now aside from your own testimony (which isn't worth a shit), what evidence do you have for these 5 million pushups? in an age of such advanced recording, we would expect many more people to attest to these 5 million pushups
"what evidence do you have for these 5 million pushups? in an age of such advanced recording, we would expect many more people to attest to these 5 million pushups"
But you clearly said the burden of proof is not on me. All I needed to do was claim it to be true, now you have to prove I'm lying.
Saying you think I'm lying because I failed to provide proper evidence admits the burden of proof is on me and not you, plus, it's dishonest because lack of evidence is not why you disbelieve me.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not lying, but are batshit crazy for now. again, your testimony alone is not enough in this age of incredibly advanced recording.
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not lying," Now you're lying.
"your testimony alone is not enough in this age of incredibly advanced recording."
There are obvious answers to the recording objection, but obviously the point is for such an outrageous claim, the burden of proof would lie solely with me.
Kabane, you should know that Price doesn't argue that this passage is definitely inauthentic, only that its authenticity is suspect, and therefore no confident argument can be built on it.
are we talking about things like ghost sightings or people seeing visions of allah in their sleep? but regardless, to my knowledge (I may be wrong) there were no witnesses to the ascension of muhammad
Furthermore, claiming "although some have now fallen asleep" is not a perfect demonstration of acquaintance. It may very well be an extra safeguard against the possibility of someone actually trying to verify his claims; perhaps he didn't feel safe enough leaving this mysterious group unnamed.
So the fact that distance hindered verification, along with the fact that it's likely a thing to invent for its rhetorical power still makes it suspect.
Furthermore, keep in mind that you would have us believe that Paul actually interviewed 500 people. And is it even feasible that everyone in a gathering of 500 would be able to confirm that some person they saw was actually Jesus?
"many of them are alive, though some have fallen asleep" is pretty strong evidence that Paul was acquainted with these witnesses.
paul might not have necessarily interviewed themthoroughly, but they told Paul. so now we still have 500 people claiming to see the risen Jesus. so now we ask, why the **** did 500 people as a group see the risen Jesus?
That's a very good question - unfortunately it's one we can't answer because neither you nor I can really know who they are or if they even existed. Like I said, they're unnamed, and it's likely a thing to create for rhetorical power thanks to the relative unfalsifiability. Worse, we cannot know any of the circumstances surrounding the event. Paul doesn't tell us how he managed to confirm how a gathering of 500 people actually witnessed Jesus.
I can equally retort that it's pretty strong evidence that Paul was hindering verification; as a backup he could then say "well some are dead, which is partly why you're having so much trouble finding em." What relevance is mentioning that some are dead to the rhetoric of the statement to begin with?
Here's yet another example of your failure to understand logical fallacies. I don't assume that the mere possibility of the motive is enough to conclude that is in fact the case.
And no kid, you're the one making the extraordinary claim - it's up to you to positively rule out my speculations beyond reasonable doubt.
You need to understand that when the principle of uniformity is violated, I'm no longer bound by the methods of history - but subject to a re-examination of the underlying assumptions.
In this case, speculation is integral to an evaluation of certainty, which is of the utmost importance when up against an assertion like yours.
right now, RIGHT NOW, I am arguing that 500 people claimed to see the risen Jesus. the conclusion (that Jesus rose from the dead will be discussed later).
now, im curious, where exactly did you learn that when I claim that 500 people saw the risen jesus, how exactly is the burden of proof on me to disprove the skeptic's speculation?
We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact there there's plenty of room to invent it, wouldn't ya say? Can we really confidently say that this group existed? I don't think so.
What if Paul really did believe in Christianity, and died for his beliefs because he really believed them - but this group was just a small lie - a risk he was willing to take to save others' souls? Then his martyrdom would be irrelevant wouldn't ya say?
the anti-christian sentiment, along with their refusal to worship the emperor as the Romans claimed, would have meant that recanting would help their situation.
christianity was also illegal in Rome, and was not made legal until constantine entered the picture.
Yes, but the first mass persecutions seem to have been at the hands of Emperor Nero in the year 64, apparently because he needed someone to blame for the burning of Rome and christians were simply very convenient. That resulted in Paul's death.
Under the circumstances you presented, we know that an option to recant would have been given; this is well known. However, these circumstances are quite different.
Would the soldier who had seized him for arson apologize and chuckle at his single-handed defeat of Christianity after Paul merely renounced his lie? NO! He's under very specific orders.
Furthermore, for all we know, Paul DID recant in his desperation but was executed for arson anyway, and nobody knew about it. OR, he really did believe, but as I've already said, it would have no bearing on the validity of the group; it's marginal compared to everything else he stood for.
why dont you ask yourself tehk, WHY were christians convienient? because there was an anti-christian sentiment. burning down rome was not the only reason they were persecuted.
I guess you can say that the Romans viewed christians with suspicion like we look at scientologists with suspicion.
But in this circumstance, the burning of Rome was the decisive element. Upon seizing Paul - who cares if he recanted while in custody? He fucking burned Rome! This is entirely different.
You still have not addressed my criticism of your rebuttal: the one that demonstrates how martyrdom may not be as relevant as you'd like to think it is.
And even if Paul knew what was coming ahead of time - it would have been quite difficult for him to erase his tracks, given his relative limelight in the community.
"I don't think your analogy is realistic at all." yeah probably. its much MUCH more extreme than that.
paul's martyrdom was not the first time he was persecuted. in fact, if you read luke's acts of the apostles and his discussions on Paul's travels, Paul was persecuted heavily for what he was preaching.
I actually did address your criticism, and I showed you that it pretty clearly begs the question.
"paul's martyrdom was not the first time he was persecuted."
So be it, but the question is whether or not someone would DIE for their beliefs - and whether or not this has any relevance to something as marginal as a rhetorical device.
