This video is typical of the "CHURCH" dwellers of man. Arguing back & forth going to & fro seeking knowledge but NEVER knowing the TRUTH. The truth lives, not in a book but in the Spirit found in Christ Yahshua, the Holy ruler of all. When you win an argument of the books of men you have won nothing in the Kingdom of Heaven.
@tektontv You my friend are off topic. The topic is not in flesh but in Spirit for those who choose life. Arguing in the flesh only leads to death..... it is the spirit of the religious.... If YOU win all the arguments of man yet loose the ONE that counts in the Kingdom of Heaven then what have you gained ?
@MrColoradorealtor Congratulations on being a Class A Fruitcake. That will be all from you -- either address the arguments in the vid or go back to your rubber room and count the dots on the wall. Any more off topic crapola will be deleted.
@jsuarez713 Translation: "Dah. I don't have a specific response to the arguments so I'll just babble." Deleting your comment for profanity...and learn to spell "response".
@tektontv The Truth hurts you I see...I guess you must think yourself an English Teacher as well. Perhaps in your dweeb little petty mind you are ..but you're just a FOOL.....
@jsuarez713 It took you two months to come up with that? And still no arguments against the vid itself, just babble. Don't capitalize "Teacher" or "Truth" unless they begin a sentence....MORON. :D
All you seem to do is point to the fallible bible for your arguments. I am not impressed. So if paul was being respectful to them, why on earth wasn't jesus respectful to the romans to save his own life. That is a stupid and hypocritical.
@083proudmama Gee that made no sense. And it's a change of topic from the vid. Read my rules. And no, I used social science and linguistic scholarship, not the Bible (save as I had to, it's about the Bible, after all) to make my key points.
That someone as dumb as you are is not impressed, I take as a good sign.
gasp... being a christian would BE being an apostate jew...or not being a christian would be being an apostate jew? either way, you dont have to forsake the foreskin for friends.
@anthonyergo Gee, that made no sense whatsoever. Thanks. But no -- becoming Christian did not equal apostasy in Judaism at this time. Christianity was regarded by everyone including the Romans else as a sect of Judaism. It wasn't until 70 AD and after that this changed.
@drcraigvideos Trying to capitalize on words like "implies" are the sort of things I'd expect from someone trying to dodge the arguments...and who also is a "fundy" atheist when it comes to exegesis! :)
@tektontv I read the God Delusion and in chapter 9 Dawkins did imply that religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse and it should be stopped. I find it funny how people like Profmth decide to do damage control when they realize one of their chief champions is not showing skeptical views but is out right intolerant of anyone who does not share his singular world view. Excellent channel by the way keep them coming.
On Monday I will have a special post on my Ticker blog about the meaning of aresko in various contexts....the 500 char limit here makes explaining it fully almost impossible.
Thanks for your response. At 4:10 you say that 'please' in Galatians 1:10 is about "flattery--NOT 'please' in the sense of getting along with, or being courteous, or make a person happy" (emphasis mine). So when, e.g., Mark 6:22 and Matthew 14:6 uses the same word to say that the dance of Herodias's daughter "pleased Herod," it's your contention that this does NOT mean that her dance made Herod happy, but rather than it flattered him, is that correct? And when, e.g., Romans 8:8 claims that...
(con't) ..."those who are in the flesh cannot PLEASE God" (emphasis mine, same word used in Galatians 1:10), it's saying that people who are "in the flesh" cannot be the Christian god's "bootlicker[s]"? And when Romans 15:2 says that "[e]ach of us is to PLEASE his neighbor," Paul is telling Christians that they have an obligation to flatter and fawn over their neighbors? How about 1 Cor 7:32, where Paul talks about how the unmarried have time to "please the Lord": is it your belief that he...
(con't) ...means the unmarried have time to flatter the Christian god, to fawn over him, to be his "bootlicker[s]"? And what about 1 Thessalonians 4:1, where the same word is used to tell Christians that they ought to conduct themselves in a way that will "please God": is the author telling them to find ways to fawn over and flatter the Christian god? Thanks.
@ProfMTH Yes, "bootlicking" is expected when the authority is a valid one. Remember no one is engaged in rhetoric with an inferior trying to change their mind here.
@ProfMTH Yawn...resort to outrage that quickly? News flash: By their reckoning, all of us moderns "bootlick" to our mayors, county officials, and presidents....
