God himself told me that the new testament is fanfiction.
@ZoomingintoScripture12 сағат бұрын
Full video on my channel that goes into more evidence!:)
@KaiserGeiser4 күн бұрын
99% of the texts of the ancient world have been lost. How do we know that other texts in the 2nd century BC didn't mention Belshazzar?
@ZoomingintoScripture4 күн бұрын
@@KaiserGeiser because early historians mentioned in the video who were close to the period didn’t mention him at all. Daniel was the only source about him. I mean there could’ve been maybe. But I doubt those early historians would’ve missed such a detail if it were available
@narendra6725 күн бұрын
😊
@educatedhuz71549 күн бұрын
Jesus(as) calling himself the good shepherd doesn't mean that he's referring to himself as "Good" in the same sense that God is ontoloigcally good, he is referencing himself being the messiah of the israelites. To show you how ridiculous this is, here are some verse where the word good is used for other items. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31 For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 1 Timothy 4:4 1) Jesus says only one who is good is God 2) Genesis 1:31,1 Timothy 4:4 says that God saw everything he made and declared it to be good 3)Therefore all creation is God You'd obviously argue the way the term "good" is used in Genesis 1:31, 1 Timothy 4:4 is different from the way good is used by Jesus(as) for God. To connect Jesus(as) calling himself the good shepherd in John 10 to a completely different conversation all the way in Mark 10, is a bad way to deduce he's indicating divinity.
@ZoomingintoScripture9 күн бұрын
@@educatedhuz7154 Jesus is calling to mind Ezekiel 34, if you are aware of the Old Testament you see its importance: For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice… Then they will know that I, the Lord their God, am with them and that they, the Israelites, are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord. You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord. Jesus is referencing the Old Testament when speaking to the Pharisees. “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (John 10:14-16)
@educatedhuz71548 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture Except the term shepherd is used in Ezekiel 37:23 for the person who will be appointed by God. "And I will appoint one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd" Why cant Jesus(as) be referring to the shepherd who is appointed by God to rule over israel, why must he be referring to himself as Yahweh
@hellopuppyarecool10 күн бұрын
Nice video and good points
@ZoomingintoScripture10 күн бұрын
@@hellopuppyarecool thank you!
@srinugrohoprahastono770112 күн бұрын
Why did this appear in my recommendation ?? 💀 I watched dawah, islam vs christian debate, explanation on Quran / hadith. I don't need Christian explaining their God
@jeffreybongos483712 күн бұрын
Don't stress so much man.
@jcr6556613 күн бұрын
Even though God spirit was in his human body his was still God but living a human life. And in a human body jesus body was unrighteous it why jesus body had to be baptise and it was only after jesus was baptised he started his ministry.
@BIayne13 күн бұрын
What is extraordinary about the author of Daniel knowing about a king who was later forgotten by history but eventually found to be a real person? So what?
@ZoomingintoScripture13 күн бұрын
@@BIayne because It gives compelling evidence that the author was an eyewitness to the events. It’s not like they had google 2,500 years ago. Early sources knew nothing of Belshazzar but Daniel did
@BIayne13 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture You're making the assumption that no one in the author of Daniel's time had any knowledge of this king just because later there was no documentation about him. That makes no sense.
@Talisman225813 күн бұрын
God told me that hes been getting weaker since this one dude on earth has been stealing his fans. Dudes name is donald or something.
@Talisman225813 күн бұрын
there being real historical figures in the bible does not prove that everthing written is real. Troy was a real city but that does not mean that the gods were fighting each other and teleporting people to get jiggy with other peoples wives.
@R-Tex.13 күн бұрын
God is not real, my man.
@heavenbound750814 күн бұрын
GREAT JOB!!! We CAN rely on the WRITTEN WORD!!! GOD is TRUTHFUL!!! ❤
@BrainDead23514 күн бұрын
Interesting
@ZoomingintoScripture14 күн бұрын
I didn’t catch that I misspelled “Scripture” on the intro and ending slides before uploading. I unfortunately can’t fix it without re-uploading the video:/ I’ll make sure to be more careful next time haha
@sherwynpillay390714 күн бұрын
Excellent. Check the spelling of "scripture" at the end of he vid where u ask to subscribe.
@ZoomingintoScripture14 күн бұрын
Thank you! Aw man I can’t believe I missed that lol, thanks for the catch!
@ninaa_luciic14 күн бұрын
Amen.
@user-dd2gn1ij9l20 күн бұрын
Daniel, wrote his book and there’s proof. But how much proof do people really need? So what’s is said in his book is accurate, there’s always critics.
@timme284421 күн бұрын
Well Yeshua Himself told us who wrote the book of Daniel.... Daniel. That's all I need to know.
@ZoomingintoScripture21 күн бұрын
The greatest authenticator
@Meteor_pending22 күн бұрын
It's funny, the book of Daniel is criticized for making up history, but let's take that further. If you want to forge a historical document, why on earth would you make up historical figures who aren't even jewish? Figures that normally would be easily falsifiable given their position? What's the motivation there? That's just absurd at face value!
