Відео

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...

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.

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 ❤

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!

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?

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.

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. 👍

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

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?

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