There are multiple artists called Dis, including a Milwaukee trio, a Japane… Read Full Bio ↴There are multiple artists called Dis, including a Milwaukee trio, a Japanese Visual Kei band, a Bulgarian hip hop duo, several metal bands and an experimental/dark ambient trio from New Zealand.

1. The Bulgarian DiS was formed in 2007 by rappers DenYo & Sensei.

2. Milwaukee's Dis began in 1992 and continued to make math rock til 1996. They released the album Small Fry Session 1&2 (in 1992) and M 386 .D57 1994 (in 1994). The band blew up in the studio during the sessions for "The Historically Troubled Third Album" making that record's title very appropriate.

3. The Japanese Visual Kei band was formed in summer 2006 and had the first live at Takadanobaba AREA where their first CD was distributed. The band consists of vocal 幻希 (genki), first guitarist 躯 (mukuro), second guitarist 百 (momo) and drummer 鈴音 (suzune). For more information please visit their official HOMEPAGE

4. Dis is a Dutch progressive Metal band from Utrecht. The music of the band can be described as progressive, symphonic metal with a characteristic violin sound. Because of a broad musical interest in the group, Dis often experiments with elements from different styles of music. Dis was founded in early 2000 by brothers Ben (violin, vocals) and Daniël Mathot (guitar). After a year of collaborating with several musicians the perfect drummer was found in Remco Menting in March 2001. His bass-playing brother Roel joined in September that year but decided to leave in October 2003. Tim Numan took his place in 2004.

5. DiS is a hip-hop side project of the Japanese alternative idol group BiS.

6. DIS from the USA is a one-man band by Aaron Schilling. The music can be described as high-speed progressive black/death metal. More info here.

7. DiS were the Christchurch-based trio of Justine Sharp, David Khan and Peter Wright. DiS de-emphasized the rock overtones and use of rhythm associated with their previous projects, in favour of dense, drifting soundscapes concerned with the nature of elemental force, metamorphosis & human ritual. They released two albums, Earth/Clasm (1999) and Inferno (2000), on the kRkRkRk label.

God II. Martyr
Dis Lyrics

We have lyrics for these tracks by Dis:

565 Shadows Here's your wake up call you pig fucking bastards Your littl…
A Mild Torment Wake up It's time to see again and as I look…
Blood on my Hands The sun's only getting hotter So why don't you take my…
Dans 一个梦里的白天一个清醒的夜晚一个饥饿的时间一张不熟悉的脸姑娘姑娘你很漂亮姑娘我正在想姑娘姑娘你很漂亮姑…
Descent Through the Avernal Save you fucking bastards As you are fucking slobs Joy is to…
Fan 牵手的路没时光漫长却想走到地老天荒生命尽头若你在身旁何尝不是理想天堂青春时候总想去远方张开翅膀随你飞翔走到此…
Macrocosm Initiative Solution Why do fucking torment me? When how you see the world…
Mirage I found without looking in the shadow of the dune In…
Of Mal-intent And Other Treacheries It is no secret that the shadow is here And has…

Of Ominous Looks Into The Future The sand beast all-god has perpetuated all his children's si…
Of the Red and the Black I am of the red, the highest I am the end…
Open Your Heart Carol Cassidy…
Prelude If you hear A song in blue Like a flower crying For the…
Revelations Sin and tragedy remains Looks me in the eyes Autumn's chill …
The Life and Times of Edwine Salazar "I am greater then god" declared Edwine Salizar "And I shall…
The Music Dance to my music box Like a drugged up ballerina Dance to…
The Serpentine Scale You put the "I" in suicide You hate your life and…
Usurpers Of The Broken Gates You fucked the goat He was a hairy beast, covered with…

What You Do 感觉口渴我叫天下雨说太热我把太阳捏熄要安静我来铺一条路上太空生活要好我上台做总统 Giving you what …

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

01Prelude1:33

02Escape To Reality4:25

03Awakening9:06

04Beyond Recognition6:42

05Forgiveness9:22

06God I. Crusade of the Foolish4:27

07God II. Martyr5:07

PT5M7S

Dis

08God III. Pandemonium4:35

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Mark

3y↑5

In the book of Acts, the apostles weren’t ordered by the Sanhedrin to recant what they believed.

The apostles were simply ordered to shut up (Acts 5:40).

Then they were flogged (ouch).

Then they went out rejoicing (Acts 5:41).

And they didn’t shut up (Acts 5:42).

When all you have to do to avoid persecution and death is simply stop talking, what does that say about your belief in what you’re talking about?

Paulogia’s “no opportunity to recant” objection is, like most of his objections, contrived, evidence-free and ridiculous.

Great video bro! Way to take ‘em down😁👍!

Cerebral Faith Video

1y↑9

The church was under varying degrees of persecution for DECADES before Peter and Paul were killed. If I were in their shoes and we were just lying about the resurrection, I would have given up when Saul Of Tarsus started persecuting the church. I wouldn’t have waited until Nero. I would have been like “Wow! This preaching Jesus’ resurrection thing is pretty dangerous! And given that we’re not getting anything out of it; no power, no wealth, no maidens, I’m just going to quietly go back to fishing.”

Skeptics who try to undermine the evidential value of the apostles martyrdom are fighting a battle they cannot win.

I cannot bring myself to believe that these 12 men went decades and decades, knowing that preaching what they were preaching could very well get them killed at worst or imprisoned at best, all the while knowing that it was a lie, would continue to do it. Now, if there were some earthly rewards to gain, then that would be one thing. In the case of a smoker, a thief, a serial killer, they risk coming under bad consequences because they think that the risk to reward ratio is worth it. If somebody can get away with stealing $1 billion, well, then you’re $1 billion richer. Sure, you might get caught and go to prison for a long time, and that’s not good. But if you’re successful about not being caught, then you are a billionaire. Serial killers often get a sick thrill out of murdering their victims. That’s the reward they get for risking getting caught and going to the chair. But what earthly reward did the disciples get? They didn’t get power. Even if Peter was the first pope as the Catholics maintain, it’s not like he was living in the huge Vatican that exists today. That kingdom Vatican wouldn’t come until centuries later. The apostles got no positions of power. At best, the position they would’ve gotten for themselves would’ve been no more significant than that of a local pastor, like James in Jerusalem. It’s not like they were getting lots of women. And they weren’t getting rich off of it. These are the three motives that J Warner Wallace says under lies every crime that he has ever investigated; money, sex, and power. Which of these did the disciples get? None of them.

With no earthly reward insight, why would the disciples be willing to suffer? Why would they be willing to suffer at best and be willing to die at worst? For no money, sex, or power. Well, maybe the reward wasn’t an earthly reward. Maybe it was an eternal, spiritual reward, promised to them by the resurrected Jesus himself! Because they really believe that Jesus rose from the dead. And so, even if they didn’t gain anything in this life, they would gain everything in the next!

In order for Paulogia’s comparison to thieves and smokers to have force, he would have to show what the disciples gained on the assumption that they were lying about the resurrection. Only then, will it be an apples to apples comparison.

Moreover, I think that if the resurrection were a bald face lie, they would’ve recounted. Even if recanting wouldn’t have save them, they would’ve done it, just to attempt to save them selves! And if they had done that, that probably would’ve gotten now given how shocking it would be for Peter or Matthew or Paul, to just admit that they made the whole thing up! Yet not only does history tell us that they risked themselves for decades, knowing what the consequences COULD be, but we have no records of them recanting. True, we don’t have any records of them being given an opportunity to recant, but I think that if they had recanted ( even if the effort to save themselves were in vain and their persecutors killed them anyway), surely this would have gotten out. Christians who might’ve been nearby would’ve spread the word. And if nothing else, the enemies of Christianity, like Nero and Ananas probably would’ve weaponized their recounting to try to dissuade anyone else from becoming Christians.

Now, granted, this is an argument from silence. But we need to remember that not every argument from silence is logically fallacious. Sometimes the silence is deafening. If I were working at Dollar General, and one of my coworkers came in and told me that the planet was being invaded by aliens, I would respond “That’s nonsense. If that were true, it would be all over the news.” that’s an argument from silence, but it has some force. Surely, some thing of that magnitude would be reported on the news. That it’s not as pretty good evidence that we are not indeed, being invaded by aliens. If all, or even some of the apostles recanted at the guillotine, this would’ve been shocking. The Christian community would’ve had to do damage control and the anti-Christians would’ve used it as a weapon to try to just wait other people from becoming Christians. We would expect writers like Justin martyr to try to explain why Peter recanted it, even though the resurrection actually happened.

Samuel Hunter

3y↑27

I take some issue with Paul's interpretation, but the ones that piss me off the most are the fact that he glosses over vital points when dismissing something the text says.

For example: He claims the phrase "being taken where you don't want to go" sounds more like a nursing home.
1)The writers definitely had no idea what a bloody nursing home is so thinking THAT WHAT John meant was a nursing home is just ignoring the context.

2)If John wanted to refer to Peter's death as mere living to old age and getting taken around by helpers, he wouldn't state that Peter's death "glorified God".
At best, he'd say something like "die full of years" or "died fruitful".

A better interpretation of the text is that Peter would eventually get betrayed by someone he depends on, and be led to an execution he can't escape.

Testify

3y↑4

I'm specifically alluding to Stephen. Paul likely believed this accusation and persecuted believers over it. Here's the passage.

