Joe Rogan knows Alex is a European White priveledged boy that stopped growing at the age of 13 with no experience in love war and suffering and plays philosopher questioning God lol.. Alex is a loser with a british accent
This is the most skeptical I've seen you in any recent video. Many of your points were fair. I was also biting my lip when the great Isaiah scroll was said to be "word for word" with the masoretic text. Using the 500 that witnessed Jesus as an apologetic is also very weak as you point out, though to be fair to Wes I think he made an effort not to lean on this by clarifying that it was "according to Paul". Stronger evidence in that respect are all the named characters in the gospels and epistles which are likely so named such that people could go talk to them or their family about their experiences. However you also said some stuff which was way out on the maximally skeptical take. Like 29:20... You really think that supposing you grant that these epistles are accurately attributed that they don't count as witnesses to the resurrection? That makes sense to you that in the environment of the early church which was built around the theology of a resurrected Jesus who appeared to the disciples, that because these disciples failed to repeat the story in their epistles we can't know if they backed it or not? Surely it's waaay more logical to assume an apostle writing to the early church supports the widespread account of things rather than imagine that silence implies they could be withholding the real story. edit: I see there was a misunderstanding here. JR asked for "accounts" of the resurrection, WH started talking about known witnesses of the resurrection, Alex is critiquing WH's response as if he's talking about accounts, and I critiqued Alex as if he were talking about witnesses. Confusion all around. Anyways, maybe you're more skeptical than you let on most of the time, in which case, you've done even better than I realized at treating opposing views with respect.
I think Alex is particularly skeptical when it comes to the biblical text, maybe partly because he's spoken more with guys like Bart Ehrman about it than guys like Peter Williams or even Bill Craig. I also think maybe he has a sense that Christians aren't able to evaluate the biblical text without unhelpful bias, whereas when it comes to philosophical arguments everyone's working out is spelled out more clearly. (Not saying I agree with Alex, just speculating about why he might seem more sceptical here.)
I dont think any of that matters what matters is if u string me up and I'm reasonably sane I will not die for a lie so either I am in complete belief or crazy and I doubt all the people that died for Jesus in this early period were crazy cultists and no most of us aren't Braveheart and will take disembowelment to shout freedom I would be yeah I love the king off with my head fast !
So you're saying Alex is being unfair because he doesn't think "never mentioning the resurrection" doesn't qualify as an eye witness account for the resurrection? If that much is being overly skeptical, I think you need to adjust your standards.
can I just point out @Alex O'Connor, that at just before 7:20 you mention life expectancy being low, so people 40 years after an event in their living memory would be thin on the ground or simply not exist. Now, I don't believe you do not know this, but life expectancy figures are essentially determined by number of babies dying and still births/complications in pregnancy. Therefore a life expectancy of 52, doesn't mean 53 year olds don't exist, it simply means the amount of deaths of children/babies etc is exceptionally so as to drag down the life expectancy of the entire population, as a statistical analysis.
This is a very, very poor criticism on O'Connor's part. In ancient Rome, if one survived infancy, average age was around 63--and those who reached 50 could expect to live into their 70s (see, e.g. "Growing Old in Ancient Greece and Rome").
@@NathanColvin It's not a case of thinking, we know it. It's simple mathematics, if a massive proportion of young people die in infancy/early childhood then it will skew the averages.
@@angusmcculloch6653 but we do not know the age of Mark or any of the disciples and which age to add 40 to. If they were the same age as Jesus, they could have been around 30-40 (as Jesus would have been at his death, but that's obviously unknown and contested), which would put them at 70-80. Hardly young sproutlings.
14:40 Catholic here. Your call out here is well-deserved. My bet is that Wes didn't phrase this accurately. This is very fundamental Bible history that there's no way he isn't aware of it. Regardless, a great call out on your part.
2024: Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles settles sex abuse cases for $880 million 2007: cardinal Roger Mahony, leader of Los Angeles Catholics to pay $660 million settlement. 2019: Some 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults suffered abuse while in state and faith-based care in New Zealand over the last 70 years, a landmark investigation has found. It means almost one in three children in care from 1950 to 2019 suffered some form of abuse, including being subject to rape, electric shocks and forced labour, according to the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry. i guess god isn't paying attention i guess morality isn't written on priests hearts i guess god makes no difference at all to the world. admitting to being catholic is like admitting to being part of organized crime, has the pope stopped apologising for all the abuse cases that are bankrupting god? i have to say it's great that the pope has finally pointed out god's error about homosexuality and okayed gay marriage, nice to see religion finally catching up with real morality, and good of the religists to admit god was wrong. maybe in a few years it'll l be so watered down religion will be invisible. what did they do with the space left by limbo being abolished? ballroom? casino?
“The Isaiah Scroll is practically identical to the Masoretic Text, with more than 95% of the text being word for word the same.” “The remaining 5% of the text is made up of minor differences, such as spelling variations or slips of the pen. These differences do not affect the meaning or pronunciation of the text. “
@@tgrogan6049That sounds more plausible compared to Alex’s claim. How many times have I seen documents, especially old, use variations in spellings. I doubt they had style references back then like how we do now. Even now there are multiple styles English. I hope when Alex starts talking about Ancient Greek. I hope he is not relying on the Internet for translation, because Wes understands Ancient Greek. One day Alex spends this amount of time on Qu’ran as the Bible and I don’t want to hear excuses about I haven’t read it yet.
Percentages are a weak indicator, you can change a whole chapter’s meaning by just adding the word “Not” to the beginning of a couple of the sentences. It’d be 99% the same with 100% different meaning.
@@gustavomrolon No you can't. Do you know how to read? there's literally big context behind every chapter you can't just change the whole conclusion by putting "not" or such things. That's the most stupid argument I heard yet.
Rogan said he would be interested in having Wes and another individual with a different perspective to Wes on his show having a discussion. I think you would be the best candidate.
@@asmodeus5326 baccalaureate. that doesn't make one a bible scholar. just like having an undergraduate degree in philosophy doesn't make one a philosophy scholar.
@angusmcculloch6653 I wasn't trying to imply he was a scholar but a degree in theology does also imply he has more knowledge in the subject than the average joe but less than a scholar
@@12yearoldscotchNonono. The only thing to do with Hijab is to stop pretending like he is worth listening to and pretend he doesn't exist. That Jordan Peterson wasted time on him disappointed me.
5:51 Christianity grew regardless of the stifling persecution by Roman Emperors throwing them to the lions, beheadings, being lit on fire etc. to compare that with Mormonism is asinine.
5:28: I get the point but in the 4th century, people were less interconnected than in the 19th century, where mormonism was established. In the 4th century, communication was slow, relying on physical travel over land or sea. Cultural and linguistic barriers made widespread dissemination challenging. In the 19th century, society was way more connected also thanks to new transportation method and the invention of the printing press
That’s why the point is percentage growth, not raw numbers. It’s a 40% increase year over year, which was the point Alex was making. You could still argue that the only reason Mormonism is matching that is due to the internet etc, but I think it’s minimized a little by the rate of increase being in percentages
yes but also ascribing the rate of adoption of a religion to the validity of its truth is still a bit shaky, since there was also the historical top-down enforcing of people to follow such beliefs
The Romans had a system of government that was well organized established throughout their Empire. Ever heard the term all roads lead to Rome? Once Constantine excepted Christianity, Christians were given favor and so was beneficial if you converted. $$$
Due to your consitent uploads of podcasts in this past year or so, I've forgotten how knowledgeable you are on the philosophy of religion. Wish you would upload videos like these more.
@@jorynerwin8249HE LITERALLY GOT EVERYTHING WRONG. Isiah is indeed word for word exact, and John isn't the only Gospels that says Jesus claims to be God. Boy Google is available, go look for yourself. This man is no better than Billy Carson, smh. 🤦 His british accent really fooled people, huh... 😂
Connor is the main reason I can listen to atheistic and agnostic arguments. He doesn’t degrade or discount people’s beliefs, but explains what and why he believes what he does in a comprehensive manner.
It is not just spelling mistakes. There are different words/sentences. And sure it is cool that the content of aristoteles texts being the same today and same with texts from the bible.
he's a christian, what do you expect, if it;s for god lying and cheating is okay, encouraged even. he's a fantastic scholar, even i think he seems worthy of his PhD, doesn't stop him from wanting to be best pals with god though eh. it's quite a temptation knowing the THE creator of the universe is a PERSONAL friend.
In 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul states: “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive". 1 Corinthians was written around 55 AD, within 25 years of the resurrection, making it far closer to the events than most ancient historical sources, and he also had close approximately to eyewitnesses. Paul’s interactions with the apostles confirm his access to firsthand testimony. A claim involving 500 was present when the eye witnesses are alive. It would be odd that there is no pushback on this claim within the community of the eyewitnesses that we have documented. This claim would have to have had an overwhelming corroboration for this not to be challeged and or for it to be accepted enough for there to be an open invitation to test the claim. Also we dont hold other historical text to this standard, for example Tacitus is the only Roman historian to mention specific events, yet his accounts are still considered credible because of his proximity to events and access to sources. If we accept this criteria for most historical events why chnage it for the bible. Paul has proximity to the event and access to sources.
A textual variant like you said is a spelling mistake. The Isiah Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to the message we have today. The missing verses do not make a sight bit of difference to the message we have today. I believe this is what Wes was getting at.
It seems to me that Alex is just pointing out that the way Wes said that claim could be missleading. When someone make the claim that two texts are the Same word for word, one is justified in thinking that they are exact clones. Alex in just pointing out that this is not the case 😉
@@kevinbarbe799I've seen Wes say it's almost identical before. I think this was a genuine case of him misspeaking. Spelling mistakes and word order which doesn't affect meaning are not important. I also cringe when people say there are thousands of variations (as though they are significantly different) in the bible because they are largely spelling and unimportant grammar. Where there are errors it's usually clear when they have come from.
It’s the opposite actually. He wants to believe but is unable to in the face of the glaring inconsistencies and logical fallacies imbedded in Abrahamic mythology
@@DefenestrateYourself i believe he does as well, but these “inconsistencies” are rather misunderstandings. You can’t force everyone to believe and understand something the exact same way as each other. He has already decided in his head it’s false so he approaches the evidence that way as if it’s already so.
