Final Nail to Apostle Martyrs? (Sean McDowell vs Paulogia)

[@seans5289]

Seans are usually intellectually honest and free of bias.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he tries but the problem all believers have is being unable to say, you know, you're right about that, interesting thought. like dr house says, if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

[@daithiocinnsealach1982]

You should have said "All Seans are liars."

[@Ryansghost]

... and minded to not lose their faith-dependent teaching posts.

[@raysalmon6566]

Sean S. . 4 months ago. . Seans are usually intellectually honest and free of bias.. 4 replies. 51 likes. ❤ by Paulogia ummm,,, wasn't Jesus very bias on many issues John 18: 35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

[@seans5289]

@@raysalmon6566Jesus was no Sean. That’s for sure.

[@1970Phoenix]

Respect to Sean McDowell. It is rare to find a Christian apologist who has a high level of intellectual honesty (or in some cases, ANY intellectual honesty). I'd love to see more interactions between Paulogia and Sean McDowell.

[@briley2177]

It’s not intellectually honest to candidly recognize a person’s stated position to their face and subsequently go into your echo-chamber and horrendously mischaracterize and uncharitably redefine that person’s position. Sean McDowell isn’t as vitriolic as others, but he is not an honest interlocutor either… this has only been made more clear in his conduct these past three years.

[@juanausensi499]

@@briley2177 Even if you are right, i still find sean's attitude seriously refreshing and appreciated.

[@rbaxter286]

He seems to be JUST skeptical enough to put him in an under-serviced publishing niche of selling his spiel to people want to believe but not look as foolish as the generic Christian Cult member. The REAL measure of true skepticism would be to live as an AGNOSTIC, instead of still leading more Sheeple to the Butcher because he's a better Shepherd than most.

[@Nocturnalux]

Idk, Sean pretended to be an atheist in a lecture to Christian kids. That is the epitome of dishonesty.

[@heteroclitus]

Cool vid. It was nice to see an apologist steelmanning an atheist's position for a change. Bertuzzi accusing others of cherry-picking and starting with conclusions got a laugh out of me though.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

Before you get too congratulatory about Sean's steelmanning, I would urge you to go to 39:00, as it demonstrates Sean clearly strawmanning Paul on several points. I will say, however, that Sean is honest throughout the first half of the video.

[@SundayMatinee]

Bertuzzi is one of the worst. The word that comes to mind when I see his videos is slimy. He has a weak grasp on logic and reasoning, and has a disgusting smug demeanor.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

@@SundayMatinee Agreed; I would similarly use the word condescending as part of the description.

[@John_Demarco]

I agree, although he did create a few strawmen here and there. But for an apologist to only use a few strawmen is impressive.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Sean seems to be at least willing to be VERY open for honest exchange of opinions as long as Paul is present... outside of his presence he might tend to slip off a bit in that desire... but still, compared to others like WLC or SFT that is VERY impressive handling of himself and the debate. He's one of these folks you will hear about "i disagree with him but i think we could drink a beer together" as he's pleasant enouhg in the debate to actually give him that chance outside of it too. again in stark contrast to many others including especially Bertuzzi.

[@obscureone318]

What's sad is how much effort and time goes into trying to defend every detail of historical writings almost 2000 years old as fact. Historical writings this old are not enough for me to base my life on. This is why I love science and how it doesn't state facts! It states theories with testable evidence that are always up for a new model to arise. It's just people afraid to leave the huge ancient monster religion. Thank you so much for all the work and time you invest in your videos Paul!

[@SchiwiM]

Yes, is such a waste of time, many theists are relatively smart people and they could use their intellect for much better purposes, instead they are chasing Unicorns and misspent their effort for irrelevant details. There might be some truth and nuggets of wisdom in the Bible, but everything "supernatural" is just rubbish. Just save everything useful and that what is confirmed to be true and write it down in a new book, discard all the rest and move on. Let's not waste our time with ancient fairy tales.

[@DBCisco]

I am a historian and drive Christians crazy. lol

[@ogopogoman4682]

@@DBCisco thank you for your service.

[@DBCisco]

@@ogopogoman4682 lol

[@mtbee9641]

@Joe Hise. Totally agree with your comment.

[@TheDizzleHawke]

If Sean keeps going on this pathway of honesty, he might accidentally become an atheist.

[@bluntforcetrauma6333]

💯

[@jamierichardson7683]

​@@bluntforcetrauma6333 not till atheism pays better

[@MrAuskiwi101]

​@@jamierichardson7683True. Apologists know their market. The mass of indoctrinated seeking imaginary confirmation bias. Most Christians are not good at thinking or honesty.

[@mDeltaKilo]

Thanks Paul. You’ve been a slowly maturing bubble of reasonableness and respect in the atheist themed videos I’ve been watching daily, for years. You catch more flies with honey, they say, and you sir are a jar of manuka.

[@seraphonica]

Wait, a theist apologist who has intellectual honesty? One of those is bound to chase off the other, and for McDowell's sake, I hope he keeps the intellectual honesty.

[@tompaine4044]

It's interesting how I watched the debate and didn't walk away with the feeling that McDowell was strikingly honest. Seems as if that's a mistake on my part, eh? Makes me thankful for the Paulogias of the world. Looking again, I agree that I should have noticed he's more honest than I'm used to from apologists.

[@alflyle9955]

@@tompaine4044 Interesting comment. However, being more honest than most apologists in not exactly a high bar.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

@@tompaine4044 he seems to have had high points where he was generous in admitting when Paul had a point or even was truthfully reporting about what was said and he had his low points where he seemed to have not really listened or maybe misunderstood Paul on Purpose? I would agree he's one of the "best" Apologists I've yet seen in terms of honesty about their research and it's weaknesses and strengths, but there still is significant space for improvements...

[@JayMaverick]

An apologist with intellectual honesty is like saying a mass murdering dictator with a flower garden.

[@TazPessle]

@@alflyle9955 i would say that true apologists (for want of better phrasing) are trying to be honest. For them, the fact that they believe the bible means that while they do make blind leaps, they also don't fear truth. When they find a contradiction they just dig deeper until they hit a subtlety that they can blindly jump. Confirmation bias is a bitch even when you're trying to be as honest as possible. Question is, without that confirmation bias, how close to intellectual honesty would they come? And that hurdle of confirmation bias is why we should all always check ourselves. I think their blind leaps are more glaring because we lack their bias, and even more so because its the topic at hand.

[@qbradq]

Oh thank the God I don't believe in, something other than the news to watch. Thank you Paul!

[@shanen8031]

@qbradq... your welcome

[@Vretens]

Uncle Joe, seems like these thoughts and prayers have no discernible effect. Maybe there is noone at home at the other end.

