Відео

Paul's gospel given to him by Jesus himself, a MYSTERY NOT known before the world began. Romans 16:25

I see lots of Christians responses

They think we didn't listen to the whole thing or understand it; even though I quoted and time stamped what I was referencing.

First of all, I’m glad you can quote the host. That at least shows you were paying attention to some of the podcast but, due to the rest of your comment I’m not so sure you paid attention to the whole thing. In regards to this podcast, it doesn’t matter one bit how you, me, the host, or anyone else views the Bible. It doesn’t matter if any of us believe in a 6000 year old earth, or if the earth and light existed before the sun or any of that. That’s not his point. His point is simply that science is incomplete. Science doesn’t answer the metaphysical questions of life. If you don’t believe in God or the Bible, that’s fine, but you still have to (or should) come up with answers (and how you got there) for those type of questions. And of course he doesn’t believe the Bible is mistaken, he’s a Christian pastor. He’s doing the podcast for believers to help them engage with folks who claim science has disproven Christianity. So, the starting point for his audience is belief in God and His inerrant Word. Now, let me quote you, “You’re teaching that people shouldn’t even bother examining these things openly or honestly.” I’m pretty sure the host doesn’t say that AT ALL or anything like that. You have to actually watch the podcast in order to comment intelligently. And yeah, way to defer the point from the joke. The joke first of all, is a joke, but secondly, how is the point moot? God created ex nihilo, from nothing, but science has to use things already in existence to observe them. Point being, they are not in conflict. God creates. Science observes. Make your points better man. Regarding your example of what happened at your Bible study (One a side-note, the source of such information is crucial. I have read research that shows corporal punishment can actually be beneficial when done in certain ways, not to mention countless evidentiary evidence for its positive effects.) But, I think your friend at the Bible study could have worded himself or herself a bit better. But you are using the term “science” there rather loosely. I’m not sure I’d call research into subjective effects of corporal punishment, undoubtedly with numerous variables, “science”. But, even if you do, even the interpretation that the Bible supports corporal punishment is disputed. Besides, none of that is the host’s point. He’s saying that science can’t answer everything. It’s incomplete. Now, onto your commentary of the conversation between Lennox and the atheistic scientist, which by the way, I take offense at you calling him the “academic” as if John Lennox is not an academic. Or rather you hinting that Christians have not been some of the most intelligent and academic persons in world history. John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuper, John Flavel, Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Tyndale, C.S. Lewis, I could go on an on. Christians are some of the smartest people that have ever lived. So, I will refer to the atheist scientist as just that, the atheist. The host is right, he was completely being arrogant for dismissing the questions. The reason its arrogant is because its a total cop-out. To simply say, “I’m not going to answer that question because it’s a stupid question” is lazy and denies reality. Just because you think their questions are stupid doesn’t mean everyone does. And besides, who gets to say they’re stupid. Maybe I think your questions are stupid. But again, I go back to the point of his podcast is to help Christians engage with people. Calling someone’s question stupid and not worthy of an answer is not engaging with them. That may be an ok answer for you, but it’s intellectually dishonest and lazy for most. Questions such as, “Why am I here?” “What is the purpose of existence?” What happens after I die?” are human questions that deserve an answer. We don’t get to simply dismiss them because we can’t answer them. Again, to use your words, “It’s like all reason, rational thought, and empathy, go out the window with you guys.” Unbelievable. Lastly, the teapot analogy is brilliant. I think you missed the point. Lennox uses it because it proves that science is incomplete. I’m glad you have chosen not to poison your mother. And I’m glad you don’t need a God to to arrive at that conclusion….but again, that’s not Lennox’s point. His point is not that you needed God to arrive at that conclusion, but that you didn’t need science. In fact, you couldn’t have used science. So, you have decided NOT to poison your mom, good for you. Perhaps you came to that conclusion because you think murder is wrong, or because you don’t want to go to jail for murder, or because your dad would beat you up, etc. Whatever you used to come up with your conclusion is fine, it doesn’t have to be God, but it could’t have been science. That’s the point. Thanks for helping him make it!!

@@ugprayer3031 Do you know what gaslighting is?

