Pontius Pilate Blunder: Supposed Bible Error #12
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Is the description of Pilate in the Gospels inconsistent with what we read in other ancient works?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Philo: Legatio ad Gaium 299-305
Josephus: Antiquities Book 18.3-4
Craig Evans - Fabricating Jesus
Brian McGing - Pontius Pilate and the Sources, www.jstor.org/stable/43718282.
E. Mary Smallwood - Philonis Alexandrini
Helen K. Bond - Pontius Pilate in Histor and Interpretation
As an Atheist, I'm happy to become a Subscriber. You're one of the rare apologists who argues for theism honestly and without trying to strawman your opponents or misrepresenting their views. Many atheists also resort to strawmaning their opponents and it makes me absolutely furious when I see this happen. We should all be first and foremost seekers of Truth, not members of ideological tribes.
Well said Shaewaros, glad to have you here
Are you still an atheist
It's been three years since this comment. I'm curious where you are in your search for truth today.
Dishing out harsh punishments but also trying to appease the local populace perfectly fits typical Roman practices when governing far out provinces and only strengthens your point.
Yes, when you really look at practices or methods of the Roman Empire, they definitely use carrot & stick tactics in a very brutal way. The carrot was the benefits of being "at peace" with Rome with vestiges of civilization like heated flooring, finely constructed buildings, aqueducts, paying taxes to Rome, etc. But if you weren't mesmerized by Roman technology or didn't want Rome to rule over you, then the bloody stick came out. Romans had no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of people (all ages/sex) to make their point.
always learning through this channel... Lost people will scratch and claw to remain lost and it is mind boggling!! 💯
I never found this alleged contradiction to be the least bit convincing. If Pilate was so ardently opposed to the Jewish leaders, why _wouldn’t_ he “rile them up” by suggesting that maybe this insurrectionist Jesus _really was_ their King? (And it _did_ rile them up.) Are we to believe Pilate would just execute anyone whom the Pharisees ordered him to without question, because he thought “the more Jews I execute, the better”? Was he too much of a mindless barbarian to have his own perspective and approach to each case? It’s just a really silly argument, IMO.
Great video IP. God bless you.
I actually think this is the best explanation.
Some Jews call Jesus 'Metatron'. They also hate Jesus and love Metatron. But that's because they think humans are idols and angels are servants of YHVH.
Except executing Jesus wouldn't have been "more Jews" since Pilate never dealt with anyone called "Jews", and because Jesus was a Galilaean. Something Pilate quickly figured out.
"When Pilate heard of Galilee (Galilaia) he asked whether the man were a Galilaean (Galilaios).
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time." Luk 23:6-7
Jesus was a Galilaean, therefore he couldn't have been a Judaean, and since the Greek word for Judaean is the only word in our translations rendered "Jew", he couldn't possibly have been one.
The name of the country we call Judaea is always IOUDAIA in the manuscripts, and IOUDAIOS is always used for it's inhabitants. (btw Ioudaia is pronounced exactly like Judaea except for a Y sound at the beginning)
IOUDAIA = [THEY LAND OF] JUDAEA
-IOS = PEOPLE OF
IOUDAIOS = PEOPLE OF [THE LAND OF] JUDAEA
Galilee was 2 countries to the north of Judaea, and had its own distinct population and culture. When Jesus was teaching in Judaea it was because he traveled there from his home country.
"And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee (Galilaia), and came into the coasts of Judaea (Ioudaia) beyond Jordan;" Mat 19:1
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee (Galilaia): for he would not walk in Jewry (Ioudaia), because the Jews (Ioudaios) sought to kill him.* Jhn 7:1
Notice how Ioudaia is (correctly) translated as "Judaea" in one place, but rendered as "Jewry" in another? That's extremely deceptive, those two words express completely different concepts. Ioudaia is a country, a territory, while Jewry is a people. The fact that people in charge of transmitting the scriptures are willing to play fast and loose with the definitions of words, especially important words, should alarm every Christian, and make people realize they need to check what they think they know to see if they've been misled (they have).
("How can you say, ‘We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us’?
Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood." Jer 8:8)
The idea that Jesus was a Judaean ("Jew") comes from the fact that the bible records people's mistakes, as well as lies, and the phrase "King of the Jews" was both.
Just because a statement is recorded in the bible doesn't automatically make it a true statement. We cant be lazy, passive readers.
The false assumption arose due to prophecies that say the Messiah would come from Bethlehem of Judaea... Therefore people ASSUMED he would live in Judaea and therefore be a Judaean.
