And the funny thing is that it is not a good reason, it is "i don't believe prophecies are true, so this must be a lie!". Which is cyclic, because he can them say "it is a lie because prophecies aren't true!"
@@ExploringReality 🫡🫡🫡 no problem, thank you for your videos and livestreams with InspiringPhilosophy and others, you have genuinely helped me in converting to Christianity from Hinduism
@ExploringReality perhaps an interesting claim on Paul quoting Luke, considering that 1 Timothy is among the works whose authorship is disputed, and it's usually dated later.
Also, I feel like one could steelman the opposition of your Matthean authorship argument. Matthew not only uses third person, but he copies the full account of his beginning to follow Jesus almost entirely from Mark! What is your explanation for why he'd do that?
Than delivered that cringe up for us today my dudes. Jesus mythesists have a million times more "faith" (Dawkins' solidified definition in the hearts of new atheists everywhere: "believing in the face of evidence") than Christians do.
this is why i miss the old atheist order. aka the hyperskeptical cynical secular agnostics. I was one of these types until i opened my mind and was proven of the Bible through Quranic double witness. now its just false information and manipulation and cultlike
I simply had no faith back then. I've learned the importance of God in such a godless universe. but these new atheists are just "if god real why bad thing happen" that I stopped believing when I was 12. even my atheist phase could accept that was a cringe move. bad things just happen. if you want a godless faithless Universe you have to ignore the fact that there is separation of Good and evil. you have to accept that things just are.
in that reference; I feel that the loss of Buddhism and the lack of Buddhist thought within atheist communities has utterly brainrotted and destroyed new atheists at least with old atheist orders like me. we were deeply theological, we just didn't like religion and didn't want to believe in God. but we loved the idea of Holy Scripture and saints and angels atheism used to be near-identical to agnosticism; now atheism and its skepticism just another religion while the near-religiosity of secular agnosticism over the centuries ("they're taking God out of schools") has mellowed into the normal attitude like yeah there are people of different religions all over; we should just respect them and their beliefs. most of them believe in a Creator / Source entity that is a supreme deity or God.
but i love religion. I've found Persian Zoroastrianism, (through avesta yasna) and Christian Orthodoxy are my truths. the truth that Islam speaks of being recreated from: Zoroastrianism what changed Judaism from Henotheistic to Monotheistic: Zoroastrianism What do both Isaiah and Avestani Scribes have in common? predictions of a Messiah, a Prophet. to me. these are the truths of God. i respect mormonism and islam and judaism. but Zoroaster is my pretruth; Jesus is my posttruth
I find it so funny that so many Christians refer to Dawkins like he is some atheists authority. I guess most Christians are just so used to following whatever the authority figure says they think everyone listens to an authority. I haven’t read any of Dawkins materials. So that kind of shows your entire narrative is incorrect..
1:28 - Right in the beginning and it shows he already thinks Jesus don't existed. At this point, he lost all credibility, not even atheists nowadays denies Christ, so, i already know everything he says from now on will be fringe.
There are still lots of people that deny the existence of Jesus. Manly due to there is no solid contemporary evidence for Jesus. To me it is such a mundane claim. A person with a common name, apocalyptic preachers were common and crucifixion was a common method of execution. So again, mundane claim..
@@lubrew5862 To deny his existence, one would have to be pretty against what we consider valid as established method to determine historicity. The people that deny normally are very lay, or basis their assumption to rhetoric that was previous to much evidences of Jesus. Well, considering how reliable the bible is, it is very unlikely that your view is the correct, but you are free to have such view. I think this is a high level of denial.
@@sophiacristina So what contemporary evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus? Like I stated, I think it is mundane claim. So I am fine accepting there was a first century apocalyptic rabi named Jeshua who was crucified by the Romans. Those are all very common things. But again if you think we have actual contemporary evidence of Jesus please post it. And no, there are a lot of scholars who just accept the stories because it is a mundane claim and their are scholars who state there is no good evidence for his existence so they do not think he exists. But ending your post the way you did I have a sneaking suspicion you are just going to come back with denial and an attempt at reversing the burden to me.
@@sophiacristina what exactly am I in denial of? I simply stated my position that there is a lack of evidence. So you can prove me wrong and post contemporary evidence for Jesus.
