Alex knows all the arguments and scholarly work on early gospels but keeps on raising age old objections in spite of them being answered. My contention is that Alex is not genuinely interested in the answers.
What's important to understand here is Alex has said openly on other debates that he acknowledges that Mark, for instance, is trying to portray Jesus as God. But then goes and denies His divinity altogether because apparently Mark didn't portray Jesus as God well enough to fit Alex's standards. Therefore, Alex is unable to stay intellectually honest due to his presuppositions and word for word fallacy he holds strong to. This guy cooks himself
It's more of a critique of Alex's inability or unwillingness to engage with the topic honestly. I appreciate that Alex is willing to engage with the topic, but if he's going to wrestle with the subject he should do so with someone who can address his concerns more completely.
Alex O'Connor wants us to believe that Mormonism spread just as fast as Christianity using the same logic as when someone compares the price of a milk bottle from 1970 with today's price, but doesn't take into account inflationary effects. Is he seriously claiming that the rates of growth are organically the same?
@thecloudtherapist rates of growth don't speak to the validity of a movement or ideology. If it did Islam would be way more valid than Christianity could ever be. Scientology would have to be valid as well. It means nothing
early 3rd century christianity was estimated to be around 200,000. Mormonism is estimated to be around 17 million in that same time span. So, as it is, Christianity grew at a much slower rate to this point than mormonism. As a percent of people, though, since mormonism is worldwide, and Christianity didn't reach worldwide until centuries later...well...different analysis. But to their point about what explains it. They say Jesus' story explains it. Mormons could simply say the same--the miraculous story of the restoration explains it.
The growth of Christianity is special when you include the fact that it was illegal, and actively persecuted, murdered, and scriptures attempted to be annihilated by the greatest world power at the time for centuries. Mormonism had no such headwind. Islam spread by the sword. Christianity spread despite the sword.
I think you need to learn mormon history. The persecution they faced was horrific in the early times of the church and they often faced violent opposition. “Mormon” itself is a slander that originated from religious teachers of the day who tried to teach that they did not believe in Jesus Christ. It clearly worked because now everyone calls them the mormons and that they arent Christian when the official name for a mormon is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. I dont care if you dont care, but I will stand for truth. You can google all of this it would take 1 minute of your time and please dont speak on things you have no idea about. As my fellow “Christian” lets not be misinformed about each other and look to strengthen relationships between us. We dont need to compare what we have gone through. Thats like me as an Australian Aboriginal comparing my peoples suffering to those from another continent and declaring myself more native than them because we went through more for our land. Its weird to compare infirmities and tribulations. Its weird to talk about other peoples tribulations and not even get them right or say they never existed. Thats not cool dude.
@ That is not a serious question. He was clear enough to be executed for the claim as recorded in every single one in no uncertain terms to the Jewish and Roman hearers. You people are being stupid because he didnt use the English phrase of your preference.
anyone who thinks Jesus was not crystal clear has not read the gospels. this argument only works on people who have not read the Bible. I grew up Baptist and this claim is laughable. its even hard for me to think Alex is serious
@@tomhorwat5313 Man, how clear can you be? If you see a guy in firefighter uniform running into a flaming building, rescuing people, are you really in doubt what his profession is?
@@askbrettmanning his clarifications were cutting. One apologist intentionally edited Alex to straw man him, and Huff misquoted a study in his response. Watch it
How could the 500 brethren be predisposed to believing in Jesus's resurrection when even the Apostles themselves weren't expecting it? We know thousands came to the faith on Pentecost. Those 500 could very well have been part of that group. If they were part of an "appointment" in Galilee, they very well could've been told to head to Jerusalem for the event of Pentecost.
Me: hmmm lets see Alex' first argument (Mark is different than John, ie no explicite resurrection vs. explicit resurrection. therefore its not reliable. Me: ok got it too many differences. lets see his second argument Alex (Matt, Luke and John are too similar to Mark, therefore not reliable) Me: wait a minute too different and its unreliable and too similar, also not reliable....? I think i smell an agenda
Exactly! It's often like the dishonest claim from the atheists that God is unjust because he does not punish evil and that he is also judgmental because… He punishes evil.
Alex would never claim that John is too similar to Mark, Matthew, and Luke. John and Mark are the least common and most contradictory. What’s interesting is what Mark and John have in common. Mark is our earliest gospel and has no divine conception, angelic annunciation, or virgin birth. And John, our latest gospel has none of these elements as well. Jesus becomes the son of God at his baptism in Mark. In John, Jesus isn’t baptized and appeared out of thin air, “the word became flesh.”
@@antonioreid534 To say Jesus becomes the son of God in Mark needs substantiation. A clear reading indicate God is declareing him, not changing him into the son of God. If you saw me walking with a young boy and i told you this is my son who i'm proud of" the natural explanation would be he had always been my son, not that i was adopting him in that moment. likewise I do not see where you get that Jesus became the son of God at the Baptism. it doesn't follow. second. "the word became flesh" is a description of the incarnation. Bible scholars almost always identify the "word" as being the creative essence present with God at creation. John is not declaring that he thinks Christ materialised from nothing, but that he existed along with God since the beginning. I answered your other claims in another post. you'll need to flesh out your arguments as they mostly consist of claims with little evidence. all of them lack historical substantiation and I haven't seen those interpretations among Bible scholars either.
These kind of critiques have been asked and answered repeatedly to Alex, and are beneath someone of his intelligence and education. He really does come across here like he’s just playing to the cheap seats.
Alex should do his own homework and not just present what his staff is doing for him. His arguments are often flawed, but in typical atheistic fashion, they are never able to open themselfes up even if its quite obvious.
Hey that's awesome!! Im a Christian missionary and evangelist in Arizona and also a youtube creator ! This is my channel!!! Can you,explain to me the argument atheists use to discredit the Bible about jesus saying to Nathan, the high priests and others about heavens being opened up and them seeing coming in clouds of heaven? Because Jesus after resurrection didn't do that, and Nathan didn't see heavens open up. That was Stephen. Also atheists make arguments against Jesus prophecy about him saying "this generation " would see him come back, and they would go through all the cities and the son of man would return! However after Jews evangelize about jesus in all of Israel, jesus didn't return and didn't appear! Israel ceased to exist as a nation after AD 133. HOW do you square this away ? It's just so complicated for me to figure out because they seem to make valid case against the Gospels because they didn't state what happened. How do you answer these things?
@@FriendlyEvangelist Jesus gives a tiny preview of the miracles in store for the disciples. When speaking to Nathanael, Jesus had mentioned the name Israel, given to a man formerly named Jacob (Genesis 32:28). In Genesis 28:12, Jacob dreamed about angels on a ladder between earth and heaven. Jesus is making a subtle reference to the reason for His ministry: to serve as the connection between men and God. True miracles are always meant to deliver a message from God. The gospel of John records seven miracles chosen specifically to prove that Jesus is God. When Jesus says, "you will see," the Greek word is plural. In other words, "you all will see…" which means His prediction was for all the disciples. Christ also uses the seventh and most important of the seven names of chapter 1: "the Son of Man." This is one of Jesus' most frequent terms for Himself. It refers to a major prophecy of the Messiah, recorded in Daniel 7:13. Jewish people who heard the phrase, "Son of Man" would know exactly what He was referring to: the Savior and King of Israel. Jesus gives a tiny preview of the miracles in store for the disciples. When speaking to Nathanael, Jesus had mentioned the name Israel, given to a man formerly named Jacob (Genesis 32:28). In Genesis 28:12, Jacob dreamed about angels on a ladder between earth and heaven. Jesus is making a subtle reference to the reason for His ministry: to serve as the connection between men and God. True miracles are always meant to deliver a message from God. The gospel of John records seven miracles chosen specifically to prove that Jesus is God. When Jesus says, "you will see," the Greek word is plural. In other words, "you all will see…" which means His prediction was for all the disciples. The angels of God are the divine messengers of grace. Remember that Jesus frequently spoke using metaphors, parables, allegories, ect in order to teach a lesson that connects back to the Old Testament and to hide these truths from those who consider themselves wise. Nathan also saw Jesus heal the sick, give sight to the blind, raise the dead, walk on water, calm the sea, turn water into wine, ect. Nathan saw greater things than Jesus seeing him under the fig true. Christ also uses the seventh and most important of the seven names of chapter 1: "the Son of Man." This is one of Jesus' most frequent terms for Himself. It refers to a major prophecy of the Messiah, recorded in Daniel 7:13. Jewish people who heard the phrase, "Son of Man" would know exactly what He was referring to: the Savior and King of Israel. The key to understanding what Jesus meant by “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” is the context; that is, we must understand the verses that are surrounding Matthew 24:34, especially the verses prior to it. In Matthew 24:4-31, Jesus is clearly giving a prophecy; He is speaking of future events. Jesus had already told those living during His earthly ministry that the kingdom had been taken from them (Matthew 21:43). Therefore, it is imperative that Matthew 24-25 be seen as dealing with a future time. The generation that Jesus speaks of “not passing” until He returns is a future generation, namely, the people living when the predicted events occur. The word generation refers to the people alive in the future when the events of Matthew 24-25 take place. Jesus’ point in His statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” is that the events of the end times will happen quickly. Once the signs of the end begin to be observed, the end is well on the way-the second coming and the judgment will occur within that last generation. Jesus reinforced this meaning with a parable in Matthew 24:32-33: “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.” A sure sign of summer is the leafing of the fig tree; a sure sign of the end of the world is that “all these things” (of Matthew 24) are taking place. Those who are on the earth then will have only a short time left.
The frustrating thing about athiestic arguments from people like Alex, is they are aimed at people who have not read the Bible. Here we see WLC easily defending Jesus claim to be God in mark and obvious knowledge of the resurrection in that gospel. however Alex's claims do not even try to address these claims or evidence. He is either untruthful about what Mark claims about Jesus, or he is ignorant of the claims in the gospel, or worse yet he is lying and hoping his audience does not read the source (gospel of Mark) themselves.
No, Alex’s arguments are for people who have negative volition toward Jesus, and there’s a big difference. There are people across the world who will never have access to the breathe of Bible resources that you and I have access to, that Alex has access to, yet they LOVE Jesus and have a real relationship with Him. That’s how God works. That’s how God chooses the “foolish” things of the world to shame the wise.