They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.”
— Acts 6:13-14

They also accused Paul of the same thing.

And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
— Acts 21:18-22

Paul later refers to Gentile converts as the Temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 3 and 6. That would be hugely offensive.

David

“If these were words put into his mouth it would be because they were things that actually happened. If he said them and it didn’t happen chances are the gospel authors would omit ‘em.”

When you say “chances are” do you mean it’s the most probable.

I’m curious how would you weigh something like the following.

If the authors were writing words into Jesus’ mouth, why not think they wrote in events as well? For example say some author wants to portray Jesus as the messiah. He looks through the scriptures. Find something juicy and relevant. Include a saying about it. Include an event. Circulate story. It comes to dominate because it’s a stronger story and more easily spreadable than an earlier version. (Jesus may or may not be the messiah for reals, such embellishment could happen regardless)

I don’t know any strong evidence for such a thing happening other than it being consistent which is a low bar. But we don’t have very strong evidence about how the gospels were written in the first place. Isn’t then statements about what would be the most likely events mostly conjecture? That’s my impression at least.

I’d love to here your thoughts. 😊

YVONNE Gordon

the testimony, witness (same word) of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy and yes, they did and do die, but not to the flesh and blood self which does not PROFIT YOU ANYTHING: Not even if you give your body to be burned: So what kind of death does the NT speak about? The hardest kind yet and this is the kind we see when Jesus said, the EAGLE gathers where the dead body lies: What body is that? SELF!!!! The ego:the testimony, witness (same word) of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy and yes, they did and do die, but not to the flesh and blood self which does not PROFIT YOU ANYTHING: Not even if you give your body to be burned: So what kind of death does the NT speak about? The hardest kind yet and this is the kind we see when Jesus said, the EAGLE gathers where the dead body lies: What body is that? SELF!!!! The ego: The word testimony and witness are both MARTYR for that reason:

CHRISTIANS are going to realize soon that their greatest ENEMY is of their own household and here is why? YOUR ego is the SELF that lives in you and this is your true enemy and this is what is going to destroy Christianity, not any other group or people.

a question could be asked of Christians: WHY accept Jesus as the Messiah? Because someone wrote about it, told you about it? What if they lied? What if it isn't true? HOW DO YOU KNOW? Only ONE WAY: By the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT who both draws you to Christ and reveals Christ and explains the WORD SPIRITUALLY to your soul; This is called being A WITNESS of Jesus or having the TESTIMONY of Jesus (Rev 19:10) which gives you the SPIRIT OF PROPHECY as shown in Acts 2: Without this, there is only belief and the devils believe and tremble: Belief is not "KNOWING" hence depart from me I never KNEW YOU: So let us judge nothing before its time, before the LORD comes

1Co 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

so when does the LORD come? He comes to every man in a DAY (first or second 1000 years) and an HOUR (our personal appointed time and visitation) we cast lots for from the foundation of the world when the Lamb was slain and our name was written in the Lambs book of LIFE for that hour: Please consider and PRAY and ask if there is anything you believe because someone taught you instead of the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF: I will share some other things I wrote to different channels today: I AM SOWING THIS SEED of the WOMAN, Abraham's seed for 30 years, since MY HOUR of my visitation came on the Jewish Feast days of 1992:

If Jesus was before Abraham, we have to ask, what did Jesus mean by this? He also said ABRAHAM SAW MY DAY and was glad. 1) why was Abraham glad and 2) when did that happen? If you can answer those two questions, you probably will totally understand Jesus, no more questions asked and nothing in the whole Bible will ever contradict again by simply understanding the answer to those two questions: So let me answer them quick and soundly:

1) Abraham was glad because the LIGHT circumcised his heart (the three animate levels he cut in half, which represent his DESIRES, hence the heart is the DESIRE of man which is why it is written to be more wicked and feeble than all things. The heart is the problem and it is written, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, so here is blasphemy and evil tongue (lashon hora) as well. Making the heart which is the BEAST that goes throughout the whole world, all nations, and all Kingdoms, into "MAN" is the purpose of the WORD which is Jesus Christ, the WORD made flesh. SO the LIGHT that is the LIFE of MAN (not mankind which is the creation) but MAN, the image and likeness of God. God creates evil (creature) and then FORMS the MAN within the creation. This too is written: So Abraham the first Jew, discovers the purpose of creation which is to be FORMED into MAN which separates his consciousness into three parts; God, Satan or the great darkness that the light reveals and MAN, the purpose of learning how these two together FORM this MAN we all must become.

2) The LIGHT goes through the animate desires when it gains a GREATER DESIRE than the animate and makes its first choice to trust the UNKNOWN (God) in favor of the known that is no longer giving him the desires of his animate heart. Now, if he follows the light that reveals himself to Abraham little by little, then he moves in consciousness from Beast to MAN in four phases, hence the FOUR LETTER NAME YHVH:

Muslims are right and yet, they are also limited in understanding what the NT really says because they don't grasp the WORD in SPIRIT and TRUTH, but with the carnal (beastly) mind or five physical senses (virgins without OIL/anointing) while the five spiritual senses (virgins with OIL or the anointing) do understand the WORD spiritually and therefore KNOW THE TRUTH that set them FREE to go with the bridegroom while the carnal mind is LEFT BELOW. The carnal mind or ENMITY with God that he himself put at enmity with his seed (Messiah) can NOT KNOW God or be JOINED to God for flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom. If you don't have the ANOINTING, you don't have spiritual senses and you can't be ready for the bridegroom or RAPTURE. The rapture is an individual experience at an HOUR you don't know ahead of time but SUDDENLY the LORD comes into HIS temple, YOUR HEART and guess what? There is NO ROOM in the INN (Inner court, Holy Place, so Dan 9 and Math 24 explain, here is the ABOMINATION that causes all desolations in the earth: Muslims understand all this comes in a vision hence Zechariah 12 is a VISION the JEWS are waiting for, the serpent lifted up: It comes first to the house of David and then the other Mary's at the cross: The FOUR gospels are the FOUR PHASES of correction which is why there are differences in them; JOHN is the final phase or the renewing of the CARNAL MIND (Mary Magdalene) who could not cleave to Jesus till he ascends, meaning till the HEART is fully corrected and this is the place he makes ready for the nations to also enter into the Kingdom, the tabernacle of David, a HOUSE OF PRAYER for all nations:

I want to add to what I wrote below so I only have to respond to one of your videos and see if there is any communication possible, but Mary means REBEL and the heart is a REBEL except for one part, MARK 4, 1/4 of the heart is GOOD GROUND and only God is GOOD so Mary the heart, the rebel in you has a DEEP DEEP good ground that the SEED must fall into in order to bring forth the 30 60 100 fold (Lamed, Samech, Qoph) the FULL Stature of the INNER MAN of the heart, Jesus: John 16 Jesus explains the way we all see him again, is we become HIS MOTHER, BROTHER and SISTER, if we do the WILL of his Father:

the suffering in the Bible or SOUL is in relation to giving up SELF to gain a SOUL or save your soul: DENY your self, take up your cross and follow me (to the place of the skull) which is your skull where the ANOINTING is revealed at the place the Jew binds the law on his forehead and the ARM of the LORD replaces your right hand, the arm of Satan that rules every self:

If you want to talk more about it, just let me know:

Tovia Singer is heavy against Christian proselyting to Jews in order to steal the Jewish soul: Singer has made it his life's work to prove that Isaiah 53 is about Israel and I have done so many posts to him to show how both Judaism and Christianity are NOT reading the Bible through the power of the HOLY SPIRIT that alone can INTERPRET the SPIRIT OF THE WORD instead of blaspheming God with making it a literal text that makes God look terrible and horrible and causes so much DIVISION between Abraham's descendants and further with the whole world: These descendants should be a LIGHT to the nations instead of being an example of wars and rumors of wars and all the things GOD HATES that they don't want to stop doing.

All comments from YouTube:

Testify

3y↑30

Thanks to all my patrons for their support. https://www.patreon.com/isjesusalive

Sorry for the audio issues at the end.

Mark

3y↑5

kino sinclair

3y↑3

@Testify
Epic stuff

Jake Macory

3y↑1

Whenever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life. Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand! Jesus is returning to judge the living and the dead! Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand!.!.!!.!..

Ap31920

3y↑202

I'm rather skeptical of Paulogia's sincerity here. He points out Ananaias had an agenda against James but no comment as to the cause. Why would a high priest take issue with some random peasant if not for his refusal to recant on his preaching? We also do have evidence of Paul's martyrdom in the form of Eusebius. Yes it's not as good as an eyewitness account but it's still there and he just seemed to ignore it. Finally, no mention of how Polycarp could have recanted? Convenient. I can agree that Christians in general do have a habit of overstating our evidence but atheist youtubers, especially large ones, have reason to overstate their skepticism and so it seems to me he's more preaching to his choir than making an honest assessment of the evidence.

Testify

3y↑82

It is a very odd hill to die on, and he seems to have some definite double standards. Unless we have EXPLICIT confirmation one way or another, skepticism is justified. But allow me to say how Christianity started with my speculative psychoanalyzing of dead guys from 2000 years ago.

ravissary79

3y↑55

But he also understates the Nero persecution.
True Nero didn't PERSONALLY care about Christian belief, in fact it demonstrates that persecution was so wide spread on a basic social animus level (like jews in Germany) that they made an ideal scapegoat for his own political theater.

