NO RESURRECTION REQUIRED! How Christianity Probably Began. 

Paul has become a real boy. /S

@@MrDalisclock It's a miracle! Quick, someone start a movement regarding Paul's divinity so we can cash in on it like the other Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

@@Nymaz - Paulianity!

... and in a non-dark green room.

I know.

Wait... this isn't cartoon Paulogia?!

That's just his voice.

Cartoon voice?

You don’t even have to go to India. Jesus was one of many people who claimed to be the messiah

Yes, in fact seeing Jesus as just another guru makes a lot of sense.

Apocalyptic guru, but guru, nonetheless. 🤷‍♂️

What do you call an overly excited marsupial from Winnie the Pooh? A goo Roo

@@hypergraphic The historical Bal Shem Tov had a ministry not unlike Our Lord's.

thank you.

Complete with a wholly mythical savior figure and everything.

Can't get your definitions right, huh?

@@morbrakai8533Ever hear of John Frum?

As a fellow atheist, this is a terrible argument. We know that the militaries of the developed world are real, and so we can use them to explain the cargo cults. What society with advanced tech could have visited 1st-century Palestine?

@@noahandrews628 Um, Rome?

Shannons stream: 🌈☀️🐕 Pauls stream in the same house: 🌑🕶️🦇

Who? Jesus? Peter, Paul ??

Yup, exactly

And it wouldn't have been the first time.

If you think that then you are missing the point since we are still living with the consequences today.

@@Paremata We are living with the consequences of Paul's nuttiness.

Just David Koresh for the first century...

I'd exchange only one part: Paul being a sincere believer. I think it's more likely he was a con man like Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard. He saw an opportunity in rising Christianity up and changing it a little to make it more marketable and Peter had "nothing to add" because he was like "dude GTFO, you're a charlatan". And of course he wasn't going to repeat that.

If he was indeed already a Pharisee, I'm not clear on the motivation to invent a new, dangerous grift.

@@PaulogiaI mean Joseph Smith was a very devout believer also, then become a somewhat con man. Nothing says Paul had to have been an honest man. But yeah prob not enough to conclude either way

@@ArakkoaChronicles Saying that he was insincere just puts up unnecessary barriers for Christians to see your point of view. The theory works whether he was sincere or not, and there's no way for us to say either way with much confidence. The way he writes strikes me as sincere, if misguided, but that's about as much as I can say about it.

@@Paulogia Because only the people at the top of a grift get paid off. Most grifts have somewhat of a pyramid scheme nature around them. Certainly Paul's Churches were raising enough money to give a "gift" to Jerusalem, so they were raising money.

I appreciate the kind words and the support.

... ha ha ha ... You made me grin with what you said, @Braeton. Don't worry. You weren't the only one to have swallowed the lure very deeply, as I have said for myself. I was on the line: hook, line, and sinker. And, unfortunately, it was a great wrestling match to break away from the Faith of my Childhood and my family. I'd almost rather be a child-molester or a murderer, because I think that I'd be "understood" more if either of those were the case. But, with atheism, it's just me shooting my family, friend, church, etc., the big middle-finger. Or, that's probably their view. So, just know -- it took many of us a while too, more years than we care to admit, to let go of God and to find ourselves outside of a pre-constructed belief system.

Good point.

Minimal facts goes to "but how did they hallucinate for 40 days, also here is a detailed conversation that I imagine Paul must have had with Peter and James when they met even though none of that content is even alluded to in Galatians"

It's also just not our burden, quite the opposite we don't need to know why it didn't happen, just knowing there are possibilities is enough. He wants us to pick one definitive story as our hill to die on because that's a lot easier to pick apart than every possible natural explanation.

