@@spencergsmith You can call it what you want but the Huguenots did lie knowing they could die for such actions. Frank said nobody would die for a lie. And when he's been proven wrong he makes up excuses for his statement that sometimes people can and it's justified. He just changed the subject! He should just admit he's wrong!
@ he said they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be a lie, which is true. Those lying to protect Jews died for the people, not to further spread a lie. I’m not well-versed on the Huguenots, aside that they were persecuted by Catholics. Would you care to explain what lies they died defending?
@@spencergsmith They did die to spread a lie about protecting the Jews you can call it what you what too but it is what it is. They died defending falsifying documents saying the persecuted weren't Jews among other things!
My answer to Jake about his hypothetical new scriptures argument is that the Bible itself addresses such a thing : Galatians 1:6-12 New King James Version (NKJV)But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed
Some people go out of their way to pick holes in Christian doctrine because they want to find a reason to reject the changes they would have to make to their life to be a Christian. They are not genuinely seeking the Truth.
Well well.. isn't it the same thing you do with people following different faiths than yours.. without trying to learn or understand the scriptures....
Jake’s question about “what if there was a newly codified scripture that commanded you to beat your wife” (my paraphrase of his question) is such a moot point and easily defeated by one phrase: the canon is closed. Even if we discovered a new letter from Paul, and scholars agree that it was legitimately Pauline, it couldn’t be included in the canon, because that decision was made a long time ago.
Thats like asking if a chef told you dung was fine cuisine, delicious and nutritious, would you eat it? Or if a mathematician told you 1+1=3, would you live your live with that truth?
To the last question, all he had to say was that the very way we identify true scripture is that it presents a consistent picture of God. Any "scripture" that has God giving immoral commands would be rejected out of hand. So, the premise in which "theologians" all agree that a new scripture is Christian, and that it presents a different moral character for God, is an impossibility.
See that’s problematic when there are instances of god commanding genocies, murdering entire populations including women, children, and INFANTS. Or recognizing slavery, treating rape as the women’s fault. A god that does those things….yeah, hard to say that there’s an inherent benevolent character that’s consistent in scripture.
@@dmaxbryantyou think God commands stuff like genocide for no reason? Go look up how immoral and disgusting the people who God wiped out were. They were worshiping false gods, they were sacrificing their own children, they were cannibals, they were raping and killing. But nah God killed them for no reason ig. When did God treat rape as the womans fault? Slavery in ancient israel isn’t the same as modern day slavery. For example, people who had a debt to pay off would work for someone around the house or yard. “Slaves” were treated with respect like the Bible commands
@@dmaxbryant God had enough of those people that he ordered to punish. They kept doing evil so he wiped them out to the very last one. Children learn from there parents this isn't new. Slavery was a legitimate way to keep people from starving to death. God could provide food but Israel kept sinning and prasing other Gods. I don't know where you live but technology and agriculture has gone a long way compared to back then. Rape was never the women's fault your being very dishonest there. It clearly says the woman must call out for help. Lack of context and ignorance pulls you away from God and you drag others too. "Little bit of science pulls people away from god. But a lot of science pulls them back to God."
That’s a horrific argument because anything argued as immoral Christian’s would simply give an excuse for it. Example god killed David and Bathsheba’s baby, killing babies is immoral… Also, god ordering the slaughter of children and infants. This is immoral to command people to kill children and infants. Now lets hear the excuses that doesn’t make this immoral and show why your argument was ridiculous
He failed with his first question. He has no idea, what others said, and or did, to protect those Jews. In other words, he hasn't a clue, on the wording of the German soldiers, and in the way , their questions were answered, if at all.
Be more welcoming and loving. This young man is seeking understanding the way many of us came to Christ…by doing our best to grasp what God and the authors of the Bible are trying to convey and asking the questions that come naturally as a result. His questions may not have been the best parallels, but it shows he is searching earnestly. He was also pleasant and respectful to Frank and Christians in general. Frank was able to swiftly and precisely show him the error in his thinking, and the exchange ended with, again, kindness and respect. Extend an olive branch instead of looking down your nose at those who seek. 🙌
If hypothetically someone were to find some ancient documents and claim they were scripture, but they were in direct contradiction to the historically accepted canon of the Bible I would know automatically that it was not scripture and certainly not from God. God cannot contradict Himself. If He did the Bible could not be the inspired word of God, but it is inerrant and it is inspired. God will not tell us to do things that are against what He's already revealed. The Bible actually states in Ephesians 5:25, " Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" It doesn't say, "Husbands beat your wives and there is not a single place in scripture that teaches that. It says again in Colossians 3:18,19 " ¶ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."
I remember hearing a story about WC Fields, the famous atheist comedian. One day a friend walk in on him reading the Bible. The friend asked him: WC you are an atheist and you’re reading the Bible! What are you look for??! He replied: “Loop holes!!!!!!”
It looks like Jake had him in the last question he asked. It seems Frank did not want to touch that question even as a hypothetical which I see as being unable to respond
@nohulse Thank you for replying to my comment. Frank allowed him to ask the question, so logically, he should have provided his take, in kind. There is no stupid question somebody seeking Christ can ask. We know being in Christ fundamentally changes everything about you. It changes the very way you think, therefore. Something elementary to those who've been following Christ will not be to someone who is an unbeliever or who is seeking the possibility of being in Christ. I recall in my early walk having many questions about what I perceived as hypocrisies. It was the clarification of many of these that I was able to find the truth. What are your thoughts?
@nohulse Oh man. It just breaks my heart reading some of these comments. People calling him an idiot and saying the questions were stupid. This is not the way to be.
It's possible Dr. Turek didn't want to agree to such a cruel and publicly reprehensible position to demonstrate that morality itself derives from God. Logically speaking, the answer would be 'yes'. I suspect this was a bad faith argument meant to force Frank to either contradict his own belief system (all morality derives from God) or else tell a massive audience 'it is moral to ___ your wife'. It's possible the question was meant to test Frank's convictions, but I have doubts about that.