@@kal22222 he’s said in a debate once, “I don’t know what motivates or drives me to do what I do” when asked “what are you living for if not Jesus and how is it more reliable.” He clearly is living for something if he’s motivated to do this 24/7… either he’s a liar when faced with a good question or he’s being intellectually dishonest with himself and he’s confused.
"For someone who disagrees with the x politics you seem to care an awful lot" "As a film enthusiast you have a lot of negative opinions" That's why he does it you troglodyte. Even if he doesn't believe it, he is interested. To a certain degree because he disagrees. Christianity/the Bible is a major force in our history and current state of the world
I think this interview got under Alex skin. He seems almost irritated by the entire thing. He is normally very gracious.His main critique seems to be that Wes is speaking with too much confidence. I think Alex is brilliant and can wipe the floor with most people. I wonder if this is a case of game recognizing game…
As a Christian, i hate those grifters that the only thing they want is to stick to the current "conservative" zeitgeist and economically profit from it, meanwhile twisting sholarship so that anything adheres to their agenda, be it apologetics, interpretation, tradition, or whatever.
Connor is seriously misrepresenting the facts here. This might be the most misleading response video I've ever seen from him. First, the claim about "2,000" textual variants is itself shifting the goalposts. Huff never claimed there were no textual variants; he said the texts were "word for word the same," not identical in every detail, such as word spacing or column arrangement (both of which are oddly counted as "variants"). Of these so-called "variants," 1,300 involve words that are technically considered different but are still identified as "the same," like "gal" versus "girl." These aren't even proper synonyms but the exact same word in a different style (e.g., formal vs. informal usage). Out of those 1,300 word variants, only about 50 involve actual synonym substitutions, such as "warm" versus "heated." Of these 50, only two instances are debated as significant. One concerns a difference in interpretation, like "virgin" versus "young woman" in a prophetic context. The other involves the omission of the phrase "he will see light," which is absent in the Masoretic Text but would have been understood as redundant due to the linguistic context of the time. All the other arguments Connor raises here are equally if not more deceptive with the actual facts than what is found here.
One just has to keep in mind that O'Connor is only a baccalaureate and has no actual field of expertise. He is definitely not a trained textualist, so he is only repeating criticisms here from others.
Alex, which word from Isaiah when translated to English was decisively changed by the dead sea scrolls in a way that wasnt already a candidate translation from other manuscripts?
Wes blew Joe Rogan's mind by saying it was "word for word" (repeated by Rogan) from 1000 years earlier. Alex was fair in his critique of that as indisputably factually untrue, by a long shot. Alex is always fair like this... he didn't go on to conclude the text should be thrown away or anything resembling that.
Yeah the point that I took away from “word for word” manuscript. Was that every character would be the exact same as our modern Hebrew manuscripts. So at worst Wes exaggerated at best he didn’t recognize how his words would come across to Joe and the audience of the internet.
Alex is really just bobbing and weaving around facts and arguments. It’s quite amazing to hear the gymnastics here. I’m going to trust Wes who understands the process more than a guy using Wikipedia and quick google searches to clip up a 3 hour podcast into a 30min response
@@Smurfalurf23 John brought up a new point, which is completely valid. Alex is playing a semantics game that has no greater significance to the validity of Christianity as a whole.
Yeah, I don't know why Alex wants to die on this hill when Ehrman already lost that point in 2016. Starting at about 1:54:00 in his debate with Michael Bird, Ehrman gets a question that leads to him admitting there is a divine claim in Mark. Ehrman realizes what he's done and begins trying to backtrack but it's too late. Ehrman tries to say, "But that's Mark saying that--not Jesus". The problem is, Ehrman says Jesus's divinity is an invention of John. However, if--as Ehrman says here--Mark is trying to convince readers that Jesus is divine, then we know that Jesus's divinity was established when Mark was written because Mark--again according to Ehrman--is having Jesus make claims of divinity. Relevant transcript: "When Jesus says, 'You will see the Son of Man' Mark requires you to think 'Jesus is the Son of Man, the High Priest knows that he [Jesus] thinks that, and so the High Priest thinks he [Jesus] is claiming to be the Son of Man, so he calls that blasphemy.' So, is it a divine claim? Well, yeah, kind of, I mean it is, yeah kind of, but it's not like Jesus saying, 'I and the Father are one.' [inaudiable question from audience member] Yes, of course, it's the invention of Mark. It's the invention of Mark." There's an awkward pause as everyone realizes Ehrman has just admitted there's a divinity claim in Mark--by Jesus or Mark doesn't matter, because Ehrman's entire argument is now contradicted by Ehrman himself. At that point, Ehrman moves quickly to try and rescue his point by saying nobody knows what was said at Jesus's trial.
Alex, I’ve been enjoying your content for a number of years! With respect, my evaluation of this video is that this may be nit picking the rogan podcast too much. Many of your critiques seem to be mischaracterising what Rogans guest was stating. I think reaching out the him for a discussion would be more useful. This video seems to be slightly off the mark. Appreciate the content though and greetings from the states.
Though I think these are good callouts, they are not rebuttals - instead they beg questions and further analysis. I suggest a multi-hour conversation with Wes Huff on a specific topic to get to the bottom of it. Heck, host multiple discussions and get to the truth
19:52 ironically many many more than 500 people have seen justin beiber all at once mulitple times and all it takes is to be slightly elevated above the crowd, so if you told me 500, 1000, 2000 people saw justin beiber all at once it would be a little silly for me to reply "well if justin beiber was on the street how did all 500 people see him i bet it never happened"
I'm getting a subtle vibe of defensiveness and emotional annoyance here. What's with the sarcastic air quotes? Wes get under your skin for some reason? Possibly jealous somehow of Wes's growing popularity as an authoritative source? Cutting off Wes argument about his explanation of the agenda of the non-canonical gospels came off as a cheap move as well, you should of let the video contain his explanation of that. Modern readers like yourself think that Paul is supposed to explain everything to people 2,000 years later. Paul didn't explain who the 500 people were who saw Jesus is your agruement? What if Paul knew the people he was writing to in corinth already knew who the 500 were? What if it was so obvious at that time no one needed to explain it. Would someone writing a casual letter about Trump to a group of people today need to explain every detail of his assassination attempt, as if they didn't already know it? Notice, I didn't even say Donald Trump, I just said Trump, and you knew what I was referring to. It was unnecessary to explain further because the gaps in details are assumed naturally. Sorry, but the "at one time" argument is so dumb. As if at "one time" meant as Jesus was passing from his hotel to his limo and people were trying to get at him for an autograph within seconds. At one time could easily mean Jesus appearing to a group of 500 on a hill (above) in Galilee for multiple hours talking with everyone as they shifted in proximity. lol bro, your smirk at your own cleverness about Jesus appearing in a vision in the sky is a little cringe. You jump right to vision as if that is the most plausible explanation Paul was referring to. How about, since there are numerous hills in the Galilee and the Jerusalem region, Jesus was talking on a hill so everyone could see him! Would that also make it more plausible that 500 people saw him if he was elevated? if he was in the middle of a crowd with no elevation, it would be more difficult.Yes that would be, but you jump straight to space alien stuff. 24:30 Alex Ironically does the very thing he just critiqued. He said Luke only gives a few names, so its not as if we have a large list of names we can then interoggrate for its validity. Then he turns around one second later as says "some scholars are beginning to suggest that Luke-Acts was written much later." Um, do you have a long list of names we can integrate its validity? No, just "some scholars." Finally, whats annoying about videos like this is that Alex asserts that everyone needs to be as tentative and skeptical as he is or these other unmaed scholars. Sorry, what? Do you know how scholarship even works? Do you seriously think a book that has existed for thousands of years would not have endless disputes? Especially scholars from all over the globe: some believers, some atheists; some from the western hemisphere, some from the Eastern etc. Scholars disagree about virtually everything. To suggest that Wes needs to be this unsure incredulous person is ridiculous.
Clearly Alex's deconstruction of Wes' grifting has upset you. You make some decent points here, but your opening about supposed 'jealousy' really leaves a bad taste in the mouth, before any reader even touches on your arguments. I've tended to find that 'x is jealous of y' is really a dishonest method of debate attempting to discredit one side on pure, unfounded speculation
@infamous_9521 Ironically, you just did the same thing. You opened your response by saying I was *clearly* upset, then followed by saying this is a dishonest method based on unfounded speculation....
Alex this entire video is just nitpicking things that have no relevance or impact on the validity of Christianity. For example, 4:27. It's not a requirement for God to explicitly say "I am God" to show that He is God. That's a false atheistic dilemma. Matthew 9:2-6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 12:6-8, Mark 2:5-7, Mark 14:61-62, Luke 5:20-21, Luke 10:22, Luke 24:25-27 etc. all show explicitly that Jesus is God in the flesh, and no merely a human prophet.
A note about John being written in the third person. Lots of ancient texts were. Notably Thucydides, Josephus, Xenophon, and Julius Caesar all wrote their texts in the third person.
@@siondafydd I don’t really find this convincing. Even though they may be written in the third person they’re still claiming authorship in those texts I believe.
4:20 was just reading the Gospel of Matthew, in Matthew 14:27 (NKJV) Jesus says:" Be of good cheer! It is I: do not be afraid." "It is I" is actually "I am" in the original greek (i.e. Before Abraham was, I AM). And following the same context in verse 33, His disciples worshipped him (greek word: prosekynēsan, used to worship God/gods in that time), and they said: "truly, you are the Son of God." So Jesus' divine claim is in the Gospel of Matthew as well.