Mark introduces us to Jesus as his baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. If Mark thought Jesus was God or equal to God, why would someone equal to God in substance or nature need a baptism much less for the remission of his sins? Then we are told that the spirit of God comes down and is bestowed upon Jesus driving him out into the wilderness to resist Satan and temptation for 40 days and 40 nights. If that’s the case, what was Jesus’s nature or substance before the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon him at his baptism for the remission of his sins? If Jesus could resist Satan and temptation before his baptism and the Holy Spirit being bestowed upon him, then why get baptized at all? If Jesus was sinless and almighty before his baptism and possession by the Holy Spirit, then both these acts become redundant and pointless symbols.
If the religion is based on Jesus, the original disciples would have been like royalty to any Christian. They would have authority. People would look to them for approval. Which to me makes it highly likely that the stories in the gospels originated from them. I highly doubt people just made up stories when they could have been easily fact checked by people who were there or people who were very close to people who were there.
Their atheist gig feels being threatened by true Bible scholarship being shown in the main media stream. All of sudden, they have become "text critical" experts and are hanging by a thread to stay relevant.
They glaze over the Marion analogy, because of their disbelief of the Roman Catholic rites. However, it is quite surprising how they are dubious of the scripture entry of Paul, describing the 500 witnesses, however predisposed, since their entire Christian belief relies on the authority of the Bible, and the Bible alone.
Do you even know what the Bible is? Its a collection of books of 40 sifferent people written over a period of 1500 years. Most never met the other. So when you read it and find that it very hard to deny that they are writing about the same exact thing its quite compelling to say the least. Take Isaiah 53 for instance. Prophecying about a suffering servant who will die for the sins of mankind, and describing the crucifixion very vividly 1000 years before Jesus was born and crucifixion hadnt even been invented yet. You have to be flat out rebellious against God Himself to deny that the Bibe is all we truly need. But there are other historical sources you can find. And even those back up Christianity
I hope this become IP reacting to Rationality Rules reacting to Testify reacting to Paulogia's reaction to Mike Winger reacting to Mythvision reacting to David Wood reacting to Michael Shermer reacting to WLC reacting to Alex's reaction to Wes Huff on Joe Rogan.
A major problem Alex O Connor makes is the false assumption that the most liberal (indeed quasi-Atheist) Biblical scholarship is the only ones correct and that it is the only "scholarly" scholarship. But it is not (far from it!). He ignores conservative biblical scholarship
@@shoulohrey8000 No. In the grand scheme of history, liberal German hermeneutics and it's leftwing posterity will be but a footnote in church history books. Their views are predicated upon hyper mechanical views of language and presuppositions that assume naturalism by default. Indeed, such liberal hermeneutics wouldn't exist if it wasn't for modern western seminaries. Leftist seminaries keep the outdated hermeneutics alive on life support. Happily as time passes, higher criticism is diminishing....
No he doesn't. He often displays a knowledge of the arguments and evidence offered by all sides of the debate. The bigger issue is why we would believe any scholar who comes from an organisation that includes a basis of belief. You cannot have an unbiased treatment of the facts if your job is on the line if your conclusions don't go a certain way.
Anyone know if Dr. Frank Turek has asked Alex, "If Christianity was true, Alex, would you become a Christian?'". And how he answers helps determine how many more discussions you have with him.
He has already said many times before he would no longer be an atheist but he wouldn't become a christian because he couldn't worship such an evil, immoral god who can somehow say "dont eat shellfish" but cannot bring himself to say "dont own people as slaves" Question is... why do you worship such a horrible monster who drowned the world because his own supposed "perfect creation" wasn't good enough for him? (Does that mean he failed?) Or why he punished someone for not doing what he told them BEFORE they knew what good an evil were to know it was a bad thing? Or how about a god who sent 2 she-bears to slaughter children for poking fun at a bald man? Or what about a god who had a bet with the devil and tortured a man just to prove a point? Or a god who told his follower to kill their child.... geez... I could go on all day and night about the abhorrent, evil and psychopathic acts of this so called god Why would ANYONE worship such a monster?
Some narratives are really dangerous. You conveniently ignored the fact that everything you said happened post fall of man. Secondly, you conveniently equated allowance with approval. Also, you conveniently abandoned the issue of man's freewill and God's freewill too. Actions have consequences, you want to decide what to do and also decide the consequences of what you have done. It doesn't work like that. Meanwhile, you want to argue about the problem of good and evil, the question for you is, who decides or what is the measure of good and evil? Let me ask in another way, how would you determine if something is good or evil?
Jesus referring to himself as The Son of Man is all it takes for Him to proclaim himself God. He sees himself as the man that was seen by Daniel in his night visions…and that man that was seen is undeniably Devine in those chapters. He’s seated on a throne next to the Ancient Of Days, and is referred to as The Most High as you continue reading.
Interestingly, most biblical scholars, these days, see Daniel as a forgery. His ‘history’ is poorly documented and his accurate ‘prophecy’ near the end indicate that Daniel was written around the time of the Maccabean revolt. It’s worth noting that much of biblical scripture is written during tumultuous times.
Not to mention he indisputably claims the divine name. “Before Abraham was, I AM” When Moses asked the Lord what his name is, the Lord said I AM. Jesus most certainly claimed divinity. But he did it in subtle and careful ways so that only those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it would know. If he flat out said from the rooftops Behold I am God!!! He would have been immediately arrested and sentenced for blasphemy and his ministry over.
@ Precisely! I had mentioned that in another thread…if he went everywhere flat out proclaiming “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, worship me,” He would’ve been butchered just a couple weeks into his ministry.
Love the context and response to the Alex. Alex has done well to bring people to Christ, but I think he could do so much more for the world if he was on the right side here.
Rise, get up, and go home. What a great example of Jesus' divine power, without having to deliberately state so. I'm slowly learning and building back my faith.
I think it's so good that this whole thing has happened; that Alex challenged Wes, and is being responded to himself. I've always respected Alex's work, partly because, as a born-again believer, I like to challenge and test my faith and I have always found him very fair and respectful of other beliefs. But he's disappointed me on this one. There's a sarcasm and dismissiveness bordering on disrespect that saddens me, although it may be a good sign that Alex is clutching at straws. Nearly like he feels angry that Wes has made things so clear. At any rate, it would be nice to see his previous balanced approach return, whatever spiritual decisions he makes. 🙏🏼
This video is a video late to the party. In Alex's original video, he promised to release a second providing detail on the God claims. That video was released just before this was. This video doesn't address and of the content of Alex's second one.
When he went to the garden to Pray and prayed till his sweat was as great drops of blood,He wasn't praying to himself, he was praying to God the Father. JESUS WAS AND IS THE SON OF GOD.AMEN
I have great respect for Dr. Craig and frequently listen to him. However, in this case, he seems to have overlooked a critical point. Phrases like 'Son of God,' 'long-awaited Messiah,' and 'divine Son of Man prophesied by Daniel' are not explicit statements. This raises a fundamental question: Why would Jesus be indirect about what he knew to be the most important and controversial claim in human history? Why not simply say, 'I am God'.
In a society riddled with pantheism, making the "direct" statement "I am God" is in fact a much weaker claim that what Jesus did, using a multitude of references to divine titles and prerogatives rooted in Jewish history and theology to make crystal clear his identity.
@@dovonovich, Jesus never claims to be God. What is interesting is that according to Mark, when Jesus appears on the scene, no one knows who he is, the meaning of his ministry, or why he is performing miracles. And Jesus is constantly hiding his identity and not making any I am statements. Yet, in John, people know who Jesus claims to be. Not only is Jesus not hiding his identity he says, “I am the way, truth, and the life… the bread of life, the living water, the son of God, good shepherd, the gate post for the sheep…” none of this is to be found in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
Jesus never claimed to be God? The question should be what claims did God make of himself in the Old testament? That way, we can know if Jesus assumed those prerogatives for himself in the New. 1. God claimed his glory is incommunicable (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus audaciously claimed to possess the same glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5) 2. God claimed exclusive powers to blot out the transgressions of his people in his own name (Isaiah 43:25, 44:22). Jesus unapologetically proclaimed his mission to remit the sins of the people in his own name (Matthew 26:28, Luke 24:47) 3. God forms Israel from the 12 patriarchs/sons of Jacob (Exodus 39:14), He appointed 12 "princes" as heads of each tribe (numbers 1:1-16). Jesus gathers his disciples (the Church), and appoints 12 apostles over them (Luke 6:13), he gave them power over unclean spirits (Matthew 10:1), and appointed them as judges over Israel (Matthew 19:28). 4. God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21), but Christ exercised this Divine powers in his humanity (Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24), and he also communicated the same powers to the 12 apostles to forgive any sin in his name (John 20:22-23) 5. God establishes his covenant with ancient Israel with the blood of animals as a peace offering for sins (Exodus 24:8), and He promises to establish a New and superior covenant with the future Israel (Jeremiah 31:31). Christ establishes a New covenant with his Body and blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24) 6. God's covenant is called an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 9:16, 17:7,17:19 etc). Christ's covenant is called an everlasting covenant (Hebrews 13:20) 7. God's kingdom is an "everlasting kingdom" (Psalms 145:13). Christ's Kingdom is also called an "everlasting kingdom" (2 Peter's 1:11) 8. God rescues the sailors who cry to him for help during a stormy wave by commanding and calming the storm (Psalm 107:23-30). Christ rescues the passangers with him in a boat when they cried to him for help during a stormy wave. He calmed the storm (Mark 4:37-41) 9. God bestows the keys of stewardship of the house of David to Eliakim, son of Hilkiah to "shut and open" (Isaiah 20:20-22). Christ bestows the keys of stewardship of the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter to "bind and loose "(Matthew 16:17-19) 10. All things in heaven and on earth belongs to God (1 chronicles 29:11). All powers in heaven and on earth are subject to Christ (Matthew 28:18) 11. God alone pre existed before the universe and time, hence, He describes himself to Moses as the " I AM" (Exodus 3:13-15). Christ revealed his preexistence during an altercation with the Jews with the following words. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:53) Contrary to what many dubious heretics like Bart Ehrman claim about this passage, "egō eimi" was not employed here as a form of identification. Instead, the word were used to affirm the Messiah's preexistence. "... BEFORE Abraham WAS, I AM." The context of the conversation was not identification of nomenclature, but Time and Existence. These, and several others verses are enough to strengthen the blessed who have the gift of faith, or to harden the hearts of depraved and arrogant fools who claim there is no God. Remain blessed!
