Weak vid.Smart move to disable ratings.You didn't really refute anything NSC said in this one but referred to your other vids for the major points.Which is why NSC's video is more effective.There are simply too many times where Jesus advises the redistribution of wealth to the poor from among his followers.Its in black and white.It's inspired many vows of poverty. In fact if you haven't done it yourself you can't be considered his disciple. NSC's vid is classic and haven't found a rebuttal yet.
@synch1216 Wow, all that yap yap yap and not one actual argument proving weakness or error. Stupid people like you are one very good reason ratings are disabled (as explained in vid here on that) -- and you're also the type who have so little understanding of Jesus' teachings that you end up reading them so badly. (Hint: Vows of poverty are also inspired by incorrect readings of his teachings. Get an education, dumbo.)
@tektontv : So you really expect me to do in a comment what you couldn't do in a whole video? Youtube vids don't even have the time limits that they used to have yet you still couldn't make a video refuting NSC's points- as I referenced earlier. Don't be upset that your vids aren't on par with NSC's. Interesting that he doesn't disable ratings and allows freedom of speech on his vids while apologists like yourself want to cripple speech on the net and everywhere else.
@synch1216 I already refuted all his points. You're obviously in over your head and unable to actually answer with anything but whining. As for "freedom of speech," since YT is the one that enables the feature, whine to them -- and cry me a river too, because the 1st Amendment is a control on Congress, not private forums, you dipstick.
Want more space and freedom? See me on theologyweb -- I'll carve you a new one there.
@tektontv : You are the one who enabled the controls on free speech on your videos- not Youtube. Youtube gave you the choice and you enabled the option. Meanwhile, NSC did not. You would think that a Christian would understand that concept LoL. No one forced you to obstruct free speech so grow up and take responsibility. While you're at it- take responsibility for all your moral decisions and stop outsourcing it to a Bible that you obviously are in denial about anyway.
@synch I understand you lost that point -- if YT gave the choice, that means THEY APPROVE OF IT BEING EXERCISED, YOU MORON ROFL. I would not expect someone with your limited intelligence to understand that. Grow up and live with your mistake. While you're at it -- try actually answering an argument from the vid and stop outsourcing your moral decisions to random chance which you obviously came from anyway.
No more comments will be approved that don't address the vid. Cry me a river.
wow...It never ceases to amaze me how far are xstians willing to spin and twist the bible to make it sound okay to them.How can anyone believe that these and only these interpretations are the right ones,knowing that Christians in the past,trully devout Christians,were living there lives by completelydifferent rules,since a lot of stuff in the bible was taken literally..
@mastnejsalam wow...It never ceases to amaze me how various morons think that offering idiotic declarative comments about "spinning" and "twisting" and making goofball comments about different interpretations constitutes some sort of actual argument. But, when you're too dumb to actually show that someone's interpretation is wrong, I guess that's the best you can do.
Try again, and time strive to be less stupid and actually answer something in the vid.
@tektontv Well,not everyone can be as bright as you are.No need for me to be explaining anything,there are NO correct interpretations,bible is literal,why shouldn't it be?Why would a perfect being,creator and cause of everything who cares deeply about what people think ever allow different interpretations of his will in the first place?If you were god and cared about what things people believe about you,wouldn't you set them right?
@mastnejsalam Why SHOULD such a being cater to willful human ignorance and stupidity, and give goofs like you spoon feedings? He gave you a brain. Either use it or shut your yap about any alleged problems you have understanding the text. The very fact that you don't bother to rebut anything I specifically offer shows you're just a whiner.
Those who "care deeply" don't spoil those who throw temper tantrums. Now either address a direct point in the vid or quit whining.
Nice video. You didn't address everything, and the part on how we are saved... you were close, but not quite. We are saved neither by faith nor works. We are saved by God's grace, THROUGH faith which leads to good works. ;-) That is God saves us, and we respond in acceptance of His words - faith - and obedience to His commands - good works. See Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 2:21, Rom 6:1-15 for grace; James 2:24, 4:17; Rom 2:13 for works. The Church Fathers also elucidated on grace, faith, and works.
And you are also correct that NSC flubbed on the "wide phylacteries" part and all that. See, he forgot a few important verses that come before Jesus bashing the Pharisees. Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV) - Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
@tektontv I think you may need to include the rules in every single one of your videos' description in all future uploads since no one seems to read them in your channel page, though I suspect even they will be ignored as a number of people constantly comment before reading the description box for more info. Or even before watching the video, for that matter. Sigh.
@tektontv Forgive me. I got caught up in the moment. But Christ does tell us that what the Pharisees taught the Jews was true, and because of their authority, their teachings ought to be followed. Their hypocrisy shouldn't be, of course. But NSC forgets the first few verses that come before this popular image of the Pharisees.
I actually hate modern Christian understanding of hell. Most(or even all) of the Church Fathers considered hell to be a place to be tortured, or promoted the annihilation of the sinners and nonbelievers. Now, to get adjusted to modern world and to prove God is loving, they say - God never punishes anyone, a person punishes himself with the separation from God. God can't punish, because He is love. But in reality - anyone who loves an evil person and doesn't punish him, is evil himself...
1:45 Those people claim to be Christians, and claim to follow Jesus's every word. However, by divorcing, they ignore Jesus's sayings. Also, give some examples of these ''exceptions''.
2:32 Why would a loving being condemn people to hell for something like this?
2:45 It refers to Atheists as fools, not to Christians. Your interpretation didn't make any sense.
@c100 I see you're not too bright. Did it occur to you that comments here are moderated? 1:45 Exceptions are for any betrayal of the covenant of marriage, including adultery and neglect; see Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 2:32 Go find my vid on the nature of hell and stop whining about hell. It's fair. 2:45 It makes sense, you're just not bright enough to follow it. Try checking out some serious scholarship rather than NoSCo vids.