Either way, looks like you had to change the subject to avoid conceding that there wasn't an inconsistency in Paul after all.
Outrage? What are you talking about? I'm always fascinated by the wild lengths to which some apologists will go in order to defend a point they've made that doesn't really work. This is one of those times.
"looks like you had to change the subject"
No, I'm right on point. But, hey, whatever makes you feel better. I know all too well that it's hard work for an apologist to defend the blunders that appear is your holy book.
@ProfMTH Outrage = "That's a bad thing!" with no rational argument attached. That's all you're left with: It's bad to serve God. The whole issue of Paul's alleged inconsistency is out of the picture with that, so you changed the subject.
If social science/linguistic scholarship = "wild lengths" to you, I can't imagine what you could be a professor of. Maybe hospitality services?
@tektontv "That's all you're left with: It's bad to serve God."
Except that's not what I've said. But why should that matter, eh? Treat me the way you treat your holy book, i.e., make it say what you want/need it to say.
"The whole issue of Paul's alleged inconsistency is out of the picture...."
Not at all. Your response to the "avoid persecution" piece is a joke. Your claim about 'please' withers under scrutiny. I've gotten my clarifications; I'll prepare appropriate responses...
@ProfMTH It's exactly what you said: The response to God that is indicated is bad. No reason given, as though it is obvious. And despite denials, that's not the same subject as Paul's alleged inconsistency. Two issues: 1) Was Paul inconsistent? 2) Is it bad to be subservient to God? Two questions.
Yep, I can well imagine that the findings of serious scholars is a "joke" to someone in your position! :D
More correctly, are Paul's own statements (i.e., the one's he actually wrote in Galatians) and the statements/actions *attributed* to him by the author of Acts inconsistent? The answer to that is an unequivocal "yes." And this is but one example of that inconsistency.
"Is it bad to be subservient to God?"
Hey, if you want to characterize the relationship between you and your god as that of bootlicker to bootlickee, more power to you.
@ProfMTH Um, so you're evading once again your having changed the subject by returning to the original subject, huh? Back to square one as it were....already answered. That was easy and I didn't even need the big red button.
If you happen to be able to read, you might want to look up some stuff about the social world of the NT and what "bootlicking" would have meant in terms of a client-patron relationship. Casting outrage on it (which is all you do) is very bigoted.
I'll await your explanation for how they fail. I'm especially (but not exclusively) interested in what I'm sure will be some fascinating explanation for 1 Cor 7:32 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1. As for what you've said about Romans 15:2, it's not clear to me what your point is. Is Paul telling Christians that they're obliged to flatter their neighbors, to be their neighbors' bootlickers?
@ProfMTH I'll try to make it simpler. The word is used ONLY as a parallelism/contrast to 15:1. Paul adds "for good" to make it clear that he is using the word in an idiosyncratic way. The parallelism is an artifact of Paul expressing himself in a social setting in which most of his "readers" are illiterate and will only HEAR his letter: it's a memory device (the Bible is full of these, obscured by translation at times). So bottom line: No literal fawning over neighbors, but be good to them.
@tektontv "Never mind the rest of the explanation...."
No, I got the full explanation and I've bottom-lined it. That's what apologetic responses often come down to: the passage doesn't mean what it says OR the word means X until the apologist needs it to mean "Not X." What's funny--more in the strange rather than "ha ha" sense--is that you have apparently convinced yourself that you've discovered something here that been "obscured by translation at times."
@ProfMTH Pffft...in short, "I can't answer that so I'll posture in astonishment." :D Translation does obscure a lot of things; that's a fact noted repeatedly in the scholarly lit...parallelism is one of those things, especially when it involves (though not here) a rhyme in the original language.
Either show why it is wrong, or admit your appeal is groundless.
In an earlier comment, you wanted me to be outraged--which I wasn't. Now you want me to be astonished, which I'm not. I'm fascinated. Words have meaning, Tektontv. You might want to keep that in mind.
In any case, now that I've gotten clarification on your postions in your several responses, I'll be able to craft appropriate responses. Look for them some time in the new year. Thanks.
@ProfMTH I didn't say you "were outraged" but that the basis of your argument is outrage. Words do have meaning...try not to give them more than they have. That may have been a problem with you if you were a fundy at one time.
I'm sure your "responses" will be amusing...don't forget there's four I did. I'm not sure on of them "took" on your channel when I submitted it.
