In order to popularize Christianity in his own image which we can tell from the differences in teaching seen in Paul’s letter compared to the Gospel accounts…
…Is dumb on so many levels.
Never mind the fact that Paul didn’t gain money, power or sex (the three main drivers for starting a cult) and got persecution, physical suffering, imprisonment and execution instead.
It’s the fact that the same kind of revisionists of the Bible also hold that the Gospel were written waaaaaaay after the lifetime of Paul. This means that whoever composed the Gospels had plenty of time to undo the damage after ‘Paul the Impostle’ wasn’t around to oppose them anymore. So then, why didn’t they refute Paul’s innovations in their accounts? Why be silent and so passive about wrong teachings?
Oooooor maybe the Disciples actually went along with Paul’s revisions because it was easier and he made Christianity more acceptable and popular (and yes, someone actually proposed this when I made the points in the preceding paragraph). Again, apart from the fact that 10 of them died and 1 was exiled – ‘easier’ is not their mindset! – why did their Gospel accounts contain ‘the true teachings of Jesus which totally don’t align with what Paul said’? That defeats the purpose of joining Paul’s bandwagon.
To me, this theory is one of the least well thought-out (alongside “They stole Jesus’s body / Mass hallucinations / Swoon theory”). Walking the scenario down the road even a little bit makes the wheels fall off.
Like most alleged contradictions in the Bible, a little more investigation would clear up the issue as simple bad interpretation.
Someone asked if worrying is sinning against God. I agree somewhat, because it’s questioning God’s ability to take care of us.
But I’ve always also felt that it isn’t only about God’s ability (no question there), but rather God’s willingness to answer my prayers. What I pray for could be against what God intends, it could be His will to let me suffer the problems I pray against.
Today I realized that this is still sinning against God, because it questions His goodness to us. Whatever God allows to happen to us, it’s for a better outcome (Romans 8:28).
So even if the problems I pray against might not get resolved, instead of worrying I should trust God’s goodness because whatever the outcome, He has the best result in store for me.
Rom 9:20-24 is Isaiah 29:16 in the context of the Jews not following God’s commands, or Isaiah 45:9 where the preceding chapters are about their disobedience leading to the Exile and Cyrus (a Gentile) being chosen by God instead. It also calls back to Jeremiah 18:1-10 where God plainly says that His plans for people will change based on their responses.
Rom 9:25-26 is Hosea 1:10 & 2:23, the whole book in the context of Jewish unfaithfulness.
Rom 9:27-29 is Isaiah 1:9 & 10:22-23, sandwiched between scolding the people for rebellion.
Rom 9:30-33 is Isaiah 8:14 & 28:16, read slightly back in both chapters to see their rebellion.
Even the earlier examples in Romans 9 are about human resistance to God’s will. Ishmael (Abraham trying to get his son not through Sarah, Gen 18:10), Jacob (Isaac trying to bless the older instead of the younger, against Gen 25:23), “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (Exo 33:19, in the context of nearly destroying Israel for rebellion in Exo 32:10), Pharoah (he hardens his own heart multiple times before God does it).
In summary, the entire chapter is about people resisting God’s will. It is therefore foolish & obstinate of the objector in v19 to claim nobody can resist God’s will… By saying so, he is right then & there still resisting God’s will!
Some time back, I took up handling the youth ministry again after a long hiatus. I decided that I wanted to have more of a focus on apologetics instead of just the usual studying doctrine and life-application angles.
To assist in this process, I pick out a video or several shorter videos on the topic, coming to a total of around 20-40 minutes. I briefly introduce the topic for the week, play the video(s) or just the portion I want to focus on, and then recap & summarize what we just learnt – occasionally including the points our congregation wouldn’t agree with, for when the video makes statements that the leadership wouldn’t consider kosher.
2) Kids these days are inundated with audio-visual media, stimulating and fast paced and brief in length. If you want to grab & hold their attention, standing there monologuing or making everyone stare at dead trees ain’t gonna cut it. Hence I highly prioritize animated videos or those with plenty of visual aids such as illustrations & charts.
3) There’s already a lot of good apologetics material out there, but not all of it is suitable . And not everyone knows where to find it. Once I’ve introduced a topic, channel or personality to the kids then they have a starting point to learn more.
And with this post, now so do you.
