One of my Christian family members claims that the atrocities of the Old Testament don't matter because people didn't care as much about their loved ones back then. The lack of critical thinking sickens me.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth (who Jesus Christ is) to the born-again believer and only to those who believe and have faith. Not those who are religious and think their religion is going to help them have a relationship with our Creator/Redeemer (Jesus Christ).
@@paulgemme6056 It seems to me that Christians are always thinking that the holy spirit is revealing truth to them, but those truths are contradictory to the truths that other Christians think that they are getting from the holy spirit. I think that Christians mistake their own internal thoughts with influence from this holy spirit that they believe in.
+Sexton Hardcastle That has not worked when I tried it. I usually get 'you are mispresenting it' or 'that's your interpretation'. And that's when I get really angry, and then they will not talk about the original topic, but how I am angry. It's really frustrating.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe I've been through that. Christians usually do that when they know their arguments aren't rock solid but it's not just christians that do that though lol. So many people I've debated have done that...completely change the subject to avoid the original discussion.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe So are they claiming the ten commandments are not in the old testament? No theists I know will debate me, even informally. They all know I watch Matt's videos. :P
Lurch Murphy I know I have done similar things too, and I'm not proud of it! It's not enough to say 'you have changed the subject'. It's also important to show what the subject was and then repeat the contradiction. nitehawk86 And if someone will debate you, they will just come to you, state their opinions, and then shut their ears. Or they will tell you what you think, and the whole conversation is about 'no, I don't think that', and then they just say 'yes you do'. Real debates, where people try to convince others and will listen what you have to say, they are so rare. I had once Jehowa's witness at my apartment to have a conversation with. I tried to understand what she said and I listened carefully. When I thought she contradicted herself, I stopped her and explained why I thought there was a contradiction. When I articulated my point, she nodded her head, like she agreed with me. When I got to the end, she said something like 'that's not a real problem... Lets talk about this'. I don't think she did it deliberately, but I felt violated. You don't nod your head and then in the end say 'you just got it wrong', and then continue from there. Those are reasons why I don't like debates. On textual format it is easier, because you can show what they said before, you can have your time to think what they said.
lol..."pants of the field"......someone pray that I learn to type....that should be..."plants of the field" which refers to cultivated field crops like early grains as apposed to wild plants that earlier hunter/gatherer Homo sp. depended on. ....
Here's the problem i have with the "that is the old testament" claim. -Without the old testament, there is no genesis, no eden, no fall, no original sin. -Then, there is no reason for jesus to have been sacrificed on the cross in order to save humanity from original sin and the fall. So what was the point?
When people start arguing how "that's the old testament" I go back to asking them do they believe that Jesus is God or a separate being. If they claim it's the same being then I ask them why would God change stance on many moral claims within 2000 years? Did he learn more about morality within those 2000 years or did he just change his mind. If they say he changed his mind then I argue that if he did it once before he can do it again and therefore he cannot be trusted. If they claim he learned something new then I go after the weakness of his knowledge and his inability to see the future. If they claim that Jesus was a separate being then I ask them if they realize that they don't believe in one God but rather two. And I go on asking them if both of these gods are equally knowledgeable and powerful or not? If yes then why do they have different stance on morality, if no then I ask them which one is more knowledgeable? If they say Yahweh then I claim that Jesus is therefore wrong about morality and Yahweh was correct. It can go on in circles like that but hopefully they realize that the reasoning behind their original claim just doesn't add up.
+Greg Kowal Well arnt you the clever one....lol Well let me as a Christian tell you my beliefs. I do not believe the Old testament to be the infallible word of God. I believe that it was written by men who either were or thought they were inspired by God. But they are man and are fallible. God is not. The Bible did not get zapped into our world. It was a computation of writings, that were put together by the Church. As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God. I think Jesus was an aspect of God, a manifestation of the word of God in the flesh so to speak. He is a part of God. I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus? You can try to pigeon hole God and trip up a Believer, but that tells you that the person is not able to articulate their reasons for their belief it does in no way invalidate them. No one not a believer or non believer has all the answers. I don't think that is the way it is supposed to work, but that is my belief. No one will be 100% right or wrong.
Laurie Durnan And your imbecile God who decided to pass his knowledge and laws through the people and one writing couldn't do it correctly. He couldn't predict that the writings will be full of nonsense and end up screwing his message to the people upon which your afterlife depends? Ridiculous. "As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God" - It's funny how you know which writings are false because people made mistakes and which ones aren't and coincidently they all match your personal beliefs. I wonder why. I also wonder what mechanism do you use in order to come to a conclusion which sentence in the Bible is God's words and which one is just fallible men twisting his words. "I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. " - but it couldn't be since the NT was written years after his death. So you are already wrong. It's not eyewitness account. "I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. " - what evidence , historical events and science are you talking about? You need to elaborate with examples. "You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus? " - So much wrong logic in here. First yes it is disputed that no historian outside of Bible actually mention Jesus. What they mention is a cult called Christians. There is no mentioning of Jesus and his divinity. And even if he was mentioned there is no reason to believe in his claims. There are plenty historical sources that currently mention Scientologists and other religious figures yet it does not prove that the claims of those religions are true. It just simply mentions their existence but in the case of Jesus even that is missing.
Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention. As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. You an dispute any writings from that period of time which was my point. I have no reason to dispute them. The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end. MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up.
Laurie Durnan " Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention." - This assumption arrises from the claims of religious people. Christians claim God loves people and wants all of them to be saved by accepting him and his message or otherwise be doomed to everlasting punishment. How can God assume that people will believe in the Bible if the book is full of stupid claims that are devoid of reality and them blame them for not believing in punish them to hell. Either your God cares about my wellbeing and loves me and therefore would make sure that his one and only message that was to be passed on in writing would not be tainted with bullshit, or he doesn't give a shit about his book and knows that plenty of people will reject it as it just doesn't make any sense and end up going to hell for it. So yes I assume that your God would be smart enough to figure it out and make sure that if my eternal life depends on me accepting the book as any value he would make sure that the book makes sense and isn't full of bullshit. "As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. " - What copy? The earliest gospel was Mark's and was written somewhere around 70AD which makes it almost 40 years after Jesus' death. That's no eyewitness account. "Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. " - St.Paul never actually met Jesus. So what eyewitness accounts are you talking about? "The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. " - Same reason why historians wrote about other recent cults who you completely will agree with me are just pure cults and their claims are false. There are thousands of cults around the world and newspapers and historians mention their existence yet you would agree that mentioning an existence of a cult does not necessarily mean that the claims of the cult are true just because someone will mention you in his book or article. Would you? "It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end." - Nonsense. Look into history books and you will see that there were many people who called themselves prophets in those days and plenty of cults. Today we see the same thing. New religions come and go and some do well while others disappear quickly. Scientology is quite popular today and it is quite a recently newly formed religion , does it mean that their religion is true since they have gained so many followers? You can answer that on your own. "MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. " Man have you not seen the news in the last 40 years? Crazy cults and suicides ? They all backed the wrong guy and yet they killed themselves for the cause. "Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up." - You are so naive. Read a newspaper from time to time. Examples of what you speak of are on a daily basis. People follow crazies and believe in the nonsense all the time. Millions of people keep buying into homeopathy , anti-vaccine movement, anti-GMO and other nonsense and they are convinced they are right even after countless scientific studies prove them wrong. There will always be thousands or millions or people who blindly believe. Millions of Muslims, Hindus and other religious folks out there who are convinced their belief is correct and they will die for it. Yet you don't agree with them and think they die for wrong and false cause. Islamic terrorists claim to die as martyrs for Allah. You think their religion is false yet they deeply believe in it and die for wrong cause. Why? You claim people don't do that unless their belief actually had any merit. So are you saying Allah and Islam is real? Of course not. You believe in Jesus and God of the Bible.
As for your first point, again you make too many assumptions, All Christians do not believe in the same things. I am a Christian and I do not follow the Old Testament, I do not think that is the word of God......... It is a bunch of scrolls that were put together by men and a book was created......... I believe in the New Testament it is very clear... The rules are pretty straight forward. No mistaking what the Man is saying,.... Therefore God is making it perfectly clear for you or anyone else. The New Testament is not the only place you can find God. You do not want him, therefore you will not find him. You have every right to deny God and he will not stop you, you are completely free to choose. It seems you prefer to spend your time finding reasons to dispute him rather than find him and again your choice. Second point, the first copy is Marks and his is dated around 40 years, it is a copy therefore it stand to reason the original would have been early. The ref to Paul was because he references the Gospels and the Disciples by name. Paul clearly states in his letters he never met the living Jesus, He also clearly states he met the risen Jesus. withing 5 years of his death. Third point is you missed my point. Why did there become a Cult following of Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, that was mocked beaten and Killed. The Jews were looking for a warrior Messiah that would lead them, it would have taken something pretty big to have them let go of their traditions. You have to keep in mind these were first century Jews. They held their traditions very very dear. Your fourth point makes no sense so I will leave it alone. There is no logic at all to it. Your last point is also wrong. There were not following what they believed to be true, They were there and saw it for their own eyes, they did not rely of someones word!! If it was all a lie it would have been their lie. They would have been the ones to start the whole story and then go around the world for years preaching for no money. no power nothing. Except the clothes on their backs and food for the day. Why would they do that for something they made up. There is no logic in that at all. They died because they would not deny what they saw.
Then it would probably be in pre-Akkadian and we find that the fundies and atheists have trouble with KJ English. See www.ancientscripts.com/akkadian.html & www.arch.cam.ac.uk/about-us/mesopotamia/mesopotamia-history/mesopotamia-languages
@@davidconklin9552 the King James Bible has the same issues as every other Bible. They are interpretations of interpretations of an oral tradition passed down through decades if not centuries before it was ever written down. Every Bible fails because of this.
Thank you for this Matt. Your 'Bible studies' (if I may call this that) are so helpful because you 'fight the steel man'. You explain the Christian position honestly, not seeking to mock or exaggerate, and then proceed to deconstruct it. There's a place for the satire of Hitch and the scathing of Dawkins, but atheists who want to talk knowledgeably about the Bible should come to you!
Maybe they were frightened of being crucified as was the thing from the 6th BC century, just about the time of Prince Vlad, who was all vampires eternal and paternal Father. Your move Captain....man over board.
But the New Testament introduces us to Hell and everlasting torture. You may say the Old Testament is awful, but what is worse than infinite torture? Personally, I say the New Testament is worse.
Frankly even the Jesus god they created is immoral by current standards...if a tv preacher told his audience to give up everything and hate their family society would rightfully call that preacher demented and evil
It's not literal. Atheists accepting the same misinterpreted premise in order to reject it, without instead correcting it, are the ones copping out. I've heard an actual Rabbi state that the stories are just stories used to teach meanings. They were never meant to be taken literally. Why can't atheists get that? It goes right in line with their thinking.
