Need Help Responding to Attack on our Faith

[elevenBRAVO]

Hi guys, one of the reasons I made this account was because I needed some advice, please. I recently got into it with a former Christian who says he’s now a “Noahide,” who used this video as a reason for him having dropped his faith.

It’s a debate between some small hat and a professor of Christianity, and — in his claim — caused many clergy and many Christians to drop the faith and some even joined the SOS because of it, he says. I’d like to debunk it, but not sure how. I’m certainly not an expert.

I’ve watched all three hours of this thing, and I’ve got absolutely no idea how to counter his argumentation.

Anyone seen this before, or know of a proper angle of attack to respond with? Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FK6UttWUOA&t=1s

 

[Samseau]

Brother, no one is gonna waste their time watching a blasphemer charlatan. I'm sure I could destroy him, but only if you summarize his arguments. Not wasting 3 hours for perhaps 2 minutes of worthwhile argumentation. Most chews are nothing but empty verbiage.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Brother, no one is gonna waste their time watching a blasphemer charlatan. I'm sure I could destroy him, but only if you summarize his arguments. Not wasting 3 hours for perhaps 2 minutes of worthwhile argumentation. Most chews are nothing but empty verbiage.

I mean, he brings in so much argumentation over the three hours that any snippets I post won't do justice to the ones I leave out (not that I care about his feelings, but rather my ability to counter his arguments, which is important in making me feel confident).

But okay, as just one example: his main argument is that if a book claims to be divine, but has even one human error in it, it's automatically invalidated as divine, as God doesn't make mistakes like humans do.

He then says the Torah has no such errors -- which we agree on as Christians -- while the NT has plenty. Then he gives a few examples. Here are two.

In Genesis 23:19, the location of the Cave of the Patriarchs is listed as in Hebron, but in Acts 7:16, it’s listed as being in Shechem, which is a completely different city, an obvious human error. (He compares this error to someone claiming a book is divine and then reading in it that the Twin Towers fell in Brooklyn on 9/11, and how anyone would immediately realize this book was clearly not divine.)

Another example he gives: Genesis 46:27/Exodus 1:5/Deut 10:22 — all say Jacob went to Egypt with 70 people. But Acts 7:14 lists it as 75 people, a discrepancy between a book that is agreed by everyone to be divine and given by God, and one that, of course, he says is not, based on another human error, making jokes about how God forgot how to count between revelations.

I hate to say this, but this is a logical point. Please show me how it's not. (It reminded me of the silly nonsense in the Quran, like the oil and water nonsense, or one that I can't remember now about the moon that made me laugh.)

 

[Narekatsi]

This rabbi, again. He is one of the most hateful, anti-Christian individuals who uses Talmudic argumentation tactics to create confusion and give the illusion of absolute certainty on his points.

Tackling the two points you listed:

Genesis 23:19 and Acts 7:16

The so-called contradictions are not contradictions at all, as St. Stephen's Sermon is being taken out of context, focusing on a single part of a single phrase. St. Stephen is condensing an expanded story into a shorter sermon, trying to mesh both events into a shorter delivery. Here is more details on that: https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=538

To use his childish example of 9/11, suppose someone was writing a book about his day in Brooklyn, on September 11th, 2001. In one of the paragraphs, he states that as he stepped out of the coffee shop in Brooklyn on that faithful morning, he saw the nearby towers collapsing. Do you notice what just happened? Someone trying to create confusion could focus on just a portion of that and claim the author was stating the towers were "near" the coffee shop in Brooklyn, and thereby false.

The 70 and 75 people variance

This is simply a variance in the LXX (Septuagint) and the Masoretic text - the former says 75, while the latter says 70, all in the OT. The broader Christian community (and a large number of Jews in the region, as well) were using the LXX for scriptural study. The Masoretic text was tweaked and revised over the centuries in small attempts to discredit Christianity. That is exactly what this rabbi is doing.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

This rabbi, again. He is one of the most hateful, anti-Christian individuals who uses Talmudic argumentation tactics to create confusion and give the illusion of absolute certainty on his points.

