Jesus' Last Words: Inspiring Philosophy's "Fix" Just Backfired

[00:00:00]What's up, heathens? How y'all doing?

[00:00:01]I'm the godless engineer, and I critically analyze apologist claims to give you the best arguments and information so that you can stand up and use your voice. Today, we're going to be taking a look at inspiring philosophy, Michael Jones, bullshitting us about what's in the [ __ ] Bible.

[00:00:16]>> Remember Jesus's last words on the cross? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Well, did you know that those are only his last words according to Matthew and Mark? It's in the book of Luke that he says, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And then in John, I thirst. It is finished.

[00:00:33]>> So, I have been tagged by a number of you on this video, so I'll respond, but I already did a longer video on this topic, which you can watch here.

[00:00:40]>> I would not suggest watching his bullshittery where he just continuously lies about how there are no contradictions in the Bible or that these contradictions are easily explainable, therefore not making them contradictions. I mean, if you want to go and like watch that, that's fine. But you could also just beat your head into a wall mercile mercilessly for about four minutes and you get basically the same kind of brain damage.

[00:01:03]>> The main problem is none of the gospel authors say what they're recording were the last words of Jesus.

[00:01:08]>> Ah okay. So this route uh this is what's called isog Jesus and as opposed to exes Jesus where you're interpreting the words from the book. Isog Jesus is where you're inserting your own like whims and needs into the text in order to make it say something that you want it to say.

[00:01:26]In this particular instance, Michael Jones is using isog Jesus in order to say that the gospels were not recording like momentby-moment stuff that supposedly happened to Jesus. And that apparently uh just because it says these are the last words or that these uh like are the last words that Jesus speaks in each of the gospels that doesn't mean that they were really the last words.

[00:01:50]They could have just been recording like what they you know wanted to record there. And so he's inserting information into the gospel so that it makes this not a contradiction. But uh if you you can easily just appeal to like the very first part of Luke where he talks about writing this as an orderly account. And the fact that he uses orderly means that he's writing it as a sequential matter like Jesus was put on the cross then he said these things and you know the very last thing that he says was the last thing that he says before he dies.

[00:02:23]That's what Luke means. And you can tell in the other gospels that this is exactly how they were writing things too. It's a natural sequential order of events that supposedly happened. You're not going to find biographies in the ancient world where they're just sporadically taking [ __ ] out everywhere and haphazardly putting things and claiming that these things were his last words and not which I mean I'm not saying that those don't exist but I'm what I'm saying is that there's not going to be like these multiple different accounts and all of them have different last words in in the ancient world as far as all this goes. you're going to have ancient historians that try to reconcile, you know, contradicting sources. Like you've got Aryan with uh Alexander the Great. He uses a few firsthand eyewitness sources of Alexander the Great. And he even talks about how he reconciles contradictions between them. If you're not doing that in the Gospels, then you are definitely presenting them as these are the things that happened.

[00:03:24]>> He was probably on the cross for a number of hours, which means he would have had time to say a number of things.

[00:03:29]Mike Lakona has pointed out it was normal within the ancient standards of writing to transplant a saying of someone to a later or different time.

[00:03:37]>> Yes, but if you're writing a biography about them, you're definitely going to note that you know they said this at this particular time. But also that would make those ancient historians wrong about the time and place in which they put some kind of phrasing or something like that. I mean it is in normal ancient uh historian procedure to uh maybe summarize things or to uh sort of paraphrase how things went and everything like that but they are sure to specify that hey I am paraphrasing these things and then they were also me uh specifying like oh this is how it exactly happened of course we don't get that necessarily in the gospels what we get in the gospels is just them telling the story of Jesus and they're representing it as a sequential story.

[00:04:22]So, I feel like if you're going to blame anybody for the vagueness of the the ending of of Jesus on the cross or the last words of it, then you should really blame the gospel authors for not being specific enough. They were going outside the norms for biography at that particular time. And and in fact, that's you represent them as biographies is totally not even uh uh accurate. It's their their hagographies, which the way that that differs is that hag hagographies were written to venerate a certain central figure. In this case, it was Jesus. And when you're doing that, history doesn't [ __ ] matter at this particular point. Like it doesn't matter if things are in the right order or not.

[00:05:04]It's just about glorifying that one person. And so if you want to represent it as a hagography, then uh sure, but that's not going to be representative of history, which works against his ultimate goal of the gospels being historical.

[00:05:18]>> Each gospel author probably preserved what they thought were the most important words for their audiences and then transplanted those words to the time right before Jesus died on the cross.

[00:05:27]>> Okay, so that in effect means that they were lying about their story. So either the gospels are lying about what Jesus said and did and when he said and did them or they're accurate tellings of it and these are contradictions. Which one is it? And if the gospel authors are lying about this particular part of what Jesus said right before he died and when he said those particular things, what else are they lying about? How can we actually discern between lies and uh historical fact in the gospels at this point? And I feel like if you actually look into the criteria used in order to discern between those two types of information, you're going to find that there's not any good uh methodology for discerning between them. And in fact, it's mainly just driven by vibes. Like they have a lot of vibes about the like I've got good vibes about this one. That one's really historical. But this one over here, that's [ __ ] But this one is real. Like I I like that's what I feel like is driving Michael Jones's video here. [ __ ] vibes. And he's got the vibe that this isn't a contradiction. So, he's using his vibe muscle right down here below the grundle uh to to really drive that. All right, heathens. Well, I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to listen to me rant about this idiot that we just reviewed. If you will, please go down below and follow all of the creators on this video. You will not be disappointed. And while you're down there following everybody, make sure you smash the like button and subscribe.