And when you respond, remember to use some credible scholarly sources. Wikipedia won't count. :)
@ProfMTH Yes, that is correct. Remember that the whole purpose of her dance was to kiss up to Herod so that Herodias could get a favor out of Herod. It might have made him happy too, but that wasn't the point.
You'll have to complete your thought on Romans 8:8. It's not clear what you're driving at. But "flatter" fits in just fine there too.
@ProfMTH Not hardly. I had it over for supper the other day. In any event, nice try, but all are epic fail...and good luck rebutting the expertise of scholars like Witherington, You'll need it...
@tektontv As I've said, I await your explanations of the passages I've cited and your clarification of what you said about Romans 15:2. Is Paul telling Christians that they're obliged to flatter their neighbors, to be their neighbors' bootlickers? He uses the same word as he uses in Galatians 1:10.
These responses to ProfMth are great.
MichaeldeParma 4 days ago
@MichaeldeParma Thanks. More to come -- he has plenty (of mistakes).
tektontv 4 days ago
This video is typical of the "CHURCH" dwellers of man. Arguing back & forth going to & fro seeking knowledge but NEVER knowing the TRUTH. The truth lives, not in a book but in the Spirit found in Christ Yahshua, the Holy ruler of all. When you win an argument of the books of men you have won nothing in the Kingdom of Heaven.
MrColoradorealtor 5 months ago
@MrColoradorealtor Wow that was remarkably stupid and off topic. Got anything else stupid to say?
tektontv 5 months ago
@tektontv You my friend are off topic. The topic is not in flesh but in Spirit for those who choose life. Arguing in the flesh only leads to death..... it is the spirit of the religious.... If YOU win all the arguments of man yet loose the ONE that counts in the Kingdom of Heaven then what have you gained ?
MrColoradorealtor 5 months ago
@MrColoradorealtor Congratulations on being a Class A Fruitcake. That will be all from you -- either address the arguments in the vid or go back to your rubber room and count the dots on the wall. Any more off topic crapola will be deleted.
tektontv 5 months ago
@jsuarez713 Translation: "Dah. I don't have a specific response to the arguments so I'll just babble." Deleting your comment for profanity...and learn to spell "response".
tektontv 5 months ago
@tektontv The Truth hurts you I see...I guess you must think yourself an English Teacher as well. Perhaps in your dweeb little petty mind you are ..but you're just a FOOL.....
jsuarez713 3 months ago
@jsuarez713 It took you two months to come up with that? And still no arguments against the vid itself, just babble. Don't capitalize "Teacher" or "Truth" unless they begin a sentence....MORON. :D
tektontv 3 months ago
All you seem to do is point to the fallible bible for your arguments. I am not impressed. So if paul was being respectful to them, why on earth wasn't jesus respectful to the romans to save his own life. That is a stupid and hypocritical.
083proudmama 8 months ago
@083proudmama Gee that made no sense. And it's a change of topic from the vid. Read my rules. And no, I used social science and linguistic scholarship, not the Bible (save as I had to, it's about the Bible, after all) to make my key points.
That someone as dumb as you are is not impressed, I take as a good sign.
tektontv 8 months ago
Comments hereafter will not be checked/answered. Thank you for watching!
tektontv 10 months ago
I'm surprised Paul would understand what "sucking up to" means....Great video!
godswordsheal 1 year ago 2
gasp... being a christian would BE being an apostate jew...or not being a christian would be being an apostate jew? either way, you dont have to forsake the foreskin for friends.
anthonyergo 1 year ago
@anthonyergo Gee, that made no sense whatsoever. Thanks. But no -- becoming Christian did not equal apostasy in Judaism at this time. Christianity was regarded by everyone including the Romans else as a sect of Judaism. It wasn't until 70 AD and after that this changed.
Good luck with your education.
tektontv 1 year ago
Great stuff!
Merry Christmas, and God bless you!
Purushadasa 1 year ago 2
ProfMTH is easily one of the biggest morons in youtube. I even prove it here: watch?v=WpRQwYbqYNA
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Trying to capitalize on words like "implies" are the sort of things I'd expect from someone trying to dodge the arguments...and who also is a "fundy" atheist when it comes to exegesis! :)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv I read the God Delusion and in chapter 9 Dawkins did imply that religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse and it should be stopped. I find it funny how people like Profmth decide to do damage control when they realize one of their chief champions is not showing skeptical views but is out right intolerant of anyone who does not share his singular world view. Excellent channel by the way keep them coming.