@@lubrew5862 Because by time more and more of the bible proved to be reliable. At first, people don't even believed in Jesus. To think the bible is not true when it is mostly true, requires you to be in the "least likely scenario". Regardless of the validity for you to support your position. Which i said it is not a problem to have. What you mean "contemporary evidence"? Evidence is evidence, there is no two-measures! Does that means the evidences we have so far is not valid just because we found it some time ago? That is "moving the goal post". Which makes it seem that the "denial idea" i have of you is more likely.
Why should anyone believe the bible? Can you demonstrate the god of the bible is real, with empirical evidence, objectively verifiable evidence or a novel testable prediction? Yes or No? (You know, actual testable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, like we do for everything else in science and reality?)
you're using physics to debate theology and I'd say the fundamental constructs of the universe require at least an external mind. how else are the hyperobscure constants within theorhetical physics that keep the universe together: well, correct? if simply one of those numbers were different; our universe would not exist at all or be entirely inconceivable. just one silly little decimal in a silly little constant. round up pi? e^i? you're just wrong. but how do we prove it? we show our work. but how do we know our work is right? it's a circular reasoning. and circular reasonings are always false and require blind Faith math inquires an existence of at least an external mind dealing in abstract correctness
also the factors that language and math only exist in modern humanity; in which art, music, weaponry, and religion can be extrapolated from. and not even with primitive man like neanderthal; just Sapien. before you say that other primates are capable of language, they are not. Gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are incapable of intelligible speech. no other animal is Sapient; others might be sentient; but none besides man can ponder on their existence and have the POTENTIAL words to SPEAK on how they FEEL. no other animal is taking threads and turning them into strings and rope no other animal is carving out a part of another animals skull, simply because they like the way it sounds when they make a fart noise with their mouth through it. human civilization and "Greatness" is a facade built upon skills only we possess why do we possess these skills while all other animals lack them? I mean, the closest an animal can get to our mathematical ability is a crow and water displacement; every other animal is exponentially dumber than the corvid (Blackbird)
Divinity is out there. we simply dont know it. its metaphysical also the fact that the Bible has cultural importance. it is literally a genealogy of the Jews and their culture. you can tell when the Jews are pagans (Egypt), when they're henotheistic (Babylon), when they're monotheistic (Persia), and when they're apocalyptic (Rome). even if you find no spiritual value in the Bible. it's historical value is naturally priceless. no other ancient book boringly records the average everyday lives of people. the closest we get to similarity is the Zoroastrian Avesta. but every other holy book? way too fucking long and deeply tied to their culture (ever seen the Hindu or Daoist canon?) the bible is the only religious book in which you can just start reading (again, closest equivalent would be the Quran, if you're already an Arab) its not as allegorical as youd think. its an entire culture and civilization condensed into one book. some of it's deeply meaningful and some of it is just "Machias bought three bushels of Grapes for wine, two bushels for grain flour"
This is a logical fallacy. And an argument from silence. You show that anything exists and that anyone is real, and we can go ahead with this bad faith argument.
I'll do better here: Faith is the excuse people give when they do not have a good reason aka evidence. If you have evidence you give that. Done. EDIT: Had to edit because the religious will take any misstep to slot a way to defend their own dishonesty.
Nonsense. Faith is the belief in something absent objective knowledge. Reason does not factor into it. For example, you have faith that you are real person experiencing reality, and not a simulation or stuck in a coma. You could not ever prove with full certainty that your reality is objectively real, ie you cannot prove that you are not in a simulation or hallucination. Any claim otherwise would simply be egoic thinking, that is - thinking derived from the ego, not logic.
You must distinguish between fides qua and fides quae. The faith is different than ‘my faith’. To suggest that reason is equivalent to either is ridiculous. One has faith because of reason, and one may have faith in reason, but the reason is not the faith. I reason that a chair can support my weight. There is little faith here. When I sit, I have faith in the chair because of my reasoning, and faith in my reasoning.
Atheism is also faith, you don't have perfect information to affirm it, and neither good reason. And no, faith is about a strong conviction, so, it needs good reason to have such conviction, people don't have strong conviction without reasoning about it. If you have a strong conviction (faith) that it will rain, even without a concrete proof, you still can rationalize your conviction by saying the the clouds are too dark and there are strong winds.
