This Resurrection Argument Doesn't Add Up (Trent Horn response)

In this episode, ‪@TheCounselofTrent‬ responds to critics like Paulogia and Candida Moss who critique the evidence for the Resurrection in the apostle's willingness to die for their faith in Christ.
Defending the "Martyrdom Argument" for the Resurrection
• Defending the "Martyrd...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada

[@andrewfrennier3494]

The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan is a memorial to the 2,466,532 persons who sacrificed their lives in military service, knowing that their emperors were divine. None of them are known to have recanted. That is far more martyrs than “church lore”. Time to start following the descendants of Amaterasu. :)

[@CharlesPayet]

Definitely storing that bit of information away for future use. 👍

[@andrewfrennier3494]

@@CharlesPayet thank you. Apologists often forget about those of other religions who also feel they are correct in their views.

[@greglogan7706]

Interesting point!

[@RobinPillage.]

🫡 Sounds totally legit, I'll get right on it then

[@Ken_Scaletta]

People died for many divine Roman Emperors too and not only that but eyewitnesses often saw them ascending to Heaven or walking around in physical form after death. Absolutely nothing about the Gospels resurrection narratives are unique or original. If anything they are hackneyed and cliched. Anybody who was anybody in the ancient world had a vanishing body, or an ascended or a transformed one. Not just rulers, but philosophers, prophets, athletes as well as the wives, mothers and daughters of various heroes. Jesus was a dime a dozen. Richard C. Miller's book "Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity" I think ends the argument. The Gospels are completely explicable as garden variety translation fables of which there were hundreds, not only for mythological gods and heroes but for historical figures in imitatio of mythological figures (e,g. Alexander the Great). Taking the Gospels seriously as historiography is naive to the point of childishness. People don't know how ubiquitous theses stories are because New Testament scholars don't read Classical literature and Classical scholars don't study the Bible. There's this idea that they are separate majesties when they are really the same one. The New Testament is Greek Classical literature through and through. I've studied NT scholarship for close to 30 years, including studying Greek and Latin and it wasn't until I started finally really reading Classics again that the Gospels and especially Acts became understandable to me. It's obvious if you read a lot of both, but Bible scholars have always been reluctant to recognize it as such and want to believe the entire Bible developed completely freely and independently of any "pagan" influence and the New Testament is purely steeped in Judaism and hermetically sealed off from anything Greek. The Gospels are not only fiction, they were intended to be understood as fiction. None of those translation fables were ever taken literally. It was a way to honor people after death, maybe something like making people saints or talking about them "looking down on us," when we don't really literally think that (at least most of us don't). Even thinking these stories are DEBATABLE as historiography shows an ignorance of the subject on Horn's part. The evidence for the ascension of Julius Caesar is better than than anything in Gospels about Jesus.

[@drizztcat1]

If we want to demonstrate the ease with which stories become warped and defective with oral retellings, all we need to do is listen to Trent mispronounce Paulogia's name over and over and over.

[@iseriver3982]

And misrepresent Paul's opinions, even though he's had first person experience of watching pauls videos. Mistakes happen, unless you believe in the sanctity of a book because that book says it's sanctified.

[@MeganVictoriaKearns]

​@@iseriver3982They DO buy into that though! It's much of the reason I no longer waste my time trying to nudge them to access their "God-gibbon" common sense as a means to listening to and analyzing my argument. If you drop dead BELIEVE a human-written politically motivated instruction manuel to keep the poor people from complaining too much or questioning authority, because the sacred book says in inside itself that its a sacred book... I mean, how can you lay out a reasonable argument for someone that was easily able to abandon the common sense of basic deduction that a 2nd grader could apply with ease? It's like trying to explain combustion to a meerkat. Like, at some point I'm the fool for seeing a sign that "someone's home" in people who (upon more experience I figured this out) who I couldn't tell (but others easily saw) had absolutely NOBODY HOME!

[@iseriver3982]

@@MeganVictoriaKearns paul was a literal creationist, now he isn't.

[@mattmorris9795]

Reminds me of the story of a shot that doesn’t prevent being infected by a virus nor of transmitting the virus to others never the less being called a vaccine by one and all. Humans are insane.

