Atheist Debates - Debate Review - Did Jesus fulfill prophecy? With Samuel Nesan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- I discuss the recent debate, what went wrong, why these debates are getting weaker and why I may be done with Modern Day Debates.
(Due to a system malfunction, this video has no closing credits and a makeshift intro screen - the new studio will be done and new graphics ASAP)
Ignore the live chat during MD Debates. We love watching you debate!
Just ignore live chat always, I think.
He’s definitely a major target so many trolls should be expected.
Just ignore MDD. The entire channel is a mess and it's because they have absolutely no standards for who they let debate.
I like MDD buy I do think they let too many ppl debate I think it's because they try to have debates too often.
There needs to be clearer moderation of the debate, too.
I know its easier for me to say than to actually put into practice, but the trolls have to be ignored.
When it comes to trolls, indifference is the cruelest retort you can give them, and when you react in any way towards them, you're giving them exactly what they want.
The problem is that approach means the chat is a cess pit with only trolls remaining, which is one of the things Matt is objecting to. Another approach is to ban hammer anyone not able to post in a polite, respectful and on topic manner. In a debate setting it's important to try hard to avoid any moderator bias with regard to positions on the topic at hand, but you can be ruthless on polite, respectful and on topic posts only.
A third option is remove the chat entirely, if no edifying discussion is happening there.
Even if you ignored the trolls in chat it still wouldn't fix the problems with MDD.
Paul Mk Kenna did an interesting experiment with horoscopes. He gave a room full of people a horoscope that he said was written just for them. He then asked how personal and accurate it was .
He got a huge positive feedback for the accuracy.
He then told the room every single personal horoscope was exactly the same for everyone
derren brown did exactly the same thing with the same results too
That's rich!
James Randi did the exact same thing, too.
Even after being shown how full-of-shit the 'art' of horoscope divination really is, there were still people who- after the demonstration- still defended horoscopes and claimed that what Randi did was unfair, etc...
Proof of resurrection
Shroud of Turin .
The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages. This web site will keep you abreast of current research, provide you with accurate data from the previous research and let you interact with the researchers themselves. We believe that if you have access to the facts, you can make up your own mind about the Shroud. Make sure you visit the page where you can Examine the Shroud of Turin for yourself. We hope you enjoy your visit. Barrie M. Schwortz, Editor.
shroud.com/
ua-cam.com/video/w4RBXVs70_g/v-deo.html
m.ua-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/v-deo.html
@@mathew4181 shroud of Turin Zero provenance any tests have always shown it to be 14 century. The image is of a European man not a Galilean man. If jesus even existed he would not have looked like the image sheesh
Yeah I'd ignore the chat. They're toxic AF. We love you though and I know MDD adores you.
Its interesting because in some debates matt s attention is completely overtaken by the chats stream that he isn't listening to his opponent. It seems to me that it's usually due to the excessively weak argument of the other side.
They only reason they love Matt is because he can bring in views. The rest of the platform is a cesspool.
Matt, a small advise: Don't ever look at a live chat unless you're checking technical problems. You're giving trolls the chance of their life. Those guys would already celebrate if they get any of your supporters outraged. Imagine how happy they must've been when you went mad on their comments.
I think Matt's chill and smart enough to not wound up by a random commenter - but I still agree with the sentiment. Better to not give them any attention or the chance (low that may be) to get under his skin.
Have you ever watched a "debate" on Modern Day "Debates"? There are not many healthy people left who watch any "debate" there. Matt is the only debater there. The channel is one big dumpster fire of idiots with stupid opinions and zero debate skills, moderated by fundamentalists who have their own echo chamber channels, supported by flat earthers.
Matt can handle trolls. He is talking about a culture created by the channel Modern Day Debates, its moderators and the viewers.
@@stylis666 Watch the review on the debate he did next on the belief in the resurrection which was hosted on different platform.By the end Matt acknowledges that a group of trolls always shows up no matter where he is debating. I think by now Matt realized he shouldn't have had such reaction when a troll called him a nazi.
I think Matt pointing it out is not for them it’s for the audience to know how others can be and we can learn what we may be up against…that’s my two cents…
@@marianomazzieri6560I think both your point and Setekh's point seem to be fairly equally valid. They definitely aren't mutually exclusive.
