Dr. Sean McDowell Critiques “The Myth of Persecution” by Candida Moss 

Go brandon !!!

"I’ve never heard any Christian group claim martyrdom as the index of the truth of our faith" A couple of sentences later: "Jesus’ apostles were firsthand witnesses, and were fully convinced by what they knew and experienced with Jesus Himself, to the point of suffering and dying for it. And I think that counts for something" This guy...

@@kamilgregor "God interposed His providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings, nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond a certain point. A few engaged in a struggle for their religion, and these individuals who can be EASILY NUMBERED, have endured death for the sake of Christianity." Origen of Alexandria (c184-254) (Contra Celsus, 3.8). Guess Origen never heard of the "persecutions of Nero"?????

@@kamilgregor its a pretty easy argument to understand. Martyrdom doesn't prove Jesus existed. It proves that the disciples didn't lie as they wouldn't die for a lie. Martyrdom undermines the conspiracy theory or the theory of Paul lying or the disciples lying. No one would get tortured for something that they believe is false. Martyrdom is only one piece of the puzzle. There are more evidences of Jesus Christs resurrection.

William thank you. That’s all I’m saying.

Kamil Gregor you misunderstand. People die for what they believe in, whether what they believe in is right or wrong, and I don’t claim (and have never heard any Christian group claim) martyrdom as THE reason for validating Christianity. However you have to admit that martyrdom IS indicative of sincerity (to some extent at least), and that carries some weight. More so when you look at the apostles of Jesus/firsthand witnesses, and how they lived and died. Some instances of martyrdom DO carry more weight than others.

That brings to mind a thing about how English is written: vowels have multiple possible pronunciations and Nothing shows what to do with them either singly, in combination with other vowels, or in combination with consonants; some classic examples being; would, bough, trough, though & that the Houstons in Houston, Texas, and Houston County, Georgia, are different. Sure, you can say that you can tell read and read, and lead and lead, are different based on their context but that requires you Already Know that when you encounter the context. Ah right there is a thing, is the ou in encounter pronounced like the ou in would, bough, trough, or though? "Well, hmm, encounter has 2 consonants before the ou so logically it would be pronounced like the other words which have 2 consonants before the ou, trough and though." Bzzzt! Wrong!

But were you persecuted or prosecuted for your “unfortunate” name? :P

But did you die?

She grows on you.

You're pretty

Not sure why you are posting this comment, when both Sean and Mike went out of their way to say that was her point AND that they agreed with that specific point.

You are watching a video with the word critiques in the title. What did you think they were gonna say?

Still working on it. But I HOPE to have it out next week.

And your point is? Are you denying Christians were persecuted at all?

@@PeterM8987 Why don't you read the first two words I wrote?

Robert People die every day for things that are not true. Most cult members of Jim Jones died. The Heavens Gate cult all died for a lie. I could even go as far as saying that many people have died for America and some of those wars were not for a good reason.

🤣🤣🤣 yes

No. As I understand it, persecution is being negatively targeted on account of your specific beliefs by powers that are not acting on behalf of the law. Prosecution is being held accountable by the law, in those areas where your beliefs may have led you to contravene it. So persecution is lay-man's reaction. Prosecution is upholding legal standards.

Basically it's "Christians say they were PERSECUTED for believing in Jesus, and it was done by the millions, while history tells us the few who were were PROSECUTED for pushing active rebellion against the laws of Rome (such as refusing military service when drafted, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to provide service, or outright rebelling against the authority of Ceasar, or supporting some other Ceasar than the one that was in charge at that moment) and suffering the legal consequences that others did as well, but were made a big deal of because they were ALSO Christians". Think of it as someone deciding they would become a SovCitiot (Sovereign Citizen), and not recognize the legitimate authority of the State anymore in legal or temporal issues, and got arrested for a Capitol Offense Crime, was found guilty of said crime, and sentenced to death for said crime. After their death, other SovCitiots started spreading the word of "Johnny was murdered by the government because he recognized we, the SovCitiot movement, are right, and the government is wrong!" No, he just HAPPENED to be a SovCitiot, he was arrested and executed for this other crime. Or if the guy was a Flat Earther, same scenario, and other Flat Earthers said "he was executed because the government is trying to cover up the truth!" all in am effort to win more people to their belief. Actually happens pretty much all the time, unfortunately.