Hm, I don't know about that last bit. Constantine adopting christianity was basically a foregone conclusion. There was a large christian population among the lower classes at that point and appealing to what was effectively a widespread labor movement or class solidarity movement was the smart thing for him to do politically. The group reaching critical capacity in key social areas is the thing that made it so that Constantine wanted to appeal to that group in the first place. I'd argue that the most influential person in spreading christianity is some nameless figure. Namely, whoever it was that had the foresight to stick around during the plagues that rocked the Roman empire before Constantine came onto the scene. This choice to stay in the cities when the wealthy elites all fled to the countryside was likely the pivotal moment that decided the trajectory of christianity. With the wealthy elite gone, the temple cults had less authority. With less competition from a weakened dominant group, christians were able to grow by simply being present and being seen to help people. Figureheads get the attention but it's always some nobody down in the trenches that actually makes things happen.

@@rainbowkrampus I could agree with your opinion.

So you just completely rule out Jesus Christ altogether. You're saying He had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

⁠@@ThroneofDavid8 in a way. The Historical figure had a little to nothing to do with the religion’s development. But to say the figure of Jesus had nothing to do with it is a little inaccurate. That would be like saying “Harry Potter had nothing to do with the success of the Harry Potter books.” He does, but as a character in the relevant story.

@@ThroneofDavid8 They're referring to the spread of Christianity, not Christianity itself. Of course Jesus is the heart of that faith, but the religion as it came to be didn't begin until after he was dead.

When I was a Christian, I always thought it was weird how much significance people attached to the resurrection. Jesus comes back and says, "Ta Da!". And then he leaves. He doesn't even really have anything more to teach. ("Oh yeah, and another thing I forgot was ___. OK, bye.") Like you said, if the point was to demonstrate his divine power, coming back to life in public and staying there would have been more convincing. And Christians often say that they wouldn't be Christians without the resurrection, that the resurrection event is the core of the religion. Why? Were the other miracles not sufficient? Raising Lazarus is pretty bad-ass, right? Wouldn't that alone demonstrate that Jesus was capable of bodily raising the believers?

@@bigdavexx1 If you want real god-like, divine beings. Please watch Sci-Fi's, "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke. That's what Jesus should have done, and I would believe.

@@davidmontgomery1442 Such eloquence. You are really quite a wordsmith, Mr. Montgomery. You really wrote clear and concise. That's quite a skill, an enviable talent.

@@bigdavexx1 the resurrection is significant because it proves Jesus is God, He is eternal, and He has authority over death and life. It means that Jesus is true- and that He is the only way to heaven. It means death is not the end, and that we all have a choice to make- to follow Jesus, humble ourselves, turn to Him, repent of our sins, and be born again as a new creation in Christ, or live in denial and die in sin. Do you want to trust in false religion or yourself, which offer no hope or salvation, or trust in Jesus, your Creator who made you, loves you, cares for you, and knows you better than you know yourself?

@@bigdavexx1 But he came back with many infallible proofs? Want to see them? You don't need to because I saw them for you!

And we have a pretty easy answer to all of this: the story was embellished as it was told, retold, and traveled around with those who spread the movement. Just like we see with all sorts of early oral traditions.

James Tabor has a RU-vid video dealing with your first four points. I like his explanation. It's plausible.

@@Brad4083 Can you tell me the title? He has a bunch and I'd like to watch it.

@ziploc2000 - And that thinking adults take the "Bible" as a compilation of literal accounts - why, oh, WHY?

All of these points are ether addressed in the scriptures or external evidence. how much research into this did you do? How many ancient authors did you read concerning this?

@thescoobymike - So true! And without even wiping off their shoes first.

Yes, the body of Jesus ben Ananias, who predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and later was killed during the roman siege of Jerusalem.

Why be mean

You forgot the "probably." Almost nothing in this video has any evidence.

​@@morbrakai8533 This video is not stating that this must be how Christianity started, only that it is entirely concordant with the beginnings of Christianity, and thus a more likely explanation for Christianity than a belief in a supernatural event. Keep in mind that there are a large number of natural explanations, but Gary Habermas seems to think that more than one explanation is a bad thing. So, given that belief, Paul has provided a single possible natural explanation for the start of Christianity. Now we'll see if Gary treats this honestly or not. My guess is that he'll probably just ignore it, but if not, he'll try to pretend that since it can't be proven correct, it is somehow irrelevant.