“Airquote Psychics” would be a great band name.
As a person who loves making the "good band name" joke - I tip my hat to you.
@@carriehallahan5568 "Good Band Name", in these airquotes is also a very nice band name :p
"Ladies and gentlemen, here performing their latest single _Get Rich, or Die Taroting_ ...The Airquote Psychics!"
I hope you come back dude! Modern day debates is far from perfect. But it’s a pretty good show. And I love your debates. I think you’re untouchable.
Trent Horn says otherwise...
@@DougWarner25 trent horn was wrong
@@unit0033 wrong
@@DougWarner25 lol
I'm not sure what percentage of people are like me, but on channels like MDD I stay completely out of the chat. I am there to listen to the conversation and perhaps learn a little something. I don't think the chat is an overall good representation of their audience.
Who cares about what trolls say, right? If you're focusing on trolls in the middle of the debate (as the debater), perhaps your priorities are messed up.
The videos themselves are unwatchable. They intentionally try to make it a trainwreck by not moderating.
@@Iverath If your goal is to sway the audience, it makes sense that you would pay attention to chat
@@wibblemu9 What percent of the audience is in chat, you think? 1%?
Doesn't seem quite representative.
Good call with Moderndaydebates, they don't moderate the debates, and least of all the chat.
I like MDD, it's a good neutral platform that takes no sides. And who cares about some chat?
@@Iverath being neutral when platforming people who rise to the level of actual Nazis isn't the win you think it is. They also are more than happy to continue inviting back people who are completely dishonest and utter jackass fools so they can keep having one shit debate after another.
I'm glad Matt's done with them. The entire channel is a cesspool that manages to take a thing that's already of questionable value (debates since they're a bad way to get to the truth) and manage to make it worse. James seems like a nice guy I guess but the channel is garbage.
@@Vivi2372 I guess we disagree then. I'm fine with talking to people I disagree with.
Not everyone is, apparently.
@@Iverath being neutral isn't enough. a moderator also need to moderate. to keep the conversation on topic, to stop ad hominem attacks, to keep the time format, etc.
@@waves_under_stars You're confusing being a moderator with being a mod in the chat.
Add to this that there's probably more traffic in the chat when someone as well-known as Dillahunty shows up.
Matt Dillahunty: 'Show me a specific prophecy that Jesus fulfilled?' Samuel Nesan: 'It's the vibe'
The court rules in favor of the respondent.
"I come, not to chill the vibe, but to fulfill it."
You're a good guy Matt. Thanks for being honest and sticking to formal logic.
Awesome been waiting for this. Your reviews are often as entertaining as the discussions.
My medium-rare steak has arrived. As prophecy foretold.
I believe its the best way to cook it. My not so impressive secrets are...
1. Bring your steak to room temperature before cooking it.
2. Don't mess with it too much while cooking. Flip it just once if at all possible.
3. Let it sit after removing from the grill for a few minutes before cutting into it. Season it and enjoy.
@@seanjones2456 I came here for the prophecies and know now how to cook stacks...
2 things learned for the price of one.
Thanks!😀
@@seanjones2456 Nope, season first then reverse sear on the grill. That’s the way to go.
Thank you Matt for everything you say and do and have done, you do what is best for you. I don’t have much money to support you but I will definitely keep watching you. Aloha 🌺
Yes! Not only a new upload, but also on a topic I've been interested in!!
I'm by no means a master debater like Matt, but I feel it could often help to know about the person you're debating, even watch some of their debates. Seeing how they argue, the tactics they use, the kind of fallacies they fall into, could help you be prepared for where they are going to take the conversation. This can be especially helpful when dealing with someone who isn't really debating in good faith. Like if I was debating Kent Hovind, it would be helpful to know how he purposefully misunderstands certain scientific concepts and appeals to common sense. I would also want to know things like, is the person I'm debating a presuppositionalist, since that really affects the conversation.
See, Matt has debated so much that he has probably seen it all already, and can literally just adapt to what the other person does in real time because he's already dealt with it before. But I would need to prepare for the person, if possible.
There's some merit to what you're saying, but not as much as you might hope.
For example, think of some subject that you might know very well. Perhaps the subject you majored in at university. Imagine someone who has no education on that topic/ subject arguing some points with you about it. You don't need to know anything about that person, you only need to know the subject.