Excellent video from Alex, as always! Just want to point out one thing in regards to Alex's reponse to 'Paul and the "400" Witnesses' section, specifically him raising up questions regarding the usage of the word, ἐπάνω. When Alex points to Luke 19:17, where it reads out, "you shall have authority **over** ten cities," he pairs the choice meaning of the word ἐπάνω (over) with a numerical comparison (ten cities). He doesn't take account to the possibility that the word ἐπάνω (over) is not being paired with a numerical comparsion (ten cities), but rather it indicating to governance and authority "over" the "ten cities." Some of the examples that I found that correlates to a very similar usage of the word ἐπάνω (over) related to 'governance' and 'authority' is found in Luke 10:19 and Matthew 24:47: Luke 10:19 - "I have given you authority over (ἐπάνω) all the power of the enemy." ἐπάνω here refers to dominion or control, not a numerical comparison. Matthew 24:47: "He will set him over (ἐπάνω) all his possessions." ἐπάνω here indicates authority, not numerical belongings. Therefore, it can be understood that in Luke 19:17, ἐπάνω is correctly translated as "over" because it refers to the servant’s elevated position of authority over the ten cities. If that's the case, then it is not a comparison of numerical amounts (e.g., "more than ten cities"), but a declaration of the servant's role in governance and authority.
Alex, I’m curious what you think of the passages in 1 Corinthians such as 2:16 and 8:6 that attribute divinity to Christ. As far as I know, 1 Corinthians has an uncontested authorship and was also written before the Gospels. How would this square against the theory that Christ’s divinity was only attributed to him later?
Word for word it's pretty amazing, (the variation maybe in the spelling ).. the claim is not "letter per letter" as the host is suggesting. This is literally i impossible since the book seems to have passages in different eras where the lexicon was different.
@@Nalololol Huff's original claim was that the text was preserved "word for word". The textual variations include word and verse differences, meaning Huff's argument about the preservation of the text is wrong. It's a perfectly fair criticism.
Hey Alex, Greek here. The word επάνω can mean many things such as: on top of, above or over. However, I do believe in this instance particularly, the at least most natural translation would be that of 'To over 500 people'. Great video though!
I think you need to consider the rest of Alex's arguments here - Paul's own story being a vision, the impossibleness of 500 people actually being "appeared to", especially without a single word of it recorded by anyone seeing it, nor in any historical documents, and επάνω's use in the rest of the NT. "Above" makes far more sense when you put all of that together (I'm not Greek, but studied it in seminary.)
and still opinion, no offence intended but the problem is not the word or the translation, but as always with religion, what you want. as pualogia points out, wes is a genius scholar, his apologetics is more lying and wish fulfillment.
@@rationalmuscle This sounds like an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we haven't discovered recorded written evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. An even larger stretch is your point that, just because a written record didn't survive into our day doesn't mean nobody recorded it. Well over 95% of the ancient written record is lost to us forever (see, e.g. "History as it Happens: Rescuing the Historical Record in a Digital World," NYU News, Jan. 31, 2022) ("The use of a fragile medium in ancient times means that roughly 95 percent of ancient scholarly output has since disappeared"). Any argument about what does not appear in the ancient historical written record just isn't a strong argument.
From Wes huffs perspective, textual variants of minor spelling are expected. In his mind, word for word identical was probably a bit exaggerated way of saying it was much more similar than expected by any scholars. Doesn't excuse the strong way he worded it, and I expect he will walk it back in the future. Good call-out though.
I believe I saw him say in a recent video he had gotten some things a little wrong here and there. It was a free form discussion and Rogan brought up subjects that aren’t directly in Wesley’s area of expertise (new testament studies). Totally understandable mistakes imo.
I don't think Wes has anything to walk back on at all. Alex failed to demonstrate the differences between the two. If the differences are similar to this: "I went to the grocery store" vs "I went to the supermarket," then I'd call that word-for-word identical.
7:20 Mark has Jesus resurrected in Galilee, and Luke has three resurrection appearances between Luke's Gospel (2) and Acts (1). Luke's Gospel, which is probably written around 59 AD, has a similar amount of detail to the resurrection appearances as John. Also, there is NO consensus on the date of the Gospels. There is large disagreement. So, in order of resurrection appearance claims, we have: 6, dating to 30-33 AD, as in Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Even the skeptics agree this dates back to within a year of the crucifixion. 1, dating to 42-57 AD in Mark's Gospel, although the appearance is not narrated. 3, dating to 52-62 AD in Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts 1, dating to 52-65 AD in Matthew's Gospel. 3, dating to 65-95 AD in John's Gospel. Doesn't look to me like Jesus's resurrection appearances grew over time.
Funny thing is the early Christians already disputed many of these things. As in heated debates. Christians never just accepted any book. And our Faith is standing the test of time. We believe to understand, not understand to believe. All i know certaintly is that i did not choose my birth, and i will not choose my death. That is all i need to know that and Christ fulfills the rest. God bless, as Christians we love the challenges and above all we will always love you as we love ourselves❤
"We believe to understand, not understand to believe" So in other words.. something is true because you think it is? Does that actually work with anything else in our lives?
Funny thing is that you only believe in something because in the early ages everybody who really KNEW otherwise or talked about other, real, "stuff", was killed by stupid/ignorant people that absolutely feared pretty much everything.... So your "believe" is 100% FEAR based. And you don't "know" anything, because you don't know what you don't know, so you only think you know anything....
I enjoy your interviews in general, and he was overly optimistic with some of his evidences, but I don’t see dishonesty on Wes’ behalf. Maybe nerves, maybe finding it unnecessary to consider spelling and word choice, the gist of what he is saying is honest. This is an uncharitable critique.
Most scholars date P52 to around 125-150 AD by comparing its handwriting with other papyri from that period. C.H. Roberts first argued this in 1935, and many still follow him. Brent Nongbri says we should be cautious about narrowing the date too much, but the early 2nd century remains the popular view.
If you actually look into it however, you’ll find the texts to really have 0 difference in meaning, as it can very simply be explained by the language itself getting older and more refined over time, so older forms of the exact same word are used, and phrases that don’t need to be used are potentially removed or added, depending on requirement of the language to say the same thing
I agree Wes spoke with too much confidence, but I think Alex does too at various points, especially when it comes to Greek exegesis and his presuppositions regarding 'no messianic/divine claims' in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Would love to see the two debate- much could be learned, and epistemic humility is in short supply. Appreciate the channel!
4:45 dude literally repeated verbatim from his Bart ehrman interview 😂 Bart ehrman is wrong. Jesus uses the scripture to paint a clear picture of who he is. Example: John is Elijah (Matt 7:10)(mal4) John is quoting Elijah in all 4 gospels “a voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of YHWH” in accordance with Isaiah.. So by Jesus acknowledging that John was preparing the way for him, and all the gospels record John quoting Isaiah, to point to Jesus. Then the math is pretty basic..Jesus is calling himself YHWH… And there are other similar scripture uses like this. “I guess that parts just not important enough to bring up” -Bart ehrman. I don’t think Wes huff realizes the extent of nit picking nanny nitters that is new age atheists.
As a Christian, I like listening to you, Alex. I enjoy hearing different points of view in order to challenge and further my understanding of Christianity through investigation, and ultimately deepen my faith. However, I feel like you left some important context out of this video. Your clips of Wes and Joe were cut short of important elaboration and explanation. You were also slightly more condescending than usual. I hope you get together with Wes soon, maybe on Rogan? He opened the door... looking forward to it.
1 Corinthians 15 5-6: In this verse, Paul states that Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once." The phrase ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις (epano pentakosiois) is typically interpreted as indicating a quantity-specifically, "more than five hundred"-rather than a spatial relationship like "above" or "over" .
Thank you Alex for providing such clarity on these challenging topics. I don't have the patience to listen to Rogan because he doesn't push back, which lets his guests to saw whatever they want to say, even if utter nonsense. However, I would absolutely listen to Alex clarify what guests have said on Rogan's podcast.
Will Alex ain’t no scholar and can read Greek. Which it’s funny how he thinks he knows more of a scholar. This is Wes world he is a New Testament scholar and speaks Greek . Notice it’s only UA-camer that what to criticize a scholar hahahah think about it man , is he using Wes name to get more video. Wes would destroy Alex because of course Wes is probably talking super superficial on this topic
@@alisonhurtado1094 I could be wrong, but here's my suspicion. You haven't watched the video. You're sensitive because you're a Christian who isn't interested in intellectually honest learning.
Textual translation between the two they are actually word for word the same. Alex is making a false equivalence to "identical" which is not the same as "the same."
Your conclusion that because Isaiah 2:9b-10 isn’t in the Dead Sea scrolls means it was added later simply isn’t true. The Septuagint (also written/translated between the 3rd Centrury and 1st century BC) includes Isaiah 2:9b-10. Another possibility is that the Dead Sea Scroll authors left out 2:9b-10
When Paul talks his conversion on the road to Damascus which you accept as being from the first century says he sees or hears the Lord, God which is identified as being Jesus. It’s all over Paul’s letters so before you even think John could be Paul is talking about Jesus being synonymous with God. Also Paul does reference learning about Jesus’ life and the disciples being told to him by a sort of scripture. So some kind of the Gospels existed in the early 1st century, almost definitely in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples.
@@pawulstle He just got wrecked by Alex O'Conor in the video called "How Wes Huff Got The Bible Wrong on Joe Rogan." GO check it for yourself! O'Conor would wreck Wes head to head debate!!!
When Wes showed up on Rogan, especially because of one debate, I knew he would turn the heads of intellectuals that would bring him back down to earth.
@@jeffk862many people value Alex's opinions on philosophy and religion, you can count on the high likelihood of his response video being of high quality as compared to some other creators
@@JordanFirst23 I actually want God to exist, but I also think that it's important to critique someone prominent if they are incorrect on things like scripture.
Jesus actually does claim to be God is many parts of the gospels. Does he say “I am God” no, but there are many ways to claim things without saying it directly. “I am hungry” , “food sounds good right now” , “we should get food right now”
Where? Here some distinctions between Jesus and God: John 14:28 “The Father is greater than I.” Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.” Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 26:39 “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” John 7:16 “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.”