Alex is completely ignorant of all this, sadly. And to be honest, I've been surprised at how "day 1" his attacks have been. He's like an expert on what people who don't read the Bible believe. Praying for him though, because as of right now, he's the archetype of "they will keep on hearing, but never understand."
Alex is wasting his divine given talent. He will pay dearly for this. He is doing disservice to himself and not know it. I hope he finds the real truth soon.
Dr. Craig, would you be willing to respectfully consider a couple of arguments? 1. There is only 1 Most High God. 2. The Father is the Most High God (Luke 1:35). 3. Jesus is not the Father. 4. Therefore, Jesus is not the Most High God. And... 1. Jesus has a God (Rev 3:12; Jn 20:17; Eph 1:3). 2. Jesus's God is our God (Jn 20:17). 3. Jesus's God is not the Trinity (self-evident). 4. Therefore, our God can't be the Trinity. Both of these arguments, as far as I can tell, are valid and sound. Which premises would you deny? In addition Dr. Craig, have you ever read Dr. Kegan Chandler's book "The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma: The Recovery of New Testament Theology"? That work is a significant challenge to what you are presenting. In light of the entire evidence-set that we SHOULD all wrestle with (the biblical, logical, and non-revisionist historical data) but that gets so easily and routinely sidelined, it may very well be that Yahweh is using even atheists like Alex to point to the fact that Jesus isn't, and never claimed to be, Yahweh. Heck, even Trinitarian scholar Ben Witherington III said "Jesus isn't, and wasn't Yahweh...Had the historical Jesus gone around Galilee and Judaea introducing himself as 'God' that would have been taken to mean 'I am Yahweh,' and that is clearly not what Jesus wanted to convey about himself. To the contrary, he wanted to distinguish himself from 'the Ancient of Days' by referring to himself in terms of the other prominent figure in Daniel 7:13,14, the Son of Man." So Witherington III says Jesus wanted to DISTINGUISH himself from Yahweh, not claim to be Yahweh. Has "orthodox" dogma long given up common sense and biblical integrity? Jesus is the Son of the Most High Yahweh (Luke 1:35), at the right hand of Yahweh (all over the NT), and Yahweh is Jesus's God & Father who Jesus said is the ONLY true God (Jn 17:3), so, common sense tells us that Jesus cannot be numerically identical to Yahweh and the Son of Man at Yahweh's right hand. Why is this so difficult? If we take all these explicit texts and realities and go back to the few deity of Christ proof texts armed with basic hermeneutical integrity (explicit outweighs/overrides the implied) and Hebraic worldview categories, there really is no debate and all of this pushback toward Alex turns out to be wildly unnecessary, at least on this point about Jesus claiming to be Yahweh. Here's the truth: Jesus didn't claim to be Yahweh ontologically, because, Yahweh is Jesus's CURRENT God & Father (Revelation 3:12; John 20:17; Ephesians 1:3). In Revelation 3:12 Jesus tells us his God has a name. What other name could that be than Yahweh? Doesn't Jesus's God & Father count as 1 God?
check isiah9:6 in some sense Jesus is the father. Jesus' father is also God if you define God the way the bible defines God whom is the perfect being. your arguments are deeply flawed, maybe consider plain bible reading then a reliable book on the trinity.
@BreakingBreadwithBurke I just denied premise 3 on both arguments but stating there is a sense in which Jesus is the Father using isiah9:6 and also showing that the Father is not the only "God" which can also be shown in Genesis when the LORD rained from the LORD genesis19:24.
Doing miracles isn’t restricted to God in the Bible. Moses influenced a battle by holding his arms up, a much more useful trick than telling off a storm :)
I want to Point this out because I think that Rabbi Singer and maybe others are accusing me of being Gnostic, and the last form of Christianity I did Practice before becoming Hindu was Gnosticism, with Heavy Emphasis on the Archons. But what Rabbi Singer and People like William Lane Craig do is then pretend that I am doing that now. I’m just like still Gnostic, and they would Point to like Dualism and me Talking about being Half-Spirit, Half-Flesh, or Half-Giant, Half-Human, etc, and say “Dualism, Dualism!”. And then from there go Directly to like the Gospel of Thomas which says Thomas was Crucified and Jesus went to the East. They would even accuse me of New Age-ism which is based on the Aquarian Gospel of Christ, and they don’t even Realize they are doing this. But so, because of that Confusion I want to Specify. The way I read like Judges, with Emphasis on Sisera and the Angels, and then back to Genesis with Emphasis on the Angels and Cush, through Deuteronomy and Numbers and the Wars in Israel before the Judges, with Emphases on the Tribes and the Breastplate, and like the Sons of Annak and relationships between them and the Tribes of Israel. I do the same with the New Testament, like I do Read the New Testament and I understand what the Humans see when they Read it, but when I Read it I see the Book of Jude as the most Important. That taking us Directly to the Book of Enoch, which he References in the New Testament Book “The Book of Jude” and the Book of Jude is only 2 Pages, everyone on Earth should Read it. But we go from there to like, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants. I’m not a Gnostic. At all. I’m an Angelicalist.
Secular, agnostic or atheist scientists They are called "revolutionist and evolutionists". Christian scientists or scholars theists, they are called "Reformationist and revelationist.
Let's go back to the Mormon claim regarding the golden plates. Weren't these plates roughly the size of normal lead plates that Smith would've had access to from the local print shop? Cover them with a cloth, and voila! The golden plates of Moroni. Also, the testimonies don't line up with Smith's own account, that he was alone in the forest when he was led to the plates. But in the LDS church, you don't question the testimony of an leader. Regarding, the ending of Mark, I think it is intentional that it segues perfectly to the creed mention in 1Cor 15 of the appearances of Christ. Almost like Mark wrote his Gospel as a prequel.
There are several arguments for dating Acts earlier than 80-90 AD. First, there's no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which seems unusual for someone writing about the spread of Christianity out from Jerusalem in the first century. Second, Paul is still alive at the end of Acts, which also seems unusual for someone writing so much about his ministry and even includes accounts of the deaths of others (Ananias, Sapphira, Steven, James, Dorcas, Herod, Eutychas). The writer also records incidents of harm befalling Paul, such as his stoning, imprisonment, shipwreck, etc. Again, it seems highly implausible that these details would be included and not his death, which occurred in the mid-60s. - RF Admin
@ Thanks for the interesting reply. 1. I don’t think the fall of Jerusalem is at all relevant. The story is about the early Church, and takes place within the decades following the death of Jesus. No matter when the work was written, the event doesn’t pertain to the time period of Acts. No one would think that the Talmudim were written in the 1st century, and they speak of the Temple as though the sacrifices were still ongoing; 2. I don’t think that the argument on Paul is particularly strong either. The matter of the work is the ‘praxeis’ of the Apostles, not a biography of Paul. There are many possible explanations for the lack of further information. Perhaps the author had no further details; perhaps further details were not favourable to the narrative he was presenting; perhaps the author became ill or died before he could finish the work. We just don’t know. 3. Even if one accepts, as I do, that the author was a companion of Paul, he could have been writing very late in life, and could have been still young when he accompanied Paul. The author also relies on written sources for his gospel, which seems to militate against a very early date. I think all the evidence is best explained by a date c.80, and perhaps a decade later.
Yes God raised Jesus from the dead... so rather than Jesus actually being God, he fully needed God as as Separate being to ressurect him... therefore they logically must be separate beings, Jesus Christ the Messiah and his Father the Supreme God.
Its a bit gutting that they released this so slow that Alex already has put out a video addressing some counter claims and expounding his argument further. Its clear by their statements, that these guys are not responding to the more recent video.
In our times Jesus Christ uses other people as channels to speak at last and set the record straight about himself. “I never claimed that I am god, I am the son of God the same way you all are sons and daughters of God.
Mark is the only gospel where Jesus predicts the imminent destruction of the temple that did happen in 70AD. Therefore secular scholars argue that Mark was written after 70AD because there’s no way Mark or Jesus or whoever could have predicted that. Obviously if Jesus is God who created everything, predicting a future temple siege is nothing lol. But yeah that’s the only basis for why scholars think Mark was written sometime after 70AD
This atheist Alex presents himself as intellectually honesty, but if you were to ask him, the growth of momonism is increasing at that rate in the last decade. I believe you'll find a different growth rate.
There is no need to share the gospel with people who reject it outright. We {Christians} have responsibility to carry the gospel to everyone, but once we make the presentation, the responsibility lies on the individual to choose negative or positive volition. If a person chooses negative volition, then there is no necessity for any further presentation of the gospel. Jesus did not talk to Herod (Lu 23:9) and Paul drew limits when speaking to people who rejected the Word (Ac 13 46).
Jesus knew Herod’s heart, that he was lost and wicked beyond reach. Us mere mortals do not know the hearts of men so we must share the good news indiscriminately.
Mormon history was written basically as it was happening, and the miracles and visions that are told about were formed almost instantly. To say that legend needs time to develop imao is not a nessesity. 20:08
The Jewish Messiah was never supposed to be God himself and the son of God as he said son is a so ordinate of actual God, so Jesus never claim to be God himself at best you can say he claimed to be a God one among many in a world of monolatry
The Gospels were clearly written before the year 70. Just think how significant the total destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was to these Jewish men. Jesus predicted it and it would have had a huge impact on those who knew Jesus who were still living.
Also John’s gospel in chapter 5 describes the sheep pool of the temple in the present tense. He literally says “now there exists with its 5 pillars the sheep pool at the temple gates” This description makes no sense if he wrote it After the temple was decimated and it was totally decimated, the sheep pool and all, a pile of rubble. The Gospels were written before 70AD.
One last thought. I think y’all are giving Alex way too much credibility and attention, considering his atheism. Instead, I’d recommend focusing on the sovereignty of the One True God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Maybe we just pray for Alex and those like him instead of giving them a platform to pull people away from The Truth.
Alex knows that Jesus claimed to be God many different times using Old Testament Jewish terminology. I believe he is being controversial in order to create engagement on his youtube channel. I like Alex but for him to use the tired and debunked Muslim argument of “Jesus never said the words, “I am God,” as if a devout Jew would say those words anyway, is sad. What makes it worse is that Alex has shied away from Islam. Alex will not challenge Muslims or the Quran for some reason. It might be because he does not take it seriously but I think the real reason is because he lives in the UK and is surrounded by radical Islamists who have been vocal about being violent against anyone who disrespects their Pedo-Prophet or their holy book.