@bonsaitomato829026 күн бұрын
Tacitus only confirms the cult of Jesus existed and that’s all. He’s not proof of any of the accounts of Jesus or of miracles. I’m sorry Christians but I know you think Tacitus is a slam dunk for magical Jesus but he’s at best only a commentator on the Christian religion. This doesn’t get you any closer to proof of Christianity’s claims.
@ZoomingintoScripture26 күн бұрын
I definitely wouldn’t make the case he does prove that. It’s just one piece of the mountainous early evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person and corroborating the New Testament as shown in the video. Tacitus report supports extremely early and rapid spread of Christian belief of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah to the gentiles in spite of fierce persecution and primitive means of communication
@bonsaitomato829026 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture I wouldn’t call the evidence “mountainous” in fact it’s not even a decent hill of evidence. All you have, even with the gospels are at best hearsay accounts that’s if we grant the events are reliable, which they are not given all the editing that we see. I think you implied the gospels are written by the “disciples” and if you think that you are well outside of the established scholarship of the New Testament.
@ZoomingintoScripture26 күн бұрын
@@bonsaitomato8290 Edits? If you mean variance between the manuscripts I know of none that affect core Christian theology. Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges this. And it is because of the wealth of manuscripts we know what the originals said. Also, Mark was not a disciple nor Luke. I trust people who were closer to the events recorded on authorship such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus(who was taught by Polycarp who was then the directly taught by John himself) then overly skeptical scholars 2000 years removed.
@bonsaitomato829026 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture why would trust people at any period with a stake in the stories they’re selling ? People in the first and second centuries had even more reason to over-inflate the reliability of their theology. If you are unaware of the scriptural additions and redactions in the gospels practiced by the early church then you really do need to do a lot more study of this subject before you make videos on the matter. I’m not talking about “variants” I’m talking about stories added whole cloth by the church much later than the original texts. If the church was willing to insert stories into the gospels that were not original how can we rely on the historicity of the gospels at any stage of their development?? You can’t. You can say you have “faith” that they’re reliable but you can’t say with certainty that they are reliable. If you’re basing this on the speed of the spread of Christianity in the early first and second centuries then would you extend that same argument to the rapid expansion of Mormonism ? I highly doubt you would but you have to admit Mormonism did take off to become an established religion much faster than Christianity ever did.
@bonsaitomato829026 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture why would trust people at any period with a stake in the stories they’re selling ? People in the first and second centuries had even more reason to over-inflate the reliability of their theology. If you are unaware of the scriptural additions and redactions in the gospels practiced by the early church then you really do need to do a lot more study of this subject before you make videos on the matter. I’m not talking about “variants” I’m talking about stories added whole cloth by the church much later than the original texts. If the church was willing to insert stories into the gospels that were not original how can we rely on the historicity of the gospels at any stage of their development?? You can’t. You can say you have “faith” that they’re reliable but you can’t say with certainty that they are reliable. If you’re basing this on the speed of the spread of Christianity in the early first and second centuries then would you extend that same argument to the rapid expansion of Mormonism ? I highly doubt you would but you have to admit Mormonism did take off to become an established religion much faster than Christianity ever did.
@konnerstruik379627 күн бұрын
Really well put together video! Keep up the great work! I can't believe you only have 166 subscribers - you deserve more!
@ZoomingintoScripture27 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for the feedback!
@abubenadem27 күн бұрын
First, Daniel didn’t write the book, second…the information you offered was already known for over 150 years, it’s not new news to me or many other people! Lastly there’s in the biblical narrative mythology, legends and history! If you’re unable to recognize that…school hasn’t been useful!
@marcussparticus838023 күн бұрын
It was new to me, so I'm great full he has made this video. After reading your reply, I believe you to be an arrogant self opinionated little man who likes to run his mouth off. He had gone to quit some trouble to make this video for people like me that don't have that information.
@jschex12327 күн бұрын
Not to mention all the written accounts from the apostles that weren’t the gospels
@joannfuhrer311428 күн бұрын
There is so much controversy among non-believers concerning Daniel and his prophecies. Many non-believing scholars date the writing of Daniel centuries after Nebuchadnezzar's reign because they do not believe the accuracy of his prophetic words. Of course we know that God's Prophets had to be 100% accurate, and Daniel was! As far as I have read, scholars have found no record that the Darius of Daniel 6 was a historical person. Yes, please do a part 2.
@TerryKeever29 күн бұрын
Thanks. I'd like to see more. Archeology is something I know little about. Nice to have verification.
@cesariglesias29729 күн бұрын
New York city prove Spiderman or the appearance of Rudy Giuliani in the Spiderman comics? Most scholars agree that Daniel is not a historical figure and that much of the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV EPIPHANES but we are in a free country and those Jewish books can be intrepet as you wish
@ZoomingintoScripture29 күн бұрын
Spider-Man clearly presents itself as within the fantasy genre. There are many genres found in the Bible but fantasy is not one of them. I’m not saying this evidence proves everything in the Bible as that would be going way too far. But what it does show is the author knew his stuff and had special knowledge of the events as someone who was there would have. If he got it completely wrong we would doubt he was there but the opposite is shown to be the case. Also, some scholars hold to naturalism and have an anti-supernatural bias and since Daniel has prophecies that come to pass, can’t believe they written before the event. There is no compelling reason to believe that hypothesis as all the data points to Daniel being the author.