@@teevian2185 you need context dude all those verses you showed hes not denying his deity neither. John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 10:25-33: "I and the Father are one" Colossians 2:9: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" Hebrews 1:8: God the Father calls his Son "God" Matthew 10:40: Jesus claims that he and God are one in the same John 4:25-26: Jesus declares, “I, the one speaking to you-I am he” Isaiah 9:6: Jesus is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" Luke 1:32: Jesus is called the "Son of the Most High" Luke 1:35: Jesus is called the "Son of God"
In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus claims to be God. When asked if He’s the Messiah, He says, “I am,” (egō eimi) echoing God’s name in Exodus 3:14. Then He refers to Daniel 7:13-14, identifying Himself as the “Son of Man” who comes on the clouds of heaven-a divine figure with eternal authority. He also claims to sit at God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1), sharing God’s power. The high priest calls this blasphemy, proving they understood it as a claim to divinity. This is in Mark, the earliest gospel. I'd also argue this isn't the only claim of Jesus being God in Mark. It is the only one that I know of in Mark though where it is Jesus making the claim rather than the writings of Mark.
@@teevian2185 all the poor reading of the Bible didn't save any none Trinitarian in the council of Nicea, Anthony Buzzard and his son in-law, Dale Turgy and a host of many others in debates against Trinitarians and it never will
The point you begin to make at 1:24 is greatly weakened by your subversive language that you open with. As you later admit "textual variants" is a broad term that does not mean the meaning was changed. So why bring up that there are 2600+? It is to fool your audience into thinking that the few strong ones you point out later are more numerous than they are. Should have just opened with, there are X differences in meaning and Y verses that are just missing.
@@Dendrite20honestly...I think Alex would have taken a different tact had this been in person. And I would have preferred that tact over this. Approaches such as this one drive views on UA-cam (I get it).
Yes, a book of obvious cons says obvious con s. Not shocking. Every con man ever makes the same unsupported claims. Every flat earther, "a fool in his heart..."
Finally someone with common sense. I'm sick and tired of the debate scene for nearly a decade now. "Debate" is just intellectual knuckle matches, and completely USELESS if we actually want to approach the truth.
@@marcomoreno6748 "completely USELESS if we actually want to approach the truth." -Humor me, with what you think is a _better_ way of approaching truth.
@@masiya3802 No, they don't. Debate only show who is better at debating. Someone that is completely and utterly wrong can "win" a debate in the minds of the viewers. A good conversation is what should drive people to check out the Truth for themselves.
@masiya3802 I find most youtube debates don't really get to any kind of objective truth. They're usually decided by the audience, which is dependent on the demographics of who is watching because most people will think their champion won anyways. Lol It usually comes down to who is more prepared for the debate, and who has the real-time debate skill-sets, which some really intelligent and knowledgeable people just don't have. Rarely is the debate topic ever "settled for good." That's why so many of these debates are just repeat topics that have been done over for hundreds of years now.
Jesus accepted worship in Matthew 14:33, he claims omnipresence in Matthew 18:20. In Mark 2 Jesus forgives sins of a paralyzed man, indicating his authority is that of God. In Mark 2:28 he claims he is lord of the sabbath. Luke has much of the same content. Jesus was very cryptic in his language (another criticism, I know) but he did speak of his divinity in all of the Gospels.
At 28:00 Not sure it would be appropriate to call 2nd Peter a forgery. From my understanding (undergrad Pauline class) the intent of writing letters under a different name was a form of citation. It was saying these ideas are not mine, they came from Paul etc. or I’m summarizing and disseminating my understanding of Paul’s work. Curious to hear how people think this can be applied. I personally think it the authorship of certain letters should not be grounds to dismiss them (obviously in the case of apologetics and historical writings that is different). So to sum up my complaint, I don’t like when people use the word forgery. It insinuates bad intent. When in actuality, it was members and leaders of the early church attempting to disseminate ideas. I would assume this was almost entirely done with good intentions (not to say that people still had poorly formulated understandings that should not be included in the canonical Bible because they just simply miss the point)
22:16 ☆Picture a scene of say the Pope stood at a balcony of a 2, 3, maybe 4 storey building looking out upon a gathering crowd. He is above them, even if he was standing atop a staircase maybe 5, 10, 15 meters, ten he would be above the crowd and clearly visible to all & not necessarily floating angel-like levitating miraculously- the mention is not meticulous enough, that it leads both me and you and anybody else to be simply speculating on the minutiae of whatever pops into our imaginations for further speculation of unknown aspects of what actually took place, and you old chap are running wild with your intriguing interpretation.❤
Bring Wes Huff on Within Reason!
Wes is booked until 2026. Alex would have to do something epic to get him to come. Wes never planned for his newly found fame. He still has a job.
@MalachiFrazee222 He said that unless a big thing like the JRE comes along he will drop eveything to do it.
Yes!
Seconded
Wes Huff would singlehandedly reduce Alex's IQ by a good 50 points. He literally believes in an invisible sky wizard!
You know what. Alex, it would be interesting to see you on Joe Rogan.
That would be awesome
Joe rogan is not interested in facts. He would never have Alex on.
Joe Rogan knows Alex is a European White priveledged boy that stopped growing at the age of 13 with no experience in love war and suffering and plays philosopher questioning God lol.. Alex is a loser with a british accent
Wow. Look how quickly his cult responds. So fuqing WEAK. 😂❤
@hughmyron3845 has just said it best. Rogan has no interest in facts, he had Trump on his show for F sake.
Legend says that if you whisper "Bible" 3 times in front of your mirror Alex O'Connor will appear
It's not true. It doesn't work. Sorry, guys.
all i got was a floater in the bowl.
😂😂😂
Lmaooooo
It only works on the NIV version not the king James.
This is the most skeptical I've seen you in any recent video. Many of your points were fair. I was also biting my lip when the great Isaiah scroll was said to be "word for word" with the masoretic text. Using the 500 that witnessed Jesus as an apologetic is also very weak as you point out, though to be fair to Wes I think he made an effort not to lean on this by clarifying that it was "according to Paul". Stronger evidence in that respect are all the named characters in the gospels and epistles which are likely so named such that people could go talk to them or their family about their experiences.
However you also said some stuff which was way out on the maximally skeptical take. Like 29:20... You really think that supposing you grant that these epistles are accurately attributed that they don't count as witnesses to the resurrection? That makes sense to you that in the environment of the early church which was built around the theology of a resurrected Jesus who appeared to the disciples, that because these disciples failed to repeat the story in their epistles we can't know if they backed it or not? Surely it's waaay more logical to assume an apostle writing to the early church supports the widespread account of things rather than imagine that silence implies they could be withholding the real story.
edit: I see there was a misunderstanding here. JR asked for "accounts" of the resurrection, WH started talking about known witnesses of the resurrection, Alex is critiquing WH's response as if he's talking about accounts, and I critiqued Alex as if he were talking about witnesses. Confusion all around.
Anyways, maybe you're more skeptical than you let on most of the time, in which case, you've done even better than I realized at treating opposing views with respect.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-evidence that’s never surfaced and never will.
I think Alex is particularly skeptical when it comes to the biblical text, maybe partly because he's spoken more with guys like Bart Ehrman about it than guys like Peter Williams or even Bill Craig.
I also think maybe he has a sense that Christians aren't able to evaluate the biblical text without unhelpful bias, whereas when it comes to philosophical arguments everyone's working out is spelled out more clearly.
(Not saying I agree with Alex, just speculating about why he might seem more sceptical here.)
Alex isn't a skeptic. He's a cynic.
I dont think any of that matters what matters is if u string me up and I'm reasonably sane I will not die for a lie so either I am in complete belief or crazy and I doubt all the people that died for Jesus in this early period were crazy cultists and no most of us aren't Braveheart and will take disembowelment to shout freedom I would be yeah I love the king off with my head fast !
So you're saying Alex is being unfair because he doesn't think "never mentioning the resurrection" doesn't qualify as an eye witness account for the resurrection? If that much is being overly skeptical, I think you need to adjust your standards.
can I just point out @Alex O'Connor, that at just before 7:20 you mention life expectancy being low, so people 40 years after an event in their living memory would be thin on the ground or simply not exist. Now, I don't believe you do not know this, but life expectancy figures are essentially determined by number of babies dying and still births/complications in pregnancy. Therefore a life expectancy of 52, doesn't mean 53 year olds don't exist, it simply means the amount of deaths of children/babies etc is exceptionally so as to drag down the life expectancy of the entire population, as a statistical analysis.
Its both
This is a very, very poor criticism on O'Connor's part. In ancient Rome, if one survived infancy, average age was around 63--and those who reached 50 could expect to live into their 70s (see, e.g. "Growing Old in Ancient Greece and Rome").
Why do you think that? Life expectancy stats today definitely factor in the ages that people are dying, not just birth & infant mortality rates.
@@NathanColvin It's not a case of thinking, we know it. It's simple mathematics, if a massive proportion of young people die in infancy/early childhood then it will skew the averages.
@@angusmcculloch6653 but we do not know the age of Mark or any of the disciples and which age to add 40 to. If they were the same age as Jesus, they could have been around 30-40 (as Jesus would have been at his death, but that's obviously unknown and contested), which would put them at 70-80. Hardly young sproutlings.
Alex Vs Wes ....That would be an insane debate.....every Christian and Atheist on UA-cam would watch that
"Magic is real"
"Prove it"
Wow great debate. The scholarly part could be cool but then get Wes and Kipp to talk about the scholarship instead.
@@GameTimeWhy Wes too knowledgeable for this kiddy :D
We all indeed would. I second this
@@darknox2007except
For the entire video you just watched in which wes lied to keep his grift alive ofc
He didnt lie lmao, cant wait for the rebuttal
Convincing arguments. I'm converting to Mormonism right after I finish my morning cup of coffee.
Funny, to make this point, Alex had to ignore the REST of written history regarding Mormonism's founding.
@@Joe10e84such as many Christians ignore the rest of written history for Christianity, they're actually pretty apt comparisons
@@Joe10e84 it wasn't a comment on the entirety of Mormonisms founding, just the rate of growth
@@Joe10e84 imagine defending the deranged views of Mormonism 😂
@@Joe10e84it’s almost like a lot of religions have the exact same problems once you start looking at them
14:40 Catholic here. Your call out here is well-deserved. My bet is that Wes didn't phrase this accurately. This is very fundamental Bible history that there's no way he isn't aware of it. Regardless, a great call out on your part.
Stop reading after "Catholic"
@@domo74 prot heretic or soy drunk atheist
2024: Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles settles sex abuse cases for $880 million
2007: cardinal Roger Mahony, leader of Los Angeles Catholics to pay $660 million settlement.