I mean, I majored in Organic Chemistry when I did my BSc. Chemists have to be familiar with a goodly chunk of particle physics and nuclear physics to be able to understand the atomic interactions that drive chemistry. This makes it very easy for me to shoot down stupid objections from idiots who think they know anything about nuclear power, or other idiots who think that 5G radiation can cause viruses to spontaneously form, or other idiots who think that the government can inject trackers into your body that can miraculously operate without the need for power... In such cases, it doesn't matter who's making the claims, if you know the subject, you don't need to know the 'opponent.'
@@Raz.C I rather think the OP is right. There’s a lot of bad faith actors who use “tricks” like the gish gallop. They spout in five minutes more incorrect, devious or straight out false statements than you can address in an hour. I don’t say that they can make you look stupid but certainly they can make you look unable to answer their points.
Matt is a pro and knows how to deal with anything: for people who are not pro, knowing at least something about the opponent may be useful.
@@pansepot1490
Which is why I said there is some merit in it.
Matt has discussed this before, though I don't recall what video. Basically he prepared for a debater instead of the debate once; and this resulted in him talking past his opponent and not addressing any of his statements. Basically what everyone does to Matt in debates now.
He concluded that he is more interested in making sound and honest arguments than "winning", and therefore prepares for the topic, not the person.
@Crime Buzz Don't get me started on WLC, I don't know why Christians think he is so good. His arguments are often terrible. Like saying if there are moral laws, than there must be a moral law-giver, but then giving no evidence for "moral laws", instead relying on peoples gut feelings and simplistic understanding of morality to persuade them. I'm pretty sure he's said something too about how if logic and reason lead away from God, then you shouldn't trust logic and reason. Basically telling people to accept arguments and evidence that support God, but ignore arguments and evidence that disprove God. That's literally confirmation bias. He's a good talker and sounds confident, but his arguments are trash.
I'm so excited to see a new channel upload! Your channel is what I play while relaxing or while sleeping (he has a relaxing voice, it's very calming if I wake up unexpectedly).
Sir you destroy their silly arguments, like a hot knife through butter..
So they try to provoke you, but we cheer & love you 🤟 ..
So do what you do best, and what you enjoy to do .
P.S. I have seen a few ‘discussions’ you’ve had and they are as good as debates!
The deluded and wishful thinkers will insist otherwise, but this here, is all the sense you need.
"the good conversations" is a great name for a debate channel
The quote about 2 random you tubers debating was spot on.. that’s exactly what that channel seems to host and thrive on
and repeat certain topics over and over, such as abortion, because they attract attention.. but do no real service to the issue or the people imacted.
Tbh I am really excited for you getting your own debate platform.
I support you not showing up on MDD.
If real life has certain security and individuals kicking people out of debates due to toxicness or trolling, then MDD should follow the same standard.
Thanks for the tip towards the end I'm in conversations with a theist friend about prophecies surrounding Jesus
Your debates do seem to get some of the highest views on MDD, though Aron Ra's debates seem to get decent numbers, and there was a recent one featuring Shoe0nHead which did as well.
I hope MDD up their game a little because of this because I love to see you debate everywhere. But I still want them to platform silly people for two reasons: entertainment, education.
Thanks so much for all your important work Matt! Definitely looking forward to the resurrection post- debate over views - synopsis. Take care, cheers from san Diego
Prophecy is one of those things that should be trivially easy to demonstrate if any of this stuff was true...which would completely defeat the purpose of relying on it as an apologetic. But then again, I guess that applies to most apologetics.
Speaking of, I would be interested to know if there are any arguments that are exclusively used to try and convince non-believers (as opposed to reassuring people who already believe).
But yeah...livestream chats tip over into toxicity at the drop of a hat. There are plenty of streams I've been in where the chat isn't an abhorrent mess, but they usually require the streamer and their mods to make an effort to keep it clean.
As a Christian, I apologize for your opponent. I'm sorry that this debate was disappointing for you and hope you will still keep debating other Christians because it is a joy to think your arguments through :)
I just discovered Modern Day Debates. I watched one, liked it, watched the one with Sam, and Matt declares he won’t do them anymore. Wellllll Shit Oh Dear!