Acts also doesn’t mention the death of Paul because the author of Acts probably doesn’t know how Paul died. So Acts may be pre 70 AD. Btw, I accept the data for the gospels to be post 70 AD. But pre 70 AD or post 70 AD authorship of the gospels doesn’t prove nor disprove a historical Jesus 😂
@@ExploringReality My first thoughts on the authorship of Acts is that the author lived close to the timeframe of the events. However, the author tends to be very well versed in the literature of Dionysus. The book of Acts follows a theme that is polemical or attacks the theme of the Bacchae. In the Bacchae, the main protagonist is blinded by the truth of who Dionysus really is. The story ends with him not changing his opinion about Dionysus even after Dionysus’ identity being revealed. In compassion to the main protagonist in Acts who is Paul, sees Jesus, and Jesus changes Paul’s heart. Jesus is better than Dionysus is the point. I don’t think Luke wrote Acts, but it certainly seems to be written by the same person who addresses Theopolus. Maybe a Greek speaking Christian who is a secondary eyewitness and they are writing down the oral traditions they have received and putting an anti-Greek political twist on these traditions to razzle his Greek audience.
Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel according to Luke, and the Gospel came first. So if Acts pre-dates 70 AD, then Luke's Gospel also predates 70 AD. Which means that Mark is even earlier, since Luke used Mark as a template.
@@mysotiras21 if Mark is pulling from another source, if Mark is post 70 AD, Acts may be pulling not from Mark but from the same source text that Mark used.
I am atheist. Lets not adopt a burden of proof we cannot meet. An atheist is simply not convinced. Not right, not wrong. The theist is making a claim. Let them try and defend it.
I don't care about the "bible" definition of "faith" because It literally defines "faith" as "evidence". This is clearly equivocation and thus, fallacious at best. At worst, it's just gibberish.
Well really it’s not the “Bible” as u put it but the Greek word they used which is seen bein used by other non Christians like Philosophers and other which is the word Pistis which if u google doesn’t mean blind faith so it’s not the Bible’s it’s the Greek word that’s used to translate to faith maybe don’t be a dumbass and actually see what ppl argue
@@MrMZaccone no it’s not its the way the Greek word was used and faith is what it translates to so it’s not equivocation or gibberish just bc u don’t agree with it
@@MrMZaccone No I’m not that’s how the word was used and translated as that’s like sayin Yeshua transliterated to Jesus is equivocation that’s not what’s goin on what I’m doin is seeing what the word translates to then seein how that word was used in that time just bc u see faith as blind faith doesn’t mean that’s how it was used in the Bible this isn’t equivocation u need to show why instead of just sayin it
You have that ass backwards. Knowledge is only achieved with evidence. Faith is literally described in the bible as the confidence in things you cannot see. Or in other words, belief without evidence. And it goes on to praise people who express that belief despite evidence or argument to the contrary. It encourages people to be dishonest. It even inverts the meaning of fool in the actual bible in a limp attempt to cover its own ass. To me it looked like evidence the writer got this far and realized they skrewed up. So they added this part. The worlds wrong, I'm right. And it goes on and on.
I noticed that the host of this video keeps on repeating the fact that Jeff is right and Jeff is correct in almost every statement. He seems to be attempting to dispute him but yet he keeps on saying that Jeff is correct and almost every statement.😂
how else do the fundamental concepts in physics and mathematical constants work? the imply the existence of an external mind to be "right" how else could our work be shown to be true?
also the fact that math and language only exist within humanity other primates are not capable of language. only blackbirds are able to use water displacement, AT MOST so it implies the existence of something greater that we get it from
"but Koko!.." no, Koko can not speak. every other word was "cigarette" and it was all lies. it was not even ASL Non-Human primates cannot possess language no animal can parse complex mathematics
So, any evidence against the contrary, smart guy? besides the stereotypical jackass "if god real, why bad thing happen" I want you to provide evidence and proof; not hearsay and flawed reasoning give me absolute, undeniable proof that there is no higher power, no creator, no greater external mind, not even a "Source" of the beginning of the universe. but if you say "there isn't a 'source' to the universe" I'm going to make fun of you.
Any Evidence against God? I've provided my evidence and reasonings toward. I'm not here to debate. I'm here to both educate you and to learn from you. id also like it if your "supreme skeptical intelligence" wasn't just bad middle school debate skills. speak to me like you're sane and have a brain on your head. not like a fucking duck quacking on and speaking to yourself
Atheist is simply: I am not convinced gods exist. It is not: I am convinced gods do not exist. See the difference? The atheist has no faith here. Faith implies a confidence in something. They have not expressed a belief. They have simply said "I don't know. I cannot say yes or no." As for faith. Should I quote the bibles definition of faith? I will give you the benefit of assuming you know your own religion. Faith is belief without evidence. You are convinced of something.
