Don't be fooled my friend!

Praying for you.

Keep searching! Christianity is true, look at biblical prophecy!

@@veridicusmaximus6010 😐

@@isaiahreno Christianity is not true. What proof do you have that it is? I have proof of otherwise.

Andrew Elliott I’ll be praying.

Ill pray for you.

Focus your eyes on the cross

Jeusus is not god!! Concept of God in Christianity : Imagine i am god and i made myself a Human beeing to save people whom i created from a sin they did not commit, and the only way i can save them is by killing myself. Then when i was going to be crucified (by my own creation) i prayed to me and begged me to save me and asked me why i have forsaken myself, then i refused my own prayer and killed myself. Christians , its time to WAKE up and thing for a Minute.

@@thekiterunner8482 nope u have to question why he have to come to Earth to save us, read Jermiah more

Anybody knows the Greeks knows about Creek time

It's almost like the easy contradictions are the ones being addressed, or the ones easy to dismiss.

well said.

@roasted pancakes The hard contradictions, I assume, are stuff like how God seems to act differently in the Old Testament. But that's more of a different covenant. But I might be missing something.

@roasted pancakes When they said Jesus died and resurrected, they were just exaggerating because everyone knows that people don't rise from the dead.

@Jesus God_Savior I assuming you disagree with the resurrection being an exaggeration. Do you agree that the Old Testament stories are exaggerations? And that the reported instructions from God were exaggerated?

Thanks, we are well

@@InspiringPhilosophy why don't u show us ur family

@@InspiringPhilosophy What year was Jesus crucified?

​@@nireekshanaanand3464Because that's his personal life. That's a pretty dumb question. Why is his family any of your business.

There are no good arguments for John using the Roman Civil hour system. And he certainly was not using a generalized 3 hour period called the 6th hour.

​@Veridicus Maximus how are there no good arguments for John using the Roman time system?

Yes, 2021

@@InspiringPhilosophy Well, in the meantime, do you know of any good books or videos that talk about Old Testament historicity and reliability?

@@ChecedDomingcil try historical reliability of the new testament and also go to 'people also search for'i guess there are good books there

@@theguyver4934 There is no porn. There is erotic language in Song of Songs (a book in the Old Testament). It does mention private parts and talks about sex within a marriage but it is all in euphemisms and metaphors (example: "I will climb the palm tree and take hold of its fruit." Fruit here refers to genitals.) Genitals are never spoken of explicitly and it is a fraction of the book. Female breasts are mentioned (example: "your breasts are like to fawns, twins of a gazelle." - a husband speaking to his wife, describing her body. He describes her full body, including her neck, head, eyes, nose, legs, hair, and even feet). The book is not explicit, though. I wouldn't at all consider it "porn", both because it is not explicit, and the purpose of it is not to arouse, but to tell a story. The purpose of porn is to get you to lust, unlike Song of Songs. Song of Songs as a whole book is basically poetry about the love between a husband and his wife. Many people think it symbolizes the metaphorical marriage of God and Israel. I think it has both a literal narrative (marriage between King Solomon and his wife) and a metaphor (marriage between God and Israel). I think the occasional eroticism in Song of Songs is beautiful, not sinful or wrong to write down. It really is nothing like porn. It tells a beautiful story. You should read it sometime, heck, read the whole Bible.

The trial didn't end at 6 a.m. Pilate only got going at that time. A crucifixion doesn't begin in one moment is over the next. The supposedly Roman system is not a Roman system.

And Capturing Christianity is having Josh Rasmussen and Cosmic Skeptic on as well!

I do have a small issue with that take on things. One: Blind faith is bad, and Two: Facts are REALLY important, Facts are Facts, and can decide a lot of things. It is a fact that the Romans estimated, therefore this videos argument relies on facts to work. There is an even better answer for this "Contradiction" as well. Johns book was written by a scribe while he was in Jail. Because of this he most likely gave summary information, which is why the Gospel of John is not in the same order as the synoptic Gospels. It is important to research VERY deeply on Jesus. You would not blindly believe that other gods are real, or that a pen could somehow defy gravity at random. The Jesus claim is a HUGE claim, and it requires evidence. This is why so many people spend their lives studying theology. Again, I am not trying to argue, but I do want to make my point about Facts. Everything else you do in life is rooted in some form of fact or experience that is coherent with reality, so why leave the biggest one out. Arguably the best way to look at the bible is through the lenses of a Panentheist, and in some cases a Henotheist. The Bible openly acknowledges other Gods, but makes the point that YHWH is the most powerful. We see this when the title "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned in the bible. Whenever a false gods title is mentioned they Lowercased it, but for some reason The Queen of Heaven is not Lowercase, but instead uppercase. (Jeremiah 44) . Anyway, I figured I would throw you for a small loop, my goal is not to diminish anything, but instead to help further the education of the people. :) Hope you are having a Blessed day.