I'm not sure... but I'm glad you agree that it worked for this.

@@Paulogiait was the perfect way of presenting this information for sure. Very shareable too. Well done Paul. You’ve done so much for so many 🙏🏻

Why are scholars consensus important for a sect that conquered the Rome empire without evidence?

Right? “Oh you don’t have a phd from an evangelical university? Well I don’t have to listen to you then” 😂

@@StraightWhiteGuy33 - The vast majority of apologists posting on RU-vid are not Biblical scholars, either, just religion-my-way know-it-alls.

What "scholarly consensus"??? Which "scholars"? All pristine squeaky clean free from bias or slanted information? You couldn't name 5 on either side.

Never mind that both an atheist and a Christian scholar have said Paulogia's hypothesis is a sound one 😆

Yeah, that's my problem with the whole thing. Given the nature and quality of the evidence there are very few things you can say with any sort of certainty, even when it comes to things reported in the available evidence. Any alternative put forward by skeptics is going to be speculative and more about probability than anything concrete.

My cynical side makes me think he wants a single hypothesis because that way he just needs to prove that one wrong, rather than every possible natural explanation. If he manages that, then he'll be able to brag about how that was the one definitive best explanation atheists had against the resurrection and he tore it down, making Christianity the de-facto winner. As an added bonus he'll be able to double down on the idea that every atheist still not convinced were never concerned with the evidence, because if they were then they should have converted on the spot when he disproved 1 natural possibility.

​@@WolforNuvaThere are no natural explanations. He is God.

You are underestimating the power of: 1.) Childhood indoctrination. 2.) Peer group pressure.

@@1970Phoenix I don't think it's a matter of "underestimating", as much as "not having experience with it". I feel the same way as OP - It doesn't feel "real" to me, that anyone could actually believe in religion. That doesn't mean I don't believe that they do. A bit like how taste works, I guess. You put a thing into your mouth, experience the sensation, and some people go "Mmmm, tasty! More please!" and you're left wondering if they experience something entirely different than you, or if they somehow derive pleasure from the exact same sensation. You accept that they like it, but there's a clear disconnect in that you can't experience the "why" of why they like it. The same goes for religion for me. I accept that some people believe. I understand people can have different values and rationales. But I can't imagine having a mind that works in a way that would leave you to accept religion. It's like being asked to imagine a new color, or imagine having a different imagination.

@@tokeivo The problem I have with the analogy of taste is two-fold. First, you can show me that the thing you're eating is real. Whether we agree it tastes good is a separate matter. Second, if you don't like a flavor I like, you don't storm the capital of the United States. I think letting religion off as a "preference" is a dangerous mindset as it prevents you from confronting religion when it needs to be addressed. I can see your point, I just disagree.

@@NaNlinear it seems like you misunderstood me. I'm not comparing religion to taste. I'm comparing "understanding that you believe" to "understanding that you think X taste good". I think the philosophical term would be "what does their epistemological framework look like?" As in: I cannot imagine what believing a religion is true is like, in much the same way that I can't Imagine what thinking brussel sprouts taste good is like. Much the same way that I can't imagine what a new color would look like. I understand that there are people in both groups. I don't understand the inner experience that one must experience to join those groups. My gut instinct (which I ignore very much, because it's not very helpful here) would be, that something must be wrong with people who believe in religion. Say, some fundamental critical thinking component. Can they tell (other) fairy tales apart from history lessons? Do they understand basic math? Logic? Where did it go wrong?

I think the same about transgenderism.

Yes please. They only appear very briefly. Also, a fade in would be preferred over toasters. The motion is distracting and prevents the text from being viewed during the transition. Appreciate the references though.

The one habermas has been using is just ignoring that it exists. And then claim it was presented too late and will need another 30 years to respond to it.

I hope so too

🤣 thank you

Unlike the Biblical portrayal of Yeshu', the Buddha started out as a teacher of philosophy, not as a religious leader. He only became one latter on when folks arose who wanted to hoard "the sacred knowledge".