Tackling the two points you listed:

Genesis 23:19 and Acts 7:16

The so-called contradictions are not contradictions at all, as St. Stephen's Sermon is being taken out of context, focusing on a single part of a single phrase. St. Stephen is condensing an expanded story into a shorter sermon, trying to mesh both events into a shorter delivery. Here is more details on that: https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=538

To use his childish example of 9/11, suppose someone was writing a book about his day in Brooklyn, on September 11th, 2001. In one of the paragraphs, he states that as he stepped out of the coffee shop in Brooklyn on that faithful morning, he saw the nearby towers collapsing. Do you notice what just happened? Someone trying to create confusion could focus on just a portion of that and claim the author was stating the towers were "near" the coffee shop in Brooklyn, and thereby false.

The 70 and 75 people variance

This is simply a variance in the LXX (Septuagint) and the Masoretic text - the former says 75, while the latter says 70, all in the OT. The broader Christian community (and a large number of Jews in the region, as well) were using the LXX for scriptural study. The Masoretic text was tweaked and revised over the centuries in small attempts to discredit Christianity. That is exactly what this rabbi is doing.

This rabbi, again. He is one of the most hateful, anti-Christian individuals who uses Talmudic argumentation tactics to create confusion and give the illusion of absolute certainty on his points.

Tackling the two points you listed:

Genesis 23:19 and Acts 7:16

The so-called contradictions are not contradictions at all, as St. Stephen's Sermon is being taken out of context, focusing on a single part of a single phrase. St. Stephen is condensing an expanded story into a shorter sermon, trying to mesh both events into a shorter delivery. Here is more details on that: https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=538

To use his childish example of 9/11, suppose someone was writing a book about his day in Brooklyn, on September 11th, 2001. In one of the paragraphs, he states that as he stepped out of the coffee shop in Brooklyn on that faithful morning, he saw the nearby towers collapsing. Do you notice what just happened? Someone trying to create confusion could focus on just a portion of that and claim the author was stating the towers were "near" the coffee shop in Brooklyn, and thereby false.

The 70 and 75 people variance

This is simply a variance in the LXX (Septuagint) and the Masoretic text - the former says 75, while the latter says 70, all in the OT. The broader Christian community (and a large number of Jews in the region, as well) were using the LXX for scriptural study. The Masoretic text was tweaked and revised over the centuries in small attempts to discredit Christianity. That is exactly what this rabbi is doing.

You’ve heard of this guy before? I just discovered him, but he apparently has a very large following. He’s influenced a lot of juice, from the minimal research I’ve so far done on him.

Thank you very much for this response. Can I post further snippets of his arguments here for you to counter? This is excellent.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'll take the time to listen to this and offer a response.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

I'll take the time to listen to this and offer a response.

Thank you so much. I sincerely appreciate it.

 

[Lawrence87]

His argument is essentially that the NT is a fraudulent document, but using apparent discrepancies between the OT and NT to make this point is not a good argument.

He would essentially propose that the NT authors were sitting there with the OT composing these books to support their claim that Jesus is the Messiah, and they would not only make egregious errors, but that these errors would remain uncorrected. This wouldn't make sense even from his own perspective.

The only answer from his own view, and from the Christian view is that the authors and subsequent readers interpreted these passages differently than the interpretation that puts them at odds with the OT. Its not even a good take.

 

[Tex Cruise]

At first I wondered why you guys were bothering to spend time responding to a Jewish troll. Then I watched the video. At first I started to think that this forum was a mistake, then Christianity as a whole. I am now a Noahide.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

His argument is essentially that the NT is a fraudulent document, but using apparent discrepancies between the OT and NT to make this point is not a good argument.

He would essentially propose that the NT authors were sitting there with the OT composing these books to support their claim that Jesus is the Messiah, and they would not only make egregious errors, but that these errors would remain uncorrected. This wouldn't make sense even from his own perspective.

The only answer from his own view, and from the Christian view is that the authors and subsequent readers interpreted these passages differently than the interpretation that puts them at odds with the OT. Its not even a good take.

This isn't his argument, or even his only argument. My God, there are three hours of back and forth here. He brings up many arguments, and in certain instances, I'm sorry, but the opponent is unable to answer and clearly stumped.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

At first I wondered why you guys were bothering to spend time responding to a Jewish troll. Then I watched the video. At first I started to think that this forum was a mistake, then Christianity as a whole. I am now a Noahide.

