@christophertaylor9100 I gotta ask though, in a previous short he talked about the middle-east or so used extreme language i.e. words like love or hate. Why did the people of the region use extemes.. more often (assuming that they did, I never read any other writings from the area.
@@ConservativeMirror okay watch IP s other videos on this topic, and its hilarious you use christian morals to judge Jewish morals, but use it to disprove christianity. Do you realize how insane that is ? What i think its good come from Christianity but i hate Christianity because its evil because of my judaism misinterpretation!
@@ConservativeMirroryou would be stoned for violating the Sabbath because its Gods holy day of rest so when someone breaks it they are 1. Being selfish and prioritizing themselves and 2. Insulting God. A non virgin would be stoned because she lied about being a virgin and could give her new husband a std or baby trap him with another mans baby.
Point three: the verse is mis quoted. It does not say child, it indicates they are repeatedly drunk and unruley, and imply the elders have done everything they can to marketer opportunity for change.
He did way more than adultery. Lots of jews believe the Messiah they believe is coming will actually be a sinner because something about a sacrifice in a temple for him
@@magichobbiest3425 the idea is they believe they are capable of redeeming themselves before god "alone"... despite the many complications that come with it
Jesus agreed with the old testament stating that he was here not to change but to uphold the law and that not one thing should be changed. Pick easier targets.
Please, this passage is NOT about someone's child being "rude" or even "drinking a little too much." It is about ELDER ABUSE. And, as IP said, the laws were not meant to be read exactly the way we do today. Take "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," for example. It is not about an ox, it means even animals (therefore everyone) has the right the get something in return for their work. Silver, sheep, gold, whatever. Can you imagine someone going: "I told my son to be home by 12:00, he got home at 3:00, so you know....".
@@reyis_here945 Bruh, a child is a child. If you were a father. Your 20 year old son would still be your child. Not all childs are 5 year olds yk. (This may be a joke and I maybe missing it)
@@reyis_here945 however I can see where the confusion arises. The author here was using the definition a son or daughter of any age, not a young offspring of an adult.
Another thing is that that passage talks about late teens to adults and not children as in kids, because it also says "if they get drunk" (something like that)
So should they be executed or not? If yes that is pretty barbaric and if not why has god changed his mind on morality if he represents an objective morality?
@@ewanwolyniec2304 Again, the stoning rules are not literal. They would be deserving of that punishment, but it would not actually be carried out. Otherwise, David would have been stoned to death for adultery.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 So they are deserving of such punishment and if they did stone people for they they didn’t do anything wrong then right? Not just that but in numbers 15:32-36 they find a man collecting sticks on the sabbath and god directly commands Moses and Aaron to stone him to death I presume you agree that was just and right then?
@@BongBing11 Based on what he said here, probably that if you don't take a literal, word for word understanding of every book of the bible then you're being inconsistent.
Well, I'd like to know why is it wrong to be arbitrary apart from the Christian worldview, since God is the only rational basis for logic and morality to begin with. God is non-arbitrary in His thinking, and since we are made in His image, He expects us to be non-arbitrary as well. Unfortunately, there are Christians that behave arbitrarily, by not holding the Bible as their ultimate standard, for example. But this has no relevancy to whether or not the Bible is true, so Dan is probably engaging in the fallacy of abusive ad hominem. I would ask Dan to give an account of his worldview, and ask if his worldview can provide rational justification for either absolute morality or laws of logic.
@@KSA_175x but what is the law? most people think its everything the jews wrote. but what if it just meant the 10 commandments? many of the other texts in the torah were expansions of the law as then people saw fit, just like how God banned divorce but the people wanted it to be legalized. there were records of jews making a law about the sabbath where carrying anything heavier than an egg would be considered work, and thus breaking the sabbath rest. that is just one example. jesus himself showed in many instances to be breaking these laws that the jews added to the commandments, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath, eating with unclean hands, befriending people who should be shunned, and so on.. most people dont take the time to understand context, sad but thats just how life is nowadays, people only want to believe their first assumption
@@KSA_175x He didn't abolish the moral law, we are no longer under the ceremonial and judicial laws, otherwise we would still be required to make sacrifices, get circumcised, etc. The whole NT shows that those aren't necessary.
Amen. When I was an atheist, I used to watch that channel religiously. Now that the scales have fallen off my eyes, I see how resentful, angry and prideful these hosts are. They claim to be about facts but think men can be women and vice versa.
@@reyis_here945 Amen. All we can do is pray for him. I wish our fellow siblings in Christ would stop calling into their show. At this point, the show is more focused on embarrassing Christians and having "gotcha" moments. We cannot convince them. They will not believe unless Christ appears before them. Even then, they claim they would be skeptical. A Christian asked them if they would believe if God appeared before them. The atheist responded saying how would they know it's actually God and not them having a delusion. Oy.
Tbh, he seems off. He seems like a robot. Something is off about him. That doesn’t sit right with me. And I’m speaking this in the name of Holy Spirit. Something is off with that guy.
So basically the Old Testament isn't recommending the punishments be enforced, but rather the punishments themselves show us the level of severity the corresponding sin has in the eyes of God.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t the verse following say, “He is a drunkard and a slugger?” I think it’s safe to say that we’re not talking literal kids. Also, if I remember correctly, this verse was talking about bestowing actual curses on your parents, not just your casual teen rebellion.
Plus the punishment of Sin is death. If you disobey your parents it is a sin. Thankfully Jesus took our place and died in our place so we don’t have to die for the sins we commit.
What if your parents are awful? I think if your parents are really bad parents and don't give you good advice, than disobeying them is what you should do.
@@enderdude7828 Ephesians 6:1 should give you a bit of clarity "Obey your parents in the Lord" The acceptable disobedience is only when obeying the Lord goes against obeying your parents, because God has a higher priority. Also advice is different from a command, you can disregard anyone's advice at any time, doesn't mean it's wise to do so. If your parents provide bad advice, you should seek better advisors, people who are actually wise. And even in disobedience or disregarding, treat them with honor and respect, never failing the command to honor them and the command to love them as yourself.
Remember; for all you atheists out there that are actually beginning to see the Light- you must be reborn to live under God's Grace, for you are Justified.
More important fact is that ancient law codes in general tended to give the death penalty for every offense. But no one took the penalty literally. A well known anecdote is about Draco, the author of the infamous “Draconian Code” which is the earliest known code for Athens. This code gives the death penalty for pretty much everything including the ancient equivalent of littering and jaywalking. This is why the word “draconian” means “harsh or severe” According to legend Draco justified his code by saying “ I think minor offenses are worthy of death and I can’t think of a worse penalty for major offenses” But there is no evidence that these penalties were ever carried out.
@@reyis_here945 no, ancient law is not like modern law, the penalties attached are not prescriptive in the way modern laws are, they were more symbolic, saying that you will be killed for doing something was more a way of saying “this is really bad”, it was like parents saying “stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” which taken literally is child abuse, but kids know they are not going to be beaten
@@Michael-bk5nz I'm not saying self-defense is the same as manslaughter (regardlessof time period), I'm saying its not like those concepts are brand new or completely original
I remember a story in the bible where a women found guilty of adultery was about to stoned to death by people but maybe I'm just misremembering or you are not being honest. It's in the bible btw. Gospel of Mathew if I remember correctly. Edit: So yeah, idk about no one took the penalty seriously there. I think they did.
