Transcript

Yes, Jesus was a FAILED PROPHET (feat Tim O'Neill) (Mike Winger / InspiringPhilosophy response)

(00:00) Jesus predicted his second coming would occur in the first century but it is clear he has not returned yet Jesus failed he said he was coming and he didn't he didn't come that's always disappointing was Jesus a false prophet and you may want to watch this particular one [Music] twice welcome to apia where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians and today we're going to be investigating whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and if so what he a failed apocalyptic Prophet we've got videos from two miks Mike Winger my wife

(00:36) just buys shirts and brings them home and I put them on and Michael Jones of course we know Jesus wasn't white he was born a Jew of Middle Eastern descent so I thought I'd better bring in an expert Tim O'Neal from history for atheists not really an expert but I think probably I've read more on this than most amate I think would probably be the more mon you fair enough but it's more than just enthusiasm that gave us the history for atheist project so history for athe began in 2015 and it began after a number of years of me noticing that a

(01:07) lot of my fellow atheists because contrary to rumor I am an atheist and have been since my late teens but finding that many of my fellow atheists so instead of using arguments which are theological or philosophical or scientific they use arguments which are historical so they use arguments that say look at this thing that happened in history this tells us that religion is wrong or stupid or or dangerous and unfortunately some of the examples that some of my fellow atheists use are basically myths or their misconceptions

(01:36) about some quite complicated pieces of History so on the myth front there's things like Christians Burning Down The Great Library of Alexandria which didn't happen or or on the misconception front people have this idea about what happened in the Galileo Affair and most of those ideas are completely wrong so after many many years of repeating myself trying to correct this stuff what I ended up doing was starting a blog and it's now evolved into to the history for atheist website basically debunking and correcting some of these misconceptions so I'm not attacking atheism I am an

(02:07) atheist so I don't really care if people believe in in God or not but what I'm doing is I'm debunking bad history and as a result it's interesting a whole lot of Christians love my stuff until I turn my attention to them as I'm going to today and then suddenly they don't like me quite so much so I'm I'm managing to annoy both sides which I I think it's a sign that I'm probably getting something right I'm not sure if that's news absolutely we're trying to annoy everyone here today that's going to be

(02:34) perfect to start off with I think I think there's a couple of things to to note here these guys are apologists in in in many ways they're really not talking to us they're talking to fellow Believers and or you you deal with apologetics as as your whole theme so you know this exactly yes yeah and I remember the first time I came across an apologetic argument along these lines was when I was still at high school and i' I'd actually come across the mark 119 yeah the the mark 91 reference where Jesus says you might taste death before you see the the the kingdom of God come and that kind of clinched it for me up

(03:15) to that point I I really sort of was inclined towards the idea of Jesus I was still a Believer at this point but I was starting to see that Jesus is an apocalyptic Prophet made a go lot of sense but that was where the the the penny dropped and I thought you know he wasn't the Son of God he was just a Jewish preacher so being a typical 17y old I suddenly thought that I I knew everything and I remember confronting some Christians and saying look at this and it was interesting their reaction their first reaction was I don't believe that's in the Bible so I showed them wow

(03:48) and then their reaction was oh we'll have to talk to our pastor about that because he will have the answer but then one of them noticed and we'll get back to this but one of them noticed that the Transfiguration is the next it's the next story in in in Mark and said oh right well that's what he's talking about and I was like well that's not what he's talking about he's talking about the coming of the kingdom of God with power is talking about God reasserting his power on Earth not him having a chat to Moses and Elijah but

(04:14) that was my first taste of of of how apologetics handles this stuff so what Jones and and Winger are doing is they're not talking to us they're talking to other believers and they say here's another verse used by this especially the Skeptics uh to try to attack the Bible if you've heard these terrible Skeptics saying this don't worry here for the next hour and a half I'm going to tell you how that isn't a problem I would recommend that you have your Bibles out and open it's it's fine if you don't but it will be a lot better for you if you do have your Bibles open

(04:45) read along with me and we'll be fine before we jump in most of us have no idea what an apocalyptic preacher even is we don't know any in our day-to-day lives can you give us a quick primer on what that even means yeah absolutely so I agree with the majority of non-Christian and sub Christian critical Scholars who conclude that the the historical Jesus was the Jewish apocalyptic preacher so what does that mean in the period that we call the intertestamental period so the period between the the writing of the last texts that are now found in the Hebrew

(05:19) Bible the Old Testament and the first texts that are now found in the New Testament so the letter is of Paul and I'm talking chronologically here there's about a 200e period where lots of things changed within the Jewish religious Traditions plural Traditions so there were quite a few different ideas amongst Jewish people in that period and a lot of new ideas developed and these were these ideas developed within Judaism but they also developed as a result of influence on Judaism by outside influences particularly Greek culture especially Greek philosophy and Persian

(05:56) culture particularly early forar asrian religion so a lot of elements which are very well understood by Christians and are now integral to the Christian faith developed in this period and so it don't appear or certainly don't appear in any card developed form in the Old Testament but suddenly are there in the New Testament these are things like the idea of the Messiah the idea of a war between the powers of evil and the powers of good the idea of of Angels and Demons the idea of hell and the idea of a coming apocalypse are coming change in the world where the world will be

(06:33) renewed where the evil ones will be destroyed and where the good people will then live forever so these ideas all developed and we can see it in in Jewish literature in this 200d period where all of these elements arose the reason this arose was that in the pre- intertestamental period so in the in the period of the Old Testament the idea was that you had the chosen people of God they lived in the Promised Land land of Israel and that was their land and they lived happily ever after didn't quite work out that way and unfortunately they got conquered by the Babylonians and

(07:08) then by the Assyrians and then by the Persians and then by the Macedonian Greeks and then after a very brief period of independence by the Romans so by the time you get to the early first century in say in Galilee you've got a situation where your average sort of Galilean peasant would be thinking to himself why is this happened this doesn't make any sense we're meant to be the chosen people of God God yet we keep getting our asses kicked by every passing army or Empire so what's this what's the answer to this and this was the answer God had withdrawn his power

(07:39) from the world the Satan which is another New Concept that developed in that inter testamental period Satan is now the Lord of this world the lord of this age he and his demons and their human underlings like the Romans have control but the time is coming very soon all that will end God will reassert his power he will come in power with the armies of Angels the good people will win the bad people will be swept away now if you're a gilean peasant you paying onethird of your income which is pretty poorter to begin with to Herod anbass a guy who who you don't like who

