I’ve been following your channel for years… and of all the videos I’ve seen, this one spoke the most to my heart. I’ve watched how you handle people that think differently from you. And I too, have had moments with people like you did with your brother where pride took over. Thank you for your ministry. God is making a difference through you.
I'm an atheist (nontheist to be more specific). I've been trying to reconnect with my parents after my deconversion from Christianity and although it hasn't quite worked out yet, I do believe I'm almost there and I frame my argument like this: It's not about what belief is right or wrong. You cling to a divine ultimate authority as if to validate all of your own opinions and interpretations as wholly inerrant, but you are only human and inerrancy is not something that you're capable of. As I began to pick apart and deconstruct my faith, surely my ideology evolved in ways that faithful christians will never experience, but one of the truths that I discovered and hold to as high a standard as I possibly can is that of the virtue of humility. Humility isn't just opening yourself up to discussion with others, it's much more than just allowing yourself to hear what they say. Those are humble actions, but they are not sourced in humility themselves, rather they come from adhering through discipline to what others have said/commanded about humility and that doesn't demonstrate a firm understanding, for the virtue of humility requires the state of being humble which transcends action altogether. The state of being humble is the submission of your ego, the ability to relinquish everything you think you know with certainty in the acknowledgement of the limitations of your own flawed and finite human existence, to which a Christian might call the fallen nature of man. Tolerating others' speech is surely a humble action, but one who has truly humbled themselves will do much more than just that, for they have cultivated within themselves the desire to truly understand the perspectives of others even if their egos perceive them to be wrong. They want to comprehend how the atheist experiences morality. They want to know how the Catholic and the Muslim perceive God. They want to understand why Buddhists are so selfless without Christ. Those who have humbled themselves aren't engaging to validate their ideas or invalidate others, but rather to participate in the sharing of knowledge out of respect for the shared subjective finitude of our human natures. As parents, this is absolutely necessary for cultivating a healthy relationship with non Christian children. Without doing so will leave a void between you. Maybe they aren't ready to return the favor, but this is a situation in which either one can work to build a bridge or both of you can stand on your islands and shout. I am tired of shouting.
@Awesome Wrench they used to. Now they are a little more refined and Christ focused in their beliefs, but there's still a wall between us that I can't get them to tear down. Although they no longer outwardly express their opinions that I am lying to myself and damning myself to hell with false truths, they still don't express any desire to understand me as a person and that only makes me feel that they only value me for their past experiences of me when I conformed to their ideology while refusing to acknowledge the change and growth I have had. They don't love me for being who I am, they love me for their past experience raising me and their faith in the potential I have for returning to their understanding of the light. They're blinded by their religious certainty so that they cannot see how they're objectifying me. I find it incredibly difficult to convince someone that they aren't being humble enough.... it's inherently hypocritical. I just keep trying to plant the seeds so that they might come into the revelation on their own accord
@@He.knows.nothing Why would they be interested in listening to your delusions, when they know Jesus is the only way to the father? of course they are not interested. They know you are headed for hell and all they can do is watch.
@@He.knows.nothing I'm not sure how workable your definition of humility is. Essentially, you're saying no one should have any strong beliefs ("relinquish everything you think you know with certainty"). It's also a bit self-defeating. You should relinquish this strong belief of yours that people need to be more humble. As to your parents, it may be that they are not comfortable with your changes and growth away from Christianity in the same way a parent isn't comfortable with their child playing in traffic. i.e., if they think your change and growth is jeopardizing your soul, it would make sense that they would not want to just accept the change. But of course I don't know your parents. If they are indifferent to you or seem to not love you now or something, then man, I am very sorry to hear that.
@@wootsat I believe you've misread me. You don't need to relinquish your beliefs, you need to relinquish your certainty. I believe this comports with the Christian conceptualization of faith. One might believe God exists, but it is my opinion that they should never be absolutely certain that their understanding of how to act in accordance with God's will is in any way inerrant. I believe that to be hubris and antithetical to the nature of humility
@Awesome Wrench no threats involved, I simply I expressed his parents position. Any Christian would have the same one. Besides its not a threat but a fact whether you like it or not. No Christian makes threats, we Christians don't have a hell to throw anyone into but God does
I'm new to your channel I found it after listening to the argument trying to disprove Jesus and the gospel so I decided to listen to the other side of the argument. very glad I found your channel and I'm definitely subscribing!
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam Also, look up the following. *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
I really wish Christian’s would see how much many atheists and skeptics are perfectly happy and enjoy debating Christian’s. We can even have respect ….a lot of respect for some believers who believe strongly and disagree. I find many skeptics as having more human respect for those who disagree than believers
He sounds intellectual - don't be fooled. He also is dishonest. Don't believe me go watch his "This is not a gotcha question" video and see if that is what an honest person would do. You may not see the underhanded trick he is using in that video if you are not familiar with deceitful apologetics but he is asking people for evidence of something not existing. There is literally no such thing. Unicorns dotn leave foot prints and asking someone to show you their footprints when you know it is impossible is an underhanded "slight of hand" form of apologetics. I was fooled by him for a while
I'm a nontheist, but a lot of the talk still resonates. I think everyone can benefit from approaching conversations with an outlook closer to the one described here.
@@He.knows.nothing Let me explain : When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.” are you forced to bring children to the world? if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born? 124
@@a.39886 Don't get me wrong, I respect your tradition. I still read from the Bible, I read from the church fathers and some of the saints as well. But in my view, these claims are necessarily circular, being that they are 100% contingent upon the biblical narrative alone and in my experience, the narrative just doesn't conform to reality. I have Christian friends and family and I was one myself and I know from my interactions with them that they refuse to yield in their attempts to convert me because their minds are all twisted by this theology of salvation vs damnation. When I walk out into the world and I see Christians who are war mongering megalomaniacs who obsess over sustaining their capital/money and careers, and then I look to see a Buddhist in deep mediation on a rock next to a sack of other people's trash he has collected, the entire Christian theory for salvation is just absolutely destroyed in my mind. It's not that Christians can't be like the Buddhist, quite to the contrary I think if taken seriously the religion is an equally powerful tool for that kind of transformation, but it's that their narrative makes salvation contingent upon belief in a specific book and a specific historical event rather than being contingent upon actually sharing in Christ's understanding of the world and our place within it. You can't tell me the war monger goes to heaven because he believes, yet the Buddhist suffers for all of eternity and expect me to believe that what you're saying is real or true. My goal and Christ's goal are one in the same, to bring the kingdom of god into this earth. For me, it's certainly not because I believe he was actually the son of yahweh, but because I believe that this life is the only life there is and if anyone is to experience either heaven or hell, then it will be here, it will be now. When truth and love are married, all life becomes sacred, all of existence becomes divine, because nature is just as much a part of us as we are a part of it. Creation isn't a hierarchy of value experienced by the human mind, it's an interconnected continuum from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest of galaxies. I love what is real, I love what is true, and I love what is beautiful and these things I cannot help. If I am to be damned to suffer for all of eternity because I didn't believe some words written on the page of a book, then it is my own experience of virtue that pushes me to walk into that destiny willingly. Pascal's wager can suck a mighty chode.
@@He.knows.nothing if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?n
@@a.39886 In the case that I could be privileged to such knowledge then certainly I would certainly factor that into my own narrative, but we aren't dealing in the realm of knowledge, we are dealing in the realm of belief. In the absence of anything relevant that could even come close to resembling absolute certainty, the continued imposition of this theology is no less than arrogant.
I thought it was interesting how Cameron was describing the gardener/harvester distinction, making the point that not everyone or even most people have to convert others in conversation, and then Pritchett wants to talk about how to, quite literally, change the subject from whatever is being discussed to the gospel. Sounds like he wants people to be harvesters.
How to share your faith with skeptics? How about sharing your *evidence* with skeptics? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? You say, "It wasn't about love, it wasn't about truth, it wasn't about knowledge." But wasn't the real problem that it wasn't about _evidence?_ I don't care if you love me or you don't. If you don't have anything but emotions backing up your religious beliefs, I'm not going to be able to believe them, myself. Truth,... sure. But are you just _claiming_ that your religious beliefs are true, or can you back that up with even *one* piece of good evidence? I know that _you_ believe this stuff, but I don't know why. And I certainly don't know why _I_ should.
@Awesome Wrench _Are gods detectable in any way?_ Well, if they were real and they had some impact on our world, there should be evidence of that. Obviously, invisible, immaterial, magical beings would be the absolute all-time world champions at hide-and-seek, if they wanted to be. But if they had any impact at all on reality, there would be evidence of _that,_ right? After all, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are undetectable directly, if I understand correctly, but there is still evidence that they exist, because of how they affect the rest of the universe. Gods seem more like magic leprechauns or unicorns. So far, I've seen no evidence of any of them. :)
@@Devious_Dave You're right. At this point in the conversation we haven't arrived at the Christian God but that was exactly my point in that comment. Since there is no single natural explanation to our conscience, moral compass, etc. I have arrived at the conclusion that it is God given. Now we have to examine further evidence to conclude that it is the Christian God. When you read about Jesus and how wise and good he was you can't deny he had something special about him. Combine that with the fact that he did miracles and rose from the dead you might believe what he had to say. Plus his coming was foretold in the Torah thousand of years prior. Plus the people who were with him later went on to spread his message and even DIE - PAY WITH THEIR LIVES - for something that they believed to be true. Do you think they would've died for something they made up? I don't think so. (These are all historically documented things, even without the Bible)
if Jesus was prophesied to suffer then why were the jews surprised when Jesus was murdered? i hear many people say that the jews believed the messiah would be something completely different even though it was said that he would suffer.
Sadly, the reason they were surprised is because they did not believe the scriptures. That problem is still true for us today. We are surprised because we fail to read and believe everything that God says.
Christians are often quite good skeptics when it comes to evaluating the claims of other relgions. It's only through special pleading that they maintain their own faith.
I think a good Christian can be skeptical. I think if your skepticism begins to lead you away from faith then at that point Camerons presentation will become applicable. We should all question our beliefs at all times and be open to changing our mind if necessary.