@@JadDragon “It’s the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay” - Gandalf I am unsure what your point is. A book says a thing?
Reupload due to audio issues.
Bro, 55 seconds in and the dude is just begging the question.
What I like about Jeff is that no matter how badly I screw up in life, I will never be as wrong as he is in his videos.
>"very important reasons for why the gospels HAVE to be after 70AD"
>looks inside
>question begging and burden shifting
And the funny thing is that it is not a good reason, it is "i don't believe prophecies are true, so this must be a lie!".
Which is cyclic, because he can them say "it is a lie because prophecies aren't true!"
“I cayn’t belayve yer debunkin’ may.” - TikToker
Is this a reference to the “he lied to may”?
@@chieftain2515 Haven’t heard that one. 😆
Hey! Just came over from your talk with Michael Beverly. Loved the video, hoping I'll find more to love as I keep watching
Another goated vid Than!! 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥💯‼️‼️
@@Vanta1111 thank you!
@@ExploringReality 🫡🫡🫡 no problem, thank you for your videos and livestreams with InspiringPhilosophy and others, you have genuinely helped me in converting to Christianity from Hinduism
@@Vanta1111 I’m blessed to have heard this. Thank you for sharing friend!
The audacity!!! Good stuff bro.
Yes! Merking the most ridiculous Jesus Mythicist on the internet. I can’t believe you got his book😂
IIRC Xenophon also refers to himself in the third person, although I don't know if that was consistent throughout his work.
He does in his Anabasis
Great content as always Than 🔥
@@Brandon2777 🙏🏽 thanks!
Nice response.
@ExploringReality perhaps an interesting claim on Paul quoting Luke, considering that 1 Timothy is among the works whose authorship is disputed, and it's usually dated later.
Also, I feel like one could steelman the opposition of your Matthean authorship argument. Matthew not only uses third person, but he copies the full account of his beginning to follow Jesus almost entirely from Mark! What is your explanation for why he'd do that?
Bravo! Not that anyone should take TikTok seriously. It is a platform for prideful ignoramuses.
@@mysotiras21 unfortunately many people are lead astray on there
@@ExploringReality , yes, I know. Sad.
Than delivered that cringe up for us today my dudes. Jesus mythesists have a million times more "faith" (Dawkins' solidified definition in the hearts of new atheists everywhere: "believing in the face of evidence") than Christians do.
this is why i miss the old atheist order.
aka the hyperskeptical cynical secular agnostics.
I was one of these types until i opened my mind and was proven of the Bible through Quranic double witness.
now its just false information and manipulation and cultlike
I simply had no faith back then. I've learned the importance of God in such a godless universe.
but these new atheists are just "if god real why bad thing happen" that I stopped believing when I was 12.
even my atheist phase could accept that was a cringe move.
bad things just happen.
if you want a godless faithless Universe you have to ignore the fact that there is separation of Good and evil. you have to accept that things just are.
in that reference; I feel that the loss of Buddhism and the lack of Buddhist thought within atheist communities has utterly brainrotted and destroyed new atheists
at least with old atheist orders like me. we were deeply theological, we just didn't like religion and didn't want to believe in God. but we loved the idea of Holy Scripture and saints and angels
atheism used to be near-identical to agnosticism;
now atheism and its skepticism just another religion
while the near-religiosity of secular agnosticism over the centuries ("they're taking God out of schools") has mellowed into the normal attitude
like yeah there are people of different religions all over; we should just respect them and their beliefs. most of them believe in a Creator / Source entity that is a supreme deity or God.
but i love religion.
I've found Persian Zoroastrianism, (through avesta yasna) and Christian Orthodoxy are my truths.
the truth that Islam speaks of being recreated from: Zoroastrianism
what changed Judaism from Henotheistic to Monotheistic: Zoroastrianism
What do both Isaiah and Avestani Scribes have in common? predictions of a Messiah, a Prophet.
to me. these are the truths of God.
i respect mormonism and islam and judaism. but Zoroaster is my pretruth; Jesus is my posttruth
I find it so funny that so many Christians refer to Dawkins like he is some atheists authority. I guess most Christians are just so used to following whatever the authority figure says they think everyone listens to an authority.