@peterblock696428 күн бұрын
@@ZoomingintoScripture When the Bible talks about God, that part is fantasy.
@WaveFunctionCollapsed29 күн бұрын
Its just incoherent collection of words 😊
@aikidik25129 күн бұрын
So what , someone is named in a book, and there is evidence for a ruler by archaeology, this makes other claims per se not (more) true from that book....🧐☝️The city of Ebla is not found in the bible, but has played a huge role in the neighborhood, strange.
@josephodoherty786429 күн бұрын
Why so easily triggered? The video specifically mentioned how a seeming error of one logical or factual category is, often, taken as evidence against the truth of other elements in the book/story and that being so it's totally valid to say that in that case evidence for the disputed material is in contrast a relative shift in the balance of evidence. It's not earth shattering but your antagonism says more about you & how you evaluate facts around this topic than it is a criticism of the beliefs of others.
@aikidik25128 күн бұрын
@@josephodoherty7864 Ad Hominem ?
@Ephesians61729 күн бұрын
Can't wait for part two, thank you for your time and dedication.
@ZoomingintoScripture29 күн бұрын
Thanks for watching!
@greensage39529 күн бұрын
Seems to me Denying such a Book as Daniel warrants denying the entire Old Testament! It is the New Testament that we should question!
@tomcloud5429 күн бұрын
Stephen King's books 'confirm' the existence of many, many contemporary things, but that does not make Stephen Kings stories all true. Some true facts thrown in with a lot of fiction does not make a history, it just makes the overall story seem more realistic.
@josephodoherty786429 күн бұрын
Ha Ha, rather childish but some humour. It does distort/deny the role of exactly such information and discoveries in archaeological & historical evidence & confirmation. You appear to be easily triggered by the legitimate use of a simple word. Maybe your overreaction is prejudice & maybe not. It depends on how serious your "joke " was🤔
@postholer29 күн бұрын
Being surprised by the finds of biblical archaeology is like being surprised after finding the original of a story after reading fan fictions about it. There of course are elements of truth (or the original work) in it. But that doesn't prove the information in the bible (or the fan fiction) to be true (or canon). Still an interesting discipline (and well funded, unlike other archaeological disciplines)
@ronbyrd161629 күн бұрын
It proves, in addition to it being a corroborated fact, that those calling the HOLY SCRIPTURES a myth and a lie, wrong .
@postholer29 күн бұрын
@@ronbyrd1616 XD then the Ilias would be true because we found Troia. The stories collected in the bible are still myths. Won't judge anyone for believing in them of course. Believing isn't knowing though.
@saintmalaclypse321729 күн бұрын
@@ronbyrd1616 Not at all. You would EXPECT writers to get some basic facts about the settings in their stories correct. For example, when writing the Spider-Man comics, many artists and writers use real-world references. 2,000 years from now, intelligent people wouldn't decide that since New York was proven to be a real place, then Spider-Man must be real, too. They would look for evidence of New York AND look for evidence of super-powers as two separate claims. We are still waiting for evidence of ANY of the supernatural claims of the Bible, and no amount of evidence for the mundane will satisfy those claims. Even if it was demonstrated beyond all doubt that mankind originated from two people, the claim that God created them would still need to be supported by further evidence. Otherwise, the claim that those two people came from aliens would be just as valid as any other claim, if there were no evidence. Speaking of myths, you do realize that Greek mythology correctly names many real places and people, right? Yet you don't believe in Zeus, I assume? Same reason.
@josephodoherty786429 күн бұрын
@@saintmalaclypse3217you're just being incredibly childish It's ridiculous to take a presumed error in the Bible as evidence that the Bible is false & simultaneously say but if its true it's in way evidence that it is not false. In relative terms at least the balance of the evidence has shifted.
@saintmalaclypse321729 күн бұрын
@@josephodoherty7864 A book, any book, can contain truths and falsehoods. You cannot assume that because a part of a story is true, it must all be true. Each claim stands on its own merit. Even if you verify every historical claim in the bible down to the last "begat", none of that would point to a single miracle being true. It's childish to assume otherwise. Speaking of which, children learn this when they find mistakes in a textbook. They're quickly taught that a single mistake is just that - a single mistake, which stands on its own, and affects nothing of the rest of the book. Why don't you understand that, if children do?
@peterblock696429 күн бұрын
Accurate accounts of material occurrences do not prove the accuracy of spiritual interpretation and claims. i.e. Yes, it is accurate to say donald trump was the 45th President of the United States. This fact does NOT prove trump was "anointed by God" as thousands of people claim.
@shewong976729 күн бұрын
In which museums are the cylinder and tablet displayed?
@Meteor_pending29 күн бұрын
There is a reason why non-believers attack the book of Daniel. Jesus Himself referred to Daniel, so if you can make Daniel out as a forgery, the divinity of Christ starts to crumble. Do not give into that temptation and believe!