Below, I summarize as much as I can recall of the topics and video links I have used so far. Some of the titles have no video due to old-man-forgetititis, I’ll add them in when I find them. Some are removed or replaced thanks to retrospective hindsight.
Feel free to peruse, rearrange or repurpose the following for your own requirements! Start, stop and skip the videos as necessary or do some video-editing prep-work in advance. I find that running the actual Youtube video so that Closed Captions can play is helpful sometimes, but watch out for the ads interrupting.
And do comment with your own experiences, recommendations for videos/material, suggestions & etc. My hope is to eventually create a proper year-long schedule that anyone can pick up and use for their own youth.
#
First we start with arguments for the existence of God.
Historicity of Jesus’s life, crucifixion, resurrection – now that we’ve established God exists, the question moves on to WHO is this God? If Jesus really rose from the dead, then this lends credence to His claim that He is God.
David Wood’s testimony, conversion based on hard facts especially the willingness of the Apostles to die for something they KNOW was true or false. He also mentions atheism’s lack of objective morality which is covered in an earlier topic. The video is just him talking as he takes the subway, but many points of the journey coincide with his story – such as opening the door or coming up into the light (amazing since he says he did it all in one take!). https://youtu.be/jb2ggj9mKM0?si=WT-Rd4EDRmEuKzSs
Super weird parasites – I use this to spur the question, under the standard Darwinian model of unguided, random mutation, macro-evolution by tiny increments… How did these features evolve? You can’t just have one or the chain-system fails, and the feature would die out because it’s a waste of resources. And they need to match one or more hosts too! What kind of insane probability is it for all the necessary features to mutate at once?
David Rohl’s timeline is controversial but fits the 1446BC Early Exodus. Start from 1:13:20 onwards to skip most of it and go to evidence of the Israelites in Egypt – Goshen, Semitic artifacts, many-coloured coats, Nile flooding related to Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph’s waterway & house, 12 tombs around the house, defaced statue with many colours, infant graves & high adult female proportion, plague pits & abandonment of the town. Briefly on Jericho. https://youtu.be/MxpydrE_4X8?si=PH0OY6Vx75MvEnh3
Islam contradicting history – this is not just for polemics, but also as a contrast to Christianity. Every critical challenge of Christianity (textual, historical, archaeological) has been met & overcome; the same cannot be said of Islam. (Mormonism isn’t a major issue over here, but you could easily do a similar comparison to their claims of ancient supercities in America.)
Spiritual beings – an overview of what the Bible actually describes, instead of what Hollywood, games & other media depict. This leads/ties in to the Divine Council Worldview.
I am more & more thinking that the idea of New Testament demons should really maintain the wider Greek definition of ‘allotted’ spirits, daimon. And if you know your DCW, you know the significance of the term ‘allotted’. I think this has more support than the ‘spirits of dead Nephilim view from the Second Temple period) that Dr Heiser favours.
Take a look also at the LXX rendering of Psalm 96:5 LXX, ‘the gods of the nations are demons’ (not idols as in MT). The allotted-daimon views fits better with ‘they sacrifice to idols which are demons’ (1 Cor 10:20), ‘they sacrifice to demons who are not God (Deut 32:17 LXX). But note that all three senses of idols = daimon = gods of the nations click together.
Why do demons possess humans? The dead-Nephilim view has them desiring physical bodies again, or just wanting to cause havoc. The allotted-daimon view would be that they don’t have enough clout to possess whole nations, so they possess mere individuals instead. This fits Jesus saying ‘If I cast out demons, you know the Kingdom of God has come’ (first the minor vassals get kicked around, then the crucifixion disarms and defeats the major principality lieges).
7:27 Well so, there’s this passage in Romans 9… Well it’s not the only reason, I should say. But I have real trouble with this, and I think it’s still hard for me to say. I think this is evil.
There’s this passage in Romans 9 that talks about, it gives us an analogy of God as Potter and humans as clay in his hands. And it uses the example of Jacob and Esau who, in the Bible Jacob and Esau were twins, and says while they were yet in the womb before either of them had done good or evil, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
And it’s what paints this picture of God, you know. Says, what if God willing to show his wrath and make his power known endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath made for destruction? So it says, God created some people as vessels of mercy, people that he loves. And others as vessels of wrath made for destruction. So made for the express purpose of destroying them, of torturing them in hell for eternity.