If you read the passge fully it talks about the child being drunk and something else its wasnt talking about when a child is acting like a brat it's a grown man dishourning and disgracing hes parents
The Talmud mentions this but also expands that since it says 'a son' but not a father, it only applies to those that are legally adults but not yet a married, ie, still living in their father's house. Some sages even further add it doesn't apply to anyone who COULD be a father, regardless of whether they actually are, and thus it applies only to a 40 week period immediately after coming of age. Not sure I buy that last one. I do caution that 'grown' in this case is often taken as the bar mitzvah age, ie, 13
@@professorhaystacks6606 where did you get that from I doubt when talking about a drunk person it's refering to a 13 yr old. And where did you hear it's necessarily not a father This is the same thing Muslims do they point to Jewish sources without actually giving references to their claims from the SCRIPTURES In some cases, "son" can be used to refer to a man who is already married, especially in a context where the speaker is emphasizing their relationship or authority over the man. For example: - In Genesis 32:5, Jacob refers to his sons as "my sons" even though they are grown men with their own families. - In Exodus 21:5, a slave is referred to as the "son" of his master, even if he is an adult. - In 1 Samuel 24:11, David refers to Saul's servants as "sons" even though they are adults. And yes 13 was the legal age of adulthood in those time that action of him getting drunk enforces the view that he's not just a teenager or a child that doesn't know what he's doing
@@MarkelMathurin niether is leave your child to die, but that still happened The only difference here is that was a legal law And that's if we're being literal about the Hebrew word child
Ah the classic “old covenant scary why Christian hypocrites” These people never registered to actually ask that question and understand the Christian position
@@reyis_here945i think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that these gotcha questions aren't really an effective means of persuasion when your audience can look up answers to these quick and often simplistic "gotcha" questions. it seems the level of discourse is slowly being elevated. tbat mihht just be wishful thinkong though
@@beelance8057 if they DID follow mosaic law, how did jesus save her? wouldn't they have just stoned her? you just proved his point. it wasnt a codified set of laws like we think of today.
That same passage also refers to the child as a “glutton and a drunkard.” People in Israel weren’t doing this thing to their 10 year-old son who didn’t put his toys away. It would have been done to someone who was always drunk and ate more food than the rest, likely causing others to starve and thus making him a murderer.
Hey IP. I'd like to ask a clarifying question. If you are saying that the mosiac law was to represent an ideal law structure, does that mean that the stoning of children was meant to be ideal or are you saying it was more of a teaching tool rather than a "here's how things would be in a perfect world"? For the former, stoning children would be seen as ideal. For the latter, the Torah would be using an extreme example to make a point about how children should treat thier parents in an ideal world. Love your content and keep bringing the Biblical/logical Sass. EDIT: i just re-warched the short a couple times. Nevermind. i missed it the first time. Keep up the great work dude 👍
@@benellison6232 this "kinda" off base, but still relevant to the discussion, we have to accept the reality that even today "people put their infants in dumpsters" (and yes I'm saying that as an extreme, but I'm also acknowledging that it does happen... and that it's evidence of stagnancy)
The punishment of sin is death, separation from God after your life. Anytime in the law the word death apears it's not refering about ppls killing you, it's about the sin itself
This is an interesting perspective, but wouldn't "it was meant to educate us on what justice would look like in an ideal setting" contradict your take on why slavery is not abolished as a part of the law? Your take on items such as slavery abolition was that the law was never meant to be perfect. But this new video says the law was meant to illustrate perfect or ideal circumstances. Am I missing something that reconciles these two views on the law?
I still don't think that "it was just an example" works well as a defense of a code that presents stoning your child for disobedience as a good idea. It's good that you personally believe in an upgraded moral code, but that bit is still a barbaric and primitive moral code.
- it's not a child, it's a grown man who lived with his parents, try to use that as an excuse to get out of punishment - It's a "cultural law" - And we still use capital punishment today ( and I'm not justifying it) primarily for sexual assailants
In this particular law, the emphasis is on “the PEOPLE will stone him (implying a trial will take place), not the parents”. The parents cannot judge the child’s sin for themselves.
The scripture states that the parents say, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." So it was obvious not about a child.
Verse 20 says ‘he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’ It’s clearly not talking about a small child being stone for a temper tantrum. This is a grown man. Probably guilty of all sorts of other crimes as well.
they were prescriptive. God is not giving people hypotheticals. The Lord Jesus Christ said the law should be obeyed without neglecting the most important parts of the law which is judgment, mercy and faith. Matthew 23:23
Honestly I think this response is kind of missing the point of the critique. Like... If God tells you to kill your child for disobeying. Is it better or worse if people actually follow that command regularly? Well no... God is still telling you to do something terrible, he is sanctioning a terrible act regardless if people actually did it. I mean imagine if a different God told his followers in a holy book that any person that reads the bible should get a death penalty. Would it really matter if people actually performed this act when you criticize that religion or that God? He is not criticizing the laws of an ancient civilization, he is criticizing the morality of a religion and a God.
Why are people STILL asking 2000 years later why Christians don't follow the old covenant? It's like they never tried to gain even a sunday school level of understanding.
In addition, existing cultural conventions probably allowed for worse - in all likelihood a father would have been justified in just beating his son to death without the need to bring his case to the elders at the gate. This law built upon the "do not murder" commandment and likely had the effect of forcing fathers to think clearly before doing anything rash. This was not a command to stone your child if he was disobedient but almost the exact opposite - extreme measures can only be taken after a due process was followed. Much of the law begins with a situation that sounds like established fact but is instead an allegation, and this is one of those kinds of laws.
People forget the Torah is a code of civil law, moral law, and ceremonial law. We literally see in the Torah that men would be put on trial by the elders to determine crimes. That is civil law, it can change. Ceremonial laws change with the covenants, and moral law is eternal.
I notice he left out the part where the parents (plural) are to say to the elders "this son of ours is a glutton and a drunkard" - i.e. the part that clearly shows this is case law for ADULT children, not young unruly kids. Color me shocked at the dishonesty.
@@JoyInFreedomso can I ignore the ten commandments? Is that not under the old covenant? Wat else in the old testament can I ignore? Sin? Why do I have to jump thru hoops to understand?
@@theparodychannel7842 The ten commandments were to help the tribe of Israel learn how to live. The greatest commandments we have is to love God and others. The ten commandments do not have to be followed to a t but it makes sense to follow it. We have the greatest peace when we come to christ. So it makes sense not to put any idols before Him. It makes sense to treat your parents well. It is loving to not commit adultery against your spouse. It is good not to covet. We should love God and not take His name in vain. I know it is a lot to take in. I promise, God is good. He saved me more times than I can count. He loves you and I love you too.
This is what I hate about atheist scientists on CZcams thinking that just because they refute young earth creationism means they can talk about any topic related to religion
@@gianni206lmfao nah literally in the thousands of debates christians have lost literally 100% of them. I mean it's a MASSACRE this has long been a victorious war.