2019: Some 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults suffered abuse while in
state and faith-based care in New Zealand over the last 70 years, a landmark investigation
has found.
It means almost one in three children in care from 1950 to 2019 suffered some form of
abuse, including being subject to rape, electric shocks and forced labour, according
to the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry.
i guess god isn't paying attention
i guess morality isn't written on priests hearts
i guess god makes no difference at all to the world.
admitting to being catholic is like admitting to being part of organized crime, has
the pope stopped apologising for all the abuse cases that are bankrupting god?
i have to say it's great that the pope has finally pointed out god's error about homosexuality
and okayed gay marriage, nice to see religion finally catching up with real morality, and good
of the religists to admit god was wrong. maybe in a few years it'll l be so watered down religion will
be invisible.
what did they do with the space left by limbo being abolished? ballroom? casino?
@@domo74 cringe comment
He is either outright lying or being disingenuous. This is a far cry from not phrasing things accurately.
“The Isaiah Scroll is practically identical to the Masoretic Text, with more than 95% of the text being word for word the same.”
“The remaining 5% of the text is made up of minor differences, such as spelling variations or slips of the pen. These differences do not affect the meaning or pronunciation of the text. “
Citation?
@@tgrogan6049That sounds more plausible compared to Alex’s claim. How many times have I seen documents, especially old, use variations in spellings. I doubt they had style references back then like how we do now. Even now there are multiple styles English.
I hope when Alex starts talking about Ancient Greek. I hope he is not relying on the Internet for translation, because Wes understands Ancient Greek.
One day Alex spends this amount of time on Qu’ran as the Bible and I don’t want to hear excuses about I haven’t read it yet.
Percentages are a weak indicator, you can change a whole chapter’s meaning by just adding the word “Not” to the beginning of a couple of the sentences. It’d be 99% the same with 100% different meaning.
@@tgrogan6049Furthermore, if you are asking for a reference. Where is Alex’s?
@@gustavomrolon No you can't. Do you know how to read? there's literally big context behind every chapter you can't just change the whole conclusion by putting "not" or such things. That's the most stupid argument I heard yet.
Rogan said he would be interested in having Wes and another individual with a different perspective to Wes on his show having a discussion. I think you would be the best candidate.
Or Bart Ehrman
nah, how about a religion scholar. alex seems to be good at researching, but he's certainly not a trained bible scholar.
@@trevorprice2490 Im pretty sure Alex has a degree in theology
@@asmodeus5326 baccalaureate. that doesn't make one a bible scholar. just like having an undergraduate degree in philosophy doesn't make one a philosophy scholar.
@angusmcculloch6653 I wasn't trying to imply he was a scholar but a degree in theology does also imply he has more knowledge in the subject than the average joe but less than a scholar
The heavy stubble Alex is back. No more mustache in 2025. This is a miracle worthy of a conversion
stubble > moustache
Check mate atheists
But WHY are His Teeth so gross 🤢🤢🤢🤢
Atheist Teeth? 😂
The Moustachites reject your stubble dogma, begone heathen!
Man, I would love a crossover between Alex and Wes.
That would be great but what the world really needs is for Alex to debate Mohamed Hijab again.
Yeah, ultimately
@@12yearoldscotchNonono. The only thing to do with Hijab is to stop pretending like he is worth listening to and pretend he doesn't exist. That Jordan Peterson wasted time on him disappointed me.
A "Crossover" may not be as interesting as just a "Conversation". I don't think Wes is as philosophically inclined as Alex is
trouble is christians will still pick what suits.
5:51 Christianity grew regardless of the stifling persecution by Roman Emperors throwing them to the lions, beheadings, being lit on fire etc. to compare that with Mormonism is asinine.
You're on point here. This comparison makes zero sense.
5:28: I get the point but in the 4th century, people were less interconnected than in the 19th century, where mormonism was established. In the 4th century, communication was slow, relying on physical travel over land or sea. Cultural and linguistic barriers made widespread dissemination challenging. In the 19th century, society was way more connected also thanks to new transportation method and the invention of the printing press
Okay ignore mormonism. The same can be said about the spread of Islam
That’s why the point is percentage growth, not raw numbers. It’s a 40% increase year over year, which was the point Alex was making. You could still argue that the only reason Mormonism is matching that is due to the internet etc, but I think it’s minimized a little by the rate of increase being in percentages
@@WaqasAli-ct7lynot really , study the religion.. big difference
yes but also ascribing the rate of adoption of a religion to the validity of its truth is still a bit shaky, since there was also the historical top-down enforcing of people to follow such beliefs
The Romans had a system of government that was well organized established throughout their Empire. Ever heard the term all roads lead to Rome? Once Constantine excepted Christianity, Christians were given favor and so was beneficial if you converted. $$$
Due to your consitent uploads of podcasts in this past year or so, I've forgotten how knowledgeable you are on the philosophy of religion. Wish you would upload videos like these more.
Seems that he's noted our enthusiasm for the solo videos and is doing just that! Thankfully for all of us.
Agreed, when he started in right away with the info on Isaiah, I was like "oh shit I forgot how much theology bro knows"
Sad that it only applies to knowledge on christianity as islam is the taboo theme for atheists
@@jorynerwin8249HE LITERALLY GOT EVERYTHING WRONG. Isiah is indeed word for word exact, and John isn't the only Gospels that says Jesus claims to be God. Boy Google is available, go look for yourself. This man is no better than Billy Carson, smh. 🤦 His british accent really fooled people, huh... 😂
🤡
Connor is the main reason I can listen to atheistic and agnostic arguments. He doesn’t degrade or discount people’s beliefs, but explains what and why he believes what he does in a comprehensive manner.
So you live in an echo chamber that confirms magic is real?
@@GameTimeWhyYou give us a bad rep
His examples/comparison/metaphors are what keeo me subscribe. He can come up with examples that help people see why they may be putting on blinders
You'd like Sam Harris too then
Thank "God" religious people don't discount others beliefs, otherwise it would be hard to listen to.
Wes shouldn't have said "word for word," Spelling distinctions are pretty insignificant as well, but the content being the same is still remarkable..
It is not just spelling mistakes. There are different words/sentences. And sure it is cool that the content of aristoteles texts being the same today and same with texts from the bible.
he's a christian, what do you expect, if it;s for god lying and cheating is okay, encouraged even. he's a fantastic scholar, even i think he seems worthy of his PhD, doesn't stop him from wanting to be best pals with god though eh. it's quite a temptation knowing the THE creator of the universe is a PERSONAL friend.
He didn't say they were identical. Word for word is still the same even if someone misspells something.
@@gregogrady8027 sure, but it is not just differences in spelling.
In 1 Corinthians 15:6, Paul states: “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive". 1 Corinthians was written around 55 AD, within 25 years of the resurrection, making it far closer to the events than most ancient historical sources, and he also had close approximately to eyewitnesses. Paul’s interactions with the apostles confirm his access to firsthand testimony. A claim involving 500 was present when the eye witnesses are alive. It would be odd that there is no pushback on this claim within the community of the eyewitnesses that we have documented. This claim would have to have had an overwhelming corroboration for this not to be challeged and or for it to be accepted enough for there to be an open invitation to test the claim. Also we dont hold other historical text to this standard, for example Tacitus is the only Roman historian to mention specific events, yet his accounts are still considered credible because of his proximity to events and access to sources. If we accept this criteria for most historical events why chnage it for the bible. Paul has proximity to the event and access to sources.
A textual variant like you said is a spelling mistake. The Isiah Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to the message we have today. The missing verses do not make a sight bit of difference to the message we have today. I believe this is what Wes was getting at.
Obviously this is the case. But Alex is big mad.
It seems to me that Alex is just pointing out that the way Wes said that claim could be missleading. When someone make the claim that two texts are the Same word for word, one is justified in thinking that they are exact clones. Alex in just pointing out that this is not the case 😉
I hear the same kind of crap about changes in the Book of Mormon. Wes said WORD FOR WORD IDENTICAL! Stop defending him!
@@kevinbarbe799I've seen Wes say it's almost identical before. I think this was a genuine case of him misspeaking. Spelling mistakes and word order which doesn't affect meaning are not important. I also cringe when people say there are thousands of variations (as though they are significantly different) in the bible because they are largely spelling and unimportant grammar. Where there are errors it's usually clear when they have come from.
Just imagine, in a 3-hour interview, this is what O'Connor had to quibble with. They're running out of excuses.
For someone who isn’t a Christian spends awfully a lot of time on Christianity trying to disprove it…
It’s the opposite actually. He wants to believe but is unable to in the face of the glaring inconsistencies and logical fallacies imbedded in Abrahamic mythology
And?
@@DefenestrateYourself i believe he does as well, but these “inconsistencies” are rather misunderstandings. You can’t force everyone to believe and understand something the exact same way as each other. He has already decided in his head it’s false so he approaches the evidence that way as if it’s already so.
@@kal22222 he’s said in a debate once, “I don’t know what motivates or drives me to do what I do” when asked “what are you living for if not Jesus and how is it more reliable.”
He clearly is living for something if he’s motivated to do this 24/7… either he’s a liar when faced with a good question or he’s being intellectually dishonest with himself and he’s confused.
"For someone who disagrees with the x politics you seem to care an awful lot"
"As a film enthusiast you have a lot of negative opinions"
That's why he does it you troglodyte. Even if he doesn't believe it, he is interested. To a certain degree because he disagrees.
Christianity/the Bible is a major force in our history and current state of the world
Alex might be out of his lane on this one.
I think this interview got under Alex skin. He seems almost irritated by the entire thing. He is normally very gracious.His main critique seems to be that Wes is speaking with too much confidence. I think Alex is brilliant and can wipe the floor with most people. I wonder if this is a case of game recognizing game…
I think Alex is just a little bit salty that he didn't get invited to the JRE.
As a Christian, i hate those grifters that the only thing they want is to stick to the current "conservative" zeitgeist and economically profit from it, meanwhile twisting sholarship so that anything adheres to their agenda, be it apologetics, interpretation, tradition, or whatever.
