Defending the "Martyrdom Argument" for the Resurrection

[@ucheodozor4147]

So, let me get this straight, Trent. The same people calling the Bible "unreliable" now pretend that if something is not found in the same Bible, then it's decisively false. Give me a break!🙄

[@Gumbi1012]

That's...not the argument. At all.

[@TheMadman911xx]

@@Gumbi1012 Yet, if the accounts of martrydom were found in the Bible, I would bet skeptics would simply default to an argument from unreliability In other words, the presence or absence of martyrdom accounts in the Bible have no real bearing on whether or not a person will believe them

[@Gumbi1012]

@@TheMadman911xx you're misrepresenting the argument. The argument presumes that (for other reasons) that the New Testament documents are generally theological, not intrinsically historical documents. They contain historical information, absolutely, but they are not necessarily historical records like those of Josephus for example. Therefore any claims of martyrdom would have to be considered under that rubric if found in the New Testament.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@julywestt5277 so if it's not unreliable why don't you believe in the Resurrection?

[@HenryBonesJr]

That immediately popped into my head during the Singer bit. Why should I be limited to the Bible in order to point to an Apostle, etc. who was martyred for his belief? I don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

[@lukepoplawski3230]

If we can agree that individuals have across history died exclusively for their beliefs in a truth claim, then we can easily conclude that it is not the truth claim itself they died for, but their belief in it. And considering we know for a fact Christian’s have died for thier beliefs, and Mormons, and Jews, and Vikings, and Muslims, all who have mutually exclusive beliefs on the topic of religion we HAVE to conclude that in the MOST one of them is right and the others unfortunately perished for belief in a lie…..not complicated. Tie this with the astounding lack of evidence for any of the apostles supposed martyrdom, you have a weak case.

[@Lya3588]

👍

[@rogermills2467]

Paul warns about people preaching a false Christ/Gospel/Lies. 2 cor 11:14 - Hell even Galatians says angels might preach a false gospel. Gal 1:8. So according to Paul's writings we can formulate 1. False apostles suffered for their lies about the resurrection 2. False apostles risked martyrdom for their lies about the resurrection. 3. False apostles were martyred for their lies about the resurrection. - Why would anyone risk health or life for lies? I think Paul having been a persecutor of the church saw what these false apostles saw. One could gain an income from converts. 1 cor 9. So if anything was dangerous It wasn't the preaching that was dangerous, clearly no one would risk preaching lies for death. However, we do see through out time, people risk death for money. Peddling christ for converts/cash was probably a thing just like peddling ivermectin or magnesium pills during covid was a thing.

[@canibezeroun1988]

I don't understand how people are willing to be so stupid to sound smart. On its face, this argument is not about anything other then sincerity.

[@greengandalf9116]

The strongest objection is the sincerely mistaken objection, as many athests and atheist scholars believe the early apostles were sincere. If we are concinced of their sincerity, does that make the resurrection hypothesis much more likely? It really doesn't.

[@bigape8640]

I love watching atheist videos dunking on charismatic Christian youtubers then watching Trent meticulously tear apart all their arguments without talking down to anyone.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

But he doesn't end up tearing apart anything other than the proposition that apologetics is logically sound or in the least bit convincing.

[@bigape8640]

@@highroller-jq3ix I'm dumb as hell. Are you saying that he is tearing apart the proposition that apologetics is logically sound or convincing? I'm pretty sure he's on team apologist.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@bigape8640 You're almost following! He's on team apologist, and nothing he offers here is either logically sound or convincing. Thanks for your question.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@Cameron Clark It's not logically sound that willingness to suffer for a belief is evidence of the truth of that belief. It's not logically sound to claim that if willingness to suffer were evidence of the truth of a belief that Christianity would have any special standing among the numerous fantastical and unsupported beliefs human beings have been willing to suffer for. Bad logic is never convincing to someone whose epistemology requires rationality and reason. None of the scanty evidence about Christian martyrdom is at all convincing. We know with absolute certainty that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of Catholic martyr claims are false. Thanks for asking.

[@bearistotle2820]

​@@highroller-jq3ixThat's not the argument. The argument is that their martyrdom demonstrates the apostles' sincerity. That's it.

[@samuraibat1916]

I'm not a Roman Catholic, but this was very well done.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Trent is not a Roman Catholic either. He’s Byzantine Catholic

[@jurajjuricic5286]

@@lucidlocomotive2014 Eastern Catholics are in full and complete union with Rome. This distinction is based solely on rite.

[@samuraibat1916]

@@jurajjuricic5286 Interesting. Didn't know either of these things.

[@fantasia55]

​@@lucidlocomotive2014No one is a Roman Catholic. They are Latin Rite Catholics.

[@pcjgrjpaj]

Apart from the Holy Gospel, the evidence for God is everywhere, one just has to seek it.

[@jackieo8693]

Just open your eyes and look around! Evidence is everywhere!

[@RomansMentalHealthAssociation]

Proof is subjective.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@jackieo8693 yeah child cancer is fantastic evidence

[@TheLeftRbabieskillers]

You don't even have to "seek it", it's staring you in the face, you just have to open your eyes.

[@endersdragon34]

Which God?

[@bouseuxlatache4140]

Protestantism with sola scriptura does not allow Christianity to develop the fullness of its arguments. Tradition and Holy Scripture together make that possible. These two elements are based in time and space, making all aspects of the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord irrefutable

[@pemcortes9467]

Both Peter and Paul were under arrest and had trial. They had every opportunity to recant.

[@D.W.C935]

The Fact that they didn't just goes to show how faithful They were to The Lord Jesus Christ 🙏

[@redpillfreedom6692]

​@@D.W.C935 The guy who helped bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 didn't deconvert from Islam at his trial. Therefore Islam is true.

[@D.W.C935]

@@redpillfreedom6692 Islam came from a Demon Who gave it to Muhammad its of The Devil.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Nero charged them with arson, can't recant from that.

[@pemcortes9467]

@@tomasrocha6139 they were charged with arson as christians. They can deny the arson but they can not deny being christians. It was illegal to be christians then.

[@matthewp9839]

Listening to Trent take apart people's arguments with such patience and precision is truly a gift. I myself have little patience for others who spent such a tremendous amount of time and effort to try and dismantle the claims of Christianity and don't stop to ask what is the point of that task?

[@horridhenry9920]

Christianity claims it is true, as do Islam, and other religions. They impact how people live their lives. For example the moral standards we should adopt and the laws we should pass, and sometimes how people vote. So, it is important to challenge the truth or otherwise of theistic claims.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Christians impact society based upon their false beliefs. It's not really that hard to work out. Christianity has made you an abysmal critical thinker.