@@elizabethryan2217 and if both result in death then both are equally discouraging to someone going around preaching leis they don’t actually believe.

@@freegracerevival prosecution shouldn't result in death .. 🤨

The lists of the Apostles in the Gospels don't even match up!

Conviction to the point of martyrdom isn't evidence If you're an attorney, you'd know that modern courts understand eye witness testimony isn't sufficient evidence alone, and this doesn't change with suicide Jihadists also demonstrate the same death wish - does this make Islam equally true to Christianity?

This is one reason why not to hire you.. 😏

@@InhabitantOfOddworld Jihadists didn't personally witness the revelations delivered to Mohammed. That's the difference.

@@ruththompson7816 Yet they are still willing to die for their beliefs.

Not a good argument. Jews are not exactly world famous for their honesty, you know. Quite the opposite actually.

"Remember the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, were first century Jews, who took very seriously the commandment not to bear false witness?" ------------not true. Paul admitted his willingness to lie about his true theological beliefs, whenever he felt that doing so would create converts. 1st Cor. 9:20-21. Paul did not believe himself to be under the law, but admitted in that passage that he'd pretend to believe that way when in the company of Jews.

@@gregbooker3535 you took that passage and applied probably the least charitable interpretation you could have. He was saying, I’ll restrain my freedom to not eat pig’s meat for example in their presence because I don’t want to offend them. Not that I’m going to openly lie about what I believe because I want to win converts be they false converts or not. You forget that Paul also says in Galatians that if you put yourself under the law, you’re forced to obey the whole law and are no longer under grace. He wasn’t lying. He was teaching people a principle, don’t let your freedom stumble another by let’s say for example inviting a brother out for a meal and openly drinking alcohol in front of him when you know his conscience doesn’t allow him to do so. Or let’s say for example not wearing a shirt that says “homosexuals are going to hell” when you’re out with people engaged in homosexual lifestyles. Maybe perhaps find common ground with them and show them love and if the issue is brought up by them, you can tell them the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15 another letter by Paul 😉). The point was don’t carelessly exercise your freedom. Use your freedom to find common ground with others in love.

@@Truthin15 "you took that passage and applied probably the least charitable interpretation you could have". --------I didn't know "charity" was an established rule of hermeneutics. Can you cite an authority on that? Who says we are obligated to interpret a person's statement in way most charitable to that person? If you can't cite any such authority, you cannot sustain your obvious belief that I'm somehow "unreasonable" to engage in non-charitable interpretation. "He was saying, I’ll restrain my freedom to not eat pig’s meat for example in their presence because I don’t want to offend them. Not that I’m going to openly lie about what I believe because I want to win converts be they false converts or not." -----------But Acts 21:17-24 is an example of what Paul meant by pretending to be under the Law while believing he wasn't under the law. When he wants to quell a rumor that he relaxes the Mosaic law for Jews living outside Jerusalem, he pays the Temple expenses for several Jews to engage in a Mosaic cleansing ritual, and he participates personally in the same ritual with them. Again, Paul, who saw none of the value in circumcision that orthodox Jews did, had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews living in that area". Acts 16:3. Gee, what was Paul saying during Timothy's circumcision? How likely do you suppose that Paul would said: "Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised." (1 Cor. 7:18 NAU) ...while the knife was still slicing? LOL. Your attempted to dilute what Paul meant to make it appear more acceptable to modern -day Christians fails. " You forget that Paul also says in Galatians that if you put yourself under the law, you’re forced to obey the whole law and are no longer under grace." ------------Then the only way Paul could be consistent is to demand that Timothy, whom he had circumcised (Acts 16:3), keep the whole law. And yet you know perfectly well that he did not demand any such thing...or he did, and the pastorals are forgeries. "He wasn’t lying. He was teaching people a principle, don’t let your freedom stumble another by let’s say for example inviting a brother out for a meal and openly drinking alcohol in front of him when you know his conscience doesn’t allow him to do so. " --------No, we have BIBLICAL examples of how Paul thought he should act in being a "Jew to the Jew". It was far more than merely attempting to avoid giving offense. "Or let’s say for example not wearing a shirt that says “homosexuals are going to hell” when you’re out with people engaged in homosexual lifestyles." ----------------You mean like Jesus refusing to wear a shirt that says "Pharisees are hypocrites" when he was out with Pharisees? "Maybe perhaps find common ground with them" -------------That's required in an atheist world because finding common ground is all the hope you have of maintaining peace with other humans. But you? You pretend there is some "holy spirit" who can convict people of their sin without needing the unbeliever to feel he has "common ground" with the evangelist. "and show them love and if the issue is brought up by them, you can tell them the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15 another letter by Paul ). ------------You mean like Paul telling the temple guard the truth in love (Acts 23:3)? You mean like Paul imposing the divine curse on his own followers in love (Gal. 1:8-9)? I don't think so. "The point was don’t carelessly exercise your freedom. Use your freedom to find common ground with others in love." -----------I reject your "point" and prefer to use Acts 16 and Acts 21 as examples of what Paul intended when saying he would pretend among Jews to be under the law, while actually believing himself to be free from the Law. 1st Cor. 9:20-21. You have failed to show that my "uncharitable" interpretation is the least bit unreasonable.

