ohm my God, inspiringphilosophy……….. his presence is menacing…….

Hi Michael! glad to see you :)

​@@danielesorbello619not really as he has garbage religious epistemology 😊

​@@carnivalwholesale9809nonsense did you say

@@azrael516 GFY and your garbage religious ideology

Yea there a lot better

It's SO much better. Debates give you increasingly little time to respond, which is backwards, and don't allow for mid-rebuttal clarifications that would make the whole thing much better. Dialogs are way better.

Debates always boil down to trying to win. Plus with theological debate, it's the same topics for the last 500 years And James White has been there for all of them and has yet to win one. Just kidding. Had to pick on James White a little. Nothing personal to any Protestants..

Can you tell me what brought you to Christianity I'm a Christian but i have been doubting recently 😅

You have garbage epistemology and Trent Horn admitted to believing that he is willing to believe anything in the Bible solely because it is written in the Bible

Your epistemology and critical thinking are poor

I'm also ex-atheist from Malaysia, now Catholic.

I was raised Catholic and am now an atheist. What convinced you that Christianity was true?

I'm currently an agnostic atheist open to being convinced with evidence. @concretescandalz4501, if I may ask, what was the evidence that finally did it for you?

Is there a particular argument or experience that convinced you of Catholicism or was it more a gradual shift? (Asking as an agnostic/non denominational classical theist)

I also would be curious to hear what about Catholicism convinced you it was true_

At that point, why are they trying to argue is what I ask. Nobody had smart devices that allowed them to stream directly to social media, but some people insist upon being so skeptical they refuse to believe anything so that wouldn't even convince them.

We should all defend the faith, with gentleness and respect. Trent is nothing special. You too, can do what he does with enough patience and prayer.

Especially when it comes to internet Muslims or atheists who constantly parrot the same few arguments and won’t listen to a single word I say.

@@eddardgreybeard The issue is that the "eye witness accounts" (there are none other than Paul's that seem to be actually told from an eye witness, and Paul more conceivably hallucinated) are for an event, a resurrection, that is so far fetched as to require additional evidence. Even if the Bible is telling the truth, and 500-600 people saw Jesus's risen body, that still is insufficient. If 500 people today told me someone was raised from the dead (and such people do exist btw), I wouldn't believe them. I would want additional evidence because it's more likely that they are lying, deceived themselves, or some other mundane explanation. That's really all there is to it, and if you disagree, it's probably because you have already existing beliefs that make a resurrection more probable than it does for someone like Paul or me.

@@eddardgreybeardhat’s true, but I think the reason they still do it is that even though most won’t change their mind there is a small amount of people that would be convinced by these arguments. And it’s worth it to save them. Plus, Apologists can also combat misconceptions about us.

Saint Peter as Supreme Bishop was nothing like today's Papacy, he should know that, as well as believers not exactly televising their church worship service..or holy sacrifice of the Mass, but went house to house or spoke,taught at Synagogues. Really his objections are petty & superfluous. I also find it a bit irritating when an unbeliever tries to suppose they know the holy faith & sacred scripture more than believers & hang their hat on attacking Christendom.....& why all of a sudden do the 12 Apostles being named in the Gospels get overlooked which them being named should refute his claim to symbolically 12, ijs

Not only that but Paul and most christians are ignorant of the jewish roots and foundation of our faith. Christianity is a sect of Judaism, the legitimate continuation of ancient Temple Judaism.

Funny, as a former Christian this is one of my long-standing issues with people in my life who still believe. To be clear, I don't think any of us can claim to really understand the realities of living in desert communities a couple of thousand years ago. We can, however, certainly understand that belief in miracles, resurrections, and gods was not something that was scrutinized like it is after a thousand years or more. It was just accepted that there was some sort of god-tier that held sway over earth in some fashion. So, if someone talk to you about someone raising from the dead it was much easier to believe than, say, someone coming to you today with a resurrection claim. If there was a god, I'm starting to think that religion was created by it as some sort of IQ test for a species, to see if it could evolve past it. 🤓