It's understandable that people who lived prior to and even during the life of Jesus assumed he would live in Judaea since he was born there, but those who've had access to the rest of the story are fully aware that he was born while his parents were traveling from Nazareth of Galilee to Jerusalem of Judaea to register for the Roman census, and that he didn't live there, so there's no excuse for making the same blunder.
They also know that he never used that phrase, and neither did his disciples, it was initially a FALSE ASSUMPTION, and then later AN ACCUSATION TOLD BY FALSE WITNESSES meant to force the Roman governor to execute him as a traitor and usurper, or else be accused of being a traitor himself.
Look up the phrase with an online bible, the only people who said it was the foreign wise men, Herod the Great, Jesus' accusers. the false witnesses they bribed, then people who repeated the lie after it was made public. Pilate, some Roman soldiers, and some people standing in front of the accusation nailed to the cross.
It's difficult to understand why Bible believing Christians don't pick up on the obvious fact that it's false, but here we are.
@@doxholiday1372 Just because Jesus was from Galilee, doesn't mean that he was not, in Greek or Latin terms, a Judean.
@@jayg3857 Which Jews call Jesus Metatron and how could that be if they hate the one and love the other. Are the two one and the same (as your first sentence suggests) or not (as your second does). Who thinks humans are idols?
There is an interesting verse in Luke 13.1 that portrays Pilate as every bit of what critics accuse the Gospels as not doing: “Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Of course, if you look deeper into the picture that the Gospels and other writings present, the reality is much more complex. Great video!
This channel is a blessing.
Yay, finally a continuation of this series!
Yea, I’d like to see more from him regarding this series, and maybe OT apologetics. His stuff is always great regardless.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 A lot of OT vidoes coming out over the next year.
InspiringPhilosophy
Awesome. Thanks for replying to me here and on Christian Apologetics Alliance on the same day. I feel honored. 😂
Let's make a prediction the next video is part 4 of the irreducible mind based in the order of the previous videos
@@InspiringPhilosophy got pretty good books on archaeological evidence for the OT I reached on the 1&2 kings in my personal research
Excellent analysis and presentation.
The bible is 100% correct.
Except when it’s not.
@@meeksde What is not accurate in the Gospels?
Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.
ua-cam.com/video/lbb4xwYj19g/v-deo.html
Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument.
Regarding Christianity, check out InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true.
Even IF A Pilate was a brutal ruler, it still makes sense to me that he would be affected somehow by being in direct contact with The Living God.
Pilate hated his job as Governor. He was hoping that Tiberius would favor him, and give him a promotion elsewhere. Anywhere, but here. Too many problems with Jews. His job was to maintain law and order. And crush any rebellion against Rome.
To think that a cynical politician wouldn't take whatever cause he thought would ensure stability seems strange.
Thanks for this video I recently came across this contradiction, thanks for clearing it up god bless.
I have always wondered why people say that, according to the Gospels, Pilate is weak and unable to decide. To me, Pontius Pilate of the Gospels is calculating, tactical, player, and sly. Pilate strives to push his own decision as far as possible. But when he sees that he can do no more, he releases Barabbas to prevent the rebellion, and crucifies Jesus. According to the narrative, the crowd is only interested in Barabbas (they want no one but this famous Barabbas only) and Jesus is just someone nobody from Galilee to them. Oh, and there is a riot (judging by how this crowd is described as behaving) that the high priests use to pursue their own purposes.
However, it is likely that Barabbas, the crowd, and the riot were created/fabricated only to roll the cause of Jesus' death out of Roman hands over the Jews. Because Christians lived under Roman rule, it was not allowed for them to portray the Romans as evil villains. Christianity had to show that it was not a threat to Rome and their emperors. But the involvement of the Jews in the death of Jesus, in any way, is an anti-Semitic claim. Really, the Jews had no part in it and it was a purely Roman execution.
Your second paragraph is reading too much into the narrative.
Virtually all of the documents of the New Testament, potentially all of them, were written before persecutions of Christians by Rome began around 64 AD under Nero. Rome was not the enemy at the time, the Jewish Leadership was. Romans are repeatedly talked about in a positive light, showing Pagans being more accepting of Jesus than the Jewish Leadership. The intent being to attack the Jewish Leadership, not because they cared about looking good to the Romans. There was no need to "show that it was not a threat to Rome and their emperors" because, until 64 AD, Rome was not the threat.
Not sure how anyone can claim with a straight face that "Jews had no part in it and it was a purely Roman execution." I suppose technically correct, because the Jews "outsourced" the execution to the Romans. This is just semantics though. The Jewish Leadership would have happily killed Jesus themselves if there was a gap in Roman governance, as happened with St James of Jerusalem in 62 AD.
