One of the biggest stumbling blocks that the Pharisees place infront of the lost is the "God is three /God is Jesus" nonsense. Many have been led astray and chased off by this. But some people see through the deception and make it past these gatekeepers, despite their best efforts. Blessed be Jehovah God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 😇
That’s very true, other religions will typically say that to make them see more logical, but if someone just researches - Jesus is way more logical lol. God bless
Yes it's frustrating because even the Muslims can see through the half truths of their theology, and they use it to force these people to double down on this pointless contention.. As far as I'm concerned Jesus has the same jurisdiction and power over me as God. There's no need to argue that he and God are the same persona. We can clearly see that Jesus distinguishes himself from being God the Father by constantly talking about him, and talking about his Kingdom. A Kingdom he now rules as heir, and we along with him as joint heirs. He is our King of a Kingdom he will some day present back to God as the promised mustard tree, and stone that grows into an earth filling mountain.
I got the notification for this video in the morning and I've been busy for most of today. Just put my kids to bed and you know what I was reading Isaiah 7 with my oldest before she went to sleep. Now I have a bit of time I'm watching this and you're starting with the very same verse I was reading before. I explained to my daughter the verse is talking about Jesus and she said I know dad. So guess it was a good feeling she's soaking up the words and it's sinking in. Isaiah is really a great book to read, well all of the bible is but Isaiah really stands out.
This is a great video for a class of young people who are learning about their Christian faith. I grew up being taught what to believe about Christianity but not much why. I floundered for years until I did the research myself. My research led me back to Catholicism. It’s full of imperfect people, but it is the truth and it’s closest to the early church. You need to investigate the truth about baptism by water because Jesus mentioned it.
Atheist here responding: 1. I have three objections to your fine-tuning argument. 1) The universe did not adapt for life, but rather, life adapted to the universe, which can be explained by Darwinian Evolution. 2) I'm sure you've heard this objection, "who created God?". Now, if you say that no one created God, why can this logic not apply to the universe, whereby no one created the universe. 3) Just because 7% of the world is atheist, is not an argument against atheism. That is just demographics, and has nothing to do with theology. 2. As a general rule of thumb, when dealing with ancient manuscripts and trying to determine whether they are historically accurate or works of fiction, you should just ask whether the story would make sense if told today. Resurrection, of any kind, is not possible, and so Jesus' resurrection cannot be historically accurate. The same principle can be applied to the Old Testamant stories like Adam and Eve, or Noah's Ark. Atheists do not deny Jesus' existence, but we do deny he has "divine origin", whatever that means. Also, your point about us using the year "2024" universally, proving Christianity, is flawed. Mainly because it is not 2024 everywhere (notably in the Islamic World, Ethiopia, North Korea, and Japan), and that the only reason we use BC and AD years is due to European Colonialism and convenience; not the objective truth for Christianity. I will edit this comment later to address the rest of the points.
I have, what I believe to be, a small correction: the fine tuning argument isn’t talking about the condition for life: when he was saying that the universe is fine tuned to us because of the distance from the earth to the sun that is bs. It usually refers to the values of universal constants (like G, ε, the mass of the electron, ecc.). If they were different atoms could not form. There are a few answers to this point but the one I believe to be the most valid is the fact that we do not now if these constants could have been different in any way. Most theist arguments ultimately converge into god of the gaps.
I would say that the universe isn't intelligent, it's a design.. You can argue that possibly it is(the universe) God, but you can't argue that something came from nothing. That's ridiculous to me. I refuse to believe that this design happened by accident from nothing. The only reason I would have to not believe in a creator is a selfish one. There is absolutely no other benefit to denying a sentient Creator other than alleviating the guilt of the disobedience the modern "atheist" is accused of. The true atheist seeks for truth and finds it in Christianity. And in fact, it's what the earliest Christians were first called by Romans. Christians were first called Atheists by the non Christians at the time because they only believed in a single God, and not the pantheon. Not believing in anything outside of creation is simply unbelief. It's also a fairly modern phenomenon, as a belligerent professed unbelief in any Gods was a good way to get ostracized or worse in the ancient world.