@tektontv Now that you bring up adultery, the bible also says that aldulterers must be put to death. But I guess I just ''took that out of context'', right ;). Also, let's read Matthew 13:41-42 and Matthew 13:49-50, shall we?
Someone who says that there is no god counts as an atheist. Seeing as god was much more visible then, I doubt that there was someone who didn't believe in god. Instead of just saying that I'm not smart enough, actually come with an argument against my argument.
@c100 As I told you in PM, the "put to death" issue was not raised by NoSCo, so why would I answer it here? Are you that stupid? I answer it in other vids. Go find them. I also answer about those figures in Matthew 13 in another vid. And I also told you that atheism is found in the ancient world - rare, but they did exist.
Go educate yourself..and from now on, post either here or PM, not both, and do not post again until you find the other vids. You are wasting my time with your ignorance.
1) Divorce - even if you regret, it's a sin, so if you divorce, can't remarry.
2) Christ says to love enemies too, not just brothers.
3) Christians never advocate passive resistance. They defend themselves+they go to wars.
4) Wealth - It's not addressed to one man. Jesus said to leave only necessary stuff and give everything else. That's a real Christianity! Saying that he only asked this from only one - means Jesus was unjust!
@Otherguylb 1) It's not always a sin -- exception was offered for adultery. 2, 3) What's your point with relation to what was said in the vid? 4) Yes, it was addressed to one man and only one, because his problem was wealth. Other rich man like Nicodemus and Zaccheus were not told to drop their wealth. That's not unjust, that's tailoring to a person's weaknesses and temptations. Your reading of "Jesus" is that of a fundy, not a scholar.
wow - an actually watchable video that presents real info from the Christian side. Good work. I'm an atheist and a fan of nonstampcolletors. For the sake of trying to make sure I also hear the Christian side of it I've tried to find some decent vids, but until this one, most have been so terrible I couldn't even sit through them.
@cholive14 Wrongo. I have a Master's degree in library science...and I get all my info from scholars with even higher degrees. Sorry you're such a moron. And I deleted your message for profanity.
You shouldn't have included Nosco's blasphemous drawing of the Lord Jesus in there. It doesn't matter to me what a fundie atheist like him does, but being a Christian you shouldn't have put in such a disrespectful image/video. I mean... you even remove "Jesus'" head at the end there. Am I the only commenter in this video to have a problem with this?
@YodatheJedi12 Well, that's why the character says that it isn't the real Jesus. It's NoSCo's false caricature. Think of it as though it were the Jesus of the Mormons, or that of the Arians.
It occured to me that some people might have an issue with it and I might have as well if it was not clearly stated in the video that the real Jesus was not being portrayed. You even seem acknowledge that is not the real Jesus because you put "Jesus" in speech marks.
@ukchristian28 I for one would also not have minded giving the Jesus of Martin Scorcese's (and Nikos Kazantzakis') Last Temptation of Christ a nice shaking up.
I saw that movie years ago and I would agree. Would you say that it has to do with intention? NoSCo's video would be blasphemous because he intented to portray it as the real Jesus. The blasphemy being that he is spreading falsehoods about Jesus? The same with the Last Temptation of Christ movie?
@ukchristian28 More or less, yes. I didn't see the movie except clips (they didn't show it in Orlando! hmm, not because Universal Studios was freshly opening here at the time, was it??) but I read the book and that Jesus was almost too silly to be blasphemous. In one spot he actually apologizes to a tree because he had a bad dream while sleeping under it. Compared to that NoSCo's stick figure Jesus is almost a saint.
Heh, I think NSC is funny, but that's as far as I'll take him on his outlook on the bible.
As far as I know, NSC is taking your video responses quite well. Has he every conversed with you about them? I think it would benefit him much more than whoever he's getting these arguments from. Most likely trolls from Yahoo answers R&S board.
@Mectrixctic He did come by for my first vid (Beat the Bible Scholar), and you can see the comments there. He actually ended up being somewhat more positive in tone than some of his viewers who came here.
I suspect being newly married he won't have that much time for interaction now. He certainly has slowed his vid production.
How exactly did you come to the conclusion brother means a fellow Christian because everything I have read says the exact opposite of that. I've just been through every biblical commentary and they all say it meant everyone.
@cholive14 I'd like to know which commentaries you've read that say that. However, the social science scholarship notes that such familial language is used exclusively of ingroup members in this and other religious/social settings. Also, the uses of familial language throughout the NT clearly reference only fellow Christians (where it does not indicate blood kinship). Please PM me with commentary references as I know that may be longer than can fit.
@tektontv "So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches, that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man Raca, or fool."
-Wesley's notes
Do I really need to go on, absolutely all of them I have read says it means anyone.
@cholive14 COUGH....um...those are all badly, badly out of date...like, hundreds of years old. Scholarship has moved on considerably since those guys were around.
I wanted you to PM me first...but to keep my rules intact I'll leave all but one of those up for a day or two and then delete them.
@cholive14 Yes, there is -- I have a stated rule on my channel page, one post at a time. And what's with the paranoia? No more info comes by PM here than by this method.
Just for that, down they go right now. And keep that crap about "deleting anything that disagrees with me" -- commentaries hundreds of years old isn't precious information.
@cholive14 You bet they didn't -- not with the knowledge they needed. Isn't it funny how modern scholars with much more knowledge don't seem to agree. And how funny that you think (naughty boy -- no profanity) that these dead white boys "know a hell of a lot more" than I (and the scholars I use, like Malina) than we do.
Let's just face it: You're stupid and out of date! :D
@cholive14 Exactly. Explaining the entire Bible line for line is one of the worst things to do. You talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, by any chance? We've had quite a field day with that one :D
@Dante666 I listed 4 seperate sources that all came to the same conclusion independently, if you think 4 sources all came to the conclusion from not reading the bible you are even dumber than I had taken you for.
@cholive14 What a laugh riot. 4 separate sources and each one out of date and contrary to modern scholarship. I can see you used to be a fundy because you still think like one.