ronald glenn how is that persecution of the church? Not mocking, I just don’t understand.

Arturo Moreno Thanks for not mocking me! Having noticed hundreds of mistakes of an anti-Christian leaning in Wikipedia articles I finally couldn’t stand it anymore and tried to add some really good scholarship to a topic popular with atheists looking to criticize Christianity. The elite Wikipedia editors get their power based on how much they have contributed to the site regardless of quality or credentials. Many of them have made it their mission to not allow cited works from any source that is visibly Christian. (Basically only atheist Bible experts can be cited.) I know this because there are these things called “edit pages.” If you make a Wikipedia account you can see LOADS of proposed reasonable academically-sound changes that the atheist “keyboard warriors” shoot down. The only way to beat this system is for someone without anti-Christian bias to invest years of time to accrue Wikipedia’s special editing privileges. TBH, I didn’t even watch this whole Mike Winger video. Something about Dr Moss’s work rubs me the wrong way. I don’t think persecution of Christians is a myth that needs to be downplayed. It happens for sure-and sometimes in unexpected ways like academia, social media etc. God Bless and thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

@@ronglennproductions5416 Ah I see. So they are suppressing truth by denying Christians the ability to speak truth. Thanks for clarifying! Bless you, Brother!

demigodzilla My post was meant for people that are “listening” to the interview, dig? Great to see you found Pastor Mike’s channel Sir!

@demigodzilla there are plenty of ways to reasonably debate somebody, and this is not it. Chill.

Yes. It is traditional.

More like an imagined victim complex

@@InhabitantOfOddworld in Nigeria churches the people in them are being burned to the ground. In China doors are barricaded by chairs every sunday to prevent worship. In the middle east you can get beat nearly to death for saying Christ is lord. Imagined victim complex my buttocks dude

@@filler7149 Interesting how you cherry pick nations where plenty of non-christians are killed for absurd reasons too Show me the christian victimhood in the west. There is none.

@@InhabitantOfOddworld the point isnt that americans are persecuted (I couldnt find much but idrk I surface searched it) the point is that the words "imagined victim complex" dont work well when Christians are the most persecuted group in the world. Also when he says to a lesser degree o think he means more micro-aggression type things. But yeah imagined victim complex is a very dumb thing to day when the amount of annual dead bodies can fill every single seat (apart from 24) in the Melbourne cricket ground.

Larissa “forgotten trinity” Dr. James White

You should listen to historians about history, not RU-vidrs.

Good lord you must have a depressing boomer life.

"Her argument against persecution under Nero is patently absurd. Every historian and virtually every new testament scholar will affirm that documentation of an event 50 years after a historical event is very early documentation." When did Christians start quoting Tacitus story about Nero's persecution?

She's an oxymoronic moron...plain and simple.

@demigodzillaGood point! Science not a strong point for fundies!

@@tgrogan6049 when scholars used every source to avoid bias????

I found the distinction interesting and far from splitting hairs. Of course either way Christians suffered, but to use the word 'persecution' implies that Christians were being singled out. The point being made was that non-Roman accepted gods (orthodoxy :)) were being prosecuted. Now I suspect that there probably weren't many who were prosecuted in this way because in general the Romans just added new gods to their pantheon or equated them. It was just groups like the Jews and the Christians who refused to accept that status quo and Jews were exempt so Christians suffered for that Jewish offshoot.

That's just an aside though and not so important. ^^ Pretty typical of certain people in the "education" industry these days twisting certain things.

