nope - you failed yourself brother. I feel bad for you as you clearly want to come home to Christ. A week or so ago you made a video on Gospel 'inaccuracies' in connection with the Lord's Nativity. Every SINGLE one of your objections was historically, objectively wrong. I did make quick comments at the time. Wake up, grow up and return to Holy Church, for preference Holy Orthodoxy ☦☦☦
The Bible does NOT say the world is 6,000 years old. That figure comes from a very old calculation on Biblical genealogies, however the genealogies may well skip generations. There is no need for a Christian to hold to this except among protestants who don't understand the Bible anyway.
The biggest slight of hand for Christian apologetics is to say secular scholars agree there were appearences of Jesus but then they pretend that means secular scholars agree with the Biblical account of the appearances. Therefore it demands a good naturalistic explanation. This tripped me up for a while because I had no idea what scholars really accepted. They do this with tons of passages in the Bible as well. I'd love for someone to cover this sort of issue.
I'm here after your Myth Vision video. I began deconstructing 3 years ago. Unfortunately I'm the only one and I now understand how POWERFUL indoctrination is. I see pastors fleecing their congregations regularly and twisting scripture. However I believe the fellowship of the church and having a place of belonging causes Christians to overlook the obvious while to most its just not obvious at all. I kind of feel like Rowdy Piper in the movie they live. Keep up the good work!
@@rjmamula Yes. You do. Everyone negotiates with the texts and everyone depreciates some parts and elevates others. It is impossible to do otherwise. ruclips.net/video/MMCJAopL2Ls/видео.htmlsi=MR7BeAwm4vxec16h Is It Possible to be Faithful to the Whole Bible?
Maybe it's because of the fact that I grew up in an abusive home, but I stay away from people who use words like, "have to" and "wrong." I don't know why everyone wants to argue and debate and create so much drama and conflict. It's just not my vibe.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and thoughts on these issues, good job pointing out the selling of religious mythologies that apologists do. They are as believable as car salespeople, politicians, phamaceutical and health insurance advertising. To bad the Bible isn’t taught as fascinating stories providing a window into life, thought and culture if ancient middle eastern society .
“Origin of species” refers to speciation, not the origins of life. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes the process that natural organisms change over time due to understood selection pressures and does not deal with the origins of life. That field is called “origin studies” or “abiogenesis”
Apologetic deviousness!! Perfect phrase Chris. In the organization I was a part of, I wore the Scholar/Apologist/Theologian hats (Amateur of course) From the moment I was saved and started reading the Bible, I noticed issues that needed answers. Queue the apologists - as I read the lineup of famous apologists answers (some of whom I debated after deconversion) I was always uneasy with their glib responses to problems that were quite serious. It was the real scholars that finally gave me the answers I didn’t have to trash my brain to accept and appreciate. Now that the mental and emotional straight jacket of Fundamentalism no longer binds me, I relish my Judeo/Christian studies, and this religious tradition is more alive to me now than when I was a very committed believer.
Dave Hunt (Letter Correspondence) Josh McDowell (Letter Correspondence) James White (Letter Correspondence) Norman Geisler (Email Correspondence) I didn't get anywhere but I really enjoyed my interactions with Dave Hunt, also his wife had sent me a personal letter. I also had an email interaction with JP Holding, who I thought was much more impressive than the professional apologists.
The gospels wouldn’t have been written in Hebrew, but Aramaic. However, they were definitely written originally in koine Greek, after the destruction of the temple, as you suggested. It’s refreshing to finally hear an honest Christian. Thank you!
I used to wonder, why is Darwin such a bogyman? Why not Newtonian mechanics, that make the world a clockwork without room for an intervener? Why not Germ Theory that contradicts healings? Why not Psychology that removed demon possession? I think Darwin was collateral damage in a fight over biblical interpretation that had nothing to do with science. That’s why the creation-evolution debate lasts. It’s not about science at all. The book Essays and Reviews, was published in 1860, one year after the Origin. Essays is seven essays on the biblical scholarship coming out of Germany. It suggested alternative readings of the Bible, history as recorded in Genesis, and even Jesus’ miracles themselves. It set off debate and polarization with sermons, books, and pamphlets defending the old reading of the Bible or defending the new. It was the prototype of the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate and the discussion spilled over into the fields of geology and biology. Essays sold more copies in two years, than the Origin sold in twenty.
Woah, how have I never heard of "essays and reviews"? Thank you for that. This is fascinating. I think that also speaks to why Darwin is such a good boogie man though. Most fundamentalists would be horrified if they took the time to actually read the systematic theology and biblical studies within their own tradition. But they either aren't interested, or aren't intelligent enough to handle it. Darwin provides a really nice focused enemy, with a simple grand thesis they can respond to. If Christians actually took the time to read our own thinkers we wouldn't be so dumb
A bogyman in a certain retarded part of the world. In Britain, they put him on the ten pound note for a while. In Australia, we have a city and a university named after him.