[@pinnsvein]

Paulogia has quickly become my favorite KZbinr, with his respectful and fact-conscious commentary. Thank you, Paul! You are doing great work!

[@blue-pi2kt]

He's so thoroughly excellent that in the past few months I've exhausted all his scripted content going back years.

[@EverettVinzant]

Maybe Paulogia is the resurrected Paul, here to right the wrongs with the current understanding of Christianity? Yes, I’m joking.

[@coreyfaller2500]

My favorite are the "ham and aig" segments debunking the ark museums lies.

[@Fokko]

Totally agree, while he doesn’t seems to put extra effort in making himself sound more interesting with uplifting added emotion wich is the norm these days,,, that is precisely the reason he’s keeping my attention! I like this ‘it isn’t about me being right but let’s be realistic for once ive we can, maybe?’ Approach!!!🎉

[@heelercs]

+1 to this!

[@tomsenior7405]

"We don't have to prove it..." That sets the tone of Trent's response and pretty much describes how he will handle his "arguments".

[@the_disc32]

No no but you see he was sincere about it

[@tomsenior7405]

@@the_disc32 Yes indeed. Apologists are either sincere, or sincere and angry.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

Great for him. That means I don't have to believe him.

[@Julian0101]

@@the_disc32 He was sincerely dishonest.

[@rickelmonoggin]

I didn't understand that. I thought he was going to say that he doesn't have to prove it because he has faith, which would have made more sense, but instead he goes on to try and prove it

[@Narikku]

As a Christian, I really appreciate your content, Paul. You present your objections in a very concise, digestible manner that really hits at the weak points of Christian Applogetics - and I think this is a very, very good thing. Christian Apologists do frequently overstate their case, and asking for the specifics and asking "What evidence do we have?" is always a wonderful thing to do. You seem to present yourself as "Just a KZbinr", but you are much more than that. I enjoy your humor, your content, and your level-headed consistent rationality. You do your homework. Every video, I am very impressed by how educated you are on a wide breadth of topics. Keep up the good work. (: Pursuing the Truth should be the highest goal.

[@86645ut]

Then, why are you still a Christian?

[@Paulogia]

Thank you. That means much!

[@twitherspoon8954]

_"Pursuing the Truth should be the highest goal."_ What do you think about those who worship ritual human sacrifice based on a fictional character?

[@Narikku]

@@twitherspoon8954 Those who are in error of the Truth should be corrected. I think we can both agree there, no? In the given hypothetical, 'fictional' is meant to imply 'not true', right? That is to say, they believe it is not fictional, even though it is? If that is the case, then it is good for them to be corrected. The situation changes a bit if the event is fictional and the people worship, even knowing it is fictional. I'd probably think the action is a waste of time, or even detrimental depending on the practice. I'd likely encourage them to stop. But, then again, sometimes fictional stories have large emotional impacts on us that help us determine greater purpose - movies and books do this a lot. It's hard to say without specifics. I'm not sure how to answer the question, "What do I think of them." I don't know them. All I know is a specific action they partake in. I can talk about what I know of the action - not the undescribed hypothetical person. Could you tell me what you think of them based on the description you have provided? Given the answer I gave to your question, this is why I am praising Paul's videos. Apologists will assert that we have a lot more evidence than we have about certain topics regarding the Bible. Paul is pushing back, saying, "No, we don't have the evidence you say we do." He's correcting a fictitious claim. I promise I'm not trying to avoid your question. But I really am genuinely confused how to answer your question appropriately.

[@matthewnitz8367]

Hey Narikku, really appreciate you taking the time to engage with the evidence and those you disagree with. If you'd be willing to answer a question I have, I'd like to know how a Christian concerned about supporting their beliefs evidentially would respond. I guess it would be two questions actually, as the first would be: Do you believe in eternal conscious torment, or annihilationism? And then if you believe in either of those, what would you say could actually be taken as evidence of those beliefs that would move them beyond just being claims about the afterlife made by the humans writing the Bible? To me that seems like where things really start falling short in Christianity evidence wise, as I don't see any way essentially any of the theological claims of Christianity could be verified. The fact that they are compiled in the Bible, even if we assume for the sake of argument the Bible and history contain enough information to think people probably correctly reported that they saw someone rise from the dead, doesn't seem to at all be a verification of all the things the various authors wrote additionally about what they thought the theological and afterlife implications of this event were. And those theological claims, especially those that say people that believe the wrong thing deserve eternal suffering or destruction, are the ones that seem to have the most impact on how we actually live our lives and would therefore be the most important to be extremely certain about before acting on. If you have a moment to reply, thanks!