Jesus God_Savior Thank you my friend :)

What did jesus look like? The classic man with a beard?

Sir.. Why John said the day of the crucifiction was the day of the passover while in the synoptic account, the crucifiction day is after the passover. Why would John make such a difference? .. It made the NT seem less reliable..

We do - that's why I became an atheist. This is a bad explanation.

@@veridicusmaximus6010 I know it is been 3 years but I can answer your doubts with the holy spirit

Have you ever seen witnesses accounts in a trial? There normally is a time gap between 1 and even 2 hours when they tell the same events. Now imagíne that in an era when time wasn't measured so precisely.

I don't even know what the hell inerrancy even is anymore. Everyone defines it differently. So i agree with Mike Licona and just outright reject the term. Of course there are contradictions in the Bible, like differences between 1 &2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles. As for the gospels differences, I'd recommend the book hated by fundamentalists everywhere, by Licona, "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography."

@@InspiringPhilosophy i know your a christian apolegtic and i look up to you and your works, but what is the point in using a book that has contradictions? at this point i am genuinely confused

Or God didn't care about exact timing because the readers didn't care about exact timing. The words "infallible" or "inspire" do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

@@str.77 infallible means without error. Whether God cared about timing or not, if it's not perfectly accurate then it's not infallible.

He has a video on that

Why?

I’m not wasting time on that troll. His arguments are horrendous as is.

Rekarious Luke was not only a physician but also a interviewer, Luke made a job to compilate more info from Jesus’s family and the apostles including Paul. Many details were not put together in Mark or Mathew. Same reason John wrote his gospel with a more personal view and focusing more in Jesus’s divinity. Remember Luke made this for Theophilus ( maybe a Greek Jew a leader of one of the new Christian churches).

@@MAP2023 Thank you very much for the reply. This very much clarifies the matter.

Probably

I know the answers to the contradictions and look forward to the resulting video.

One location is mentioned: the Garden of Getsemane on the Mount of Olives.

@Maester Gryphon why assume? And why do you disagree with his explanation? do you have a counterargument besides a mere assertion?

They show the Bible is not in error as skeptics like to assert

@@InspiringPhilosophy I do not see the reason for belief in scriptural inerrancy. Inerrancy is a product of the theological shifts that occurred after the Reformation. The belief that every single event reported in the Bible is historically factual, every word recorded therein literally true and every apparent contradiction unreal is contrary to almost all of Christian tradition.

I agree

@@tanner955 Yup. The MESSAGE is inerrant, which is what God would consider important.

I bet he'd be banned from it not too long after posting a few videos.

TikTok will die soon. It is a Vine ripoff.

@@MAP2023 Let's hope so🤐

Not the same. The Gospels were written by different people, it makes sense that each gives different details.

@@vincenzorutigliano5435 "Mark" is derived from Paul. The other "canonical" gospels derive from "Mark" an unknown person writing who knows where, when or for what purpose. Any questions?

@@tgrogan6049 Mark isn't derived from Paul and while Matthew and Luke use his text,they are not simply derived from him. John is fully independent anyway. Nor is Mark an "unknown person".

@@str.77 Please write me in a few sentences everything you know about "Mark"?

See #20 from this series.

There are non p.s I'm a muslim

1. I really don't get this "logic". I never have understood. How does God knowing your actions = determinism??? If I took my child to an ice cream parlor, pointed to the menu, let them pick any favor they wanted, and I knew my child was going to pick chocolate because that is their favorite flavor, does that mean their choice of chocolate was determined by me? 2. First of all, God cannot "do whatever He wants." He cannot contradict his nature, such as lying. This is a misunderstanding of God's omnipotence. Secondly, for the Exodus passage, you have to internally critique it in order for it to be a non fallacious argument. From an atheists point of view, there is no life after death. God taking the life of someone, especially at such a young age, is horrible to them. However, from a Christian/Jewish point of view, there is an afterlife. I see it as an act of mercy, actually, not cruelty. Those babies were handed into the loving arms of a Savior after death. Thirdly, since God is the ultimate creator of life, He has the right to take it away whenever he wants. As humans, we don't. And I'm not sure what you mean by "good." As for the initial purpose, it was to pass judgment onto Egypt and persuade Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go.