Well, actually, certain sects do have issues with each of these things. Fundies hate Psychology. Some reject germs - and more reject germ based treatments since COVID politicized medicine. Many claim God is healing them, while they run, not walk, to doctors for pills, surgery & therapy. But you are quite right that the the Fundie movement was a reaction to the German school of Biblical criticism. There was a series of pamphlets that described the Fundamentals of Christian faith that were published between 1910 and 1915 and mailed out in the thousands. You can find copies of "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" online. The basic fundamental belief is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God & literally true in all its claims. Darwin became their boogeyman because the theory of evolution totally contradicts the personal & purposeful role of God in creating humans. In creation by evolution, humans are no more special than worms or aardvarks. And it has no loophole to escape the inevitability of your own death. (And, yes, I know Darwin's theories were about speciation, not abiogenesis, but they don't.)
Out of curiosity I checked out a couple of apologists YT videos that attempted to convince people the world was 6-8 thousand years old. What I found was a pretzel-like approach to answering questions like: why light from distant stars takes billions of years to reach Earth or why sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers, with the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest at the top show the world is billions of years old. Very clever but ridiculous answers.
The funniest this about Tertullian’s quote about Athens and Jerusalem is that almost all of his work is steeped in Greek metaphysics….the immortality of the soul….the LOGOS…..
“Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated” Christophe Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens. Dishonest apologist for the disingenuous New Athiest movement who demonstrated exactly zero knowledge of not only theology but history, philosophy or psychology either.
Thank you for being honest. I think this is important and can actually lead to good and needed conversations. It’s amazingly refreshing. I just subscribed and plan on watching your other content. Good luck with the channel!
Great video, good to see Christians not only willing to think critically but also willing to challenge bad ideas. Are you the Christian Alex O'Connor?😊
Christianity is the only religion that trains armies of apologetics, to basically defend the indefensible. Do you think that humans can convey the message of God better than him? I don't think so. If you need apologetics, you have problems, ie you want to defend tradition not God. Because God does not need you to deliver his message.
Islam does it in a more radical way than Christianity. Christians at least do not kill those who left Christianity because they stopped believing in fairy tales.
So much for sola scriptura, also. "The Bible is our only authority" where does it say which books are in the Canon? Where does it say the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses? Where does it say Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote them?
The ecumenical and other councils decided the theological dogma and which books were authoritative, even though they themselves at times borrowed ideas from the apocryphal or heretical texts, it's ridiculous!
The belief of the Bible being inerrant is the result of believing that God is perfect, all knowing and all powerful aaaand author of the Bible (albeit indirectly). Therefore logically it shouldn’t contain contradictions. Pointing out a single contradiction, even if expected, tiny and insignificant calls into question their core beliefs. That’s where cognitive dissonance kicks in and people will latch on to any explanation. This happens in religion, politics and anything else people believe deeply in.
Great video. Do you happen to know any scholars who have responded to Martin Hengel's work suggesting that we wouldn't expect unanimous attestation in the 2nd century to the Gospel writer's identities if the gospels were anonymous?
The Bible has no contradictions. What are you talking about? How is contradictory that Judas died twice in the same field (obviously he came back to life when all the dead people raised from their thumbs after Jesus death and died again) or that Joseph (Jesus step dad) had gay parents?
I was a believer for 60 years, and always “grounded in the Word”. I left the faith in 2017, partly because of my continued study of scripture. As Mark Twain once said, “It’s not the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bothers me. It the parts I do understand.” It’s this knowledge now that leads me to view most apologetics as obtuse, dishonest, and deceitful, and many Christians who critically examine scripture are recognizing this, and leaving Christianity in mass.
@@StevenMyers-wx6du I agree. But I also do think the Christian tradition is incredibly complex and interesting, with lots of deep thinkers (none of them apologists). I still get a lot of joy from it.
@@cjohnyrun One's bibliology has nothing to do with one's being a follower of Christ or a theist. I'm uncertain whether counter apologists and some exvangelicals always appreciate this fact. I know evangelicals do not
your point about other cults in the region at the time putting women in prominent positions is really interesting. I haven't heard about that before. Are you able to tell us more about this?
My biggest problem with the women's testimony argument is that, if you think about it, there isn't any women's testimony - there's only the male gospel writers' accounts that women saw the empty tomb.
That's true. I think the apologist argument goes something like "there's no way they would invent women finding an empty tomb. Because women weren't considered trustworthy witnesses--if they were making it up, they would have made up men."
@@cjohnyrun My problem with the "woman can't testify" apologetic is that women couldn't testify IN A COURT OF LAW. These woman weren't testifying in a court. They were telling their fellow believers what they had seen. The people who knew them would judge the women's claims based on their personal knowledge of their honesty, BTW, courts would take the testimony of women in certain circumstances, such as childbirth. In cases where there was an accusation against a man, the courts often required the testimony of other male witnesses to corroborate their claims. In Muslim law, the courts will accept a woman's accusation of rape if 4 other men corroborate her testimony.
