I just like that all religious text is written in such an easy to comprehend way that we don't need to spend countless hours dissecting every single word and applying our personal interpretations.
Yep. When the claimed instruction manual for your life is written so poorly it is impossible to understand clearly even after 2,000 years of smart people trying to explain it then it’s time to admit something has gone horribly wrong. Not double down on insisting that the problems are there on purpose because … reasons.
Pretty much all of the churches I've seen fall into one of two categories. They either hype up the end times as something that is finally going to happen, or they accept that it's all nonsense and pretend like those parts of the Bible don't exist. Or really I should say that Christians fall into one of those two categories, since the church I went to had both camps and they didn't get along with eachother very well.
Well Chstianity was never designed to teach people anything, it was designed to trap you in a mental box for the purpose of control, this same forces in their serpentine logic came up with another brilliant idea to control people called materialism where by the played upon people being traumatized by Christianity to submit to another ideology and made you believe you're evolved animal, destroying your spiritual nature and making you work against yourself. And they cleverly managed you to deny God in you. People of earth have been warned that the serpent is wise and that fallen Angels came to you but alas no one listened and as the old saying goes: Devil convinced people he does not exist... I grant this was a bold and smart move but for how long people are going to enjoy being dust instead of being a Being with meaning and purpose. It is sad to see people reciting lies as truth but people need to partake fully the lies and be hurt yet again by them so they will decide to question "unquestionable". Just like they have been hurt by Christianity before.
Jesus as. is going to come back soon, but not like the christians say, you may look into Islamic apocalyptic literature, a lot of the signs are fulfilling in front of our own eyes, for example Bedouin Arabs competing in building the tallest buildings, I’d even say that we could be in the time where we see Jesus as. come back, sadly the Christian faith with all its errors turned most people in the west into atheists
So when it’s convenient, a plain reading of the text is sufficient. When it’s not convenient, it’s time to look at “proper” context. This is classic of Mike “Harmonization” Winger.
And if my mission was to reach everyone on earth with my message, I hope I can write a much clearer concise account so people don't go to war because of different interpretations of what I meant. In fact, I'd make sure I was the one writing the narrative, instead of several different unknown people decades after my death.
@@stevejones9905Don't forget Paul. Fourth coming. Unless believe the gospels. Then he appears in a locked room twice. Disappeared on the road. Seventh coming.
It seems like the only people that get annoyed by accurate or correcting information are those with dishonest positions. If you have something to lose by your position being corrected and that upsets you, then you likely don’t have a good reason to be holding that position in the first place.
I think it's the "something to lose" that's more important than whether the "correction" or the ordinal claim is the dishonest one. When creationists "correct" evoluationary scientists they don't tend to get upset. If you "correct" homosexuals, they do get upset.
Exactly. I’m an anti theist but if some of the historical examples of the terrible atrocities of religion are wrong I want to know so I can understand history better and be more informed.
Strange that God explicitly states when prophecies are conditional, but then also apparently means that sometimes his prophecies are conditional when he doesn't explicitly say so. That seems awfully confusing of him.
@@mikeharrison1868 The prophecy was conditional from the beginning-- Repent and live; don't repent and burn. Not difficult, unless you are just trying to find fault.
@@MrDonPreston Please re-read Jonah chapter 3. The message Jonah gave was *"In forty days Ninevah will be destroyed"*. No ifs, no buts. At the end of the chapter, once the people had repented, god *changed his mind* and didn't destroy the city. Then Jonah was pissed off because his prophecy didn't seem to have come true - because god was merciful. I'm sure there are lots of places where the prophecy was conditional - but Jonah was not one of them. Back in my christian days were were taught that prophecy was forth-telling rather than fortelling. Best wishes.
@@njhoepner To quote from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" : "So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and maligning each other in the popular press, and so long as you have clever agents, you can keep yourselves on the gravy train for life.”
If the Bible were _not_ true, Paulogia would likely not have a YT channel. In fact, oddly enough, most atheists who try to pick apart the Bible all appear to agree on what it says.
The moment my father told me, "I don't care what the bible says. I am your god and you will do as I say", I became an atheist. Smartest thing my father ever told me.
@@isaiahreno Wouldn't give up that childhood for anything. I have grown kids these days and not being the same to them was all the healing I needed. I simply don't project it forward. Sure, I'm kind of an a**hole. I don't blame that on my Dad though. I grew into that long after leaving to be my own man.
Christians re-defined dying to explain why Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, so some have re-defined it again to explain that the believers didn't actually die but are alive in heaven.
It’s possible it was a lie (as in the author intended it to be literally false). It’s also possible the author of the J text was equating death and exile. Exile is huge theme throughout the Hebrew Bible, and it’s often equated with death
@AldebaranCitizen I certainly don’t doubt that’s an aspect of the story. Most are trying to deal with a fascinating ambiguity/puzzle of the text (ie Adam didn’t literally die that very day) when they think about this
@AldebaranCitizen It's pretty clear what die means, and it is very clear what "on the day that you eat of it, you will surely die" means. It is equally clear that, in the story, they did not die....god admits as much a few verses later (Gen 3:22). All this reinventing of the meaning of "die" is just tapdancing.
No, the Old Testament is clear and precise. The New Testament is obscure, confusing, and maddening. Jesus said his followers would be able to move mountains with their minds, and drink deadly poisons without dieing. I don't see many Christians throwing mountains into the sea, or drinking bottles of formaldehyde and surviving, do you?
Context is always important for Christians (and I said it too; when I was a Christian) until context gives a non-miraculous explanation to why the stories fit into history and aren’t about a coming kingdom. When there is a naturalistic explanation, context is tossed out.
I fully concur that the constant predictions of the end are shameful. But failure to understand that neither Jesus or his apostles actually predicted an end of time, earth burning event when Jesus as a 5'5" human descends out of heaven is what leads to such disappointment-- and mockery.
@MrDonPreston and Christians will still be making the same excuse another 2000 years later rather than admitting that Jesus was just another cult leader.
@@patelk464 You have not addressed the issues I have raised. Let me ask you, patelk, have you actually studied the issue of Hebraic apocalyptic language? Yes or No? It is inappropriate to call Jesus a liar or failure if you are not familiar with the genre of language he was using. You and 99.9.9.9% of every denier on here is looking at the Bible from an Alexandrian / Hellenistic perspective, and not from a Hebraic view. That creates a massive disjunction in understanding. Have you ever read Psalms 18 or any of the sources from the Tankah, that give us insight into how Jesus would have used that language? Yes or No?
Don't these apologists think that Jesus was god? Which means he would know what actions people would take so how could his prophecies be determined by the actions that people take when he would have known them ahead of time?
I mean, even if you knew ahead of time how things would turn out, you can still SAY things like "if you behaved better than I know you'll end up behaving, something very good will happen". That can be an accurate statement, and there can be reasons to make that statement. It's a _little_ silly for the creator to do that, but not problematic in any belief-threatening sense. You just have to be able to believe that God would try to help in a way that he 100%, no-way-it-can-be-wrong, _knows_ won't actually have a beneficial effect of any kind. And as depressing as it is, that's a pretty easy thing for the human mind to believe. The real belief-threatening problem comes when you try to say crap like "God warned you, so anything that happens now is your fault." This is when God's properties lock in and say "no, that is not the least bit reasonable to say of this being." Typically in situations like this, the people making the claim forget that God created everything precisely to his specifications, knowing the end from the beginning. He could have created any one of an infinite supply of possible universes (and heck, could have created IMpossible universes if he damn well pleased), and chose this one because it was the single greatest possible timeline. The one that led to his goal. Meaning he chose for these events to come to pass, and created each individual person in such a way that they would necessarily take those actions. You can't get past that fact: Our actions are God's fault if he created us this way. And if he didn't do that, if he didn't hunt down the single best world with the best chain of events, and really did just leave us all to our own devices without forcing a specific outcome, then it becomes impossible to say that God has a plan, or that he works through humans. Because he built us not to be predictable or modifiable. He built us to run on our own, and his desire was to watch what came of it. Which for starters violates the Loving clause pretty handily, as it means he's perfectly content to just watch people suffer and hurt each other, all day every day all across the world. Just sits there, watching, doing nothing to help the innocent. If it's our fault, it means God would rather we hurt ourselves than he step in to make things better. If God has a plan, then it instantly stops being our fault, because we're the program following his code to the letter. The actors in his movie, reciting the script word for word with no improvization. We physically can't be anything else, or he can have no plan (except one that could very easily fail). There is no combination that allows for both "It's our fault" and "it isn't God's fault" at the same time. In fact it very much seems like there's no way around even just "it's God's fault" on its own. And since there ARE things that have gone badly that could have been better, that MUST mean God is at fault for that imperfection, and thus he absolutely cannot be perfect, as the creator of something so thoroughly imperfect. So yeah. If a believer wants to believe that God is acting a bit silly, I may point that out, but for the most part, I'll allow it. If they want to twist that into an accusation against others, I will most assuredly NOT.
@@TimtheEnchanter25 A lot of Christians rely on Free Will to save them from the Problem of Evil (which doesn't even work to begin with, but that's beside the point), but they fail to realize that when you make such a broad, sweeping claim like "everyone who has ever lived has had the ability to do whatever they wanted", it creates knock-on effects elsewhere in the religion, as world-spanning statements tend to do. Because another very common claim in Christianity is that God has a plan. He knew before ever creating the universe how every detail within it would play out, and he looked upon that timeline and said "yes, this is what I want". It's his perfect plan, where he definitely triumphs in the end, and it's made by a being who loves and cares for his creations. But you might notice that this results in a contradiction, where God has a perfect plan and knows how everything will happen, while also having no control whatsoever over what humans will do. Trying to have both of these at once is like a filmmaker taking a camera out to some random spot on the street, recording what happens there, and expecting it to perfectly align with his vision for the perfect movie. Any level of success is going to be purely coincidental. So how do Christians deal with this deep contradiction between two critical facets of their belief system? They pretend it isn't one. They just....accept that God can get exactly the movie he wants, first try, with not the tiniest little discrepancy from his grand vision, from a crowd of humans who have no script and no knowledge they're even being filmed, up to and including the ability to predict what will happen in advance and be right every time, and that this was neither in any way a lucky guess on God's part, nor a violation of our free will. They swallow the contradiction whole, and pretend the two ideas don't repel each other like magnets. So if you're wondering why anyone would suggest that Christians believe in God's ability to predict the future when it so clearly violates their belief in free will, believe me when I tell you that you're giving Christianity more careful deliberation than the Christians themselves are.
Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - i.e. Jesus, presumably because he's in human dude form, doesn't have all the God powers unlocked, which in th case of end-times prophecy strongly implies he wouldn't have perfect foreknowledge (iff the prophecy were contingent)
Remember, it's not lies and omissions, it's "interpretations" of their holy writ. /s I wonder if the religious would like it, if their mechanic used an "interpretation" of an automotive repair manual, when working on their vehicle?😂
@@sussekind9717 All reading is interpretation. The better question is whether they'd accept that the continued engine trouble was caused by their sinful driving.
@@sussekind9717 I don't know why any religious person who feels that their deity actively interferes in their life would ever need to visit a hospital when 1.) If they wanted to recover, they could just pray and 2.) if they die, they go to their preferred afterlife so why ask for their lives to be extended anyway
If Jesus is God, and God - if no human - knows when it will happen, then this is basically just trolling. "Pray it won't happen at this time I already know it's going to happen. It won't make any difference but it'll give you a little hope just so I can dash that hope later."