@SunnyJoinAZ29 күн бұрын
Great channel!
@ZoomingintoScripture29 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@user-yq2tu5bd5i29 күн бұрын
A prime example for human blind and rude pride is the people that dismiss ancient scriptures full of intricate details, preseved by the generations - fiction!! I mean how on earth can you conclude that?!?! Some people!!
@peterblock696429 күн бұрын
The fiction, @user-yq2tu5bd5i, is the spiritual interpretation overlaid over historical detail. Accuracy of historical detail means NOTHING regarding claims about God. For example: Yes, it is accurate to say donald trump was the 45th President of the United States. This fact does NOT in any way prove trump was "anointed by God" as thousands of people claim.
@AndreasHennigАй бұрын
Yes please make a 2nd part. If you can provide some sources for further study, that would make it even more awesome. Thank you!!
@ZoomingintoScriptureАй бұрын
Sounds like I’ll need to get started on a part two! I would recommend Unearthing The Bible by Titus Kennedy. There are tons of cool discoveries in that book. It’s pretty brief on each but it gives a great overview. Thanks for the feedback!
@suzannealberts9660Ай бұрын
Part two, definitely!
@randallsteinman990Ай бұрын
Definitely would like to see more archaeological discoveries corroborating the Bible!
@pog519Ай бұрын
The word "god" itself is paradox. You don't need argumentation to disprove gods, it's like disproving Santa, leprechauns and rainbow shitting unicorns.
@niklasbacher335Ай бұрын
How so?
@pog519Ай бұрын
@@niklasbacher335 the descriptive word of what a god is paradoxical, not only because of omnipotence, but also pretty much every omni attribute. It defies every single natural or logical law. For instance the portrait of omniscience logically excludes the possibility of also being omnibenevolent, which makes creationist stories like the garden of eden - ridiculous. For what is worth, unless someone proves that a true infinity can exist, gods such as the abrahamic god would remain impossible to exist.
@niklasbacher335Ай бұрын
@@pog519 I think i can follow your reasoning, but it seems to my like your focus lies in sementics rather than what is meant by the concept. I don't see how god not being able to create a stone he can't lift would clash with the concept of omnipotence, when you see it as the word to best describe the relationship between his power and ours. How would you've rather put it, if you were responsible for scripture? (And please remember that the texts weren't written to win arguments, but rather to depict gods will for the common person to understand.)
@pog519Ай бұрын
@@niklasbacher335 My point is that omnipotence attribute is probably the worst paradox out of the omni attributes. See it like this: 1) God created world without sin 2) He ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because if they did they would become like him (understand good and evil) 3) God knows what would happen because of his omnipresence attribute 4) Adam and Eve didn't know what good and evil is, because they didn't ate the fruit yet. 5) God punished all of humanity because 2 individuals that didn't know what good and what evil is, made a choice that god himself knew that they would make. This alone makes it so that either god is a prick that just want to troll humans, or he doesn't exist. But when you put omnibenevolence as an attribute, the only possible option is that this god cannot exist, or at the very least the garden of Eden story could not have happened, not with with the god of Abraham. And there is bunch of other things that make gods just impossible. For instance all them religious apologists rely on contingency arguments to somehow come to a conclusion that a god has to exist, but they somehow forget to realize that even our contentiousness is a contingent on external factors. Even worse, newer research shows that our thoughts might be quantum based, making them supper deterministic, completely falsifying the possibility of the "religious" free will. And with no free will, concept as heaven and hell lose their meaning completely. Than there is problem of evil, which I don't really like as it sounds like a 12 year old's argument, but it's true. You god is either an asshole or he doesn't exist :D And many, many more... It's the fact that all these gods have descriptions and characteristics, making it so you can prove the negative here.
@Dinoguy555Ай бұрын
Even if you disprove this rock lifting quandary it doesn't tell you which god it is You do know the true gods are Hindu right? Yahweh and his son were just outcasts for the true pantheon of Hindu gods
@tizianoleggio3002Ай бұрын
So you DO know his boundries? But when I ask you why he lets children die from cancer you answer you will never understand his ways? Really convenient.
@AeneidenАй бұрын
Is death a punishment?
@tizianoleggio3002Ай бұрын
@@Aeneiden if you believe in a Gld that could stop it, yes. If you do not believe it, mo it is apart of live and something that happens to anybody at any age
@AeneidenАй бұрын
@@tizianoleggio3002 and if there is an afterlife?
@tizianoleggio3002Ай бұрын
@@Aeneiden so you do assume there is as well? So the absolute only thing we cannot assume is anything that questions your religion?
@AeneidenАй бұрын
@@tizianoleggio3002 what? You don't believe in God. Why do you complain about children dying of cancer? It's just a part of life like you said.
@RayaanWaniАй бұрын
can stone lift a god he can't create?
@chrisphinney8475Ай бұрын
Bro. The correct answer is maximally powerful. Not infinitely. You really going to have the atheist tell you the correct answer?