[@tracemcgoatly8571]

@@horridhenry9920I agree to this even as a Christian

[@timeshark8727]

So you think its a good thing to dismantle arguments and claims that are against Christianity but a bad thing when the same is done to claims of Christianity? Hypocritical much?

[@matthewp9839]

@timeshark8727 some actions have profound importance, some are pointless. To answer your accusation, not guilty. Again Trent is a really charitable guy, I wish I could give people as much benefit of the doubt, but I just see a bunch of rebellious minds posing as intellectual curiosity. It's all fun and games until people end up in hell.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

Paul's conversion and martyrdom is a very good argument.

[@Kevigen]

I actually disagree here - Paul never met Jesus ever, and he hadn't met any of the apostles at the time of his Damascus Road experience. I think that Peter's martyrdom is a better argument.

[@phillipcummings3518]

​@@KevigenPaul didn't meet Jesus? Nonsense.

[@Kevigen]

@@phillipcummings3518 The Book of Acts suggests Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus occurred 4-7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus only hung around for 40 days after he rose, according to the Scriptures, and so, Jesus would have ascended into heaven years before Paul "met" Jesus on his way to Damascus. And then, what exactly happens on the Road to Damascus? Paul gets blinded by a great light and hears a voice. Acts 9 says "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Paul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything." So, Paul never even saw Jesus! He heard Jesus's voice from heaven, but he never really met him.

[@hilohilo9539]

@@Kevigen I thought it was more commonly viewed that Paul met Jesus 1-3 years after his crucifixion. Also, Paul says that he saw Jesus in his own writings. Read 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul records that he saw the risen Jesus just as all the other disciples had, not that he just saw a great light and nothing else. That would leave you with saying that Jesus blinded Paul after he saw Jesus and received the message to "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do," (Acts 9:6).

[@hilohilo9539]

@@Kevigen Paul met Jesus twice; the first is recorded in Acts 9:3-7 (and in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:8) and the other in 2 Corinthians 12:9. It isn't exactly quite right to say that Paul never met Jesus if Jesus physically talked to him twice.

[@maciejpieczula631]

Great video Trent. Because the Christian faith makes historical claims about itself, the historical arguments are perhaps the most important arguments for Christianity, because they are the most testable. Jimmy Akin did a great job responding to Bart Ehrman's objections to the gosples being reliable (at least in the areas where it matters most) both in their last debate and on his website. However, on his website there is an objection in the comment section under the section Who Was Jesus' Grandfather that is worth making a response to.

[@christopherflux6254]

One of the most compelling arguments for the resurrection

[@ramigilneas9274]

And one of the easiest to refute.

[@SuperballsSupervidsOnYT]

​@@ramigilneas9274go on then.

[@endersdragon34]

@@SuperballsSupervidsOnYT are you a Morman?

[@SuperballsSupervidsOnYT]

@endersdragon34 I'm morman than most men.

[@crusaderACR]

​@@ramigilneas9274 i too want to see your argument

[@brandonmccall6664]

It was just last night I saw a video on my feed where a Christian and atheist were debating the resurrection and the atheist used the exact line you referenced about the 9/11 hijackers. Thank you for providing a real in depth retort to this counter point. God bless you and the work you do

[@phillipcummings3518]

The motives of the 9/11 hijackers is totally different then the early Christians. Believing your getting 100 virgins or whatever to kill people isn't the same as allowing people to kill you for your belief in Jesus. It's the exact opposite.

[@ramigilneas9274]

So if 20 years from now someone would write down a fancy story about how Allah himself appeared to the hijackers and explained to them that he wants them to destroy the WTC to punish the infidels then that evidence would be on the same level as the martyrdom of the disciples.

[@MiniLinlin]

@@ramigilneas9274 Did those people ever claim and left record that Allah appeared in front of them at that exact moment and ordered them to do that? Or did they just did what they did based on what they had learned from previous believers in Islam? The point is that the original Apostles claimed they did see Jesus risen literally in front of them so much so that they could even touch him, so they left record of that in writings. The easy thing would have been to admit it was all made up so they could escape torture and prison as they were living it at that moment. They were not the ones persecuting others.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@MiniLinlin Well, there is no evidence that the gospels were written by any of the apostles or that those stories are based on eyewitness testimony… we don’t know what the apostles claimed or if it had anything in common with the stories of the gospels. Like I already said… If 20 years from know some unknown authors who don’t claim to be eyewitnesses and don’t identify their sources would write down a nice little story about Allah personally appearing to the hijackers, performing miracles for them and then ordering them to punish the infidels with no verifiable evidence whatsoever that any of that happened at all… then that would be on the same level as the gospels.😂

[@MiniLinlin]

@@ramigilneas9274 Well, we could all be debating the reasons for the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles. But if you already think it's stupid, then I don't see the point.

[@mikederp9612]

I find it funny that the guy says a single source and the bible tells me so argument, but the Bible itself is a collection of different sources and books. So having multiple books in the bible is in itself multiple sources. Meanwhile we have I think only one story on the battle of Troy, well turns out that became true and is now proven in archeology. We have only one source on many historical events that receive far less criticism

[@angelalemos9811]

Great point

[@itscrab9124]

I would personally argue that a collection of books that is altered without original source material for a majority of it becomes one source, especially with prior knowledge between specific writings and with the canon being hand picked by people who already believe it centuries later. However, Paul is generally very picky with the "for the bible tells me so" jingle. He uses it when claims are made based on a SINGLE biblical source, kind of as an easy way to flag something with "accept with caution", not directly as a way to refute it. Paul has to be the most kind hearted and thoughtful athiest with a youtube channel I've ever seen. He's very smart, attentive to sources, does his research and talks to experts on subjects. Very much worth the watch.

[@hassanahmad3589]

Well done Trent! Great video.

[@samiral-hayed1656]

6:43 Presupposing sola scriptura to trap the caller, very dishonest move!

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

I don't think it's dishonest, maybe the caller was an average American Evangelist?

[@annmariefinnigan3096]

Can't wait for the refutal of the 'hallucination', or 3rd l, hypothesis, Trent. Keep the good stuff coming! 👍

[@dekeption281]

The hallucination thing is about as ridiculous as jesus actually raising from the dead

[@zorrobatman1]

24:50 "this is just a bunch of semantic nonsense" 😂 Trent I love you, the right answer to petty puns that mystify the Truth

[@marysanchez6382]

Very convincing arguments!