So I hunted and found this. Thanks Matt. I’ve always loved the way you present topics, the way you carefully say what you mean, and how you determine how to find truth.
I’d sure like to see you debate a TV money grubbing minister. THAT would be a show!!!!
Oh well, it will never happen.
Debate not required!
I also think though, that we UA-cam people who often check out debate channels, like myself, get a bit numb to the language used in those debates. So we’re used to assholes commenting. So we just ignore them.
From what Matt said, he’s not really a regular UA-cam participant when it comes to messaging forums, so he, as expected, would be angered by the bad behaviour of these idiots. As he should!
But yes, I agree, modern day debates should (and is) being monetised.
But look, you’ll always get a handful of assholes on every channel. To add salt to the wound - kids are naturally cocky, full of crap, petty and not to be taken seriously on many occasions.
So anyway....I hope Matt changes his mind. Thanks for reading my rant. *Have a great Friday everyone* 😎
You're the first person I've seen in these comments (and the debate video comments) who actually acknowledges that the human and appropriate reaction is to get angry/annoyed by crappy behaviour.
@@smaakjeks hehe, yes sure. In an ideal world, I really do want people to simply just get along. It's so easy! And the love you right back from people, is in equal measure. I get that almost every single day. But yea, you get A LOT of douchebags out there. Unfortunately.
Take care man, have an amazing weekend.
Agree, have stopped going to MDD for philosophy discussions. Most of the time all I can think about is that star wars meme "stay on target... stay on target..."
If you want to go all over the place in a conversation fine, but in a somewhat formal debate, spending all your time off topic is weak.
I agree with your observation of the Modern Day Debates, and I support your decision not to support them. It was not a debate. The moderator does not moderate and stays out of the debate not seeking clarity.
People troll just for the sake of doing it, they don’t care about the content or context of your conversations
My favourite response to Jesus being a long suffering servant....what servant isn't long suffering? I rarely see servants enjoying their work.
I completely understand the point about the debate opponents being terrible, but I don't get the chat objection. Every chat has its share of trolls and name-callers, the only difference is how quickly mods remove them. Even on the AXP chat, there's loads of viewers attacks the callers before the mods bans them. Debaters looking at a chat shouldn't even happen during a debate, regardless of how bad or boring the debate is going.
Much love either way, I just thought think the entire debate got further derailed because you were bizarrely looking at chat. Samuel's dishonesty was enough to put up with.
Yeah, Robert M Price gave up debating a few years ago, after getting sick of non-stop PRATTs and evasions. Sean Carroll famously trounced William Lane Craig, but you wouldn't know that from christian commenters. Jordan Peterson _admitted_ in debate with Slavoj Zizek to having read _nothing_ of the "neo-marxists" he rails against, and couldn't name a single one. His fans didn't seem to notice.
It's The Great Disappointment in miniature.
Jordan also labors under the misapprehension that life organises itself into hierarchies of "winner takes all". That's not just the case, yet he uses that for some bizarre appeal to nature.
If you show up for a debate and your opponent ignores the agreed upon subject and just preaches then they aren't there to debate they're there to preach, and at that point it's hard to think of another reason for the invite other than to dishonestly pad the number of people they will be preaching to.
It's hard to find a debate with a meaningful debate topic.
With respect Matt, You are SO much more effective when you are not cursing and insulting people.
Prove it
@@SansDeity Question Is the he talked about in Isa 53 the nation of Israel according to all rabbis today or is the he some individual person ? How many people off of the street would say the he in Isa 53 is not some kind of person ? I think EVERY person today would say it is talking about a person unless that person is Jewish that was told by their rabbi that the he is talking about the nation of Israel . LOL
I’d love to see you debate Joseph Abraham from Cleveland Street Preachers. Please make it happen
Why? That would be really embarrassing for Joseph as he knows NOTHING of textual criticism or historiography of the NT. He's a dolt with a mega-horn.
From Bill Zuersher's excellent book, "Seeing Through Christianity": There are preliminary difficulties with the belief that the Old Testament, or any book, contains divinely disclosed predictions of the future. First and most generally, why would a god trouble himself with such disclosures? A fascination with prophecies, oracles, and divination is characteristic of many primitive cultures, including that of first-century Palestine. But an all-powerful deity could find a better means to communicate. Divine prophecy entails selecting one individual and communicating with others through him. Such a communication system is slow, open to misinterpretation, and susceptible to skepticism. An omnipotent deity could simultaneously communicate with perfect clarity to all humans whenever he chose.