@@MossyMozart Yeah... but being a "philosophy teacher" is absolutely no warranty of anything, they often end up crafting their own supernatural magic beliefs... even today... :)

You left out "I was a hardcore atheist!" A very popular story to tell about oneself when taking up a preaching career, it seems. For some it seems like their only bona fides.

There's nothing at present. All of the people associated with the Jesus cult in the 1st century are slightly better than phantoms to the historical record. We really only have Paul's word to go on here and even that's problematic at times. That said, Paul never explains what "persecuted" actually entails. So anything is necessarily just a guess. But I tend to agree with your intuition. Paul strikes me as being untrustworthy. I like to refer to him as a used religion salesman. I think that, regardless of what spiritual convictions he may have had, he eventually came to view the cult as a means to more Earthly ends.

​@@rainbowkrampusa "used religion salesman"?! More like refurbished. 😉

God's word testifies of Paul--that he was a zealous persecutor of Christians prior to his own faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (for example in 1 Timothy 1:13; Galatians 1:13; Acts 8:3, 9:1-2). Believers feared him, and for good reason; he persecuted men and women alike (see Acts 9:13-15, 9:26). As Jesus foretold, Paul would suffer much in his ministry of the gospel of Christ (see Acts 9:16). His sufferings included plots to kill him (Acts 9:23, 29), false accusations (Acts 13:45, 14:2) being expelled from places (Acts 13:50), stoning (Acts 14:19), beating and imprisonment (Acts 16:22-23), and more. The persecution of Paul and other believers who worked with him often led him to move from city to city, from place to place, and to spread the gospel in new places as documented from Acts 9 onward. The many churches and believers in them in those early years testify of his labors in those places.

@@smpittsburgh264 "God's word..." ? I don't think you're paying attention to Paulogia's many YT videos and various scholars who Paul interviews and critiques. Maybe you'll "see the light" at some stage.

The apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus' earthly ministry, his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead (see Acts 1:21-22). Without the resurrection of Christ, there is no gospel of Christ to preach in his name (see 1 Corinthians 15:12-14). Without the apostles preaching Christ and his resurrection first in Jerusalem, there is no spread of the gospel (see Acts 2+). These men did so even in the face of threats, imprisonment, beating, and death (see Acts 4:3, 17, 21; Acts 5:18, 40; Acts 9:23, 29; Acts 12:2-3; etc.) The events concerning Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins took place one time in history. Through the holy scriptures and through the testimony of the eyewitnesses of these things, men believe on Christ. Jesus said that men would believe on him through the apostles' testimony (see John 17:20).