Skeptics apportion their belief to the evidence. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? No? Then you can't believe it and still be a skeptic.
@@teefx5681 The Qur’an is another man made book. Dear Muslims, please learn the origins of the fictional Abrahamic god. It all goes back to the fictional Canaanite god El. Also, keep in mind that the Israelites were worshipping this fictional god centuries before Islam came along and adopted him and that Jews *and* Arabs are descended from the Canaanites. *El, Yahweh, or Jehovah* Christianity and Islam originated in the Middle East. Any Christian in this area when asked about the Name of God, he will say Allah! The English Bible starts with: "In the beginning God created the heaven and Earth." And the Arabic Bible starts with: "In the beginning Allah created the heaven and Earth." The western Christians are unaware of the Name of God of their eastern brothers. Some Christians think that Allah is the idol that the Islamic cult worships! The Office for the Non-Christian Affairs at the Vatican published a document under the title "Orientations for a Dialogue between Christians and Muslims. It is a very important document in that it shows the new position adopted towards Islam. In the third edition of this study (1970), the document stresses this fundamental point in the following terms: "It would seem pointless to maintain that Allah is not real God, as do certain people in the west!" The Conciliatory document has put the above assertion in its proper place. There is no better way of illustrating Islamic faith in God than by quoting the following extracts from Lumen Gentium, produced by the second Vatican Council (1962-1965): "The Muslims profess the faith of Abraham and worship with us the sole merciful God, who is the future judge of men on the Day of Reckoning." Google *"His Name is Allah, History of Truth"* (The fictional Canaanite god El that the Israelite patriarchs worshipped, later conflated with Yahweh, is the same fictional god of the Muslims) Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* ("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.") Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* (Read about Canaanite religion and El the chief or most high god of the Canaanite pantheon and the relationship of Canaanite religion to Israelite religion) Google *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"* Google *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"* ("Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites *were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.") Google *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"* ("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)". *Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)* Google *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"* ("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.") Google *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V - theyellowdart"* ("Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the archaeological, cultural, and literary data pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group *were originally Canaanite.")* Google *"El - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that the Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites)* Google *"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"* (Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that the ancient Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional) Google *"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"* Google *"In spite of their differences, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God - The Conversation"* Google *"6 Ways The Quran Has A Lot In Common With The Bible - All That's Interesting"* Google *"Walking by Moonlight: My Journey Out of Islam - The Ex-Muslim"* Google *"Why Islam is False - Atheist Republic"* Google *"Rebuttal to Shabir Ally : Its True! The Quran Borrowed Stories From Preexisting Sources"* Google *"Scientific Errors in the Quran - WikiIslam"*
"I think that it is also possible that god has so providentially ordered the world that anyone who would believe in the gospel if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it. And in that case no one will be lost through historical or geographical accident. Anyone who wants or even would want to believe if he heard the gospel, will have the opportunity to hear the gospel. " -Dr. William Lane Craig Might be the most concerning quote I've ever heard from Dr. Craig. What about free will? how can people not be given the chance to freely choose to accept Christ? This flies in the face of so many of Craigs arguments during debates. #CapturingChristianity Cameron are you good with this thought or do you have different opinions from Craig?
I’d say you’ve misunderstood WLC who’s drawing on counterfactuals of creaturely freedom to argue that God knew that those individual would not have freely chosen Christ. That said, WLC’s arguments on this issue are appalling. He constantly utterly fails to exemplify the principle of charity here. He is unable to summarize the strongest arguments on behalf of those who disagree.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Hey thanks for the reply. I think as a stand alone sound bite you are absolutely right so hopefully you're well versed in Dr. Craigs work (which it sounds like you are) otherwise this response will not make sense. I wrote this because on several occasions Dr. Craig will discuss that God only has middle knowledge but doesn't ultimately know everything that will be. When asked "why god would create creatures who god knows will only reject him and therefore are ultimately doomed to suffer eternal hell?" Dr. Craig has said many times that it's not up to god and while he he is omniscient, he cannot interfere with our ability to freely choose to accept him. The reason the above quote is alarming is because it directly refutes that justification and it is a direct assertion that god did in fact create billions of so-called "free" creatures but then deny them the freedom to choose his grace or not. I very much doubt I'm articulating my concern properly but i hope you can discern my point that this contradicts the entire enterprise of creating free creatures and allowing them to enter into a relationship with god or not. Otherwise the objection that "god should not create creatures that he knows will reject him, and ultimately punish them for that decision that they were predestined for," is a valid objection or concern which cannot be hand-waved away using the free will defense.
His quote does not reject free-will. God knows the future and knows who might reject and accept him. Craig might have to argue that the aborted and miscarried unborn are not persons because they have not heard the news and probably did nothing to justify hell. Does Craig have justification for his belief?
I agree, it is alarming. And I also would love to know, where is Dr. Craig reading this in the bible? Let's break down his point: "God [ordered] the world that anyone who would believe in the gospel if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it". -- Where in the bible is this assertion made? -- So if God knows that a particular human being would never believe in him, even if they heard the gospel, doesn't that point out a MAJOR flaw with God? i.e: - A) He created a human being, who he knows will not believe in him, and then subjects them to eternal torture? - B) If God wanted us to believe in him, why would he not give us more convincing evidence of his existence? - C) If God knows everything - is omniscient, all powerful, etc. Wouldn't God know that the insufficient evidence for his existence would subject billions of people to eternal torture? - D) How is this love?
When you're honest about the part where Cameron talks about 'Truth vs Beliefs' 14:36 . And you're really taking it seriously, you can't be christian. When you're not taking it seriously, you're also not a christian according to his position. You can be a christian when you declare that you don't know that the underlying basis of christianity is true, but that you still believe in christ and your relation with God. But still, that's not truth, that's only belief. Honesty is hard. But why settle for less? When you're christian, you're dealing with matters of importance at the scale of eternity.
*Ugarit and the Bible* Many people are familiar with the texts found at Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the 1940s. But fewer people have heard of the Ugarit findings, which began to be unearthed in the late 1920s. Both discoveries greatly increased our knowledge and understanding of Biblical texts and also of the history surrounding the evolution of Judaism and Christianity. The Dead Sea Scrolls impacted both the Old and New Testament interpretations, while the findings at Ugarit impacted only the Old Testament. *These texts and architectural inscriptions predate the Hebrew settlement at Canaan, but interestingly, they mention some of the same gods that appear in the Hebrew religious writings, produced after the Hebrew contact with the Ugarit region. The most significant god mentioned is El.* In one temple inscription he is said to be the father of Ba’al. In other mentions, he is even the father of Yaweh. In the Old Testament, Ba’al is associated with the Canaanites. And he is described as the focus of their religious worship in those stories-while El is described as being another name for Yahweh, the Hebrew patron god. *In reality, however, based on the discoveries at Ugarit (the land called Canaan in the Bible), El is clearly the father of the gods in much the same way that Zeus is the head of the gods on Olympus in Greek mythology. And Yaweh is not another name for El, but a separate deity.* Like Zeus, El headed a pantheon. He was not only the father of mankind, but the leader of the Ugarit gods. *His pantheon, in Ugarit, is called the* ***Elohim*** *(literally, the plural of El).* Using the book of Genesis as an example, the best scholarly estimates date it back to somewhere between 950 and 500 BC. *It appears that the writings were composed in two styles, one style preferring to refer to god as El and the other using YHWH (or Yahweh).* Eventually these texts came together into the form we have today, sometime around 450 BC. *Just to give some perspective, the best documented time in the Ugarit history was between 1450 and 1200 BC.* According to many modern apologists, El is simply another name for god, or even a generic word for “god” used by the Hebrews; and Elohim is simply another form of El. However, Bible translators do translate Elohim as plural in some instances and do translate El to be a proper noun in some instances. Some apologists defend a wholly singular usage of Elohim by pointing to the inconsistency with which Elohim is used with singular verb forms; however, this does not rule out the very real (and likely) potential that as monotheism evolved out of polytheism, the Hebrew texts were adjusted to correct for this problem (as we discussed the evolution of the book of Genesis in the above paragraph). ***However, it does seem oddly coincidental-and difficult to overlook-that the Hebrews had significant contact with Canaan and then, some years afterward, wrote out a Hebrew religious mythology using a name for god that parallels the Ugarit mythology’s chief deity.*** *It is also odd that Elohim appears in Ugarit texts as a clearly plural form of El, and then later in a sometimes confused singular/plural fashion in the Hebrew texts.* *The important question becomes, then: Is there any reason beyond the contact with Canaan to view the Hebrew deity as being synonymous with the Canaanite god El? The answer is “yes.”* There are parallels between the two gods. For example, if we look at more of the attributes of El in the Ugarit texts, we find that El had a consort, Asherah *(who was also, occasionally, recorded as the consort to Yahweh).* This would appear to distance the Hebrew El from the Ugarit El then, if there is no mention of the Hebrews combining El with Asherah. *However, there is mention in the Hebrew texts that illustrates that Asherah was connected with El in the minds of the Hebrews as well as in their worship. Twice in Jeremiah (chapter 7 and chapter 44), she is referred to as the Queen of Heaven, and it is clearly indicated that the Hebrews were worshipping her in those instances.* Also, in 2 Kings 18, it is noted that her objects of worship (the Asherah poles) were removed from the “high places” of worship to El/Yahweh. *There is no doubt that as the Hebrews moved from polytheism, into henotheism, and ultimately into monotheism, that they adjusted their religious practices accordingly.* It is not surprising that the worship of Asherah was ultimately condemned, discouraged, and forbidden. *But what can’t be ignored is the fact that the Hebrews did acknowledge Asherah. They did worship her.* And they did associate her with El by placing her symbols in the same temples of worship. ***If Hebrews did not adopt the older Ugarit El, with which they were surely familiar, then it is very odd that Asherah also appears in their religious texts and worship.*** I would never underestimate the apologist’s ability to find a perspective that can reinterpret this data to make it less problematic. ***However, the clear and simply explanation is this: The Hebrews interacted with Ugarit, adopted their pantheon, and their religion evolved, as all religions do through time, to become a uniquely Hebrew monotheism.*** Google *"The Atheist Experience™: Ugarit and the Bible"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* ("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.") *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"* *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"* ("Many scholars now think that *most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.") *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"* ("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)". *Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)* *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"* ("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.") *"El - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that *most of the early Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites)* *"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"* (Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that *most of the ancient Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional) *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above)
The ancient Israelites didn’t use the word god (Elohim) like we use and think of now in the 21st century. It’s obvious that they used it to identify spiritual beings in the spirit world. They use it for demons, angles, and disembodied human spirits. There are other Elohim but they’re not the Most High, they’re not Yahweh.