@JohnMcPetersonАй бұрын
Does not respond to atheist argument: Rebuttal: If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, whence come evil. Explanation: Argument: 1. God is omnipotent, however impervious to our struggles - God is evil. 2. God is omnibenevolent, however incapable of effecting existence - God is weak. Conclusion: Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent simultaneously via contradiction.
@AeneidenАй бұрын
Define evil
@thecaptainiskingАй бұрын
@@Aeneiden Evil is: an action or inaction which is immoral. By the standards(ethics, morals, values) of God - God is evil.
@AeneidenАй бұрын
@@thecaptainisking and what exactly are God's morals, values and ethics?
@thecaptainiskingАй бұрын
@@Aeneiden To list a few: the 613 commandments of the Torah, the 10 commandments and all of Jesus' ethical teachings. Argument: If it is wrong to kill, as outlined in commandment 6 of the Decalogue(Thou shall not kill), and God is omnipotent, God's inaction has allowed for billions to suffer and to die. Conclusion: Therefore, God is evil.
@AeneidenАй бұрын
@@thecaptainisking this is a strange conclusion. I don't understand argument 1 or 2 why would God be impervious? Why would he be unable to affect existence? God can't kill, he is the one who created life in the first place. He can give life back. Humans can't do that. How do you know God is inactive? G
@draxxthemsclounts2478Ай бұрын
So. Special pleading and moving the goalpost fallacies. If god is all-powerful, he'd have the power to defy logical contradictions. That's why most theologians defy god as "maximumly powerful", rather than "all powerful." Which rules out omnipotence. And if your god isn't omnipotent, why call him god? Weak, weak arguement.
@AeneidenАй бұрын
"If god is all powerful he'd have the power to defy logical contradictions" Why? Says who?
@davidreinker560027 күн бұрын
Ok, so God can make a stone so big he can't lift it, but he can also lift the stone. Therefore God can even do that which is logically contradictory.
Пікірлер
God himself told me that the new testament is fanfiction.
Full video on my channel that goes into more evidence!:)
99% of the texts of the ancient world have been lost. How do we know that other texts in the 2nd century BC didn't mention Belshazzar?
@@KaiserGeiser because early historians mentioned in the video who were close to the period didn’t mention him at all. Daniel was the only source about him. I mean there could’ve been maybe. But I doubt those early historians would’ve missed such a detail if it were available
😊
Jesus(as) calling himself the good shepherd doesn't mean that he's referring to himself as "Good" in the same sense that God is ontoloigcally good, he is referencing himself being the messiah of the israelites. To show you how ridiculous this is, here are some verse where the word good is used for other items. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Genesis 1:31 For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 1 Timothy 4:4 1) Jesus says only one who is good is God 2) Genesis 1:31,1 Timothy 4:4 says that God saw everything he made and declared it to be good 3)Therefore all creation is God You'd obviously argue the way the term "good" is used in Genesis 1:31, 1 Timothy 4:4 is different from the way good is used by Jesus(as) for God. To connect Jesus(as) calling himself the good shepherd in John 10 to a completely different conversation all the way in Mark 10, is a bad way to deduce he's indicating divinity.
@@educatedhuz7154 Jesus is calling to mind Ezekiel 34, if you are aware of the Old Testament you see its importance: For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice… Then they will know that I, the Lord their God, am with them and that they, the Israelites, are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord. You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord. Jesus is referencing the Old Testament when speaking to the Pharisees. “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (John 10:14-16)
@@ZoomingintoScripture Except the term shepherd is used in Ezekiel 37:23 for the person who will be appointed by God. "And I will appoint one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd" Why cant Jesus(as) be referring to the shepherd who is appointed by God to rule over israel, why must he be referring to himself as Yahweh
Nice video and good points
@@hellopuppyarecool thank you!
Why did this appear in my recommendation ?? 💀 I watched dawah, islam vs christian debate, explanation on Quran / hadith. I don't need Christian explaining their God
Don't stress so much man.
Even though God spirit was in his human body his was still God but living a human life. And in a human body jesus body was unrighteous it why jesus body had to be baptise and it was only after jesus was baptised he started his ministry.
What is extraordinary about the author of Daniel knowing about a king who was later forgotten by history but eventually found to be a real person? So what?
@@BIayne because It gives compelling evidence that the author was an eyewitness to the events. It’s not like they had google 2,500 years ago. Early sources knew nothing of Belshazzar but Daniel did
@@ZoomingintoScripture You're making the assumption that no one in the author of Daniel's time had any knowledge of this king just because later there was no documentation about him. That makes no sense.
God told me that hes been getting weaker since this one dude on earth has been stealing his fans. Dudes name is donald or something.
there being real historical figures in the bible does not prove that everthing written is real. Troy was a real city but that does not mean that the gods were fighting each other and teleporting people to get jiggy with other peoples wives.
God is not real, my man.
GREAT JOB!!! We CAN rely on the WRITTEN WORD!!! GOD is TRUTHFUL!!! ❤
Interesting
I didn’t catch that I misspelled “Scripture” on the intro and ending slides before uploading. I unfortunately can’t fix it without re-uploading the video:/ I’ll make sure to be more careful next time haha
Excellent. Check the spelling of "scripture" at the end of he vid where u ask to subscribe.