[@Trigger-xw9gq]

Once you realize that "beliefs" are like drugs, you realize why so many believers are reluctant to let them go.

[@davidofoakland2363]

Another bravura video, Paul. Your use of graphics really helps clarify your points and makes comprehension easier. I certainly hope you are able to continue producing such quality work.

[@Paulogia]

I'm very glad that it helps. Thank you for the support.

[@DeconvertedMan]

1:24 "we dont have to prove it" - YES YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >_

[@greg5023]

People so sincerely believed Bernie Madoff that they gave him their retirement savings. Sincere belief is lunacy.

[@Julian0101]

7:32 I find hillarious apologists classify _minimal corroboration_ as "highest possible evidence" and _not even one corroboration_ as "second highest possible evidence"

[@dougt7580]

But only for THEIR religion's texts and stories. They set the bar so high for all other religion's that they generally don't even concern themselves with learning about them, much less considering whether they could be true.

[@terrencelockett4072]

​@@dougt7580 Then the other crazy thing is they do this about almost anything that comes into conflict with their beliefs.

[@njhoepner]

@@dougt7580 No kidding. I was raised mainline Protestant, as an adult converted to Evangelical, spent 26 years that way...until (finally!) I stepped outside the bubble and examined Christian claims the same way I'd examined others...and realized, to my surprise, that it held up no better. I think if all Christians applied the same critical thinking to their own religion that they automatically apply to all others, Christianity would disappear...and if the believers in all other religions did the same, religion would become a cultural relic worldwide.

[@bengreen171]

this is Trent all over. There's not an assertion he can make that he isn't willing to fail to produce evidence for.

[@pavld335]

Trent's argument is so poor. He would never accept these arguments for any other claim.

[@sussekind9717]

Really, how does he know any of this?There's no evidence that the disciples even existed. He's getting his information from non-canonical extra-biblical writings between the 2nd and 14th centuries. Some of them were written over a thousand years after the fact. And that's what he's going to use for evidence? Pathetic. He fell on his face before he even exited the door.

[@alanhyland5697]

@Paulogia You should use this treatment for more apologists. To be clear, I mean the re-phrasing of his arguments. Brilliantly done.

[@sbushido5547]

Man, they *_*really*_* hate that jingle. But I do have to smile every time they whine that the bible isn't placed on a pedestal with respect to historical accounts. One day they might figure out how stupid it is to point out that we don't treat the words of Philo or Alexander as gospel...in defense of what they *_do_* consider the literal gospel. But I'm not holding my breath.

[@Ten80pete]

This video felt like a true return to form, Paul. Although it may be no different in format to a refutation of a Frank Turek Q&A video, this one felt more like a conversation. A civil conversation at that. Thank you. Really feeling like the Atheist KZbin content is regaining its personality.

[@Ten80pete]

@garyallen8824 Oh, you're absolutely right. I didn't mean to imply that Paul was ever belligerent (at least when it didn't warrant it). No, I guess I was just enjoying the solo video where Paul didn't have to compete with some 70 year old man who surrendered his last GAF 20 years ago and is now at a point where he's been praised for his extensive Old/New Testament knowledge so many times that he has an ego with none of the charisma required to balance that out... not that I'm referring to anyone in particular, mind.

[@tfive24]

He's upset by a jingle. Lol

[@moorejim13]

I also love how he started this video out so well and clearly worded but then devolved into special pleading and that things people do where they try to take social control by making your doubts about their claims seem silly or stupid, by trying give blanket statements and not engaging with specifics or nuances

[@robertx8020]

I love love, love, love the "because the bible tells me so", to the point that every time ANY YT uses that line, I hear the tune in my head 😂

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Even his critics like it.

[@robertx8020]

@@isaakleillhikar8311 True

[@DeconvertedMan]

No martyrs. No Proof. No anything.

[@torreysauter8954]

Paulogia's work is fantastic. Always excited when he had a new video up

[@fuckhandles.]