How do you know they came to those views totally independently? They probably would have read the same kind of scholars because guys like them did study, not just read the Bible and come up with their own thing.
@cholive14 And there are more from this century that do not share the same conclusion.
Anybody can read the Bible, but the ability to analyse and interpret it in context is a separate issue. I already told you, explaining the Bible line for line is one of the worst things to do, and that is almost exactly what these people did. And you've not answered my question.
Those old Christian warriors like Wesley, Gill and Henry do seem to see it as referring to anyone. I am surprised actually because I don't see how they can be consistent with that. Jesus Himself calls the Pharisees "blind fools" in Matt 23:17. I suppose one possibility is to view Jesus' words in Matt 5:22 as condemning words spoken in anger.
Is that a possibility J.P? Also, are there circumstances in which you might call a fellow Christian a fool. E.g. Joyce Meyer?
@ukchristian28 Since "fool" no longer means a God-denier, it is open to use the word of the likes of Meyer, yes, but I try to be more creative than that even so.
I suspect the likes of Gill at times didn't bother about consistency, but as can be seen they're now fodder for fundy atheists who prefer not thinking too hard (or doing too much research).
But you wouldn't write off these old warriors of the faith completely though?
I once went to a conference of the Protestant Reformed Church (someone invited me) Prof Hanko and David Engelsma were speaking there. Hanko said that if you need a good commentary on the Bible just stick with Calvin because "he was nearly always right". I think I would have strayed a bit far from the path in their estimation. I have noticed a lot of Reformed folk think the old ones are the best.
@ukchristian28 Oh no. Some things were clear enough that they're still correct. But stopping cold with them as sources is way out of line. It would be like quoting some 17th century scientist as a final authority on evolution.
Yes, I note that in Reformed folk as well (like MacArthur). And that it has led them into errors at times.
1) "What God has joined together, let NO ONE separate." What does being regretful or not have to do with that? Nada. Of course divorce is regretful :P
2) That context of "brother" doesn't make sense. He wasn't talking to "only Christians". He was talking to the multitudes in Galilee who had gathered to hear Him speak.
3.) Only applies to the rich?! What about the parable of the widow's mite and a dozen other sermons?! You're saying it's metaphorical, so hit yourself with the mallet too.
@hugesinker 1) You miss the point. NoSCo claims that it is viewed as "OK" which was what was being refuted by that. 2) Beside the point. He was setting rules for his ingroup, what would become Christians but in his time was his disciples. Other listeners are incidental to that. 3) That is not metaphor, it is exegesis. What about those other sermons? Just listing them is not an argument or exegesis. Grow up.
@tektontv 1) It IS okay, okay meaning permissible or acceptable. Not okay meaning without a twinge of regret. This is obvious.
2) Am I supposed to believe the obvious context of the time, place, and audience to which the sermon was given, or am I just supposed to believe your bizarre interpretation just because you say it?
3) It's a question of whether you can take Jesus at His word or reinterpret it as metaphorical and under certain conditions not mentioned. You've proved Nonstamp's point.
@hugesinker 1) No, now you're massaging "okay" to make it fit your mistake. You also fail to qualify "acceptable" under what circumstances, and NoSCo did not. 2) The "obvious context" to someone who understands the nature of a collectivist/agonistic society is that he was setting rules for his ingroup. Your "obvious context" reflects ignorance of that sort of society. 3) No, it's a question of meaning within the social, historical, and literary context, which is obviously above your head.
@tekton 1) I could just paste the colloquial dictionary definition of the word "okay" to prove my point, but I know you're just being obstinate here and this is getting silly.
2) He was talking to the multitudes gathered from Galilee and surrounding kingdoms; blessing them and teaching them. "Brother" is used in respect to our collective common relationship to the "Father". This is a rhetorical theme used throughout the sermon.
3) Any verses I provide, you can just cry CONTEXT & provide nothing.
@hugesinker 1) In that case, you just agreed with me that NoSCo wasn't specific enough, which was my point. Thank you. 2) I already refuted that, and all you're doing is repeating your refuted argument. There is NO context that allows for such a universalist meaning in a collectivist/agonistic society. 3) And just as obviously, you're too ignorant to refute my findings about context. Thank you.
@tektontv Your point was not that he was basically correct, though just "wasn't specific enough" for you, it was that he was wrong. I have no problem with where you've moved the goalposts now, gloat about it if you want to.
You haven't refuted anything using the words "collectivist/agonistic society", even if it were true. These ancient societies weren't even philosophically agonistic, you could be killed for a simple dissent with the ruling class. And collectivist in what sense?
@hugesinker No, I never said "wrong". So stop crafting my position to suit your ill-conceived response. As for the rest, all that shows is that you are too ignorant to understand the argument. Come back after doing some homework -- your reference to dissent shows you have no idea what I'm talking about. :D
@tektontv I've been trying very hard be polite to pull a substantive response from you. Over and over again I've only manged to get allusions to refutations but never any actual refutation.
I really hope that your apparently made-up reinterpretation of Christian doctrine doesn't gain wider acceptance. You've taken noble lessons on tolerance, generosity, and introspection from an important historical teacher and made them exclusionary and drained of most of their significance.
@hugesinker Yeah, you got actual refutations, you just don't like them or they're over your head. One of these days you'll realize YT vids by a guy who does stick figures isn't your best place for Biblical scholarship.
I'm not sure if NoSCo is trying to be ignorant, or if he's trying to be comic relief. Maybe both. Although, to be honest, I did use to have a quasi-modalist understanding of the Trinity. Unfortunately for NoSCo, that was due to my reasoning as a child, and I've since abandoned that reasoning long ago. Ironic that I'm sounding a bit like Paul here. ;)
It absolutely confuses me how NonStampCollector has so many followers and views. If biblical exegesis was Superman, he'd be Bizarro. You do a great job at responding concisely and with some great slapstick comedy. Love the video!