I find the focus on reading super chats, rather than discussing the content of the superchats in the last half of these debates.. really annoying. I get that it helps fund it, but it also kills the ability to have deeper conversations on the questions raised.
Matt, I'm so glad that you voiced your opinion about Modern Day "Debates" - where debate(rs) comes to die. I have a lot more reasons to never watch any debate on that channel and I even stopped watching debates with you there because the channel and its moderators are that shit. Sure the guy running the show is kind, but look at what he's created: fertile ground where fundamentalists and flat earthers are the only ones getting along with each other, circle jerking each other and you are probably the most patient and last sane person that says no to the channel. Every other sane person already started ignoring the channel over a year ago. Not everyone is as patient and charitable as you are, Matt :) The channel isn't gonna improve. Half of the moderators are fundamentalists who have their own echo chamber channels and no interest in honesty or truth and they happily spread their propaganda only to be parroted by flat earthers and the likes. When confronted about it they ignore, evade, and lie.
In short: by holding the most ridiculous debates with people who aren't debaters and having moderators that spread propaganda and are not interested in truth or honesty and only in their presuppositions, they chased away all honest and sincere people who are interested in honest debates and care about what is true and all that's left is a bunch of flat earthers and fundamentalists. You are indeed the only credible debater there and the last credible person to leave that channel, hopefully for good.
On this debate with Matt. This was frustrating as hell. This guy was almost delusional at times and then the claim he made against Matt was just disrespectful
Matt, what are your thoughts on Stephen Meyer's book, "Return of the God Hypothesis"?
Yes, the author was on Sean Carroll's podcast - a good debate until the last 15 minutes, when his blatant theistic beliefs were woven into his narrative. One can hear Sean's unspoken frustrated "having to tolerate" .
@@tonyburton419 Okay. Thanks!
The most important question, IMO, is
how many of the supposed prophecy-fulfilling events are depicted anywhere _other_ than in the BIble?
Because any that aren't are in the same class as the prophecies "fulfilled" in the last _Harry Potter_ novel - book makes prophecy, same book reports prophecy fulfilled.
Prophecy makes sense as a literary genre. I have heard dr Josh of Digital Hammurabi (and others) talk about it. Scholars who have read extensively both the Bible and other ancient literature have a much different and better perspective on what these stories are and how they were intended by the authors and by the audience. Often it’s the case that what modern Christians cling to as literal, in origin was meant and understood as symbolism, allegory or hyperbole.
I've counter the prophecy angle with does the it pass the who, what, where, when and why questions. If I write down a future event that satisfies these questions and it happens, is that prophetic or just a good guess? How do you tell the difference.
If you're getting paid, and they are bringing idiots to the debate, then take the money, be the better person, and continually show great logic and reasoning. That will resonate with a lot of people who watch these debates in the future.
As frustrating as the trolls and idiots are, just show up and get that money. Ignore the chat and call the opponent out on his shit. Cooler heads will prevail.
Even if you ignore the chat...Modern Day debate is a place where the entire concept of debate comes to die. It's now nothing more than a preaching platform for theists.
"Gotcha"
Proving fulfilled prophecy is all about subjectively interpreting vague and ambiguous statements in a way that conforms to your preexisting conclusions.
I really enjoy your debates, and looking for more went through a few MDD videos. They were utter crap, childish debaters, terrible moderators that the debaters ignore. There were some topics that interest me but nearly every time, just couldn't keep watching.
The problem with this is that time must be static, unchangeable, even with prayer you can not change the future. Then you ask, what of freedom of choice. Knowing what you will does not prevent you from doing it. Knowing an unchangeable future means, your "sins" were planned. You were simply dropped into time. That is why you must be condemned but you must also then, following that, we are all, forgiven. Or there is no such thing as prophecy. Choice is yours, put on you cow suit.
I just don't get the fuss. Even if I grant that Jesus existed and was some sort of Rabbi with knowledge of the old testament himself, he has access to all of the source material and the means just to go out and DO things that resemble what the old testament predicted. So what?