@@mountainmover777 I have finally found a theist that says that atheists are atheist because they want to alleviate guilt! I was starting to think you guys didn’t exist ahahah. First off, reality doesn’t care about what you decide to believe or not, arguments from incredulity are invalid. (Also no one is saying that something is coming from nothing) Second, as an agnostic myself, I can tell you that this is just wrong: atheists don’t believe not because there is a benefit, but because they think this is the truth. As I have said, I am agnostic though I am pretty sure the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. I have not researched other religions enough to pass judgement on them, though for what I do know they seem just as improbable. A God that could be logically possible is the deist one, though not necessary. Also, saying modern day atheists aren’t true atheists is just… kinda dumb. Other than your point seeming no more than a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy, words change meaning with time. Also, the reason Christians and Jews (though the latter were less persecuted for it) were called atheists was simply because they rejected the state religion. The word has evolved into disbelief in all religions. TL;DR: don’t say that atheists unbelief comes from alleviating guilt if you ever want to have a productive conversion with them
@@mountainmover777Finally I have found a theist that says atheists don’t believe because of selfish reasons, I was beginning to believe you guys didn’t exist ahahah. First off, arguments from ignorance aren’t valid. Reality doesn’t care what you accept. (Also no one is saying that something came from nothing) Second, atheists believe what they think is true, not because they gain something. Don’t use this line of logic if you want to have an honest discussion with them. Third, words change meaning. The reason Christians and Jews (although they were less persecuted for it being a long standing religion) were called atheists simply because they didn’t believe the state religion. So what? Also, even words were immutable it still wouldn’t change anything. This seems like a weird variation of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Understand that this argument is so bad, even if it was true it would still be invalid.
@@mountainmover777 Idk why, if the creator is removing my comment, if youtube is or if it is a technical glitch, so I'll try reposting my comment to see what happens: I have finally found a theist that says that atheists are atheist because they want to alleviate guilt! I was starting to think you guys didn’t exist ahahah. First off, reality doesn’t care about what you decide to believe or not, arguments from incredulity are invalid. (Also no one is saying that something is coming from nothing) Second, as an agnostic myself, I can tell you that this is just wrong: atheists don’t believe not because there is a benefit, but because they think this is the truth. As I have said, I am agnostic though I am pretty sure the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. I have not researched other religions enough to pass judgement on them, though for what I do know they seem just as improbable. A God that could be logically possible is the deist one, though not necessary. Also, saying modern day atheists aren’t true atheists isn't an argument. Other than your point seeming no more than a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy, words change meaning with time. Also, the reason Christians and Jews (though the latter were less persecuted for it) were called atheists was simply because they rejected the state religion. The word has evolved into disbelief in all religions. TL;DR: don’t say that atheists unbelief comes from alleviating guilt if you ever want to have a productive conversion with them
Fine tuning? That's ridiculous. First of all, Fine tuning doesn't necessarily point to a creator. It could also point to millions of years of evolution. Secondly, the fine tuning argument begins to break down in light of all the various examples of things that certainly AREN'T designed or fine tuned like human birth defects. What about the placement of the esophagus next to the wind pipe? It would make much more sense to separate the two (choking).
The fine tuning refers to the fundamental natural laws such as gravitational force constant, the electromagnetic force constants, and the strong and weak nuclear forces constants which have to be what they are, or the universe would theoretically be nothing but a blackhole, or molecules couldn't form, or other huge problems. There's other parameters that have to be very precise too, such as the masses of electrons, protons, and electrons. I don't understand what kind of argument you're making for evolution bringing up the esophagus-trachea thing. A human born with the birth defect of a joined esophagus and trachea should've been naturally selected out if it was a bad thing, or vise versa, long ago. Maybe being able to talk, and not suffocating due to a stuffy nose outweighs the occasional choking death.
@@raygiordano1045 The point with evolution is to simply highlight that humans have massive flaws in the design of our bodies, and that if there was an intelligent creator we would not have this design flaw. Also, you can't "naturally select" out bad traits that are not bad enough to cause death - by definition evolution and the changing of genes is random so of course flaws will get through.