If you make a "for the Pope tells me so" jingle please have it sung by a eunuch choir.

[@njhoepner]

I wonder if Ghost would do one?

[@mrmaat]

Who cares if people sincerely believed anything? Who cares if people died for their beliefs? It happens fairly regularly with fringe cults. That has almost no bearing on the truth claims of that cult.

[@dougt7580]

Forget fringe cults, it happens with relatively normal people frequently - people suffer and die believing in faith healers, anti-vax conspiracies, homeopathy, grifters peddling miracle cures, and for all sorts of sincerely held, but ultimately incorrect beliefs.

[@doubtingflock1073]

I think they're obsession with your "for the bible tells me so" thing is that they know that, in one sentence, it describes what is wrong with their entire chain of reasoning and reminds them that there is no other evidence of their God outside of the Bible all in 6 words.

[@DeconvertedMan]

I wholey dispise how the apologists call the STORY evidence. -_-

[@CTCTraining1]

Loved the video ... although the dragon in my garage was more sceptical 😀👍

[@Paulogia]

😁

[@terrencelockett4072]

It's just crazy that they don't get the difference of history being considered through minimal sources and living your entire life based on "history" through very minimal sources.

[@davidschneide5422]

"I'll tell you what you want to hear, and since you give me money, you'll feel compelled to believe it."

[@BFDT-4]

And if those early people marched around claiming the Resurrection and Ascension, so what? Claims are not evidence, even back then. THAT they were killed, which we don't have any real evidence for that (Gospels rag and Acts are not evidence, but rather claims) is nothing to brag about. CLAIMS, not evidence.

[@VioletWonders]

Hope you 2 have a discussion!! :)

[@andrewfrennier3494]

It’s interesting how a single source in book form from centuries ago gets credited as “true” and “factual”, but when compared to actual people dying in more modern times they are treated by theists as “untrue”, “false”, and only a “belief.” Fascinating

[@loganleatherman7647]

They see what they want to see. It’s so simple and so obvious, yet the vast vast majority of believers are blind to this aspect of humans

[@nagranoth_]

He's completely wrong about the jingle. It's VERY useful. He just doesn't like it pointed out that only the bible is a source for a claim, because it shows how empty the claims are.

[@bradrisley3036]

Great analysis, Paul! I truly appreciate your respectful approach, but I also enjoyed hearing your voice inflect incredulity at Horn's assertions for which he failed to provide evidence. I hope Horn responds to this one. Of course, I've also been wishing that J. Warner Wallace would respond to you, too. I literally laughed out loud at the "For the Pope Tells Me So" jingle! 😂

[@robdavinroy1761]

Paulogia you knocked Trent out of the ballpark. But rest assured he will come back again and again defending the cool aid. Sooner or later truth will subdue him for good. Or maybe not 😂

[@freyaheart]

People who refuse to pronounce names properly irk me.

[@Specialeffecks]

There is a huge difference between 1) Let's honestly look and determine what the evidence suggests is reasonable to believe is true with its appropriate level of confidence toward or against the claim (keeping in mind the writer's theological motivations), and 2) We have dedicated our life to this being true so what evidence can we find, interpret, twist, assume, invent, give the benefit of the doubt to that support claims we are already convinced must be true, and ignore, minimize, reinterpret, twist, conceal any evidence against our view, and in some 'expert' cases add: have signed and agreed to Statements of Faith - so regardless of any evidence against - our public conclusions will never waver.

[@GeraldDeBelen]

Nice analysis Paul! Never came to me that "apostles" in the Acts did not automatically apply to the other "witnesses". And besides, Acts used the term "the Twelve" to collectively refer to them. Luke could've simply left a one liner indicating that "the Twelve then preached around the world as Jesus commanded", even how incredulous it may appear but it would've been a nice little flair there to tell what happened to the others, but Luke did not write about that.

[@GeraldDeBelen]

@garyallen8824 I am referring "Luke" here as a convenient way of referring to the writer of the Acts. That doesn't imply that I support such authorship. People would be quick to correct me if I even used a wrong person here from a "traditional" POV.

[@55Quirll]

Belief is not evidence of an event, or of an object. I could state I have a strong belief that my Irish Leprechaun came to me and granted me my 3 wishes. There is no evidence that my 3 wishes were granted or that the Leprechaun appeared to me.