I am not a Jew or a troll. For God's sake, watch the video. I am posting it here because I want his arguments to be countered and destroyed.

It is incumbent on us to be open to people like him, and to be armed with the knowledge to push back and win the arguments people put to us. I am disappointed in myself that I was unable to do so, and that the opponent was at times as well.

 

[Steady Hands]

He then says the Torah has no such errors -- which we agree on as Christians -- while the NT has plenty.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

I was quoting him (HE said we agree on this, and we do), and gave verbatim examples. I'm not really sure where the disconnect is here, or why this is so difficult for you.

(Paul Rudd is a Jew, by the way. The irony is magnificent here.)

 

[Lawrence87]

This isn't his argument, or even his only argument. My God, there are three hours of back and forth here. He brings up many arguments, and in certain instances, I'm sorry, but the opponent is unable to answer and clearly stumped.

I'm not watching a 3 hour video. I responded to a point you brought up.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

I'm not watching a 3 hour video. I responded to a point you brought up.

Totally understand. I don't expect people here to go rushing to watch a three-hour debate, but if anyone here would, I do believe it would be beneficial to the "cause." Successful opposition (and I mean that in terms of the damage it's done and is doing) shouldn't just be left alone to continue snowballing.

 

[Raskolnikov]

You’ve heard of this guy before? I just discovered him, but he apparently has a very large following. He’s influenced a lot of juice, from the minimal research I’ve so far done on him.

Him and Tovia Singer always pop up in Christian /Rabbinic "debates". If your friend became a Noahide (=Shabbes Goy) because of superficial textual criticism, then he was no Christian to begin with.

Jews do not have a coherent theological system. They claim, just like Muslims, that their insistence on God's unity is somehow better than the Trinity, but then you look at their actual theological writings and it either devolved into kabbalistic pantheism or neoplatonic monism, same with Islam. Our version of Monotheism with real distinctions within the Godhead is the only system that makes sense.

Notice also that both Jews and Muslims will constantly ape the same out-of-context arguments from textual criticism, but never actually represent their own system, only snippets of it. A great heuristic to see whether someone is a good faith actor is to observe if they 1. steelman or strawman your position 2. present their own position.

These people do neither, it's just the same old tired "gotcha" soundbites.

I recommend watching Sam Shamoun's debates with some of those fellas, one of them actually started manifesting a demon and screamed vulgarities out of nowhere.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Him and Tovia Singer always pop up in Christian /Rabbinic "debates". If your friend became a Noahide (=Shabbes Goy) because of superficial textual criticism, then he was no Christian to begin with.

Jews do not have a coherent theological system. They claim, just like Muslims, that their insistence on God's unity is somehow better than the Trinity, but then you look at their actual theological writings and it either devolved into kabbalistic pantheism or neoplatonic monism, same with Islam. Our version of Monotheism with real distinctions within the Godhead is the only system that makes sense.

Notice also that both Jews and Muslims will constantly ape the same out-of-context arguments from textual criticism, but never actually represent their own system, only snippets of it. A great heuristic to see whether someone is a good faith actor is to observe if they 1. steelman or strawman your position 2. present their own position.

These people do neither, it's just the same old tired "gotcha" soundbites.

I recommend watching Sam Shamoun's debates with some of those fellas, one of them actually started manifesting a demon and screamed vulgarities out of nowhere.

Appreciate the response. I know Singer and Shamoun. Shamoun is a ferocious, formidable warrior for Christ (he just immediately explodes into maniacal laughter when people mention Singer's name, and it's HILARIOUS), but I've never heard him rebut the rabbi in this video. (I saw the vid you mentioned, where the Jew reverted to his base demonic nature after a good thirty minutes of pretending to be normal.) This rabbi goes about it differently than Singer, however, which is what simultaneously intrigued and concerned me.

This one, I should mention, does seem to present his religion's position on things, basically stating rabbinic Judaism, and its reliance on their oral tradition, fills all the holes, and has all the answers for the questions and challenges that the Christian professor puts to him. This is why this debate seemingly stands out from the others I've seen.