1) God could have created the world in an inimaginable amount of different ways. If he is "above" time, then he may see what happens from the beggining to the end of the world he creates. Now, I want you to imagine with me the following situation: What if, instead of creating a world in which you would be born in the country you were born, God choose to bring you to life in Japan, or Africa, or any other country in the world. Do you agree that this change would affect some of the decisions you would take in your life? So God could have chose to bring you back to life in any country, knowing that any of those possibilities would lead to different outcomes about your life decisions. Let's say that if you were born in Japan, you would "freely" marry at age 30, but if you were born in Canada, you would freely marry at age 25, and God for some reason wanted you to be married at 25... I think you get what I'm saying right now. That's a way in which he can control what you will do even tho you're free to choose. 2) If God is real, then killing anyone is just passing this person to another state of existence. Is it "Bad" to get people from this life to the afterlife? At least that's not obviously "bad" for me, it would need more arguing to get to that conclusion. And to answer about the "If god gets to do whatever he wants, then how does that then not make good completely arbitrary?". The truth is: God doesn't get to do whatever he wants. He himself says in Numbers 23: “What did the LORD say?” Balak asked. 18Then Balaam lifted up an oracle, saying: “Arise, O Balak, and listen; give ear to me, O son of Zippor. 19God is not a man, that He should lie So we know that there are certain principles/values that don't change in God's character and that he has to act accordingly to those values. I want to know, what I've said made sense to you? I don't want to be hostile. Forgive me if something I've said made it seem like it. And I'm Brazillian, so if I made any mistakes while writing, forgive me ahahahhaha

@@ea-tr1jh I never got a notification for this. Sorry for the late reply. 1. Okay. So a god knowing your actions = determinism for this reason. So if an infallible god knows every action you take before you take it, those actions are determined and you cannot do differently as to what this being saw you do. Thus, you don’t really have will because you cannot do differently as to what this infallible being has already seen you do. Again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the being is controlling the decision, but it still means that the actions are determined if they know what you’re going to do infallibly. It’s like watching a movie for the second time. You know exactly what the characters are going to do and they do this every single time. They cannot suddenly change what they do in it. You’re not controlling those characters, but their actions are still determined. Although I think you can argue that since god set up he universe (script for the movie) with full knowledge of everything that was going to happen if he chose to do it this particular way, you could argue that he is indeed, responsible- determined it that way. 2. My wording was poor in this one. By ‘doing whatever he wants’ I meant ‘whatever he does is just good by definition’. So killing innocent babies in exodus for example, is good by definition. However, if anyone followed these kinds of actions for the same reasons, I doubt it would be considered ‘good’. So we’re applying a double standard to god here when it comes to good, which simply labels whatever he does/is as good. And that becomes a meaningless tautology that is no different to saying god does what he does or god is what he is. It’s the exact same equivalent of saying that. Not only does this mean that calling god good is a vapid tautology void of its intended meaning, but I would even argue that this label of ‘good’ is not something to be respected and revered by reviled. Again, poor original wording on my part. Was trying to be too concise. So, it’s okay to kill infants because they get to go to heaven when you do so? So when people have abortions or people kill babies, are they actually then doing a good thing since they are sending them to heaven? Does this count as an act of mercy? In a way, it’s guaranteeing them eternal happiness versus the potential of rejecting Jesus and suffering for eternity. So why then condemn others for doing the same as god? Unless you apply to a double standard where it’s okay for god to do so but not others, which would be my original point. Right, well, I don’t care if god is the creator of life. That doesn’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants with it and then retain his ‘all loving’ title. He has a bit more responsibility than that. But if he gets to kill whoever, whenever, for whatever, then this is what I meant by ‘doing whatever he wants’. And if your definition of god being perfectly good is set to a standard so low as this, something lower than the standards set for humans, then your description, like I said, becomes void of all intended meaning. If ‘good’ is being able to kill whoever, whenever, for whatever, then it is no longer something to be revered but reviled. Can an all powerful god not free slaves from a man without killing innocent babies? If anyone suggested this or did this for the same reasons, we’d still consider them immoral for the actions that led them there. Especially if they are clearly able to achieve so in much more peaceful terms considering their power.