"What if Paul really did believe in Christianity, and died for his beliefs because he really believed them - but this group was just a small lie - a risk he was willing to take to save others' souls? Then his martyrdom would be irrelevant wouldn't ya say?"
and you seriously think that does not beg the question?
so in light of this data, ask yourself, and be honest, which scenario is more likely? A: Paul was lying about his beliefs in the face of persecution throughout his life, or B: 500 people really did claim to see the risen Jesus
You obviously don't understand the structure of the modus ponens:
if p, then q
p
therefore q
You've altered q, and have thus committed the non sequitur fallacy.
And what exactly is he alleged to have not been lying about, mig? You conveniently leave that part out, seeking to blur by generalization in your extreme desperation - because that's exactly the point of mine that you're trying to evade: that this is a particular which neither martyrdom nor persecution bears any relevance to.
"you're claiming that Paul was lying or that he could have lied"
It's very possible, given the circumstances and possible motive.
"you said that while he may have actually been a christian, this group of his may have been a lie"
Certainly. Honesty or genuineness does not guarantee perfect inability to lie. It's only a judgment call describing those who have never been known to.
"I can't be accused of begging the question if I'm making no positive assertion."
I take it back mig. Speculation is subject to logic when in the form of reasoning, and I in fact begged the question - but I didn't realize that my point took an argumentative form - that was an error in my manner of expression and I apologize.
Consider this:
Paul could have lied about the group, but still believed in the core tenets of Christianity and died for them.
no tehk, his perseverence in the belief of the truth of his claims is evidence that he was not actually lying. I dont understand why you dont get that.
"false dichotomy" oh, so you have another explanation for this account?
"given the motives..." okay tehk, how exactly did the circumstances and motives make it more likely that Paul was fabricating the appearance to the 500? (BTW, the actual appearance he woulden't have been fabricating....
It's not quite evidence if his martyrdom was the result of a particular SUBSET of the beliefs he professed. I don't understand why you don't get that.
I certainly do - and I've just given the other possibility here, as I've done before.
I didn't say "given the motives." Read with caution mig, lest I think you twist what I say deliberately. I said "the possibility of motive," and that this renders the truth of the claim inconclusive, NOT more likely to be a lie. I'm going to have to repeat:
We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact that it would have been difficult if not impossible to verify, and it's likely something to invent due to its rhetorical power.
I really think you're making it out to be more than it really is. Even if we assumed the validity - you've still got all your work ahead of you. I look forward to it. I'm going to bed...
im not sure how your mere speculation calls into question the validity of my evidenec that 500 people claimed
Im still not sure how exactly the burden is on ME, to rule out YOUR speculation and not on YOU to back up YOUR speculation. you did make the claim that this claim is extraordinary. once again, that's subjective, and how is the claim "500 people claimed to see the risen jesus" extraordinary in of itself?
Then I'll repeat: We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact that it would have been difficult if not impossible to verify, and it's likely something to invent due to its rhetorical power. Thus, we cannot take his word for granted, and thus cannot know for certain that such a group existed.
If you can't understand that, then you're the one the problem.
In order to support taking the existence of the group for granted (which is the best you can do in light of the lack of independent attestation), you must be able to confidently rule out the implications of circumstance and motive. That's just the position you're in, bud.
I'm not saying the existence is extraordinary, but your ends are; particularly that the saw THE Jesus Christ who had died.
Are you seriously saying that's beyond what's ordinary or usual? Is that the best last ditch defense you've got... is that that's "subjective"? You're laughable.
Don't act like you're only defending the idea that these people "claimed" to have seen him. This is not what I deem extraordinary, and I don't appreciate this kind of dishonesty.
When reconstructing the past, the levels of uncertainty tolerated or more lax that empirical endeavors - otherwise it wouldn't be a very fruitful enterprise.
But the principle of uniformity must underly this investigation in order for the tolerance to hold water. When violated, we must re-evaluate our underlying assumptions. And so if we managed to rule out the implications of the circumstance and possible motive, we could take it for granted if we felt it was significant to the picture...
"When reconstructing the past, the levels of uncertainty tolerated are more lax than empirical endeavors - otherwise it wouldn't be a very fruitful enterprise."
But I don't have to go into all of that mig - at least not now, which is why I said that even if we took the existence for granted, you would still have all of your work ahead of you.
For now (without such considerations) I'm only saying that the existence of the group is inconclusive.
"Don't act like you're only defending the idea that these people "claimed" to have seen him. This is not what I deem extraordinary, and I don't appreciate this kind of dishonesty." tehk, that's exactly what I am claiming. if they claimed it, then we have to assume they saw something. what they saw is open to explanation. which explanation is most plausible, I'll let you figure that out for yourself
now tehk, there is one and ONLY ONE aspect of my argument that could have been fabricated by Paul, and that is the fact that he personally knew this group of witnesses. The apperance to the 500 is recounted in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, a pre-pauline Aramaic written tradition which he recieved from Peter and James.
I didn't say that's not WHAT your claiming, but not to act like you're ONLY claiming that. You explicitly said: "how is the claim "500 people claimed to see the risen jesus" extraordinary in of itself?" That's dishonest and you know it.
Once again, an exchange with you quickly degenerates into a tiring task of documenting away your evasions and misrepresentations.
What they're alleged to have claimed is also Paul's word, and is subject to the same problem as their existence.
watch the video tehk. I said clearly "then the last explanation, which I will be defending, which is that 500 people REALLY DID claim to see the risen Jesus. that's what I said. watch the fucking video.
Forget about the ramifications of 'extraordinary'; like I said, I don't even have to go into all of that right now. It was only preemptive.
I did watch the "fucking video." You objected to the possibility of a lie on the grounds of martyrdom (and then added persecution to the list in these comments). I had problems with this.
well once again, the only thing paul could have possibly fabricated was his personal acquaintence. the actual appearance however was in a pre-pauline document. The persecution and martyrdom however provide evidence against the possibility or likelyhood that Paul was lying about his personal acquaintance with this group
It's not quite evidence if his martyrdom and persecution were due to a subset of his professed beliefs. It's possible for him to have died a genuine christian while inventing (or exaggerating) a small rhetorical device in one of his letters. Reasserting otherwise doesn't defeat the fact.