So it’s Paul who’s writing, he paints this picture, God making you do all of the things that you do, and then blessing some and cursing others, and he says, well you’re gonna ask me then, why does God yet find fault? For who resists his will right? So God’s making you do it, why is he punishing you for it, right? If God’s making you do a horrible thing, you resist, well you can’t resist as well, right? So he makes you do it and then he punishes you for it.
And the answer is, you don’t get to ask that question. Oh, it says nay, but o man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me this? He just wanted to ask that question.
And to me, why this is, I’ve asked like, for I spent a long time talking to Christians and you know people of mostly Christians because it’s obviously it’s New Testament so, but also talking to Jewish people about the Old Testament. And found so many of the interpretations and so many of our beliefs are not fully supported by by the Bible. And that there are so many different ways of interpreting so many of the more destructive of our beliefs.
But that one, I have not found any explanation for that passage that’s anything that makes any kind of sense, that’s consistent with the text and not evil. And I just didn’t, I thought I couldn’t ask that question for so long when I was at the church right? I thought I just had to accept this is the truth and nothing that I feel or think matters against it.
0:00 With my Christian friends who try to convince me, I say listen, like I don’t know why you’re trying to persuade me. Because your own Bible says it’s a gift, it’s the work of the spirit start to finish. It’s a removing of a heart of stone and replacing with a heart of flesh. That is not something you can do for me.
So if it’s true we’re both depending on the spirit to show up. I’m literally in the grave next to Lazarus, waiting to hear my name. I’m going to lay in there dead till he shows up.
Somebody asked me uh near the beginning of this year, what would it take for you to believe? What would it take for you to believe in God? That’s easy. God would have to give me faith. Because I can’t reach out and grab it. What it would take is a miracle. It would take a miracle.
What does it take for a dead man to come out of, to come six feet out of the ground? It takes someone to dig him out, to open the box and revive him, breathe into his nostrils. And the Bible makes it very clear that there is nothing less spiritually than that going on in salvation. Absolute new life, from death to life. And that’s what would be required.
And I’m open to it. I mean I’m literally in the grave waiting to hear my name anytime. If there is going to be a work of the spirit going on, I want in. And I won’t be able to resist it. And I can’t call out for it, I cannot coax him over. Either my name is written in the Book of Life or it’s not.
1:35 Maybe fashion me for destruction vessel, for because he does that. Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. For the good pleasure of his own will to and he receives no counsel but his own about that. And so there’s nothing I’m going to be able to do to change his mind about it.
So maybe it’s all real and I’m just not chosen, and that’s a thing I’m going to have going to have to reckon with. And that’s not a thing I can really do anything about.
2:12 I mean in as far as Lazarus was listening the moment before he heard his name out of Jesus’ mouth, which a dead man cannot can’t. So he wasn’t listening, he wasn’t paying attention. He wasn’t flagging someone down, he wasn’t wishing or hoping for it. He wasn’t leaning forward, he wasn’t seeking it. He was just suddenly called out, came alive and came out. And that was the only response he could have had. Cos he had no choice. I mean that’s a hard and Biblical word.
9:58 Along with the perennial problem of evil, which no theodicy had ever truly satisfied, there was the troubling morality of God’s commands, especially in the Old Testament. Was “who are you, O man, who answers back to God” the rebuke of a deity above human comprehension or a facile human response to Christianity’s flaws?
12:29 I was not requesting worldly benefits, just faith. I wanted God. I wanted to believe. An omnipotent God could have made me believe. A loving God would have. No God did. That was that. I no longer believed in God. I was an atheist.
13:28 I don’t believe in God – because why should I? If I’m one of God’s reprobates, what’s the point? And if God wanted me to believe in Him, it wouldn’t be that hard – after all if He is real, He was the one who made me believe in the first place.
0:42 The first passage I want to talk about is from Romans 9, which was the starting point of my deconstruction journey. Up until the point that I read and studied and chewed on the words in Romans 9, I believed in a God who created all people, gave them free will, and that he wanted all people to be saved, but he couldn’t violate their free will to save them. And that it was the most loving thing he could do to give people freedom, and within that freedom they could either choose him and go to heaven, or they could reject him and go to hell. And that would be entirely their choice.