Jesus said, "I am with you always, even until the end of the world." How can Jesus return if he never left us to begin with? Hebrews 9:26 he can only die once at the end of the world. The bible says Jesus is the image of the invisible God manifested to destroy the works of the devil. That hasn't happened. Romans 3:7 Paul said it was a lie anyway. Christianity was spread on a lie in anticipation of the rebirth of the logos, the new heavens and the new earth.
@@UselessKnowbody Well, Jesus specifically said that some of his disciples at the time would still be alive when the end came. The reality is he was one of many local apocalyptic preachers working the prophecy biz. He had some good ideas: the whole being humble and caring for other people thing, that was great advice, and honestly I actually really respect him for that. But the more esoteric stuff he aimed at his religious followers? He just gave it a shot and got it wrong, same as countless other prophets and preachers before and since. And his modern-day followers have been having to retcon it all ever since.
@@UselessKnowbody That's an awful lot of post-hoc reasoning there. The more ideological scaffolding you have to erect around the belief system you're trying to construct, the less convincing it becomes. Face it: Jesus was a guy who had some solid ideas about how people should treat each other. That's it. All the rest of this is nothing more than successive authorities' attempts to use that one guy as a tool of control - something he himself would probably, based on what we know of his teachings, have been pretty unhappy about. "With you always until the end of the world"? Come on, people say that sort of devotional nonsense to each other all the time. To spouses, lovers, friends. It's about conveying what those people mean to us. It's metaphor. It doesn't mean we're all gods, and if Jesus said that to his friends, it wouldn't make me believe he was either.
Detueronomy 18: _20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’- 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him._
I've shown this verse along with Mark 9:1 and 13:30 to Christians, and it's remarkable how they just literally ignore it. They're like, psychically blind to seeing that the Bible makes it unambiguous that (Mark's) Jesus was a false prophet and not from God. I wish I could run a massive experiment showing this to Xians and recording their responses (i.e. their cope).
@@sparrowthesissy2186Well, remember what you're asking of them. You're asking them to say "All my life I've been fooled by this, and so has people whom I love and consider knowledgeable. And if I accept what you say, I must either lose all my family and friends or be a liar for the rest of my days." That's a lot to ask from someone.
Christians will take the most vague statements from the Hebrew bible out of context and call them prophecy. This like however? Never heard them mention it.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Mark 9:1 in context doesn't say people will live to see the parousia lol. It says those who believe in Jesus will not taste death. Read the rest of the quote in the previous chapter. It's about how those who pick of their cross and follow Jesus will not die but those who deny him will die a spiritual death. John 8:52: The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’" Also contingent prophecies are a thing in the Bible. Everyone knows about the verse from Deuteronomy about false prophecy but no one brings up Jeremiah 18:7-10 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."
I think that it is pretty clear that the world is divided into two different types of people. Those who recognise that the books of the Bible are a total dog's dinner of a mess, and those who insist that they are the coherent, inerrant and received word of God.
No offense but that's a pretty blinkered / narrow-minded view. @patelk464 points out some categories you missed, but beyond that, this seems like a weird first-order way to divide humanity.
@ps.2 I also did not include some other categories e.g. different interpretation of the bible, one that recognise that it records the views of an ancient tribe who used god as a filler for the unknown.
@justice8718 in a book containing folklore built on other myths. For instance, Adam & Eve were only ever to represent the father and mother of the Israelite tribe that changed from hunter-gatherers to become farmers. This settling down is represented by the Garden of Eden. This got mistranslated translated to them being father and mother of the whole human race even though the text indicates that there were other people outside of Eden. The story on Noah's flood is based on major local flooding of their region and the finding of the natural ark like structure in Turkey. Genesis simply represents recovery of the area following the flood. Similar to Exodus, in which potentially a small group migrated out of Egypt and then did not settle down for a number of years. This then turned into millions. Sodam and Gorraha were almost certainly destroyed by a natural event. Like a lot of natural disasters, the story got changed to the area being destroyed by God with a back-story to justify the destruction. Similar with the 10 plagues of Egypt. So, at best, the stories are historical drama based on real places and events.
It's pretty interesting to consider that the stories of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc happened around 2000 years before Jesus was on earth. The New Testament writers looked at this time period as ancient history, but said that Jesus would be returning "soon", and that "the end of all things is at hand", and many other such statements. They very clearly were mistaken, as now the time of Jesus is ancient history to us, just as Abraham's time was to them.
Hmmm I thought the Exodus was c. 1200 BC, after 400 years in Egypt, so the Patriarchs would have been in the 17th century BC. (Which, granted, may as well be 2000 years, even for a people with written histories.)
@@ps.2 There is a fair amount of debate over how long the Israelites stayed in Egypt, but a good number of conservative biblical scholars put Abraham's birth at around 1950 B.C.E. Since the first books of the New Testament weren't written until around 50 C.E., that would give us around 2000 years between Abraham and NT writings, and then roughly 2000 more until us. But it's pretty hard to get precise numbers on these things.
Why so bitter? Why do I constantly see so many ad hominems in atheist comment sections? That's not how you get people to leave their religion, you know?
@@Gooman130 You may be reading the bitterness into the comment. I read it as a clever jest. Also, if the commenter sincerely believes Mike to be fabricating, this wouldn't necessarily be an ad hominem, just a way to point out Mike's lack of strong argumentation, not an insult of his person. Although, if you want to indulge in being tediousltycliche, you can play the "we're being persecuted" card and insist the commenter was "attacking."
@@tulpas93 I didn't say anything about being persecuted, just that I've noticed a lot of personal attacks, rather than intelligent debate. It's a really bad look. And you continue it here with your quippy "gotcha" comments.
@Gooman130 No, you didn't say anything about being persecuted, nor did I suggest you did. Gotcha? You lost me there. Check in on your definition of the fallacy you're are using incorrectly. I'm assuming you just don't know, which is not a problem, as long as you learn now that it's been pointed out to you. Good health to you!
@@Gooman130 It's not an ad hominem. It's pointing out that Mike really doesn't have any evidence and he's making it up as he goes along. And i get tired of asking how they demonstrated the bible is a fact based document. You want to answer that question?
@@graysonrowe9780 as far as I'm aware, answers in Genesis is the largest homeschool curriculum. I'm sure those students go on to be excellent critical thinkers. And homeschooling has a lot of fraud, in some states parents create their own child's transcript, giving their children grades they probably didn't even earn, and giving them A's In classes that they didn't even take lol. It's easy to outperform public schools on paper when your parents are creating transcripts out of thin air, and then submitting them states that don't even check the validity of those transcripts.
When the consensus of historians for the past 100+ years contradicts your religion, all you can do is deflect to other things and make excuses... and this includes Mythicists.
@@robertwarner-ev7wp maybe so. I don't engage much with mythicism, so I haven't seen the all nitty gritty of it, which is likely where the behavior you're talking about resides. I'll keep this is mind though
Venaloid: "When the consensus etc ... and this includes mythicists." - Sounds like an appeal to authority. Have you published in the field of mythicism? I think the jury is out, but the mythicists have much that is interesting to say, and the casual vilification and dismissal of them is regrettable.
When I was a Christian I subscribed to the "before the last person in that (future) generation has died" school. So glad I no longer have to pretzel twist my mind.
To be fair, if a star were to 'fall' on the earth that would definitely be the end of our world... So to say that a 'falling' star would herald the apocalypse is correct!
I agree on Matthew and Luke, but I'm not sure if John was intentionally omitting those themes due to that reason or just because John went on a retconning spree and radically rewrote the story of Jesus and those themes were collateral damage
Even if we take the conditional argument completely for granted, the imminent parousia and its failure still poses a massive issue for Christianity. Paul and other 1st-century Christians not only believed the end would come on their lifetime, but staked a huge majority of their beliefs on it. Most of Paul’s teachings were predicated on the imminent parousia - his sexual ethic in particular is entirely based on the end being right around the corner. Even if Jesus wasn’t wrong about the parousia, Paul very much was, and you’re still defending spiritual and ethical beliefs you derived from a false foundation.
Agreed, I would also say Jesus’ ethics are predicated on the same immediate end: don’t bury your dead, sell all possessions, leave your father, mother, wife, etc.
Paul clearly shows what the early church believed shortly after Jesus died. He was so certain that Jesus would return in his lifetime he told people to not even procreate or get married as it would be a waste of time. Mike and IP are directly undermining Paul and that of course makes you wonder what other teachings Paul got wrong. Paul is the person that poured most of the foundation for the church after Jesus. It seems like he used sand instead of rock.
Between Winger’s dishonesty here and the drama going on with J Warner Wallace and Cameron right now it’s clear that apologist don’t mind lying to make their points. That should a sign that they don’t have the truth, but cognitive dissonance is very strong.
@@montagdp Wallace was supposed to go on a stream with Cameron a couple of days ago where they would take calls from viewers. Prophet of Zod and a few others have been exposing Wallace’s lies about uses his cold case detective skills to come to the conclusion that Jesus really was resurrected and claiming it’s why he converted to Christianity. People were planning on calling in to confront Wallace with the inconsistencies in the timeline of his story. So they cancelled the stream. Cameron claimed he looked into the claims but is still backing Wallace and blocking people who question him.
You guys did great. I realize this is only a response to IP and Mike Winger, but as long as we're talking about Jesus being a faild prophet, Jesus made a huge prophecy that failed. When Jesus sent out the 12 he told them the kingdom of God would come before they finished going through the towns of Israel (Matthew 10:23).
Exactly. *Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23)
have not watched the video yet but wanted to drop a comment saying what interested me was Tim O'Neill. I'm a Christian, I found Tim on Twitter and what I liked about him was his principled stance towards historical fact. A lot of his time was spent critiquing what I would call more vulgar forms of atheism, such as denying even the existence of Jesus. He's a well-informed guy who struck me as being really fair in his assessments. Looking forward to hearing his perspective here
*Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.* "Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7) “Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23); For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28) Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27) Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30) *He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:* The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34) There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32) He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel. *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62) Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51) *Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also look up: Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"* (Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades) *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."* Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity. *“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress *"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53 *"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"* *"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"* *"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
Thank you for this. It really helped give me a better feel for how the gospel message adapted/modified over time as events didn't match the current storyline. Almost makes me wonder if the word "synoptic" is no longer appropriate.
Goad to see Tim O'Neil getting the Paulogia bump, I've been following him for several years and have learned a ton. I don't agree with everything but he gives extensive arguments and sources you can read & evaluate yourself. I found several interesting books this way.
An apologist works like a think tank. You start out with a conclusion, and then you go back to find a set of premises that validate your conclusion. Of course, the cognitive contortions are transparent and humorous.
I have never seen a time where the humor of these situations outweigh how infuriating they are. These people are making a living off of lying to people, and that is not going to change because people are afraid to question what they are brainwashed to believe.
@raptorcrasherinc.9823 you'd have to be a really cynical prick to think that their intent is to lie for money. At some point you should at least be impressed by their diligence to defend their faith for themselves and others. Winger in particular is very diligent and studious, and it's pretty impressive that just about every contradiction can find a resolution without being nearly as contrived as one might expect from harmonizing texts written hundreds of years apart from one another. Idk, I mean you'd have to be pretty dense to not at the very least be impressed that skeptics have not come up with a single 'silver bullet' while picking apart texts from literally millenia ago.