Most Roman persecution prior to Marcus Aurelius didn't care about Christian belief as much as they cared about their unwillingness to bow to the emperor in cult form in court rooms, which was a convenient way to legally get rid of Christians in society... again evidence of widespread social animus over their internal feud with Jews and their unwillingness to abide pagan rites, festivals, etc.

It was Jewish persecution that was ideological. Recanting would have been demanded at those. But similarly, Recanting the UNWILLINGNESS to bow to the effigy of the emperor as "god" would also count as a persecution for their beliefs, and that was incredibly common.

Ben W

3y↑16

@Testify But isn't that just Paulogia's point? To make the case apologists want to make that the disciples backed their beliefs with a willingness to die, we need more evidence than we actually have. So for instance, we don't know why Ananus had James murdered, except for the vague pretext of "breaking the law". Now, I am personally of the opinion that this was likely to do with his Christian practices. So, on that point we agree---but let's not overstate the case. We are just making educated guesses here, and the truth is we really don't know why Ananus had it out for James.

Moreover, as Paulogia is fond of pointing out, we also have zero in the way of credible evidence that James thought he saw a risen Jesus, or that he was given an opportunity to recant before being executed. We need all three ingredients for the apologetic argument to work: (1) martyrdom for Christian practice; (2) given chance to recant; (3) thought they saw a risen Jesus. If we agree that there is some very tenuous evidence for (1), we still have nothing for (2) and (3).

Ben W

3y↑11

Paulogia strikes me as very genuine, and it saddens me to see people accuse him, however veiledly, of dishonesty, for apparently no other reason than they can't imagine how someone could sincerely disagree with their favorite Christian apologetics.

That mild scolding aside, you may wish to read my reply to Testify.

Testify

3y↑51

@Ben W We don't need his standard to arrive high probability for willingness to suffer. Paul was stoned he never says he was given a chance to recant and yet he kept on preaching. He referred to the other apostles as we and us and said they were like those condemned to die in the arena. Paulogia's standard leads to a faulty epistemology that requires certainty. I'm saying the probability of sincerity to the point of willingness to suffer and die is high vs the lack of evidence that we have that would point in the other direction. Also his standard isn't original, I think it isn't much different than Candida Moss's. Paulogia and I get along over Twitter, I'm not accusing him of anything. I like the guy even though we have strong disagreements

29 More Replies...

Alec Lyons

3y↑90

If Christians were being killed for their beliefs, then someone has the ability to recant by denouncing Christianity before they are next. It doesn't need to be a renunciation on the guillotine.

TheBanjoShow

37w

exactly

JesusIsMyLord

36w

Noo nooo! Don’t you get it? All the executions were all “gotchas” where the romans tapped on the shoulder of a new Christian one second after converting

Tomás Rocha

36w

They were killed by Nero for supposedly starting a the Great Fire of Rome not for their belief in the Resurrection, Nero could not care less about that he just needed a scapegoat for a fire he was suspected of starting to implement his new architectural designs

Austin Lincoln

3y↑74

As a skeptic this video was very helpful thank you sir

Ryan Johnson

49w↑7

Just found this channel. This is amazing apolgetics. Very persuasive, honest and all done in Good faith. Gonna binge all these videos now.

Testify

49w↑2

thanks for the sub

Cerebral Faith Video

1y↑9

Tomás Rocha

36w

Nero persecuted them for supposedly starting the Great Fire of Rome that many suspected him of starting in order to implement his new architectural designs, they had no idea it would even happen much less that they would be blamed and persecuted for that and they knew recanting would not clear them of the charge and save them, since Nero just needed a scapegoat and could not care less about what they believed.

Jimmy

2y↑18

Being willing to suffer to gain something is completely different than being willing to suffer to the point of death for your testimony to a historical event. Sincerity isn't a factor for a thief committing robbery. Sincerity does have something to do with delivering testimony though.

Paladin Polecat

48w↑9

PAULOGIA: "Would you say that a thief is willing to go to jail or that a cigarette smoker is willing to get lung cancer?"

ME: Yes.

Jacob Lee

40w

No, a smoker doesn’t start smoking in hopes of getting cancer. A thief doesn’t steal in hopes of going to jail.

Paladin Polecat

40w↑3

@Jacob Lee I didn't say "in hopes of", I said "willing to". A tobacco smoker smokes knowing that tobacco and smoke inhalation are both causes of cancer, and knowingly accepts the consequences of feeding his addiction. Often he starts not even addicted to it yet, and takes his first hits either deluding himself into thinking it won't be addicting, or not caring it will be addictive if it makes him look cool to his peers.

Jacob Lee

40w↑1

@Paladin Polecat I think you miss the entire point of Paul's analogy. And your splitting of words shows it.

Nobody says, "i want some cancer, I'm going to start smoking."

Nobody says "I want to go to jail so I'm going to steal something."

JesusIsMyLord

36w

@Jacob Leethey have the possibility lying in their mind. And regardless, they continue to do so cause it’s addicting. Why and how would it be addicting to suffer and preach your lungs out daily?

David Carlton

2y↑17

There's also the Letter from Pliny to Trajan written in the early 2nd century in which Christians are directed to be killed after being given the opportunity to recant. Granted, this would have been several decades after the martyrdom of the Apostles, but it demonstrates that policies such as the one that Paulogia mentions were in place early on in Christian history. Earlier Jewish persecutions would have been more focused on getting Christians to recant because of their hatred of Jesus' claim to be divine.

Iranian Skeptic

3y↑58

By his criteria, I can't be sure that the people I call martyrs and I'm proud of them really martyred to defend my homeland.

I mean, although they were killed willingly on the battlefield, I don't have the testimony of all of them that the reason for their death was to defend our homeland , I don't know if they would have betrayed my country if they had been captured and had a chance to be saved! So I'm not proud of them anymore. 😔

Mister.P unKnow

3y↑7

Think about how many of them must have regretted laying their lives down in their last moments. While Christian martyrs are known to have welcomed death steadfastly.

Grumpy Librarian

3y↑5

There have been man indisputable martyrs throughout history for many causes, Christian and non. Perhaps we're just missing clear terminology here. Paulogia specifically refers to his criteria for "martyrdom of resurrected Jesus," and it's easy to just hear "martyr" there.

The claim is that people wouldn't have "died for a lie." We can get into why that might or not be the case separately, but his criteria is used to separate out martyrs who weren't first-hand witnesses, were definitely martyrs, and definitely died for this reason. (5:18)

This is not to claim that people who died for what they believed in other circumstances were not martyrs, heroes, or otherwise great people. They just don't satisfy the criteria of "wouldn't die for a lie." That's a much heavier lift than martyrdom. Your homeland martyrs who died on the battlefield are not in the same category.

Iranian Skeptic

3y↑10

@Grumpy Librarian
I didn't say they are in the same category, I said I could apply his criterion for understanding the HONSETY of the martyrs of my country. By his standards, we don't know why the martyrs of my country really died on the battlefield, maybe they died for booty, are you proud of the death of such a person and call him a martyr?
It's the point that Paulogia is trying to prove that we don't know the true motives of Jesus' apostles.

DeletedUser1892

@Iranian Skeptic why don't know their motivations indeed. It's not like they spent their whole lives on that nor they were tried for disregarding the Jewish law or sedition against the godness of the Emperor...and then they claim we have a confirmation bias lmao

MrCrimsonbolt

@Mister.P unKnow Which Christian martyrs are known to have welcomed death steadfastly?

8 More Replies...

Tay H.

2y↑13

Watching this after watching the Star Wars show Andor is interesting. Would Paulogia say the rebels who diedj stealing imperial payroll weren't dying for the cause since they weren't given a chance to stop right before they died?

If you know your loyalties to this deity place you in mortal danger, you've seen friends suffer and die for the cause, and you refuse to turn back and then you're killed for being a member of that deity's religion....and you knew you would be safe if you just stopped worshipping said deity exclusively ....then why do you need a chance to recant just before you're killed.

Joel Becker

3y↑49

Funny, I just yesterday listened to Sean McDowell and Paulogia discuss this very thing on Unbelievable, from May 8, 2020.

I recommend anyone who appreciated this video to listen to that podcast episode from Unbelievable.

(Edit: Sean does a good job, I think, arguing that #2 and #3 of Paulogia's criteria for a martyr aren't held either by academics nor by laypeople in general.)

Magnus Lee

3y↑6

I saw that debate about a month ago and I liked it. and BTW I agree with you I think Sean McDowell did better in that debate.

Chris Joseph

1y↑1

I disagree with you both. Paulogia argument was way more substantial. His video is a small part of why I don't believe in those fairytales again.

Daniel P.L.

1y↑10

@Chris Joseph What about the belief that the apostles died martyrs is a fairy tale?

The Circumcised Heart Of Richard Dawkins

47w↑3

Thanks for taking Paulogia to task again.

nevermind824

2y↑9

It is well known that criminals in the circus arena could recant by offering incense to the emperor. They refused. None would have done so if any disciples recanted

Nameless

Can you provide a source please?

nevermind824

2y↑6

@Nameless the phrase "just a pinch of incense" is well known. The story of Polycarp refers to this with some would be martyrs who offered an act of worship to the emperor.