BrotherMichael1000 1 year ago 5
@BrotherMichael1000 I agree. Dawkins is ignorant on religious matters.
d007ization 3 months ago
@drcraigvideos where? the link seems incomplete or something
BinMac 1 year ago
@BinMac add youtube and the com to the front of what he gave.
tektontv 1 year ago
On Monday I will have a special post on my Ticker blog about the meaning of aresko in various contexts....the 500 char limit here makes explaining it fully almost impossible.
tektontv 1 year ago
ProfMTH was so entertaining today that I posted an entry in my Tekton Forge blog on the experience, titled "Having Fun with Mitch!"
Congrats to the Prof for being one of fundiest (and funniest) fundy atheists we've seen in a while!
tektontv 1 year ago
Thanks for your response. At 4:10 you say that 'please' in Galatians 1:10 is about "flattery--NOT 'please' in the sense of getting along with, or being courteous, or make a person happy" (emphasis mine). So when, e.g., Mark 6:22 and Matthew 14:6 uses the same word to say that the dance of Herodias's daughter "pleased Herod," it's your contention that this does NOT mean that her dance made Herod happy, but rather than it flattered him, is that correct? And when, e.g., Romans 8:8 claims that...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ..."those who are in the flesh cannot PLEASE God" (emphasis mine, same word used in Galatians 1:10), it's saying that people who are "in the flesh" cannot be the Christian god's "bootlicker[s]"? And when Romans 15:2 says that "[e]ach of us is to PLEASE his neighbor," Paul is telling Christians that they have an obligation to flatter and fawn over their neighbors? How about 1 Cor 7:32, where Paul talks about how the unmarried have time to "please the Lord": is it your belief that he...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...means the unmarried have time to flatter the Christian god, to fawn over him, to be his "bootlicker[s]"? And what about 1 Thessalonians 4:1, where the same word is used to tell Christians that they ought to conduct themselves in a way that will "please God": is the author telling them to find ways to fawn over and flatter the Christian god? Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yes, "bootlicking" is expected when the authority is a valid one. Remember no one is engaged in rhetoric with an inferior trying to change their mind here.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "Yes, "bootlicking" is expected when the authority is a valid one."
Fascinating. So you Christians are your god's bootlickers and obligated to spend your time flattering him and your neighbors. OK. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yawn...resort to outrage that quickly? News flash: By their reckoning, all of us moderns "bootlick" to our mayors, county officials, and presidents....
Either way, looks like you had to change the subject to avoid conceding that there wasn't an inconsistency in Paul after all.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "...resort to outrage that quickly?"
Outrage? What are you talking about? I'm always fascinated by the wild lengths to which some apologists will go in order to defend a point they've made that doesn't really work. This is one of those times.
"looks like you had to change the subject"
No, I'm right on point. But, hey, whatever makes you feel better. I know all too well that it's hard work for an apologist to defend the blunders that appear is your holy book.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Outrage = "That's a bad thing!" with no rational argument attached. That's all you're left with: It's bad to serve God. The whole issue of Paul's alleged inconsistency is out of the picture with that, so you changed the subject.
If social science/linguistic scholarship = "wild lengths" to you, I can't imagine what you could be a professor of. Maybe hospitality services?
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "That's all you're left with: It's bad to serve God."
Except that's not what I've said. But why should that matter, eh? Treat me the way you treat your holy book, i.e., make it say what you want/need it to say.
"The whole issue of Paul's alleged inconsistency is out of the picture...."
Not at all. Your response to the "avoid persecution" piece is a joke. Your claim about 'please' withers under scrutiny. I've gotten my clarifications; I'll prepare appropriate responses...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) ...as time permits. No need to get all worked up there, Tektontv.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Who's worked up? Baiting fundy atheists is one of my fave sports. :)
tektontv 1 year ago
@ProfMTH It's exactly what you said: The response to God that is indicated is bad. No reason given, as though it is obvious. And despite denials, that's not the same subject as Paul's alleged inconsistency. Two issues: 1) Was Paul inconsistent? 2) Is it bad to be subservient to God? Two questions.
Yep, I can well imagine that the findings of serious scholars is a "joke" to someone in your position! :D
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "Two issues: 1) Was Paul inconsistent?"