Please, can somebody help me find a quote from a 2nd-century church father who said something like that manuscripts are so diverse (or that message in manuscripts was so skewed) that it's hard to trust it, something like that? I think it was Irenaeus?
@@cjohnyrun I don't really know. I am looking for information regarding Biblical scepticism of the 2nd century. Please can you elaborate on what is Against Heresies 5.30.1, or make a video about it? Thank you.
"The only explanation for they be willing to die is because they saw jesus resurrected" - Would you be willing to die for Jesus? Yes - Did you see him resurrected? ...
I am a geologist. The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Also god forgot to mention that he destroyed 95% of all life on earth during the Permian extinction. And humans have been around for about 200,000 years - probably longer than- mammals don’t leave a good fossil record.
The only thing that really makes me angry when discussing the bible is the whole idea of inerrancy and the absence of contradictions. Also, dummies leading worship and discussion. I once sat trying not to burst out laughing at some guy leading discussion who was talking about girding your loins and telling the flock that loins were on your forearms and calves and anything he could think of to keep them from thinking about those nasty pelvic areas. Also he went into this whole talk about wearing clean underwear... Nutso.
I don't agree with the argument that "Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection." Firstly, we don't have any witnesses of Jesus coming back to life from death. Possibly, nobody saw this. Secondly, according to Mark's gospel, a "man" was waiting for the women. We can presume that he was the first person to have contact with the risen Christ. The women heard about it second-hand from him. But there are three versions - that the women told nobody, that they told the disciples of the resurrection, and that they told the disciples that someone had taken the body. I think the prominence of women in the gospels in contrast to the denials and bickering of the disciples is very significant, but I don't think it's a strong argument for the resurrection. Also, Paul doesn't mention any women by name in his list of appearances.
You need to look up the definition of 'apologetics'. Everything needs to be explained to those who don't know - it shouldn't be complicated for you to grasp that.
@markrothenbuhler6232 Facts, it's all so ridiculous that the supreme being (if there is such a thing mind you) requires humans for anything, especially not to make excuses on its behalf, lmfao. Deities have come and gone, they are a product of humanity and our ancestor's minds, and they tell us more about ourselves and the culture they came out of than any literalist views of actual mythical characters in the sky or on a mountain.
Bad apologetics of fundamentalism. Young earth? No contradictions in Bible? Sorry, but saying that these concepts are “generally Christian” is just false. Rather american-evangelical-fundamental type of Christianity.
Oh that's interesting! I found him quite convincing back in the day. Although I also don't think he would be welcome in any modern Evangelical Church lol.
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor 2:7-9)
@@cjohnyrun "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor 4:3,4)
The need for the Bible to be inerrant and without contradictions is so unfortunate. The Bible can contain God's Truth, and it does, without everything having to be factual. In fact, Jesus imparts his wisdom to his listeners in two main ways: through sermons and through parables. A parable is a made-up story that contains a point. We think nothing of quoting parables as if they were factual, but they're made up. The point being that God is well able to use fiction to get his message across. And my personal pet peeve is why Christians so desperately need to prove that they've found where the Ark landed, or where the walls of Jericho stood, where Moses split the rock, or the actual location of Jesus' tomb. It's called "faith" for a reason. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Hebrews 11:1
Almost 2K. Keep going! I have been waiting for your next post. I've been thinking of starting YT channel. Would love to do an interview with you before you blow up.
@@cjohnyrun - The Bible does NOT say the world is 6,000 years old. That figure comes from a very old calculation on Biblical genealogies, however the genealogies may well skip generations. There is no need for a Christian to hold to this except among protestants who don't understand the Bible anyway.
Regards young earth creationists, your criticism is that an apparent Biblical ignorance and cherry picking dishonesty of young earther's undermines their arguments. I suggest that your Biblical knowledge and honesty regards the Bible's problems is your strength in this criticism . Other YT channels have done have done layman's explorations of why the basic physics of YE models don't work without a miracle, neatly sidestepping the complexities of evolution theory. You don't need to be making those arguments. For light entertainment, if you can tolerate the snark, search YT for "the heat problem."
When I read Genesis 1 and 2, it never occurred in my mind that they are two different creation stories. What I get is that in Genesis 1 God created the universe and the earth, and in Genesis 2 God created the Eden garden with its contents (plants, animals, etc) and at that time God already finished the creation of the universe. I read Indonesian bible so I don't have the privilege of reading the original text which may show linguistic differences. I'm sure you have reasons why you think Gen 1 and 2 are different creation stories, my guess is from the differences in writing style/grammar/vocabulary/etc between the two. Can you please make a video explaining this in depth? Thanks
"Faith" is Blind Belief. You have to "believe" in the imaginary, supernatural Jew "supreme being" YAHWEH to "believe" in the fictional literary character YAHWEH-incarnate Jesus the Jew. If you are "believing" in the imaginary, supernatural Jew "supreme being" YAHWEH, you are "believing" you are a Jew.