[@Marconius6]

I think most scholars reject the martyrdom sources not just because they're a few centuries later, but also because they're... y'know, batshit insane and obviously legendary. This includes the Catholic Church btw, none of these books are canon!

[@trybunt]

We paint dirt green here in communist Australia, too. Pretty sure its just grass seed and fertiliser or something, but im sure someone will think its all part of some conspiracy.

[@gerrye114]

Thing that frustrates me about this argument is that there is better evidence for Mormonism. If you buy this evidence for the resurrection, then you should also buy the golden plates.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

12 disciples? I thought there were 28. And a kangaroo...

[@zeendaniels5809]

For a moment I thought I was listening to William "lower the bar so believing makes sense" Lane Craig...

[@InShadowsLinger]

It is impressive to me who all Paul can name drop as mispronouncing the name of his channel yet alone squirming trying to explain him away. Must be really getting under their skin.

[@robertbetz8461]

Think it might be the same as Republicans referring to the Democrat Party. It's a similar slight on Paulogia when they mispronounce his moniker.

[@MalcolmLeitch1]

Many members of Heavens Gate endured suffering (they castrated themselves) and died for their beliefs. Is that evidence they were right?

[@mickeydecurious]

Good point! I like that😊

[@pureflix8086]

Ouch!😢😬

[@violetfactorial6806]

Jim Jones told his followers that the government would torture their children. You could argue that his willingness to die indicates sincerity. But was he actually sincere? The evidence strongly indicates that there was no secret government plan to torture children, and that his claims were manipulations rather than sincere beliefs. Yet he blasted his own brains out over it. People are obviously willing to lie and manipulate even when it leads to their own suffering and death. The apostles might have been sincere but it's a dead end as far as convincing apologetics goes. It's just a story that Christians enjoy because they worship persecution.

[@daviddickey9762]

If you can't prove they even existed you can't prove martyrdom

[@SenorCinema]

as an excatholic, thank you for this

[@SeekingVirtueA]

Fellow ex-Catholic, what were the big reasons behind your journey?

[@SenorCinema]

@@SeekingVirtueA um, research about the historicity of the gospels

[@n0ccca]

Ah yes, once again, another clear and patient response from Paul Ogia.

[@jesseterpstra5472]

I'm so glad you're taking on catholic apologists now too.

[@leo--4341]

you given them an inch “jesus could have existed” they take a mile “jesus rose from the dead”

[@mrwallace1059]

Paulogia, you may need to make hundreds of NEW jingles for all the Christian denominations.

[@jakegreen5081]

Claims within Christianity always means evidence for Christians. Of course, when Christians see claims in other religions those claims are not evidence.

[@moodyrick8503]

*The Resurrection Argument ;* Faith in the _alleged hearsay testimony of men,_ written down decades after the events, of which no originals exist. Yet the men that testify for the _miracles of other religions,_ that they witnessed "first hand", get dismissed as myth. *Faith In Jesus = **_Faith in the stories, that men tell_** .*

[@silassays]

Love your videos, Paul. Tell Shannon I said HI. Love her videos too. Love you both.

[@cggambill]

Sincerity of belief is irrelevant to truth of said belief.

[@kdietz65]

Sean downgrades the account from a 10 to a 9 on a scale that runs from 8 to 10.

[@stenblann9784]

Trent, the new testament is carefully curated literature which can honestly be classified as ancient Christian propaganda based on a popularized version of a resurrected savior myth. In short, not much to see here except for ancient myth scholars. Trent just appeals to special pleading employing motivated reasoning. Many of us would like to "Be like Mike" (Jordan) and have eternal life. Unfortunately, just marketing popular wishes and desires as attainable in reality does not make them so.

