Were the apostles martyred for their faith? Sean McDowell vs Paulogia

It wouldn’t matter if Jesus said the creed himself! Legend building happened in the LIFETIMES of ancient people. Especially legends for kings and gods. And wouldn’t you believe it Jesus was calling himself king of the Jews. It’s as if his followers would have wanted to call him son of a god, or that he ascended.

And this is if we grant something like an early creed. I hope for any Christians reading this. Truth is meaningful and Id implore you to remove the scales from your eyes.

The whole NT is fiction. This is the bottom line.

Why is there Halo 3 ODST music at 26 minutes? 💀

Summarization

Paulogia-Its not possible imo

Sean-Heres evidence

Paulogia-Not possible imo the evidence is wrong because i say so

Why are they taking about martydom. The question is not who is a martyr but if their deaths indicate that they were telling the truth and that they knew the truth.

I must say that it's a breath of fresh air to see a Christian apologist and an atheist have such a civil and respectful discussion.

Even if we go with Peter, Paul, James the "Son of Thunder" and the guy killed in the book of Acts, I still argue that they all sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead, but were sincerely wrong. The members of Heaven's Gate sincerely believed (for whatever reason) that they were going to be transported to a spaceship after their suicides, but they were sincerely wrong. No one in the HG cult was dying for something they knew was a lie.
The same is true of Peter, Paul, James and that other guy. (Can't think of that donkey waffle's name) Anyway....
EDIT: I also reject J. Warner Wallace's "sex, money, greed or power" assertion. The members of HG weren't motivated by any of these things, yet they still didn't die for something they knew was a lie. They were sincerely wrong.

I know this is four years old now but I just have to comment. Parts of this are really frustrating. McDowell says multiple times that the people in question "died willingly for their belief." Common sense tells me to prove that you need to prove:

- They were killed. We barely know this for a couple.

- They were killed for their belief that Jesus resurrected. We can't prove that for any of them. McDowell's thinking seems to be that being Christian and being killed is enough, but it's not. A person could be killed for giving a sermon that says "Don't listen to the king, listen to Jesus. Jesus is higher than the king" or any number of things. The killer may have no problem with Christians, just a problem with one specific thing this particular Christian said or did. And that is ignoring the possibility, however remote, that the disciple did something else entirely to warrant death. Maybe slept with someone's wife, stole a sheep, had a dispute and punched the wrong guy, knocked off a liquor store. These are silly but we really do not know.

- They died willingly. We can't prove that for any of them. They may have been dragged to their death kicking and screaming. They may have been killed by surprise. I sort of agreed with McDowell at the beginning when he criticized Paul's rule that they had to have a chance to recant. We know Christians often had the chance to recant because they weren't really being persecuted for their belief, they were often persecuted for their lack of belief in the customs around them, but surely not all had the chance and it's still a strict requirement

But I don't know of any other way to prove they died for their belief than if their belief was put to the test in their last moment.

Paul gives the example of people enjoying the power of the bake sale table, McDowell says those people would give up the bake sale table if you said you were going to kill them. Sure, they are being given a warning. But did any of the disciples get a warning that they decided to ignore? We don't know.

Also, I am so sick of J Warner Wallace saying all crime is committed for only three reasons; sex, money and power. So this guy was a detective for decades and never heard of a crime committed out of anger? What about love? Peer pressure? Desperation?

The guy who sits outside a courthouse and shoots the man who murdered his child, was he motivated by sex, money or power? The woman who kills her rapist? The Crip member who kills a Blood because his leader told him to?

But the subject isn't even about crime. The subject is why someone 2000 years ago might take a job giving speeches they don't necessarily agree with instead of being a fisherman, and there's a million more possible reasons for that.

The bible says the pharisees existed, how do we know that the pharisees existed?
Or herod? Or pontius? or caesars?, or the saduccees? Or jews? Or
Ananias? or belshazar?
Or senacherib? Or paul on malta? Or creeds?
Or the seven churches?
Or the return of living breathing jews after 1900 years with no nation!? Or the prophesy of wings over the earth? or a likeness of a human with metal claws and teath that can speak but is not robots? Or changeable apparels or mufflers tablets? Or tires round as the moon? Or idolatry exist, or sin continuously exist? Or the house of david exist? Or decendants of the house of david? Whay was herod the king and not joseph?