"Quintus the Phrygian handed himself over for martyrdom with some others, the Proconsul persuaded them to take the oath and sacrifice. "

Worshipping Jesus was fine, it was the Christian belief that no other gods be worshipped that caused the Romans issues. Jews had special rights to not take the sacrifice which is why in Acts we get a lot of discussion over being circumcised. They could claim to be Jewish and get the exemption from Roman panetheon worship.

The roman pantheon and temple system was an effective tax collection system so it could bring down the state if refused.

Zosso1618

48w↑5

10:54 “What does ‘willing to suffer’ even mean in this context?” Idk Paulogia, why don’t you tell us? You were the one who said and put it there, and surely you of all of us should know what it means. You replaced a certain term “dying” with the less certain “willing to suffer”, and then you’re surprised the argument made less sense? How do you know you didn’t change the argument with that replacement, the meaning of which you weren’t sure of?

I’m sorry, but that really made me laugh. Is he serious?

dogsnout

51w↑2

Great job. You break down his logic very well

Insights In The Text

3y↑10

That's what I call content; Good Job Eric

Leslie Viljoen

3y↑10

Thanks for this thought-provoking response.

Joshua Fahnbulleh

2y↑9

The first time I started looking for counter arguments for Christian apologetics I remember seeing one of “Paul’s” videos and I could not get through it for the life of me! My blood pressure kept raising and it upset me about how petty and arrogant this man made in the image of God sounded to me and that I just couldn’t stand to hear him like I was still a kid hating myself for having to listen to mathematics lectures. So I left the obviously highly sophisticated video and started to pray and work on my own personal self control and patience, thank God for that! Since hat was some time ago and yet listening to your video with him featuring in it while still frustrating I at least have come to realize two things

1. I really wish we could start a petition for renaming this guy!! 🤣🤣 reverse name him from Paul to Saul! Because I get the feeling he and Saul might have been great pen pals! 🤦🏿‍♂️😆 SO with Roberts rules of order in effect do I have anyone to second the motion? Anyone? ….. All right well we can table the motion for next time.
😆
But seriously
2. I think there is this group of people who think that just because they can talk in a slow measured voice with bonus points if you have a European accent and bonus bonus points if that accent is British (not “Paul” I know) TRIPLE BONUS if the tone is “deep” but if you meet all of those criteria somehow you are a “scholar and an intellectual“ not because what you’re saying is highly academic or intelligent or true to the spirit of debating where you are open to counterpoints but just because you’re saying it in this stereotypically “elite” cadence and tone. And to me it’s not clever it’s very obvious and surprisingly immature that people don’t see through it and call these people out more. Thankfully this video is not one of them who allows the plaintiff off scotch free. That’s why I like it here dignity mixed with criticism both the YouTuber and the comments section, I see y’all 🫡. I’ll go now.

JayBandersnatch

2y↑3

Your anger towards Paulogia is perhaps caused by your cognitive dissonance. It's very common when we are faced with contradictory arguments which oppose our current beliefs, instead of charitable listening to the arguments we double down on our established beliefs. This is a survival mechanism. Instead of getting mad, why not genuinely listen to and weigh the argument based on the merit of the argument and not the person giving the argument. Yeah, you still might not change your mind, however you'll have a more rational basis on why you haven't changed your mind.

Joshua Fahnbulleh

2y↑6

@JayBandersnatch my friend I am a student of psychology I’ll be a counselor and I know that what I said was because it was just annoying. There’s a time and place for the sciences. YouTube? Ugh you don’t have to bring it into YouTube. God loves you and if you are running from His love I would suggest you stop before you run into his justice, I have learned that lesson the hard way and so did a brother of mine named Jonah and we BOTH suggest you respond to Yahweh and his love with acceptance and repentance. You want to bring psychology into the mix? I’m the wrong one because with me I’m a being who has, is, and hopefully will bring everything under the will and obedience of the ONE TRUE GOD YAHWEH OF ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH. Good day.

JayBandersnatch

@Joshua Fahnbulleh Jonah... you mean that guy who was supposedly swallowed by an animal who doesn't have the throat diameter to ingest an adult human who supposedly spent 72 hours inside the caustic digestive juices of the same animal who has a 15-17 hour digestive period... that Jonah?

Joshua Fahnbulleh

2y↑4

@JayBandersnatch Dude. What part of Christian is difficult to understand. You can’t even explain to me where consciousness comes from and you want to marvel about a man in a whale? Please. Good day.

JayBandersnatch

2y↑1

@Joshua Fahnbulleh so how exactly does not having an explanation for something further the explanation of "god did it"? That's called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

3 More Replies...

Blue Dog Politics

42w↑4

It doesn’t matter if they actually died as martyrs. It is a fact that Christians were being persecuted for their beliefs, and the early Christians were well aware of this. The fact that they continued to preach it anyway is a good indicator.

Jacob Lee

40w↑1

This is factually incorrect, early Christians we’re blamed for the great fire in Rome. That is why they were persecuted, had nothing to do with what they believed.

Coobest 64

39w

@Jacob LeeAlso false. Book of acts tells otherwise.

vakudibear defender

3y↑44

Paulogia is trying to pass off unreasonable scepticism as normal rationalism.

DSW2315

3y↑6

I'm almost becoming Christian but without Testify I wouldn't have seen the data from a different perspective. Paulogia does bring up good points but so does Testify so I'm more sold to Christianity being true then not.

DSW2315

3y↑3

Nosoup899 yes, though ironically I don't really wanna be Christian cause I'm gonna be mocked badly and harassed but it's true so there's nothing I can do. I'll just be a closet christian.

DSW2315

3y↑2

Christian Aponte thank you, God bless you^^

DSW2315

Nosoup899 Thank you very much^-^

Austin Lincoln

Im in the same boat as DSW but im new to testify

2 More Replies...

Mike - Acts 4:12

3y↑9

Plogia can play word games all he wants but he cannot argue that the apostles died because they were Christians and would not have died if they were not. Even in the case of the Jewish temple leader having a grudge towards James and having him stoned makes perfect sense because of Jame's faith

Minerva Owl

3y↑3

...No. That doesn't make one bit of sense: "A Christian got killed, therefore he got killed for his faith," is a "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent."

Try again.

Mike - Acts 4:12

3y↑2

@Minerva Owl It's not a Christian getting killed for their faith. They are actual eyewitness to the resurrection or as you believe the alleged resurrection. Many people will die for what they believe to be true, muslims included but how many people would be tortured and suffer a horrible death for a lie? None, especially if they could of stopped their death and suffering from just denying their faith.

Minerva Owl

3y↑1

@Mike - Acts 4:12 So, which is more likely: Only a violation of the laws of nature can explain the Apostles' belief, or Frazer's model of sympathetic more elegantly explains not only their belief, but the centuries-long suicide?

Mike - Acts 4:12

@Minerva Owl For one don't you think that God being the creator and supreme being who made the miracle of creating the universe could then perform the miracle of the resurrection? But no that's not the problem you have because everyone in life sees life thru their own lenses. You have chose the lenses of a life that doesnt include God in it so no matter how much evidence is presented( intelligent design of universe, DNA being digital coding, historicity of the gospels, etc) it won't matter to you because you have made your mind up. You have your own presuppositions and probably only study the evidence that support them so it's a waste of time because anything I say you would have an excuse. You don't want God to be true for your own personal reasons not because where the evidence leads. Most people are not on a truth search they search the facts and evidences that support their paradigm

5 More Replies...

chipan9191

2y↑13

It seems weird to me that Paulogia thinks that having a chance to recant after capture is a prerequisite to martyrdom. As if the consistent targeted persecution wasn't enough to tell them they may be killed for their beliefs? And by this logic even Jesus isn't a martyr, because he was simply interrogated... Not told to recant.

ILuv Rocio

3y↑31

Wait, why does martyrdom require the opportunity to recant? So Steven in the book of Acts was not a martyr? Here is one of three definitions for "martyr": a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle. So, to begin with, Paulogia's definition for martyrdom is flawed.

Testify

3y↑22

Paul was stoned and left for dead and he wasn't given a chance either. He took his licking and kept on ticking. He kept preaching.

Paulogia is basically saying let me set the bar higher than what is necessary and complain when it doesn't meet my criteria.

ILuv Rocio

3y↑7

@Testify Absolutely, and then he was later martyred for the faith. Maybe we could say that he was a multiple martyr victim.

Mark

3y↑9

Sort of undercuts his whole case, doesn’t it?

I’ve noticed he’s hyperskeptical about everything except his own hyperskepticism.

I’ve also noticed he demands massive , multiple-sourced, irrefutable proof for all the claims of Christianity, but when it comes to his alternative explanations, he spins wild fringe theories out of whole cloth and air-castles that no serious NT scholar believes.

He reminds me of a skit by Groucho Marx, who, when he was caught red-handed cheating with a guy’s wife, denied it and said to the guy, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Leslie Viljoen

3y↑2

I think the point is that we don't have the details. So Joseph Smith also died a martyr, but it's not too compelling.

Testify

3y↑10

@Leslie Viljoen Joseph Smith was shot by a mob while in jail and tried to flee and defend himself, all the while running for President of the United States. It seems clear the man was interested much more in earthly power compared to Paul or Peter.