@@Philusteen well that is awful....we have historic documents which whether secular or religious, are historical, we accept Philosophers, historians, etc but not scripture as reliable? There were many godless atheist, even scripture confirms this but of course the Jewish community had their beliefs, even looking & waiting for Messiah, to Christendom. To add, its just logical to believe given our circumstances as a flourishing planet & people surrounded by no other life in an orderly Universe, to the beauty in life & nature to morality to epistemology to the very substance of love. It seems foolish to not believe, to have no hope, to have no purpose or reason for any good...& yes could it be engrained in us to look to God just as His commandments are on our hearts? W/ the Church established & growing, being triumphant, prophecies fulfilled, it seems IQ is a bit higher on the side of truth rather than eat, drink & be merry for tomorrow we die

@@J-PLeigh8409 awful? That's a little hyperbolic, lol - but to each their own. Your definition of "historical" sounds like it needs a bit of a tuneup. I mean, sure - we have literary works from history all over the place; but it's not like anyone's asserting the historicity of Beowulf's superpowers, or that Odysseus really battled magical creatures. The geography is right, though - but just because you can place a story within a timeframe doesn't mean it's more than just a tall tale. I think it's pretty easy to understand the Jesus story in mythological terms, once you really look hard at what was written, how it evolved and was embellished over time, and most importantly - the material impacts to a world that's been living "end times" theology for literally thousands of years. I mean, I get it - it's baked into scripture to make you feel somehow deficient for finally saying "enough is enough," but that's sort of a hallmark of a dysfunctional relationship that has perpetuated for millennia. Especially when you get into the field of science apologists, who deliberately distort science to twist it to fit a religious narrative - I'm pretty sure the universe is telling us that if we want to really grow closer to creation, it's best not to peddle fiction as fact Cheers to you 🖖

Yeah, and his quip about “credible sources” was really grating. There’s quite a bit of scholarship about the accuracy of the Gospels and letters as historical evidence, but skeptics don’t wanna hear about. As Trent as mentioned before, they demand a mountain of evidence for validity that was not available or common at the time but will accept scraps of ambiguous history elsewhere because “why would this be false?”

@@jendoe9436 Extremely Ad Hoc reasoning that yes, is grating. “CAN WE EVEN BELIEVE THIS?!?!” Yes, yes we can. Barely an inconvenience.

I am shocked his deconversion is based on conjecture and assumptions it’s baffling.

Also notice he said that all of this was done with the intent of showing that hallucinations could be the source of the resurrection and then every other argument would fail. So a good lesson for us all. Why do we believe what we now believe? Is it because we are seeking for truth or is it because we are seeking for evidence to confirm my ideology? Can we acknowledge that this is the greatest issue why we in the different denominations cannot see eye to eye on doctrines? Like Paulogia and other atheists we approach the word of God with biases. John 5 vs 39 and 40 is a warning to us all

I don't know this guy personally at all but when you have to stretch that far to find a "linchpin for your deconversion", in my experience it usually turns out that the real linchpin is the bible's ban on premarital sex.

Paulogia isn’t the one claiming with certainty what happened. He’s saying that certain speculations (Paul having PTSD, etc.) are more likely than a miraculous alternative.

@@thelongbow141 His speculations don't have any evidence. Trent's do. Thats important. You can't say something that has no evidence, and that the only evidence we have contradicts it, is more likely just bc you prefer a naturalistic explanation. Nevermind the fact that this discussion has nothing to do with the miraculous. Trent isn't arguing for the Resurrection, here.

​@@bendecidospr Say I come across a pot of gold in the middle of the woods, and someone who lives nearby says a group of leprechauns put it there. I counter by saying that it's more likely that some random person just left it there. Should I believe the leprechaun story since that's "the only evidence we have?" And I know the resurrection isn't the explicit topic but the various speculations are put there in support of it.

@@thelongbow141 Again, no one in this video is offering a supernatural explanation to anything. You are arguing with yourself. They, and I, are talking about whether or not the apostles and early christians suffered for preaching the Gospel, or for other reasons. The only evidence we have says it was for preaching the Gospel. Paulogía says, "but what if it was for this other reason?" And recognizes there is no evidence to back that up. Its just speculation. So, your leprechaun example is meaningless to the discussion.