@venomx88 Thank you. I can only suppose he has so many followers because his type of atheist clusters here on YT (where pictures are the best way to communicate). I used him as an example of the poor quality here by atheists in a magazine article I wrote. But due credit, he at least showed some curiosity about the first vid I made on him.
@rin221AA Well, remember, his head also pops off (in the earlier game show vid) and he also came back from being killed at least once if not twice. Stick figures don't have much to injure!
@Greathiway In the way Ps 14:1 relates to, yes, I do -- and sadly I see a lot of proof of that. I deleted message 2, you know better. But read Veith's article in the description, the stats are overdone. The surveys also don't ask people if they think it is a sin or not (and it is not always that, either -- like when the other person deserts you).
No you deleted comment 1, that was comment 2 that I though you might delete, but both message together were just two question and totaled well under 500 chars.
"Ps 14:1 relates to, yes"
So you believe atheist are fools and the bible says we are fools but the bible also says, saying your 'brother' is a fool may put that person in hell. I can only conclude Atheists are not your brothers or this is a blatant contradiction. no?
@Greathiway Whatever -- I wasn't numbering by chronological order. And yes, by what I have been saying, atheists are not brothers in the familial ingroup-outgroup sense. Modern people have come up with the idea of the "universal brotherhood" of man, and if for example you drew cartoons, you might be my "brother" in that restricted sense, but in strict socio-religious terms, yes, atheists are not "brothers" to Christians.
@tektontv " but? in strict socio-religious " And that is the sense you believe is being used in that verse?
In otherwards you know who is a Christian or not so you are not in risk of hell if you do what would otherwise be sin if done to christians?
In that case why should I believe anything you say is not a lie and twisting words. Seems you might lie to me especially of you thought it was sanctioned by or to glorify jesus?
@Greathiway It is the only possible sense it could be in that verse. The universalist option was unknown then and the ingroup option widespread and dominant (apart from blood relational meanings).
As noted, the point is, not to call a fellow Christian an unbeliever; the sin is essentially denying the efficacy of Christ's salvation. Where you get that "lie" reading I can't say but it's the type of reading most people would get after a bottle of vodka.
@tektontv " universalist option was unknown' Besides a few verses in Isiah or the story of the good samartian.I Agree those of other faiths are not considered brothers and different rules applied. But that is the exactly the problem. You Dont think you should treat 'people' how you want to be treated just people you believe are christian. You can lie to me, enslave, or kill my entire town and you are actually instructed to do so by the bible. U dont C why I have issue w/ bible being from a god?
@Greathiway No, not even there. The Good Samartian refers to neighbors, not brothers. As for the golden rule, if I do stupid things I expect to be called a fool. So the answer for that is for atheists to stop acting like fools.
@tektontv " neighbors, not brothers" so everyone is a neighbor but we are not all brothers? So My point remains That you have different rules for how you should treat people. If we are all neighbors shouldnt that rule about calling people fools applied equally. "if I do stupid things I expect to be called a fool" I agree and it should applly to everyone equaly , but thats not what you think the bible says. It matters if you consider a person a brother in how you treat them.
@Greathiway That rule specifically concerns calling brothers, i.e. fellow believers, fools, not all. The Golden Rule is applied to all. That is exactly what the Bible says.
@ToaOfJustice I used NoSCo's own audio so I could be sure I quoted him accurately. Except for the robot voice at the end, which is me using my morphing software.
NoSc's point about the Pope was absolutely ridiculous. Jesus did not forbid tradition or having a successor wearing robes as a successor of Peter (which is what Catholics believe the Pope is), but rather against the hypocrisy of pharisees who put themselves above God for the way they behaved. I've heard many arguments against the Papacy (many which are understandable), but that has got to be one of the dumbest ones out there on the market.
Weak vid.Smart move to disable ratings.You didn't really refute anything NSC said in this one but referred to your other vids for the major points.Which is why NSC's video is more effective.There are simply too many times where Jesus advises the redistribution of wealth to the poor from among his followers.Its in black and white.It's inspired many vows of poverty. In fact if you haven't done it yourself you can't be considered his disciple. NSC's vid is classic and haven't found a rebuttal yet.
synch1216 1 day ago
@synch1216 Wow, all that yap yap yap and not one actual argument proving weakness or error. Stupid people like you are one very good reason ratings are disabled (as explained in vid here on that) -- and you're also the type who have so little understanding of Jesus' teachings that you end up reading them so badly. (Hint: Vows of poverty are also inspired by incorrect readings of his teachings. Get an education, dumbo.)
tektontv 14 hours ago
@tektontv : So you really expect me to do in a comment what you couldn't do in a whole video? Youtube vids don't even have the time limits that they used to have yet you still couldn't make a video refuting NSC's points- as I referenced earlier. Don't be upset that your vids aren't on par with NSC's. Interesting that he doesn't disable ratings and allows freedom of speech on his vids while apologists like yourself want to cripple speech on the net and everywhere else.
synch1216 14 hours ago
@synch1216 I already refuted all his points. You're obviously in over your head and unable to actually answer with anything but whining. As for "freedom of speech," since YT is the one that enables the feature, whine to them -- and cry me a river too, because the 1st Amendment is a control on Congress, not private forums, you dipstick.
Want more space and freedom? See me on theologyweb -- I'll carve you a new one there.
tektontv 12 hours ago
@tektontv : You are the one who enabled the controls on free speech on your videos- not Youtube. Youtube gave you the choice and you enabled the option. Meanwhile, NSC did not. You would think that a Christian would understand that concept LoL. No one forced you to obstruct free speech so grow up and take responsibility. While you're at it- take responsibility for all your moral decisions and stop outsourcing it to a Bible that you obviously are in denial about anyway.
synch1216 12 hours ago
@synch I understand you lost that point -- if YT gave the choice, that means THEY APPROVE OF IT BEING EXERCISED, YOU MORON ROFL. I would not expect someone with your limited intelligence to understand that. Grow up and live with your mistake. While you're at it -- try actually answering an argument from the vid and stop outsourcing your moral decisions to random chance which you obviously came from anyway.
