. So that an improvment
Of course, that's history. History doesn't work with absolutes. History isn't religion.
He’s not saying that history is religion, don’t straw man him. You need to look at the claim, then identify all the holes in the theories surrounding it and then come to the conclusion that the resurrection happened.
Heyy great video, maybe you can make videos answering Dale B. Martin
Hmm...not a bad idea. I listened to some of his historical Jesus course that was on iTunesU back in the day. That was when I decided that biblical critics are really smart and at the same time their opinions at times can be well...woof.
@@TestifyApologetics He is a christian, right?
@@TestifyApologetics yep, that's why I told you to answer him! There are a lot of so called "deconstructed Christians" that use his works
@@j.victor He's a very liberal Christian. Episcopal.
@@TestifyApologetics Hmmm... Dr Mike Licona had a dialogue with him about Jesus divinity and other about his resurrection.
Even if you are an atheist, you have to admit that even if they were hallucinations; the likelihood of that happening to Peter and Paul, one Christian, and a non-Christian is so low, for them to have the same hallucination is so unlikely. Of course, you can believe it. I am just saying
Dá até vontade de comer sagui, meu irmão😢
*Paulogia* : "I have a theory about Jesus that doesn't involve him being resurrected!"
*His followers* : "Ok, we're listening."
*Paulogia* : "It has no evidence behind it, it's total bogus and I haven't bothered to do any good research but this theory does disprove Christianity if true."
*His followers* : "YOU'RE A GENIUS!"
Paulogia's comment section is a steaming pile of toxicity.
Paul just made a scenario that could result in the modern church without miracles. all he's trying to do is prove that miracles aren't necessary to explain the facts.
Christians: "We have a story about How Christianity began with Jesus' ressurection!"
It's followers: Ok, we're listening.
Christians: It has no actual evidence behind it! There are some gospels that no one knows who have written, this guy named Paul who's never been with Jesus before. And CLEARLY contradicts the law-abiding sermon of Jesus in Mathew, but anyways. We also have Peter! (Who basically dissapears but whatever, he didn't actually know how to write so) aaand, we have James! Kinda dissapears as well so whatever!
Its followers: WOW, PRAISE TO THE LORD JESUS!
I'm not sure an depth analysis is warranted for Paulogia, I have heard 3 of these responses now, and he rarely has more than speculation to offer.
Paulogia- Yeah the likelihood of my theory is very unlikely
But, Grief hallucinations are actually quite common
I don’t get how he can say both at the same time?
What's your view on the Synoptic Problem?
Here's a good book on the topic, even if you don't accept his proposal of Matthean priority. www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603
@@TestifyApologetics Thank you! I lean towards Matthean priority.
I refuse to be respectful to anyone who refuses to do or be anything respectable. Paulogia is an anti-logical hack, a zealot firmly denying obvious truth. His smug, smarmy delivery doesn't itself magically become respectful nor rational because he keeps his volume low and his tone flat while doing it.
This is the end of the series?
Yeah, this is just a series responding to one video. I understand he has more to say on the topic elsewhere. That would make for a much longer series if I were to really get into the depths of all of it. I am willing to dialogue with him on the topic if he wants to. Think of my channel as one long, indirect response to a lot of his claims, though.
Missed the whole point…..again
I think that the best case about Paul's conversion is presented in the video that Paul (Paulogia) recently done with Shannon Q.
What was it about
@@webslinger527 basically, they claim that Paul is the kind of person that is inclined to have a hallucination of the kind.
@@j.victor Eh. That could be true but their was difference between a Hallucination and a bodily resurrection also even If Paul did have a vision of Jesus he wouldn’t be viewing him as God at that point he Didn’t see Jesus was God so if you did have a vision it wouldn’t make any sense for him reviewing him with light and all powerful. It would be like asking a Jew from a concentration camp to imagine Hitler the last thing you would expect to hear would hear them say he’s like an angel. So no I don’t think that’s the most likely. You’re probably even more holes you can put in that theory.
@@webslinger527 Good point.
@@j.victor The men with Paul must have also been so inclined (to an auditory hallucination, no less!), for the text says the men traveling with Paul “heard a voice, but saw nothing, and were speechless.” (Acts 9:7).
This contagious hallucination also caused Paul to go blind for three days (Acts 9:8,9).
Wonder how many examples of _this_ we can find in the psychiatry books??
Seriously, though, this kind of theory seems less like an attempt to explain, and more like a desperate attempt to explain away.
By far, I think this is the best kind of "objection" is that we don't have sufficient evidence to establish anything.
As Christians, I think we have to accept that too. The evidence for the resurrection is far from the "best explanation of the evidence." It seems to me that ANY judgment (by both: the apologist and the polemicist) on the subject requires faith.
Doing a Paulogia, imagine "what if" we found a diary by Peter or Joseph of Arimathea that contained jaw-dropping things? This is not a empty question.
I don't think we can say more than the bare minimal facts on the subject. We have VERY LITTLE data about what actually happened in the first century. Again: ANY judgment (of affirmation or denial) requires faith: the atheist because of his commitment to naturalism does not accept the event. The Christian, on the other hand, accepts these truths by faith also.
I don't think that a simple historical investigation can give our worldview, but the opposite. Religious issues are not investigated in this way. As I once heard, "the pure in heart shall see God."