@Amy Xoxo It's all allegory. If there's no God, how could it be anything else? Ironically, the first thing the proverbs teach is that you should seek wisdom and understanding. Faith or belief are never mentioned.
Who takes metaphors and hyperbole literally? Answer: atheists! For research, see www.academia.edu/36826104/FIGURES_OF_SPEECH_USED_IN_THE_BIBLE--Bullinger
@Darren Laurens I've heard of them. I don't really know exactly what their premise is or any specific claims they make but just the name evokes prejudice.
It's utterly odd that a christian would use this argument when the fact of the matter is the new testament writings would not even exist if it wasn't for the old testament. They literally created a Jesus from the old testament.
@@bigsiskrishere You realize Jesus is a historical person who existed...right? Not that he necessarily was/is the Messiah, but he lived in Palestine and that he fulfilled numerous expectations for who the Messiah would be as predicted by the old testament. There are historical records outside of the Bible that confirm this, such as the writings of Josephus. Not to mention, people just after Jesus death believed (right or wrong) that he was the Messiah and were willing to die for that belief. You can claim that Christianity is wrong, but it is historically illiterate to say that Jesus was invented out of the Old Testament.
@@spaceburrito7975 No, I agree that he was an existing person. What I was referring to was the mental gymnastics in saying "But that was the old testament!" when the principles of the New Testament are all found in the Old, and the New would not make sense without it.
@@spaceburrito7975 followers of the Peoples Temple cult were also willing to die by the hundreds in the belief that they would be flying up to a spaceship. People are incredibly susceptible to delusion. Willingness to die, especially in a religious cult context is not strong evidence of anything, just that their brainwashing was particularly potent. This supposed jesus figure lived in a time so long ago that it's really difficult to make any definite statements about if he really existed or not. People that claim he definitely existed usually have a religious bias.
@@gerardt3284 Willingness to die is evidence that they were not dying for something they knew to be a lie: so they were either sincere or brainwashed as you say. Either way, they truly believed why they were dying for. But saying it's so long ago we can barely know anything is just simply a poor historical claim. There is much we know about the past, and in regards to Jesus, there is more evidence and records for his life, the way he died, and the movement that arose after his claimed resurrection than there are of many other historical events that we call fact without questioning them.
At 9:17 ─ Matthew 5: 17-19 (New International Version): (17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (18) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (19) Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
james barrett jr - Do you realize that I provided a time reference in the video (9:17) where Matt discusses this passage? Do you realize that this is some of the best evidence in the whole NT that Christians cannot just pretend the OT doesn’t matter?
@@Dr_Opal_Winfinger Do you realize that I quoted the passage BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS MATT'S ARGUMENT? I am with him on this, and actually if you look elsewhere in the comments, I argued with Christians that their position was untenable (i.e. that the NT supersedes the OT) because the language in Mat. 5: 17-19 is extremely clear. Since they believe that the NT is true and "better" than the OT, then why do they try to explain away this passage? Because it tells them the Laws of the OT still stand, and that Jesus is here to see them implemented to the letter. It is important, in discussing these issues, to use the Christians' own evidence to show them how irrational their position is. It seems to me that this is what Matt does in this video. When he says Matthew 5: 17, he invites us to check for ourselves. I simply provided the text in the comments for ease of reference.
I think if Christians could, they'd get rid of the old testament, except without the Adam and Eve story there was no reason for Jesus to die for their sins.
@@gusgrizzel8397 No he didn't. He made a good point which is that anyone who has read the Bible knows the forbidden fruit wasn't mentioned to be an apple. It doesn't say what it was. Before you start talking about the Bible, read it all first. That goes for atheists and christians. Everyone should read the Bible before determining if they believe or not. If not, they shouldn't speak of the matter at all.
@@strangeroamer3219 You miss my point. I said "apple", could be any fruit, but (LOL), that wasn't the point. I asked why God needed himself to die to appease himself. How does that happen?
The New Testament is not actually more peaceful than The Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is one of the most unpleasant writings within The New Testament.
I wish you would have said more about: "The bible is written by men led by the holy ghost". You could have elaborated with the "holy ghost" being one third of the holy trinity. So...perhaps the holy ghost was being unclear, or men misunderstood. Whichever way, both god and jesus simply allowed this misunderstanding between the holy ghost and the men who wrote god's word down to blunder ahead. The other question is: why has god and jesus and the holy ghost not fix these blunder by now? Why do most christians, muslims and jews insist that their holy words are flawless, even when they tell them different things from the same god which they all worship?
We have been lied to concerning the origin of life. God/Jesus Christ cannot lie. Man can lie because he is finite (limited). The devil - Satan is a liar and the father of all lies. So, when we lie, we are under the influence of the devil.
You have a lot of great points, Matt. Love to hear you speak, even though I'd challenge you, lol. Thank you for all you do. Critical thinking is definitely one of humanities weaknesses.
I always wondered when they say that. I want to ask them...do you think that it was the same guy? if he once was horribly evil does that mean that god changed or the morals? should god have to pay for his own sins? Should god be prosecuted for war crimes? If this book is so full of evidence, shouldent we be able to convict him?... anyway it demonstrates the character of god if you take the book as 'gods word', the god demonstrated does not show good moral character.
Their answer is usualy go read what x has to say about this. They make it a philosophical argument open to interpretations. Once they have an explanation that they are ok with,they stop questioning. And believe me,their standards are really low. So they make the answer to "what about the old testament" a somehow deep metaphysical philosophical one that you and i cannot understand as they often claim. It takes faith. My response is: bullshit.
M-Set claiming that 'we are not smart enough to understand this super deep idea' is a pretty effective one. That is why many people like leaders who can do the thinking for them. Also remember that the majority of people are not well educated. It leaves people very vulnerable. Even with my relative good education and understanding that in the rational sense the bible does not make sense, the idea of there being a deeper truth combined with the very primitive fear indoctrination of 'what if i am wrong' has allowed Christianity hold onto me for a very long time. Only recently have i fully understood how much of an emotionally abusive relationship Christianity is. Even then the it is hard to get rid of that fear indoctrination completely out. I consider myself a relatively light case of indoctrination, I live in a liberal state with many other religions, I was exposed to a relatively liberal forms of Christianity (even the version of LDS* i was exposed to was relatively light), I was exposed to several forms of Christianity, I was aware of how the bible was put together. I was rather surprised when i recently decided to examine my beliefs how much had remained and that it was largely to fear of being wrong and that i might not understand the deeper truth. I actually had to use emotional arguments before being able to examine things more rationally. Even then 'what if your wrong' still float in my head, just not with as much power as it used to.
Ever thingk of this? The Rages of Sin is Death right? Now the New testament, if you have read in the later chatpers of the Book off Jihn during the last Supper Jusus broke the Bread and then the wine, One of The Deciples clears asks Jesus to Show them The Father, The Father reference is God. And then Jesus said, those who have seen Him have seen the Father. that cleared that He was telling them, He is God, but in the Flesh right? So sence Jesus was crusified, that would Mean God died for Sins, and that would include His own, right? So by that He basicly did a action that made sin to be forgiveable even though We are still sinners, We can be forgiven. But We must repent and receive His Holy Spirit in order that We can be from the state We been in to be transformed into better people. and also have His very spirit also be apart of us, as We were of him to begin with butsin broke that bond of relationship. What ever you think or decide, there is alwasy some thing We over look, Like why God judges If we were innocent, and many of us are not, I know that for a fact. I held a grudge on My wn Uncle from 1007, to 2016. He died, and I never forgave Him. i could have and should have, but I did not. I held on to Bitterness even though as family I loved Him, but I did not forgive Him for smoking crack and making Me and My Mom and Step father Homeless when We owned a house, and then going to School as a Homeless kid where I could be made fun of. I have no idea, I hope My Uncle is in Heaven, but if not, it was My own faught for not forgiving Him.
This is excellent! I've encountered Covenant and Dispensationalist arguments in the past but did not know the terminology. I've maintained for years that "Paul" is far more important in the lives of Christians than Christ as the majority of quotes flung at me to justify some thing or other are more likely to come from the writings attributed to Paul than the teachings attributed to Christ - this is why I frequently refer to Christians as "Paulites".
Christianity used bits and pieces of the Old Testament to launch a new religion. In that process, God's "absolute" morality becomes relative and changes with the times. Salvation is redefined, with new rules. Satan becomes an enemy of the Bible God rather than his servant. In Trinitarian Christianity "God" is redefined and becomes a three person deity. The definition and job requirements for an expected king messiah get redefined. The result is theological gibberish, and its primary goal is to spread itself.
At one point Matt asks "Why is there a problem in communication between God and people? Did God create them flawed?" (paraphrase). This is similar to a another line of reasoning I have: the Bible claims that it is impossible for any person to remain without sin, even though we all make the choices that lead to our sins. Fine, but then why did God create us with such a predisposition to be sinful? If a watchmaker can only make broken watches, then he must not be a very good watchmaker. If God can only make broken humans, then he must not be a good creator.
Matt, thanks for this quality video. Thoughtful, gentle and nonjudgmental. As a deconverted born again, I dislike patronizing criticisms of Christians- people can’t hear a condescending speaker. Thanks again.
ALL religions are about 3 things and 3 things only, MONEY, POWER AND CONTROL OF PEOPLE. I HATE the fact that as a taxpayer I support religious organisations (because they pay no tax, taxpayers pay it for them.) You only have to look at those evangelists who have their own planes, monstrous homes and yet normal people have to save up and pay off a house, but they live in luxury.
I love when Christians bring up this argument. Lets grant that the immoral content contained within the OT does not apply anymore, their god isn't let off the hook. In the Christian theology, God (who is all-loving) inspired men to write the entire Bible.There should therefore be absolutely no immoral passages contained within the book. Some Christians in my experience have said that slavery for example was widely accepted at the time as it was part of culture. But if God is the supposed objective source for morality, I'd expect him to be morally above what was at the time, otherwise he is indistinguishable from being the mere imagination of the society at the time. And if God is the source for objective morality, is God still okay with slavery today? Or did he just change his mind as time went on, thereby making his morality subjective? God cannot have objective morality while also being a moral relativist, its a contradiction! So in conclusion, if a god out there exists, its certainly NOT the god of the Bible.
Awesome vid, kinda wish the Matt 5:18 reference had been left out as it doesn't make sense in terms of christian thinking on the topic, but besides that, ruling!!
Re. "dispensationalism," let's do some benchmarking: The book of Exodus is believed to have been written sometime in the 5th-6th century BC. In contrast to the mindset described there, Cyrus the Great, 600-530 BC, freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. As preserved in the "Cyrus Cylinder" in cuneiform script.