As a Christian you hate those? Think before you type.
Connor is seriously misrepresenting the facts here. This might be the most misleading response video I've ever seen from him.
First, the claim about "2,000" textual variants is itself shifting the goalposts. Huff never claimed there were no textual variants; he said the texts were "word for word the same," not identical in every detail, such as word spacing or column arrangement (both of which are oddly counted as "variants"). Of these so-called "variants," 1,300 involve words that are technically considered different but are still identified as "the same," like "gal" versus "girl." These aren't even proper synonyms but the exact same word in a different style (e.g., formal vs. informal usage).
Out of those 1,300 word variants, only about 50 involve actual synonym substitutions, such as "warm" versus "heated." Of these 50, only two instances are debated as significant. One concerns a difference in interpretation, like "virgin" versus "young woman" in a prophetic context. The other involves the omission of the phrase "he will see light," which is absent in the Masoretic Text but would have been understood as redundant due to the linguistic context of the time.
All the other arguments Connor raises here are equally if not more deceptive with the actual facts than what is found here.
this is what happens when you listen to argue. The truth is foolishness to those who are perishing.
Try harder mate, "word for word" means exactly that. It isn't, even though the meaning and story is exactly the same
Thank you.
One just has to keep in mind that O'Connor is only a baccalaureate and has no actual field of expertise. He is definitely not a trained textualist, so he is only repeating criticisms here from others.
It seems like Alex just love to argue and pick apart things to sound smarter. I’m sure he understands that’s he’s being deceptive in his arguments
Alex, which word from Isaiah when translated to English was decisively changed by the dead sea scrolls in a way that wasnt already a candidate translation from other manuscripts?
I think you're missing the point here. Wes claimed they were word-for-word exact, which is clearly not the case. That's the only point being made here
Wes blew Joe Rogan's mind by saying it was "word for word" (repeated by Rogan) from 1000 years earlier. Alex was fair in his critique of that as indisputably factually untrue, by a long shot. Alex is always fair like this... he didn't go on to conclude the text should be thrown away or anything resembling that.
Yeah the point that I took away from “word for word” manuscript. Was that every character would be the exact same as our modern Hebrew manuscripts.
So at worst Wes exaggerated at best he didn’t recognize how his words would come across to Joe and the audience of the internet.
Alex is really just bobbing and weaving around facts and arguments. It’s quite amazing to hear the gymnastics here. I’m going to trust Wes who understands the process more than a guy using Wikipedia and quick google searches to clip up a 3 hour podcast into a 30min response
@@Smurfalurf23 John brought up a new point, which is completely valid. Alex is playing a semantics game that has no greater significance to the validity of Christianity as a whole.
4:22 Even Ehrman, whom you like to invite, confirms that there is a divine claim in Mark
Yeah, I don't know why Alex wants to die on this hill when Ehrman already lost that point in 2016. Starting at about 1:54:00 in his debate with Michael Bird, Ehrman gets a question that leads to him admitting there is a divine claim in Mark. Ehrman realizes what he's done and begins trying to backtrack but it's too late. Ehrman tries to say, "But that's Mark saying that--not Jesus". The problem is, Ehrman says Jesus's divinity is an invention of John. However, if--as Ehrman says here--Mark is trying to convince readers that Jesus is divine, then we know that Jesus's divinity was established when Mark was written because Mark--again according to Ehrman--is having Jesus make claims of divinity.
Relevant transcript: "When Jesus says, 'You will see the Son of Man' Mark requires you to think 'Jesus is the Son of Man, the High Priest knows that he [Jesus] thinks that, and so the High Priest thinks he [Jesus] is claiming to be the Son of Man, so he calls that blasphemy.' So, is it a divine claim? Well, yeah, kind of, I mean it is, yeah kind of, but it's not like Jesus saying, 'I and the Father are one.' [inaudiable question from audience member] Yes, of course, it's the invention of Mark. It's the invention of Mark."
There's an awkward pause as everyone realizes Ehrman has just admitted there's a divinity claim in Mark--by Jesus or Mark doesn't matter, because Ehrman's entire argument is now contradicted by Ehrman himself. At that point, Ehrman moves quickly to try and rescue his point by saying nobody knows what was said at Jesus's trial.
After he was made to look like an idiot at one of his debates in an audience question. "Why was Jesus crucified for blasphemy"
It's still a bullshit story, which ever way you angle it.
Obviously the claim to be the son of God was twisted to become blasphemy. Jesus never said "I am God". Show me that verse.
@@rickwyant Jesus must not have said what you want Him to say.
Next: How Alex, Wess and Billy got the Bible wrong.
Alex, I’ve been enjoying your content for a number of years! With respect, my evaluation of this video is that this may be nit picking the rogan podcast too much. Many of your critiques seem to be mischaracterising what Rogans guest was stating. I think reaching out the him for a discussion would be more useful. This video seems to be slightly off the mark. Appreciate the content though and greetings from the states.
Yess! I’ve been watching this evolve and have been waiting for Alex to weigh in, but SURELY we now have to see Wes and Bart discuss!
Though I think these are good callouts, they are not rebuttals - instead they beg questions and further analysis. I suggest a multi-hour conversation with Wes Huff on a specific topic to get to the bottom of it. Heck, host multiple discussions and get to the truth
19:52 ironically many many more than 500 people have seen justin beiber all at once mulitple times and all it takes is to be slightly elevated above the crowd, so if you told me 500, 1000, 2000 people saw justin beiber all at once it would be a little silly for me to reply "well if justin beiber was on the street how did all 500 people see him i bet it never happened"
I'm getting a subtle vibe of defensiveness and emotional annoyance here. What's with the sarcastic air quotes? Wes get under your skin for some reason? Possibly jealous somehow of Wes's growing popularity as an authoritative source?
Cutting off Wes argument about his explanation of the agenda of the non-canonical gospels came off as a cheap move as well, you should of let the video contain his explanation of that.
Modern readers like yourself think that Paul is supposed to explain everything to people 2,000 years later. Paul didn't explain who the 500 people were who saw Jesus is your agruement? What if Paul knew the people he was writing to in corinth already knew who the 500 were? What if it was so obvious at that time no one needed to explain it. Would someone writing a casual letter about Trump to a group of people today need to explain every detail of his assassination attempt, as if they didn't already know it? Notice, I didn't even say Donald Trump, I just said Trump, and you knew what I was referring to. It was unnecessary to explain further because the gaps in details are assumed naturally.
Sorry, but the "at one time" argument is so dumb. As if at "one time" meant as Jesus was passing from his hotel to his limo and people were trying to get at him for an autograph within seconds. At one time could easily mean Jesus appearing to a group of 500 on a hill (above) in Galilee for multiple hours talking with everyone as they shifted in proximity.
lol bro, your smirk at your own cleverness about Jesus appearing in a vision in the sky is a little cringe. You jump right to vision as if that is the most plausible explanation Paul was referring to. How about, since there are numerous hills in the Galilee and the Jerusalem region, Jesus was talking on a hill so everyone could see him! Would that also make it more plausible that 500 people saw him if he was elevated? if he was in the middle of a crowd with no elevation, it would be more difficult.Yes that would be, but you jump straight to space alien stuff.
24:30 Alex Ironically does the very thing he just critiqued. He said Luke only gives a few names, so its not as if we have a large list of names we can then interoggrate for its validity. Then he turns around one second later as says "some scholars are beginning to suggest that Luke-Acts was written much later." Um, do you have a long list of names we can integrate its validity? No, just "some scholars."
Finally, whats annoying about videos like this is that Alex asserts that everyone needs to be as tentative and skeptical as he is or these other unmaed scholars. Sorry, what? Do you know how scholarship even works? Do you seriously think a book that has existed for thousands of years would not have endless disputes? Especially scholars from all over the globe: some believers, some atheists; some from the western hemisphere, some from the Eastern etc. Scholars disagree about virtually everything. To suggest that Wes needs to be this unsure incredulous person is ridiculous.
You sound annoyed by Alex here. Do you think daddy will let you into heaven, champ? 😂
Connor would destroy ANY christian apologist including this phony wes.
Get your own channel.
Clearly Alex's deconstruction of Wes' grifting has upset you. You make some decent points here, but your opening about supposed 'jealousy' really leaves a bad taste in the mouth, before any reader even touches on your arguments. I've tended to find that 'x is jealous of y' is really a dishonest method of debate attempting to discredit one side on pure, unfounded speculation
@infamous_9521 Ironically, you just did the same thing. You opened your response by saying I was *clearly* upset, then followed by saying this is a dishonest method based on unfounded speculation....
Wow! Was waiting ❤ I can't wait to see him on your show. He's scintillating ❤
Awesome of Alex to invite Wes on. I hope it happens!
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Using an ancient execution device as a religious symbol is pretty foolish tbh
Truth well told
That’s your best rebuttal? Dude, how about you actually engage the argument?
The first religion was made when the first conman met the first fool. Mark Twain.
@@LisaAnn777your making Paul's point 👉❤
Alex this entire video is just nitpicking things that have no relevance or impact on the validity of Christianity. For example, 4:27. It's not a requirement for God to explicitly say "I am God" to show that He is God. That's a false atheistic dilemma. Matthew 9:2-6, Matthew 11:27, Matthew 12:6-8, Mark 2:5-7, Mark 14:61-62, Luke 5:20-21, Luke 10:22, Luke 24:25-27 etc. all show explicitly that Jesus is God in the flesh, and no merely a human prophet.
Jezus was a alien, not a god....
A note about John being written in the third person. Lots of ancient texts were. Notably Thucydides, Josephus, Xenophon, and Julius Caesar all wrote their texts in the third person.
@@siondafydd I don’t really find this convincing. Even though they may be written in the third person they’re still claiming authorship in those texts I believe.
4:20 was just reading the Gospel of Matthew, in Matthew 14:27 (NKJV) Jesus says:" Be of good cheer! It is I: do not be afraid." "It is I" is actually "I am" in the original greek (i.e. Before Abraham was, I AM). And following the same context in verse 33, His disciples worshipped him (greek word: prosekynēsan, used to worship God/gods in that time), and they said: "truly, you are the Son of God."