(08:16) in turn is paying a huge cut to the Roman Empire the Roman Empire was kind of like a protection racket if you did pay CH could P taxes we help you if there's a rebellion or if the parthan Empire comes riding over the horizon we'll send couple allegiance to to deal with them so what you're doing as a peasant is you're basically subsidizing the luxurious lifestyle of this bastard in in his living in his Rich palaces and you're thinking well this isn't fair in in good years you're poor in bad years your children start dying so it was a tough life now if a guy turns up in your

(08:52) village and says the time of waiting is over the the kingdom of God is near at hand so close we can almost touch it repent and believe in this good news and you will inherit the kingdom of God you'll be part of the renewed apocalyptic Kingdom you probably think that's that is good news that sounds good to me I might this lovely yeah and that what I'm what I said there was is basically a paraphrase or a direct quote of Mark 1:15 which is the earliest gospel and it's the first thing that the earliest gospel attributes to Jesus in fact it says this was his message that

(09:29) every everything else in the gospel of Mark and in the gospel of Matthew and to a certain extent in the Gospel of Luke is pretty much that message all of the parables are about the coming of the kingdom of God and what the kingdom of God will be like so the apocalyptic kingdom is coming this is what it's going to be like every all the Miracles are basically saying this is the power of the Kingdom Manifest this is a precursor of the kingdom of God the the blind SE the lame walk and the prisoners are set free and of the Miracles also

(09:59) most most of them are exorcism so it's casting out the Demonic Powers saying your time is up and the demons in in a couple of these stories say are you the guy that we've been hearing is going to come and Jesus says yes and it basically times upcs so once you understand this this apocalyptic background all of these early gospels make a great deal of sense so does a lot of what Paul because even though Paul only touches on this occasionally he just assumes all this in the background when he does talk about this he is also very very clear that he

(10:29) believes this is going to happen very soon and this is where we get to the stuff that that our friends Mike Wier and and Mike Jones are trying to deal with because we've got some Troublesome passages and the interpretation of these passages are What's called the crisis of eschatology well this is what some people call a the the crisis of eschatology just to start with Winger I mean Winger refers to this as the crisis of eschatology so he he is aware of the problem he doesn't engage with with the literature much he doesn't engage with the scholarship J does but he also doesn't seem to have a lot of a grasp of

(11:09) the arguments of people like like myself or bman or or Dale Allison so CH eschatology is the theological term for the anything to do within the study of last things so the the end of the world becoming second coming of Jesus in Christian theology the crisis of of eschatology is that there are these Troublesome passages that don't seem to work very well if you believe that Jesus was the son of God and was always right about everything because he seems to be wrong so the key one is Mark 9:1 he said to them truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God

(11:46) after it has come with power that's a problem because those guys have been dead for 2,000 years right so if the kingdom of God is meant to come with power before those guys taste death you got a problem there's another one which is Mark 13:30 this is at the end end of What's called the Olivette discourse also known as the little apocalypse which makes up pretty much all of Mark 13 and we'll talk about Mark 13 a bit in a moment but this one's a real problem because after talking about all this stuff that's going to happen at the at the Apocalypse at the end of the world Jesus finishes by saying truly I tell

(12:18) you that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place again that was 200000 years ago hasn't happened but then you've got the conservatives and of course the conservatives have to find a way for Jesus to be right and then there so there's there's basically two or three main ways that they choose one is what's called futurist approach to this question which is that all of this stuff that Jesus is talking about particularly in Mark 13 it's all the stuff that that he predicts is still to happen so Jesus

(12:49) wasn't wrong about it happening it's still to happen so there's a problem there how do they get around the question of this generation or those standing here well taste death come back to that the other way that that generally gets used is a form of what's called preterism and that's the idea that Jesus wasn't wrong because that stuff did happen in the Life times of those people but it didn't happen in the way that that most people are thinking of so there was some stuff that happened that either fully or partially fulfilled

(13:18) those prophecies in a way that isn't entirely obvious so that's kind of the the form that of argument that Jones uses though Jones also leans pretty heavily on an argument which was that prophecy isn't prescriptive it can be so prophecy doesn't mean this will definitely happen it can be conditional so if certain things happen then the prophecy can be either delayed so the pro prophesied thing can either be delayed or deflected completely so those are the the main ways in which they they tackle this I

(13:50) don't find you be might be at all surprised to to hear thought any of them convincing I think they totally wrong so he notes mark 13 I think it's probably worth us cuz we're I'm going to be referring to this and it's probably worth us just talking about what Mark 13 says so this is right at the end of Mark's gospel towards the end of the of the narrative it's depicting the final days of Jesus just before he gets arrested and executed so they're in Jerusalem with his disciples and they're visiting the temple and he's just been

(14:21) preaching there in fact he's just done his what Paul of Frederickson refers to as the temple tantrum where he throws the tables over and drives out the money changes anyway they come out of the temples and and the the disciples are admiring the temple and looking at the massive stones that are used in his construction and Jesus said to him do you see these great buildings there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down then they go off onto the Mount of Olives looking down at the temple and Peter James and John and Andrew say to him tell us when

(14:50) will these things be and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished it's interesting that they use this term all these things because he comes back to that you The Narrative later on so clearly they're talking about more than just the temple being destroyed Matthew's version of this which follows it very closely actually expands all that and says tell us give us a sign that the end times are coming and the apocalypse is coming which is really what they're asking him about he then Jesus then is then depicted as giving a number of signs

(15:19) that aren't the sign of the coming apocalypse the things that they will see that they should ignore because they AR the sign these are but the beginning of the birth pangs that's apocalyptic language that's all the way through that apocalyptic literature of the intertestamental period birth pains are the period leading up to the apocalypse where various bad things happen so he says that the things that they will see see is first of all you will see lots of people saying I am the Messiah or I am he don't pay any attention to that when you hear wars and rumors of wars don't

(15:49) be alarmed that's not the end he says Nation will rise upon Nation Kingdom against Kingdom there'll be earthquakes in various places there'll be famines but these are all just the birth birth PS then he says for yourselves so these are things that are happening out there and you'll see these things happening in the period before the apocalypse just before the birth PS be on your guard for they will deliver you over to councils and you will be beaten in synagogues and you will stand before Governors and Kings for my sake to Bear witness before them and the gospel must first be proclaimed to All Nations then he gets