Ever? Have you met billions of Christians around the world? Because Christianity is historical with eye witnesses, one can most certainly be argued into belief. By arguing (your phrase), I would replace with a conversation where two or more are having a disagreement. The Holy Spirit can soften hearts of those who seek answers.
This fellow defeated his own hypothetical. Frank asked him whether he would become a Christian if he knew it was true, and he said yes. Following that line of logic, he has committed himself to following the hypothetical newly discovered "scripture", no need to ask if Frank would follow it. If it is true, we should follow it. That said, the hypothetical new commandment is not something that we at all expect from the God of the Bible. He has given us His complete book and preserved it up until the present time, and nothing like that commandment is even hinted at in His Scriptures. It's like arguing against capitalism because maybe someone at some point called himself a capitalist while promoting socialism.
It really boils down to this and it pains me to say. He did not have parents who truly studied how to raise boys in a chaotic world. I encourage all parents to read “Sheaprding a child’s heart” and “raising boys in a chaotic world” by James Dobson.
His question about new scriptures concerning beating your wife is incoherent. It's not a question worth answering because it's like asking if a triangle was also a circle and a square at the same time, what do you do? The question is absurd.
He’s missing the point. People are willing to die for a lie that they believe is true. Nobody is willing to die for a lie that they know is a lie. The people who drink the cult koolaid believe they are going to experience some super spiritual advancement based solely on what they’re told. The disciples know whether or not they saw Jesus resurrected. Nobody would make that claim if they could be wrong knowing they would face public ostracization, ex-communication, torture, excruciating death, and an eternity of damnation.
The issue with they hypothetical questions is simple. One is based on belief. If you discovered something was true, would you believe it? The other is based on fantasy. If you discovered you could fly, would you still drive anywhere?
I just say to those like him, take it up with God. God said that there is enough evidence for his existence and if you think winning an argument with a stranger will make God less real. Well that the problem, you want others to prove his existence. It’s on you to prove he does not exist.
The NT clearly explains the sabbath is no longer required. Jesus is our rest. Jesus Himself even debated with pharisees about their ridiculous attitude towards following it to an extreme degree.
@ yes, a lawyer who created a style of legal trial apologetics. Not particularly interesting, I’m more interested in what the scholarship has to say on the subject.
@ that’s the story for sure. I’m skeptical about the “I didn’t believe but I was convinced by the strong evidence” story that’s so common among apologists. I think this one guy was convinced. In the same way Jay Warner Wallace is convinced that his “cold case detective” work somehow applies as well. In the end, how exactly does legal analysis make it possible to prove that people rose from their graves (and no one else present record the idea), for a man to fly, for a virgin to give birth, etc?
@Freddy-v4o thanks Freddy. In the end I’m struggling with this: the myths of the Bible seem to be almost certainly not true in a historical sense. They also don’t seem to be true in a “maps to reality” sense. But there is usefulness in the myth, in the story, and I’m interested in that. Clearly they are able to inspire and lead people to living good lives. I’m delving into how to use the utility while still recognizing the underlying mythology for what it is.
Why do some speak in absolute dialect? "If Christianity is true, would you become a Christian?", "Yes, of course."? There are many that would answer that with a resounding "no". There is no "of course" about it.
It’s sad that Turek has as much “knowledge” that he does about God, yet he believes that the Sabbath day should be forgotten. No where in scripture does it say the Sabbath no longer is relevant. In fact, the commandment is to REMEMBER the Sabbath to KEEP it HOLY.
Matthew 12:3-8 “He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”” Jesus fulfills the Sabbath
It is already fulfilled my guy. That's why it doesn't apply to us now. That command is for the Jews only for that particular time period. It is fulfilled by Jesus, Jesus is the Sabbath. So you should remember Him that He is the Sabbath. We are already in the New Covenant, because Jesus fulfilled the Old one.
Aside from the fact that he would need to provide evidence for his claim about the disciples, said claim is really not that different from what we have heard a million times before-that it was all a lie. The only difference is the motivation of the apostles. Anyone who knows how Christian theology and textual criticism work would see why his other argument on an immoral command is ridiculous. What are the chances that they would all trust Jesus' measage (with their lives) to bring about a good change when they found out that He lied about His resurrection. What are the chances that none of them (all twelve or even more than twelve) would brake under pressure when faced with suffering and death knowing that it was all a lie? If the disciples wanted to make their society and the world apparently a better place, why not just go to the passages in the Old Testament that give teachings and commands on spiritual growth, following God with your heart, being kind to others including foreigners, and helping the less privileged instead of making up stories about Jesus? I mean, Jesus did teach from the Old Testament, even to criticise the people (phasisees for example) that these disciples did not agree with. This would have been much easier. It is improbable that they would make up this lie and stick with it to death, even for a good cause.
Ethical and moral thinking has changed many times over the generations. What seemed right has turned out to be wrong. The importance of nature and our dependence on it is one example of how science has changed our understanding of right and wrong pursuits. Moral principles have been shaken the most by authoritarian ideas. Religions have blessed imprisonment, military operations, wars in which those defined as infidels have no chance of being members of society. Humanity's understanding of humanity has changed and evolved. It is best guided by the desire to explore reality, even though it is behind enormous resistance and illusions.
Nice counter argument for Islam but Christianity doesn't use infidels nor do we have any order to kill non believers. I pray you realize the truth and accept Jesus Christ into your life.
What you are describing is exactly what one might expect if they were aware of the knowledge of good and evil but had no relationship with the one who created them.
@ TDS not withstanding what is your point? Defying objective morality is called sin, we are all subject to it to various degrees ,are all worthy of judgement and condemnation which is the very REASON Christ had to die on the cross so that those who accept His sacrifice can receive salvation.