[@kurtisgonzales37]

The news is worse than the Bible nowadays

[@Ryansghost]

@Dan Ryan Sweet moniker. WE ARE LEGION.

[@jasonmuise4199]

I have to be honest, I’m slightly stunned. Not that Turek eat al we’re trying to muck it up. But McDowel is a rare “breed” of believer. The honesty of this guy and how he handles the attempted false assertions is brilliant...

[@jasper2621]

Definitely the best apologist. Very honest and upright about stuff.

[@mauricehalfhide3982]

Disagree. He may be the MOST honest but he isn't completely honest. He tries to slip in untruths where he can, he may even double back and correct them but he is still slipping them in because he can't help it.

[@scambammer6102]

I can't believe anyone would ever take "they wouldn't die for a bad cause" as a serious argument for anything. People die for dumb causes all the time. When soldiers march off to war, they don't know or care about the validity of the cause. They fight and die because they are part of a tribe, that's all.

[@greglogan7706]

@@mauricehalfhide3982 Totally agree - he has lots of partisanship

[@greglogan7706]

Jason, Need to spend more time with his materials and you'll see his partisanship - his video regarding cancel culture was a complete fraud

[@mbnall]

Paul, your videos brighten my day. I listen to and watch several atheist channels, and I often come away in a fighting mood. It’s fun, but I’m the same way it’s strangely fun to be angry. But listening to you calmly and kindly call BS on apologists feels like a more sustainable and healthy approach, and I genuinely appreciate you!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you for the kind words, Matt.

[@madamsloth]

I am also coming to the same conclusion. Especially when interacting with Christians in day to day life.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

​@@Paulogiahey Mr. Paul. I am from Lancaster Pennsylvania and I would love to hear your thoughts on the historicity of Martyrs Mirror. I have heard so many Anabaptists quote it as if it is gospel truth. Thanks. Love your content.

[@PaulogiaLive]

@@Benjamin-jo4rf Oh my goodness.... Martyr's Mirror. I haven't thought about that in many years, not since I was a believer. I absolutely do need to take a look at it again now with my better historical frame of reference. Thank you for reminding me! Maybe it'll be a video.

[@maninalift]

Very pleasing to see McD spit some intellectual honesty the faces of the likes of Turek

[@joeldavis1693]

I really appreciate the charitable and kind way that Paul and Sean are treating each other and the arguments being made. So refreshing

[@koljag5]

Sean is a good person, I have really enjoyed this back and forth. I really appreciated his honesty and thoughts.

[@ericodea3698]

Massive respect to Sean, as an exchristian. I recently started reading through his massive book he cowrote with his father. Even though I disagree with him, I can tell he is genuinely seeking to challenge even those he agrees with and be generous to those who disagree.

[@fred_derf]

People will die for a belief. People will die for a (known) lie if it supports that belief. There is nothing to see here, move along people.

[@pavld335]

I don't understand their argument. It's so juvenile. You essentially summed it up. Do they not think this through or do they know they are lying?

[@goldenalt3166]

@@pavld335 To Christians: "You came to believe in the risen Jesus without being an eye witness. Why is it so hard to believe that all of the early Christians did as well?"

[@duncanbryson1167]

People piloted planes into buildings knowing they'd die so their beliefs must be true.

[@wesleygordon1645]

No true believer dies for a "nothingness" belief, & certainly not for a known lie.That is illogical thinking!

[@goldenalt3166]

@@wesleygordon1645 Joseph Smith died and there's good evidence that he was lying about his beliefs.

[@misuvittupaa8068]

I don't get how any christian can take bible literally. USA has some problems with religion

[@DBCisco]

No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.

[@MendTheWorld]

The biggest problem we have in the USA, particularly at this fraught moment in time, is not with religion _directly_ , but with religious zealots involving themselves in the processes of secular government, and imposing their will and ideologies on the administration of secular law. We have had system of justice that, while very far from perfect, was tolerably functional (well, at least for _some_ of us), until Donald Trump was elected president, and William Barr appointed Attorney General. Since then, virtually everything these two have done- _with the inept complicity of the US Senate_ - has compromised the function and execution of the Rule of [secular!] Law. The extra-legal activities of Gen. Michael Flynn in his communications with representatives of the Russian government, to which he appropriately pleaded guilty, had nothing whatsoever to do with Christian doctrine, but had everything to do with furthering the political and financial interests of the Trump Administration. So what? The “what” is that the _quid pro quo_ from Trump has been to make judicial appointments and policy changes favored by, among others, the conservative Evangelical Christian community (not to mention the purportedly libertarian, but in actuality _oligarchical_ Federalist Society). And I’ll leave aside the possible role of Opus Dei, because I don’t know enough about them to elevate my own comments above the sort of paranoid conspiracy theorism that Trump and his enablers love to indulge and traffic in. So the point of all this is that Barr, as he candidly stated in his infamous address at the University of Notre Dame, sees “secularism” as the greatest threat to the well-being of the country, whereas I, along with many other concerned citizens, see the intrusion of religious ideology into the mechanisms of secular government as a much graver threat. And all of this built upon a theology that, notwithstanding any useful values and morality it has (or may have) imparted to Western civilization, is based upon a collection of 66 books of dubious authorship and origin. So what ever happened to the notion of, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's...”? I believe that idea is buried in there somewhere as well. Seems like a good idea to me. The co-mingling of entitled religiosity with authoritarian (sometimes autocratic) secular rule has been a successful partnership for thousands of years, but one that the Enlightenment founders of the United States specifically wanted to avoid. We can look to countries like Saudi Arabia as modern day examples of the perils this sort of system poses. And there, but for the grace of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et al., go we all.

[@DAYBROK3]

MendTheWorld wow, no sarcasm. Well said, to the point, I wish I could put my thought on these subjects together as well as you did.

[@DarkAlkaiser]

No one does, people lie and say they do, but due to it's blatant contradictions, they'll have excuses for some of the things in the bible.

