![In Philosopher's Garb](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 219
- 131 879
In Philosopher's Garb
Приєднався 27 чер 2022
Why William Lane Craig Is Wrong About Penal Substitution In Isaiah 53.
In this video, I argue against the idea that Isaiah 53 supports penal substitution. This is in contrast to the arguments put forth by William Lane Craig, Mike Winger, and John MacArthur.
Link to my book
www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Link to my book
www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Переглядів: 431
Відео
Is Isaiah 53 About The Nation Of Israel Or The Messiah? A Critique of Dan McClellan.
Переглядів 575Місяць тому
In this video, I address arguments put forth by Dan McClellan that Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah.
Did Jesus Offer Himself As Our Sacrifice At The Cross Or In Heaven?
Переглядів 167Місяць тому
In this video, I argue that Jesus did not offer himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Rather, he offered himself as a sacrifice in heaven afterward. Link to my book: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Beauty is Evidence For God: Conversation With Atheists #3
Переглядів 203Місяць тому
Beauty is Evidence For God: Conversation With Atheists #3
Does Luke Make An Error Regarding The Census in Luke 2? Responding to Dan McClellan.
Переглядів 1,1 тис.Місяць тому
Does Luke Make An Error Regarding The Census in Luke 2? Responding to Dan McClellan.
Beauty is Evidence For God: A Conversation With An Atheist #2
Переглядів 1062 місяці тому
Beauty is Evidence For God: A Conversation With An Atheist #2
Beauty is Evidence For God: A Conversation With An Atheist #1
Переглядів 1232 місяці тому
Beauty is Evidence For God: A Conversation With An Atheist #1
Is Beauty Evidence for God? A Live Conversation
Переглядів 932 місяці тому
Is Beauty Evidence for God? A Live Conversation
Why This Evangelist is Wrong About Salvation: A Critique of NeedGod.
Переглядів 2,4 тис.2 місяці тому
In this video, I critique a recent conversation that NeedGod (an internet evangelist) has with an orthodox Christian. Link to my book: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Does This Verse Undermine Christianity? Responding to Holy Koolaid With Ryan Mullins and Than.
Переглядів 1712 місяці тому
Book mentioned in the video: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Ryan's Website: www.rtmullins.com/podcast Than's Channel: www.youtube.com/@ExploringReality
Is The Bible True? Debate Review With Ryan Mullins and Exploring Reality.
Переглядів 6832 місяці тому
Link to my book referenced in the video: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Link To Than's Channel: www.youtube.com/@UCfFFX-YN4KXJxWjsXCLHvRw Link to Ryan's website: www.rtmullins.com/podcast
Did Jesus Die On The Cross? A Conversation With A Muslim.
Переглядів 5943 місяці тому
This video comes from a TikTok live conversation that I had with a Muslim. This live was mainly focused on advertising my book, which can be found here www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Does The Bible Affirm The Existence of Other gods?
Переглядів 8543 місяці тому
In this live discussion, I argue that the bible affirms the realities of other gods. Much of what we discuss is found in my book which can be found here www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Is Jesus's Death Enough To Save Us? A Conversation With A Catholic.
Переглядів 2863 місяці тому
Link to my book www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Was Jesus Punished To Save You? A Conversation About Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Переглядів 2843 місяці тому
In this video, I talk with Courtney from Biblical Apologetics about my view of atonement put forth in my new book. Link to my book on atonement: www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWB89MXM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Link to Courtney's Channel, www.youtube.com/@BiblicalApologetics
Can a Loving God Send People To Hell? A Conversation With DannyPhilTalk.
Переглядів 4554 місяці тому
Can a Loving God Send People To Hell? A Conversation With DannyPhilTalk.
Conversation With A Muslim: Is Jesus In The Old Testament?
Переглядів 1,6 тис.5 місяців тому
Conversation With A Muslim: Is Jesus In The Old Testament?