When you talk Old Testament vs New Testament, all I hear is Batman vs Superman. Fiction is fiction. Endless discussions and deconstructions doesn't make it true.
@@viktorthevictor6240 No, not even close. Science and scientific inquiry have brought you the computer you sent this message on. Now, you can try to pray your message to me but I think its going to be less effective. Team Reason wins, again.
Would demand for more content sooner but these video have a lot of content like a jack in a box and the beautiful scene behind you make it worth watching aswell as listening. Plus ik it takes time and it's all worth it. Plus the drunken peasants and your atheist experience show is also pretty good enough to supply for my demand.
16:40 In the OT "here's a problem, there's a solution...ah, but that leads to a new problem". Sounds quite like (how Matt himself has said) apologists point at gaps in the fossil record and, when we fill a space, they say "aha, see? Now there's TWO gaps." I'm Waaaaaay on Matt's side. I just noticed a similarity between his current argument and an argument for which he has often criticised the other side.
The old testament is also referred as the law. In order to circumvent problems concerning commandments, some theologians have come up with distinction between the ritual, civil or moral law. This is Handy to discard whatever you do not want to follow
I would argue that the Bible is more than a collection of books. As a student of literature and a teacher of literature for many years I see in this book a *unity* and *coherence* that is unknown in any collection of books, even if they deal with the same topic. In fact the Bible taken as a whole is a single story. And it has all the characteristics that we have come to recognize in stories - until we come to post-modern literature. It has a beginning (*exposition*) in which the the *background* of the story is presented, the *setting* of the story is explained, the *characters* are introduced, and the *conflict* begins to build. *Suspense* is part of the story. The one who is introduce in the exposition as the one who will crush the serpent we come to see as the hero or *protagonist*. (The serpent is obviously the *antagonist*.) But who this mystery protagonist will be is revealed only gradually as suspense increases. The story comes to a *crisis* with the revealing of the hero, now known as the Messiah and a turn in the plot. The hero is on the stage (the Gospels), but the *final resolution* is not yet. There is *falling action* as we find how the serpent resists his demise and yet the Messiah prevails. The kingdom of the Messiah extends as he begins to bring the world under his control. Finally, there is the battle between the serpent and the Messiah (Revelation). And there follows the *denouement* in which we find out what the outcome for the Messiah and his kingdom will be as well as the final outcome for the serpent. This is the plot of a book that includes many characters and their stories as well as personal character development in poetry and action (history), poetry and stories that have been recognized by students of literature as some of the best found anywhere or from any period of time. This all was written over perhaps a thousand years by dozens of different authors, many of whom did not even imagine that they were writing a part of a far greater whole.. That is so totally amazing for me as a teacher of literature that I can explain it only as divine.
Uh... I've read the Bible. It's not as coherent as you make it sound. It will contradict itself from paragraph to paragraph. God himself is completely inconsistent character, not to mention very fickle and self-righteous. Also, what serpent? The one in Genesis? Not only is he not a consistent antagonist - despite popular belief, there's no indication that he's Satan -, but the book of Revelations was something evidently written after being inspired by the earlier stories. It's like fan fiction of the earlier stories that got placed in the same book with them. Also, my god, if you think the writing of the Bible is some of the best found anywhere from any period of time, you should try... almost literally any literature from pretty much any time. Seriously, the Greeks and the Romans blow the writing of the Bible out of the water. It's chicken scratch compared to the literature of Homer and Virgil.
Garrison Keillor once said that everyone in Lake Wobegon was a Lutheran, even the atheists. It was the Lutheran God they didn't believe to exist. If 2nd Peter were not written by Peter, something that I am not ready to concede, how would that invalidate the entire Bible? That is a very Fundamentalist position because it seems to call in question inspiration. But be reasonable. Second Peter is in the Bible because people in the first two centuries thought it spoke truth to them. But if that book were not in the Bible what difference would it make? What is in the book that is essential to Christian teaching or faith? The answer is not much. So what you really have a problem with is the selection process, not inspiration. Well, you're not alone. The People in the first two centuries were not all in accord on 2 Peter either. But that did not lead them to the conclusion that nothing was divine. Why does it you - unless you are a Fundamentalist?
You have to read my reply in light of your original (and very "fundamentalist") comment about the unity AND divinity of the entire Bible. This is invalidated by the fact that there are forgeries in it because you (not me) argued for the unity of the entire collection. If a book such as 2 Peter spoke truth to the people and they therefore inserted it in the NT, as you claim, where's the divinity in that? This shows that this collection of books is largely arbitrary and man-made. And what about the fact that four gospels were selected, rather than just one? You read basically the same story three times (the "synoptic" Gospels) with a load of contradictions, and then get to the fourth Gospel in which the nature of Jesus/Christ contradicts most of what was said in the first three. If you're going to look at the NT as literature, which I agree with since it is man-made, it is interesting that Paul's Jesus has little in common with the Gospels' Jesus, written several decades later. Someone is born of a virgin, performs miracles and even resurrect the dead, and this is not worthy of notice anywhere in Paul?? Wow! This is typical of how stories are built through generations by humans. In this it is very similar to the Trojan War epic, the Chanson de Roland, etc.
I was speaking of unity and coherence from a literary point of view. In literature, we consider something to have unity when it keeps to one theme or thesis and does not digress to follow rabbit trails. So when I think of the entire story of the Bible, I see unity. There is unity theologically, and at that point 2 Peter does not appear to follow any rabbit trails or digress from the nature of God revealed in the other books nor from the basic scheme of progressive revelation. The men who debated the canon - and who did debate at length 2nd Peter - finally came to agree that 2nd Peter did not diverge from the theology revealed in the other books. Second Peter did add some things to the body of theology. (That is the idea of progressive revelation.) But it did not contradict anything that had previously revealed. The second criterion was the more illusive issue of inspiration. That means a spiritual liveliness breathed into the book and profitable for the Christian. At that point, 2 Peter does vigorously urge a holiness of life based on the fact of the return of Christ to judge the world. That idea is both consistent with other revelation and valuable for Christian living. The only issue that seems unresolved is whether Peter wrote - or dictated - the letter. And my question to you is the same that the men who set their approval upon this letter as inspired had to deal with: How do you know that it is not Petrine in origin? *And what about the fact that four gospels were selected, rather than just one? You read basically the same story three times (the "synoptic" Gospels) with a load of contradictions, and then get to the fourth Gospel in which the nature of Jesus/Christ contradicts most of what was said in the first three.* Each of the four Gospels contribute something unique. They are what amount to four different viewpoints of one life. And they originally had four different audiences to which they were addressed. I don't see what the objection is to that. We might find many biographies of Abraham Lincoln and each one of them valuable. As to contradiction, you'll have to provide some examples. I have yet to find any that really are contradictions. I also don't find anything in John regarding the nature of Jesus that contradicts with any of the synoptics. The only difficulty that I have found is whether the crucifixion happened on Passover or the day before. But even that can be harmonized. So give me some of the contradictions you find, and we'll talk.
Your progression of thoughts and the work needed to arrive to them so mirrors my own. Perhaps that is because I also took my Christianity seriously, and the cognitive dissonance I experienced was such that I became seriously ill attempting to live with it and avoid the losses I knew would come. I was trying to leave, to be somewhere where I could just be, and be honest. I didn't get away in time. These problems and conflicts could never be solved with re-defining terms, leaving stuff on the shelf. I carefully read the Bible, and there was no way out. If it had been me alone, I'd easily have walked away. But in the crucible that followed for all the family forced me to look at it all and my conclusions were not a choice. You know what happens: Christians saw me as disobedient and sinful, but my only motive was finding a real resolution. I tried to maintain "faith"--by being willing, deliberately choosing, accepting, praying. But my mind saw what it saw. To try to "try to believe" becomes silly, and worse, debilitating. If I see an apple I can't make myself believe it's an orange because I'm instructed to take a pastor's word for it because he's a "spiritual leader",and I must be submissive. I can listen with right good will, but co-opting my reality to favor yours? I experienced one thing a lot: when I spoke, say told a series of events that transpired, I was told I was "justifying" when only stating facts. They infer motives that don't exist. I was kindly told that if I wanted a friend who would be up-front and honest, she would be that friend (by admonishing, pointing out sins). The answer was, sure, but being up-front and honest does not mean that one is ACCURATE.
Dillahunty did you get your eyebrows done? Just kidding man, love your stuff. Still glad to see you are still at it, and looking quite healthy. Stay the course. Sincerely, Dillahunty/Atheiest experience fan
(I haven't watched the whole video yet, so if my question is answered later on, I apologize in advance) So basically around 9:40 Matt talks about one of the many times where Jesus states that the Old Testament Laws won't be changed until everything is fulfilled. I've frequently heard theists respond by saying that with Jesus, everything HAS been fulfilled, so things from the OT can now be changed. There are a few responses to this objection that I can think of, but I'm wondering how you would respond to this.
Matt - Few quick questions. I use many of the points listed here in semi formal and informal discussions with theists, however, I'm curious what you think about information that largely comes from Bart Ehrman in regard to how the Bible was copied by hand so many thousands of times over almost 1,500 years, that the known amount of mistakes or irregularities that have occurred by simple human error have accumulated to be figured to be greater than the number of words the bible contains....do you feel this is good information to put forward when discussing the bible, and if so, why you don't use this more when discussing the bible? I appreciate your thoughts on this if you happen to see this. Thanks
Surely dispensationalism and covenant theology is the same thing? The dispensation of the church is what came after the covenant that came with christ. I think maybe you've missunderstood the two. And what is the teaching you are aluding to when you say that the old testaments covenants and dispensations are no longer valid? I´ve never heard any knowledgable dispensationalist who does that.
The concept of cosmic fine tuning is an evidence intelligent design. The counter to this i have been schooled is multi verse. Given infinite universes and infinite possibilities we have lucked out on a Universe that can support us humans. The multiverse theory suggests that our universe is just one of many in an infinite multiverse where new universes are constantly being born. On weighing these 2 options up I would look at the probability of one or the other, as favoring intelligent design.
"This is the word of God. The absolute testament of the way God commands that we live our lives...but a huge portion of it is absolute bullshit and should be disregarded"
Your point about 2 Timothy 3:16 really shed light on things for me. I've heard it quoted for years. When you think about it. It was written before the Gospels. Does that verse make everything afterwards null and void?
Psalm 137:9 is my favorite verse to quote because most churches quote from psalms in their sermons. " Happy is the one who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks"
lol....silly kids..the bible is like a police report..its objective is to show man just how awful he is...Of course the bible has folks smiling when they kill babies, and happy when they kill their brother, and happy when they have affairs and lie about it....If you think that the Israelites weren't bashin' Babylonian baby heads and enjoyin' it well you are missing something.... Are ya under the impression that the bible is some book about how great the Jews are, man you have totally missed the WHOLE point.