9 More Replies...

Inari1987

3y↑59

Actually, I don't think Paulogia gives good feedback here. And here's why. As pointed out, He completely dismisses the view that the sources themselves indicate that the motives for the persecutions were religious. Uh....the sources themselves indicate they were. Josephus says Ananus accused St. James and others of bring "breakers of the law." <--- Josephus's own wording. Considering that Ananus was the Jewish High Priest, just what kind of law breaking do you think Ananus was concerned about; religious or civil? Hmmmm, I wonder. 🤦‍♂️

And as for Herod Agrippa, apparently Paulogia didn't read Acts well enough. Acts indeed shows religious motive in his persecution. All you have to do is read Acts 12: 2, 3: "He had James, the brother of John killed by the sword, and when he saw that this was pleasing to the Jews he proceeded to arrest Peter also." <---- Herod Agrippa was trying to please the Jews via his arrest of St Peter. I don't see how someone can miss a religious motive here. It's the easiest reading of the text.

I suppose someone could read the verse from Acts and infer that there may have been a different motive for the death of St. James the brother of St. John. But for St. Peter, that is unambiguously religious as far as I am concerned... Because it says that when he killed St. James, he arrested St. Peter when he saw it pleased the Jews. It's at least more explicit with St. Peter's arrest

Sure, Christians must not overstate their case, but they shouldn't understate it either

Testify

3y↑31

I think some of his feedback is legit in that we don't want to say they all died for what they believed, therefore the resurrection probably happened. We have a good degree of confidence I think for four martyrdoms and the rest get into some apocryphal stuff. But it's clear that they were willing to suffer, and his idea that "that's not good enough" with his analogy of hoping to not get caught is, frankly absurd.

But I totally agree that his interpretations of Josephus' account of James or how he misreads Acts is pretty bad. I could've gotten into that more, that's good feedback. The video was already getting a bit long so I was trying to compress a bit.

Cody Gillard

3y↑3

Lol ananus

Nashwalker7

1y↑1

If he thinks that there is a separation between ideology and politics in the first century, he’s mistaken.

Mike Yant

3y↑10

My Brother is a missionary in a Middle Eastern country. He is forced to move his family often to stay ahead of those who are looking for him, to stop his active evangelization. If they find him they will try to stop him, and they have physically attacked him in the past. The reason he continues is simply because He had a transformative encounter with Jesus Christ many years ago...he really believes in Jesus. He doesn't have to live this way, he could move back to the West and have a good life any time he chose to do so.
This is very much the same environment in which the eyewitnesses of Jesus lived. And their reaction was the same, they kept pushing Jesus and His resurrection. They also could have quit any time they wanted to...but they didnt. The best cause for such commitment is what they claimed, that they saw Jesus resurrected, they touched Hin, listened to Him speak, they checked the tomb, it was empty, there was no mistake, it was the same Jesus they had been with for three years....

Derek Baumgartner

3y↑9

Thanks for this!

Daily Bible Time - Bible Verse for Today - Prayer

3y↑6

The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Luke 6:45

Vincenzo Rutigliano Díaz

3y↑10

I am casually preparing a video on Peter´s Martyrdom. The video is in Spanish but I could make an english version if you are interested

pariah pariah

3y↑2

Do it and post the link please.
Edit:I've subscribed so now you've gotta do it:-)

Testify

3y↑3

Sounds good!

Purpose Driven Nihilist

3y↑33

Lol I read you’re blog about the disciples voluntary sufferings not to long ago.

taco_de_muerte

Your screen name makes no sense

Testify

3y↑14

Yeah, that was the short-short version.

Ap31920

3y↑9

@taco_de_muerte I think that was the point. It kind of reminds me of when someone told me that the world is absolutely relative and he didn't get why I was laughing.

Purpose Driven Nihilist

3y↑7

@taco_de_muerte
That’s the point.

ogloc

1y↑5

11:12 his “analogy” fails because smoking and stealing both provide worldly gain. Both of those things are done for pleasure and thievery is done for money and power. The early Christians never received any worldly gains like women, money or power for their faith in Christ. If anything, they gave up these commonly sought-after gains and abstained from them because of their faith in Christ while accepting the risk that they would be persecuted and even put to death

Jacob Lee

40w

No, they just thought they would of get an eternity in paradise instead. I’d say that’s a gain, wouldn’t you?

whm_w

1y↑2

That thumbnail says it all

Jesús 2023

3y↑19

I just became a Patreon :)
God bless you

Testify

3y↑6

Awesome, thank you! God bless you!

Kern Jeremiah

3y↑3

Debating their martydom is stupidity.

flimsyjimnz

2y↑4

Well done.
But after watching this I looked up and noticed my son was going to make a delicious snack!!!!

Nameless

2y↑1

Hopefully it was delicious.

Kenton Park

1y↑3

"And surely early critics of Christianity like Celsus would have pounced on [the apostles confessing they made up the resurrection] if they had any record of it." On the contrary, in Against Celsus 2:45, Origen records Celsus criticizing Christianity for the opposite, -that although they abandoned Jesus at his crucifixion, now they die for him:

“In the next place, those who were his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his disciples, whereas now ye die along with him.”

And of Paulogia's claim that there is no record of the Apostles not being given a chance to recant their faith, this is really desperate cherry-picking of standards and requirements. First, let's acknowledge the fact that Jesus was publically killed under capitol punishment. Who thinks that preaching this publically executed criminal risen from the dead is going to merit them any less treatment than execution themselves? Secondly, Nero's persecution was clearly directed at the Christians for being Christian. These two together show that at the very least, Christians of the first century knew that professing Jesus as risen was a death sentence for themselves, and yet were willing to risk it in openly and publically confessing Jesus. But even if that wasn't enough, Pliney's letter to Trajan does explicitately say that he gave Christians not just one opportunity to recant their faith, but three. Here Paulogia could argue, "Well, there is no indication that Pliney's method was the standard, nor is there any reason to believe that Pliney (or somebody with a similar method to him) was responsible for killing the Apostles themselves." -Although this is true, it is intentionally reading around the evidence to get the conclusion you want.

We have evidence that some of the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were killed, we have evidence that many first century Christians were killed for their faith, and we have some evidence that some Christians were given as many as three opportunities to recant their faith. It is a desperate claim that because we don't have one specifcally person who explicitely fits all three descriptions (witness, killed, and given opportunity to recant), although we have examples of all such things happening, therefore we can't assume that the Apostles were willing to die for their faith. All of these stretches are even still used to make an argument that aren't even relevant or needed for Paulogia's position, because the "Liars make bad martyrs" argument is in defense against the Conspiracy Theory that the Apostles stole the body of Jesus and made it up, but Paulogia holds to the Hallucination Hypothesis, -that the Apostles hallucinated a postmortem Jesus and believed he had risen.

Jan Lewko

3y↑33

Can you respond to his video about "4 steps to stop being a Christian" because many of the claims in video looks very dishonest like saying that Eye witnesses never claimed to see Jesus.

Testify

3y↑32

I have thought about it, that would be a good one to respond to. Kerusso started off doing it but stopped, so maybe I'll fill in. I have an entire playlist on gospel authorship that indirectly answers him.

e546a 850

3y↑1

@Testify do you know why Kerusso disappeared off the map?

Testify

3y↑11

@e546a 850 He said he was going to focus on personal growth and education

wesley Basener

3y↑6

@Testify That's good to know. I was worried. Tell him I am praying for him, if you can.

Peter Y

3y↑4

@Testify I love how Paulogia brings up contradictions as evidence that God doesn't exist because God wouldn't let contradictions in his word, despite the fact that A. He doesn't know how God works, and B. If there were no contradictions, he would probably just say that the fact that all "Eyewitness accounts" were exactly the same is highly unlikely because of modern studies that show that Eyewitnesses rarely see the exact same thing, so the gospels were probably copied and pasted.

15 More Replies...

Samuel Hunter

3y↑27

Grumpy Librarian

It is strange wording, given that John was written at least two decades after Peter's death, and the author of John would very likely know at least the legendary details of his death, if not the literal ones. I think it's fair to interpret the passage as Peter's crucifixion, but it is indeed a very strange way to describe it. Having someone else put on his clothes seems the most petty of details, and not even necessary for a crucifixion. I don't know if history even claims that happened, and if it does, it would only be because of this reference, and not because that was to the slightest degree an important detail.

Samuel Hunter

@Grumpy Librarian It may not necessarily have been a resurrection, so we don't have to interpret the passage as such. I think John was simply linking Jesus' words to future events, having the power of hindsight

Grumpy Librarian

@Samuel Hunter I think you meant something other than "resurrection" there as I hadn't mentioned one. I can forgive brain farts, but I don't know what you actually meant.

Samuel Hunter

@Grumpy Librarian Sorry, I meant Crucifixion.
Literally have no idea how that got mixed up

Cody Gillard

2y↑6

If paulogia's character is buff, testify's is Goku

B Dubs

3y↑4

The passage on James clearly says James was accused of being breakers of a law or the Jewish law. And we see in Acts Christians were being accused as law breakers. So I think James was killed for preaching the good news.

Testify

3y↑6

Yeah, breakers of the law he takes as political but with the chief priest, it's probably going to be more of a religious squabble.

B Dubs

3y↑1

@Testify
Yeah I just got that information from Mike Licona’s response to Paulogia saying James didn’t die for his beliefs.

J. Victor

3y↑2

How do you respond to the objection that the apostles can't "repent" from their testemony? Like: as they were stoned, they can't "repent" and say "Hey, I repent from everything that I've said". I mean, even if the apostles recant from preach the resurrection, their persecutors won't stop their executions.