The Jews and Romans had a joint role in Jesus’ crucifixion.
Also, why would the gospels be biased against making Pilate seem like a bad guy? If this was an attack on Jewish religious officials, why would they not be the ones requesting the flogging? Why even change Pilate's personality at all, if they're only trying to tell a convincing lie?
Even if these contradictions were valid, wouldn't a historian look at it as four accounts about Pilate's character VS two accounts? Not only do the four have numerical superiority, but they all recount the same story with agreement. Suppose you had a court of law with six witnesses: four of them agreed and told the same story, and the other two didn't agree nor did their stories match. Wouldn't that make the four consistent witnesses more trustworthy than the two?
That's one of the challenges of analyzing ancient history, the low amount of solid information. I get a chuckle from "educated guessers" on shows talking about functions of certain locations or devices. Its obvious they have no idea except what's in their imagination or biases.
It’s almost like skeptics forget human nature and politics for the sake of unbelief.
Could you go over the 42 laws of maat vs the Bible? People always say that maat is the real God and I just wanna learn from you what you think
The bible is 100% *CORRECT*
Great work IP, one of the true warriors for Christ. God bless you, Sir.
Thank you for your work
@InspiringPhilosophy thank you for your great content. Will you be doing a video on biblical prophecies? Its really interesting and I would love to hear your view on them. God bless🙏
He said he was a preterist in past comments
Man I love these types of video, thank you IP
Great work, God bless
Excellent!
And IP, are you planning to do a series on the historicity of the Gospels?
Suggest me some playlists/books regarding that if you can.
He did one on the authenticity of the New Testament and the Ressurection. There are playlists both right on the IP channel
@@tommystintspokemon405 yeah but I asked for historical reliability of the Bible, I know that we have strong evidence of the resurrection and that the new testament is the most reliable document out there.
External historical data for the events in the Bible other than the resurrection and crucifixion
God bless!
Can’t wait for the 3 hour long response videos. 😒
Lol!
@@InspiringPhilosophyhey IP do you read e-books if you do pls tell any good websites for free e-books
@@briendoyle4680 so do the scientists who have there theories that they pass off as facts. Hahaha. Open your eyes. Proof of God is creation itself. Who but God can create everything out of nothing.
@@briendoyle4680 hahaha, only the most uneducated would believe scientists made up theories. Do some more research. If you want proof of God then listen to your conscience and look at your surroundings. Prove what your scientists say is fact. LOL
@@briendoyle4680 hahaha, observation! Are you kidding me! Is that why there theories continually change? I guess the observations are continually wrong. LOL
Good post...people will attempt to find contradiction in anything, so as not to believe the truth.
Pontus Pilate sounds like a discount Street Fighter character, thus he likely never existed(screw whatever Josephus, Philo, and the Pilate stone said, just trust me). Therefore the Gospels and Resurrection are likely fictional. Checkmate Mike! Your faith is shaken!
They just found evidence for Pontuis Pilot existing & that was a couple of years ago; you can see it on the secular History channel so Idk why you feel that way & also Jocephus never stood as a christian witness that is why he is an important historic figure he was an outsider that actually showed these events took place but it's still a free country thanks to the Lord our God & Saviour Jesus Christ Lord God almighty so I wouldn't say checkmate just look at todays geo politics it is biblical prophecy just as Isreal becoming in a nation in 1948 the whole world is anxious for a new world order so rationalizing or standing at that position doesn't make any sense? You can google it it is very easy too find about Pontius Pilot that they discovered evidence that he truly existed
Checkmate alligator man your an idiot!
@@j.gstudios4576 I don't understand is it blind foolishness or is it just intentional discourse too keep others distracted with disbelief? I mean how can someone truly think they can argue true historic facts? They blatantly deny its truth which seems intentional for a means to create it as they want it to be instead; if someone just holds the position as well ok I understand it is real authentic history but I just don't accept it is still dumb but outright denying it really does go on a level of insanity
@@jeremychannel333 I really hope that the comment he made was a joke lol
@@j.gstudios4576 well hum🤔... Well looks like I'm the sucker then lol😂 that makes alot more sense; their is so much apostasy & disbelief it is not easy to see nowadays but that is a real good one then he suckered me in Lol😂
Love your videos man ❤
Thanks
Thank you for the donation
He was sent to keep the peace not murder the subjects.