I haven’t read any of Dawkins materials. So that kind of shows your entire narrative is incorrect..
Awesome content!! Love this, very informative
1:28 - Right in the beginning and it shows he already thinks Jesus don't existed.
At this point, he lost all credibility, not even atheists nowadays denies Christ, so, i already know everything he says from now on will be fringe.
There are still lots of people that deny the existence of Jesus. Manly due to there is no solid contemporary evidence for Jesus.
To me it is such a mundane claim. A person with a common name, apocalyptic preachers were common and crucifixion was a common method of execution. So again, mundane claim..
@@lubrew5862 To deny his existence, one would have to be pretty against what we consider valid as established method to determine historicity.
The people that deny normally are very lay, or basis their assumption to rhetoric that was previous to much evidences of Jesus.
Well, considering how reliable the bible is, it is very unlikely that your view is the correct, but you are free to have such view. I think this is a high level of denial.
@@sophiacristina So what contemporary evidence do we have for the existence of Jesus?
Like I stated, I think it is mundane claim. So I am fine accepting there was a first century apocalyptic rabi named Jeshua who was crucified by the Romans. Those are all very common things.
But again if you think we have actual contemporary evidence of Jesus please post it.
And no, there are a lot of scholars who just accept the stories because it is a mundane claim and their are scholars who state there is no good evidence for his existence so they do not think he exists.
But ending your post the way you did I have a sneaking suspicion you are just going to come back with denial and an attempt at reversing the burden to me.
@@sophiacristina what exactly am I in denial of? I simply stated my position that there is a lack of evidence. So you can prove me wrong and post contemporary evidence for Jesus.
@@lubrew5862 Because by time more and more of the bible proved to be reliable. At first, people don't even believed in Jesus.
To think the bible is not true when it is mostly true, requires you to be in the "least likely scenario".
Regardless of the validity for you to support your position. Which i said it is not a problem to have.
What you mean "contemporary evidence"? Evidence is evidence, there is no two-measures! Does that means the evidences we have so far is not valid just because we found it some time ago? That is "moving the goal post". Which makes it seem that the "denial idea" i have of you is more likely.
Why should anyone believe the bible?
Can you demonstrate the god of the bible is real, with empirical evidence, objectively verifiable evidence or a novel testable prediction? Yes or No? (You know, actual testable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, like we do for everything else in science and reality?)
you're using physics to debate theology
and I'd say the fundamental constructs of the universe require at least an external mind.
how else are the hyperobscure constants within theorhetical physics that keep the universe together: well, correct?
if simply one of those numbers were different; our universe would not exist at all or be entirely inconceivable.
just one silly little decimal in a silly little constant.
round up pi? e^i? you're just wrong. but how do we prove it?
we show our work. but how do we know our work is right?
it's a circular reasoning. and circular reasonings are always false and require blind Faith
math inquires an existence of at least an external mind dealing in abstract correctness
also the factors that language and math only exist in modern humanity; in which art, music, weaponry, and religion can be extrapolated from.
and not even with primitive man like neanderthal; just Sapien.
before you say that other primates are capable of language, they are not.
Gorillas, chimps, and orangutans are incapable of intelligible speech.
no other animal is Sapient; others might be sentient; but none besides man can ponder on their existence and have the POTENTIAL words to SPEAK on how they FEEL.
no other animal is taking threads and turning them into strings and rope
no other animal is carving out a part of another animals skull, simply because they like the way it sounds when they make a fart noise with their mouth through it.
human civilization and "Greatness" is a facade built upon skills only we possess
why do we possess these skills while all other animals lack them?
I mean, the closest an animal can get to our mathematical ability is a crow and water displacement; every other animal is exponentially dumber than the corvid (Blackbird)
Divinity is out there. we simply dont know it. its metaphysical
also the fact that the Bible has cultural importance.
it is literally a genealogy of the Jews and their culture.
you can tell when the Jews are pagans (Egypt), when they're henotheistic (Babylon), when they're monotheistic (Persia), and when they're apocalyptic (Rome).
even if you find no spiritual value in the Bible. it's historical value is naturally priceless.
no other ancient book boringly records the average everyday lives of people.
the closest we get to similarity is the Zoroastrian Avesta.
but every other holy book? way too fucking long and deeply tied to their culture (ever seen the Hindu or Daoist canon?)
the bible is the only religious book in which you can just start reading (again, closest equivalent would be the Quran, if you're already an Arab)
its not as allegorical as youd think. its an entire culture and civilization condensed into one book. some of it's deeply meaningful and some of it is just "Machias bought three bushels of Grapes for wine, two bushels for grain flour"
This is a logical fallacy. And an argument from silence.