It may have been so marginal that he eventually forgot about it - after all, it has managed to not appear anywhere in the gospel tradition. Makes me doubt the veracity of claims of pre-pauline documentation.
holy shit you were up at 5:00 AM talking on my video
but once again, I Think I already explained why the actual appearance to the 500 was not fabricated by Paul and that is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, a pre-pauline aramaic creed, which dates to before Paul's conversion. Paul could have only fabricated his personal acquaintence with this group.
Now you asked why this didn't make it in the Gospel tradition anywhere, but as Kabane already pointed out there is a possible reference in Matthew's Gospel in chapter 28 when the eleven disciples were told to meet jesus on a mountain.
I'm tired of this... so I'm gonna give it to you. Because like I said, you've still got all of your work ahead of you. I'd love to see you take this piece of hearsay and turn it into a proof.
So your objection to the possibility that Paul lied is a reference to his martyrdom. Can you demonstrate that Paul had the opportunity to avoid death by claiming, "it is a hoax"?
From what I understand, a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero under pretense that they had set Rome on fire. Would the soldier who had seized him for arson apologize and chuckle at his single-handed defeat of Christianity after Paul merely renounced his lie? NO! He's under orders.
that was not the only reason the Romans persecuted christians. we know from Pliny the younger that Christians had to worship nero, but most refused to worship nero as a god. the Romans believed that their emperors became gods after their death.
uhh, dude, no. Pliny was complaining that some had recanted, but some refused to recant. so we know there was a lot of anti-christian sentiment, as in against the christian belief. The persecution of christians was all around the Roman empire, not just in Rome, as we would expect if burning down Rome were everyone's sole motivation for killing christians.
or could it be that maybe he got this concept of resurrection from the myth orisis the eyptian god of the dead that pre dated that time it seems similiar the willingness to lie it not a problem we see people lying such as muhammed and joseph smith etc.
are you kidding benalissa? Osiris' resurrection is absolutely nothing like the resurrection of Jesus. Osiris was essentially a frankenstinian resurrection. Jesus rose in the bodily form in glory and majesty and went up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God. you cannot possibly expect me to believe that Paul got this idea from the resurrection of Osiris
we don't see the entire city of jersulam converting to christianity at the time okay it didn't happen now a rational person would become very suspicious okay no we don't see every one at the time converting to christianity no goddamn contemptorary evidence very very suspicious okay these are just legends from other myth osiris egyptian god of the dead had a similiar myth. and horus the 12 consolations and the 12 disciples yeah get off you drugs and come to reality
the twelve disciples are reference to the twelve followers of Jesus. jewish rabbis usually had followers.
benelissa, can you maybe perhaps not promote this bullshit that Christianity borrowed from pagan myths? its getting really old and really smelly (did you see the pun?)
Haha! Benalissa, back for more? If atheism was true then everyone would convert to atheism by your logic. Self defeating. Contemporary evidence isn't required, and even if it was, the creed is contemporary! So this appearance to the 500 IS attested by contemporary evidence! And finally, I want you to demonstrate the resurrection parallel in Osiris from a source that predates Paul's epistles. And the 12 corresponds to the 12 tribes of the Jews. I agree with the scholarly consensus here.
That moron benalissa wants to avoid embarrasment in public so he PMed me this:
right not every one saw muhammed ride a winged horse but it happen not every one saw joseph smith translate a record plate of jesus visiting the early americas but it happen you have to be severely suspicious this man after he allegedlly was ressurrected was around for 40 days yet no one notice we don't see in secular history every one at that time converting to christianity we don't see this okay. very suspicious
The problem is that there are no witnesses at all for Muhammad riding a winged horse and the only witnesses to the translation of Smith saw him reading out of a hat. Secular history attesting to the resurrection of Jesus would cause the history to be nonsecular. You have set up requirements for historicity that are logically impossible to fulfill.
What is different from Islam and Mormonism is that the resurrection of Jesus DOES have witnesses, while both of those religions DON'T.
yeah really show me where in secular history that during the time of the supposed resurrection 500 people converted to christianity there aren't any okay why i mean you have to be severely suspious why the dude was walking around for 40 days nope no one wrote to their friend that this guy risen you have to be severely suspicous plus some of this sounds like myths that predated christiantiy horus orisis okay this is just nonsense no where outside the bible you find jesus appearing to 500
Benalissa, you need to prove that the early Christians lied and you need to demonstrate their unreliability. I see assertions, but I don't see evidence.
just as we can't trust muhammed, joseph smith;s stupid claims, explain why jesus seems similiar to oris the eyptian god of the death explain why horus seems simliar to that were around that area i personally don't know what went on there i wasn't there i can't pick and choose but the gospels aren't reliable at all but really noone at the time wrote this down how i mean you would at LEAST expect don't you think someone would write a friend.....
...friend to their letter saying o this guy rose from the dead very suspious to the highest degree it's like now you see me risen now go tell other people to take your word for it ???? BS.
now benelissa, you did not explain why a source has to be secular. you didn't even back up your statement that the early christians were liars. now there were no witnesses to the ascension of muhammad as kabane already pointed out, and the witnesses to Joseph smith have no credibility, as kabane already demonstrated.
bullshit from benalissa: no cotemporary evidence the dates to the time of jesus
gospels were written 50 after the alleged events
we only have copies of copies of copies of copies of the original manuscript so probably some insertations you know
okay no evidence in secular history the resurrection happen it's faith go to your history text book it'll say ACCORDING to the gospels okay faith no evidence.....
if so than why didn't every one at that time convert to christianity we don't see people converting at that time and why were christians persecuted i mean if people saw him than surely they would become christians why didn't jesus go to the pilate every one else you know stop eluding people with your crazy idea it's 2000 years and he hasn't come back okay because it's legend fantasy just like joseph smith, muhammed bs okay wake up ! be in reality
Ya, still doesn't convince me that a man, who is also god/his own father, killed himself to magically erase an invisible mark brought upon humanity by two vessels that were duped by a talking snake with legs.