I leave you with these words:
"Circumstantial evidence is a very complicated thing. It may seem to point directly to one thing, but if you change your own point of view a bit, you might find that it points in an equally adamant way to something entirely different."
-Sherlock Holmes
I somewhat, though not fully, agree with you. The worldview we bring while investigating the evidence plays a big role in our conclusions.
I think one way to get around this is doing further research on the shroud of Turin. It we have sufficient reason to believe that the image could not have been produced naturally, then we would have sufficient reason to accept the resurrection
@@sathviksidd That is true. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" person. Some (atheists in particular) claim to be "impartial". As Chesterton once said, "The closest we can come to being impartial is admitting that we are partial."
As for the shroud, I think all the evidence shows it to be a fourteenth-century forge. The dating and the letter sent by a pope (I forget the name) match perfectly.
I tend to believe the shroud is false.
@@j.victor yeah right
There are papers published recently that argue against the carbon dating, and they seem to be pretty successful
I have to look into the letter thing
God bless!
@@sathviksidd If I may jump into the discussion about the Shroud: If it is a medieval forgery, the experts should probably be able to reproduce it. But the can't, despite the Shroud being the single most studied material object in human history. What do we make of that? The only rebuttal I could see a skeptic mount against this objection are some other examples of ancient artifacts that we can't reproduce despite our best efforts.
@@st.isaacofniniveh9909 well, then it would be interesting to think why we are not able to reproduce other ancient artefacts vs why we can't reproduce the shroud
The shroud is not painted, it contains real blood, has pollen from the time of first century Jerusalem, shown to be laid on a 3d figure, etc.
I wonder what the counterpoints to the other artefacts are
The point of Paul's story is that the early church could have started without any miracles. so unless your willing to say a miracle is more likely then a man having a mental disorder then Paul's story still holds up
At best, if the early church had the same theology, members, actions and a hundred other things without the resurrection then maybe Paul having a very specific mental breakdown driving him to join the Christian's is possible. Ignoring how extremely unlikely that the theology, preaching, and actions would be the exact same up to this point without the resurrection. There just isn't any evidence (implicit or explicit) for Paul's break down. And if anything, Paul seems to not have much of a guilty concious since he can brag about how pious he was. Most people with guilty conciousness (especially if based on religion) wouldn't think of themselves as such. But that's besides the point since while yes it's possible, there is no reason to think it's probable unless you're biased against miracles. I mean it's possible Confusius was a woman and they covered this fact up because of sexist views at the time, but it's not probable because there isn't any evidence and it doesn't fit well with other historical factors relating to Confusius' teaching.
I think Paulogia is the one hallucinating
lol
nah.
1:14
"I dare say that no other conversions like this happen, a violent persecutor turning into a martyr."
Let me introduce you to Umar bin al-Khattab, the the first Caliph, leader of Islam after Mohammed died and Islam went into a civil war, which he won, even defeating mohammad's own child Aisha.
His story is that he hated, spoke against, and humiliated Mohammed. One day, Umar finally had enough of Mo, and decided to kill him once and for all, but on the way to kill him learned that his sister has converted to Islam, so he decided to convert too. Then he became Mohammed's butcher.
He's the inspiration for the Burka.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Hadith Number 148
Sahih Bukhari Book 4. Ablutions (Wudu')
Narated By ‘Aisha : The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Even if that is true, Paul’s story is insanely different. There was no divine intervention with yours. Just someone close to him converting to a religion. Paul claimed the supernatural
For the Quran tells me so
algorithm.
Kind of off-topic, but as long as we're doing response videos, here's my response to your case for Matthean authenticity:
ua-cam.com/video/US90sZLjaQI/v-deo.html
Thanks, Ben. I added this to my watch later list for sure. A friend of mine from the RF forums pointed it out to me this morning.
You jump from Paul having access to evidence to asserting he accessed it. Paul founded several churches before he bothered meeting Peter and John, and even then he's so proud that they had nothing to teach him. Why assume Paul would investigate given the opportunity?
I believe that you need to be willing to consider the supernatural when investigating Christianity. I know that the supernatural is real because of an experience I had with a psychic, and I triple checked the details, there’s no way he could’ve known the stuff that he did (he predicted the future and more than once got the details very accurate).
nope, the bible should be treated like all other ancient texts. If julius ceasar were risen from the dead we would assume that story was fiction.
The claim is that Jesus was resurrected, and we need to look at all the naturalistic reasons as to why exactly these explanations don’t work and ultimately come to the conclusion that Jesus did rise again. We know that Jesus was crucified and then shortly after that His disciples claimed to have seen Him alive again, and we need to assess things like whether hallucinations or lies work or not.
First!
Yeah, I'm a child, but it's fun to be first. :)
I know this is totally shallow and inconsequential, but does anyone else think Paulogia's voice sounds weird?
“Possible isn’t probable” 🤓 we can SHOW it’s possible that people can hallucinate, you CAN’T show that Paul actually saw Jesus 😂😂😂😂 talk about probability, u can’t even show ur version is possible let alone probable which is why this video fails miserably
Oxi kkkkk ateu militante.
@@azrael516 English
@@SatanFollower1Oxy lol militant atheist
@@azrael516deixa o cara, o cara é um dos Aron ra 😂
@@azrael516Cara, não sabia que tinha Brasileiros aqui kk
It all comes down to anti-supernatural bias and all supernaturalism means is outside the purview of science. Who in their right mind thinks science is a perfect system that encompasses absolutely everything?