No more comments will be approved that don't address the vid. Cry me a river.
tektontv 11 hours ago
wow...It never ceases to amaze me how far are xstians willing to spin and twist the bible to make it sound okay to them.How can anyone believe that these and only these interpretations are the right ones,knowing that Christians in the past,trully devout Christians,were living there lives by completelydifferent rules,since a lot of stuff in the bible was taken literally..
mastnejsalam 1 month ago
@mastnejsalam wow...It never ceases to amaze me how various morons think that offering idiotic declarative comments about "spinning" and "twisting" and making goofball comments about different interpretations constitutes some sort of actual argument. But, when you're too dumb to actually show that someone's interpretation is wrong, I guess that's the best you can do.
Try again, and time strive to be less stupid and actually answer something in the vid.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv Well,not everyone can be as bright as you are.No need for me to be explaining anything,there are NO correct interpretations,bible is literal,why shouldn't it be?Why would a perfect being,creator and cause of everything who cares deeply about what people think ever allow different interpretations of his will in the first place?If you were god and cared about what things people believe about you,wouldn't you set them right?
mastnejsalam 1 month ago
@mastnejsalam Why SHOULD such a being cater to willful human ignorance and stupidity, and give goofs like you spoon feedings? He gave you a brain. Either use it or shut your yap about any alleged problems you have understanding the text. The very fact that you don't bother to rebut anything I specifically offer shows you're just a whiner.
Those who "care deeply" don't spoil those who throw temper tantrums. Now either address a direct point in the vid or quit whining.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv They need to learn to read first :-).
rin221AA 4 weeks ago
Nice video. You didn't address everything, and the part on how we are saved... you were close, but not quite. We are saved neither by faith nor works. We are saved by God's grace, THROUGH faith which leads to good works. ;-) That is God saves us, and we respond in acceptance of His words - faith - and obedience to His commands - good works. See Ephesians 2:8, Galatians 2:21, Rom 6:1-15 for grace; James 2:24, 4:17; Rom 2:13 for works. The Church Fathers also elucidated on grace, faith, and works.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye I addressed all of it -- the points you refer to are discussed in supplemental material linked in the vid description.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv Ok, cool. I didn't see that before. :)
And you are also correct that NSC flubbed on the "wide phylacteries" part and all that. See, he forgot a few important verses that come before Jesus bashing the Pharisees. Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV) - Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
@SorokChyetirye Mind my rules -- 1 post at a time.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv I think you may need to include the rules in every single one of your videos' description in all future uploads since no one seems to read them in your channel page, though I suspect even they will be ignored as a number of people constantly comment before reading the description box for more info. Or even before watching the video, for that matter. Sigh.
Dante666 2 months ago
@tektontv Forgive me. I got caught up in the moment. But Christ does tell us that what the Pharisees taught the Jews was true, and because of their authority, their teachings ought to be followed. Their hypocrisy shouldn't be, of course. But NSC forgets the first few verses that come before this popular image of the Pharisees.
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
I actually hate modern Christian understanding of hell. Most(or even all) of the Church Fathers considered hell to be a place to be tortured, or promoted the annihilation of the sinners and nonbelievers. Now, to get adjusted to modern world and to prove God is loving, they say - God never punishes anyone, a person punishes himself with the separation from God. God can't punish, because He is love. But in reality - anyone who loves an evil person and doesn't punish him, is evil himself...
Otherguylb 2 months ago
@Otherguylb Well I guess you like my view of hell a lot better then!
tektontv 2 months ago
1:45 Those people claim to be Christians, and claim to follow Jesus's every word. However, by divorcing, they ignore Jesus's sayings. Also, give some examples of these ''exceptions''.
2:32 Why would a loving being condemn people to hell for something like this?
2:45 It refers to Atheists as fools, not to Christians. Your interpretation didn't make any sense.
camobeast100 3 months ago
@c100 I see you're not too bright. Did it occur to you that comments here are moderated? 1:45 Exceptions are for any betrayal of the covenant of marriage, including adultery and neglect; see Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 2:32 Go find my vid on the nature of hell and stop whining about hell. It's fair. 2:45 It makes sense, you're just not bright enough to follow it. Try checking out some serious scholarship rather than NoSCo vids.
tektontv 3 months ago
@tektontv Now that you bring up adultery, the bible also says that aldulterers must be put to death. But I guess I just ''took that out of context'', right ;). Also, let's read Matthew 13:41-42 and Matthew 13:49-50, shall we?
Someone who says that there is no god counts as an atheist. Seeing as god was much more visible then, I doubt that there was someone who didn't believe in god. Instead of just saying that I'm not smart enough, actually come with an argument against my argument.
camobeast100 3 months ago
@c100 As I told you in PM, the "put to death" issue was not raised by NoSCo, so why would I answer it here? Are you that stupid? I answer it in other vids. Go find them. I also answer about those figures in Matthew 13 in another vid. And I also told you that atheism is found in the ancient world - rare, but they did exist.
Go educate yourself..and from now on, post either here or PM, not both, and do not post again until you find the other vids. You are wasting my time with your ignorance.
tektontv 3 months ago
I love the video, but:
1) Divorce - even if you regret, it's a sin, so if you divorce, can't remarry.
2) Christ says to love enemies too, not just brothers.
3) Christians never advocate passive resistance. They defend themselves+they go to wars.
4) Wealth - It's not addressed to one man. Jesus said to leave only necessary stuff and give everything else. That's a real Christianity! Saying that he only asked this from only one - means Jesus was unjust!