Thank you! Aw man I can’t believe I missed that lol, thanks for the catch!
Amen.
Daniel, wrote his book and there’s proof. But how much proof do people really need? So what’s is said in his book is accurate, there’s always critics.
Well Yeshua Himself told us who wrote the book of Daniel.... Daniel. That's all I need to know.
The greatest authenticator
It's funny, the book of Daniel is criticized for making up history, but let's take that further. If you want to forge a historical document, why on earth would you make up historical figures who aren't even jewish? Figures that normally would be easily falsifiable given their position? What's the motivation there? That's just absurd at face value!
Tacitus only confirms the cult of Jesus existed and that’s all. He’s not proof of any of the accounts of Jesus or of miracles. I’m sorry Christians but I know you think Tacitus is a slam dunk for magical Jesus but he’s at best only a commentator on the Christian religion. This doesn’t get you any closer to proof of Christianity’s claims.
I definitely wouldn’t make the case he does prove that. It’s just one piece of the mountainous early evidence supporting Jesus as a historical person and corroborating the New Testament as shown in the video. Tacitus report supports extremely early and rapid spread of Christian belief of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah to the gentiles in spite of fierce persecution and primitive means of communication
@@ZoomingintoScripture I wouldn’t call the evidence “mountainous” in fact it’s not even a decent hill of evidence. All you have, even with the gospels are at best hearsay accounts that’s if we grant the events are reliable, which they are not given all the editing that we see. I think you implied the gospels are written by the “disciples” and if you think that you are well outside of the established scholarship of the New Testament.
@@bonsaitomato8290 Edits? If you mean variance between the manuscripts I know of none that affect core Christian theology. Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges this. And it is because of the wealth of manuscripts we know what the originals said. Also, Mark was not a disciple nor Luke. I trust people who were closer to the events recorded on authorship such as Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus(who was taught by Polycarp who was then the directly taught by John himself) then overly skeptical scholars 2000 years removed.
@@ZoomingintoScripture why would trust people at any period with a stake in the stories they’re selling ? People in the first and second centuries had even more reason to over-inflate the reliability of their theology. If you are unaware of the scriptural additions and redactions in the gospels practiced by the early church then you really do need to do a lot more study of this subject before you make videos on the matter. I’m not talking about “variants” I’m talking about stories added whole cloth by the church much later than the original texts. If the church was willing to insert stories into the gospels that were not original how can we rely on the historicity of the gospels at any stage of their development?? You can’t. You can say you have “faith” that they’re reliable but you can’t say with certainty that they are reliable. If you’re basing this on the speed of the spread of Christianity in the early first and second centuries then would you extend that same argument to the rapid expansion of Mormonism ? I highly doubt you would but you have to admit Mormonism did take off to become an established religion much faster than Christianity ever did.
@@ZoomingintoScripture why would trust people at any period with a stake in the stories they’re selling ? People in the first and second centuries had even more reason to over-inflate the reliability of their theology. If you are unaware of the scriptural additions and redactions in the gospels practiced by the early church then you really do need to do a lot more study of this subject before you make videos on the matter. I’m not talking about “variants” I’m talking about stories added whole cloth by the church much later than the original texts. If the church was willing to insert stories into the gospels that were not original how can we rely on the historicity of the gospels at any stage of their development?? You can’t. You can say you have “faith” that they’re reliable but you can’t say with certainty that they are reliable. If you’re basing this on the speed of the spread of Christianity in the early first and second centuries then would you extend that same argument to the rapid expansion of Mormonism ? I highly doubt you would but you have to admit Mormonism did take off to become an established religion much faster than Christianity ever did.
Really well put together video! Keep up the great work! I can't believe you only have 166 subscribers - you deserve more!
Thank you so much for the feedback!
First, Daniel didn’t write the book, second…the information you offered was already known for over 150 years, it’s not new news to me or many other people! Lastly there’s in the biblical narrative mythology, legends and history! If you’re unable to recognize that…school hasn’t been useful!
It was new to me, so I'm great full he has made this video. After reading your reply, I believe you to be an arrogant self opinionated little man who likes to run his mouth off. He had gone to quit some trouble to make this video for people like me that don't have that information.
Not to mention all the written accounts from the apostles that weren’t the gospels
There is so much controversy among non-believers concerning Daniel and his prophecies. Many non-believing scholars date the writing of Daniel centuries after Nebuchadnezzar's reign because they do not believe the accuracy of his prophetic words. Of course we know that God's Prophets had to be 100% accurate, and Daniel was! As far as I have read, scholars have found no record that the Darius of Daniel 6 was a historical person. Yes, please do a part 2.
Thanks. I'd like to see more. Archeology is something I know little about. Nice to have verification.