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Well, convincing if that means affirming confirmation bias.

[@crusaderACR]

​@@highroller-jq3ixhow come?

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@crusaderACR Feel free--and encouraged--to pose your inquiry in a coherent and meaningful way.

[@crushtheserpent]

This was one of the arguments that led me to become Christian a couple of months ago. Thanks for defending it so well, Trent!

[@horridhenry9920]

What, arguments led you to Christianity? Did you see any evidence? Did Jesus show up.

[@jkm9332]

Praise God!

[@angelalemos9811]

Praise God 🙏 I hope you are now here with us brother if not keep looking into the Catholic faith

[@crushtheserpent]

@@angelalemos9811 I am in Formation as we speak in a very blessed FSSP parish (so the Formation is *solid*). Blessings to you 🙏

[@timeshark8727]

oh my, I'm so sorry that you were mislead into a religion

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

Imagine having a career based on disproving God, who you believe doesn’t exist.

[@endersdragon34]

But belief in whom causes harm to others. I don't need to believe in Leprechauns who tell people to burn things to want to refute them if things keep getting burnt

[@Alien1375]

So like missionairies in non christian countries?

[@Onlyafool172]

​@@endersdragon34you understand that without this god, women would be sub human if not married, they wouldnt be able to run for governament, you wouldnt be Able to oposse religion, you wouldn t have universities, the scientific method, human rights, slavery abolisment, Yes the british did it for 400 years, but its a pratice for god knows how long in africa and the arab slave trade whose existed for 1300 years before christian nations force end it, if it wasant for christianity our world would be centuries behind

[@leonhewitt4744]

Ever time I learn something new. Love your work and your books!!

[@omarvazquez3355]

God bless you Trent. I was already a Catholic when I heard about you but you solidified my faith. Thank you

[@Papasquatch73]

Sean McDowell wrote a book based off of his doctoral thesis, called the fate of the apostles. I think it’s a good survey of the available information to separate Christian exaggerations. To be honest with you, this is one of the main reasons why I believe Jesus Christ was resurrected. Edit: I had not made it to 26:08 😊

[@highroller-jq3ix]

McDowell showed what a weak and predominantly unsubstantiated "argument" it is.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

So apocryphal claims about historically questionable personages convinced you. Interesting.

[@johnthetenor]

Hey doll put down your trombone and let’s hang with Mr. Horn

[@johnthetenor]

Jokes aside I love these videos. 💯 info for people who want to live and share their faith.

[@hogandonahue9598]

My therapist :Trent Saxophone doesn't exist, he can't hurt you Trent Saxophone: ...

[@wes4736]

​@@hogandonahue9598 - 🎺💀

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Dr. Travis Horn and Dr. Johnny Atkins from Johnny Atkins Mysterious Land are two of my favorite males around! I can’t wait to see them do another new crossover!

[@Judith34816]

seconds ago I googled "what do secular historians think about the apostles' martyrdom" and immediately after i closed that tab i opened youtube and saw that this video which was posted today was in the number one spot of my recommended

[@whathappening5323]

"Marty's Gutenberg files from the first century till 1830" google that more information for your history about the apostles and the rest who suffered, and who was front and centre of the barbarism.

[@gabri41200]

Google owns your life

[@inclitamente]

God did that btw

[@rayhanakram9912]

​@@gabri41200 Submit to the algorithm

[@mockupguy3577]

It’s a miracle!

[@junacebedo888]

Paulogia says being a preacher is a reward itself therefore it is wrong to say that the apostles has nothing to gain to believe in risen Christ because they became preachers. Paulogia is not only preaching, he is even earning money and has youtube fans. (Psychological projection?)

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

That's true lol... When I heard that argument I was genuinely curious on how ppl could find that convincing. Do ppl think that humans would be fine getting stoned, insulted, etc just for the sake of preaching? And it's not only them the ppl around them who got martyred before them, do the apostles not have any kind of sympathy? In conclusion, the apostles in their minds are a group of evil, heartless, and smart?

[@kurthasedd7923]

I find at every level people have tried to tear down Christianity. They say "Jesus wasn't real, the Apostles weren't real, they didn't really go here or there or do this and that, they weren't really martyred, Jesus didn't perform miracles, he was never crucified, he was never resurrected, if he did exist he was more likely 3 or 4 different guys and etc." Here's the thing about it: I have faith and confidence, not just in God and in Christ, but in the Church and in Christians. This has been going on for 2000 years, Christianity itself around for about 1900ish years. In that time a great deal of people have gotten hold of the teachings of Christ and later the bible. Christians for thousands of years have had the willingness to not just die for Christ, but suffer for him too. He has been genuinely embraced by those of every stripe, from lowest to highest, the most intelligent to the least intelligent. The bible has been read over and over and over and over and over in countless languages by those who devote their entire life's work to taking apart and understanding the bible piece, by piece in autistic detail. Mind you as well, not even JUST by Christians, secular scholars too and my personal favorite was when the bible was brought before the Emperor of China in the 7th Century and the guy read it over and had his advisors read it over and they were like "yeh, this is solid work, we are going to allow you to set up your Church in China and preach here." There is nothing that can convince me otherwise because I have read enough and have seen enough with my own eyes to know Jesus Christ was not just a real God-man, who came and performed miracles, died for our sins and came back after 3 days, thus proving everything in the old testament doing so but that most importantly what he taught was right. That's the thing about all of these guys that try to tear down Christ and his Church. They try to tear down Christianity as a blatant lie that has caused suffering and hardship around the world, but they have never and could NEVER attack Jesus Christ directly. They could never say "What Jesus Christ taught was wrong" because it isn't, there is no arguing with the King of Kings

[@attilaherrera6857]

Paulogia did a response to this video, and also ended it with the response that he was officially extending his interest in a debate, and that you seem like an honest interlocutor. I hope to see a debate soon

[@EMBMAXIM..]

❤ excellent explanation ...

[@Siudin220]

I am amazed that you are not tired for explaining and defend catholic faith. Thank you. I pray God aways bless you.