Ray Comfort would believe anything! Just tour the Creation Museum! Never could stomach Paul! What a dick! Matt, I'm so glad your on the front lines! And, your in Austin, Texas!
Excellent information and rebuttals, Matt. I do want to point out that some of us do not think that the New Testament teaches eternal conscious torment. People misconstrue various idioms and words and think that hell burns forever along with unbelievers. I'd be interested to see you tackle this is an upcoming video. Reference what an "unquenchable fire" is from the OT and you will see what is being conveyed when the NT uses it.
+WBWhiting The main clue is that this is a "parable". It's not meant to be taken literally. They're used to illustrate other ideas. So if Jesus actually told this parable, he was trying to illustrate something else. That's my take on it anyhow.
Luke 16 is a parable, but it seems to be one of the most descriptive passages of hell that christians have to go on, so interpretations that take details literally are not in error. They are not misconstruing anything, jesus may indeed have believed in the hell of torture that he described. Luke 3:16-17 jesus will gather 'wheat' into his 'barn' and burn 'chaff' with unquenchable fire. Isn't saying that it shouldn't be taken literally more of an appeal to consequences rather than correcting christian perceptions, since we can't know what their founders intended as fact and metaphor?
+WBWhiting Let me reiterate that this is my take on it. With that being said, I studied every passage on this topic in depth for years and I have formed my opinion from my countless hours of research. I arrived at the same conclusion as the 7th Day Adventists on the topic. We keep talking about it being a parable, so forcing a literal interpretation is not something they should be doing here with Lazarus. Again, this is my opinion on the matter, but honest Bible teachers should be saying the same thing, since they understand what a parable actually is. As for the wheat and chaff references, can you explain what happens when chaff is set on fire? Does it burn eternally or does it quickly go out? I never said that Jesus didn't reference fire. It appears that he did (well, if we are to believe that he said the things in red in the NT). But there is a big difference in burning chaff vs. the parable of Lazarus.
A parable can demonstrate what process will happen, without the specific example used being any actual individual case. Many christians believe that to be the case with this parable, and unless the exact words are falsifications of whatever jesus may have said, then christians are justified in their literal interpretation of the passage being an accurate reflection of their messiah's beliefs. John the Baptist was referencing - treating - people like wheat and chaff when he spoke of burning them with "Unquenchable Fire" in Luke 3, the unquenchable part was why I brought it up. I do understand metaphor. Christian beliefs in hell being a place of unending inescapable torment are supported and not contradicted by the texts.
THANK YOU MATT ! ..for saying it concisely & accurately the way some of us have trouble 'on the spot' - 'in the spotlight'... I also 'home-schooled' myself a "clergy project" actually just a couple of years prior to the *actual* Clergy Project coming to North America. .. Congrats & Cheers ! Keep up the *great* work mate !
In my life surrounded by mostly deeply pentecostal (AoG) Christians, every time I have mentioned any OT problems the response is almost always the misrepresentation "OT=law and Jesus fulfilled/negated the law". This is the guaranteed response to pointing out that no one keeps the Sabbath holy. Yet even the mutated version of the "fulfillment" verse makes absolutely no sense.
Matt, some of what you said is sorta not useful. Lemme explain. Think about the Old Testament like the U S Constitution. It lays out the foundation for the system. And the New Testament is like amendments to the constitution or federal laws; that is, changes or adjustments to the system. So the old testament isn't irrelevant anymore than the US Constitution is. But some parts have been changed by later amendments. I'm atheist but I know how a Christian would respond. That's why I bring this up.
The worst part is this is just a nice blanket statement to say basically the same thing as the other arguments, that the bad stuff has been "amended" out by the new. So they can get away with feeling good about the Bible then. I feel at that point it'd be good to mention that not everything had been amended out, eg slavery, gay marriage. Plus verses like Matthew 5:17 are useful in pointing out that the Old Testament is still valid. That'd be how I would argue against that explanation anyway, since the argument sounds like it'd wind up in the same place as the Covenant theology/dispensationalism Matt talked about.
The Catholics follow covenant theology, but they have an interesting twist to it, they don't think that the standards of morality (or as they like to put it themes of the bible) necessarily CHANGE, but rather many standards can run simultaneously, while others, namely god's specific promise to Jews and the rationalization for their savage take over of Judea, has become outmoded and no longer is in use. Its an interesting way around having standards change, but they have them change depending on what context the people are in so that you don't say that overnight morals completely changed with something. I'd be curious to your thoughts on this.
Literally just had to argue with someone today over this crap. like I've read the book, how can they tell me that they simultaneously regard the old testament with reverence, yet they also dismiss it entirely out of hand when they need to.
I had a long discussion about this with a preacher friend of mine. I asked what laws in the OT doesn't apply any more and the NT passage that changes it. His response was that Jesus didn't change the old laws, but that he fulfilled them. He also said that their is a difference in OT laws as to them being civil, moral, and Mosaic. I asked him to please define what those terms meant and what ones still apply and what ones don't. To this I got no answer and just a small explanation and answer to a question that I didn't ask of how Jesus fulfilled the law, in that Jesus was the finally animal sacrifice and so we don't have to sacrifice animals anymore because Jesus 'fulfilled' all need to do sacrifices any more. I asked how that changes the law about the suspected unfaithful wife having to drink the bitter water. He said that is a ritual not a law, when I showed him that many different versions of the bible say it is a law. He then added a new type of law that isn't followed any more, just because Jesus existed and that is 'Ritual Laws'. I then asked him to define what a ritual law was so that I could tell them apart. The response was obfuscated and basically said that anything like that bitter water law was a ritual law... I came out of the discussion with less of an idea of what his ideas were than before, and I think that was what he intended. '...baffle them with bullshit.' As it is hard to argue against an idea that you don't know what the idea is.
Matt, there are many problems with it all. I'm a person that has studied like you have and one thing flying over everyone's heads today are religious remarks like "there is no remission of sins without the sheading of blood." Any thinking person can see that it all goes right out the window with that remark. God becomes just as great as his Old Testament followers. Once Jesus comes on the scene we find that they still haven't gotten over it.
Hey Matt, I am not sure if this was intentional, however all of the greenery behind you debunks all of the holy books. EVOLUTION - 150 year old concept. Remove the possibility of original sin, then we remove the traditional purpose of Jesus. The probability of an intentional god (creator) is unbelievably improbable. We can't prove either way. What reasonably educated people should look out for are other people that are "sure" of anything. Given our reality, we can never be sure about anything. Love your videos mate.
Re: the Catholic church and the deuterocanonical books. Protestants view those books pretty much the same way the Jews view them: that they ate valuable, but that they don't fit as part of OT canon. I think the Catholic church includes them in their bibles, but they still aren't a part of the canon. (at least that's my understanding). So to say that Christians reject parts of the Old Testament in rejecting these books as canonical, is a misrepresentation. These books were never considered canonical.
In devoting so much resources to arguing about the Bible's content, do you think you're implicitly granting it more relevance than it deserves as a jumble of ancient fictions?
It's the arbitrariness that really gets me. People just assert how their theology works without a reason or explanation. No denomination can actually demonstrate that they're correct over any other, nor can any religion. Show your work, y'know?
One of my Christian family members claims that the atrocities of the Old Testament don't matter because people didn't care as much about their loved ones back then. The lack of critical thinking sickens me.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth (who Jesus Christ is) to the born-again believer and only to those who believe and have faith. Not those who are religious and think their religion is going to help them have a relationship with our Creator/Redeemer (Jesus Christ).
@@paulgemme6056
It seems to me that Christians are always thinking that the holy spirit is revealing truth to them, but those truths are contradictory to the truths that other Christians think that they are getting from the holy spirit. I think that Christians mistake their own internal thoughts with influence from this holy spirit that they believe in.
HEY BE A EUNCUH DING DONG\. YOUR SPAWN COMMANDS IT. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
YOU LYING PEDO PSYHCO.
"But that's the OLD Testament!"
So are the Ten Commandments.
+JMUDoc That's my go to response, works every time.
+Sexton Hardcastle That has not worked when I tried it. I usually get 'you are mispresenting it' or 'that's your interpretation'. And that's when I get really angry, and then they will not talk about the original topic, but how I am angry. It's really frustrating.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe I've been through that. Christians usually do that when they know their arguments aren't rock solid but it's not just christians that do that though lol. So many people I've debated have done that...completely change the subject to avoid the original discussion.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe So are they claiming the ten commandments are not in the old testament?
No theists I know will debate me, even informally. They all know I watch Matt's videos. :P
Lurch Murphy I know I have done similar things too, and I'm not proud of it!
It's not enough to say 'you have changed the subject'. It's also important to show what the subject was and then repeat the contradiction.
nitehawk86 And if someone will debate you, they will just come to you, state their opinions, and then shut their ears. Or they will tell you what you think, and the whole conversation is about 'no, I don't think that', and then they just say 'yes you do'.
Real debates, where people try to convince others and will listen what you have to say, they are so rare.
I had once Jehowa's witness at my apartment to have a conversation with. I tried to understand what she said and I listened carefully. When I thought she contradicted herself, I stopped her and explained why I thought there was a contradiction. When I articulated my point, she nodded her head, like she agreed with me. When I got to the end, she said something like 'that's not a real problem... Lets talk about this'.
I don't think she did it deliberately, but I felt violated. You don't nod your head and then in the end say 'you just got it wrong', and then continue from there.
Those are reasons why I don't like debates. On textual format it is easier, because you can show what they said before, you can have your time to think what they said.
A perfect god doesn't get a do-over.
changing with the times
But a sinful man does....and a perfect God, gives man a do-over.....
It seems Genesis happened twice, though.
lol..."pants of the field"......someone pray that I learn to type....that should be..."plants of the field" which refers to cultivated field crops like early grains as apposed to wild plants that earlier hunter/gatherer Homo sp. depended on. ....
standswithfist806
If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything, there's no way around the sinful man being his wilful creation.
Here's the problem i have with the "that is the old testament" claim.
-Without the old testament, there is no genesis, no eden, no fall, no original sin.
-Then, there is no reason for jesus to have been sacrificed on the cross in order to save humanity from original sin and the fall.
So what was the point?
@Hocus Smokus its an amusing mythology certainly
@Hocus Smokus That doesn't really make it true though.
@Hocus Smokus But he's not real either...
@Hocus Smokus Not really sure about that... Do you have any real evidence for your beliefs?
@Hocus Smokus basically no you dont have evidence ... Didnt need you to make up a situation where you havr evidence which isnt really evidence...
You have better eyebrows than most girls I know.
:D
lol...i was in awe of Matt's eyebrows as well :)
Thanks for ruining Matt for me... Can - not - unsee
do Matt and A-ron Ra purposely do their eyebrows like Dr. Evil from old TV shows.....???.....(is it hiding a row of sixes?....lol)
Creepy
Today is Sunday. Matt is my Sunday school teacher.