Testify

3y↑13

I find a claim like that to be more of the same undue skepticism. We have no record of that, so to say because we don't therefore we're justified in being skeptical seems a bit silly. We don't see that with Stephen even if he wasn't a direct witness like the apostles. I think we have to take the multiple pieces of evidence that we do have and let them tip the scale.

el

2y↑4

5:37
um why should we except his list instead of the actual definition ? it seems he changes the def of martyr to fit his argument

AquaPoint{Beshoy}

3y↑1

This is really good

Saint Ronin–The Shadow Saint

2y↑2

See that's the whole point between a thief and martyr: One is willing to face death, the other, cowers.

TheBanjoShow

37w

The definition of martyrdom is being closed off here to suit the available evidence that we do have, by stating that they "must have had an opportunity to recant". But I argue that that is the improper scope we should look at the martyrs. Let's not forget the original martyr, that being Jesus himself standing before Pilate and the High priest. This should be very telling of the example that Jesus wanted to inspire in his own followers. And when they heard of his terrible punishment, arguably worse than any martyr after him, they must surely have been made terrified of following him, knowing that they could potentially suffer a similar fate. That original martyr sets the precedent for the ability to recant the very moment he serves his punishment. The disciples would then see Jesus' punishment and run away, because they can't possibly risk their own lives in such a way. But instead, the early church's existence in itself is proof that they were willing to be martyrs, and that definition should not be foolishly limited to whether they had 5 minutes before their death to recant of their statements, I think this is actually a very shortsighted view of martyrdom in early Christianity.

Euan Thompson

1y↑2

Paul shoots himself in the foot. He says it is only once the bad decisions catches up to someone that they change their tune. If the preaching of the gospel was bad decision making, they would have recanted when it caught up to them.
This is the thing he is trying to argue against and he proves the point and doesn't even realise it.

Mustafa I.

3y↑1

Great video man

m b

1y↑4

11:13 Would a bank robber who wasn't sincere in the belief that there was money in the bank or a smoker who wasn't sincere in believing in the pleasures of nicotine willingly undergo the risk or trouble of robbing the bank or smoking, respectively? Paulogia's analogies are inappropriate and do nothing to undercut the idea that the apostles were sincere in their belief.

Martin Echeverria

3y↑1

Great channel! New sub!

Testify

3y↑1

Thanks for the sub!

Mark Horton

3y↑15

Paulogia's definition of martyrdom is bogus.

Johnny brave

3y↑5

I'm a Christian, but as a devil's advocate, please explain why it's bogus?

J. Victor

3y↑4

@Johnny brave I make your words mine.

Ultimate Kunoichi

3y↑1

I thought it was reasonable

Mark Horton

3y↑15

@Johnny brave If someone is openly Christian and is killed for their beliefs without being asked to recant they are still a martyr. Paulogia's point three is not valid. Paulogia claims that to be a martyr requires being a witness of the Resurrection. That would mean that no one killed for refusing to worship Ceasar during the reign of terror of Nero was a martyr. That is ridiculous.
A martyr is someone who is killed for their beliefs. Period.

Mark Horton

3y↑6

@Ultimate Kunoichi If you go to Pakistan and give someone a Bible and are killed for doing so without being allowed to speak, are you a martyr?
By Paulogia's definition no

10 More Replies...

Chris Tuttle, CPA

Are there any early Christian writings of the life and martyr of the three Apostles James the son of Alpheaus, Simon the Zeolot and Jude/Thaddeus?

The Theoretical Theologian

3y↑1

Ya see it's not just that they died "Martyred" for their faith, they endured pain/suffering/imprisonment for their cause/belief/message of Christ died and rose from dead thereby defeating death/sin once and for all so that anyone who repents and believes in Him shall have eternal life "short version". They also would be far more worried not just about what would happen to them in the earthly realm, but most of the spiritual realm. If anyone knew that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, it would be the disciples. The disciples preached about how liars/hypocrites will not see the Kingdom of God. So above all else, they themselves would be the greatest of deceivers and would be going to the deepest darkest hell on judgment day when they would eventually face God. Again, the disciples would know full well that Jesus didn't rise from the dead thereby when Paul preaches, "If Christ has not been raised from the dead, are faith is in vain, and we "Christians" are to be MOST pitied. Why because if its not true "that Jesus rose from the dead" they would be preaching a lie for which they themselves would not only be committing spiritual suicide, but also committing spiritual homicide by spreading this message for what they knew to be a lie. Knowing this, we can be sure, that the disciples would never have preached such a message of salvation in the first place, knowing that they would face danger and horrific suffering/death, but then have to face God on judgement day for which they knew they would be sent to hell for such a false message for what the disciples would've known to be lie. They didn't get rich or women or mansions or pleasure of any sorts. Also, if there goal was to get the message out and spread out to all people's, and this was a made up message, they would have never placed the highest of authorities on both sides, "the Jewish High Priests and the High ranking Romans" as people who either condemned the Savior of the world to death "the Jewish High Priests" and the one's whipped and beaten mercilessly and eventually crucified/killed the Savior of the world "the Romans" thus making them look like the bad guys and not to mention, the Jewish High Priests called for an illegal court/trial to condemn Jesus making them look like they rule unjustly which isn't something anyone would make up in order to get there message out there "for which they knew to be a lie anyways." So yeah, I don't think Paulogia is thinking about all the many reasons why the disciples would never had made up such a message.

Devin Johnson

2y↑6

The point about suffering is an incredibly bad argument. The smoker or thief takes on their risky actions because they believe that the reward outweighs the risk. What did the apostles stand to gain if the resurrection was false and what they preached was a lie? By all accounts the Apostles of the early church were very poor, persecuted, attacked, and killed. Even if we discount Peter’s and Paul’s Martyrdom, James, Steven, and others we have the fact that Jesus himself was crucified for proclaiming he was the messiah. It’s not a leap in logic to conclude that continuing to preach Jesus’s message could and likely would lead to the same fate if they didn’t recant.

If you think about this line of attack for even a second it falls flat and I find it hard to believe Paul didn’t realize how weak it was.

Justin Case

Actually, martyrs make poor liars.

JesusIsMyLord

36w

The apostles dying for a false belief is like me ramming a plane into a building for Islam. It just doesn’t make sense that anyone with a thread of sanity would die for a false belief after forcing themselves to live their whole life for a false belief

Richard Hunter

I don't see how people who never knew Jesus, or weren't even alive during his life, being martyred is any proof of the resurrection

airkami

Did I misunderstand Paulogia? Did he say he was responding to Mike Winger?

Mike Lewis

3y↑19

not sure what's most annoying -- Paulogia's voice or the fatuity of his arguments?

The Gospels were written while the Apostles were dying. How many times does Jesus say in the Gospels that they might have to die for him? The whole point of Gospels and the Acdts was to explain the faith of the first century church. It's not a mystery what John was referring to at the end of his Gospel; there are ample predicates. To suggest that neither Jesus nor the Gospel writers were talking about actual martyrdom is willfully misleading

Testify

3y↑8

I like his Canadian accent. His arguments do grate on me at times though.

WEBSLINGER527

3y↑3

@Testify glad to see you like he was like this, hope you can make more especially his resurrection arguments 👍👍

Chilling

3y↑3

@Testify His Canadian accent isn’t the issue, it’s his voice itself it irks me a little bit.

Tim Davis

Fox's book of Almost martyrs
Those who didn't get the chance to recant

Seth Lester

Though the early church gathered also on Sunday, they did not forsake loving God through perfect compliance of His laws (which instruct us how to love Him Matt 22:40) until 3 centuries later when the synod of Laodecia decided that they were a better authority than God (Who would not change even the smallest letter of the law nor let any of it disappear until Heaven and Earth passed away Matthew 5:18). Having decided they were a better authority than God, they rewrote the law (either into perfection to fix what our allegedly perfect god made, or into imperfection from the perfect law our perfect God made) to say that those who obey the perfect law of God perfectly in the way that God says shows Him love- are (paradoxically) separated from the God they love and obey, while those who reject loving Him by the laws He set in stone in order to adhere to the traditions of men are saved (contrary to Jesus' stance or Corban Mark 7:11-13)

J Massey

2y↑3

What characteristic did Nero use to target Christians? The fact they were Christians. The opportunity to recant to me is a false paradigm. Many have been killed for religious beliefs without the option of recanting.

MagnificentUniverse

3y↑1

Hey @Testify, when you said that the disciples of Jesus rejected the Temple and the sacrifices did you mean that thats what they acutally did or that thats what the Jews thought? Because as I am aware Disciples used to hang around the Temple a lot, and we dont have any evidence that they didnt continue to bring sacrifices there (we actually have evidence and clues that they did, like when Paul came to Jerusalem there were already people that wanted to purify themselves who were totally independent in their vows from Paul, and Paul himself agreed to sacrifice there, we also have teachings from Jesus in Matthew where he taught his Disciples how to offer sacrifices etc.)

Testify

3y↑4

Daniel Boone

1y↑1

I don't think you properly addressed Paul's point on James, brother of John, and James, brother of Jesus. How would you respond to his claim that their deaths weren't ideological?