Jesus is never called Yahweh in the New Testament. The idea that Jesus is “properly” called God is simply untrue. And I’m not sure why Craig insist that this is the case. Second, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke Jesus is being baptized for the remission of his sins in the river jordan by John the Baptist. If that’s the case, why would God need a baptism at all much less for the remission of his sins?
@, okay, that’s an ideological presumption. Read Mark 1:1:13. John the Baptist creates for the for time in history a baptism for the the remission of sin. And he claims to do this specifically for the coming of Jesus. Which is incredible because Hebrews 9:22 says, “there is no forgiveness of sins within your the shedding of blood.” Yet, we are told in Mark that people pour out for Jerusalem and the Judea to be baptized by John the Baptist for the the remission of their sins in the river Jordan. And then in verse 9 of Mark 1 we are told Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan under this doctrine.
@ The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”[c]- 3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”[d] 4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.” The Baptism and Testing of Jesus 9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
@ Jesus was sinless, so we know he wasn't baptized for the remission of sins. Not gonna talk to you about the Bible if you won't actually read the bible.
@ Mark is our first and earliest gospel, likely written between 67-75AD. In Mark, there is no divine conception, angelic annunciation, or virgin birth. In Mark, Jesus becomes the son of God at his baptism for the remission of sin by John the Baptist in the river Jordan. Just read Mark.
Alex is at a stage where he doesn't let the internal documents make their own claims. The Bible is not its own expositor from his perspective. He reads the higher critics and falls to the side of those liberal atheist-leaning scholars. The anti-supernaturalists. *Does Jesus say he's God?* It's not enough to claim you are a God. Many things have the title god(s), but the Children of Israel had a specific God named Jehovah, so Jesus would have to claim to be Jehovah. *Who was Jehovah?* Exodus 20 :8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. :9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: :11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. *Who did Jesus say he was?* Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
With respect, I deeply dissagree. It is simply and plainly absurd for you to claim that because Jesus could do better miracles than previous prophets, forgave sins and be the Messiah equates to him actually being God in absolute perfection Fully incarnate. Why are you clinging to this twisted logic? Surely you know that Jesus as Paul said, "became or was made perfect by his sufferings"
Alex needs 2 look n2 hermeneutics nstead of arguing w/evrbody,although I do believe his attempts will backfire on his skeptic movement,like a tree that produces no fruit😮
@ReasonableFaithOrg I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be a youtube troll or internet bully. It pains me to say that, and I hope I'm wrong. Some of the stuff he has said regarding the Trinity and Adam are problematic. It seems like his starting point is all wrong. I understand why he is a proponent of monolism, although I don't agree. I fear that WLC is trying too hard to make God understandable to the Muslims and the bible to agree with science.
@ Regarding the Trinity and Muslims, not that his project isn't that his particular model is correct. Rather, it's much more minimal. What he's doing is showing there are logically coherent models of the Trinity. This undermines the Muslim claim that the Trinity is logically incoherent and, thus, removes a stumbling block to Christian faith. Regarding Adam, Dr. Craig went to great pains to investigate what exactly the biblical text teaches. The entire first half of his book on Adam is devoted to that project. Upon concluding that the creation texts are of the genre "mytho-history" and are replete with non-literalistic language and figures, the conversation then moves to what the science says about when the historical Adam may have lived. Once again, Dr. Craig does not insist that his view is true, only that it seems plausible given his textual analysis and our best evidence from modern science. - RF Admin
I wonder... scientific dating is not that accurate, the bible could actually could of been written during Jesus' life and with more written just afterwards.
Yea, the age determination of the scriptures are always educated guesses with a possible time frame. All the scriptures were absolutely written before 70AD, with no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
In mark Jesus predicts the future destruction of the temple. In John we see the author describe the temples sheep pool in the present tense. These would be very strange things to reorder AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70AD The gospels were written before 70 I agree.
Atheist, Theist, or Agnostic, we must all come together and start a movement to get Craig to grow that beard again. Can we all just agree that it was rad? We'd be doing the Lord's work . Amen
I don't think those Catholics really saw the sun dancing by a miracle of Saint Mary, but by the power of the Satan. The Bible say he'll make incredible miracles and he also can show up as an angel of light.
The first argument didn’t correct Alex’s point. Alex said Jesus didn’t go around claiming to be God in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Nothing that was said here refutes that at all. This is exactly the kind of misdirection Christian apologists use, and those who follow them refuse to see it.
Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God are not explicit claims of being God. They are clearly titles that place someone below God. A son is never considered to be above or equal to the father. Performing miracles and forgiving sins were also works of a person claiming to be a divine conduit of God fot eer error God himself. If Jesus thought that he was God...why did he not just say it in simple terms that don't require interpretation? Why such ambiguity?
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross!
This commit conflates Western concepts of the relationship of a son and father with the Hebrew understanding of the same relationship. The hebrew culture, being a collective culture, rather than individualistic, views the son as a part and extention of the father. In otherwords for Jesus to say he is the son, is to see he is a part of God himself. therefore "son of God" is first a claim to be God and second is a description of th Trinity, or how God is in essence.
@@mmwosuits crazy how you guys can take literally anything at all and force it into a narrative about pride and not knowing your place in a hierarchy. The original commenter was saying that if Jesus meant to comminicate something he would say it in a specific way in order to fulfill the aim of communication. Whether thats true or not and whether what Jesus said does fulfill the aim of communication, this is not your ridiculous interpretation of "i think i have more authority than the king of the universe and he has to do my bidding and say things in specific ways to please me" you idiot
First of all, if you are Son of your Father, are you Human just like your Father ? If so, understand that Son of God would be by nature as much as God as his Father Second of all, in Jewish culture, the Son does whatever the Father does, as example is how a carpenter's son is carpenter most of the time, so is the case for God, you have something similar in Gospel of John where Jesus says by himself he does nothing, but whatever he does is exactly what the Father does - John 5:19 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Jesus is called "Son of God" 24 times But even if you think it refers to "He is a human representative of God", then it won't explain John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. Or John 1 where the Pre existent Logos through which all things came into being takes on Flesh. Either way you look at it, he is Son of Man who is referred to 70 times in Gospel, he is Son of God which is referred to 24 times in Gospels, he is Son of David referred to 14 times... which means he is the Messiah and pre existent Son of God.
I don't get the whole Wes Huff thing. He's consistently wrong in his scholarship, even if you agree with him on theology. My jaw dropped listening to him talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pick up a book by Lawrence Schiffman for crying out loud.
Bible scholar Dan McClellan is who you should be trying to respond to. He has another video up responding to the gradeschool level apologetics of Wes Huff, which is typical of Christian apologetics in general. And Dan's latest response is to a different interview Wes did. His earlier video was responding to the lies and misinformation that flowed from Wes's mouth on the Joe Rogan podcast. But both videos are certainly worth watching.
@CD-123 are you seriously talking to me right now ? ? Ohh please let this be true.. if that 🤡 🤡 was aimed anywhere towards me, I'm seriously rofl 🤣 right now laughing out loud that a frail stinky Lil soft bodied degenerate 😭 like you would even speak ! Good lord 4Real
Alex knows all the arguments and scholarly work on early gospels but keeps on raising age old objections in spite of them being answered. My contention is that Alex is not genuinely interested in the answers.
*Not genuinely interested in Jesus.
"someone comes to different conclusions than me, ergo they must be dishonest and malicious".
He has a different view on "them being answered"
Last year he actually seemed to be interested, but lately it is easy to see he has regressed.
Seems like it, sadly.
What's important to understand here is Alex has said openly on other debates that he acknowledges that Mark, for instance, is trying to portray Jesus as God. But then goes and denies His divinity altogether because apparently Mark didn't portray Jesus as God well enough to fit Alex's standards. Therefore, Alex is unable to stay intellectually honest due to his presuppositions and word for word fallacy he holds strong to.
This guy cooks himself
It's more of a critique of Alex's inability or unwillingness to engage with the topic honestly. I appreciate that Alex is willing to engage with the topic, but if he's going to wrestle with the subject he should do so with someone who can address his concerns more completely.
Alex O'Connor wants us to believe that Mormonism spread just as fast as Christianity using the same logic as when someone compares the price of a milk bottle from 1970 with today's price, but doesn't take into account inflationary effects.
Is he seriously claiming that the rates of growth are organically the same?
@thecloudtherapist rates of growth don't speak to the validity of a movement or ideology. If it did Islam would be way more valid than Christianity could ever be. Scientology would have to be valid as well. It means nothing
early 3rd century christianity was estimated to be around 200,000. Mormonism is estimated to be around 17 million in that same time span. So, as it is, Christianity grew at a much slower rate to this point than mormonism. As a percent of people, though, since mormonism is worldwide, and Christianity didn't reach worldwide until centuries later...well...different analysis. But to their point about what explains it. They say Jesus' story explains it. Mormons could simply say the same--the miraculous story of the restoration explains it.
The growth of Christianity is special when you include the fact that it was illegal, and actively persecuted, murdered, and scriptures attempted to be annihilated by the greatest world power at the time for centuries.
Mormonism had no such headwind.
Islam spread by the sword.
Christianity spread despite the sword.
I think you need to learn mormon history. The persecution they faced was horrific in the early times of the church and they often faced violent opposition. “Mormon” itself is a slander that originated from religious teachers of the day who tried to teach that they did not believe in Jesus Christ. It clearly worked because now everyone calls them the mormons and that they arent Christian when the official name for a mormon is a member of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
I dont care if you dont care, but I will stand for truth. You can google all of this it would take 1 minute of your time and please dont speak on things you have no idea about. As my fellow “Christian” lets not be misinformed about each other and look to strengthen relationships between us. We dont need to compare what we have gone through. Thats like me as an Australian Aboriginal comparing my peoples suffering to those from another continent and declaring myself more native than them because we went through more for our land. Its weird to compare infirmities and tribulations. Its weird to talk about other peoples tribulations and not even get them right or say they never existed. Thats not cool dude.
@@Crikey420yeah for sure. they were completely ran out of what they considered to be the promised land in missouri
@@KoLecnac The Bahai have been persecuted much more heavily than the early Christians. Does that suggest anything about the truth of their beliefs?
O'Connor and others in his camp are now simply being thick on purpose now, especially on the Jesus didnt claim to be God canard.
Why wouldn't Jesus want to be crystal clear about him being God in all 4 Gospels?
😂
@
That is not a serious question.