@@gianni206christians don't understand what things like critical thought or peer review even mean. So actually watching a debate with knowledge of how a debate works is maddening with christians because they don't understand basic ideas about how facts become accepted as facts.
@@gamemasterultima except when the criticism is based on bad interpretation of scripture. I guess you atheists can’t accept that you aren’t Steven hawking just because you don’t believe in god
Jesus :“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” kinda throws out your that’s just the Old Testament argument
It's a fine line, between no one following God's Word on these matters because they're sinful Human beings who mess up. And IP's possibility, that it was never intended to be seriously followed exactly. I'm not sure if I should agree... Although, i agree that it could make sense.
Christ fulfilled the law, and we live under a new covenant. One of love and forgiveness and the pursuit of salvation through Christ. Also, the parodical son was not stoned for his disrespect. He was welcomed back with open arms when he repented.
I feel like thats a pretty weak argument. What makes sense to me is that a "profligate and a drunkard" is not a child but an adult son who is defiantly morally corrupt and a threat to Israelite theocracy.
The atheist also completely left out the part where the parents in this hypothetical situation explicitly state their son is a drunkard and trouble maker... So he's not a child and is a genuine menace to society. This is not about children
@@LilySage-mf7uf read my comment again. It's not talking about some "mere disobedience." It's discussing someone who is not only in open rebellion to parents but the entire community through their behavior. They are a drunkard and poison to the community, not a child with authority issues or someone who talks back on occasion. Also, refer back to what IP said. It's not a strict law code, but moreso judicial wisdom and guidance. It's not a hard fast rule. So it would not also be the case that a drunken degenerate would be executed. He might also be spared. It would come down to the circumstances and the full story that the judges would gain through investigation
You are biased. You csn use the new covenant excuse all you like, but if the buble is gods word, you should, logicslly, follow his example. I mean who elses example would you follow if not his? And you csnt question the genocide hes done since youre quesrioning god and thats a huge no no. Why only follow certain things and not others?
@@reyis_here945 surprised you didn't point out all the unnecessary and purposeful grammar mistakes. Seems you have a bad habit of pointing out the unnecessary. Or being fixated on the wrong issues. You may want to change that. Your claims and the claims you follow aren't going to help your case
I’ve taken laws like the one mentioned here as a way of taking judgement away from individuals (angry parents) and giving it to the community which would likely be more level headed
This is where he loses me, because he is taking the worst of the scholars out there with the least Biblical validity, not because they are accurate or theologically correct, but because it appeals best to modern ears. He does this every time he reaches a verse or section that is uncomfortable, explaining it away as being not literal or symbolic.
@@AbyssicHate112 also Forest V. has been proven to be intellectually dishonest... the validity of his claims have been called into question by academics and non-academics of the like
I love Paul's teaching that the value of the law is to teach you good and bad, but we are under the new covenant and should just strive to be good. I study strictly as a lense to the past.
You contradicted the correct, 2nd point by the mistaken 1st point. Its a collection for judicial guidance, or better, it is a rule of justice BUT "In Your wrath, remember mercy." It all goes together. Those laws are 100% relevant now. Its a civil law that worked - we should do it, "remembering mercy".
The Talmud specifically says that the case of the Rebellious Son never actually occurred, since there were too many required details for a case to qualify. Similarly, an Eye for an Eye was never taken literally.
There's more context to this too. At that time, it was not uncommon for abusive men to beat their families to "dicipine" them. Women had some protections, but children were basically property of their fathers. When the abuser went too far and killed his kids, it could be written off as a legitimate act not deserving of criminal proceedings. This scripture took the ownership of children from their parents and gave it to the community at large. Not only was it now a crime to kill your kids, but there is not one recorded instance of a Jewish assembly handing down a death sentence to a minor over something as minor as being "unruly".
Jesus and his disciples got stoned, and don’t forget Jesus was about to be killed before his crucifixion. Those are the types of heresy’s and blasphemous you have to commit to be killed by your own people.
Old Covenant/New Covenant subjective morality rationalization…check. Bible doesn’t REALLY mean what it says… check. Good job, IP. You killed two birds with one short.
@@docsspellingcontest592 if morality is subjective so is equality... ✅️ It doesn't mean what skeptics want it to mean for their ideals to function properly... ✅️ Good job on staying focus
I got a simple way of explaining it. God was putting Israel through a sort of "bootcamp" for the ages to come. He absolutely was EXTRA hard on them. These were the people God wanted his Son to be raised and born from. Now Jesus came
I'm with you, up to the point where it was suggested the law was not executed. It's clear that the Sanhedren of Christ's day were strictly observing the Torah. The important point was that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so much of that law was never Christian.
People need to read for themselves. The passage he is talking about is CLEARLY not simply about a disobedient child. I daresay it is not about a CHILD at all. If it is the passage I am thinking he is referring to, it is an adult (im assuming this because it clearly states that the son is a drunkard,) that his parents bring before the town for doing some not so good/crininal things. The Bible describes him as profligate. One of the definition of profligate is: abandoned to vice and corruption : shamelessly immoral.
My opinion ⚠️🚨: I think one reason the old testament seems to judge some crimes with death, despite no clear examples of the punishment being dealt in actuality is because it's making a point that these sins either lead to death or cause death. Sin is death, it decays
@@billowspillow may I direct you to the nearest kindergarten school then enroll and follow and pass each grade until you graduate . Then your question will be answered by you.
I think a good reminder is that while some commands from the Old Testament are still echoed in the New, we are still not to punish these sins with death. For example, the command against adultery still stands, but Christ had compassion on the woman who committed adultery and told her to go and sin no more. I think we need to do the same with people who commit similar sins condemned in both Testaments. Have compassion, and tell them to go sin no more.
It’s PERFECTLY legal in a particular small town in SC whereas on Sunday at high noon, a man can beat his wife on the county courthouse steps. However, nobody does it. I guess those men are breaking the law.
Most of what is said here is highly debatable. Except for the fact that Christians hold themselves above the law and in truth they are right; none of the “Old Testament” applies to gentiles. None of it was written for them; it was written for the 12 tribes. Paul then blended Paganism with Judaism and created a version of Judaism more pleasing to the Pagan masses of Rome to gain power. These questions of punishment would have been settled by the Sanhedrin our the high court in important matters such as life or death. A Sanhedrin was considered a bloody court if more than two people were sentenced to death in a six month period; that is how unusual a death sentence was. Christians basically cherry pick and misunderstand the Tanak and a lot of that comes from not reading or understanding Hebrew.
Professor James D.G.Dunn who was a professor of divinity in the department of theology at University of Durham, UK who was also an ordained minister of church of Scotland and the Methodist Church of Great Britain, has written a book titled Unity and Diversity: Inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity in which he says - Jewish Christians in the first century AD continued to obey the laws in Old testament - It was evident that they believed in Judaism and Jesus. - All theological beliefs that were later introduced by Paul were absent. - In150AD and beyond the situation become significantly changed that the Jewish Christianity so far being the only Christianity was branded as unorthodox and heretical. - Second century AD heretical Jewish Christianity was closer to the earliest Christianity than any other forms of Christianity that existed in Roman lands. You are following a religion formulated by the Roman Catholic Church in 4th century for y he Greek speaking Roman Gentiles living in the Roman lands. Your religion is about Jesus and his divinity but the original Jewish Christianity was by Jesus and his teachings.