@@smpittsburgh264 Sorry for the long message ahead, but I've see you commenting a lot on this video, so here are my thoughts, if you have time to read them. If they really were eyewitnesses, it's weird that basically none of them except Peter and maybe Jon (and later James, but he wasn't originally one of the 12) really did or say anything about it and disappear from reliable history. It's likely most just went back to their daily lives of fishing/other jobs after they realised they've been fooled/were mistaken and their messiah was just killed instead of destroying the romans and bringing about the end times and the kingdom of heaven. The hardcore believers refused to accept (or were just too traumatised to process) that it was all a lie so they started making up their own narratives to explain why no no, you all misunderstood, this was all meant to happen. We can see it today with people still refusing to believe/process that Trump lost the 2020 election, some people who invested in dying companies refusing to accept that the companies went bankrupt and they just lost all their money etc. Early christians started spreading the story and literally lying where necessary to make the story look more impressive than it was, adding multiple miracles increasing from gospel to gospel to show divinity, changing the story to explain arguments that non-believers had -- for example, adding the empty tomb while before a tomb wasn't even mentioned (Paul never mentioned it). They did it because they needed to make up explanations for counter-arguments. Anothe example is about the body being stolen. Non-belivers were probably saying that it's more likely that the body was stolen than that Jesus ressurected. So christians made up the story about how the priests conspired with the roman guards to say that the disciples stole the body; how convenient that these supposed eyewitnesses know what the priests and guards talked about while not being there. Most likely, and I'm sorry if this is hurtful, Jesus's body was just thrown into an unmarked mass-grave and no one knew where it was, as was the common the overwhelming majority of crucifiction victims. It was easy for early christians to say -- see, Jesus ressurected, there's no body! -- and of course, the jewish priests or roman authorities had no body to show them, as it was long gone in some random ditch, or eaten by animals on a field -- nor that the authorities would have cared that a few jews were asking the body to be shown, they had better things to do and no reason to listen to them. And let's be honest, even if the body was somehow buried, and the priests did go and show the disciples that the body was still there, christians would have just made something up -- it wasn't his actual body, they're trying to fool us, it was a spiritual ressurection, or just never mention it in their writings since literally the only evidence we have for any of these supernatural events is that people who wanted us to believe in them wrote them down. It's also weird that those supposed eyewitnesses would only write about the events decades after the fact and in a language that none of them spoke (gospels being written in greek instead of aramaic). Not to mention that they were all likely illiterate, and even if maybe some could sign their name, they weren't capable of writing proper literary works in a foreign language. We know verifiably that christians lied to make their argument seem stronger. For example, they added lines to Josephus mentioning Jesus, to make their argument more compelling. They later added names to the anonymous gospels to give them credibility -- it's not like they didn't know the gospels were anonymous -- someone intentionally chose to lie to people to make them believe. Even if christianity is true, those people would probably now be in hell. And why would they feel the need to lie? Because even the early christians themselves realised they had nothing to go on besides blind faith, and that that wasn't enough for people who weren't born in the faith and indoctrinated since childhood. To address what you wrote directly as well, you are also pretending that because people are willing to suffer or die for a belief, that makes it true... so, I suppose you believe in almost every religion, as they all have martyrs, or people who flagelate themselves, right? People could be willing to die for a belief and also be mistaken about it being true. It's a very simple concept that we see in most religions. Religion is mostly determined by geopgrahy and/or your community's religion. If you're born in Europe or the Americas, you're probably a christian. If you're born in the Middle East, you're likely a muslim and so on and so forth. The fact that religions basically have physical borders that can be explained by history/conquest goes to show it's just a human concept. Even if we ignore all the arguments against it and decide to believe in christianity, ok, which one? There are at least 3 major options (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and literal thousands of other sects and denominations. Some started as early as the first century, and we know about them because church fathers wrote against them. Later on these alleged heretics were tortured and killed themselves etc. If we use your argument, I guess Arianism, or maybe Gnosticism or Marcionism are the true christian denominations since they had martyrs. It's a shame that not even Jesus himself can seem to answer his own prayers, for example in John 17:20-23 when he prayed for all christians to be united. Ignoring the fact that he's praying to himself, he somehow doesn't know that basically as soon as he's gone there would be schisms? This just looks like a normal dude who thought he was the messiah/adopted son of god/born son of god/literally god himself (depending on the sect and century we ask) and was just, most probably, sincerely mistaken.

@@Potatoes85858 God is our Creator; it is he that made us, and not we ourselves (Psalm 100:3). Through the first man's sin, death entered the world, a judgment of God (see Genesis 2:17, 3:6). All sin as Adam and likewise face God's judgment (see Romans 3:23, 6:23a). When Adam sinned, for love of mankind, God made a promise of one to come (see Genesis 3:15). God chose to create a nation, the Jews, through whom he would bless the families of the earth (see Genesis 12:1-3). To them were given the holy scriptures (see Romans 3:2). The Old Testament was in place among the Jews before Jesus' birth. There were Jews who looked for the Messiah and recognized him as such (see John 1:33, 45; Luke 2:38). We live after Jesus' earthly life and ministry and his atoning sacrifice for sin, all of which happened as foretold in the Old Testament. God kept his promise to send us a Savior; Jesus Christ is that Savior (see 1 John 4:14). He bore our sins in his own body upon the tree, died, and rose again the third day that we might be forgiven our sins and reconciled to God (see 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). All must receive salvation from sin and death through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ or they will perish: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23). The Bible gives God's account of what he has done to provide salvation for mankind through his Son. Nothing is more important for people than to read and believe God's warning of judgment and his promise of life eternal to those who believe on his Son, Jesus Christ, as found in its pages.