(16:19) to the song and I'll read this because this is absolutely key to this whole question says but when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be and then the gospel writer puts puts in let the reader understand let the reader understand then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains let the one who's on the housetop not go down or enter his house nor take anything out the one on the field must not turn back to get a coat woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days pray that it will may not be in

(16:49) Winter for in those days there will be great suffering etc etc and then he says goes on to say and then after that Suffering The sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the Stars will be falling from Heaven and the powers of the heavens will be shaken then they will see the son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory and then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the Four Winds from the ends of the Earth uh to the ends of the heaven and basically he's saying so then there will be the apocalypse you see the son of man in the

(17:17) heavens the angels will sweep away the bad people the elect will be gathered this is the end and there's no indication between the abomination of desolation and this end that there's a gap of 2,000 years there's no ring for that no in there at all I think that's a point that we need to emphasize because we'll be coming back to so he's saying what are the they're asking what are the sies of the Apocalypse is going to come he says these are things that are not the signes that Wars earthquakes famines your

(17:47) persecution but here's the thing that is the sign the abomination of desolation so before we move on to Wingo was probably best that we talked about what the hell is the abomination of desolation that's a reference to the Book of Daniel as the St you know Paul it occurs in Daniel 9:27 in Daniel 11:31 and in Daniel 1211 the writer of the Gospel of Book of Daniel is having the old Prophet Daniel hundreds of years earlier say is going to happen in the future and the Book of Daniel is clearly I think all all modern Scholars would agree except very conservative ones including Mark weer that this is a

(18:23) reference to something that had happened in 167 BC so 167 BC in that period the the Jewish people are under the domination of the sald Kingdom these are successive Kings to Alexander the Great so successors to lus who was a a general of Alexander the Great he got basically when they carved up Alexander's Empire he got the area around Syria and that included the kingdom of the Jewish various Jewish peoples they kind of allowed the Jews to do their own thing because the Persians before them had done the same but Antiochus or the fourth epiphanes was the uh had a

(19:00) different policy he really didn't like the Jews he had had deposed the Jewish high priest put his own guy in charge gone off to fight another post alexandrian Kingdom the toies and the Rumor spread that he had died in battle and the Jews had deposed his high priest and restored their own he wasn't dead he came back wasn't happy and then proceeded to to fought a war against the Jews and then he profaned the temple according to toan account what he did was he sacrificed a pig in the holy of holies or or on the on the sorry on the altar Stone in front of the holy of holies right he there sprinkled torus

(19:38) scrs with pigs blood and he forced the priests to eat pork and he and he put out the lights of the manora so basically he knew the Jewish religion well enough to know how do I really really get these guys where it hurts here's how I do it and and what that did was it made the temple profane so the temple was meant to be the holiest place on Earth literally the home of God and it it basically it's it was a sacr that desecrated it completely desacralized it so that when the uh there was there a rebellion not surprisingly and when the the mban Revolt took the temple back

(20:14) again they had to spend a lot of time rededicating it to Yahweh to make it okay again to sacrifice to Yahweh there and that's what the modern Jewish Festival of Hanukkah is all about so this is referred to in the Book of Daniel now the Book of Daniel is written after this but it's its writer is is is pretending that he he is the Prophet Daniel so it's meant to be the Prophet Daniel seeing this in the future so this is something that that that happened in 167 BC but in apocalyptic literature it took on a Resonance of its own so there became this idea that there was going to be a a abomination of desolation in the

(20:54) future just before the the final end of the world that this was is going to be a one of the triggering incidents of the final apocalypse and that seems to be pretty clearly seems to be what Jesus is is depicted as talking about now did the historical Jesus say this possibly likely probable don't know but what is absolutely clear is that the writer of Mark is referring to something that had that did happen in the lifetime of the people that that Jesus would have been talking to Lifetime I believe some of

(21:27) them and that the right of Mark wants the the people who are reading his gospel to understand and that's why he says let the reader understand he doesn't spill it out though and that and that's interesting but we possibly come back to that so I I'll leave that dangling as what that event might be because because Mike Winger sort of says well is this is all this stuff that Jesus talks about in in the as the birth pangs and the lead up to the apocalypse is this stuff that actually happened in the first century No it's not this OB

(21:59) desolation is yet future from the perspective of Jesus which which supports my view that partial and total fulfillment is something that it seems um Jesus would have supported he does everything he can to sort of say well all this stuff about wars and earthquakes and so on that's been going on for thousands of years so this is a indication that Jesus isn't talking about the first century he's talking about the period after up and to our time it seems to be that this is something that's set up in the temple so this requires the existence of a temple which is why many futurists say there will in the future be a temple in

(22:33) Jerusalem I I am of that opinion lots of Evangelical Christians believe that and if some are even trying to do it and he so he's saying it's all going to happen in the future it's not really talking about the first century um yeah locally 70 AD that that that fits these descriptions you know tribulation such as has not been from the beginning of creation until now that sort of right I mean 70 AD it it fits it in in localized areas around Jerusalem Mada locations where you know terrible tragedies and and horrific things happened to the

(23:02) Jewish people but it doesn't really fit beyond that it just doesn't go beyond that so what happened in 70 AD was there was a Jewish Rebellion began in ' 66 ad against the Romans and for a couple of years they kicked the Romans out and then as they as they tend to do the Romans then said no you don't and came back with the massive Army and crushed the rebellion and crushed it the only Romans can and one of the things they did was they took Jerusalem there was a Siege of Jerusalem beginning around about March or April in 70 AD it took months and then in August or September

(23:38) the city fell and so we is saying oh no no no he's not he's not talking about 70 AD he's talking about he's talking about the future and he actually says and I would say these things have not happened yet in 70 AD um we don't read of anything in my knowledge that that is related to the abomination of desolation when I got to that point in wi's video I kind of laughed out loud because course there is something that absolutely corresponds to the pration of desolation so what happened when the Romans took