"I'm a christian living under the new covenant", presumably wants the 10 commandments on the wall in every classroom 😢. I know it sounds a bit disrespectful but I was in Sunday church today and we are going thru the 10 commandments and they were talking about not having idols and the reading is Isaiah 44, and they get to verse 20 and I just think, yeh all religion is kinda like that. There be no clarity... just like this comment that you are reading... zero clarity because idk where I'm going with it cos my brain rotted out of my head from watching this short
This is also why we have the Talmud. A series of legal discussions and debates between many different experts and Rabbis over many centuries on how to interpret the Tanakh. Not everything in the Talmud is written in stone though. You oftentimes find one Rabbi say one thing but another says the complete opposite and sometimes even a third opinion alongside that. Plus, many things in the Tanakh and even in the Gospels have to be taken in a specific cultural and linguistic context, which the first guy (not IP) clearly is unaware of, either on knowingly or not
Galatians, read pauls response to peters hypocrisy about the circumcized. While this response is correct IP. The underlying argument he is making is "if you follow part of the book, you should follow all of the book". And this is a major source of confusion generally across christendom even though its entirely addressed by paul in galatians in his treatise on faith vs law. Taken together both your explanations and galatians paints a vastly different picture of what Jewish faith was at the time, as well as just how deadly the literalism and legalism of the sanhedrin was.. Love these shorts, im a long time fan and have frequently quoted your videos and apologetics growing up. Thank you.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is the reference. The condemned is a drunkard and a glutton as well. Clearly the child is not a five year old. It is a grownup child.
Further, there is a hierarchy to the laws themselves. Not all of those laws were applied equally and some were more important than others. I'm pulling a blank on the basics of it but some were more ritual or symbolic, others were context-specific, and then there are the laws of the land. It was akin to that.
It is written "The life of a murderer may not be redeemed." This implies the life of someone who commits any OTHER death-penalty crime COULD be redeemed. I don't know enough about ancient near-eastern culture to know what that would entail, though.
Honest opinion and forgive any perceived negativity as just my ignorance. I think a Jewish man can better describe thier tradition than any other race. They could better articulate the reasons and why. Like when they explain how thier language is designed. Their laws from old times. They are the chosen people above the rest. Again not trying to trigger anyone. I just find it hard to trust a gentile explaining Jewish traditions
if that was true in the way he meant it there would be no israelite children left
This is key: the law did not mean "if he's being a brat" they meant "if he is being excessively rebellious and lacking respect"
@@christophertaylor9100 probably more extreme than even that tbh
Yeah it was more like you can't control the and their being a little Damien
@christophertaylor9100 I gotta ask though, in a previous short he talked about the middle-east or so used extreme language i.e. words like love or hate. Why did the people of the region use extemes.. more often (assuming that they did, I never read any other writings from the area.
@@rippedgoat3587 and yet somehow we have kids today... with arguably worse extremes, it's kinda universal
To get stoned you have to do something extremely horrid that completely dishonors your family. Like murder, big counts of theft or even the r.
Or pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15 : 32 - 36.)
Or a woman not being a virgin when married (Deuteronomy 22 : 20 - 21).
@@ConservativeMirror okay watch IP s other videos on this topic, and its hilarious you use christian morals to judge Jewish morals, but use it to disprove christianity. Do you realize how insane that is ? What i think its good come from Christianity but i hate Christianity because its evil because of my judaism misinterpretation!
@@ConservativeMirroryou would be stoned for violating the Sabbath because its Gods holy day of rest so when someone breaks it they are 1. Being selfish and prioritizing themselves and 2. Insulting God. A non virgin would be stoned because she lied about being a virgin and could give her new husband a std or baby trap him with another mans baby.
@@ConservativeMirror did you watch the video?
Point three: the verse is mis quoted. It does not say child, it indicates they are repeatedly drunk and unruley, and imply the elders have done everything they can to marketer opportunity for change.
@@karlmordaunt8029 i didnt know children were immune to alcohol
@@belphemmore3802seriously hahaha Their height and their lack of money does put a damper on much of their whims guy hahaha get a gripe
@@RambleChristianPodcast kids cant afford a gun, they must be immune to getting shot by that logic.
@@belphemmore3802 children did not consume alcohol
@@escapegulag4317 source?
That explains a lot,Just like King David didn't get the Torah prescribed punishment of Adultery!
He did way more than adultery. Lots of jews believe the Messiah they believe is coming will actually be a sinner because something about a sacrifice in a temple for him
@@magichobbiest3425 the idea is they believe they are capable of redeeming themselves before god "alone"... despite the many complications that come with it
@@reyis_here945 nicely explained ty🙏🏻...
It's true that King David was not charged with adultery, yet God gave King David a hard time for the Sins he committed
Because the Torah says there needs to be 2 to 3 witnesses. Only Nathan knew what David did
Jesus agreed with the old testament stating that he was here not to change but to uphold the law and that not one thing should be changed. Pick easier targets.
One law I do obey is, "Do not do anything that would endanger your neighbor's life." That one covers a multitude of actions and temptations.
Please, this passage is NOT about someone's child being "rude" or even "drinking a little too much."
It is about ELDER ABUSE.
And, as IP said, the laws were not meant to be read exactly the way we do today.
Take "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," for example. It is not about an ox, it means even animals (therefore everyone) has the right the get something in return for their work. Silver, sheep, gold, whatever.
Can you imagine someone going: "I told my son to be home by 12:00, he got home at 3:00, so you know....".
Also, you wanna include this. Child is not a 5 year old but a fully functioning adult and has committed some grave crime. Not just petty crimes.
@@gabriel.notfound so a man child
@@reyis_here945 Bruh, a child is a child. If you were a father. Your 20 year old son would still be your child. Not all childs are 5 year olds yk. (This may be a joke and I maybe missing it)
@@reyis_here945 however I can see where the confusion arises. The author here was using the definition a son or daughter of any age, not a young offspring of an adult.
In which book is this?
@@reyis_here945 you either don’t know what a man child is or you’re completely illiterate 😭 a fully functioning adult is not a man child
>pronouns in bio dude trying to talk down religion
@@Uebagi that's not the worst thing he's done he's intellectually dishonest on alot of his claims
Irony is astronomical
@@reyis_here945can you give me an example so I can check?
Dont make Fun of the blind help them see
@@martinhosilvadesouza9193 and he makes "himself" deaf?
Another thing is that that passage talks about late teens to adults and not children as in kids, because it also says "if they get drunk" (something like that)
So should they be executed or not? If yes that is pretty barbaric and if not why has god changed his mind on morality if he represents an objective morality?
@@ewanwolyniec2304 Again, the stoning rules are not literal. They would be deserving of that punishment, but it would not actually be carried out. Otherwise, David would have been stoned to death for adultery.