@@BlasterMaster80 Ha! Good one. Do you know what evasion is?

You're sad

@@Ihearttseals How can I be sad? In my life I have had GTO's, Jaguars, a couple of harleys. I came from a poor family and cut grass to get through school got a degree in physics and became a contract programmer making great money. I decided I was an atheist when 12. I am now 81. I live with a beautiful woman that loves me. People like you will tell me I will suffer pain and torment forever. Then you tell me you love me and will pray for me. The best you can say is that I am sad. Does it sound like it?

@@Ihearttseals Oh, I'm sorry, you mean I am a sad case for a human being. You don't mean I am down emotionally. You mean I am a not a decent person. Would you do me the honor of expressing yourself with clear English so anyone reading this gather your real intent.

@@alschneider5420 Bro had Gto's

Yep. Do as I say, not as I do. Typical.

The host was being thorough, defining terms, and trying to help those who might think that skepticism is generally bad.

No way is skepticism a more sensible approach to anything. Like the host said, some amount of skepticism is good and needed, but skepticism alone is not a belief system, it's a way to asses claims to belief and truth.

If understanding is a virtue here, why is his lack of understanding the basics of logic and standards of evidence lacking in understanding?

No there really aren't irreconcilable contradictions. Give me one. And sure, God could have made the Bible perfect but one of the great things about the God of the Bible, is that He chooses to use human beings to carry out His purposes in this world. It's a great thing to be a part of the Kingdom of God!

The Bible states that the sin of the father shall not be something the son bears: _Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20._ The Bible also states the opposite: that the son _shall_ bear the sins of the father: _Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9, Exodus 34:6-7, 1 Cor. __15:22__._ Let's start with that, and with you telling me please how Judas died and what he did with the money he got for the selling of the information of Jesus. Also, how many people were there when the tomb of Jesus was visited and found empty, how many we're male and female, and what time of the day it was. And finally, you just admitted that the Bible isn't perfect! You said that GOD could have made it perfect but didn't! Why? Why would GOD intentionally make it so the Bible isn't perfect? This is one of the only times I see a Christian admit this.

@@I_am_Mister_Y These are not that hard to explain. Proper understanding stems from knowing the Bible and biblical history. The three passages you mentioned saying that the son shall bear the sins of the Father are all from the 10 commandments, which is crucial to interpretation. The 10 Commandments were the moral law given to the Israelites. According to their history, God typically treats them as His chosen people, as a nation, as a whole. If the nation is sinful and rebellious then God punishes the nation. It’s a covenant between God and his people. The nation needs to be one that follows God and obeys Him. The 1 Corinthians 15:22 passage is a different doctrine altogether. It’s called “the imputation of Adam” which explains how one man’s sin (Adam) causes all humans to be born with a sinful nature. Which in turn leads to the imputation of Christ, how one man’s sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) can pay for all of our sins. The other passages you mentioned, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 and others like it are dealing with normal criminal law. Laws that govern everyday life. Therefore, if a Father hires someone for a wage and doesn’t pay him, the son can’t be punished. You’re dealing with two different categories of law. Regarding Judas, the two accounts you’re referring to are Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. I agree that they seem to be contradictory but they’re not really at all. Matthew says that Judas betrayed Jesus, felt remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Then, due to his remorse he went out and hanged himself. Luke, in Acts, says that “this man” (referring to Judas) “acquired a field with his unrighteous wages”. You falsely assume that this is the same 30 pieces of silver Judas got for betraying Jesus. But it doesn’t say that. We know from John 12:6 that Judas was the treasurer for the disciples and that he was embezzling money for quite some time. Peter, (who is the one speaking in Acts 1) certainly knew that so the “unrighteous wages” Judas used to purchase the field could have been any of the money he stole from the moneybag. And simply, when Judas hanged himself he could have easily fell afterwards and and had his intestines spilled out. The account in Acts 1 would have most likely been at least 40 days after Judas hanged himself, (Acts 1:3). plenty of time for the branch to break, animals to tear at him and cause him to fall, etc. Finally, regarding the tomb. Here’s the apparent contradiction. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the tombs first visitors (Matt 28:1) According to Mark, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1) According to Luke, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women” (Luke 24:10) According to John, Mary Magdalene was there (John 20:1) So, I’m struggling to see the contradiction. You only have a contradiction if the claim and the negation of the claim are both asserted as true. Matthew doesn’t say that ONLY Mary M and the other Mary are there. Mark doesn’t either. John doesn’t say that Mary M was the only one there. Also, none of them claim the absence of any one. It would be a contradiction if Luke said, “Mary M was there, along with Mary the mother of James, but Salome was NOT.” Then, you’d have a contradiction. Same with the angels. The four gospel writers were four different people who chose to emphasize different things and people. They don’t contradict. If I threw a birthday party and all my friends came. Afterwards I had everyone write an account of what happened and who all was there. My friend Bob might only mention three people, maybe his closest friends. My friend Sam, who is an accountant, would try his best to list everyone. My friend Will, might only list one other person. They also might choose to emphasize different things. Bob might highlight the fact that my son threw the cake in the trash. Sam might talk about how much the party probably cost. Will might talk about the presents I got. None of them are wrong or contradictory. They are representing different eyewitness accounts. And yes, I admit that our translations and copies off the original manuscripts are not perfect. They have errors. The errors are discovered and are there for the world to see. I believe that the original autographs of course, did not have errors. But the fact that God chose to use people to copy and transmit His Word throughout time is remarkable.