Your grandma analogy is a total failure. If you know, as you said, that the additional letters were written by your grandma, then certainly you'd be at fault for not reading them. With the bible we don't have the same scenario, we have extra gospels written by strangers in the 2nd century, so there's good reason to dispute their writings. To use your grandma analogy: you have a letter written about your grandma 40 years after she died by someone kinda close to her, and then a bunch of letters about your grandma written by strangers 60-100 years after she died. Would you trust those later letters?
Nah. I think it works. Sure, later gospels are a stretch in terms of portraying the "historical Jesus." (Just as the New Testament gospels are). But there are tons of writings that give us a window into early Christianity that ppl ignore.
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways ORALLY, by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In WRITING. by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.
I'm confused tho, as someone looking into the religion myself...if there is some truth to what theese apologetics beleive how is it wrong?!?! The same athiests that say they need evidence or a good argument, theese guys have all the argument they know and there still called wrong and dillusional, why tho? If I beleived in something even if I had little evidence I'd definitely share it with the world. I'm a skeptic myself I'm just genuinely curious why people hate apologetics so much?
It's a fair question. I hate apologetics because of the lies it propagates. For example, in my field of biblical studies, apologists ignore so many good scholars and choose to focus on cherry picking arguments that fit what they want to believe.
I have the sensation you are not American. You'll see, American Christian Fundamentalists, backed up by American Christian Apologists, had been doing the long run to turn American into a Nationalist Theocracy.
Apologists are fundamentally dishonest. They use word games, cherry picking, misleading quotes, ad hoc and post hoc reasoning, emotionally motivated reasoning, and the entire roster of logical fallacies to try to make text and evidence become what it’s not. True ideas don’t need any of this treatment. Only false or unjustified ideas do. When people are convinced to find apologetics acceptable and convincing, it makes them worse at critical thinking in every other aspect of their lives. It’s probably a big part of why so many conservative Christians are now almost entirely untethered from reality in science, current events, medicine, and politics. Apologetics hurts everyone.
@rustyavacado9194 As an atheist, I have become cynical toward apologetics of all the Abrahamic religions, mainly because they repeat what they have been told and do not take the time or do not care to actually read the original language and understand the historical time at which the text was written. Some I think truely know what they say is not correct, but they are not going to kill the cow that gives milk. This also applies to some agnostic atheist scholars as well who have made a career on Biblical scholarship.
@cjohnyrun thank you for the answer, then if someone wanted to explain God/ the bible to an athiest properly? Like if someone 100% beleives..should they not share there beleifs at all?
Not convinced. You'll have to try harder. For the time being I'll go with scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Habermas, Dr Peter Williams of Tyndale House ...
Yes, I talk too dang fast. I know it. When I get excited my mouth goes too quickly. Sorry :(
Did apologetics fail you? Let me know!
👇👇👇
nope - you failed yourself brother. I feel bad for you as you clearly want to come home to Christ. A week or so ago you made a video on Gospel 'inaccuracies' in connection with the Lord's Nativity. Every SINGLE one of your objections was historically, objectively wrong. I did make quick comments at the time.
Wake up, grow up and return to Holy Church, for preference Holy Orthodoxy ☦☦☦
The Bible does NOT say the world is 6,000 years old. That figure comes from a very old calculation on Biblical genealogies, however the genealogies may well skip generations. There is no need for a Christian to hold to this except among protestants who don't understand the Bible anyway.
Yes the Gospels are reliable, they complement each other. What evidence is there to suggest they're not? none.
Yes, it did, I realized it was mostly special pleading, LOL!
I find Apologetics to be really embarrassing; these people keep themselves in an Echo-Chambre and play Gymnastics with Semantics to maintain it
The biggest slight of hand for Christian apologetics is to say secular scholars agree there were appearences of Jesus but then they pretend that means secular scholars agree with the Biblical account of the appearances. Therefore it demands a good naturalistic explanation. This tripped me up for a while because I had no idea what scholars really accepted. They do this with tons of passages in the Bible as well. I'd love for someone to cover this sort of issue.
Yeah, there's a misuse of scholarship. They will quote it when it suits their purposes and ignore it when it doesn't,
I'm here after your Myth Vision video. I began deconstructing 3 years ago. Unfortunately I'm the only one and I now understand how POWERFUL indoctrination is. I see pastors fleecing their congregations regularly and twisting scripture. However I believe the fellowship of the church and having a place of belonging causes Christians to overlook the obvious while to most its just not obvious at all. I kind of feel like Rowdy Piper in the movie they live. Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much. And welcome!
They believe the Bible is inerrant but also cherry pick from it.
So do you.
@@byrondickens I do? Not to deny or confess to your accusation but do you even know me? Do you know what faith I profess?
Soooo many protestant preachers do this! Prosperity Gospel anyone 🙄
@@rjmamula Yes. You do. Everyone negotiates with the texts and everyone depreciates some parts and elevates others. It is impossible to do otherwise.
ruclips.net/video/MMCJAopL2Ls/видео.htmlsi=MR7BeAwm4vxec16h
Is It Possible to be Faithful to the Whole Bible?