I believe most would although I won't have to answer that question myself because Jesus paid the penalty for my sins, I repented and placed my complete trust in His finished work. I so look forward to His glorious return !
@@thomasehrlich8623 Holy Spirit talks to me often. like last week. " The time of Divination is nigh. The Dichotomy is here. ". I had to look up what that even meant. You have to listen.
@@thomasehrlich8623 After His resurrection, Jesus Christ ascended to heaven where He remains. He will return one day.....sooner than later I believe. After He ascended, God has been with us in the person of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. God became man in the person of Jesus Christ and promised He would return to earth one day. The coming of Jesus Christ, His life and His return was predicted in very specific prophecies, found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled those prophecies perfectly. Romans 5:8 tells us that "God demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He offers complete forgiveness, joy and peace in this life and eternal life in the life to come. I hope you will make that decision for Christ........it will be the best decision you will ever make. Thank you for reading.
I disagree with Turek on saying that keeping the Sabbath is no longer a part of the Ten Commandments. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Sabbath was not abolished in the New Testament. Instead, Jesus taught that the Sabbath was meant for people and should be a day of worship and reverence to God our Father in Heaven. Jesus referred to Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath." Jesus also taught that the Sabbath was a day for people to focus on God, not just a day to rest from our labors. New Testament church members like Turek, catholics and all these other SUNday worshipers began to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus in which Jesus says nowhere in the New Testament that is now the day of the sabbath or the day that man is to observe as so. Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "I did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus taught that he came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, and that he obeyed the Ten Commandments perfectly. Jesus also taught that the Ten Commandments should be kept, and that he loved his followers as he wanted them to love each other. Sorry but that is a bold face lie that the Sabbath was done away with. God is forever unchanging and so is His commands and Commandments. The only LAW that God had abolished was the sacrificial law in the OT because Jesus had yet came to fulfill the law through His sacrifice and crucifixion. That is the only law I know and have read about in the Bible that was done away with anyway!!!
They did not know it was a lie they were dying for. You could make the argument that the new testament authors died in the same vain, but these were men who spent their lives being tested for their faith rather than indoctrinated by their culture.
Those 19 guys killed 2,996 people in the process. The Christians who were persecuted and put to death took no other lives. Not even close to the same thing, and a terrible comparison.
This is the circus that traditional and mainstream Christianity has brought upon itself. God never sent out apostles, prophets or ministers to the world to convert the masses. Christ Himself hid the meaning of His message to the public in general through parables. “And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come “. The good news is of the coming Kingdom of God. It’s preached as a witness- to them if they believe and understand the message- against them if they don’t believe the message(Matthew 13). This is all covered in Christ’s parables. Study Matthew 13:9-16. Yes, God uses men to spread the seed, but God alone sows the seed(John 6:44). Men can’t convert other men(Matthew 16:13-17). The proving is to one’s own self, not others(1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Nobody dies for lies when they know they are lies. Would you put your life in danger to rob a bank if you knew that there was nothing in the bank? Would you put your life on the line for a god that you know does not exist because you made it up? I rest my case.
That's not true see above. How do you know what whomever would or would not do. If a person(s) thought that they could achieve a great cause by lying they'll do it. Even if they know the consequences. Maybe these hypothetical person(s) would do so because they feel by making up a god who wants people to obey it with it's decrees would make the world a better place. People have knowingly lied for more important things. That's the history of Religion. And what does me robbing a bank when I know there is nothing in it have to do with lying?
His comparison to the holocaust and the hypothetical are both flawed. There could be no scripture uncovered that would be deemed authentic that conflicts with the scripture we already have. Both can't be true. I don't think he would be a Christian if it were true, he's too busy hardening his heart to see and hear truth.
I don’t think you understand his logic because you assume any discovery that contradicts scripture is false by definition. BTW there have been variations of text that contradict things like, events, dialogue etc. When this occurs some bibles include it in a footnote.
@@GeorgeVanderkuur Correct. Any discovery that contradicts scripture would be false. And you are 100% wrong about there being variations of text that contradict in the Bible. There are none. Alex O'Connor just got slammed for this very lie. So stop the lies and get over yourself.
@@GeorgeVanderkuur His "logic" is flawed. The Bible contains no error. If you are claiming to know of one, please cite your source and the exact contradiction?
@@GeorgeVanderkuur _I don't think you understand his logic because assume any discovery that contradicts scripture is false by definition_ It comes down to the law of non-contradiction. The hypothetical that he brought up would directly contradict multiple scriptures. So in that case it would be false.
@Mike-sd9we Dr. Barton Ehrman has plenty of books and videos that could enlighten you. But that would be futile since you've already decided a priori that your position cannot possibly be wrong.
Not only did the Apostles die for what they knew but many of those who had a relationship with God the Father in the Roman coliseums and becoming human torches for Nero's garden parties. The questions this kid asks are to be expected from those who don't know what they're talking about.
There's Frank changing the subject. He said nobody dies for a lie then when given an example that people have lied to save the Jews he says that it was morally right to do so. That's not his original statement. Way to go Frankie!
@JohnKoenig-db8lk Yes, the friar who led the spanish inquistion and persecuted Muslims (satanist) and fake Jews? He will answer for his actions and have to give an account to the King Jesus Christ. Men are fallible to evil. Even a man of God isn't perfect. He did what he precieved as right. Is this your rebuttal to christian bad Muslims good? Have you of Aisha?
You can’t assert a false premise as true and then require agreement and response. The false premise he is requiring Frank to accept is something that goes against the very structure of scripture.