@@I_am_Mister_Y These are not that hard to explain. Proper understanding stems from knowing the Bible and biblical history. The three passages you mentioned saying that the son shall bear the sins of the Father are all from the 10 commandments, which is crucial to interpretation. The 10 Commandments were the moral law given to the Israelites. According to their history, God typically treats them as His chosen people, as a nation, as a whole. If the nation is sinful and rebellious then God punishes the nation. It’s a covenant between God and his people. The nation needs to be one that follows God and obeys Him. The 1 Corinthians 15:22 passage is a different doctrine altogether. It’s called “the imputation of Adam” which explains how one man’s sin (Adam) causes all humans to be born with a sinful nature. Which in turn leads to the imputation of Christ, how one man’s sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) can pay for all of our sins. The other passages you mentioned, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 and others like it are dealing with normal criminal law. Laws that govern everyday life. Therefore, if a Father hires someone for a wage and doesn’t pay him, the son can’t be punished. You’re dealing with two different categories of law. Regarding Judas, the two accounts you’re referring to are Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. I agree that they seem to be contradictory but they’re not really at all. Matthew says that Judas betrayed Jesus, felt remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Then, due to his remorse he went out and hanged himself. Luke, in Acts, says that “this man” (referring to Judas) “acquired a field with his unrighteous wages”. You falsely assume that this is the same 30 pieces of silver Judas got for betraying Jesus. But it doesn’t say that. We know from John 12:6 that Judas was the treasurer for the disciples and that he was embezzling money for quite some time. Peter, (who is the one speaking in Acts 1) certainly knew that so the “unrighteous wages” Judas used to purchase the field could have been any of the money he stole from the moneybag. And simply, when Judas hanged himself he could have easily fell afterwards and and had his intestines spilled out. The account in Acts 1 would have most likely been at least 40 days after Judas hanged himself, (Acts 1:3). plenty of time for the branch to break, animals to tear at him and cause him to fall, etc. Finally, regarding the tomb. Here’s the apparent contradiction. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the tombs first visitors (Matt 28:1) According to Mark, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1) According to Luke, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women” (Luke 24:10) According to John, Mary Magdalene was there (John 20:1) So, I’m struggling to see the contradiction. You only have a contradiction if the claim and the negation of the claim are both asserted as true. Matthew doesn’t say that ONLY Mary M and the other Mary are there. Mark doesn’t either. John doesn’t say that Mary M was the only one there. Also, none of them claim the absence of any one. It would be a contradiction if Luke said, “Mary M was there, along with Mary the mother of James, but Salome was NOT.” Then, you’d have a contradiction. Same with the angels. The four gospel writers were four different people who chose to emphasize different things and people. They don’t contradict. If I threw a birthday party and all my friends came. Afterwards I had everyone write an account of what happened and who all was there. My friend Bob might only mention three people, maybe his closest friends. My friend Sam, who is an accountant, would try his best to list everyone. My friend Will, might only list one other person. They also might choose to emphasize different things. Bob might highlight the fact that my son threw the cake in the trash. Sam might talk about how much the party probably cost. Will might talk about the presents I got. None of them are wrong or contradictory. They are representing different eyewitness accounts. And yes, I admit that our translations and copies off the original manuscripts are not perfect. They have errors. The errors are discovered and are there for the world to see. I believe that the original autographs of course, did not have errors. But the fact that God chose to use people to copy and transmit His Word throughout time is remarkable.