@@raygiordano1045 But it doesn't work for 4 reasons. 1) We have no idea whether those fundamental forces could be different. 2) We have no idea what forms of life could exist if they were different. 3) If the Universe had forces that made life impossible, but we were still here, that would be a much stronger argument for some intelligence (but not even necessarily a god), making our Universe, or just making us, within it. 4) It's the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, as how would a god's brain work? What made it that way?
5 Point it is isn't 1. How many books of bible? 66 of Protestant, 73 of Catholic or 76-81 of Orthodox 2. How many Bible Versions do not have verse John 5:7, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Luke 17:36 3. THE FATHER is the Only true God and Jesus is whom be sent by The Father 4. Jesus only sent to the loss sheep of Israel 5. Where is the actual aramaic NT? 6. Who is Allah?
Christian Focus, you should explore logic from the paradigm perspective: . if temporality - then eternality. . the universe is temporal. . conclusion: eternality is. . If eternality is nominal - then temporality is super-nominal. . Temporality is. . Conclusion: temporality is super-nominal (super natural - but from God's perspective).
If you want to see a very cool historical and reliable reference to Jesus check out Pilates letters to Caesar. A little context: Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea at that time and he wrote to Rome to tell Caesar about Jesus, so you can hear how mystical Jesus was from the guy who was actually in charge at that time talking to his actual boss about the situation. It's pretty cool.
What causes me to doubt Christianity is the existence of other gospels like the gospel of Peter and the gospel of James. People wrote these texts claiming to be apostles but they lied. How then can we trust the canonical gospels especially when they are so different( ie synoptics vs John, birth narratives, etc)? What's more likely; that people once again lied and wrote untrue stuff or that these fantastical stories are real?
"Jesus was predicted many times" Er, nope, and the very first verse you quote talks about a virgin conceiving; but the word used in the NT (I think it's "alma", doesn't mean a virgin, and the "virgin" crap only came much later). What the writers of the NT did was try to hammer the square peg of Jesus through the round holes of so called "prophecy" in the OT, but none of it stacks up. Ironically one of the criticisms the religious level at people quoting the verses of their respective books is "out of context", but that is EXACTLY what they do, themselves, with these kinds of arguments.
(1) Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is a logical fallacy. (2) The writers of the Gospels had access to the OT prophecies, so they could have just grafted that into their stories. (3) There are many copies of the Gospels, but the # of copies does not prove their historical accuracy. As best we can tell, the first Gospel was written around 150 AD. (4) When you compare the order the Gospels were written, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, you can see the story evolved and became more spectacular with each telling. (5) Other writers like Josephus did not affirm the resurrection; writing decades later, they were simply noting that Christians existed. And some scholars think that language was added later. (6) There was a contemporary historian in Judea during Jesus' time and he said nothing about him, despite the fact that the Bible claims there were zombies after Jesus' resurrection. (7) If the sheer # of Christians makes it true, couldn't the same be said about Islam? (8) Compare the events of the first Easter to Jesus' ascension from all four gospels, they are irreconcilably discordant. What can we conclude? That it evolved over time in the way one would expect of something people made up. However, this kid is a pretty good apologist, presenting what he wants to be true as conclusive fact and then fitting everything else to affirm the conclusion he began with, otherwise known as motivated reasoning. Atheism is ascendent and Christianity is in decline. I hope we can continue to move from faith to actual reason.