So Jesus' divine claim is in the Gospel of Matthew as well.
Excellent video from Alex, as always! Just want to point out one thing in regards to Alex's reponse to 'Paul and the "400" Witnesses' section, specifically him raising up questions regarding the usage of the word, ἐπάνω. When Alex points to Luke 19:17, where it reads out, "you shall have authority **over** ten cities," he pairs the choice meaning of the word ἐπάνω (over) with a numerical comparison (ten cities). He doesn't take account to the possibility that the word ἐπάνω (over) is not being paired with a numerical comparsion (ten cities), but rather it indicating to governance and authority "over" the "ten cities."
Some of the examples that I found that correlates to a very similar usage of the word ἐπάνω (over) related to 'governance' and 'authority' is found in Luke 10:19 and Matthew 24:47:
Luke 10:19 - "I have given you authority over (ἐπάνω) all the power of the enemy."
ἐπάνω here refers to dominion or control, not a numerical comparison.
Matthew 24:47: "He will set him over (ἐπάνω) all his possessions."
ἐπάνω here indicates authority, not numerical belongings.
Therefore, it can be understood that in Luke 19:17, ἐπάνω is correctly translated as "over" because it refers to the servant’s elevated position of authority over the ten cities. If that's the case, then it is not a comparison of numerical amounts (e.g., "more than ten cities"), but a declaration of the servant's role in governance and authority.
Alex, I’m curious what you think of the passages in 1 Corinthians such as 2:16 and 8:6 that attribute divinity to Christ. As far as I know, 1 Corinthians has an uncontested authorship and was also written before the Gospels. How would this square against the theory that Christ’s divinity was only attributed to him later?
Word for word it's pretty amazing, (the variation maybe in the spelling ).. the claim is not "letter per letter" as the host is suggesting. This is literally i impossible since the book seems to have passages in different eras where the lexicon was different.
Yeah this was a very dishonest criticism and pretty disappointing.
@@Nalololol Huff's original claim was that the text was preserved "word for word". The textual variations include word and verse differences, meaning Huff's argument about the preservation of the text is wrong. It's a perfectly fair criticism.
Lots of superficial critiques for a guy as intelligent as Alex
As a Christian I Would love to see you sit down with Wes Huff….
that would be such an interesting convo alex should totally do it!!
Would love to see a sit down discussion instead of a cold debate. Alex would definitely treat Wes with respect. We would all be blessed.
Hey Alex, Greek here. The word επάνω can mean many things such as: on top of, above or over. However, I do believe in this instance particularly, the at least most natural translation would be that of 'To over 500 people'. Great video though!
Are you talking about in Modern Greek or ancient Greek?
I think you need to consider the rest of Alex's arguments here - Paul's own story being a vision, the impossibleness of 500 people actually being "appeared to", especially without a single word of it recorded by anyone seeing it, nor in any historical documents, and επάνω's use in the rest of the NT. "Above" makes far more sense when you put all of that together (I'm not Greek, but studied it in seminary.)
and still opinion, no offence intended but the problem is not the word or the translation, but as always with religion, what you want. as pualogia points out, wes is a genius scholar, his apologetics is more lying and wish fulfillment.
@@rationalmuscle This sounds like an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we haven't discovered recorded written evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. An even larger stretch is your point that, just because a written record didn't survive into our day doesn't mean nobody recorded it. Well over 95% of the ancient written record is lost to us forever (see, e.g. "History as it Happens: Rescuing the Historical Record in a Digital World," NYU News, Jan. 31, 2022) ("The use of a fragile medium in ancient times means that roughly 95 percent of ancient scholarly output has since disappeared"). Any argument about what does not appear in the ancient historical written record just isn't a strong argument.
@@WaqasAli-ct7lydo you speak either? Probably not.
Alex passionately believes the text of the slaughter of the Canaanites, but thinks 1 Corinthians 15 is not believable. 😒
So agree the Bible is not a reliable source of information and an inconsistent mess? Got it 🫡
From Wes huffs perspective, textual variants of minor spelling are expected. In his mind, word for word identical was probably a bit exaggerated way of saying it was much more similar than expected by any scholars.
Doesn't excuse the strong way he worded it, and I expect he will walk it back in the future. Good call-out though.
I believe I saw him say in a recent video he had gotten some things a little wrong here and there. It was a free form discussion and Rogan brought up subjects that aren’t directly in Wesley’s area of expertise (new testament studies). Totally understandable mistakes imo.
I don't think Wes has anything to walk back on at all. Alex failed to demonstrate the differences between the two. If the differences are similar to this: "I went to the grocery store" vs "I went to the supermarket," then I'd call that word-for-word identical.
@@chriscalhoun380where did he upload this video? Couldn't see it in UA-cam
@@victor_2216 So just to reiterate, you'd call the words grocery store and supermarket word for word identical?
I think he already has clarified
Just when people were starting to think Alex was somehow starting to convert, he drops this gem lol Great video!
🤡
Wes did a great job and is very knowledgeable
7:20 Mark has Jesus resurrected in Galilee, and Luke has three resurrection appearances between Luke's Gospel (2) and Acts (1). Luke's Gospel, which is probably written around 59 AD, has a similar amount of detail to the resurrection appearances as John. Also, there is NO consensus on the date of the Gospels. There is large disagreement. So, in order of resurrection appearance claims, we have:
6, dating to 30-33 AD, as in Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Even the skeptics agree this dates back to within a year of the crucifixion.
1, dating to 42-57 AD in Mark's Gospel, although the appearance is not narrated.
3, dating to 52-62 AD in Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts
1, dating to 52-65 AD in Matthew's Gospel.
3, dating to 65-95 AD in John's Gospel.
Doesn't look to me like Jesus's resurrection appearances grew over time.
Alex isn’t making convincing rebuttals here.
Funny thing is the early Christians already disputed many of these things. As in heated debates. Christians never just accepted any book. And our Faith is standing the test of time. We believe to understand, not understand to believe. All i know certaintly is that i did not choose my birth, and i will not choose my death. That is all i need to know that and Christ fulfills the rest. God bless, as Christians we love the challenges and above all we will always love you as we love ourselves❤
"We believe to understand, not understand to believe"
So in other words.. something is true because you think it is? Does that actually work with anything else in our lives?
Funny thing is that you only believe in something because in the early ages everybody who really KNEW otherwise or talked about other, real, "stuff", was killed by stupid/ignorant people that absolutely feared pretty much everything.... So your "believe" is 100% FEAR based. And you don't "know" anything, because you don't know what you don't know, so you only think you know anything....
That's hilariously pathetic.
Alex, if you haven’t already you should make a video on how the Bible has changed over time. It’s a fascinating topic.
I enjoy your interviews in general, and he was overly optimistic with some of his evidences, but I don’t see dishonesty on Wes’ behalf. Maybe nerves, maybe finding it unnecessary to consider spelling and word choice, the gist of what he is saying is honest. This is an uncharitable critique.
Yes, we should always assume good intentions.
Plus this was a three hour conversation. He is blind to get some things wrong
Most scholars date P52 to around 125-150 AD by comparing its handwriting with other papyri from that period. C.H. Roberts first argued this in 1935, and many still follow him. Brent Nongbri says we should be cautious about narrowing the date too much, but the early 2nd century remains the popular view.
Yup, Nongbri is quoted in the video saying P52 isn't much help narrowing down the dates further.
Debate him.
why?
@@ayotundeayoko5861 because it’ll be entertaining for us
@@ayotundeayoko5861um because it’s more productive than an isolated reaction video
@@GraavyTraainso the guy can lie and spew nonsense?
@@maximilianadair3237He didn't lie once in the podcast
If you actually look into it however, you’ll find the texts to really have 0 difference in meaning, as it can very simply be explained by the language itself getting older and more refined over time, so older forms of the exact same word are used, and phrases that don’t need to be used are potentially removed or added, depending on requirement of the language to say the same thing
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Please, we NEED this debate to happen.
I agree Wes spoke with too much confidence, but I think Alex does too at various points, especially when it comes to Greek exegesis and his presuppositions regarding 'no messianic/divine claims' in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Would love to see the two debate- much could be learned, and epistemic humility is in short supply. Appreciate the channel!
4:45 dude literally repeated verbatim from his Bart ehrman interview 😂
Bart ehrman is wrong.
Jesus uses the scripture to paint a clear picture of who he is.
Example: John is Elijah (Matt 7:10)(mal4)
John is quoting Elijah in all 4 gospels “a voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of YHWH” in accordance with Isaiah..
So by Jesus acknowledging that John was preparing the way for him, and all the gospels record John quoting Isaiah, to point to Jesus.
Then the math is pretty basic..Jesus is calling himself YHWH…
And there are other similar scripture uses like this.
“I guess that parts just not important enough to bring up” -Bart ehrman.
I don’t think Wes huff realizes the extent of nit picking nanny nitters that is new age atheists.
That huge chocolate bar on the left behind you is melting, Alex!
As a Christian, I like listening to you, Alex. I enjoy hearing different points of view in order to challenge and further my understanding of Christianity through investigation, and ultimately deepen my faith. However, I feel like you left some important context out of this video. Your clips of Wes and Joe were cut short of important elaboration and explanation. You were also slightly more condescending than usual. I hope you get together with Wes soon, maybe on Rogan? He opened the door... looking forward to it.
Alex dispassionately laid out the facts. Sorry they disagree with your feelings. 😢
I loved listening to this episode of Rogan, and thought to myself many times how much I’d have loved to see Alex as a part of this conversation!
1 Corinthians 15 5-6:
In this verse, Paul states that Jesus "appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once." The phrase ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις (epano pentakosiois) is typically interpreted as indicating a quantity-specifically, "more than five hundred"-rather than a spatial relationship like "above" or "over" .
How do we get ALEX on Joe Rogan?!?
With Bart Ehrman
Even I as a Christian gets excited when Alex drops a video.
You want a cupcake ?
@@Poooeoeestrawberry would be great
@@Boxer924i agree. As a christian, healthy push back is extremely valuable.
You should pray for him, he is on his way to Hell. He is mocking Christ.