He was clear enough to be executed for the claim as recorded in every single one in no uncertain terms to the Jewish and Roman hearers. You people are being stupid because he didnt use the English phrase of your preference.
anyone who thinks Jesus was not crystal clear has not read the gospels. this argument only works on people who have not read the Bible. I grew up Baptist and this claim is laughable. its even hard for me to think Alex is serious
@@tomhorwat5313 Man, how clear can you be? If you see a guy in firefighter uniform running into a flaming building, rescuing people, are you really in doubt what his profession is?
Alex made a follow-up video yesterday, responding to the main criticisms he received. I hope you make a video on that one as well.
He continues to shift the goal post from north to south to west from East.
@@askbrettmanning his clarifications were cutting. One apologist intentionally edited Alex to straw man him, and Huff misquoted a study in his response. Watch it
@@askbrettmanning The only goalposts that I've seen shifting recently are those of the definition of 'word for word'.
@@askbrettmanning your being dishonest
Wes and Gavin have moved the goalposts so much that they are playing a different sport.
How could the 500 brethren be predisposed to believing in Jesus's resurrection when even the Apostles themselves weren't expecting it?
We know thousands came to the faith on Pentecost. Those 500 could very well have been part of that group. If they were part of an "appointment" in Galilee, they very well could've been told to head to Jerusalem for the event of Pentecost.
Me: hmmm lets see Alex' first argument (Mark is different than John, ie no explicite resurrection vs. explicit resurrection. therefore its not reliable.
Me: ok got it too many differences. lets see his second argument
Alex (Matt, Luke and John are too similar to Mark, therefore not reliable)
Me: wait a minute too different and its unreliable and too similar, also not reliable....? I think i smell an agenda
Exactly! It's often like the dishonest claim from the atheists that God is unjust because he does not punish evil and that he is also judgmental because… He punishes evil.
Heads I win, tails you lose
Alex would never claim that John is too similar to Mark, Matthew, and Luke. John and Mark are the least common and most contradictory.
What’s interesting is what Mark and John have in common. Mark is our earliest gospel and has no divine conception, angelic annunciation, or virgin birth. And John, our latest gospel has none of these elements as well. Jesus becomes the son of God at his baptism in Mark. In John, Jesus isn’t baptized and appeared out of thin air, “the word became flesh.”
@@antonioreid534 To say Jesus becomes the son of God in Mark needs substantiation. A clear reading indicate God is declareing him, not changing him into the son of God. If you saw me walking with a young boy and i told you this is my son who i'm proud of" the natural explanation would be he had always been my son, not that i was adopting him in that moment. likewise I do not see where you get that Jesus became the son of God at the Baptism. it doesn't follow.
second. "the word became flesh" is a description of the incarnation. Bible scholars almost always identify the "word" as being the creative essence present with God at creation. John is not declaring that he thinks Christ materialised from nothing, but that he existed along with God since the beginning.
I answered your other claims in another post. you'll need to flesh out your arguments as they mostly consist of claims with little evidence. all of them lack historical substantiation and I haven't seen those interpretations among Bible scholars either.
@@EzinwaChibuzor stealing this, took me a moment
These kind of critiques have been asked and answered repeatedly to Alex, and are beneath someone of his intelligence and education.
He really does come across here like he’s just playing to the cheap seats.
Dr. Craig rocks that red vest.
I watched this on Sean's channel; fantastic video!
It's amazing to see a true apologist on the world's biggest podcast.
Alex should do his own homework and not just present what his staff is doing for him. His arguments are often flawed, but in typical atheistic fashion, they are never able to open themselfes up even if its quite obvious.
Exactly
You are obliviously a blind to truth
@@Woogieman15 I don't think he is. I think you are.
I'm in the M.A. Philosophy program at Talbot. I'm so happy.
keep at it man. I got my MA in linguistics back in 2021 and it is nice to be done
Hey that's awesome!! Im a Christian missionary and evangelist in Arizona and also a youtube creator ! This is my channel!!!
Can you,explain to me the argument atheists use to discredit the Bible about jesus saying to Nathan, the high priests and others about heavens being opened up and them seeing coming in clouds of heaven? Because Jesus after resurrection didn't do that, and Nathan didn't see heavens open up. That was Stephen. Also atheists make arguments against Jesus prophecy about him saying "this generation " would see him come back, and they would go through all the cities and the son of man would return! However after Jews evangelize about jesus in all of Israel, jesus didn't return and didn't appear! Israel ceased to exist as a nation after AD 133. HOW do you square this away ? It's just so complicated for me to figure out because they seem to make valid case against the Gospels because they didn't state what happened. How do you answer these things?
@@FriendlyEvangelist Jesus gives a tiny preview of the miracles in store for the disciples. When speaking to Nathanael, Jesus had mentioned the name Israel, given to a man formerly named Jacob (Genesis 32:28). In Genesis 28:12, Jacob dreamed about angels on a ladder between earth and heaven. Jesus is making a subtle reference to the reason for His ministry: to serve as the connection between men and God.
True miracles are always meant to deliver a message from God. The gospel of John records seven miracles chosen specifically to prove that Jesus is God. When Jesus says, "you will see," the Greek word is plural. In other words, "you all will see…" which means His prediction was for all the disciples.
Christ also uses the seventh and most important of the seven names of chapter 1: "the Son of Man." This is one of Jesus' most frequent terms for Himself. It refers to a major prophecy of the Messiah, recorded in Daniel 7:13. Jewish people who heard the phrase, "Son of Man" would know exactly what He was referring to: the Savior and King of Israel.
Jesus gives a tiny preview of the miracles in store for the disciples. When speaking to Nathanael, Jesus had mentioned the name Israel, given to a man formerly named Jacob (Genesis 32:28). In Genesis 28:12, Jacob dreamed about angels on a ladder between earth and heaven. Jesus is making a subtle reference to the reason for His ministry: to serve as the connection between men and God.
True miracles are always meant to deliver a message from God. The gospel of John records seven miracles chosen specifically to prove that Jesus is God. When Jesus says, "you will see," the Greek word is plural. In other words, "you all will see…" which means His prediction was for all the disciples.
The angels of God are the divine messengers of grace. Remember that Jesus frequently spoke using metaphors, parables, allegories, ect in order to teach a lesson that connects back to the Old Testament and to hide these truths from those who consider themselves wise. Nathan also saw Jesus heal the sick, give sight to the blind, raise the dead, walk on water, calm the sea, turn water into wine, ect. Nathan saw greater things than Jesus seeing him under the fig true.
Christ also uses the seventh and most important of the seven names of chapter 1: "the Son of Man." This is one of Jesus' most frequent terms for Himself. It refers to a major prophecy of the Messiah, recorded in Daniel 7:13. Jewish people who heard the phrase, "Son of Man" would know exactly what He was referring to: the Savior and King of Israel.
The key to understanding what Jesus meant by “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” is the context; that is, we must understand the verses that are surrounding Matthew 24:34, especially the verses prior to it. In Matthew 24:4-31, Jesus is clearly giving a prophecy; He is speaking of future events. Jesus had already told those living during His earthly ministry that the kingdom had been taken from them (Matthew 21:43). Therefore, it is imperative that Matthew 24-25 be seen as dealing with a future time. The generation that Jesus speaks of “not passing” until He returns is a future generation, namely, the people living when the predicted events occur. The word generation refers to the people alive in the future when the events of Matthew 24-25 take place.
Jesus’ point in His statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” is that the events of the end times will happen quickly. Once the signs of the end begin to be observed, the end is well on the way-the second coming and the judgment will occur within that last generation. Jesus reinforced this meaning with a parable in Matthew 24:32-33: “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.” A sure sign of summer is the leafing of the fig tree; a sure sign of the end of the world is that “all these things” (of Matthew 24) are taking place. Those who are on the earth then will have only a short time left.
Absolutely loving the call to action Christians are taking to defend our Brother Wesley.
The frustrating thing about athiestic arguments from people like Alex, is they are aimed at people who have not read the Bible. Here we see WLC easily defending Jesus claim to be God in mark and obvious knowledge of the resurrection in that gospel. however Alex's claims do not even try to address these claims or evidence. He is either untruthful about what Mark claims about Jesus, or he is ignorant of the claims in the gospel, or worse yet he is lying and hoping his audience does not read the source (gospel of Mark) themselves.
No, Alex’s arguments are for people who have negative volition toward Jesus, and there’s a big difference.
There are people across the world who will never have access to the breathe of Bible resources that you and I have access to, that Alex has access to, yet they LOVE Jesus and have a real relationship with Him.
That’s how God works.
That’s how God chooses the “foolish” things of the world to shame the wise.
Very few had read the Bible
Well said
I've read it front to back twice. It's the #1 reason I left the religion and became an athiest.
Mark introduces us to Jesus as his baptism for the forgiveness of his sins. If Mark thought Jesus was God or equal to God, why would someone equal to God in substance or nature need a baptism much less for the remission of his sins? Then we are told that the spirit of God comes down and is bestowed upon Jesus driving him out into the wilderness to resist Satan and temptation for 40 days and 40 nights. If that’s the case, what was Jesus’s nature or substance before the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon him at his baptism for the remission of his sins?
If Jesus could resist Satan and temptation before his baptism and the Holy Spirit being bestowed upon him, then why get baptized at all? If Jesus was sinless and almighty before his baptism and possession by the Holy Spirit, then both these acts become redundant and pointless symbols.
If the religion is based on Jesus, the original disciples would have been like royalty to any Christian. They would have authority. People would look to them for approval. Which to me makes it highly likely that the stories in the gospels originated from them. I highly doubt people just made up stories when they could have been easily fact checked by people who were there or people who were very close to people who were there.
Their atheist gig feels being threatened by true Bible scholarship being shown in the main media stream. All of sudden, they have become "text critical" experts and are hanging by a thread to stay relevant.
*thread
They glaze over the Marion analogy, because of their disbelief of the Roman Catholic rites. However, it is quite surprising how they are dubious of the scripture entry of Paul, describing the 500 witnesses, however predisposed, since their entire Christian belief relies on the authority of the Bible, and the Bible alone.