What do muslims say about the risen Christ?
What do nonChristian nonjew accounts say? What do we know about Christ from all sources..is Christ an entity to fuck with?
Heres how i see it, have ye disproved his existence? Nope
Good luck in fire lake unbelievers! Obviously he flew away from earth because ye are idiots! Duh. Besides what does he ask of us overall as a species?
Why do ye reject him? Because ye reject him, thats reason enough for me to accept his salvation. He is, my everlasting Terrorist Master of Good will...DONT FUCK WITH GOOD, EVER STUPID! DON'T TEMPT THE LORD, AMEN. God is GOOD, AMEN.

honestly didn't understand 90 percent of what's going on but I watched the whole thing anyway bc its so refreshing to see such a respectful, productive debate

I would say that the evidence for the matyrdom of even Peter and Paul is unreliable<Peter was not mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans when listig the people to whom he sends greetings and, whoever the auhor of 2 peter wa, he places him out of harm's way in Babylon.

Everything in the ancient world was political AND religious.

We all know that Sean wiped the floor with Paulogia 😂

Paul's testimony is irrelevant to the bodily resurrection as his vision was post-Ascension. So that just leaves Peter.

Does anyone know anything about the Coptic synaxarium?

Excellent discussion

Paul's letters make it clear he thinks Jesus is immensely powerful and that they could share that power through their connect with Jesus. All his talk about transformations is him giving examples of this power.

The first definition listed in a dictionary is the most popularly usage definition of a term (that had mutliple definitions).

mar·tyr
/ˈmärdər/
noun
a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.
"saints, martyrs, and witnesses to the faith"

Clearly, popular usage requires not only that someone dies, but that they are murdered.

At the end of the day, we still have no definitive evidence that a God exists. These endless arguments through the ages can all be resolved if God, if he exists at all or is willing or even capable, gives us an unambiguous and clear sign of his presence. Endless arguments, an industry around his existence or otherwise is getting really boring no matter how entertaining it gets. Just give me a sign I say. Give me a sign!🙏🏽🤔😇🤞🏾

Regarding the death of James in Acts 12. A main point that was overlooked is the statement, "And when Herod saw that (the execution of James) pleased the Jews." We need to ask ourselves, "What was James doing that brought so much enmity from the Jews?" Christ gives the answer, "If they hated me, they will hate you."

How unsure of your positions Paul! I can sense your consciousness raging war as you are suppressing the Truth.
Whatever you have experienced in the church and in your rebellion against God i pray you realize that battling God is the most insane thing a person could do...no one has yet been the victor, yet God is not too far off that you can't return to Him and ask for forgiveness and the gift of faith.

Anyone can doubt anything or anyone...i can go around in endless debates about any idea, truth claim, even some scientific discoveries...there are people who'll debate that the earth is flat and that 2+2 is not 4, etc.
People fall out of love with Christ and fall in love with subscribers and notoriety...
I highly doubt the sincerity of any athiest, especially those who claim to have been a Christian before. I am human also and i know how perception and acting works...some people are great at poker face, but no one ever could trick God into believing that they were sincere about their faith or intentions...by default i doubt any atheist claims about God and Christ and the Bible as baseless and deceitful.

"because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1:21‭, ‬23‭-‬25 NKJV

I am an A-atheist fir life. I believe God uses atheists and cults to challenge His church to truly knock, seek, and ask...to consider what they believe and why they believe because God is searching for worshippers who will worship Him in spirit and in truth...with their whole being.
I feel terrible for any unbeliever, but thankful that they challenge my faith...it has only helped my growth in the grave and knowledge of Jesus Christ!

Paulogia: Polite to a fault, fair-minded, even-handed. He's the Atheist Saint!

I love him saying, "This is how we figure things out."
I'm a nonbeliever, but that's a great attitude.

I am curious about the conversation towards the end of the discussion concerning James the brother of John, and the record from Acts 12 that reports that Herod had him put to death. Paul expresses that he does not think we can have any idea about why James is killed. However, the verse in Acts 12 that is right before the report about James being put to death is the first verse and it says, "It was about this time that Kind Herod arrested some who belonged to church, intending to persecute them." As we read the two verses back to back, there really doesn't seem to be room to say it is unclear why James was killed. The text says he was intending to persecute these followers of Christ.

Hey, I think it was a great job by all involved! Can I ask though, around 36 minutes in, Paul expressed that the book of Acts doesn't make any reference to the other apostles other than Peter and John. But, Acts chapter 1 tells of how the Apostles are there for the last meeting with the risen Jesus, and then it says they return to Jerusalem and in verse 13 it says "Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mathew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." So it directly connects all 12 by name to a meeting with the resurrected Jesus.
Then in Acts 4:33 it says "With great power the Apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus". In chapter 5 of Acts, it tells of the Apostles being arrested and put in jail and that an angel comes and lets them out and tells them to go out and preach the message. In verse 25 it has someone coming to tell the Sanhedrin (those who had arrested them and are now wondering where their prisoners have gotten to) that "The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." I suppose someone could try and say that the Apostles were teaching something other that the resurrection, but the context is really very clear. They sure weren't teaching basket weaving.
Then in chapter 8, it tells the story of one of the Apostles, Philip and his experience. Verse 5 states that "Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there."
All that to demonstrate that the book of Acts is not ambiguous at all about the question of whether these particular 11 men (who then added the 12th man of Matthias, who it expresses in Acts 1:22 was also a witness of the resurrection) were proclaiming what that they had seen the resurrected Jesus.
Oh, and by the way, if you are going to say that Luke, the author of Acts, got his material from Josephus, then it means that we have right here extra-Biblical evidence that all 12 Apostles were attesting to the resurrection.