[@scienceexplains302]

Josh Patton Yes, or say X doesn’t mean X when it contradicts what they want to believe

[@geshtu1760]

This whole discussion was actually really good content and a first class example of how debating should be done on these topics. Well done to you both! I'm very impressed with Sean's intellectual honesty and willingness to stand apart from other Christians to walk his own line based on what he personally believes. However, I have to disagree with Sean on a few key points. I think the definition tangent he went on with the term "Martyr" was mostly irrelevant - so well done Paul for covering that. No one cares about the definition of the word here. What we care about is the criteria Paul thinks is important w.r.t. the claims presented. While watching the original discussion I was a bit frustrated that Sean didn't seem to be responding to the content but rather to one or two specific words. I don't think he was being deliberately dishonest here, but maybe if he rewatches the video he might realise what was going on. All we're interested in is figuring out what is true. We're not interested in figuring out whether this or that person would have been called a Martyr. We're not trying to nail down the definition of what a Martyr is. We're trying to figure out whether some people who claimed to see Jesus after his resurrection, later died specifically for that belief. I agree that using a different word is a good tactic for "next time". Probably the main disagreement I have with Sean is in what he calls "hyper-skepticism". It's not. It is simply "the lengths one must go to in order to rule out bias and the possibility of being fooled/mistaken". We all have a different threshold for how sure we need to be before accepting something. Even different thresholds for different things. Personally I don't want to give up my (probably only) life for a lie, so I think skepticism is definitely warranted here. Why would anyone want to lower the standards of their inquiry to the point where they could be fooled? I suspect, although I have not done the required investigation, that for every single detail he claims is evidence for the resurrection, we would have equivalent detail (if not a lot more) with regard to other phenomena (such as alien / UFO witnesses, or modern day miracle claims). Is it really hyper-skepticism to treat these claims with extreme caution, given that nothing even remotely close to a resurrection has ever been confirmed. Personally, if you could produce 12 real live witnesses today who sincerely believed they had seen an alien, I would still doubt them until I had the kind of corroborating evidence that such a thing would warrant. Namely, DNA confirmed in a number of trusted laboratories, or some kind of tissue, or artifact, or video from multiple trusted sources, etc. A resurrection is far less likely than even that, since we know it is at least probable that other life forms could exist. By contrast we know of no physical mechanism by which someone might rise from the dead. All of this is to say that even if you had 4-6 witnesses who sincerely believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus, that's word-of-mouth testimony from 4-6 people we really don't know all that well. You can pretend these people were of exceptional moral character, but based on what? A few verses in some anonymous documents? We have far more evidence for people who sincerely believe they saw Elvis after he died. A question for Christians is, if your friend came to you and said they had seen Jesus, would you be as skeptical of that claim as if your friend said they had seen Elvis. If not, why not?

[@SadisticSenpai61]

"Criminals are motivated by power, greed, and/or sex." I would highly disagree with that. I think such a statement is hugely dependent on the *type* of crime being committed. There's plenty of criminals that are motivated by survival. And there's others that are just motivated by rage (crimes of passion as they're usually called). And then there's the psychopaths that don't have the usual limiting morality that the rest of us have. I think they're largely in a class of their own. And ofc, for most criminals the whole "what if I get caught" doesn't usually enter into the discussion - they usually either believe they won't be caught or think they've taken measures to be sure they won't be caught. This is why harsh criminal punishments don't deter crime.

[@whatwecalllife7034]

@Matt Dursse gang initiation too

[@SadisticSenpai61]

@@whatwecalllife7034 Many join gangs for protection as well - for themselves or for their family. Motives for crime are extremely complex.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Tensai55 Exactly. This is the problem with the claim that is being made. From person to person, the reasoning behind committing a crime varies wildly, from the most simplistic, to the most convoluted, and from the evilest, to the most relatable and difficult to blame.

[@JayMaverick]

Paulogia building bridges again, so cool!

[@robertx8020]

Did all Japanese pilot in WW2 believe that their emperor was a god? According to some christians, the answer must have been 'yes', or they would never agree to dive their plane into an enemy ship, right?

[@nathanjasper512]

That is a great point. I would also throw in the people who thought David Karesh was Jesus. They were willing to die as well. But it points to the ridiculousness hanging your hat on the beliefs of people who worship a person.

[@Steelmage99]

And not only that, according to the "thinking" of these religious apologists, the fact that kamikaze pilots were willing to die for an entity they believed was a god, is a compelling argument for the Japanese emperor indeed being a god.

[@kayb9979]

I would suggest that it was more of an adherence to bushido. Whatever they believed about the emperor probably took second place to the idea of loyalty and honour to the point of death.

[@robertx8020]

@@kayb9979 I have to disagree on that point as that would mean they had admitted they lost their honnor/ had failed. So that would no sense according to bushido. Btw some Japanese leaders later proclaimed that the kamikaze technick was not honnorful!

[@TorianTammas]

@@kayb9979 There are some interviews with surviving Japanese Kamikaze. The reason most did it was simply social pressure.

[@SundayMatinee]

Great video Paul! You're gaining views and subscribers because of your well-thought-out, well-edited videos. You're very methodical, fair, and honest, and we appreciate this!

[@simonodowd2119]

Another absolutely killer video Paul. Congratulations on compiling such an excellent testament to your hard work and intellectual integrity.

[@douglashale668]

Hey Paul, I've watched many of your videos and I think this one might be your best. I appreciate your willingness to engage the topic and McDowell respectively. You presented your points simply, coherently and without being disrespectful or vitriolic. You are a breath of fresh air for the atheist community. I think that we call can learn something from the way you engage these beliefs and those who hold them.

[@imagomonkei]

I sense a budding bromance between Paul and Sean. ❤️

[@elly-kz1eq]

And I'm here for it!

[@elicohen2410]

new here,,,, rational and simple,, love it

[@LarpingGecko3851]

I don't have anything useful to contribute. I just wanted to thank you for a great video. Regardless of what you think, you're a great communicator Paul.

[@scambammer6102]

concluding Paul was "sincere" is a major stretch. The guy was a liar. What about those 500 witnesses? I guess nobody even takes that seriously. If he lied about that he could lie about anything.

[@MarcStjames-rq1dm]

Thanks mate, Much needed today...a Paulogia hour long post!!!! perfect....coffee my guitar and ...smoke... perfect day to have off!

[@nathanjasper512]

Nice Strat.

[@MarcStjames-rq1dm]

@Dave Whatever Jam on....

[@Slum0vsky]

It's so rare and pleasant to see a discussion between two knowledgeable and respectful opponents! An applause to both of you!

[@Cowboy-uw7jz]

I enjoy your material Paulogia. Great Job 👍

[@js-sp9bz]

I really look forward to your videos and having one so long is a treat

[@jonasfermefors]

I honestly believe that this type of conversation is the best way to reach a lot of religious people... will Sean be converted anytime soon? Probably not, but I think many listeners who are less knowledgeable will feel more comfortable about asking questions and seeking real knowledge... and that can have some great outcomes. Top marks for this one Paul!

[@stevewebber707]

i absolutely agree. A rational, fair minded conversation with respect to the other people with differing views, is much more likely to reach people than confrontational tactics that make them feel threatened. Of course there are some apologists that I would have a hard time maintaining respect for. The same is true for both sides. And any person that tries to avoid careful examination of their position should not be trusted. So I appreciate Sean's welcoming of open dialogue.

[@jonasfermefors]

@@stevewebber707 Sure, I have no respect for Ken Ham and very little for William Lain Craig to name just two. When it comes to atheists I wonder if some of the more entertaining ones may not be among the least efficient, e.g. Matt Dillahunty, who is certainly witty and entertaining, but is also very confrontational (on many occasions).