​@@thelongbow141leprechaun and spaghetti monster analogies is the only snarky attempt at an argument atheists seem to have. the lack of maturity is quite telling.

To go even further with the notion that one might accept their own death for a cause they knew to be false in return for their surviving family to gain materially, it's pretty damn gullible - on top of dishonorable - to believe that the leaders insincere enough to mislead their followers to their earthly demise could then be trusted to provide recompense to the surviving relations. It's a scheme that wouldn't last a single generation, if that. It doesn't take long for the word to spread when leaders don't keep their word, then even more so than now.

Not only that, imagine getting less of it than if you chose to stick with your original jobs. On top of that, imagine hardly seeing your wife and kids for the rest of your lives, being hated by almost everybody in society and dealing with a constant life of hardship and being a social outcast. Maybe 1 crazy person would do this, maybe. But almost every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc generation apostles had lives like this. Specific beliefs about Jesus were created in real time as they happened, and the majority of secular historians agree to this. So Christ being a "legend" in that stories about him were invented later, is not an option. Therefore either the apostles perceptions of Jesus were deluded, intentional lies, or they were correct. Like the legend option I think it is obvious that intentional lies can also not be an option.

@@gabrielacosta2267 true. Right on. I'm sure St. Peter's life was very difficult after the Ascension of Christ , with him being bishop in a few large cities before becoming the first Pope in Rome. And I am sure it was hard on his wife and kids? as well. Would have been much easier for him to just stay a fishermen. Nah. He seen the risen Christ and chose to follow Him and endure hardships the rest of his life, up to his unaliveing in Rome.

@@reverendcoffinsotherson5807 there's a lot of reasons why I believe and follow Christ. However these are probably my top 3 reasons: 1. Fulfillment of Messianinc prophecy laid throughout the Jewish scriptures, many of which were out of His control so that someone cannot intentionally fulfill them as a fabrication. Also, all of the prophecies themselves are legitimate and historical ones as manuscript evidence shows that these prophecies clearly existed before Christ. 2. The amount of connectivity within the nuanced themes and narratives that all crazily coincidentally point towards Christ in some way. Again, given the vast number of books in the Bible and how far apart they were written, especially OT, these also could not have been fabricated by Christians later on. As well as due to the manuscript and archeological evidence. 3. The lack of an alternative explanation to the resurrection that is consistent with the widely accepted historical facts by scholars, yet is based in naturalism. IE there isn't one. There's others but that's my top 3

1. Is is possible to believe something that is a lie - and yet still believe it's true, anyway? 2. Muslims, Mormons, Jews, the Cult members of Jim Jones and the Hale-Bopp Comet... Kamikazees... I don't know why this is so hard to understand. People believe lies and die for those lies all the time. People can be perpetually deceived.

Top tier comment! :)

Great points. Also important to consider how most if not all of the apostles and disciples would have been poor. People living in poverty during antiquity - in any part of the world - didn’t write. Nor did people write about them, especially if peddling an unpopular set of facially implausible beliefs.

Yes to all of this! I thought the same thing but you articulated it way better.

Seriously. Isn’t he amazing?

You can always try being an online apologist as a starting point to test the waters, although I wouldn't recommend it. You'll know if that is your calling as the Holy Spirit will move you to do it. I'm an online apologist. You are 100% right regarding the need for huge reserves of patience and charity. There is also a need for the ability to withstand constant slander, blasphemy, personal attacks, etc. Then there's the constant study of theology, the Bibles (various translations, Greek and Hebrew interlinears) but also atheism, other religious texts, history, archaeology etc. It's not for everyone but we need more people in the fight. So if you have the time, please pray for those of us in it and pray that the Holy Spirit can move more people to join in. God bless you and anyone who reads this.

the world doesnt need a million dollar apologist. It needs a million one dollar apologists. When I heard that I realized how true it was.