Ignorant people DO die for lies is why I would agree it's not as great an argument as to say Christ DID reign w/ saints & their offspring ABOVE ALL whom DID bring HIS gospel TO ALL CORNERS for 1000+ prophesying one last uprising of old devils that HE MAY PROVE HIMSELF YET AGAIN. These are not easy prophecies at evil's peak even. Also, the Sabbath is STILL relevant tho' most do not understand it regards a "day" to be "KEPT HOLY" like going to a holy place (like repairing your waxed-cold heart) when seeing the signs of the times (basically, whenever socierty falls into a "NONE FOUND WORTHY" state of "lukewarn" followers because the Lord will surely judge & "7th souls" may "go into the belly of the earth") --& as for "NEW Christian laws" such as "beating your wives if they misbehave", this would be TOO CONTRARY to traditional Christians that love their wives per Christ, most would likely believe it's a lie.
The argument is that they were NOT ignorant. They KNEW that Jesus was risen from the dead. That is the point. They refused to recant and go to their deaths because they KNEW what they had seen!
@TexasHoosier3118 People that "bow to graven images" die (whether knowing or believing in a lie). The 2nd MOST IMPORTANT commandment per Exodus 20 the Lord indirectly tied to "loving thy neighbor" likely because a "many deceived" that do so will empower a Beast to rise that enslaves us ALL, causing many people to DIE, which as I like to say, can't be very "loving" for neighbors.
@phoenixgamer1565 I wasn't talking about Christ's followers, I was talking about the ARGUMENT that "people don't die for lies" is NOT the strongest argument as say the Lord's ACTUAL prophetic words that HAS manifested DESPITE death itself AND to reoccur yet again (i.e., Christ's kingdomcome WILL expand beyond a "beloved city" to non-Christian territories as a great tree whose branches extend over the ENTIRE WORLD per Daniel "in the end", --also said to be "the beginning".
Question like these would never be asked if the God’s church as a whole believed the finished translation of his word in English the 1611 Holy Bible printed by permission of King James.
The answer is no. The canon is closed and it has been since the end of the first century. No new revelation or gospel is coming. This is addressed in Acts and Galatians.
The definition of a square and a circle are objective so a square can't be a circle. The definition of evil can be subjective. In the case of the Bible God has commanded people to do evil (case in point God commanding Abraham to kill his son to show his devotion to him).
The crux is what incentive the apostles had to lie?? There was no moral good they were defending, no monetary or physical benefits... infact, in the roman empire, crucifixion was reserved for criminals and to claim that God died on the cross would be laughing stock in those days... they had no incentive to actaully tell a lie.. but on the contrary they were offered physical pleasures just to denounce their beliefs...
I believe his second point has some merit. In my opinion it’s plausible for a person to die for a belief they know is false if it led to a superior way of life morally and emotionally. Maybe spreading a false belief that does good is worth the sacrifice. Similar to parents lying to children about Santa for their happiness.
i agree with you. his second point does have merit. where the gap in the logic comes is in the understanding of christianity which is pretty much what Jesus says. This guy claims to be God, He says do these things for him which in turn lead to a superior way of life morally and emotionally but if this guy says he’s God and he will die and rise 3 days later and really does not then how can i objectively say that the things he asked me to do would really lead to a superior way of life morally and emotionally. do you get ?
I think this is often stated as a reason Christianity is true. It’s not in the Bible so many may not know. I’m a Christian, grew up in church and didn’t know until I was 40 years old (46 now 😊). Don’t feel bad.
@nohulse I searched. Which is why I put the question out there. It was more of a rhetorical question. But slightly serious, as well. You say history? LMAFO hearsay is more like it
When skepticism turns into clutching at straws.
Lying about harboring Jews isn’t even close to being the same thing.
Right, because they aren’t dying for the lie, they are dying to protect someone else.
@@spencergsmith You can call it what you want but the Huguenots did lie knowing they could die for such actions. Frank said nobody would die for a lie. And when he's been proven wrong he makes up excuses for his statement that sometimes people can and it's justified. He just changed the subject! He should just admit he's wrong!
@ he said they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be a lie, which is true. Those lying to protect Jews died for the people, not to further spread a lie.
I’m not well-versed on the Huguenots, aside that they were persecuted by Catholics. Would you care to explain what lies they died defending?
@@spencergsmith They did die to spread a lie about protecting the Jews you can call it what you what too but it is what it is. They died defending falsifying documents saying the persecuted weren't Jews among other things!
My answer to Jake about his hypothetical new scriptures argument is that the Bible itself addresses such a thing : Galatians 1:6-12 New King James Version (NKJV)But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed
Some people go out of their way to pick holes in Christian doctrine because they want to find a reason to reject the changes they would have to make to their life to be a Christian. They are not genuinely seeking the Truth.
B.S. 🙄 What an idiotic comment. For your info, I wouldn’t have to change a thing, other than maybe going to church.
If one is truly seeking the truth for the right reasons I'm sure God would see to it that they got the information they need.
Well well.. isn't it the same thing you do with people following different faiths than yours.. without trying to learn or understand the scriptures....
Are yall watching the video or arguing with the comments? 💀💀💀💀💀💀
Do you have proof of this?
Jake’s question about “what if there was a newly codified scripture that commanded you to beat your wife” (my paraphrase of his question) is such a moot point and easily defeated by one phrase: the canon is closed. Even if we discovered a new letter from Paul, and scholars agree that it was legitimately Pauline, it couldn’t be included in the canon, because that decision was made a long time ago.
Who made that decision? What is the criteria for the canon?
Thats like asking if a chef told you dung was fine cuisine, delicious and nutritious, would you eat it? Or if a mathematician told you 1+1=3, would you live your live with that truth?
To the last question, all he had to say was that the very way we identify true scripture is that it presents a consistent picture of God. Any "scripture" that has God giving immoral commands would be rejected out of hand. So, the premise in which "theologians" all agree that a new scripture is Christian, and that it presents a different moral character for God, is an impossibility.
See that’s problematic when there are instances of god commanding genocies, murdering entire populations including women, children, and INFANTS. Or recognizing slavery, treating rape as the women’s fault. A god that does those things….yeah, hard to say that there’s an inherent benevolent character that’s consistent in scripture.