If Universe creates himself out of nowhere than it's a miracle. Also the spread of Christianity is not the same of Islam. Christians were persecuted while Muslims were the ones persecuting. Honestly I am the first to believe that Christianity has not a logic that can be comprehended by humans. By the way I have tò admit that Christians have 5 good reasons for believing: 1 the fact that Jesus became famous is such a small period of time and he has more people talking about him than any roman emperor 2 It 's strange ti believe that the universe generated itself because if I imagine the first cause of everything I imagine it as something better than us humans and not something that can't think or is inanimate 3 the fact that if you think your coscience is the product of reactions between atoms you have no longer anything to demonstrate your existence 4. The Turin Shroud is something so strange 5 NDEs
Hey question Why did God create hell If for the demons, why did he create demons If u say they weren’t demons yet, can’t I say he knew they would be, also even then why can’t he just get rid of them now It shows that if there is a God, they are NOT GOOD. Because they allow evil to exist. Now if we get to free will, can’t an all powerful God make it so there is free will NO MATTER WHAT. Whether or not there is evil, we can still have free will even if we can’t understand it, because God is ALL POWERFUL
God created hell as a place of justice-a necessary consequence of rejecting Him. It wasn’t made for humans but for Satan and his fallen angels, who chose rebellion despite knowing God fully. God didn’t create demons; He created angels with free will. Some chose to rebel, turning themselves into demons. Could God eliminate evil instantly? Yes, but doing so would violate human free will or remove the opportunity for redemption. God allows evil for a time to bring about a greater good, including giving people the choice to freely love and follow Him. As for free will without evil, free will requires real choices. Without the potential for evil, free will becomes meaningless. An all-powerful God values love freely given, not forced. This temporary existence with evil is part of a greater, eternal plan where justice, love, and redemption prevail God bless
@@christian_focus No one rejects god as god has his divine plan for everyone... he already decided what you would do before you do it. you can believe in god but that also means you have no free will and are just following his plan. Basically kids starve and die so god can prove a point about a problem he deliberately and knowingly created and could erase in a second. and as creator he bares all responsibility for all the wrong we do.
@@christian_focusok so two questions from ur reply First, if hell was made for Satan and fallen angels, then why send humans to hell for ETERNITY. That’s my biggest problem. Eternity isn’t fair especially when he created us therefore putting us into the mess and then punish us. That just doesn’t sit right with me Second, for the free will part. We already depend on him to make morals and say if things are sins, so he creates the rules and therefore he can make it so that we have free will, there is no evil, and it’s not meaningless, and love is still a choice. And *snap* it’s done. And he’s all powerful so he can do it and there’s nothing wrong with it, right? And yes some may say it’s impossible to have free will while also limiting our actions, but first he is all powerful, second he already limits us, from let’s say flying. And third, no one asked to be created, so it’s already taking away free will.
Evidence matters more, and as it stands today, there is no proof of god. so maybe first prove a god then prove its your god and not the 100,000 gods and deity's of history.
Only 4:32 in and do not have time. You do realize your two non Christian sources were part of ROME! I know many “Christians” care not about the Tanakh (your Old Testament). But surely very clearly Daniel 7 predicts not only ROME but what spawns from ROME. That little horn that speaks against the most high correct? Revelation 7 also describes this Great Whore and her Harlot daughters again who is this and what does a “woman” represent? Things that make me go hmmmm.
Three and a half minutes in and I can't take any more of this guy's idiocy, ignorance and logical fallacies. Shame on the education system that turned out someone with so little knowledge!
@@christian_focus No.Jesus name is yahshua in Hebrew, and in greek, Ιησούς Χριστός,Back then they spoke Greek, Roman, Aramaic and Hebrew.Emmanuel is a Hebrew name and it means "God with us". and in my language Emmanuel is a greek name for ΕΜΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks that the Pharisees place infront of the lost is the "God is three /God is Jesus" nonsense. Many have been led astray and chased off by this. But some people see through the deception and make it past these gatekeepers, despite their best efforts. Blessed be Jehovah God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 😇
That’s very true, other religions will typically say that to make them see more logical, but if someone just researches - Jesus is way more logical lol. God bless
Yes it's frustrating because even the Muslims can see through the half truths of their theology, and they use it to force these people to double down on this pointless contention.. As far as I'm concerned Jesus has the same jurisdiction and power over me as God. There's no need to argue that he and God are the same persona. We can clearly see that Jesus distinguishes himself from being God the Father by constantly talking about him, and talking about his Kingdom. A Kingdom he now rules as heir, and we along with him as joint heirs. He is our King of a Kingdom he will some day present back to God as the promised mustard tree, and stone that grows into an earth filling mountain.
@@mountainmover777 well said. Amen 🙌
I got the notification for this video in the morning and I've been busy for most of today.