@benjaminkemper5876 The famous physicist, Richard Feynman, said, “The first principle is not to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.” I believe most apologists are sincere, but I take issue with their methodology. Again, they arrive at the doorstep of their laboratory already convinced of the veracity of their position. When any conflict or contradictions has already met your truth threshold, you can simply move past it. At that point, their work does not involve questioning foundational theological claims or assertions, it becomes finding ways to explain away the problems and make it all fit. Believers of all different and conflicting supernatural suppositions find all sorts of forced and contorted ways to overcome problems, and they often manipulate or corrupt the 'data' to try to mislead the average pew sitter. Psalm 22, what the Church refers to as, 'The crucifixion psalm' is a good example of this corruption and their are many, many other, "fulfillment citations" that change, warp or contort the original Hebrew to provide a Christological impression.
@@benjaminkemper5876 Then why does Winger in fact lie for money? He says things that the bible doesn't. Also, skeptics have come up with many different 'silver bullets' when it comes to stories that we know for a fact are not true. The world is not flat with a crystal firmament. There was never a global flood, we know that from pretty much every field of science. There was never a garden of Eden or Adam and Eve, even Christian biologists admit that that is impossible. There were never a significant amount of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, we have tens of thousands of pieces of writing from the Egyptians at that time, only a handful allude to any amount of Hebrew slaves, and never to hundreds of thousands of them. Jericho was a ruin for thousands of years before Joshua was supposed to even exist. Plus, there are so many contradictions in the bible. You do not need to go past Genesis 1 and 2 before you find one. How fucking dense do you have to be to believe that the bible is infallible? I know you want this to be true, but at some point you have to start living in the real world instead of clinging to fairytales.
@@benjaminkemper5876 It may be difficult to know the exact motives of a group of followers who are suffering traumatic loss, but we know the human ability for self deception is a familiar feature of our species, especially when it's set in times of extreme hardship and must now take on a 'new' meaning in the wake of the crushing defeat of the leader of their movement. This was, after all, a messianic hopeful who was supposed to restore the strength and glory of Zion (as explicitly described in Jewish Scripture) but who was crucified instead. There may not be a single silver bullet but there sure is a lot of ammo in the form of problems, conflicts and contradictions and the tendency of fervent believers to come up with all sorts of cognitive contortions to explain away those problems, conflicts and contradictions. Welcome to the shape-shifting world of apologetics!
Now Derek (hey its Darin who helped you with IO nonsense), you know as an ex Full Preterist that this was not fantastic, even I could take Winger apart. If your presupposition is atheism, even Full Preterism will not be enough (not you, but others not exposed to the view), but I think you could admit that from the Christian perspective, it has the most explanatory power.
Another great Paulogia video! I hope you interview Michael Beverly who is doing the work on showing the inconsistent statements by Jay Warner Wallace. You can do an amazing interview by keeping Michael focused on all the key points of inconsistencies.
Eh, everyone should have/read The Bible, regardless of how much you do/don't believe in it. I have the Norton Editions as an ePub and I still come back to it despite being an atheist for over 20 years now.
@@jonathanhenderson9422absolutely not true. If you want to read the Bible you should not do so without reading Homer first. Or at the least Virgil, but Homer is better. You cannot understand the text without understanding what was before it.
@@alananimus9145 Where did you get the impression from my post I was saying people shouldn't also read Homer and Virgil? Of course they should. Reading Homer, Virgil, The Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and a handful of others should be required reading for anyone who wants to consider themselves educated or cultured.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 I disagree and don't appreciate the equivocating. I would not disagree with you if you said "everyone should read Homer then the Bible." Or "anyone who wants to read the Bible ought to read Homer first." But the Bible is in no way within the canons of must reads. Namely because without the background you can not read it. You can recognize the words on the page but not read it. You cannot just open up to Genesis 1 and understand what kind of text it is, what it is doing, or how it was used liturgically. (It's a play)
Its just men dictating men over one supposed God that is a placeholder for their external invisible authoritarian magic solver. And to place people's problems on a God to solve. "just read the Bible". Greatest social engineering scheme ever devised from the Elites.
37:27 is *_NOT_* the screenshot Winger referenced. Tim O'Neill shows us a screen shot of *_MARK 13: 28,_* not of Matthew 16: 28. Winger's screenshot is at 36:13, and Winger *_tells us_* that he's pulling this "out of context".
Jesus said his return would be imminent - 2,000 years ago! Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom". (Matthew 16:28) "Some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the Kingdom come with power." (Mark 9:1-20) "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15)
@@EvilXtianity He assuredly did make those predictions. The failure of 99.9.9.9% of everyone on here, however, is the assumption that he was predicting his coming to bring history to an end.This betrays a total ignorance of Hebraic Apocalyptic language.
@@Uryvichk Sorry, but as I stated, you, along with the other deniers on here, simply do not understand the nature of Hebraic apocalyptic literature. Jesus was a Hebrew / Jew, and their entire history contained examples of the prophets predicting the coming of the Lord, to destroy "heaven and earth" as He rode on the clouds, etc.. That was highly metaphoric language to describe His historical judgments. When He used one nation to judge another nation, He was said to come on the clouds, flaming fire. Etc. But, he clearly never came literally, or visibly. Tell me, Uryvichk, have you personally done any in-depth study of Hebraic thought, Hebraic literature, Hebraic language and how it is used in the Bible?
If you ignore his words, then you clearly see that Jesus did mean the 21st century(or maybe beyond)...interpreting the text to say what you want is so fun 😂😂
◉ ChatGPT: ▶︎ "Primary Arguments in Syllogistic Form Argument 1: Jesus’ Prediction of His Second Coming Premise 1: If Jesus predicted his second coming within the first century (Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30), then he should have returned within that time frame. Premise 2: Jesus did not return within the first century. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' prediction of his second coming within the first century did not come true. Argument 2: Interpretation of Apocalyptic Prophecy as Deterministic Premise 1: Apocalyptic literature, including the predictions attributed to Jesus, is generally deterministic in nature. Premise 2: Deterministic prophecies do not allow for significant delays or reinterpretation to fit later events. Conclusion: Therefore, the apocalyptic prophecies attributed to Jesus should not be reinterpreted to fit events beyond the first century. Argument 3: Conditional Nature of Prophecy Premise 1: Some biblical prophecies are contingent upon the response of the people (conditional prophecy). Premise 2: If Jesus' prophecy was conditional, it would depend on the people’s response and could be delayed or altered. Premise 3: The historical context shows no evidence that the people’s response altered or delayed Jesus' second coming prophecy. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' prophecy was likely not conditional and should be seen as deterministic. Argument 4: Selective Interpretation by Conservative Apologists Premise 1: Conservative apologists selectively interpret biblical texts to reconcile unfulfilled prophecies. Premise 2: Selective interpretation involves adding context (e.g., Transfiguration) that is not explicitly supported by the original texts. Conclusion: Therefore, conservative apologists' interpretations of Jesus' prophecies are not reliable. Argument 5: The Abomination of Desolation and AD 70 Premise 1: The abomination of desolation mentioned in Mark 13:14 refers to a significant sacrilegious event. Premise 2: The Roman desecration of the Jewish temple in AD 70 was a significant sacrilegious event. Conclusion: Therefore, the abomination of desolation mentioned in Mark 13:14 refers to the Roman desecration of the Jewish temple in AD 70. Argument 6: Mark’s Deterministic Nature of Prophecies Premise 1: Mark’s gospel presents Jesus' prophecies in a deterministic manner. Premise 2: Deterministic prophecies are meant to happen without delay or reinterpretation. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ prophecies in Mark should be understood as predictions that were expected to occur imminently. Argument 7: Later Gospel Modifications Premise 1: Matthew and Luke modify Mark’s accounts to soften or reinterpret Jesus' prophecies. Premise 2: Modifications suggest an attempt to address the failure of the prophecies to come true as originally stated. Conclusion: Therefore, the later modifications in Matthew and Luke indicate that early Christians recognized the problem with the imminent expectation of Jesus' second coming.
This is regarding the part of the conversation where they are discussing Mark 13:10 (And the gospel must first be preached to all nations) at the 52:25 mark. I went and read that entire section of Mark because I wanted to try to understand it in context. Now I'm definitely not Bible scholar, but when I read that verse, I kind of thought to myself "hmm.. that verse seems a bit out of place. It doesn't really flow with the rest of that section. It doesn't really seem to fit the context and almost seems kind of forced in there. I wonder if that could be a later interpolation". Itt almost seemed like something that could have been added later on as a sort of built in excuse for why all these things had not yet happened yet. So I decided to ask ChatGPT about this. Sure enough, the Codex Sinaiticus does not contain that verse. And as far as I know, the Codex Sinaiticus is supposed to be one of the best and earliest (if not THE earliest) manuscripts that contains the complete gospel of Mark! Very interesting... Anyway, here is the full response from Chat GPT.. Yes, there are some critical biblical scholars who have suggested that Mark 13:10 might be a later interpolation or insertion into the Gospel of Mark, rather than being an original part of the text. Mark 13:10 reads: "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations." Some of the reasons given by scholars for considering this verse a possible interpolation include: Its absence from some early manuscripts: Verse 10 is missing from the important Codex Sinaiticus and a few other early manuscripts of Mark. Contextual disconnect: Verses 9 and 11 seem to flow smoothly without verse 10, which appears somewhat disconnected from the context about persecutions and being arrested. Theological tensions: The statement about preaching to all nations first seems to contradict the urgency of Jesus' warnings about the imminent end times described in this chapter. Parallel gospel accounts: The parallel accounts in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do not contain a verse paralleling Mark 13:10. However, it's important to note that the majority of manuscripts do contain Mark 13:10, and not all scholars agree it is an interpolation. Some see it as coherent with Mark's overall themes of missionary spread of the gospel. So while the theory of interpolation has been proposed by some based on textual and contextual analysis, there is no scholarly consensus. It remains a matter of ongoing debate and study within New Testament textual criticism.
@@UFPharmacy Did you actually look at a transcript of Codex Sinaiticus? ChatGPT and other LLM aren't meant for answering questions accurately. They essentially generate what text should be expected in response to a prompt based on their training data. They will generate false citations.
If prophecy is contingent and not deterministic, then what good is it anyway? If it doesn't come to pass, one can always fall back on "well I guess we didn't meet the criteria for it to come through." And the prophecy becomes about as good as a random guess.
Wait, InspiringPhilosophy thinks the conditional argument is bad because it's a rationalization, not a good response? What the hell does he think apologetics is?
57:51 - But wouldn't Jesus' words suggest that some of his disciples WOULD taste death before the kingdom of God came? Most wouldn't taste death before the coming kingdom, but some would...so that begs the question; which of his disciples died in the week prior to the Transfiguration? If none of them died, then Mark 9:1 wasn't fulfilled by the Transfiguration. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
12:55 Hi, Just a Little question. When you say futurismo, could be applyable to Catholicism, cause during mess catholics believe to benin the same moment of the last supper, so this argoment could be applyable right? (Sorry in Advance for my english, it's vero difficult to me to Wright in another language with the device I'm on now)
The take home message is that the inspired word of God is so unclear that many people over the last two thousand years have expected Jesus to come back within their lifetime. So far 100% of them have been wrong.
How can we see that the Bible is true? We ask. Fulfilled prophecies! They often say. Prophecies which might get delayed or not happen at all in dependace of circumstances. Oh, how convincing...