New York city prove Spiderman or the appearance of Rudy Giuliani in the Spiderman comics? Most scholars agree that Daniel is not a historical figure and that much of the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Hellenistic king Antiochus IV EPIPHANES but we are in a free country and those Jewish books can be intrepet as you wish
Spider-Man clearly presents itself as within the fantasy genre. There are many genres found in the Bible but fantasy is not one of them. I’m not saying this evidence proves everything in the Bible as that would be going way too far. But what it does show is the author knew his stuff and had special knowledge of the events as someone who was there would have. If he got it completely wrong we would doubt he was there but the opposite is shown to be the case. Also, some scholars hold to naturalism and have an anti-supernatural bias and since Daniel has prophecies that come to pass, can’t believe they written before the event. There is no compelling reason to believe that hypothesis as all the data points to Daniel being the author.
@@ZoomingintoScripture When the Bible talks about God, that part is fantasy.
Its just incoherent collection of words 😊
So what , someone is named in a book, and there is evidence for a ruler by archaeology, this makes other claims per se not (more) true from that book....🧐☝️The city of Ebla is not found in the bible, but has played a huge role in the neighborhood, strange.
Why so easily triggered? The video specifically mentioned how a seeming error of one logical or factual category is, often, taken as evidence against the truth of other elements in the book/story and that being so it's totally valid to say that in that case evidence for the disputed material is in contrast a relative shift in the balance of evidence. It's not earth shattering but your antagonism says more about you & how you evaluate facts around this topic than it is a criticism of the beliefs of others.
@@josephodoherty7864 Ad Hominem ?
Can't wait for part two, thank you for your time and dedication.
Thanks for watching!
Seems to me Denying such a Book as Daniel warrants denying the entire Old Testament! It is the New Testament that we should question!
Stephen King's books 'confirm' the existence of many, many contemporary things, but that does not make Stephen Kings stories all true. Some true facts thrown in with a lot of fiction does not make a history, it just makes the overall story seem more realistic.
Ha Ha, rather childish but some humour. It does distort/deny the role of exactly such information and discoveries in archaeological & historical evidence & confirmation. You appear to be easily triggered by the legitimate use of a simple word. Maybe your overreaction is prejudice & maybe not. It depends on how serious your "joke " was🤔
Being surprised by the finds of biblical archaeology is like being surprised after finding the original of a story after reading fan fictions about it. There of course are elements of truth (or the original work) in it. But that doesn't prove the information in the bible (or the fan fiction) to be true (or canon). Still an interesting discipline (and well funded, unlike other archaeological disciplines)
It proves, in addition to it being a corroborated fact, that those calling the HOLY SCRIPTURES a myth and a lie, wrong .
@@ronbyrd1616 XD then the Ilias would be true because we found Troia. The stories collected in the bible are still myths. Won't judge anyone for believing in them of course. Believing isn't knowing though.
@@ronbyrd1616 Not at all. You would EXPECT writers to get some basic facts about the settings in their stories correct. For example, when writing the Spider-Man comics, many artists and writers use real-world references. 2,000 years from now, intelligent people wouldn't decide that since New York was proven to be a real place, then Spider-Man must be real, too. They would look for evidence of New York AND look for evidence of super-powers as two separate claims. We are still waiting for evidence of ANY of the supernatural claims of the Bible, and no amount of evidence for the mundane will satisfy those claims. Even if it was demonstrated beyond all doubt that mankind originated from two people, the claim that God created them would still need to be supported by further evidence. Otherwise, the claim that those two people came from aliens would be just as valid as any other claim, if there were no evidence. Speaking of myths, you do realize that Greek mythology correctly names many real places and people, right? Yet you don't believe in Zeus, I assume? Same reason.
@@saintmalaclypse3217you're just being incredibly childish It's ridiculous to take a presumed error in the Bible as evidence that the Bible is false & simultaneously say but if its true it's in way evidence that it is not false. In relative terms at least the balance of the evidence has shifted.
@@josephodoherty7864 A book, any book, can contain truths and falsehoods. You cannot assume that because a part of a story is true, it must all be true. Each claim stands on its own merit. Even if you verify every historical claim in the bible down to the last "begat", none of that would point to a single miracle being true. It's childish to assume otherwise. Speaking of which, children learn this when they find mistakes in a textbook. They're quickly taught that a single mistake is just that - a single mistake, which stands on its own, and affects nothing of the rest of the book. Why don't you understand that, if children do?
Accurate accounts of material occurrences do not prove the accuracy of spiritual interpretation and claims. i.e. Yes, it is accurate to say donald trump was the 45th President of the United States. This fact does NOT prove trump was "anointed by God" as thousands of people claim.
In which museums are the cylinder and tablet displayed?
There is a reason why non-believers attack the book of Daniel. Jesus Himself referred to Daniel, so if you can make Daniel out as a forgery, the divinity of Christ starts to crumble. Do not give into that temptation and believe!
Great channel!
Thank you!
A prime example for human blind and rude pride is the people that dismiss ancient scriptures full of intricate details, preseved by the generations - fiction!! I mean how on earth can you conclude that?!?! Some people!!
The fiction, @user-yq2tu5bd5i, is the spiritual interpretation overlaid over historical detail. Accuracy of historical detail means NOTHING regarding claims about God. For example: Yes, it is accurate to say donald trump was the 45th President of the United States. This fact does NOT in any way prove trump was "anointed by God" as thousands of people claim.
Yes please make a 2nd part. If you can provide some sources for further study, that would make it even more awesome. Thank you!!