Did Dan McClellan Admit That The Bible Supports The Trinity? A Look at John 10:30
Переглядів 9025 місяців тому
Did Dan McClellan Admit That The Bible Supports The Trinity? A Look at John 10:30
Did God Lose? Responding to MindShift.
Переглядів 8445 місяців тому
Did God Lose? Responding to MindShift.
Can Atheists Trust Their Reason? A Live Discussion With DannyPhilTalk
Переглядів 5876 місяців тому
Can Atheists Trust Their Reason? A Live Discussion With DannyPhilTalk
Does Reason Require God? A Response to Objections.
Переглядів 1776 місяців тому
Does Reason Require God? A Response to Objections.
Does John 17:3 Show Jesus Is Not God?
Переглядів 2966 місяців тому
Does John 17:3 Show Jesus Is Not God?
Debating Muslims Live Stream: Did we all start as Blood Clots?
Переглядів 1316 місяців тому
Debating Muslims Live Stream: Did we all start as Blood Clots?
Debating Muslims Live Stream: The Quran Affirms The Bible
Переглядів 1366 місяців тому
Debating Muslims Live Stream: The Quran Affirms The Bible
Livestream Debate: Is Beauty Evidence For God? Part 2
Переглядів 377 місяців тому
Livestream Debate: Is Beauty Evidence For God? Part 2
Livestream Debate: Is Beauty Evidence For God? Part 1
Переглядів 1437 місяців тому
Livestream Debate: Is Beauty Evidence For God? Part 1
Empathy and sympathy are natural to humans. Psychopathic Sally would have been brutalised by most believers. An atheist would have been compassionate.
Mindshift has a nice beard in that video tho
What is your own faith tradition? I'm new here, just popped in...
I am a Christian, but I don't advertise my denomination.
Great video bro! Found you on IP’s show but I’m going to have to keep on watching your channel! 👍🔥
You are a 🗿
5:32 As someone who is leaning more towards universalism I still think you argue pretty well for your side. Good job. 😄👍
Only about 5 mins into this video but it sounds like you're coming at this from the wrong perspective. You say Mike was being manipulative and disingenuous. Mind you, you're saying this about a guy who dedicated a year, and a 12 hr video to this topic. Say he's wrong, that's fine, that's the spirit of debate. But when we come out of the gate immediately calling each other manipulative, or deceitful, I think we're starting off on the wrong foot. I'll edit this as I continue onward through the video, currently at 4:44. Now at 6:11, you say that to answer every egalitarian view would take 100 hours but when Mike dedicates 12 hrs to a video summarizing his years worth of research, he is either dishonest or incompetent for not hitting on every argument. Again, say he's wrong, that's okay, but my brother in Christ we shouldn't just be assuming the worst of each other like this. Mike from all intents and purposes seems like a wonderful person, and a devout follower of Christ, do I agree with everything he says? No. But we shouldn't just jump to questioning each other's motives like that. At around 20:45, again just to reiterate, this stuff is complex, and it's not easy to put together such an endeavor like Mike has regarding this video. We shouldn't jump to character conclusions like this.
The Law brings wrath, the wrath that Christ saves us from. If we allow the Law to be set aside instead of fulfilled, we have violated God's justice. PSA is not "God is mad about sin and wants to beat something up," lol, surely a clever fella like you can see that is a pretty nasty straw man. PSA is "God is mad about sin and wants to beat up THE SINNER." The way he does that is making Christ and the sinner the same entity, unifying them. The reason for punishment, is to maintain the value of God. No, I do not believe Isaiah 53 supports PSA because of WLC, etc., I believe it because I READ IT. There are no group of words incapable of being redefined no matter what they say, anything can be explained away.
Before the cross, if you believe that Lord Jesus is the Messiah you saved by the promises of the Old Testament. After the cross, it is the death burial resurrection that saves you. Before the cross, WHO Jesus is after the cross is WHAT Jesus did.
Can you respond to someone?
Was Yahweh Defeated by The Moabite God? Yes. Next.