[@runenorderhaug7646]

From some of the video of Sean I have seen in the past; he isn't unwilling to be manipulative with words or enlarging small mistakes, but based on what you showed he definitely does seem to be one of the more honest theologians even if he isn't perfect and still has some apologist tendencies. That is refreshing to see in anyone especially one with more authority than other apologists.

[@quantumrobin4627]

I continue to wonder how such an underrated agnostic atheist like Paul, has less than a few hundred thousand subscribers. Thank you for representing us in such a responsible way❤️. Also, I think I know some flat earthers that would die for their truth, and I know millions of N. Koreans that would die for the truth in the divinity of Jong Un family. I know you hate being compared to people that believe such stupid shit but you kinda bring that upon yourself, don’t believe stupid shit and you won’t get railed for being a fucking child

[@Faint366]

It’s probably because honest apologetics doesn’t tend to be feel-good confirmation bias as much as dishonest apologetics. Christians (and people in general) typically want to have their bias confirmed, not accurately scrutinized.

[@tompaine4044]

Also, Paul's videos seem to be more subtle takedowns than the bitch slaps from people like Aron or Viced Rhino. Of course, that's the _reason_ I prefer his content, but we might have to accept it's a niche.

[@EdwardHowton]

Simple statistics. All it takes is one megachurch endorsing one lying sack apologist to get them _thousands_ of new subscribers, some facebook posts to ol' inbred family to get a few dozen more each, and suddenly you've got millions of subs to Magic Zombie Evidences Truths Channel #97,254,001, because there's just _that_ many theists on the planet. And just like everybody else does, if you sub to one channel, you're probably subbed to multiple similar channels. Then there's the intelligent people who _also_ sub to Primitive Barbarian Fairytales Inc. in order to make debunk content further swelling the numbers. Won't see too many christians subbing to sensible channels in return. But even further than that, look at the garbage channels on KZbin. The ones where the content is mostly fart noises and funny faces, or dumb songs. MILLIONS of subs, tens of millions of views. People _want_ easy and stupid and entertaining. Smart takes effort; effort to make, and effort to understand. Ain't nobody got time for that sense! More's the pity. I think I'll call it Michael Bay Syndrome. Get idiots' attention with something loud, flashy, and brainless, and keep them distracted with more of the same, because MBS causes idiots to be attracted to loud, flashy, and brainless.

[@quantumrobin4627]

EdwardHowton Well yea fart noises and immature stuff like that is annoying when you wanna be serious but let’s be honest, the immaturity is part of the human experience, there’s immaturity on both sides. I seen atheists celebrate the death of Ravi and creationists celebrate the death of Bill Ludlow by taunting his children on FB after he died. But yea, Paul is a breath of fresh air for KZbin atheism

[@quantumrobin4627]

Faint366 I was never a believer, even as a young boy the stories seemed to good to be true, now here I am 40years later and I have yet to see anything that points to any god. It must be hard for true believers to imagine their entire lives up to this point has been a lie and they will usually die on that hill before they give into the ideas of “dirty atheism”

[@JimmyTuxTv]

Excellent work Paul, a one hour video derailed my morning

[@Number0neSon]

19:53 - Sean: "(Peter motivated by power) is an assertion without any evidence." Me: _"An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest."_ (Luke 9:46) _"Now there was also a dispute among (the disciples), as to which of them should be considered the greatest."_ (Luke 22:24) _"But (the disciples) kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest."_ (Mark 9:34) _"(James and John) replied, 'Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory'."_ (Mark 10:37) _"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?'"_ (Matt. 18:1)

[@SlightlyOddGuy]

Number0neSon that is a really good point!

[@signposts6189]

Are we now relying on the Gospel accounts to accurately convey Peter's power motivation? Interesting. How do you know the Peter here is still of the same thinking after the resurrection of Christ?

[@Ansatz66]

@@signposts6189 "How do you know the Peter here is still of the same thinking after the resurrection of Christ?" What exactly is this asking for? The evidence was already given in the original comment. It seems pointless to list the evidence again. Obviously we don't know any such thing; all we have is evidence.

[@signposts6189]

@@Ansatz66 Point not taken. The Peter we find in Acts after the resurrection is a radically changed man spoken of in the above quoted passages before the resurrection. In fact none of the disciples jostle for power in Acts anymore. It would seem Christ as their Rabbi taught them well in prioritizing humility.

[@Ansatz66]

@@signposts6189 "It would seem Christ as their Rabbi taught them well in prioritizing humility." What makes it seem that way? Is there a citation to indicate this? Are we basing this entirely on the Bible being silent about the disciples wanting power, or is there some evidence that they did not want power after the resurrection?

[@jfeeney5622]

Great video. I am enjoying your objections Paul. I'm a Christian who tries to remain as objective and sceptical as possible. We all have our preconceptions and bias though and without these open and respectful conversations we will never get on. Thanks for your work.

[@vCoralSandsv]

Thank you for having these conversations! Fantastic

[@pauligrossinoz]

Wow! That's an *awesome* video Paul... another one of your best. While I do happen to think you are too charitable in granting Paul (Saul of Tarsus) as an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus, but that didn't change the strength of your conclusion.

[@__Andrew]

Sean reminds me of pastors who on Sunday say things like "now, Matthew in the bible tells us that Jesus..." heavily implying that "Matthew" wrote his own book in the bible. Yet if you ask that pastor in private he will confess "well we do not know who actually wrote Matthew". They feel like they are justified in misleading as long as, if directly asked about it, they admit to the truth. Sean does the _same thing_ with the martyr issue. He says things like "i never said that dying for a belief proves the belief is true" and.... while that is _technically_ true of him you can tell by his other remarks (13:06) that he heavily implies this to be the case and uses their death as evidence of the truthfulness of the claim. Its like phone psychics who scam people out of money but put a disclaimer up that says "this is for entertainment purposes only" so you cant actually sue them.

[@torreysauter8954]

I've been pretty impressed with how intellectually honest Sean is as well as his desire to engage honestly in discussions even with non-believers (see his talks with Genetically Modified Skeptic for instance). He clearly cares about honest discussion, which is not something I'd say of most apologists. He strikes me as a guy I'd like to have lunch with and talk through our differences just to understand each other, no goal of "winning" present.

[@reillyobrien4372]

I'd love to see Paulogia add a jingle for the "look at the trees" argument using a clip from the song Jellysickle wherein E-40 said "look at the trees, look at the sky, look at the moon..." in a perfect cadence for a little jingle.