46:05 to 46:52 - “So what Allison is clearly saying is most apocalyptic stuff is deterministic, but here are the exceptions.” This feels a bit too much like gaslighting, because that is _not_ what Allison said in the actual highlighted quotes (“much” isn’t the same thing as “most”). Perhaps Allison does have the belief attributed to him here, but that wasn’t contained in the highlighted quotes. 52:33 to 53:47 - Again, this feels like gaslighting, because the very concordance cited _also_ contains "nation" as one possible meaning for _ethnos._ To say that this word _doesn't_ mean "nation" therefore seems misleading at best. If Tim O'Neil had simply said something like "It _could_ mean something other than nation..." and cited the concordance, he'd be on firmer ground.
I greatly appreciate anyone who has the knowledge and time to present history as accurately as possible, and I find history for atheists particularly helpful in addressing what is basically meme claims. I do think that history can aid in recognizing the development of supernatural and religious beliefs and practices.
Matthew 24:34 (and elsewhere) where Jesus said 'truly this generation will not pass away until (his apocalyptic vision) comes to pass.' Those verses were a major nail in the coffin for me with Christianity. If there is partial fulfillment of a prophecy, we should already be in the kingdom of God and the new Jerusalem, new heaven and earth would be here. If the second coming is yet to occur, and we are extremely liberal with the term 'this generation'. So liberal we count the lifetime of Methuselah as one generation. We are already separated from Jesus and his prophecies by more than twice Methuselah's lifetime. I don't think it will happen. I don't think Jesus and heaven on earth will ever actually happen.
@paulogia, IP made a response video yesterday, which was surprisingly quick of him. please debunk his responses too. slowly but surely you are the greatest cause of dismantling IP one piece at a time. keep it up!
The bit surrounding 5:22, where Tim describes what happened during the Intertestamental Period is fascinating and worthy of its own video! Concerning the content of The Bible in general, I've always wondered "If so much of the stuff in The Bible is made up and didn't happen, then what DID happen that influenced these stories?" Like when you consider a magic trick - the magician doesn't do anything that's magic, but they did do something.
If Paul founded Christianity, how did he manage to persecute Christians before he founded that religion? Obviously, Christianity existed before Paul got involved with it, so he could not have founded it.
@@michaelsommers2356It existed then, but Paul's letters and writings attributed to him - whether falsely or not - are a huge part of the extensive proliferation of the religion.
Peter, IF Jesus was only an apocalyptic preacher in the Jewish tradition. As Paulogia says, Peter has a grief induced hallucination. Game on. Paul takes it to the hole- the gentiles.Shack and Kobe double team.
@@michaelsommers2356 I’d add the writer of the Book of Luke/Acts to the founders of Christianity, too. Paul crafted the beginnings of at least one version of Christian theology and spread it all around the Mediterranean, particularly making it available to a gentile audience.
When and where in all of human history is there not "war and rumors of war"? I mean, at any point during history you can say this vague statement is currently true.
@@JamesLJesus ... Did someone tell you there were _no_ wars in the world during this period? Pax Romana is a period lasting roughly 27 BCE to 180 CE, but it wasn't really without war (and it's I guess irrelevant the number of revolts that took place, but okay). Yes, during that period there were _relatively_ peaceful times. But there were still small wars being waged, even in the empire itself. 26-24 BCE Rome attempted to sieze Arabia Felix, entailing a handful of skirmishes and sieges. 12 BCE - 16 CE the Romans were sending troops into Germania. 20 BCE - 90 CE they were sending military expeditions into northern Africa to suppress tribal uprisings and other unrest. Et cetera. Sure, compared to the history they'd been making for the decades prior, with dozens of wars across multiple lands, this was _less_ warlike, but it's like the dude at the buffet who got full, so he sits out a couple hours chatting with friends until he can relieve himself and head back for another plate. Or I guess closer to the source, like a Roman display of wealth in which the rich would feast for hours, then go vomit into vases, so they could make room for more food. Pax Romana was "peaceful" for most the citizens, just as vomiting for 10 minutes is peaceful for the utensils at your table.
Yeah and that's presumably why Jesus said not to take them as signs of the end times. If you're preaching about a coming apocalypse, it's worth clarifying to your followers that they needn't seize upon every war or other bit of upsetting news as the beginning of the end - otherwise they probably will.
The prophecy of jesus's return is explicit with objective criteria. If a prophecy can fail so clearly and not be wrong prophecy has no meaning , and you can defend any false belief by making excuses when it fails.
19:25 Hilarious actually, the man went out of his way to profane the temple, and what did the "one true god" do about it? Absolutely nothing, just like all the other false gods, indistinguishable for some reason 😂
Inspiring Philosophy has a history of quote mining and misrepresenting sources. I used to give him the benefit of doubt. I thought maybe, he was just googling paragraphs that seemed to agree with him. But it's happened too many times now, it's hard not to come the conclusion he's aware if it.
Jesus could be taken to be talking about the so called 12 in the parable of the sower. He is almost uninterruptedly complaining about how obtuse they are.
LOL. Inspiring Philosophy has responded with his own new translation of the Bible. I think it will be named the "Jesus Shrugged" version. Mark 13:30 "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" Matthew 24:34 "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" Luke 21:8 "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" I'm sure this version will be very popular!
I just like that all religious text is written in such an easy to comprehend way that we don't need to spend countless hours dissecting every single word and applying our personal interpretations.
With changed texts and wrong translations and interpretations of cultures long dead and little knowledge of that costly made stuff up...
Yep. When the claimed instruction manual for your life is written so poorly it is impossible to understand clearly even after 2,000 years of smart people trying to explain it then it’s time to admit something has gone horribly wrong. Not double down on insisting that the problems are there on purpose because … reasons.
Yes, and that it is so crystal-clear that everyone agrees on what it means, and so there is only one religion in the world.
Except none of you used the texts to come closer to God, thus rendering this fruitless.
@@justice8718 , because there's no God to come closer to.
I learned more about apocalypitc literature as an atheist through this then 25+ years in a church as a Christian.
Pretty much all of the churches I've seen fall into one of two categories. They either hype up the end times as something that is finally going to happen, or they accept that it's all nonsense and pretend like those parts of the Bible don't exist. Or really I should say that Christians fall into one of those two categories, since the church I went to had both camps and they didn't get along with eachother very well.
Same. I feel so damn stupid.
Well Chstianity was never designed to teach people anything, it was designed to trap you in a mental box for the purpose of control, this same forces in their serpentine logic came up with another brilliant idea to control people called materialism where by the played upon people being traumatized by Christianity to submit to another ideology and made you believe you're evolved animal, destroying your spiritual nature and making you work against yourself. And they cleverly managed you to deny God in you.
People of earth have been warned that the serpent is wise and that fallen Angels came to you but alas no one listened and as the old saying goes: Devil convinced people he does not exist... I grant this was a bold and smart move but for how long people are going to enjoy being dust instead of being a Being with meaning and purpose.
It is sad to see people reciting lies as truth but people need to partake fully the lies and be hurt yet again by them so they will decide to question "unquestionable". Just like they have been hurt by Christianity before.
@@Ephesians-yn8uxThe dumbing down of believers seems intentional at this point.
Jesus as. is going to come back soon, but not like the christians say, you may look into Islamic apocalyptic literature, a lot of the signs are fulfilling in front of our own eyes, for example Bedouin Arabs competing in building the tallest buildings, I’d even say that we could be in the time where we see Jesus as. come back, sadly the Christian faith with all its errors turned most people in the west into atheists
So when it’s convenient, a plain reading of the text is sufficient. When it’s not convenient, it’s time to look at “proper” context. This is classic of Mike “Harmonization” Winger.
and “proper context” always means “whatever context matches my theology, regardless of its plausibility”
@@TaeyxBlack Nah it means what ever allows me to keep the house of cards standing.
That's not just Mike Winger, that's all apologists.
You don’t read the bible for what it says, you read it for what you wished it said.
Is he a cousin of Mark Harmon?
I just hope if I fail at my life's mission, I hope millions of people don't keep reading about it two thousand years later. What an embarrassment!
And if my mission was to reach everyone on earth with my message, I hope I can write a much clearer concise account so people don't go to war because of different interpretations of what I meant. In fact, I'd make sure I was the one writing the narrative, instead of several different unknown people decades after my death.
"actually" The third coming. 1. Birth 2. Died than rose again three days later. So, the third coming.
It would be even more embarrassing if those in the future somehow also thought you were an all powerful and all-knowing God who failed.
@@stevejones9905Don't forget Paul. Fourth coming. Unless believe the gospels. Then he appears in a locked room twice. Disappeared on the road. Seventh coming.
@@goldenalt3166 he just starts coming and he won't stop coming dear heck
... What are you doing?
I am spraying anti-elephant powder.
... But, there are no elephants here!
It's strong powder.
That's right, keep ignoring the Elephant in the room. The powder doesn't work the way you think it does.
It makes the elephants invisible.
It seems like the only people that get annoyed by accurate or correcting information are those with dishonest positions. If you have something to lose by your position being corrected and that upsets you, then you likely don’t have a good reason to be holding that position in the first place.
Right on!
Like how creationists think that pointing out that science is ever self correcting is somehow a bug and not a feature
I think it's the "something to lose" that's more important than whether the "correction" or the ordinal claim is the dishonest one.
When creationists "correct" evoluationary scientists they don't tend to get upset.
If you "correct" homosexuals, they do get upset.
Exactly. I’m an anti theist but if some of the historical examples of the terrible atrocities of religion are wrong I want to know so I can understand history better and be more informed.
Here here! RIGHT ON WELL SAID!
“prophecy can be conditional” has to be the biggest get out of jail free card I’ve ever heard Christians come up with.
Strange that God explicitly states when prophecies are conditional, but then also apparently means that sometimes his prophecies are conditional when he doesn't explicitly say so. That seems awfully confusing of him.
Good example is Jonah being pissed off that god didn't destroy ninevah once the people had repented.
“It didn’t happen because we prayed hard/we were too sinful” should be recognized as the obvious cop-out that it is
@@mikeharrison1868 The prophecy was conditional from the beginning-- Repent and live; don't repent and burn. Not difficult, unless you are just trying to find fault.
@@MrDonPreston Please re-read Jonah chapter 3. The message Jonah gave was *"In forty days Ninevah will be destroyed"*. No ifs, no buts. At the end of the chapter, once the people had repented, god *changed his mind* and didn't destroy the city. Then Jonah was pissed off because his prophecy didn't seem to have come true - because god was merciful.
I'm sure there are lots of places where the prophecy was conditional - but Jonah was not one of them.
Back in my christian days were were taught that prophecy was forth-telling rather than fortelling.
Best wishes.
If the bible were true, it would be clear and not need humans to jump through hoops to explain it.
But then it wouldn't provide a comfortable living for all those theologians and preachers and apologists.
@@njhoepner To quote from "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" : "So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and maligning each other in the popular press, and so long as you have clever agents, you can keep yourselves on the gravy train for life.”
If the Bible were _not_ true, Paulogia would likely not have a YT channel. In fact, oddly enough, most atheists who try to pick apart the Bible all appear to agree on what it says.
@@Psalm1968 , because we don't have to twist it around to say what it doesn't say. Theologians have had 2000 years of practice at that.