What do you think of the Roman Soldier who pierced Christ? Do you think he actually did convert to Christianity especially since the Centurion said "Surely this man is the Son of God"
Search "Sanctus Longinus"
Have you talked about the man who collected sticks during the Sabbath. Just wondering.
Pilate did not consider Jesus guilty and tried to free him. When Jewish crowds insisted on his death and threatened to complain to Tiberius, Pilate made his decision to order crucifixtion. Pilate was a caricature of God showing that man is inherently not evil but becomes one when he chooses king of earth (Tiberius) over King of Heavens (Jesus).
Any thoughts about Pilate’s wife?
Do you mind explaining why you refuse to debate Richard Carrier?
Could you shed some light on the folowing problem please, namely the fact that in the Gospel of John, no Jew enters Pilate's home together with Jesus because of its impurity during Passover, yet the author of John can give us a detailed account of what is said between the two? It looks like the passage has been made up since there was no Jewish eyewitness present who could have talked about it and it would be very unlikely that a Roman was there either and spread the word. Thanks in advance.
I'm not IP but I don't really see how this is a problem.
Firstly, as the Gospel of John is inspired, God could have just told John what happened directly.
But besides that, there are plenty of ways John could have heard of it:
-The Pharisees standing outside (including Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) could have overheard it though a window.
-Pilate could have had servants who were or would become Christians. We know that Johanna, the wife of Herod's butler followed Jesus, and members of Caesar's household would later become Christians, so this is hardly far-fetched.
-The Centurion who acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God at the cross could have been present. The centurion whose servant was healed by Jesus might also have been there. There were also Roman soldiers who came to John the Baptist who might have been there.
-Some eastern traditions hold that Pilate himself became Christian later on. I dunno about this, but we do know his wife was having prophetic dreams so I could imagine her becoming Christian.
-We know that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea made themselves unclean later on anyway by preparing Jesus's body for burial. Perhaps they anticipated this and went in regardless, as an exception to the other Pharisees.
-Pilate could have told the Pharisees afterwards (incl. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea).
-Jesus could have mentioned it in passing while hanging out with his disciples after his resurrection.
@@IamGrimalkin well spoken👍
People like to talk. Don't assume nobody else was around that's highly unlikely. Pilate himself probably told others especially since it was a very unusual case.
IP... how reliable do scholars consider the writings of Josephus? I’ve read conflicting views.
How do scholars see it? Do they trust it 100%? Or for the most part? Could you help answer this please .
Josephus’ first passage is partially forged but is nevertheless authentic, the second passage is completely authentic. The majority say that he is a reliable source for the historical Jesus.
Pontius Perfect Purple Pickle Pelican Pilate
Pushing pickled peppers past Peter pumpkin-eater
Let's make a prediction the next video is part 4 of the irreducible mind based in the order of the previous videos
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:1 NIV
How did u not mention this verse? This do describe pilate in a bad light.
From my previous digging through Roman history I was lead to believe Pilate did make it to Rome to answer charges of excessive brutality. He was sacked by the Emperor and a very short time later committed suicide. Committing suicide was a common practice to "save face" in Roman society.
Can you make a separate video debunking solipsism?
ua-cam.com/video/2r74vcMxwUk/v-deo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy thanks 👍
How do I send this to Bart Ehrman? LOL
Not much of a contradiction to even bother with a rebuttal. This is done all over the place throughout history. There is nothing like playing the ridicule through favoritism card in order to rile the dissenters. In fact, it is a common ploy to out would-be rebels. Further, we do not know much about Pilate's own ambitions of power either. As for avoiding the worst actions in the record, this was also done depending upon the climate of the time and the positions that many held. A case in point is the alleged slaughter of the innocents. Josephus records all kinds of violence and barbarisms by Herod but not that one whereas the bible does. The "cause and agenda" plays a part in that as well. It is yet another argument from silence and yet the way I view it is that it actually strengthens the argument that "IT DID OCCUR". It may not have been what many think it might and that is more in the realm of conjecture, but I have no doubts about the general event.
Can you make a video on Henotheism? ,looks like lots of people vis believing this now
ua-cam.com/video/dg-pkeHrh_M/v-deo.html
The phrase "King of the Jews" is incorrect and misleading for numerous reasons. One, because the NT writers never used the word "Jews" or anything equivalent to it. Every time it appears in translations the word in the manuscripts is IOUDAIOS, the Greek version of JUDAEANS, literally meaning "inhabitants of IOUDAIA (JUDAEA)".
The country is always called IOUDAIA (Pronounced exactly like Judaea except with a Y sound at the beginning), and its people are always called IOUDAIOS. This can't be disputed, and anyone can verify it by using an online bible synced with a Concordance such as the blueletterbible.