[@lnsflare1]

I'm hoping for an Insane Clown Posse "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" clip for any future Arguments From Ignorance fallacies. kzbin.info/www/bejne/onfEk6aIe9OKr5I

[@guthrie_the_wizard]

That fact so much effort over 2,000 years goes into trying to prove this out, when God is supposed to want a relationship with us and has Omni attributes, really speaks to the unlikelihood of the whole thing. I can’t wait for us Americans to wake up so that we can focus on actual problems and opportunities.

[@frankfleming9558]

Love how you are so thorough.

[@PaulMenefee]

It's awesome and refreshing to see a civil debate these days. Keep up the good work Paul.

[@greglogan7706]

As a Christian theist, I have greatly enjoyed listening to Paulogia. A critical point that he makes about evangelicals and their requirement to fulfill a signed document as the basis for their paycheck is profound, severe and very impacting....🤔🥴

[@Nick-Nasti]

Yes. It calls into question any conclusions they come to.

[@greglogan7706]

@@Nick-Nasti I have a profound distrust for anyting an evangelical says....

[@Nick-Nasti]

@@greglogan7706 rightly so.

[@spectreskeptic3493]

This is an excellent summary and followup to your interaction with Sean. He admits that the level of certainty by believers about various interpretations of biblical miracles is often overstated and accepted as true, and he is to be commended for that unusual level of honesty from an apologist. Here's the rub, if we are so susceptible to the temptation of overstating claims in modern times. How much more susceptible were early believers to this behavior in the 1st century. Social Psychologists and Neuroscientists understand the pervasiveness and frequency of this phenomena of human behavior very well today, which is why "overstating" remains the most probable explanation of most if not all miraculous biblical claims; indeed, any miraculous claim. Sidenote: I have observed myself doing this when trying to recount dreams to my wife. I find myself filling-in the gaps with description and meaning. I am in effect unwittingly "overstating" the actual experience such that it is coherent and interesting. It's fascinating stuff. Thanks for another great video. Keep it up.

[@michaelsaxton7966]

....because of you the Phrase "for my wifey told me so" came out of my mouth.

[@merbst]

hilarious! Belongs on a bumper sticker!

[@garycpriestley]

The editing alone in this video is soooo impressive. You have really honed your craft. Beautiful 👍

[@rswhisper]

...that high pitch chime, oww, my sensitivity is making me cry...

[@utubepunk]

I hear ya. I am not a fan. It's too high pitched & gets old after the 2nd time.

[@OtterMunchy]

Scrolling through this Comments’ Section is a treat. Well-worded and thought-provoking, the *Paulogia Thinking-Persons’ Tribe* is an honour to get to join.

[@JCW7100]

I'm very impressed with Sean! Great discussion on Unbelievable Paul, I enjoy seeing you two interact. :)

[@ItsJustChurch]

I watch your videos so consistently that I was totally unaware that I wasn’t subscribed! Don’t worry, I fixed that.

[@Paulogia]

Thanks for subbing!

[@brickwitheyes1710]

An hour long Paul vid!? I'm in heaven

[@samworkman7567]

I am a Christian. Paul, I like your point at 37:00. Very true that Christians on staff at universities with Statement of Faith requirements do not have academic freedom to differ in opinion from the university. Atheists should bring this up more. Indeed, how can you trust anything an apologist says when he has signed a statement which precludes him from differing under occupational duress? Great point! Talk about it more often please.

[@williamdowling7718]

I really look forward to Sean's KZbin channel in a couple years time. Someone this intellectually honest is bound to turn away from apologetics at some point.

[@empressoftheknownuniverse]

Isn't that how we all came to accept reality? It's like a complicated logic problem: so many Xs, so few dots. Best to you & yours! 🦊

[@williamdowling7718]

@@empressoftheknownuniverse yea definitely. It just seems like he's much further down the road of truth than many of his colleagues.. So I'm more optimistic that he will come around much sooner than the likes of Craig or turek.

[@JM-us3fr]

I doubt it. It’s mistaken to think all smart people inevitably end up believing the correct thing, and this is just some variant of that. For many intelligent individuals in religion, there is far too much cognitive dissonance built up over the years, whether it’s having a religious family and friends, religious colleagues, or religious accolades, the mind will consistently refuse to treat the evidence fairly, and it will find that it needs to fall back on giving evidence in favor of their bias preference. It’s sad for some to be locked into this thinking, but I’m sure every Christian university has that one professor who is intellectually honest, but can’t overcome this dissonance, but when religion is so prominent, it doesn’t seem avoidable

[@krioni86sa]

Breaking news: Sebastian Vettel died

[@daviddickerson2787]

I think Paul did a remarkable job debating Sean who arguably a more experienced debater. I also respect Sean’s openness to challenge unsupported assertions. And recognition to both for a respectful debate. It illustrates how sensitive topics can be discussed by those with differing opinions without resorting to unhealthy and unproductive communication styles. Very well done on both sides

[@TheJimtanker]

If Sean McDowell is a skeptic, as he claims, then I'm Mary, Queen of Scotts.

[@TazPessle]

To be fair, he us much more reasonable than most of his brethren. Within the fold of theism, I'd happily call him a sceptic. He's as sceptical as he can be without shrugging off his theist beliefs. And that position is surely where most (all?) philosophically atheist people start. I have no qualms.

[@StephenMeansMe]

He's demonstrably a skeptic towards certain arguments on his own "side," which is good! (Also probably a skeptic towards Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, etc)

[@jmicone6895]

And I am Marie of Romania.-- Dorothy Parker

[@Goodboy-ip7ue]

Scots...🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👍

[@davidburroughs7068]

He has a problem with "I do not know and neither do you" and being comfortable with that and then moving on from there.

[@LemmingFNSR]

Paul, awesome you were able to interact with a scholarly “opponent” with great integrity. Was really interested in reading Sean’s book, but the 99 dollar price tag for the e book has dampened that. Stay well

[@Ryansghost]

The first time I saw Sean on here I thought, what a nice guy. Since then I have seen him lying his face-off on other shows. He's just another Biola robot.

[@sciencepatrol1650]

So refreshing to see such agreement, intellectual honesty and cooperation between two opposing entities. Especially during the insanity that is 2020.

[@Locust13]

Sean seems like an okay guy but him going out of his way to criticize you for saying that if you thought you saw a deity appear to you, you would have to consider that you were hallucinating, even going so far as to say it wasn't "scholarly" to consider a natural explanation is one of the most clownishly silly things I've ever heard an apologist say. If he genuinely believes that the correct methodology following seeing a vision of a God is not to even consider natural explanations but to jump straight to believing it means that his standard of evidence is laughably, absurdly, impossibly, low.

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

I went to AWANA when I was a kid, my kids went to AWANA too. 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Yep, I worked and studied until 40 years later I deconverted.