[@marountayar2831]

Hello Trent and God bless you. You said that some Atheists say that also those who died during 9/11 ( the terrorists ) are also martyrs because they died for what they think is true, so the Atheists ask, does this mean that Islam is true? I humbly answer as did Saint Thomas Aquinas answered about Martyrdom, that a Martyr is someone who is killed performing an act of virtue and not someone who dies performing an act of vice. The Christian Martyrs died out of love for justice and Truth, and not because they hated anyone. The terrorists died hating and killing ( they are not martyrs ). What do you think? Thanks

[@lordfarquaad8601]

You didn't ask me, but this is the internet. It seems Christians and atheists have two different definitions of the word. I've only ever known the word to mean "someone who dies/is killed for his/her beliefs." To me, your definition has unnecessary prerequisites.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@lordfarquaad8601 No. When the word 'martyr' is used commonly, it is used to describe 'someone who was killed (at the hands of someone or something) or died for their belief'. There is a distinction between someone who is executed for their belief as the 21 Coptic Christians by Libyan Islamic militants this year versus someone who drives a car (or flying planes into buildings) packed with explosives into al-Zahraa mosque in Balad Ruz in 2015. The word always had this context baked in, that you might be tempted to say otherwise is disingenuous.

[@lordfarquaad8601]

@@alisterrebelo9013 "1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles. 2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle. 3. One who endures great suffering. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition" Maybe the 2nd and 3rd definitions are more recent ones, but they're ones I've always understood to be true. You can use the dictionary to look up "disingenuous" as well, since you clearly don't know what the word means.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@lordfarquaad8601 Comprehension is clearly not your forte. I clearly stated the commonly understood (as opposed to Dictionary definition) is as I described it. I chose to go this way because that's how you presented your initial argument in terms of how the word is commonly understood. Now you want to tap dance your way to dictionaries, sure, lets do it. Why did you omit the rest of what the American Heritage Dictionary says? Why did you exclude the following: r.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs 1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs. 2. To inflict great pain on; torment. Do you see any indication or context of the martyr killing anyone in the process of their martyrdom in those examples or definitions even including the text you provided? Now from Merriam Webster, the etymology is Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek martyr-, martys witness. First Known Use before the 12th century. A martyr killing someone else in the course of their martyrdom cannot be argued to sit within the same definition. The definitions you presented are clearly indicating death of the martyr comes from an external source, not at their own hand which would be suicide. And where are you getting this idea from that the definition of martyr can include the said martyr killing others in the process of their martyrdom? I was wrong, disingenuous would imply that you actually know something, but you clearly don't.

[@lordfarquaad8601]

@@alisterrebelo9013Concerning common usage, I described how I'd always heard the word "martyr" to be used. You offered your own understanding of how the word is used, and then accused me of being disingenuous, as if I was deliberately omitting your definition from my own. I wasn't; I typed "martyr" into Google and copied the three definitions offered. I didn't exclude anything, and I didn't omit the first definition, I just didn't mention it, since the point of my response wasn't to deny your definition of the word, but to backup my own. The idea of someone killing others in the process of their martyrdom isn't explicitly excluded from any definition of the word. Your definition might be a more proper one than mine, but the 2nd and 3rd definitions I provided do not omit the plane hijackers, or the self-immolating monk. This goes back to common usage of the word but arguing any further seems fruitless as you seem to think I'm an idiot and/or a liar.

[@rickpaul4216]

Acts 7:54-60 Outlines a person executed for his belief in Jesus.

[@khwlam]

Great video! Was surprised by the rabbi questioning the martyrdom of the Apostles in Scripture: John 21:19 - Christ prophesizes that St. Peter will die to glorify God (aka: martyrdom) Acts 12:2 - describes the martyrdom of St. James 2 Timothy 4:6-7 - St. Paul predicts his execution

[@angelalemos9811]

Don't forget St. Stephen

[@ne0nmancer]

6:19 that was the most bad faith question i've ever seen from Tovia (and that's saying a lot), but it's also embarassing that the person being questioned couldn't answer, since St. Stephen's martyr is close to the very beggining of Acts.

[@augustvonmacksen2526]

Whaaat? A Talmudic Jew acts in bad faith?

[@timothytakang5407]

Apostle James, brother of John Acts 12:1-2.

[@kazumakiryu157]

Yep, the whole time I kept screaming "ST. STEPHEN"

[@robinrobyn1714]

What was not mentioned is that in the case of James, the brother of Jesus, we have extra biblical attestation form a non Christian. The ancient Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, records the martyrdom of James . That's what I would have answered Rabbi Toviah Singer.

[@robertbutchko5066]

Hi Trent, I've noticed what I think may be a problem with your argument about accepting mundane claims. You say that evidence from the Bible about people being persecuted for their faith should be accepted even without corroboration because it is a mundane event, which would be typical to accept in ancient sources. That's true, but I would say people suffering for their faith *because they saw with thier own eyes a miracle* is no longer mundane. Thus I think an opponent might say the claim isn't actually mundane because of the ultimate context. For example, I would be very likely to believe an uncorrobrated account of a Roman official visiting Egypt since that would be mundane. However, if the only probable reason that official would have visited Egypt was because of knowledge of the future, I would want corroborating accounts or other evidence. Personally, I think that corobrating evidence is found in First Clement, which as an internal church letter from the first century by Pope Clement, would be from someone well placed to know the story to a group of people who would also know it, and among whom it would be hard to lie about if Paul or Peter had recanted. The fact he only says at the beginning of the passage and doesn't explicitly repeat it for both is not in my opinion significant.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

6:25 St. Stephen There, easy-peasy.

[@SenorCinema]

He wasn’t an eyewitness

[@nseven1117]

"the apostles were motivated from having any authority at all" I don't know, that statement sounds like projecting in my opinion

[@davidgonzalez3314]

It's one thing to die for something you believe in, and it's another thing to die for a lie of your own invention.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Indeed that would be a strange thing. Care to prove your unsubstantiated claim, how was the NT was fabricated? How about we see the full picture? It's one thing to die for something you believe in. It's something to die for a belief based on visions/dreams of a risen Christ. It's something substantial to die for this Jesus person across time, geography, gender (Joan of Arc). You don't have to believe, but to insinuate insanity is disingenuous.

[@jackieo8693]

Some people argue that Jesus and the apostles never even existed! Insanity runs rampant!

[@twitherspoon8954]

If you have evidence that the Bible figure known as Jesus existed, provide it. However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. Paul made up the Jesus fiction in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy failed to fulfill. Shouldn't we expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed? Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.