@@CortxVortx Ah, so then it’s not difficult to understand. It’s just that _atheist theologians_ allegedly have the correct interpretation. 🙂👍
The moment my father told me, "I don't care what the bible says. I am your god and you will do as I say", I became an atheist. Smartest thing my father ever told me.
Damn. That sucks dude. Sorry you went through that.
@@Superwoodputtie I'm not. It was very important to my future sanity.
Thanks for your concern though.
@@robertredbeard1855sounds like you had a rough childhood. How's that affecting you today, are you going for therapy?
@@isaiahreno Wouldn't give up that childhood for anything. I have grown kids these days and not being the same to them was all the healing I needed. I simply don't project it forward.
Sure, I'm kind of an a**hole. I don't blame that on my Dad though. I grew into that long after leaving to be my own man.
When my dad spoke or acted, Lucifer would eagerly take notes..
Christians re-defined dying to explain why Adam didn't die the day he ate the fruit, so some have re-defined it again to explain that the believers didn't actually die but are alive in heaven.
Its cause yahweh was the demiurge and he just lied
It’s possible it was a lie (as in the author intended it to be literally false). It’s also possible the author of the J text was equating death and exile. Exile is huge theme throughout the Hebrew Bible, and it’s often equated with death
@AldebaranCitizen I certainly don’t doubt that’s an aspect of the story. Most are trying to deal with a fascinating ambiguity/puzzle of the text (ie Adam didn’t literally die that very day) when they think about this
@AldebaranCitizenTrue
@AldebaranCitizen It's pretty clear what die means, and it is very clear what "on the day that you eat of it, you will surely die" means. It is equally clear that, in the story, they did not die....god admits as much a few verses later (Gen 3:22). All this reinventing of the meaning of "die" is just tapdancing.
For someone who’s supposed to be a god of truth and clarity, his prophecies are very obtuse
And his inerrant instruction manual reads worse than the instructions on how to program a VCR.....😐
No, the Old Testament is clear and precise. The New Testament is obscure, confusing, and maddening. Jesus said his followers would be able to move mountains with their minds, and drink deadly poisons without dieing. I don't see many Christians throwing mountains into the sea, or drinking bottles of formaldehyde and surviving, do you?
The Old Testament is there clearer of the two.
*The clearer
@@eugeneoisten9409Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors instead of plain language that can't be misinterpreted by his followers.
Jesus' prophecies seem about as accurate as saying "the next big earthquake will happen 14 days before or after a full moon"
That's incredibly accurate for such an event!
"That's always disappointing"
Pretty good.
“Oh, Jesus!” ;)
He did say “Surely, I come quickly”.
And John replied “Even so, come, Lord”
😉
"Get ye behind me Satan!" 😂
Apparently, he comes with angels.
@@moonshoes11in the presence of his father at that!
Context is always important for Christians (and I said it too; when I was a Christian) until context gives a non-miraculous explanation to why the stories fit into history and aren’t about a coming kingdom.
When there is a naturalistic explanation, context is tossed out.
Amen :p
This is an excellent discussion and needs to be shared with anyone who carries trauma over the apocalypse.
Ah, Biblical End Times Prophecy, every Christian Apologist's favorite game of Move-the-Goalpost.
The Holy Goalpost.
I fully concur that the constant predictions of the end are shameful. But failure to understand that neither Jesus or his apostles actually predicted an end of time, earth burning event when Jesus as a 5'5" human descends out of heaven is what leads to such disappointment-- and mockery.
@MrDonPreston and Christians will still be making the same excuse another 2000 years later rather than admitting that Jesus was just another cult leader.
@@patelk464 You have not addressed the issues I have raised. Let me ask you, patelk, have you actually studied the issue of Hebraic apocalyptic language? Yes or No?
It is inappropriate to call Jesus a liar or failure if you are not familiar with the genre of language he was using. You and 99.9.9.9% of every denier on here is looking at the Bible from an Alexandrian / Hellenistic perspective, and not from a Hebraic view. That creates a massive disjunction in understanding.
Have you ever read Psalms 18 or any of the sources from the Tankah, that give us insight into how Jesus would have used that language?
Yes or No?
@@MrDonPrestonJesus did predict an end time in Mark 13 among other places. Quit lying
Don't these apologists think that Jesus was god?
Which means he would know what actions people would take so how could his prophecies be determined by the actions that people take when he would have known them ahead of time?
That's a great question!
Ya heretic :)
I mean, even if you knew ahead of time how things would turn out, you can still SAY things like "if you behaved better than I know you'll end up behaving, something very good will happen". That can be an accurate statement, and there can be reasons to make that statement. It's a _little_ silly for the creator to do that, but not problematic in any belief-threatening sense. You just have to be able to believe that God would try to help in a way that he 100%, no-way-it-can-be-wrong, _knows_ won't actually have a beneficial effect of any kind. And as depressing as it is, that's a pretty easy thing for the human mind to believe.
The real belief-threatening problem comes when you try to say crap like "God warned you, so anything that happens now is your fault." This is when God's properties lock in and say "no, that is not the least bit reasonable to say of this being." Typically in situations like this, the people making the claim forget that God created everything precisely to his specifications, knowing the end from the beginning. He could have created any one of an infinite supply of possible universes (and heck, could have created IMpossible universes if he damn well pleased), and chose this one because it was the single greatest possible timeline. The one that led to his goal. Meaning he chose for these events to come to pass, and created each individual person in such a way that they would necessarily take those actions. You can't get past that fact: Our actions are God's fault if he created us this way.
And if he didn't do that, if he didn't hunt down the single best world with the best chain of events, and really did just leave us all to our own devices without forcing a specific outcome, then it becomes impossible to say that God has a plan, or that he works through humans. Because he built us not to be predictable or modifiable. He built us to run on our own, and his desire was to watch what came of it. Which for starters violates the Loving clause pretty handily, as it means he's perfectly content to just watch people suffer and hurt each other, all day every day all across the world. Just sits there, watching, doing nothing to help the innocent.
If it's our fault, it means God would rather we hurt ourselves than he step in to make things better.
If God has a plan, then it instantly stops being our fault, because we're the program following his code to the letter. The actors in his movie, reciting the script word for word with no improvization. We physically can't be anything else, or he can have no plan (except one that could very easily fail).
There is no combination that allows for both "It's our fault" and "it isn't God's fault" at the same time. In fact it very much seems like there's no way around even just "it's God's fault" on its own. And since there ARE things that have gone badly that could have been better, that MUST mean God is at fault for that imperfection, and thus he absolutely cannot be perfect, as the creator of something so thoroughly imperfect.
So yeah. If a believer wants to believe that God is acting a bit silly, I may point that out, but for the most part, I'll allow it. If they want to twist that into an accusation against others, I will most assuredly NOT.
Why? Doesn't Christianity believe in free will? Why would god be aware of what humans will do if humans have free will?
@@TimtheEnchanter25 A lot of Christians rely on Free Will to save them from the Problem of Evil (which doesn't even work to begin with, but that's beside the point), but they fail to realize that when you make such a broad, sweeping claim like "everyone who has ever lived has had the ability to do whatever they wanted", it creates knock-on effects elsewhere in the religion, as world-spanning statements tend to do.
Because another very common claim in Christianity is that God has a plan. He knew before ever creating the universe how every detail within it would play out, and he looked upon that timeline and said "yes, this is what I want". It's his perfect plan, where he definitely triumphs in the end, and it's made by a being who loves and cares for his creations.
But you might notice that this results in a contradiction, where God has a perfect plan and knows how everything will happen, while also having no control whatsoever over what humans will do. Trying to have both of these at once is like a filmmaker taking a camera out to some random spot on the street, recording what happens there, and expecting it to perfectly align with his vision for the perfect movie. Any level of success is going to be purely coincidental.
So how do Christians deal with this deep contradiction between two critical facets of their belief system? They pretend it isn't one. They just....accept that God can get exactly the movie he wants, first try, with not the tiniest little discrepancy from his grand vision, from a crowd of humans who have no script and no knowledge they're even being filmed, up to and including the ability to predict what will happen in advance and be right every time, and that this was neither in any way a lucky guess on God's part, nor a violation of our free will. They swallow the contradiction whole, and pretend the two ideas don't repel each other like magnets.
So if you're wondering why anyone would suggest that Christians believe in God's ability to predict the future when it so clearly violates their belief in free will, believe me when I tell you that you're giving Christianity more careful deliberation than the Christians themselves are.
Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - i.e. Jesus, presumably because he's in human dude form, doesn't have all the God powers unlocked, which in th case of end-times prophecy strongly implies he wouldn't have perfect foreknowledge (iff the prophecy were contingent)
The fact that they have to lie and omit even when using their very own book as a source just infuriates me.
To be fair, that's what Jesus would do.
And that they as a group are collectively ok with the intellectual dishonesty
Remember, it's not lies and omissions, it's "interpretations" of their holy
writ. /s
I wonder if the religious would like it, if their mechanic used an "interpretation" of an automotive repair manual, when working on their vehicle?😂
@@sussekind9717 All reading is interpretation. The better question is whether they'd accept that the continued engine trouble was caused by their sinful driving.
@@sussekind9717 I don't know why any religious person who feels that their deity actively interferes in their life would ever need to visit a hospital when 1.) If they wanted to recover, they could just pray and 2.) if they die, they go to their preferred afterlife so why ask for their lives to be extended anyway
_"Pray that it not happen in winter."_ Why not pray it doesn't happen at all, and Jesus just comes back nicely??
If Jesus is God, and God - if no human - knows when it will happen, then this is basically just trolling. "Pray it won't happen at this time I already know it's going to happen. It won't make any difference but it'll give you a little hope just so I can dash that hope later."
@@MartiaNemoris
Pretty much yeah..
Jesus said, "I am with you always, even until the end of the world." How can Jesus return if he never left us to begin with? Hebrews 9:26 he can only die once at the end of the world. The bible says Jesus is the image of the invisible God manifested to destroy the works of the devil. That hasn't happened. Romans 3:7 Paul said it was a lie anyway. Christianity was spread on a lie in anticipation of the rebirth of the logos, the new heavens and the new earth.
@@UselessKnowbody Well, Jesus specifically said that some of his disciples at the time would still be alive when the end came. The reality is he was one of many local apocalyptic preachers working the prophecy biz. He had some good ideas: the whole being humble and caring for other people thing, that was great advice, and honestly I actually really respect him for that. But the more esoteric stuff he aimed at his religious followers? He just gave it a shot and got it wrong, same as countless other prophets and preachers before and since. And his modern-day followers have been having to retcon it all ever since.
@@UselessKnowbody That's an awful lot of post-hoc reasoning there. The more ideological scaffolding you have to erect around the belief system you're trying to construct, the less convincing it becomes. Face it: Jesus was a guy who had some solid ideas about how people should treat each other. That's it. All the rest of this is nothing more than successive authorities' attempts to use that one guy as a tool of control - something he himself would probably, based on what we know of his teachings, have been pretty unhappy about. "With you always until the end of the world"? Come on, people say that sort of devotional nonsense to each other all the time. To spouses, lovers, friends. It's about conveying what those people mean to us. It's metaphor. It doesn't mean we're all gods, and if Jesus said that to his friends, it wouldn't make me believe he was either.