Well first you fail to understand the trinity in the context of Divine Wisdom theology. Orthodox Christianity views the atonement as atoning for the sins that people have done themselves, not only the original sin.
Think about it migkillertwo. If you were told there's an invisible man that wants to dictate your life to you and will punish you if you don't allow him, would you accept it because 500 people say they saw him? For all we know they could've been schizophrenic.
hmm. 500 people, no evidence of schizophrenia, and the fact that schizophrenia doesn't lead people to hallucinate somethign as a group, I'd say yeah, I'd accept that if 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus.
Perhaps not, but suggestive influence certainly can, as well as the possibility of an appeal to an authority. Because these alleged 500 weren't named, we cannot rule out these possibilities.
HAHA! Go ahead, present your standard Robert Price arguments for the interpolation theory. Yes, I've been aware of this theory for quite awhile!
I'll refute your arguments, but before I do, I'd like to note that Price's theory is massively counter consensus. Besides him, virtually no scholar accepts his theory.
Why doesn't he appear to us? Huh hey he appears to others but not us.
benalissa284632 3 years ago
that's because God doesn't pander to skeptics.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Like how do you know it was five hundred? Was Paul Counting, oh 1, 2, 3, or 4, 5, goddamn it stay still motherfucker
benalissa284632 3 years ago
"The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show the writer is lying if he said it's true."
That's absurd.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
that's how history works dickjohnson
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That's ridiculous.
"I did 5 million push ups yesterday. It's true." DickJohnson
Disprove it.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
the fact that your example is ad hoc and absurd?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That disproves shit.
And its absurdity is identical to a dead man flying.
They're both apparently physically impossible, although the flying dead guy seems even more absurd.
Others say they've been abducted by aliens, or that Elvis appeared to them.
The burden of proof is not on you to prove they're lying, that would be retarded.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
its absurdity is identical to a dead man flying? dick, this topic has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. yours is ad hoc and absurd.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
What is absurd about my claim?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
*facepalm*
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I knew you wouldn't answer it.
What is absurd about me doing 5 million push ups?
It was a miracle.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
now aside from your own testimony (which isn't worth a shit), what evidence do you have for these 5 million pushups? in an age of such advanced recording, we would expect many more people to attest to these 5 million pushups
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"what evidence do you have for these 5 million pushups? in an age of such advanced recording, we would expect many more people to attest to these 5 million pushups"
But you clearly said the burden of proof is not on me. All I needed to do was claim it to be true, now you have to prove I'm lying.
Saying you think I'm lying because I failed to provide proper evidence admits the burden of proof is on me and not you, plus, it's dishonest because lack of evidence is not why you disbelieve me.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not lying, but are batshit crazy for now. again, your testimony alone is not enough in this age of incredibly advanced recording.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not lying," Now you're lying.
"your testimony alone is not enough in this age of incredibly advanced recording."
There are obvious answers to the recording objection, but obviously the point is for such an outrageous claim, the burden of proof would lie solely with me.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
"why does your video say that comments have been disabled? Did you do that, or is it some kind of temporary Youtube thing?"
tehk's PM
tehk, its probably a youtube thing. though I cant respond in a PM because YOU FUCKING BLOCKED ME!
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Sorry, you're not blocked now. :)
tehknologik 3 years ago
Kabane, you should know that Price doesn't argue that this passage is definitely inauthentic, only that its authenticity is suspect, and therefore no confident argument can be built on it.
tehknologik 3 years ago
2 points
1: This position that Price holds is immensly counter-consensus.
2: out of curiosity, what sort of evidence does Price produce to argue partial forgery of this passage?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
1: duh
2: why don't you go read it yourself?
My only point here is the Kabane is wrong in his manner of expression.
tehknologik 3 years ago
I'd like for you to do your research for yourself.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
But you're the one asking the question, not me.
tehknologik 3 years ago
I assumed you were making the claim seeing that you and kabane were arguing over its authenticity.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Would you consider milking TWeb doing your own research, mig?
tehknologik 3 years ago
wow 4 seconds that was fast
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I never argued with Kabane over the authenticity of that passage.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"The problem is that there are no witnesses at all for Muhammad riding a winged horse"
Do you recall the PM I sent you about witnessing apparently supernatural phenomenon, Kabane? You're unbelievably thick.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Furthermore, you can't say that anyone saw Jesus physically rise from his tomb either, so that's an unfair analogy.
tehknologik 3 years ago
are we talking about things like ghost sightings or people seeing visions of allah in their sleep? but regardless, to my knowledge (I may be wrong) there were no witnesses to the ascension of muhammad
migkillertwo 3 years ago
oh and what happened to all your videos? you only have 4 videos (well, Im sure you knew that already)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I deleted them.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Furthermore, claiming "although some have now fallen asleep" is not a perfect demonstration of acquaintance. It may very well be an extra safeguard against the possibility of someone actually trying to verify his claims; perhaps he didn't feel safe enough leaving this mysterious group unnamed.
So the fact that distance hindered verification, along with the fact that it's likely a thing to invent for its rhetorical power still makes it suspect.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Furthermore, keep in mind that you would have us believe that Paul actually interviewed 500 people. And is it even feasible that everyone in a gathering of 500 would be able to confirm that some person they saw was actually Jesus?
tehknologik 3 years ago
"many of them are alive, though some have fallen asleep" is pretty strong evidence that Paul was acquainted with these witnesses.
paul might not have necessarily interviewed themthoroughly, but they told Paul. so now we still have 500 people claiming to see the risen Jesus. so now we ask, why the **** did 500 people as a group see the risen Jesus?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That's a very good question - unfortunately it's one we can't answer because neither you nor I can really know who they are or if they even existed. Like I said, they're unnamed, and it's likely a thing to create for rhetorical power thanks to the relative unfalsifiability. Worse, we cannot know any of the circumstances surrounding the event. Paul doesn't tell us how he managed to confirm how a gathering of 500 people actually witnessed Jesus.
tehknologik 3 years ago
I can equally retort that it's pretty strong evidence that Paul was hindering verification; as a backup he could then say "well some are dead, which is partly why you're having so much trouble finding em." What relevance is mentioning that some are dead to the rhetoric of the statement to begin with?
tehknologik 3 years ago
I've already entertained the motivation that Paul was lying.
your evidence for dishonesty is not anything more than an appeal to motives. unfortunately, this is a fallacy.
another problem, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Paul was lying.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You haven't entertained it nearly enough.