[@twitherspoon8954]

There is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed. The only Bible author who claimed to have seen Jesus is Paul who asserted that he met him in a vision and described Jesus as being only a bright light. Paul actually stated that his sources were non-human, "...the gospel I preached is not of human origin." (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul further asserted that Jesus selected him alone to speak for him (Acts 9:15): "Paul is my chosen instrument to take my message to the Gentiles and to kings as well as to the people of Israel." In Romans 1:16 Paul reveals that no other gospels existed at the time, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ." The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah expired without fulfilling so he made one up decades later and set the story decades in the past matching Jewish expectations of the messiah to make the prophesy seem true. The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 444 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date. It was the 69th Week and the 70th Week was soon to come. The prophesied messiah was expected and the anticipation set off a messiah craze. "Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven biblical years of 360 days (the Julian calendar was created centuries later), so 7 times 69 equals 483 total biblical years beginning with Artaxerxes' decree in 444 BC. Those 483 biblical years equal 173,880 days, or 476 Julian years. Therefore the Messiah would come and be "cut off" in AD 33. One prophetic week equaling seven Biblical years is something “Daniel” invented in about 165 BC, effectively an admission that Jeremiah 25:11-12 failed. Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity. In the Galatians "road to Damascus" conversion vision tale written in 48 AD he claimed to have gone to the Arabian desert to study the Old Testament for 17 years to align with the Daniel 9:25 prophecy. Paul's goal was to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed. He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.

[@brandonp2530]

@@twitherspoon8954 Have you watched the video mate! Would be much worth the effort and time if you watch the video. Rather than using/(wasting) your time and the the time of readers, by providing false arguments. Have a good listen to the video

[@twitherspoon8954]

@@brandonp2530 This isn't complicated; if you have evidence that Jesus existed, provide it. However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. None.

[@joshmanion8172]

@@twitherspoon8954 the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar-serapion, Pliny the younger, all talk about Jesus. Tacitus In Annuls 15.44, he explicitly talks about Jesus, during his writings on Emperor Nero. He talks first about the Christian sect before then mentioning: “… Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reining of Tiberius. This comes from an enemy of Christendom so has no reason to match the biblical account. The Babylonian Talmud In Sanhedrin 43a, it recounts how Jesus led many Jews astray. The Sanhedrin wanted to have him stoned and, on the eve of Passover, Jesus was Crucified. The line “But, not having found anything in his favour” also suggest that a trial happened. This is all in line with what we are told in the Gospels. Josephus talks about both Jesus his death and resurrection and also in antiquities talks about John the Baptist being beheaded by Herod. Mara bar-Serapion is noted for a letter he wrote in Syriac to his son, who was also named Serapion. The letter refers to the unjust treatment of “three wise men”: the murder of Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras, and the execution of “the wise king” of the Jews. Mara is believed to have been a monotheistic pagan. Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia et Pontus, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians. He remarks on how they “sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god. Also scholars don’t agree that Jesus never existed, neither did rabbis then or now. No one thinks he was made up and to say so is idiotic. You can disagree he is messiah or god, but to act like he never existed isn’t even on the table

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Great point on people who pursue petty power wanting to avoid punishment. Those are eople who just go with the flow and refuse to stand for anything to get status. They promote what they promote because they know there is no risk. You can push false narratives about the risky sex lives of lgbt and decriminalizing giving stds, you can push abortion even sometimew until after birth and euthanasia without being fired from a major corporation and thrown out of polite society while being even a lukewarm Christian and spreading your beliefs there is a huge risk.

[@christinemcguiness9356]

Thank you Trent. I learn a great deal from your video’s. God bless🙏

[@bheer98]

Trent, I love your work and you do a great job with this argument. However, I feel that in bringing up Joseph Smith to disprove the similarity he has with the early apostles, you significantly undercut many of your arguments--especially the one about only having to prove the apostles' suffering and their willingness to do so. My pushback comes from the fact that Joseph Smith *did* willingly submit to going to Carthage jail where he ultimatly died, and there is plenty of evidence that he understood going to that prison would be a death warrant. Pointing out the fact that he sought to defend himself in the moment from the mob trying to kill him does little to prove your point that he did not willingly submit to die for his belief. Also, I invite you to read The Book of Mormon and honestly compare the ideas and themes from it to "View of the Hebrews". That would make some interesting content for your channel and help you to avoid the usual pitfalls constantly found in arguments against Mormonism.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I do feel quite silly that I had only relatively recently come to the realization that there were two Kings named Herod, only to now learn there were three. Thank you!

[@nicbentulan]

i don't care if they're martyred or not. how can any mere human come up with this kind of great idea prophesised in millennia of scripture? and then isaiah 49:6, philippians 2:11, luke 4:24, genesis 16:12, quran 5:51 are fulfilled today in christianity, judaism & islam?

[@scrapdog2113]

Hey, idk who’s gonna see this, but I’m going to try to evangelize to my friend who’s more or less agnostic (but I think he may be somewhat partial toward Christianity). I’m a cradle catholic so I don’t understand the perspective of a convert/potential convert all that well. Can anyone help me out a bit?

[@TheCounselofTrent]

You're already on the right track by being a friend. Make sure you prioritize being a good friend over winning an argument. If you're not already praying for your friend's conversion, start doing that immediately. Like right now, offer a quick prayer for your friend before you read the next sentence. Before you can really engage with your friend's ideas, you have to understand them. So when you start asking questions, do so with the intention to understand more than the intention to start an argument. Past that, be prepared to answer questions, and if you don't know, then just say you don't know and look up the answer later. God bless you! - Kyle

[@Wilkins325]

Being a friend is definitely a leg up. Hes much more likely to listen to you even without formal argumentation, so take it slow and God will water the seed you plant. To start, I would ask him questions to see if the barrier is in the mind or in the heart, if that makes sense.

[@gabri41200]

Just use the typical christian tactics, use emotion instead of pure reason

[@aerolanz2512]

​@@gabri41200even if u are given a reason. U wont believe anyway.

[@gabri41200]

@@aerolanz2512 nope, if someone gives a solid reasoning for god, and it holds, ill believe.

[@ricklamb772]

Not a good argument,people die for lies every day,they just believe a second hand lie spread over and over.ButcJesuscwasnt second hand,these were 500 eye witnesses.over a period of 40days.this is fact.A true fact Jesus the Son of God arose from the dead,and taught the deciples what to teach,and what to write in the scriptures.

[@fred_derf]

So, your argument is this stuff about the apostles is true because this stuff about the apostles is true, therefore jesus. That's a pretty sad argument. Get back to me when you have some actual *good evidence* for the existence of jesus.

[@buckarooben7635]

@fred_derf I’m sorry to tell you this, but you missed the point of the argument. All the argument disproves is the notion that the apostles were insincere. That’s all.

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

​@buckarooben7635 Just had a similar conversation, I used an argument to prove B and then they asked how this proved A! I wasn't even proving A lol...