@@dmaxbryantyou think God commands stuff like genocide for no reason? Go look up how immoral and disgusting the people who God wiped out were. They were worshiping false gods, they were sacrificing their own children, they were cannibals, they were raping and killing. But nah God killed them for no reason ig. When did God treat rape as the womans fault? Slavery in ancient israel isn’t the same as modern day slavery. For example, people who had a debt to pay off would work for someone around the house or yard. “Slaves” were treated with respect like the Bible commands
@dmaxbryant a lot of people don't read the bible though. It's called nuance.
@@dmaxbryant God had enough of those people that he ordered to punish. They kept doing evil so he wiped them out to the very last one. Children learn from there parents this isn't new. Slavery was a legitimate way to keep people from starving to death. God could provide food but Israel kept sinning and prasing other Gods. I don't know where you live but technology and agriculture has gone a long way compared to back then. Rape was never the women's fault your being very dishonest there. It clearly says the woman must call out for help. Lack of context and ignorance pulls you away from God and you drag others too.
"Little bit of science pulls people away from god. But a lot of science pulls them back to God."
That’s a horrific argument because anything argued as immoral Christian’s would simply give an excuse for it. Example god killed David and Bathsheba’s baby, killing babies is immoral… Also, god ordering the slaughter of children and infants. This is immoral to command people to kill children and infants.
Now lets hear the excuses that doesn’t make this immoral and show why your argument was ridiculous
People hate the truth so they’ll just blather about anything. Ridiculous or not.
Sound like sunday preachers
Nobody “hates the truth”. You people just love repeating stupid shit your leaders tell you
This kids arguments are ridiculous. It only shows he has no idea what he is talking about.
He could have just answered yes or no
He failed with his first question. He has no idea, what others said, and or did, to protect those Jews. In other words, he hasn't a clue, on the wording of the German soldiers, and in the way , their questions were answered, if at all.
Be more welcoming and loving. This young man is seeking understanding the way many of us came to Christ…by doing our best to grasp what God and the authors of the Bible are trying to convey and asking the questions that come naturally as a result. His questions may not have been the best parallels, but it shows he is searching earnestly. He was also pleasant and respectful to Frank and Christians in general. Frank was able to swiftly and precisely show him the error in his thinking, and the exchange ended with, again, kindness and respect.
Extend an olive branch instead of looking down your nose at those who seek. 🙌
" would you love me if i was a worm" type questions.
No. How come "God" will be resurrected??
That new hypothetical commandment will contradict the entire Bible. In which case we rather not called ourselves Christians anymore.
I love the "all of them?"
If hypothetically someone were to find some ancient documents and claim they were scripture, but they were in direct contradiction to the historically accepted canon of the Bible I would know automatically that it was not scripture and certainly not from God. God cannot contradict Himself. If He did the Bible could not be the inspired word of God, but it is inerrant and it is inspired. God will not tell us to do things that are against what He's already revealed. The Bible actually states in Ephesians 5:25, " Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" It doesn't say, "Husbands beat your wives and there is not a single place in scripture that teaches that. It says again in Colossians 3:18,19 " ¶ Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."
I remember hearing a story about WC Fields, the famous atheist comedian.
One day a friend walk in on him reading the Bible.
The friend asked him: WC you are an atheist and you’re reading the Bible! What are you look for??!
He replied: “Loop holes!!!!!!”
It looks like Jake had him in the last question he asked. It seems Frank did not want to touch that question even as a hypothetical which I see as being unable to respond
He didn't want to waste time playing this kid's "what if" game, especially since many other people were waiting to ask their questions.
@nohulse Thank you for replying to my comment. Frank allowed him to ask the question, so logically, he should have provided his take, in kind. There is no stupid question somebody seeking Christ can ask. We know being in Christ fundamentally changes everything about you. It changes the very way you think, therefore. Something elementary to those who've been following Christ will not be to someone who is an unbeliever or who is seeking the possibility of being in Christ. I recall in my early walk having many questions about what I perceived as hypocrisies. It was the clarification of many of these that I was able to find the truth. What are your thoughts?
@nohulse Oh man. It just breaks my heart reading some of these comments. People calling him an idiot and saying the questions were stupid. This is not the way to be.
It's possible Dr. Turek didn't want to agree to such a cruel and publicly reprehensible position to demonstrate that morality itself derives from God. Logically speaking, the answer would be 'yes'. I suspect this was a bad faith argument meant to force Frank to either contradict his own belief system (all morality derives from God) or else tell a massive audience 'it is moral to ___ your wife'. It's possible the question was meant to test Frank's convictions, but I have doubts about that.
The Sabbath commandment still applies Dr. Turek.
no one has ever been argued into belief
Ever? Have you met billions of Christians around the world? Because Christianity is historical with eye witnesses, one can most certainly be argued into belief. By arguing (your phrase), I would replace with a conversation where two or more are having a disagreement. The Holy Spirit can soften hearts of those who seek answers.
Who convinced you to believe that?
I see where you're coming from OP or I think I understand what you're trying to say.
Can't argue against truth
@nohulse Bollocks. Religious nutters of all persuasions make a career of it.
This fellow defeated his own hypothetical. Frank asked him whether he would become a Christian if he knew it was true, and he said yes. Following that line of logic, he has committed himself to following the hypothetical newly discovered "scripture", no need to ask if Frank would follow it.
If it is true, we should follow it.
That said, the hypothetical new commandment is not something that we at all expect from the God of the Bible. He has given us His complete book and preserved it up until the present time, and nothing like that commandment is even hinted at in His Scriptures. It's like arguing against capitalism because maybe someone at some point called himself a capitalist while promoting socialism.
It really boils down to this and it pains me to say. He did not have parents who truly studied how to raise boys in a chaotic world. I encourage all parents to read “Sheaprding a child’s heart” and “raising boys in a chaotic world” by James Dobson.