@@yanbarros6401 1. Yes. If I was born in Japan, with a completely different lifestyle to the one I had now, I’d probably make many different decisions. That’s because decisions are influenced by many factors. I don’t really get what you’re saying? No. If god had me born in Canada, I’d then be determined to get married at 25. This kind of confirms my point. I cannot then deviate from being married at 25 if god is infallible. And the last sentence is a bit baffling. God controls me but I still have a free choice? I don’t think that choice is free anymore if god is controlling it. Again, we’re defining free will as the ability to do differently here. 2. Right, well then if killing someone is just passing someone on to another existence, then why do we condemn things like murder? If we’re just passing people on to other existences. I would argue that yes, passing people on is still bad because it causes the families suffering and that it takes away a persons freedom to choose. By ‘god gets to do whatever he wants’ please read the second part of my reply to the last guy. I was a bit vague here and I apologise but I clear up what I meant by it. You didn’t seem hostile at all and your English was very good so don’t worry. I’ll copy and paste the response I gave to the other guy so if there’s extra in there, my bad. 2. My wording was poor in this one. By ‘doing whatever he wants’ I meant ‘whatever he does is just good by definition’. So killing innocent babies in exodus for example, is good by definition. However, if anyone followed these kinds of actions for the same reasons, I doubt it would be considered ‘good’. So we’re applying a double standard to god here when it comes to good, which simply labels whatever he does/is as good. And that becomes a meaningless tautology that is no different to saying god does what he does or god is what he is. It’s the exact same equivalent of saying that. Not only does this mean that calling god good is a vapid tautology void of its intended meaning, but I would even argue that this label of ‘good’ is not something to be respected and revered by reviled. Again, poor original wording on my part. Was trying to be too concise. So, it’s okay to kill infants because they get to go to heaven when you do so? So when people have abortions or people kill babies, are they actually then doing a good thing since they are sending them to heaven? Does this count as an act of mercy? In a way, it’s guaranteeing them eternal happiness versus the potential of rejecting Jesus and suffering for eternity. So why then condemn others for doing the same as god? Unless you apply to a double standard where it’s okay for god to do so but not others, which would be my original point. Right, well, I don’t care if god is the creator of life. That doesn’t mean he gets to do whatever he wants with it and then retain his ‘all loving’ title. He has a bit more responsibility than that. But if he gets to kill whoever, whenever, for whatever, then this is what I meant by ‘doing whatever he wants’. And if your definition of god being perfectly good is set to a standard so low as this, something lower than the standards set for humans, then your description, like I said, becomes void of all intended meaning. If ‘good’ is being able to kill whoever, whenever, for whatever, then it is no longer something to be revered but reviled.

Nathan Tone You don’t need to look in the Bible. Science confirms this and logic, too. A fetus is a living unborn baby, the newborn is a born living baby.

Miguel Peralta I know but that’s not the problem. The problem is the Bible contradicts itself.

Nathan Tone There is no contradiction at all, those verses don’t cancel each other out. You think they contradicted themselves because you want them to do so. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

how do you know that he is not helping? it is evil that he wants to understand the bible or dedicate some of his time to G-D?i think is not nice to condemn people because they dont "help others" all the time. i know lots of people who help others but they are horrible human beings.

What are doing to aleave this suffering you feel so convicted about that you are writing about in KZfaq's comment section? Why are you here insulting other's faith instead of helping all the people suffering then?

Wrong.

I find the strong agreement between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul that Jesus died as a sacrifice for us, was buried and was raised by God to be most interesting. :) Minor, relatively easily explained discrepancies don't work me up too much. It is nice to have someone tackle them so clearly for us. The prophetic writings of the Messiah preserved in the Septuigent version of the Old Testement are interesting as well.

"Not mentioned outside the bible" except for being mentioned by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, etc.

@@grubblewubbles so one guy basically mentioned it. It's a major miracle if it happened. Not sold yet. It's like the fact that in all of history one guy had a vision of heaven. One guy out of billions of humans. Really?

@@Truth-Be-Told-USA I listed 3 people outside of the Bible who mention Jesus. You said that there were none. That pretty much settles it. The reason not many ancient authors record about Jesus is that they simply believed he was a charlatan whom there was no point in bringing up.

@@grubblewubbles humanity has had billions of humans in history and today. 3 or 1 is insignificant and you know it. If 3 people said there was chocolate rain in Hawaii no one would believe it without more witnesses. It's a joke. God is clearly evil and enjoys his own evil entertainment. God is clearly blessing the leftists and keeping them out of jail

@@grubblewubbles 3 people LOL settles nothing. Where was everyone else?

Wtf! That doesn’t follow at all!

@@InspiringPhilosophy Ikr? And my ancestor was Gov. William Bradford. Seriously.