[@Dannydreadlord]

The dismissive language used in this video shows the intellectual capacity of this scholar. Its unfortunate that he cannot see the truth of Mormonism or islam, Once the real God shows up, I hope trent has a good excuse to save himself from the version of hell of the real God.

[@jkm9332]

Love this, Trent! God bless, brother.

[@hermeticascetic]

It's ironic to think that jews say that the apostles saw hallucinations or imagined it but they don't apply that same metric to any of the visions presented in the old testament 🤔🤔

[@HaleStorm49]

Nor does Trent or his audience when it happens in modern times. Certainly ironic. 🤔

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

​@@HaleStorm49huh? He believes in Marian apparitions, what are you talking about?

[@ash5033938337]

Wow, I can't help but be amazed by how much time, effort, and precision you put into these videos. I am going to come back to this one.

[@ButterCupLetsgoColts]

I like dis video ha

[@jaikelr]

Very clear explanation Trent! (as always)

[@ShannonQ]

Are you flirting with my boyfriend Trent? 😂

[@jmctigret]

Great job!

[@peterv7258]

Might we not infer that Stephen could have been among the 500 disciples who to whom the risen Jesus appeared? Though not stated directly, its a reasonable suspicion, I think.

[@Joe-ic1yv]

Thank you Trent, and thank you for your book "Hard Sayings"

[@zbdbz]

This is shockingly weak. Surprisingly so.

[@gowdsake7103]

It is NOT an argument. Demonstrate a single aposte that had a chance to repent ! They were pain in the ass terrorists Your saying that Nazis really believed in Hitler and were prepared to suffer in Stalingrad just listen to yourself its PATHETIC

[@pemcortes9467]

Wow! From sola scriptura to extrabiblical resource requirement. Damn if your reference is extrabiblical, damn if your reference is only the bible. How devilish.

[@lukebrown5395]

At this point it’s why Sacred Tradition is also important.

[@pemcortes9467]

@@lukebrown5395 good thing we have Sacred Tradition and historical references.

[@lukebrown5395]

@@pemcortes9467 tradition helps put the pieces together that isn’t scripture. St Matthews death isn’t in scripture.

[@Judith34816]

Wait a second... that's a good point. I hadn't noticed this but it's kinda sneaky.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Please, Trent, make a video scrutinizing MythVision,

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

I put up all kinds of defences of belief in God, but the MythVision folk ignore them.

[@raulchavez6507]

I’m a Catholic, but the “Who would die for a lie?” is a pretty bad argument. Who would die for a lie? A lot SS members that knew the regime was lying when the war was already lost in the 1940’s, but the NAZI portrayed a victorious scenario; a lot of first responders in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, who willingly accepted the lie of the USSR that falsely claimed that the area was hospitable for rescuers, but they died helping their comrades. In a lot of cases people are willing to die for a lie, both for good and bad reasons. Faith either you have it or don’t, you can’t. The god of the philosophers, historians and pseudo-Christian-scientists is not the God of Abraham and if you try to prove God through those means, you’re delusional… the real problem with this argument is that you’re doing a lot of mind reading and assuming that the people who died spreading the gospel, died for that gospel, but that is impossible to determine. Only God truly know someone’s heart.

[@whitevortex8323]

Thanks for this video. Wanted someone to address this.

[@elaineparisi8626]

Thank you for this video.

[@reasonforge9997]

Its easy to act like a source of great knowledge at a party to impress people who are more ignorant on the subject than oneself. But the know-it-all will go quiet if a true expert on the subject shows up. More so they will be very unsure in situations where turning out to be wrong is truly costly. When the stakes get higher the required veracity gets higher as well--we find out what people really have solid faith in. Such faith might be either evidence based or based on an authority that the person (rightly or wrongly) deeply trusts. In the case of the Disciples we know they must have had such faith. And we know that they were in the very best position of anyone of knowing whether Jesus was really doing miraculous things or whether it was all fakery.

[@ElessarofGondor]

Thank you for taking on that one youtuber. It's been needing to happen for awhile. He tends to make a number of historical assumptions as well in his videos that are fringe theories to say the best.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

sadly this one youtuber has seen this video and made a response for it and well, Trents video does not look that good afterwards.

[@ElessarofGondor]

@@TgfkaTrichter I'm not saying Trent's argument here was the best, as he wasn't directly going up against that guy in particular. Rather using parts of his response to respond to a larger question. I will repeat what I said earlier though, that paulogia tends to take fringe historical theories etc and run with them like they're widely accepted.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

@@ElessarofGondor sadly Paulogia has the bad habbit to show his sources and they seem to support him most times.

[@ElessarofGondor]

@@TgfkaTrichter Yes but he takes far too much at face value, outright rejecting things that merit a deeper dive. He makes many of the theories he proposes sound as if they are widely accepted in secular studies even when they are not, and fails to point out possible flaws in them.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

​@@ElessarofGondor strange. He has often scholars on his show, and by far not all of them are atheists and he discusses his ideas with them. Also note that most biblical scholars are christian and are working for religious institutes which forbid them to find out anything, that would contradict the religious dogmas even if they would find good evidence for those points and Paulogia even interacts with those guys who have to be dishonest to keep their living.

[@jbchoc]

You should offer to pay for his expenses to preach atheism in Libya. I would contribute.

[@oscargordon]

So James the brother of Jesus is some sort of step-brother even though Joseph disappears the moment Jesus is born. I love the story in Mark 3 where Jesus’ mother has heard that her son as been saying blasphemous things so “Then his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him”. Jesus them blows them off saying that his followers are his mother and brothers, not his ACTUAL mother and brothers. According to Mark, even though he had supposedly been going around doing miracles, his actual mother and brothers were not among his followers. I should also point out that in Matthew “When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.” So unless Mary used birth control, which is opposed by the Church, she had more children.

[@mickeylax9975]

Paulogia is projecting onto the apostles when he talks about the apostles vying for power. How slanderous. Just don’t believe. No need to besmirch the character of believers.

[@termite7790]

Thank you Trent. Appreciate you.

[@mickeylax9975]

Most arguments against Christianity have an insanely high burden of proof put on Christians. Y’all are basically saying that unless you see Jesus right in front of you you won’t believe. Logical positivism has y’all in a super strong stranglehold and it’s sad.