@@solidsnake497 They got the term from the Canaanites who pre-date the Israelites. YHWH was conflated with the Canaanite gods El and Baal. Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P. *Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.* According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his *wisdom* (e.g., KTU2 1.4.V.65[6]) and *great age* (’ab šnm, *“Father of Years,”* and drd, *“Ageless One,”* in KTU2 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his *compassionate nature* (lţpn il dp’id, *“Kind El, the Compassionate One,”* e.g., KTU2 1.16.IV.9), his role as *father of the gods and humanity* (’ab ’adm, *“father of humanity,”* KTU2 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, *“creator of creatures,”* KTU2 1.17.I.24) and *creator of the cosmos.* [8] El was the *divine King* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) and the *head of the pantheon or divine council* (referred to variously as the dr ’il, *“circle of El/Family of El,”* KTU2 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, *“the assembly of the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.65.3; bn ’il, *“the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, *“assembly of the stars,”* KTU2 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, *“assembly of the gods,”* KTU2 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain. *His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons* (šb‘m bn ’atrt, *“the seventy sons of Athirat,”* KTU2 1.4.VI.46). El was also known for his *divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans* (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU2 1.14.III.46-51), for his *appearances to humans in dreams* (e.g., KTU2 1.14.I.35-37), as *being a healer* (KTU2 1.16.V-VI), and for his *dwelling at the sacred mountain* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) at the *sources of the mythical rivers* (KTU2 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a *tent* (KTU2 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which *describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]* *To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH,* the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above: YHWH is an *aged, patriarchal deity* (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), *a father* (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), *merciful and gracious* (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), *a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,* often manifesting himself in *dreams or visions, a healer* (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who *dwells in a tent* (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) *amidst the heavenly waters* (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the *creator of the cosmos,* who is enthroned as *heavenly King* in the *divine council* (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the *sacred mount of assembly* (e.g., Is. 14:13). Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, *YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11]* (Originally the wife of El) Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above)
@@solidsnake497 In the Old Testament there appears the concept of Yahweh’s having a heavenly court, the sons of God. They are referred to variously as the ‘sons of God’ (bene ha ‘elohim, Gen 6.2, 4; Job 1.6, 2.2; or bene ‘elohim, Job 38.7), the ‘sons of gods’ (bene ‘elim, Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6]) or the ‘sons of the Most High’ (bene ‘elyon, Ps. 82.6). *It is also generally agreed that we should read ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) for ‘sons of Israel’ in Deut. 32.8 (see below).* There are further numerous places where the heavenly court is referred to without specific use of the expressions ‘sons of God(s)’ or ‘sons of the Most High’. Thus, the heavenly court is mentioned in connection with the first human(s) (Gen 1.26, 3.22; Job 15.7-8) or elsewhere in the primaeval history (Gen. 11.7; cf. Gen 6.2 above), and in the context of the divine call or commission to prophecy (1 Kgs 22.19-22; Isa 40.3,6; Jer. 23.18, 22; cf. Amos 3.7). We also find it referred to in connection with the guardian gods or angels of the nations (Isa.24.21; Ps. 82.1; Ecclus 17.17; Jub. 15.31-32; cf. Deut 32.8 and Ps. 82.6 above; implied in Dan 10.13, 20; 12.1). Apart from the isolated references to the divine assembly on the sacred mountain in Isa 14.13 and to personified Wisdom in the divine assembly in Ecclus 24.2, the other references to the heavenly court are more general (Zech. 1.10-11, 3.7, 14.5; Ps. 89.6-8 [ET 17], 7.10, 21, 25, 27, 8.10-13; cf. Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7 and Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6] above). Just as an earthly king is supported by a body of courtiers, so Yahweh has a heavenly court. *Originally, these were gods, but as monotheism became absolute, so these were demoted to the status of angels.* … *It is in connection with the Canaanite god El and his pantheon of gods, known as the ‘sons of El’, that a direct relationship with the Old Testament is to be found. That this is certain can be established from the fact that both were* ***seventy*** *in number.* At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of ‘the ***seventy*** sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (sb’m. bn. ‘atrt, KTU 1.4. VI.46). Since Asherah was El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were ***seventy*** in number. *Now Deut. 32.8, which is clearly dependent on this concept,* declares, ‘When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God’. The reading ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Camb. Or. 929. *This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the MT’s ‘sons of Israel’ (bene yisra’el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase ‘sons of God’.* Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be ***seventy*** nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also ***seventy*** in number. This emerges from the table of the nations in Genesis 10, where there are ***seventy*** nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were ***seventy*** guardian angels of the nations (Targum Pseudo-Jonathon on Deut 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27). This view, which I have defended previously, seems eminently reasonable. … *Finally, it is interesting to note that the Old Testament never refers to the heavenly court as ‘the sons of Yahweh’.* As we have seen above, apart from one instance of bene ‘elyon, we always find the ‘sons of God’, with words for God containing the letter s ‘l (bene ha ‘elohim, bene ‘elohim, bene ‘elim). *This finds a ready explanation in their origin in the sons of the Canaanite god El.* Eventually, of course, the name El simply became a general word for ‘God’ in the Old Testament, and so it is found many times. Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day | Lehi's Library"* *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III - theyellowdart"* *"God and the "Sons of God" - Yahweh Elohim"*
The term "skeptic" is not equivalent with *atheist* Agnosticism is more closely related to skepticism (though still not equivalent) whereas Atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get. If you're a Christian sharing your faith with a Hare Krishna or with a Muslim then you're sharing your faith with someone skeptical of Christianity. People need to stop using the term "skeptic" interchangeably with "atheist" because it's misleading at best and at worst mendacious.
You had a good thing going there and I agree the terms are not interchangeable. But when you say "atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get," you lost me a bit. Maybe you can clarify but it's my understand that a skeptic is someone who is inclined to question or doubt. If I doubt claims of god and therefore operate as an atheist...why would that leave me far from Skepticism. To be clear I absolutely agree that they two terms are not interchangeable and skeptics can fall in any category of theistic or non-theistic belief. I'm 100% with you on that and I appreciate the distinction. But I think where Cameron is addressing people who are skeptical or doubting the truth of Christianity, I think atheists would fall comfortably in that category. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
@@paulfriedman atheists are skeptical about Christianity but so are pagans. The term "skeptic" is therefore insufficient if he wanted to refer specifically to atheists and it's a fact that many atheists refer to themselves as "skeptics" which is also inaccurate since there are plenty of things atheists are not skeptical about - including their affirmative stance that no gods exist. Atheists are not "skeptics" generally speaking - especially when it comes to ideological theories such as Darwinism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Hm. Maybe I misunderstood Camerons presentation then. I assumed he was addressing all people who were skeptical of Christianity, he just happened to use his atheist brother as his example since that was his personal experience.
_Agnosticism is more closely related to skepticism (though still not equivalent) whereas Atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get._ Nah, you're just playing word games. Atheists _are_ skeptical of Christian claims, but _lots_ of people are skeptical of Christianity without being atheists. So _of course_ they're not equivalent. But atheists are still skeptics. Personally, I think of "skepticism" as apportioning my beliefs to the evidence. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Then the appropriate position is to be skeptical of Christian claims. I call myself an agnostic atheist, although the label isn't the important thing. My position: I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that gods don't exist (agnostic). So I'm skeptical about a lot more religions than just Christianity - and for the exact same reason, because I haven't seen/heard even *one* piece of good evidence that their claims are actually _true._
of course the belief in heaven is pleasing, but hell also isnt. But ultimately its about reason and faith, an area i suggest you look into for supposed evidence of an afterlife is in out of body experiences. Sounds like nonsense at first but it is a large scientific/philosphical field of research in relation to evidence of the afterlife. Gary Habermas has dedicated years to researching it if u wanna check him out
@@theguy8111 Gary Habermas LOL. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to make your beliefs look anything other than completely stupid.
@@theguy8111 Let me explain : When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.” are you forced to bring children to the world? if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born? 2rh
Serve the Lord Jesus the best way you can through the denomination that best empowers you to Crusify the flesh and walk in the Spirit to produce fruit worthy of repentance. The true Church is Spiritual!
What does having "faith in Christ" look like in practical reality? For example, when your car is running of gas, do you pray to Christ to fill up the tank or do you pull up to a gas station and fill the tank? When you are preparing for a big exam, do spend most of your time praying to Jesus or do you actually study the material and master it? Please, can a Christian show me what "faith in Christ" looks like in everyday living. What does it mean in practice (it seems like a lucky rabbits foot to me)? LOL
Faith in Christ is trusting in Christ. A daily practice is praying for forgiveness and believing what God said. So it looks like repentance, obedience, loving others as God loved, living out our lives for the glory of God. So yes we pray for a test, we also study for the test and we aim to pass a test to the glory of God. It's really a life of devotion, not for good luck or having the best outcome for every circumstances
@@sergiomendoza9932 I like your explanation. "Faith is putting your trust in what you have good reason to believe is true." If we come to an understanding of what is true, then having faith in that truth is devoting our full selves to it. It seems like the only natural conclusion.
"Faith in christ" in reality looks like ramming your unevidenced claims and beliefs down innocent people's throats, pretending you are better than everybody else, and telling them what god wants (which in most cases is just what those with "faith in christ" want). It almost never looks like helping the poor, feeding the hungry and healing the sick. Which I vaguely remember to be they commands of the christ they pretend they have faith in.
Most people I meet are non religious and "spiritual" relativists. I find that it is not possible to logically discuss things with them. People don't even have a framework and vocabulary for such a thing. It is all emotion.