Do you even know what the Bible is? Its a collection of books of 40 sifferent people written over a period of 1500 years. Most never met the other. So when you read it and find that it very hard to deny that they are writing about the same exact thing its quite compelling to say the least. Take Isaiah 53 for instance. Prophecying about a suffering servant who will die for the sins of mankind, and describing the crucifixion very vividly 1000 years before Jesus was born and crucifixion hadnt even been invented yet. You have to be flat out rebellious against God Himself to deny that the Bibe is all we truly need. But there are other historical sources you can find. And even those back up Christianity
Whoever came up with that intro music, two thumbs way up 👍👍
I hope this become IP reacting to Rationality Rules reacting to Testify reacting to Paulogia's reaction to Mike Winger reacting to Mythvision reacting to David Wood reacting to Michael Shermer reacting to WLC reacting to Alex's reaction to Wes Huff on Joe Rogan.
Love you Dr Craig you are like my mentor ❤
Seek psychiatric help
That was a good point about comparing Christ's healing of the leper with the Old Testament incident with Namaan's healing.
Thank you for what you guys do!
A major problem Alex O Connor makes is the false assumption that the most liberal (indeed quasi-Atheist) Biblical scholarship is the only ones correct and that it is the only "scholarly" scholarship. But it is not (far from it!). He ignores conservative biblical scholarship
No it's going on scholarly consensus
@@shoulohrey8000 No. In the grand scheme of history, liberal German hermeneutics and it's leftwing posterity will be but a footnote in church history books. Their views are predicated upon hyper mechanical views of language and presuppositions that assume naturalism by default. Indeed, such liberal hermeneutics wouldn't exist if it wasn't for modern western seminaries. Leftist seminaries keep the outdated hermeneutics alive on life support. Happily as time passes, higher criticism is diminishing....
No he doesn't. He often displays a knowledge of the arguments and evidence offered by all sides of the debate.
The bigger issue is why we would believe any scholar who comes from an organisation that includes a basis of belief. You cannot have an unbiased treatment of the facts if your job is on the line if your conclusions don't go a certain way.
@albino_penguin2268 his job isn't on the line, he works hard to not have his personal beliefs interfere with his scholarship
I just found your channel! Subscribed!
Anyone know if Dr. Frank Turek has asked Alex, "If Christianity was true, Alex, would you become a Christian?'". And how he answers helps determine how many more discussions you have with him.
@@drlaurav If? So then you're saying it's not?
He has already said many times before he would no longer be an atheist but he wouldn't become a christian because he couldn't worship such an evil, immoral god who can somehow say "dont eat shellfish" but cannot bring himself to say "dont own people as slaves"
Question is... why do you worship such a horrible monster who drowned the world because his own supposed "perfect creation" wasn't good enough for him? (Does that mean he failed?) Or why he punished someone for not doing what he told them BEFORE they knew what good an evil were to know it was a bad thing? Or how about a god who sent 2 she-bears to slaughter children for poking fun at a bald man? Or what about a god who had a bet with the devil and tortured a man just to prove a point? Or a god who told his follower to kill their child.... geez... I could go on all day and night about the abhorrent, evil and psychopathic acts of this so called god
Why would ANYONE worship such a monster?
Some narratives are really dangerous. You conveniently ignored the fact that everything you said happened post fall of man. Secondly, you conveniently equated allowance with approval. Also, you conveniently abandoned the issue of man's freewill and God's freewill too. Actions have consequences, you want to decide what to do and also decide the consequences of what you have done. It doesn't work like that. Meanwhile, you want to argue about the problem of good and evil, the question for you is, who decides or what is the measure of good and evil? Let me ask in another way, how would you determine if something is good or evil?
Both Mormonism and Islam ride the coat tails of Christianity.
I used to be a atheist but I was in my backyard yesterday and I hired a couple guys from home Depot and I met Jesus
Jesus referring to himself as The Son of Man is all it takes for Him to proclaim himself God. He sees himself as the man that was seen by Daniel in his night visions…and that man that was seen is undeniably Devine in those chapters. He’s seated on a throne next to the Ancient Of Days, and is referred to as The Most High as you continue reading.
more mental gymnastics, just like Muslims justify marrying a 6 year old girl
Interestingly, most biblical scholars, these days, see Daniel as a forgery. His ‘history’ is poorly documented and his accurate ‘prophecy’ near the end indicate that Daniel was written around the time of the Maccabean revolt. It’s worth noting that much of biblical scripture is written during tumultuous times.
Not to mention he indisputably claims the divine name. “Before Abraham was, I AM”
When Moses asked the Lord what his name is, the Lord said I AM.
Jesus most certainly claimed divinity. But he did it in subtle and careful ways so that only those with eyes to see it and ears to hear it would know. If he flat out said from the rooftops Behold I am God!!! He would have been immediately arrested and sentenced for blasphemy and his ministry over.
@ Precisely! I had mentioned that in another thread…if he went everywhere flat out proclaiming “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, worship me,” He would’ve been butchered just a couple weeks into his ministry.
Wow! I didn't expect this!
Love the context and response to the Alex. Alex has done well to bring people to Christ, but I think he could do so much more for the world if he was on the right side here.
Would it be possible for ya'll to add time stamps to these videos? I would love to be able to jump to topic(s) of interest during my lunch break!
Rise, get up, and go home. What a great example of Jesus' divine power, without having to deliberately state so. I'm slowly learning and building back my faith.
44:56 i have never gotten this point for the simple fact that in acts Thomas actually touches his body to show him Jesus isnt a spirit or a ghost.
I think it's so good that this whole thing has happened; that Alex challenged Wes, and is being responded to himself.
I've always respected Alex's work, partly because, as a born-again believer, I like to challenge and test my faith and I have always found him very fair and respectful of other beliefs. But he's disappointed me on this one. There's a sarcasm and dismissiveness bordering on disrespect that saddens me, although it may be a good sign that Alex is clutching at straws. Nearly like he feels angry that Wes has made things so clear. At any rate, it would be nice to see his previous balanced approach return, whatever spiritual decisions he makes. 🙏🏼
Word for word clear?
Alex indeed learns nothing. Really sad. May God open his eyes to the Truth.
I am surprised that Alex didn’t see all the passages being quoted here. They are pretty directly coming from Mark. This is perplexing.
This video is a video late to the party. In Alex's original video, he promised to release a second providing detail on the God claims. That video was released just before this was. This video doesn't address and of the content of Alex's second one.
When he went to the garden to Pray and prayed till his sweat was as great drops of blood,He wasn't praying to himself, he was praying to God the Father. JESUS WAS AND IS THE SON OF GOD.AMEN
I have great respect for Dr. Craig and frequently listen to him. However, in this case, he seems to have overlooked a critical point. Phrases like 'Son of God,' 'long-awaited Messiah,' and 'divine Son of Man prophesied by Daniel' are not explicit statements. This raises a fundamental question: Why would Jesus be indirect about what he knew to be the most important and controversial claim in human history? Why not simply say, 'I am God'.
In a society riddled with pantheism, making the "direct" statement "I am God" is in fact a much weaker claim that what Jesus did, using a multitude of references to divine titles and prerogatives rooted in Jewish history and theology to make crystal clear his identity.
Jesus deliberately obfuscated who he was until “the time was right.” It was part of the plan of redemption.
Jesus *_DID_* say “I am God”, numerous times in numerous ways.
We must be careful not to expect Jesus 2000 years ago in a Jewish culture to express this the same way we'd understand that claim today
@@dovonovich, Jesus never claims to be God.
What is interesting is that according to Mark, when Jesus appears on the scene, no one knows who he is, the meaning of his ministry, or why he is performing miracles. And Jesus is constantly hiding his identity and not making any I am statements. Yet, in John, people know who Jesus claims to be. Not only is Jesus not hiding his identity he says, “I am the way, truth, and the life… the bread of life, the living water, the son of God, good shepherd, the gate post for the sheep…” none of this is to be found in Mark, Matthew, or Luke.
Does anyone find it odd that Alex hasn't attacked Billy Carson?
Why attack a heretic?
Jesus never claimed to be God?
The question should be what claims did God make of himself in the Old testament? That way, we can know if Jesus assumed those prerogatives for himself in the New.
1. God claimed his glory is incommunicable (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus audaciously claimed to possess the same glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5)
2. God claimed exclusive powers to blot out the transgressions of his people in his own name (Isaiah 43:25, 44:22).
Jesus unapologetically proclaimed his mission to remit the sins of the people in his own name (Matthew 26:28, Luke 24:47)
3. God forms Israel from the 12 patriarchs/sons of Jacob (Exodus 39:14), He appointed 12 "princes" as heads of each tribe (numbers 1:1-16).
Jesus gathers his disciples (the Church), and appoints 12 apostles over them (Luke 6:13), he gave them power over unclean spirits (Matthew 10:1), and appointed them as judges over Israel (Matthew 19:28).
4. God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21), but Christ exercised this Divine powers in his humanity (Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24), and he also communicated the same powers to the 12 apostles to forgive any sin in his name (John 20:22-23)
5. God establishes his covenant with ancient Israel with the blood of animals as a peace offering for sins (Exodus 24:8), and He promises to establish a New and superior covenant with the future Israel (Jeremiah 31:31). Christ establishes a New covenant with his Body and blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24)
6. God's covenant is called an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 9:16, 17:7,17:19 etc).
Christ's covenant is called an everlasting covenant (Hebrews 13:20)
7. God's kingdom is an "everlasting kingdom" (Psalms 145:13).
Christ's Kingdom is also called an "everlasting kingdom" (2 Peter's 1:11)
8. God rescues the sailors who cry to him for help during a stormy wave by commanding and calming the storm (Psalm 107:23-30).
Christ rescues the passangers with him in a boat when they cried to him for help during a stormy wave. He calmed the storm (Mark 4:37-41)
9. God bestows the keys of stewardship of the house of David to Eliakim, son of Hilkiah to "shut and open" (Isaiah 20:20-22).
Christ bestows the keys of stewardship of the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter to "bind and loose "(Matthew 16:17-19)
10. All things in heaven and on earth belongs to God (1 chronicles 29:11). All powers in heaven and on earth are subject to Christ (Matthew 28:18)
11. God alone pre existed before the universe and time, hence, He describes himself to Moses as the " I AM" (Exodus 3:13-15).
Christ revealed his preexistence during an altercation with the Jews with the following words.
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:53)
Contrary to what many dubious heretics like Bart Ehrman claim about this passage, "egō eimi" was not employed here as a form of identification. Instead, the word were used to affirm the Messiah's preexistence. "... BEFORE Abraham WAS, I AM."
The context of the conversation was not identification of nomenclature, but Time and Existence.
These, and several others verses are enough to strengthen the blessed who have the gift of faith, or to harden the hearts of depraved and arrogant fools who claim there is no God.
Remain blessed!