@@rafexrafexowski4754 So they are deserving of such punishment and if they did stone people for they they didn’t do anything wrong then right? Not just that but in numbers 15:32-36 they find a man collecting sticks on the sabbath and god directly commands Moses and Aaron to stone him to death I presume you agree that was just and right then?
Atheist experience made me religious
@@dariusga6752 they keep people religious with all the misinformation they pedal
Good point. The more one can understand about the context of the culture in which it was written the better.
Respond to Dan's recent video accusing Christians of being arbitrary regarding this topic
What did he say in it?
@@BongBing11 if it's anything like the last roundabout with Jones...
Probably something to do with "vegans eating meat"... again
@@BongBing11 Based on what he said here, probably that if you don't take a literal, word for word understanding of every book of the bible then you're being inconsistent.
Well, I'd like to know why is it wrong to be arbitrary apart from the Christian worldview, since God is the only rational basis for logic and morality to begin with.
God is non-arbitrary in His thinking, and since we are made in His image, He expects us to be non-arbitrary as well.
Unfortunately, there are Christians that behave arbitrarily, by not holding the Bible as their ultimate standard, for example. But this has no relevancy to whether or not the Bible is true, so Dan is probably engaging in the fallacy of abusive ad hominem.
I would ask Dan to give an account of his worldview, and ask if his worldview can provide rational justification for either absolute morality or laws of logic.
@@calebandrews490 that doesn't mean Muslims or Atheist are actually Christians, that just means people in general suck at following his rules
wait we were supposed to stop doing that? uh…
💀💀
💀💀💀
Jesus didn’t abolish the law so… I guess
@@KSA_175x but what is the law? most people think its everything the jews wrote. but what if it just meant the 10 commandments?
many of the other texts in the torah were expansions of the law as then people saw fit, just like how God banned divorce but the people wanted it to be legalized.
there were records of jews making a law about the sabbath where carrying anything heavier than an egg would be considered work, and thus breaking the sabbath rest. that is just one example. jesus himself showed in many instances to be breaking these laws that the jews added to the commandments, Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath, eating with unclean hands, befriending people who should be shunned, and so on..
most people dont take the time to understand context, sad but thats just how life is nowadays, people only want to believe their first assumption
@@KSA_175x He didn't abolish the moral law, we are no longer under the ceremonial and judicial laws, otherwise we would still be required to make sacrifices, get circumcised, etc. The whole NT shows that those aren't necessary.
Pray for this man and others like him.
Amen. When I was an atheist, I used to watch that channel religiously. Now that the scales have fallen off my eyes, I see how resentful, angry and prideful these hosts are. They claim to be about facts but think men can be women and vice versa.
@@misseli1 we alone cannot save this man I hope he finds Christ one day... and repentance for his dishonesty
@@reyis_here945 Amen. All we can do is pray for him. I wish our fellow siblings in Christ would stop calling into their show. At this point, the show is more focused on embarrassing Christians and having "gotcha" moments. We cannot convince them. They will not believe unless Christ appears before them. Even then, they claim they would be skeptical. A Christian asked them if they would believe if God appeared before them. The atheist responded saying how would they know it's actually God and not them having a delusion. Oy.
Tbh, he seems off. He seems like a robot. Something is off about him. That doesn’t sit right with me. And I’m speaking this in the name of Holy Spirit. Something is off with that guy.
@@christopherestrada2474 and I don't think it's generalized Asperger's, I honestly think it's more severe than that
So basically the Old Testament isn't recommending the punishments be enforced, but rather the punishments themselves show us the level of severity the corresponding sin has in the eyes of God.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t the verse following say, “He is a drunkard and a slugger?” I think it’s safe to say that we’re not talking literal kids.
Also, if I remember correctly, this verse was talking about bestowing actual curses on your parents, not just your casual teen rebellion.
@@paulnash6944 it does says what you mention. Skeptics always take those parts out , they never show the full context.
Plus the punishment of Sin is death. If you disobey your parents it is a sin. Thankfully Jesus took our place and died in our place so we don’t have to die for the sins we commit.
What if your parents are awful? I think if your parents are really bad parents and don't give you good advice, than disobeying them is what you should do.
@@enderdude7828 Ephesians 6:1 should give you a bit of clarity
"Obey your parents in the Lord"
The acceptable disobedience is only when obeying the Lord goes against obeying your parents, because God has a higher priority. Also advice is different from a command, you can disregard anyone's advice at any time, doesn't mean it's wise to do so. If your parents provide bad advice, you should seek better advisors, people who are actually wise. And even in disobedience or disregarding, treat them with honor and respect, never failing the command to honor them and the command to love them as yourself.
@@enderdude7828 "honor you mother and mother and father"... does this have anything to do with "you" being the worst possible version of yourself?
Remember; for all you atheists out there that are actually beginning to see the Light- you must be reborn to live under God's Grace, for you are Justified.
@@shadosnakenah, parents are overexalted. You treat them with the exact amount of respect and honor they provide
More important fact is that ancient law codes in general tended to give the death penalty for every offense. But no one took the penalty literally.
A well known anecdote is about Draco, the author of the infamous “Draconian Code” which is the earliest known code for Athens. This code gives the death penalty for pretty much everything including the ancient equivalent of littering and jaywalking. This is why the word “draconian” means “harsh or severe”
According to legend Draco justified his code by saying “ I think minor offenses are worthy of death and I can’t think of a worse penalty for major offenses”
But there is no evidence that these penalties were ever carried out.
@@Michael-bk5nz to be fair the only difference between that and today is that the only thing stopping in is legality
@@reyis_here945 no, ancient law is not like modern law, the penalties attached are not prescriptive in the way modern laws are, they were more symbolic, saying that you will be killed for doing something was more a way of saying “this is really bad”, it was like parents saying “stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” which taken literally is child abuse, but kids know they are not going to be beaten
@@Michael-bk5nz I'm not saying self-defense is the same as manslaughter (regardlessof time period), I'm saying its not like those concepts are brand new or completely original
@@reyis_here945 the laws were not prescriptive they are mere case law
I remember a story in the bible where a women found guilty of adultery was about to stoned to death by people but maybe I'm just misremembering or you are not being honest. It's in the bible btw. Gospel of Mathew if I remember correctly.
Edit: So yeah, idk about no one took the penalty seriously there. I think they did.
If you read the passge fully it talks about the child being drunk and something else its wasnt talking about when a child is acting like a brat it's a grown man dishourning and disgracing hes parents
The Talmud mentions this but also expands that since it says 'a son' but not a father, it only applies to those that are legally adults but not yet a married, ie, still living in their father's house. Some sages even further add it doesn't apply to anyone who COULD be a father, regardless of whether they actually are, and thus it applies only to a 40 week period immediately after coming of age. Not sure I buy that last one.
I do caution that 'grown' in this case is often taken as the bar mitzvah age, ie, 13
@@professorhaystacks6606 where did you get that from I doubt when talking about a drunk person it's refering to a 13 yr old.
And where did you hear it's necessarily not a father
This is the same thing Muslims do they point to Jewish sources without actually giving references to their claims from the SCRIPTURES
In some cases, "son" can be used to refer to a man who is already married, especially in a context where the speaker is emphasizing their relationship or authority over the man. For example:
- In Genesis 32:5, Jacob refers to his sons as "my sons" even though they are grown men with their own families.