@ Good Point!
Apologetics is the abandonment of logic, the abandonment of reason.
Maybe it's because of the fact that I grew up in an abusive home, but I stay away from people who use words like, "have to" and "wrong." I don't know why everyone wants to argue and debate and create so much drama and conflict. It's just not my vibe.
You can be honest and you can be an apologist, but you can't be both at the same time.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and thoughts on these issues, good job pointing out the selling of religious mythologies that apologists do. They are as believable as car salespeople, politicians, phamaceutical and health insurance advertising. To bad the Bible isn’t taught as fascinating stories providing a window into life, thought and culture if ancient middle eastern society .
“Origin of species” refers to speciation, not the origins of life. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes the process that natural organisms change over time due to understood selection pressures and does not deal with the origins of life. That field is called “origin studies” or “abiogenesis”
Apologetic deviousness!! Perfect phrase Chris. In the organization I was a part of, I wore the Scholar/Apologist/Theologian hats (Amateur of course) From the moment I was saved and started reading the Bible, I noticed issues that needed answers. Queue the apologists - as I read the lineup of famous apologists answers (some of whom I debated after deconversion) I was always uneasy with their glib responses to problems that were quite serious. It was the real scholars that finally gave me the answers I didn’t have to trash my brain to accept and appreciate. Now that the mental and emotional straight jacket of Fundamentalism no longer binds me, I relish my Judeo/Christian studies, and this religious tradition is more alive to me now than when I was a very committed believer.
Woah.. who did you debate? Sounds like there's a story here
Dave Hunt (Letter Correspondence) Josh McDowell (Letter Correspondence) James White (Letter Correspondence) Norman Geisler (Email Correspondence) I didn't get anywhere but I really enjoyed my interactions with Dave Hunt, also his wife had sent me a personal letter. I also had an email interaction with JP Holding, who I thought was much more impressive than the professional apologists.
The gospels wouldn’t have been written in Hebrew, but Aramaic. However, they were definitely written originally in koine Greek, after the destruction of the temple, as you suggested.
It’s refreshing to finally hear an honest Christian. Thank you!
I used to wonder, why is Darwin such a bogyman? Why not Newtonian mechanics, that make the world a clockwork without room for an intervener? Why not Germ Theory that contradicts healings? Why not Psychology that removed demon possession? I think Darwin was collateral damage in a fight over biblical interpretation that had nothing to do with science. That’s why the creation-evolution debate lasts. It’s not about science at all. The book Essays and Reviews, was published in 1860, one year after the Origin. Essays is seven essays on the biblical scholarship coming out of Germany. It suggested alternative readings of the Bible, history as recorded in Genesis, and even Jesus’ miracles themselves. It set off debate and polarization with sermons, books, and pamphlets defending the old reading of the Bible or defending the new. It was the prototype of the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate and the discussion spilled over into the fields of geology and biology. Essays sold more copies in two years, than the Origin sold in twenty.
Woah, how have I never heard of "essays and reviews"? Thank you for that. This is fascinating.
I think that also speaks to why Darwin is such a good boogie man though. Most fundamentalists would be horrified if they took the time to actually read the systematic theology and biblical studies within their own tradition. But they either aren't interested, or aren't intelligent enough to handle it. Darwin provides a really nice focused enemy, with a simple grand thesis they can respond to.
If Christians actually took the time to read our own thinkers we wouldn't be so dumb
@@cjohnyrun So true. The real problem is too hard to face, so I'll destroy a straw man.
A bogyman in a certain retarded part of the world. In Britain, they put him on the ten pound note for a while. In Australia, we have a city and a university named after him.
Well, actually, certain sects do have issues with each of these things. Fundies hate Psychology. Some reject germs - and more reject germ based treatments since COVID politicized medicine. Many claim God is healing them, while they run, not walk, to doctors for pills, surgery & therapy.
But you are quite right that the the Fundie movement was a reaction to the German school of Biblical criticism. There was a series of pamphlets that described the Fundamentals of Christian faith that were published between 1910 and 1915 and mailed out in the thousands. You can find copies of "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" online. The basic fundamental belief is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God & literally true in all its claims.
Darwin became their boogeyman because the theory of evolution totally contradicts the personal & purposeful role of God in creating humans. In creation by evolution, humans are no more special than worms or aardvarks. And it has no loophole to escape the inevitability of your own death. (And, yes, I know Darwin's theories were about speciation, not abiogenesis, but they don't.)
Out of curiosity I checked out a couple of apologists YT videos that attempted to convince people the world was 6-8 thousand years old. What I found was a pretzel-like approach to answering questions like: why light from distant stars takes billions of years to reach Earth or why sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers, with the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest at the top show the world is billions of years old. Very clever but ridiculous answers.
yah. You'll get a lot about "Noah's flood" and sedimentary layers too.