1:30 I was 17 years old I was introduced to the concept of Calvinism. And when I was introduced to this I said no way there is no way that God created people just to go to hell. And then I read Romans 9, starting in verse 16. It does not therefore depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy, for scripture says to Pharaoh, raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the Earth. Therefore God has Mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me then, why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will? But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, why did you make me like? Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for his glory, even us whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
It says it’s starting in verse 16, it does not therefore depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Meaning there is nothing about you that can come to God and choose. God has to choose you. It says in verse 18, therefore God has Mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden. When Christians talk about you have a hardened heart against God, the Bible says that God’s the one that hardened it.
And then it even goes on to ask, well then why does God still blame us? You know, if he created this way how come he blames us? And Paul is saying, who are you to question God? How can the clay question the Potter and ask, why have you made me like this? It says, what if God although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for destruction? If he has decided he wants to create you just to destroy you, then he’s gonna do that and that’s his right. You don’t get to question that.
Then, at 16, I read those Articles of Religion, carefully and critically for the first time. I was disturbed that my church accepted pre-destination. Before the foundation of the world, the Articles said, God had chosen some vessels for honor and others for dishonor.
I cannot believe that a just and loving God would create beings he knew and had pre-determined would spend eternity in hell. But Christians can reject pre-destination only at the cost of ignoring the authority of their scriptures and the implications of their theology.
In the Christian tradition it is normal to baptize infants at an early age because it is believed that they come into the world tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve. This is the doctrine of original sin. I cannot believe in original sin. My granddaughter may be a sinner now, but not when she was in the intensive care unit.
So usually it is held that God has no reason for choosing some and not others. He acts quite arbitrarily. It’s a hard and ugly doctrine, this doctrine of grace. I suppose that if you have already accepted Hell and original sin, you may be grateful for having a shot at salvation even if it does seem to be a lottery in which the odds are not on your side. Of course, if you think you have faith, then you may also think you have won the lottery and you may set aside thoughts about the unlucky losers.
So there you have my opening argument. I have offered seven objections, seven deadly objections, I would say: Christian theism is committed to pre-destination, to Hell, to original sin, to justification by faith, and to exclusivism; it has no good solution to the problem of evil; and it is destructive of morality as we understand it. These are only some of the objections which make it impossible for me to believe in the Christian God.
Sure, they say Tyler’s Calvinism had nothing to do with his deconversion. But read the longer transcript at the link and then come back here.
MythVision: I so relate to you Tyler right now this was my issue as well. There’s, I had a problem. I read Romans 9 and Paul’s hypothetical debate partner when he says – after he explains before any of them had done either good or bad, I hate and I love – and then he explains, for the purpose of election. This is why systematically I’m with you. At least Pauline, if we take Paul – Paul and his perception – and make that the whole systematic view of the Bible. Yes, I think that we’re dealing with the kind of what we call Reformed or Calvinistic type of thinking…
Vela: He’s a predestinian.
MythVision: He’s some kind of, yeah and I don’t know all the nuts and bolts, but at the end of the day he’s like “Well how can He, I mean like, how can God find fault?”. And he, pretty much his answer is “Shut up you mortal clay! God the maker can do whatever He wants, He’s Justified to do it.”
MythVision: And I now imagine, in that world, that kind of makes me wonder like, how were parents at this time? Like you’re calling Him Heavenly Father, so like like, you’re describing here. I’m a father of three sons. I-I’ve been married half, over half my life almost. I mean like for a long time, 16 years. And I’m sitting here thinking, I love people that may be reprobates. We love to throw that term around in the Calvinist circles, and does that mean that I love people more than God loves some people?
You might have been already wavering between different positions, not fully swayed by the arguments of any side. Or you could have been tilting in a certain direction already, and that last nudge was the catalyst needed.
Use whichever metaphor or analogy you like: One stone can cause an avalanche. The straw that broke the camel’s back. Removing one brick makes the whole wall topple. The single deciding vote that breaks the tie.
And once you fall into the new position, what follows is often that all the arguments against it are seen in a new light. The paradigm shift is full and complete, and the new position confidently solidifies.
In the soteriology debate, examples I’ve heard are Derek Murrell saying that Limited Atonement got him to accept the rest of TULIP. Brad Saab was convinced into Calvinism by its interpretation of Ephesians 1, then convinced out of it by other interpretations of it. Idol Killer’s rapid deconstruction of TULIP was kicked off by realizing the prooftexts for Total Depravity didn’t actually state what the doctrine needs them to state.