Alex is completely ignorant of all this, sadly. And to be honest, I've been surprised at how "day 1" his attacks have been. He's like an expert on what people who don't read the Bible believe. Praying for him though, because as of right now, he's the archetype of "they will keep on hearing, but never understand."
Critique of a reaction to a response to something. Great religious entertainment.
Well done, WLC!
Alex is wasting his divine given talent. He will pay dearly for this. He is doing disservice to himself and not know it. I hope he finds the real truth soon.
I can virtually hear a whole lot of angry "Pip Pip!"s from Alex watching this intellectual (ehem) breakdown
Dr. Craig, would you be willing to respectfully consider a couple of arguments?
1. There is only 1 Most High God.
2. The Father is the Most High God (Luke 1:35).
3. Jesus is not the Father.
4. Therefore, Jesus is not the Most High God.
And...
1. Jesus has a God (Rev 3:12; Jn 20:17; Eph 1:3).
2. Jesus's God is our God (Jn 20:17).
3. Jesus's God is not the Trinity (self-evident).
4. Therefore, our God can't be the Trinity.
Both of these arguments, as far as I can tell, are valid and sound. Which premises would you deny? In addition Dr. Craig, have you ever read Dr. Kegan Chandler's book "The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma: The Recovery of New Testament Theology"? That work is a significant challenge to what you are presenting.
In light of the entire evidence-set that we SHOULD all wrestle with (the biblical, logical, and non-revisionist historical data) but that gets so easily and routinely sidelined, it may very well be that Yahweh is using even atheists like Alex to point to the fact that Jesus isn't, and never claimed to be, Yahweh. Heck, even Trinitarian scholar Ben Witherington III said "Jesus isn't, and wasn't Yahweh...Had the historical Jesus gone around Galilee and Judaea introducing himself as 'God' that would have been taken to mean 'I am Yahweh,' and that is clearly not what Jesus wanted to convey about himself. To the contrary, he wanted to distinguish himself from 'the Ancient of Days' by referring to himself in terms of the other prominent figure in Daniel 7:13,14, the Son of Man."
So Witherington III says Jesus wanted to DISTINGUISH himself from Yahweh, not claim to be Yahweh.
Has "orthodox" dogma long given up common sense and biblical integrity? Jesus is the Son of the Most High Yahweh (Luke 1:35), at the right hand of Yahweh (all over the NT), and Yahweh is Jesus's God & Father who Jesus said is the ONLY true God (Jn 17:3), so, common sense tells us that Jesus cannot be numerically identical to Yahweh and the Son of Man at Yahweh's right hand.
Why is this so difficult? If we take all these explicit texts and realities and go back to the few deity of Christ proof texts armed with basic hermeneutical integrity (explicit outweighs/overrides the implied) and Hebraic worldview categories, there really is no debate and all of this pushback toward Alex turns out to be wildly unnecessary, at least on this point about Jesus claiming to be Yahweh.
Here's the truth: Jesus didn't claim to be Yahweh ontologically, because, Yahweh is Jesus's CURRENT God & Father (Revelation 3:12; John 20:17; Ephesians 1:3). In Revelation 3:12 Jesus tells us his God has a name. What other name could that be than Yahweh? Doesn't Jesus's God & Father count as 1 God?
check isiah9:6 in some sense Jesus is the father. Jesus' father is also God if you define God the way the bible defines God whom is the perfect being.
your arguments are deeply flawed, maybe consider plain bible reading then a reliable book on the trinity.
@ How are the arguments “deeply flawed”? If that’s the case you should be easily able to deny a premise in each argument, no?
@BreakingBreadwithBurke I just denied premise 3 on both arguments but stating there is a sense in which Jesus is the Father using isiah9:6 and also showing that the Father is not the only "God" which can also be shown in Genesis when the LORD rained from the LORD genesis19:24.
Alex is incorrect, because in
Luke 17:15-19 Jesus calls Himself God. The key word is "RETURNED" 👈
This is a good verse to think about and dissect.
Has OConnor hit puberty yet? 😅
Doing miracles isn’t restricted to God in the Bible. Moses influenced a battle by holding his arms up, a much more useful trick than telling off a storm :)
I want to Point this out because I think that Rabbi Singer and maybe others are accusing me of being Gnostic, and the last form of Christianity I did Practice before becoming Hindu was Gnosticism, with Heavy Emphasis on the Archons. But what Rabbi Singer and People like William Lane Craig do is then pretend that I am doing that now. I’m just like still Gnostic, and they would Point to like Dualism and me Talking about being Half-Spirit, Half-Flesh, or Half-Giant, Half-Human, etc, and say “Dualism, Dualism!”. And then from there go Directly to like the Gospel of Thomas which says Thomas was Crucified and Jesus went to the East. They would even accuse me of New Age-ism which is based on the Aquarian Gospel of Christ, and they don’t even Realize they are doing this. But so, because of that Confusion I want to Specify. The way I read like Judges, with Emphasis on Sisera and the Angels, and then back to Genesis with Emphasis on the Angels and Cush, through Deuteronomy and Numbers and the Wars in Israel before the Judges, with Emphases on the Tribes and the Breastplate, and like the Sons of Annak and relationships between them and the Tribes of Israel. I do the same with the New Testament, like I do Read the New Testament and I understand what the Humans see when they Read it, but when I Read it I see the Book of Jude as the most Important. That taking us Directly to the Book of Enoch, which he References in the New Testament Book “The Book of Jude” and the Book of Jude is only 2 Pages, everyone on Earth should Read it. But we go from there to like, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants. I’m not a Gnostic. At all. I’m an Angelicalist.
Secular, agnostic or atheist scientists
They are called "revolutionist and evolutionists".
Christian scientists or scholars theists, they are called
"Reformationist and revelationist.
So now we change from Christian Apologetics to Huff Apologetics. Evolution anyone?
Let's go back to the Mormon claim regarding the golden plates. Weren't these plates roughly the size of normal lead plates that Smith would've had access to from the local print shop? Cover them with a cloth, and voila! The golden plates of Moroni. Also, the testimonies don't line up with Smith's own account, that he was alone in the forest when he was led to the plates. But in the LDS church, you don't question the testimony of an leader.
Regarding, the ending of Mark, I think it is intentional that it segues perfectly to the creed mention in 1Cor 15 of the appearances of Christ. Almost like Mark wrote his Gospel as a prequel.
No reason at all to date Acts earlier than around 80-90. It could be later, and the version we have could be later still.
There are several arguments for dating Acts earlier than 80-90 AD. First, there's no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which seems unusual for someone writing about the spread of Christianity out from Jerusalem in the first century. Second, Paul is still alive at the end of Acts, which also seems unusual for someone writing so much about his ministry and even includes accounts of the deaths of others (Ananias, Sapphira, Steven, James, Dorcas, Herod, Eutychas). The writer also records incidents of harm befalling Paul, such as his stoning, imprisonment, shipwreck, etc. Again, it seems highly implausible that these details would be included and not his death, which occurred in the mid-60s. - RF Admin
@ Thanks for the interesting reply.
1. I don’t think the fall of Jerusalem is at all relevant. The story is about the early Church, and takes place within the decades following the death of Jesus. No matter when the work was written, the event doesn’t pertain to the time period of Acts. No one would think that the Talmudim were written in the 1st century, and they speak of the Temple as though the sacrifices were still ongoing;
2. I don’t think that the argument on Paul is particularly strong either. The matter of the work is the ‘praxeis’ of the Apostles, not a biography of Paul. There are many possible explanations for the lack of further information. Perhaps the author had no further details; perhaps further details were not favourable to the narrative he was presenting; perhaps the author became ill or died before he could finish the work. We just don’t know.
3. Even if one accepts, as I do, that the author was a companion of Paul, he could have been writing very late in life, and could have been still young when he accompanied Paul. The author also relies on written sources for his gospel, which seems to militate against a very early date. I think all the evidence is best explained by a date c.80, and perhaps a decade later.
This was surprising to see Alex put forth such weak arguments.
My first video here that I've seen on this channel, and I'm subscribed. Thank you. Really important conversations.
Yes God raised Jesus from the dead... so rather than Jesus actually being God, he fully needed God as as Separate being to ressurect him... therefore they logically must be separate beings, Jesus Christ the Messiah and his Father the Supreme God.
Its a bit gutting that they released this so slow that Alex already has put out a video addressing some counter claims and expounding his argument further.
Its clear by their statements, that these guys are not responding to the more recent video.
In our times Jesus Christ uses other people as channels to speak at last and set the record straight about himself. “I never claimed that I am god, I am the son of God the same way you all are sons and daughters of God.
How can we even know that Mathew and Luke copied from Mark, it could be that Mark copied from Mathew or Luke
Mark is the only gospel where Jesus predicts the imminent destruction of the temple that did happen in 70AD. Therefore secular scholars argue that Mark was written after 70AD because there’s no way Mark or Jesus or whoever could have predicted that. Obviously if Jesus is God who created everything, predicting a future temple siege is nothing lol. But yeah that’s the only basis for why scholars think Mark was written sometime after 70AD
My guy. Because mark’s gospel is the earliest.
This atheist Alex presents himself as intellectually honesty, but if you were to ask him, the growth of momonism is increasing at that rate in the last decade. I believe you'll find a different growth rate.
There is no need to share the gospel with people who reject it outright. We {Christians} have responsibility to carry the gospel to everyone, but once we make the presentation, the responsibility lies on the individual to choose negative or positive volition.
If a person chooses negative volition, then there is no necessity for any further presentation of the gospel.
Jesus did not talk to Herod (Lu 23:9) and Paul drew limits when speaking to people who rejected the Word (Ac 13 46).
Jesus knew Herod’s heart, that he was lost and wicked beyond reach. Us mere mortals do not know the hearts of men so we must share the good news indiscriminately.
Mormon history was written basically as it was happening, and the miracles and visions that are told about were formed almost instantly. To say that legend needs time to develop imao is not a nessesity. 20:08
🤡
Jesús say, me of myself can't do nothing
Response to a response to a response
The Jewish Messiah was never supposed to be God himself and the son of God as he said son is a so ordinate of actual God, so Jesus never claim to be God himself at best you can say he claimed to be a God one among many in a world of monolatry
The Gospels were clearly written before the year 70. Just think how significant the total destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was to these Jewish men. Jesus predicted it and it would have had a huge impact on those who knew Jesus who were still living.
Such a good point that's always either downplayed or never brought up. You'd think they'd mention something like that...