Detueronomy 18: _20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’- 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him._
I've shown this verse along with Mark 9:1 and 13:30 to Christians, and it's remarkable how they just literally ignore it. They're like, psychically blind to seeing that the Bible makes it unambiguous that (Mark's) Jesus was a false prophet and not from God. I wish I could run a massive experiment showing this to Xians and recording their responses (i.e. their cope).
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Cognitive dissonance is deeply imbedded in them .
@@sparrowthesissy2186Well, remember what you're asking of them. You're asking them to say "All my life I've been fooled by this, and so has people whom I love and consider knowledgeable. And if I accept what you say, I must either lose all my family and friends or be a liar for the rest of my days." That's a lot to ask from someone.
Christians will take the most vague statements from the Hebrew bible out of context and call them prophecy. This like however? Never heard them mention it.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 Mark 9:1 in context doesn't say people will live to see the parousia lol. It says those who believe in Jesus will not taste death. Read the rest of the quote in the previous chapter. It's about how those who pick of their cross and follow Jesus will not die but those who deny him will die a spiritual death.
John 8:52: The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’"
Also contingent prophecies are a thing in the Bible. Everyone knows about the verse from Deuteronomy about false prophecy but no one brings up Jeremiah 18:7-10
"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."
I think that it is pretty clear that the world is divided into two different types of people. Those who recognise that the books of the Bible are a total dog's dinner of a mess, and those who insist that they are the coherent, inerrant and received word of God.
You missed the other categories:
* People who simply don't care as it is just a cultist book.
* People who never heard of the bible.
No offense but that's a pretty blinkered / narrow-minded view. @patelk464 points out some categories you missed, but beyond that, this seems like a weird first-order way to divide humanity.
@ps.2 I also did not include some other categories e.g. different interpretation of the bible, one that recognise that it records the views of an ancient tribe who used god as a filler for the unknown.
@@patelk464 That’s silly, especially when the son of man was the angel of the lord that met Abraham, Jacob, and Moses in-person.
@justice8718 in a book containing folklore built on other myths.
For instance, Adam & Eve were only ever to represent the father and mother of the Israelite tribe that changed from hunter-gatherers to become farmers. This settling down is represented by the Garden of Eden. This got mistranslated translated to them being father and mother of the whole human race even though the text indicates that there were other people outside of Eden.
The story on Noah's flood is based on major local flooding of their region and the finding of the natural ark like structure in Turkey. Genesis simply represents recovery of the area following the flood.
Similar to Exodus, in which potentially a small group migrated out of Egypt and then did not settle down for a number of years. This then turned into millions.
Sodam and Gorraha were almost certainly destroyed by a natural event. Like a lot of natural disasters, the story got changed to the area being destroyed by God with a back-story to justify the destruction. Similar with the 10 plagues of Egypt.
So, at best, the stories are historical drama based on real places and events.
"And you may want to watch this particular one twice"
Watching Paul twice is always a good time
It's pretty interesting to consider that the stories of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc happened around 2000 years before Jesus was on earth. The New Testament writers looked at this time period as ancient history, but said that Jesus would be returning "soon", and that "the end of all things is at hand", and many other such statements. They very clearly were mistaken, as now the time of Jesus is ancient history to us, just as Abraham's time was to them.
There are good points and then there are damn good points. This is a damn good point.
Hmmm I thought the Exodus was c. 1200 BC, after 400 years in Egypt, so the Patriarchs would have been in the 17th century BC.
(Which, granted, may as well be 2000 years, even for a people with written histories.)
@@ps.2 There is a fair amount of debate over how long the Israelites stayed in Egypt, but a good number of conservative biblical scholars put Abraham's birth at around 1950 B.C.E. Since the first books of the New Testament weren't written until around 50 C.E., that would give us around 2000 years between Abraham and NT writings, and then roughly 2000 more until us. But it's pretty hard to get precise numbers on these things.
When Mike's hands disappear from the shot, it's him reaching behind him to pull some more out of his ass.
Why so bitter? Why do I constantly see so many ad hominems in atheist comment sections? That's not how you get people to leave their religion, you know?
@@Gooman130 You may be reading the bitterness into the comment.
I read it as a clever jest. Also, if the commenter sincerely believes Mike to be fabricating, this wouldn't necessarily be an ad hominem, just a way to point out Mike's lack of strong argumentation, not an insult of his person.
Although, if you want to indulge in being tediousltycliche, you can play the "we're being persecuted" card and insist the commenter was "attacking."
@@tulpas93 I didn't say anything about being persecuted, just that I've noticed a lot of personal attacks, rather than intelligent debate. It's a really bad look. And you continue it here with your quippy "gotcha" comments.
@Gooman130 No, you didn't say anything about being persecuted, nor did I suggest you did.
Gotcha? You lost me there.
Check in on your definition of the fallacy you're are using incorrectly. I'm assuming you just don't know, which is not a problem, as long as you learn now that it's been pointed out to you.
Good health to you!
@@Gooman130 It's not an ad hominem. It's pointing out that Mike really doesn't have any evidence and he's making it up as he goes along.
And i get tired of asking how they demonstrated the bible is a fact based document. You want to answer that question?
Jesus: nowhere to be seen
Last apostle on his death bed: "My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined."
Real, I was there
Lmao
LMAO truuue.
And where did you conjure up that lie??
@@MrDonPreston it's a joke, dude
Inspiring philosophy is so un-inspiring. And Mike Winger's reasoning just screams home school education.
IP can occasionally argue well but then just rejects any modern scholarship on the bible when it conflicts with his theology
Home schoolers outperform public schoolers in almost every metric. Idk think that’s the slam you thought it was
@@graysonrowe9780 as far as I'm aware, answers in Genesis is the largest homeschool curriculum. I'm sure those students go on to be excellent critical thinkers. And homeschooling has a lot of fraud, in some states parents create their own child's transcript, giving their children grades they probably didn't even earn, and giving them A's In classes that they didn't even take lol. It's easy to outperform public schools on paper when your parents are creating transcripts out of thin air, and then submitting them states that don't even check the validity of those transcripts.
@@graysonrowe9780
By what standard and how many go to college and learn real science?
@@graysonrowe9780 not practical social skills
"That's always disappointing", Paulogia took the words out of my mouth 🤣
Jesus faked his coming for you
Brilliant! I wasn't convinced that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Not in the way Ehrman was describing. I understand the case so much better now!
excellent. similar journey for me.
Look online for a free PDF called "The Parousia" it was written in the 1800's before Dispensational teaching took over.
@@Paulogia IP already has a response video planned. Let's see the dishonest explanations he comes up with.
The "temple tantrum"! Oh wow how did I never hear or think of this before now? That is amazing. Ha!
_Watch therefore, for you do not know what __-hour-__ millenium your Lord is coming._
I thought the abomination of desolation was Smaug
When the consensus of historians for the past 100+ years contradicts your religion, all you can do is deflect to other things and make excuses... and this includes Mythicists.
Mythicism isn't a religion though
@@robertwarner-ev7wp hardly. But I also don't give it much credence.
@@robertwarner-ev7wp maybe so. I don't engage much with mythicism, so I haven't seen the all nitty gritty of it, which is likely where the behavior you're talking about resides. I'll keep this is mind though
Venaloid: "When the consensus etc ... and this includes mythicists." - Sounds like an appeal to authority. Have you published in the field of mythicism?
I think the jury is out, but the mythicists have much that is interesting to say, and the casual vilification and dismissal of them is regrettable.
@@robertwarner-ev7wp "... it's a conspiracy theory." - Conspiracy theorists do not typically publish extensive, peer-reviewed texts on their theses.
When I was a Christian I subscribed to the "before the last person in that (future) generation has died" school. So glad I no longer have to pretzel twist my mind.
yeah, religion does feel like a big pretzel is in your head.
What a great idea for a website!!! Thank you for introducing me to Tim!
Don’t forget what Jesus said about the stars falling to the Earth. Apparently Jesus did not know stars were suns.
He had no idea. He was just looking for free bread.
To be fair, if a star were to 'fall' on the earth that would definitely be the end of our world... So to say that a 'falling' star would herald the apocalypse is correct!
Nor did god.....🙄
@@dyrgja To be fair the stars wouldn't fall to the earth . The earth would rather fall to the star.
@@stevenread5473 Yeah that's why I wrote 'falling' in quotes.
These considerations really help explain why Matthew and Luke differ so much from Mark and why John omits the apocalypse teachings altogether.
I agree on Matthew and Luke, but I'm not sure if John was intentionally omitting those themes due to that reason or just because John went on a retconning spree and radically rewrote the story of Jesus and those themes were collateral damage
John was most likely aware of Mark's Gospel at least. He chose not to write about it as it had already been covered.
That goalpost keeps moving.
I left the faith years ago but am still occasionally struck with the conditioned fear of hell. Watching IP’s idiocy always remedies it.
Even if we take the conditional argument completely for granted, the imminent parousia and its failure still poses a massive issue for Christianity. Paul and other 1st-century Christians not only believed the end would come on their lifetime, but staked a huge majority of their beliefs on it. Most of Paul’s teachings were predicated on the imminent parousia - his sexual ethic in particular is entirely based on the end being right around the corner. Even if Jesus wasn’t wrong about the parousia, Paul very much was, and you’re still defending spiritual and ethical beliefs you derived from a false foundation.
Agreed, I would also say Jesus’ ethics are predicated on the same immediate end: don’t bury your dead, sell all possessions, leave your father, mother, wife, etc.
Well said!
Paul clearly shows what the early church believed shortly after Jesus died. He was so certain that Jesus would return in his lifetime he told people to not even procreate or get married as it would be a waste of time.
Mike and IP are directly undermining Paul and that of course makes you wonder what other teachings Paul got wrong.
Paul is the person that poured most of the foundation for the church after Jesus. It seems like he used sand instead of rock.
Jesus came in me 🙏🕊️
Ffs 🤣
He poked me with his finger!👍🏻👈🏻
Hallelujah, can I get an amen 😂
Come upon me
And on the seventh thrust he rested
It's crazy how *this* is so normalized. Rationalization is a hell of a drug.
Between Winger’s dishonesty here and the drama going on with J Warner Wallace and Cameron right now it’s clear that apologist don’t mind lying to make their points. That should a sign that they don’t have the truth, but cognitive dissonance is very strong.
I honestly don't know how anyone could legitimately come to any other conclusion.
Okay, I'll bite. What's the drama going on with J Warner Wallace and Cameron?
@@montagdp Wallace was supposed to go on a stream with Cameron a couple of days ago where they would take calls from viewers. Prophet of Zod and a few others have been exposing Wallace’s lies about uses his cold case detective skills to come to the conclusion that Jesus really was resurrected and claiming it’s why he converted to Christianity. People were planning on calling in to confront Wallace with the inconsistencies in the timeline of his story. So they cancelled the stream. Cameron claimed he looked into the claims but is still backing Wallace and blocking people who question him.
“Remember, it’s not a lie, if you believe it” - Costanza
@@amateuroverlord8007 thanks. Cameron can't seem to stay away from drama.
You guys did great. I realize this is only a response to IP and Mike Winger, but as long as we're talking about Jesus being a faild prophet, Jesus made a huge prophecy that failed. When Jesus sent out the 12 he told them the kingdom of God would come before they finished going through the towns of Israel (Matthew 10:23).
Exactly.
*Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.*
"Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7)
“Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23)
This video was edited incredibly well.