Adam Sanders YES.
Adam Sanders darn. Yesterday was sunday! 😥
Today is monday
Today is Sunday. Devine intervention? Or coincidence? 😂
Today is easter Sunday. Matt bless you all
I love how Matt changes location. It's like walking through a park and stopping for a bit to continue talking.
The David Attenborough of atheism perhaps...
To "look at the trees?" ...sorry😊😂
When people start arguing how "that's the old testament" I go back to asking them do they believe that Jesus is God or a separate being. If they claim it's the same being then I ask them why would God change stance on many moral claims within 2000 years? Did he learn more about morality within those 2000 years or did he just change his mind. If they say he changed his mind then I argue that if he did it once before he can do it again and therefore he cannot be trusted. If they claim he learned something new then I go after the weakness of his knowledge and his inability to see the future. If they claim that Jesus was a separate being then I ask them if they realize that they don't believe in one God but rather two. And I go on asking them if both of these gods are equally knowledgeable and powerful or not? If yes then why do they have different stance on morality, if no then I ask them which one is more knowledgeable? If they say Yahweh then I claim that Jesus is therefore wrong about morality and Yahweh was correct. It can go on in circles like that but hopefully they realize that the reasoning behind their original claim just doesn't add up.
+Greg Kowal Well arnt you the clever one....lol Well let me as a Christian tell you my beliefs. I do not believe the Old testament to be the infallible word of God. I believe that it was written by men who either were or thought they were inspired by God. But they are man and are fallible. God is not. The Bible did not get zapped into our world. It was a computation of writings, that were put together by the Church.
As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God. I think Jesus was an aspect of God, a manifestation of the word of God in the flesh so to speak. He is a part of God. I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus?
You can try to pigeon hole God and trip up a Believer, but that tells you that the person is not able to articulate their reasons for their belief it does in no way invalidate them. No one not a believer or non believer has all the answers. I don't think that is the way it is supposed to work, but that is my belief. No one will be 100% right or wrong.
Laurie Durnan And your imbecile God who decided to pass his knowledge and laws through the people and one writing couldn't do it correctly. He couldn't predict that the writings will be full of nonsense and end up screwing his message to the people upon which your afterlife depends? Ridiculous.
"As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God" - It's funny how you know which writings are false because people made mistakes and which ones aren't and coincidently they all match your personal beliefs. I wonder why. I also wonder what mechanism do you use in order to come to a conclusion which sentence in the Bible is God's words and which one is just fallible men twisting his words.
"I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. " - but it couldn't be since the NT was written years after his death. So you are already wrong. It's not eyewitness account.
"I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. " - what evidence , historical events and science are you talking about? You need to elaborate with examples.
"You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus? " - So much wrong logic in here. First yes it is disputed that no historian outside of Bible actually mention Jesus. What they mention is a cult called Christians. There is no mentioning of Jesus and his divinity. And even if he was mentioned there is no reason to believe in his claims. There are plenty historical sources that currently mention Scientologists and other religious figures yet it does not prove that the claims of those religions are true. It just simply mentions their existence but in the case of Jesus even that is missing.
Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention.
As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. You an dispute any writings from that period of time which was my point. I have no reason to dispute them. The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end.
MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up.
Laurie Durnan " Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention." - This assumption arrises from the claims of religious people. Christians claim God loves people and wants all of them to be saved by accepting him and his message or otherwise be doomed to everlasting punishment. How can God assume that people will believe in the Bible if the book is full of stupid claims that are devoid of reality and them blame them for not believing in punish them to hell. Either your God cares about my wellbeing and loves me and therefore would make sure that his one and only message that was to be passed on in writing would not be tainted with bullshit, or he doesn't give a shit about his book and knows that plenty of people will reject it as it just doesn't make any sense and end up going to hell for it. So yes I assume that your God would be smart enough to figure it out and make sure that if my eternal life depends on me accepting the book as any value he would make sure that the book makes sense and isn't full of bullshit.
"As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. " - What copy? The earliest gospel was Mark's and was written somewhere around 70AD which makes it almost 40 years after Jesus' death. That's no eyewitness account.
"Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. " - St.Paul never actually met Jesus. So what eyewitness accounts are you talking about?
"The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. " - Same reason why historians wrote about other recent cults who you completely will agree with me are just pure cults and their claims are false. There are thousands of cults around the world and newspapers and historians mention their existence yet you would agree that mentioning an existence of a cult does not necessarily mean that the claims of the cult are true just because someone will mention you in his book or article. Would you?
"It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end." - Nonsense. Look into history books and you will see that there were many people who called themselves prophets in those days and plenty of cults. Today we see the same thing. New religions come and go and some do well while others disappear quickly. Scientology is quite popular today and it is quite a recently newly formed religion , does it mean that their religion is true since they have gained so many followers? You can answer that on your own.
"MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. "
Man have you not seen the news in the last 40 years? Crazy cults and suicides ? They all backed the wrong guy and yet they killed themselves for the cause.
"Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up." - You are so naive. Read a newspaper from time to time. Examples of what you speak of are on a daily basis. People follow crazies and believe in the nonsense all the time. Millions of people keep buying into homeopathy , anti-vaccine movement, anti-GMO and other nonsense and they are convinced they are right even after countless scientific studies prove them wrong. There will always be thousands or millions or people who blindly believe. Millions of Muslims, Hindus and other religious folks out there who are convinced their belief is correct and they will die for it. Yet you don't agree with them and think they die for wrong and false cause. Islamic terrorists claim to die as martyrs for Allah. You think their religion is false yet they deeply believe in it and die for wrong cause. Why? You claim people don't do that unless their belief actually had any merit. So are you saying Allah and Islam is real? Of course not. You believe in Jesus and God of the Bible.
As for your first point, again you make too many assumptions, All Christians do not believe in the same things. I am a Christian and I do not follow the Old Testament, I do not think that is the word of God......... It is a bunch of scrolls that were put together by men and a book was created.........
I believe in the New Testament it is very clear... The rules are pretty straight forward. No mistaking what the Man is saying,.... Therefore God is making it perfectly clear for you or anyone else. The New Testament is not the only place you can find God. You do not want him, therefore you will not find him. You have every right to deny God and he will not stop you, you are completely free to choose. It seems you prefer to spend your time finding reasons to dispute him rather than find him and again your choice.
Second point, the first copy is Marks and his is dated around 40 years, it is a copy therefore it stand to reason the original would have been early. The ref to Paul was because he references the Gospels and the Disciples by name. Paul clearly states in his letters he never met the living Jesus, He also clearly states he met the risen Jesus. withing 5 years of his death.
Third point is you missed my point. Why did there become a Cult following of Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, that was mocked beaten and Killed. The Jews were looking for a warrior Messiah that would lead them, it would have taken something pretty big to have them let go of their traditions. You have to keep in mind these were first century Jews. They held their traditions very very dear.
Your fourth point makes no sense so I will leave it alone. There is no logic at all to it.
Your last point is also wrong. There were not following what they believed to be true, They were there and saw it for their own eyes, they did not rely of someones word!! If it was all a lie it would have been their lie. They would have been the ones to start the whole story and then go around the world for years preaching for no money. no power nothing. Except the clothes on their backs and food for the day. Why would they do that for something they made up. There is no logic in that at all. They died because they would not deny what they saw.
The only Bible I could take serious would be the Director´s Cut published by himself.
Then it would probably be in pre-Akkadian and we find that the fundies and atheists have trouble with KJ English. See www.ancientscripts.com/akkadian.html & www.arch.cam.ac.uk/about-us/mesopotamia/mesopotamia-history/mesopotamia-languages
@@davidconklin9552 the King James Bible has the same issues as every other Bible. They are interpretations of interpretations of an oral tradition passed down through decades if not centuries before it was ever written down. Every Bible fails because of this.
the zack snyder cut of the bibel lol
Thank you for this Matt. Your 'Bible studies' (if I may call this that) are so helpful because you 'fight the steel man'. You explain the Christian position honestly, not seeking to mock or exaggerate, and then proceed to deconstruct it. There's a place for the satire of Hitch and the scathing of Dawkins, but atheists who want to talk knowledgeably about the Bible should come to you!
JoelJoel321 don't leave out Robert Ingersoll.
Hitch does not satire and Dawkins does not scat. Please re-framed from critiquing these good men wrong.
Erman ,Carrier and to a lesser extent Fitzgerald do will in this regard
"old test" Oh good the commandments no longer apply! Also why is the old test in the new bible?
@@HappyKillspee not scat, scathe.
If there is no god, why are vampires afraid of Crosses?
Checkmate Atheist!
+Captain Obvious Thanks, I had a good laugh.
Captain Obvious if we are going to talk about psychology
As Richard Pryor said: "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because Vampires are allergic to bullshit"
Hey yeh, vampires are rampant where I live,,,,doh
Maybe they were frightened of being crucified as was the thing from the 6th BC century, just about the time of Prince Vlad, who was all vampires eternal and paternal Father.
Your move Captain....man over board.
But the New Testament introduces us to Hell and everlasting torture. You may say the Old Testament is awful, but what is worse than infinite torture? Personally, I say the New Testament is worse.
ua-cam.com/video/SJUhlRoBL8M/v-deo.html
Frankly even the Jesus god they created is immoral by current standards...if a tv preacher told his audience to give up everything and hate their family society would rightfully call that preacher demented and evil
yadda yadda "but it's not to be taken literally" is the other cop out often in the same sentence as "But that's the Old Testament!"
It's not literal. Atheists accepting the same misinterpreted premise in order to reject it, without instead correcting it, are the ones copping out. I've heard an actual Rabbi state that the stories are just stories used to teach meanings. They were never meant to be taken literally. Why can't atheists get that? It goes right in line with their thinking.
@Amy Xoxo It's all allegory. If there's no God, how could it be anything else? Ironically, the first thing the proverbs teach is that you should seek wisdom and understanding. Faith or belief are never mentioned.
Who takes metaphors and hyperbole literally? Answer: atheists! For research, see www.academia.edu/36826104/FIGURES_OF_SPEECH_USED_IN_THE_BIBLE--Bullinger
@Darren Laurens I've heard of them. I don't really know exactly what their premise is or any specific claims they make but just the name evokes prejudice.
@@seanhammer6296 So if you are talking about the bible containing spiritual truths and meaning, what is the meaning behind how to treat your slaves
If people are too stupid to understand God, why doesn't God make them smarter so he can communicate with them?
Well that would be to easy and not fun at all
God is sadistic
It's utterly odd that a christian would use this argument when the fact of the matter is the new testament writings would not even exist if it wasn't for the old testament. They literally created a Jesus from the old testament.
nontheistdavid Yet they do. I did. Anything for that mental gymnastics work around...