Here's yet another example of your failure to understand logical fallacies. I don't assume that the mere possibility of the motive is enough to conclude that is in fact the case.
And no kid, you're the one making the extraordinary claim - it's up to you to positively rule out my speculations beyond reasonable doubt.
tehknologik 3 years ago
You need to understand that when the principle of uniformity is violated, I'm no longer bound by the methods of history - but subject to a re-examination of the underlying assumptions.
In this case, speculation is integral to an evaluation of certainty, which is of the utmost importance when up against an assertion like yours.
tehknologik 3 years ago
I dont think we're on the same page, what exactly do you think am I trying to prove right here and now?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I know your ends - that's all that's important to me right now. But you tell me, and I'll tell you if it's what I'm thinking.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"a defense of the appearance to the 500" is in your video description at the moment. So, you can repeat it or change it, your choice.
tehknologik 3 years ago
right now, RIGHT NOW, I am arguing that 500 people claimed to see the risen Jesus. the conclusion (that Jesus rose from the dead will be discussed later).
now, im curious, where exactly did you learn that when I claim that 500 people saw the risen jesus, how exactly is the burden of proof on me to disprove the skeptic's speculation?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact there there's plenty of room to invent it, wouldn't ya say? Can we really confidently say that this group existed? I don't think so.
tehknologik 3 years ago
What if Paul really did believe in Christianity, and died for his beliefs because he really believed them - but this group was just a small lie - a risk he was willing to take to save others' souls? Then his martyrdom would be irrelevant wouldn't ya say?
tehknologik 3 years ago
do you see how that begs the question?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Your refutation is what begs the question, ironically:
-If Paul died for his beliefs, then he wasn't lying about the group.
-Paul died for his beliefs.
-Therefore he wasn't lying about the group.
I'm calling you out on the first assertion.
tehknologik 3 years ago
the anti-christian sentiment, along with their refusal to worship the emperor as the Romans claimed, would have meant that recanting would help their situation.
christianity was also illegal in Rome, and was not made legal until constantine entered the picture.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Yes, but the first mass persecutions seem to have been at the hands of Emperor Nero in the year 64, apparently because he needed someone to blame for the burning of Rome and christians were simply very convenient. That resulted in Paul's death.
Under the circumstances you presented, we know that an option to recant would have been given; this is well known. However, these circumstances are quite different.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Would the soldier who had seized him for arson apologize and chuckle at his single-handed defeat of Christianity after Paul merely renounced his lie? NO! He's under very specific orders.
Furthermore, for all we know, Paul DID recant in his desperation but was executed for arson anyway, and nobody knew about it. OR, he really did believe, but as I've already said, it would have no bearing on the validity of the group; it's marginal compared to everything else he stood for.
tehknologik 3 years ago
why dont you ask yourself tehk, WHY were christians convienient? because there was an anti-christian sentiment. burning down rome was not the only reason they were persecuted.
I guess you can say that the Romans viewed christians with suspicion like we look at scientologists with suspicion.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I don't think your analogy is realistic at all.
But in this circumstance, the burning of Rome was the decisive element. Upon seizing Paul - who cares if he recanted while in custody? He fucking burned Rome! This is entirely different.
You still have not addressed my criticism of your rebuttal: the one that demonstrates how martyrdom may not be as relevant as you'd like to think it is.
tehknologik 3 years ago
And even if Paul knew what was coming ahead of time - it would have been quite difficult for him to erase his tracks, given his relative limelight in the community.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"I don't think your analogy is realistic at all." yeah probably. its much MUCH more extreme than that.
paul's martyrdom was not the first time he was persecuted. in fact, if you read luke's acts of the apostles and his discussions on Paul's travels, Paul was persecuted heavily for what he was preaching.
I actually did address your criticism, and I showed you that it pretty clearly begs the question.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I actually did address your criticism, and I showed you that it pretty clearly begs the question."
And I likewise responded to this. I'm waiting for you to respond.
I can't be accused of begging the question if I'm making no positive assertion. I'm only disputing the means by which you think you can.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"paul's martyrdom was not the first time he was persecuted."
So be it, but the question is whether or not someone would DIE for their beliefs - and whether or not this has any relevance to something as marginal as a rhetorical device.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"What if Paul really did believe in Christianity, and died for his beliefs because he really believed them - but this group was just a small lie - a risk he was willing to take to save others' souls? Then his martyrdom would be irrelevant wouldn't ya say?"
and you seriously think that does not beg the question?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
What IF so and so... it's speculative.
Is it not a valid speculation to make in light of your (as opposed to speculative) positive assertion? ...
-If Paul died for his beliefs, then he wasn't lying about the group.
-Paul died for his beliefs.
-Therefore he wasn't lying about the group.
Who's begging the question here?
tehknologik 3 years ago
I can't be accused of begging the question if I'm making no positive assertion. I'm only disputing the means by which you think you can.
I insist that we cannot know that such a group really existed; it should not be taken for granted. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Who knows?
tehknologik 3 years ago
paul was persecuted PERSECUTED, we know this from Acts, but this was years before Nero. this is another clear indicator that he was not lying.
so, lets examine the actual argument for Pauline honesty
-If paul was persecuted/martyred, then he was not lying
-paul was persecuted/martyred
-therefore, Paul was probably honest
migkillertwo 3 years ago
so in light of this data, ask yourself, and be honest, which scenario is more likely? A: Paul was lying about his beliefs in the face of persecution throughout his life, or B: 500 people really did claim to see the risen Jesus
migkillertwo 3 years ago
and you're claiming that Paul was lying or that he could have lied.
you said that while he may have actually been a christian, this group of his may have been a lie.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You obviously don't understand the structure of the modus ponens:
if p, then q
p
therefore q
You've altered q, and have thus committed the non sequitur fallacy.