(24:06) Jerusalem is they they breached the walls Late July early early August but it took them a while to kind of break into the Final Stand Out you the Last Stand of the of the Jewish Rebels which was in the temple they were defending the temple with their lives and then in in the right at the end of the of the assault probably sort of mid August they took the outer walls of the Temple and I'll grab my trusty copy of Josephus josephus's Jewish War which is our very detailed account of all this so in book 6 316 and now the Romans upon the Flight

(24:41) of the rebellious into the City and upon the burning of the Holy House itself and of all the buildings around it brought their standards to the tble and set them near its eastern gate and there they did offer sacrifices to them and there they made Titus imperator imperat means General that's where we get the word Emperor so and Titus was the commander and also the son of the of the emperor Vespasian so what what happened is that they know once they captured that outer wall of the temple that was the end

(25:10) they'd won there was there was still a bit of fighting left but basically it was over so they set their standards up and sacrificed to them Roman legionary standards were not just like battle Hors or battle Flags they were literally pagan gods so they were the physical embodiments of the ganos of the of the G of you what where we get the word genius of the Legion which was not a figurative Spirit of the Legion it was a literal Spirit of Legion they believed that these things were their were gods and they kept them in a shrine in the middle

(25:41) of their camp or in the middle of their fortresses and they sacrificed to them periodically at various festivals throughout the year and the other side they sacrific to them was in thanks for victory and that's what they're doing here the other thing about these Idols I mean the the main standard of a legion was the Aquilla the eagle but there were other standards as well they had medallions on them which depicted the various Emperors including at this time it would have included the Emperors Augustus Tiberius and Claudius who were

(26:12) all deify so they were literally gods and they were sacrificing to those girls as well now for the Jews to have pagans Storm Into the temple burn the place and then set up Pagan idols and sacrifice in front of them in the holiest place on Earth that's in the bomb ation or desolation that is literally the equivalent of what Antiochus epiphanies did back in in 167 BC so for for Jews in this period and therefore Christians because Christians in this period were Jews it was a Jewish sect they would look at that and go well there it is right this is what Jesus was talking about or this is what the apocalyptic

(26:51) liter was predicting so as the the gospel writer says let the reader understand and the reason I would argue the reason he doesn't sort of say and by the way what he was talking about was the Romans doing this is that the gospel of Mark seems to have been written very very soon after 870s very soon after this this would have been current affairs recent news and and it was still awkward for Christianity to be Associated too closely with the Jewish rebellion and that's a theme all the way through Mark Mark's gospel is constantly trying to distance Jesus from any kind of asant or or Rebel and and is also

(27:29) making the Romans into Good Guys P just pilot saying I don't find any guilt in this guy so so what seems to be happening here is he can't explicitly say it's that incident that happened when the Romans took the temple but he's hinting pretty damn strongly that that's what it is to go back to Winger for Winger to say I yeah I can't see anything to my knowledge that's related to the abomination of desolation well I don't believe that Mike Winger isn't aware of all this maybe he isn't but I don't think he is so he's is not telling his listeners yeah no cuz he's made his

(28:01) early dating arguments so he's aware exactly so he wants yeah that's right so he really wants all this stuff to be H to happen in the future okay so how does he get around the problem of Mark 1330 saying this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened because that doesn't really work if there stuff is still to happen in the future and the way he deals with that which is quite remarkable so what is this generation referring to um my my simple answer some people say generation it it means the Jewish people will not pass away that it's like an ethnic thing

(28:34) um I would say this generation refers to the generation experiencing the things after the delay the abomination of desolation there's there's a time limit on it the abomination of desolation happens then there's a time limit that generation will not pass away the one that experiences that particular thing I don't know about you but I find that a very convincing arum no and he means so he needs even future from us presumably you and I don't live some sometime in the future so he just does a little bit

(28:59) of fancy footwork around around the word and says oh no no he wasn't talking about that generation he means this other generation in the future so not terribly not terribly impressive sort of argument he then kind of goes through Matthew and Luke to try and get them to harmonize with that reading that's this is a really interesting uh difference let's just pause and notice it right in Mark it's like you're looking for the abomination of desolation in Luke he didn't even say here's what you should look for for my coming this is different in fact everything he says here could have happened before in in Mark

(29:34) theoretically if you put it all together harmonize it it this this whole statement verses 20 through 24 could happen before Jesus says when you see the abomination of desolation now here's the question did Jesus fulfill all righteousness merely through the baptism that John gave him and I think we would say no that's not the case Jesus didn't fulfill all righteousness through the one act so in the same sense it was a piece of the things Jesus was doing to fulfill all righteousness he was doing all a whole bunch of things to fulfill all righteousness in the same sense um

(30:04) these are the days of vengance to fulfill all that is written doesn't mean everything that's written will be fulfilled on these particular days it's just a piece of the puzzle so I I think that that's a good answer to a prous position in that particular verse and I suppose I could go through all the problems with that but really I think that the key problem with Wing's argument is it's pretty clear that the abomination of desolation in in in Mark 13 is refer to 70 AD now this this is like this really fits 70 AD doesn't it and it's interesting there's an element to it that's that a couple of elements

(30:36) in what Mark 13 says that I think anchors that pretty well for example remember what he says earlier in the passage he talks about everyone fleeing from Jerusalem saying that they wouldn't have time to even get their coat then he says woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days pray that it may not be in Winter well it was in Winter The Siege of Jerusalem ended in probably September the mopping up operation went on till the end of the month so people were fleeing Jerusalem in October so this pretty damn precise and as we know from

(31:08) current Refugee situations in Ukraine and and Gaza it's not a great a great way to live living on the Run living under under under makeship tent in the middle of winter as Ukraine shows now obviously Palestine has milder winter but still particularly for women who are pregnant and women who are carrying small children so this is actually really really specific and it matches the right down to the month what happened this is why I say it's pretty clear that this was current affairs this was recent weeks the other interesting thing is when you look at the way in which the other two synoptic gospels

(31:44) change that change things when Mar Matthew talks about this stuff he says so you will see the Desolation sa desolating sacrilege the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel standing in the Holy place let the reader understand so he actually makes it even more explicit what what Jesus is is referring to but even more interesting is by the time you get to Luke that actually gets removed he says he doesn't talk about the abomination of desolation and he sure as hell doesn't mention the Prophet Daniel he says but