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam Also, look up the following. *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
@@JM-19-86 Nope. Doesn't gel my friend. The Bible explicitly has Jesus say that some of his followers would still be alive to see the second coming. Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam*
@@JM-19-86 As long as there are things christians can change, re-interpret and manipulate, christianity will survive in some form or another until we all accept the fact that we are going to die and there isn't any reason to hold on to ridiculous fairytales and false promises.
As a believer I have to largely agree .....these "Hold all" comments often convey little. ...but then I don't live in the States. If one does not believe there is God the rest of the Christian theological edifice has no basis .
@@tomgreene2282 That does not answer my question at all... I don't care if you agree or if you believe... What does "love believes all things" mean?? Love is an emotion.. Emotions do not think or believe...
From where I'm sitting, "and really discover whether Christianity was true", why do you call it "How to Share Your Faith", "Faith" requires no proof, otherwise what is its purpose, My Two Cents!
Nah man. It seems to me that in every other context we use the word “faith”, we use it to express trust in something we think we have good reason to believe. I have faith in my wife; I have faith that my car will start when I leave for work; I have faith that my house won’t burn down today; etc. I don’t see why the use of it should suddenly change when discussing spiritual convictions. Of course you can say that the reasons they have are not good reasons, but to come to that conclusion, you have to have a conversation with someone to find out what they believe and why. What are your thoughts on that?
@@ohmahfoot3995 Faith is not a RELIABLE tool for discovering truth. You might have faith that your car will start, but if the battery is dead it won’t start. You might have faith in your wife, and she might still cheat on you. You might have faith your house won’t burn down, but then your neighbors house catches fire, it spreads, and yours burns down. Anyone can have faith in anything, but it is not a reliable tool for finding truth.
@@truthseeker7867 right. But nobody is using faith as a tool for discovering truth. Faith has nothing to do with discovering truth. In every context other than spiritual convictions, people use the word as an affirmation of something they believe to be true. For what it’s worth, I currently most closely identify as an agnostic in this area. I’m just at a place where I’m sympathetic to both sides of it, and trying to represent this side of it accurately.
So Cameron, in your search for truth, you OBVIOUSLY read LOTS of opposing views to the christian one - right? I mean, how can you really be searching for truth if you only investigate one side - in your case the christian faith you were indoctrinated with as a child. You make several recommendations of books/channels which advocate for the view you already held before this search for truth - and the one you obviously ended up with. But to show that you were a REAL GENUINE truth searcher, please recommend the books you read, and the channels you watched, which gave other views (that there is no god/ that there are other gods/ that christianity is false etc). Because it looks to me like you did no such thing. Show me that I am wrong.
The WLC quote is absurd. It’s verifiable that the gospels are not true stories even though they contain truths. No seriously thoughtful person could come to believe these stories actually tell a true story, and because of that, thoughtful people can’t believe it.
@Justin Gary Not OP but I would say that the contradictions contained within the canonical gospels is a good reason to withhold belief in them being true stories. Not being written in the first person also means that these aren't first person accounts. Parts of the canonical gospels being copied from Mark is another problem. Historical anachronisms in the bible is a problem. The accounts should line up with historical and archeological facts, they often don't. If we're talking OT there are even more problems. The evidence of borrowing from other cultures and stories that predate Christianity/Judaism is a problem. If the gospel writers borrow from Greek epics how much of the rest of the story can be trusted to be true? Once I was able to evaluate the bible without blinders on I was able to see that the internal contradictions, anachronisms, and historical & archeological facts that discredit claims contained within the bible are insurmountable. I need more evidence or a more accurate representation of the events in order to warrant belief in the truth of the bible stories.
@Awesome Wrench More importantly the earliest gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus died. Luke and Luke Acts are closer to 50-60 years after Jesus died. It's very unlikely that they were written by people who had witnessed the events firsthand.
@Awesome Wrench Most were also illiterate. Even with the extremely low litteracy rates, litteracy in the ancient world was very different than now. You were considered litterate if you could copy text. You didn't necessarily have to know how to read, just copy text to be considered literate. True literacy, the kind required to write the gospels was reserved for the elite. The disciples were not Greek elites.
@@mkl2237 Who died and gave you certain insight into what ancient stories are real and which ones are false? Maybe like WLC, god himself whispers in your brain confirming that -gosh darn it, you were right all along!!
Great thoughts Cameron. However your sentiment doesn't match up with some of the merchandise you market. 'BTW - God exists.' - doesn't present an invitation for discussion.
He has to keep saying that to remind himself that it is really really true, really it is. It stops him having to actually support his claims with evidence. I think it's called brainwashing...
@@SilverSixpence888 i can see how you might see it that way but I don’t think that is Cameron’s attitude. I really don’t know why he has merch like this especially when it elicits the kind of response that you’ve just articulated here
Also my close brother in Christ. Who helped save me suffers from anxiety similar to me. I recommend trying to save people who have similar conditions to you.
@@friendo6257 Let me explain : When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.” are you forced to bring children to the world? if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born? 214g
Unless a Christian is open-minded enough to be willing to completely walk away from their own faith (whether it be for another religion or into agnosticism/atheism), without fear or anxiety over what such a decision might entail, I do not want to have a conversation with them, and I think I have nothing to learn from them.
Let me explain : When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.” are you forced to bring children to the world? if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born? 124g
@@SilverSixpence888 there's only one Jesus and He actually lived, actually died, and actually rose again. He was given all authority under heaven and earth and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. God said it. Both truths make Catholicism wrong. There's many more but none needed when those 2 disprove the entire religion.
@@tucktucktucker Lol no dear. Jesus is a storybook character. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. God said nothing. People wrote stories, that is all. "Oh but the feelz" is not evidence.
When I try to describe my atheism to theists, I use an analogy. I say, imagine you are walking down the street and there is a crowd of people around a tree, all looking up into the tree. I asked, "what's up in the tree, a cat?" The person says that God has decided to use the tree. I look up into the tree and state that I don't see anything unusual. The person points to a man and tells me that the only person who can see, and hear God is that man. I go over to the man and he tells me that he is God's messenger. He informs me that I must tell him the questions I have for God and he, the man, will relay them to God, and get any subsequent replies God might offer. So, should I believe the man, or not? I have chosen to disbelieve, contingent on further evidence.
Let me explain : When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.” are you forced to bring children to the world? if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born? 124
Only 7% of Nobel Prize winners are Atheists or Agnostics and among those 7%, only 4.7% were for Physics and only 7.1% were for Chemistry. Most Atheists who won Nobel Prizes were for literature. ~Reference: Baruch Shalev's 100 years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005) Imagine a world where the number of people more intelligent than a monkey is so diminishingly small that it's 10% of a 7% 😂
I’ve been following your channel for years… and of all the videos I’ve seen, this one spoke the most to my heart. I’ve watched how you handle people that think differently from you. And I too, have had moments with people like you did with your brother where pride took over. Thank you for your ministry. God is making a difference through you.
I'm an atheist (nontheist to be more specific). I've been trying to reconnect with my parents after my deconversion from Christianity and although it hasn't quite worked out yet, I do believe I'm almost there and I frame my argument like this:
It's not about what belief is right or wrong. You cling to a divine ultimate authority as if to validate all of your own opinions and interpretations as wholly inerrant, but you are only human and inerrancy is not something that you're capable of. As I began to pick apart and deconstruct my faith, surely my ideology evolved in ways that faithful christians will never experience, but one of the truths that I discovered and hold to as high a standard as I possibly can is that of the virtue of humility. Humility isn't just opening yourself up to discussion with others, it's much more than just allowing yourself to hear what they say. Those are humble actions, but they are not sourced in humility themselves, rather they come from adhering through discipline to what others have said/commanded about humility and that doesn't demonstrate a firm understanding, for the virtue of humility requires the state of being humble which transcends action altogether. The state of being humble is the submission of your ego, the ability to relinquish everything you think you know with certainty in the acknowledgement of the limitations of your own flawed and finite human existence, to which a Christian might call the fallen nature of man. Tolerating others' speech is surely a humble action, but one who has truly humbled themselves will do much more than just that, for they have cultivated within themselves the desire to truly understand the perspectives of others even if their egos perceive them to be wrong. They want to comprehend how the atheist experiences morality. They want to know how the Catholic and the Muslim perceive God. They want to understand why Buddhists are so selfless without Christ. Those who have humbled themselves aren't engaging to validate their ideas or invalidate others, but rather to participate in the sharing of knowledge out of respect for the shared subjective finitude of our human natures. As parents, this is absolutely necessary for cultivating a healthy relationship with non Christian children. Without doing so will leave a void between you. Maybe they aren't ready to return the favor, but this is a situation in which either one can work to build a bridge or both of you can stand on your islands and shout. I am tired of shouting.
@Awesome Wrench they used to. Now they are a little more refined and Christ focused in their beliefs, but there's still a wall between us that I can't get them to tear down. Although they no longer outwardly express their opinions that I am lying to myself and damning myself to hell with false truths, they still don't express any desire to understand me as a person and that only makes me feel that they only value me for their past experiences of me when I conformed to their ideology while refusing to acknowledge the change and growth I have had. They don't love me for being who I am, they love me for their past experience raising me and their faith in the potential I have for returning to their understanding of the light. They're blinded by their religious certainty so that they cannot see how they're objectifying me. I find it incredibly difficult to convince someone that they aren't being humble enough.... it's inherently hypocritical. I just keep trying to plant the seeds so that they might come into the revelation on their own accord
@@He.knows.nothing Why would they be interested in listening to your delusions, when they know Jesus is the only way to the father? of course they are not interested. They know you are headed for hell and all they can do is watch.
@@He.knows.nothing I'm not sure how workable your definition of humility is. Essentially, you're saying no one should have any strong beliefs ("relinquish everything you think you know with certainty"). It's also a bit self-defeating. You should relinquish this strong belief of yours that people need to be more humble.
As to your parents, it may be that they are not comfortable with your changes and growth away from Christianity in the same way a parent isn't comfortable with their child playing in traffic. i.e., if they think your change and growth is jeopardizing your soul, it would make sense that they would not want to just accept the change. But of course I don't know your parents. If they are indifferent to you or seem to not love you now or something, then man, I am very sorry to hear that.