The funniest this about Tertullian’s quote about Athens and Jerusalem is that almost all of his work is steeped in Greek metaphysics….the immortality of the soul….the LOGOS…..
yah 100%. They all did it- and rightfully so, b/c/ it was just their culture
“Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals.
It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason,
our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me.
Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”
Christophe Hitchens
I love Hitch
Christopher Hitchens. Dishonest apologist for the disingenuous New Athiest movement who demonstrated exactly zero knowledge of not only theology but history, philosophy or psychology either.
Let’s put our faith in Hitch 😂
@ I would if I could
@ doubt he would die on a cross for you.
Great video brother!
@Deconstruction_Zone thanks so much! Look forward to having a conversation with you 🙌
Thank you for being honest. I think this is important and can actually lead to good and needed conversations. It’s amazingly refreshing.
I just subscribed and plan on watching your other content. Good luck with the channel!
Thank you so much. I appreciate these kind words. Welcome!
Very interesting. I agree with your various points.
Pulling back the curtain is how we learn the truth. Don’t stop asking questions.
Great video, good to see Christians not only willing to think critically but also willing to challenge bad ideas. Are you the Christian Alex O'Connor?😊
Christianity is the only religion that trains armies of apologetics, to basically defend the indefensible. Do you think that humans can convey the message of God better than him? I don't think so. If you need apologetics, you have problems, ie you want to defend tradition not God. Because God does not need you to deliver his message.
Islam does it in a more radical way than Christianity. Christians at least do not kill those who left Christianity because they stopped believing in fairy tales.
So much for sola scriptura, also. "The Bible is our only authority" where does it say which books are in the Canon? Where does it say the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses? Where does it say Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote them?
Yep! Sola Scriptura is self-refuting because without the Church (ie, "tradition") there wouldn't be any "Scriptura" in the first place.
The ecumenical and other councils decided the theological dogma and which books were authoritative, even though they themselves at times borrowed ideas from the apocryphal or heretical texts, it's ridiculous!
There was no deities involved, only man!
The belief of the Bible being inerrant is the result of believing that God is perfect, all knowing and all powerful aaaand author of the Bible (albeit indirectly). Therefore logically it shouldn’t contain contradictions. Pointing out a single contradiction, even if expected, tiny and insignificant calls into question their core beliefs. That’s where cognitive dissonance kicks in and people will latch on to any explanation. This happens in religion, politics and anything else people believe deeply in.
What you call bad arguments I call lying.
Great video. Do you happen to know any scholars who have responded to Martin Hengel's work suggesting that we wouldn't expect unanimous attestation in the 2nd century to the Gospel writer's identities if the gospels were anonymous?
The Bible has no contradictions. What are you talking about? How is contradictory that Judas died twice in the same field (obviously he came back to life when all the dead people raised from their thumbs after Jesus death and died again) or that Joseph (Jesus step dad) had gay parents?
😂😂😂😂
Those who don’t know of any contradiction in scripture, don’t know scripture.
I was a believer for 60 years, and always “grounded in the Word”. I left the faith in 2017, partly because of my continued study of scripture. As Mark Twain once said, “It’s not the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bothers me. It the parts I do understand.”
It’s this knowledge now that leads me to view most apologetics as obtuse, dishonest, and deceitful, and many Christians who critically examine scripture are recognizing this, and leaving Christianity in mass.
@@StevenMyers-wx6du I agree. But I also do think the Christian tradition is incredibly complex and interesting, with lots of deep thinkers (none of them apologists). I still get a lot of joy from it.
@@cjohnyrun
One's bibliology has nothing to do with one's being a follower of Christ or a theist. I'm uncertain whether counter apologists and some exvangelicals always appreciate this fact.
I know evangelicals do not
your point about other cults in the region at the time putting women in prominent positions is really interesting. I haven't heard about that before. Are you able to tell us more about this?
I'll try to develop it a bit more. I know the basics, but I need to do a bit more research to do a video on it
My biggest problem with the women's testimony argument is that, if you think about it, there isn't any women's testimony - there's only the male gospel writers' accounts that women saw the empty tomb.
That's true. I think the apologist argument goes something like "there's no way they would invent women finding an empty tomb. Because women weren't considered trustworthy witnesses--if they were making it up, they would have made up men."
@@cjohnyrun My problem with the "woman can't testify" apologetic is that women couldn't testify IN A COURT OF LAW. These woman weren't testifying in a court. They were telling their fellow believers what they had seen. The people who knew them would judge the women's claims based on their personal knowledge of their honesty,
BTW, courts would take the testimony of women in certain circumstances, such as childbirth. In cases where there was an accusation against a man, the courts often required the testimony of other male witnesses to corroborate their claims. In Muslim law, the courts will accept a woman's accusation of rape if 4 other men corroborate her testimony.
Please, can somebody help me find a quote from a 2nd-century church father who said something like that manuscripts are so diverse (or that message in manuscripts was so skewed) that it's hard to trust it, something like that? I think it was Irenaeus?