If I go in front of a crowd and read Luke 4:21: "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing," and then I say, "Ah-ha! Today THIS scripture is now fulfilled in YOUR hearing!" is that proof of anything?
The musical Jesus Christ Superstar draws on the biblical source material and sure does resemble the Bible's stories. There are prophecies in the Bible. Does that mean Andrew Lloyd Webber is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
The bar is so low for what most Christians will consider a prophecy, let alone what they consider the fulfillment of said prophesies, that just about anything that leaves them with a general sense of serendipity or deja-vu is deemed to be absolute proof. It's circular at best. My god is god because he said that he predicted he would be a god?
Someone I promise I've never met before wrote a story that says that god said the winning lottery number would be seven and would be chosen, on March 31st, by a guy named Rob, from Russell, Canada, and that man ought to be given a million dollars and worshiped like a god. My name is Rob, and I'm from Russell. I created my own lottery system on my calculator. I generated a random number between 6 and 8, and somehow, it came up 7! Today of all days! Where's my million bucks? Why aren't people lining up around the block to worship me? I'm the literal and precise fulfillment of a prophecy, and I've exceeded levels of accuracy and verifiability shown by post-rock biblical predictions...
Matt, I'm impressed that you managed to hold out hope for a quality debate as long as you did. I admire your optimism. I'm with you.
Lol. "Post-rock" should have been "post-hoc," but autocorrect got the best of me. I'm sure there are other errors. TLDR... You rock, Matt. Keep on keeping on!
Sometimes less is more is statements
James is not a moderator; he's merely a host that only cares about his "super chat".
I almost think he doesn't even pay attention to the actual debate.
Given the texts were readily available for some time before Jesus' birth, it's remarkable how badly he matches up to some of the prophecy, given the writers of the New Testiment would have had the available scripture to make sure he aligned to the prophecy.
I would even go further questioning whether the magician got any of his guesses right in the first place and how many of them he had to throw out initially.
I like Matt he's like become a stud for atheism ,
I think that's a first .
If Jesus lived and performed the acts credited to him, it's very safe to say he was a magician.
Glad you get paid for the MDD drama. James is a great guy. But you're right, you play a big role in drawing attention to the channel.
It would be irritating if the chat on that debate, were calling Matt an idiot! Plus the fact that the opponent didn't even care to bring anything positive to the debate (although I'm not sure what positive thing they could bring, but I understand the irritation there too).
Then if I were Matt I wouldn't do those particular debates either.
It reminds me when Prof Richard Dawkins went to some Christian school and spoke of the fact of evolution. And the students mocked him for it. Most irritating. The worst part there was that it was the new up and coming teenage youth who were presently Creationists! That made it 100x worse and 100x more sad.
So I understand Matt. You're very busy anyhow, you don't require the abuse from these 'modern day debates'!
Pints with Aquinas has some scary efficient Theist debaters.
Some people are quite skilled at delivering bullshit efficiently, yes.
A shame they are devoted to worsening the planet.
I'm confused why you would feel the need to even look at chat.
You know there are all sorts of people, like Darth Dawkins and his entire fan club, who exist to do nothing but antagonize you personally Matt. So of course they're going to hop into every chat, whether it's on modern-day debate or The Atheist Experience and try to get under your skin. Why on Earth let them do that? Ignore them.
Matt, that must have been frustrating as well as a waste of time.
I quit watching Modern Day "debates" after their one on flat earth. It wasn't the first time that they had two idiots debate each other, but it was the last straw for me.
Also, I never got the sense that the religious moderator was impartial.
I'm not sure of the impartiality of Pints with Aquinas either
Bring a countertroll to the chat room to keep the chatters busy. He could give a lecture on critical thinking or try some street epistemology.
I highly doubt that will be effective.
I thought that the Jews were pretty clear about their prophecy concerning the 'Messiah.'
1) He was supposed to rebuild The Temple (ie, great temple/ temple of herod/ bloody great big temple in jerusalem).
2) He was supposed to end all war on earth.
3) He was supposed to unite all the people of earth.
I mean, forget about trying to force an interpretation of a vague biblical passage to try and fit something about Jesus' alleged life. Instead, just look at the actual prophecy proffered by the Jews. Did Jesus accomplish ANYTHING that the messiah was supposed to accomplish? It seems to me that the Jews are entirely correct in rejecting him as the 'messiah' and were also acting perfectly within biblical law when they had Jesus executed as a false prophet (even though he was actually [or should I say allegedly] executed for sedition against Rome).