[@DeludedOne]

7:18 Don't expect Trent to stick to whatever standards he references or sets up even if it is standards he agrees with or bases his arguments on. As I'll show later, the crux of his entire notion that evidence for the martyrdom of the apostles is not required to believe in the resurrection and that all that is required is the knowledge that people risked their lives safety and well being for a claim or belief in order for it to be believable is not applied by Trent on claims by people he doesn't want to acknowledge or their claims that he does not believe in even if they face the same sort of risk of persecution that the apostles supposedly went through. 11:30 That's precisely what he's trying to say IF his video on how "all claims are evidence" and what he says and upholds in it is to be believed. In it he basically defined ALL sources of human documentation in any form as "claims". Of course, when it suits him he might basically pivot away from such a definition without batting an eye, it's what he does after all. 15:04 Which harkens back to what I said earlier about his standards for believing a claim or the people who make that claim or their beliefs, remember it because again, we will see how Trent does NOT apply this for people or beliefs or claims he has no vested interest in supporting or believing. 22:11 BTW, willingness to recant is an available policy of sorts in modern society for...other stigmas, as I'll mention at the end. Ok, here's what I have to say about Trent. On one of his clips, I think it was the one about how all claims are evidence, he has a pined post where he refers to transgenderism as an "ideology". The message is clear, to Trent, there is no objective or epistemological grounds for transgender people to declare themselves as trans people, it's simply all in their heads. And yet...the very circumstances of trans people in America (and in many other countries today) are very similar to what the apostles of Jesus faced during the early days of Christianity according to Trent. To come out as gay or lesbian in America is to risk persecution, lots of it, from an entire religious demographic no less of which Trent is part of. This very same demographic is directly responsible for the persecution that gay and trans people face as they have individuals within government itself that have passed legislation that curtails the rights of trans people or legislates against them. Not to mention of course the already available social stigma and misunderstanding about trans people that constitutes persecution on a micro group and community level as well. The thing about this persecution that trans people face is that it is has far more evidence for it than for the alleged persecution that the early Christians and apostles suffered. It is in fact pretty much an established fact with demographics like the ones that Trent belongs to upholding that as fact, along with the anti-trans legislation that have been and probably will be passed or at least attempted. Trans people are also far more likely to suffer from violent crimes than non-trans people on account of their trans identity, and if we look outside of America, countries like Uganda have passed laws legalizing the killing of gays, laws that also cover trans people, so yeah trans people risk death and suffering by coming out as trans people even in America let alone in places like Uganda. Give all this, given Trent's standards for believing in the claims of the apostles based solely upon their willingness to suffer and preach their message at risk of death, it should only be logical that Trent should accept trans people's claims that they are trans people and that their gender identity isn't something that is "simply in their head" and that their beliefs about who they are isn't just mere belief, they are telling it as they see it. In short they are being sincere about their trans identity and how it's not just "made up" or "in their heads" But no, Trent's post on that clip I saw makes it clear that this is something he doesn't accept. Somehow the beliefs of trans people about who they are and their gender identity is somehow "only in their minds" despite the fact that the risk, persecution and suffering they face is without question yet they are willing to come out as trans. But the apostles of Jesus on the other hand are to be believed on their preaching and claims about Jesus' resurrection for the same reasons but with far less evidentiary value surrounding their persecution and martyrdom than the persecution of trans people. I don't mind seeing Trent Horn on the channel, but I'm not going to expect much intellectual honesty from him. It's clear from what I've seen that his willingness to partake in such is severely limited by his religious biases.

[@Julian0101]

I found funny in his video about claims that on the first few minutes trent nailed it by admitting claims cannot be evidence for themselves, and then claimed that this is not what matt was saying (despite matt making a video explaining exactly that a few hours before) and then later on turned around and said that all forms of evidence are claims in one way or another. The dude cannot even remain consistently wrong.

[@GetMeThere1]

The only Jesus I would CONSIDER giving credence to would be one who was walking around and talking to people on the street, and such a resurrected Jesus would have been a HUGE deal -- with the entire city left ABUZZ about it. Such an event would be talked AND written about WIDELY -- and would have garnered secular writings WIDELY. It wouldn't have been something circulated only among a small group of believers, and only be recorded by a second group thirty or more years later.

[@resurrectionnerd]

Acts doesn't say _why_ James was killed so that's all that needs to be said. In order to establish a martyrdom took place, a reason for the execution is a necessary condition.

[@robc1775]

@Paulogia @10:19 you volume drops very low, but great stuff!

[@lrcavalli290]

How does anyone know that they suffered? Anyone can write anything...are we just supposed to believe it?...trying to prove something, from the same source it was written in, is a circular argument at best.