Apologetics is like Calivnball: the rules are all made up and constantly changing.
have not watched the video yet but wanted to drop a comment saying what interested me was Tim O'Neill. I'm a Christian, I found Tim on Twitter and what I liked about him was his principled stance towards historical fact. A lot of his time was spent critiquing what I would call more vulgar forms of atheism, such as denying even the existence of Jesus. He's a well-informed guy who struck me as being really fair in his assessments. Looking forward to hearing his perspective here
*Jesus is clearly speaking to the disciples and gives a timeframe for when the Son of Man would come.*
"Jesus sent these twelve out, charging them, saying: Do not go into the way of the nations, and do not go into a Samaritan city. But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going on, proclaim, saying, The kingdom of Heaven has drawn near" (Matthew 10:5-7)
“Truly I say to you, ***you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”*** (Matthew 10:23);
For the *Son of man* shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.***
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the *Son of Man* coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:27-28)
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9:27)
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30)
*He says that the coming of the Son of Man will be accompanied by:*
The sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
Then will appear the sign of the *Son of Man* in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the *Son of Man* coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Matthew 24:29-34)
There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the *Son of Man* coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened (Luke 21:25-32)
He also falsely prophesied to the high priest, the Sanhedrin and Nathaniel.
*Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal)
You will see the *Son of Man* sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** (Matthew 26:64) (Mark 14:62)
Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing.
*Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathaniel when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”
Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** (John 1:50-51)
*Nathaniel never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman*
*"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
*"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
*"Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet - History for Atheists"*
(Tim O'Neill is a former Christian and is familiar with most of the Biblical scholarship. He's been studying the scholarship and history for decades)
*"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
Thank you for this. It really helped give me a better feel for how the gospel message adapted/modified over time as events didn't match the current storyline. Almost makes me wonder if the word "synoptic" is no longer appropriate.
You don't think a christian apologist would just get on the internet and LIE, would they? 🥺
No, they would not.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh how you know?
Wonderful episode, thanks Paul and Tim.
Great opening Paul! :D
"Judaism. Judaism, is the correct answer..."
-- "Welcome to hell" , Rowan Atkinson
Goad to see Tim O'Neil getting the Paulogia bump, I've been following him for several years and have learned a ton. I don't agree with everything but he gives extensive arguments and sources you can read & evaluate yourself. I found several interesting books this way.
An apologist works like a think tank. You start out with a conclusion, and then you go back to find a set of premises that validate your conclusion. Of course, the cognitive contortions are transparent and humorous.
I have never seen a time where the humor of these situations outweigh how infuriating they are. These people are making a living off of lying to people, and that is not going to change because people are afraid to question what they are brainwashed to believe.
@raptorcrasherinc.9823 you'd have to be a really cynical prick to think that their intent is to lie for money. At some point you should at least be impressed by their diligence to defend their faith for themselves and others. Winger in particular is very diligent and studious, and it's pretty impressive that just about every contradiction can find a resolution without being nearly as contrived as one might expect from harmonizing texts written hundreds of years apart from one another. Idk, I mean you'd have to be pretty dense to not at the very least be impressed that skeptics have not come up with a single 'silver bullet' while picking apart texts from literally millenia ago.
@benjaminkemper5876
The famous physicist, Richard Feynman, said, “The first principle is not to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.”
I believe most apologists are sincere, but I take issue with their methodology. Again, they arrive at the doorstep of their laboratory already convinced of the veracity of their position. When any conflict or contradictions has already met your truth threshold, you can simply move past it. At that point, their work does not involve questioning foundational theological claims or assertions, it becomes finding ways to explain away the problems and make it all fit.
Believers of all different and conflicting supernatural suppositions find all sorts of forced and contorted ways to overcome problems, and they often manipulate or corrupt the 'data' to try to mislead the average pew sitter.
Psalm 22, what the Church refers to as, 'The crucifixion psalm' is a good example of this corruption and their are many, many other, "fulfillment citations" that change, warp or contort the original Hebrew to provide a Christological impression.
@@benjaminkemper5876 Then why does Winger in fact lie for money? He says things that the bible doesn't.
Also, skeptics have come up with many different 'silver bullets' when it comes to stories that we know for a fact are not true. The world is not flat with a crystal firmament. There was never a global flood, we know that from pretty much every field of science. There was never a garden of Eden or Adam and Eve, even Christian biologists admit that that is impossible. There were never a significant amount of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, we have tens of thousands of pieces of writing from the Egyptians at that time, only a handful allude to any amount of Hebrew slaves, and never to hundreds of thousands of them. Jericho was a ruin for thousands of years before Joshua was supposed to even exist. Plus, there are so many contradictions in the bible. You do not need to go past Genesis 1 and 2 before you find one.
How fucking dense do you have to be to believe that the bible is infallible? I know you want this to be true, but at some point you have to start living in the real world instead of clinging to fairytales.
@@benjaminkemper5876 It may be difficult to know the exact motives of a group of followers who are suffering traumatic loss, but we know the human ability for self deception is a familiar feature of our species, especially when it's set in times of extreme hardship and must now take on a 'new' meaning in the wake of the crushing defeat of the leader of their movement. This was, after all, a messianic hopeful who was supposed to restore the strength and glory of Zion (as explicitly described in Jewish Scripture) but who was crucified instead. There may not be a single silver bullet but there sure is a lot of ammo in the form of problems, conflicts and contradictions and the tendency of fervent believers to come up with all sorts of cognitive contortions to explain away those problems, conflicts and contradictions. Welcome to the shape-shifting world of apologetics!
Fantastic!!!! ❤
Now Derek (hey its Darin who helped you with IO nonsense), you know as an ex Full Preterist that this was not fantastic, even I could take Winger apart. If your presupposition is atheism, even Full Preterism will not be enough (not you, but others not exposed to the view), but I think you could admit that from the Christian perspective, it has the most explanatory power.
Love listening to this guest of yours. So calm, and knowledgeable, and his Australian accent is a nice change
Another great Paulogia video! I hope you interview Michael Beverly who is doing the work on showing the inconsistent statements by Jay Warner Wallace. You can do an amazing interview by keeping Michael focused on all the key points of inconsistencies.
Looking forward to that too! That fraud must be pressed
Agreed! Paulogia should be the one to do it because he keeps the language very specific which prevents tangents and misdirection.
I've argued with O'Neill over something really petty and nuanced, but he's a very careful thinker who knows his stuff.
My bible? I have a pipe so I don't need rolling papers.
"There was no TP in my hotel room. The bible has 10,000 pages, I only used a few."
Eh, everyone should have/read The Bible, regardless of how much you do/don't believe in it. I have the Norton Editions as an ePub and I still come back to it despite being an atheist for over 20 years now.
@@jonathanhenderson9422absolutely not true. If you want to read the Bible you should not do so without reading Homer first. Or at the least Virgil, but Homer is better.
You cannot understand the text without understanding what was before it.
@@alananimus9145 Where did you get the impression from my post I was saying people shouldn't also read Homer and Virgil? Of course they should. Reading Homer, Virgil, The Bible, Shakespeare, Milton, and a handful of others should be required reading for anyone who wants to consider themselves educated or cultured.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 I disagree and don't appreciate the equivocating. I would not disagree with you if you said "everyone should read Homer then the Bible." Or "anyone who wants to read the Bible ought to read Homer first."
But the Bible is in no way within the canons of must reads. Namely because without the background you can not read it. You can recognize the words on the page but not read it.
You cannot just open up to Genesis 1 and understand what kind of text it is, what it is doing, or how it was used liturgically. (It's a play)
If almighty God had wanted to inspire, dictate, or create a text which was clear, unambiguous and comprehensible for everybody, he would have done so.
Yeah and the bible is the farthest thing from that. Very ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of different ways
Its just men dictating men over one supposed God that is a placeholder for their external invisible authoritarian magic solver. And to place people's problems on a God to solve. "just read the Bible". Greatest social engineering scheme ever devised from the Elites.
37:27 is *_NOT_* the screenshot Winger referenced. Tim O'Neill shows us a screen shot of *_MARK 13: 28,_* not of Matthew 16: 28.
Winger's screenshot is at 36:13, and Winger *_tells us_* that he's pulling this "out of context".
Yeah he didn't do anything that the Jewish Messiah was supposed to do so yep he gets an F.
Jesus said his return would be imminent - 2,000 years ago!
Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming:
"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom".
(Matthew 16:28)
"Some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the Kingdom come with power."
(Mark 9:1-20)
"The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand."
(Mark 1:15)
@@EvilXtianity He assuredly did make those predictions. The failure of 99.9.9.9% of everyone on here, however, is the assumption that he was predicting his coming to bring history to an end.This betrays a total ignorance of Hebraic Apocalyptic language.
@@MrDonPreston OK but he didn't actually do anything he said he'd do, so he still failed.
@@Uryvichk Sorry, but as I stated, you, along with the other deniers on here, simply do not understand the nature of Hebraic apocalyptic literature. Jesus was a Hebrew / Jew, and their entire history contained examples of the prophets predicting the coming of the Lord, to destroy "heaven and earth" as He rode on the clouds, etc.. That was highly metaphoric language to describe His historical judgments. When He used one nation to judge another nation, He was said to come on the clouds, flaming fire. Etc. But, he clearly never came literally, or visibly.
Tell me, Uryvichk, have you personally done any in-depth study of Hebraic thought, Hebraic literature, Hebraic language and how it is used in the Bible?
If you ignore his words, then you clearly see that Jesus did mean the 21st century(or maybe beyond)...interpreting the text to say what you want is so fun 😂😂
Then you clearly see the 21st century or maybe later?
◉ ChatGPT:
▶︎ "Primary Arguments in Syllogistic Form
Argument 1: Jesus’ Prediction of His Second Coming
Premise 1: If Jesus predicted his second coming within the first century (Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30), then he should have returned within that time frame.
Premise 2: Jesus did not return within the first century.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' prediction of his second coming within the first century did not come true.
Argument 2: Interpretation of Apocalyptic Prophecy as Deterministic
Premise 1: Apocalyptic literature, including the predictions attributed to Jesus, is generally deterministic in nature.
Premise 2: Deterministic prophecies do not allow for significant delays or reinterpretation to fit later events.
Conclusion: Therefore, the apocalyptic prophecies attributed to Jesus should not be reinterpreted to fit events beyond the first century.
Argument 3: Conditional Nature of Prophecy
Premise 1: Some biblical prophecies are contingent upon the response of the people (conditional prophecy).
Premise 2: If Jesus' prophecy was conditional, it would depend on the people’s response and could be delayed or altered.
Premise 3: The historical context shows no evidence that the people’s response altered or delayed Jesus' second coming prophecy.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus' prophecy was likely not conditional and should be seen as deterministic.
Argument 4: Selective Interpretation by Conservative Apologists
Premise 1: Conservative apologists selectively interpret biblical texts to reconcile unfulfilled prophecies.
Premise 2: Selective interpretation involves adding context (e.g., Transfiguration) that is not explicitly supported by the original texts.
Conclusion: Therefore, conservative apologists' interpretations of Jesus' prophecies are not reliable.
Argument 5: The Abomination of Desolation and AD 70
Premise 1: The abomination of desolation mentioned in Mark 13:14 refers to a significant sacrilegious event.
Premise 2: The Roman desecration of the Jewish temple in AD 70 was a significant sacrilegious event.
Conclusion: Therefore, the abomination of desolation mentioned in Mark 13:14 refers to the Roman desecration of the Jewish temple in AD 70.