And what exactly is he alleged to have not been lying about, mig? You conveniently leave that part out, seeking to blur by generalization in your extreme desperation - because that's exactly the point of mine that you're trying to evade: that this is a particular which neither martyrdom nor persecution bears any relevance to.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"A: Paul was lying about his beliefs in the face of persecution throughout his life, or B: 500 people really did claim to see the risen Jesus"
Fallacy of false dichotomy.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"you're claiming that Paul was lying or that he could have lied"
It's very possible, given the circumstances and possible motive.
"you said that while he may have actually been a christian, this group of his may have been a lie"
Certainly. Honesty or genuineness does not guarantee perfect inability to lie. It's only a judgment call describing those who have never been known to.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"I can't be accused of begging the question if I'm making no positive assertion."
I take it back mig. Speculation is subject to logic when in the form of reasoning, and I in fact begged the question - but I didn't realize that my point took an argumentative form - that was an error in my manner of expression and I apologize.
Consider this:
Paul could have lied about the group, but still believed in the core tenets of Christianity and died for them.
Better? ;)
tehknologik 3 years ago
no tehk, his perseverence in the belief of the truth of his claims is evidence that he was not actually lying. I dont understand why you dont get that.
"false dichotomy" oh, so you have another explanation for this account?
"given the motives..." okay tehk, how exactly did the circumstances and motives make it more likely that Paul was fabricating the appearance to the 500? (BTW, the actual appearance he woulden't have been fabricating....
migkillertwo 3 years ago
...the only thing that he could have possibly fabricated was his personal acquaintence with these 500 witnesses)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
It's not quite evidence if his martyrdom was the result of a particular SUBSET of the beliefs he professed. I don't understand why you don't get that.
I certainly do - and I've just given the other possibility here, as I've done before.
I didn't say "given the motives." Read with caution mig, lest I think you twist what I say deliberately. I said "the possibility of motive," and that this renders the truth of the claim inconclusive, NOT more likely to be a lie. I'm going to have to repeat:
tehknologik 3 years ago
We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact that it would have been difficult if not impossible to verify, and it's likely something to invent due to its rhetorical power.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Thus I contend that we cannot know for certain that such a group existed. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't - who knows?
tehknologik 3 years ago
I really think you're making it out to be more than it really is. Even if we assumed the validity - you've still got all your work ahead of you. I look forward to it. I'm going to bed...
tehknologik 3 years ago
im not sure how your mere speculation calls into question the validity of my evidenec that 500 people claimed
Im still not sure how exactly the burden is on ME, to rule out YOUR speculation and not on YOU to back up YOUR speculation. you did make the claim that this claim is extraordinary. once again, that's subjective, and how is the claim "500 people claimed to see the risen jesus" extraordinary in of itself?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Then I'll repeat: We only have his word about this group... no names or independent attestation, which doesn't go well with the fact that it would have been difficult if not impossible to verify, and it's likely something to invent due to its rhetorical power. Thus, we cannot take his word for granted, and thus cannot know for certain that such a group existed.
tehknologik 3 years ago
If you can't understand that, then you're the one the problem.
In order to support taking the existence of the group for granted (which is the best you can do in light of the lack of independent attestation), you must be able to confidently rule out the implications of circumstance and motive. That's just the position you're in, bud.
I'm not saying the existence is extraordinary, but your ends are; particularly that the saw THE Jesus Christ who had died.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Are you seriously saying that's beyond what's ordinary or usual? Is that the best last ditch defense you've got... is that that's "subjective"? You're laughable.
Don't act like you're only defending the idea that these people "claimed" to have seen him. This is not what I deem extraordinary, and I don't appreciate this kind of dishonesty.
tehknologik 3 years ago
Correction: saying that's not beyond what's ordinary or usual?
tehknologik 3 years ago
When reconstructing the past, the levels of uncertainty tolerated or more lax that empirical endeavors - otherwise it wouldn't be a very fruitful enterprise.
But the principle of uniformity must underly this investigation in order for the tolerance to hold water. When violated, we must re-evaluate our underlying assumptions. And so if we managed to rule out the implications of the circumstance and possible motive, we could take it for granted if we felt it was significant to the picture...
tehknologik 3 years ago
However, when that significance involves violating our underlying principle, the uncertainties once tolerated become intolerable. Do you understand?
tehknologik 3 years ago
Wow, YouTube is really fucking with my spelling - I apologize.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"When reconstructing the past, the levels of uncertainty tolerated are more lax than empirical endeavors - otherwise it wouldn't be a very fruitful enterprise."
tehknologik 3 years ago
But I don't have to go into all of that mig - at least not now, which is why I said that even if we took the existence for granted, you would still have all of your work ahead of you.
For now (without such considerations) I'm only saying that the existence of the group is inconclusive.
tehknologik 3 years ago
"Don't act like you're only defending the idea that these people "claimed" to have seen him. This is not what I deem extraordinary, and I don't appreciate this kind of dishonesty." tehk, that's exactly what I am claiming. if they claimed it, then we have to assume they saw something. what they saw is open to explanation. which explanation is most plausible, I'll let you figure that out for yourself
migkillertwo 3 years ago
now tehk, there is one and ONLY ONE aspect of my argument that could have been fabricated by Paul, and that is the fact that he personally knew this group of witnesses. The apperance to the 500 is recounted in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, a pre-pauline Aramaic written tradition which he recieved from Peter and James.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I didn't say that's not WHAT your claiming, but not to act like you're ONLY claiming that. You explicitly said: "how is the claim "500 people claimed to see the risen jesus" extraordinary in of itself?" That's dishonest and you know it.
Once again, an exchange with you quickly degenerates into a tiring task of documenting away your evasions and misrepresentations.