Against Heresies 5.30.1?
@@cjohnyrun I don't really know. I am looking for information regarding Biblical scepticism of the 2nd century. Please can you elaborate on what is Against Heresies 5.30.1, or make a video about it? Thank you.
Great content CJ
Thanks! 🙏
yayy, off to 2k subs
lessgooo
🙏🙏🙏
"The only explanation for they be willing to die is because they saw jesus resurrected"
- Would you be willing to die for Jesus?
Yes
- Did you see him resurrected?
...
damn that logic lol
I am a geologist. The earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Also god forgot to mention that he destroyed 95% of all life on earth during the Permian extinction. And humans have been around for about 200,000 years - probably longer than- mammals don’t leave a good fossil record.
Maybe he put those fossils there to test your faith lol. That's what I was occasionally told
Hahahaha I loved the number 4 explanation about grandma! Brilliant!! Funny, but so true!!
@mikipope5140 lol right? It took me a while to come up with it, but I thought it was a good analogy
The only thing that really makes me angry when discussing the bible is the whole idea of inerrancy and the absence of contradictions. Also, dummies leading worship and discussion. I once sat trying not to burst out laughing at some guy leading discussion who was talking about girding your loins and telling the flock that loins were on your forearms and calves and anything he could think of to keep them from thinking about those nasty pelvic areas. Also he went into this whole talk about wearing clean underwear... Nutso.
😂😂 I mean, if girding your loins means wearing clean underwear that's probably great advice.
I don't agree with the argument that "Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection." Firstly, we don't have any witnesses of Jesus coming back to life from death. Possibly, nobody saw this. Secondly, according to Mark's gospel, a "man" was waiting for the women. We can presume that he was the first person to have contact with the risen Christ. The women heard about it second-hand from him. But there are three versions - that the women told nobody, that they told the disciples of the resurrection, and that they told the disciples that someone had taken the body.
I think the prominence of women in the gospels in contrast to the denials and bickering of the disciples is very significant, but I don't think it's a strong argument for the resurrection. Also, Paul doesn't mention any women by name in his list of appearances.
Slow down! Otherwise a good video.
Nothing truly divine should ever need apologetics.
You need to look up the definition of 'apologetics'. Everything needs to be explained to those who don't know - it shouldn't be complicated for you to grasp that.
@markrothenbuhler6232
Facts, it's all so ridiculous that the supreme being (if there is such a thing mind you) requires humans for anything, especially not to make excuses on its behalf, lmfao.
Deities have come and gone, they are a product of humanity and our ancestor's minds, and they tell us more about ourselves and the culture they came out of than any literalist views of actual mythical characters in the sky or on a mountain.
Good stuff
How is your Hebrew, Chris. Maybe Kipp and Josh will have you on קריאת עברית.
Pretty rusty. I spent time learning it, but haven't used it much. I did publish something on Septuagint translations once
It wouldn't be known until the 1400's Europe that the Jew-Book "holy bible" was written in different languages.
They ALL are BAD.
You can't argue a sentient being into reality. Attempting to do so reveals an understanding that the god character only exists in the imagination.
Bad apologetics of fundamentalism. Young earth? No contradictions in Bible? Sorry, but saying that these concepts are “generally Christian” is just false. Rather american-evangelical-fundamental type of Christianity.
I agree.
CS Lewis push me away from the faith through his arrogant, tremendously flawed arguments.
Oh that's interesting! I found him quite convincing back in the day. Although I also don't think he would be welcome in any modern Evangelical Church lol.
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor 2:7-9)
Ahh yes, you're talking about gnosticism. Excellent point
@@cjohnyrun The mystery of the gospel has been revealed. You know it yourself because you grew up in a Christian environment.
@@cjohnyrun "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor 4:3,4)
The need for the Bible to be inerrant and without contradictions is so unfortunate. The Bible can contain God's Truth, and it does, without everything having to be factual. In fact, Jesus imparts his wisdom to his listeners in two main ways: through sermons and through parables. A parable is a made-up story that contains a point. We think nothing of quoting parables as if they were factual, but they're made up. The point being that God is well able to use fiction to get his message across. And my personal pet peeve is why Christians so desperately need to prove that they've found where the Ark landed, or where the walls of Jericho stood, where Moses split the rock, or the actual location of Jesus' tomb. It's called "faith" for a reason. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Hebrews 11:1
Almost 2K. Keep going! I have been waiting for your next post. I've been thinking of starting YT channel. Would love to do an interview with you before you blow up.
Thanks so much! I've only been going about a month, but so far it's been fun. So if you are thinking about it, I would say why not
@cjohnyrun Keep have fun with it. I will keep promoting your channel to people.
Amazing! Thanks
@@cjohnyrun - The Bible does NOT say the world is 6,000 years old. That figure comes from a very old calculation on Biblical genealogies, however the genealogies may well skip generations. There is no need for a Christian to hold to this except among protestants who don't understand the Bible anyway.