(32:17) when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then know that his desolation has come near near which is very different yeah right so so why does Luke change it so significantly Matthew changes it just to underline and make more clear what Mark is saying something that Matthew does quite a bit Luke seems to be written in a period where some of this stuff is getting awkward and if you look at a lot of the changes that Luke makes to the this stuff it's it's softening it or it's putting a spin on it or it's made taking away an element that that no longer kind of works and that seems to be because

(32:59) Luke was written later when I first started studying this stuff 30 years ago because I'm very old it was pretty standard to believe that Mark was written first Luke and Matthew were written around about the same time so Mark was written in the 70s ad Luke and Matthew was were written in the 80s and then John was written sort of 90 Plus 90 to 120 an increasing number of Scholars are now starting to think that Luke was actually written much later in fact possibly written as late as uh John or even later still and wow yeah and when I

(33:29) first came across that I thought oh hang on but there's good arguments I'm not 100% convinced but one of the interesting things is he takes out that very clear reference to ad70 and changes it to something much more General being Jerusalem being surrounded by armies and then he says that its desolation has come near well that's not what Mark is saying he's saying the Desolation happens and you will see it standing so what's going on there well some that actually just occurred to me the other day and I haven't explored this maybe it's um been been covered in the scholarship already but there was a

(34:05) second Jewish Revolt in the early early 2 Century so the barck bar Revolt happened much later 132 to about 136 we don't know as much about it but what we do know is that Jerusalem was depopulated and the area around Jerusalem was almost completely depopulated centuries later Byzantine emperors were having to find ways to to try and bring immigrants into that area because it was a was land still Jerusalem would have been surrounded by armies in that that war of of the Bara Revolt so was luk written around then seems pretty late but it's a possibility so I don't know if anyone's actually

(34:40) explored that it's just something that kind of occurred to me before while I Was preparing F ship but what we can definitely say is that Paul softens and generalizes the this part of the S and makes it much less specific and much less easy to Anchor it to specifically to a 70 I think that tells us something as you said before when you see that it usually means it's because it's been recognized as a problem and this way is that also that people even back then saw this as being a prediction about what was going to happen in the lifetime of

(35:13) of the people that Jesus has depicted as talking to whereas Mark Winger is trying to make it sometime I don't know later in the 21st century what's this SP Jesus is asked when is this stuff going to happen and then his answer if you kind of take it all in one Gul it's like hey it's a ways out it's unknown to you it'll happen but you just stay faithful that's just be ready so a lot of the other stuff he says he tries to to Really sort of read in this idea to some of the other the references that I've mentioned before right when Jesus

(35:44) started preaching Matthew 4:17 his first thing he says in Matthew public preaching is repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand it's here now so so saying there was a was in a sense the kingdom had already come and that's how we get around the the stuff in uh in Mark 9:1 um he said that means it's near here and now well near at hand doesn't mean here and now it's close but it doesn't mean here and now so he he he does that sort of stuff in Matthew 16:28 here's another verse used by this especially the Skeptics uh to try to attack the

(36:14) Bible it says truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom um I'll just notice two things this would on the surface if you read it especially just pull it out of the context it seems to be saying yeah Jesus is coming back within the lifetime of at least some of the people that are standing there except he doesn't use the phrase with his holy angels and and that's interesting because in other passages he repeatedly uses the phrase that he's coming with his holy angels

(36:41) that he's not just coming in his kingdom but with his angels normally when he's talking about the actual apocalypse he uses the phrase coming with his Holy Angels but we don't see that here that's true quite often in some of the phrases that he uses about the coming of the Kingdom he talks about the kingdom coming with power the kingdom coming with with the Holy Angels and he doesn't he says well he doesn't do that here in in Matthew 16:28 well he doesn't do that in Matthew 16:28 he does do it in Matthew

(37:11) 16:27 okay the previous verse right Matthew 16:27 says for the son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his father and then he will repay everyone for what has been done so we Le that doesn't mention that and also he gives us screenshot of Matthew 16:28 cuts it off at the top so that you can't see Matthew 16:27 now I'm not saying Mark Winger is tricky but I'll let people draw their own conclusions about why he chose to do that right now this is what you can do when you're preaching to the

(37:43) converted all they're not going to bother they're not going to bother checking your facts because they already want to agree with you so that's wi I mean there's a lot of other stuff but I think the the key points are his whole futurist approach really doesn't work I take Jesus at his word this has not happened yet he does try some some arguments for partial fulfillment which is sort of semi- predis and they don't work either like when you're in the mall and and and they give you the the little chicken on

(38:07) a on a toothpick and they're like you know you want a sample and you eat the sample and now is the sample the same as the plate well no of course not uh but the sample is from the plate it's of the plate it's like the plate and it lets you know that the plate is legit like this is what the plate has on it so I think partial fulfillment is like a sample yet it doesn't mean there's no plate he plays games and I think it's it's a pretty terrible argument and I'd rather jump to the next interesting thing than Bel labor one point until we all dive boredom so to turn to Michael Jones's video Jones I think is much more

(38:39) aware of skeptical argument and to a certain extent he is sort of trying to talk to us but I think more what he's doing is speaking to other Christians and saying here's why you shouldn't pay attention to those Skeptics Jones is also someone who's quite a fan of me when I'm criticizing atheists those possibly less so when I'm turning the guns on Christians so he might not like what I'm about to say and will probably respond knowing Jones so I'm going to try to be reasonably thorough but I'm also I don't want to do a minute by minute debunking of his video because we' be here all day so I'll I'll have to

(39:14) do highlights if I miss anything and he jumps on it then we could do a response to the response so basically what Jones does is is a different approach and and he uses two main arguments which are an argument from contingent phy and an argument regarding partial fulfillment so it's a kind of the partial fulfillment stuff in particular is preist type of approach he he doesn't take the futurist approach that wi took this is often how we understand prophecy if God says a future event will occur then it is fated to happen and nothing

(39:45) we do will change that but this is not how prophecy was understood in the ancient near East or Israelite culture Prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures is often conditional meaning it relies on the proper response of the people Christopher hay says he he's leaning very heavily on a book called when the son of man didn't come a constructive proposal on the delay of the perusia by Christopher M Hayes which was published in 2016 this is a very good book I've read it a couple of times and I refer to it regularly because what Hayes does he he wrote it with a number of