What they're alleged to have claimed is also Paul's word, and is subject to the same problem as their existence.
tehknologik 3 years ago
watch the video tehk. I said clearly "then the last explanation, which I will be defending, which is that 500 people REALLY DID claim to see the risen Jesus. that's what I said. watch the fucking video.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Forget about the ramifications of 'extraordinary'; like I said, I don't even have to go into all of that right now. It was only preemptive.
I did watch the "fucking video." You objected to the possibility of a lie on the grounds of martyrdom (and then added persecution to the list in these comments). I had problems with this.
tehknologik 3 years ago
well once again, the only thing paul could have possibly fabricated was his personal acquaintence. the actual appearance however was in a pre-pauline document. The persecution and martyrdom however provide evidence against the possibility or likelyhood that Paul was lying about his personal acquaintance with this group
migkillertwo 3 years ago
It's not quite evidence if his martyrdom and persecution were due to a subset of his professed beliefs. It's possible for him to have died a genuine christian while inventing (or exaggerating) a small rhetorical device in one of his letters. Reasserting otherwise doesn't defeat the fact.
It may have been so marginal that he eventually forgot about it - after all, it has managed to not appear anywhere in the gospel tradition. Makes me doubt the veracity of claims of pre-pauline documentation.
tehknologik 3 years ago
holy shit you were up at 5:00 AM talking on my video
but once again, I Think I already explained why the actual appearance to the 500 was not fabricated by Paul and that is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, a pre-pauline aramaic creed, which dates to before Paul's conversion. Paul could have only fabricated his personal acquaintence with this group.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Now you asked why this didn't make it in the Gospel tradition anywhere, but as Kabane already pointed out there is a possible reference in Matthew's Gospel in chapter 28 when the eleven disciples were told to meet jesus on a mountain.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I'm tired of this... so I'm gonna give it to you. Because like I said, you've still got all of your work ahead of you. I'd love to see you take this piece of hearsay and turn it into a proof.
How you plan on doing that is beyond me.
tehknologik 3 years ago
So your objection to the possibility that Paul lied is a reference to his martyrdom. Can you demonstrate that Paul had the opportunity to avoid death by claiming, "it is a hoax"?
From what I understand, a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero under pretense that they had set Rome on fire. Would the soldier who had seized him for arson apologize and chuckle at his single-handed defeat of Christianity after Paul merely renounced his lie? NO! He's under orders.
tehknologik 3 years ago
that was not the only reason the Romans persecuted christians. we know from Pliny the younger that Christians had to worship nero, but most refused to worship nero as a god. the Romans believed that their emperors became gods after their death.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I'll repeat, a general persecution was alleged to be raised against Christians by Nero which resulted in Paul and Peter's death.
You have not demonstrated that they had the opportunity to avoid death by claiming "it is a hoax," only the mere possibility.
tehknologik 3 years ago
uhh, dude, no. Pliny was complaining that some had recanted, but some refused to recant. so we know there was a lot of anti-christian sentiment, as in against the christian belief. The persecution of christians was all around the Roman empire, not just in Rome, as we would expect if burning down Rome were everyone's sole motivation for killing christians.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
You have not demonstrated that they had the opportunity to avoid death by claiming "it is a hoax," only the mere possibility.
tehknologik 3 years ago
or could it be that maybe he got this concept of resurrection from the myth orisis the eyptian god of the dead that pre dated that time it seems similiar the willingness to lie it not a problem we see people lying such as muhammed and joseph smith etc.
benalissa284632 3 years ago
there were no witnesses to the ascension of Muhammad. its a moot point. the witnesses to Joseph smith were drawn out of a hat. its a moot point.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
paul could have gotten the resurrection from pagan myths like osiris
benalissa284632 3 years ago
are you kidding benalissa? Osiris' resurrection is absolutely nothing like the resurrection of Jesus. Osiris was essentially a frankenstinian resurrection. Jesus rose in the bodily form in glory and majesty and went up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God. you cannot possibly expect me to believe that Paul got this idea from the resurrection of Osiris
migkillertwo 3 years ago
we don't see the entire city of jersulam converting to christianity at the time okay it didn't happen now a rational person would become very suspicious okay no we don't see every one at the time converting to christianity no goddamn contemptorary evidence very very suspicious okay these are just legends from other myth osiris egyptian god of the dead had a similiar myth. and horus the 12 consolations and the 12 disciples yeah get off you drugs and come to reality
benalissa284632 3 years ago
Learn some history, obviously the 12 disciples are reference to the 12 tribes of Israel, even from a secular point of view.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
the twelve disciples are reference to the twelve followers of Jesus. jewish rabbis usually had followers.
benelissa, can you maybe perhaps not promote this bullshit that Christianity borrowed from pagan myths? its getting really old and really smelly (did you see the pun?)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Haha! Benalissa, back for more? If atheism was true then everyone would convert to atheism by your logic. Self defeating. Contemporary evidence isn't required, and even if it was, the creed is contemporary! So this appearance to the 500 IS attested by contemporary evidence! And finally, I want you to demonstrate the resurrection parallel in Osiris from a source that predates Paul's epistles. And the 12 corresponds to the 12 tribes of the Jews. I agree with the scholarly consensus here.
Kabane52 3 years ago
obviously its a parallel I mean C'MON! frankenstein was obviously copied from Jesus, therefore Jesus was copied from osiris!
migkillertwo 3 years ago
That moron benalissa wants to avoid embarrasment in public so he PMed me this:
right not every one saw muhammed ride a winged horse but it happen not every one saw joseph smith translate a record plate of jesus visiting the early americas but it happen you have to be severely suspicious this man after he allegedlly was ressurrected was around for 40 days yet no one notice we don't see in secular history every one at that time converting to christianity we don't see this okay. very suspicious
Kabane52 3 years ago
The problem is that there are no witnesses at all for Muhammad riding a winged horse and the only witnesses to the translation of Smith saw him reading out of a hat. Secular history attesting to the resurrection of Jesus would cause the history to be nonsecular. You have set up requirements for historicity that are logically impossible to fulfill.