[@ethanwork764]

In the “sincerely mistaken” video, you should address the cognitive dissonance argument, which says that because the apostles devoted so much of their life to following Jesus, it’s possible they only CHOSE to believe in the resurrection bc admitting they were wrong would be admitting they gave up so much for a lie

[@phillipcummings3518]

Except the Gospel story shows the opposite until the resurrection

[@ethanwork764]

@@phillipcummings3518 what do you mean

[@129jasper1]

@@ethanwork764 The Apostles are portrayed as being somewhat cowardly, vain and blind to the power and message of Jesus. They are shown demoralized, confused and hiding from their fellow Jews. But, somehow the belief in the risen Christ spread to become a world-wide belief. The argument is that the Apostles/disciples didn't realize til after the resurrection that they were supposed to believe and preach it, which is odd either way, but they weren't steeped in the belief til the end.

[@Davidjune1970]

All the apostles betrayed Jesus before the resurrection. They did not even believe he would come back. So none of them were in a position to martyr themselves when they didn’t believe themselves. In fact most were ready to flee to avoid confrontation with the authorities. So something happened between the time when Jesus died to them deciding they would die to spread the gospel. And financial gain and fame were not the rewards as they all lead materially poor lives in their ministry and were outcasts from Jewish society. The gospel explains why they chose martyrdom. Your theory of mistaken belief doesn’t hold water as it would require at minimum the apostles and the other disciples who followed Jesus to believe he resurrected. Doubting Thomas shower quite clearly that hearing Jesus had risen from other apostles who they trusted was not enough… they had to see with their own eyes. And how Paul learned the teachings of Christ that was the same as the others when he was not there but was catechized years after Christ rose …. A Pharisee if good standing with a good future choosing to throw it all away for martyrdom, poverty and being tormented …. That doesn’t add up logically with your thoughts.

[@ttthttpd]

There's an even simpler theory: the martyrdoms are part of the fictional story. They "died for a lie" because the deaths are also part of the lie.

[@alp5088]

Imagine taking the apostles word for it, that they were good, honest, celibate men who didn't seek power. I admit, we don't know what kind of men they actuallt were. All humans are flawed, or if you believe, have a sinful nature. Can we actually compare Joseph Smith to the "apostles". We have evidence for JS but not the "apostles." It is speculation, but to not even grant the possibility seems unfair or disingenuous.

[@oscargordon]

The James passage in Josephus Book 20 Chapter 9 is most likely a later Christian addition. Head priest Festive Pig has died and the new head priest is out of town so his son “assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” OK, what laws did this James break? Was it the heresy of breaking the first four commandments and calling his brother a god? Well fortunately they didn’t stone James and his friends right away. Some people who thought James was a nice guy sent a message to the high priest who sent a message to the Jewish king who put a stop to it. So apparently that is what counts for news worthy of putting in the history books. A guy is accused of unspecified crimes but is let go. Do you know what wasn’t included in the history? Paul and his buddies are going around arresting people and ACTUALLY having them stoned to death, like poor Stephen.

[@johnpro2847]

the write up was not correct...too many weaknesses in the chain to be accurate. We have no eye witness statements that can be relied upon.Antiquity is a perilous path to prove with any degree of surety..not like a chemistry experiment..amen

[@matthieulavagna]

Great video Trent!

[@random-ks8et]

We have examples of cult leaders who were the origin of a belief and ultimately gave their life for it. Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, etc. Their deaths are not validations of their beliefs.

[@Ponera-Sama]

When someone robs a bank, they take a large risk of being shot dead by the police or security, or at the very least being locked away in a prison where, depending on what country they're in, they'll be set to spend years living in torturous conditions and being abused and potentially killed by prison staff or other prisoners. Whatever the reason the apostles could have had for spreading Jesus' message, their actions allowed this message to be spread even after their deaths, and the same cannot be said for a bank robber who has zero chance of achieving anything with the money they stole because they're dead. What does that tell you? Or for a closer example, we have much better evidence for the persecution and martyrdom of Joseph Smith than any of the apostles. We know for a fact that he was persecuted specifically because of his religious claims and he even directly compared his own suffering to Paul's. Does that mean Joseph Smith really did sincerely believe that he was appointed to be a prophet by God and given golden tablets by an angel that he translated into the Book of Mormon using magic stones? Maybe. Does this fact make it even a tiny bit more probable that his claims were actually true? Pretty much every christian who isn't Mormon would rightfully tell you no.

[@michaelthompson7217]

this argument completely falls apart if you can find a single person in 7 billion who both knows their projected claim is not true and also is willing to die for it for some other cost/benefit analysis. for example, a special place in heaven for pushing the lie, or just a general “you have benefitted enough and now it’s your turn to die for the cause”. the assumption that willingness to die communicates honesty is ridiculous

[@D.W.C935]

Greetings Trent I am a Protestant Christian but I do believe in the maintainance of important traditions such as Communion and Genuinely Hope That Catholics and Protestants can One day reunite as a single Church and Body of Christ Have a Terrific day Friends 👋 🙏

[@ryanevans2655]

I’d add Peter to the list at 7:50. John 21:19 mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death. 2 Peter also mentions that Peter is about to be put to death.

[@crasnicul3371]

lots of coping in the comment section by seething atheists who didnt watch the video in full

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

I watched it and it the argument did not get any stronger.

[@Dandelion0962]

Which lie is your manual cinematic pickings ?

[@nagranoth_]

So why are you lying about Paulogia's position? He has _never_ said that having a single source for a claim is grounds to completely dismiss it, only that you need to have appropriate confidence in a claim based on how well it's supported. Physical evidence is best, sources who have no underlying motivation to make you believe something are better than sources that do, more sources who are _actually_ independent are better than one. This is the case for ALL history. No matter how much it inconveniences you, a single source that has clear motivation to convince you of the claims behind a religion is the weakest possible position you can have for a claim, and again, this is the case in ALL historical research. Just because you don't like how weak your position is, is no reason to lie about what others say about your position. And Paulogia consistently points out when ANY claim he mentions has only a single source, not just religious claims, so stop pretending he doesn't. He just plays the jingle because he was one of the victims of being brainwashed into believing everything the bible states without critical thought (and "for the bible tells me so" is an existing religious song people use to reaffirm that brainwashing). And for all the gullible people here thanking Trent for his excellent points... the guy literally said that a book saying that someone asked other people to do something means there's no doubt those other people actually did that. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It happens millions of times a day that people don't do what someone asked of them, or not to the extend that person wanted. Even granting Jesus and the apostles existed in the first place (which, no, there isn't strong evidence for), and that Jesus actually asked this (for the bible tells me so), that in no way indicates that all of them actually did, let alone that they suffered for it, let alone that they were given a chance to recant before being killed over it, let alone actually being killed over it. You have to be insane to think that a book saying someone asked someone else to spread some information COULD mean any of that. What's worse, even the bible itself doesn't say they did... The jingle can't even be played because, it actually does NOT make that claim. CHRISTIANS make that claim, not their book.