@@smpittsburgh264 It ultimately comes down to what people consider "evidence". To those who have faith, the evidence required is minimal and meets a low standard; it is something to justify a preconceived idea or desire. For individuals such as myself, the evidence must meet the same standards of any real historical or scientific investigation without bias regarding the facts. I cannot simply accept the positive outcomes of an inquiry, I must also equally consider those that contradict the idea. For those of us who have spent a significant amount of time weighing the facts, Christianity fails to stand apart from the other religious traditions. It is particularly important that references to the Bible to verify evidence is a poor way to remain objective: the Bible is not an objective source to verify itself ("The Bible tells me so" is not a valid argument in academia). It is important to realize that parts of the bible are additions or edits that were added over time, and that there are many texts that have been excluded. I have always thought that to know god is to consider the thing itself, not focus on a book written by men claiming to be inspired. Too many people today seem to focus on the Bible and forget that God is the important one.

@@smpittsburgh264 God knew Adam would sin and made him to sin and bring death into the world. Neither you nor Paul get to blame Adam for God's design any more than you can blame the gun inside a murderer's hand. Any evidence that Jesus' life was foretold in any way by the Old Testament? If not your prophesies are worthless. I can bring any private revelation from "God" now and leave you to disprove it, but that's obviously not sound reasoning. Jesus' life is only recorded in the gospels so the "proof" of your prophecy is in the same book you're trying to validate. On the other hand, here are some failed prophecies attributed to Jesus: Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Documented folklore can contain reliable historical evidence.

Documented folklore is always reliable historical evidence. It is evidence that such a story was told. Historians can know true things from the earliest copies of Aesop - true things about language and culture, not true things about the actions of a talking fox.

I’m pretty sure I responded to this comment by you on Dan’s video already, anyway, that would be a case of illusion ie misidentification.

Did they believe she rose from the dead based on that vision of her?

@@Jarige2 It wasn’t visionary experience, it was a case of misidentification in the case of OP’s comment. But what are you saying exactly?

@@Jarige2 Does the fact that anyone believes in anything make the thing that they believe in real?

@@MrMortal_Ra Fair enough. Did they believe she rose from the dead based on that sighting?

Excellent analysis. It helps to get clarity on a topic you're close to by comparing it to something that you're not. "People wouldn't die proclaiming the resurrection unless it were true!" "Well, here's an example of people doing exactly that for something completely unrelated, so apparently they do." "Personal experiences and NDEs are strong evidence for my religion!" "So are they also strong evidence for the other religions that also experience these things?" I find that people get wrapped up in the echo chamber for so long that they have dedicated pre-planned retorts to all the usual proofs against their beliefs, that they don't even think about anymore, just throwing it like a dart at a dart board, hoping for that bullseye to win them the argument. To get them to think, you have to throw them a curveball (really mixing my metaphors here...) that they don't have a programmed response for. Showing the similarities between the things they take for granted and things they know to be false is one such tactic, though if you use the same example too often, the apologists will add a new dart to their belt so that gets tuned out, too. People who are motivated to believe in something specific can almost always continue to do so, no matter how untrue the idea is. The mind is willing to believe outright impossible things if there's a strong enough emotional draw.

@@riluna3695 Thanks for the response. As to your point about dart belts, this is the reason I don't use the 9/11 hijackers as examples so much anymore.

Also, this explains why still have people that believe that Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson isn't dead.

@@rcktneoofusa That is strange too, but I don't think it's the same thing. Those folks mostly think Elvis and Jackson faked their deaths to run away from public attention, rather than died and were resurrected.

Paul never met Jesus before his death and therefore couldn't have been swindled into his 'cult'

It might be better to list ten or more alternative explanations for how it got started. The least likely of these will still be more likely than a miracle.