(40:19) collaborators but what Hayes does is he goes through the usual arguments he used including futurist arguments to get around this problem and shows why they don't work so it's a very useful book because he's actually pretty good at summarizing the the whole issue but then he gets to what he believes and clearly what Jones agrees is the the main way you can deal with this while prophecy does entail an element of prognostication it is perhaps more fundamentally a Ministry of activation of telling what God intends to do to

(40:47) people given that they behave in a certain way for the purpose of motivating them to a course of action which might confirm or avert that prophecy for this reason unfulfilled prophecies are not filled prophecies sometimes unfulfilled prophecies are successful prophecies because prophecy is often conditional and he he points particularly to Jeremiah where prophecies are made the people respond by doing or not doing what what is required and then the the consequences happen I'm summarizing hundreds of pages of very close argument in a couple of

(41:18) sentences but I'm sure you're going to get the idea so JN spends quite a bit of his video detailing the argument that that is is present entered there and sort of says this is what's going on prophecies were not fatalistic proclamations in the biblical text they were more like warnings a prophet could utter a disaster would occur but it was understood that the prophecy would only occur if the people continued on in their sin likewise a prophet could speak that something good would occur but if the people turned to evil or did not repent the prophecy would be delayed so when Jesus is saying some of you will

(41:49) not taste death or you'll see the kingdom of kingdom of God coming in in power or you'll see the son of man it means that that possibly will happen but here's some stuff from the the New Testament that shows that they were actually contingent now one of the problems with this is apocalyptic literature generally the the prophecy in apocalyptic literature tended to be more deterministic than contingent now that's a generalization there's a very good video on not directly ABT Smith Vision Channel where Matthew Harkey goes through this whole

(42:22) this whole issue and go gives it much more detail so rather than me going through it I I recommend go and watch that video there are two big problems that I have with the conditional argument the first one is historical and it's just looking at the texts and seeing that some of the arguments don't really work historically they don't actually describe the way that these texts function um just objectively but the second point is that for me personally practically theologically it seems more like a rationalization than a a good response

(43:03) he spends about an hour going through whether prophecy was contingent or deterministic and the answer is it could be either and was apocalyptic literature more deterministic that contingent the answer was it was more deterministic Daniel's a really good example of the way that apocalyptic literature is much more deterministic and Daniel takes the prophecy of Jeremiah and he turns it into a highly deterministic view of History where it is it is set in stone so Jones to his credit doesn't do a Winger and just kind

(43:39) of ignor the the criticism he actually deals with this some people argue these examples do not compare because New Testament texts that spoke of the perusia are apocalyptic in nature and Jewish apocalyptic writings have a more deterministic view of History that's true that tend to be Daniel The Book of Daniel for example is very Det deterministic in this language it actually takes Jeremiah's prophecies and makes them much more deterministic right down to giving a timeline it will happen like this there will be this many days days being a kind of a euphemism for a

(44:10) period of time and he gives exactly gives a very very detail timeline which various apocalyptic preachers down Through the Ages right down to the present day still use you still have various people say well the end time is coming in the year 2002 because I'm reading this with the Book of Daniel they're always wrong so I love those guys yeah so 88 reasons 88 was a big one in my yeah yeah that's right do until 72 always wrong so in order to back this up Jones or to back up the idea that that apocalyptic L literature is not deterministic Jones quotes Dale C

(44:49) Allison who I mentioned before is one of my favorite Scholars and who has written great stuff on this on this this whole question and he quotes a book called The End of the Ages has Come an early interpretation of the passion of resurrection of Jesus which is one of Alison's books that I hadn't read and when you contacted me about this and I watched Jo's video I saw him referring to this book and I thought Allison doesn't agree with this so why does he keep quoting Allison the answer is because Allison doesn't agree with this and so he say even Allison says so he

(45:18) uses that quite a bit so I the reason I had to put off doing this conversation with you paers I had to go and read Allison's book well down now I got to go read too all right which I was really which I was really happy to do because it's a great book it's actually his publication of his thesis and I was interested because of that I was interested to see if maybe Allison's later work has modified his early arguments on this the answer was he hasn't really but he meant that I I had to go and read the book so what he does is he quotes from Allison he quotes from

(45:47) page 55 155 on that book and says and he puts this quote up on his screen but Dale Allison says there are nevertheless a good many apocalyptic texts in which it is undoubtedly taught that the eschatological climax is contingent upon or at least will be hastened by the repentance of Israel now because I like to check things yes Allison does say that on page 155 and he does then over the next two pages give examples of apocalyptic texts which are clearly contingent rather than deterministic which is very useful to know and not something I was I was happy to say not

(46:19) something I was really aware of and Jones then you highlights those and gives those as his examples what's interesting though is that he doesn't quote give the whole quote from from Allison so he doesn't give the beginning of the paragraph where he says despite the historical determinism which undoubtedly characterizes much Jewish apocalyptic literature then he says there are never nevertheless good a good many texts in which it is under doubtedly contingent so James leaves that bit out so what Allison is clearly saying is most apocalyptic stuff is

(46:50) deterministic but here are the exceptions right here are some examples of the not all these apocalyptic texts speak of the end coming after Isel repents or is delayed because of sin so Jones emphasizes the exceptions and doesn't mention the rule right all right now is he being deceptive the know well frankly if I was presenting this I would say generally speaking apocalyptic legist deterministic but here are some examples and then here's why I think these examples from the gospels are also contingent not deterministic so I think

(47:21) it's a little bit slippery but anyway so he he then goes through some early Christian writers toan cyprian Justin Mar I think the three which also are talking about these prophecies as being contingent all of these passages point to the idea that when a prophecy was given it was not establishing an unchangeable time of when it would occur instead the time of its occurrence was conditional on receiving the proper response from the people now he seems to think that that bolsters his argument frankly I think all those guys are doing is explaining the fact that the apocalypse hadn't come in their time right so I don't think think that really

(47:58) tells us much about what the gospel writers particularly the key one here Mark so the writer of the Gospel of Mark were were doing with with these these Prophecies of Jesus so he then goes into the New Testament examples and comes up with ways in which some of the New Testament material can be interpreted as as being contingent rather than deterministic I don't think his examples are very good so most of them are are bits from they're mainly from from Matthew so saying he took he talks about some of the Parables so in Matthew some