Does Reason Require God? Yahweh does not exist. Question does not make sense. Next.
Can Atheists Trust Their Reason? Non-sensical question. Atheism is just an answer to one question, do gods exist. Next.
Is Jesus In The Old Testament? No, the Jesus character won't be invented until a much later time. Although Christians attempt to retrofit him in. Easy. Next.
Beauty is Evidence For God: No, Yahweh doesn't exist. Next.
Does The Bible Affirm The Existence of Other gods? Yes. Easy. Next.
Is Beauty Evidence for God? No, Yahweh doesn't exist. Easy. Next.
Is the Bible true? No. It's mytho-history. Shit, saved you all the watch. Next.
Define true, please?
@@declansceltic198 events that actually happened
@@AnticsFrantic But, some events described in the Bible did happen?
@@declansceltic198 mytho.....history.....
@@AnticsFrantic “Is the Bible TRUE (events that happened)” You said. “No” So, is it true or not?
God's immutable It just automatically follows that if someone attributes properties outside of God's original intrinsic properties that's a contradiction God cannot gain or lose intrinsic properties simply in virtue of this ❤
I don't think God is immutable.
@@inphilosophersgarb8099 that's fair
But doesn't the bible often say, that God does not change?
Well… came expecting nonsense.. i was disappointed.. this is great. Thank you for this.. i will continue looking into this.
Meanwhile the trinity is still not explained 2000 years later 😂
Great work!
Yeah, great work gutting the heart of what the Cross means and spitting on the holiness and justice of God.
Is there some significant new factor that is added when we go from evaluating the beauty of something like a sunset to another human person? I think a lot of people's intuition that beauty is subjective comes more from the vast different opinions on whether certain people are uglier or prettier than from sunsets and flowers. Take the following scenarios: 1) Brad Pitt walks into a room. Pretty much everyone thinks he is attractive. He's just got an overwhelming presence of human beauty. It's hard to deny. 2) A woman who weighs over 170 lbs receives a lot of positive attention in the Deep South of the USA, but a lot of negative attention in East Asia. The poll numbers on whether she's pretty or not would be a stark contrast in each region. 3) An 80 year old man still claims that his 75 year old wife is beautiful after being married for 50 years. Many young men who know her would not make this same claim. It seems like something kinda subjective might be going on when you add in the factors of the culture/environment in different countries, unique romantic/sexual attractiveness preferences, things like love that would make you look past certain unfavorable traits (wrinkles, etc.), and other factors like these. Is this just an issue of beauty receptors being affected with objective beauty still being true? What are your thoughts?
These are good questions. I think that regarding humans, there is the potential factor of confusing sexual attraction with beauty. It is worth noting that there have been some studies which seem to indicate that certain features of beauty in humans are recognized across cultures, so I would be careful about using that as an example. Also, just in general, there are issues of confusing interest or fondness with an object with aesthetic beauty. Somebody might say something is beautiful because they find it interesting or think it does something well. For instance, somebody who likes chess might say of a famous game between two masters that it was "beautiful." When they say that, I don't think they mean that the pieces and board are beautiful in the same way that a dance or picture is. My inclination toward disagreement about beauty is similar to my disagreements about morality, which is that the grey areas don't undercut the black and white areas. People have reasonable disagreements about complicated issues like abortion or assisted suicide, but those disagreements don't undercut our reasons for thinking that what Hitler did is objectively wrong.
@@inphilosophersgarb8099 So you could say that, similar to someone in a certain culture being desensitized to the horrors of suicide, that someone failing to see beauty in a big, wrinkly goddess might not actually prove the subjectivity of that beauty. Like if someone's "moral recognizers" are deadened/faulty, so someone's "beauty recognizers" could be out of tune/faulty. The spectrum of reactions people are falling into is to be expected given a "less" beautiful object (like a blade of grass). But we would also expect an object with "more" beauty (ex: Brad Pitt, flower, sunset) to be yielding much more consistently positive results on the spectrum, pointing us toward the reality of objective beauty. Am I tracking or no?