- In Exodus 21:5, a slave is referred to as the "son" of his master, even if he is an adult.
- In 1 Samuel 24:11, David refers to Saul's servants as "sons" even though they are adults.
And yes 13 was the legal age of adulthood in those time that action of him getting drunk enforces the view that he's not just a teenager or a child that doesn't know what he's doing
Still not punishable by death
My replies keep deleting
@@MarkelMathurin niether is leave your child to die, but that still happened
The only difference here is that was a legal law
And that's if we're being literal about the Hebrew word child
Ah the classic “old covenant scary why Christian hypocrites”
These people never registered to actually ask that question and understand the Christian position
@@undolf4097 nothing but "gotcha" question, specifically from this guy
@@reyis_here945i think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that these gotcha questions aren't really an effective means of persuasion when your audience can look up answers to these quick and often simplistic "gotcha" questions. it seems the level of discourse is slowly being elevated. tbat mihht just be wishful thinkong though
@@kaufmanat1 anyone you're still values the validity of these questions... is mostly asking on Reddit so it's becoming a much smaller group
@undolf4097 if this guy doesn't believe old Jews followed Mosaic laws than how did Jesus save a woman from being stoned to death for adultery?
@@beelance8057 if they DID follow mosaic law, how did jesus save her? wouldn't they have just stoned her? you just proved his point. it wasnt a codified set of laws like we think of today.
Just watched the Ruslan kd podcast vid w ip, and he explained this same thing there. Keep it up ip
That same passage also refers to the child as a “glutton and a drunkard.” People in Israel weren’t doing this thing to their 10 year-old son who didn’t put his toys away. It would have been done to someone who was always drunk and ate more food than the rest, likely causing others to starve and thus making him a murderer.
Hey IP. I'd like to ask a clarifying question.
If you are saying that the mosiac law was to represent an ideal law structure, does that mean that the stoning of children was meant to be ideal or are you saying it was more of a teaching tool rather than a "here's how things would be in a perfect world"? For the former, stoning children would be seen as ideal. For the latter, the Torah would be using an extreme example to make a point about how children should treat thier parents in an ideal world.
Love your content and keep bringing the Biblical/logical Sass.
EDIT: i just re-warched the short a couple times. Nevermind. i missed it the first time. Keep up the great work dude 👍
@@benellison6232 this "kinda" off base, but still relevant to the discussion, we have to accept the reality that even today "people put their infants in dumpsters" (and yes I'm saying that as an extreme, but I'm also acknowledging that it does happen... and that it's evidence of stagnancy)
@@LilySage-mf7uf no one is defending that
And the same goes for leaving children ,let alone newborns, to die alone... and yet both still happen to day
The punishment of sin is death, separation from God after your life. Anytime in the law the word death apears it's not refering about ppls killing you, it's about the sin itself
That is a huge cope and has to be teetering on heresy of some kind.
3rd reason. It doesn't say "child".. but son and specifies "glutton", "drunkard", "rebellious", and "WILL NOT LISTEN".. this applies to grown ass men.
This is an interesting perspective, but wouldn't "it was meant to educate us on what justice would look like in an ideal setting" contradict your take on why slavery is not abolished as a part of the law? Your take on items such as slavery abolition was that the law was never meant to be perfect. But this new video says the law was meant to illustrate perfect or ideal circumstances. Am I missing something that reconciles these two views on the law?
Yes we "still" utilize capital punishment today... its still not divine law
I still don't think that "it was just an example" works well as a defense of a code that presents stoning your child for disobedience as a good idea.
It's good that you personally believe in an upgraded moral code, but that bit is still a barbaric and primitive moral code.
- it's not a child, it's a grown man who lived with his parents, try to use that as an excuse to get out of punishment
- It's a "cultural law"
- And we still use capital punishment today ( and I'm not justifying it) primarily for sexual assailants
In this particular law, the emphasis is on “the PEOPLE will stone him (implying a trial will take place), not the parents”. The parents cannot judge the child’s sin for themselves.
It's cute how the atheist thinks he understands the Bible with no historical context for it.
@@YamadaJisho seriously he didnt even acknowledge the fact that passage was talking a grown man living with his parents
keep it up. Atheist Experience is a joke
@@dnjelly1063 real Scholars, nah thier real comedian...
I literally watched your video on this yesterday, haha.
He has a video on the mosaic law?
@@williamsaporetti A whole playlist.
@@TrivialCoincidence link?
@@williamsaporetticzcams.com/play/PL1mr9ZTZb3TUhTlvIkuRaRFjqYUG_fy6E.html&si=xzo6JQbAf6V4MGt1
The scripture states that the parents say, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." So it was obvious not about a child.
Verse 20 says ‘he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’
It’s clearly not talking about a small child being stone for a temper tantrum. This is a grown man. Probably guilty of all sorts of other crimes as well.
Is nobody gonna talk about the atheist looks like scott tenorman from south park 😂😂😂
@@thegreatguldo9956 ive notice that he looks sickly... it could just be a video edit or because he's Ginger or something... but still
they were prescriptive. God is not giving people hypotheticals.
The Lord Jesus Christ said the law should be obeyed without neglecting the most important parts of the law which is judgment, mercy and faith. Matthew 23:23
@@Justatreecutter not entirely, and what Christ is saying here is not properly illuminated in context either
Honestly I think this response is kind of missing the point of the critique.
Like... If God tells you to kill your child for disobeying. Is it better or worse if people actually follow that command regularly?
Well no... God is still telling you to do something terrible, he is sanctioning a terrible act regardless if people actually did it.
I mean imagine if a different God told his followers in a holy book that any person that reads the bible should get a death penalty.
Would it really matter if people actually performed this act when you criticize that religion or that God?
He is not criticizing the laws of an ancient civilization, he is criticizing the morality of a religion and a God.
Why are people STILL asking 2000 years later why Christians don't follow the old covenant? It's like they never tried to gain even a sunday school level of understanding.
In addition, existing cultural conventions probably allowed for worse - in all likelihood a father would have been justified in just beating his son to death without the need to bring his case to the elders at the gate. This law built upon the "do not murder" commandment and likely had the effect of forcing fathers to think clearly before doing anything rash. This was not a command to stone your child if he was disobedient but almost the exact opposite - extreme measures can only be taken after a due process was followed. Much of the law begins with a situation that sounds like established fact but is instead an allegation, and this is one of those kinds of laws.
@@davidreinker5600 this reasoning applies to everyone, even to today... and that is what people have forgotten
@@reyis_here945 What do you mean?
@@davidreinker5600 (not a justification) we still have capital punishment
Greatly explained
People forget the Torah is a code of civil law, moral law, and ceremonial law. We literally see in the Torah that men would be put on trial by the elders to determine crimes. That is civil law, it can change. Ceremonial laws change with the covenants, and moral law is eternal.
Many objections from skeptics are based on simply misunderstanding ancient writing.
Skim reading has become a real problem in the skeptic community
>he/him
Stopped there.
If that applies for everyone, the guy at the beginning of the video wouldn't be alive! He doesn't look like roll model of a son!