@@I_am_Mister_Y These are not that hard to explain. Proper understanding stems from knowing the Bible and biblical history. The three passages you mentioned saying that the son shall bear the sins of the Father are all from the 10 commandments, which is crucial to interpretation. The 10 Commandments were the moral law given to the Israelites. According to their history, God typically treats them as His chosen people, as a nation, as a whole. If the nation is sinful and rebellious then God punishes the nation. It’s a covenant between God and his people. The nation needs to be one that follows God and obeys Him. The 1 Corinthians 15:22 passage is a different doctrine altogether. It’s called “the imputation of Adam” which explains how one man’s sin (Adam) causes all humans to be born with a sinful nature. Which in turn leads to the imputation of Christ, how one man’s sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) can pay for all of our sins. The other passages you mentioned, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 and others like it are dealing with normal criminal law. Laws that govern everyday life. Therefore, if a Father hires someone for a wage and doesn’t pay him, the son can’t be punished. You’re dealing with two different categories of law. Regarding Judas, the two accounts you’re referring to are Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. I agree that they seem to be contradictory but they’re not really at all. Matthew says that Judas betrayed Jesus, felt remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. Then, due to his remorse he went out and hanged himself. Luke, in Acts, says that “this man” (referring to Judas) “acquired a field with his unrighteous wages”. You falsely assume that this is the same 30 pieces of silver Judas got for betraying Jesus. But it doesn’t say that. We know from John 12:6 that Judas was the treasurer for the disciples and that he was embezzling money for quite some time. Peter, (who is the one speaking in Acts 1) certainly knew that so the “unrighteous wages” Judas used to purchase the field could have been any of the money he stole from the moneybag. And simply, when Judas hanged himself he could have easily fell afterwards and and had his intestines spilled out. The account in Acts 1 would have most likely been at least 40 days after Judas hanged himself, (Acts 1:3). plenty of time for the branch to break, animals to tear at him and cause him to fall, etc. Finally, regarding the tomb. Here’s the apparent contradiction. According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary are the tombs first visitors (Matt 28:1) According to Mark, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1) According to Luke, Mary Magdalene was there, along with Mary, the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women” (Luke 24:10) According to John, Mary Magdalene was there (John 20:1) So, I’m struggling to see the contradiction. You only have a contradiction if the claim and the negation of the claim are both asserted as true. Matthew doesn’t say that ONLY Mary M and the other Mary are there. Mark doesn’t either. John doesn’t say that Mary M was the only one there. Also, none of them claim the absence of any one. It would be a contradiction if Luke said, “Mary M was there, along with Mary the mother of James, but Salome was NOT.” Then, you’d have a contradiction. Same with the angels. The four gospel writers were four different people who chose to emphasize different things and people. They don’t contradict. If I threw a birthday party and all my friends came. Afterwards I had everyone write an account of what happened and who all was there. My friend Bob might only mention three people, maybe his closest friends. My friend Sam, who is an accountant, would try his best to list everyone. My friend Will, might only list one other person. They also might choose to emphasize different things. Bob might highlight the fact that my son threw the cake in the trash. Sam might talk about how much the party probably cost. Will might talk about the presents I got. None of them are wrong or contradictory. They are representing different eyewitness accounts. And yes, I admit that our translations and copies off the original manuscripts are not perfect. They have errors. The errors are discovered and are there for the world to see. I believe that the original autographs of course, did not have errors. But the fact that God chose to use people to copy and transmit His Word throughout time is remarkable.