And then some evaluations of beauty kind of have irrelevant factors thrown in?
@@CosmicSeptic1 Yes, I think you probably put it better than I did. One idea that comes up sometimes in these discussions is the idea that aesthetic taste is something that needs to be learned. Just as one might develop one's palate to enjoy finer foods, or one might grow in moral wisdom, one can grow in one's recognition of aesthetic facts.
I think you are very close to the truth. The cross is a test/trial. Jesus spoke the words of the Father: Forgive 70x7, pray for those who abuse you, love your neighbor as yourself, love God with your whole heart, mind and soul. Etc. The cross is Jesus Christ obediently, faithfully, humbly, and with endurance living out the principles He proclaimed. The cross is a test/trial that proclaims/demonstrates to the world(cosmos) that Jesus Christ loves His Father and keeps His word. The Cross is a demonstration of Jesus Christ's worthiness to rule and reign. The worthiness of the Son on the cross--His obedience, faithfulness, humility, and endurance--delight the Father, and it is the delight the Father has in the Son that moves/placates the Father from wrath to delight and creates peace between God and man. The Father delights in the Son and Rewards the Son with a kingdom, throne, and all power and authority in heaven and on earth. The Son then uses that power and authority to save from sin and death, judge the living and the dead, set all things right, etc. My view is basically Christus Victor. You can check it out here: www.academia.edu/34689178/Introduction_to_Christus_Victor_docx
Thats still creating it you dingus !
YOU PUT WORDS IN KRISTI'S MOUTH! THAT IS VERY UNINTELLIGENT OF YOU! SHE DID NOT SAY YOU WILL ONLY SEE THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO GOD IF YOU PRESUPPOSE HE EXISTS. SHE SAID IT IS EASIER TO SEE GOD UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE! NOT A SINGLE THING YOU SAID IN THE VIDEO MAKES WHAT SHE SAID WRONG! I AM SURE SHE IS WELL AWARE THERE ARE ATHEISTS WHO BECOME CHRISTIAN (OR RELIGIOUS). THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THOSE ATHEISTS ARE NOT TRUE SKEPTICS. THAT'S ALL!
in Yoga which is the science of the soul God EXIST.. God is a spirit or soul being.. spirit is a point source of conscious energy and God is NOT a Muslim or Christian or Hindu and NEVER wrote the Koran or Bible or Hindu books.🙏
Another laughable attempt from an apologetic Christian... It's laughable that you can't even understand a simple and explicit argument that they address in John 17:3🤦
One of the main reasons for Christ coming to us in the flesh was for Him to take upon our sins. “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” These interpretations are faulty and do not represent the truth of what Christ took upon the cross. It is a core belief and understanding that Christ came to this world to fulfill what Isaiah 53 says. Isaiah 53 can be taken at face value and should be. To believe that Christ did not take upon our sins so that we may be forgiven is to not be a Christian.
I am also very much curious how you would respond to question regarding:Why Jesus had to be the one,who will suffer because of our proceedings in sin?,because it seems easy to explain,but unfourtunately it is not,due to the fact,that God simply could choose someone else to be worthy to please the God or particular act not regarding human dying on the cross,but for example by a sword of angel or something along those lines.I am curious in sense of not that I need a proof,but rather how would I at best explain this to someone,who has more objections using more data(not a simple chap as one would say).
Good video but the two sources you cite at around the 17 minute mark they give different words for the verb and looking at the Hebrew manuscripts you can very easily derive a different definition. Scholarship can be helpful but when it comes down to it it’s just personal interpretation about what scholar is correct. But I did really enjoy this video. Your first point talking about the suffering servant for himself I definitely found the same meanings in the Hebrew but not with the second point you made.