Psalms 19:7 NIV
The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
I notice he left out the part where the parents (plural) are to say to the elders "this son of ours is a glutton and a drunkard" - i.e. the part that clearly shows this is case law for ADULT children, not young unruly kids.
Color me shocked at the dishonesty.
This again.🙄 when will they understand.
They don't want to understand. They get very short with callers and try to use "gotcha" moments more than anything.
@@JoyInFreedomso can I ignore the ten commandments? Is that not under the old covenant? Wat else in the old testament can I ignore? Sin? Why do I have to jump thru hoops to understand?
@@theparodychannel7842 The ten commandments were to help the tribe of Israel learn how to live. The greatest commandments we have is to love God and others. The ten commandments do not have to be followed to a t but it makes sense to follow it. We have the greatest peace when we come to christ. So it makes sense not to put any idols before Him. It makes sense to treat your parents well. It is loving to not commit adultery against your spouse. It is good not to covet. We should love God and not take His name in vain. I know it is a lot to take in. I promise, God is good. He saved me more times than I can count. He loves you and I love you too.
This is what I hate about atheist scientists on CZcams thinking that just because they refute young earth creationism means they can talk about any topic related to religion
Yeah that guy’s ego is inflated. Atheists really do need him though- they’re struggling when it comes to debates.
So you can't take criticism? Get over your ego.
@@gianni206lmfao nah literally in the thousands of debates christians have lost literally 100% of them. I mean it's a MASSACRE this has long been a victorious war.
@@gianni206christians don't understand what things like critical thought or peer review even mean. So actually watching a debate with knowledge of how a debate works is maddening with christians because they don't understand basic ideas about how facts become accepted as facts.
@@gamemasterultima except when the criticism is based on bad interpretation of scripture. I guess you atheists can’t accept that you aren’t Steven hawking just because you don’t believe in god
Jesus :“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” kinda throws out your that’s just the Old Testament argument
It's a fine line, between no one following God's Word on these matters because they're sinful Human beings who mess up.
And IP's possibility, that it was never intended to be seriously followed exactly.
I'm not sure if I should agree...
Although, i agree that it could make sense.
"He/Him." That says it all.
I would say it was just the podcast he was on... but considering his response to Matt Walsh... he tends the contradictory reasoning
Christ fulfilled the law, and we live under a new covenant. One of love and forgiveness and the pursuit of salvation through Christ.
Also, the parodical son was not stoned for his disrespect. He was welcomed back with open arms when he repented.
It's called "prodigal"
So I guess we going to ingore the 10 Commandments which is in the old testament and ingnore what Moses did after he received them
Because we have police and jails now. We’re not living in a place where iron was barely available. The Israelites were.
I'm 40 years old. I'm still my parent's child.
Why don't I do x? Because I like to read the whole Bible in as much context as possible.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Ip will you respond to sword of merciful new video and auron about the concouest of Joshua
@@user-fn9hb6je9z who?
I feel like thats a pretty weak argument. What makes sense to me is that a "profligate and a drunkard" is not a child but an adult son who is defiantly morally corrupt and a threat to Israelite theocracy.
This is also not talking about minors. These would be adult . This was a patriarchal society so families were close and still near their parents
The atheist also completely left out the part where the parents in this hypothetical situation explicitly state their son is a drunkard and trouble maker... So he's not a child and is a genuine menace to society. This is not about children
@@LilySage-mf7uf read my comment again. It's not talking about some "mere disobedience." It's discussing someone who is not only in open rebellion to parents but the entire community through their behavior. They are a drunkard and poison to the community, not a child with authority issues or someone who talks back on occasion. Also, refer back to what IP said. It's not a strict law code, but moreso judicial wisdom and guidance. It's not a hard fast rule. So it would not also be the case that a drunken degenerate would be executed. He might also be spared. It would come down to the circumstances and the full story that the judges would gain through investigation
Many Atheist will say we’re being biased and we only want to follow the good parts 🤦♂️ we are under a New Covenant
@@Cheemz1 worse if thier biased in favor of Forrest v.
You are biased. You csn use the new covenant excuse all you like, but if the buble is gods word, you should, logicslly, follow his example. I mean who elses example would you follow if not his? And you csnt question the genocide hes done since youre quesrioning god and thats a huge no no. Why only follow certain things and not others?
@@brentjones905 bud, are you ok or are you having a stroke... I'm serious
@@reyis_here945 surprised you didn't point out all the unnecessary and purposeful grammar mistakes. Seems you have a bad habit of pointing out the unnecessary. Or being fixated on the wrong issues. You may want to change that. Your claims and the claims you follow aren't going to help your case
@@brentjones905 the ones you just fixed a minute ago from me typing this... or do you have something to actually add to the conversation
Herp derp out of context OT arguments. These atheists spout the same script, like dawah, that have been answered so many times
Not even Jews of that time followed that law because it was likely not meant to be used often or at all
It is more of a warning to the parent. Proverbs 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Nice 👍
We follow the moral law 💜
I’ve taken laws like the one mentioned here as a way of taking judgement away from individuals (angry parents) and giving it to the community which would likely be more level headed
Also when it says child it means teenager/young adult because it's says they are drunkyards. God bless ✝️
This is where he loses me, because he is taking the worst of the scholars out there with the least Biblical validity, not because they are accurate or theologically correct, but because it appeals best to modern ears.
He does this every time he reaches a verse or section that is uncomfortable, explaining it away as being not literal or symbolic.
You're doing the same thing you're accusing him of, this explanation is also backed not just by scholarship but also history
You made the claim that the scholars validity is unchecked... by who (specifically)
@@prestonyannotti7661 Tough to answer specific claims by specific people since he just says "scholars" without listing any of them.
Every apologist's explanation for any Biblical difficulty: "It doesn't really mean that."
Probably because it actually doesn't... making another problem your claim to begin with
Well, that's what an academic says, not an apologist. We wouldn't say that if atheists didn't insist on the ignorance that the entire Bible is literal
@@AbyssicHate112 also Forest V. has been proven to be intellectually dishonest... the validity of his claims have been called into question by academics and non-academics of the like
@@reyis_here945 Just by seeing that he has pronouns in his presentation, I know its a waste of time
@@AbyssicHate112 what's funny about that specifically... he did it like a "20 minute video" regarding how much "he doesn't care about it"
I love Paul's teaching that the value of the law is to teach you good and bad, but we are under the new covenant and should just strive to be good. I study strictly as a lense to the past.
You contradicted the correct, 2nd point by the mistaken 1st point. Its a collection for judicial guidance, or better, it is a rule of justice BUT "In Your wrath, remember mercy." It all goes together. Those laws are 100% relevant now. Its a civil law that worked - we should do it, "remembering mercy".
The Talmud specifically says that the case of the Rebellious Son never actually occurred, since there were too many required details for a case to qualify. Similarly, an Eye for an Eye was never taken literally.
I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17).
There's more context to this too.
At that time, it was not uncommon for abusive men to beat their families to "dicipine" them. Women had some protections, but children were basically property of their fathers.
When the abuser went too far and killed his kids, it could be written off as a legitimate act not deserving of criminal proceedings.