[@charlesbrowniii8398]

In the gospels, Jesus specifically taught the disciples how to live off the largess of the people to whom they were preaching, and he gave them ample examples of how to influence huge crowds. By the time of his crucifixion, he has thousands of people lining the streets with palm leaves as he road into town, he had people hosting feasts for him, and women wiping ultra-expensive bottles of perfume on his feet with their hair. Peter, according to the book of Acts, continued with this ministry and quickly had thousands of followers laying their money at his feet on pain of death (Ananias and Sapphira). Just based on what the Bible says, it's very plausible that he apostles had very strong motivation to perpetuate the story. Peter, in particular, seems to have benefited greatly.

[@bluedragonfly8139]

It's amazing how well these debates go when both sides are being honest and speaking in good faith. I may not agree with Sean McDowell, but I have to respect the fact that he's being honest and has integrity. Well done both of you!

[@TazPessle]

Towards the end: I think the prior acceptance of the supernatural plays a massive role. As individuals who are not convinced of the supernatural for other reasons (for me it really goes down to the very basis of what constitutes reality and how we can *know* at all), any claim of the supernatural has a much steeper hill to climb wrt the burden of proof. Honestly, I'm not sure any amount of historical writing would do it for me (I probably want archaeological evidence too), Simply because of my other reasons for lack of faith.

[@pagedprawn3760]

If the particular supernatural is capable of interacting with the natural then some scientific evidence would help as well.

[@TazPessle]

@@pagedprawn3760 yes of course. 8f the supernatural can interact then it woyld be scientifically noticeable. Context of this upload is historic documents though; having enough documentation to substantiate the supernatural is an entirely different demand because it is a non-repeatable evidence. Ergo, I'm not sure any amount of it is sufficient.

[@pagedprawn3760]

@@TazPessle 👍

[@garyavey7929]

If there is no resurrection then we are the most to be pitied said Paul

[@badatpseudoscience]

How does it follow that the apostles dying for their beliefs means they believed in the resurrection? All that there deaths show is that they believed in the christian movement. Remember, they where followers before Jesus's death.

[@brandonwells1175]

It's because Paul's criteria are based on those of William Lane Craig in an earlier video. Like, too specifically. If you haven't watched the WLC series Paulogia did, you'll dig it.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Well i would say ther eis still reason enough to doubt ANY part of the story as we know it is redacted (Matthew with the shorter ending later "added" with so much more //important// stuff fitting into the doctrine) and was written in part to fulfill ritualistic purposes (old testament quotes taken from the supposed "messianic prophecies" that in themselves are HIGHLY suspicious as they pick absurdly random parts out of arbitrary bible texts to claim "this is ONE bit of the puzzle". it's worse than "bible code" as it does not even provide a certain pattern or regularity to determine which part is "important"... it just ready things and says "that sounds like it would tell about a Messiah") so the stories, whatever their origin were falsified to fill in the various "fitting" bible verses they thought should be prophetic...) who knows what was all left out, changed or added in the context of that editing process? If we compare that to lore of more approachable and better researchable "births" of faiths like Mormonism, the tendency to falsify history to create legends does not need much to cause it, does not need a high level of encouragement to turn from simple roots to enormous depths and is logn lasting even when people "that should know better" were still around to correct such "testimonies"... Joseph smith changed his own story how he first saw Jesus and was "called" to be a "prophet" several times. He made things straightout up like his translations of egyptian papyri that he had bought from a travelling exhibit that we now can read and interpret and which does not come close to his "translation" and he took rich inspiration in freemasonic rituals and some fantastic stories about ancient jews travelling to america that were quite popular throughout his youth... That alone doesn't prove ANYTHING has been faked in the first, second or third century, but it allows us to express doubts as the bible story has some parallels to KNOWN scams and falsified stories LIKE the "book of mormon" bits... it si silly and naive to believe just because they wrote there were martyrs dying for "the happy news" (evangelion) that actually anybody DID die and that they did so without remorse looking their death stoically into the eye. Correcting an ugly truth so it becomes an encouraging message isn't exactly the newest trick in the marketing handbook, the early christians that wanted to recruit others were as sure that you had to have the proper bait for that as a modern salesman is today.

[@badatpseudoscience]

@@brandonwells1175 I know. That was a rhetorical question. :)

[@signposts6189]

So you want non-believers to write about somebody they didn't follow or would not care about? How does that work for people to take the time to write about someone they don't think is worth their time and effort to follow? Please do tell...

[@richunixunix3313]

Paulogia, I'm a little bit amazed at the number of video's you've done. The amount of research required (at lest for me) for each subject takes me weeks and sometime months to complete. As I have to read each competing argument and of course the historical material. This is not a simple look it up "Google" day. You've done a wonderful job.

[@skywise001]

Thanks for showing him being kind. It can be too easy sometime to think their all Hovid clones.

[@kontainedkhaos7293]

5 Solas believing Christian here. Love your videos man, thank you for all of the editing and stuff to make this easier to understand.

[@stevenbyers8747]

I think you are being generous to include Paul as an eye witness. Hallucinations shouldn't be weighted the same as an actual eye witness.

[@stevewebber707]

While I probably agree with you, he is one of the few recorded people that claims to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus. By definition he was a witness, but how reliable a witness and what exactly was witnessed are the key issues. And yes, for the sake of argument I am discounting the possibility of Paul being dishonest. I take great issue with the biblical story of his experience, where he was the sole person to experience what he did though there were others with him. I have heard it posited that God hid himself from the others present, but that makes little sense if he's trying to show himself to get the message out. I'm not a fan of a God that seems to love hide and seek. As an aside, when you consider the impact of power as an influencer, Paul had more power on Christianity than anyone else in the new testament barring Jesus.

[@autobotstarscream765]

@@stevewebber707 Our God is a Hidden God~ 🎶 Maybe God is a ninja God?

[@stevenbyers8747]

Even today we see people making similar claims as Paul. If we have to accept them as eye witnesses then there are thousands of eye witnesses. Those kinds of claims should be dismissed outright.

[@Venaloid]

39:17 - You can really hear the desperation in Sean's voice as he tries to cast your disagreement as being unreasonable. Sean knows that he is committed to being biased, and he is desperate to not admit it out loud.

[@longcastle4863]

Around the time of the Classical Greek period there was a well know story going around about this prophet who had a decent amount of followers -- who publically announced a claim that the gods had told him to walk into a bon fire on a certain date in order for something marvelous to happen (the details of which I can no longer remember). Anyway as the date for walking into the fire approached, the prophet understandably started getting nervous and begain trying out different kinds of excuses to get out it -- the last attempt being that the gods had now told him they changed their minds... The populace, however, wasn't having any of it and called him out as a false prophet who would lose all respect, honor and credibility if he did not do what he claimed the gods told him to do.. Well, you'd think any normal person would just say, okay, you got me, oh well, I had a good run, but, no, I ain't walking into that fire. But instead, he walked into the fire and died. For some people death is preferable to having your whole reputation and life story negated and made ridiculous -- even if, in fact, your whole life story was pretty much a lie to begin with.