Just put my kids to bed and you know what I was reading Isaiah 7 with my oldest before she went to sleep.
Now I have a bit of time I'm watching this and you're starting with the very same verse I was reading before.
I explained to my daughter the verse is talking about Jesus and she said I know dad.
So guess it was a good feeling she's soaking up the words and it's sinking in.
Isaiah is really a great book to read, well all of the bible is but Isaiah really stands out.
The Lord’s timing is funny, Isaiah is a great book for sure. That’s inspiring, I’m excited for the day when I teach my future kids the Bible
1John 1:5
God is the light
John 8:12
Jesus is light of the world
🌎 ✝️❤️🙏🏻
This is a great video for a class of young people who are learning about their Christian faith.
I grew up being taught what to believe about Christianity but not much why. I floundered for years until I did the research myself.
My research led me back to Catholicism. It’s full of imperfect people, but it is the truth and it’s closest to the early church.
You need to investigate the truth about baptism by water because Jesus mentioned it.
Atheist here responding:
1. I have three objections to your fine-tuning argument. 1) The universe did not adapt for life, but rather, life adapted to the universe, which can be explained by Darwinian Evolution. 2) I'm sure you've heard this objection, "who created God?". Now, if you say that no one created God, why can this logic not apply to the universe, whereby no one created the universe. 3) Just because 7% of the world is atheist, is not an argument against atheism. That is just demographics, and has nothing to do with theology.
2. As a general rule of thumb, when dealing with ancient manuscripts and trying to determine whether they are historically accurate or works of fiction, you should just ask whether the story would make sense if told today. Resurrection, of any kind, is not possible, and so Jesus' resurrection cannot be historically accurate. The same principle can be applied to the Old Testamant stories like Adam and Eve, or Noah's Ark. Atheists do not deny Jesus' existence, but we do deny he has "divine origin", whatever that means. Also, your point about us using the year "2024" universally, proving Christianity, is flawed. Mainly because it is not 2024 everywhere (notably in the Islamic World, Ethiopia, North Korea, and Japan), and that the only reason we use BC and AD years is due to European Colonialism and convenience; not the objective truth for Christianity.
I will edit this comment later to address the rest of the points.
I have, what I believe to be, a small correction: the fine tuning argument isn’t talking about the condition for life: when he was saying that the universe is fine tuned to us because of the distance from the earth to the sun that is bs. It usually refers to the values of universal constants (like G, ε, the mass of the electron, ecc.). If they were different atoms could not form.
There are a few answers to this point but the one I believe to be the most valid is the fact that we do not now if these constants could have been different in any way.
Most theist arguments ultimately converge into god of the gaps.
I would say that the universe isn't intelligent, it's a design.. You can argue that possibly it is(the universe) God, but you can't argue that something came from nothing. That's ridiculous to me. I refuse to believe that this design happened by accident from nothing. The only reason I would have to not believe in a creator is a selfish one. There is absolutely no other benefit to denying a sentient Creator other than alleviating the guilt of the disobedience the modern "atheist" is accused of.
The true atheist seeks for truth and finds it in Christianity. And in fact, it's what the earliest Christians were first called by Romans. Christians were first called Atheists by the non Christians at the time because they only believed in a single God, and not the pantheon. Not believing in anything outside of creation is simply unbelief. It's also a fairly modern phenomenon, as a belligerent professed unbelief in any Gods was a good way to get ostracized or worse in the ancient world.
@@mountainmover777 I have finally found a theist that says that atheists are atheist because they want to alleviate guilt! I was starting to think you guys didn’t exist ahahah.
First off, reality doesn’t care about what you decide to believe or not, arguments from incredulity are invalid. (Also no one is saying that something is coming from nothing)
Second, as an agnostic myself, I can tell you that this is just wrong: atheists don’t believe not because there is a benefit, but because they think this is the truth. As I have said, I am agnostic though I am pretty sure the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. I have not researched other religions enough to pass judgement on them, though for what I do know they seem just as improbable. A God that could be logically possible is the deist one, though not necessary. Also, saying modern day atheists aren’t true atheists is just… kinda dumb. Other than your point seeming no more than a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy, words change meaning with time. Also, the reason Christians and Jews (though the latter were less persecuted for it) were called atheists was simply because they rejected the state religion. The word has evolved into disbelief in all religions.