@@bigsiskrishere You realize Jesus is a historical person who existed...right? Not that he necessarily was/is the Messiah, but he lived in Palestine and that he fulfilled numerous expectations for who the Messiah would be as predicted by the old testament. There are historical records outside of the Bible that confirm this, such as the writings of Josephus. Not to mention, people just after Jesus death believed (right or wrong) that he was the Messiah and were willing to die for that belief. You can claim that Christianity is wrong, but it is historically illiterate to say that Jesus was invented out of the Old Testament.
@@spaceburrito7975 No, I agree that he was an existing person. What I was referring to was the mental gymnastics in saying "But that was the old testament!" when the principles of the New Testament are all found in the Old, and the New would not make sense without it.
@@spaceburrito7975 followers of the Peoples Temple cult were also willing to die by the hundreds in the belief that they would be flying up to a spaceship. People are incredibly susceptible to delusion. Willingness to die, especially in a religious cult context is not strong evidence of anything, just that their brainwashing was particularly potent. This supposed jesus figure lived in a time so long ago that it's really difficult to make any definite statements about if he really existed or not. People that claim he definitely existed usually have a religious bias.
@@gerardt3284 Willingness to die is evidence that they were not dying for something they knew to be a lie: so they were either sincere or brainwashed as you say. Either way, they truly believed why they were dying for. But saying it's so long ago we can barely know anything is just simply a poor historical claim. There is much we know about the past, and in regards to Jesus, there is more evidence and records for his life, the way he died, and the movement that arose after his claimed resurrection than there are of many other historical events that we call fact without questioning them.
At 9:17 ─ Matthew 5: 17-19 (New International Version):
(17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (18) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (19) Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Cameri
what does this comment mean? I mean - you dropped in a quote. but I'm not sure why.
james barrett jr - Do you realize that I provided a time reference in the video (9:17) where Matt discusses this passage? Do you realize that this is some of the best evidence in the whole NT that Christians cannot just pretend the OT doesn’t matter?
Do you realize that nothing in the NT is observable nor reliable evidence.
@@Dr_Opal_Winfinger Do you realize that I quoted the passage BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS MATT'S ARGUMENT? I am with him on this, and actually if you look elsewhere in the comments, I argued with Christians that their position was untenable (i.e. that the NT supersedes the OT) because the language in Mat. 5: 17-19 is extremely clear. Since they believe that the NT is true and "better" than the OT, then why do they try to explain away this passage? Because it tells them the Laws of the OT still stand, and that Jesus is here to see them implemented to the letter.
It is important, in discussing these issues, to use the Christians' own evidence to show them how irrational their position is. It seems to me that this is what Matt does in this video. When he says Matthew 5: 17, he invites us to check for ourselves. I simply provided the text in the comments for ease of reference.
Such an amazing and concise expository. Thank you for putting this together.
Matt thank you for opening my eyes. This whole thing is painful but being ignorant hurts more. Thanks for all you do
I think if Christians could, they'd get rid of the old testament, except without the Adam and Eve story there was no reason for Jesus to die for their sins.
I still wonder how God needed himself to die to appease his anger over Adam eating the apple.
@@gusgrizzel8397 the buy-bull never says it was an apple
@@tlibito You miss the whole point.
@@gusgrizzel8397 No he didn't. He made a good point which is that anyone who has read the Bible knows the forbidden fruit wasn't mentioned to be an apple. It doesn't say what it was. Before you start talking about the Bible, read it all first. That goes for atheists and christians. Everyone should read the Bible before determining if they believe or not. If not, they shouldn't speak of the matter at all.
@@strangeroamer3219 You miss my point. I said "apple", could be any fruit, but (LOL), that wasn't the point. I asked why God needed himself to die to appease himself. How does that happen?
20:52 Hardcore parkour lizard :D
Clearly a dinosaur. Your not allowing for the Law of Perspective! 🤣
NEC and Flat Earth all in one comment 👍🏼😜👍🏼
YOU TRIPPIN'!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Love that lizard!
The New Testament is not actually more peaceful than The Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is one of the most unpleasant writings within The New Testament.
Its place in the Bıble canon has often been questioned - Luther for example considered leaving it out.
I wish you would have said more about: "The bible is written by men led by the holy ghost". You could have elaborated with the "holy ghost" being one third of the holy trinity. So...perhaps the holy ghost was being unclear, or men misunderstood. Whichever way, both god and jesus simply allowed this misunderstanding between the holy ghost and the men who wrote god's word down to blunder ahead. The other question is: why has god and jesus and the holy ghost not fix these blunder by now? Why do most christians, muslims and jews insist that their holy words are flawless, even when they tell them different things from the same god which they all worship?
I just discovered your channel. It's nice to hear a rational discussion without accusations and name calling.
We have been lied to concerning the origin of life. God/Jesus Christ cannot lie. Man can lie because he is finite (limited). The devil - Satan is a liar and the father of all lies. So, when we lie, we are under the influence of the devil.
lol the 42 apologetics with the dislikes
Apologists
Matt Dillahunty situated in the 'Garden of Eden'.... now that's ironic!
and folks tell me all the time that there is no such thing as a talking snake.....(serpent)
This was exellent! These kind of informative videos are great. Keep up the good work for reason and science
You have a lot of great points, Matt. Love to hear you speak, even though I'd challenge you, lol. Thank you for all you do. Critical thinking is definitely one of humanities weaknesses.
Thanks Matt. I'm greatful for this great content that you laid out for everyone.
I absolutely am in love with this video format. Everything that is just sit and talk should be outside imo
I always wondered when they say that. I want to ask them...do you think that it was the same guy? if he once was horribly evil does that mean that god changed or the morals? should god have to pay for his own sins? Should god be prosecuted for war crimes? If this book is so full of evidence, shouldent we be able to convict him?... anyway it demonstrates the character of god if you take the book as 'gods word', the god demonstrated does not show good moral character.
Their answer is usualy go read what x has to say about this. They make it a philosophical argument open to interpretations. Once they have an explanation that they are ok with,they stop questioning. And believe me,their standards are really low. So they make the answer to "what about the old testament" a somehow deep metaphysical philosophical one that you and i cannot understand as they often claim. It takes faith. My response is: bullshit.
M-Set claiming that 'we are not smart enough to understand this super deep idea' is a pretty effective one. That is why many people like leaders who can do the thinking for them. Also remember that the majority of people are not well educated. It leaves people very vulnerable.
Even with my relative good education and understanding that in the rational sense the bible does not make sense, the idea of there being a deeper truth combined with the very primitive fear indoctrination of 'what if i am wrong' has allowed Christianity hold onto me for a very long time. Only recently have i fully understood how much of an emotionally abusive relationship Christianity is. Even then the it is hard to get rid of that fear indoctrination completely out.
I consider myself a relatively light case of indoctrination, I live in a liberal state with many other religions, I was exposed to a relatively liberal forms of Christianity (even the version of LDS* i was exposed to was relatively light), I was exposed to several forms of Christianity, I was aware of how the bible was put together. I was rather surprised when i recently decided to examine my beliefs how much had remained and that it was largely to fear of being wrong and that i might not understand the deeper truth. I actually had to use emotional arguments before being able to examine things more rationally. Even then 'what if your wrong' still float in my head, just not with as much power as it used to.
Ever thingk of this? The Rages of Sin is Death right? Now the New testament, if you have read in the later chatpers of the Book off Jihn during the last Supper Jusus broke the Bread and then the wine, One of The Deciples clears asks Jesus to Show them The Father, The Father reference is God. And then Jesus said, those who have seen Him have seen the Father. that cleared that He was telling them, He is God, but in the Flesh right? So sence Jesus was crusified, that would Mean God died for Sins, and that would include His own, right? So by that He basicly did a action that made sin to be forgiveable even though We are still sinners, We can be forgiven. But We must repent and receive His Holy Spirit in order that We can be from the state We been in to be transformed into better people. and also have His very spirit also be apart of us, as We were of him to begin with butsin broke that bond of relationship. What ever you think or decide, there is alwasy some thing We over look, Like why God judges If we were innocent, and many of us are not, I know that for a fact. I held a grudge on My wn Uncle from 1007, to 2016. He died, and I never forgave Him. i could have and should have, but I did not. I held on to Bitterness even though as family I loved Him, but I did not forgive Him for smoking crack and making Me and My Mom and Step father Homeless when We owned a house, and then going to School as a Homeless kid where I could be made fun of. I have no idea, I hope My Uncle is in Heaven, but if not, it was My own faught for not forgiving Him.
This is excellent! I've encountered Covenant and Dispensationalist arguments in the past but did not know the terminology.
I've maintained for years that "Paul" is far more important in the lives of Christians than Christ as the majority of quotes flung at me to justify some thing or other are more likely to come from the writings attributed to Paul than the teachings attributed to Christ - this is why I frequently refer to Christians as "Paulites".
Excellent video Matt!
Christianity used bits and pieces of the Old Testament to launch a new religion.
In that process, God's "absolute" morality becomes relative and changes with the times.
Salvation is redefined, with new rules.
Satan becomes an enemy of the Bible God rather than his servant.
In Trinitarian Christianity "God" is redefined and becomes a three person deity.
The definition and job requirements for an expected king messiah get redefined.
The result is theological gibberish, and its primary goal is to spread itself.
That's kind of what Daniel Dennett says when he looks at religions in evolutionary terms.
I loved that lizard that leaped and crossed that branch (on the left side of Matt's right shoulder) at 20:53.
At one point Matt asks "Why is there a problem in communication between God and people? Did God create them flawed?" (paraphrase). This is similar to a another line of reasoning I have: the Bible claims that it is impossible for any person to remain without sin, even though we all make the choices that lead to our sins. Fine, but then why did God create us with such a predisposition to be sinful? If a watchmaker can only make broken watches, then he must not be a very good watchmaker. If God can only make broken humans, then he must not be a good creator.
Matt, thanks for this quality video. Thoughtful, gentle and nonjudgmental. As a deconverted born again, I dislike patronizing criticisms of Christians- people can’t hear a condescending speaker. Thanks again.
ALL religions are about 3 things and 3 things only, MONEY, POWER AND CONTROL OF PEOPLE. I HATE the fact that as a taxpayer I support religious organisations (because they pay no tax, taxpayers pay it for them.) You only have to look at those evangelists who have their own planes, monstrous homes and yet normal people have to save up and pay off a house, but they live in luxury.
UA-cam autoplay knows me better than I know myself.