His question about new scriptures concerning beating your wife is incoherent. It's not a question worth answering because it's like asking if a triangle was also a circle and a square at the same time, what do you do? The question is absurd.
He’s missing the point. People are willing to die for a lie that they believe is true. Nobody is willing to die for a lie that they know is a lie. The people who drink the cult koolaid believe they are going to experience some super spiritual advancement based solely on what they’re told. The disciples know whether or not they saw Jesus resurrected. Nobody would make that claim if they could be wrong knowing they would face public ostracization, ex-communication, torture, excruciating death, and an eternity of damnation.
If you believe in something that's false but you believe it then you're not lying.
The issue with they hypothetical questions is simple. One is based on belief. If you discovered something was true, would you believe it? The other is based on fantasy. If you discovered you could fly, would you still drive anywhere?
This gentleman is not debating the truth of the Bible, he is debating "his" truth, as the truth, which cannot be true if the Bible is true.
I just say to those like him, take it up with God. God said that there is enough evidence for his existence and if you think winning an argument with a stranger will make God less real. Well that the problem, you want others to prove his existence. It’s on you to prove he does not exist.
Hia hypothesis is impossible.
I love how he was like yeah I follow the Ten Commandments except the one I want to change!😂😂😂
The NT clearly explains the sabbath is no longer required.
Jesus is our rest.
Jesus Himself even debated with pharisees about their ridiculous attitude towards following it to an extreme degree.
When did he say that? You must not have watched the same video as everyone else here.
You just said the gospels were written to be historical documents. How can you defend that?
The same way testimonies in court that are historically recorded would be defended.
@ they don’t meet that standard
@ yes, a lawyer who created a style of legal trial apologetics. Not particularly interesting, I’m more interested in what the scholarship has to say on the subject.
@ that’s the story for sure. I’m skeptical about the “I didn’t believe but I was convinced by the strong evidence” story that’s so common among apologists. I think this one guy was convinced. In the same way Jay Warner Wallace is convinced that his “cold case detective” work somehow applies as well. In the end, how exactly does legal analysis make it possible to prove that people rose from their graves (and no one else present record the idea), for a man to fly, for a virgin to give birth, etc?
@Freddy-v4o thanks Freddy. In the end I’m struggling with this: the myths of the Bible seem to be almost certainly not true in a historical sense. They also don’t seem to be true in a “maps to reality” sense. But there is usefulness in the myth, in the story, and I’m interested in that. Clearly they are able to inspire and lead people to living good lives. I’m delving into how to use the utility while still recognizing the underlying mythology for what it is.
The Sabbath no longer applies ?
What is work?
No. Not until the tribulation or the time of JACOB’s trouble when God goes back to dealing with the Jews.
The twisted ideas a young man comes up with well living in his parents' basement, rent free.
We should all pray for him.
Doesnt god have you in his basement?
Hypotheticals are ludicrous, because The Bible is real.
He'll figure it out.
Não faz nem sentido a pergunta que ele formulou
Why do some speak in absolute dialect? "If Christianity is true, would you become a Christian?", "Yes, of course."? There are many that would answer that with a resounding "no". There is no "of course" about it.
Because the meaning of a person's answer to that question indicates whether or not they are asking questions to seek truth for themselves or not
It’s sad that Turek has as much “knowledge” that he does about God, yet he believes that the Sabbath day should be forgotten. No where in scripture does it say the Sabbath no longer is relevant. In fact, the commandment is to REMEMBER the Sabbath to KEEP it HOLY.
Matthew 12:3-8
“He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread-which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.””
Jesus fulfills the Sabbath
It is already fulfilled my guy. That's why it doesn't apply to us now. That command is for the Jews only for that particular time period. It is fulfilled by Jesus, Jesus is the Sabbath. So you should remember Him that He is the Sabbath. We are already in the New Covenant, because Jesus fulfilled the Old one.
Aside from the fact that he would need to provide evidence for his claim about the disciples, said claim is really not that different from what we have heard a million times before-that it was all a lie. The only difference is the motivation of the apostles.
Anyone who knows how Christian theology and textual criticism work would see why his other argument on an immoral command is ridiculous.
What are the chances that they would all trust Jesus' measage (with their lives) to bring about a good change when they found out that He lied about His resurrection.
What are the chances that none of them (all twelve or even more than twelve) would brake under pressure when faced with suffering and death knowing that it was all a lie?
If the disciples wanted to make their society and the world apparently a better place, why not just go to the passages in the Old Testament that give teachings and commands on spiritual growth, following God with your heart, being kind to others including foreigners, and helping the less privileged instead of making up stories about Jesus? I mean, Jesus did teach from the Old Testament, even to criticise the people (phasisees for example) that these disciples did not agree with. This would have been much easier.
It is improbable that they would make up this lie and stick with it to death, even for a good cause.
I'm not sure what your saying exactly. But, Frank is correct. They would not have died for a lie.
@phoenixgamer1565 I agree. It is unlikely that they would.
Ethical and moral thinking has changed many times over the generations. What seemed right has turned out to be wrong. The importance of nature and our dependence on it is one example of how science has changed our understanding of right and wrong pursuits.
Moral principles have been shaken the most by authoritarian ideas. Religions have blessed imprisonment, military operations, wars in which those defined as infidels have no chance of being members of society.
Humanity's understanding of humanity has changed and evolved. It is best guided by the desire to explore reality, even though it is behind enormous resistance and illusions.
You are comparing subjective morality and ethics with an objective set of moral rules. Subjective morality can justify any evil.
Nice counter argument for Islam but Christianity doesn't use infidels nor do we have any order to kill non believers.
I pray you realize the truth and accept Jesus Christ into your life.
Wrong. That which has been morally good and that which has been morally evil has not changed.
What you are describing is exactly what one might expect if they were aware of the knowledge of good and evil but had no relationship with the one who created them.