It’s not so much a case of arguing that this *did* happen as making the point that there is at least one perfectly plausible natural explanation that takes account of the elements of the Bible story that there is halfway decent evidence for.

@@ChrisFineganTunes Yes, of course. I understand that. You understand that. But, an apologist is likely to not understand this. They will typically take the position that the skeptic has to have overwhelming evidence that an alternative explanation actually is true, or it can be dismissed as speculation and the Gospel stories win.

@@CaseAgainstFaith1 well, that’s a fair point. The fact that they’d be applying a different standard than they apply to their own position will often escape them.

@@ChrisFineganTunes Correct

Well there are ghosts in the Old Testament (Elijah’s ghost summoned by Saul) - so that doesn’t really ring true

I agree that Peter would have been more likely to interpret any post-bereavement hallucination of seeing Jesus after his death as a bodily resurrection than anything else, however I would disagree that it’s because there was no other framework for it. Yes the Old Testament is for the most part consistent on souls not being immortal or really existing after death, but Second Temple literature, magic traditions, and even some portions of the gospels demonstrate that people in Jesus’ day did believe in ghosts, demons, and other disembodied spirits (and like in other cultures, the differences between them could be a bit fuzzy sometimes). For two good examples, the “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead” episode in Mark 6:14-16 has connotations of necromancy, and Luke 23:35-41 seems to be reacting against the very claim that Peter and/or others only saw Jesus as a disembodied spirit and not as one truly raised form the dead. I would posit that Peter was more likely to interpret any post-bereavement hallucination as seeing Jesus bodily resurrected due to his beliefs that Jesus was God’s favored son/Messiah and that Jesus in his life had been capable of miracles, even resurrection (e.g. the widow of Nain’s son, Jairus’ daughter, Lazarus). You might also pair with this the apocalyptic beliefs of Jesus and his first followers; maybe Peter viewed Jesus as the “first fruit” of the general resurrection at the end of time similarly to Paul. Of course Peter need not have ever said a word about Jesus being bodily resurrected for Paulogia’s hypothesis to work. All he need have said is “I saw the Lord,” and for word of mouth telephone games and two thousand years of church history to do the rest.

The Bodily resurrection only appear in Luke (breaks bread with disciples) and John (doubting Thomas).

@@mattm8870 Well we should say it’s only made explicit there. It’s certainly possible Matthew had in mind a bodily resurrection (just as he describes the saints being raised out of their tombs at Jesus’ death-presumably bodily) but he wasn’t interested in making that detail explicit for whatever reason.

@@zephyrjmilnes correct, I am referring to 1st century apocalyptic Judaism specifically, which was anticipating a bodily resurrection

What is Catholicism? Or tithing?

@terricunningham3965 the priests found a way to claw back but that came a long time later. Tithing isn't required for salvation. There are appeals to a personal savior that cares about you over some distant God.

and he's still rotten.

BlaSpHeMyyyy!1!1!1!

An actual guy that the gospels are based on, no credible evidence. Jesus as depicted in the bible, never existed. Either way no demi/god.

Sure pal

Likely several people

Derreeekk in da haaaws

It's quite possible that Paul dreamt of seeing Jesus and misremembered whether he was awake or dreaming. I've have instances when I've believed I've seen or done things and only later remembered that it had been a dream.

Well, a dream is basically a hallucination built by the brain, it's just that we usually have them. So I'd say it doesn't count. What he is referring is to something that can happen when you are awake and usually is a brief impulse. Basically one part of the brain (the mute impulsive one) is constantly looking for the patterns it is used to constantly deal with, and it will not know that such "pattern" is no longer in your life. It takes time for it to integrate over time the absence of the pattern and get used to it. You notice it in things like entering your house and automatically saying hi, or having the sensation that someone is in the bedroom (because someone was always there). In my case for a few months after my granny's death I occasionally heard her calling me from her bedroom (she was bed ridden so she called me for help veeeeery often yelling my name through the long corridor). Now, these "misfires" of the brain may even happen with people alive that has simply changed schedules :D it's just that we pay no attention to them in such cases. The brain is amazing at filtering copious amounts of data and only triggering thoughts upon certain conditions, but hey... it's not perfect.