I love when Christians bring up this argument. Lets grant that the immoral content contained within the OT does not apply anymore, their god isn't let off the hook. In the Christian theology, God (who is all-loving) inspired men to write the entire Bible.There should therefore be absolutely no immoral passages contained within the book. Some Christians in my experience have said that slavery for example was widely accepted at the time as it was part of culture. But if God is the supposed objective source for morality, I'd expect him to be morally above what was at the time, otherwise he is indistinguishable from being the mere imagination of the society at the time. And if God is the source for objective morality, is God still okay with slavery today? Or did he just change his mind as time went on, thereby making his morality subjective? God cannot have objective morality while also being a moral relativist, its a contradiction!
So in conclusion, if a god out there exists, its certainly NOT the god of the Bible.
love these videos Matt. keep them coming
Seriously, every church needs to listen to this explanation! And then just maybe we will have an age where people will really think.....
Awesome vid, kinda wish the Matt 5:18 reference had been left out as it doesn't make sense in terms of christian thinking on the topic, but besides that, ruling!!
Re. "dispensationalism," let's do some benchmarking: The book of Exodus is believed to have been written sometime in the 5th-6th century BC.
In contrast to the mindset described there, Cyrus the Great, 600-530 BC, freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. As preserved in the "Cyrus Cylinder" in cuneiform script.
When you talk Old Testament vs New Testament, all I hear is Batman vs Superman.
Fiction is fiction. Endless discussions and deconstructions doesn't make it true.
Old testament vs new testament = Batman vs Superman
Atheism vs Theism = Team Iron Man vs Team Captain America
@@viktorthevictor6240 No, not even close.
Science and scientific inquiry have brought you the computer you sent this message on.
Now, you can try to pray your message to me but I think its going to be less effective.
Team Reason wins, again.
Matt, sometimes do you quietly consider the effect of, and worldwide diameter of the careful logic you thoughtfully espouse?
Yes. You do.
Would demand for more content sooner but these video have a lot of content like a jack in a box and the beautiful scene behind you make it worth watching aswell as listening. Plus ik it takes time and it's all worth it.
Plus the drunken peasants and your atheist experience show is also pretty good enough to supply for my demand.
1:10 -- Another way of saying it might be "...and there are many atypical Bibles."
Thanks Matt, as always, respect!
Is it wrong to trim your eyebrows? I think not.
when Hollywood does a re-make of Dr. Evil....who will get the last laugh......
16:40 In the OT "here's a problem, there's a solution...ah, but that leads to a new problem". Sounds quite like (how Matt himself has said) apologists point at gaps in the fossil record and, when we fill a space, they say "aha, see? Now there's TWO gaps."
I'm Waaaaaay on Matt's side. I just noticed a similarity between his current argument and an argument for which he has often criticised the other side.
The old testament is also referred as the law.
In order to circumvent problems concerning commandments, some theologians have come up with distinction between the ritual, civil or moral law. This is Handy to discard whatever you do not want to follow
Another one of my favs is “your taking it out of context”.
I would argue that the Bible is more than a collection of books. As a student of literature and a teacher of literature for many years I see in this book a *unity* and *coherence* that is unknown in any collection of books, even if they deal with the same topic.
In fact the Bible taken as a whole is a single story. And it has all the characteristics that we have come to recognize in stories - until we come to post-modern literature. It has a beginning (*exposition*) in which the the *background* of the story is presented, the *setting* of the story is explained, the *characters* are introduced, and the *conflict* begins to build.
*Suspense* is part of the story. The one who is introduce in the exposition as the one who will crush the serpent we come to see as the hero or *protagonist*. (The serpent is obviously the *antagonist*.) But who this mystery protagonist will be is revealed only gradually as suspense increases.
The story comes to a *crisis* with the revealing of the hero, now known as the Messiah and a turn in the plot.
The hero is on the stage (the Gospels), but the *final resolution* is not yet. There is *falling action* as we find how the serpent resists his demise and yet the Messiah prevails. The kingdom of the Messiah extends as he begins to bring the world under his control.
Finally, there is the battle between the serpent and the Messiah (Revelation). And there follows the *denouement* in which we find out what the outcome for the Messiah and his kingdom will be as well as the final outcome for the serpent.
This is the plot of a book that includes many characters and their stories as well as personal character development in poetry and action (history), poetry and stories that have been recognized by students of literature as some of the best found anywhere or from any period of time. This all was written over perhaps a thousand years by dozens of different authors, many of whom did not even imagine that they were writing a part of a far greater whole..
That is so totally amazing for me as a teacher of literature that I can explain it only as divine.
Uh... I've read the Bible. It's not as coherent as you make it sound. It will contradict itself from paragraph to paragraph. God himself is completely inconsistent character, not to mention very fickle and self-righteous.
Also, what serpent? The one in Genesis? Not only is he not a consistent antagonist - despite popular belief, there's no indication that he's Satan -, but the book of Revelations was something evidently written after being inspired by the earlier stories. It's like fan fiction of the earlier stories that got placed in the same book with them.
Also, my god, if you think the writing of the Bible is some of the best found anywhere from any period of time, you should try... almost literally any literature from pretty much any time. Seriously, the Greeks and the Romans blow the writing of the Bible out of the water. It's chicken scratch compared to the literature of Homer and Virgil.
The Bible contains entire books that are now known to be forgeries, such as 2 Peter. This invalidates your theory that it is divine.
Garrison Keillor once said that everyone in Lake Wobegon was a Lutheran, even the atheists. It was the Lutheran God they didn't believe to exist.
If 2nd Peter were not written by Peter, something that I am not ready to concede, how would that invalidate the entire Bible? That is a very Fundamentalist position because it seems to call in question inspiration. But be reasonable. Second Peter is in the Bible because people in the first two centuries thought it spoke truth to them.
But if that book were not in the Bible what difference would it make? What is in the book that is essential to Christian teaching or faith?
The answer is not much. So what you really have a problem with is the selection process, not inspiration. Well, you're not alone. The People in the first two centuries were not all in accord on 2 Peter either. But that did not lead them to the conclusion that nothing was divine. Why does it you - unless you are a Fundamentalist?
You have to read my reply in light of your original (and very "fundamentalist") comment about the unity AND divinity of the entire Bible. This is invalidated by the fact that there are forgeries in it because you (not me) argued for the unity of the entire collection.
If a book such as 2 Peter spoke truth to the people and they therefore inserted it in the NT, as you claim, where's the divinity in that? This shows that this collection of books is largely arbitrary and man-made. And what about the fact that four gospels were selected, rather than just one? You read basically the same story three times (the "synoptic" Gospels) with a load of contradictions, and then get to the fourth Gospel in which the nature of Jesus/Christ contradicts most of what was said in the first three.
If you're going to look at the NT as literature, which I agree with since it is man-made, it is interesting that Paul's Jesus has little in common with the Gospels' Jesus, written several decades later. Someone is born of a virgin, performs miracles and even resurrect the dead, and this is not worthy of notice anywhere in Paul?? Wow! This is typical of how stories are built through generations by humans. In this it is very similar to the Trojan War epic, the Chanson de Roland, etc.
I was speaking of unity and coherence from a literary point of view. In literature, we consider something to have unity when it keeps to one theme or thesis and does not digress to follow rabbit trails.
So when I think of the entire story of the Bible, I see unity. There is unity theologically, and at that point 2 Peter does not appear to follow any rabbit trails or digress from the nature of God revealed in the other books nor from the basic scheme of progressive revelation.
The men who debated the canon - and who did debate at length 2nd Peter - finally came to agree that 2nd Peter did not diverge from the theology revealed in the other books.
Second Peter did add some things to the body of theology. (That is the idea of progressive revelation.) But it did not contradict anything that had previously revealed.
The second criterion was the more illusive issue of inspiration. That means a spiritual liveliness breathed into the book and profitable for the Christian.
At that point, 2 Peter does vigorously urge a holiness of life based on the fact of the return of Christ to judge the world. That idea is both consistent with other revelation and valuable for Christian living.
The only issue that seems unresolved is whether Peter wrote - or dictated - the letter. And my question to you is the same that the men who set their approval upon this letter as inspired had to deal with: How do you know that it is not Petrine in origin?
*And what about the fact that four gospels were selected, rather than just one? You read basically the same story three times (the "synoptic" Gospels) with a load of contradictions, and then get to the fourth Gospel in which the nature of Jesus/Christ contradicts most of what was said in the first three.*
Each of the four Gospels contribute something unique. They are what amount to four different viewpoints of one life. And they originally had four different audiences to which they were addressed. I don't see what the objection is to that. We might find many biographies of Abraham Lincoln and each one of them valuable.
As to contradiction, you'll have to provide some examples. I have yet to find any that really are contradictions.
I also don't find anything in John regarding the nature of Jesus that contradicts with any of the synoptics. The only difficulty that I have found is whether the crucifixion happened on Passover or the day before. But even that can be harmonized.
So give me some of the contradictions you find, and we'll talk.
Your progression of thoughts and the work needed to arrive to them so mirrors my own. Perhaps that is because I also took my Christianity seriously, and the cognitive dissonance I experienced was such that I became seriously ill attempting to live with it and avoid the losses I knew would come. I was trying to leave, to be somewhere where I could just be, and be honest. I didn't get away in time. These problems and conflicts could never be solved with re-defining terms, leaving stuff on the shelf. I carefully read the Bible, and there was no way out. If it had been me alone, I'd easily have walked away. But in the crucible that followed for all the family forced me to look at it all and my conclusions were not a choice. You know what happens: Christians saw me as disobedient and sinful, but my only motive was finding a real resolution. I tried to maintain "faith"--by being willing, deliberately choosing, accepting, praying. But my mind saw what it saw. To try to "try to believe" becomes silly, and worse, debilitating. If I see an apple I can't make myself believe it's an orange because I'm instructed to take a pastor's word for it because he's a "spiritual leader",and I must be submissive. I can listen with right good will, but co-opting my reality to favor yours? I experienced one thing a lot: when I spoke, say told a series of events that transpired, I was told I was "justifying" when only stating facts. They infer motives that don't exist. I was kindly told that if I wanted a friend who would be up-front and honest, she would be that friend (by admonishing, pointing out sins). The answer was, sure, but being up-front and honest does not mean that one is ACCURATE.
Good stuff Matt, as usual.
the more I listen to Matt, the more Atheist I become....your knowledge is staggering and sound with reason and logic
Matt...god has blessed you. You don't age! Great video yet again!
Wait, where does it say in the Bible, OT or NT, that slavery is wrong? Or why do you think that everyone agrees that slavery is wrong?
Look at the small green lizard on the fence to the left at 20:53.
Am I the only one who noticed the lizard at 20:53?
Dillahunty did you get your eyebrows done? Just kidding man, love your stuff. Still glad to see you are still at it, and looking quite healthy. Stay the course.
Sincerely,
Dillahunty/Atheiest experience fan
matt hits the back of the net once again. excellent work
Great job, Matt!