For me personally, I was flip-flopping on these following debates until one single realization caused me to fall fully off one side of the fence I had been sitting on:
1) Was Melchizedek the pre-incarnate Jesus?
As Dr Michael Heiser pointed out, Hebrews compares the two… But it never says Melchizedek WAS Jesus.
So I landed on “No”.
#
2) Was Michael the pre-incarnate Jesus?
Various Trinitarians like John Calvin and John Wesley said “Yes”, not just the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But again from Dr Michael Heiser, Michael is ‘one of the chief princes’ and not the singular chief prince which would be expected if Jesus is to be identified with Michael. So I landed on “No”.
#
3) Are the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4 heavenly/angelic beings, polygamous kings, or the line of Seth?
The deciding factor was when I realized “If the author wanted to indicate polygamous kings or the line of Seth, then WHY NOT JUST SAY SO? Whereas by contrast, ‘Bene Elohim’ is exactly the term to use if supernatural beings are intended – see Job 1:6 & 2:1 (they are gathered in front of God and then Ha Shatan shows up), Job 38:7 (they watch God form the earth), Deuteronomy 32:8 (ESV), Psalm 29:1 (Bene Elim), Psalm 82 (v6 “You are elohim, Bene Elyown”), Psalm 89:5-7 (Bene Elim in the skies).
So I landed on that view.
#
4) Is the Rapture pre-tribulation?
On my own I came to the ‘Problem of Two Seconds”.
The first problem with a pre-Trib Rapture is rather pedantic, more of a naming convention – if Jesus comes to catch up believers, and then 7 years later comes to destroy the armies of the End Times Beast, then that would be the THIRD coming of Christ.
But the other problem is Scripturally based – the beheaded coming to life is specifically called ‘the first resurrection’ in Revelation 20:4-5. But if this takes place 7 years after the pre-Trib Rapture, then it would actually be the SECOND resurrection because ‘the dead in Christ shall rise first’ already happened earlier per 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17!
So I landed on “No”.
#
5) Did the devil know about the Crucifixion plan and actually want Jesus to avoid it?
I said ‘Yes’ and based my reasoning on “Surely the devil knows the Scriptures, prophesying of how Messiah must suffer & die, to defeat sin & death & the powers of evil! See how he tried to tempt Jesus away from the path of the cross by offering Him all the nations of the world.” I even confidently stated as much during a pulpit sermon.
All it took was 1 Corinthians 2:8 “None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” to disabuse me of my assumption (thanks to Michael Heiser mentioning this passage often in the context of the DCW).
In later pulpit sermons, I admitted my complete earlier error on this view.
#
6) Which ‘Rea Sea’ crossing took place during the Exodus?
Which you prefer is down to personal taste. But companies need to reckon with our person tastes as the paying customer.
Most gamers who pay for AAA action games are younger males, and they prefer protagonists who are idealized men they can look up to or attractive women they can look at. Swapping in ugly women turns away these male gamers and doesn’t bring in girls who aren’t major action fans (and also prefer to play as idealized women).
Film has learned this the hard way with M-She-U and Star Wars, which they originally bought over to bring in boys (since they already had their princess line for girls)… And now games are learning it too late.
Warhammer 40000 might have been slapped awake from their slumber with the U-turn in 2024 (down since Female Custodes, up again with non-woke Space Marine 2 and lore-chad Henry Cavill finally confirmed for the Amazon Prime series).
Dramatization with some additions that could viably have happened, but also lots if unnecessary retcons & changes in the sequence of events.
At least Mary isn’t a girlboss and Anthony Hopkins gets to chew the scenery again as king (last round, he was MCU Odin). And I was thrown off by the weird ahistorical costume designs that apparently were inspired by Asian designs.
Free thinking, but not a Free Thinker.
A Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.
Believing in a universal church, but not a Catholic.
Trying to be a saint in these latter days, but not a Latter Day Saint.
A witness for Jehovah, but not a Jehovah's Witness.
Sumitted to God, but not a Muslim.
Seeking knowledge, but not a Gnostic.
Rational in thinking, but not a Rationalist.
Upholding humanity, but not a Humanist.
A supporter of liberation, but not a Liberal.
A supporter of democracy, but not a Democrat.
Acknowledging the importance of social values, but not a Socialist.
Seeking and valuing truth, but not a Truther.