Not sure what you mean regarding different verbs. "Hipgia" is the transliterated version of the verb while "pg" is the transliterated lemma. The citations I offered where consistent, which is what we would expect from scholars of that caliber. This is not a matter of just picking a scholar that agrees with me, its simply the core meaning of the verb in that stem.
so...no evidence for any gods then. I thought for sure THIS time, but no... BTW you not understanding abiogenesis is completely irrelevant to the existence of any gods.
Man I finally found someone pushing back on DM. My spouse has gone down his rabbit hole and has now fully abandoned fundamental Christianity. 😢. I am enjoying your content and learning a lot. FYI, I’d like to see you work on the quality of the sound, I can barely hear you on some of the videos. 👍
Hey, sorry about the sound. My newer videos should have better sound quality since I have started using an external mic. Glad you are enjoying the content.
Gregory Vall points out 3 psalm translator Aquila of Sinope(Jewish), Symmachus, and Jerome al Translated it the word as “to bind”.also one for israel UA-cam channel point out the symmetrical of the psalm,Psalms 22:16, 20 NIV [16] Dogs surround me,a pack of villains encircles me;they pierce my hands and my feet. [20] Deliver me from the sword,my precious life from the power of the dogs. if IT is not pierced or hole-digging, why from the sword?sword do not bind people,only Pierce would be correct. Michael brown also pointed out other hebrew manuscript have the reading that support pierced
Barnabas 6:6 What then saith the prophet again? The assembly of evildoers gathered around Me, they surrounded Me as bees surround a comb; and; For My garment they cast a lot. Both two allued to psalm22, and both are 2nd century text.
can you debuke dan s idea of psalm 22? He claimed that it is a modern European understanding.but Justin: If Christ was not to suffer, and the prophets had not foretold that He would be led to death on account of the sins of the people, and be dishonoured and scourged, and reckoned among the transgressors, and as a sheep be led to the slaughter, whose generation, the prophet says, no man can declare, then you would have good cause to wonder.(2nd century)
😆 🤣 dang... u got i down bro
Super informative video and definitely changed the way I approach my faith. Thank you for this and God Bless you, I’ll for sure be reading your book in the next couple of weeks
Dan is absolutely correct.
The text obviously refers to Christ
Isaiah 53 further reads “he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand” I didn’t know Jesus had offspring , the text is clearly not about jesus because he had no offspring that he could see.
Thank you there young man I can't believe some folks I'm so upset at false teachers he knows better than that I'm just a layman and I know this thank you God bless you
LOL
I haven't been on TikTok in a hot minute but Dan McClellan absolutely IRKED me whenever I saw his face appear on my feed. He's just calmly and confidently spreading blatant misinformation. For a self-proclaimed "biblical scholar," the dude is incredibly ignorant about fundamental Biblical theology
A mormon, whose denominational history is a complete fabricated mess, and criticising the interpretations of others that are based in history, is highly hypocritical.
Hey man can you do a video responding to him about Unívocality in the Bible? I’m confused exactly on what that means and if the Bible doesn’t have one consistent message. What are your thoughts on this topic?
See this video www.tiktok.com/@inphilosophersgarb/video/7321467986873765166
homest question: which theologians have either taught this or agreed with this position?
Watching you dress Dan down is a sublime activity on a sunny U.K. Saturday morning👍
What is given can be taken. Dominion is a portion, constituency or section. Not the whole pie.
Excellent clarification,it truly retrackted me onto the right thoughtpath ❤
The first book of the Talmud-Berachot 5a applies Isaiah 53 to the people of Israel and those who study Torah
Berakhot 5a:11 applies it to any of the righteous saying "This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness." While this is a non-messianic and non-individual view, it still isn't identifying the servant with the nation (as Dan suggested). Additionally, I think Berakhot 5a 11 is just ridiculous. God just smites every righteous person? Is that the view we get from the bible?
@@inphilosophersgarb8099I don't think so, but that does seem to be the opinion of some church fathers and their attitude to martyrdom.
@@dunk_law Interesting.