(I haven't watched the whole video yet, so if my question is answered later on, I apologize in advance) So basically around 9:40 Matt talks about one of the many times where Jesus states that the Old Testament Laws won't be changed until everything is fulfilled. I've frequently heard theists respond by saying that with Jesus, everything HAS been fulfilled, so things from the OT can now be changed. There are a few responses to this objection that I can think of, but I'm wondering how you would respond to this.
I was told by a Pastor that i know that he's not cherry picking, parables simply dont count.
I said to him.. "THAT'S CHERRY PICKING!"
Cheers Matt catch you on The Atheist Experience
Matt - Few quick questions. I use many of the points listed here in semi formal and informal discussions with theists, however, I'm curious what you think about information that largely comes from Bart Ehrman in regard to how the Bible was copied by hand so many thousands of times over almost 1,500 years, that the known amount of mistakes or irregularities that have occurred by simple human error have accumulated to be figured to be greater than the number of words the bible contains....do you feel this is good information to put forward when discussing the bible, and if so, why you don't use this more when discussing the bible?
I appreciate your thoughts on this if you happen to see this. Thanks
Did you do something to improve the sound quality? It sounds great.
Surely dispensationalism and covenant theology is the same thing? The dispensation of the church is what came after the covenant that came with christ. I think maybe you've missunderstood the two.
And what is the teaching you are aluding to when you say that the old testaments covenants and dispensations are no longer valid? I´ve never heard any knowledgable dispensationalist who does that.
The concept of cosmic fine tuning is an evidence intelligent design.
The counter to this i have been schooled is multi verse.
Given infinite universes and infinite possibilities we have lucked out on a Universe that can support us humans.
The multiverse theory suggests that our universe is just one of many in an infinite multiverse where new universes are constantly being born.
On weighing these 2 options up I would look at the probability of one or the other, as favoring intelligent design.
"This is the word of God. The absolute testament of the way God commands that we live our lives...but a huge portion of it is absolute bullshit and should be disregarded"
That last was quite chilling and ominous.
Your point about 2 Timothy 3:16 really shed light on things for me. I've heard it quoted for years. When you think about it. It was written before the Gospels. Does that verse make everything afterwards null and void?
That’s one of the most irritating comments. It’s only been about 15 years that they started saying that. It’s their new defense system/
Exactly.
20:53 tiny lizard on the left
Psalm 137:9 is my favorite verse to quote because most churches quote from psalms in their sermons. " Happy is the one who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks"
lol....silly kids..the bible is like a police report..its objective is to show man just how awful he is...Of course the bible has folks smiling when they kill babies, and happy when they kill their brother, and happy when they have affairs and lie about it....If you think that the Israelites weren't bashin' Babylonian baby heads and enjoyin' it well you are missing something....
Are ya under the impression that the bible is some book about how great the Jews are, man you have totally missed the WHOLE point.
Ray Comfort would believe anything! Just tour the Creation Museum!
Never could stomach Paul! What a dick!
Matt, I'm so glad your on the front lines! And, your in Austin, Texas!
Excellent information and rebuttals, Matt. I do want to point out that some of us do not think that the New Testament teaches eternal conscious torment. People misconstrue various idioms and words and think that hell burns forever along with unbelievers. I'd be interested to see you tackle this is an upcoming video. Reference what an "unquenchable fire" is from the OT and you will see what is being conveyed when the NT uses it.
What is your opinion of jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Doesn't jesus imply a place of fire that can't be exited?
+WBWhiting The main clue is that this is a "parable". It's not meant to be taken literally. They're used to illustrate other ideas. So if Jesus actually told this parable, he was trying to illustrate something else. That's my take on it anyhow.
Luke 16 is a parable, but it seems to be one of the most descriptive passages of hell that christians have to go on, so interpretations that take details literally are not in error. They are not misconstruing anything, jesus may indeed have believed in the hell of torture that he described.
Luke 3:16-17 jesus will gather 'wheat' into his 'barn' and burn 'chaff' with unquenchable fire.
Isn't saying that it shouldn't be taken literally more of an appeal to consequences rather than correcting christian perceptions, since we can't know what their founders intended as fact and metaphor?
+WBWhiting Let me reiterate that this is my take on it. With that being said, I studied every passage on this topic in depth for years and I have formed my opinion from my countless hours of research. I arrived at the same conclusion as the 7th Day Adventists on the topic.
We keep talking about it being a parable, so forcing a literal interpretation is not something they should be doing here with Lazarus. Again, this is my opinion on the matter, but honest Bible teachers should be saying the same thing, since they understand what a parable actually is.
As for the wheat and chaff references, can you explain what happens when chaff is set on fire? Does it burn eternally or does it quickly go out? I never said that Jesus didn't reference fire. It appears that he did (well, if we are to believe that he said the things in red in the NT). But there is a big difference in burning chaff vs. the parable of Lazarus.
A parable can demonstrate what process will happen, without the specific example used being any actual individual case. Many christians believe that to be the case with this parable, and unless the exact words are falsifications of whatever jesus may have said, then christians are justified in their literal interpretation of the passage being an accurate reflection of their messiah's beliefs.
John the Baptist was referencing - treating - people like wheat and chaff when he spoke of burning them with "Unquenchable Fire" in Luke 3, the unquenchable part was why I brought it up. I do understand metaphor. Christian beliefs in hell being a place of unending inescapable torment are supported and not contradicted by the texts.
You make awesome points.
23:46. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of god" 2 Timothy 3-16
"But the rest speak I, not the lord" 1 Cor. 7-12
Perfect and inerrant 👍
THANK YOU MATT !
..for saying it concisely & accurately the way some of us have trouble 'on the spot' - 'in the spotlight'...
I also 'home-schooled' myself a "clergy project" actually just a couple of years prior to the *actual* Clergy Project coming to North America. ..
Congrats & Cheers !
Keep up the *great* work mate !
Who saw the lizard 🦎 @ 20:50? Great video!
In my life surrounded by mostly deeply pentecostal (AoG) Christians, every time I have mentioned any OT problems the response is almost always the misrepresentation "OT=law and Jesus fulfilled/negated the law". This is the guaranteed response to pointing out that no one keeps the Sabbath holy.
Yet even the mutated version of the "fulfillment" verse makes absolutely no sense.
Matt, some of what you said is sorta not useful.
Lemme explain.
Think about the Old Testament like the U S Constitution. It lays out the foundation for the system. And the New Testament is like amendments to the constitution or federal laws; that is, changes or adjustments to the system.
So the old testament isn't irrelevant anymore than the US Constitution is. But some parts have been changed by later amendments.
I'm atheist but I know how a Christian would respond. That's why I bring this up.
The worst part is this is just a nice blanket statement to say basically the same thing as the other arguments, that the bad stuff has been "amended" out by the new. So they can get away with feeling good about the Bible then. I feel at that point it'd be good to mention that not everything had been amended out, eg slavery, gay marriage. Plus verses like Matthew 5:17 are useful in pointing out that the Old Testament is still valid.
That'd be how I would argue against that explanation anyway, since the argument sounds like it'd wind up in the same place as the Covenant theology/dispensationalism Matt talked about.
The Catholics follow covenant theology, but they have an interesting twist to it, they don't think that the standards of morality (or as they like to put it themes of the bible) necessarily CHANGE, but rather many standards can run simultaneously, while others, namely god's specific promise to Jews and the rationalization for their savage take over of Judea, has become outmoded and no longer is in use. Its an interesting way around having standards change, but they have them change depending on what context the people are in so that you don't say that overnight morals completely changed with something.
I'd be curious to your thoughts on this.
Literally just had to argue with someone today over this crap. like I've read the book, how can they tell me that they simultaneously regard the old testament with reverence, yet they also dismiss it entirely out of hand when they need to.
Why did god make the Old Testament if he doesn’t want his children to follow it?
I had a long discussion about this with a preacher friend of mine. I asked what laws in the OT doesn't apply any more and the NT passage that changes it. His response was that Jesus didn't change the old laws, but that he fulfilled them. He also said that their is a difference in OT laws as to them being civil, moral, and Mosaic. I asked him to please define what those terms meant and what ones still apply and what ones don't. To this I got no answer and just a small explanation and answer to a question that I didn't ask of how Jesus fulfilled the law, in that Jesus was the finally animal sacrifice and so we don't have to sacrifice animals anymore because Jesus 'fulfilled' all need to do sacrifices any more. I asked how that changes the law about the suspected unfaithful wife having to drink the bitter water. He said that is a ritual not a law, when I showed him that many different versions of the bible say it is a law. He then added a new type of law that isn't followed any more, just because Jesus existed and that is 'Ritual Laws'. I then asked him to define what a ritual law was so that I could tell them apart. The response was obfuscated and basically said that anything like that bitter water law was a ritual law... I came out of the discussion with less of an idea of what his ideas were than before, and I think that was what he intended. '...baffle them with bullshit.' As it is hard to argue against an idea that you don't know what the idea is.
most likely it will be "But that's the 'old new testament', this here is the 'new' new testament...
Matt, there are many problems with it all. I'm a person that has studied like you have and one thing flying over everyone's heads today are religious remarks like "there is no remission of sins without the sheading of blood." Any thinking person can see that it all goes right out the window with that remark. God becomes just as great as his Old Testament followers. Once Jesus comes on the scene we find that they still haven't gotten over it.
somebody please help me. where in the New Testament does it actually tell us to disregard the OT laws??
At 26-26 a lizard jumped out of his right shoulder. Is this significant ?
Hey Matt, I am not sure if this was intentional, however all of the greenery behind you debunks all of the holy books. EVOLUTION - 150 year old concept. Remove the possibility of original sin, then we remove the traditional purpose of Jesus. The probability of an intentional god (creator) is unbelievably improbable. We can't prove either way. What reasonably educated people should look out for are other people that are "sure" of anything. Given our reality, we can never be sure about anything. Love your videos mate.
Re: the Catholic church and the deuterocanonical books. Protestants view those books pretty much the same way the Jews view them: that they ate valuable, but that they don't fit as part of OT canon. I think the Catholic church includes them in their bibles, but they still aren't a part of the canon. (at least that's my understanding).
So to say that Christians reject parts of the Old Testament in rejecting these books as canonical, is a misrepresentation. These books were never considered canonical.
In devoting so much resources to arguing about the Bible's content, do you think you're implicitly granting it more relevance than it deserves as a jumble of ancient fictions?
It's the arbitrariness that really gets me. People just assert how their theology works without a reason or explanation. No denomination can actually demonstrate that they're correct over any other, nor can any religion.
Show your work, y'know?
Gecko over Matt's right shoulder at 20:52.
Thanks Matt!
Man your head is really well shaven. Also, your camera is producing a little moire on your forehead.
I have never listened to Testament. Which is a better place to begin? Old Testament or newer Testament?
If you're into torture porn, go with the Old Testament. :)
:) I was actually refering to the old music band, Testament.