@@cjohnyrun - Yes the Gospels are reliable, they complement each other. What evidence is there to suggest they're not? none.
Regards young earth creationists, your criticism is that an apparent Biblical ignorance and cherry picking dishonesty of young earther's undermines their arguments. I suggest that your Biblical knowledge and honesty regards the Bible's problems is your strength in this criticism . Other YT channels have done have done layman's explorations of why the basic physics of YE models don't work without a miracle, neatly sidestepping the complexities of evolution theory. You don't need to be making those arguments. For light entertainment, if you can tolerate the snark, search YT for "the heat problem."
@@rb8599 thank you! What a fascinating topic. I hadn't heard of the heat problem before, but it makes a lot of sense.
@@cjohnyrun And also "the mud problem".
When I read Genesis 1 and 2, it never occurred in my mind that they are two different creation stories. What I get is that in Genesis 1 God created the universe and the earth, and in Genesis 2 God created the Eden garden with its contents (plants, animals, etc) and at that time God already finished the creation of the universe. I read Indonesian bible so I don't have the privilege of reading the original text which may show linguistic differences. I'm sure you have reasons why you think Gen 1 and 2 are different creation stories, my guess is from the differences in writing style/grammar/vocabulary/etc between the two. Can you please make a video explaining this in depth? Thanks
It's exactly that, and translations into other languages try to fix/hide these things
So according to CJ Jesus is Dead...But that's not my Testimony...
Are you sure that's what I said?
"Faith" is Blind Belief. You have to "believe" in the imaginary, supernatural Jew "supreme being" YAHWEH to "believe" in the fictional literary character YAHWEH-incarnate Jesus the Jew. If you are "believing" in the imaginary, supernatural Jew "supreme being" YAHWEH, you are "believing" you are a Jew.
Your grandma analogy is a total failure. If you know, as you said, that the additional letters were written by your grandma, then certainly you'd be at fault for not reading them. With the bible we don't have the same scenario, we have extra gospels written by strangers in the 2nd century, so there's good reason to dispute their writings. To use your grandma analogy: you have a letter written about your grandma 40 years after she died by someone kinda close to her, and then a bunch of letters about your grandma written by strangers 60-100 years after she died. Would you trust those later letters?
Nah. I think it works. Sure, later gospels are a stretch in terms of portraying the "historical Jesus." (Just as the New Testament gospels are). But there are tons of writings that give us a window into early Christianity that ppl ignore.
Stop saying you’re a Christian if you believe what you’re saying. You obviously are not
You don't have the authority to make that decision.
Exactly ignorant study!
In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways
ORALLY, by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
In WRITING. by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.
And you have evidence to support this?
@@robinharwood5044 Yes.
@@Robert-r4s4c Good. May I ask you to show it, please?
I'm confused tho, as someone looking into the religion myself...if there is some truth to what theese apologetics beleive how is it wrong?!?!
The same athiests that say they need evidence or a good argument, theese guys have all the argument they know and there still called wrong and dillusional, why tho? If I beleived in something even if I had little evidence I'd definitely share it with the world. I'm a skeptic myself I'm just genuinely curious why people hate apologetics so much?
It's a fair question. I hate apologetics because of the lies it propagates. For example, in my field of biblical studies, apologists ignore so many good scholars and choose to focus on cherry picking arguments that fit what they want to believe.
I have the sensation you are not American. You'll see, American Christian Fundamentalists, backed up by American Christian Apologists, had been doing the long run to turn American into a Nationalist Theocracy.
Apologists are fundamentally dishonest. They use word games, cherry picking, misleading quotes, ad hoc and post hoc reasoning, emotionally motivated reasoning, and the entire roster of logical fallacies to try to make text and evidence become what it’s not.
True ideas don’t need any of this treatment. Only false or unjustified ideas do. When people are convinced to find apologetics acceptable and convincing, it makes them worse at critical thinking in every other aspect of their lives. It’s probably a big part of why so many conservative Christians are now almost entirely untethered from reality in science, current events, medicine, and politics. Apologetics hurts everyone.
@rustyavacado9194 As an atheist, I have become cynical toward apologetics of all the Abrahamic religions, mainly because they repeat what they have been told and do not take the time or do not care to actually read the original language and understand the historical time at which the text was written. Some I think truely know what they say is not correct, but they are not going to kill the cow that gives milk. This also applies to some agnostic atheist scholars as well who have made a career on Biblical scholarship.
@cjohnyrun thank you for the answer, then if someone wanted to explain God/ the bible to an athiest properly? Like if someone 100% beleives..should they not share there beleifs at all?
Not convinced. You'll have to try harder. For the time being I'll go with scholars like NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Habermas, Dr Peter Williams of Tyndale House ...
You think Low Bar Bill is a scholar? Wow.
@ziploc2000 arrogance thrives in certain tiny little corners of the internet!
Tom Wright does not believe the Bible is inerrant
NT Wright ain't no dummy.
Why do you pick those?