I agree to Jesus here! Not to TT. :)
Otherguylb 3 months ago
@Otherguylb 1) It's not always a sin -- exception was offered for adultery. 2, 3) What's your point with relation to what was said in the vid? 4) Yes, it was addressed to one man and only one, because his problem was wealth. Other rich man like Nicodemus and Zaccheus were not told to drop their wealth. That's not unjust, that's tailoring to a person's weaknesses and temptations. Your reading of "Jesus" is that of a fundy, not a scholar.
tektontv 3 months ago
@tektontv Where's the vid on "love your enemies"?
d007ization 2 months ago
@d007ization If you mean what I think you do, look for Paul's Angels: Love.
tektontv 2 months ago
wow - an actually watchable video that presents real info from the Christian side. Good work. I'm an atheist and a fan of nonstampcolletors. For the sake of trying to make sure I also hear the Christian side of it I've tried to find some decent vids, but until this one, most have been so terrible I couldn't even sit through them.
Well done vid!
Eventsbyresonance 5 months ago
@Eventsbyresonance Thanks for the good word! I do what I can to make them interesting and informative. :)
tektontv 5 months ago
Lol furries are intelligently designed.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
check check
Criticallyincorrect 6 months ago
@Criticallyincorrect No checks please. Visa or Mastercard only.
tektontv 6 months ago
wow!! guys this is great, you guys rock!!!! Hammer him down :D
MultiRedeemed 6 months ago
@cholive14 Wrongo. I have a Master's degree in library science...and I get all my info from scholars with even higher degrees. Sorry you're such a moron. And I deleted your message for profanity.
tektontv 6 months ago
Wow.
I'm really disappointed.
You shouldn't have included Nosco's blasphemous drawing of the Lord Jesus in there. It doesn't matter to me what a fundie atheist like him does, but being a Christian you shouldn't have put in such a disrespectful image/video. I mean... you even remove "Jesus'" head at the end there. Am I the only commenter in this video to have a problem with this?
YodatheJedi12 6 months ago
@YodatheJedi12 Well, that's why the character says that it isn't the real Jesus. It's NoSCo's false caricature. Think of it as though it were the Jesus of the Mormons, or that of the Arians.
tektontv 6 months ago
@YodatheJedi12
It occured to me that some people might have an issue with it and I might have as well if it was not clearly stated in the video that the real Jesus was not being portrayed. You even seem acknowledge that is not the real Jesus because you put "Jesus" in speech marks.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 I for one would also not have minded giving the Jesus of Martin Scorcese's (and Nikos Kazantzakis') Last Temptation of Christ a nice shaking up.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv
I saw that movie years ago and I would agree. Would you say that it has to do with intention? NoSCo's video would be blasphemous because he intented to portray it as the real Jesus. The blasphemy being that he is spreading falsehoods about Jesus? The same with the Last Temptation of Christ movie?
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 More or less, yes. I didn't see the movie except clips (they didn't show it in Orlando! hmm, not because Universal Studios was freshly opening here at the time, was it??) but I read the book and that Jesus was almost too silly to be blasphemous. In one spot he actually apologizes to a tree because he had a bad dream while sleeping under it. Compared to that NoSCo's stick figure Jesus is almost a saint.
tektontv 6 months ago
Heh, I think NSC is funny, but that's as far as I'll take him on his outlook on the bible.
As far as I know, NSC is taking your video responses quite well. Has he every conversed with you about them? I think it would benefit him much more than whoever he's getting these arguments from. Most likely trolls from Yahoo answers R&S board.
Mectrixctic 6 months ago
@Mectrixctic He did come by for my first vid (Beat the Bible Scholar), and you can see the comments there. He actually ended up being somewhat more positive in tone than some of his viewers who came here.
I suspect being newly married he won't have that much time for interaction now. He certainly has slowed his vid production.
tektontv 6 months ago
How exactly did you come to the conclusion brother means a fellow Christian because everything I have read says the exact opposite of that. I've just been through every biblical commentary and they all say it meant everyone.
cholive14 6 months ago
@cholive14 I'd like to know which commentaries you've read that say that. However, the social science scholarship notes that such familial language is used exclusively of ingroup members in this and other religious/social settings. Also, the uses of familial language throughout the NT clearly reference only fellow Christians (where it does not indicate blood kinship). Please PM me with commentary references as I know that may be longer than can fit.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv "So that this righteousness does not exceed theirs. But Christ teaches, that we ought not, for any cause, to be so angry as to call any man Raca, or fool."
-Wesley's notes
Do I really need to go on, absolutely all of them I have read says it means anyone.
cholive14 6 months ago
@cholive14 COUGH....um...those are all badly, badly out of date...like, hundreds of years old. Scholarship has moved on considerably since those guys were around.
I wanted you to PM me first...but to keep my rules intact I'll leave all but one of those up for a day or two and then delete them.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I'm not going to PM you, I don't know you. It's on point with the topic, there is no reason in world you need to delete those.
cholive14 6 months ago
@cholive14 Yes, there is -- I have a stated rule on my channel page, one post at a time. And what's with the paranoia? No more info comes by PM here than by this method.
Just for that, down they go right now. And keep that crap about "deleting anything that disagrees with me" -- commentaries hundreds of years old isn't precious information.
tektontv 6 months ago
@cholive14 Rather than getting stuff from notes that are more than 200 years old, why not try reading the Bible itself?
"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matthew 12:50
Dante666 6 months ago
@Dante666 Yea I'm sure the John Wesley and a source that literally goes line for line explaining the entire bible didn't read it you retard.
cholive14 6 months ago
@cholive14 You bet they didn't -- not with the knowledge they needed. Isn't it funny how modern scholars with much more knowledge don't seem to agree. And how funny that you think (naughty boy -- no profanity) that these dead white boys "know a hell of a lot more" than I (and the scholars I use, like Malina) than we do.