TL;DR: don’t say that atheists unbelief comes from alleviating guilt if you ever want to have a productive conversion with them
@@mountainmover777Finally I have found a theist that says atheists don’t believe because of selfish reasons, I was beginning to believe you guys didn’t exist ahahah.
First off, arguments from ignorance aren’t valid. Reality doesn’t care what you accept. (Also no one is saying that something came from nothing)
Second, atheists believe what they think is true, not because they gain something. Don’t use this line of logic if you want to have an honest discussion with them.
Third, words change meaning. The reason Christians and Jews (although they were less persecuted for it being a long standing religion) were called atheists simply because they didn’t believe the state religion. So what? Also, even words were immutable it still wouldn’t change anything. This seems like a weird variation of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Understand that this argument is so bad, even if it was true it would still be invalid.
@@mountainmover777 Idk why, if the creator is removing my comment, if youtube is or if it is a technical glitch, so I'll try reposting my comment to see what happens:
I have finally found a theist that says that atheists are atheist because they want to alleviate guilt! I was starting to think you guys didn’t exist ahahah.
First off, reality doesn’t care about what you decide to believe or not, arguments from incredulity are invalid. (Also no one is saying that something is coming from nothing)
Second, as an agnostic myself, I can tell you that this is just wrong: atheists don’t believe not because there is a benefit, but because they think this is the truth. As I have said, I am agnostic though I am pretty sure the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. I have not researched other religions enough to pass judgement on them, though for what I do know they seem just as improbable. A God that could be logically possible is the deist one, though not necessary. Also, saying modern day atheists aren’t true atheists isn't an argument. Other than your point seeming no more than a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy, words change meaning with time. Also, the reason Christians and Jews (though the latter were less persecuted for it) were called atheists was simply because they rejected the state religion. The word has evolved into disbelief in all religions.
TL;DR: don’t say that atheists unbelief comes from alleviating guilt if you ever want to have a productive conversion with them
Praise God
Amen to that
Really good video homie!
Thanks bro, glad you enjoyed
Fine tuning? That's ridiculous. First of all, Fine tuning doesn't necessarily point to a creator. It could also point to millions of years of evolution. Secondly, the fine tuning argument begins to break down in light of all the various examples of things that certainly AREN'T designed or fine tuned like human birth defects. What about the placement of the esophagus next to the wind pipe? It would make much more sense to separate the two (choking).
The fine tuning refers to the fundamental natural laws such as gravitational force constant, the electromagnetic force constants, and the strong and weak nuclear forces constants which have to be what they are, or the universe would theoretically be nothing but a blackhole, or molecules couldn't form, or other huge problems.
There's other parameters that have to be very precise too, such as the masses of electrons, protons, and electrons.
I don't understand what kind of argument you're making for evolution bringing up the esophagus-trachea thing. A human born with the birth defect of a joined esophagus and trachea should've been naturally selected out if it was a bad thing, or vise versa, long ago. Maybe being able to talk, and not suffocating due to a stuffy nose outweighs the occasional choking death.
@@raygiordano1045 The point with evolution is to simply highlight that humans have massive flaws in the design of our bodies, and that if there was an intelligent creator we would not have this design flaw. Also, you can't "naturally select" out bad traits that are not bad enough to cause death - by definition evolution and the changing of genes is random so of course flaws will get through.
You conflating the fine-tuning argument with evolution makes arguing with you futile. Educate yourself before speaking.
My car was an example of fine tuning, when it was new but if you looked at it now you might think otherwise (oh, sorry I used the word 'think'!)
@@raygiordano1045 But it doesn't work for 4 reasons.
1) We have no idea whether those fundamental forces could be different.
2) We have no idea what forms of life could exist if they were different.
3) If the Universe had forces that made life impossible, but we were still here, that would be a much stronger argument for some intelligence (but not even necessarily a god), making our Universe, or just making us, within it.