Sounds like I’ll need to get started on a part two! I would recommend Unearthing The Bible by Titus Kennedy. There are tons of cool discoveries in that book. It’s pretty brief on each but it gives a great overview. Thanks for the feedback!
Part two, definitely!
Definitely would like to see more archaeological discoveries corroborating the Bible!
The word "god" itself is paradox. You don't need argumentation to disprove gods, it's like disproving Santa, leprechauns and rainbow shitting unicorns.
How so?
@@niklasbacher335 the descriptive word of what a god is paradoxical, not only because of omnipotence, but also pretty much every omni attribute. It defies every single natural or logical law. For instance the portrait of omniscience logically excludes the possibility of also being omnibenevolent, which makes creationist stories like the garden of eden - ridiculous. For what is worth, unless someone proves that a true infinity can exist, gods such as the abrahamic god would remain impossible to exist.
@@pog519 I think i can follow your reasoning, but it seems to my like your focus lies in sementics rather than what is meant by the concept. I don't see how god not being able to create a stone he can't lift would clash with the concept of omnipotence, when you see it as the word to best describe the relationship between his power and ours. How would you've rather put it, if you were responsible for scripture? (And please remember that the texts weren't written to win arguments, but rather to depict gods will for the common person to understand.)
@@niklasbacher335 My point is that omnipotence attribute is probably the worst paradox out of the omni attributes. See it like this: 1) God created world without sin 2) He ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because if they did they would become like him (understand good and evil) 3) God knows what would happen because of his omnipresence attribute 4) Adam and Eve didn't know what good and evil is, because they didn't ate the fruit yet. 5) God punished all of humanity because 2 individuals that didn't know what good and what evil is, made a choice that god himself knew that they would make. This alone makes it so that either god is a prick that just want to troll humans, or he doesn't exist. But when you put omnibenevolence as an attribute, the only possible option is that this god cannot exist, or at the very least the garden of Eden story could not have happened, not with with the god of Abraham. And there is bunch of other things that make gods just impossible. For instance all them religious apologists rely on contingency arguments to somehow come to a conclusion that a god has to exist, but they somehow forget to realize that even our contentiousness is a contingent on external factors. Even worse, newer research shows that our thoughts might be quantum based, making them supper deterministic, completely falsifying the possibility of the "religious" free will. And with no free will, concept as heaven and hell lose their meaning completely. Than there is problem of evil, which I don't really like as it sounds like a 12 year old's argument, but it's true. You god is either an asshole or he doesn't exist :D And many, many more... It's the fact that all these gods have descriptions and characteristics, making it so you can prove the negative here.
Even if you disprove this rock lifting quandary it doesn't tell you which god it is You do know the true gods are Hindu right? Yahweh and his son were just outcasts for the true pantheon of Hindu gods
So you DO know his boundries? But when I ask you why he lets children die from cancer you answer you will never understand his ways? Really convenient.
Is death a punishment?
@@Aeneiden if you believe in a Gld that could stop it, yes. If you do not believe it, mo it is apart of live and something that happens to anybody at any age
@@tizianoleggio3002 and if there is an afterlife?
@@Aeneiden so you do assume there is as well? So the absolute only thing we cannot assume is anything that questions your religion?
@@tizianoleggio3002 what? You don't believe in God. Why do you complain about children dying of cancer? It's just a part of life like you said.
can stone lift a god he can't create?
Bro. The correct answer is maximally powerful. Not infinitely. You really going to have the atheist tell you the correct answer?
Does not respond to atheist argument: Rebuttal: If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, whence come evil. Explanation: Argument: 1. God is omnipotent, however impervious to our struggles - God is evil. 2. God is omnibenevolent, however incapable of effecting existence - God is weak. Conclusion: Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent simultaneously via contradiction.
Define evil
@@Aeneiden Evil is: an action or inaction which is immoral. By the standards(ethics, morals, values) of God - God is evil.
@@thecaptainisking and what exactly are God's morals, values and ethics?
@@Aeneiden To list a few: the 613 commandments of the Torah, the 10 commandments and all of Jesus' ethical teachings. Argument: If it is wrong to kill, as outlined in commandment 6 of the Decalogue(Thou shall not kill), and God is omnipotent, God's inaction has allowed for billions to suffer and to die. Conclusion: Therefore, God is evil.
@@thecaptainisking this is a strange conclusion. I don't understand argument 1 or 2 why would God be impervious? Why would he be unable to affect existence? God can't kill, he is the one who created life in the first place. He can give life back. Humans can't do that. How do you know God is inactive? G
So. Special pleading and moving the goalpost fallacies. If god is all-powerful, he'd have the power to defy logical contradictions. That's why most theologians defy god as "maximumly powerful", rather than "all powerful." Which rules out omnipotence. And if your god isn't omnipotent, why call him god? Weak, weak arguement.
"If god is all powerful he'd have the power to defy logical contradictions" Why? Says who?
Ok, so God can make a stone so big he can't lift it, but he can also lift the stone. Therefore God can even do that which is logically contradictory.
Avoid foolish questions Titus 3:9