@ TDS not withstanding what is your point? Defying objective morality is called sin, we are all subject to it to various degrees ,are all worthy of judgement and condemnation which is the very REASON Christ had to die on the cross so that those who accept His sacrifice can receive salvation.
If Jesus were to return today, would atheists still reject him?
Where is Jesus nobody has heard from him in 2000 years?
I believe most would although I won't have to answer that question myself because Jesus paid the penalty for my sins, I repented and placed my complete trust in His finished work. I so look forward to His glorious return !
@@thomasehrlich8623 Holy Spirit talks to me often. like last week. " The time of Divination is nigh. The Dichotomy is here. ". I had to look up what that even meant. You have to listen.
@@thomasehrlich8623 After His resurrection, Jesus Christ ascended to heaven where He remains. He will return one day.....sooner than later I believe. After He ascended, God has been with us in the person of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. God became man in the person of Jesus Christ and promised He would return to earth one day. The coming of Jesus Christ, His life and His return was predicted in very specific prophecies, found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled those prophecies perfectly.
Romans 5:8 tells us that "God demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He offers complete forgiveness, joy and peace in this life and eternal life in the life to come. I hope you will make that decision for Christ........it will be the best decision you will ever make. Thank you for reading.
@ It sounds like you need to seek psychiatric support. When you start hearing voices that sounds serious.
I disagree with Turek on saying that keeping the Sabbath is no longer a part of the Ten Commandments. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Sabbath was not abolished in the New Testament. Instead, Jesus taught that the Sabbath was meant for people and should be a day of worship and reverence to God our Father in Heaven.
Jesus referred to Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath." Jesus also taught that the Sabbath was a day for people to focus on God, not just a day to rest from our labors.
New Testament church members like Turek, catholics and all these other SUNday worshipers began to observe the Sabbath on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus in which Jesus says nowhere in the New Testament that is now the day of the sabbath or the day that man is to observe as so.
Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, "I did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
Jesus taught that he came to fulfill the Law and Prophets, and that he obeyed the Ten Commandments perfectly.
Jesus also taught that the Ten Commandments should be kept, and that he loved his followers as he wanted them to love each other.
Sorry but that is a bold face lie that the Sabbath was done away with. God is forever unchanging and so is His commands and Commandments.
The only LAW that God had abolished was the sacrificial law in the OT because Jesus had yet came to fulfill the law through His sacrifice and crucifixion.
That is the only law I know and have read about in the Bible that was done away with anyway!!!
Do you have a mezuzah in your home? Do you recite the shema thrice daily? Do you keep all the feasts? Do you keep kosher?
@ Yes but those aren't listed in the Ten Commandments the text you're suppose to go by.
Don’t look into any of it for yourself and then ask people to follow along with these wild hypotheticals that are complete nonsense
19 guys died on 911 for their beliefs. Did they “die for a lie?” Or, maybe they were just WRONG. 🙄
They did not know it was a lie they were dying for. You could make the argument that the new testament authors died in the same vain, but these were men who spent their lives being tested for their faith rather than indoctrinated by their culture.
@@shawngreene1 new testament authors died for they they knew to ne fact or fiction not a belief
They were wrong.
What "lie" did they believe?
Those 19 guys killed 2,996 people in the process. The Christians who were persecuted and put to death took no other lives. Not even close to the same thing, and a terrible comparison.
This is the circus that traditional and mainstream Christianity has brought upon itself. God never sent out apostles, prophets or ministers to the world to convert the masses. Christ Himself hid the meaning of His message to the public in general through parables. “And this gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come “. The good news is of the coming Kingdom of God. It’s preached as a witness- to them if they believe and understand the message- against them if they don’t believe the message(Matthew 13). This is all covered in Christ’s parables. Study Matthew 13:9-16. Yes, God uses men to spread the seed, but God alone sows the seed(John 6:44). Men can’t convert other men(Matthew 16:13-17). The proving is to one’s own self, not others(1 Thessalonians 5:21).
❤ I question all these public debates and arguments. Using embarrassment to prove you are right doesn’t work.
Nobody dies for lies when they know they are lies.
Would you put your life in danger to rob a bank if you knew that there was nothing in the bank?
Would you put your life on the line for a god that you know does not exist because you made it up?
I rest my case.
That's not true see above. How do you know what whomever would or would not do. If a person(s) thought that they could achieve a great cause by lying they'll do it. Even if they know the consequences. Maybe these hypothetical person(s) would do so because they feel by making up a god who wants people to obey it with it's decrees would make the world a better place. People have knowingly lied for more important things. That's the history of Religion. And what does me robbing a bank when I know there is nothing in it have to do with lying?
His comparison to the holocaust and the hypothetical are both flawed. There could be no scripture uncovered that would be deemed authentic that conflicts with the scripture we already have. Both can't be true. I don't think he would be a Christian if it were true, he's too busy hardening his heart to see and hear truth.
I don’t think you understand his logic because you assume any discovery that contradicts scripture is false by definition. BTW there have been variations of text that contradict things like, events, dialogue etc. When this occurs some bibles include it in a footnote.
@@GeorgeVanderkuur Correct. Any discovery that contradicts scripture would be false. And you are 100% wrong about there being variations of text that contradict in the Bible. There are none. Alex O'Connor just got slammed for this very lie. So stop the lies and get over yourself.
@@GeorgeVanderkuur His "logic" is flawed. The Bible contains no error. If you are claiming to know of one, please cite your source and the exact contradiction?
@@GeorgeVanderkuur _I don't think you understand his logic because assume any discovery that contradicts scripture is false by definition_
It comes down to the law of non-contradiction. The hypothetical that he brought up would directly contradict multiple scriptures. So in that case it would be false.
@Mike-sd9we Dr. Barton Ehrman has plenty of books and videos that could enlighten you. But that would be futile since you've already decided a priori that your position cannot possibly be wrong.