[@gabrielteo3636]

Paul never saw Jesus alive in the flesh. The gospels names are not associated with the gospels till the middle-end of the second century. No one knows who wrote the gospels. Lots of religions have people who witnessed miracles that were willing to suffer for their beliefs. What else you got?

[@brandonp2530]

Very well done! God bless

[@naucifacio]

Could anyone explain to me why Trent says that when skeptics argue that muslims willing to die is missing the point, but he also includes Paul, shouldn't he for the sake of consistency discard Paul as well because somehow including him would be also missing the point?

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

Paul's life got worse because of his upheld beliefs in Jesus, so he counts. He went from being a respected member of jewish society worthy of being given special missions by the Sanhedrin to a preacher that would get beat up many times, who had to do leatherworking for a living and had to undergo the dangerous and uncomfortable endeavor of travelling.

[@angelalemos9811]

Don't forget that Paul was actually a Martyr. Those terrorists are kamikaze, which is willing to commit suicide for any cause. Just because they both end up in death, doesn't mean that they are the same thing

[@HaleStorm49]

TH your explanation starting at @9:04 is incomplete at best and intentionally misleading at worst. Here are a couple examples: 1. The book you quoted shares a similar thesis (That various groups of “Native” Americans descended from various groups of Hebrews that were led to the American continent) It makes a compelling case that portions of the NA languages, their monetary systems, their traditions, and even their manner of worship share similarities with Old testament covenant Israelites. It _does NOT_ tell basically the same story. This is 100% incorrect. The most obvious deduction is that you haven’t read either book. 2. The Apostles & Joseph Smith supported themselves while working in the ministry and leading their families. Members frequently contributed to ease their burdens. This topic is a double-edged sword since Catholic leaders do not support themselves or a family. 3. Risk/Reward - Referring to Smith as a criminal reflects your personal bias. Christ and the Apostles were seen as criminals by their religious opponents & deemed worthy of death despite committing no crime...a gruesome death is what they got. I imagine they (Jews) were able to rationalize those martyrdoms with similar dismissiveness and callousness. I"ve heard Ben Shapiro describe Christ as a Jew who tried to gain power and was killed for his trouble. 4. No such similar evidence? Here is what Smith wrote upon surrendering to authorities on trumped-up charges (more Bible parallels) _I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am as calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of an offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life, I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me, 'He was murdered in cold blood!_ This doesn’t sound like a willingness to submit to martyrdom? -This is a man who had been attacked regularly for over a decade, tarred and feathered, had his entire town and Temple razed to the ground, and after His martyrdom did not accomplish its objective...a law was passed that it was legal to kill a Mormon on-site in Missouri (Order 44 - not to be confused with order 66) and your argument is that he was an unwilling martyr because he attempted to defend himself while being shot at by a mob…after he was promised protection by the governor if he surrendered willingly.? Honestly Trent I hope you are just unfamiliar with the subject matter and not as maliciously negligent as your description of events makes you appear. 5. Smith meets all three of your evidences for sincerity. The Apostles suffered and risked martyrdom not just for their belief in the resurrection but because they were actual witnesses of it. Prophets are not without honor except in their own country. Most suffer a similar fate in life and will share a similar reward. Sadly Paulogia has the high ground here. It's human nature to instinctively dismiss evidence that takes you in the opposite direction of where you want to go.

[@T_Man-mm9sz]

Paul wasn't even present for the purported resurrection. He may have truly believed that it occurred, there is just no historical basis for doing so, other than his second hand knowledge of the event. And the "for the bible tells me so" take is spot on, even without the music. And it only means precisely what he said, that there is no proof that it is true, so one needs to look elsewhere. Try science. Or simply have believe in miracles and have faith in the veracity of the biblical scripture, that works, too.

[@thatwifeofhis7815]

Monday mornings with a new Trent Horn vid are so cozy.

[@charbelbejjani5541]

What is the likelihood that St. Thomas went to India?

[@williambeckett6336]

There is no reason at all to think the disciples/first apostles existed at all. And their "willingness to suffer and die" carries no more weight than the "fact" that only 30 brave rebel pilots attacked the Death Star knowing they would almost certainly fail and be killed. Nor is it anymore compelling than Harry Potter willingly walking into the forbidden forest as a martyr knowing Voldemort would kill him. The actions of fictional characters is irrelevant. They were just recruitment tales of fictional men the apologist is just asserting were real. There is not a shred of credible evidence they ever existed.

[@oscargordon]

I don't remember Paul referring to Peter as anything other than an apostle and the head of the church. Paul said that Peter had a vision of Jesus just like Paul had visions of Jesus in "the third heaven". Where does Paul ever say that Peter was the disciple of a living Jesus or saw a living Jesus? Only in the Gospels from a couple of decades later is Peter assigned the head of the "twelve".

[@oscargordon]

@@humanistreformation I think one of the main reasons that Christianity spread was their view of the afterlife and how to get there. In other religions like the Greek and Norse, only the great warriors got to go hang out with the gods and be served by beautiful warrior maidens in the Elysium Fields or Valhalla. Everybody else just went to a quiet resting place, like Hades, or Sheol for the Jews. A good ploy to get people to join your army and to fight bravely. Although probably borrowed from the Zoroastrians, along comes the Christians and now it doesn't matter who you were or what you did. Paul said that you no longer had to be a great warrior, or a good person to have a glorious afterlife in Paradise, as long as you had "faith" and worshipped Jesus, your actions were not important. As long as you join the club, you get to go to paradise when you die and everybody else will be punished with indescribable torture for all eternity. Quite a clever sales pitch really.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Would all these apologists die for their beliefs.

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

Yes, but that doesn't disprove any of their arguments since their deaths would be "dying for what they think is true" not necessarily "dying for a lie or an act they kept up" for whatever reason?

[@frederickanderson1860]

@@LorenzoPelupessy l doubt it

[@edgarmatzinger9742]

There is zero evidence the apostles died for their beliefs. Let alone for belief in the resurrection.

[@chakra4735]

One of the critics claims the apostals were motivated by power and authority. But the writer of Hebrews tells the hebrews to obey their leaders because they hold a position of RESPONSIBILITY for their followers, and will have to give an account of their ministry. I may be wrong, but I see my pastor and my bishop as having responsibility for me. I try to follow Hebrews and try to make their job a joy and not a burden. Hebrews 13:17. How about a riff on church hierarchy by responsibility versus power and authority?