Furthermore, yes, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, but neither his parents or he ever lived there. Those who made the mistake of thinking he was a IOUDAIOI/JUDAEAN, like the foreign wise men and Herod, did so because they ASSUMED he lived in IOUDAIA/JUDAEA due to prophecies about him being born there. Those who know the whole story know that he was born while his parents were making their way from Nazareth of Galilee to Jerusalem of Judaea to register for the Roman census.
Living in Galilee made him a GALILAEAN rather than a Judaean (erroneously rendered as "Jew"). A completely different country, and again. the only time "Jews" appears in our translations is where the word IOUDAIOS was used in the manuscripts. No other people are referred to as "Jews".
Even Pilate figured out the ruse.
"When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.
And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time." Luk 23:6-7
The help understood it too.
"And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." Mar 14:69-70
Perhaps now people can grasp the absurdity of accusing a Galilaean of claiming to be king of the Judaeans.
Considering Galilee was 2 countries north of Judaea its similar to a Canadian claiming to be king of the Mexicans.
There's a lot more to the story, including the fact that multiple non Israelite ethnic groups including Canaanites and Idumeans lived in 1st c. Judaea, meaning Israelites and Ioudaios (Judaeans/Jews) can in no way be used interchangeably. (eg Herod is called a "Jew", yet came from a family of Idumeans. Christians would do well to do a bible study on Edom/Idumea, it will make sense of why there was so much opposition to the Messiah in 1st c. Judaea)
God's people have always been the 12 tribes of Israel, not "Jews", but in general Christians have become lazy and apathetic and most barely crack open the OT - the foundation of the faith, so unfortunately they're easily fooled.
Since it would take two to three full comments to explain the differences between the 12 tribes of Israel, and why they're not "Jews" I'll leave readers with something to spark their curiosity:
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." (The Jewish Almanac, compiled and edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3)
Christians really need to get their bible study skills up to par.
Clearly the Gospels are trying to blame the Jews and to innocent Pilate and the Romans. 2 problems: Jesus was Jewish and he was crucified by the Romans.
For anyone interested, there is an awesome hour long video going over literally everything we know about pilate.
ua-cam.com/video/M8s8fMMEuiA/v-deo.html
You won't regret it.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda?
You're going to get a lot of hate for this video given what recently occurred.
What's that?
See here: ua-cam.com/video/YgVMTMMON70/v-deo.html
It's a long story. But IP had a big back and forth on social media with a few skeptics about Pilate.
@@lbm681 last blog I wrote: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2020/08/13/yes-jesus-was-buried-in-a-tomb-a-response-to-paulogia/
You need to stop. No Roman would find nothing wrong with Jesus claiming to be king.
Hi,
So I've been really into trying to figure out a way to show why a god exists. I've come up with the rough start of an argument I like to call "The Purdy Persuasion"(My last name is Purdy)
It combines the ideas that nothing comes from nothing and that time can't be infinite in the past.
------
1.) Nothing comes from nothing
a) Nothing is the absence of thing. Thing being, in/is time, space, matter. Once you start saying what nothing is, it automatically becomes, not nothing. If you don't have time, space or matter, you can't get a thing.
aa) So there couldn't have been nothing.
2) Time can't be infinite in the past
a) Time is continuous events. Events being, someTHING beginning and ending. If there are an infinite amount of beginning and endings then the beginning and ending we are in now couldn't happen. Simpler example: - If there are an infinite amount of days in the past, today couldn't have happened. Why? Because, if there were an infinite amount of days in the past, there would always be another day before today could be here. Today is here.
aa)Therefore, time cant be infinite in the past
But now we have a problem.(for the non-theist)
On one hand we can't have nothing. On the other there couldn't have been an infinite amount of things in the past. So how do we get out of this problem?
---
God of the gaps!!
No no, but if a god is described as:
- Timeless
- Space-less
- Immaterial
Then we don't have a problem.
But if there is just a god that is Timeless, space-less and immaterial, we still don't have an explanation on how we are here.
That's why this timeless, space-less, immaterial god needs to be powerful enough to create, intelligent enough to create and the freedom to do so and to choose to do so.
---
This argument is taken from:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Contingency Argument
The Grim Reaper Paradox
---
This argument is in it's infancy stage but I am already proud of it and so blessed the Holy Spirit has given me the inspiration to write this.
If you have seen an argument like this please let me know, I don't want to think I came up with something that I did not.
If you have any comments, rebuttals, suggestions, please let me know
God bless!
👊✌
Rubbish