Argument 6: Mark’s Deterministic Nature of Prophecies
Premise 1: Mark’s gospel presents Jesus' prophecies in a deterministic manner.
Premise 2: Deterministic prophecies are meant to happen without delay or reinterpretation.
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ prophecies in Mark should be understood as predictions that were expected to occur imminently.
Argument 7: Later Gospel Modifications
Premise 1: Matthew and Luke modify Mark’s accounts to soften or reinterpret Jesus' prophecies.
Premise 2: Modifications suggest an attempt to address the failure of the prophecies to come true as originally stated.
Conclusion: Therefore, the later modifications in Matthew and Luke indicate that early Christians recognized the problem with the imminent expectation of Jesus' second coming.
This is regarding the part of the conversation where they are discussing Mark 13:10 (And the gospel must first be preached to all nations) at the 52:25 mark. I went and read that entire section of Mark because I wanted to try to understand it in context. Now I'm definitely not Bible scholar, but when I read that verse, I kind of thought to myself "hmm.. that verse seems a bit out of place. It doesn't really flow with the rest of that section. It doesn't really seem to fit the context and almost seems kind of forced in there. I wonder if that could be a later interpolation". Itt almost seemed like something that could have been added later on as a sort of built in excuse for why all these things had not yet happened yet. So I decided to ask ChatGPT about this. Sure enough, the Codex Sinaiticus does not contain that verse. And as far as I know, the Codex Sinaiticus is supposed to be one of the best and earliest (if not THE earliest) manuscripts that contains the complete gospel of Mark! Very interesting...
Anyway, here is the full response from Chat GPT..
Yes, there are some critical biblical scholars who have suggested that Mark 13:10 might be a later interpolation or insertion into the Gospel of Mark, rather than being an original part of the text.
Mark 13:10 reads: "And the gospel must first be preached to all nations."
Some of the reasons given by scholars for considering this verse a possible interpolation include:
Its absence from some early manuscripts: Verse 10 is missing from the important Codex Sinaiticus and a few other early manuscripts of Mark.
Contextual disconnect: Verses 9 and 11 seem to flow smoothly without verse 10, which appears somewhat disconnected from the context about persecutions and being arrested.
Theological tensions: The statement about preaching to all nations first seems to contradict the urgency of Jesus' warnings about the imminent end times described in this chapter.
Parallel gospel accounts: The parallel accounts in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 do not contain a verse paralleling Mark 13:10.
However, it's important to note that the majority of manuscripts do contain Mark 13:10, and not all scholars agree it is an interpolation. Some see it as coherent with Mark's overall themes of missionary spread of the gospel.
So while the theory of interpolation has been proposed by some based on textual and contextual analysis, there is no scholarly consensus. It remains a matter of ongoing debate and study within New Testament textual criticism.
Minor correction.. I used Claude AI, not ChatGPT.
@@UFPharmacy Did you actually look at a transcript of Codex Sinaiticus? ChatGPT and other LLM aren't meant for answering questions accurately. They essentially generate what text should be expected in response to a prompt based on their training data. They will generate false citations.
Jesus never came, he was a virgin.
For shame, I was told he was hung on a cross.
Well... you can still... come... even without a partner. Unless the apostle he loved gave him a hand...
@@brunozeigerts6379 depending on how you interpret the Bible, wasting your seed is a no no!
@@zerofaith 'Every sperm is precious/ every sperm is good...'
Honestly I hope he got to have some fun. I don't blame Jesus for his obsessed followers.
If prophecy is contingent and not deterministic, then what good is it anyway? If it doesn't come to pass, one can always fall back on "well I guess we didn't meet the criteria for it to come through." And the prophecy becomes about as good as a random guess.
These videos are invaluable. Thank you Paul and your wonderful guests
Wait, InspiringPhilosophy thinks the conditional argument is bad because it's a rationalization, not a good response? What the hell does he think apologetics is?
57:51 - But wouldn't Jesus' words suggest that some of his disciples WOULD taste death before the kingdom of God came? Most wouldn't taste death before the coming kingdom, but some would...so that begs the question; which of his disciples died in the week prior to the Transfiguration? If none of them died, then Mark 9:1 wasn't fulfilled by the Transfiguration. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Every time I hear IP, I count the number of seconds it takes before he quotes, a cherry picked scholar that agrees with his point!
Always good to hear from tim
Not only did they taste death but they had the all you can eat buffet.
😃
12:55 Hi, Just a Little question. When you say futurismo, could be applyable to Catholicism, cause during mess catholics believe to benin the same moment of the last supper, so this argoment could be applyable right? (Sorry in Advance for my english, it's vero difficult to me to Wright in another language with the device I'm on now)
“From now on” *starts singing*
I ALMOST put that clip in...
The take home message is that the inspired word of God is so unclear that many people over the last two thousand years have expected Jesus to come back within their lifetime. So far 100% of them have been wrong.
See J. Warner Wallace? See how Tim corrected an overstated biographical intro? See how easy that was? That’s what honesty and integrity look like.
How in the world does this channel only have 132k subs? You deserve at least 500k.
🙏
@@Paulogiaare you going to do a response to ip’s ‘no, Jesus was not a failed apocalyptic prophet.’
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Ooo… I know!!! All of em… wait, none of them.. no, ONE… maybe seven?
Asking the real questions here.
More pressingly, does God have foreskin?
So Damn interesting !!!
Thanks.
How can we see that the Bible is true? We ask.
Fulfilled prophecies! They often say.
Prophecies which might get delayed or not happen at all in dependace of circumstances.
Oh, how convincing...
46:05 to 46:52 - “So what Allison is clearly saying is most apocalyptic stuff is deterministic, but here are the exceptions.” This feels a bit too much like gaslighting, because that is _not_ what Allison said in the actual highlighted quotes (“much” isn’t the same thing as “most”). Perhaps Allison does have the belief attributed to him here, but that wasn’t contained in the highlighted quotes.
52:33 to 53:47 - Again, this feels like gaslighting, because the very concordance cited _also_ contains "nation" as one possible meaning for _ethnos._ To say that this word _doesn't_ mean "nation" therefore seems misleading at best. If Tim O'Neil had simply said something like "It _could_ mean something other than nation..." and cited the concordance, he'd be on firmer ground.
I greatly appreciate anyone who has the knowledge and time to present history as accurately as possible, and I find history for atheists particularly helpful in addressing what is basically meme claims. I do think that history can aid in recognizing the development of supernatural and religious beliefs and practices.
Matthew 24:34 (and elsewhere) where Jesus said 'truly this generation will not pass away until (his apocalyptic vision) comes to pass.' Those verses were a major nail in the coffin for me with Christianity. If there is partial fulfillment of a prophecy, we should already be in the kingdom of God and the new Jerusalem, new heaven and earth would be here. If the second coming is yet to occur, and we are extremely liberal with the term 'this generation'. So liberal we count the lifetime of Methuselah as one generation. We are already separated from Jesus and his prophecies by more than twice Methuselah's lifetime. I don't think it will happen. I don't think Jesus and heaven on earth will ever actually happen.
Kingdom of God is within you he said n that happened at Pentecost n is still going on.
@paulogia, IP made a response video yesterday, which was surprisingly quick of him. please debunk his responses too. slowly but surely you are the greatest cause of dismantling IP one piece at a time. keep it up!
The bit surrounding 5:22, where Tim describes what happened during the Intertestamental Period is fascinating and worthy of its own video!
Concerning the content of The Bible in general, I've always wondered "If so much of the stuff in The Bible is made up and didn't happen, then what DID happen that influenced these stories?"
Like when you consider a magic trick - the magician doesn't do anything that's magic, but they did do something.
Exactly.
The real founder of Christianity isn’t Jesus-it’s the Apostle Paul.
Yes but for him it probably would have died out.
If Paul founded Christianity, how did he manage to persecute Christians before he founded that religion? Obviously, Christianity existed before Paul got involved with it, so he could not have founded it.
@@michaelsommers2356It existed then, but Paul's letters and writings attributed to him - whether falsely or not - are a huge part of the extensive proliferation of the religion.
Peter, IF Jesus was only an apocalyptic preacher in the Jewish tradition. As Paulogia says, Peter has a grief induced hallucination. Game on. Paul takes it to the hole- the gentiles.Shack and Kobe double team.
@@michaelsommers2356 I’d add the writer of the Book of Luke/Acts to the founders of Christianity, too. Paul crafted the beginnings of at least one version of Christian theology and spread it all around the Mediterranean, particularly making it available to a gentile audience.
Terrific episode!
When and where in all of human history is there not "war and rumors of war"? I mean, at any point during history you can say this vague statement is currently true.
The Pax Romana.
@@JamesLJesus ... Did someone tell you there were _no_ wars in the world during this period? Pax Romana is a period lasting roughly 27 BCE to 180 CE, but it wasn't really without war (and it's I guess irrelevant the number of revolts that took place, but okay).
Yes, during that period there were _relatively_ peaceful times. But there were still small wars being waged, even in the empire itself.
26-24 BCE Rome attempted to sieze Arabia Felix, entailing a handful of skirmishes and sieges.
12 BCE - 16 CE the Romans were sending troops into Germania.
20 BCE - 90 CE they were sending military expeditions into northern Africa to suppress tribal uprisings and other unrest.
Et cetera.
Sure, compared to the history they'd been making for the decades prior, with dozens of wars across multiple lands, this was _less_ warlike, but it's like the dude at the buffet who got full, so he sits out a couple hours chatting with friends until he can relieve himself and head back for another plate. Or I guess closer to the source, like a Roman display of wealth in which the rich would feast for hours, then go vomit into vases, so they could make room for more food. Pax Romana was "peaceful" for most the citizens, just as vomiting for 10 minutes is peaceful for the utensils at your table.
@@FernLovebond "They pillage and steal and call it EMPIRE and where they make a desolation they call it PEACE." - Calgacus.
Yeah and that's presumably why Jesus said not to take them as signs of the end times. If you're preaching about a coming apocalypse, it's worth clarifying to your followers that they needn't seize upon every war or other bit of upsetting news as the beginning of the end - otherwise they probably will.
46:28 - Does "much" mean "most"? How much of a rule is this? Might be worth asking Dale himself.
The prophecy of jesus's return is explicit with objective criteria. If a prophecy can fail so clearly and not be wrong prophecy has no meaning , and you can defend any false belief by making excuses when it fails.
19:25 Hilarious actually, the man went out of his way to profane the temple, and what did the "one true god" do about it? Absolutely nothing, just like all the other false gods, indistinguishable for some reason 😂
That 'wickedness' is a good thing then if it's delaying apocalypse.
I'm doing my part.
Tim’s analysis was amazing! I’ll definitely be checking out his channel
Inspiring Philosophy has a history of quote mining and misrepresenting sources. I used to give him the benefit of doubt. I thought maybe, he was just googling paragraphs that seemed to agree with him. But it's happened too many times now, it's hard not to come the conclusion he's aware if it.
I've yet to come across any honest apologist.
Great video. Very educational.
Jesus could be taken to be talking about the so called 12 in the parable of the sower. He is almost uninterruptedly complaining about how obtuse they are.
Great stuff here!
Thank you.
LOL. Inspiring Philosophy has responded with his own new translation of the Bible. I think it will be named the "Jesus Shrugged" version.
Mark 13:30
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
Matthew 24:34
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
Luke 21:8
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place....maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
I'm sure this version will be very popular!