Yup!! I know I'm not there yet!

@@alisterrebelo9013 "I'm an online apologist." "This channel doesn't have any content"

I'd like to point out that, while many people have read the Bible (in part or fully) very few people have read what was left out of the Bible, or what other civilizations wrote before the Hebrews. but most importantly, most people were never taught to question the veracity of a claim and just assume it's true.

I guess we should avoid all atheists and all people then LOL

That was pretty rich on Paulogia's part. Skeptic's gotta skeptic all right - right off the cliff

​@@ironymatt Always skeptics

As of right now, no changes have been made to the Our Father. This article may help out www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-our-father-changing -Kyle

Absolutely annihilated

Peter was an Apostle at that time: you all Pope ing him came later!

@@davidjanbaz7728 Riddle me this then, if Peter wasn't the first pope then why does the pope say he is?

Is this really your impression of how higher tier apologists argue? Do you think Trent is making that argument?

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns called a joke

So I did, Trent invited Paulogia to announce his channel and seemed charitable throughout the exchange.

Lol

Absolutely annihilated

Based

Based and Christpilled

Definitely. The "would they die for a lie?" question is often one of the first things proposed to non-Christians in my experience. And it's an incredibly powerful, intuitive observation about human nature that rings true to those who hear it.

@@HaydenPianoCovers Sorry if I'm being pedantic. I don't disagree with what you said that it is a good opening into discussing Christianity. But my question was, 'is Apostle martyrdom *THE* topic that takes someone over the line'? Evidence for the affirmative would be people stating so in their testimonies. For example, I would expect to see people saying words to the effect of 'When I heard or read how Peter was martyred, I was moved by the Holy Spirit and I just knew in that moment that the Gospel was true.' I'm willing to be corrected and shown otherwise, I have NEVER heard of a testimony with mention of Apostle martyrdom at all. In fact, when I do come across Apostle martyrdom, it's in the context of, 'Apostle martyrdom *STRENGTHENED* my faith'.

@@alisterrebelo9013 Yeah you're completely right. I've typically seen it as an introduction to the plausibility of Christianity. But (especially on its own) it is not enough to bring someone to believe that Christianity is true. But as someone who is considering conversion, if I convert, it is definitely something I would mention in my hypothetical testimony, maybe early on as "A friend pointed out the 'would they die for a lie?' question." Thanks for your thoughtful response and clarification!

@@HaydenPianoCovers That's so wonderful to hear! I hope you will allow the Holy Spirit to let you in to the fullness of the the Truth. If you have any lingering questions or doubts, I'd be happy to answer them. No question is off the table. I'm an online apologist who was an atheist before becoming a believer so I hope I can help.

For me, that was one of the main reasons. Alongside Lewis' trilemma. Of course, there's other evidence that is also important, but without knowing the sincerity of the apostles it seems the strength of everything else wanes, since it's through them that we and all generations afterwards learn about Jesus first and foremost.

And you know this how? Are you a god?

Regarding your points 2 and 2A - why is it hard to imagine ? The vast majority of Christian conversions have happened hundreds of years after the resurrection with people who had no access to the firsthand witnesses. Christianity spread even faster after the death of the apostles (eyewitnesses) which undercuts your point

Fair distinction. I’ll re-phrase: it’s hard to imagine that Christianity would ever have gotten off the ground and spread at all.

@@BobBoldt-sp1gr Why is it hard to imagine? Why are you asking for evidence for a negative when there is no evidence for the positive claim that the apostles did all go and preach?

Why is it hard to imagine when Islam and Mormonism have grown so fast without any compelling evidence?

*accept

???​@@elederiruzkin8835

Mans just couldn't leave the conversation on a good note lol

I do love how Trent remained calm and didn’t get too riled up. My face would have not been as diplomatic about that comment 😅 May I be as patient as Trent one day.