@@wootsat I believe you've misread me. You don't need to relinquish your beliefs, you need to relinquish your certainty. I believe this comports with the Christian conceptualization of faith. One might believe God exists, but it is my opinion that they should never be absolutely certain that their understanding of how to act in accordance with God's will is in any way inerrant. I believe that to be hubris and antithetical to the nature of humility
@Awesome Wrench no threats involved, I simply I expressed his parents position. Any Christian would have the same one. Besides its not a threat but a fact whether you like it or not. No Christian makes threats, we Christians don't have a hell to throw anyone into but God does
I'm new to your channel I found it after listening to the argument trying to disprove Jesus and the gospel so I decided to listen to the other side of the argument. very glad I found your channel and I'm definitely subscribing!
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The end is near?
*The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme:
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.*
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.*
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent)
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.*
Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.*
1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.*
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.*
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.*
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.*
1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.*
Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.*
*It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.*
www.kyroot.com/
*Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam
Also, look up the following.
*"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"*
*"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
*"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
*"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"*
*"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
*"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
*"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"*
*"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"*
*"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"*
*"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
@@LM-jz9vhwhy are you trying to convince people there’s no God? If you’re right, so what? If you’re wrong, you literally damned someone to hell.
40:15 That's a fine example of why Cameron is one of my favorite christians
Thank you so much
Ngl gonna lie Cameron you’re looking pretty buff in this 😳😳😳
lol gay
Love you brother,thanks
I really wish Christian’s would see how much many atheists and skeptics are perfectly happy and enjoy debating Christian’s. We can even have respect ….a lot of respect for some believers who believe strongly and disagree. I find many skeptics as having more human respect for those who disagree than believers
We loved having you Cameron! Discussing the intellectual side of Christianity is so important in the world we live in.
He sounds intellectual - don't be fooled. He also is dishonest. Don't believe me go watch his "This is not a gotcha question" video and see if that is what an honest person would do. You may not see the underhanded trick he is using in that video if you are not familiar with deceitful apologetics but he is asking people for evidence of something not existing. There is literally no such thing. Unicorns dotn leave foot prints and asking someone to show you their footprints when you know it is impossible is an underhanded "slight of hand" form of apologetics. I was fooled by him for a while
I'm a nontheist, but a lot of the talk still resonates. I think everyone can benefit from approaching conversations with an outlook closer to the one described here.
Have you gone down the Jonathan Vervaeke pipeline? It's a good pipeline, even for strict Buddhists and such
@@He.knows.nothing Let me explain :
When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in
Matthew 7: 13-14.
“13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it."
There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation.
Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born.
James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death.
John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life”
Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so.
Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage.
Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family.
Genesis 2:16-17
“16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.”
Genesis 6:7
“7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”
are you forced to bring children to the world?
if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?
124
@@a.39886 Don't get me wrong, I respect your tradition. I still read from the Bible, I read from the church fathers and some of the saints as well. But in my view, these claims are necessarily circular, being that they are 100% contingent upon the biblical narrative alone and in my experience, the narrative just doesn't conform to reality.
I have Christian friends and family and I was one myself and I know from my interactions with them that they refuse to yield in their attempts to convert me because their minds are all twisted by this theology of salvation vs damnation. When I walk out into the world and I see Christians who are war mongering megalomaniacs who obsess over sustaining their capital/money and careers, and then I look to see a Buddhist in deep mediation on a rock next to a sack of other people's trash he has collected, the entire Christian theory for salvation is just absolutely destroyed in my mind. It's not that Christians can't be like the Buddhist, quite to the contrary I think if taken seriously the religion is an equally powerful tool for that kind of transformation, but it's that their narrative makes salvation contingent upon belief in a specific book and a specific historical event rather than being contingent upon actually sharing in Christ's understanding of the world and our place within it. You can't tell me the war monger goes to heaven because he believes, yet the Buddhist suffers for all of eternity and expect me to believe that what you're saying is real or true.
My goal and Christ's goal are one in the same, to bring the kingdom of god into this earth. For me, it's certainly not because I believe he was actually the son of yahweh, but because I believe that this life is the only life there is and if anyone is to experience either heaven or hell, then it will be here, it will be now.
When truth and love are married, all life becomes sacred, all of existence becomes divine, because nature is just as much a part of us as we are a part of it. Creation isn't a hierarchy of value experienced by the human mind, it's an interconnected continuum from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest of galaxies. I love what is real, I love what is true, and I love what is beautiful and these things I cannot help. If I am to be damned to suffer for all of eternity because I didn't believe some words written on the page of a book, then it is my own experience of virtue that pushes me to walk into that destiny willingly. Pascal's wager can suck a mighty chode.
@@He.knows.nothing if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?n
@@a.39886 In the case that I could be privileged to such knowledge then certainly I would certainly factor that into my own narrative, but we aren't dealing in the realm of knowledge, we are dealing in the realm of belief. In the absence of anything relevant that could even come close to resembling absolute certainty, the continued imposition of this theology is no less than arrogant.
18:54 "two sides of the gospels"; explains and summarizes the gospels quite well
Great presentation 👍🏻😎
I thought it was interesting how Cameron was describing the gardener/harvester distinction, making the point that not everyone or even most people have to convert others in conversation, and then Pritchett wants to talk about how to, quite literally, change the subject from whatever is being discussed to the gospel. Sounds like he wants people to be harvesters.
I don’t see how your remark relates to mine. Connect the dots for me, because right now it sounds like a non sequitur.
Thank you my Brother in Christ 💙💯
How to share your faith with skeptics? How about sharing your *evidence* with skeptics? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
You say, "It wasn't about love, it wasn't about truth, it wasn't about knowledge." But wasn't the real problem that it wasn't about _evidence?_ I don't care if you love me or you don't. If you don't have anything but emotions backing up your religious beliefs, I'm not going to be able to believe them, myself.
Truth,... sure. But are you just _claiming_ that your religious beliefs are true, or can you back that up with even *one* piece of good evidence? I know that _you_ believe this stuff, but I don't know why. And I certainly don't know why _I_ should.
Lol.
The fact that we have a conscience and the fact that everything exists in the first place.
Do you have any specific prove that God doesn't exist?
@Awesome Wrench
_Are gods detectable in any way?_
Well, if they were real and they had some impact on our world, there should be evidence of that. Obviously, invisible, immaterial, magical beings would be the absolute all-time world champions at hide-and-seek, if they wanted to be. But if they had any impact at all on reality, there would be evidence of _that,_ right?
After all, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are undetectable directly, if I understand correctly, but there is still evidence that they exist, because of how they affect the rest of the universe. Gods seem more like magic leprechauns or unicorns. So far, I've seen no evidence of any of them. :)
Cameron’s entire channel is pretty much devoted to giving evidence for God. Are you new here?
@@Devious_Dave
You're right. At this point in the conversation we haven't arrived at the Christian God but that was exactly my point in that comment. Since there is no single natural explanation to our conscience, moral compass, etc. I have arrived at the conclusion that it is God given. Now we have to examine further evidence to conclude that it is the Christian God.
When you read about Jesus and how wise and good he was you can't deny he had something special about him. Combine that with the fact that he did miracles and rose from the dead you might believe what he had to say. Plus his coming was foretold in the Torah thousand of years prior. Plus the people who were with him later went on to spread his message and even DIE - PAY WITH THEIR LIVES - for something that they believed to be true. Do you think they would've died for something they made up? I don't think so. (These are all historically documented things, even without the Bible)
if Jesus was prophesied to suffer then why were the jews surprised when Jesus was murdered? i hear many people say that the jews believed the messiah would be something completely different even though it was said that he would suffer.
many jews had different beliefs in that time too.
Sadly, the reason they were surprised is because they did not believe the scriptures. That problem is still true for us today. We are surprised because we fail to read and believe everything that God says.
zechariah 9:10
@@micahhenley589 why was it that judah betrayed when Jesus came to die.
@@teefx5681 I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand your question.
I don't understand how a good Christian can not also be a skeptic. How can I know God if I dont know what isnt God? May God bless you guys.
Christians are often quite good skeptics when it comes to evaluating the claims of other relgions. It's only through special pleading that they maintain their own faith.
I think a good Christian can be skeptical. I think if your skepticism begins to lead you away from faith then at that point Camerons presentation will become applicable. We should all question our beliefs at all times and be open to changing our mind if necessary.
Skeptics apportion their belief to the evidence. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? No? Then you can't believe it and still be a skeptic.
There is no name of God mentioned on the new testament, however Quran gives a lot more details who God is.
@@teefx5681 The Qur’an is another man made book.
Dear Muslims, please learn the origins of the fictional Abrahamic god. It all goes back to the fictional Canaanite god El. Also, keep in mind that the Israelites were worshipping this fictional god centuries before Islam came along and adopted him and that Jews *and* Arabs are descended from the Canaanites.
*El, Yahweh, or Jehovah*
Christianity and Islam originated in the Middle East. Any Christian in this area when asked about the Name of God, he will say Allah!
The English Bible starts with:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and Earth."
And the Arabic Bible starts with:
"In the beginning Allah created the heaven and Earth."
The western Christians are unaware of the Name of God of their eastern brothers. Some Christians think that Allah is the idol that the Islamic cult worships! The Office for the Non-Christian Affairs at the Vatican published a document under the title "Orientations for a Dialogue between Christians and Muslims. It is a very important document in that it shows the new position adopted towards Islam. In the third edition of this study (1970), the document stresses this fundamental point in the following terms:
"It would seem pointless to maintain that Allah is not real God, as do certain people in the west!" The Conciliatory document has put the above assertion in its proper place. There is no better way of illustrating Islamic faith in God than by quoting the following extracts from Lumen Gentium, produced by the second Vatican Council (1962-1965):
"The Muslims profess the faith of Abraham and worship with us the sole merciful God, who is the future judge of men on the Day of Reckoning."
Google *"His Name is Allah, History of Truth"*
(The fictional Canaanite god El that the Israelite patriarchs worshipped, later conflated with Yahweh, is the same fictional god of the Muslims)
Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."*
("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.")
Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."*
Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."*
(Read about Canaanite religion and El the chief or most high god of the Canaanite pantheon and the relationship of Canaanite religion to Israelite religion)
Google *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
Google *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"*
("Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites *were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.")
Google *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)".
*Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)*
Google *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"*
("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.")
Google *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V - theyellowdart"*
("Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the archaeological, cultural, and literary data pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group *were originally Canaanite.")*
Google *"El - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that the Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites)*
Google *"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
(Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that the ancient Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional)
Google *"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"*
Google *"In spite of their differences, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God - The Conversation"*
Google *"6 Ways The Quran Has A Lot In Common With The Bible - All That's Interesting"*
Google *"Walking by Moonlight: My Journey Out of Islam - The Ex-Muslim"*
Google *"Why Islam is False - Atheist Republic"*
Google *"Rebuttal to Shabir Ally : Its True! The Quran Borrowed Stories From Preexisting Sources"*
Google *"Scientific Errors in the Quran - WikiIslam"*
"I think that it is also possible that god has so providentially ordered the world that anyone who would believe in the gospel if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it. And in that case no one will be lost through historical or geographical accident. Anyone who wants or even would want to believe if he heard the gospel, will have the opportunity to hear the gospel. " -Dr. William Lane Craig
Might be the most concerning quote I've ever heard from Dr. Craig. What about free will? how can people not be given the chance to freely choose to accept Christ? This flies in the face of so many of Craigs arguments during debates. #CapturingChristianity Cameron are you good with this thought or do you have different opinions from Craig?
I’d say you’ve misunderstood WLC who’s drawing on counterfactuals of creaturely freedom to argue that God knew that those individual would not have freely chosen Christ.
That said, WLC’s arguments on this issue are appalling. He constantly utterly fails to exemplify the principle of charity here. He is unable to summarize the strongest arguments on behalf of those who disagree.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Hey thanks for the reply. I think as a stand alone sound bite you are absolutely right so hopefully you're well versed in Dr. Craigs work (which it sounds like you are) otherwise this response will not make sense. I wrote this because on several occasions Dr. Craig will discuss that God only has middle knowledge but doesn't ultimately know everything that will be. When asked "why god would create creatures who god knows will only reject him and therefore are ultimately doomed to suffer eternal hell?" Dr. Craig has said many times that it's not up to god and while he he is omniscient, he cannot interfere with our ability to freely choose to accept him. The reason the above quote is alarming is because it directly refutes that justification and it is a direct assertion that god did in fact create billions of so-called "free" creatures but then deny them the freedom to choose his grace or not.
I very much doubt I'm articulating my concern properly but i hope you can discern my point that this contradicts the entire enterprise of creating free creatures and allowing them to enter into a relationship with god or not. Otherwise the objection that "god should not create creatures that he knows will reject him, and ultimately punish them for that decision that they were predestined for," is a valid objection or concern which cannot be hand-waved away using the free will defense.
His quote does not reject free-will. God knows the future and knows who might reject and accept him. Craig might have to argue that the aborted and miscarried unborn are not persons because they have not heard the news and probably did nothing to justify hell. Does Craig have justification for his belief?
He's basing that off of people freely accepting or denying Christ.
I agree, it is alarming. And I also would love to know, where is Dr. Craig reading this in the bible?
Let's break down his point: "God [ordered] the world that anyone who would believe in the gospel if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it".
-- Where in the bible is this assertion made?
-- So if God knows that a particular human being would never believe in him, even if they heard the gospel, doesn't that point out a MAJOR flaw with God? i.e:
- A) He created a human being, who he knows will not believe in him, and then subjects them to eternal torture?
- B) If God wanted us to believe in him, why would he not give us more convincing evidence of his existence?
- C) If God knows everything - is omniscient, all powerful, etc. Wouldn't God know that the insufficient evidence for his existence would subject billions of people to eternal torture?
- D) How is this love?
When you're honest about the part where Cameron talks about 'Truth vs Beliefs' 14:36 . And you're really taking it seriously, you can't be christian. When you're not taking it seriously, you're also not a christian according to his position.
You can be a christian when you declare that you don't know that the underlying basis of christianity is true, but that you still believe in christ and your relation with God. But still, that's not truth, that's only belief. Honesty is hard. But why settle for less? When you're christian, you're dealing with matters of importance at the scale of eternity.
*Ugarit and the Bible*
Many people are familiar with the texts found at Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the 1940s. But fewer people have heard of the Ugarit findings, which began to be unearthed in the late 1920s. Both discoveries greatly increased our knowledge and understanding of Biblical texts and also of the history surrounding the evolution of Judaism and Christianity.
The Dead Sea Scrolls impacted both the Old and New Testament interpretations, while the findings at Ugarit impacted only the Old Testament. *These texts and architectural inscriptions predate the Hebrew settlement at Canaan, but interestingly, they mention some of the same gods that appear in the Hebrew religious writings, produced after the Hebrew contact with the Ugarit region. The most significant god mentioned is El.* In one temple inscription he is said to be the father of Ba’al. In other mentions, he is even the father of Yaweh.
In the Old Testament, Ba’al is associated with the Canaanites. And he is described as the focus of their religious worship in those stories-while El is described as being another name for Yahweh, the Hebrew patron god. *In reality, however, based on the discoveries at Ugarit (the land called Canaan in the Bible), El is clearly the father of the gods in much the same way that Zeus is the head of the gods on Olympus in Greek mythology. And Yaweh is not another name for El, but a separate deity.* Like Zeus, El headed a pantheon. He was not only the father of mankind, but the leader of the Ugarit gods. *His pantheon, in Ugarit, is called the* ***Elohim*** *(literally, the plural of El).*
Using the book of Genesis as an example, the best scholarly estimates date it back to somewhere between 950 and 500 BC. *It appears that the writings were composed in two styles, one style preferring to refer to god as El and the other using YHWH (or Yahweh).* Eventually these texts came together into the form we have today, sometime around 450 BC. *Just to give some perspective, the best documented time in the Ugarit history was between 1450 and 1200 BC.*
According to many modern apologists, El is simply another name for god, or even a generic word for “god” used by the Hebrews; and Elohim is simply another form of El. However, Bible translators do translate Elohim as plural in some instances and do translate El to be a proper noun in some instances. Some apologists defend a wholly singular usage of Elohim by pointing to the inconsistency with which Elohim is used with singular verb forms; however, this does not rule out the very real (and likely) potential that as monotheism evolved out of polytheism, the Hebrew texts were adjusted to correct for this problem (as we discussed the evolution of the book of Genesis in the above paragraph). ***However, it does seem oddly coincidental-and difficult to overlook-that the Hebrews had significant contact with Canaan and then, some years afterward, wrote out a Hebrew religious mythology using a name for god that parallels the Ugarit mythology’s chief deity.*** *It is also odd that Elohim appears in Ugarit texts as a clearly plural form of El, and then later in a sometimes confused singular/plural fashion in the Hebrew texts.*
*The important question becomes, then: Is there any reason beyond the contact with Canaan to view the Hebrew deity as being synonymous with the Canaanite god El? The answer is “yes.”* There are parallels between the two gods. For example, if we look at more of the attributes of El in the Ugarit texts, we find that El had a consort, Asherah *(who was also, occasionally, recorded as the consort to Yahweh).* This would appear to distance the Hebrew El from the Ugarit El then, if there is no mention of the Hebrews combining El with Asherah. *However, there is mention in the Hebrew texts that illustrates that Asherah was connected with El in the minds of the Hebrews as well as in their worship. Twice in Jeremiah (chapter 7 and chapter 44), she is referred to as the Queen of Heaven, and it is clearly indicated that the Hebrews were worshipping her in those instances.* Also, in 2 Kings 18, it is noted that her objects of worship (the Asherah poles) were removed from the “high places” of worship to El/Yahweh.
*There is no doubt that as the Hebrews moved from polytheism, into henotheism, and ultimately into monotheism, that they adjusted their religious practices accordingly.* It is not surprising that the worship of Asherah was ultimately condemned, discouraged, and forbidden. *But what can’t be ignored is the fact that the Hebrews did acknowledge Asherah. They did worship her.* And they did associate her with El by placing her symbols in the same temples of worship. ***If Hebrews did not adopt the older Ugarit El, with which they were surely familiar, then it is very odd that Asherah also appears in their religious texts and worship.***
I would never underestimate the apologist’s ability to find a perspective that can reinterpret this data to make it less problematic. ***However, the clear and simply explanation is this: The Hebrews interacted with Ugarit, adopted their pantheon, and their religion evolved, as all religions do through time, to become a uniquely Hebrew monotheism.***
Google *"The Atheist Experience™: Ugarit and the Bible"*
Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."*
("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.")
*"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."*
*"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
*"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"*
("Many scholars now think that *most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.")
*"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)".
*Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)*
*"Canaanite languages - Britannica"*
("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.")
*"El - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that *most of the early Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites)*
*"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
(Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that *most of the ancient Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional)
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above)
I am so glad I don't care about the beliefs and lifestyles of ancient people. I am too busy enjoying my own life.
@@JamesRichardWiley Just trying to get believers to take a more critical approach to the Bible.
The ancient Israelites didn’t use the word god (Elohim) like we use and think of now in the 21st century. It’s obvious that they used it to identify spiritual beings in the spirit world. They use it for demons, angles, and disembodied human spirits. There are other Elohim but they’re not the Most High, they’re not Yahweh.
@@solidsnake497 They got the term from the Canaanites who pre-date the Israelites. YHWH was conflated with the Canaanite gods El and Baal.
Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P. *Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.* According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his *wisdom* (e.g., KTU2 1.4.V.65[6]) and *great age* (’ab šnm, *“Father of Years,”* and drd, *“Ageless One,”* in KTU2 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his *compassionate nature* (lţpn il dp’id, *“Kind El, the Compassionate One,”* e.g., KTU2 1.16.IV.9), his role as *father of the gods and humanity* (’ab ’adm, *“father of humanity,”* KTU2 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, *“creator of creatures,”* KTU2 1.17.I.24) and *creator of the cosmos.* [8] El was the *divine King* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) and the *head of the pantheon or divine council* (referred to variously as the dr ’il, *“circle of El/Family of El,”* KTU2 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, *“the assembly of the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.65.3; bn ’il, *“the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, *“assembly of the stars,”* KTU2 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, *“assembly of the gods,”* KTU2 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain. *His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons* (šb‘m bn ’atrt, *“the seventy sons of Athirat,”* KTU2 1.4.VI.46). El was also known for his *divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans* (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU2 1.14.III.46-51), for his *appearances to humans in dreams* (e.g., KTU2 1.14.I.35-37), as *being a healer* (KTU2 1.16.V-VI), and for his *dwelling at the sacred mountain* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) at the *sources of the mythical rivers* (KTU2 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a *tent* (KTU2 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which *describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]*
*To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH,* the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above: YHWH is an *aged, patriarchal deity* (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), *a father* (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), *merciful and gracious* (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), *a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,* often manifesting himself in *dreams or visions, a healer* (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who *dwells in a tent* (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) *amidst the heavenly waters* (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the *creator of the cosmos,* who is enthroned as *heavenly King* in the *divine council* (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the *sacred mount of assembly* (e.g., Is. 14:13). Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, *YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11]* (Originally the wife of El)
Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"*
Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above)
@@solidsnake497
In the Old Testament there appears the concept of Yahweh’s having a heavenly court, the sons of God. They are referred to variously as the ‘sons of God’ (bene ha ‘elohim, Gen 6.2, 4; Job 1.6, 2.2; or bene ‘elohim, Job 38.7), the ‘sons of gods’ (bene ‘elim, Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6]) or the ‘sons of the Most High’ (bene ‘elyon, Ps. 82.6). *It is also generally agreed that we should read ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) for ‘sons of Israel’ in Deut. 32.8 (see below).*
There are further numerous places where the heavenly court is referred to without specific use of the expressions ‘sons of God(s)’ or ‘sons of the Most High’. Thus, the heavenly court is mentioned in connection with the first human(s) (Gen 1.26, 3.22; Job 15.7-8) or elsewhere in the primaeval history (Gen. 11.7; cf. Gen 6.2 above), and in the context of the divine call or commission to prophecy (1 Kgs 22.19-22; Isa 40.3,6; Jer. 23.18, 22; cf. Amos 3.7). We also find it referred to in connection with the guardian gods or angels of the nations (Isa.24.21; Ps. 82.1; Ecclus 17.17; Jub. 15.31-32; cf. Deut 32.8 and Ps. 82.6 above; implied in Dan 10.13, 20; 12.1). Apart from the isolated references to the divine assembly on the sacred mountain in Isa 14.13 and to personified Wisdom in the divine assembly in Ecclus 24.2, the other references to the heavenly court are more general (Zech. 1.10-11, 3.7, 14.5; Ps. 89.6-8 [ET 17], 7.10, 21, 25, 27, 8.10-13; cf. Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7 and Pss. 29.1, 89.7 [ET 6] above). Just as an earthly king is supported by a body of courtiers, so Yahweh has a heavenly court. *Originally, these were gods, but as monotheism became absolute, so these were demoted to the status of angels.*
…
*It is in connection with the Canaanite god El and his pantheon of gods, known as the ‘sons of El’, that a direct relationship with the Old Testament is to be found. That this is certain can be established from the fact that both were* ***seventy*** *in number.* At Ugarit we read in the Baal myth of ‘the ***seventy*** sons of Asherah (Athirat)’ (sb’m. bn. ‘atrt, KTU 1.4. VI.46). Since Asherah was El’s consort, this therefore implies that El’s sons were ***seventy*** in number. *Now Deut. 32.8, which is clearly dependent on this concept,* declares, ‘When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God’. The reading ‘sons of God’ (bene ‘elohim) has the support of the Qumran fragment, 4QDeut, the LXX, Symmachus, Old Latin and the Syro-Hexaplaric manuscript, Camb. Or. 929. *This is clearly the original reading, to be preferred to the MT’s ‘sons of Israel’ (bene yisra’el), which must have arisen as a deliberate alteration on the part of a scribe who did not approve of the polytheistic overtones of the phrase ‘sons of God’.* Interestingly, it is known that the Jews believed there to be ***seventy*** nations on earth, so that the sons of God were accordingly also ***seventy*** in number. This emerges from the table of the nations in Genesis 10, where there are ***seventy*** nations, and from the later Jewish apocalyptic concept according to which there were ***seventy*** guardian angels of the nations (Targum Pseudo-Jonathon on Deut 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27). This view, which I have defended previously, seems eminently reasonable.
…
*Finally, it is interesting to note that the Old Testament never refers to the heavenly court as ‘the sons of Yahweh’.* As we have seen above, apart from one instance of bene ‘elyon, we always find the ‘sons of God’, with words for God containing the letter s ‘l (bene ha ‘elohim, bene ‘elohim, bene ‘elim). *This finds a ready explanation in their origin in the sons of the Canaanite god El.*
Eventually, of course, the name El simply became a general word for ‘God’ in the Old Testament, and so it is found many times.
Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day | Lehi's Library"*
*"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."*
*"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."*
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III - theyellowdart"*
*"God and the "Sons of God" - Yahweh Elohim"*
The term "skeptic" is not equivalent with *atheist*
Agnosticism is more closely related to skepticism (though still not equivalent) whereas Atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get. If you're a Christian sharing your faith with a Hare Krishna or with a Muslim then you're sharing your faith with someone skeptical of Christianity. People need to stop using the term "skeptic" interchangeably with "atheist" because it's misleading at best and at worst mendacious.
Dumbest comment ever
You had a good thing going there and I agree the terms are not interchangeable. But when you say "atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get," you lost me a bit. Maybe you can clarify but it's my understand that a skeptic is someone who is inclined to question or doubt. If I doubt claims of god and therefore operate as an atheist...why would that leave me far from Skepticism. To be clear I absolutely agree that they two terms are not interchangeable and skeptics can fall in any category of theistic or non-theistic belief. I'm 100% with you on that and I appreciate the distinction. But I think where Cameron is addressing people who are skeptical or doubting the truth of Christianity, I think atheists would fall comfortably in that category. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
@@paulfriedman atheists are skeptical about Christianity but so are pagans. The term "skeptic" is therefore insufficient if he wanted to refer specifically to atheists and it's a fact that many atheists refer to themselves as "skeptics" which is also inaccurate since there are plenty of things atheists are not skeptical about - including their affirmative stance that no gods exist. Atheists are not "skeptics" generally speaking - especially when it comes to ideological theories such as Darwinism.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Hm. Maybe I misunderstood Camerons presentation then. I assumed he was addressing all people who were skeptical of Christianity, he just happened to use his atheist brother as his example since that was his personal experience.
_Agnosticism is more closely related to skepticism (though still not equivalent) whereas Atheism is as far from skepticism as one can get._
Nah, you're just playing word games. Atheists _are_ skeptical of Christian claims, but _lots_ of people are skeptical of Christianity without being atheists. So _of course_ they're not equivalent. But atheists are still skeptics.
Personally, I think of "skepticism" as apportioning my beliefs to the evidence. Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Then the appropriate position is to be skeptical of Christian claims.
I call myself an agnostic atheist, although the label isn't the important thing. My position: I don't believe in a god or gods (atheist), but I don't claim to _know_ that gods don't exist (agnostic). So I'm skeptical about a lot more religions than just Christianity - and for the exact same reason, because I haven't seen/heard even *one* piece of good evidence that their claims are actually _true._
Considering how you've already said you don't want atheists watching your content, this should be interesting to watch.
He said that?
I understand why people need to believe in something greater than themselves, especially when life ends in death and there is no more you.
of course the belief in heaven is pleasing, but hell also isnt. But ultimately its about reason and faith, an area i suggest you look into for supposed evidence of an afterlife is in out of body experiences. Sounds like nonsense at first but it is a large scientific/philosphical field of research in relation to evidence of the afterlife. Gary Habermas has dedicated years to researching it if u wanna check him out
Dust to dust".....?
@@theguy8111 Gary Habermas LOL. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to make your beliefs look anything other than completely stupid.
@@theguy8111 Let me explain :
When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in
Matthew 7: 13-14.
“13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it."
There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation.
Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born.
James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death.
John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life”
Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so.
Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage.
Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family.
Genesis 2:16-17
“16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.”
Genesis 6:7
“7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”
are you forced to bring children to the world?
if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?
2rh
This is so wonderful! Love that photo of you and your brother, and friend. Great message!!!
Serve the Lord Jesus the best way you can through the denomination that best empowers you to Crusify the flesh and walk in the Spirit to produce fruit worthy of repentance. The true Church is Spiritual!
How do you know that?
What does having "faith in Christ" look like in practical reality? For example, when your car is running of gas, do you pray to Christ to fill up the tank or do you pull up to a gas station and fill the tank?
When you are preparing for a big exam, do spend most of your time praying to Jesus or do you actually study the material and master it?
Please, can a Christian show me what "faith in Christ" looks like in everyday living. What does it mean in practice (it seems like a lucky rabbits foot to me)? LOL
Faith in Christ is trusting in Christ. A daily practice is praying for forgiveness and believing what God said. So it looks like repentance, obedience, loving others as God loved, living out our lives for the glory of God. So yes we pray for a test, we also study for the test and we aim to pass a test to the glory of God. It's really a life of devotion, not for good luck or having the best outcome for every circumstances
They use holy water.
@@sergiomendoza9932 I like your explanation. "Faith is putting your trust in what you have good reason to believe is true." If we come to an understanding of what is true, then having faith in that truth is devoting our full selves to it. It seems like the only natural conclusion.
Historically, faith was meant to mean loyalty. Like the Latin U.S. Marine motto: "Semper Fidelis" always faithful. Faithful means loyal to the death.
"Faith in christ" in reality looks like ramming your unevidenced claims and beliefs down innocent people's throats, pretending you are better than everybody else, and telling them what god wants (which in most cases is just what those with "faith in christ" want). It almost never looks like helping the poor, feeding the hungry and healing the sick. Which I vaguely remember to be they commands of the christ they pretend they have faith in.