Andrew Thomas

👍

Bradley Perry

2y↑3

We know what happened to the Apostles and Martyrs because we have the Tradition passed down through Church history. 2000 years. Unbroken. But because it wasn't spelled out specifically in writings, that's not good enough? Why? Why does it need to be written at all? Logically, what is the reasoning here? A lot of presuppositions are assumed here.

Cole James

Wow. This is just … misguided? Pitiful? I don’t even know.

Take that standard and apply it to Islam. Or other sects of Christianity. Or really any belief.

Pretend someone else is making that argument to you about their chosen belief. Do you really think that holds up?

Bradley Perry

1y↑1

@Cole James You didn't engage the argument. Great job.

Duen Oosthuizen

Early Christians didn't reject the temple lol. Multiple times it was mentioned that they went into the temple and synagogues for prayer. Read Acts again. Also the Eucharist is the new eternal sacrifice in Christ.

Mage Knight Wizard

3y↑1

They didn't reject the Temple. They even went to all of the festivals after Jesus rose.

Alec Lyons

They did reject 2nd Temple. They advocated for repentance and trusting in the sacrifice of Christ for the forgiveness of sins instead of animal sacrifice, however they did go to temples.

Mage Knight Wizard

@Alec Lyons they still participated in temple sacrifices. Read Acts carefully.

Alec Lyons

@Mage Knight Wizard point it out to me please

Mage Knight Wizard

@Alec Lyons I am a pastor and christian. Trust me, siding with Second Temple Judaism widely increases the probability of xitianity being true: Acts 21:26

Alec Lyons

3y↑1

@Mage Knight Wizard Are you advocating for animal sacrifice?

1 More Replies...

Daniel DiMarino Music

39w

Also: you can claim that we don’t have any record of the apostles having the opportunity to recant, which is true; but what we also don’t have is any record of the apostles looking around, seeing the persecution, and quietly exiting the movement to avoid their own persecution. At the very least, you’d expect a couple people to recant voluntarily to avoid the difficult lifestyle of being a 1st century Christian if their beliefs were not genuine. But the fact that they all held on during the rest of their lifetimes is evidence that their belief was sincere.

lil YEC

3y↑4

Yes
(Army Salute)

John Pratts

2y↑2

0:59 Didn't the Messianic Jews keep Sabbath the same, as well as everything else? (minus the sacrifical system of course.) It was only when in Council of Laodicea in 363–364 AD, the Biblical Sabbath day was outlawed:

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be cursed from Christ.” (Canon 29)

My Discord Name is "tafazzi", hit me up if i reply

Acts already shows christians worshipping on Sunday, it is unlikely they kept two rest days for the same reason. "Messianic jews" is not a thing, early christians worshipped on Sunday and modern day heretics claim they didn't. The council clarifies what was previously left implied and also issues a disciplinary disposition, maybe some had been lead to believe they should rest both days, or rest on Saturday to worship on Sunday.

My Discord Name is "tafazzi", hit me up if i reply

@John Pratts I don't deny that christianity is a jewish faith, this is given from granted, which is why distinguishing between "Messianic jews" and "christians" (or even worse "messianic gentiles") is a rejection of the Gospel itself, I will not acknowlege this distinction. Even if the term is used today, it's like transvestites asking me to use grammatically inexistent pronouns: not happening.

2 I said that in Acts the christians are shown worshipping on a Sunday. There is no explicit "change" of the Sabbath, but there doesn't need to be, Acts simply acts as a record that this change had already been welcomed into the Church by the AD 50s: Acts 20:7 "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight."

3-if you acknowlege that we have evidence of christians being called christians in the apostolic age, who are these elusive people who worshipped on a saturday and were not called christians? The Church is founded by Jesus upon Peter and the Apostles, Peter himself uses the term christian, so what is the reason you are unwilling to use that term to describe the memebers of the early church?

John Pratts

@My Discord Name is "tafazzi", hit me up if i reply 1 That's a very incorrect statement. The distinction between Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians is in honor of Paul's epistles (Ephesians 2 and Romans 11) along with Acts. Jews and Gentiles are one in Messiah, but still separate peoples until the Messianic age.

2- For Acts 20:7 PLEASE acknowledge that these days are part of the JEWISH calendar. These days are lunar. Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening. So what is happening here is on a Saturday night after Sabbath, Paul was gathering with the others eating and taking about the Lord until midnight. So literally, it was just a couple of hours on Saturday night.

3- As I said earlier, the term Christian before was for the Messianic Jews. Not todays modern-day Christians. Our Messiah didn't come to start a new religion. But to complete the Torah, the prophecies, and to establish a new covenant for all. Peter was the rock that will show the way to God through Jesus. Unlike the other Jewish sects that were around during the first century, which will create the Rabbinic path approx. 90AD.

My Discord Name is "tafazzi", hit me up if i reply

@John Pratts 1 we are in the messianic age, therefore no distinction needed.

2 You're talking on both sides of your mouth unless you reject the Eucharist. The sacrament of the Eucharist (which is the breaking of the bread) is the form of worship Jesus left us, it's the only thing ever referred as "New Testament" in the entire Bible. So if Paul and Luke were attentive of these jewish evening-to-evening days, they would have gathered on a Friday night to perform this act of worship, or maybe some time during the day on Saturday, but at that point Luke would not have said that they gathered to break the bread on Sunday, he would have said Saturday because that's what the praxis was. If on the other hand Luke as a roman citizen counted days from midnight to midnight, Sunday night is Sunday night. This interpretation also hinges on the historical absurdity that we would not have recieved any record that would make us remotely think that christian praxis was saturday worship, at any time.

3 I am not claiming christianity is a different religion, my point is that "messianic jew" is as meaningful as "Xe/xim": I understand what the users of the term want it to mean, but it's an incoherent concept.

9 More Replies...

JOHN BUTLER

51w

I think Paulogia's argument is kinda silly. It only works if all of the negative consequences of each person being openly Christian happened in their respective vacuums.
The precedent had been set from the very beginning that being martyred was a reasonable expectation, since Jesus was crucified. Only an idiot would miss that, especially if it had only happened a few decades before, with some eyewitnesses still alive. The socio-political moment wouldn't have differed very much between the time of Jesus' crucifixion and the times of the apostles' ministries, so pretty much everyone would be aware of the risks going in.
And the criminal's delusion of "I'll get away with it" completely ignores the high ethical teachings of Christianity. While there may have been some reckless thrill seekers who got off on skirting the laws and norms of their time, this is not a feature of Christianity and would certainly not have been a feature of its leaders

Alan Murray

1y↑1

Why would James and Jesus' family be sceptical at all. Did Mary forget to mention the virgin birth, the angel Gabriel???, Why would Thomas doubt, did he miss all the miracles and Jesus predicting his death and resurrection on many occasions??????

grillywubsubler089

46w↑1

Answered on this channel a few months ago

fugitive Moses

40w

Just one objection. The apostles did not change the Sabbath, as some of the early Nazarenes still kept the Sabbath.

SylvesterHannula

When is the belief/faith in the natural origin of life going to die?

razorknight92

This guy's definition of martyr seems narrow and requires proof that might not be given explicitly, but through inference or implication. People aren't necessarily going to write "we killed him because he believed in Jesus." It doesn't take much imagination to have a reasonable supposition for people's motives.

David

Joe

3y↑1

An interesting question, this would essentially be an argument that Jesus was completely mythologised, not just his teachings but actions as well? There are a number of resources out there that address this, Mike Winger has some good stuff if you have a spare few hours!
I think my answer would be the consistency of the New Testament accounts (gospels) and letters, in what they say about Jesus and each other. Again there are many videos out there on this, but my starting position is that the New Testament was written when and where it says it was- the first century from various different parts of the Roman Empire. That's because it was already being quoted and discussed by 95 AD in various non-biblical writings.
If the above is the case, then the "Jesus legend" as you describe it would have to have been concocted very early indeed- as the apostles and others were travelling far and wide teaching the messiah-ship of Christ from the beginning. Seeing as we're talking about men who were not rabbis or otherwise experts in the scriptures (at least until Saul/Paul came along), it would be an unbelievable achievement to be consistently inserting teachings and events into an otherwise normal lay-preacher's life that are fulfilment of the Old Testament.

David

@Joe It’s not much of an argument 😅 maybe a vague set of hypotheses.

Yes, on such hypotheses you could say some parts are legendary. Not “myth” in the sense of saying Jesus didn’t exist though, to be clear.

About legends having to be concocted early, there may have been some basic things there from early on and other things added on later. There are examples in ancient history where legends about events develop in hours or days. So that’s a possibility. I don’t think all in the gospels need to go back to within a few years though, it’s probably decades out.

Thanks for the Mike Winger tip! I’m aware of him.