You just made an argument from silence

I suppose I did make an argument from silence if you consider something on the level of TMZ calling out a cameraman and an extra for exposing themselves to 1st graders on the set while neglecting to mention that seven big name stars were there doing the same thing an argument from silence. If Paul was going to call out some far lesser luminaries for apostasy, it is still possible he would have not mentioned even one of the Magnificent Seven running out on the cause, but how likely is that? About the same as the TMZ scenario. People on the circuit would not have seen these guys in a while, they'd be asking about them. It would come up. Paul would have to address it. If these are the lengths to which you have to go to make God go away, you may have to reconsider your premise.

@@davidplummer2619 he didnt know, people kept it from him, he thought that people would follow the apostate ex-leader, he did in one of the not seven letters we have, he could have been planning to and then gotten killed, one of his frequent private revelations told him not to, who knows. Calling out small beans weak people racks up your virtue signal points but showing that the movement is fracturing at the top makes you look bad too I have no clue though im not the one asking people to give their life to a cause based on what people 2000 years ago were up to and if that means we can infer that the dead body actually did get up and go up into heaven Christians who talk about 'speculative' alternatives to the resurrection also ignore the whole ad hoc slapped together dimension of their theology and pretend some slight speculations on what humans did 2000 years ago is different than a whole ocean of speculations about what all sorts of human angelic and divine beings did over the course of the timespan that looks like 6000 years but totally isnt All of that has to be true for it to even be making sense why we are talking about a guy who rose from the dead, but yes i am trying really hard to make God go away please cut me some slack

@@timmyedmond1082 arguments from silence are when you make an inference based off of silence

I agree, he's being ridiculous. Even the Gospels make it a point to say Judas was a traitor over and over again before it even happened. These people are trying to find excuses to license their immoralities and liberalities. It's just a joke of an argument.

This wasn't live. So you're actually one of the first people to catch it! -Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrent oh, good!

​@@TheCounselofTrentif I may ask, who is Kyle?

​@@grubblewubblesTrent's editor

Yeah, he deconverted well into his adulthood

ok

The point is that you can't know if it's true or not just because the Bible says it. We know the Bible is a biased book full of provable falsities already, so why should we expect it to be right? It's better to take a more neutral approach.

@@WaterCat5 you do realize Paulogia grants some things in the Bible as true without much fuss (because they are provably true)... so what is it for him to grant an ordinary claim that others preached as well? whereas it has multiple attestations he's just cherry-picking what to take as true just so he can advance his agenda... And you are the only one who's biased here (with provable falsities)... the "many falsities" are just provable misunderstandings

​@@WaterCat5We know that Atheism is a biased belief full of provable falsities. The Apostles and Paul's conversion & martyrdom are very good evidence for the resurrection.

@@easyminimal_6130 If someone grants something provably true, that's entirely different than accepting an ordinary claim that has no evidence other than the fact that someone claimed it. Multiple attestations from the same source do not matter much. Yes, there are outside sources saying some Christians preached, but these do not mention the apostles, who are the topic of discussion. There are no extra-biblical sources mentioning the apostles going out and preaching other than the ones discussed in this video. It's also a completely fine argument tactic to accept claims that you don't care about, even if you don't really believe them. It's to advance the conversation and get to the claims that really matter. Yes, he is advancing his agenda, as one does in essentially all conversation. That doesn't mean his claims are wrong or bad-faith. There's not much value in contesting every claim, so he only contests the important ones. He is just agreeing in the hypothetical. I often see Christians complain about it, and I wonder if they are unaware that people can accept something as true only within a conversation. I am not required to believe something is true in all situations simply because I agreed we could assume it was true in one. As for errors, there are many types. There are astronomy errors, numerical errors, date errors, and more. You can argue many of these are not in the gospels, but the gospels are a different genre from much of the rest of the bible and contain information that cannot be easily disproven. It is prohibitively difficult, for example, to prove whether Jesus said something in some town at some particular time. When it comes to actually falsifiable statements, the bible is by no means perfect.