[@Nocturnalux]

And I suspect this was even more of a phenomenon in the Ancient world. Loss of face was often seen as a fate worse than death. Same went for loss of status. You probably see remnants of this in duels, a practice in which people battled it out, at times to the death, because they had been slighted. Some of the “slights” are really nothing much, the kind of stuff we’d shrug off nowadays, or at most post an angry rant online. But people for centuries on end were willing to die and kill for this.

[@BornOnThursday]

I love all these clarifying videos. I have a lot of debates in the comment sections of KZbin and those who are arguing, but allow me to clarify or correct a mistake without ridicule are my favorite. In order to respond in a timely manner, I must cut a few corners and I rarely link sources. I am willing to read articles, and honestly, I often just forget to save articles, and mostly have a list of KZbin videos that I felt were extremely clear on the content.

[@EngelsFermin]

DUDE ease off on the ROIDS,, you making me feel small,, great vids,,

[@scooterboy3676]

Thanks for being so thorough Paul as I'm far too lazy to do all the hard work you do. Oh and I'd rather be "hyper" septic than hyper gullible.

[@exiled_londoner]

"If I just accepted the Bible as a historical source then I'd just swallow completely the resurrection story as is " (8:35). No... this is incorrect and a misunderstanding of how we evaluate historical sources and evidence. I am loth to criticise Mr E as I admire his work and his thoroughness and integrity, but he makes a mistake here. Just because something (eg. a document or a book) is accepted as a 'historical source', it doesn't mean we have to uncritically accept and believe all the claims and assertions made by that source. There are myriad examples of historical sources which are widely read and treasured, sometimes regarded as the most comprehensive accounts of a particular period or series of events (Caesar's 'The Conquest of Gaul' for example), but which nevertheless contain inaccuracies, exaggerations, partisan accounts of conflicts or disputes, and downright lies made to serve a particular purpose and advance a certain cause. The job of the principled historian is to try and compare these sources with other sources (if available), to put them in context, and to evaluate their accuracy, reliability, proximity to events (in time and geography), and veracity (and in the case of written sources, to assess the record and reliability of their authors). In the case of the four canonical gospels they all score very poorly on all of these metrics and under any methodological evaluation. They are anonymous, written by people who were almost certainly not eye-witnesses (and therefore hearsay at best), are not independent of one another, contain contradictions and incompatible claims, and are very clearly written with a partisan purpose and agenda. Mr E knows all this better than I do, so what he should have said is that we must critically assess the reliability of these sources, and once we have done so we cannot fail to find them severely flawed and coming well under the bar for 'good evidence'. Personally, as someone who has been trained in the assessment of historical evidence (although not a specialist in the Ancient Middle East or Classical Antiquity), I find the gospels to be interesting sources for what people believed, or what the early Christian proselytisers wanted people to believe, and about the development of the theology of the early Christian church, but they fail to qualify as 'evidence' for what might have happened during the supposed lifetime of Yeshua ben Ioseph. I know that Mr E is well aware of all this so I am merely repeating it here for the benefit of any viewers and readers who are less familiar with the historical method and about what qualifies as a 'historical source' or 'good historical evidence'. Basically, a document can be one of those without being both.

[@autobotstarscream765]

In comparison, how do the Hebrew Scriptures score? They seem to me to have an even clearer political agenda (Egyptian and Canaanite cultures bad, Mesopotamian cultures good, Chaldean culture superior to Assyrian within Mesopotamians, submit to Babylon when it's under Chaldean control, the God of Israel supports Chaldea).

[@exiled_londoner]

@@autobotstarscream765 - I'm unclear what the real question Mr/Ms Starscream is asking here. I was writing specifically about the gospels in the New Testament, but the Hebrew scriptures (which I have not specifically studied - even though I have a copy in English and Hebrew on my bookshelf) consists largely (as I understand it) of the bulk of the Old Testament and this scores just as poorly, if not worse, than the New Testament gospels. Egypt, Judea, Babylon, Sinai, Persia, Jericho, Jerusalem, etc. are all real places and there are a few Babylonian and Persian rulers mentioned who seem to have been real historical characters, but apart from that it's hard to find much in the old Testament that ranks as good, or even as mediocre evidence for actual events or real. historical people. It has been proven quite conclusively that many of the events recorded in the OT are fictitious (pretty much everything in the Pentateuch for example) and the main debate among historians is over which bits arose from genuine Hebrew mythology which bits were imported from the mythologies of other civilisations the Hebrews were in contact with (a great deal), and which bits were deliberate and intentional fictions written for political purposes.

[@signposts6189]

If the Gospels are as you say "anonymous," how do you figure they were written by "people who were almost certainly not eyewitnesses" somehow not independent of one another while containing (alleged) contradictions and incompatible claims? There are a lot of claims with zero evidence. Care to point to any credible contradictions or incompatible claims. I've yet to find any. Do tell...

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

Its so good to see a debate partner who is polite and honest. These are great discussions!

[@MultiCappie]

Wow, I'm sortof impressed by the relatively greater intellectual honesty of Sean McDowell. He's still not speaking critically to the evidence, but at least he's not a total douchebag like, unfortunately large numbers of religious apologists.

[@davechesty]

Good to watch two people actually engaged in an honest discusion

[@steveaustin4118]

put video on see an hour long go make coffee and watch, perfect!

[@davidfitnesstech]

NICE PAUL. I'm taking notes AGAIN.

[@RetroBackslash]

I usually try and see both sides in an honest discussion, but I can't see how "they were willing to be martyred" is evidence for ANYTHING.

[@robertnett9793]

Now that's the point - you examine the arguments and look what supports them or what speaks against them. And yes - the argument someone was willing to be martyred for something isn't valid - because from ones willingness to die for a subjective ideal is no logical way to the objective validity of said ideal. It only proofs that the one willing to die believed in his ideal really really hard.

[@simongiles9749]

And in the case of the Apostles (and many other martyr saints), all we can really say is that people who wrote the martyrdom tales felt that representing them in this way was important. We have nothing to corroborate the martyrdom stories; they could have got drunk and fallen in a ditch for all we know.

[@SundayMatinee]

It only helps rule out that they were lying or deceiving others purposefully. It does NOT rule out the possibility that they were mistaken. And that, to me, is the more likely answer. Paulogia's Beginnings of Christianity video explains how they could have been mistaken using only natural phenomenon that we know exist. No need for supernatural explanations.