Hey Matt, the title says “Athest.”
And should be fulfil
@@michaelcolbourn6719 Only for people in English speaking countries, America doesn't count. 😁
When I think of someone they won’t call because they know I don’t pick up the phone. How about them beans?
You are correct, Jesus' followers, after the fact, went back to scripture to try and match prophecies to Jesus' life.
I suppose one could argue that, in the absence of science to predict weather, for example, people, wanting to know the future, as so many of us do, will look to the prophets, or mystics etc., to help them "prepare" for it. We like to feel like we know what's coming.
Melchizedek, 4000 years ago, was aware of the plan for our Paradise Creator Son to incarnate on Earth, and indicated as much to his students, including Abraham. So, there was one who "prophesied" the coming of Jesus, but if he already knew the future, that still wouldn't technically qualify, or would it?
On a somewhat different note, revelation, while not the same as a prophecy, can look a lot like it. There's this book that predicts that we will find "the missing link" in the Siwalik Hills of India. Now the authors purport to be of celestial origin, and apparently already know this information, so strictly speaking, this wouldn't qualify as a prophecy.
This book also discussed continental drift before it was accepted scientific fact. It claims that every electron is made up of 100 Ultimatons. Which leads me to wonder, is every particle an exact multiple of the weight of an Ultimaton? It says that the first Garden of Eden was on an isthmus off the coast of Israel. Presumably an underwater archeological expedition could find buildings tall enough for 8-foot-tall people dating back 37,000 years. Or a lost city of Dalamatia under the Persian Gulf from 500,000 years ago may eventually be (re-)discovered (if the Middle East every calms down). And there's a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia (Earth). That last one borders on prophecy, but again, if the author already knows what they're talking about, it's not a real prophecy. The question is, do they know what they're talking about? As some of the topics discussed by them have already been verified, one might suspect that the others will too.
Some of the authors of this book, also claim that they have met God personally. And they also admit that there can never be any physical proof for God's existence, since God is not physical.
Can some of this book be true, while other parts are not? Of course, anything is possible... but in this case, it seems doubtful.
But this book is not an easy read. One almost needs a post-graduate degree in order to be able to understand some of the more complicated parts. Although I suspect Matt would be up to it. The danger is, he might lose some of his atheistic convictions. Then where would he be?
Available for free in the App Store, or on-line here: truthbook.com/urantia-book-viewer/
That channel has some of the most inane debates on the internet - yours excepted.
Matt just learning that most debates are about rhetoric and not facts.
Trolls gonna troll. Just don't read their shit and it won't bother you. I NEVER watch live chats and neither should you! Please do more MDD because it's fun to watch. But DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Matt, you are doing good work, but no point debating liars & scammers with infantile ideas.
The letters 'j' and 'J' didn't exist when the bible was written. Who is this Jesus individual you referring too?
Yep. Try finding a Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John in the middle east 2000 years ago.
I’ve never watched MDD or plan to, but I see the larger issue being that your opponents have no defensible position. Hard to fault someone for not coming up with a non-existent example. Perhaps definitions up front would help. Like, here is the criteria for what I understand a proficy to be. And the opponent must have at minimum one example of that and be fully prepared to defend that position for those examples.
You can fault someone for neither coming up with an example, nor admitting that they can't and that that's devastating to their position, or giving a persuasive reason why it's not a problem that they can't give an example.
I was watching both of those last debates live and the chat has about 10-20 absolute dipshits who weren't being handled by moderators. The rest of the chat was mostly in support of your argument. I think the chat on a live online debate will always be like this if its free.
I really do think the issue with modern say debates the last 2 or so debates has been the low quality of your opponents.
Modern day debate doesn't weed out the interlocutor case and point smokey saint the lowest of lowest
Here's a question i haven't heard asked before: why do christians feel that rising from the dead was an option in the first place? I know thanks to Bill Maher and his film Religulous,that its a borrowed concept but what do they think? When they lost anything else did they make the same assumption?
Matt, don't stop debating, just raise your price by an order of magnitude! If nobody matches your price, fine. If someone does, you have made enough money to justify the waste of your time.