(48:32) Parables about the coming of the kingdom of God are put after the ol it his version of the Olivette discourse so after that little apocalypse that we find in Mark 13 after Matthew's version of that he then gives some Parables about the timing of the coming of kingdom of God which I think is deliberate on the part of the the writer of Matthew but what Jones does is he dips into those and finds things that he seems to think would indicate contingency And Delay Matthew 24:48 to 50 he gives the the a parable where the master comes back and the the bad slaves

(49:07) eating and drinking and the master comes back when they least expect him so Jesus directly told his followers they might expect a delay en ties it to wickedness and he's saying that this is an indication that the apocalypse might be delay I think it all is is Matthew dealing with the fact that the apocalypse hadn't happened yet I it works both ways but I just don't see it necessarily working the way the Jones needs it to work same with the parable of the 10 virgins Jesus is the bridegroom who is returning but the bridegroom is delayed so watch therefore

(49:38) for you know neither the day nor the hour which suggests not only do we not know when Jesus will return but we ought to expect a delay as I said before it's not you'll know neither the day nor the hour nor the year nor the century nor the Millennium it's like you'll know neither so again it's just saying you don't know exactly when it will happen but it's going to soon same with the parable of the but Jesus says the master returned only after a long time suggesting the time when Jesus will return to judge the world might be a long way off no that's explaining why

(50:06) the apocalypse hasn't happened yet it's been centuries Israel has been afflicted by the the foreigners and the Servants of Satan for centuries so he's been away for a long time God has been away for a long time but now he's coming back so again I don't think that works in the the parable of the unjust judge which speaks of God hastening the day of salvation after the elect Christ for justice again that's explaining why gone hasn't come yet and has been away for a long time has withdrawn his power for a long time so I don't think any of these

(50:37) work to prop up what he needs it to prop up I think he's he's working pretty hard to find references to some delay where really the delay is talking about is the fact that it hasn't happened yet that's all so none of these really do a great job of bolstering the idea of contingency but his real problem lies in mark because Mark is really deterministic um and and this is something that Matthew hary I think in that mythvision video emphasizes very well the ideas is that it's guaranteed that this is going to happen seems like Jesus has this apocalyptic trust in the

(51:16) sovereignty of God in the determined course of history and how it's all going to come out and God's going to win and he's going to bring in those whom he has chosen to bring in and he's going to harden those who he has chosen to harden and it's but it's going to come in this generation there there doesn't seem to be any wiggle room for Jesus that this is coming in this generation and as I said in my discussion of Mark 13 there's no rle room in there there's no Gap in the narrative there certainly no B say and then there'll be 2,000 years of waiting there's nothing like the timeline in Daniel which gives an

(51:57) opportunity for that kind of interpretation it's one thing after another and then the apocalypse comes I think just worth reiterating because Mark is the earliest yeah it's most problematic that's exactly right and this is the pattern you see all the way through we see the more deterministic the more imminent stuff early we see the more contingent and the more distant stuff late and then we see it get airbrushed out Al together in a lot of the very late literature so when he turns to mark Mark the one that he really emphasizes and this is sort of

(52:30) his get out of jail free card is in Mark 13 however we must also remember Jesus was explicit the gospel must first be proclaimed to all the nations since not everything occurred that was necessary we should expect it to lay of the perusia or a partial fulfillment to allow more time so the stipulations can be completed well that doesn't actually follow the problem is that he seems to be interpreting this the Greek is pant ethne proton and the word ethne there is is a form of ethnos which means Nations

(52:59) he seems to be interpreting this in kind of a geographical sense until the gospel has preached to every geographical Nation on the earth you know every signatory to the UN Charter then D apocalist won't happen and obviously that happened long after mainly in the 19th or even into the 20th century long after this time so therefore that this means there must be a gap but the word ethnos in the gospels doesn't mean nation states in our sense because they didn't exist it basically means peoples and it is used as a synonym for the word Gentile are you kidding no look it up at

(53:36) any concordance look up ethnos in strongs and you'll see text after text where sometimes it means peoples but in other places it gets translated as Gentiles because the nations in Jewish parliament in this period meant people other than us right so me the long Jews so what Jesus is is depicted as saying you have keep reminding myself to say depicted because we don't know if this is what something Jesus actually said they possible but what he's depicted and saying here is the gospel must be proclaimed to all the non-jewish people well as far as someone in 70 AD a Christian in 70 AD was concerned that

(54:12) had pretty much happened they didn't know that there were people in terid fuo or Australia or Canada so they didn't know hang on we haven't got to those people yet as far as they were concerned all the nations were once of the East Persians well yeah then Christianity had already spread that way and the Roman Empire yeah Christianity had already spread that way we know that Paul was talking about going to Spain all the way back in in the 50s ad so as far as they were concerned that had been fulfilled

(54:42) so this is where Jones tries to squeeze 2,000 years into back 13 and I really don't I don't think it works some people might I I I don't think this works at all so that's the one he places a hell of a lot of emphasis on he also talks about a bit in sorry sorry the other problem with that the Nations that Nations reference in Mark 13:10 first of all it's not a geographical description it's an ethnographic secondly that is mentioned as something that will happened before the abomination of desolation right now as I've already said I think you have to work really

(55:20) body hard to make the abomination of desolation not in in Mark not refer to ad70 and if that happens then that argument of Jones is just falls apart so he's got a real problem there now he gets ared by saying oh yeah the abominate The ad70 partially fulfills the prophecy but it's not the full fulfillment that will happen in the future which is kind of a having you cake and eating it type of argument and again maybe convincing to Christians who already want to believe this stuff and I think it's crap verse 20 suggests God

(55:50) has cut short the days of the peria for the sake of the elect suggesting the actions of the elect determine its length any problem there is the tense of the verbs they're all in the aist indicative active that indicates something that has definitely already happened there's no space therefore this may happen in the future or could happen or might not happen it's in contingent it's it has happened God has already determined that those dayses will be cut short I really can't see how we can get around the grammar of that it's it's impossible to read a AIS indicative

(56:22) active as being contingency it's about as defin and then there's a few others that he he uses which I think are particularly weak so the parable of the Mustard Seed he says that that's the one where Jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed it starts very very small but then it covers the whole earth and again he's saying well it it will take time for it to cover the whole earth so there must be there must be talking about a long period of time but the analogy is not talking about the time it takes for it to cover the whole earth it's talking about from small to big so I I don't think that one works