[@zemorph42]

I think that some people will die defending a lie, if it serves what they believe is a higher good; like an espionage agent protecting their fellow agents' identities, for example.

[@sammcewan9544]

Just scrolling through comments, but what is this about Irish Nuns murdering children? You mention this offhand. If true this is a big deal. I’m sceptical though

[@ryanb5127]

After seeing this video I am thoroughly refreshed, Sean seems like an truly great and honest person.

[@DarkAlkaiser]

The "hyper skepticism" claim is hysterical XD So, if he heard a voice claiming to be god telling him to kill someone. He'd just accept it and do it I guess XD

[@Avigorus]

OMG that offhand mention of Awana brought back memories... thank the god I left behind years ago that I'm not involved with it any more lol

[@chaseharrison5469]

Same

[@bouldersoundguy]

What's the point of that piercing tone that makes me want to throw my headphones across the room?

[@leonsantiago5162]

the second "it's an inference of a kind, but it's not a blind inference" ... made me giggle audibly ...

[@hisxmark]

"Are martyred apostles evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?" Not even if there were any evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles, and there isn't. And, even given these alleged martyroms, it is not apparent that they would have been martyred because they believed in the resurrection of Jesus. It may have been that they were convinced of the immanent kingdom of heaven, where the "Son of Man" (bar abbas!), not necessarily Jesus the Nazarene, would establish the kingdom. Remember that the Council of Nicea was called to establish the nature of the Nazarene, whether he was a man, a god, a man who temporarily channeled a god, or an insubstantial spirit who was "sacrificed" in the heavens just below the moon. The council couldn't agree on his nature, so they borrowed from the religions around them ans called it a "trinity" , a "mystery". The important point is that less than a century after the "Edict of Toleration" the execution of "heretics", and the persecution of non-believers had begun. Anyone following the old religions was said to be worshipping demons and thus a witch who must not be allowed to live. It was only when Christianity splintered and so lost power that they also discovered "tolerance" for dissenters. Make no mistake, if they ever did re-unite they would would re-build their racks, and re-erect their stakes. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there is no power so absolute as the unified powers of religion and state.

[@John_Demarco]

There were over 900 martyrs in Jonestown. Is that evidence that Jim Jones had divine knowledge?

[@jirinaji]

You've made some fair points, but please don't muddy up what the Council of Nicea was about. No one at that Council defended the positions that Jesus was just "a man, or a man who temporarily channeled a god, or an insubstantial spirit". These opinions were around at that time and I'd say they had probably originated before the belief in Jesus's divinity did, but the catholic, mainstream Christianity rejected those notions long before the Council of Nicea took place. The bishops at Nicea all believed Jesus was born of a virgin and was the incarnate Son of God who had a hand in creating the universe. What they debated was whether the Son of God always existed and whether his substance was identical to that of the Father. The bishops were roughly split into 3 camps: Arians, semi-Arians, and "orthodox" trinitarians (look those terms up if you want to know details). As we know, the trinitarians won, but Arians didn't at once give up. Before their opposition was overcome, they actually managed to have their beliefs confirmed by other councils. It's interesting to compare the trinitarian creed of Nicea (www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed ) with the Arian creed of Sirmium (earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_second_of_sirmium_357_blasphemy.htm ). The differences may be smaller than you'd expect. Another incorrect claim you made is that the Nicean "council couldn't agree on Jesus's nature, so they borrowed from the religions around them and called it a trinity". The Council convened at 325 certainly did not borrow the word from pagans, because it had been used by numerous 3rd century Christian writers -- Tertullian, Origen, Gregory of Thaumaturgus etc. The first preserved occurrence of the word being used by a Christian to describe God is in the second half of the 2nd century in Theophilus of Antioch ( www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm , Chapter 15.). With that said, maybe Theophilus or whatever Christian used it first did borrow it from pagans, and surely not all Christians using the word Trinity understood it the same way.

[@jtheist32]

This is such a great video. You really annihilated him but in a very polite and direct way.

[@ronaldharris6569]

intellectually honest but he still won't accept the truth that the bible is not a indisputable source for history. It's frustrating that he cart see that

[@DBCisco]

Rule #1 of history and anthropology: Leave your preconceived ideas at the door. You are to investigate the past, NOT cherry pick to fit your own biases.

[@billkeon880]

Atheist experience show #623 is on this topic, and it destroys the idea of ‘no one would die for a lie’ and martyrdom. Search with Matt and Tracie’s name and the word martyr and you’ll find it.

[@EngelsFermin]

anulfo romero got killed in te middle of a service,, was he a martyr?? i guess, but he got killed bc he was against the war in el salvador

[@empressoftheknownuniverse]

Thank you for making me do my research. Two things strike me: Romero always spoke to the people (literally preached to choir/downtrodden) rather than raging against the mechanisms. Also, his final church was a haven for oncology/terminally ill persons. Doing good for the sake of good, no matter the minutiae of dogma. Thank you again. Stay safe, stay strong, stay sane...if you can. 😚

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

Well done and thanks for sharing this with us and keep up your great work 👍

[@lancetschirhart7676]

21:23 This is one of the funniest things you have ever said!

[@michaelmeszaros6982]

Paul I been meaning to ask you for a while: is the "For the Bible Tells Me So" music you play occasionally the first movement of Offenbach's "Can Can"? RockOn, Paul.

[@mockturtlesuppe]

No, it's literally the melody of the lyrics "For the Bible tells me so," from the popular Sunday school song "Jesus Loves Me." But, after listening to Can Can again, (that's one of those classical piece that everyone's heard but not everyone can name) I realize the notes are pretty much identical!

[@michaelmeszaros6982]

@@mockturtlesuppe I wonder where the sunday school song writers got their ........ inspiration? YEAH, they STOLE it. I'm SHOCKED ................... LOL

[@robertx8020]

Paulogia is right Well, duuuuuhhhh :P

[@OneCSeven]

Its actually so much fun watching people who respect each other and have intellectual integrity debate. When it’s bad faith on even one side it's so poisonous.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

huh? honest apologist? .. maybe god exists after all..

[@EdwardHowton]

You don't have to worry about a thing. Sean says he's naturally a skeptic and constantly lies about what Paulogia said or did. Honest compared to other apologists, maybe, but that's not saying much.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

@@EdwardHowton I haven't watch all videos paul linked here yet,but as far as I can tell it could be just honest misunderstanding. I know it is not usual to think about apologist in some other way than "lying piece of s**t" , but people make mistakes. especially in communication. he could have just misunderstand paul. maybe I'm wrong, but it looks to me that this one at least is trying to understand. I can be wrong, of course. I have been wrong in this before.

[@Sveccha93]

Paul. Some of your videos are so good i wish I could put them on my bookshelf next to my other important works. This is one of them...bravo.