Also John’s gospel in chapter 5 describes the sheep pool of the temple in the present tense. He literally says “now there exists with its 5 pillars the sheep pool at the temple gates”
This description makes no sense if he wrote it After the temple was decimated and it was totally decimated, the sheep pool and all, a pile of rubble.
The Gospels were written before 70AD.
Mars Hill.
The fact that Jesus had power doesn’t mean he is God
One last thought. I think y’all are giving Alex way too much credibility and attention, considering his atheism. Instead, I’d recommend focusing on the sovereignty of the One True God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Maybe we just pray for Alex and those like him instead of giving them a platform to pull people away from The Truth.
The collective IQ of this comment section is 57.
Are you including yourself in that?
I presume it includes yours,because it couldn't be that high otherwise...
Bit of a self-own since you yourself are also in the comment section, although I will give you credit for the silent "n" in your username 🙂
Is 57 good? Seriously asking for a friend.....
FR fr 😂
The "i" Am= ?
Alex knows that Jesus claimed to be God many different times using Old Testament Jewish terminology. I believe he is being controversial in order to create engagement on his youtube channel.
I like Alex but for him to use the tired and debunked Muslim argument of “Jesus never said the words, “I am God,” as if a devout Jew would say those words anyway, is sad. What makes it worse is that Alex has shied away from Islam.
Alex will not challenge Muslims or the Quran for some reason. It might be because he does not take it seriously but I think the real reason is because he lives in the UK and is surrounded by radical Islamists who have been vocal about being violent against anyone who disrespects their Pedo-Prophet or their holy book.
Jesus is never called Yahweh in the New Testament. The idea that Jesus is “properly” called God is simply untrue. And I’m not sure why Craig insist that this is the case. Second, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke Jesus is being baptized for the remission of his sins in the river jordan by John the Baptist. If that’s the case, why would God need a baptism at all much less for the remission of his sins?
He wasn’t baptized for the remission of sins. My guy, you need to educate yourself.
@, okay, that’s an ideological presumption. Read Mark 1:1:13. John the Baptist creates for the for time in history a baptism for the the remission of sin. And he claims to do this specifically for the coming of Jesus. Which is incredible because Hebrews 9:22 says, “there is no forgiveness of sins within your the shedding of blood.” Yet, we are told in Mark that people pour out for Jerusalem and the Judea to be baptized by John the Baptist for the the remission of their sins in the river Jordan. And then in verse 9 of Mark 1 we are told Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in the river Jordan under this doctrine.
@ The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]-
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]
4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”
The Baptism and Testing of Jesus
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
@ Jesus was sinless, so we know he wasn't baptized for the remission of sins. Not gonna talk to you about the Bible if you won't actually read the bible.
@ Mark is our first and earliest gospel, likely written between 67-75AD. In Mark, there is no divine conception, angelic annunciation, or virgin birth. In Mark, Jesus becomes the son of God at his baptism for the remission of sin by John the Baptist in the river Jordan. Just read Mark.
Alex is at a stage where he doesn't let the internal documents make their own claims. The Bible is not its own expositor from his perspective. He reads the higher critics and falls to the side of those liberal atheist-leaning scholars. The anti-supernaturalists.
*Does Jesus say he's God?*
It's not enough to claim you are a God. Many things have the title god(s), but the Children of Israel had a specific God named Jehovah, so Jesus would have to claim to be Jehovah.
*Who was Jehovah?*
Exodus 20
:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
*Who did Jesus say he was?*
Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Alex has awoken the beast! Lol
Alex looked really bad here
With respect, I deeply dissagree.
It is simply and plainly absurd for you to claim that because Jesus could do better miracles than previous prophets, forgave sins and be the Messiah equates to him actually being God in absolute perfection Fully incarnate.
Why are you clinging to this twisted logic?
Surely you know that Jesus as Paul said, "became or was made perfect by his sufferings"
Disagree all you want. You’re wrong.
Alex needs 2 look n2 hermeneutics nstead of arguing w/evrbody,although I do believe his attempts will backfire on his skeptic movement,like a tree that produces no fruit😮
Im sorry, WLC, but you're a borderline heretic.
So, not a heretic. Good. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be a youtube troll or internet bully. It pains me to say that, and I hope I'm wrong. Some of the stuff he has said regarding the Trinity and Adam are problematic. It seems like his starting point is all wrong. I understand why he is a proponent of monolism, although I don't agree. I fear that WLC is trying too hard to make God understandable to the Muslims and the bible to agree with science.
@ Regarding the Trinity and Muslims, not that his project isn't that his particular model is correct. Rather, it's much more minimal. What he's doing is showing there are logically coherent models of the Trinity. This undermines the Muslim claim that the Trinity is logically incoherent and, thus, removes a stumbling block to Christian faith.
Regarding Adam, Dr. Craig went to great pains to investigate what exactly the biblical text teaches. The entire first half of his book on Adam is devoted to that project. Upon concluding that the creation texts are of the genre "mytho-history" and are replete with non-literalistic language and figures, the conversation then moves to what the science says about when the historical Adam may have lived. Once again, Dr. Craig does not insist that his view is true, only that it seems plausible given his textual analysis and our best evidence from modern science.
- RF Admin
Did Alex O'Connor exist?😅 Says tha future skeptic🤨may b he's a figment of our imagination?😂
Fill in the blank
O'Connor used to be interesting!
I wonder... scientific dating is not that accurate, the bible could actually could of been written during Jesus' life and with more written just afterwards.
😂
Yea, the age determination of the scriptures are always educated guesses with a possible time frame.
All the scriptures were absolutely written before 70AD, with no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
In mark Jesus predicts the future destruction of the temple. In John we see the author describe the temples sheep pool in the present tense. These would be very strange things to reorder AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70AD
The gospels were written before 70 I agree.
Atheist, Theist, or Agnostic, we must all come together and start a movement to get Craig to grow that beard again. Can we all just agree that it was rad? We'd be doing the Lord's work .
Amen
Didn't Islam spread by the sword?
god using an old book to prove anything.....weak sauce
Matigas lang talaga ulo ng bata kahit alam niya na lahat ng arguments
I don't think those Catholics really saw the sun dancing by a miracle of Saint Mary, but by the power of the Satan. The Bible say he'll make incredible miracles and he also can show up as an angel of light.
VIDEO IS A BANGER
The first argument didn’t correct Alex’s point. Alex said Jesus didn’t go around claiming to be God in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Nothing that was said here refutes that at all. This is exactly the kind of misdirection Christian apologists use, and those who follow them refuse to see it.
Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God are not explicit claims of being God. They are clearly titles that place someone below God. A son is never considered to be above or equal to the father. Performing miracles and forgiving sins were also works of a person claiming to be a divine conduit of God fot eer error God himself. If Jesus thought that he was God...why did he not just say it in simple terms that don't require interpretation? Why such ambiguity?
Your objection boils down to “he should have done it the way I would have done it”, and my response is simply, “who are you”?
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death-
even death on a cross!
This commit conflates Western concepts of the relationship of a son and father with the Hebrew understanding of the same relationship. The hebrew culture, being a collective culture, rather than individualistic, views the son as a part and extention of the father. In otherwords for Jesus to say he is the son, is to see he is a part of God himself. therefore "son of God" is first a claim to be God and second is a description of th Trinity, or how God is in essence.
@@mmwosuits crazy how you guys can take literally anything at all and force it into a narrative about pride and not knowing your place in a hierarchy. The original commenter was saying that if Jesus meant to comminicate something he would say it in a specific way in order to fulfill the aim of communication. Whether thats true or not and whether what Jesus said does fulfill the aim of communication, this is not your ridiculous interpretation of "i think i have more authority than the king of the universe and he has to do my bidding and say things in specific ways to please me" you idiot
First of all, if you are Son of your Father, are you Human just like your Father ? If so, understand that Son of God would be by nature as much as God as his Father
Second of all, in Jewish culture, the Son does whatever the Father does, as example is how a carpenter's son is carpenter most of the time, so is the case for God, you have something similar in Gospel of John where Jesus says by himself he does nothing, but whatever he does is exactly what the Father does - John 5:19 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
Jesus is called "Son of God" 24 times
But even if you think it refers to "He is a human representative of God", then it won't explain John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed. Or John 1 where the Pre existent Logos through which all things came into being takes on Flesh.
Either way you look at it, he is Son of Man who is referred to 70 times in Gospel, he is Son of God which is referred to 24 times in Gospels, he is Son of David referred to 14 times... which means he is the Messiah and pre existent Son of God.
I don't get the whole Wes Huff thing. He's consistently wrong in his scholarship, even if you agree with him on theology. My jaw dropped listening to him talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pick up a book by Lawrence Schiffman for crying out loud.
Lawrence must be your god if you think someone can’t disagree with him and be right
He isn’t, do your part and make a video proving it or stfuuuu
@@Himathyyy👏👏👏
@@Shehatescash What an idiot response that was considering Schiffman is the dean of DSS scholars. LOL
@@Himathyyy You wouldn't know a Biblical scholar from a backwoods Baptist preacher, so your opinion is just lack of education.
Bible scholar Dan McClellan is who you should be trying to respond to. He has another video up responding to the gradeschool level apologetics of Wes Huff, which is typical of Christian apologetics in general. And Dan's latest response is to a different interview Wes did. His earlier video was responding to the lies and misinformation that flowed from Wes's mouth on the Joe Rogan podcast. But both videos are certainly worth watching.
So you don't care that Wes Huff went on Joe Rogan and outright lied? Got it
Why do you think he lied? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg word for word? Lie. Lying about Sinai bible?
@ Why do you think he lied rather than that he was merely mistaken? Also, what lie do you think he told about the Sinai Bible? - RF Admin
O'Connor 😂 your the only wrong 1 kidd 😂 knock it off
Kid who killed god?
@CD-123 🤡 boy this is above your head already I see
@@VictorWaag yeah only gullible people can understand this one god, father and son Shit... 🤡🤡
@CD-123 are you seriously talking to me right now ? ? Ohh please let this be true.. if that 🤡 🤡 was aimed anywhere towards me, I'm seriously rofl 🤣 right now laughing out loud that a frail stinky Lil soft bodied degenerate 😭 like you would even speak ! Good lord 4Real
@CD-123 Frail little being , you're the only clown 🤡 I see . And that has a name as well. It's called the Trinity. 📚 📖 📙
Why are you wasting my time with intro banners.
Get on with it clown world.