(56:51) very well at all either parable of the SE Mark 43-8 he says it's implying that not all those who hear the gospel will be ready to receive it suggesting it may take time more time to spread if the kingdom of God would need time to gradually cover the earth and the end will not come until the gospel was first proclaimed to all the nations then implicit in Mark we should expect a delay in the peria I think that's pretty weak I think it Jesus is simply saying well you know some people will hear it some people and not get it others will get it I think he's talking about people

(57:21) listening to his message right then again I don't think that really works then he gets to Mark 9 one so that's some standing he will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God coming in power because all three place this verse right before the Transfiguration which suggests the statement was fulfilled in this event even Dale Allison admits Mark has interpreted the statement from Jesus to be about the Transfiguration after this verse it says 6 days later the Transfiguration occurred and Jesus told them to tell no one until after his resurrection this suggests a statement

(57:52) that some will see the kingdom of God after it has come with power refers to the events of Jesus's Ministry namely the Transfiguration and Resurrection which was seen as initiating the beginning of Christ's Kingdom th some standing there did see the Kingdom's inauguration but not its completion so it's a partial fulfillment of the prophecy through the Transfiguration but then the the full thing is coming later on I just think that's fancy footwork I I don't find that convincing at all probably the only good argument that he and Winger make on this is they point

(58:21) out that the Transfiguration comes next in all three of the synoptic gospels so if was only in one of the gospels I wouldn't see the Transfiguration as a fulfillment of that but because all three gospels carry the very next event is the Transfiguration I think that's profound and that is interesting and they say well that's because the the gospel writers are definitely uh seeing the Transfiguration as a fulfillment of that of that prophecy I don't think that follows I think it possibly follows for Luke it might follow a bit for Matthew

(58:49) but I I think what they're doing is they're finding that in in Mark by chance and they're leaving it in that in that order for that reason so that means that Luke and Mark perhaps Matthew are interpreting it that way but I don't think that that necessarily means that Mark is but I won't say that's a terrible argument but I still don't it commit even Dale Allison admits Mark has interpreted the statement from Jesus to be about the Transfiguration after this verse it says 6 days later the Transfiguration occurred and Jesus told them to tell no

(59:18) one until after his resurrection again he kind of does a little bit of fancy footwork when he CES Alison here he doesn't give the quote he doesn't put the quote up on the screen and I thought that's interesting so I went and got my copy of Jesus of Nazareth militarian proit and again it's because it doesn't really doesn't really help him he so Allison says handed on without a context the plain sense of these texts including Mark 9:1 no doubt became after the passage of time embarrassing the kingdom of God did not soon come and no one saw the son of man upon the Clouds Of Heaven thus there arose the need for to find

(59:56) for these expectations some sort of fulfillment in events that had already transpired so you can see why Jonas doesn't quote that because it totally underes his points yeah again is he being tricky or let others decide he said to them truly I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power this verse is interpreted to mean that some who were with Jesus should have expected the perusia before they died but this may not be how the three synoptic authors understood this passage

(1:00:26) because all three placed this verse right before the Transfiguration which suggest the statement was fulfilled in this event he's saying well what it means is some saying they did see the Kingdom's inauguration without its completion because they saw the Transfiguration and the resurrection but that's not what Jesus s right so Jesus doesn't say some standing here we'll see kind of the beginnings of the coming of the kingdom of God but then so this is reading stuff into the text that just isn't there and then sort of say well there it is there isn't really a problem and Matthew 26

(1:00:57) Jesus says to the high priest from now on you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the Clouds Of Heaven which suggests according to Matthew that Jesus was inaugurated as king after his death and through his resurrection this is an illusion to Daniel 7 where the son of man comes before the Ancient of Days and is given Dominion forever likewise after the resurrection Jesus says all authority in heaven on Earth has been given to me the problem with that is Mark's version of that which Matthew is

(1:01:22) drawing on is quite different that's in Mark 1462 it doesn't have the addition of the words from now on it just says you will see the son of man set at the right hand so he's telling the high priest you will see this so it's another in your lifetime this generation will not pay pass away Matthew is obviously getting uncomfortable with that so he he adds that from now on so he makes it partially fulfilled and Luke deals with it by taking that bit out completely so again we see the same progression something's in Mark that is very

(1:01:59) definite and deterministic it gets modified to become more partial completion in Matthew and then it gets quietly removed by Luke and these guys anyone who studied the synoptic gospels knows they don't make these changes on a whim there's always a reason and over and over again we see this same pattern it's definite in in Mark it's anchored in in at a particular point in mark it gets watered down a bit by Matthew and then it gets watered out a l by L and then disappears completely in John right so I think there's possibly some other examples that he uses but they generally

(1:02:34) they generally fall into into these categories and I I think none of them are particularly convincing I don't think he deals with that issue the fact that the earliest material is the what is the stuff that is clearly deterministic and clearly anchored in the first century particularly AC around 70 AD I don't think he deals with that at all and so I had a bit of a chuckle with it some might claim this is just post Haw rationale Jesus didn't return in the first century so this is a Christian attempt to reinterpret the data to make sense of it yeah well I think some

(1:03:06) good that includes both of us I guess I think so yeah yeah so on the whole I think to sum up I think the the arguments that they use work if you want to make them work I don't think any of them are particularly particularly compelling there's a couple that I think are possibly stronger than than most of the rest but most of them I think are are very weak overall I I I would say we still have the evidence that we started with and that's that these the earliest material particularly Paul stuff and Mark are reflecting what seems to be the message of the historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic Prophet who thought that

(1:03:41) the kingdom of God was coming the apocalypse was coming in his lifetime or certainly very soon after so he thought it was an year at hand he thought it was going to happen very very soon and the early writers agreed and then as that continued to not happen we get the evolution that we see in the light of material make sense Mak sense to me if you'd like to hear more of this kind of detailed well researched analysis from Tim check out the description for links to his YouTube channel as well as the history for atheist website subscribe and let him

(1:04:11) know that apology has sent you thank you very much for inviting me on I've been quite a fan of your channel for quite a while and I remember where I initially I looked at him thought oh he's just another sneering atheist guy but then I realized that you weren you kind thanks everyone for watching tap the video on screen now for more looks at the claims of Christians and I'll see you over there until next time later