Most people I meet are non religious and "spiritual" relativists. I find that it is not possible to logically discuss things with them. People don't even have a framework and vocabulary for such a thing. It is all emotion.
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The end is near?
*The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme:
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.*
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.*
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent)
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.*
Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.*
1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.*
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.*
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.*
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.*
1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.*
Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.*
*It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.*
www.kyroot.com/
*Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam
Also, look up the following.
*"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"*
*"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
*"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
*"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"*
*"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
*"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
*"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"*
*"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"*
*"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"*
*"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
@@JM-19-86 Sounds like wordplay to me.
@@JM-19-86 Nope. Doesn't gel my friend. The Bible explicitly has Jesus say that some of his followers would still be alive to see the second coming.
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.*
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on TH-cam*
@@JM-19-86 As long as there are things christians can change, re-interpret and manipulate, christianity will survive in some form or another until we all accept the fact that we are going to die and there isn't any reason to hold on to ridiculous fairytales and false promises.
"Love" "believes all things"?? What is that supposed to mean?..
As a believer I have to largely agree .....these "Hold all" comments often convey little. ...but then I don't live in the States. If one does not believe there is God the rest of the Christian theological edifice has no basis .
@@tomgreene2282 That does not answer my question at all... I don't care if you agree or if you believe... What does "love believes all things" mean?? Love is an emotion.. Emotions do not think or believe...
@@anotherperspective8263 Love is rather gullible then!
@@SilverSixpence888 That is what is sounds like.
I can hardly wait!!!
Wonderful talk man
From where I'm sitting, "and really discover whether Christianity was true", why do you call it "How to Share Your Faith", "Faith" requires no proof, otherwise what is its purpose, My Two Cents!
How are you defining “proof”?
_"Faith" requires no proof_
Yup. Faith just requires wishful-thinking. And _every_ religion seems to have that.
Nah man. It seems to me that in every other context we use the word “faith”, we use it to express trust in something we think we have good reason to believe. I have faith in my wife; I have faith that my car will start when I leave for work; I have faith that my house won’t burn down today; etc.
I don’t see why the use of it should suddenly change when discussing spiritual convictions.
Of course you can say that the reasons they have are not good reasons, but to come to that conclusion, you have to have a conversation with someone to find out what they believe and why.
What are your thoughts on that?
@@ohmahfoot3995 Faith is not a RELIABLE tool for discovering truth. You might have faith that your car will start, but if the battery is dead it won’t start. You might have faith in your wife, and she might still cheat on you. You might have faith your house won’t burn down, but then your neighbors house catches fire, it spreads, and yours burns down. Anyone can have faith in anything, but it is not a reliable tool for finding truth.
@@truthseeker7867 right. But nobody is using faith as a tool for discovering truth. Faith has nothing to do with discovering truth. In every context other than spiritual convictions, people use the word as an affirmation of something they believe to be true.
For what it’s worth, I currently most closely identify as an agnostic in this area. I’m just at a place where I’m sympathetic to both sides of it, and trying to represent this side of it accurately.
So Cameron, in your search for truth, you OBVIOUSLY read LOTS of opposing views to the christian one - right? I mean, how can you really be searching for truth if you only investigate one side - in your case the christian faith you were indoctrinated with as a child. You make several recommendations of books/channels which advocate for the view you already held before this search for truth - and the one you obviously ended up with. But to show that you were a REAL GENUINE truth searcher, please recommend the books you read, and the channels you watched, which gave other views (that there is no god/ that there are other gods/ that christianity is false etc). Because it looks to me like you did no such thing. Show me that I am wrong.
If you really are searching for truth, look up Chuck Missler and Michael Heisner.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
God how I hate the term "love on". Irrrrk! Get rid of it - not only is it irksome, but it is incorrect grammatically.
The WLC quote is absurd. It’s verifiable that the gospels are not true stories even though they contain truths. No seriously thoughtful person could come to believe these stories actually tell a true story, and because of that, thoughtful people can’t believe it.
@Justin Gary Not OP but I would say that the contradictions contained within the canonical gospels is a good reason to withhold belief in them being true stories. Not being written in the first person also means that these aren't first person accounts. Parts of the canonical gospels being copied from Mark is another problem. Historical anachronisms in the bible is a problem. The accounts should line up with historical and archeological facts, they often don't. If we're talking OT there are even more problems. The evidence of borrowing from other cultures and stories that predate Christianity/Judaism is a problem. If the gospel writers borrow from Greek epics how much of the rest of the story can be trusted to be true?
Once I was able to evaluate the bible without blinders on I was able to see that the internal contradictions, anachronisms, and historical & archeological facts that discredit claims contained within the bible are insurmountable. I need more evidence or a more accurate representation of the events in order to warrant belief in the truth of the bible stories.
@Awesome Wrench More importantly the earliest gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus died. Luke and Luke Acts are closer to 50-60 years after Jesus died. It's very unlikely that they were written by people who had witnessed the events firsthand.
@Awesome Wrench Most were also illiterate. Even with the extremely low litteracy rates, litteracy in the ancient world was very different than now. You were considered litterate if you could copy text. You didn't necessarily have to know how to read, just copy text to be considered literate. True literacy, the kind required to write the gospels was reserved for the elite. The disciples were not Greek elites.
Yamaha… great guitars and motorcycles… but as a voice of reason…. Lacking!
Who died and made YOU the judge of all who is thoughtful?
Laughable.
@@mkl2237 Who died and gave you certain insight into what ancient stories are real and which ones are false?
Maybe like WLC, god himself whispers in your brain confirming that -gosh darn it, you were right all along!!
Watching from the Philippines
Great thoughts Cameron. However your sentiment doesn't match up with some of the merchandise you market. 'BTW - God exists.' - doesn't present an invitation for discussion.
He has to keep saying that to remind himself that it is really really true, really it is. It stops him having to actually support his claims with evidence. I think it's called brainwashing...
@@SilverSixpence888 i can see how you might see it that way but I don’t think that is Cameron’s attitude. I really don’t know why he has merch like this especially when it elicits the kind of response that you’ve just articulated here
@@honestchristianity936 He's not all that bright TBH. Only interested in turning a buck.
@@SilverSixpence888 I hope you’re wrong but you may well be right
Also my close brother in Christ. Who helped save me suffers from anxiety similar to me. I recommend trying to save people who have similar conditions to you.
No offense but that seems really manipulative
@@friendo6257 Let me explain :
When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in
Matthew 7: 13-14.
“13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it."
There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation.
Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born.
James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death.
John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life”
Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so.
Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage.
Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family.
Genesis 2:16-17
“16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.”
Genesis 6:7
“7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”
are you forced to bring children to the world?
if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?
214g
@@a.39886 214g?
@@friendo6257 my mistake I forgot what other scripture was going to add anyway the point stand even thought last scripture is missing.
Unless a Christian is open-minded enough to be willing to completely walk away from their own faith (whether it be for another religion or into agnosticism/atheism), without fear or anxiety over what such a decision might entail, I do not want to have a conversation with them, and I think I have nothing to learn from them.
Let me explain :
When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in
Matthew 7: 13-14.
“13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it."
There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation.
Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born.
James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death.
John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life”
Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so.
Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage.
Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family.
Genesis 2:16-17
“16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.”
Genesis 6:7
“7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”
are you forced to bring children to the world?
if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?
124g
@@a.39886 What on Earth did I just read?
"Our side" can use these same three tenets as well. Love, truth & knowledge!
No, they can't!
@@taowaycamino4891 Why not? What is so special about your side??
Catholic isn't Jesus only. That's the flaw.
No Christian tradition is Jesus only haha
@@elgatofelix8917 ding ding! God hates human traditions and condition which is why He sent Jesus. Shows you the flaw in all religions then.
Jesus only is really just me only. You all interpret what Jesus wants to be what you want and what you want to be what Jesus wants.
@@SilverSixpence888 there's only one Jesus and He actually lived, actually died, and actually rose again. He was given all authority under heaven and earth and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. God said it. Both truths make Catholicism wrong. There's many more but none needed when those 2 disprove the entire religion.
@@tucktucktucker Lol no dear. Jesus is a storybook character. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. God said nothing. People wrote stories, that is all.
"Oh but the feelz" is not evidence.
My man Cam on stage dressed like an 11 yr. old.
And talking like one too.
When I try to describe my atheism to theists, I use an analogy. I say, imagine you are walking down the street and there is a crowd of people around a tree, all looking up into the tree. I asked, "what's up in the tree, a cat?" The person says that God has decided to use the tree. I look up into the tree and state that I don't see anything unusual. The person points to a man and tells me that the only person who can see, and hear God is that man. I go over to the man and he tells me that he is God's messenger. He informs me that I must tell him the questions I have for God and he, the man, will relay them to God, and get any subsequent replies God might offer.
So, should I believe the man, or not? I have chosen to disbelieve, contingent on further evidence.
Let me explain :
When people bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in
Matthew 7: 13-14.
“13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it."
There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation.
Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born.
James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death.
John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life”
Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so.
Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage.
Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when he could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family.
Genesis 2:16-17
“16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.”
Genesis 6:7
“7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”
are you forced to bring children to the world?
if you know 100% true fact that your child will end in the eternal torture of hell do you still have carnal desire with your partner knowing he will suffer on hell just for being born?
124
@@a.39886 None of your comment means anything to me because I do not believe what Bible says is valid. It is just like the Quran in that respect.
IS A HUMAN BEING THAT BELIEVES "GODS" ARE REAL MORE INTELLIGENT THAN A MONKEY? NO. SIMPLES!
Say that to Sir Isaac Newton
What about someone who can’t spell correctly and doesn’t know how to turn off caps lock?
Do you know any science, Paul, ideally how a star works?
Only 7% of Nobel Prize winners are Atheists or Agnostics and among those 7%, only 4.7% were for Physics and only 7.1% were for Chemistry. Most Atheists who won Nobel Prizes were for literature.
~Reference: Baruch Shalev's 100 years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)
Imagine a world where the number of people more intelligent than a monkey is so diminishingly small that it's 10% of a 7% 😂
@@chaanci Newton is an excellent example but far from being the only scientist who wasn't atheist.