@@Tzimiskes3506 Atheism on its own doesn't even make a claim, so there's nothing to prove false. However, I do go further and would posit the Christian god is probably false. If you think Paul's conversion is very good evidence, I don't know what to tell you. There's plenty of people who have made similar conversions and also claim to have visions for other gods and religions. Shall I show you some? You can literally search "vision conversion to Islam", and you will find similar stories. Your only way out of this is to claim they are lying, something you cannot know, or to claim that you have additional evidence for Christianity, in which case I don't think you consider such stories "very good" evidence, unless you consider "very good" to mean completely insufficient on its own to justify any belief.

Lollll

Paulogia frequently uses a cartoon of himself in his videos, so in the thumbnail it shows both his real face and the cartoon.

@@Tzimiskes3506I don’t think that’s a fair criticism of Paul. He frequently shows his face in much of his content.

The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb") are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew.

@@tomasrocha6139 How ignorant must one be to come saying this with a personal sense of authority... In Israel the word for cousin and the word for people of the same tribe, or for people of the same nation. Even, according to Christians, we all come from the same womb, Eve, so even according to the Greek word you quoted, the word brother means nothing. It could mean from the same especie. But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right, and brother means blood brother. As Jesus, in the time of his dead, had no brothers or sisters and His father (Joseph) was dead, and seeing that His mother would be left on the street, begging for bread, He told John, His brother, the loved disciple, that Mary was his mother. And Christians take this line to mean that Mary is a mother to all of us, who follow Jesus. And this is true. But the next line gives us a clear view of Jewish culture, accompanied by the next line, gives us an insight into whether Jesus had brothers or half brothers. The verse is John 19:27b: "From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." If one is to understand the Bible, one must understand the context in which it was written. In Jesus' times, a woman who had lost all of her children and her husband was condemned to live in the streets as a beggar, so it's shown in many passages in the Bible, for example, read Luke 7:11-17, but pay especial attention to verses 12 and 13, in which it says that a widowed woman who had lost her only child was crying and carrying his body out. And Jesus had compassion of her (she didn't speak to Jesus, nor show great faith), Jesus had compassion... Why did Jesus had compassion of her, and not of the thousands of people who lost close people in His time? Because Jesus knew what destiny awaited this woman. He knew that this woman would have to beg for food for the rest of her life. That's why He felt compassion. Furthermore, you can read Mark 12:41-44 to see how a widow didn't have the means to gain more money, she wasn't able to put an entrepreneurship in place to sustain herself in times of Jesus. A widowed woman, who only had a couple of coins to live, entered the Temple and placed those coins as an offering. Jesus was amazed because this woman had no means to get those coins back, she could only beg. If a woman lost her husband in 1st Century Israel, she and her unmarried daughters had to go live with her children: first her son (if she had a son), then the husband of her daughter (if she had a married daughter), then the son of her dead husband (if he had any sons), then the husband of the daughter of the dead husband (if he had any married daughters). If non of this options existed, usually the woman and her unmarried daughters would be left as a beggar in the streets. Jesus knew the destiny of His mother, so wanting to avoid this, He told John to be her son. And John obeyed by receiving Mary in his house from that day on (until his Gospel was written). This means that Jesus had no brothers (because Mary would have stayed with them) *and* He has no married sisters (because Mary would have stayed with their families) *and* He had no half brothers (because Mary would have stayed with them) *and* He had no married half sisters (because Mary would have stayed with their families) *and* He had no unmarried sisters or half sisters (because they would have also stayed with John until they got married and then all of them would have left, including Mary, but the Gospel says that Mary stayed with John at least until his Gospel was written). And you thinking "of the same womb" means blood brothers, is so wrong I can't even begin to refute it. Cousins are "of the same womb", the womb of their grandmother. The tribe of Judah are all from the same womb (from the womb of the wife of Judah). The Jews are all from the same womb (from the womb of Sarah). Humans are all from the same womb (from the womb of Eve). So your definition doesn't prove at all that whenever brother is used in the NT, it means blood brother. But actually, the Biblical and Historical context I gave you, prove that the word brother, when used for Jesus, could mean anything *except* blood brother. Don't worry, there was no reason for you to have known the mysteries in the Bible, but now you know.