You show that anything exists and that anyone is real, and we can go ahead with this bad faith argument.
@nxtvim2521 nice gish galloping. I can't possibly respond to all that bs you typed.
Than the Goat
@@takeshi_bennett no u
@@ExploringRealityyou really deserve more views man 🙏 such quality content and not enough recognition 😔
@@takeshi_bennett I appreciate it. Slowly but surely maybe!
Hey Than! I just debated Jeff on this topic, if you have time to watch it I would love your feedback, God bless.
@@WifiGospel email me link?
Interesting he only hearts the comments that support him or demeans Jeff. Could that be because he wants the pro-him comments to be above?
It’s probably because most of the other comments are passive aggressive and intentionally insulting, combined with 2nd grade bad faith argumentation.
I'll do better here:
Faith is the excuse people give when they do not have a good reason aka evidence.
If you have evidence you give that.
Done.
EDIT: Had to edit because the religious will take any misstep to slot a way to defend their own dishonesty.
Nonsense. Faith is the belief in something absent objective knowledge. Reason does not factor into it. For example, you have faith that you are real person experiencing reality, and not a simulation or stuck in a coma. You could not ever prove with full certainty that your reality is objectively real, ie you cannot prove that you are not in a simulation or hallucination.
Any claim otherwise would simply be egoic thinking, that is - thinking derived from the ego, not logic.
You must distinguish between fides qua and fides quae. The faith is different than ‘my faith’. To suggest that reason is equivalent to either is ridiculous. One has faith because of reason, and one may have faith in reason, but the reason is not the faith.
I reason that a chair can support my weight. There is little faith here. When I sit, I have faith in the chair because of my reasoning, and faith in my reasoning.
@@mikehawk1441faith means trust
Atheism is also faith, you don't have perfect information to affirm it, and neither good reason.
And no, faith is about a strong conviction, so, it needs good reason to have such conviction, people don't have strong conviction without reasoning about it.
If you have a strong conviction (faith) that it will rain, even without a concrete proof, you still can rationalize your conviction by saying the the clouds are too dark and there are strong winds.
@@mikehawk1441 A good reason would be the evidence. Didnt think this needed to be explained. I overestimated people evidently.
Would u do a live or video goin over his whole book or naw
@@Austation4850 if enough people wanted that yea
Acts also doesn’t mention the death of Paul because the author of Acts probably doesn’t know how Paul died. So Acts may be pre 70 AD. Btw, I accept the data for the gospels to be post 70 AD. But pre 70 AD or post 70 AD authorship of the gospels doesn’t prove nor disprove a historical Jesus 😂
@@secretsofthebiblewithwayne2825 what are your views on the authorship of acts?
@@ExploringReality My first thoughts on the authorship of Acts is that the author lived close to the timeframe of the events. However, the author tends to be very well versed in the literature of Dionysus. The book of Acts follows a theme that is polemical or attacks the theme of the Bacchae. In the Bacchae, the main protagonist is blinded by the truth of who Dionysus really is. The story ends with him not changing his opinion about Dionysus even after Dionysus’ identity being revealed. In compassion to the main protagonist in Acts who is Paul, sees Jesus, and Jesus changes Paul’s heart. Jesus is better than Dionysus is the point.
I don’t think Luke wrote Acts, but it certainly seems to be written by the same person who addresses Theopolus. Maybe a Greek speaking Christian who is a secondary eyewitness and they are writing down the oral traditions they have received and putting an anti-Greek political twist on these traditions to razzle his Greek audience.
Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel according to Luke, and the Gospel came first. So if Acts pre-dates 70 AD, then Luke's Gospel also predates 70 AD. Which means that Mark is even earlier, since Luke used Mark as a template.
@@mysotiras21 Eh. That gets into the whole Q source argument. I’m fine with late gospels.
@@mysotiras21 if Mark is pulling from another source, if Mark is post 70 AD, Acts may be pulling not from Mark but from the same source text that Mark used.