I understand people have better things to do than sit for three hours and listen to a small hat arrogantly insult our faith, but I do believe it would be a wise move for anyone here to just leave it on in the background when doing chores, cooking, etc., as I really would like the ability to counter his positions, but am admittedly not armed with the knowledge that I am sure many others here have.

 

[Raskolnikov]

This one, I should mention, does seem to present his religion's position on things, basically stating rabbinic Judaism, and its reliance on their oral tradition, fills all the holes, and has all the answers for the questions and challenges that the Christian professor puts to him. This is why this debate seemingly stands out from the others I've seen.

Yeah, that impression is created because he isn't seriously pressed on his position. It's as in Islam, when you always have to force the muslim to commit to an aqeeda, because otherwise he will just freestyle and pick and choose answers from different traditions to answer questions.

The thing is, Islam, although it's incoherent, makes a much more honest attempt to reconcile different dogmatic elements in a declared doctrine, which is where the aqeeda comes from.

Jews do not have this. Even if you go to the Hassidim, you'll find that they never really commit to one specific epistemology and logic.

They do the same in other debates, by the way. Eventually, you'll develop a radar for when a person constantly engages in criticism from all directions but never really allows himself to get pinned down on one position. It's confusing for the unexperienced listener, but after a while you'll be able to spot them within a few minutes. They just flood you with a litany of attacks without actually engaging in debate.

You can point out contradictions in the OT just as well as the Gospels if you decide to read it that way. Selective unwillingness to see nuance goes a long way. You can learn a lot by trying to answer those accusations one by one, but in an actual debate it's always helpful to force the opponent to commit to a position. What do they have to offer? Is it better, or is it perhaps even less coherent than what they've presented about my belief, regardless of whether that presentation is even true?

Jews believe in the Zohar, the Kabbalah and the Talmud. They are in no position to accuse anybody of incoherence or unfaithfulness to scriptures.

 

[elevenBRAVO]

Yeah, that impression is created because he isn't seriously pressed on his position. It's as in Islam, when you always have to force the muslim to commit to an aqeeda, because otherwise he will just freestyle and pick and choose answers from different traditions to answer questions.

The thing is, Islam, although it's incoherent, makes a much more honest attempt to reconcile different dogmatic elements in a declared doctrine, which is where the aqeeda comes from.

Jews do not have this. Even if you go to the Hassidim, you'll find that they never really commit to one specific epistemology and logic.

They do the same in other debates, by the way. Eventually, you'll develop a radar for when a person constantly engages in criticism from all directions but never really allows himself to get pinned down on one position. It's confusing for the unexperienced listener, but after a while you'll be able to spot them within a few minutes. They just flood you with a litany of attacks without actually engaging in debate.

You can point out contradictions in the OT just as well as the Gospels if you decide to read it that way. Selective unwillingness to see nuance goes a long way. You can learn a lot by trying to answer those accusations one by one, but in an actual debate it's always helpful to force the opponent to commit to a position. What do they have to offer? Is it better, or is it perhaps even less coherent than what they've presented about my belief, regardless of whether that presentation is even true?

Jews believe in the Zohar, the Kabbalah and the Talmud. They are in no position to accuse anybody of incoherence or unfaithfulness to scriptures.

This is good. Thank you for the response. Any further advice as to how to "hone" these abilities? You have a good grasp of how to defend our positions (as well as the weaknesses of the other side, which are perhaps not so visible initially). I'd like this ability as well, but don't know where to start.

 

[Sandalwood Peak]

There’s a much higher chance of me becoming an atheist than converting to a different religion. Not sure why these debates even matter. What is the premise of these debates? That I’m praying to the wrong God? lol. So if the Christian God doesn’t exist, but I pray to the “real” one I’m going to have all my wishes fulfilled? Give me a break.

I personally don’t like Muslims, I won’t even mention what I think of the Jews. I’m not sure what factors make these people so unlikable, but it’s not my place to figure out why they became this way, I just treat them as I see fit. If “Christians” want to do these gotcha games with them then that’s their prerogative. I already mentioned that I don’t support evangelizing unless it’s to the non-religious. The reason I’m a Christian is because the gospels resonated with me from the start, it has nothing to do with the merits of the trinity or whatever.

We have enough trouble being faithful ourselves than to worry about this “who do you pray to” nonsense.