[@derreckwalls7508]

Christian apologists are definitely performing mental gymnastics, but they also have to run through an obstacle course where the object it to get to the end as quickly as possible by skillfully maneuvering to avoid everything that could easily trip them up. Soon I'll be giving my analogy to how they are shipwrecked on a deserted island with an active volcano... while running low on supplies and struggling to survive.

[@tetsujin_144]

10:14 - Hey, Paul? We're over here... Where are you going?

[@SpaceLordof75]

It’s interesting that Sean McDowell downgraded the martyrdom of James from “highest” status because it only has a single source. If he does assign the accounts of the martyrdom of Paul and Peter as the “highest”, that doesn’t seem very helpful. It seems to me that the historical method would apply here, stuff like: multiple sources. Unbiased or hostile sources. Sources who agree on the main points of the event, but have different perspectives. Archaeological evidence. These two martyrdom accounts don’t meet most of these criteria. Unless I’m misremembering Sean’s criteria, it seems that WL Craig is not the only Christian with a low bar…

[@herberb1]

Thanks!

[@Paulogia]

you're welcome.

[@OneEyed_Jack]

You know it's gonna be a crap argument when they say something like "these three _assertions_ are evidence." _Assertions are never evidence! They're the things that require evidence!_

[@GameTimeWhy]

Around 7:00 where apologist says most historical documents are single source is ignoring that its one thing to hold a loose belief in caesar or learning that troy happened but ita completely different to now say Caesar was a mythical being or Achilles was a real demigod man. The supernatural claims require actual evidence.

[@GameTimeWhy]

@@LuthAMF so you believe Caesar was a mythical god man or that Achilles the demi God existed?

[@YoLo-bb2vc]

0:44 the mear mention of your name sent this robot into a critcal error well done you breaking the christian matrix!

[@ntchurchoffreethought6163]

Even if all the claimed matrydoms could be proven conclusively, it would only support the idea that those martyrs were convinced of Christian claims. Meanwhile, there is no good evidence that ANY sightings of "Jesus" were not like Paul's, i.e., a vision, with the writers of the Gospels composing their accounts of legends later.

[@simplybaker.]

Yeah, I used to watch some of trance videos to try to have an honest discussion with people, but so much of it seemed fundamentally like it was missing the point

[@trent_king]

I feel attacked😢

[@chefroxstarr9467]

Right out the gate you can use that same argument for other religions and beliefs. Every religion has people that have died for their beliefs so does that mean they're true as well? 2:26

[@jacobchesnes7623]

"For the papal tells me so" has the same syllables

[@Beacon80]

So, he says we have no reason to believe the other disciples didn't preach, which is important, because there were lots of reasons for why they wouldn't want to preach...

[@tomnanD3]

Why us it that many apologists speak as though they're high or overly caffeineated?

[@fwdbias9099]

He simultaneously wants you to accept the persecution claims because they're just mundane and also wants to use then as rock solid proof of their claims and beliefs. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

[@isaakleillhikar8311]

Uh oh. You responded to Trent Horn. Guys! Paulogia made a video response to Trent Horn.

[@tesladrew2608]

Who would die for a lie? Ashley Babbott

[@tetsujin_144]

3:31 - Could I make a suggestion? I can appreciate the value in changing the on-screen words to illustrate on what grounds you're prepared to agree with them, but if you edit someone else's words it should be clear, visibly, that those are no longer the words of the person you're responding to, but an edited version you've made.

[@Phoennix3]

When I was born again I would have died for my faith. Never saw Jebus. "When the worst they can do is take my life, what then should I fear?' Basically this whole argument about 'dying for truth' is utter bilge.

[@njdevilsforlifewoohoo5533]

I say anyone that can’t pronounce your name is automatically disregarded. I mean come on, you say it in your intro.

[@BrianS1981]

Tacitus isn't a source for the existence of Jesus, because a) he doesn't once refer to Jesus and b) the references in the oldest extant version of Tacitus actually refers to "chrestianos" or followers of Chrestus (the good) which was rubbed out and overwritten with the word "christianos" or followers of the christ. This copy is from the eleventh century, which was altered at some stage within a century of originally being written. Oh and on the idea that "nobody would die for a lie", millions of Germans died for nazism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II). Does that mean that Trent Horn believes the "philosophy" of Adolf Hitler is true? Of course not.