If Jesus and his apostles only would have complied, they would never have been killed. The empire did nothing wrong!

How can grown men be debating, and moderating whether a book of fairy tales, is true or not! Jesus didn't even exist or the disciples! Please stop this nonesence!!!

So Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith were killed for their beliefs, correct Sean? Joseph Smith sincerely believed that God and Jesus appeared to him and his brother Hyrum also believed and was willing to die rather than recant. But does Sean McDowell think that this matters in regards to the truth claims of Mormonism? NOT AT ALL. It's called special pleading and a third grader can see this.

hey @namapulsu2364 - you thrown the towel in completely now?

Great debate!

Um Paul never saw the bodily risen Jesus. He saw a vision. So really it comes down to 1 eyewitness for which we don’t have direct first hand testimony.

Reasons someone might die for a lie:

1) They believe the lie is for a greater good or purpose 2) to further a cause or movement 3) Embarrassment or shame 4) to protect a legacy

TL;DR

no.

Love this discussion, and while I think Paul makes the better case, and the one I personally agree with…I really do like Sean’s approach the most out of all apologists. Well thought out, well read, respectful and sincere. I almost always stop to watch content where Sean makes an appearance, and he always makes me consider my position. Well done, both of you.

This seems to be a really awesome debate!

As a Christian, I would say I honestly believe the main difference between believers and skeptics is this….

A believer we will take a premise “The disciples believed they saw Jesus” look at the evidence and say, nothing absolutely refutes this, so we accept it.

The skeptic will look at the premise
“The disciples believed they saw Jesus” look at the evidence and say , nothing absolutely proves this, so we reject it.

So basically I’d say it really is faith that is the difference maker.

They didn't really believe in the same Jesus, though, did they. Peter and Paul did not get on. I could well believe they each died for their own version of Jesus, and they were spurred on throughout their lives by the competition to be the one who is right. At the end of the day, I think much religious conflict comes down to exactly this, and it's not unusual for people to be willing to die for their own dignity as they see it

Read Deuteronomy 13:1-5 . If even false prophets can do genuinely supernatural miracles, then why does apostle Paul act as if Jesus' doing a genuinely supernatural miracle of resurrection is conclusive proof that God approves of Jesus? Doesn't there remain a possibility under Deut. 13 that God merely sent Jesus to "test" Israel?

While Paul said that his definition of “martyr” required three criteria, his definition, whether or not a standard definition, lays out a framework for analyzing the Christian argument that supposed eyewitnesses would not willingly die for a cause they knew to be based in a lie. The criteria are reasonable, whether the term “martyr” includes the criteria in a formal definition or whether the criteria are applied to a definition which does not itself include the criteria. Sean’s clarification of the definition seems to be rather a distraction from Paul’s criteria for determining whether the claim “martyr” bolsters the Christian argument.

This martyrdom story explained by Paul sounds eerily similar to Joseph Smith and the LDS Church story. Maybe they had families that were dependent on the Church, and the followers tithes, and people certainly would die for their family. And if you believe the Catholic Chruch claims with ties to Peter around 30 AD, that's some circumstantial evidence there was a budding church empire. All speculation, but maybe they had many reasons not to stop or recant.

Gary Habermas' argument that the vast majority of scholars concur that the disciples believed they had appearances of the risen Jesus --no, no, and no. Search for an article by Slade & Alter on dataset analysis of English texts . . .

if you believe the evidence for the resurrection then you also should have the same Creedence for alien abductions. actually abductions have more evidence.

Sean, you were polished and en pointe in this debate. Pauligia, not so much. Not a great effort on his part.

I've watched this a few times over the years, and I just enjoy it so much.

My thought this time is that I think Sean might be going a little too far when he says that Paul is hyperskeptical, and that "that's not how scholarship operates".

The search for truth is only valuable IF it is hyperskeptical. And I can't think of a topic more befitting of hyperskepticism than claims of someone being the literal lord.

It comes through a little stronger every time I watch this that Sean's conclusions may be skeptical within Christian scholars, but they are inseparable from his faith. It seems as if his doubt is always made with one foot still in the door.

The momentum of faith is very effective at helping one give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. There is no one strong piece of evidence, just two millenia of insignificant pieces that, collectively, appear convincing.