Cringe comment
There's absolutely no honesty in this rebuttal. I am disappointed
Thank you Alex for providing such clarity on these challenging topics. I don't have the patience to listen to Rogan because he doesn't push back, which lets his guests to saw whatever they want to say, even if utter nonsense. However, I would absolutely listen to Alex clarify what guests have said on Rogan's podcast.
Will Alex ain’t no scholar and can read Greek. Which it’s funny how he thinks he knows more of a scholar. This is Wes world he is a New Testament scholar and speaks Greek . Notice it’s only UA-camer that what to criticize a scholar hahahah think about it man , is he using Wes name to get more video. Wes would destroy Alex because of course Wes is probably talking super superficial on this topic
@@alisonhurtado1094 I could be wrong, but here's my suspicion. You haven't watched the video. You're sensitive because you're a Christian who isn't interested in intellectually honest learning.
first I thought I was tripping on your distorted cabinet, but it's just masterful woodworking craftsmanship
Yall really tripping over Translation and words? The story is the same in all, that matters more to me.
Exactly!
Textual translation between the two they are actually word for word the same. Alex is making a false equivalence to "identical" which is not the same as "the same."
Thank you for this rebuttal. A debate between you two would be amazing.
When a Wikipedia and Google expert points out minor arguments from a 3 hour interrogation of an expert. A critic is less impressive than an expert.
You should try Google,you will find he has degrees in philosophy and theology at Oxford university...
Lol
When a sheep who listens to a supposed expert and seeks refuge behind regurgitation can't handle criticism towards his sources.
I trust this dude. Youd be hard struck to find an agnostic who is fairer to Christianity. He seeks truth
Your conclusion that because Isaiah 2:9b-10 isn’t in the Dead Sea scrolls means it was added later simply isn’t true.
The Septuagint (also written/translated between the 3rd Centrury and 1st century BC) includes Isaiah 2:9b-10. Another possibility is that the Dead Sea Scroll authors left out 2:9b-10
I would like to see a friendship between Wes and Alex develop 🙌🏾
When Paul talks his conversion on the road to Damascus which you accept as being from the first century says he sees or hears the Lord, God which is identified as being Jesus. It’s all over Paul’s letters so before you even think John could be Paul is talking about Jesus being synonymous with God.
Also Paul does reference learning about Jesus’ life and the disciples being told to him by a sort of scripture. So some kind of the Gospels existed in the early 1st century, almost definitely in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples.
alex oconnor update on a saturday.. best gift i could ask for
One would believe that eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ is the best gift…
@@karldaren1048 ignorance is bliss if you can believe that pleasant fiction
Wes Huff COOKED Billy Carson 🔥
Billy Carson cooked himself. It should NOT be a flex schoolin a guy such as Billy Carson. My 10 year old can cook and debate that level
@@Kaniala-l7strue. Wes admitted he only prepped < 24 hours
@@pawulstle He just got wrecked by Alex O'Conor in the video called "How Wes Huff Got The Bible Wrong on Joe Rogan." GO check it for yourself! O'Conor would wreck Wes head to head debate!!!
Lmao.
Wow. Beating someone who bdlieves in ancient aliums... sooo impressive 😂😂😂
They're both nutcases so this comparison isn't exactly accurate.
Good video Alex! You bring up so many points that we brought up in our critique.
When Wes showed up on Rogan, especially because of one debate, I knew he would turn the heads of intellectuals that would bring him back down to earth.
Thank you for making this Alex. I've been waiting for a proper response to his claims. Great job!
HAHAHAHA you guys just want God to not exist so bad. Bunch of fools. Wes Huff is your daddy.
This isn't a good response. Also why were you waiting for a response?
@@JordanFirst23
This is a very weird response.
@@jeffk862many people value Alex's opinions on philosophy and religion, you can count on the high likelihood of his response video being of high quality as compared to some other creators
@@JordanFirst23 I actually want God to exist, but I also think that it's important to critique someone prominent if they are incorrect on things like scripture.
Jesus actually does claim to be God is many parts of the gospels. Does he say “I am God” no, but there are many ways to claim things without saying it directly.
“I am hungry” , “food sounds good right now” , “we should get food right now”
Where? Here some distinctions between Jesus and God:
John 14:28
“The Father is greater than I.”
Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19
“Why do you call me good? No one is good-except God alone.”
Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Matthew 26:39
“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
John 20:17
“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
John 7:16
“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.”
Have another look
@@teevian2185
you need context dude all those verses you showed hes not denying his deity neither.
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
John 10:25-33: "I and the Father are one"
Colossians 2:9: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily"
Hebrews 1:8: God the Father calls his Son "God"
Matthew 10:40: Jesus claims that he and God are one in the same
John 4:25-26: Jesus declares, “I, the one speaking to you-I am he”
Isaiah 9:6: Jesus is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"
Luke 1:32: Jesus is called the "Son of the Most High"
Luke 1:35: Jesus is called the "Son of God"
In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus claims to be God. When asked if He’s the Messiah, He says, “I am,” (egō eimi) echoing God’s name in Exodus 3:14. Then He refers to Daniel 7:13-14, identifying Himself as the “Son of Man” who comes on the clouds of heaven-a divine figure with eternal authority. He also claims to sit at God’s right hand (Psalm 110:1), sharing God’s power. The high priest calls this blasphemy, proving they understood it as a claim to divinity. This is in Mark, the earliest gospel. I'd also argue this isn't the only claim of Jesus being God in Mark. It is the only one that I know of in Mark though where it is Jesus making the claim rather than the writings of Mark.
@@teevian2185 all the poor reading of the Bible didn't save any none Trinitarian in the council of Nicea, Anthony Buzzard and his son in-law, Dale Turgy and a host of many others in debates against Trinitarians and it never will
The point you begin to make at 1:24 is greatly weakened by your subversive language that you open with. As you later admit "textual variants" is a broad term that does not mean the meaning was changed. So why bring up that there are 2600+? It is to fool your audience into thinking that the few strong ones you point out later are more numerous than they are. Should have just opened with, there are X differences in meaning and Y verses that are just missing.
Can’t wait for you to have Wes on to clear up your confusion.
I would be interested in seeing a column chart with the error types for the Isaiah scrolls, and comparing this to other historical texts.
I think its so interesting the change in tone when someone is interviewing in person versus a 'take down' video
Glad someone said it
@@Dendrite20honestly...I think Alex would have taken a different tact had this been in person. And I would have preferred that tact over this. Approaches such as this one drive views on UA-cam (I get it).
Been waiting for this!
“Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.”
You owe me $1,000,000. I have the paperwork, but I can't show it to you as that would diminish your faith.
Yes, a book of obvious cons says obvious con s. Not shocking. Every con man ever makes the same unsupported claims.
Every flat earther, "a fool in his heart..."
Blind Faith????
I was excited for this video. I’d love to watch the two of you sit down.
I love to have Alex keep me grounded, but I am still a firm Christian. Thank you Alex
I wasn’t going to watch anymore Wes Huff videos but I’ll make an exception for you mustache boy
Alex and Wes dont need a debate, just a casual good faith conversation explaining each others perspectives on these contested matters.
Finally someone with common sense. I'm sick and tired of the debate scene for nearly a decade now. "Debate" is just intellectual knuckle matches, and completely USELESS if we actually want to approach the truth.
They do need to debate. Debate is one way of testing the truth. Conversations leave the viewers confused about what is true and what is not.
@@marcomoreno6748
"completely USELESS if we actually want to approach the truth."
-Humor me, with what you think is a _better_ way of approaching truth.
@@masiya3802 No, they don't. Debate only show who is better at debating. Someone that is completely and utterly wrong can "win" a debate in the minds of the viewers. A good conversation is what should drive people to check out the Truth for themselves.
@masiya3802 I find most youtube debates don't really get to any kind of objective truth. They're usually decided by the audience, which is dependent on the demographics of who is watching because most people will think their champion won anyways. Lol
It usually comes down to who is more prepared for the debate, and who has the real-time debate skill-sets, which some really intelligent and knowledgeable people just don't have.
Rarely is the debate topic ever "settled for good." That's why so many of these debates are just repeat topics that have been done over for hundreds of years now.
Need Alex and Wes together, preferably on Within Reason but also on JRE.
Jesus accepted worship in Matthew 14:33, he claims omnipresence in Matthew 18:20. In Mark 2 Jesus forgives sins of a paralyzed man, indicating his authority is that of God. In Mark 2:28 he claims he is lord of the sabbath. Luke has much of the same content.
Jesus was very cryptic in his language (another criticism, I know) but he did speak of his divinity in all of the Gospels.
At 28:00 Not sure it would be appropriate to call 2nd Peter a forgery. From my understanding (undergrad Pauline class) the intent of writing letters under a different name was a form of citation. It was saying these ideas are not mine, they came from Paul etc. or I’m summarizing and disseminating my understanding of Paul’s work. Curious to hear how people think this can be applied. I personally think it the authorship of certain letters should not be grounds to dismiss them (obviously in the case of apologetics and historical writings that is different). So to sum up my complaint, I don’t like when people use the word forgery. It insinuates bad intent. When in actuality, it was members and leaders of the early church attempting to disseminate ideas. I would assume this was almost entirely done with good intentions (not to say that people still had poorly formulated understandings that should not be included in the canonical Bible because they just simply miss the point)
Bravo Alex. I was hoping you would comment on these "oversights/exaggerations," You never disappoint. 👍
Wes has a great video showing how Mark actually has a claim of jesus being god in every single chapter
22:16 ☆Picture a scene of say the Pope stood at a balcony of a 2, 3, maybe 4 storey building looking out upon a gathering crowd. He is above them, even if he was standing atop a staircase maybe 5, 10, 15 meters, ten he would be above the crowd and clearly visible to all & not necessarily floating angel-like levitating miraculously- the mention is not meticulous enough, that it leads both me and you and anybody else to be simply speculating on the minutiae of whatever pops into our imaginations for further speculation of unknown aspects of what actually took place, and you old chap are running wild with your intriguing interpretation.❤
Just leaving a comment for the algorithm. Keep it up with the awesome content!
I have been waiting for this! Thank you so much!
"Some people think" is not an argument.
Wes and Rogan should take that to heart then