Maybe he was fed up of making tents?

They weren't killed for not giving everything. They were killed for lying about the amount they sold the land for.

Muslim is not that much different from Christian. In fact the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions are known as the Abrahamic religions. By simply looking at the table of contents of a Quran, you quickly see that all the stories in the Bible are also in the Quran. All the same people even. The Muslims do recognize Jesus as being one of the prophets they follow. I am former Mormon and it is indeed founded of a miracle story. Joseph Smith prays in a meadow in Palmyra Ny York trying to figure out which church is truth, Two personages appear before him, one says to Joseph, "This is my Son, Hear him", while pointing to the other. The other said that none are true and they are hear to give him the keys to to the truth, so that he can restore the true Church of Christ on the Earth, that and Angle Moroni will show him where a book is. (Originally they only said two personages, and the lister draws the conclusion that it was God and Jesus, Now they say it was God and Jesus.) Days Later Moroni appears and eventually leads Joseph to the Gold plates of the Book of Mormon, Which Joseph translates as the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hindu does not really have any huge miracles, just as with Buddhism , Japanese philosophies, as well as some Chinese. These religions also spread the world without having to cause war for the purpose of spreading the religion. Those actions seem confined to the Abrahamic ones.

It would be a really big book

@@whatevername8551 worth it.

Basically all thibk is needed is for Christianity and rumors of Jesus to have existed for Paul to do what he did and religion coming from that works. And a tradition of apclopytic preacher is all needed for Christianity in some form to have existed.

It can work without a literal Jesus, but that doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation.

@Paulogia I'm honestly unfamiliar with Peter at all and it rests mainly there. As I typed it certainly wasn't as simple as I thought. I don't think I'm a full on mysticist, I find the exact claim there to be too reliant on assuming what Paul believed was what every Christian at the time believed and a very specific textual reading that will make me roll my eyes in any literature class I took. I do think it's not easy tk take Jesus's life for granted as much as others do.

If by Jesus we mean the character in the gospel stories, then it only requires that character to be fictionalised. An actual guy existing is almost meaningless. The real problem is that the evidence we have prior to gospel stories, Paul's own writings, do not indicate knowledge of Jesus supposed life and ministry, birth narrative, miracles, Galilee, disciples, empty tomb story, physical sightings of Jesus after death. We don't know what he believed aside from Jesus death, resurrected (whenever this is supposed to have happened) and later visions and secret messages in scripture. We don't have to explain Christianity (ie if the resurrection isn't true) because the evidence of naturalistic origins for religions is all but certain given how many religions there are.

@@downshift4503 Paul also believed in the burial of Jesus, as evidenced by 1 Cor 15:3-4 and in more sightings after that (in verses 5 and after). Also, he does seem to have knowledge of 'the twelve' which does seem to corroborate with the disciples in the gospels. The most simple explanation here, seems that he's referring to the twelve disciples. I think he had a little bit more knowledge than you give him credit for. Also, he seems to have known James, the brother of Jesus, who is also mentioned by Josephus. So I agree with Paulogia here, there did seem to be a person named Jesus. How else would there be a James, brother of Jesus?

Exactly as much proof offered as there is proof of the resurrection of Christ. A bunch of assertions with no proof in both cases. It's up to viewers/readers to decide which assertions are more likely. I personally go with the one that doesn't require miracles, since I see no proof miracles have ever happened on earth. I go with the one that just requires human nature being human nature to happen.

I hate when people mix up God in the God of the Bible. Jesus and religion is complete bullshit on I'm jewish and ima debate ben shapiro when I'm older but i got experience. Way too much in religion and cults I wasn't even allowed to have internet or secular music when I was growing up

It's also a mundane claim

Would you expect there to be?

nor evidence of any of the gospel stories are true.