More correctly, are Paul's own statements (i.e., the one's he actually wrote in Galatians) and the statements/actions *attributed* to him by the author of Acts inconsistent? The answer to that is an unequivocal "yes." And this is but one example of that inconsistency.
"Is it bad to be subservient to God?"
Hey, if you want to characterize the relationship between you and your god as that of bootlicker to bootlickee, more power to you.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Um, so you're evading once again your having changed the subject by returning to the original subject, huh? Back to square one as it were....already answered. That was easy and I didn't even need the big red button.
If you happen to be able to read, you might want to look up some stuff about the social world of the NT and what "bootlicking" would have meant in terms of a client-patron relationship. Casting outrage on it (which is all you do) is very bigoted.
tektontv 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Nice tries, but all fail. Rom. 15:2 adds "for good" -- and Paul only uses the same word as a parallel to 15:1.
Is it taking a while to look through that concordance?
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "all fail"
I'll await your explanation for how they fail. I'm especially (but not exclusively) interested in what I'm sure will be some fascinating explanation for 1 Cor 7:32 and 1 Thessalonians 4:1. As for what you've said about Romans 15:2, it's not clear to me what your point is. Is Paul telling Christians that they're obliged to flatter their neighbors, to be their neighbors' bootlickers?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Already did it. Try to keep up, eh?
tektontv 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I'll try to make it simpler. The word is used ONLY as a parallelism/contrast to 15:1. Paul adds "for good" to make it clear that he is using the word in an idiosyncratic way. The parallelism is an artifact of Paul expressing himself in a social setting in which most of his "readers" are illiterate and will only HEAR his letter: it's a memory device (the Bible is full of these, obscured by translation at times). So bottom line: No literal fawning over neighbors, but be good to them.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "So bottom line: No literal fawning over neighbors, but be good to them."
So it doesn't mean what it says. OK. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Never mind the rest of the explanation which shows why that is a valid reading, eh? I knew you were still a fundy at heart.
I guess when you say you have ants in your pants, you really do mean you have insects in your dungarees.;)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "Never mind the rest of the explanation...."
No, I got the full explanation and I've bottom-lined it. That's what apologetic responses often come down to: the passage doesn't mean what it says OR the word means X until the apologist needs it to mean "Not X." What's funny--more in the strange rather than "ha ha" sense--is that you have apparently convinced yourself that you've discovered something here that been "obscured by translation at times."
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Pffft...in short, "I can't answer that so I'll posture in astonishment." :D Translation does obscure a lot of things; that's a fact noted repeatedly in the scholarly lit...parallelism is one of those things, especially when it involves (though not here) a rhyme in the original language.
Either show why it is wrong, or admit your appeal is groundless.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "posture in astonishment"
In an earlier comment, you wanted me to be outraged--which I wasn't. Now you want me to be astonished, which I'm not. I'm fascinated. Words have meaning, Tektontv. You might want to keep that in mind.
In any case, now that I've gotten clarification on your postions in your several responses, I'll be able to craft appropriate responses. Look for them some time in the new year. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I didn't say you "were outraged" but that the basis of your argument is outrage. Words do have meaning...try not to give them more than they have. That may have been a problem with you if you were a fundy at one time.
I'm sure your "responses" will be amusing...don't forget there's four I did. I'm not sure on of them "took" on your channel when I submitted it.
And when you respond, remember to use some credible scholarly sources. Wikipedia won't count. :)
tektontv 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yes, that is correct. Remember that the whole purpose of her dance was to kiss up to Herod so that Herodias could get a favor out of Herod. It might have made him happy too, but that wasn't the point.
You'll have to complete your thought on Romans 8:8. It's not clear what you're driving at. But "flatter" fits in just fine there too.
Nice to see you can use a concordance!
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "Nice to see you can use a concordance!"
Indeed I can. And in this case the concordance is not your friend. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Not hardly. I had it over for supper the other day. In any event, nice try, but all are epic fail...and good luck rebutting the expertise of scholars like Witherington, You'll need it...
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv As I've said, I await your explanations of the passages I've cited and your clarification of what you said about Romans 15:2. Is Paul telling Christians that they're obliged to flatter their neighbors, to be their neighbors' bootlickers? He uses the same word as he uses in Galatians 1:10.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Already answered....keep trying and failing. :)
tektontv 1 year ago