Mike16 Alpha1

1y↑1

Steven enters the chat

Isaak Leillhikar

Would I be oposing psychology as a discipline if I didn’t think it was true that it wasn’t correct and was actually bad ? It’s not a safe thing to do.
They have one clause that says, if you’re saying something is bad, it’s not to be taken seriously as talking about anything bad as such to be listened to, and it’s because this bad thing has just happened to you, that’s all. So never mind how bad it is.
They have a clause that vasivly says that if you’re against psychology you are seriously bogged down as mentally ill. And if they think your mental illness is too severe, you can end up in a room locked up, lot able to get out, for some time and getting drugged that make you slouched on a bed staring out into space. I do it as a pseudonym.

madra000

2:55 makes me hesitant; they edited the claims of their lord but then who wrote the additional information unto these scriptures is anathema in revelation? Followers who reliably share the faith or are they merely transferred tradition ?(this making them hypocritical, 👍? right

Hierarchy

Ok I personally don't agree 100% with alotta things paulogia argued but this response really is just a way to jump the gun.
If you want me to change my life and sacrifice my wants to follow your God, you can't be give my "highly probable" ideas to go on. Not to talk about the fact that I don't believe the your argument of their probability puts them in the highly probably range. Since oral and information is very unreliable, the probability of the information given to New comers and sceptics outside the faith may might as well be altered. The church has always be on the wise side when it comes to passing on a particular version of information above other variations, so it won't be surprising if sources outside the faith were deceived at least to a fault (I'm not saying they were but I'm sure my argument stands on the more probable note), it's not like they had the means to investigate further than they did (I'm sure if they did, they won't be our reference point on the topic). At most you argument is probable. I do agree I need to put more thought on both your argument and my counter argument.

Testify

3y↑1

Man, I feel like it should be the opposite. If it's at all possible it is worth investigating more and doing your best to seek out, rather than demand 100% proof to your satisfaction.

Cube Earth

2y↑1

I listened to this as open mindedly as possible, hoping to have my atheism challenged. I now feel more confident in my position if this counts as a valid response 😌

Super Tiger Road Trip

2y↑4

Shrek tips fedora

TruthisBeautiful

So...did you understand the argument that Testify's made?

Cube Earth

@TruthisBeautiful yes I do but I don't find it convincing

TruthisBeautiful

1y↑2

@Cube Earth what about the argument did you not find 'convincing'? There is a difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt.

Johnno (Apologetics London)

3y↑1

Paulogias a crypto charlie and lola man needs to sit down.

JesusIsMyLord

36w

10:50

The analogies are so bad. Robbery and smoking derive some value of the people who do them; gain and pleasure.

Nothing about preaching a false belief gives you gain or pleasure. The immediate consequences thereof are suffering, and the long term consequences would be death. It’s better explained by that they actually believed what they were preaching and were first hand witnesses of it. Rather than the argument from the other side; “just ‘cause”.

YVONNE Gordon

Guy Who Likes Ecclesiastes

I would point out that Christianity is not the only religion with martyrs that died for something they personally saw. Take the Islamic martyrs Yasir Ibn Amir and his wife Sumayyah Bint Khayyat, both having personally interacted with Muhhammed.

And yes, this makes sense now.

Tay H.

2y↑3

In that case, not knowing anything about them, I would take that as evidence they really believed he got revelations from God. But I'm pretty sure Muhammad flat out said he did no miracles, so that isn't evidence of a miracle.

I'm from an area with a lot of Mormons, and even have ancestors who were related to the founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith. I believe that my ancestor thought her brother really was a prophet because she suffered a lot for following him. But, again, she and the others never claimed that they saw Joseph actually doing anything supernatural. Even those who initially went on the record saying they saw the golden plates later recanted publicly and/or said it was just with the eyes of faith. In contrast, the apostles went to their graves insisting they saw their friend raise from the dead along with many, many other obvious and tangible miracles. That's a pretty unique category as far as I can tell. I have to conclude they really believed they saw what they said they did.

TruthisBeautiful

1y↑3

Well we can look at the overall evidence for Islam - did Muhammad's revelations match the revelations of previous prophets, preserved in the Old and New Testaments? No. Did Muhammad teach gross scientific errors in the Hadith? Yes. In Muhammad's earliest biographies, did he live a morally good life? No.

vinnygiggidy

I believe Paulagia's martyr account is very plausible. Especially since many of the sources of the martyrdom accounts come with baggage that cause Christians to dismiss parts if not all of the sources for specific accounts. For example, the gospel of Thomas is the source for the martyrdom of Thomas but it all so states that Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus. I don't believe I need to point out why that claim is problematic. So when we boil it down to sources we consider reliable, I'm not sure the evidence for martyrdom is a strong case. Remember, the martyrdom case is base on if they died for what they knew to be true, not on what they believed. Plus ultimately we are trying to assume the psychological state of people who lived 2000 years ago. And we are assuming that they were thinking rationally.

ZolioZGamer

3y↑3

Weird, the gospel of Thomas dates almost 100 years after Jesus' death and is considered a gnostic . I don't believe you could really take it as a credible source. Though I personally don't believe Paulagia's martyrdom account is plausible. Christians can't overstate their case, but Paulagia does attempt to seriously undermine it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Paulagia's argument directly goes against that quote. There's good evidence that the apostles knew what they were getting themselves into, but no evidence that they actually recanted. The apostles clearly knew what they were getting themselves into without the desire of gaining any earthly rewards. As Erik said, Paulagia's argument and comparisons seem absurd.

vinnygiggidy

@ZolioZGamer the apostles clearly knew what they were getting into. That's the statement I would like you to back up. How do you know that.

vinnygiggidy

@ZolioZGamer and I agree the gospel of Thomas is not a credible source. But it's where we get the martyrdom of Thomas so that means the martyrdom of Thomas does not have good evidence. So you just helped prove my point.

ZolioZGamer

3y↑2

@vinnygiggidy You didn't watch the video? There are also plenty of arguments discussing the reliability of Acts.

ZolioZGamer

3y↑2

@vinnygiggidy What do you mean I helped prove your point? I said there are good evidences that the apostles knew what they were getting themselves into according to the new testament and historians outside of the new testament. If I told you the gospel of Thomas is not credible, that doesn't mean we don't have other more credible sources for the martyrdom of the apostles.

4 More Replies...

Rosemarie Tolentino

Do you know the Mysteries of God?
1 Corinthians 4:1-2.

Grumpy Librarian

3y↑2

You've missed the point. It can be a reasonable inference that the various apostles mentioned were indeed martyred for their beliefs. The problem is that this has been asserted as proof that their underlying claim is real, i.e. "not die for a lie." To insist that martyrdom implies something that profound carries a MUCH higher burden of proof than "reasonable inference."

Testify

I'm not so sure that I've missed the point. There's four people who died, it's more likely that they died as martyrs than not based on the points in the video. There's also the willingness to suffer and risk their necks, which indicates the sincerity of their belief. The point is Paulogia is right that apologists can oversell the case, but we don't need to undersell it and be needlessly skeptical, either. (Like making up goofy explanations for the "stretch death".

Grumpy Librarian

@Testify The syllogism is A) people wouldn't willingly die for a die, B) these people were in a position to know the truth of the resurrection claim and willingly died, and T) these people were speaking the truth. "Reasonable inference," "there's a good chance," and even "it's more likely than not" are not sufficient to justify B. If the implication were less, then the burden of proof would be less. "Beyond reasonable doubt" seems the minimum standard to apply here.

What Paulogia is raising is reasonable doubt. It's fair to disagree on whether reasonable doubt has been established, but not to lower the burden of proof on what is ultimately an incredibly significant claim.

Testify

3y↑1

@Grumpy Librarian If you must have certainty then I'm afraid you're going to be crippled from an epistemological standpoint. A.) I would say for the disciples willing to die for a lie is extremely improbable, maybe 5%. B.) They were willing to suffer and possibly die (remember Paul himself was stoned, the disciples were beaten, and some were killed etc) is extremely high given our background knowledge. Paulogia's scenario is again extremely low. T.) It is likely that they believed sincerely what they said they witnessed. Your skepticism is based on possible but improbable. If you're ok with that ..ok then, I guess. I think your idea of what makes a good argument is too narrow, premises don't need to be certain to make a good argument.

I believe that an argument may be good in the sense that and to the extent that it shifts the ratio of probabilities in favor of its conclusion. This is a sense that is easier to show mathematically than to put into plain English, but the basic idea is to compare the probability of the conclusion C to the probability of its negation, ~C. If taking evidence E into account shifts that ratio in a direction favorable to C, then E is evidence for C.

Grumpy Librarian

3y↑2

@Testify "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is the standard used in US criminal cases, and we get convictions every day. I fail to see how holding the same standard to something this important in any way "cripples" me. This is not a valid case for abductive logic.

Testify

@Grumpy Librarian because we aren't deciding a court case here, and if we can't reason this way then we need to throw out a lot of history. and we also make decisions daily and updare our beliefs almost daily with probability and not certainty.

15 More Replies...

G Demolished

If martyrdom is evidence that a belief is true, we should all be Muslim. 🤷‍♂️

Nameless

2y↑6

That is a total straw man. The martyrdoms of the apostles are evidence of their sincerity, not the truth of the resurrection. No Christian says that their deaths are evidence that it’s true.

Mike Shannon

Evidence shows that there is a strong probability that Peter, Paul, James son of Zebedee and James the brother of Jesus were all martyred for their faith, and a moderate probability for the martyrdom of Andrew and Thomas. Evidence is sparse for the martyrdom of the other disciples. Paulogia’s arguments are weak. He should be very skeptical of his own skepticism.

Willem Pasterkamp

39w

they never existed

WeirdWilliam

45w↑1

So, I guess Mormonism is true too?

Lenny Smith

47w

It amazes me that billions of people in the year 2023 believe in a primitive war god named Yahweh. Insanity. Never even asking yourselves who wrote this and why. I understand a desire to believe that an all powerful & knowing being is watching over you and loves you but with the plethora of information available to you how can one believe this stuff? Open your eyes!

More Comments

just now