The Atheist is right and you are wrong.
You’d just be plainly stupid if you actually believe that lmao
I am atheist. Lets not adopt a burden of proof we cannot meet.
An atheist is simply not convinced. Not right, not wrong. The theist is making a claim. Let them try and defend it.
I don't care about the "bible" definition of "faith" because It literally defines "faith" as "evidence". This is clearly equivocation and thus, fallacious at best. At worst, it's just gibberish.
Well really it’s not the “Bible” as u put it but the Greek word they used which is seen bein used by other non Christians like Philosophers and other which is the word Pistis which if u google doesn’t mean blind faith so it’s not the Bible’s it’s the Greek word that’s used to translate to faith maybe don’t be a dumbass and actually see what ppl argue
@Austation4850 Still equivocation at best and thus still a fallacy. At worst, still gibberish.
@@MrMZaccone no it’s not its the way the Greek word was used and faith is what it translates to so it’s not equivocation or gibberish just bc u don’t agree with it
@@Austation4850 You're equivocating ... right ... now.
@@MrMZaccone No I’m not that’s how the word was used and translated as that’s like sayin Yeshua transliterated to Jesus is equivocation that’s not what’s goin on what I’m doin is seeing what the word translates to then seein how that word was used in that time just bc u see faith as blind faith doesn’t mean that’s how it was used in the Bible this isn’t equivocation u need to show why instead of just sayin it
Jeff may be using bad arguments, that doesn't make anything of that true.
Knowledge without faith is a shot in the dark.
Faith is not a pathway to knowledge, but independently verifiable evidence is.
You have that ass backwards.
Knowledge is only achieved with evidence. Faith is literally described in the bible as the confidence in things you cannot see. Or in other words, belief without evidence.
And it goes on to praise people who express that belief despite evidence or argument to the contrary.
It encourages people to be dishonest. It even inverts the meaning of fool in the actual bible in a limp attempt to cover its own ass. To me it looked like evidence the writer got this far and realized they skrewed up. So they added this part. The worlds wrong, I'm right.
And it goes on and on.
I noticed that the host of this video keeps on repeating the fact that Jeff is right and Jeff is correct in almost every statement. He seems to be attempting to dispute him but yet he keeps on saying that Jeff is correct and almost every statement.😂
so, any evidence of god? still no? well any day now i guess LOL
how else do the fundamental concepts in physics and mathematical constants work? the imply the existence of an external mind to be "right"
how else could our work be shown to be true?
also the fact that math and language only exist within humanity
other primates are not capable of language.
only blackbirds are able to use water displacement, AT MOST
so it implies the existence of something greater that we get it from
"but Koko!.."
no, Koko can not speak. every other word was "cigarette" and it was all lies. it was not even ASL
Non-Human primates cannot possess language
no animal can parse complex mathematics
So, any evidence against the contrary, smart guy? besides the stereotypical jackass "if god real, why bad thing happen"
I want you to provide evidence and proof; not hearsay and flawed reasoning
give me absolute, undeniable proof that there is no higher power, no creator, no greater external mind, not even a "Source" of the beginning of the universe.
but if you say "there isn't a 'source' to the universe" I'm going to make fun of you.
Any Evidence against God? I've provided my evidence and reasonings toward.
I'm not here to debate. I'm here to both educate you and to learn from you.
id also like it if your "supreme skeptical intelligence" wasn't just bad middle school debate skills.
speak to me like you're sane and have a brain on your head. not like a fucking duck quacking on and speaking to yourself
Nothing is more blind faith than atheism.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Atheist is simply: I am not convinced gods exist.
It is not: I am convinced gods do not exist.
See the difference? The atheist has no faith here. Faith implies a confidence in something. They have not expressed a belief.
They have simply said "I don't know. I cannot say yes or no."
As for faith. Should I quote the bibles definition of faith? I will give you the benefit of assuming you know your own religion.
Faith is belief without evidence. You are convinced of something.
@@XEN-ZOMBIE John 1:1 LSB
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
@@JadDragon “It’s the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay” - Gandalf
I am unsure what your point is. A book says a thing?
@@XEN-ZOMBIE John 1:2 LSB
[2] He was in the beginning with God.
@@JadDragon "One does not simply walk into Mordor." - Boromir
Still waiting on a point over here.