4) It's the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, as how would a god's brain work? What made it that way?
5 Point it is isn't
1. How many books of bible? 66 of Protestant, 73 of Catholic or 76-81 of Orthodox
2. How many Bible Versions do not have verse John 5:7, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Luke 17:36
3. THE FATHER is the Only true God and Jesus is whom be sent by The Father
4. Jesus only sent to the loss sheep of Israel
5. Where is the actual aramaic NT?
6. Who is Allah?
great video man, really helps my struggle with doubt.
Thanks g, really pleased this helps
Christian Focus, you should explore logic from the paradigm perspective:
. if temporality - then eternality.
. the universe is temporal.
. conclusion: eternality is.
. If eternality is nominal - then temporality is super-nominal.
. Temporality is.
. Conclusion: temporality is super-nominal (super natural - but from God's perspective).
If you want to see a very cool historical and reliable reference to Jesus check out Pilates letters to Caesar. A little context: Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea at that time and he wrote to Rome to tell Caesar about Jesus, so you can hear how mystical Jesus was from the guy who was actually in charge at that time talking to his actual boss about the situation. It's pretty cool.
Very true, I should’ve mentioned this lol
You would think with all the dead rising when Jesus rose that someone might have mentioned it... but no.
@@PatrickF.Fitzsimmons You're confusing the first coming with the second coming.
Tiberius was the emperor that time, not Caesar
@@andreatonetti9885 All emperors are called Caesars FYI. LOL
What causes me to doubt Christianity is the existence of other gospels like the gospel of Peter and the gospel of James. People wrote these texts claiming to be apostles but they lied. How then can we trust the canonical gospels especially when they are so different( ie synoptics vs John, birth narratives, etc)? What's more likely; that people once again lied and wrote untrue stuff or that these fantastical stories are real?
Would be awesome to hear your testimony. Find it interesting that you went from an atheist to trusting in Jesus.
I think that's awesome
Yeah I will do a testimony video sometime in the near future, it’s crazy - I never would’ve thought I’d be ‘religious’
"Jesus was predicted many times"
Er, nope, and the very first verse you quote talks about a virgin conceiving; but the word used in the NT (I think it's "alma", doesn't mean a virgin, and the "virgin" crap only came much later).
What the writers of the NT did was try to hammer the square peg of Jesus through the round holes of so called "prophecy" in the OT, but none of it stacks up.
Ironically one of the criticisms the religious level at people quoting the verses of their respective books is "out of context", but that is EXACTLY what they do, themselves, with these kinds of arguments.
(1) Using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is a logical fallacy. (2) The writers of the Gospels had access to the OT prophecies, so they could have just grafted that into their stories. (3) There are many copies of the Gospels, but the # of copies does not prove their historical accuracy. As best we can tell, the first Gospel was written around 150 AD. (4) When you compare the order the Gospels were written, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, you can see the story evolved and became more spectacular with each telling. (5) Other writers like Josephus did not affirm the resurrection; writing decades later, they were simply noting that Christians existed. And some scholars think that language was added later. (6) There was a contemporary historian in Judea during Jesus' time and he said nothing about him, despite the fact that the Bible claims there were zombies after Jesus' resurrection. (7) If the sheer # of Christians makes it true, couldn't the same be said about Islam? (8) Compare the events of the first Easter to Jesus' ascension from all four gospels, they are irreconcilably discordant.
What can we conclude? That it evolved over time in the way one would expect of something people made up. However, this kid is a pretty good apologist, presenting what he wants to be true as conclusive fact and then fitting everything else to affirm the conclusion he began with, otherwise known as motivated reasoning. Atheism is ascendent and Christianity is in decline. I hope we can continue to move from faith to actual reason.