This scripture took the ownership of children from their parents and gave it to the community at large.
Not only was it now a crime to kill your kids, but there is not one recorded instance of a Jewish assembly handing down a death sentence to a minor over something as minor as being "unruly".
Jesus and his disciples got stoned, and don’t forget Jesus was about to be killed before his crucifixion. Those are the types of heresy’s and blasphemous you have to commit to be killed by your own people.
Only one law is strictly being followed in all muslim nations to date.
Last year some men and women were stoned to death in Afghanistan.
Old Covenant/New Covenant subjective morality rationalization…check.
Bible doesn’t REALLY mean what it says… check.
Good job, IP. You killed two birds with one short.
@@docsspellingcontest592 if morality is subjective so is equality... ✅️
It doesn't mean what skeptics want it to mean for their ideals to function properly... ✅️
Good job on staying focus
I love you IP.You are a gem in this generation.
I’ll make sure to save this video for when you try using the OT laws for your own identity politics.
This is the old testament. Which was specifically meant for the Israelites.
I got a simple way of explaining it. God was putting Israel through a sort of "bootcamp" for the ages to come. He absolutely was EXTRA hard on them. These were the people God wanted his Son to be raised and born from. Now Jesus came
I'm with you, up to the point where it was suggested the law was not executed. It's clear that the Sanhedren of Christ's day were strictly observing the Torah.
The important point was that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, so much of that law was never Christian.
People need to read for themselves. The passage he is talking about is CLEARLY not simply about a disobedient child. I daresay it is not about a CHILD at all. If it is the passage I am thinking he is referring to, it is an adult (im assuming this because it clearly states that the son is a drunkard,) that his parents bring before the town for doing some not so good/crininal things. The Bible describes him as profligate.
One of the definition of profligate is:
abandoned to vice and corruption : shamelessly immoral.
So man childs
My opinion ⚠️🚨: I think one reason the old testament seems to judge some crimes with death, despite no clear examples of the punishment being dealt in actuality is because it's making a point that these sins either lead to death or cause death. Sin is death, it decays
Jesus said he was sent NOT TO DESTROY the law but to fulfill. Contradicts your new covenant counter argument.
What does fulfill mean?
@@billowspillow may I direct you to the nearest kindergarten school then enroll and follow and pass each grade until you graduate . Then your question will be answered by you.
I think a good reminder is that while some commands from the Old Testament are still echoed in the New, we are still not to punish these sins with death. For example, the command against adultery still stands, but Christ had compassion on the woman who committed adultery and told her to go and sin no more. I think we need to do the same with people who commit similar sins condemned in both Testaments. Have compassion, and tell them to go sin no more.
@@misseli1 we also need to understand thats Gods patience and compassion runs thin... specifically when you're doing terrible in the Old Testament
This was well done IP !! perfection was never the answer. scholars seem to stating a Law/Gospel paradigm. Kudos!
It’s PERFECTLY legal in a particular small town in SC whereas on Sunday at high noon, a man can beat his wife on the county courthouse steps. However, nobody does it. I guess those men are breaking the law.
Most of what is said here is highly debatable.
Except for the fact that Christians hold themselves above the law and in truth they are right; none of the “Old Testament” applies to gentiles. None of it was written for them; it was written for the 12 tribes.
Paul then blended Paganism with Judaism and created a version of Judaism more pleasing to the Pagan masses of Rome to gain power.
These questions of punishment would have been settled by the Sanhedrin our the high court in important matters such as life or death.
A Sanhedrin was considered a bloody court if more than two people were sentenced to death in a six month period; that is how unusual a death sentence was.
Christians basically cherry pick and misunderstand the Tanak and a lot of that comes from not reading or understanding Hebrew.
Professor James D.G.Dunn who was a professor of divinity in the department of theology at University of Durham, UK who was also an ordained minister of church of Scotland and the Methodist Church of Great Britain, has written a book titled Unity and Diversity: Inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity in which he says
- Jewish Christians in the first century AD continued to obey the laws in Old testament
- It was evident that they believed in Judaism and Jesus.
- All theological beliefs that were later introduced by Paul were absent.
- In150AD and beyond the situation become significantly changed that the Jewish Christianity so far being the only Christianity was branded as unorthodox and heretical.
- Second century AD heretical Jewish Christianity was closer to the earliest Christianity than any other forms of Christianity that existed in Roman lands.
You are following a religion formulated by the Roman Catholic Church in 4th century for y he Greek speaking Roman Gentiles living in the Roman lands. Your religion is about Jesus and his divinity but the original Jewish Christianity was by Jesus and his teachings.
"I'm a christian living under the new covenant", presumably wants the 10 commandments on the wall in every classroom 😢. I know it sounds a bit disrespectful but I was in Sunday church today and we are going thru the 10 commandments and they were talking about not having idols and the reading is Isaiah 44, and they get to verse 20 and I just think, yeh all religion is kinda like that. There be no clarity... just like this comment that you are reading... zero clarity because idk where I'm going with it cos my brain rotted out of my head from watching this short
This is also why we have the Talmud. A series of legal discussions and debates between many different experts and Rabbis over many centuries on how to interpret the Tanakh. Not everything in the Talmud is written in stone though. You oftentimes find one Rabbi say one thing but another says the complete opposite and sometimes even a third opinion alongside that. Plus, many things in the Tanakh and even in the Gospels have to be taken in a specific cultural and linguistic context, which the first guy (not IP) clearly is unaware of, either on knowingly or not
Galatians, read pauls response to peters hypocrisy about the circumcized.
While this response is correct IP. The underlying argument he is making is "if you follow part of the book, you should follow all of the book".
And this is a major source of confusion generally across christendom even though its entirely addressed by paul in galatians in his treatise on faith vs law.
Taken together both your explanations and galatians paints a vastly different picture of what Jewish faith was at the time, as well as just how deadly the literalism and legalism of the sanhedrin was..
Love these shorts, im a long time fan and have frequently quoted your videos and apologetics growing up. Thank you.
"the Bible specifically says..."
*Proceeds to be nonspecific in describing what the Bible says.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is the reference. The condemned is a drunkard and a glutton as well. Clearly the child is not a five year old. It is a grownup child.
Further, there is a hierarchy to the laws themselves. Not all of those laws were applied equally and some were more important than others.
I'm pulling a blank on the basics of it but some were more ritual or symbolic, others were context-specific, and then there are the laws of the land. It was akin to that.
It is written "The life of a murderer may not be redeemed." This implies the life of someone who commits any OTHER death-penalty crime COULD be redeemed. I don't know enough about ancient near-eastern culture to know what that would entail, though.
I know we shouldn't compare it but we compare it to the modern era of that region... practically most crime
The transformation of the old testament over the years is crazy. I wonder why?
There's no evidence any parents ever did this. Makes a better threat than withdrawing screentime though ...
Honest opinion and forgive any perceived negativity as just my ignorance. I think a Jewish man can better describe thier tradition than any other race. They could better articulate the reasons and why. Like when they explain how thier language is designed. Their laws from old times. They are the chosen people above the rest. Again not trying to trigger anyone. I just find it hard to trust a gentile explaining Jewish traditions