Let's just face it: You're stupid and out of date! :D
tektontv 6 months ago
@cholive14 Exactly. Explaining the entire Bible line for line is one of the worst things to do. You talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, by any chance? We've had quite a field day with that one :D
Dante666 6 months ago
@Dante666 I listed 4 seperate sources that all came to the same conclusion independently, if you think 4 sources all came to the conclusion from not reading the bible you are even dumber than I had taken you for.
cholive14 6 months ago
@cholive14 What a laugh riot. 4 separate sources and each one out of date and contrary to modern scholarship. I can see you used to be a fundy because you still think like one.
tektontv 6 months ago
@cholive14
How do you know they came to those views totally independently? They probably would have read the same kind of scholars because guys like them did study, not just read the Bible and come up with their own thing.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 Yes, I have my suspicions that they're all just reflecting a then-current Enlightenment-Age sentiment...but I can't prove it.
tektontv 6 months ago
@cholive14 And there are more from this century that do not share the same conclusion.
Anybody can read the Bible, but the ability to analyse and interpret it in context is a separate issue. I already told you, explaining the Bible line for line is one of the worst things to do, and that is almost exactly what these people did. And you've not answered my question.
Dante666 6 months ago
@cholive14
Those old Christian warriors like Wesley, Gill and Henry do seem to see it as referring to anyone. I am surprised actually because I don't see how they can be consistent with that. Jesus Himself calls the Pharisees "blind fools" in Matt 23:17. I suppose one possibility is to view Jesus' words in Matt 5:22 as condemning words spoken in anger.
Is that a possibility J.P? Also, are there circumstances in which you might call a fellow Christian a fool. E.g. Joyce Meyer?
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 Since "fool" no longer means a God-denier, it is open to use the word of the likes of Meyer, yes, but I try to be more creative than that even so.
I suspect the likes of Gill at times didn't bother about consistency, but as can be seen they're now fodder for fundy atheists who prefer not thinking too hard (or doing too much research).
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv
But you wouldn't write off these old warriors of the faith completely though?
I once went to a conference of the Protestant Reformed Church (someone invited me) Prof Hanko and David Engelsma were speaking there. Hanko said that if you need a good commentary on the Bible just stick with Calvin because "he was nearly always right". I think I would have strayed a bit far from the path in their estimation. I have noticed a lot of Reformed folk think the old ones are the best.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
@ukchristian28 Oh no. Some things were clear enough that they're still correct. But stopping cold with them as sources is way out of line. It would be like quoting some 17th century scientist as a final authority on evolution.
Yes, I note that in Reformed folk as well (like MacArthur). And that it has led them into errors at times.
tektontv 6 months ago
@cholive14 For a word referring to "everyone", Jesus uses "neighbor".
Dante666 6 months ago
@Dante666 Correct. Same was true in the OT generally.
tektontv 6 months ago
1) "What God has joined together, let NO ONE separate." What does being regretful or not have to do with that? Nada. Of course divorce is regretful :P
2) That context of "brother" doesn't make sense. He wasn't talking to "only Christians". He was talking to the multitudes in Galilee who had gathered to hear Him speak.
3.) Only applies to the rich?! What about the parable of the widow's mite and a dozen other sermons?! You're saying it's metaphorical, so hit yourself with the mallet too.
hugesinker 6 months ago
@hugesinker 1) You miss the point. NoSCo claims that it is viewed as "OK" which was what was being refuted by that. 2) Beside the point. He was setting rules for his ingroup, what would become Christians but in his time was his disciples. Other listeners are incidental to that. 3) That is not metaphor, it is exegesis. What about those other sermons? Just listing them is not an argument or exegesis. Grow up.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv 1) It IS okay, okay meaning permissible or acceptable. Not okay meaning without a twinge of regret. This is obvious.
2) Am I supposed to believe the obvious context of the time, place, and audience to which the sermon was given, or am I just supposed to believe your bizarre interpretation just because you say it?
3) It's a question of whether you can take Jesus at His word or reinterpret it as metaphorical and under certain conditions not mentioned. You've proved Nonstamp's point.
hugesinker 6 months ago
@hugesinker 1) No, now you're massaging "okay" to make it fit your mistake. You also fail to qualify "acceptable" under what circumstances, and NoSCo did not. 2) The "obvious context" to someone who understands the nature of a collectivist/agonistic society is that he was setting rules for his ingroup. Your "obvious context" reflects ignorance of that sort of society. 3) No, it's a question of meaning within the social, historical, and literary context, which is obviously above your head.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tekton 1) I could just paste the colloquial dictionary definition of the word "okay" to prove my point, but I know you're just being obstinate here and this is getting silly.
2) He was talking to the multitudes gathered from Galilee and surrounding kingdoms; blessing them and teaching them. "Brother" is used in respect to our collective common relationship to the "Father". This is a rhetorical theme used throughout the sermon.
3) Any verses I provide, you can just cry CONTEXT & provide nothing.
hugesinker 6 months ago
@hugesinker 1) In that case, you just agreed with me that NoSCo wasn't specific enough, which was my point. Thank you. 2) I already refuted that, and all you're doing is repeating your refuted argument. There is NO context that allows for such a universalist meaning in a collectivist/agonistic society. 3) And just as obviously, you're too ignorant to refute my findings about context. Thank you.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv Your point was not that he was basically correct, though just "wasn't specific enough" for you, it was that he was wrong. I have no problem with where you've moved the goalposts now, gloat about it if you want to.
You haven't refuted anything using the words "collectivist/agonistic society", even if it were true. These ancient societies weren't even philosophically agonistic, you could be killed for a simple dissent with the ruling class. And collectivist in what sense?
hugesinker 6 months ago
@hugesinker No, I never said "wrong". So stop crafting my position to suit your ill-conceived response. As for the rest, all that shows is that you are too ignorant to understand the argument. Come back after doing some homework -- your reference to dissent shows you have no idea what I'm talking about. :D
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I've been trying very hard be polite to pull a substantive response from you. Over and over again I've only manged to get allusions to refutations but never any actual refutation.