If Universe creates himself out of nowhere than it's a miracle. Also the spread of Christianity is not the same of Islam. Christians were persecuted while Muslims were the ones persecuting. Honestly I am the first to believe that Christianity has not a logic that can be comprehended by humans. By the way I have tò admit that Christians have 5 good reasons for believing:
1 the fact that Jesus became famous is such a small period of time and he has more people talking about him than any roman emperor
2 It 's strange ti believe that the universe generated itself because if I imagine the first cause of everything I imagine it as something better than us humans and not something that can't think or is inanimate
3 the fact that if you think your coscience is the product of reactions between atoms you have no longer anything to demonstrate your existence
4. The Turin Shroud is something so strange
5 NDEs
❤🎉
RUclips pls notice this guy🙏🙏
Hopefully lol, thanks g
Hey question
Why did God create hell
If for the demons, why did he create demons
If u say they weren’t demons yet, can’t I say he knew they would be, also even then why can’t he just get rid of them now
It shows that if there is a God, they are NOT GOOD. Because they allow evil to exist. Now if we get to free will, can’t an all powerful God make it so there is free will NO MATTER WHAT. Whether or not there is evil, we can still have free will even if we can’t understand it, because God is ALL POWERFUL
God created hell as a place of justice-a necessary consequence of rejecting Him. It wasn’t made for humans but for Satan and his fallen angels, who chose rebellion despite knowing God fully. God didn’t create demons; He created angels with free will. Some chose to rebel, turning themselves into demons.
Could God eliminate evil instantly? Yes, but doing so would violate human free will or remove the opportunity for redemption. God allows evil for a time to bring about a greater good, including giving people the choice to freely love and follow Him.
As for free will without evil, free will requires real choices. Without the potential for evil, free will becomes meaningless. An all-powerful God values love freely given, not forced. This temporary existence with evil is part of a greater, eternal plan where justice, love, and redemption prevail
God bless
@@christian_focus No one rejects god as god has his divine plan for everyone... he already decided what you would do before you do it. you can believe in god but that also means you have no free will and are just following his plan. Basically kids starve and die so god can prove a point about a problem he deliberately and knowingly created and could erase in a second. and as creator he bares all responsibility for all the wrong we do.
@@christian_focusok so two questions from ur reply
First, if hell was made for Satan and fallen angels, then why send humans to hell for ETERNITY. That’s my biggest problem. Eternity isn’t fair especially when he created us therefore putting us into the mess and then punish us. That just doesn’t sit right with me
Second, for the free will part. We already depend on him to make morals and say if things are sins, so he creates the rules and therefore he can make it so that we have free will, there is no evil, and it’s not meaningless, and love is still a choice. And *snap* it’s done. And he’s all powerful so he can do it and there’s nothing wrong with it, right? And yes some may say it’s impossible to have free will while also limiting our actions, but first he is all powerful, second he already limits us, from let’s say flying. And third, no one asked to be created, so it’s already taking away free will.
Evidence matters more, and as it stands today, there is no proof of god. so maybe first prove a god then prove its your god and not the 100,000 gods and deity's of history.
Only 4:32 in and do not have time. You do realize your two non Christian sources were part of ROME! I know many “Christians” care not about the Tanakh (your Old Testament). But surely very clearly Daniel 7 predicts not only ROME but what spawns from ROME. That little horn that speaks against the most high correct? Revelation 7 also describes this Great Whore and her Harlot daughters again who is this and what does a “woman” represent? Things that make me go hmmmm.
Three and a half minutes in and I can't take any more of this guy's idiocy, ignorance and logical fallacies.
Shame on the education system that turned out someone with so little knowledge!
Jesus name is NOT Immanuel. It's Jesus. LOL 😂 ❌️FAIL.
He’s known as Jesus in the modern world, but his other name he was called is literally Immanuel…
@@christian_focus No.Jesus name is yahshua in Hebrew, and in greek, Ιησούς Χριστός,Back then they spoke Greek, Roman, Aramaic and Hebrew.Emmanuel is a Hebrew name and it means "God with us". and in my language Emmanuel is a greek name for ΕΜΜΑΝΟΥΗΛ.
Immanuel is a Hebrew name that means "God with us." Matthew 1:23 - "Behold, the virgin shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."
@@nickm8316 But why would you take the writer of Matthew seriously? He wrote so much shite that it's embarrassing that anyone believes any of it.
Can you proof it without quoting the Bible!