Nah but why is this video 3 years old? I took my mans wayyy too long to break up with Modern Day Debates
I don't get the whole issue with the 'audience' on MDD. Just don't read the chat 🤷♂️
"Posibly, but not lightly " what kind of prophecy is that?
I feel like this seems to be a regular outcome of the debates you do and that does seem frustrating. 😩
Why would anyone think the apologists can do anything but preach? There is no evidence to support any of their claims.
You can always shut up and apologist by requiring they produce evidence to continue.
If I grab a handful of darts and throw them at a board and one hits the bullseye, I think I'm good enough to play professional darts. That's how people that think prophesy and horoscopes are real.
From Bill Zuersher’s excellent book, “Seeing Through Christianity”: The gospels are unreliable. The reasons are worth recapitulating here. Before being committed to paper, the stories circulated for years among unlettered, prescientific people. Differing versions of the stories were then composed by anonymous authors who never claimed to have been eyewitnesses. These authors imposed literary features and their own theological views on the material, even to the point of misrepresenting the Old Testament when it suited their purposes. In addition, the original texts were repeatedly altered by scribes, and because no first-century manuscripts exist, the earliest alterations are undetectable. Finally, the writings we have inherited contradict one another on salient facts and lack corroboration from non-Christian sources.
Great HD resolution. You forgot to quite look into the camera; you're looking slightly off to your right as though you are addressing someone besides the viewer.
22:52 look up Rowan Atkinson's sketch "Amazing Jesus"...you're welcome!
Answer - Yes - Just Like Matt Fulfilling HIS "PROPHECY" IN THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF ROMANS 1:18-32 😇🕊️🙏
Lol you missed the whole video of you think this is prophetic. The entirety of those verses are vague. No places, no timeframes, no dates, no exact descriptions of wrath, etc. Specificity if the name of the game and that ain’t it chief.
Dope background
I watch MD debates occasionally and I always say he's wrong again.
Then I click him off.
I stopped watching the debate immediately after Sam admitted that he didnt actually have an example of a specific prophecy, it was the whole bible "in context".
The "Where Debaters Come To Die" goes in line with some of the theist UA-camrs who seem to be about putting a notch in their belt for everytime they "destroy" an opponent.
Matt - out of curiosity, would you debate someone, who, for lack of a better term, was "of the same caliber" as you, on the Modern Day Debates platform? Is your main concern with the Modern Day Debates platform (and chat) or is it the opponents?
He's not denigrating his opponents at all here, simply their weird unwillingness to actually defend their proposition.
@@Dragoderian no yeah I do get that, I was just wondering if he would debate a Trent Horn type opponent on the Modern Day Debates platform
@@kevinoconnor3859 He debated Trent Horn not 3 weeks ago. Topic: "Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable?"
Edited to add: Oh, you meant specifically on that platform. Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Derp.
MDD debates has gone downhill. The "tag team" debates are distracting at best and a pro wrestling event at worst.
How can the trolls in the chat get so deep under your skin? It's the internet, people will try to offend you and if you get offended they win. It's been that way since time immemorial.
He literally says in the video "none of that bothers me or offends me" so where are you getting this "so deep under your skin" from? He said that his issue is that a chat that is such a mess makes the debate pointless because no one is getting anything out of it so why would he bother? Probably watch and listen to a video before commenting on it or, if you do comment early, at least correct it when you watch and listen to the rest.
@@wunnell He can say whatever he wants either literally or figuratively, but if he keeps crying about it then it obviously has had an impact on him.
You say "it makes the debate pointless because no one is getting anything out of it", proving you yourself don't understand trolls. Trolls do not make up the majority of the people watching, they are simply the loudest, which is to be expected from people like that. And when Matt flips out and cries about them and says he'll never come back (he has said this many times about MDD) he gives them exactly the kind of attention they're looking for in the first place.
The answer is to ignore them. It's easy. Try it!
I think MDD has a real problem with letting anyone who wants to debate come on. Why are half the debates flat earth debates now? There’s far too much credence given to blatantly stupid and debunked beliefs. It really damages the platform’s reputation and professionalism in my opinion. In addition to hosting people who either don’t know what they’re talking about or have no interest in discussion.