I really hope that your apparently made-up reinterpretation of Christian doctrine doesn't gain wider acceptance. You've taken noble lessons on tolerance, generosity, and introspection from an important historical teacher and made them exclusionary and drained of most of their significance.
hugesinker 6 months ago
@hugesinker Yeah, you got actual refutations, you just don't like them or they're over your head. One of these days you'll realize YT vids by a guy who does stick figures isn't your best place for Biblical scholarship.
tektontv 6 months ago
I'm not sure if NoSCo is trying to be ignorant, or if he's trying to be comic relief. Maybe both. Although, to be honest, I did use to have a quasi-modalist understanding of the Trinity. Unfortunately for NoSCo, that was due to my reasoning as a child, and I've since abandoned that reasoning long ago. Ironic that I'm sounding a bit like Paul here. ;)
jcrebel18 6 months ago
It absolutely confuses me how NonStampCollector has so many followers and views. If biblical exegesis was Superman, he'd be Bizarro. You do a great job at responding concisely and with some great slapstick comedy. Love the video!
venomx88 6 months ago
@venomx88 Thank you. I can only suppose he has so many followers because his type of atheist clusters here on YT (where pictures are the best way to communicate). I used him as an example of the poor quality here by atheists in a magazine article I wrote. But due credit, he at least showed some curiosity about the first vid I made on him.
tektontv 6 months ago
Man, that NoSCo sure is a hard head! How many headbangs can he survive?
rin221AA 6 months ago
@rin221AA Well, remember, his head also pops off (in the earlier game show vid) and he also came back from being killed at least once if not twice. Stick figures don't have much to injure!
tektontv 6 months ago
I guess him getting up every time without so much as being phased means that he's hard headed. lol
seinfan9 6 months ago
"while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
That's what I think of every time I watch a video by popular atheists. It's just junk-scholarship.
owchywawa 6 months ago
So you dont believe atheist are fools ?
Greathiway 6 months ago
@Greathiway In the way Ps 14:1 relates to, yes, I do -- and sadly I see a lot of proof of that. I deleted message 2, you know better. But read Veith's article in the description, the stats are overdone. The surveys also don't ask people if they think it is a sin or not (and it is not always that, either -- like when the other person deserts you).
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv " I deleted message 2"
No you deleted comment 1, that was comment 2 that I though you might delete, but both message together were just two question and totaled well under 500 chars.
"Ps 14:1 relates to, yes"
So you believe atheist are fools and the bible says we are fools but the bible also says, saying your 'brother' is a fool may put that person in hell. I can only conclude Atheists are not your brothers or this is a blatant contradiction. no?
Greathiway 6 months ago
@Greathiway Whatever -- I wasn't numbering by chronological order. And yes, by what I have been saying, atheists are not brothers in the familial ingroup-outgroup sense. Modern people have come up with the idea of the "universal brotherhood" of man, and if for example you drew cartoons, you might be my "brother" in that restricted sense, but in strict socio-religious terms, yes, atheists are not "brothers" to Christians.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv " but? in strict socio-religious " And that is the sense you believe is being used in that verse?
In otherwards you know who is a Christian or not so you are not in risk of hell if you do what would otherwise be sin if done to christians?
In that case why should I believe anything you say is not a lie and twisting words. Seems you might lie to me especially of you thought it was sanctioned by or to glorify jesus?
Greathiway 6 months ago
@Greathiway It is the only possible sense it could be in that verse. The universalist option was unknown then and the ingroup option widespread and dominant (apart from blood relational meanings).
As noted, the point is, not to call a fellow Christian an unbeliever; the sin is essentially denying the efficacy of Christ's salvation. Where you get that "lie" reading I can't say but it's the type of reading most people would get after a bottle of vodka.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv " universalist option was unknown' Besides a few verses in Isiah or the story of the good samartian.I Agree those of other faiths are not considered brothers and different rules applied. But that is the exactly the problem. You Dont think you should treat 'people' how you want to be treated just people you believe are christian. You can lie to me, enslave, or kill my entire town and you are actually instructed to do so by the bible. U dont C why I have issue w/ bible being from a god?
Greathiway 6 months ago
@Greathiway No, not even there. The Good Samartian refers to neighbors, not brothers. As for the golden rule, if I do stupid things I expect to be called a fool. So the answer for that is for atheists to stop acting like fools.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv " neighbors, not brothers" so everyone is a neighbor but we are not all brothers? So My point remains That you have different rules for how you should treat people. If we are all neighbors shouldnt that rule about calling people fools applied equally. "if I do stupid things I expect to be called a fool" I agree and it should applly to everyone equaly , but thats not what you think the bible says. It matters if you consider a person a brother in how you treat them.
Greathiway 6 months ago
@Greathiway That is correct re neighbors not brothers. As for the rest, it's not particularly coherent and you should probably try again.
tektontv 6 months ago
@Greathiway That rule specifically concerns calling brothers, i.e. fellow believers, fools, not all. The Golden Rule is applied to all. That is exactly what the Bible says.
Dante666 6 months ago
I laughed out loud! The gag at the end was especially funny. Who did the voice of Stick Figure Jesus in this video?
ToaOfJustice 6 months ago
@ToaOfJustice I used NoSCo's own audio so I could be sure I quoted him accurately. Except for the robot voice at the end, which is me using my morphing software.
tektontv 6 months ago
NoSc's point about the Pope was absolutely ridiculous. Jesus did not forbid tradition or having a successor wearing robes as a successor of Peter (which is what Catholics believe the Pope is), but rather against the hypocrisy of pharisees who put themselves above God for the way they behaved. I've heard many arguments against the Papacy (many which are understandable), but that has got to be one of the dumbest ones out there on the market.
thunderbolt94 6 months ago
@thunderbolt94 Yes, I would have suspected that there wasn't any hypocritical element in the Pope's use of robes. I appreciate the input.
tektontv 6 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Maybe you could do a response to that particular point.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
Lol, that was great.
ukchristian28 6 months ago