[@nathanjasper512]

I actually think the Pliny letter undermines his whole argument, if christians who never met Jesus or saw the resurrection were willing to suffer and die for their belief then the apostles being willing to suffer and die isn't proof that they witnessed the resurrection. In fact if the original version of mark is to be beleived they weren't at the crucifixion and I don't think they saw jesus after the trial. Sure the og ending of mark implies there will be post resurrections but it doesnt actually present them.

[@djfrank68]

Did Tacitus use the word Christus and Christians or Chrestus and Chrestians?

[@pauligrossinoz]

More importantly ... "Christ" is merely the Greek word for the Hebrew word "Messiah", and that brings into play every single Jew who believed that the Jews would throw off the Roman Empire under a Messiah. _Jesus was not the only person who was believed to be the Jewish Messiah._ There were many such Jewish Messiah figures in the first and second centuries. Jesus is just the most famous Messiah figure. Nero could easily be referring to _any_ Jews expecting _any_ Messiah to oppose Rome. The word "Christian", ie: "Messiah follower", didn't have the same connotation in Nero's time as it does today.

[@johnnehrich9601]

The best test for the validity of Trent's arguments would be, do they hold up when applied to other religious figures? Like Romulus's resurrection, much better attested to. And Joseph Smith's willing to die without recanting for his Mormon beliefs. Take a mix of these claims, both Christian and other, remove the names and specifics, and see what people find believable or not.

[@johnnyleach7152]

Whats your take on the archeology of Jericho? Do you have any previous video on the subject, and if do which ones, thank you in advance

[@philipinchina]

Paul the apostle had an epistle, That was so long it made all the girls whistle.

[@oliveremmanuelargotebrito7526]

I LOVED the "for the pope tells me so" jingle, not all catholics accept the pope as infalible, but most do.

[@michaelevans3942]

Hi Paul, Because of time constraints I couldn't listen to the entire presentation. Did you cover the possibility that even if you grant that a few of Jesus' apostles were martyrs we don't know if they were martyred for believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In antiquity there were a number of people who supposedly resurrected and I have not come across anybody demonstrating believers were martyred for believing, for example in Romulus. Seems like 2,000 years ago such a claim would not result in martyrdom and it wouldn't today either. Maybe there are other reasons for persecution?

[@robertt9342]

You notice that Trent will say “Paulogia claims”… his use of “claims” is undermine Paul’s pout and to try and force the burden of proof onto Paul, so he needs to prove that the apostles didn’t show up, and prove a negative.

[@YokaiLover699]

"The apostles were martyred therefore Christianity is true." Is def my fav bunk argument. I mean just thinking for more than a second debunks it.

[@charlesyates8228]

Is "second highest level of evidence" a fancy way of saying "least amount of evidence"?

[@ViniciusLuiggi]

Paul would u ever take a break from the busting apologetics to make a compreensive structured secular Bible and cristhianity history course?

[@bodricpriest8816]

Trent seems slightly better than most apologists at hiding his mendacity, but underneath (and Paul does a great job here pulling it out) he's still shilling the same grift. He's making points that he can't possibly not have been corrected on before, based on assumptions he can't prove and he has been taken to task on those, see the Dillahunty debate with him for his problems with comprehending epistemology or holding onto an argument that disagrees with him.

[@hglundahl]

20:26 I'd agree that St. Peter was probably not afforded any chance to recant, but he had a chance to flee. The famous eposide Quo Vadis. He turned back on the Via Appia. Agrippa gave St. Paul a chance to recant.

[@robinharwood5044]

Where are these events recorded?

[@hglundahl]

@@robinharwood5044 Agrippa giving St. Paul a chance to recant: Acts. Chapters 25 and 26. Quo Vadis episode, earliest _writing,_ Acts of Peter, perhaps late II C.

[@ArtieThomas]

As a side issue, who was the tenth apostle? Thaddeus or Judas son of James? Who among the synoptic writers has the list correct? Or were most of the apostles fictional?

[@thomasdoubting]

Nero didn't burn Rome. Christians was burning witches and the fire got out of hand🔥

[@Svartalf14]

Beg pardon, but Nero did not set the great fire of Rome, he wasn't even there to admire the handywork.