What is different from Islam and Mormonism is that the resurrection of Jesus DOES have witnesses, while both of those religions DON'T.
Kabane52 3 years ago
can I see a source for this claim that there were no witnesses to muhammad's ascension?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Mig, I don't need a source for a claim that they lack evidence.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
//can I see a source for this claim that there were no witnesses to muhammad's ascension? //
I believe that you are confusing the ascension with him riding the winged horse.
The riding the winged horse is alluded to in the Quran -but there were no eyewitnesses named.
The ascension is only recorded in the hadith (most compiled 100-200 years after Mohammed's death).
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
yeah really show me where in secular history that during the time of the supposed resurrection 500 people converted to christianity there aren't any okay why i mean you have to be severely suspious why the dude was walking around for 40 days nope no one wrote to their friend that this guy risen you have to be severely suspicous plus some of this sounds like myths that predated christiantiy horus orisis okay this is just nonsense no where outside the bible you find jesus appearing to 500
benalissa284632 3 years ago
1: explain why the source has to be secular
2: explain why the source has to be outside the bible
3: explain why the aristocracy would refer to Jesus while he was around if he didn't go out of his way to make sure everyone knew he is risen.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
The source would have to be from because we can't trust the early christians and they lies okay.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Benalissa, you need to prove that the early Christians lied and you need to demonstrate their unreliability. I see assertions, but I don't see evidence.
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
just as we can't trust muhammed, joseph smith;s stupid claims, explain why jesus seems similiar to oris the eyptian god of the death explain why horus seems simliar to that were around that area i personally don't know what went on there i wasn't there i can't pick and choose but the gospels aren't reliable at all but really noone at the time wrote this down how i mean you would at LEAST expect don't you think someone would write a friend.....
migkillertwo 3 years ago
...friend to their letter saying o this guy rose from the dead very suspious to the highest degree it's like now you see me risen now go tell other people to take your word for it ???? BS.
my last 3 comments are from benelissa
migkillertwo 3 years ago
now benelissa, you did not explain why a source has to be secular. you didn't even back up your statement that the early christians were liars. now there were no witnesses to the ascension of muhammad as kabane already pointed out, and the witnesses to Joseph smith have no credibility, as kabane already demonstrated.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
bullshit from benalissa: no cotemporary evidence the dates to the time of jesus
gospels were written 50 after the alleged events
we only have copies of copies of copies of copies of the original manuscript so probably some insertations you know
okay no evidence in secular history the resurrection happen it's faith go to your history text book it'll say ACCORDING to the gospels okay faith no evidence.....
migkillertwo 3 years ago
...Im so tired this man i don't really care anymore believe what you want okay whatever helps you sleep at night
migkillertwo 3 years ago
The rapid spread of Christianity is a historical fact, so 500 converts would not be surprising.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
Why does it have to be outside the Bible?
KabaneTheChristian 3 years ago
if so than why didn't every one at that time convert to christianity we don't see people converting at that time and why were christians persecuted i mean if people saw him than surely they would become christians why didn't jesus go to the pilate every one else you know stop eluding people with your crazy idea it's 2000 years and he hasn't come back okay because it's legend fantasy just like joseph smith, muhammed bs okay wake up ! be in reality
benalissa284632 3 years ago
Not everyone saw Jesus man. About 512 did, and these people did become Christians.
Kabane52 3 years ago
That's not a very well-attested fact, now is it?
tehknologik 3 years ago
but has evidence nonetheless
migkillertwo 3 years ago
There is a possible reference in the Gospel of Matthew.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Could you elaborate?
tehknologik 3 years ago
I don't laugh about hell.
Kabane52 3 years ago
I do :D
tehknologik 3 years ago
you didn't actually watch the video did you?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Well I'm laughing that you support Ken Humphreys, whom I have contacted about clear errors on his site. He neither replied or corrected the errors.
Kabane52 3 years ago
Ya, still doesn't convince me that a man, who is also god/his own father, killed himself to magically erase an invisible mark brought upon humanity by two vessels that were duped by a talking snake with legs.
RealYungMoney 3 years ago
Well first you fail to understand the trinity in the context of Divine Wisdom theology. Orthodox Christianity views the atonement as atoning for the sins that people have done themselves, not only the original sin.
Kabane52 3 years ago
What is Divine Wisdom theology, guy? I searched google and found nothing on it.
And ya, already knew that. That wasn't my point though.
My point was it will take a lot more than testimonies from unnamed witnesses to convince me of the outrageous claims of the bible.
RealYungMoney 3 years ago
so 500 people seeing the risen Jesus isn't enough? wow
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Think about it migkillertwo. If you were told there's an invisible man that wants to dictate your life to you and will punish you if you don't allow him, would you accept it because 500 people say they saw him? For all we know they could've been schizophrenic.
RealYungMoney 3 years ago
hmm. 500 people, no evidence of schizophrenia, and the fact that schizophrenia doesn't lead people to hallucinate somethign as a group, I'd say yeah, I'd accept that if 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Perhaps not, but suggestive influence certainly can, as well as the possibility of an appeal to an authority. Because these alleged 500 weren't named, we cannot rule out these possibilities.
tehknologik 3 years ago
we can certainly provide more than enough evidence to warrant belief though ;)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
... how would that convince anyone that their belief system is dumb?
bornagainst777 3 years ago
kenneth humphreys? LOL, that's a good one nerdbombs.
would it make you feel better if I told you that there are other atheists that are vastly more stupid than you?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
HAHA! Go ahead, present your standard Robert Price arguments for the interpolation theory. Yes, I've been aware of this theory for quite awhile!
I'll refute your arguments, but before I do, I'd like to note that Price's theory is massively counter consensus. Besides him, virtually no scholar accepts his theory.
Kabane52 3 years ago
bahahah where is this from robert M price?
The general consensus around actuall objective historians is its real. sorry bud:).
also how does it condradict the gospels?
darklink0112 3 years ago
where do you come up with this shit nerdbombs?
migkillertwo 3 years ago