Have you checked Glory Apologetics and Joseph Paul both are indian ministries on RU-vid?

Somewhere in the Bible, it mentions that the same ones who cheered Him on his way into the city were the same ones who scorned Him later.

@@billyholly Thanks for your reply. I need to learn what caused them to turn against Jesus with such hatred. Maybe it's explained in a later chapter.

@@mikeday62 Just another major oversight

I think they just didnt like his teachings. E.g. how many more people in today's culture would beleive if Jesus was a drag queen? I think back then "you just gotta beleive and you also suck" kinda made people mad. That's my best guess

@@InhabitantOfOddworld be civil dude Jesus was civil

At the end of this scholarly trifle, i'm not seeing the point. Even assuming Jesus rose from the dead, you are never going to justify leaping from "it applied to 1st century people" over to "it applies to us today". When today's atheists ignore god, its about as demonstrably dangerous as ignoring alcohol.

I think so.

I'm not saying this is a correct explanation, but one thing I could say is that describing the passage of time is different than establishing holy days. 'Sabbath' and 'new moon' do indeed refer to feasts in the OT the Jews would partake in. But they also have a second connotation, which is 'week' and 'month.' 'From sabbath to sabbath' also easily lends itself to the reading 'from week to week.' In the same way, 'from new moon to new moon' also easily reads 'from month to month.' Hope that helps. Not professing to be 100% correct on this interpretation.

Taripar thank you so much yess you help... but I just read the whole chapter Hebrews 3 and the whole chapter Hebrews 4 and the whole chapter Revelations 21.. I got our rest is in God.. revelations 21:22-26 I see our rest is in God ...do Isaiah 66:22-23 From to sabbath to Another mean God rest-in him???? just wondering if anyone else got that.. if not please explain??

It's very noticeable that Christianity gets a special type of hatred. Other religions might be viewed as false by atheist but still they don't t get the amount of anger and mockery that christianity does. Ironically Christianity is one of the few religions with actual historical evidence to research yet is dismissed as a fairy tale as if it took place in another world with unknown characters or unentifiable places.

Some are, some aren’t. The hostility referred to may be a result of the process whereby the teaching of theology, formerly a subject taught by members of the clergy, has gradually become “professionalised”, & secularised, so as to become just another academic subject, taught by lecturers who are primarily or usually academics, rather than clergy. Theology’s loss of status is part of a process of modernisation that has been very favourable to the sciences, and very unfavourable to the Classics - that is, Greek & Latin. Theology, Greek and Latin lack the obvious practical utility of Biology, Medicine, and Psychology. And Theology in particular has in part given way to Religious Studies, which is, AFAIK, a more general and broadly-based subject. I think your suggested book would have to be quite wide-ranging !

She's a Christian herself

“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

@@j2mfp78 I think that's why so many people focus on it. Islam can be dunked on by just saying Jesus has been crucified, Jews can be dunked on by the fact that their temple is destroyed. Other religions like buddhism just have no arguement other than the feeling it's right and the existence of Buddha who also thought the feeling was right. Paganism is basically dying because we have confirmed that the moon is indeed not God and spiritual not religious also have the feeling as proof. That leaves poor Jesus watching people that dont know any better because they were never given the opportunity to learn caving to anti-Christian points and becoming overly cynical because they think they've been duped then adding to the dumpster fire of terrible atheist points (I'm not saying that out of pride I was a cynical atheist until I came to Christ like 2 or 3 months ago) and the snowball grows. That's my best guess anyway

I think the consensus is they ain't true and if they do get something it's just because a demon was hanging around and saw what happened so they know how to pretend to be one. Sorry I have no vid link but I hope that helps

Why? Go and read her book.

Hello, atheist. Why did you bother watching this? Are you here to smugly dismiss Christian belie

Amen!

argumentum ab auctoritate

@@midimusicforever you know that's not a fallacy when the person actually is an authority, right?

yeah, but what about the Calvinist, who told me to steer clear of Arminians?

You must not know how history works. You can say this about any historical document at that rate… the only reason you’re denying the books in The Bible as historical recollection is because you’re presuming that miracles present in it are false by default. That is circular reasoning/begging the question

@@stevenc8717The original poster is saying that independent corroboration would be superior evidence. The Bible has a bias. It also has many factual errors.