Not only did the Apostles die for what they knew but many of those who had a relationship with God the Father in the Roman coliseums and becoming human torches for Nero's garden parties. The questions this kid asks are to be expected from those who don't know what they're talking about.
There's Frank changing the subject. He said nobody dies for a lie then when given an example that people have lied to save the Jews he says that it was morally right to do so. That's not his original statement. Way to go Frankie!
Romans 1:22
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
If a fool can work it out, whats your excuse?
It would conflict with other parts of the bible that say to love your wife. Silly
Embarrassment details in gospels are not words from God full stop.
Your gospels have some porn verses that even many christians don't know
Christianity is Light like Islam is Dark. That's how utterly different they are at it's core.
Ever heard of Torquemada?
@JohnKoenig-db8lk Yes, the friar who led the spanish inquistion and persecuted Muslims (satanist) and fake Jews? He will answer for his actions and have to give an account to the King Jesus Christ.
Men are fallible to evil. Even a man of God isn't perfect. He did what he precieved as right.
Is this your rebuttal to christian bad Muslims good?
Have you of Aisha?
You can’t assert a false premise as true and then require agreement and response. The false premise he is requiring Frank to accept is something that goes against the very structure of scripture.
Ignorant people DO die for lies is why I would agree it's not as great an argument as to say Christ DID reign w/ saints & their offspring ABOVE ALL whom DID bring HIS gospel TO ALL CORNERS for 1000+ prophesying one last uprising of old devils that HE MAY PROVE HIMSELF YET AGAIN. These are not easy prophecies at evil's peak even. Also, the Sabbath is STILL relevant tho' most do not understand it regards a "day" to be "KEPT HOLY" like going to a holy place (like repairing your waxed-cold heart) when seeing the signs of the times (basically, whenever socierty falls into a "NONE FOUND WORTHY" state of "lukewarn" followers because the Lord will surely judge & "7th souls" may "go into the belly of the earth") --& as for "NEW Christian laws" such as "beating your wives if they misbehave", this would be TOO CONTRARY to traditional Christians that love their wives per Christ, most would likely believe it's a lie.
Who has died for a lie knowing it was a lie?
The argument is that they were NOT ignorant. They KNEW that Jesus was risen from the dead. That is the point. They refused to recant and go to their deaths because they KNEW what they had seen!
@TexasHoosier3118 People that "bow to graven images" die (whether knowing or believing in a lie). The 2nd MOST IMPORTANT commandment per Exodus 20 the Lord indirectly tied to "loving thy neighbor" likely because a "many deceived" that do so will empower a Beast to rise that enslaves us ALL, causing many people to DIE, which as I like to say, can't be very "loving" for neighbors.
@phoenixgamer1565 I wasn't talking about Christ's followers, I was talking about the ARGUMENT that "people don't die for lies" is NOT the strongest argument as say the Lord's ACTUAL prophetic words that HAS manifested DESPITE death itself AND to reoccur yet again (i.e., Christ's kingdomcome WILL expand beyond a "beloved city" to non-Christian territories as a great tree whose branches extend over the ENTIRE WORLD per Daniel "in the end", --also said to be "the beginning".
I evangelise college students have done it for over 36 years and i have never been asked such a stupid question as this dummy
Question like these would never be asked if the God’s church as a whole believed the finished translation of his word in English the 1611 Holy Bible printed by permission of King James.
The answer is no. The canon is closed and it has been since the end of the first century. No new revelation or gospel is coming. This is addressed in Acts and Galatians.
Stupid is as stupid does- funny how convinced they are of being right.
Forrest Gump over here. 🙄 The buy bull is Garbage
What if God commands evil. That's like asking what if 1=2.
Read the OT and you'll find it does say 1=2.
Ai videos are crap
What if God told you to do something evil?
Well, what if a square was a circle?
That would mean it wasn't a square and never was.
The definition of a square and a circle are objective so a square can't be a circle. The definition of evil can be subjective. In the case of the Bible God has commanded people to do evil (case in point God commanding Abraham to kill his son to show his devotion to him).
The crux is what incentive the apostles had to lie?? There was no moral good they were defending, no monetary or physical benefits... infact, in the roman empire, crucifixion was reserved for criminals and to claim that God died on the cross would be laughing stock in those days... they had no incentive to actaully tell a lie.. but on the contrary they were offered physical pleasures just to denounce their beliefs...
People do strange things for their beliefs,
@enki354 yeah but again what was the incentive?? Unless they had really seen Jesus.. mind u before pentecost, they were afraid and in a room..
I believe his second point has some merit. In my opinion it’s plausible for a person to die for a belief they know is false if it led to a superior way of life morally and emotionally. Maybe spreading a false belief that does good is worth the sacrifice. Similar to parents lying to children about Santa for their happiness.
what about islam
i agree with you. his second point does have merit. where the gap in the logic comes is in the understanding of christianity which is pretty much what Jesus says. This guy claims to be God, He says do these things for him which in turn lead to a superior way of life morally and emotionally but if this guy says he’s God and he will die and rise 3 days later and really does not then how can i objectively say that the things he asked me to do would really lead to a superior way of life morally and emotionally. do you get ?
Christ Himself warned against false teachers and false teachings. Many exist among those claiming Christian belief and still lead millions astray.
@@tinknal6449 Muslim believe false belief with doubt or whole heart, your point is not strong
Would a “superior” way of life morally and emotionally SAVE you from the judgement that comes after “this” life?
Where does it say the Apostles died for their beliefs?
History. It's amazing what you can learn by reading into history. I suggest you try it sometime! 😊
I think this is often stated as a reason Christianity is true. It’s not in the Bible so many may not know. I’m a Christian, grew up in church and didn’t know until I was 40 years old (46 now 😊). Don’t feel bad.
@nohulse I searched. Which is why I put the question out there. It was more of a rhetorical question. But slightly serious, as well. You say history? LMAFO hearsay is more like it