Try to resist the paranoia

@@christopher7725 I pray that all the people surrounding you are as well intentioned towards you as your comment is. I was looking for an answer from the person that knows the truth. Do you know for a fact that he is or isn't a member? If you have no idea what the answer to my question is, your arrogant assumptions made out of ignorance are unappreciated.

Protestantism leads to atheism.

Everyone is a victim of bias. The best we can do is try to be aware of our own biases and keep them in check. As for myself, I see no good reason that miracles can happen.

Here's one reason -- at least one huge one happened. Atheist and theist alike are confronted with the greatest miracle of all time: the beginning of the universe. If there is a God, then his greatest miracle in the material universe is the material universe itself; he created it out of nothing. If there is no God, then the universe created itself out of nothing. Which is more far-fetched? This is part of what Frank Turek means when he says he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist.

@@davidplummer2619 You and Frank Turek are presenting a black or white fallacy or more commonly known as a false dilemma. I am an atheist, and I have no reason to believe the universe created itself out of nothing. Turek is a tool lol.

​​@@davidplummer2619 The beginning of the universe could only possibly yield a Creator God. Then the leap to Brahma, Yahweh or whichever Creator covers quite a distance.

He was a believer. He was in the position of supernatural belief and then rejected it based on a lack of evidence.

I think most suicides were by poisoning, people commit suicides everyday, I dont think its the same as being martyred, martyrs were heavily tortures and suffered gruesome and horrifying deaths, you really had to be sure of something to endure the punishment that christians dealt with at that time, that is my opinion, trent would probably do better...

Like Trent has said the fact that they were willing not only to die, but to suffer means that they were sincere in their belief. They really believed they saw the risen Christ, there is other evidence for the resurrection but the fact that the eye witnesses sincerely believed in the resurrected Jesus is one huge piece of evidence.

For a fascinating parallel to Christianity, google "After the death of Chabad's Messiah"

Im not sure if I explained it well, but for suicide you just need to be depressed or anxious and youll do it, but to suffer certain violent death, you have to be fanatic...

I think that’s pretty simple. Those cultists really believed in the cult leader. With Jesus, you have tons of fulfilled prophecies and people claiming to have spent substantial amounts of time with him after he died. It’s highly unlikely the apostles didn’t believe Jesus rose from the dead, and it’s not something that’s easy to be mistaken about. You have testimony from 12-500 people saying they saw him, ate with him, had extended conversations with him, etc after he was willing to suffer public execution. Christianity is a worldview that makes sense of everything, too. That’s honestly as good as it’s gonna get. It’s always possible they lied and suffered for their lies anyway, or they had mixed motivations and believed in Jesus but lied about seeing him resurrected. I don’t think it’s the most probable explanation, however. We’ll find out when we die or when He comes back.

I guess everybody who converted to Islam were gullible and Mohammed lucky. Or the Koran is true, of course.

I don't know enough to respond to all of these points, but there was absolutely material gain in conversion. As a Hellenist, the temperamental gods require animal sacrifice to be appeased. The loving Christian God does not. The choice seems obvious to me.

@@lordfarquaad8601 I'm not sure if you're a Christian or not so unsure which way you're arguing but your argument supports the skeptical view. I'm trying to show that the likelihood of actual miracles taking place was very high because that is one of the explanations (my contention is it is likely best explanation) that can help people surmount the very high barrier of a change of religion. Before that though a point of clarification on my comment. When I said material benefit as per the claims of Christianity, I meant the theological benefits, specifically the rewards while alive are that of the Holy Spirit I.e. gifts of grace only. (Rewards after death are not worth debating here). Compare this with Hellenism where the purpose of sacrifice was for good rains, good harvest, protection against war, healthy children, etc i.e. very material things. Switching religions is NOT as easy as changing clothes. It requires a substantial change in worldview and philosophical understanding. I can make a case that the cost of animal sacrifice was not as high and/or show that city states and not citizens had to bear bear the cost of sacrifices. But assuming you're right, what other benefits would there be to switch to Christianity unless you were absolutely convicted in a supernatural sense by the Holy Spirit? Because the list of pros is very small materially with mostly supernatural benefits and the list of cons is very large and immediately negative materially.

I am not a Christian, although I respect Christianity. I never argued conversion was a trifling matter (it was likely between generations,) but I would argue most people don't have a deep enough understanding of their religion to require a significant change in philosophy and worldview to convert to another. I think it's also difficult to know exactly how average people's opinions and beliefs on religion in general changed as they converted from Hellenism to Christianity. After converting, did they believe that God only grants spiritual blessings? Or did he take the place of their former gods, and living as a Christian would surely grant them good harvests? You said there's a case to be made against the citizen having to bear the cost of sacrifice? I don't know why you'd mention that and then not make the case. This also likely wouldn't apply to rural populations. If the state bears the cost, then that would only incentive conversion from the ruling class to avoid the cost of sacrifice. There were absolutely political gains to be made from conversion. Very small materially? Maybe, I suppose it depends on how you classify things. Is the belief that you are loved by one all-powerful God and not just tolerated by an unpredictable pantheon material? I'm not sure. Immediately negative consequences such as?

1. If GOD had revealed himself plainly to mankind - there would be ZERO non-believers. WHen you have GOD almighty representing a religion, any incremental growth should be suspect. Therefore, the story is probably not true. 2. ...and the bulk of those "scriptures" bear little resemblance to what you know as your Bible today. 3. The early Christians were not followers of Jesus, but followers of whatever "Christ" was according to them. Christianity was all over the map in the first century - many of the "Christian" sects were radicals, revolutionaries and criminals. 4. Of course. The Scriptures were compiled at the Council of Nicea, by educated men. They made the Bible say exactly what they wanted it to say. 5. There were lots of writers in the first century who claimed that Christianity was fake.

What??

Paulogia the cartoon is very different from Paulogia speaking with his face XD

Can't that be applied to basically every belief?

So now you decided to worship cannibalism and propitiatory human sacrifice instead. LOL

@@twitherspoon8954 LOL.. your comments are insane. No one would take you seriously if you do so.

@@twitherspoon8954 Just sit back, relax and watch the video 😁

​@@pinklotus7671he has issues

@@Forester- Yeah, I realized that.

You may appreciate Catholic Author John DeRosa's recent KZfaq debate vs an atheist. The topic was raping war brides from Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Very cordial.

Você sabe por que a gente difama os ateus(estou falando dos militantes.)

A Catholic belief does not a fact make.

I think he's saying Joseph was not perpetually virgin.

but looking on the nature of the claim that christians are making, those what ifs are a serious problem. You basicly ask non belivers to accept magic, cause the ressurection is a magical event. You do this cause of your interpretation of one book. If someone can bring you other interpretations, that do not require magic, then they are mor believable by default and you must deal with them and refute them.

@@TgfkaTrichter This video is not about christianity's miracle claims. Nowhere is anybody in this video (as far as I watched it) is arguing for the truth of the Resurrection. The claim Trent is making is non-controversial, and non-miraculous, and it is grounded in the written evidence and everything we know (which is not a whole lot) of the culture of that time. Paulogia's arguments are based on mere what-ifs.

@@bendecidospr and those what ifs are mostly valid. Also this whole martyr topic is only discussed cause of the resurrection.

@@TgfkaTrichter No, they're not. When the only evidence we have points to one thing, and the main reason for rejecting this one thing is because of lack of evidence, you cannot possibly justify preferring explanations that have absolutely no evidence (he admits this) over those that have evidence. This is just showing the extreme skepticism when it comes to beliefs you don't want to believe vs your willingness to believe something that has no evidence just because you like it more.

@@bendecidospr But we also do not have the strong evidence, theists claim we have, for the martyr death of all the apostels. And being sceptic about the claims of a book, that has been proven to be wrong many times, that is written by anomonious highly biased authors and is also contradicting itself many times has nothing to within liking something more. But in way that is rather funny, cause the only reason, the bible is defended is because people like what it is saying, allthough most apologists are sooner or later forced to lie about specific things it says. I always found that interesting.